NEOKOROI GREEK CITIES AND ROMAN EMPERORS CINCINNATI CLASSICAL STUDIES NEW SERIES

VOLUME IX NEOKOROI GREEK CITIES AND ROMAN EMPERORS

BY

BARBARA BURRELL

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2004 This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

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

DS155.B87 2003 939’.2—dc22 2003065214

ISSN 0169-7692 ISBN 90 04 12578 7

© Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands In memory of

Florry and Harry Burrell

Bluma Trell

George Hanfmann This page intentionally left blank CONTENTS

Illustrations and Credits ...... xi Acknowledgements ...... xvii Map of the Neokoroi Cities...... xix

Introduction: Methodology i. General Introduction ...... 1 ii. The Word ‘Neokoros’ ...... 3 iii. Forms of Evidence 1. Literary Evidence ...... 6 2. Numismatic Evidence ...... 7 3. Epigraphic Evidence ...... 11 4. Archaeological Evidence ...... 11 iv. How to Use This Book ...... 12

PART I: CITY-BY-CITY SECTION i. Koinon of Asia Chapter 1. Pergamon in Mysia (Augustus) ...... 17 Chapter 2. Smyrna in Ionia (Tiberius) ...... 38 Chapter 3. Miletos in Ionia (Gaius) ...... 55 Chapter 4. Ephesos in Ionia (Nero) ...... 59 Chapter 5. Kyzikos in Mysia (Hadrian) ...... 86 Chapter 6. Sardis in Lydia (Antoninus Pius) ...... 100 Chapter 7. Aizanoi in Phrygia (Commodus)...... 116 Chapter 8. Laodikeia in Phrygia (Commodus) ...... 119 Chapter 9. Philadelphia in Lydia (Caracalla) ...... 126 Chapter 10. Tralles in Lydia (Caracalla) ...... 130 Chapter 11. Antandros in the Troad (Caracalla) ...... 133 Chapter 12. Hierapolis in Phrygia (Elagabalus) ...... 135 Chapter 13. Magnesia in Ionia (Severus Alexander) ...... 142 Chapter 14. Synnada in Phrygia (Tetrarchy) ...... 145 ii. Koinon of Bithynia Chapter 15. Nikomedia (Augustus) ...... 147 Chapter 16. Nikaia (Hadrian) ...... 163 iii. Koinon of Galatia Chapter 17. Ankyra (Augustus) ...... 166 iv. Cities of Pamphylia Chapter 18. Perge (Vespasian) ...... 175 Chapter 19. Side (Valerian) ...... 181 Chapter 20. Aspendos (Gallienus) ...... 189 v. Koinon of Macedonia Chapter 21. Beroia (Nerva) ...... 191 viii contents

Chapter 22. Thessalonike (Gordian III) ...... 198 vi. Koinon of Pontus Chapter 23. Neokaisareia, Pontus Polemoniacus (Trajan) ...... 205 Chapter 24. Amaseia, Pontus Galaticus (Marcus Aurelius) ...... 210 vii. Koinon of Cilicia Chapter 25. Tarsos (Hadrian)...... 212 Chapter 26. Anazarbos (Septimius Severus) ...... 220 Chapter 27. Aigeai (Severus Alexander) ...... 230 viii. Koinon of Armenia Chapter 28. Nikopolis (Hadrian?) ...... 234 ix. Koinon of Thrace Chapter 29. Perinthos (Septimius Severus) ...... 236 Chapter 30. Philippopolis (Elagabalus) ...... 243 x. Koinon of Cappadocia Chapter 31. Kaisareia (Septimius Severus) ...... 246 xi. Koinon of Phoenicia Chapter 32. Tripolis? (Elagabalus) ...... 252 xii. Koinon/Ethnos of Lycia Chapter 33. Patara (third century?) ...... 253 Chapter 34. Akalissos (third century?) ...... 256 xiii. Koinon of the Cities of (West-Central) Pontus Chapter 35. Herakleia (Philip) (with a note on the synod of theatrical artists) ...... 257 xiv. Syria Palaestina /Samaria Chapter 36. Neapolis (Philip) ...... 260 xv. Pisidia Chapter 37. Sagalassos (Tetrarchy) ...... 266

PART II: SUMMARY CHAPTERS

Introduction ...... 273 Chapter 38. Historical Analysis: The Development of Neokoria ...... 275 Chapter 39. The Temples ...... 305 Temples Known Archaeologically ...... 306 Temples Shown on Coins ...... 309 Funding ...... 312 Construction Times ...... 314 Temples in Urban Space...... 316 Cult Statues ...... 317 Cult Statues on Coins ...... 321 Emperors and their Cult Partners ...... 324 Emperors in Other Gods’ Temples ...... 326 Temples of Gods that Gave Neokoria ...... 328 Summary ...... 330 Chapter 40. The Cities ...... 331 Structure ...... 331 Elites: Greek Culture, Roman Status ...... 331 Brokers of Beneficence...... 333 Agonistic Festivals ...... 335 Neokoria: City versus Koinon ...... 341 contents ix

Chapter 41. The Koina and their Officials...... 343 Koinon Structure ...... 344 Officials of the Koinon and of its Temples ...... 346 Koinon and Neokoria ...... 349 Koinon Politics ...... 350 Competition and Concord ...... 351 Rivalry and the Orators ...... 354 Roman Views of Rivalry ...... 355 Rival Cities, Rival Emperors ...... 356 Later Developments ...... 357 Summary ...... 357 Chapter 42. The Roman Powers ...... 359 The Emperors ...... 361 The Augusti...... 366 The Senate ...... 367 Provincial Officials ...... 370 Chapter 43. Conclusion ...... 372

References ...... 375

Charts ...... 395 The Emperors of Rome and Some Members of their Families Synoptic chart of Neokoroi Cities

Indices Index of Literary Sources ...... 401 Index of Inscriptional Corpora ...... 407 General Index ...... 413

Plates ...... 423 This page intentionally left blank illustrations and credits xi

ILLUSTRATIONS AND CREDITS

On page xix: Map of the Neokoroi cities: by John Wallrodt and Marcie Handler.

Temple and Temenos Plans: by Maroun Kassab and Irina Verkhovskaya.

Fig. 1. Ankyra: Temple of Augustus and Rome. Fig. 2. Ephesos: Temple of the Augusti. Fig. 3. Miletos: Temple of Apollo at Didyma. Fig. 4. Pergamon: Temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan. Fig. 5. Ephesos: Temple (of Hadrian?) (hypothetical). Fig. 6. Pergamon: Round temple in Asklepieion. Fig. 7. Kyzikos: Temple of Hadrian. Fig. 8. Sagalassos: Temple of Antoninus Pius. Fig. 9. Sardis: Temple of Artemis. Fig. 10. Sardis: Pseudodipteros. Fig. 11. Tarsos: temple at Donuktaâ. Fig. 12. Neapolis: temple on Tell er-Ras. Fig. 13. Aizanoi: Temple of Zeus. Fig. 14. Ephesos: Temple of Artemis. Fig. 15. Magnesia: Temple of Artemis Leukophryene. Fig. 16. Miletos: temenos, Temple of Apollo at Didyma. Fig. 17. Ephesos: temenos, Temple of the Augusti. Fig. 18. Pergamon: temenos, Temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan. Fig. 19. Ephesos: temenos, Temple (of Hadrian?). Fig. 20. Sagalassos: temenos, Temple of Antoninus Pius. Fig. 21. Aizanoi: temenos, Temple of Zeus. Fig. 22. Magnesia: temenos, Temple of Artemis Leukophryene.

Sculpture

Fig. 23. Pergamon: fragments of colossi of Trajan or Hadrian, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no.281/282. Photo: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 24. Pergamon: colossal head of Trajan, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no. 281. Photo: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 25. Pergamon: colossal head of Hadrian, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no. 282. Photo: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 26. Ephesos: colossal head of Titus, Izmir Arkeoloji Müzesi Inv. 670. Photo: Brian Rose. Fig. 27. Ephesos: reconstruction, colossus of Titus. Drawing: Robert Hagerty. Fig. 28. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, front with headdress. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Fig. 29. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, headdress left side. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. xii illustrations and credits

Fig. 30. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, headdress left side/rear. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Fig. 31. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, headdress right side/rear. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Fig. 32. Sardis: colossal head of Antoninus Pius, S61.27:15, front. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Fig. 33. Sardis: colossal head of Antoninus Pius, S61.27:15, left profile. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Fig. 34. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no.1936.3-10-1, front. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 35. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no. 1936.3-10-1, front from below. Photo: Brian Rose. Fig. 36. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no. 1936.3-10-1, side view. Photo: Brian Rose. Fig. 37. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, back. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Fig. 38. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, front. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Fig. 39. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, left profile. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Fig. 40. Sardis: colossal head of Lucius Verus, S96.008:110484, front. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Fig. 41. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 4038T. Photo: Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri. Fig. 42. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 4038T, front. Photo: Brian Rose. Fig. 43. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 4038T, left side. Photo: Brian Rose. Fig. 44. Sardis: fragment of colossal head of Faustina the Younger? S61.027:2. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Fig. 45. Sardis: colossal fragment with diadem, S61.27:1. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

Coins All coins are reproduced at actual size; obverse is at left/top, reverse at right/bottom.

Fig. 46. Pergamon coin type 2 a) BMCRE 228. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 47. Pergamon coin type 4 e) London 1979-1-1-1590. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 48. Pergamon coin type 6 b) BMC 254. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 49. Pergamon coin type 10 a) London 1894.7-6-38. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 50. Pergamon coin type 13 d) BMC 266. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 51. Pergamon coin type 14 a) BMC 262. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 52. Pergamon coin type 17 a) BMC 267. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 53. Pergamon coin type 18 a) London 1901.6-1-41. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 54. Pergamon coin type 19 a) BMC 308. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 55. Pergamon coin type 21 a) SNGParis 2209. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 56. Pergamon coin type 22 b) New York, ANS 1944.100.43356. Photo: copyright 2002, American Numismatic Society. illustrations and credits xiii

Fig. 57. Pergamon coin type 23 k) New York, ANS 1944.100.43357. Photo: copyright 2002, American Numismatic Society. Fig. 58. Pergamon coin type 24 f) Munich. Photo: Staatliche Münzsammlung, Munich. Fig. 59. Smyrna coin type 1 a) Vienna 17731. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 60. Smyrna coin type 2 a) BMC 110. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 61. Smyrna coin type 7 a) BMC 403. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 62. Smyrna coin type 11 f) BMC 389. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 63. Smyrna coin type 12 a) Paris 2689. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 64. Smyrna coin type 24 b) Paris 2779. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 65. Miletos coin type 1 a) Paris 1912. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 66. Ephesos coin type 1 a) London 1972.8-7-12. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 67. Ephesos coin type 2 a) London 1973.5-1-4. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 68. Ephesos coin type 5 a) Paris 684. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 69. Ephesos coin type 7 d) London 1961.3-1-234. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 70. Ephesos coin type 13 a) BMC 292. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 71. Ephesos coin type 16 a) BMC 269. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 72. Ephesos coin type 17 a) Vienna 32385. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 73. Ephesos coin type 18 f) Berlin, Fox. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 74. Ephesos coin type 21 a) Paris 899. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 75. Ephesos coin type 23 a) BMC 305. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 76. Ephesos coin type 24 a) BMC 306. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 77. Ephesos coin type 26 a) Berlin, Fox. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 78. Kyzikos coin type 1 b) London 1961.3-1-172. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 79. Kyzikos coin type 2 a) London 1893.4-5-2. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 80. Kyzikos coin type 4 a) Berlin 955/1904. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 81. Kyzikos coin type 6 a) SNGParis 780. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 82. Kyzikos coin type 8 a) London 1919.4-17-147. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 83. Kyzikos coin type 10 a) Paris 498. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 84. Kyzikos coin type 11 c) Vienna 16188. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 85. Kyzikos coin type 13 a) Vienna 16137. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 86. Kyzikos coin type 14 c) New York, ANS 1944.100.42792. Photo: copyright 2002, American Numismatic Society. Fig. 87. Kyzikos coin type 15 a) BMC 199. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 88. Kyzikos coin type 16 c) Vienna 30574. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 89. Sardis coin type 2 a) Paris 1248A. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 90. Sardis coin type 5 b) Oxford. Photo: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Fig. 91. Sardis coin type 6 a) BMC 171. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 92. Sardis coin type 7 a) Oxford 17.57. Photo: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Fig. 93. Sardis coin type 8 a) Vienna 19587. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 94. Aizanoi coin type 2 a) Paris 241. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 95. Laodikeia coin type 2 a) Paris 1611. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. xiv illustrations and credits

Fig. 96. Laodikeia coin type 3 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 97. Laodikeia coin type 5 a) Paris 1617. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 98. Laodikeia coin type 11 a) Berlin Löbbecke. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 99. Laodikeia coin type 8 a) Berlin 664/1914. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 100. Laodikeia coin type 9 a) Boston MFA 1971.45, Theodora Wilbour Fund in Memory of Zoë Wilbour. Photo: copyright 2002 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Fig. 101. Philadelphia coin type 1 e) New York, ANS 1971.279.56. Photo: copyright 2002, American Numismatic Society. Fig. 102. Philadelphia coin type 2 a) BMC 94. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 103. Tralles coin type 1 c) Paris 1698. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 104. Antandros coin type 1 a) Athens, Numismatic Museum. Photo: Kenneth Sheedy. Fig. 105. Hierapolis coin type 1 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 106. Hierapolis coin type 2 a) Berlin, Löbbecke. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 107. Hierapolis coin type 4 h) Berlin, Löbbecke. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 108. Magnesia coin type 1 a) Vienna 34601. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 109. Nikomedia coin type 2 y) London 1928.5-5-1. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 110. Nikomedia coin type 3 b) BMCRE 1097. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 111. Nikomedia coin type 4 a) BMC 9. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 112. Nikomedia coin type 5 a) Vienna 39125. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 113. Nikomedia coin type 7 a) BMC 32. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 114. Nikomedia coin type 8 b) Paris 1342. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 115. Nikomedia coin type 9 b) London 1920.1-11-2. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 116. Nikomedia coin type 11 a) Berlin, Fox. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 117. Nikomedia coin type 12 a) Paris 1347. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 118. Nikomedia coin type 16 a) London 1961.3-1-123. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 119. Nikomedia coin type 17 a) Berlin 5206 JF. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 120. Nikomedia coin type 21 a) Berlin 703/1878. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 121. Nikomedia coin type 22 a) Paris 1357. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 122. Nikomedia coin type 24 a) Berlin, von Rauch. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 123. Nikomedia coin type 26 a) Paris 1401. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 124. Nikomedia coin type 27 b) New York, ANS 1944.100.42315. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Fig. 125. Nikomedia coin type 28 c) Berlin, Bonnet. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 126. Nikomedia coin type 29 a) Vienna 15815. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 127. Nikomedia coin type 31 a) London 1970.9-9-46. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 128. Nikomedia coin type 32 a) Paris 1418. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. illustrations and credits xv

Fig. 129. Nikomedia coin type 37 a) New York, ANS 71.279. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Fig. 130. Nikomedia coin type 50 n) Vienna 34453. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 131. Nikomedia coin type 51 a) Oxford 11-7-1938. Photo: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Fig. 132. Nikomedia coin type 56 a) London 1961.3-1-131. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 133. Nikaia coin type 1 a) New York, ANS 73.191. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Fig. 134. Ankyra coin type 2 a) SNGParis 2407. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 135. Ankyra coin type 3 a) London 1975.4-11-188. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 136. Ankyra coin type 7 a) SNGParis 2484. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 137. Ankyra coin type 8 a) SNGParis 2530. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 138. Ankyra coin type 10 c) New York 58.44.14. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Fig. 139. Perge coin type 1 b) Berlin 974/1901. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 140. Perge coin type 2 e) SNGParis 554. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 141. Perge coin type 3 k) Vienna 28792. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 142. Perge coin type 5 a) SNGParis 617. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 143. Side coin type 1 a) BMC 111. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 144. Side coin type 5 a) London 1970.9-9-167. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 145. Side coin type 8 a) London 1969.10-21-7. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 146. Side coin type 10 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 147. Side coin type 11 b) New York, ANS 1944.100.50964. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Fig. 148. Side coin type 13 b) SNGParis 882. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 149. Aspendos coin type 1 a) London 1921.4-12-117. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 150. Beroia coin type 1 b) Berlin, Fox. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 151. Beroia coin type 2 e) Berlin 698/1929. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 152. Beroia coin type 6 a) Paris 160. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 153. Beroia coin type 7 b) Paris 161. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 154. Beroia coin type 8 a) Berlin, Löbbecke. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 155. Beroia coin type 10 a) Paris 164. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 156. Beroia coin type 11 a) Paris 193. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 157. Thessalonike coin type 4 a) London 1972.8-7-5. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 158. Thessalonike coin type 8 b) Paris 1507. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 159. Thessalonike coin type 9 a) Paris 1508. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 160. Thessalonike coin type 10 a) Vienna 10084. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 161. Neokaisareia coin type 1 a) Paris 1277. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 162. Neokaisareia coin type 3 a) Berlin 7909. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 163. Neokaisareia coin type 6 a) London 1973.1-12-2. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 164. Neokaisareia coin type 11 b) Paris 1972.922. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 165. Amaseia coin type 1 f, obv.) New York, ANS 1944.100.41180. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Fig. 166. Amaseia coin type 1 g, rev.) New York, ANS 1944.100.41179. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Fig. 167. Amaseia coin type 2 c) New York, ANS 1944.100.41218. Photo: Sean O’Neill. xvi illustrations and credits

Fig. 168. Tarsos coin type 1 a) BMC 159. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 169. Tarsos coin type 3 b) BMC 138. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 170. Tarsos coin type 5 a) SNGParis 1462. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 171. Tarsos coin type 5 c) SNGParis 1463. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 172. Tarsos coin type 8 a) SNGParis 1473. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 173. Tarsos coin type 9 a) SNGParis 1514. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 174. Tarsos coin type 12 a) London 1919.8-22-10. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 175. Anazarbos coin type 1 a) London 1962.11-15-2. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 176. Anazarbos coin type 2 a) London 1970-9-9-206. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 177. Anazarbos coin type 8 b) London 1970.9-9-208. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 178. Aigeai coin type 4 b) London 1962.11-15-1. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 179. Aigeai coin type 6 a) London 1975.4-11-296. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 180. Aigeai coin type 7 c) New York, ANS 1944.100.53037. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Fig. 181. Perinthos coin type 1 a) BMC 33. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 182. Perinthos coin type 4 f) Vienna 8892. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 183. Perinthos coin type 10 a) BMC 41. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Fig. 184. Perinthos coin type 11 a) Munich. Photo: Staatliche Münzsammlung, Munich. Fig. 185. Perinthos coin type 12 d) New York, ANS 1967.152.225. Photo: copyright 2002, American Numismatic Society. Fig. 186. Perinthos coin type 16 a) Paris 1201. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 187. Perinthos coin type 19 a) Paris 1191. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 188. Perinthos coin type 21 a) Paris 1216. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 189. Philippopolis coin type 1 a) Berlin, Dressel. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 190. Philippopolis coin type 2 a) Vienna 32498. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 191. Philippopolis coin type 3 a) Vienna 9047. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Fig. 192. Philippopolis coin type 5 b) Paris 1355. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 193. Kaisareia coin type 1 a) Berlin 709/1914. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 194. Kaisareia coin type 2 b) Berlin, Löbbecke. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 195. Kaisareia coin type 4 b) Paris 602. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Fig. 196. Kaisareia coin type 7 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Fig. 197. Neapolis coin type 1 a) BMC 138. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.

Charts

The Emperors of Rome and Some Members of their Families Synoptic chart of Neokoroi Cities illustrations and credits xvii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

If this book is the body of my work on the neokoria, Thanks to the generosity, patience and trust of the skeleton was my dissertation for the Ph.D. in clas- the following librarians, curators, and keepers of coin sical archaeology, Neokoroi: Greek Cities of the Roman collections, I have been allowed to call for the most East (Harvard 1980, unpublished). That contained recondite books with wild abandon, and to exam- lists of coins and inscriptions as well as a brief chro- ine and catalogue as many coins as I wished, though nological analysis of each neokoros city, and still lives I rivaled even the indomitable Professor Trell in my a sort of samizdat afterlife, in copies made by schol- demands for more trays. My deepest gratitude goes ars for their own or their libraries’ use. Despite its to: Jean Susorney Wellington, Michael Braunlin, and bulk, it never attempted to give a unified historical the entire staff of the Classics Library, University of picture of the origins, development or even the Cincinnati; William Metcalf, Frank Campbell, and meaning of the title, which is why I have chosen to the late Nancy Waggoner of the American Numis- leave it on the shelves of the archive where it be- matic Society, New York; Cornelius Vermeule and longs. The book you now hold is very different, as Mary Comstock of the Museum of Fine Arts, Bos- I hope anything would be if given the benefit of ton; the entire erudite and courteous staff of the twenty years of new finds, reinterpretations, and the Department of Coins and Medals, the British Mu- author’s more mature understanding of the subject. seum, London; the late Colin Kraay of the Heber- From the beginning, my intention has been to den Coin room, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; bring together the most diverse forms of evidence Mmes. H. Nicolet and S. de Turckheim of the Cabi- and to give each form its proper weight and inter- net des Medailles, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris; Dr. pretation. If my expertise has faltered, it is my own G. Dembski of the Münzkabinett, Kunsthistorisches responsibility, as my advisors have been irreproach- Museum, Vienna; Mmes. A. Krzyzanowska and able. They include the late George Hanfmann, my Ewa Duszczyk of the Narodowe Museum, Warsaw; principal advisor, as well as the late Emily Vermeule and Drs. H. D. and S. Schultz of the Münzkabinett, and David Mitten at Harvard University. I also Staatliche Museen, Berlin. I am grateful to John received advice and support from the late Martin Wallrodt and Marcie Handler for help with com- Price both at the American Numismatic Society and puting issues and to Maroun Kassab and Irina Ver- at the British Museum, from Holt Parker both at khovskaya for producing the temple plans. home and abroad, from Kent Rigsby again and Thanks for illustrations are due to: Brian Rose; again, and most of all from Brian Rose, sine quo non. Kenneth Sheedy; Sean O’Neill; the late Robert The late Bluma Trell of New York University pro- Hagerty; Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen von vided the initial inspiration; her interest and enthu- Berlin/Preussischer Kulturbesitz (courtesy Beate siasm never flagged while she lived, and I doubt that Salje and Ilona Trabert); the Athens Numismatic they do even now. I have also benefited from the Museum (courtesy Eos Tsourti); the American Nu- conversation and correspondence of Simon Price, mismatic Society (courtesy Sebastian Heath and Werner Eck, Kenneth Harl, Ann Johnston, Dietrich Elena Stolyarik); the Archaeological Exploration of Klose, Michael Peachin, Glen Bowersock, and Sardis/Harvard University (courtesy Elizabeth Thomas Howe, and from the gentle chiding of all Gombosi); Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris the press’ anonymous readers. I would like to thank (courtesy Michel Amandry); the Boston Museum of Michiel Klein-Swormink and Gera van Bedaf for Fine Arts (courtesy Lizabeth Dion); the British shepherding the book through the press, Shirley Museum (courtesy Janet Larkin, Department of Werner for wearing out her erudite eye in its copy- Coins and Medals, and Keith Lowe, Department of editing, and Susan Stites for the indices. Greek and Roman Antiquities); the Heberden Coin xviii acknowledgements

Room, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford University I would also like to thank the American Numis- (courtesy Roslyn Britton-Strong); Istanbul Arkeoloji matic Society, in whose summer seminar I started Müzeleri (courtesy Halil Özek); Kunsthistorisches this project; the United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa, Museum, Wien (courtesy Gunther Dembski); Öster- whose grant of the Mary Isabel Sibley Fellowship reichisches Archäologisches Institut (courtesy Gud- originally enabled me to travel and study in the run Wlach); Staatliche Münzsammlung, München European collections; and finally, the University of (courtesy Dietrich Klose); and Staatliche Museen von Cincinnati Department of Classics and Louise Taft Berlin/Preussischer Kulturbesitz (courtesy Ilona Semple Fund, whose patience and generosity al- Trabert, Antikensammlung, and Bernhard Weisser, lowed me to bring this project to completion. Münzkabinett). acknowledgements xix This page intentionally left blank introduction: methodology 1

INTRODUCTION: METHODOLOGY

i. General Introduction first century B.C.E. to the end of the third century C.E., a period for which sources exist but are var- This book tracks a singular phenomenon: that cit- ied and intermittent. Writing about it, then, is like ies of Hellenic culture in some eastern provinces of surveying at night; there is a general darkness, the Roman empire (map p. xix) called themselves though occasional moonlight allows some under- ‘neokoroi,’ usually translated ‘temple wardens,’ to standing of the terrain, and once in a while a for- signify that they possessed a provincial temple to the tunate flash of lightning illuminates some crucial cult of the Roman emperor. Though the phenom- detail fully. enon is confined only to a certain place and time, The neokoroi were cities Greek in structure, a full pursuit of the circumstances and history of the though not necessarily in genealogy, and neokoros neokoroi can, I believe, illumine many misunder- is a Greek title. The word originally designated an stood issues regarding the imperial cult in the larger official whose basic responsibility was the care, sense, as well as relations between the provincial upkeep or practical daily functioning of a sacred cities and their Roman rulers, and among the cities building, and whose duties could include the con- themselves. trol of entry, safekeeping of valuable items, and the Any theoretical approach to such a study is enactment of ritual or sacrifice; a more detailed dis- pulled in different directions by polarities of gen- cussion will follow below. In the first century C.E. eralization and particularization. One may tend to we begin to find this role attributed to entire peoples generalize because individuals of our species have or cities, and then more specifically to cities that certain tendencies in common, and these tendencies maintained a provincial temple to the Roman em- make human history repetitious. Moreover, the peror. This book will examine the title neokoros as current prestige of the hard sciences privileges the it was applied to those cities, and what it meant to search for general laws, as in physics, in the behav- them politically, socially, and in practical terms. ior of human beings. On the other hand, each hu- Understanding those cities’ governmental system man is formed by particular circumstances of the is vital to understanding how neokoria (the state or history that came before, and that human also con- institution of being neokoros) can be studied. Struc- tributes to the formation of a particular present and turally the cities were Greek poleis, and their in- future. This study tends toward the particular, scriptions document independent decisions made by making the canonical bows toward Clifford Geertz’ a council (boule) and the body of adult male citi- technique of ‘thick description,’ where close obser- zens (demos, sometimes meeting as an ekklesia), plus vation of certain institutions can illumine an entire variously named magistrates.2 The actualities be- culture, and toward Marc Bloch and the annalistes, hind this structure are more complex. Though le- who showed the importance of scales of inquiry, galities varied depending on the precise status of and how such inquiry could be done despite the each city, the power to decide foreign, and increas- lack of precise sources and the inability to interro- ingly internal, policy was vested in Roman hands, gate living informants.1 This particular inquiry also ultimately in the emperor himself. More imme- traces developments over time, from the end of the diately the provincial governor and various impe- rial officials were on the spot making decisions, 1 For an excellent history of recent interactions between adjudicating disputes, and seeing that taxes were theories of history and the social sciences, see McDonald 1996. paid. In this they generally had the cooperation of I have been guided by the examples of Geertz 1973; Bloch 1973; and S. Price 1984b; the latter’s observations inform my work everywhere. 2 Lewin 1995. 2 introduction: methodology each city’s own elite, who competed among them- ethnic background and interests within a region, selves to take on offices and services, and often laid bound together by the practice of a particular cult. out their personal fortunes, in order to be preemi- Under the Empire the central cult of most koina nent among their fellow citizens, to stand in the es- was that of a living human being, the emperor of teem of the Romans, and to rise in power and Rome. By the end of the first century C.E., some status, sometimes to the ranks of Roman authority (but not all) of the cities that had a temple for this itself.3 provincial imperial cult were called neokoroi. It is A city’s relationships with other cities could be worth noting that the very title denoted a caretaker, conducted on good terms or in jealous rivalry, but not an ‘owner’ of a temple: ownership, at least in only within the narrow confines that Rome allowed the beginning, was in the hands of the koinon, to each city’s nominal autonomy. Attempts to go which assigned its chief priests to preside over the beyond those limits could be met by some reasser- temples in neokoroi cities, often an increasing num- tion of control by the imperial government, and the ber of temples as emperor succeeded emperor. very presence of an overarching power beyond the Koina also represented the cities in other aspects of city and the province assured that one party or the their relationship with Rome, e.g. embassies and other in any dispute could appeal to that power, legal proceedings. further eroding any independence that the cities Simon Price’s seminal book, Rituals and Power, tried to assert. altered the landscape of inquiry concerning the In discussing the neokoroi I have often found it worship of rulers in the Roman East. We have gone necessary to refer to these cities as if they were beyond former attitudes: the Judeo-Christian con- people, who thought, weighed possibilities, and cern for what was believed rather than what was even had emotions like jealousy and pride. This is done, and its accompanying disdain for flatterers primarily an outgrowth of contemporary speeches who would call a man a god; and beyond a simple and histories that exhorted, blamed, or categorized faith in Realpolitik, which can only ask who profits, cities for such human traits; neokoros was after all whether politically or economically. We have come a person’s title applied to a city.4 But it also masks to a more anthropological approach, which seeks to a lack of specific knowledge of such matters as who understand how the Hellenes handled their Roman initiated the quest for an imperial temple and when, world. Price, however, chose to be cautious, to pri- whether there was debate on where to put it, down vilege the balancing act between seeing the emperor to who decided what order the columns should be. as man or god in rituals private and public, great Generally, we know that the cities of the Roman and small. empire were run on the lines of urban oligarchies, But in this study, which is at the level of the and that an elite often made decisions without much koinon and the province, we shall see less contra- consultation of the rest of the city’s male voting diction: the living emperor was addressed as a god, population, still less of nonvoters. They felt little sometimes second only to the chief and patron gods need to inscribe their day-to-day accounts on stone of the cities in which he was worshipped. He had for public reference, so we know little of the details his own temple, which was referred to as his. His of their operation, but much of magniloquent de- successors, perhaps his predecessors, and other crees and votes of thanks. members of his family, often including his consort, Provincial cities often banded together in an or- joined him in that temple; this was recognized by ganization known in the East as a koinon.5 Though calling it a temple of the Augusti, or of the Greek the name translates as ‘league’ or ‘commonality,’ it equivalent, the Sebastoi. Thus the city where that was not a subset of official imperial administration, temple was established could be called neokoros of nor did its geographic lines have to correspond the Augusti. Despite this fact, the individual em- exactly to the borders of a Roman province. Instead peror who was the prime object of cult was not for- a koinon was an organization of cities of similar gotten: for example, what was at first called the temple of the Augusti in Flavian times at Ephesos was later referred to as that of the god Vespasian. What is more, where another god shared the 3 Quass 1993. 4 For anthropomorphic cities, Lendon 1997, 31, 73-89. temple, (s)he was often a personification or a place- 5 The basic work is still Deininger 1965. holder, whose name could drop from common ref- introduction: methodology 3 erence, as the name of the goddess Rome slipped non, Roman emperor, and Senate, and how they away from mentions of the temples of Augustus at arrived at results satisfactory to, or at least accepted Pergamon and Ankyra, and Tiberius and Trajan by, all. could stand alone in depictions of their temples at As will be seen, there were mechanisms that Smyrna and Pergamon, with no sign of their cult encouraged the establishment and the spread of partners Livia and the Senate or Zeus Philios. The neokoria. Rivalries among cities in the same koinon reverse is never true: the provincial temples initially might make each one strive to be neokoros, or if dedicated to Rome and Augustus are never called disappointed at first, to become the next one. At the simply temples of Rome. same time, province-to-province comparisons could Looking at the neokoroi is important in itself, but be made when provincial embassies met one an- doubly important in the light it sheds upon what other. This was frequently the case at a succession, modern scholarship calls ‘the imperial cult.’ Under for example, where ambassadors from all over the that rubric have been lumped all aspects of the Empire brought an initial tribute of crown gold and worship of emperors, living and dead, in East and declared their first honors to a new emperor. But it West, by Romans and non-Romans of all sorts, was well into Tiberius’ reign that his acceptance of organized by province, by city, and down to indi- Asia’s offer of a temple to his cult prompted the viduals. Often the practice, and even the vocabu- province of Hispania Ulterior to offer him another lary, of one of the above differs widely from that of one. He refused, not necessarily because he was a another. Despite a common thread of Hellenic difficult man to please, though Tacitus portrays him speech and culture, a Sebasteion built by decree of as such, but because he could make that refusal a the Athenians may well have been different, and symbol of his modesty before the Senate.6 This re- served different functions, from one built by Ephe- fusal would have then informed other aspirant prov- sians, Alexandrians, Aphrodisians, or Palmyrenes. inces how not to approach this particular emperor, Towns and individuals may have set up altars or and the dialogue could go on. statues to the emperor without even bothering to Still, only certain koina of the Greek-speaking seek permission of a governor, much less the nod East are known to have named their cities neoko- of authorities at Rome. roi.7 It is possible that this circle of organizations In narrowing our focus to the neokoroi, however, was influenced by events in the koinon of Asia, we study a less mixed phenomenon, composed of where the earliest uses of ‘neokoros’ as a city title events that are internally comparable, though sub- are known. In other areas, most notably mainland ject to development over time. Honors proposed for Greece, no neokoroi have yet been found. But it is an emperor passed through the sieve of each koinon vital to note that our pools of evidence only repre- and reached some sort of consensus among its cit- sent a fraction of what once existed, and may yet ies small and large, rich and poor, cosmopolitan and be increased: a previously unknown inscription or isolated. Even after this was achieved, the conduct coin could add new names and historical circum- of the provincial imperial cult was too large in stances to our knowledge of the neokoroi at any scope, too important to the image of the Roman au- time. thorities at which it was aimed, to pass unexamined by them. What few sources we have emphasize ceremonious deliberation by the Roman Senate and ii. The Word ‘Neokoros’ careful consideration by the ultimate recipient, the emperor. Thus applications for provincial imperial Before going further, it is essential to examine the temples, and subsequent neokoriai, were subject to word ‘neokoros,’ both etymologically and in the review on at least three levels: emanating from a context in which it was adopted as a title for cities. city that offered a home for the cult, they had to The 1888 thesis of Buechner assembled the ancient also be acceptable to the other cities of the province sources, though it must be supplemented by recent 8 as grouped in their koinon, to the emperor, and to discoveries. the Senate. This is as close to a homogeneous group of events as the modern term ‘imperial cult’ covers. 6 Tacitus, Annals 4.37-38; Charlesworth 1939, discussed below. In fact, a study of the neokoroi can serve as a labo- 7 See also Lendon 1997, 160-172. ratory to examine this dialogue among cities, koi- 8 Buechner 1888, 2-21. 4 introduction: methodology

The first part of the compound comes from god.16 Plutarch classed holiness and the work of ‘naos,’ temple, specifically a built structure or house neokoria as ways of pleasing a god, though indi- for the god rather than a sacred but unroofed en- vidual neokoroi he mentions also did such things as closure.9 Though the most common spelling of play dice with the god they served, fool a Sabine, nevkÒrow comes from the Attic form of this part, and whip slaves and Aetolians away from a sanctu- spelled with an omega, there are many alternative ary.17 spellings. The second-century orator Aelius Aristides was The ‘-koros’ is more problematic, and has been devoted to Asklepios, and frequented his sanctuary the source of disagreement since the days of Byz- at Pergamon not just in person, but in his dreams. antine lexicographers. Hesychius derived it from the One should be careful, therefore, not to take the verb meaning ‘keep in order,’ specifically ‘sweep,’ visions and portents collected in the Sacred Tales as while the Suda stated that it did not mean ‘sweep,’ literal reality—it is unlikely, for example, that any- but ‘maintain.’10 Buechner accepted the former, one actually put a ham hock in the temple of citing Euripides’ Ion (one of whose tasks was to Asklepios to practice sacred incubation.18 Still, sweep the temple of Apollo) as an example of a Aristides knew the two neokoroi of the Asklepieion neokoros. Euripides, however, never calls Ion well, and he conveys a picture of some of their re- ‘neokoros,’ but only xrusofÊlaj, a guard for gold, sponsibilities.19 As well as helping Aristides and and tam¤aw, a steward.11 other patients to carry out their therapy, they held More recent etymologies are closer to agreeing the keys to the temple itself, and were in charge of with the Suda than with Hesychius. They find crowns and other valuables that were dedicated to ‘-koros’ to mean ‘one who nourishes, maintains,’ Asklepios. from which the particular meaning ‘sweeper’ is a In many sanctuaries, neokoroi had responsibility secondary derivation.12 In addition, archaeological for money or valuables. At the Hellenistic Amphia- finds indicate that ‘-koros’ appears in Greek as early reion at Oropos, the neokoros collected the pil- as the Mycenean period: linear B tablets mention a grims’ fees, issued them tickets, listed their names ‘da-ko-ro’ and a ‘da-mo-ko-ro’.13 Neither is a and cities on wooden tablets, saw to their purifica- sweeper; in fact, both appear to be high officials, the tion, and set up inventories of their offerings.20 In latter possibly a governor of half the realm of Pylos. 394 B.C.E. Xenophon left a portion of the wealth Later historical and literary sources document a from sale of captives in the safekeeping of one great variety of offices that human neokoroi could Megabyzos, neokoros of Artemis at Ephesos; later carry out, including both priestly duties and practi- Megabyzos came to Olympia and returned what cal ones. Many neokoroi performed sacrifices, ac- had been entrusted to him.21 As it happens, Mega- cepted them on behalf of the god, and received a byzos was the standard name given to the (eunuch) portion.14 A poem by Philip of Thessalonike (Nero- chief priest of Artemis; a fourth-century base for a nian period) has some neokoroi choosing a sac- statue of “Megabyzos son of Megabyzos, neokoros rificial animal for Artemis.15 Another poet, Auto- of Artemis in Ephesos” has been found in Priene.22 medon (first century B.C.E.), derides a neokoros It is possible that ‘neokoros’ was the title that the who, after the sacrificial procession, carries off all chief priest used in his practical or financial func- the sacrifice for himself, leaving nothing for the

16 Greek Anthology 11.324. 17 Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 351E; Romulus 5.1; Roman 9 Chantraine 1968-1980, 3:734 (naÒw). Questions 264D, 267D. 10 Hesychius, Lexicon s.vv. naokÒrow, neokÒrow, nevkÒrow, 18 Aelius Aristides, Oration 47/Sacred Tales 1.43. also zãkorow; Suda s.vv. KÒrh, KÒrow, nevkÒrow, but also zãko- 19 Oration 47/Sacred Tales 1.11, 44, 58, 76; Oration 48/Sa- row, nevkorÆsei. cred Tales 2.30, 35, 46-49, 52; Oration 49/Sacred Tales 3.14, 22- 11 Buechner 1888; Euripides, Ion lines 54-55; for his tasks, 23; Oration 50/Sacred Tales 4.46. 102-183. 20 Roesch 1984. 12 Chantraine 1968-1980, 2:565-566 (kore- and kor°v). 21 Anabasis 5.3.6-7. 13 Ruijgh 1986. Earlier theories: Heubeck 1968; Olivier 22 Elliger 1992, 126-127. Chief priest: Strabo 14.1.23. 1967, with commentary by Palmer; Petrusevki 1965. I thank Eunuch: Pliny, Natural History 35.93, 132; Roller 1999, 253. Greg Nagy for the initial reference. Von Gaertringen 1906, no. 231, did not comment on whether 14 Savelkoul 1988; Hero(n)das, Mimiambi 4. the Megabyzoi were eunuchs or how one could be son to an- 15 Greek Anthology 9.22. other. introduction: methodology 5 tions; but in any case, in Ephesos the office of the Hellenistic period, by Roman times only persons neokoros was responsible and respected. of high rank were neokoroi of the great Serapis at Women also served as neokoroi, often for female Alexandria. Also in Egypt were the neokoroi of deities but sometimes for male. Pausanias, writing temples of the god Augustus at Alexandria and at in the second century C.E., noted that the office of Canopus; aspirants to this very honorable post were neokoros of Aphrodite at Sikyon was given to a chosen by lot, as the emperor Claudius had de- celibate woman, and elsewhere called the virgin creed.30 Herophile, the sibyl who prophesied to Hecuba at The neokoroi of the provincial imperial cult in Troy, the neokoros of Apollo Smintheus.23 Lucius Asia were also quite eminent. Under Tiberius, Annaeus Cornutus, writing in the first century C.E., Pergamon’s neokoros of the goddess Rome and the categorized the role of the Vestal Virgins at Rome god Augustus was also (municipal) priest of Tiberius as that of neokoroi.24 And just to show that virgin- and gymnasiarch for the Sebasta Rhomaia games, ity was not integral to a woman’s becoming which involved considerable expenditure.31 The neokoros, in a poem by Pankrates (pre-first-century neokoros of the temple of Gaius at Miletos (q.v.), B.C.E.), a neokoros of Artemis suggests to the god- before taking that office, had already been chief dess that her twin four-year-old daughters should priest of Asia, i.e., head of the koinon, twice. The succeed her as neokoroi.25 chief priest of the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos It would take another monograph to chase down (q.v.) in 89 C.E. was one of the city’s greatest bene- the complete history of various nevkÒroi, naokÒroi, factors, and stepped into the office of neokoros the and zãkoroi, all of different statuses, serving differ- year after his chief priesthood. ent temples in different ways at different times, Two Jewish authors transferred the term ‘neoko- across the Greek world. Our main purpose here, ros’ to the context of their own religion. Philo, however, is to discern how the word ‘neokoros’ was writing around the time of Gaius, used it specifically transferred from humans and made to officially for the tribe of Levi, especially in their functions as designate a city which had a specific kind of temple, priests (under supervision of the high priest), guard- a provincial temple for the cult of the emperor.26 ians, gatekeepers, purifiers, and general caretakers We will now focus on neokoroi officials of around of the temple at Jerusalem.32 Josephus, who issued the first century of the common era, the time when the Greek version of his Jewish War ca. 75-79 C.E., ‘neokoros’ was adopted as a title for cities. called certain functionaries who were responsible Though there is little further evidence for a chief for the purification of the Jerusalem temple neoko- priest also being neokoros for Artemis at Ephesos roi.33 More importantly, in his account of his own in Roman times, the neokoria of Artemis Leuko- speech to the holdouts in the siege of Jerusalem, he phryene, chief goddess of Magnesia, was certainly a conferred the title on an entire people, referring to high office; one neokoros, graced with many sono- all the Jews as neokoroi.34 At the times he referred rous honorifics, served as chief ambassador for the to, however, the Jews were either in exodus or in city and set up a statue of Drusilla, sister of the exile and no temple yet stood, implying that the emperor Gaius (Caligula).27 At Smyrna, one post- Jews’ ward over their temple (which he indeed Vespasianic neokoros of the patron goddesses called ‘naos’ elsewhere) was a spiritual one.35 Nemeseis held pretty much all the highest city of- The first known inscription to call a city, rather fices as well.28 The Greco-Egyptian cult of Serapis than a person, neokoros is earlier than Josephus’ often had neokoroi, both at Alexandria and in other book, dating to 38 C.E. In it Kyzikos (q.v.) is de- cities.29 Though it was perhaps a humble office in

30 H. I. Bell 1924, no. 1912 line 60, esp. p. 35; Oliver 1989, 23 Description of Greece 2.10.4, 10.12.5. 77-88 no. 19. 24 The Nature of the Gods 52 l. 7. 31 IGRR 4:454. 25 Greek Anthology 6.356. 32 On the Special Laws 1.156, 2.120; On Flight and Finding 90, 26 Careful readers will have already noted that I consider 93, 94; On Dreams 2.273; Life of Moses 1.316-318, 2.72, 159, 174 the ban on split infinitives a Latinizing affectation, foreign to (where priests and Levites fight over proteia!), 276; On Rewards English. and Punishments 74; and Questions and Answers on Genesis frag. 17. 27 Kern 1900 no. 156. 33 Jewish War 1.153. 28 IvS no. 641. 34 Ibid. 5.383, 5.389. 29 Vidman 1970, 53-60. 35 E.g. Jewish Antiquities 8.61-106 on Solomon’s temple. 6 introduction: methodology scribed as “ancient and ancestral neokoros of the For example, calling the city ‘sacred’ or ‘shrine’ family” of the “greatest and most manifest god (hieron/a) would not only have involved long-winded Gaius Caesar.” The use of the word is probably explanations (‘for the provincial cult of the Augus- metaphoric, implying that Kyzikos held a shrine to ti’?) but could have caused confusion with cities that a relative of Gaius, whether his great-grandfather were already ‘sacred and inviolable.’37 The word Augustus, his grandfather Agrippa, his sister Dru- ‘neokoros,’ by contrast, had the concept of ‘temple’ silla, or several of the above. That this early ex- central to its meaning, and was thus precisely adapt- ample of a city as neokoros refers to the imperial able when a city received more than one koinon cult is significant, as the two would soon be closely temple: it became twice, three times, and even four associated. or six times, neokoros. Saint Paul visited Ephesos (q.v.) around the years On the great majority of coins that will be dis- 52-54 C.E. According to Acts of the Apostles 19.35, a cussed here, it is the group of (male) citizens who riot was fomented against him, and the people are neokoroi. Most inscriptions, however, call the flocked to the theater shouting “Great is Artemis of (feminine) city, the polis, neokoros. A few inscrip- the Ephesians!” They were there addressed by the tions of Ephesos (q.v.) specify the demos as neokoros city’s secretary, the grammateus, who is quoted while the council or boule is ‘philosebastos,’ ‘friend saying “Who does not know that Ephesos is of the Augusti’; and in three out of the four inscrip- neokoros of the great goddess Artemis and of the tions that document neokoria at Hierapolis (q.v.), heaven-fallen [image]?” Here as in the Kyzikos the council is neokoros, while in the fourth the inscription, the term ‘neokoros’ is used as a meta- people are so designated. At Side (q.v.), the council phor. It expresses the city’s wardship of Artemis’ of elders (gerousia) may once be neokoros, while on image and her temple, and acclaims it as a point of coins that city’s patron gods also take the title. civic pride. But only a short time after, in 65/66, Finally, in the exceptional case of an inscription the word would appear on the city’s coins, and it is found at Herakleia (q.v.), it may be not the city it- possible that at this point it meant what it came to self but the synod of theatrical artists who are neo- mean later, that Ephesos possessed a koinon temple koroi. for the cult of the emperor, in this case for Nero. At that time, it would become, not just a metaphor, but an official title vied for by cities and regulated iii. Forms of Evidence by the Senate and the emperor himself; and the main subject of this study. 1. Literary Evidence Equating a city or a people with a temple offi- Examination of the neokoroi cities has to draw upon cial is not a far-fetched comparison. Greek cities diverse forms of evidence, each of which must be were often personified, usually as females; the title studied and interpreted in its own way. The rare metropolis exalts them as mothers, and a few were words on the subject written by ancient Roman and even called nurses.36 A city could also be repre- Greek historians make up the narrative links among sented by its people, the Demos (personified as a all the other forms and come closest to explaining male); or simply by the collective body of its citizens, neokoria. Where preserved, they are precious. On as is normal on its coins. The term ‘neokoros’ was the other hand, none is strictly contemporary and not specific to female or male; it was often applied all are liable to the flaws of written history in gen- to an official high in honor; and it was concerned eral: authorial bias, scholarly misinterpretation, in- specifically with care for a temple. There may have completeness, and sheer silence on the very points been other terms available to express a city’s being which modern scholars are agog to know. In fact, a center of cult for its koinon, but for one reason or historians’ accounts concerning neokoria are ex- another they were not chosen while ‘neokoros’ was. tremely scarce. For the early years of the Empire, we have a few accounts of the foundations of the imperial cult in certain provinces, written by later historians. These events are treated as notable, but 36 L. Robert 1980a, 400-402, of Ionopolis. Other nurse cities: Syracuse in the fifth century B.C.E., Pindar, Pythian 2.2; Ephesos in 162-164 C.E., IvE 24; Miletos in 361-363 C.E., SIG4 906A, from Cyriacus of Ancona. Also see above, n. 4. 37 Rigsby 1996, 34-36. introduction: methodology 7 their effect in other provinces is not mentioned, and of such coins was generally devoted to a standard once such honors became typical, historians appar- bust of the current emperor or a member of his ently felt no need to continue documenting them. family, while the reverse gave the city’s name and Thus in all but a few cases, we see the results with- titles (including neokoros), thus offering an exact out hearing all of the dickering behind them; we correlation between imperial chronology and civic know some titles and temples, but have scant record titulature. Since many cities issued coins often and of the imperial letters, senatorial decisions, or de- in abundance, they can be checked against each bates in the koinon that gave rise to them. Indeed, other for confirmation of the title as well. we have no idea where the decision that cities with From the start, we should note that beyond the provincial imperial temples could be honored as standards for depiction of the emperor’s image and ‘neokoroi’ came from, though it probably occurred the listing of his titles on the obverse, there seem to in the late Neronian or Flavian period. have been no firm rules about what a city could Since all our literary evidence is partial, we must choose to put on its bronze coinage. Reverses could also guard against the tendency to make the few boast the city’s name, titles, magistrates, and any facts that we receive from it loom larger in our one of a wide range of images, including the city’s reasoning than the many factors that left less evi- chief gods; its founders and legends; its festivals; its dence for their operation. For example, since our alliances; monuments, including temples, fountains, historical sources tend towards a biographical ap- harbors, mountains, or bridges; and honors toward proach to history, concentrating on the individual the emperors. Large-size and special issues were emperors and their personalities, we may be led to frequent, especially from the late second to early use some quirk of a particular emperor to explain third century, and these were often showy coins, why certain cities became neokoroi in his reign and produced with care and exactitude. Some illustrate others did not. The emperor’s inclinations may the temples by means of which a city became have made neokoroi in some cases, but the evidence neokoros, often in great detail. in others is equivocal, and in any case it is danger- Not every city had its own mint, but most prob- ous to investigate no deeper than what little our his- ably contracted either with a centralized workshop torical sources leave to us. or with itinerant craftsmen. The same obverse dies One of the most valuable sources, and an eye- were sometimes used for different cities, and even witness for certain crucial events of the late second reverse dies, which had to be specially cut to include and early third century, is Cassius Dio. His histo- the city’s name and titles, may have been made by ries are only partially extant, however, and must be craftsmen who didn’t know what that city’s chief reconstructed from epitomes. I cite them according gods or temples looked like.40 The reverses, of to the Loeb edition, which is still the one most course, were tailor made to include the name of the readily available.38 city and some image of civic pride, but sometimes these images were very specific, sometimes more 2. Numismatic Evidence conventional. Coins issued by the cities that were neokoroi have Before we can examine in detail the coin evi- exactly the opposite advantages and disadvantages dence from each of the neokoroi, it is essential to of literary evidence. They are not only contempo- discuss how coin types, especially architectural ones, rary but by far the most abundant form of evidence. can be interpreted, and to what extent these small Cities of Rome’s eastern provinces issued bronze depictions might represent an ancient reality. Some coinage not only for economic functions, but as a scholars have trusted ancient numismatic images to symbol of autonomy and civic pride.39 The obverse represent reality; others have not.41 Each side has approached the debate from a preconceived posi-

38 Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Dio’s Roman History, trans. E. Cary (London 1914-1927). tioning of coins issued by cities of the Roman provinces is not 39 In general, see Harl 1987; Butcher 1988. Iconography directly relevant to this inquiry. of the obverse image: Bastien 1992; here my terminology dif- 40 Kraft 1972, from which Brandt 1988; but see the com- fers from his only in using the term ‘diadem’ instead of ments of L. Robert 1975, 188-192, and J. Nollé 1992, 78-97. ‘stephane’ for empresses’ crowns. Coinage in precious metal 41 For: M. Price and Trell 1977, 19-33; Vermeule 1987, was more directly controlled by the Roman central authority. 9-22. Against: Drew-Bear 1974; J. Nollé 1997. For a thought- Though independently an important topic, the monetary func- ful analysis, Burnett 1999. 8 introduction: methodology tion based on a limited number of cases: one found Coin types can copy particular cult images, and this certain monuments well represented by certain imitation helps to make them recognizable. But they detailed coins, and so decided that coin images are can also hew to conventions dictated by the medium trustworthy; the other found varying representations of coinage itself: for example, the chief cult image that contradict certain monuments, and so rejected at the Artemision of Ephesos was for untold centu- coin images. ries the famous Anatolian dressed image, but for Certainly these images cannot be taken as liter- much of its coining history Ephesos portrayed ally as if they were photographs: all are minuscule, Artemis as a huntress instead, using the Hellenized with only those details that could be conveyed by a style typical of other contemporary coinage. And die-cutter’s chisels and punches. Some craftsmen after all, in a city containing many temples and may not have known or cared much about the shrines, a god could be worshipped in many differ- image, or may have been copying it from other ent forms. coins. Plainly there was some standardization of So by what rules can we recognize when an images, especially prevalent on repetitive issues of image on a coin approaches the true reflection of a small-sized coins. On the other hand, even if a die- statue or statues that once stood within a koinon cutter lacked knowledge and was not motivated by temple to a particular emperor, and when it does patriotism, coining was certainly supervised by not? First, the coin type should show the image(s) members of the city’s elite class, who could supply standing within the temple; otherwise it is likely that both. Their care is evident in many (though again, a representation of the active and living emperor, not all) of the coins that were produced. not of his statue, is meant. Then, the more care We can never tell whether those who ultimately devoted to conveying the image, and the more de- handled the coins (mainly the citizens whose name tails added that are not strictly conventional, the adorned the reverse, but with some circulation more chance that the representation is based on among neighboring cities, judging from site finds) visual reality. Another good indication of visual lit- understood all the messages that the coinage tried eralness is when the same image, with its particu- to convey, but certainly the coins were manufac- larities, continues to be conveyed on later coins and tured as if they did. Otherwise there would have in other emperors’ reigns. Large, carefully produced been little point in coining anything but unchang- and wider-circulating coin issues may show the ing types and legends. Given that the images on emperor in his temple beside his cult partner, while coins did often change, the messages they carried, smaller and more local issues show only the more like the legends, were designed to be readable and important one of the pair, the emperor: thus silver recognizable. Therefore the coins must have con- coins of the province Asia show both Augustus and veyed some element of reality that made their types Rome in their temple at Pergamon, while Perga- recognizable; but that element did not have to be mon’s bronze coins show Augustus alone. Coins visual exactitude, like a photograph’s. It could in- issued soon after the construction of a temple often stead be symbolic. show it and its image with more exactitude than The way that cult images are portrayed best later ones. For example, under Tiberius, Smyrna’s shows the symbolic nature of coin types. When a coins show his image in his new koinon temple as a god or personification appears independently on a veiled and togate priest; but under Caracalla, when coin, her/his attributes and gestures identify her/ Smyrna wanted to show all three of its koinon him to the intended audience: the radiate Helios temples together, the image in the one labeled with raises his whip, while Dionysos spills his kantharos Tiberius’ name is in more conventional military toward an attendant panther. Thus many of the guise. It must be conceded that a disastrous earth- coin images are rather static and repetitive; yet the quake had knocked down this particular temple in ancient audience seems to have had no trouble with the interim, and it is possible that the old togate im- interpretation when the god picked up an unusual age had been lost and a new cuirassed one intro- attribute like a temple, or when she/he joined duced in its place. But it is also possible that on the hands with another city’s god or an emperor. The later coin, which offered very little space within the images on coins are not photographic copies of temples for detailed representation, the military particular cult images, they are representations of image was used as shorthand for ‘an emperor.’ a god or a personification that can move and act. Again, the symbolic aspects of how coins repre- introduction: methodology 9 sent temples can obscure the purely visual informa- Tralles (two), Ankyra (two), Side (three), Anazarbos tion that we wish to obtain. A god’s or emperor’s (two), Tarsos (two), Damascus (two, carried by Vic- image can appear in a shrine whose details change, tories); and Neapolis (two, with Mt. Gerizim). Fur- and we cannot tell whether the new depiction is ther such types may be expected to appear as more simply a symbol for ‘cult’ or ‘shrine’ or whether it coins are found and published: recent appearances represents an actual temple with different details include a coin of Antipatris under Elagabalus, in- emphasized on different issues. A four-column cluding what appears to be two tetrastyle temples shrine of Zeus, with either an arched or a flat lin- facing one another (but this may represent the city’s tel, appears on coins of Aizanoi before the city’s sacred spring between the two shrines); and several temple of Zeus was built, probably in Hadrian’s issues of concord (between Ephesos and Alexandria, reign. Is this a temporary shrine or shrines, or sim- and between Smyrna and Pergamon).43 Still, by ply a symbol for the temple the god had not yet now it will have become obvious that twenty out of received? Often coins show a temple’s lintel as the twenty-four cities mentioned, or all except arched, or its number of columns reduced, in order Abdera, Damascus, Antipatris, and Alexandria, are to show the cult figure(s) within more clearly. On known to have been neokoroi. Of course Price and the other hand, at Aigeai the arched lintel of the Trell realized this, not only pointing it out within temple of Asklepios is shown so consistently that it their text but identifying such temples as imperial becomes a point of identification, appearing even or ‘neokorate.’ In almost all cases the number of when the cult image is absent. In this case, we have temples matches the number of neokoriai, and some reason to believe that the representation could changes when it does. convey a recognizable visual feature of the temple, The seeming exceptions are cases where the either an actual arched lintel, a niche, or a balda- shrine of a patron god is included among the chino. temples that conferred neokoria, all of them being The first of the two most important coin types for important sources of civic pride: so Ephesos some- this study arrays all the temples for which the city times adds the temple of Artemis, Sardis the temple was neokoros, sometimes accompanied by the city’s of Lydian Kore, and Tralles the temple of Zeus, but patron god in or out of her/his own temple. Images none claim more than the proper number of of emperors, probably representing cult statues, are neokoriai. Side and Hierapolis, however, showed very often represented within these temples. When two additional temples with the one for which they two or more temples that made a city neokoros are were neokoroi, and Nikaia used a type of two illustrated on coins, they are generally shown as temples, probably imitated from its rival Niko- identical to one another. This need not indicate that media, after it had lost its sole neokoria. Laodikeia a city’s second temple had to be a copy of the first, was probably unique in being once neokoros but of but is again symbolic: two temples of similar func- two emperors, Commodus and Caracalla, whose tion are shown as similar in appearance. separate temples were grouped with a third of a pa- The most wide-ranging work on architectural tron god. Kyzikos as twice neokoros sometimes coin types, by Price and Trell, appends exhaustive shows two peripteral temples, at other times only catalogues of known examples.42 From these lists, one with its shrine of Demeter and Kore; but the cities that issued coins showing two or more Kyzikos presents many problems. identical temples are: Abdera in Spain (two The other important type for this study is that temples), Perinthos (two), Beroia and its Macedo- which shows a patron deity or city goddess holding nian koinon (two), Thessalonike (four), Neokaisareia a temple, the personification of the city as neoko- (two), Nikaia (two), Nikomedia (two or three), ros.44 The preeminent discussion of these types is Kyzikos (two), Ephesos (two, three, or four), con- almost a century old but it still has application to- cord between Ephesos and Magnesia (two, but with day. Of the ten cities Pick named, eight were each city’s Artemis within), Hierapolis (three), neokoroi. The two that are not known to have been Laodikeia (two or three), Pergamon (two or three), Sardis (two, three, or four), Smyrna (two or three),

43 Meshorer 1993, 142-144 no. 6; Franke and M. Nollé 1997, nos. 549-551, 2133-2144. 42 M. Price and Trell 1977, 241-287. 44 Pick 1904. 10 introduction: methodology neokoroi are the koinon of Lesbos and Kolybrassos ervation: though coins must have been issued in in Cilicia. their hundreds of thousands, only a small propor- Some of the temple-bearer types show an attempt tion of them escaped being melted down and to make the god hold as many temples as the city reminted. Of those, only a small proportion have had neokoriai; Nikomedia went so far as to put one survived to be found, and of those, only a smaller on its goddess’ head after both her hands were full. proportion have made their way into museums or Smyrna’s Amazon, however, always held only one. publications. Museum collections contain choice The majority of temple bearers are generic city specimens acquired over many years, but sometimes goddesses, as at Perinthos, Philippopolis, Nikome- omit humbler examples that could provide crucial dia, Side, Aigeai, Tarsos, and Ankyra. But often a information. The collections of small and local patron deity stands for the city, as Demeter does for museums are rarely published, while those of indi- Nikomedia, or Athena for Side and for Ankyra. In viduals are difficult to locate and authenticate. The a few cases we see the emperor for whose cult the abundant coins found in excavations are often in neokoria was granted holding his own temple, as poor condition and illegible, or have not yet been Septimius Severus does at Perinthos, while Cara- published; and many sites are unexcavated. Since calla hands a second temple over an altar to the city we have such a minuscule fraction of the possible goddess of Kyzikos, who already holds the first. At information, the publication of even one new coin Philippopolis, Elagabalus and Apollo Kendrisos hold can overturn an hypothesized chronology. the temple they shared between them. Side, which Problems also lurk in the older publications of also used a type of three temples while calling itself ancient coins. Though scholars such as Eckhel and only neokoros, again went beyond its exact titu- Mionnet (see below) made the first great strides in lature with a type showing the city goddess holding collecting, analyzing, and publishing the coins of two temples. Rome’s eastern provinces, misreadings of legends There is also a verbal equivalent to the deity who and misinterpretations of types published without holds a temple: the coin’s legend simply calls the illustration were frequent. In addition, coins with deity, not the citizens, neokoros. The city goddesses recut legends and even outright forgeries occasion- Thessalonike, Perge, and Side are so named, while ally went unrecognized. In order to avoid incorpo- at Side the gods Apollo and Asklepios are also rating such errors, I have kept mainly to coins in neokoroi. public collections that I could examine directly, in It must be remembered, however, that no mat- clear photographs, or in casts of both obverse and ter how close the correlation between cities known reverse, for in case of a doubtful reading only such to have been neokoroi and those that used either coins can easily be checked. The increasing num- multiple-temple or temple-bearer reverses for their ber of published corpora of various cities’ coins, and coins, it is not exact. There do not appear to have of volumes in the Sylloge nummorum Graecorum series, been many rules about what a city could put on its has helped immeasurably. On the other hand, with coinage, and it was common for reverse types to be some few exceptions I have avoided using coins imitated. Also, only rarely do coins like the special from unpublished private collections and auction issues of Pergamon or Smyrna proclaim the city catalogues. Beside the obvious ethical consider- three times neokoros and label the three temples ations, I prefer to rely upon coins that have been with the names of the emperors they honored. The examined critically by disinterested scholars, and overwhelming majority of coin types are generalized preferably by more than one. Where I have made and schematic, their legends laconic sets of titles. exceptions to these guidelines (notably in chapter Unlike historical accounts, they give no indication 11, Antandros, and chapter 32, Tripolis), I have of why or how neokoria was awarded. Some, with- hedged the cities with question marks, and have in- out imperial portraits, can be difficult to date; on cluded them at all mainly to make scholars aware others the title drops off and we cannot always tell that there is a possibility of neokoria that still needs whether it was because it was taken away from the to be proved or disproved. No doubt I have missed city, or only not mentioned on the coin, perhaps su- many interesting examples, but I hope that I have perseded by some other honor. missed compromising my conclusions as well. Also Other limitations must be considered when using omitted are examples where the word ‘neokoros’ is coin evidence. The greatest is the accident of pres- obscure or restored. My aim has been to be correct, introduction: methodology 11 not universally inclusive: one misprint, misreading, can break, leaving only fragments difficult to inter- or recut coin can introduce a falsehood, whereas a pret, or be built into walls, or burnt up for lime. gap in the story can be noted and filled in by later Correct restoration of the lost parts of inscriptions scholarship. is a task that requires the combined talents of a My method of citing coins was chosen as the cryptographer and a computer memory. The late most appropriate and expeditious for the purposes Louis Robert had these talents in abundance, and of this study, and is not meant to be a full numis- fortunately the neokoria was among his innumer- matic publication. All coins that mention the title able interests.45 For the most part I have trod in his ‘neokoros’ are listed at the end of their city’s chap- footsteps and in those of other experts, only occa- ter. Coins with a reverse type that I find relevant sionally straying off on my own. to the neokoria (generally involving a temple or At the end of each city chapter, I collect a list of temples, an image of the emperor, or reference to all inscriptions that call that city neokoros, consecu- festivals in his honor; almost always with the word tively numbered and in rough chronological order ‘neokoros,’ but occasionally not) are cited in the where independently datable. If not datable, they body of the text as ‘coin type 1,’ et cetera. They are are listed after datable inscriptions with which they grouped according to general congruence of ob- share the number of neokoriai; and fragments fol- verse and reverse types, not according to die iden- low more complete examples. Except where noted, tity or denomination; variations are listed in the they come from the city under discussion. This description in parentheses. It should be noted that study is neither an epigraphic nor a numismatic coin types mentioned in the body of the text are catalogue; it cites only published inscriptions (with listed again, but not picked out specifically, in the a single exception),46 and does not quote them lists of coins at the end of each chapter, but only if unless they are discussed in the text. The original they mention the title ‘neokoros’ in their legends. publication should always be consulted in case of questions. Unlike my organization of coin types, 3. Epigraphic Evidence which are numbered consecutively as each is cited Though monumental inscriptions on stone usually within a chapter, and then also gathered together contain more words than do the legends on coins, at chapter’s end, all inscriptions that call a city they may or may not say more about the neokoria. neokoros are both listed in chronological order and Some inscriptions, especially imperial letters, are consecutively numbered at the end of each chapter. invaluable for giving precise and contemporary This means that the chapter’s text may refer to accounts of grants of neokoria, but the overwhelm- inscription 2, inscription 7, and then inscription 4, ing majority of inscriptions that call a city neokoros as the sense demands; the reader may then refer to simply include it as one of a list of titles, as their the list at the end of the chapter for more informa- main purpose was to honor someone for benevo- tion. lence, not to document neokoria. If we are fortu- nate, the inscription can be dated by the name of 4. Archaeological Evidence an emperor, a governor, or some person otherwise As we have seen, the Greek word for ‘temple’ is known, but that is not always the case. inherent in the word ‘neokoros.’ It was in the na- Inscriptions offer a great proportion of the evi- ture of both Greek and Roman religion to provide dence on the neokoroi cities, but even that evidence most gods with a house, and each cult with a par- is only part of the story. Some cities appear to have ticular place and paraphernalia for its rituals. Inso- set up more inscriptions than others. Of those that far as any of these survived to manifest itself in the were set up, honorifics far outnumber records of archaeological record, they provide valuable evi- civic deliberations or finances; much more is known dence on the realia of the cults for which cities be- of the elite than of commoners, more of city than came neokoroi. In fact a good deal of archaeological of village or countryside. Also, most of the evidence material has survived and can be analyzed. available to us comes from the major cities, those with longer records of excavations and more com- plete publications; this is likely why Ephesos tends 45 See the reference list for particular works. 46 The exception is Sardis inscription 6; my thanks to to predominate. Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr., Director of the Sardis expedi- The accidents of preservation also apply: stones tion, for permission to refer to it. 12 introduction: methodology

Perhaps most important are the temples them- however, where remains of imperial statues of co- selves, as their size, placement, materials, and deco- lossal size, therefore more likely to be agalmata, ration can indicate what role the cult for which a have been found within or close to a temple in a city city was made neokoros was meant to play within that is known to have been neokoros at or around the city’s structure, for the other members of the the time when the statues were made. All had cer- koinon, and for others who might participate in its tain parts sculpted in stone, and it is these parts that festivals or visit its site. Then there are the other survive. possible architectural features of a sanctuary, such as altars, porticoes, and other subsidiary structures. It should be noted that, unfortunately, the less pre- iv. How to Use This Book possessing the structure, the less chance that it has been studied and published. Thus the bulk of the Part I, the core of the book, consists of thirty-seven evidence consists of standard Greco-Roman temples chapters, one for each city for which neokoria is and their parts, with little other evidence (e.g. pos- documented. In some cases documentation is as sible headquarters for chief priests, neokoroi, or small as one coin or a few words added to an in- hymnodoi; gardens or groves; pits for the remains scription, but so long as the coin is real and the of sacrifices) yet available. superscription ancient, that city can be confirmed One problem is how to identify a temple as one as neokoros. Early authors included many cities that made its city neokoros. The ideal way of rec- among the neokoroi that are not discussed here, ognizing such a structure would be the discovery of mostly due to misreadings, forgeries, or recut leg- an inscription on it that calls it a provincial temple, ends of coins.47 In each case I have searched and mentions its designation for a particular emperor or found either that the earlier evidence had been dis- emperors, and names the city neokoros. Unfortu- proved or that no evidence can be found to confirm nately this happy situation is rare to nonexistent. the attribution. The most accessible list of neokoroi Many kinds of structures bore dedications to the cities is still that in Pauly-Wissowa.48 Since its pub- emperor(s), but only a few of those structures were lication in 1935, evidence for Akmonia and Julio- temples, and of those even fewer can be proved to polis as neokoroi has been disproved.49 On the be the temples that made their city neokoros. Iden- other hand, new evidence has been found for Saga- tification of such precincts is generally based on a lassos, Antandros, Miletos, Nikaia, Aspendos, Pata- concordance of literary, numismatic, epigraphic and ra, and Akalissos, and this will be presented in the archaeological evidence. chapters on those cities. In theory, one way of confirming the identifica- Some new data on the neokoroi can lead to new tion would be by finding the remains of imperial interpretations of larger historical issues. For ex- cult statues set up in the temple. Their style, date, ample, chapter 33 on Patara removes a person (but and mode of representation could also provide valu- not a name) from the fasti of Lycia; chapters 4 and able insight into how the emperor was to be pre- 1, on Ephesos and Pergamon respectively, contrib- sented in provincial imperial cult. But thousands of ute evidence for the troubled reign of Macrinus; imperial statues, singly or in groups, standing, there is even a small modification to the observa- seated, or equestrian, in varying dress or lack of it, tions of Louis Robert in chapter 4 (though normally stood in cities all over the empire; very few of them I find that disagreeing with Robert is a sure sign can be allied with neokoria. It was a common prac- that a scholar is wrong). In addition, the examina- tice to set up portrait statues (eikones) of emperors tion of the architecture of temples of the neokoroi and their families in both sacred and non-sacred finds little evidence of the aediculated ‘marble style’ spaces without any connotation of worship. Thus previously held to be associated with the imperial imperial statues and statue bases found around a cult. neokoros city or even in a temple precinct do not necessarily indicate that the temple made the city neokoros. Furthermore, some of the true cult stat- 47 Eckhel 1792-1839, vol. 4, 288-306, lists the misreadings ues (agalmata) may have been made of metal, ivory, of Vaillant 1700; Mionnet 1806-1808, 105. 48 Hanell 1935. or other precious and/or perishable materials, and 49 L. Robert 1975, 168 n. 73; French 1981, 45-46; recut- thus have not survived. We shall see three cases, ting of a coin of Hierapolis to read Juliopolis. introduction: methodology 13

This study’s structure aims to be both chronologi- emperor’s actions regarding the neokoroi, ‘Histori- cal and geographic. The thirty-seven city chapters cal Analysis,’ chapter 38 in the Summary section, are organized by koinon, listed according to which and chapter 42 on ‘Roman Powers,’ would be koinon received its provincial imperial temple first. places to start, while any questions raised there Asia leads the list, though in fact Asia and Bithynia regarding individual cases can be chased back into both got theirs in 29 B.C.E. Within each koinon the relevant city chapters. The summaries of Part chapter, cities appear chronologically, according to II also collect the data for those interested in par- the date they received the first temple that would ticular topics. For example, an overview of the cult make them neokoroi. This organization seemed to statues found in temples of the neokoroi is available tell a clearer story for the development of neokoria in the ‘Temples’ chapter, 39, while contests cel- than, for example, an alphabetic order within eth- ebrated by the neokoroi are considered in the sum- nic/geographic region, judicial district, or minting mary chapter 40 on ‘The Cities.’ circle. For each city, any neokoriai after the first are This structure is necessarily, indeed deliberately, discussed within the same chapter, so a full histori- repetitive. It is designed to allow the reader to see cal analysis is provided at the end of the book to the same evidence in several different contexts, and unify the picture across all the neokoroi cities. As to trace the interrelations among cities as well as the data for each neokoros city are fully docu- between city and koinon, koinon and emperor, mented in the footnotes to that city’s chapter, the emperor and Senate, Senate and city. summary chapters of Part II (including the histori- A synoptic chart shows which cities became cal analysis) do not repeat them. neokoros, how many times, and when, and another Once the city chapters have laid out the facts, gives a list of emperors’ names, regnal dates, and summary chapters allow a more synthetic analysis the names of members of their families who are of a number of themes in Part II. Chapter 38, ‘His- mentioned in this study. A good place for the reader torical Analysis,’ is a chronological examination of to start would be by consulting the chart of neoko- the development of the provincial imperial cult roi; after that, individual interests should lead each among the neokoroi, and the way each emperor one on. treated the cult and the title. ‘The Temples,’ chap- Terminology sometimes has to shift uncomfort- ter 39, covers the actual buildings whose possession ably between the demands of English and of Greek. made their cities neokoroi, their equipment, staff, Where Greek spelling varies, I have transliterated and placement in the urban fabric. Chapter 40, original documents without change (as in the names ‘The Cities,’ expands on the neokoroi cities them- of festivals). City names are Greek, though larger selves, their relationships and rivalries, their elites geographical areas have retained their more famil- and benefactors, the coins they minted and the fes- iar Latinate spelling. I have abjured the anglicized tivals they celebrated in connection with the ‘neokorate’ as inaccurate, referring instead to neokoria. Then follows an examination of the temples that conferred neokoria, or to koinon koinon and the officials associated with its temples temples, i.e. temples instituted by the koinon. Ab- in ‘The Koina and Their Officials,’ chapter 41; fi- breviations are given at the head of the bibliogra- nally, chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ gives the phy; otherwise, footnotes refer to books by author view from Rome, including the roles of the Senate, and date, except where they are editions of ancient of provincial governors, and that taken by emper- authors. Fonts were chosen to conform fairly closely ors whose worship made cities neokoroi. to (though they could not exactly duplicate) those This organization was devised so that the book of the primary evidence—thus the lunate sigmas could be easily consulted in a number of different typical of coins of the period. Where translations of ways. Those who are interested only in one neoko- literary works and inscriptions have been made and ros city can go directly to its chapter and find all are not otherwise noted, they are mine. they need. Those with broader regional interests My sincerest thanks to my readers and editors; may browse the chapters within one koinon. For a any errors that may have escaped them are my own. picture of the chronology, or for one particular This page intentionally left blank introduction: methodology 15

PART I: CITY-BY-CITY SECTION This page intentionally left blank chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 17

SECTION I. KOINON OF ASIA

Chapter 1. Pergamon in Mysia: Koinon of Asia

The early history of the neokoria at Pergamon is the permitted the foreigners, whom he called Hellenes, to early history of the provincial imperial cult in Asia.1 consecrate precincts to himself, the Asians’ in Though the title itself was not used for Pergamon Pergamon and the Bithynians’ in Nikomedia. From that beginning, the latter practice has been carried on until the end of the first century, the first of the three under other emperors, not only in the Greek provinces temples that would ultimately make Pergamon but in the others as well, insofar as they obey the Ro- neokoros was the temple of Rome and Augustus. mans. For in the capital itself and the rest of Italy none of the emperors, no matter how worthy of fame, has dared to do this; still, even there they give divine honors and build shrines as well to dead emperors who First Neokoria: Augustus have ruled justly. These events happened in the win- ter, and the Pergamenes got permission to hold the The fullest account is Cassius Dio’s chronicle of the contest known as ‘sacred’ in honor of his temple. winter of 29 B.C.E., when the victor of Actium, later to be known as Augustus, permitted the consecra- Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9. tion of sacred precincts in the provinces of Asia and of Bithynia: Dio, like most historians of his time, was not a great investigator of archives or inscriptions, but used 2 Ka›sar d¢ §n toÊtƒ tã te êlla §xrhmãtize, ka‹ tem°nh tª earlier historical works as his sources. This passage, te ÑR\m_ ka‹ t“ patr‹ t“ Ka¤sari, ¥rva aÈtÚn ÉIoÊlion however, seems to be quoting from an actual docu- Ùnomãsaw, ¶n te ÉEf°sƒ ka‹ §n Nika¤& gen°syai §f}ken: ment, or at least using the same terminology as such a´tai går tÒte a| pÒleiw ¶n te tª ÉAs¤& ka‹ §n tª Biyun¤& a document, at certain specific points. For example, proetet¤mhnto. ka‹ toÊtouw m¢n to›w ÑRvma¤oiw to›w parÉ aÈto›w §poikoËsi timçn pros°taje: to›w d¢ dØ j°noiw, Augustus “named [his father] the hero Julius” ÜEllhnãw sfaw §pikal°saw, •aut“ tina, to›w m¢n ÉAsiano›w (Ùnomãsaw) or “the foreigners, whom [Augustus] §n Pergãmƒ to›w d¢ Biyuno›w §n Nikomhde¤&, temen¤sai called Hellenes” (§pikal°saw) (italics mine). Some of §p°trece. ka‹ toËtÉ §ke›yen érjãmenon ka‹ §pÉ êllvn this terminology is unusual in Greek but would fall aÈtokratÒrvn oÈ mÒnon §n to›w ÑEllhniko›w ¶ynesin, éllå naturally into Latin: the usual term for what Dio ka‹ §n to›w êlloiw ˜sa t«n ÑRvma¤vn ékoÊei, §g°neto. §n gãr translated ‘hero’ ( ) is ‘divus,’ while Dio’s ‘for- toi t“ êstei aÈt“ tª te êll_ ÉItal¤& oÈk ¶stin ˜stiw t«n ¥rva ka‹ §fÉ ~posonoËn lÒgou tinÚw éj¤vn §tÒlmhse toËto eigners’ (j°noiw), or non-Romans, is likely to have 3 poi}sai: metallãjasi m°ntoi kéntaËya to›w Ùry«w been his translation from the Latin term ‘peregrini.’ aÈtarxÆsasin êllai te ¸sÒyeoi tima‹ d¤dontai ka‹ dØ ka‹ It is also worth noting that ¶ynow, his word for {r“a poie›tai. TaËta m¢n §n t“ xeim«ni §g°neto, ka‹ ¶labon ‘provincia,’ was not the term in general use at the ka‹ o| Pergamhno‹ tÚn ég«na tÚn |erÚn »nomasm°non §p‹ tª time of the events he described, but only after the toË naoË aÈtoË timª poie›n. second century.4 In other words, it is likely that Dio In the meantime Caesar, besides taking care of affairs was taking his account directly from a Latin source. generally, gave permission that there be established Moreover, this section follows one that has been sacred areas to Rome and his father Caesar, whom he named the hero Julius, in Ephesos and in Nikaia; for these were at that time the preeminent cities in Asia 2 Reinhold 1988, 6-9; Rich 1990, 4-11. and in Bithynia respectively. He commanded that the 3 Romans resident there honor those divinities, but he Dio named the temple of Divus Julius in the Forum “the heroön of Julius” (51.22.2-3) and the praetor peregrinus the jenikÒw (53.2.3); Freyburger-Galland 1997, 159 and 215-226 on Dio’s language in general. 1 S. Price 1984b, 56, 67, 133, 137-138, 156-157, 178, 182, 4 Mason 1974, 13, 70, 124-125, 136. Mason (16) comments 187, 252-253. on Dio’s tendency to translate from the Latin quite literally. 18 part i – section i. koinon of asia categorized as an ‘urban “cluster”’ probably taken temple to the ruler himself, as it had for a long line from a detailed annalistic historian, and perhaps ul- of rulers and even magistrates before.11 timately based on the acta senatus.5 It is certainly pos- Augustus’ answer to those petitions, however, gave sible that the report of the favorable response to the pious primacy to the cult of his deified father, to be Hellenes came from the same source, or at least one practiced in Ephesos. Dio’s assessment that this city just as detailed. The response is not repeated with- was preeminent in Asia is likely his own, but there out changes; Dio was a historian, not an epitomator. was good reason for choosing Ephesos: it was the He managed to sneak in a comment in praise of his seat of the governor, and a port likely to have many home city, Nikaia, and the interpretation of the Romans in residence to practice the cult of Rome influence of Augustus’ ruling on the later develop- and Caesar.12 Pergamon, however, had been the ment of imperial cult is all his.6 But the rest of the center of the province’s Hellenistic administration, account may represent Augustus’ response to the and was a logical center for the koinon of the Hel- embassies of Asia and Bithynia closely, though it is lenes to choose for the location of its cult of Augus- also possible that, as elsewhere, Dio has taken an en- tus. The Hellenes were not turned away from the actment by a magistrate or by the Senate and put worship of the deified Caesar, but were allowed the it into the mouth of the man whom he saw as actu- worship of the living ruler as their main focus. For ally wielding the power.7 Dio, writing from the viewpoint of a Roman sena- As Dio portrays its history here, provincial impe- tor of elite Hellenized background in the third cen- rial cult originated not in a command from above, tury C.E., a line of demarcation was intended to but in a petition from two provinces that volunteered separate the Roman, who worshipped the deified it; and specifically from the provincial organizations, dead, from the non-Roman, who could also worship the koina, that were to make this cult their main the living ruler, though that line was in actuality 13 concern.8 The evidence for the involvement of the rather blurred. Dio made no distinctions between koina is twofold. First, they were the only represen- eastern and western provincial practice: any prov- tative bodies known to have dealt with the imperial ince subject to the Romans could so honor the cult throughout each province.9 That the new cults current emperor. were to be province-wide is clear from Dio’s state- Yet Dio did not mention a crucial detail. ment about “the foreigners, whom [Augustus] called Suetonius wrote of Augustus’ modesty in accepting Hellenes.” This designation does not comprehend honors: “Though he knew it was the custom to vote temples even to proconsuls, in not one province did all Hellenes everywhere, as only Asia and Bithynia he accept one unless it was in the name of Rome are under discussion, and Dio carefully distinguishes as well as in his.”14 In Dio’s account, the goddess the Asians from the Bithynians, referring to arrange- Rome is the cult partner of Julius Caesar, not of ments for four separate cities in two provinces. It is Augustus; yet the evidence of coins, inscriptions, and most likely, then, that petitions came from, and other historians tells us that she was present in responses were given to, the koinon of the Hellenes Augustus’ cult as well. Perhaps the addition of Rome of Asia and the koinon of the Hellenes of Bithynia was an afterthought to the original decision of 29 (the latter of which will be dealt with in chapter 15, B.C.E. In some later cases the name of Rome ‘Nikomedia’).10 As will be discussed in chapter 38, dropped out when Augustus’ cult was mentioned.15 ‘Historical Analysis,’ it is probable that the koinon Or perhaps Dio himself omitted her because her of Asia in fact asked for the privilege of building a presence would have obscured the point he made

11 See, for example, Cicero, Letters to his brother Quintus 1.1.26: 5 51.20.1-4; Swan 1987, 272-291. the cities of Asia voted money for a “temple and monument” 6 Reinhold 1988, 154; Piatkowski 1984 is a rather broad- to Cicero and his brother. brushed treatment. 12 Haensch 1997, 286, 298-321. 7 Swan 1987, 279. 13 Whittaker 1996, 93-99, held that the presence of the 8 Ameling 1984, 124; Ziethen 1994, 54, 92-93, 221-222, goddess Rome in both cults assisted in blurring the line. See treated this embassy as if it came from the city alone, ignor- also Clauss 1996; Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 17-18. ing the koinon’s role. 14 Suetonius, Augustus 52; see also Tacitus, Annals 4.37.3: 9 Deininger 1965, 16-19. “Since the deified Augustus did not forbid that a temple to 10 Habicht 1973, 55-56. For the formulae used to refer to himself and to the city of Rome be built at Pergamon...” the koinon see L. Robert 1967, 47. 15 Fayer 1976, 108 n. 4. chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 19 at the end of this passage, that Augustus’ was the COIN TYPE 2. Obv: TI CLAVD CAES AVG model for subsequent imperial cult; as Dio must have Head of Claudius, l. Rev: COM ASI; Two-col- known, later emperors did not consider themselves umn temple on stepped podium, ROM ET AVG obliged to honor the goddess Rome in the temples on entablature; within, female at r. crowns that were dedicated to them. cuirassed male at l. 1) BMCRE 228 (= RPC 1:379 Though Dio at first speaks only of ‘sacred areas,’ no. 2221, minted at Ephesos; illus. pl. 18 fig. 46).21 he specifies that the Pergamenes got a sacred con- As the entablature again bears the names of the two test “in honor of [Augustus’] temple.” The site of divinities, the long-gowned female figure on the right the temple at Pergamon has not yet been identified, who holds a cornucopia in her left hand should be but there is a good deal of evidence for its develop- Rome, in her nonmartial aspect of a city goddess.22 ment. According to an inscription of Mytilene, it was Though her headdress is not clear, a later relief from under construction by 27 B.C.E., when it was being the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias shows Agrippina the built ‘by Asia,’ that is, by the province as a whole, Younger with the same attributes and costume and represented by the koinon.16 Presumably it was her son Nero in the place of Augustus, and on that standing by 19 B.C.E., which is the date of the ear- relief Agrippina wears a diadem.23 Rome, however, liest silver cistophori of Asia (here type 1a) that show raises her right hand and the crown toward Augus- its full facade. tus, whereas the later relief shows the act of crown- COIN TYPE 1. Obv: IMP IX TR PO V (IV, a) ing accomplished, with the mother’s hand resting on Head of Augustus, r. Rev: COM ASIAE; six-col- her son’s head. In the original Pergamon group umn Corinthian temple on stepped podium, Augustus is in military dress and holds a long sceptre ROM ET AVGVST on the entablature. a) SNGvA in his right hand; in the best examples, one can see 6560 b) BMCRE 705 c) BMCRE 70617 (series the paludamentum wrapped around his hips, in the dated 19-18 B.C.E.). style of the Primaporta statue, and the extreme contrapposto, with weight supported on the right foot, From at least 9 B.C.E. onward, the temple of Rome that makes him appear to propel himself away from and Augustus served as a collecting place for docu- Rome while still looking back at her.24 The temple ments of importance to the koinon, and the docu- depicted is that at Pergamon, even when the coins ments themselves specify how and where they are were minted in other cities of the province; that is, to be set up in this chief shrine of the province.18 It Pergamon’s temple, as the first provincial temple to is likely that the temple’s central role in both the be established, served as a symbol of the koinon of province and the city was reflected in its grandeur Asia. and artistry, of which these coins must be a pale Shortly after the first silver cistophori were issued, reflection. Telephos, a Pergamene scholar who wrote but still during the reign of Augustus, the temple of a guidebook to the city and a history of its kings, Rome and Augustus also appeared on humbler also produced a work in two books on the Sebasteion bronze coins issued by the city of Pergamon: in Pergamon.19 Later Asian silver cistophori show the same COIN TYPE 3. Obv: %EBA%TON Laureate head temple, but with the number of columns reduced to of Augustus, r. Rev: XARINO% GRAMMATEUVN two. This numismatic simplification permitted the Six-column temple. a) BMC 237 b) BMC 238 c) cult statues, or at least a pair of statues closely as- SNGCop 464 (RPC 1 no. 2358, dated between 10 sociated with the temple, to be shown within.20 and 2 B.C.E.).

16 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 166-168 no. A26. 17 RIC 1:61 no. 15; Sutherland 1970, 102-104 group VII; 21 The same reverse image, with few variants, appears on RPC 1:378-379 nos. 2217, 2219. cistophori of Vespasian (BMCRE 449), Domitian (BMCRE 254 18 Fayer 1976, 110-111 n. 8. bis), Nerva (BMCRE 79) and Trajan (BMCRE 711); each is 19 Suda, s.v. TÆlefow; Jacoby 1950, no. 505. described as the reigning emperor, but the unchanging image 20 Misunderstanding of this numismatic abbreviation led and legend in the entablature show that it is still Augustus Mellor 1975, 141-142, to reject the use of coin evidence as a within the provincial temple at Pergamon. For the Flavians, whole, specifically for the existence of the provincial temple see RPC 2:132-134, esp. nos. 859, 875. at Nikomedia (q.v.). He was followed in this by Tuchelt 1981, 22 Di Filippo Balestrazzi 1997, no. 193. who reduced both provincial temples to altar courts thereby. 23 Rose 1997a, 164-169 cat. no. 105; figs. 207, 208. For the rebuttal, see Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 13-14, and above. 24 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 81-82. 20 part i – section i. koinon of asia

COIN TYPE 4. Obv: PERGAMHNVN KAI in Smyrna’s temple on the reverse; and similar types %ARDIANVN Bearded male in long chiton (the continued under subsequent rulers. People of Pergamon) raises r. hand to crown COIN TYPE 6. Obv: a similar figure (the People of Sardis).25 %EBA%TOI EPI PE- Draped bust of Julia r. and laur- Rev: TRVNIOU TO q %EBA%TON KEFALIVN GRAMMATEUVN eate head of Tiberius l., turned toward one Two-column temple, cuirassed emperor with another. Rev: sceptre within. a) BMC 360 b) BMC 361 c) BMC YEON %EBA%TON PERGAMHNOI Four-column temple, cuirassed emperor with 362 d) BMC 363 e) London 1979-1-1-1590 (illus. sceptre within. a) BMC 253 b) BMC 254 (illus. pl. pl. 18 fig. 47; temple incorrectly described as four- 18 fig. 48) c) BMC 255 d) BMC 256 e) SNGCop column in RPC 1 no. 2362; dated ca. 1 C.E.). 468 f) SNGCop 469 (RPC 1 no. 2369) g) SNGLewis COIN TYPE 5. Obv: %ILBANON PERGAMHNOI 1337. Togate M. Plautius Silvanus, proconsul, crowned COIN TYPE 7. Obv: by a male in short chiton.26 Rev: KLAUDION KAI%ARA %EBA%TON Head of Claudius r. Rev: Four-column temple, cuirassed em- %EBA%TON %EBA%- DHMOFVN Four-column temple, peror with sceptre within. a) BMC 242 b) BMC TON PERGAMHNOI cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a) BMC 243 c) BMC 244 d) BMC 245 e) BMC 246 f) 257 (RPC 1 no. 2370, dated ca. 50-54 C.E.) SNGCop 461 (RPC 1 no. 2364 and p. 401). COIN TYPE 8. Obv: Due to the smaller size of the coins, the number of AGRIPPINAN %EBA%THN Draped bust of Agrippina columns is usually reduced and the figure of Rome NERVNA %EBA%TON r. and head of Nero l., turned toward one another. is omitted. The omission of the cult partner who Rev: Four-col- symbolized Augustus’ modesty probably would not YEON %EBA%TON PERGAMHNOI umn temple, cuirassed emperor with sceptre have been acceptable on the cistophori, which cir- within. a) Berlin 118/1882 (RPC 1 no. 2372, dated culated throughout the province. The bronze coin- ca. 55 C.E.). age was meant to circulate more locally, so certain abbreviations were allowed to pass. As already COIN TYPE 9. Obv: KAI%ARA DOMITIANON mentioned, the goddess Rome had a tendency to DOMITIAN %EBA% Draped bust of Domitia r. and drop out of references in later years; this is natural, laureate head of Domitian l., turned toward one as she was rather a makeweight, included in the cult another. Rev: YEON %EBA%TON PERGAMHNOI; by Augustus’ choice, not by the Asians’.27 PO Four-column temple, cuirassed emperor with The temple continued to appear on later bronze sceptre within. a) SNGvA 7500 b) Voegtli 1993, coins of the city, generally in the same form. Type no. 368 (RPC 2:144 no. 918). 6, issued in the sixth year of the proconsul Petronius’ After his discussion of Augustus’ grants to Asia and term in Asia, both imitated and challenged contem- Bithynia, Dio stated that the Pergamenes also re- porary coins that were being issued by Smyrna to ceived permission to hold the contest called ‘sacred’ celebrate its new provincial temple of Tiberius, his in honor of Augustus’ temple. This contest is pre- mother, and the Senate (q.v.).28 Pergamon chose to sented as an addendum to the petition made by the place Tiberius and Julia (= Livia) ‘Augusti,’ instead two provinces, and it indicates some significant dif- of Julia and the Senate, on the obverse, while ferences between Asia and Bithynia, though their re- Augustus in his Pergamene temple replaced Tiberius quests were presumably made at the same time. Dio made no mention of a similar contest for the Niko- 25 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 152-155; Kampmann 1996, medians, and as he was by origin a Bithynian from 14-19, 118-119; Pera 1984, 17-19 believed it possible that the Nikaia, he would have been well aware if one were occasion for this coinage was to celebrate the two cities’ indi- vidual cults of Augustus, but the provincial temple was an asked or granted. It may be, therefore, that only the appropriate type for the concord of two Asian cities. Asians’ request included a festival; it is even possible 26 Thomasson 1984, col. 208 no. 14; Stumpf 1991, 99-103 that this part of the petition came from a Pergamene dated Silvanus’ proconsulship of Asia to 4/5 C.E. embassy additional to that of the koinon. But Dio 27 Fayer 1976, 108 n. 4. 28 Thomasson 1984, 211 no. 35 and Stumpf 1991, 120-122 implies that the contest of sacred status was supple- dated Petronius’ proconsulship between 28 and 36 C.E., his mentary and in honor of the temple, not an invar- last year being 34 at earliest; but RPC 1 dated this coin type iable result of it. The contest itself, generally known to ca. 30 C.E. For Smyrna, Klose 1996, 58. chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 21 as Rhomaia Sebasta, appears in inscriptions from about the identity of chief priests and Asiarchs, opining that 20 B.C.E. to the early second century, though after ‘Asiarch’ was a municipal office, and that the ap- Augustus’ death it could have been called simply the pearance of chief priestesses in inscriptions means Koina of Asia (an extended title which included pro- that women could fulfill all the functions of, that is, vincial contests held in other cities beside Pergamon), substitute for, chief priests.35 Kearsley’s work has or more specifically the Koina of Asia Augusteia.29 If been criticized by Campanile, Wörrle, Herz, and the great tax document from Ephesos has been Engelmann, most of whom have emphasized the correctly restored to refer to this festival, Augustus enduring value of Rossner’s conclusions.36 Herz confirmed its tax-free status for a thirty day period, described the office of the chief priestess as worship both for Pergamon and its harbor of entry Elaia.30 of the Augustae, a role which usually the wife, but Dio did not discuss the personnel of the proposed in her absence any female relation, of a chief priest/ temples, so information on them must be gathered Asiarch could fulfill; but this claim has not been from other sources. In Asia, the highest official of proven. The chief priest could also give (or perhaps the imperial temple, and probably of the koinon as had to give) provincial contests: thus Anaxagoras, a whole, was the chief priest. In Augustan times he of the time of Claudius, was “[chief priest] of Asia bore the title of the single provincial temple in and agonothetes for life of the goddess Rome and Pergamon, ‘chief priest of the goddess Rome and of the god Augustus Caesar.”37 the emperor Caesar Augustus [with various titles There was also a neokoros of Rome and Augustus added], son of the god [Julius].’31 The longer Aug- at Pergamon, presumably an official caretaker serv- ustan title dropped out of use when temples to other ing under direction of the chief priest, documented emperors at other cities were added to the provin- as late as the second century.38 The position was not cial imperial cult; these too would have chief priests, a humble one, however: under Tiberius, the neo- though the chief priest of the temple of Rome and koros was also (municipal) priest of Tiberius and Augustus at Pergamon probably maintained his gymnasiarch for the Sebasta Rhomaia games, positions primacy.32 that involved considerable expenditure.39 There has been some controversy over these later A citizen of Thyateira later served as “panegyr- titles associated with the chief priesthood of the iarch of the temples in the most illustrious metro- provincial temple(s) and headship of the province. polis of the Pergamenes,” presumably for presiding Rossner held that ‘chief priest of Asia’ and ‘Asiarch’ over a festival for the koinon temples at a time af- were alternate ways of expressing the priestly and ter they became plural, after Trajan (below); it is not official duties of the heads of the koinon, and that certain how early this office would have been insti- the wife of the chief priest or Asiarch could receive tuted.40 By the mid-third century, the city of Phila- the title of chief priestess of Asia.33 All these titles delphia (q.v.) requested that it be released from its could be modified by the addition of the place where contribution to the metropoleis for the expenses of the provincial temple(s) were located. For example, the chief priesthood and panegyriarchy. This shows an inscription dated to around 100 C.E. refers to that the panegyris was held in the metropoleis of the one Tiberius Claudius Sokrates as “chief priest of province, and like the chief-priesthood, was funded Asia of the temple in Pergamon.”34 Kearsley rejected

35 Kearsley’s articles include bibliography and new citations: 29 Magie 1950, 448, 1295-1297 n. 57 (the latest document Kearsley 1986, 1987a and b, 1988a and b, 1990, 1994, and is that concerning the games for Trajan and Zeus Philios, see 1996. Also separating the two offices: Friesen 1999a and b. below); Moretti 1954, 282; Deininger 1965, 54-55; and L. Rob- 36 Campanile 1994a, 19-25; Wörrle 1992, 368-370; Herz ert 1968, 267 on the oakleaf crown awarded to the victors. 1992; Engelmann 2000. Herz 1992 held, however, that the first Fayer 1976, 113-118 and 123-125 disagreed with the identifi- chief priestess of Asia was only appointed after Drusilla the sister cation of Koina with Rhomaia Sebasta, and Magie 1950, 1296 be- of Gaius was made diva in Rome in 38 C.E.; this seems un- lieved that Augusteia was a civic festival, but now see Wörrle likely, as Livia was already a cult partner in the provincial 1992, 351, 359. temple at Smyrna (q.v.) from 26 C.E. 30 Engelmann and Knibbe 1989, 125-129 sec. 57, perhaps 37 IGRR 4:1608c, from Hypaipa, 41 C.E. Also see IGRR dating from the celebration of 8 or 12 C.E. 4:1611b, C. Julius Pardalas, also at Hypaipa, and Buckler and 31 Fayer 1976, 112-113. Robinson 1932, no. 8.10, M. Antonius Lepidus; both of the 32 Campanile 1994b contains the most recent bibliography. time of Augustus. 33 Rossner 1974. For further discussion, see chapter 41 on 38 Fayer 1976, 125. the koina and their officials, below. 39 IGRR 4:454. 34 IGRR 4:1239, from Thyateira. 40 Clerc 1886, 416 no. 25. 22 part i – section i. koinon of asia by the koinon (see summary chapter 41, ‘The The radiate bust, brassy fabric, and broad letter Koina,’ in Part II). forms of this coin indicate that it is post-Augustan. Attached to the provincial temple at Pergamon Unfortunately the abbreviation for ‘neo(koros)’ is not was a choir of up to forty men who were “hymnodoi clear on any of the coins, but the placement of the of the god Augustus and the goddess Rome.” They die-cutter’s drill holes should indicate that the in- had come together for the first time to sing the empe- itial letter was indeed N; and the alternative makes ror’s praises voluntarily and without pay. This so no sense.46 If it could be confirmed by a clearer impressed Augustus that he made the choir perma- example, this would be the only coin to show nent and hereditary, to be supported by a levy on Pergamon as simply neokoros. the entire province. One of their chief duties was Other coins likely from Trajan’s time also glori- to sing at provincial celebrations of the birthday of fied Augustus and his temple: Augustus and those of subsequent emperors, and COIN TYPE 11. Obv: they maintained their own private cult of the em- PERGAMHNOI %EBA%- Laureate head of Augustus, r. Rev: perors in the hymnodeion.41 In Claudius’ time it was TON AU- Four-column temple, decreed that hymnodoi should come from among TOKRATORA KAI%ARA cuirassed emperor with sceptre within; monogram the ephebes of the Asian cities, but the choir at in exergue. a) SNGCop 462 b) Berlin, von Rauch Pergamon was exempted42 and hymnodoi of the god c) Berlin, Löbbecke (RPC 1:400 no. 2355). Augustus continue to be mentioned well into the second century C.E.43 COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AUTOKRATORA %EBA- Pergamon adopted the title ‘neokoros’ by around %TON KAI%ARA Laureate head of Augustus, r. 100, perhaps ten or more years after it had been Rev: %EBA%TON PERGAMHNOI Four-column incorporated into the titulature of Ephesos.44 Inscrip- temple, cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a) tions 1-4 simply call the Pergamenes neokoroi, while BMC 236, misdescribed (RPC 1:400 no. 2356). 6-10, of the first fifteen years of the second century, The latest known inscription to use the single neo- add ‘first’ to the city’s titles. A particularly interest- koria, without enumeration, is Pergamon inscription ing bronze coin type, perhaps datable to Trajan’s 10, which is dated by the proconsulship of C. Antius time and thus contemporary with these inscrip- Aulus Julius Quadratus to ca. 109/110.47 Quadra- tions,45 may in fact be one of the first to use the title tus, a Pergamene who had risen to the highest rank ‘neokoros’ for the city: among the Roman senatorial aristocracy, did not COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AU KAI%ARA %EBA%TON forget his home city. He would soon take on the Radiate head of Augustus, r. Rev: PERGAMHNVN expenses of a festival founded in honor of Perga- NEV (or K%V) Four-column Corinthian temple mon’s second provincial temple. on stepped podium, disc in pediment; within, cuirassed emperor with sceptre and phiale. a) Lon- don 1894.7-6-38 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 49) b) Warsaw Second Neokoria: Trajan 59700 b) New York, Newell. Pergamon, site of the first provincial imperial temple in Asia, inaugurated a new era in the provincial imperial cult in the reign of Trajan: it was the first 41 The main document is an altar dedicated to Hadrian city to receive a second provincial imperial temple. Olympios that lists the names of about 35 hymnodoi with their officers, celebrations, and fees: IvP 260-270, no. 374; Fayer The event was unprecedented, though not unlooked- 1976, 125-127; S. Price 1980, 30 n. 15. for. Augustus had allowed one such temple in one 42 Halfmann 1990. For the Pergamene exemption, see the city per province. Later Pergamon, along with ten edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus, dated to 44 C.E., IvE 17-19. other cities of Asia, petitioned the Senate for per- 43 IvP no. 523 (= IGRR 4:460) (Antonine, mentioning a priest of the goddess Faustina). mission to build a new temple of Tiberius. The city’s 44 IdA 158-161. Dräger 1993, 113 dangerously assumed, and 119 stated as a fact, that Pergamon called itself neokoros of the emperors by the time of Domitian or before, but no such 46 Personal communication of the late M. Price concern- document has yet been found; see also 176-180. His treatment ing the London example. of titulature, 107-121, though a worthy effort, was flawed by 47 Eck 1970, 171; Eck 1997b, no. 1; Halfmann 1979, 112- such false assumptions throughout. 115; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 95; Stumpf 1991, 267-269; 45 RPC 1:400 no. 2357. Weiser 1998, 289. chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 23 chief inducement, its possession of the temple to overstepped the usual boundary drawn between the Rome and Augustus, backfired: the Senate consid- god and the emperor (who, as will be seen, were rep- ered that temple to be honor enough.48 The same resented by distinct images on Pergamene coins), restriction prevented Pergamon from gaining an- it presages the later identification of Hadrian with other neokoria under Gaius: Augustus was held to Zeus Olympios and Eleutherios throughout the Greek have ‘preempted’ (prokateilÆfasi) Pergamon.49 world. Thus when the city was granted a second imperial The new cult at Pergamon seems to have been temple by Trajan, it set a precedent that would be consistently compared with and modeled on that of followed eagerly throughout Asia: the precedent of Rome and Augustus in the same city, as is shown multiple neokoriai. The title ‘neokoros’ was in fact by coins and by the inscriptions that document its the only one among many (e.g. ‘metropolis,’ ‘most sacred contests. These inscriptions were found in the illustrious,’ ‘first of the province,’ ‘greatest,’ ‘most area of the temple itself, and probably formed part beautiful’) that could be multiplied for the same city of its foundation documentation.54 They consist of (i.e. a city could be twice neokoros but not twice various letters, orders, and a decree of the Senate metropolis), an aspect which added to its attractive- concerning the status of and arrangements for the ness in the century to come. new festival. Judging from Trajan’s titulature The second provincial temple was dedicated to (Optimus but not yet Parthicus), they date between Zeus Philios and Trajan. This aspect of Zeus, un- August 114 and February 116.55 The grant of the documented at Pergamon previously, was probably festival was probably contingent upon and second- brought in to share the cult with Trajan much as ary to the grant of the provincial temple, just as it the goddess Rome had been brought in to share cult had been in 29 B.C.E.56 with Augustus.50 Zeus was a natural choice as chief The first part of the dossier is a letter, probably of the gods, who grants rule to kings. The cult name from the proconsul of Asia. The recipient has been Philios (in Latin, Jupiter Amicalis), focuses on the god’s restored as the council and people of Pergamon, a patronage over the bond of friendship, particularly restoration which seems appropriate when compared in the sense of alliance: for example, in the Hellen- with the events of 29 B.C.E.; though the koinon istic period, Zeus Philios had joined the personifica- made the petition for a provincial temple, the right tions of Concord and Rome in presiding over loyalty to celebrate a festival in its honor was given to the oaths among Asian cities and between them and Pergamenes. The letter refers to the ‘second’ festi- Rome.51 The god may also have been particularly val as having the status of sacred, just as the festi- appropriate to Trajan, as Dio Chrysostomos both val for Rome and Augustus was. Next is the Latin named him in his first oration on kingship, and dwelt decree of the Senate, really an affirmative answer on friendship’s benefits to kings in his third oration, to a petition of the Pergamenes. It declares that the both perhaps delivered before the emperor himself.52 contest in honor of Jupiter Amicalis and Trajan Indeed, on coins issued to commemorate the con- (named in that order) should be eiselastic, that is, cord between Thyateira in Lydia and Pergamon, that winners should receive the honor of a trium- perhaps at the time of the grant of the provincial phal entry into their own cities. Also, the new con- temple, an ordinary laureate obverse portrait of test was to have the same status as that for Rome Trajan as Germanicus and Dacicus is also titled and Augustus (also named in that order). The next ‘Philios Zeus.’53 Though this assimilation may have section, a summary of the emperor’s directions, repeats this statement and calls the contest pen- taeteric. The final text, Trajan’s letter to the Per- 48 Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56; chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ 49 Cassius Dio 59.28.1; see chapter 3, ‘Miletos.’ 50 Stiller 1895; Nock 1930b, 28. 51 Reynolds 1982, 6-11 no. 1; on the aspect of friendship, Thériault 1996, 84 n. 384. statue base of the People of the twice-neokoroi Pergamenes 52 Oration 1.37-41 (echoed in the Olympian oration, 12.75- dedicated by Thyateira; also Pera 1984, 38-40. 76), Oration 3.86-132. A perceptive view of Dio’s possible pre- 54 IvP no. 269 (IGRR 4:336; CIL 3:7068). Note that these sentations is Swain 1996, 187-206; also C. Jones 1978, 117. particular documents refer only to contests, not to temples; this Bonz 1998, 260-267 instead saw an overwhelming ideology is made unnecessarily problematic by Schowalter 1998, 238- emanating from Rome. 239. 53 BMC 145; Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 166; Kampmann 55 Kienast 1996, 122-124. 1996, 78-79, 126 no. 154, with discussion of an unpublished 56 Cassius Dio 51.20.9; Hanslik 1965, 1094-1100. 24 part i – section i. koinon of asia gamenes, is very fragmentary, but mainly concerns of a senatorial family, son of a former consul, to the success of the petition.57 become a provincial chief priest.63 On the other Despite the fact that the koinon is not mentioned, hand, there must have been very few, if any, other was this festival on a provincial scale? The term chief priesthoods that, like the one cited in inscrip- ‘sacred’ and constant references to the precedent set tion 11, included in their duties the supervision of by the festival for Rome and Augustus indicate that more than one temple; and nothing forbids a pro- it was.58 After all, as Dio documented, permission vincial chief priest from being honored by his own to celebrate the festival honoring Pergamon’s first city. Quadratus the father, as a citizen and bene- provincial temple had also been granted to the factor of the city of Pergamon, may have used his Pergamenes, not to the koinon. That the temple of influence in the province (as its recent proconsul) and Zeus Philios and Trajan was provincial is shown by in Rome (as friend to the emperor) to obtain the pro- a change in the titulature of the chief priests of Asia vincial temple and/or the sacred contest for his after its establishment: the chief priest (or chief priest- city.64 The latter, at least, we know he paid for. It ess, or Asiarch) of the temple in Pergamon becomes would have been a proper reward for his benefac- 59 that of the temples in Pergamon. The only new note tion to both city and province that his son, as chief is the endowment: expenses for the new contest were priest of the province, should preside over the to be paid by C. Aulus Antius Julius Quadratus, the temples in Pergamon, including the one his father emperor’s ‘most illustrious friend.’ This funding is had been instrumental in attaining. not necessarily inconsistent with provincial status; Newly discovered inscriptions from Aizanoi com- there is no evidence at all about who endowed the memorate three chief priests and a chief priestess of earlier festival for the temple of Rome and Augustus. temples in Pergamon, and show two of the chief There is no reason why even provincial festivals priests’ agonothetic crowns decorated with nine or should not have been paid for by some wealthy 65 60 ten (chesspiece-like) imperial busts. In addition, a benefactor, if any could be found. Quadratus theologos of the temples in Pergamon is known from therefore became agonothetes of the provincial the Antonine period.66 Traianeia Deiphileia, and his son later held the office The temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan does not of chief priest of temples, almost certainly the two 61 appear on provincial silver as the temple of Rome provincial ones, in Pergamon: and Augustus had, but this is because such coinage INSCRIPTION 11. Habicht, IdA no. 20. The city wasn’t minted at the time. The temple does, how- honors the son of Quadratus. [{ boulØ ka‹ ~ ever, appear on bronze coins of the city of Perga- d{mow t}w mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ d‹w mon, where a whole series was devoted to both the ne]vk[Òrou pr]\thw [Perg]amhn«n pÒlevw new and the old provincial temples. §t¤mhse ÉA. [ÉI]oÊlion Kouadrçton érxiera- COIN TYPE 13. Obv: FILIO% ZEU% AUT teÊsanta filote¤mvw ka‹ éj¤vw na«n t«n §n TRAIANO(%, d) (%EB, abc) PER(GAMH, d) Four- Pergãmƒ. . . column Corinthian temple on high Roman po- Habicht, and then Halfmann, doubted that this dium, steps up the front, within it seated Zeus with priesthood was provincial because this inscription phiale and sceptre and laureate, cuirassed em- was not a decree of the koinon and because the peror with sceptre. Rev: YEA RVMH KAI YEV 62 temples are not specifically called provincial. In- %EBA%TV Four-column Corinthian temple on deed, it was rare, but not unknown, for a member 63 Campanile 1994a, 168-169; the close connection between 57 See Oliver 1989, 141-143, also 146-147, other (fragmen- high-ranking provincials and the imperial cult is emphasized tary) letters from Trajan to the Pergamenes. For imperial by Quass 1993, 149-151, while the provincial benefactions and constitutiones on the endowment of games, Herrmann 1980, 347. magistracies of the senatorial class are discussed by Eck 1980, 58 Despite Ziegler 1985, 65. 291. 59 Rossner 1974, 112, 124, 125, 129, 131 (chief priest); 131 64 Halfmann 1979, 112-115 no. 17. White 1998, 346-356 (chief priestess); 117 (Asiarch); 118 (chief priest who is elsewhere on Quadratus (though fraught with mistranslations through- known as Asiarch); and 121, 127 (chief priest and chief priest- out). ess in the temples in first and twice neokoros Pergamon). 65 Wörrle 1992, 349-368, 376; Rumscheid 2000, 12-14, 60 For such benefactions in general see Pleket 1976. 113-114 cat. 1. 61 For the son and the provincial status, see H. Müller 2000, 66 P. Aelius Paion, poet and rhapsode of the god Hadrian: 519-520 n. 6. IvE 22, decree of the technitai of Dionysos; L. Robert 1980b, 62 Halfmann 1979, 34. 16-17; Roueché 1993, 144-145. chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 25

stepped podium, cuirassed emperor with sceptre Severus.67 On the other hand, types 13 and 14, crowned by Rome with wreath and cornucopia issued under Trajan, differentiate the two temples within. a) BMC 263 b) BMC 264 c) BMC 265 d) with an interesting detail: the square shapes that BMC 266 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 50). flank the steps up the high podium of the temple of Trajan are lacking on the representation of the COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT [TRAI]ANO% %EB Greek-style temple of Augustus. This detail can be GERM DAKI Laureate draped bust of Trajan r. borne out from the actual remains: the square shapes Rev: FILIO% ZEU% TRAIANO% PERGAMHNVN Four-column Corinthian temple on high Roman represent the parastades, wings that flank the stairs podium, steps up the front, within it seated Zeus of the podium that still supports the temple of Zeus with phiale and sceptre and laureate, cuirassed Philios and Trajan at Pergamon. emperor with sceptre. a) BMC 262 (illus. pl. 18 The temple, sometimes called the Trajaneum, was fig. 51). set in a broad plaza on one of the highest points of the Pergamene acropolis, above the great Hellenis- COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AUT TRAIANO% %EBA- tic theater. It was originally excavated and published %T Laureate head of Trajan r. Rev: FILIO% ZEU% in the late nineteenth century; a project for resto- PERGA Seated Zeus with phiale and sceptre. a) ration and further research lasted from 1974 to BMC 259. 1996.68 Excavations in the substructure of the temple COIN TYPE 16. Obv: AUT TRAIANO% %EB(A, terrace have revealed small rooms or workshops of d) Laureate head of Trajan r. Rev. ZEU% FILIO% Hellenistic date, perhaps outbuildings of the palaces Head of Zeus r. a) BMC 260 b) BMC 261 c) SNGvA of the Attalid kings. No signs of an earlier temple 1394 d) SNGvA 1395. were found, so the cult of Zeus Philios and Trajan was likely new to the site.69 Two Hellenistic monu- COIN TYPE 17. Obv: AUGOU%TO% PERGA ments, one with an inscription of Attalos II (159-138 Four-column temple, capricorn in pediment, cui- B.C.E.), were probably displaced by this or other rassed emperor with sceptre within. Rev: %TR I Roman construction, but were reinstalled at the back PVLLIVNO% TRAIANO% Four-column temple, of the temenos on either side of the temple. cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a) BMC The temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan stood in SNGvA SNGCop 267 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 52) b) 1393 c) the midst of a broad plaza (70 x 65 m.), eventually 478 d) SNGRighetti 761. with a portico on either side and a hall with an Coin type 13, like the foundation documents from elevated colonnade at its back; its basis was an enor- the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan, draws the mous vaulted terrace facing south-southwest over the comparison between the city’s first provincial temple, city (illus. pl. 4 fig. 18). It can be said to have domi- that of Rome and Augustus, and the second, of Zeus nated, or perhaps crowned, the city of Pergamon, Philios and Trajan: one on the obverse, the other, and the orientation of its axis may have even de- so familiar from the cistophori, on the reverse. Type termined the lines of the city’s contemporary street 17, of smaller module, portrays the two temples in grid.70 The temple itself (illus. pl. 1 fig. 4) was a large a similar way, but due to the reduced size both (32 x 20 m.), tall (18 m. high) and richly decorated divine cult partners, Rome and Zeus Philios, are Corinthian hexastyle with ten columns on its long 71 eliminated, indicating in each temple only what the side. It was set up on a Roman-style podium, un- Pergamenes thought to be essential: the emperors, reachable except from the front, where the marble- Augustus and Trajan. This type also assimilates the two temples to one another except for Augustus’ 68 zodiac sign in the pediment of his temple; one can- Stiller 1895; Radt 1988, 239-250; yearly reports in Archäologischer Anzeiger, most recently, Radt 1993, 374-379, and not tell whether this detail reflects an actual feature Radt 1999, 209-220, 301-305, 350-351. of the temple or an iconographic marker to iden- 69 Radt 1978, 431; Hoepfner 1990b, 279-281, against K. tify it more plainly. Coin type 17 may in fact be of Siegler’s theory of a Doric temple of Zeus; Raeck 1999, 337. Zschietzschmann 1937, 1259-1260, had first posited an ear- later date than the others, as a magistrate named lier cult. Of course, the great altar of Zeus was not far away. Julius Pollio is known to have served under Septimius 70 On the expansion and regularization of the plaza and addition of the side colonnades, see Nohlen 1984, 238-249. On the city plan, Radt 2001, esp. 49, 53. 67 Münsterberg 1985, 70. 71 Stiller 1895. 26 part i – section i. koinon of asia clad podium swept out on either side to flank a flight Augustus on the earlier cistophori. Though this por- of steps; it is this feature that gives the facade its trayal has been interpreted as Trajan “respectfully particular appearance on the coins. Only a few approaching” the seated figure of Zeus, he is in fact marble orthostats remain of the altar that stood standing still, as the long spear or scepter that he before it. The temple’s high podium, its axial set- leans on shows.77 The contrapposto posture was stan- ting in an (eventually) colonnaded plaza, and the dard in male standing sculptures since Polykleitos. vaulted substructure of its terrace have all been noted The enthroned Zeus is as much a standard icono- as characteristic of imperial Roman architecture.72 graphic type as the armored emperor; the two fig- It has even been suggested that the Pergamene ar- ures do not interact as had the earlier statue group, chitect of this temple was also responsible for the in which Rome crowned Augustus. It is as if they temple of Venus and Rome, though mainly on the inhabited different planes of status: the emperor is basis of sculptural decoration, not layout.73 The one not costumed as an Olympian, but simply as em- may be called a Roman-style temple in a Greek city, peror, and the god does not respond to his presence. the other a Greek temple in the heart of Rome. Among the ruins of the temple’s cella in the vaults There were also Asian precedents, however. Helle- of the terrace below were found the marble frag- nistic temples in Asia Minor, such as the temple of ments, not of two, but of three colossal acrolithic cult Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia, had been placed statues: Zeus Philios, Trajan, and his successor on the axis of an enframing colonnaded courtyard Hadrian.78 It has been postulated that the statue of far earlier than any Roman example, and even the Hadrian, who was often identified with Zeus Olym- podium temple may have had native Pergamene pios, replaced the statue of Zeus Philios that previously antecedents.74 shared the temple with Trajan, or even replaced The architectural decoration of the temple was Trajan himself, but both hypotheses are unlikely. suitably imposing, if a trifle bland. Consoles in the The proof is the following coin issued in the reign frieze combined the acanthus motif of the columns of Trajan Decius (249-251): with a rising Ionic-style volute. Between the consoles COIN TYPE 18. Obv: were gorgoneia, combining a traditional apotropaic AUT K G ME% KUI TRAI- Radiate draped cuirassed bust of function with some overtones of imperial imagery: ANO% DEKIO% Trajan Decius r. Rev: they had been featured in the friezes of the temples EPI % KOMF GLUKVNO% Four- of the Deified Julius Caesar and of the Deified PERGAMHNVN PRVTVN G NEVKORVN column temple on high Roman podium, steps up Vespasian in Rome, and a gorgoneion was becom- the front; within, seated Zeus with sceptre and ing a standard feature on the breastplate or shield cuirassed emperor. a) London 1901.6-1-41 (illus. of imperial images.75 No pedimental sculpture was pl. 18 fig. 53). found, but perhaps there was a (metal?) shield in the gable(s), as the coins indicate. Rooftop akroteria con- On it appears the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan, sisted of interlaced acanthus shoots with a Victory its architecture and cult statues just as they had been standing on a globe in the center; the imagery of in the time of Trajan himself. That no legend was imperial victory is obvious, especially when emper- needed to identify it more explicitly indicates that ors on coins and as statues often held such Victory the temple and its inhabitants were readily recog- statuettes.76 nizable to the Pergamenes, and therefore that the Coin types 13-15 concentrate on this new temple cult of Zeus Philios and Trajan was still active well and its cult images. On them, Trajan’s contrapposto, over a century after it was founded. The temple’s standing with one knee bent, is not unlike that of appearance at just this time is an obvious bit of flat- tery to the current emperor, based on the city’s long- standing cult of his namesake; it is therefore unlikely 72 Lyttelton 1987, 39 posited that it was modeled on the that either the statue of Trajan or the statue of Zeus temple of Mars Ultor in the forum of Augustus at Rome; Gros (still seated) was replaced with a standing, cuirassed 1996-2001, 1.182 stressed the Roman elements, though he was incorrect about it also being a Hadrianeion (see below). Hadrian. 73 Strong 1953, 131-142; Felten 1980, 223-225; Boatwright 1987, 127-128; Strocka 1988, 297-299; Liljenstolpe 1996. 74 Waelkens 1989, 84-85. 75 Paoletti 1988, nos. 29, 31, 44; Bastien 1992, 2:341-367. 77 S. Price 1980, 42. 76 Vollkommer 1997, nos. 267, 56-58, 362-370. 78 Raeck 1993. chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 27

There had been some doubt about the existence was a cross wall. Pedestals for each standing emperor of, and even the room available for, a seated cult have been estimated at 2.5 to 3 m. wide, while that statue of Zeus Philios until parts of its face, torso and of the enthroned Zeus would have naturally been throne were found.79 Their measurements indicate yet larger. Possibly a new pedestal had to be made that the Zeus was on the same scale as the Trajan to accommodate the pair of emperors, though the and the Hadrian, about two and a half times life size. side-by-side arrangement of two figures standing in The two imperial statues, however, stood in exactly exactly the same pose does not seem particularly the same pose as one another, contrapposto with the felicitous. Interestingly, though Hadrian had granted weight on the left leg, the right arm raised (to hold permission only for a portrait and not specifically a a spear?), the lowered left hand holding an eagle- 80 cult statue or agalma, the new statue copied the cult headed sceptre. The pose reflects an exact mirror statue of Trajan in all its features, and was presum- image of the Trajan on the coins, but the reversal ably meant to receive similar respect. may be explained if the die-cutter sculpted the dies The two marble imperial heads are well pre- in the image he saw; coins struck from such dies served. Unlike the cult statue of Trajan on the coins, would come out in mirror-reverse. From the scale neither wears a laurel wreath; it could have been of the fragments, the standing statues may have been about 4.8 m. tall. The legs show attachment surfaces added in metal, though there are no cuttings in the for a wooden core in the acrolithic technique, and stone to show it, or even in actual foliage, as impe- 83 the surviving bits of marble also include hands, one rial statues were often ceremonially crowned. with a ring marked S, a sword, the head of an eagle Zanker found both portraits to be of an unusual style sceptre or hilt, and elaborately decorated high boots for Asia Minor, and postulated that they came from (illus. pl. 6 fig. 23). Many of the coin types that il- a western atelier, but Evers believed that both were lustrate Trajan’s statue beside Zeus Philios show the local.84 The treatment of Trajan (illus. pl. 7 fig. 24) emperor wearing just such high boots. is very different from, for example, that of the ear- The statues’ exact arrangement remains uncer- lier colossus of Titus at Ephesos (see chapter 4, tain. The limited area of the cella (only 8.5 m. wide) ‘Ephesos’). Where the latter was almost exaggerat- was only designed for two colossi, and at least origi- edly baroque, the former is more restrained and clas- nally, Zeus and Trajan perhaps stood side by side sicizing. Still, there is a distinct emphasis on the in the temple, in a position similar to that portrayed slightly windblown fringe of hair, the linear treat- on the coins. There may even have been a dividing ment of the eyes, and the slightly parted lips. Though wall down the cella between them, which would ex- the Trajan and the Hadrian are all but identical in plain why the two do not interact much with each pose, even turning their heads to the right at ap- 81 other. proximately the same angle, there are distinct dif- A fragmentary inscription, not yet published, may ferences in style between the two. Hadrian’s portrait 82 explain how the colossal statue of Hadrian fit in. (illus. pl. 7 fig. 25) offers more scope for a baroque The inscription seems to be the fragment of a let- treatment, with drilled curls in hair and beard; even ter from Hadrian to the Pergamenes, dated to the the eyebrows are ruffled. Where the sculptor of the last years of his reign, ca. 135-138. The Pergamenes Trajan concentrated on broad, smooth planes, that had apparently asked for permission to build a new of the Hadrian was more concerned with dramatic imperial temple to Hadrian himself, and though he effect, breaking up the planes of the face with hol- denied them this request, he allowed his own like- lows and wrinkles. The stylistic disparity tends to ness (‘eikon’) to be set up in the temple of his fa- ther. This is presumably how the colossal Hadrian indicate that the two were not carved at the same came to stand in the temple, though it must have time: the head of Trajan fits with the date of the been a tight squeeze in that cella, especially if there foundation inscriptions, 114-116, but that of Hadrian takes after a prototype dated in 128.85 Therefore the 79 Raeck 1993, figs. 4 and 5. 80 Radt 1988, 239-242. 84 Zanker 1983, 18 n. 41; Evers 1994, 89. 81 Radt 1988, 247. 85 Trajan: Berlin, AvP no. 281: Gross 1940, 61-62, 93 no. 82 Raeck 1993, 387; Schorndorfer 1997, 55 n. 212; Radt 26, of the ‘decennalia type’ after 108 C.E.; Hadrian: Berlin, 1999, 212, 350; to be published by H. Müller, Munich. AvP no. 282: Wegner 1956, 20, 23-24, 39, 59-61, 94; Evers 83 Pekáry 1985, 118-119; though in this case, of course, it 1994, 257-259, type of ‘Imperatori 32,’ connected with would have taken a ladder to do it. Hadrian’s becoming pater patriae and Olympios. 28 part i – section i. koinon of asia statue of Hadrian is likely to represent the eikon construction was delayed; or that they were con- granted after 135, perhaps ordered from the same nected with the letter of Hadrian referred to above. studio that sculpted the original cult statue.86 It is dangerous to guess the real import of this docu- At first, the complex dedicated to Zeus Philios and ment before its full publication, but from the snippets Trajan consisted only of the temple and the hall that have been cited, we know that the Pergamenes backing it on the north; the broad terrace was con- had asked for permission to build a temple of fined at east and west by plain precinct walls. Some Hadrian, and Hadrian had refused. This was quite time later, however, porticos were built on the east late in his reign, after he had permitted temples of and west sides of the precinct. Like those of the Asia to be built in Kyzikos, Smyrna, and Ephesos; earlier north hall, their columns had Pergamene-style had Pergamon asked for that privilege as well, the capitals with leaves, but the level of the side porti- granting of which would have made it the only city coes was lower than that at the back; it is uncertain yet to be three times neokoros? Possibly, or the re- how the roofing was resolved. Nonetheless, the com- quest may have simply been for a municipal temple; plex now resembled the forum temples of Rome, the refusal was apparently addressed to the Perga- except for the fact that it was completely open to menes, not to the koinon of Asia. the south. There, from the ends of the side porti- In any case, Hadrian did allow the Pergamenes coes, two buildings jutted winglike. Exploration of to put his portrait in the temple to his father. That the one on the west has revealed a large vaulted hall portrait was made as similar to the previous cult that may have been used for cultic gatherings, some image of Trajan as was possible, though the temple (third century) podia and wall paintings, and a con- itself was not changed or expanded. It could be that nection with one of the vaults of the terrace sub- the Pergamenes chose this moment to aggrandize structure. The underground setting has suggested the temple precinct with new porticoes, one or all imperial mysteries, but none have yet been docu- of which could have been named in honor of mented for this temple, though they were practiced Hadrian. Aelius Aristides recounts a dream about by the college of hymnodoi of Rome and Augustus.87 a Hadrianeion that may have been in Pergamon, but Other (cultic?) buildings were attached to either end it was situated in a place where bathing was pos- of the north hall: on its west end, behind the west sible, as this was not.90 In any case, the apsed end portico, was another large hall; and a row of small of the east portico of the temenos would have been rooms extended from its east end further east, per- suitable for an imperial statue, and in fact a replica haps serving as depots, workshops, or rooms for cult of a cuirassed torso found in the western annex of functionaries. the precinct has been set there today.91 The sash and The addition of east and west porticoes has been griffins on its cuirass are more typical of one of the attributed to a visit from Hadrian, either in 124 or later Antonine emperors than of Hadrian, as whom in 129.88 The date of construction is not certain, it is sometimes identified, and it is likely that images however, but is based on the assumption that only of later emperors were added and honored within the presence of Hadrian would have prompted such the complex.92 In any case, once all the documents a change in his father’s temple, with the added from the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan are fully possibility that the expansion’s entire purpose was published, we shall see whether the elaboration of the addition of Hadrian’s cult to Trajan’s. Whether the precinct could date after Hadrian’s letter of 135- Hadrian visited Pergamon in 124, 129, or at any 138. point, is in fact not confirmed by any document.89 The formula ‘first, neokoroi Pergamenes’ was Also, no modification was made to the temple itself; merely changed to ‘first and twice neokoroi Perga- only the precinct was elaborated. menes’ on inscriptions dated just after the grant: It is more likely that either the porticoes and their these include inscription 12, which like the docu- attachments were intended in the original plan, but ments for the contest is dated by Trajan’s titulature

90 Aelius Aristides, Oration 47/Sacred Tales 1.29. C. Jones 1998, 74. A Hadrianeion did not have to be a peripteral temple: 86 Evers 1994, 90. S. Price 1984b, 134, 260 no. 59; Boatwright 2000, 24 n. 30. 87 Radt 1999, 219-220, 351. 91 Radt 1982; a base and dedication by Quadratus are also 88 Nohlen 1985; Radt 1999, 212, 218-219. mentioned. Radt 1999, 218-219. 89 Halfmann 1986a, 191, 199. 92 Niemeyer 1968, 49-50. chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 29 between August 114 and February 116, through in- It was also during the joint rule of Marcus Aure- scription 15, dated about 120. After that, Pergamon lius and Lucius Verus that the title ‘neokoros’ first began to use the title ‘metropolis’ as well, and the began to appear regularly on coins of Pergamon, formula runs ‘metropolis of Asia and first, twice which state a simple ‘twice neokoros’ without much neokoros city of the Pergamenes’ (inscriptions 16- fanfare. The first coins to illustrate the temples with 18, 21-23, 25, 26, 28, 30-32) from the time of the title were issued under the strategos Claudius Hadrian to that of Septimius Severus. The qualifi- Nikomedes for Commodus Caesar: cation that Pergamon was twice neokoros ‘of the COIN TYPE 19. Obv: Augusti’ seems to be a late variation in the formula, M AURH KOMODO% KAI- Draped cuirassed bust of Commodus r., as the one datable inscription with this phrase is %AR beardless. Rev: Severan (inscriptions 24, 33, 34). The phrase also EPI NIKOMHDOU% B NEVKO- Two six-column temples on makes it clear that both Pergamene neokoriai were RVN PERGAMHNVN stepped podia, each with three dots in its pedi- granted for the imperial cult, not for the worship of ment, turned toward one another; between them, other gods, a consideration which is important in armed figure with sceptre and spear on a tall evaluating inscriptions 19 and 20. column. a) BMC 308 (illus. pl. 19 fig. 54) b) INSCRIPTION 19. Habicht, IdA no. 10. Statue SNGParis 2150 c) Berlin, Löbbecke. base of Marcus Aurelius. [{ ] } mhtr Òpoliw t w The obverse portrait is that of an adolescent rather ¤ \ ? ÉA[s aw ka‹ d‹w] nevkÒrow pr t[h ka‹ mÒnh t]oË than that of a boy, and so should date late in the } Svt row ÉAs[klhpio]Ë Pergamhn«n p[Òliw]. . . reign of Commodus’ father Marcus Aurelius, but INSCRIPTION 20. Habicht, IdA no. 11. Statue before the death of his mother Faustina in 175, as base of Lucius Verus. [{ mhtr]Òpol[iw t}w ÉAs¤aw the same strategos issued coins for her.97 The issue’s ka‹ d‹w] nevk[Òrow pr\th ka‹ mÒnh?] toË reverse displays the two temples as identical hexa- S[vt}row ÉAsklhpio]Ë Pe[rgamhn«n pÒliw]. . . styles in three-quarter view confronting one another. This representation conforms to neither topographi- This matched pair of statue bases of the co-emper- cal nor artistic reality, as other coins indicate that ors, dated to 162 C.E., was found in the Asklepieion the temple of Rome and Augustus looked different of Pergamon. Habicht restored the unprecedented from the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan, and formula ‘metropolis of Asia and first twice neokoros certainly would have been found by now had the and alone (neokoros) of Asklepios Soter’ on the basis former been located anywhere near the latter. The of Ephesos calling itself ‘alone neokoros of Art- die-cutter used a kind of numismatic shorthand, emis.’93 But the case of Ephesos (q.v.) in fact dis- conveying the concept of two temples of the same proves this restoration, as Ephesos’ neokoria of status and function (of the koinon, giving the status Artemis was granted by the emperor, not assumed of neokoros, for the imperial cult) by showing two by the city. At this point Pergamon never claimed temples exactly alike. For example, the temple of to be more than twice neokoros, and inscriptions 24, Trajan is not distinguished by its characteristic 33 and 34, as already mentioned, make it clear that parastades on this coin type. As has been discussed both neokoriai were for emperors.94 Perhaps a bet- in the introduction on ‘Methodology,’ such assimi- ter restoration would be \ d‹w nevkÒrow pr th ka‹ lations are the rule rather than the exception on or | 95 } ; the êsulow ( erå) toË Svt row ÉAsklhpioË multiple-temple types, and these types almost invari- right of asylum had after all been guaranteed to the ably represent temples for which the city is neokoros. Asklepieion by Julius Caesar, and approved by the In the case of Pergamon’s coin type 19, the two Senate in 22.96 temples flank a tall column, atop it an armored male figure holding spear and sceptre, a star to either side. 93 IdA 158-161. Though von Fritze identified this statue as Commo- 94 These points were overlooked by Collas-Heddeland 1995, dus, it is unlikely that such a major monument would 424-425, who also misunderstood Ephesos’ neokoria of Artemis, 422. have been erected for the still-young son of an 95 I owe this suggestion to an anonymous reader; see chapter emperor rather than for the emperor himself.98 The 10, ‘Tralles,’ inscriptions 1 and 2. 96 Tacitus, Annals 3.63; Rigsby 1996, 377-384 proposed that the original grant was late in the Attalid dynasty but was 97 Münsterberg 1985, 70. abrogated after the Mithridatic massacre of 88 B.C.E. 98 Von Fritze 1910, 77-78. 30 part i – section i. koinon of asia figure looks imperial, but other cities’ later issues, image on the reverse is clearly beardless. The same though perhaps modeled after this type, place non- strategos who issued this type also minted a joint imperial personages on the column between the issue for Severus’ sons Caracalla (as Augustus) and temples: issues of Nikomedia (q.v.) from 209-211 Geta (as Caesar), thus after 197 and before 209, show Demeter on the column, and a similar one of when Geta became Augustus.101 A beardless em- the koinon of Macedonia (Beroia, q.v.) may show peror could not be Septimius Severus, and a single Alexander the Great. The figure on the Pergamene figure is more likely to be the senior than the jun- column may be Marcus Aurelius, but the identifi- ior of his two sons. The sacrifice may have been on cation cannot be assured. some such occasion as Caracalla’s elevation to the During Commodus’ sole rule Pergamon issued title of Augustus after autumn 197, his assumption coins that celebrated imperial victories with the of the toga virilis in 201, or his marriage to Plautilla sacrifice of a bull (type 20). That type helps to ex- in April 202. The sacrifice did not have any direct plain a later issue that has been much misunder- association with the cults that made Pergamon twice stood: type 21, the sacrifice of a bull before an neokoros. imperial statue.

COIN TYPE 20. Obv: AUTO KAI M AURH Third Neokoria: Caracalla [KO]MO[DO%] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Commodus r., mature. Rev: E[PI] %TR M AI Pergamon was still only twice neokoros by 209, as GLU[KVNIANOU] PERGAMHNV[N B] NEVKO- coins of Geta as Augustus show. The occasion and RVN Cuirassed emperor with sceptre crowns tro- reasons for Pergamon’s receiving its third neokoria phy, a captive at its foot, on low pedestal; below, from Caracalla are fairly well documented. Herodian sacrifice of a bull. a) SNGParis 2166. stated that Pergamon was the first city that Caracalla visited in Asia, even before Ilion, though the epito- COIN TYPE 21. Obv: AUT KAI L %EP %EOU- mes of Dio imply the reverse.102 His motive appears Laureate HRO% PER IOU DOMNA %EBA%TH to have been to get treatment at the famous shrine draped cuirassed bust of Septimius Severus r. and of the healing god Asklepios. The visit was probably draped bust of Julia Domna l. Rev: EPI %TRA at the end of 213, before Caracalla went on to win- KLAUDIANOU TERPANDROU; PERGAMHNVN B ter quarters in Nikomedia; a base dated to 214 was Cuirassed emperor, beardless, with NEOKORVN found with its twice-lifesize, veiled portrait of the em- sceptre and phiale on high pedestal; below, sac- peror in the Asklepieion.103 rifice of a bull. a) SNGParis 2209 (illus. pl. 19 fig. As Pergamon’s coins are distinguished by the 55) b) SNGParis 2208 c) Berlin, Fox d) Berlin, names of yearly strategoi, they are fairly easy to Löbbecke e) New York, Newell. group, though more difficult to date.104 The names Von Fritze believed that a sacrifice to the emperor of three strategoi appear on coins registering Perga- could not be held outside of ‘neokorate cult.’ There- mon’s third neokoria under Caracalla. The major- fore he had to identify the beardless emperor as ity of the coins are of medallic size, suitable for either Augustus or Trajan, the two emperors with celebratory issues. The coins of M. Caerelius Attalos, koinon temples in Pergamon.99 But sacrifice to and however, make the most of the new neokoria, with for emperors did exist at private and municipal as types showing the three imperial temples and with well as provincial levels.100 Type 20 also shows a types of the emperor both in military and in civil- sacrifice on a special occasion, in this case an im- ian dress presiding at sacrifices before Pergamene perial victory symbolized by Commodus crowning temples, especially those of Asklepios (both the stand- a trophy. Type 21 is less specific, but a hypothesis regarding the identification of its images can be worked out from the following observations. Despite 101 BMC 315, e.g.; Kienast 1996, 162-167. the fact that the obverse shows a fully bearded 102 Herodian 4.8.3; Cassius Dio ep. 78.16.7-8, also 78.15.2- Septimius Severus with his wife Julia Domna, the 7 on his ailments. 103 Halfmann 1986a, 227; also Letta 1994b, documenting the emperor’s arrival in Nikomedia on January 1, 214. The portrait: Bergama Museum inv. no. 163, Inan and Rosenbaum 99 Von Fritze 1910, 77 pl. 8.15. 1966, 84-85 no. 60. 100 S. Price 1980 and 1984b, 207-233. 104 Münsterberg 1985, 70-71. chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 31 ing and a seated image, see below) and his compan- For the purposes of this study the most important ion deities.105 The coins of Julius Anthimos, on the of M. Caerelius Attalos’ issues are the multiple- other hand, show Caracalla only in military dress temple types. The three temples for which Pergamon and emphasize his triumph; where the emperor hails was neokoros are shown as architecturally similar, the city goddess of Pergamon, there is no architec- but are identified by minute letters in their pediments tural setting.106 Thus the coins of Attalos are likely as the temples of Aug(ustus), Tra(jan), and An(to- to be earlier and to refer to the visit of 213, while ninus), i.e. Caracalla. Thus they confirm what has those of Anthimos were probably minted later, when been assumed up to this point, that Pergamon be- the Parthian campaign was in full swing. Only one came neokoros for the temples of (Rome and) Augus- coin of the third strategos, M. Aurelius Alexandros, tus and (Zeus Philios and) Trajan. Yet the temples is yet known to mention neokoria; it is difficult to of those two show normal imperial images, while the place him precisely, but he should not be confused central temple displays a seated, bearded male fig- with Tiberius Claudius Alexandros, who was a later ure with his left arm holding up a staff, and a snake strategos, under Elagabalus. curled in his lap. That this is not an alternate im- age for Caracalla is shown by coin types on which COIN TYPE 22. Obv: AUT (KRAT K MARKO% the togate emperor presides at a sacrifice before the ac b AUR, ; KAI M AUR %EOUHR, ) ANTVNEINO% same temple to the same seated god: Laureate cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: EPI %TR M KAIREL ATTALOU PERGAMHNVN COIN TYPE 24. Obv: AUT KRAT K M(ARKO%, PRVTVN G NEVKORVN Three temples on abdefgh) AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate cuirassed stepped podia, each with wreath at apex; outer bust of Caracalla r. Rev. EPI %TR M KAIREL two six-column, each with cuirassed emperor on ATTALOU PERGAMHNVN PRVTVN G NEVKO- pedestal with sceptre within, in one pediment RVN Togate emperor with phiale and scroll turns AUG, in the other TR(A, c); center temple four- toward four-column Corinthian temple (above, column, seated male holding snake and staff abcdef; in three-quarter view, gh); in pediment within, in pediment AN. a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer (disc, a; dot, g; AN, f); seated within, a draped b) New York ANS 1944.100.43356 (illus. pl. 19 male with snake and staff; youth sacrifices bull be- fig. 56) c) SNGvA 7513. fore the temple. a) SNGParis 2246 b) SNGParis 2245 c) SNGParis 2247 d) Berlin, Löbbecke e) New COIN TYPE 23. Obv: AUT KRAT K MARKO% York, Holzer f) Munich107 (illus. pl. 19 fig. 58) g) Laureate cuirassed bust of AUR ANTVNEINO% BMC 324 h) SNGParis 2230. Caracalla r. Rev: EPI %TR M KAIREL ATTALOU PERGAMHNVN PRVTVN G NEVKORVN Three That an emperor should be portrayed sacrificing to Corinthian temples on stepped podia; lower two himself as divinity makes no sense. Yet coins and four-column (six-column, ij), turned toward each inscriptions (below) insist that Pergamon was three other, a dotted circle in each pediment; higher, times neokoros of the Augusti, and on several coins center one four-column, AN in pediment, seated the initial letters of Caracalla’s name fill the temple’s draped male holding snake and staff within. a) pediment. A similar case of temple-sharing would BMC 327 b) Oxford 36.10 c) SNGParis 2227 d) soon occur at Smyrna (q.v.), where the cult of Cara- SNGParis 2229 e) SNGParis 2228 f) SNGCop 500 calla was apparently moved into the ancient temple g) SNGvA 1411 h) SNGvA 1412 i) Berlin, Löbbecke of the goddess Rome, and Smyrna too became three j) Berlin, Löbbecke k) New York, ANS 1944.100. times neokoros of the Augusti. Thus it is likely that 43357 (illus. pl. 19 fig. 57). Caracalla shared a temple at Pergamon with another god, and it is that cult partner to whom he sacri- fices.108 This concept may seem odd, but there 105 For an artistic analysis of the group of issues celebrat- would be other occurrences: on contemporary coins ing the emperor’s worship of Asklepios, see Kadar 1986. For of Smyrna, the goddess Rome carries in her arms a socio-political slant, see Harl 1987, 53-54. For the protocol of imperial visits, Lehnen 1997, 77-84, 182 n. 558, more on the temple that she shared with Caracalla; and later, literary than visual evidence, and on the latter tending more to the late antique at Rome than the provinces. 106 E.g. BMC 319, SNGCop 499. Metcalf 1999, 14 took the 107 Von Fritze 1910, pl. 8.7. opposite view of the two magistrates’ chronology, but did not 108 Despite Nock 1930b, 24-25, who did not take all the consider all the relevant types. coin types into account. 32 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Philippopolis’ coins would show Elagabalus sacrific- exedra to Hadrian.113 The topic of imperial dedi- ing before the temple of his own cult partner Apollo, cations will be dealt with in examining the so-called while on Aigeai’s coins, Severus Alexander, holding temple of Hadrian at Ephesos (q.v.). But in the case Asklepian attributes, would sacrifice to Asklepios in of Pergamon, the coins that show the third temple the temple they shared (qq.v.). for which neokoria was given without the other two Cult partners, of course, were the rule rather than and in the most detail depict it as Corinthian, not the exception at Pergamon. Augustus had as cult Ionic like the temple on the theater terrace.114 partner the goddess Rome, and Trajan had Zeus Von Fritze recognized the seated god as Asklepios, Philios; it was only proper that Caracalla also share though he still wanted to place him in the temple his temple. The question is, with whom? on the theater terrace.115 Asklepios had been por- One trail, but a false one, led to Dionysos Kath- trayed as enthroned with a snake before him on egemon.109 This untenable hypothesis was based on coins of Pergamon from the Hellenistic period.116 the fact that his Ionic temple on the terrace at the The original cult image of the god at Pergamon may foot of the Pergamene theater was reconstructed in have been based on the famous chryselephantine the third century, and that on its entablature the fol- statue by Thrasymedes at Epidauros, the ultimate lowing dedication could be restored: source of the Pergamene cult (Pausanias 2.26.8). But though both were enthroned, contemporary coins INSCRIPTION 35. IvP 299 (IGRR 4:362; cf. AvP depict them somewhat differently: the Pergamene 1.2 no. 229110). Inscription of the epistyle of the god has no dog under his chair; feeds his serpent Ionic temple of Dionysos Kathegemon on the the- with a phiale rather than holding his right hand over ater terrace of Pergamon. Restored from nail its head; the snake faces toward the god, not away; holes left by the original bronze letters. AÈtokrã- and the god’s staff is held behind his lowered left ¤ ¤ tori Ka s[ari M. AÈr. ÉAntvne n]vi Sebas[t«i arm, not as an upright prop for a raised arm.117 { Pergamhn«n t]«n tr‹w nevkÒ[r]vn mhtrÒpoliw. Recent debate has raged over whether this is a rep- The slightly awkward syntax of this phrase could resentation of the famous statue by Phyromachos perhaps be improved by changing it to [{ t«n that King Prusias of Bithynia stole in 156 B.C.E.; Pergamhn]«n tr‹w nevkÒ[r]vn mhtrÒpoliw. This is where in Pergamon he stole it from; and whether it the earliest inscription of the Pergamenes as three was ever returned.118 These considerations have little times neokoroi yet known. The restoration to Cara- import for the question before us, however, as the calla was based on the fact that he had granted seated image of Asklepios that appeared in Cara- Pergamon its third neokoria, and it was assumed that calla’s temple on Pergamene coins was rather dif- a new inscription on the temple’s epistyle meant the ferent from the earlier Hellenistic coin image. presence of a new cult partner in the temple. The Starting in Antonine times, the seated god has his original god was mentioned in another, fragmentary left arm raised, leaning on his staff, as in the Epi- inscription, likely from a naiskos within the temple dauran image; a marble figurine in the same pose itself; von Prott identified him as Dionysos, probably and also probably Antonine was found in the Asklep- rightly.111 A dedication to an emperor, however, was ieion itself.119 There are three variants as well: ei- an honor inscribed on many types of buildings, not ther the snake curls in front of the god,120 twines a necessary sign that the imperial cult was practiced within. Emperor’s names were added to the archi- 113 IvP nos. 287, 293. traves of temples as famous as the Parthenon and 114 Even S. Price 1984b, 253 no. 23, seemed to conflate the the Temple of Athena at Priene.112 Among non- two; bibliography of the dispute there. 115 Von Fritze 1908, 28-35; 1910, 50-51. sacred buildings at Pergamon itself, the entry to a 116 Wroth 1882, 14-16, 20. bath complex was dedicated to an emperor, and an 117 The Pergamene coin: BMC 73; Penn 1994, 18-19, 57- 59. De Luca 1990 has noted the differences, where others have not: Stewart 1979, 12-16; Holtzmann 1984; Westermark 1991, 151 no. 11, 155-156. 109 Von Prott 1902; Ohlemutz 1940, 103-117. 118 Polybius 32.15.1-6; Diodorus Siculus 31.35; Andreae 110 Conze et al. 1912-1913, 284-285. 1990, 75-77; H. Müller 1992; Andreae 1993, 96-105; Ridgway 111 IvP 300; von Prott 1902, 180-188. 2000, 234. 112 Von Gaertringen 1906, no. 157; Carroll 1982, 59-63, 119 De Luca 1990, 26-28 pl. 14. though Nero’s name is in the accusative, not the dative, in the 120 Von Fritze 1910, pl. 5.17 and von Fritze 1908, pl. 3.20 latter. (Antoninus Pius); on a concord coin, the god holds an image chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 33 round his staff,121 or, in the case of the minuscule would be distinct from the temple of the seated god representations on coin types 22-24, moves up into which Caracalla shared, and which gained Perga- the god’s lap. It is difficult to tell whether these mon its third neokoria.124 The standing image, as variants represent different cult images, the same cult mentioned above, was more popular on Pergamon’s image as affected by lack of space on the coins, or coins of the imperial period, where Asklepios served simply different ways of depicting Asklepios himself. as the city’s patron god.125 It was also picked up on In fact, the seated god’s appearances on post- the coins of many other cities, not only due to the Antonine coins are far outnumbered by those of a authority of the Pergamene sanctuary, but to the ten- standing Asklepios, who stands as the city’s symbol dency of the minting centers to standardize iconog- on its concord coinages, as will be seen. raphy from one city to another.126 Putting aside the Can the enthroned image, or its temple, be iden- question of Phyromachos, however, Kranz’s thesis tified? Its combination of the attributes of Zeus and is thrown into doubt by coins of Commodus and Asklepios brings to mind the Pergamene god Zeus Caracalla that show the temple of the standing Asklepios, whose temple was mentioned by Aelius Asklepios as Corinthian and six-column, while the Aristides and whose name is preserved in a Perga- rotunda’s facade had only four columns.127 In fact, mene inscription.122 The temple of Zeus Asklepios no temple in the Asklepieion has yet been shown to has been identified as an important building in the have six columns.128 And though Müller would like sanctuary of Asklepios just outside the city, a build- to eliminate the current attribution of several temples ing that took the Pantheon in Rome as its model in Pergamon to Asklepios, there may have been at (illus. pl. 1 fig. 6).123 Its stepped porch is four-col- least one such temple outside the Asklepieion, at least umn and Corinthian like the coins, and leads into by Antonine times.129 The young Marcus Aurelius a broader and higher pronaos, also gabled; their made a metaphoric trip to the arx of Pergamon to standard temple format mediates between the viewer entreat Asklepios for his teacher Fronto’s good and the rotunda which was unprecedented for a health; though the journey may have been imagi- temple at that time and in that place. Within the nary, that need not make a temple on the heights almost 24 m. diameter hall, originally decorated with imaginary too.130 variegated marble revetment, there is a 2 x 2 m. If the rotunda was not the temple of the seated plinth for a cult statue in a 9.15 m. tall niche oppo- Asklepios and Caracalla, there is yet one more site the entry. Another marble base ca. 1 x 2 m. was known temple to Asklepios: the one on the rocky found near the center of the rotunda, but this was scarp in the Asklepieion known as the Felsbarre. This probably reused, not in its original position. was likely the main temple of the Asklepieion from The temple of the seated god is portrayed on the the third century B.C.E. down into Roman times. coins as a standard temple, however, and though the Its god was known as Asklepios Soter, and is gen- suppression of a rotunda behind a columnar facade erally identified with the standing image.131 The may be due to numismatic abbreviation, coins that show the temple in three-quarter view also make it seem a detached peripteron. As yet no sign of im- 124 Kranz 1990, 130-141. perial cult has been found in the round temple in 125 Holtzmann 1984, 866-867; Kampmann 1996, 8-11. the Asklepieion. 126 Kraft 1972; Kranz 1990 overlooked this point, which led him to overplay Hadrian’s imposition of a cultic program Kranz claimed that the cult statue of the round on the Asian cities. For further critique, see Kampmann 1996, temple was a standing image, which he identified 10-11 and Schorndorfer 1997, 51-52; 153-155 on the Hadrianic as the Asklepios of Phyromachos; if this were cor- Asklepieion. 127 Commodus: BMC 295; Caracalla: von Fritze 1910, pl. rect, the round temple with the standing image 8.9. 128 Ziegenaus and de Luca 1968, 72-73 (Roman temple of of Artemis Ephesia instead of the phiale, von Fritze 1910, pl. “Bauphase 15”); see below for temples on the Felsbarre. 9.20 and SNGCop 517 (Commodus). 129 H. Müller 1992, 214-215; though perhaps correct that 121 SNGFitzw 4231, von Fritze 1910, pl. 5.15 and 1908, pl. neither Ionic ‘temple R’ nor its Doric predecessor were nec- 3.19 (Commodus). essarily temples to Asklepios. 122 IdA 11-14, 102-103 no. 63. 130 Fronto, Letters to Marcus Caesar 3.9; 3.10.2, ed. M. van 123 Ziegenaus 1981, 30-75; Radt 1988, 260-261; Radt 1999, den Hout (Leipzig 1988); C. Haines, ed. Marcus Cornelius Fronto 230-232; Gros 1996-2001, 1:182-183. For the construction (Cambridge MA 1982) 1:50-51; M. van den Hout 1999, 115- technique, a combination of a Roman brick dome on a more 118. traditional ashlar drum, see Waelkens 1987, 95. 131 De Luca in Ziegenaus and de Luca 1968, 28. 34 part i – section i. koinon of asia temple was also the likely scene of an earlier cult back in the reign of Commodus became the Olym- partnership: during the reign of Attalos III (138-133 pia Asklepeia Komodeia. Thus the festival long predated B.C.E.) a five-ell high cuirassed agalma of the king, the neokoria that Caracalla granted to Pergamon.136 standing on a trophy, was installed “in the temple It may have had something to do with the emperor’s of Asklepios Soter, to be a synnaos to the god.”132 The cult partner, but that question is complicated by temple itself, however, is neither six-column (like that problems in identifying that god among the various of the standing Asklepios) nor Corinthian (like both aspects of Asklepios available at Pergamon, as dis- temples on Caracallan coins); it is another small cussed above. Ionic temple, tetrastyle prostyle with no peripteron— The latest known inscription calling Pergamon not very different from the one on the theater ter- neokoros, inscription 36, probably dates soon after race, in fact.133 Its stylobate was 13.08 x 6.54 m. Caracalla’s visit, as the priestess it honors is recorded measured outside the columns, and its cella was ca. as having been greeted three times by ‘the god 5.7 x 4.8 m. within. If the agalma of Attalos III is Antoninus’ (not necessarily deified in the Roman any guide, at least one and likely two statues of he- sense, i.e. dead, at the time of the inscription):137 roic size, ca. 2.64 m. tall not counting the base, were INSCRIPTION 36. IvP 525 (IGRR 4:451; OGIS once crammed inside the cella, which also featured 513). The city honors a citizen. } \ a rock-cut shaft in its center. t w pr thw mh- } ¤ On the Pergamene triple-temple coins, even when tropÒlevw t w ÉAs aw ka‹ tr‹w nevkÒrou t«n the center temple is identified by the letters in its Seb(ast«n) Perg(a)mhn«n pÒlevw . . . pediment and no emperor stands before it to sacri- A coin issued under the strategos Anthimos uses all fice, the image within remains that of the divine cult its space to expand these titles to their utmost, as partner rather than that of the emperor. This con- “the first of Asia and first metropolis and first three- sistency, of course, would have helped make the times-neokoros-of-the-Augusti city of the Perga- temple recognizable to those who handled the coins. menes”: It is also likely that what made the god’s image COIN TYPE 25. Obv: recognizable was that his cult was already well AUT KRAT K MARKO% Laureate cuirassed bust of known, and that Caracalla’s cult had been moved AUR ANTVNEINO% Caracalla r. Rev: into an already existing temple; the emperor’s cult [EPI %TR] IOUL ANYIMOU Wreath, within which would also be situated in an established temple at H PRVTH TH[% A]%IA% Smyrna (q.v.). But if the coin images are to be KAI MH[TRO]POLI% PRV[TH KAI] TRI% trusted, archaeological research has not yet found NEVKORO% PRVTH TVN %EBA%TVN PERGA- a) BMC 318. that particular temple at Pergamon. MHNVN POLI%. The coins of Julius Anthimos, as mentioned This coin makes it quite clear that Pergamon was above, were probably minted later than those of M. claiming more than simple primacy among the cities Caerelius Attalos, and they concentrate on the fes- of Asia. ‘First metropolis’ and ‘first three times tival Olympia.134 No direct connection between this neokoros of the Augusti’ may indicate claims of festival and the grant of the third neokoria can be chronological as well as qualitative primacy: the established, however. The Olympia at Pergamon may former based on Pergamon’s possession of the first reach back to the time of L. Cuspius Pactumeius provincial imperial temple to Rome and Augustus, Rufinus: friend of Aelius Aristides and builder of the the latter on having obtained a third neokoria be- temple of Zeus Asklepios, he was also Pergamon’s fore any other city. Some artful wording was nec- priest of Zeus Olympios, the deity whose cult flour- essary here, as Ephesos (q.v.) became three times ished under the patronage of Hadrian.135 The coins neokoros before Pergamon did, but that city’s title of Anthimos likely only refer to a long-established had been diverted to honor Artemis, not the em- festival at Pergamon, the Olympia Asklepeia, which peror. As for the other competitor, Smyrna called itself ‘first of Asia, three times neokoros of the Augusti’ on coins of Caracalla’s reign, without any 132 H. Müller 1992, 206-212; idem 2000, 540 n. 113. 133 Ziegenaus and de Luca 1975, 5-16. 134 Von Fritze 1910, 80-82; Karl 1975, 97-100 should be taken with reservations. 136 L. Robert 1930, 106-108; Moretti 1953, 197-198. 135 Halfmann 1979, 154 no. 66; Habicht 1969, 9-11. 137 S. Price 1984a. chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 35 repetition of ‘first.’138 It is indeed more likely that in pediment, remains of figure within. a) BMC 336 Pergamon became neokoros for Caracalla before b) SNGParis 2265 c) SNGParis 2266 d) SNGCop 502 Smyrna did, as Pergamon was one of the first cities e) SNGvA 1417 f) Berlin, Löbbecke. he visited on his final tour of Asia. The city of Pergamon continued to mint with the Pergamon’s happy position was soon threatened, title ‘three times neokoros’ down to the end of its however. Macrinus, who was said to have killed his coinage, in the reign of Valerian and Gallienus. It predecessor, withdrew some grants made by Cara- had been not only the first city in Asia to receive a calla to the Pergamenes. They insulted him in turn, koinon temple to the ruling emperor, but also the and he responded by publicly stripping them of first to receive a second and become twice neokoros; honors. The story is told by Cassius Dio, who knew and though its rival Ephesos may have had a head the details well; Macrinus later sent him to keep start on its third neokoria, that honor fell under a order in Pergamon and Smyrna.139 Under Macrinus, cloud and Pergamon became three times neokoros many of the cities that had been made neokoroi by soon after. It was not without reason that the city Caracalla ceased to mention the honor on their coins called itself ‘the first of Asia and first metropolis and or inscriptions (see chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis’). first three-times-neokoros-of-the Augusti city of the Smyrna, the other city put under Dio’s authority, Pergamenes.’ had previously minted and cited its neokoros status abundantly, but suddenly stopped minting alto- gether. Even Ephesos (q.v.), which may have won INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: its case for primacy before the emperor, possibly lost its neokoria of Artemis. But Pergamon seems to have Neokoros: been the city most forthcoming and inventive in its 1. IvP no. 461 [IGRR 4:447; see Habicht 1969, 139- insults to Macrinus, and suffered in proportion. Like 140, 159]. The council and people of the neokoroi Smyrna it issued no coins citing neokoria, possibly Pergamenes honor a citizen. Dated by Habicht to no coins at all, in his reign, and inscriptions stripped ca. 100. of the usual magniloquent city titulature may be 2. Hepding 1910, 472-473 no. 58 [IGRR 4:1689]. datable to that time.140 It has even been suggested The city honors a citizen; language parallel to that that the city lost its independent college of hymnodoi of inscription 1. of Rome and Augustus, the first and most prestigious 3. Hepding 1907, 330-331 no. 62 [IGRR 4:453]. The of Asia.141 city honors a citizen; titulature and letter forms simi- After Macrinus’ death and the condemnation of lar to those of inscriptions 1 and 2, thus similar date. his memory, however, the titles, including ‘first, three 4. IdA no. 157. Inscription on architrave and sima times neokoros,’ returned, and became a standard of the gate from the city into the Asklepieion. part of Pergamon’s coin legends, though only a few Titulature and date similar to inscriptions 1-3.142 later types (such as type 18 above, under Trajan 5. IG 12.2 no. 243 [CIG 2189; also CIG 3486 and Decius) recall the specific temples for which the city IGRR 4:1293, a copy from Thyateira]. From near was neokoros: Mytilene; that city honors a Pergamene, calling COIN TYPE 26. Obv: AUTOKR K M AUR %EBH- Pergamon ‘first’ as well as neokoros. RO% ALEJANDRO% Laureate cuirassed bust of 6. Hepding 1907, 335-337 no. 66 [IGRR 4:459]. The Severus Alexander r. Rev: EPI %TR K council and people of the first, neokoroi Pergamenes TERTULLOU PERGAMHNVN PRV(TVN, cd) G honor a Basilissa.143 NEVKORVN Three Corinthian temples; lower two 7. Hepding 1907, 331-333 no. 64. The city honors three-column(!), turned toward each other (a the son of a chief priest of Asia. Titulature same as wreath over each, d); center one four-column, dot that of inscription 6.

138 See chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis’; examples of the Smyrna coin type are BMC 405, 406 and Berlin 619/1914. 139 Cassius Dio 79.20.4, 80.7.4. This was not noted by Baharal 1999. 142 Dräger 1993, 178, special pleading to date this inscrip- 140 Habicht 1969, 18-19, 71-74. tion as early as Domitian. 141 Halfmann 1990, 26. 143 Gagé 1968, 119 n. 21. 36 part i – section i. koinon of asia

8. Hepding 1907, 333-335 no. 65. The city honors 24. IdA no. 24. The city honors a quaestor pro the brother of the honoree of inscription 7; same praetore of the time of Septimius Severus. Titulature titulature as inscriptions 6, 7. the same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-23. 9. IvP no. 438 [IGRR 4:375]. The city honors C. 25. IdA no. 34. The city honors the philosopher Antius Aulus Julius Quadratus in reign of Trajan. Hermokrates, dated to Severan times.146 Titulature Same titulature as inscriptions 6-8. the same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-24. 10. IvP no. 441 [IGRR 4:385]. The city honors 26. IdA no. 35. The city honors the Cappadocian Quadratus as proconsul of Asia in ca. 109/10; see in- sophist Diodotos, dated to the end of the second or scription 9. Titulature the same as in inscriptions beginning of the third century.147 Titulature the 6-9. same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-25. Twice neokoros: 27. Heberdey and Kalinka 1896, 3 no. 8 [IGRR 11. IdA no. 20. Pergamon honors the son of Quadra- 4:908]. From Kibyra. The koinon honors a chief tus. Enumeration restored. See discussion above. priest and priestess of Asia of the temples in first and 12. IvP no. 395 [IGRR 4:331]. Statue base of Trajan, twice neokoros Pergamon. Undated. dated by his titulature to 114-116. The Pergamenes 28. Ippel 1912, 299-301 no. 25 [IGRR 4:1687]. are first and twice neokoros. Dedication by the daughter of the proconsul Qua- 13. Ippel 1912, 301 no. 26 [IGRR 4:1688]. Honor- dratus of inscriptions 9-10 (sister of the Quadratus ific dated by the proconsulship of Ti. Caepio Hispo of inscription 11) to her mother. Titulature the same to 117/118 or 118/119.144 The city has the same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-26; not securely titulature as in inscription 12. dated, though assigned by White to 120-128.148 14. IvP no. 520 [IGRR 4:452]. The city honors a ci- 29. Ziebarth 1902, 445-446 [IGRR 4:426]. An hon- tizen; titulature the same as in inscriptions 12 and 13. orific restored from the Latin of Cyriacus of Ancona; 15. IvP no. 397 [IGRR 4:339]. Statue base of titulature similar to that of inscriptions 16-18, 21- Hadrian, dated by his fourth consulate to 120; the 26, and 28. Dated to the middle or the end of the city’s titulature is the same as on inscriptions 12-14. second century. 16. IdA no. 38. The council and people of the me- 30. IdA no. 32. The city honors a Pisidian philoso- tropolis of Asia and first twice neokoros city of the pher; titulature the same as that of inscriptions 16- Pergamenes honor a citizen; Hadrianic. 18, 21-26 and 28. Undated. 17. IdA no. 37. The city honors a citizen; titulature 31. IdA no. 30. The city honors a benefactor who the same as on inscription 16. Hadrianic. was chief priest of Asia of the temples in Pergamon. 18. IdA no. 23. The city honors a citizen; titulature Titulature the same as that of inscriptions 16-18, 21- the same as on inscriptions 16 and 17. Time of 26, 28 and 30. Undated. Antoninus Pius. 32. IdA no. 42. The council honors a citizen; the 19. IdA no. 10. Statue base of Marcus Aurelius, ca. city’s titulature the same as that of inscriptions 16- 162. See discussion above. 18, 21-26, 28, 30 and 31. Undated. 20. IdA no. 11. Statue base of Lucius Verus, ca. 162. 33. IdA no. 54. The council of the metropolis of Asia See discussion above. and first twice neokoros of the Augusti city of the 21. IvP no. 324 [IGRR 4:360]. Introduction to an Pergamenes dedicates the statue of a citizen. Un- oracle on averting a plague, perhaps that brought dated. 145 back from the East by Lucius Verus’ troops. 34. Von Prott and Kolbe 1902, 9697 no. 89 [IGRR Titulature same as that of inscriptions 16-18. 4:480]. Fragment; titulature similar to that of inscrip- 22. Habicht 1959/1960, 126-127 no. 2. Statue base, tion 33. Undated. dated between 147-150 and the end of the century. Three times neokoros: Titulature same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21. 35. IvP no. 299. Epistyle of the Ionic temple of Dio- 23. IdA no. 28. Statue base of Marcus Aurelius’ ab nysos Kathegemon on the theater terrace of Pergamon. epistulis, dated by the imperial titles to 173-175; the See discussion above. city’s titulature is the same as that of inscriptions 16- 18, 21 and 22.

146 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.25. 144 Magie 1950, 1583; Syme 1958, 2:665. 147 Ibid. 2.27. 145 Historia Augusta, Verus 8; Ammianus Marcellinus 23.6.24. 148 White 1998, 354, 364. chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 37

36. IvP no. 525. Honorific for a priestess who had Geta Caesar: SNGParis 2254, 2255. been greeted by Caracalla. See discussion above. Geta Augustus: SNGParis 2256, 2257; Berlin (2 exx.), Lon- Not included among these inscriptions is: don, Vienna. Three times neokoros: IvP no. 524 [IGRR 4:475]. The restoration ...érxie- Caracalla: BMC 318-327; SNGCop 499, 500; SNGvA 1411- r°v]w ÉAs¤aw ka[‹ t}w pr\thw mhtropÒle]vw ka‹ 1414, 7513, 7514; SNGParis 2218, 2223-2225, 2227- nev[kÒrou tÚ g' patr¤dow] is extremely odd. It is 2234, 2236-2252; Berlin (19 exx.), Boston (6 exx.), more likely to form part of the cursus of the husband London (2 exx.), New York (10 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), of the priestess honored, thus [ ¤ Vienna, Warsaw (2 exx.). érxier°v]w ÉAs aw Julia Domna: BMC 317; SNGParis 2214-2216; Berlin (4 ka[‹ ...... érxier°]vw ka‹ nev[kÒrou toË...... ] exx.), London, Oxford. Elagabalus: BMC 331, 332; SNGParis 2258, 2259, 2261; Berlin (5 exx.), Vienna. COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Julia Maesa: Berlin, Oxford. Severus Alexander: BMC 333-335; SNGCop 502-504; Neokoros?: SNGvA 1417, 1418, 7516; SNGParis 2263-2267; Ber- Trajanic?: London, New York, Warsaw (see above, coin lin (5 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford, type 10). Vienna. Twice neokoros: Julia Mamaea: BMC 337; SNGCop 505, 506; Berlin (4 Marcus Aurelius: BMC 285, 286, 288, 289; SNGCop 486; exx.), New York, Vienna (2 exx.). SNGvA 1404, 1405; SNGParis 2123-2135; Berlin (5 Maximinus: SNGCop 508; SNGvA 7517; SNGParis 2270- exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), 2272; Berlin (2 exx.). Maximus Caesar: BMC 340; Berlin. Oxford, Vienna. 149 Lucius Verus: BMC 291-294; SNGvA 7506; SNGParis Maximinus or Maximus (obverse erased ): BMC 338, 2143-2148; Berlin (7 exx.), London, New York (2 339; SNGCop 507, 508; SNGvA 7517; SNGParis 2273; exx.). Berlin (3 exx.), London, Oxford. Commodus Caesar: BMC 295, 305, 308; SNGvA 1406, Gordian III: BMC 341, 342; SNGCop 509; SNGParis 2274- 7507; SNGParis 2149-2151, 2155; Berlin (6 exx.), 2276; Berlin (4 exx.), London, Vienna. Boston, London, New York (3 exx.), Warsaw. Trajan Decius: BMC 343; SNGvA 1418-1420; SNGParis Commodus Augustus: BMC 304, 307; SNGvA 1408, 7508; 2283, 2284; Berlin, London (3 exx.), New York, SNGParis 2165, 2166, 2168-2170; Berlin (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). New York, Vienna (2 exx.). Etruscilla: SNGParis 2287; Berlin, New York. Septimius Severus: BMC 309, 311-313; SNGCop 495; Herennius Etruscus: SNGvA 1421; SNGParis 2288, 2290, SNGvA 7509-7511; SNGLewis 1345; SNGParis 2189, 2291; Berlin, Boston, New York (2 exx.), Oxford, 2191, 2193-2202, 2205; Berlin (15 exx.), Boston (2 Vienna. exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford Valerian: BMC 345; SNGCop 511; SNGvA 1422, 7518; (3 exx.), Vienna (7 exx.). SNGParis 2292, 2293; Berlin, New York. Septimius Severus and Julia Domna: BMC 314, 315; Gallienus: BMC 346-348; SNGCop 512, 513; SNGLewis SNGCop 497; SNGParis 2208-2211; Berlin (6 exx.), 1346; SNGParis 2294-2299; Berlin (5 exx.), Oxford, Boston, London, New York (4 exx.). Vienna. Septimius Severus and Caracalla: BMC 316; SNGParis Salonina: BMC 349; SNGCop 514; SNGRighetti 764; 2212; Berlin. SNGParis 2304, 2305; Berlin (4 exx.), New York, Julia Domna: SNGCop 498; SNGParis 2213; Oxford, Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Vienna. Saloninus Caesar: SNGParis 2306, 2307 (misattributed); Caracalla: SNGParis 2217, 2219, 2221, 2268 (the last Berlin, Boston, Vienna. misattributed). Non-imperial obverse: BMC 235; SNGCop 460; SNGParis Caracalla and Geta Caesar: BMC 328-330; SNGCop 501; 1963 (incorrect); Berlin, New York. SNGvA 1415, 1416, 7515; SNGParis 2253; Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Vienna. 149 Berghaus 1978. 38 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 2. Smyrna in Ionia: Koinon of Asia

First neokoria: Tiberius temple at Nikomedia for the entire first century, whereas Asia may have dedicated new provincial Less than a decade after the death of Augustus, the temples for subsequent rulers, perhaps even for each Greeks of Asia again petitioned to build a temple emperor. to a reigning emperor, this one to Tiberius. In 22 In regard to the earlier award, no author informs C.E. the Asians had successfully prosecuted C. us how Pergamon had been chosen for the honor, Silanus for his depredations as proconsul, and the but Tacitus is quite explicit about the contest for the next year they also won their case against Lucilius temple of Tiberius in 26, three years after the origi- Capito, a procurator of imperial holdings in Asia nal grant: who had usurped the powers of a praetor. In return Caesar, to divert gossip, often attended the Senate, for these favorable judgements, “the cities of Asia and for quite a few days he heard the ambassadors decreed a temple to Tiberius, his mother, and the of Asia disputing about in which city the temple should Senate. Permission to build was granted, and Nero be built. Eleven cities competed, equal in ambition [the young son of Germanicus] gave thanks to the but differing in resources. With little variety they all Senate and to his grandfather [the emperor] on that recalled their antiquity and their zeal for the Roman 1 people through the wars with Perseus, Aristonikos, account.” and the other kings. But the people of Hypaipa, Tacitus, to whom we owe the description of these Tralles, Laodikeia, and Magnesia were passed over events, stated specifically that the cities of Asia took as not up to it; even the Ilians, though they boasted the initiative in offering the temple. Both prosecu- Troy as the mother of the city of Rome, were strong tions had been carried on by the province as a only in the splendor of their antiquity. There was some hesitation over the Halikarnassians, who whole; indeed, the most persuasive advocates of all claimed that their home had never been shaken by Asia stood against Silanus. Therefore it can be as- earthquake in twelve hundred years, and that the sumed that both the court cases and the vote of foundations of the temple would be in living rock. thanks were the products of the provincial organi- The Pergamenes (and they were using this itself as zation of Asia, the koinon.2 In this the precedent set an argument) were judged to have been honored by the foundation of the temple of Rome and Augus- enough by the temple to Augustus there; the Ephe- sians and Milesians were seen as having totally de- tus at Pergamon (q.v.) was followed, as this act too voted their cities to the worship of Artemis in the had been the result of a province’s petition, not an former case, Apollo in the latter. So the decision lay imperial ukase. But this time Bithynia, which had between the Sardians and the Smyrnaeans. previously been coupled with Asia in requesting a Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56. temple to Augustus, took no part. Bithynia had no interest in the prosecutions of Silanus and Capito Tacitus reported the ensuing debate in detail, but which were the reasons for offering the temple, but to sum it up, the Sardians fell back on the two ar- it also indicates a point at which the two provinces guments of antiquity and loyalty to Rome, while also began to diverge. The koinon of Bithynia apparently tracing a genealogical connection between the remained content with its one provincial imperial Lydians and the Etruscans. Smyrna too related its ancient origins, but relied chiefly on its ties to Rome, which rested on cult, not genealogy, and were both 1 Tacitus, Annals 3.66-69; the quotation from 4.15. Dräger more recent and more tangible than the hazy le- 1993, 98 incorrectly allied this establishment of a new provin- cial cult with aid given to Asian cities damaged by the earth- gends offered by the Sardians. Smyrna, its envoys quake of 17 C.E. claimed, had been the first to erect a temple to the 2 Brunt 1961, 206-220, 224-225; Deininger 1965, 56-57. goddess Rome, in 195 B.C.E., “when Roman power, chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 39 though great, was not yet at its height; for Carthage plete enough to appear in detail on coins of Petro- still stood and there were mighty kings in Asia.” nius, whose proconsulship lasted the six years be- Carthage in 195 was not much of a threat, nor, as tween 29/30 and 34/35 C.E.6 it turned out, were the kings of Asia; and Smyrna COIN TYPE 1. Obv: %EBA%TH %UNKLHTO% had built its temple to Rome not through admira- (or %UNKLHTOU) ZMURNAIVN IERVNUMO% tion or altruism, but more as a reward for Roman 3 Draped youthful male bust of the Senate r. and assistance against Antiochos III. Yet to mention diademed draped bust of Livia l., turned toward Carthage and kings before the Roman Senate was each other. Rev: EPI PETRVNIOU %EBA%TO% to recall for it some of its proudest moments. It was TIBERIO% Four-column Corinthian temple, disc this that appealed to the Senate more than all the in pediment; within it the emperor, togate, head contrived genealogies. Add a rather melodramatic veiled, holding simpulum. a) MvS 212-214 no. 26 episode, when the Smyrnaeans stripped the clothes (59 exx.; here Vienna 17731 is illus. pl. 20 fig. from their backs to send to Rome’s suffering legions, 59).7 and the Senate (by a vote of four hundred to seven) decided for Smyrna.4 The three objects of cult are identified explicitly, In Tacitus’ account, the ambassadors of eleven Sebaste (Julia Augusta, i.e. Tiberius’ mother Livia) and individual cities, not of the koinon as a whole, were the youthful Senate on the obverse, Tiberius Sebastos pitted against one another and retailed their claims, in his temple on the reverse. By no coincidence, not in a meeting of the koinon, but directly before Pergamon issued a very similar-looking series of the Senate and the emperor.5 Why the Greeks of coins (Pergamon type 6) under the same proconsul. They answered Smyrna’s pride in its new temple Asia, who apparently had themselves presented with pride in its Pergamene precedent, the temple Pergamon as the site for Augustus’ temple, should of Rome and Augustus.8 Even the small Phrygian abdicate choice at this point is a puzzle that needs city of Tiberiopolis honored its namesake by emu- to be explained. Possibly the koinon had been dead- lating the Smyrnaean coin type almost exactly, locked. Its two greatest cities, Ephesos and Per- though it is uncertain whether the coin of Tiberio- gamon, had both received important cult centers in polis represents the temple and cult statues in the grant of 29 B.C.E. The next candidate may not Smyrna or copies of them in Tiberiopolis itself.9 have been so obvious. It is noticeable that after the That the personified Senate should share the cult emperor’s and Senate’s acceptance of the temple, with Tiberius, as Rome had with Augustus, does not three years intervened before the site for it was seem unnatural, since the Senate’s decision had debated in the Senate. The koinon may have cho- brought Silanus and Capito to punishment. Indeed sen to let the Senate make the decision in order to Tiberius harped on this very fact in a speech of the break a deadlock, or to avoid lasting resentment year 25 reported in Tacitus, Annals 4.37. A delega- among the cities that were not chosen. tion from the province of Hispania Ulterior had Once Smyrna was finally selected, the Senate asked permission to build a shrine to Tiberius and appointed a special commissioner to the proconsul his mother, using the temple granted to Asia as a of Asia to take charge of the new temple. This is precedent. Refusing it gave Tiberius an opportunity likely to have been a supervisory position, and does to state his opposition to any extension of divine not necessarily mean that Rome was undertaking honors for himself beyond the limits set out by any of the costs of the foundation. In any case, soon Augustus. “Since the deified Augustus did not for- after the decision of 26 C.E. the temple was com- bid that a temple to himself and to the city of Rome be built at Pergamon, I who view as law all of his

3 Mellor 1975, 14-16; Fayer 1976, 11; Errington 1987, 100- 102. 6 Corsten 1999. 4 Lewis 1991. The vote count is given by Aelius Aristides, 7 MvS (= Klose 1987); see also Burnett, Amandry, and Oration 19.13; Aristides’ portrayal differs from Tacitus’ in that Ripollès 1992 (= RPC 1), no. 2469. ‘the rest of Asia’ got only seven votes, while Smyrna got four 8 Klose 1996, 53-63, esp. 58. hundred, but the address was written in extreme haste (see 9 BMC 1, pl. 49 no. 6; Kienast 1985, 258-261. On the ob- below). Talbert 1984, 149, 284 defended the accuracy of this verse, Livia and the Senate are called ‘twins,’ perhaps a refer- count. ence to Artemis and Apollo, although their images resemble 5 Ziethen 1994, 97-98, 229 did not note this oddity. those at Smyrna, not the gods. 40 part i – section i. koinon of asia deeds and words have followed his example all the served coins show the temple itself as Corinthian, more readily because reverence for the Senate was but no trace of it has yet been found at Smyrna. joined with my own cult.”10 The image of the Sen- As early as the second year of Petronius’ procon- ate shown on contemporary coins of Smyrna is a sulship, the name of a (chief?) priest of Tiberius draped bust of a beardless youth wearing a fillet Caesar Sebastos, Julia Sebaste, and the Senate ap- around his head; a similar image, minus the fillet, peared in a letter from the proconsul to the gerousia would frequently appear on coins of Smyrna and of of Ephesos.16 Though the editors believed that the her neighbors down to the later third century.11 man in question, L. Cossinius or Coussinius, was a The third partner of the cult at Smyrna, however, civic priest in the Ephesian gerousia rather than at was no abstract personification but the mother of the the temple in Smyrna, the fact that Petronius called emperor, and there was no Augustan precedent for him his friend hints that he could have been a holder this. Yet if Tacitus’ account in Annals 4.15 is correct, of provincial office; and after all, Ephesians had no the Asians specifically included her in their proposal provincial temple of their own to serve as yet.17 Civic for a temple in 23, as they did the Senate. Tacitus bodies probably did honor the current emperor and made much of Tiberius’ alleged discord with Livia, the Senate in their ceremonies, but the specificity based upon his standard refusal of special honors of this priest’s three cult objects should indicate that voted to her (Annals 1.14, 3.64, 5.2).12 This refusal he served either the temple in Smyrna, or at the very in fact differs very little from his standard refusal of least an Ephesian cult modeled on it. honors voted to himself, which Tacitus also inter- Later documents cite a chief priest of Asia spe- preted to Tiberius’ detriment. Livia was not only the cifically assigned to the provincial temple in Smyrna, emperor’s mother, but the widow and priestess of as distinct from the chief priest of Asia whose respon- the deified Augustus, sole Augusta, member of the sibility was the temple of Rome and Augustus at Per- gens Julia, and the true dynastic link between the gamon (q.v.).18 Thus Asia became the one province dead emperor and the reigning one, and many forms yet known to have more than one chief priest serv- of divine honor were extended to her.13 Her image ing at the same time.19 The documents do not tell at Smyrna wears the diadem of a goddess for the us precisely how this double priesthood functioned first time yet known.14 Perhaps she had used her within the meetings and activities of the koinon, but influence in the Asians’ behalf, and they were grate- it is likely that the chief priest at Pergamon retained ful; or perhaps it was simply dangerous and undip- seniority.20 lomatic to overlook her. Even the embassy from At least two chief priestesses are specified as hav- Hispania Ulterior was careful not to do so, though ing served at Smyrna.21 These were often female re- the Senate never appeared as an object of cult in lations of a chief priest or Asiarch, though their that request. standing and functions are still disputed. Herz held Tiberius’ image at Smyrna did not take after the that they presided over the cult of the Augustae, and precedent of Augustus’ cuirassed portrait in Perga- that the first chief priestess of Asia was only ap- mon. On contemporary coins, Tiberius appears in pointed after Drusilla, the sister of Gaius, became full toga and with his head veiled, and where the the first woman officially deified in Rome in 38 coins are clear, the ladle-shaped simpulum in his C.E.22 This is a trifle Romanocentric, however: as right hand can be seen. Thus Tiberius took the role of Roman pontifex maximus; the selection of this 16 Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1993, no. II.9; also aspect may have been directed by Valerius Naso, corrected by Scherrer 1997, 97. whom the Senate had placed as commissioner in 17 Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1993, 142-143 for 15 the name. charge of the Smyrnaean temple. The better-pre- 18 Tiberius Claudius Meidias, after Claudius: IGRR 4.1524, from Sardis. 19 Deininger 1965, 37-41; Campanile 1994b. 20 For discussion and more recent literature on chief priests, 10 See Charlesworth 1939. chief priestesses, and Asiarchs, see Pergamon chapter, above, 11 MvS 23. and the summary on the officials of the koina, chapter 41 in 12 On Tiberius’ ambivalent attitude toward such honors, Part II. especially those in Rome itself, Bartman 1999, 108-112. 21 Both after the time of Hadrian when Smyrna had more 13 Mikocki 1995, 151-170 nos. 1-132; Hahn 1994, 34-105. than one temple: IGRR 4.1254, from Thyateira, Ulpia Marcella; 14 Rose 1997a, 23, 60, 180-181. and Petzl 1987 (= IvS), 727 and 772, Aurelia Melite. 15 As implied by Rose 1997a, 181. 22 Herz 1992, 103-105. chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 41 we have seen, Julia was a full cult partner with Tibe- early as the reign of Domitian (inscriptions 1-3, rius and the Senate in Smyrna’s provincial temple below). The title does not appear on coins earlier from at least 26 C.E. onward. An inscription dat- than the reign of Caracalla, perhaps because most ing to the reign of Gaius cites one Juliane, wife of of the space in Smyrna’s coin legends was generally Alkiphron the chief priest of Asia, as the first woman devoted to magistrates’ names. Smyrna was, how- to become chief priestess of Asia;23 but the inscrip- ever, the first city known to issue a coin type that tion also praises Juliane for holding a number of specifically refers to that honor: it shows the temple- other priesthoods and offices (stephanephoria and bearing city god who represents the city itself as gymnasiarchy at Magnesia, both more likely to have neokoros. This image, extensively studied by Pick been taken during her widowhood), and it is not in 1904, first appears on coins issued ca. 87/88, impossible that the couple’s chief priesthood of Asia under the Domitianic proconsul L. Mestrius Flo- had occurred a decade or so before. Also, there is rus.26 some evidence against pairing the gender of the COIN TYPE 2. Obv: priest with that of imperial cult objects: statues of DOMITIANO% KAI%AR Laureate head of women wearing agonothetic crowns, one identified %EBA%TO% GERMANIKO% Domitian r. Rev: by inscription as a chief priestess of the Augusti (not EPI L ME%TRIOU FLVROU Amazon Smyrna seated, Augustae), show them with both male and female ANYUPATOU ZMUR holding small temple and double axe. a) BMC 110 imperial busts on them, just like the crowns of male (illus. pl. 20 fig. 60) b) Berlin 640/1878 c) SNGvA agonothetai.24 7998 d) MvS 238-239 nos. 4-9 (4 other exx.). (RPC Hymnodoi to sing the emperor’s praises were 2 no. 1018).27 already a feature of the cult of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon (q.v.). Another such organization of COIN TYPE 3. Obv: DOMITIANV KAI%ARI hymnodoi may also have been instituted for the %EBA%TV ZMURNAIOI THN A%IAN Veiled temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate at Smyrna. draped bust of Asia l., with sheaves. Rev: EPI L In the edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus, proconsul of ME%TRIOU FLVROU ANYUPATOU Amazon Asia under Claudius, the duties of hymnodoi were Smyrna seated, holding small temple and double supposed to devolve onto the ephebes, thus saving axe. a) Berlin, Fox (MvS 145 no. 74; RPC 2 no. the cities money; the sole exceptions made were for 1020). the hymnodoi of Augustus at Pergamon and, in frag- The city god is in this case the eponymous Amazon mentary lines, for those of Julia Augusta, whom founder of Smyrna. In her role as patron and city Claudius had recently deified.25 The edict may be symbol, she appears from this time to the end of referring to hymnodoi of Julia at Smyrna, even Smyrnaean coinage, carrying her double axe, pelta- though the other objects of cult at this temple, shield, as well as a number of attributes (including Tiberius and the Senate, are not mentioned; neither small images of other patron gods) as necessary. does the edict mention Rome, the cult partner of Klose doubted whether she was in fact the city as Augustus, even though later documents at Pergamon neokoros, mainly because she first appears on coins (q.v.) confirm that its choir continued to be called of Domitian’s time rather than that of Tiberius, and ‘hymnodoi of the god Augustus and the goddess because she continues to carry one temple rather Rome.’ The emphasis on Julia’s deification may than the eventual three that made Smyrna three reflect the proconsul’s Roman attitudes, not the cult times neokoros.28 But this simplification may have practiced by the Asians; Tiberius himself had not been the result of an artistic problem: as the Ama- been deified. But the fragmentary state of this part zon had to carry or wear a number of attributes to of the inscription means that nothing is certain. be recognizable (axe and shield in her left hand, Although the temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the mural crown on her head, prow beneath her foot), Senate was later to be included among those that she barely had room to carry one temple, much less gave the city the title ‘neokoros,’ Smyrna did not use an eventual three. The fact that the coin image that title until late in the first century, perhaps as

26 Pick 1904, 2 nos. 1-2. For Florus, Stumpf 1991, 228-230, 23 Kern 1900, no. 158. with his year of office dated no later than 89/90. 24 Rumscheid 2000, 31-32, 37-38; see ‘Koina’ chapter 41. 27 Burnett, Amandry, and Carradice 1999 (= RPC 2). 25 IvE 17-19; on hymnodoi Halfmann 1990, 21-26. 28 MvS 27-28. 42 part i – section i. koinon of asia appears some time after the grant of a provincial that cannot be reconciled with the Ionic octastyle temple does not necessarily indicate that the two temple on its Roman podium. Therefore the coin were not connected; after all, the title ‘neokoros’ also types under Domitian probably refer to two distinct postdates the building of the temple to Tiberius, and temples.32 coincidentally also first appears during the reign of The Amazon Smyrna with her temple became Domitian (here inscription 2). Klose posited that the one of the stock characters of Smyrnaean coinage, temple Smyrna carried was closely associated with commemorating Smyrna’s neokoros status rather her, but he could not suggest a particular temple, than some festival or ceremony. This symbolism per- nor what, other than the possession of neokoria, the haps also explains why she never holds more than depiction of a city god carrying a temple might one temple, though Smyrna became more than once mean. If the tiny temple were meant to be seen as neokoros; the type became standardized, and was specific, it would be difficult to identify; if it were reproduced as an emblem of the city without much the city goddess’, for example, why would she be change thereafter. shown carrying it rather than presiding within it? On Once the temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the Sen- the other hand, in the symbolic shorthand of coins, ate had been built, Smyrna’s candidacy for further a city god holding an (unidentified) temple denotes temples was impeded: according to Cassius Dio, quite clearly the concept of city as neokoros, temple when the emperor Gaius was looking for a site for warden. Eight other neokoroi cities used the temple his own cult in Asia, Smyrna was judged to have bearer to illustrate their status, while only two not been set apart for Tiberius, just as Ephesos was for 33 known as neokoroi used it as well.29 Artemis and Pergamon for Augustus. Trajan ap- It was Pick’s assumption that the temple-bearing pears to have been the first emperor to bypass the Amazon, and indeed all coin types, must have been tradition (first established in the contest for Tiberius’ minted to refer to some specific event or celebra- temple) of allowing only one provincial imperial tion. Thus he identified the small temple in the temple per city: to the Pergamenes, disappointed by Amazon’s hand with a large Ionic octastyle temple Tiberius, Trajan granted permission for a temple to (on a type so large and detailed that one can see its himself (with Zeus Philios). This precedent operated Roman-style podium flanked by parastades and on the Smyrnaeans’ behalf soon after, when Hadrian decorated with statues) that also happens to appear allowed them to build a new provincial temple on coins of Domitian.30 According to Pick, since despite the fact that they already possessed one. both coin types (so far as we know) first appeared at this time, they must have both commemorated Second Neokoria: Hadrian the building of the same temple, and when the temple-bearing Amazon type was repeated over the With this grant to Smyrna, Hadrian added a fur- years, the reason for the repetition must have been ther extension to the conditions under which neo- to celebrate festivals in honor of that temple. This koria was given: he was the first emperor known to no longer jibes with what we know of the episodic allow the title and temple to more than one city in nature of provincial minting, and the civic pride that a single provincial organization: to Kyzikos, then was conveyed by its repeating symbols.31 If we agree Smyrna, and later to Ephesos, all in the koinon of with Pick’s thesis that the temple bearer represents Asia. the city as neokoros, then the Amazon Smyrna must The emperor’s favorable attitude toward Greek hold the provincial temple that made the city culture, his interest in the cities, and his presence neokoros, which at the time of Domitian was only in the province were all factors in his grants of that of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate. Yet the afore- neokoria. In the course of his travels he must have mentioned coins of the proconsul Petronius show heard the best speakers of Asia, the famed orators that temple as of Corinthian order, a representation of the ‘second sophistic’; at a time when the skill or

29 See the discussion of the coin type in ‘Introduction: Methodology’ part iii.2. 30 Price and Trell 1977, 32 fig. 326; MvS 38-39, 144-145 32 See the discussion of architectural coin types in the In- nos. 71-73. troduction (‘Methodology’), above. 31 RPC 1:16-17, 43-44. 33 Cassius Dio 59.28.1; see chapter 3, ‘Miletos.’ chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 43 even the behavior of a speaker could determine a second decree of the Senate, by which we became whether or not a petition was granted, orators’ tal- twice neokoroi; a sacred contest; immunity; theologoi; ents in persuasion often proved invaluable to their hymnodoi; one-and-a-half million [drachmai]; columns 34 for the anointing room: seventy-two(?) Synnadan, home cities. In the case of Smyrna, the orator who twenty Numidian, six porphyry. persuaded Hadrian was one of the most renowned of his time, M. Antonius Polemon. Here the emperor’s gift of columns for the gymna- Born in Phrygian Laodikeia, Polemon came to sium itself follows the list of his more important gifts Smyrna’s famous schools of rhetoric as a youth, and to the city as a whole, notably those associated with 36 as he rose in his profession he used his considerable the city’s new status of twice neokoros. The inscrip- talents for the benefit of his adopted home.35 One tion also confirms that the Roman Senate contin- of those talents was pleading causes before the rulers ued to play an essential role in granting neokoria, of the Empire: as it had in allotting Tiberius’ temple to Smyrna: it was the (second) decree of the Senate that made He was of great value to the city in going on em- Smyrna twice neokoros. This decree, however, is bassies to the emperors and defending the commu- portrayed by the inscription as totally within the nity. For example, Hadrian, who had previously favored the Ephesians, he converted to the Smyr- emperor’s power to grant, just like such material gifts naeans’ side to such an extent that in one day as money and columns. [Hadrian] poured out ten million [drachmai] on Though the gymnasium inscription and Philo- Smyrna, from which the grain market was built, as stratos’ account differ as to the amount of money well as the most magnificent gymnasium in Asia and Hadrian gave, they are at one in attributing the a temple that can be seen from afar, the one on the imperial favors to the good offices of Polemon. The akra that seems to oppose Mimas. gifts were Hadrian’s but the credit was also Pole- Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.2 (531) mon’s, as he was the one who had won the emperor’s The gymnasium that Philostratos mentions was in- favor and had made the request. Thus Polemon can deed important. Smyrna inscription 4 preserves part be seen as the intermediary or ‘broker of benefi- 37 of a list of public and private contributors and the cence’ between Hadrian and Smyrna. On the one gifts they gave to build and adorn this gymnasium side, the emperor honored his talents, indulged his complex, and perhaps other buildings as well. Its requests, and even took him on as a favored travel- 38 magnificence is indicated by some of the gifts men- ing companion. On the other, Smyrna’s rewards tioned: a basilica with bronze doors, a columned to Polemon were commensurate with the glory he anointing room with a gilt roof, a porticoed palm reflected on the city and the gifts he obtained for it court with gardens and a temple of Tyche, and a from the emperor. He was made agonothetes of the sun room. Toward the end of this catalogue comes festival he was responsible for obtaining (a privilege the following passage: that was passed down to his descendants), and was allowed to go aboard the city’s sacred trireme.39 His INSCRIPTION 4. IvS 697. ka‹ ˜sa §petÊxomen appointment as Smyrna’s strategos, mentioned on parå toË kur¤ou Ka¤sarow ÑAdrianoË diå ÉAntvn¤ou Pol°mvnow: deÊteron dÒgma sunklÆ- 36 On columns as specifically imperial gifts, see Fant 1993, tou, kay'
d‹w nevkÒroi gegÒnamen, ég«na |erÒn, 156; for the question of whether aleipterion refers to an anoint- ét°leian, yeolÒgouw, ÍmnƒdoÊw, muriãdaw •katÚn ing room or the entire gymnasium, Herrmann 1993b, 234-235 pentÆkonta, ke¤onaw e¸w tÚ éleiptÆrion Sunna- nn. 5, 7. 37 See chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ in Part II. Also Saller 1982, d¤ouw [o]b', NoumedikoÁw k', porfure¤taw ' 63, 74-75; although Saller discusses only the brokerage posi- . . . and as many things as we gained from the lord tion of Romans, the Smyrnaeans plainly also perceived Polemon as their source of successful access to Hadrian. See Caesar Hadrian on account of Antonius Polemon: Anderson 1993, 24-28 on cities and sophists, a slightly jaun- diced view, especially 26 on Philostratos’ picture of Polemon and Smyrna: “...he practically owns the place.” 34 Bowersock 1969, 43-58, 120-123; Millar 1977, 234, 384- 38 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.4 (532-533); Half- 385, 392, 434-435. mann 1986a, 109, 200-202; Birley 1997, 159-161, 170. Weiss 35 Gleason 1995, 21-29. Polemon’s fierce rivalry with Favo- 1995 defends the Arabic translation of Polemon’s work on rinus (Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.8.4 [490]) parallels physiognomy as a source on his travels with Hadrian. Polemon Smyrna’s rivalry with Ephesos (see below), and draws out the is also mentioned in a letter of Hadrian to the Pergamenes agonistic character of professional as well as intercity relation- dated ca. 132 C.E.: Oliver 1989, 150-154 no. 59. ships. 39 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.1, 3 (530-531, 532). 44 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Smyrnaean coins commemorating Hadrian’s be- at Smyrna,46 and also a neokoros of the Augusti.47 loved Antinoös, was probably later, ca. 134/135 Thus the letter to imperial legates confirms the C.E.40 gymnasium inscription 4, documents the staff of the The gymnasium inscription mentions the contest, new temple of Hadrian, and assures that the cult was ‘sacred’ in status, directly after the neokoria; the founded in or before 124. festival did not follow automatically from the neo- Halfmann has redated Hadrian’s visit to Smyrna koria, but was stated as a separate grant in honor and Polemon’s eloquence to 124, based on the date of it. It is noteworthy that while the neokoria was of the above-mentioned letter.48 Such a visit would the result of a decision of the Senate, the festival is suit Philostratos’ description of that one great day included among the emperor’s direct gifts. It was when Polemon persuaded Hadrian to spend ‘ten known as the Hadrianeia or Hadrianeia Olympia, and million’ on Smyrna.49 Philostratos’ figure, inciden- should be distinguished from another Olympia festi- tally, is either an indefinite superlative (‘an enormous val in Smyrna.41 As at Kyzikos (q.v.), the qualifica- amount’) or an exaggeration of the one-and-a-half tion Olympia cannot be taken to imply that Hadrian million mentioned in the gymnasium inscription. was identified as or shared the temple with Zeus The possibility that the latter figure may have in- Olympios; both temples were founded before cluded only the money spent on the gymnasium is Hadrian’s identification with that god, though as also remote because the figure is listed after grants made at Kyzikos, the festival may well have been estab- to the whole city, rather than to the gymnasium lished subsequently.42 Polemon apparently took full alone. By comparison, the total of private cash dona- advantage of his position as agonothetes of the fes- tions to the gymnasium was over 190,000 drachmai. tival, and anecdotes describe him throwing inept Philostratos also makes it appear that Hadrian’s grant paid for the building of the temple; though this actors out of the competition.43 would not be atypical of Hadrian’s generosity, one In the gymnasium inscription, after mention of the would prefer independent confirmation, as the en- festival and immunity from taxes (probably in con- tire province would normally be expected to con- nection with the festival),44 theologoi and hymnodoi tribute toward building a koinon temple. are listed. These associations performed encomia If Hadrian’s gifts were given in 124, the establish- and hymns of praise to a divinity, in this case likely ment of Smyrna’s provincial cult and temple of the emperor. The hymnodoi of Julia Augusta, per- Hadrian then antedated his association with Zeus haps those of the temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the Olympios (after 128/129); the same was so at Kyzikos. Senate, have already been mentioned. The new The initial dedication was to Hadrian, not to Zeus. hymnodoi of Smyrna are also mentioned in a letter This is borne out by the inscriptions, which hence- dated to 124 and directed to imperial agents in forth call Smyrna ‘twice neokoros of the Augusti,’ Smyrna by a Roman official, perhaps the procon- the references to ‘hymnodoi of the god Hadrian’ 45 sul or the emperor himself. The first lines, unfor- mentioned above, and Smyrna’s coin types 7 and 8 tunately fragmentary, refer to one neokoros, possibly (below), issued under Caracalla, which specifically a number of theologoi, and twenty-four hymnodoi. identify the temple of Hadrian among the three for Keil took the first to refer to the city’s new title, but which Smyrna was neokoros, and show his cuirassed the enumeration of one neokoros and twenty-four figure as the cult image within it. A recent attempt hymnodoi indicates that this neokoros is another to associate this temple with one built by Hadrian official attached to the new temple. Subsequent for the cult of the deified Plotina conflicts with all inscriptions refer to ‘hymnodoi of the god Hadrian’ this evidence.50 The wife of Trajan does not appear

40 MvS 68-69. 41 MvS 16; IvS 644, 659-661, 668; Moretti 1953, 225; 46 IvS 595, 697 = IGRR 4:1436, 1431. Malavolta 1976-1977, 2063-2064. 47 IvS 596, 639; MvS 71 assigned the latter’s office to the 42 Contra Schorndorfer 1997, 53-37, 79, 173-175, who al- Caracallan temple of the third neokoria, but the inscription lowed the erroneous attribution at Kyzikos (q.v.) to outweigh does not specify, and he could easily have served as neokoros the ancient evidence. in the second temple (or in all the imperial temples?) instead. 43 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.5, 11 (534-535, 541- 48 Halfmann 1986a, 200. 542). 49 Winter 1996, 65, 85-86, 327-328 no. 44; IvS 697 44 IvS 697 (2.1:196). (2.1:196). MvS 21 n. 120 is incorrect. 45 IvS 594; J. Keil 1908; Halfmann 1986a, 200. 50 Cassius Dio ep. 69.10.3; Dräger 2000, 214-215. chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 45 in the temple’s coin images, nor is she ever men- 80, the year of M. Ulpius Trajanus’ proconsulship tioned in association with the provincial temple at of Asia, an aqueduct was built leading up to his Smyrna or its institutions. Most tellingly, the pas- temple.54 Philostratos does not mention the rebuild- sage epitomized from Cassius Dio upon which this ing of an older temple, or Zeus Akraios; Polemon’s theory is based praises Hadrian for his piety toward influence won Smyrna neokoria, and more likely a his adoptive mother: but the temple in Smyrna is new temple to Hadrian on another akra. not a good example of that piety, as it was likely built The new temple has also been identified with a (at least officially) by the koinon of Asia, and the “thank-offering temple” mentioned in the gymna- emperor himself was the preeminent object of wor- sium inscription.55 This terminology recalls Aelius ship in it. Aristides’ reference to the Hadrianic temple at Klose assumed that a six-column Ionic temple Kyzikos (q.v.), but there are some differences. Look- with a disc in its pediment that appeared on coins ing at lines 16-20 of inscription 4 itself, the passage of Hadrian at Smyrna represented the contempo- in question runs: rary provincial temple.51 The problem is that an KlaudianÚw prÊtaniw xrus\sein tÚn ˆrofon identical six-column Ionic temple with a disc in its toË éleipthr¤ou t}w gerous¤aw ka‹ OI e¸w tÚn pediment had appeared on a series of coins that xaristÆrion ne ke¤ona sÁn speirokefãlƒ. Klose dated to just after the reign of Nero.52 Both Claudianus the prytanis [promised] to gild the roof issues show the temple on a Greek-style stepped of the anointing room of the gerousia, plus [an podium, distinguishing them from the previously amount] towards the column with its base and capital mentioned Ionic octastyle temple on a Roman-style for the thank-offering ‘temple’ (neo). podium that appears on coins under Domitian (see above). Though the Hadrianic coins are larger and Other than this one column, there is no other men- better struck than the post-Neronian, they may both tion of donations of columns or indeed of anything represent the same temple, which therefore cannot else to such a temple. Another peculiarity is that be confirmed as the temple that made Smyrna twice earlier in the same inscription (line 14) the accusa- neokoros. The Caracallan triple-temple coins are tive for ‘temple’ is spelled naÒn, not given its Attic also of little help in picturing the temple of Hadrian: variant, as it supposedly is here. This oddity has not like the coins of other cities, these show all the been explained; is a nu missing, and could the text temples for which the city became neokoros as iden- refer to a thank-offering of the youths (ne«n), not a tical, and preserve no individual architectural fea- temple? Beyond these considerations, however, it tures. should be remembered that all the other private Philostratos is our only other source for the ap- structural donations listed in the inscription, includ- pearance or placement of the temple to Hadrian at ing a temple of Tyche, seem to be parts of the gym- Smyrna. In his list of the buildings erected out of nasium complex. A donation to a separate temple Hadrian’s grant he called it “a temple that can be seems out of place. Although there is no hard evi- seen from afar, the one on the akra that seems to dence to prove that a ‘thank-offering temple’ did not oppose Mimas.” From his reference to an akra (which exist or was not the temple of Hadrian at Smyrna, can mean either a height or a cape on the seacoast) these considerations make it more likely that the some scholars have conflated this new temple with structure, whatever it was, was in the gymnasium. another temple documented at Smyrna, that of Zeus What can be known, then, about the temple that Akraios (‘on the heights’).53 But the temple of Zeus made Smyrna twice neokoros? Following Philo- Akraios was already in existence before Hadrian made stratos’ account, it was built out of Hadrian’s dona- his grant: the god himself had been named on tion. It was on an akra, which could be either a height Smyrna’s coinage as early as Vespasian, and in 79/ or a cape by the sea; Smyrna offers a plenitude of both.56 It could be seen from afar; this implies great

51 Klose 1996, 58; MvS 68, 247 nos. 1-13 (15 exx.); the stephanephoros’ name is Pom. Sextus. 52 MvS 67, 132-134 nos. 19-61 (61 exx.); the magistrate is 54 Father of the emperor: Thomasson 1984, 216-217 no. Tiberius Hieronymos Sosander. 71; MvS 26-27; IvS 680; Dräger 1993, 87-89. 53 Cadoux 1938, 202, 248, 254 n. 4; Magie 1950, 584, 615, 55 H. Jüthner, Breslauer philologische Abhandlungen 8.1 (1898) 1445 n. 46, 1474 n. 15; S. Price 1984b, 258; Boatwright 2000, 27. 157-162. 56 Though C. Jones 2001 believed that the word used here 46 part i – section i. koinon of asia size and/or prominent position. A height would be akra depends on proximity to the temple of Zeus suitable, and so would a position by the sea where Akraios, the site of that temple is also uncertain; an ships could spy it from far off. Aelius Aristides por- inscription concerning repairs to its aqueduct was trayed a similar topographical placement for the found on Mt. Pagos, the akropolis of Smyrna, not temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos (q.v.). The Smyrnaean on DeÅirmen-tepe.61 Therefore the second koinon temple “seemed to oppose Mimas.” That was the temple of Smyrna cannot be proved to have been ancient name for the mountainous heights of Kara found. Burun, the headland that closes off Smyrna’s gulf Polemon continued to act on behalf of Smyrna on the west.57 Just about anything in Smyrna would to the end of his life, and indeed died before he could be ‘opposite’ Mimas in the broader sense, but the complete a mission to defend “the temples and their verb can imply a challenge as well. That challenge rights” before the emperor Antoninus Pius. When was likely to be in size, though again prominent substitute advocates botched the job, the emperor position, especially position close to the gulf, would himself inquired whether Polemon had left a speech, add emphasis. and then delayed the hearing until it could be Remains of an appropriate temple were found on fetched. Upon hearing it, he decided for Smyrna. DeÅirmen-tepe, a height (though by no means “Thus Smyrna came away having won first place, mountainous) which is also directly over the gulf, and and they declared that Polemon had come back to so may be called an akra and visible from afar; it is life to help them.”62 The contest on behalf of the in the western part of the city, that closest to Mimas, temples probably refers to the ones that made the and has been identified by many as the site of the city twice neokoros, in which Polemon had a spe- older temple of Zeus Akraios.58 There in 1824-25 cial interest.63 As the decrees of the Senate men- Graf Anton Prokesch von Osten observed the foun- tioned previously should have made their status dations of a large east-facing temple with ten unchallengeable, Polemon’s defense may have been Corinthian columns on its short side and perhaps necessitated by some question of relationships (in- twenty-three on its flank, of dimensions comparable volving precedence, finance, proper titulature, or any to those of the Olympieion in Athens, which he of a number of factors) among rival neokoroi cities dated to the Hadrianic or Antonine period.59 But in the koinon. the building’s marble superstructure was rapidly Probably shortly before this incident, Ephesos had being plundered for building stone; about a century complained that Smyrna had not given that city its later, Walter found only a fragment of a fluted col- precise titulature in a decree about a joint sacrifice, umn drum.60 A building on such a scale would not and that Pergamon had similarly offended; the quar- only have been suitable for what we know of pro- rel went all the way to Antoninus Pius, who had vincial temples of Hadrian (e.g. Kyzikos and perhaps already decreed the proper titles for Ephesos. The Ephesos) but may well have been said to “challenge emperor decided that Pergamon was not at fault and Mimas.” Smyrna’s slight was accidental, but cautioned We must sound a note of caution, however. The Ephesos and Smyrna in future to give each other modern city of Izmir covers most traces of this and their correct titles.64 It was probably at this point that of the other temples of ancient Smyrna. No sign identifies this east-facing temple as the temple of 61 IvS 681b; an aqueduct did lead from Kara-Bunar to the Hadrian except its size and order, comparable with west end of Mt. Pagos: Hasluck 1913-1914, 92; Cadoux 1938, such temples as Kyzikos’. And if the identity of the 177, 248, 254. G. Weber 1899, 167-174, identified the Zeus Akraios aqueduct as the one originating at Ak-Bunar, despite the fact that it considerably predates the first century C.E., be- denoted a height, not a promontory, Philostratos in fact used cause he had already decided that the temple of Zeus was on êkra in either sense, with its basic meaning being ‘extremity’ the “Mühlenhügel,” or DeÅirmen-tepe. (up or out). Height: Philostratos, Life of Apollonios of Tyana 2.8.5 62 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.10 (539-540). (the mountain Nysa); promontory: Life of Apollonios of Tyana 63 Perhaps more likely than a challenge to the right of asy- 5.1.4, 6 (the pillars of Hercules and the cape of Libya, Abinna). lum, which centered on one temple, that of Aphrodite Stratonikis, 57 Bean 1966, 41; map, 23. rather than several; Rigsby 1996, 95-105, esp. 96. 58 Tsakyroglou 1876, 1879, 1.87, 2.70; Cadoux 1938, 17, 64 See chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis.’ The emperor’s letter 248; Bürchner 1927, 750-756; Schorndorfer 1997, 173-175. is dated in his third consulship, 140-144 C.E.: IvE 1489, 1489a, 59 Prokesch von Osten 1834, Anzeige-Blatt 55-86, esp. 62- 1490; Oliver 1989, 293-295. Polemon was still alive in 143, 63; Prokesch von Osten 1836, 1.522. when Marcus Aurelius heard him declaim: Fronto, Letters to 60 Walter 1922-1924, Beibl. 232. Marcus Caesar 2.5; 2.10 ed. M. van den Hout (Leipzig 1988); chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 47

Ephesos issued a series of coins celebrating its con- this assumes that he regulated the titles of all three cord with the other two cities.65 Polemon’s subse- cities, Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna, not just quent (posthumous) mission to defend Smyrna’s Ephesos’, which is all the inscription states. Also, she temples and their rights indicates that the emperor’s did not emphasize what stands out in this particu- letter did not bring the bickering to an end, and that lar concord coinage: that unlike many others, it was perhaps Ephesos, by questioning the status of only minted by one party, Ephesos; neither Smyrna Smyrna’s temples, was retaliating for the offence. nor Pergamon reciprocated, so far as is known. To Much has been made of these quarrels in Anto- be slightly cynical, ‘concord’ in this case may rep- ninus Pius’ reign, and rightly so; but in order to resent not an equal accord but what the Ephesians understand them, it is necessary to get all the de- saw as a victory. Such a victory was given to them tails correct. Cadoux was the first to conflate Pole- by Antoninus Pius’ letter: it would make the other mon’s posthumous embassy with Antoninus Pius’ two cities give Ephesos its full and correct titles. The decision, and make one result from the other.66 As Ephesians liked the emperor’s decision so much that will be noted, however, in the former Smyrna won, they inscribed the letter publicly at least twice. No but in the latter Ephesos did. Merkelbach then took copies have yet been found at Pergamon or Smyrna. Philostratos’ tå prote›a literally to refer to Smyrna’s On the other hand, in Philostratos’ account, winning the right to walk first in the festival proces- Smyrna won its case. Neither Merkelbach, Dräger, sion of the koinon.67 It is more likely, however, that nor Kampmann noticed that Polemon’s mission was Philostratos was referring only to victory in the court originally on behalf of the temples and their rights, case, as translated above. The title ‘first’ does not and so is more likely to have concerned neokoria become common in Smyrnaean inscriptions until the than the title ‘first.’ That victory must be set in the time of Caracalla, and indeed does not appear until context that Philostratos gave it. Rather than sim- late in the time of the second neokoria, the early ply favoring Polemon, as Hadrian had, Antoninus third century, as on inscriptions 8, 7, and probably Pius had good reason to resent him: once, when 6, below.68 Note the simplicity of an actual inscrip- Antoninus was proconsul of Asia, Polemon had had tion under Antoninus Pius: inscription 5 only calls him thrown out of his house. The emperor’s deci- Smyrna ‘the [twice] neokoros city of the Smyr- sion in favor of Smyrna was not only a tribute to naeans.’ Polemon’s peerless (posthumous) oratory, but to Dräger and Kampmann, though differing on Antoninus’ own civility as a ruler.70 chronology, both followed Cadoux in connecting the After the time of Hadrian, when Smyrna had two accounts, and Merkelbach in concentrating on received its second neokoria and second provincial the title ‘first’ and scanting other details.69 Kamp- temple, the titulature of the chief priests of Asia (and mann’s account is somewhat preferable, though she the Asiarchs) reflected the increase: these officials attributed the concord coinage mentioned above to were in charge of the (plural) temples in Smyrna.71 Antoninus Pius’ initial regulation of Ephesos’ titles; No chief priestesses specifically of (plural) temples in Smyrna have yet been clearly documented. After Polemon’s death, one of the most important C. Haines, ed. Marcus Cornelius Fronto (Cambridge MA 1982) orators to make Smyrna his home and his cause was 1:116-119; van den Hout 1999, 77-80. Collas-Heddeland 1995 Aelius Aristides. When Marcus Aurelius visited the is unfortunately vitiated by mistranslations and misunderstand- ings; see Année Epigraphique 1995 no. 1476. Perhaps the same city, probably in 176 during his tour of the East after joint sacrifice appears on coins of Ephesos under Antoninus the revolt of Avidius Cassius, he went out of his way Pius: Hecht 1968, 28 no. 1. 65 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 1:38-39 nos. 305-316; Kamp- mann 1996, 29-34, 108-109. 70 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.5-6 (533-535). 66 Cadoux 1938, 262-264. A similar error in his account 71 For the discussion of the nature of Asiarchs and chief of CIG 3175 as connected with the cult in the provincial temple; priests of Asia, see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ and chapter 41 on the neokoros of Zeus in line 3 of that inscription is in fact an the koina. A chief priest of Asia of the temples in Smyrna, after official of Zeus’ temple. Hadrian: IGRR 4:586, from Aizanoi; an Asiarch of the temples 67 Merkelbach 1978, 290. in Smyrna, after Caracalla: IGRR 4:17, from Eresos; also FiE 68 Petzl (IvS 603, 672) occasionally restores the title earlier, 3:72, dating an Asiarchy to the end of the second century; and but almost all unrestored examples date from the time of the the abundant dossier on M. Ulpius Appuleius Eurykles, desig- third neokoria. nated chief priest of the temples at Smyrna for the second time 69 Dräger 1993, 115; Kampmann 1996, 29-34; Kampmann under Commodus, and also named Asiarch: OGIS 509, from 1998, 377-379. Aphrodisias, and Wörrle 1992, 352 and 358. 48 part i – section i. koinon of asia to send for Aristides, who had at first held back.72 to itself.78 No further mention was made of the The emperor treated him indulgently, however, and koinon temple that had been given such prominence he eventually acquitted himself well. According to by Aristides’ earlier letter, but it was probably among Philostratos’ account of these events, destiny was the first of the city’s shrines to be reconstructed. preparing ahead for Smyrna to be rebuilt through Aristides’ talents, and he could rightfully be called the founder of the city.73 For soon after, when Com- Third Neokoria: Caracalla modus had been raised to share the title of Augustus with his father, Smyrna was rocked by a disastrous Although Smyrna had possessed a provincial impe- earthquake.74 As soon as the news came to Aristides rial temple since the reign of Tiberius and two since on his estate, he dashed off a monody on the city’s that of Hadrian, the word ‘neokoros’ did not appear fall, and then wrote to the two emperors the next on its coinage until its third neokoria, under day to ask for their aid.75 Marcus Aurelius shed tears Caracalla.79 In the interim there had been occasional over Aristides’ letter and promised to rebuild the city; appearances of the temple-bearing Amazon who had Cassius Dio confirms that he sent both money and symbolized the city as neokoros since the time of a senatorial commissioner for the purpose.76 Domitian: Aristides’ letter is rather vague about the scenes COIN TYPE 4. Obv: of devastation at Smyrna: so many temples, so many AU KRA MAR AU Laureate head of Marcus Aure- gymnasiums, the streets, the agora, the harbor. He [ANTV]NEINO% lius r. Rev: is particular to note, however, that the temple that %TRA KL PROKLOU %OFI%TOU Amazon Smyrna in long dress, seated, Smyrna had obtained when it was preferred (at a %MUR holding small temple and double axe.80 a) SNGCop vote of four hundred to seven) to all the other cities 1369 b) Paris 2573 c) MvS 258 nos. 15-17 (2 other of Asia had now sunk beneath the ground; though exx.). that temple might be recovered with Asia’s help, only the emperors had the resources to rebuild the en- COIN TYPE 5. Obv: L AUR KOMODO% KAI%AR tire city.77 This distinction helps to point out that Head of Commodus as Caesar r., youthful. Rev: the temple in question was provincial, and the ref- %TR PO AI ARIZHLOU %MURNAIVN Seated erence to the vote identifies it as that of Tiberius, Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, double Julia, and the Senate. axe and shield.81 a) Paris 2620 b) MvS 266 no. 6 It and the city did not remain in ruins for long, (Athens). however. Aristides’ subsequent Oration 20 hailed the COIN TYPE 6. Obv: emperors as the new founders of Smyrna, and AU K L %EP %EOUHRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius praised all the cities of Asia for offering aid to the Severus r. Rev: b b refugees. Within a short time (before Marcus’ death EP(I, ) %T(R, ) K ROUFINOU Amazon Smyrna holding in 180 C.E.), Aristides could write without blushing %OF %MURNAIVN small temple, double axe and shield is crowned that before the earthquake Smyrna had been supe- by Victory with palm. a) Vienna 35984 b) MvS rior to the other cities, but now it was superior even 268-269 no. 7 (Boston). Smyrna’s inscriptions call the city twice neokoros 72 Gascó 1989 postulated that this was because Aristides had supported Avidius Cassius, though the point in Philostratos’ until 201/202 (inscription 7, below), and coins of account seems to be Aristides’ scholarly modesty. Geta as Augustus, issued sometime between 209 and 73 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.9.2 (582-583). his death at the end of 211 C.E., do not yet claim 74 Commodus became Augustus in mid-177 C.E., at least 82 before June 17: Kienast 1996, 147-150. Behr 1968, 112 n. 68, the third neokoria. So Smyrna was one of three however, preferred to date the earthquake shortly after Janu- ary 177. Eusebius, Chronica 209c dated it to 179, and said that 78 Aelius Aristides, Oration 21.11. due to it ten year’s tribute was remitted; while the Chronicon 79 Two seeming exceptions are in fact falsifications. Paris Paschale 262 dated it to 178. See Guidoboni with Comastri and 2540 and Vienna 11789, coins with obverse portraits of Traina 1994, 237-238 no. 117. Antoninus Pius, have been recut to read that Smyrna was 75 The Monody for Smyrna is Oration 18, the letter to the neokoros (Paris, two temples on the reverse) or twice neokoros emperors Oration 19. (Vienna, three temples, a reworked coin of Ephesos). 76 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.9.2 (582-583); Cassius 80 Pick 1904, 2 no. 3. Dio 72.32.3. 81 Pick 1904, 3 no. 4. 77 Aelius Aristides, Oration 19.13. 82 MvS 294-295, nos. 18-22; Kienast 1996, 166-167. chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 49 cities (including Ephesos and Pergamon, qq.v.) that d) Paris 2687 e) Oxford 16.86 f) Oxford 21.04 g) became three times neokoros during the sole rule SNGCop 1389 h) Vienna 17845 i) Warsaw 58629 of Caracalla. Celebratory types for the third neokoria j) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer k) Berlin, Löbbecke l) were issued under the strategoi Aurelius Charidemos SNGvA 8005. and Tiberius Claudius Kretarios, or without any The most explicit types are probably the earliest: magistrate’s name at all. Klose believed that two under the titles ‘Smyrna first of Asia three times further annual magistrates served after the award of neokoros of the Augusti’ appear the three temples, the neokoria and before Caracalla’s death, though each with a wreath on the peak of its roof. The three their coinage did not proclaim the title; thus he dated temples, all Corinthian, are assimilated to one an- the grant of the title between February 212 and mid- other. Each side temple contains a cuirassed figure 214 C.E.83 The date should be narrowed to after of an emperor; these are identified by small letters January 214, as Caracalla was then in the area, and in the pediment as Tiberius and Hadrian. Tiberius’ was awarding commensurate gifts to other Asian original image was certainly togate, so unless the old cities such as Pergamon.84 Pergamon seems to have statue had been replaced since the earthquake, he made a claim to be the first city that was three times was here either assimilated to the cuirassed figure neokoros of the Augusti, and it was one of the first of Hadrian, or merely conventionalized into a mili- places that Caracalla visited upon landing. Smyrna’s tary figure denoting ‘an emperor.’ In the new temple honors probably followed shortly after. The emperor in the center, however, a seated female figure is need not have been in Smyrna itself to have made distinguished, and the letters in the pediment iden- it neokoros, but it is not impossible that he did visit tify her as Ro(me). Yet on the very same coin Smyr- such a beautiful and important city. na calls itself three times neokoros of the Augusti, COIN TYPE 7. Obv: A K M AUR ANTVNEINO% with no mention of Rome. The one seeming excep- Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r., tion is the following: bearded. Rev: %MURNAIVN PRVTVN A%IA% G COIN TYPE 9. Obv: abcdefg %EBA%TH IOU DOMNA NEVKORVN TVN %EB(A, ) EPI (%TRA, Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: abcdefg abcdfgh 85 YEA% ) (AUR XARIDHMOU, ; KL Seated goddess e86 Three four-column Corinthian RVMH%; %MURNAIVN G NEVKO KRHTARIOU, ) Rome holding Victory and spear. a) SNGRighetti temples on podia, each with wreath on its apex; 911 b) Vienna 17825 c) Berlin 814/1878 d) Ber- within each side temple an emperor with sceptre lin, Löbbecke e) Paris 2656 f) MvS 281-282 no. and or in its pediment; within the center TI AD 50 (Rome, 1 ex.). one seated goddess Rome, in pediment RV. a) BMC 403 (illus. pl. 20 fig. 61) b) BMC 404 c) Paris As Pick pointed out, however, the words ‘of the 2402 d) Paris 2403 e) Oxford 20.75 f) SNGvA 2220 goddess Rome’ on the reverse legend refer to her g) Berlin, Fox h) New York, Newell. representation, and are not directly connected with the three-times neokoros title on the coin.88 COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU K M AUR ANTVNE- The existence of the temple to the goddess Rome b Laureate draped INO% (M AU ANTVNEINO%, ) at Smyrna had been one of the major reasons why cuirassed bust of Caracalla r., bearded. Rev: the Senate had granted the temple of Tiberius to that %MURNAIVN PRVTVN G NEVKORVN TVN city. Established in 195 B.C.E., by this time it had Three four-column Corinthian %EBA%TVN reached an age that must have been considered temples on podia, each with a wreath on its apex; venerable, though relatively recent when compared (within each side temple an emperor with sceptre, to such ancient foundations as the temple of Artemis adefghkl) within the center one seated goddess at Ephesos and the temple of Hera at Samos.89 Yet Rome.87 a) BMC 415 b) BMC 416 c) Paris 2688 early in the third century C.E. it was grouped among the temples that made Smyrna neokoros of the

83 MvS 22-23, 70-71; contested by Johnston 1989, 320-321. 84 Halfmann 1986a, 224, 229; see also Letta 1994b on the emperor’s wintering in Nikomedia from January 1, 214. 88 Pick 1904, 23 n. 31; not observed by Fayer 1976, 167 85 MvS 285-286 nos. 11-13 (3 further exx.). n. 165; see also MvS 22 (which mis-cites the coin legend), 40- 86 MvS 286 no. 15 (this ex.). 41; and pace Johnston 1989, 321. 87 MvS 288-289 nos. 24-26 (12 further exx.). 89 Fayer 1976, 11, 31-32. 50 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Augusti, which assures that the imperial cult was Clearly the type refers to the third neokoria, and practiced in it. Something similar might have hap- again indicates that Smyrna could not have gained pened at Pergamon (q.v.): the cult of Caracalla was a third neokoria simply for the cult of Rome. If it moved into an extant temple, probably that of had, why would Rome have been shown carrying Asklepios. On the Pergamene coins, however, the her own temple instead of standing within it as the small letters in the pediment of the temple in ques- object of cult? Instead she is shown as the custodian tion read “An(toninus).” This indicates the presence of cult, like the city’s namesake, the Amazon Smyr- of the cult of Caracalla, though the cult statue re- na; in fact, the coin types of these two temple bear- mains that of the original occupant. On Smyrna’s ers later would run parallel with one another, and coins we find no mention of the emperor at all. Yet would easily have been compared. if Smyrna were neokoros of the goddess Rome, one The peculiar logic of depicting Rome carrying the would expect the fact to be stated explicitly, and it temple she shared with the emperor is much like that never is. Ephesos, for example, called itself either of the contemporary coinage at Pergamon (q.v.), ‘three times neokoros’ or ‘twice and of Artemis’ where the emperor was shown sacrificing to the deity during the sole reign of Caracalla, but never ‘three with whom he shared a temple. The coinage of Side times neokoros of the Augusti,’ as Smyrna did. can also be compared: there several of the city’s Moreover, a new temple-bearer type appears patron gods appear as neokoroi, though whether under Caracalla and persists in the same way that they shared cult with emperor(s) in their own temples the Amazon Smyrna had: here again is the goddess is uncertain. Though Nock called the concept Rome. “thinkable, but no more,” others have accepted that the cult of Caracalla was moved into the old temple COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AU K M AU ANTVNE- of Rome at Smyrna.95 There were time-honored Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla INO% precedents: Augustus shared a temple with Rome r., bearded. Rev: G NEVKORVN EPI KRHTARIOU at Pergamon and in other provinces, Tiberius shared Seated goddess Rome holding small %MURN one with his mother and the Senate in Smyrna it- temple and spear.90 a) BMC 410 b) BMC 411 c) self. These others, however, had been new founda- Paris 2682. tions. Under Caracalla the ‘new’ neokoria was COIN TYPE 11. Obv: %EBA%TH IOU DOMNA conferred for an old temple at Smyrna, as it was also Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: (G NEVKO- at Ephesos (for the temple of Artemis) and at Perga- RVN EPI KRHTARIOU %MURN, a-e;91 %MU- mon (for a temple of Asklepios). RNAIVN EPI XARIDHMOU G NEVK %EB, f-h;92 G Under Caracalla Smyrna, like Pergamon, called NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN %MURNAIVN i- itself ‘three times neokoros of the Augusti.’ The k;93 PRV A%IA% G NEVKORVN %MUR, l-w).94 goddess Rome is certainly not to be considered one Seated goddess Rome holding small temple and of the Augusti, especially at Smyrna, where the cult spear. a) Oxford 13.73 b) Oxford 11.07 c) Paris of Rome remained independent and unallied to any 2654 d) Paris 2655 e) Paris 2655A f) BMC 389 imperial name up to the third century.96 Nor can it (illus. pl. 20 fig. 62) g) Paris 2673 h) Berlin, be assumed that the cult of Augustus simply was Imhoof-Blumer i) Oxford 19.11 j) Oxford 14.48 moved in with the cult of Rome when Republic k) Paris 2660 l) BMC 390 m) BMC 391 n) BMC became Empire; though a Smyrnaean inscription 392 o) London 1895.6-6-36 p) Boston 63.2600 q) mentions a priest of Rome and Augustus, this is no Paris 2657 r) Paris 2658 s) Paris 2659 t) Vienna local document but a decree of the koinon of Asia, 17824 u) Berlin, Löbbecke v) Berlin, Löbbecke w) and the cult to which it refers is the provincial one Berlin 548/1874. at Pergamon.97 In fact, Smyrna was only neokoros of Rome to the same degree that it was neokoros of the Senate and of Julia: these were the cult part-

90 MvS 287-288 nos. 22-23 (these exx.). 95 Nock 1930b, 28; Pick 1904, 21-23; J. Keil 1915, 130 n. 91 MvS 279 nos. 36-38 (3 further exx.). 1. 92 MvS 278 no. 34 (2 further exx.). 96 Moretti 1953, 237; Fayer 1976, 17-18. 93 MvS 281 no. 49 (these exx.). 97 IvS 591; Richter 1884-1937, 138, 157-159; Buckler 1935, 94 MvS 281 nos. 45-48 (10 further exx.). 181 no. 9. chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 51 ners in the temples that made it neokoros, but the COIN TYPE 13. Obv: IOUL MAI%A %EBA%TH major cults (once Caracalla was installed in Rome’s Diademed draped bust of Julia Maesa r. Rev: temple) were all for emperors. Thus Smyrna could %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN EPI % KL DIO- call itself three times neokoros of the Augusti. GENOU% Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, So far as is known, Smyrna minted no coins double axe and shield.100 a) Paris 2718. during the reign of Caracalla’s successor Macrinus. COIN TYPE 14. Obv: This lack may have been a simple accident of tim- IOUL MAI%A %EBA%TH Diademed draped bust of Julia Maesa r. Rev: ing; the coinage minted under Caracalla was abun- dant, and Macrinus’ reign was short. But it may have %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN Seated goddess Rome holding small temple and been due to trouble between the cities and the spear.101 a) Oxford 14.27 b) Paris 2719. emperor. According to Cassius Dio, Macrinus took away some grants made by Caracalla to the COIN TYPE 15. Obv: A K M AUR %EU ALEJ- Pergamenes, who then insulted him; so he publicly ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of stripped them of honors.98 The emperor later sent Severus Alexander r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G Dio himself to keep order in both Pergamon and NEVKORVN PRVTVN A%IA% EPI %TR ANTI- Smyrna. From this sequence of events, we may OXOU Three temples, side two turned toward suppose that Smyrna was implicated in the disor- center.102 a) Paris 2725 (badly worn). der, and perhaps in the dishonor as well. Smyrna, COIN TYPE 16. Obv: Pergamon, and several other cities that were IOU MAMEA %EBA%TH Diademed draped bust of Julia Mamaea r. Rev: neokoroi for Caracalla had a break in coins and inscriptions mentioning neokoria under Macrinus %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN (EPI % G K DIO- c abdefg Amazon (see chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis’). Even Ephesos GENOU%, ; EP %TR ANTIOXOU, ) Smyrna holding small temple, double axe and (q.v.), which may have won its case for primacy in shield.103 a) BMC 435 b) BMC 436 c) Oxford Asia before that emperor, may have lost its neokoria 13.31 d) Oxford 12.45 e) Paris 2730 f) Paris 2731 of Artemis at that time. But outside of Cassius Dio’s g) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. special appointment, there are no data yet known regarding Smyrna’s position under Macrinus, and COIN TYPE 17. Obv: IOU MAMEA %EBA%TH under his successor Elagabalus the coins with the title Diademed draped bust of Julia Mamaea r. Rev: ‘three times neokoros’ simply resume. %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN EP %TR ANTIOXOU Like the earlier reverse of the Amazon Smyrna Seated goddess Rome holding small temple and holding a temple, the coin types of the goddess spear.104 a) BMC 434 b) Oxford 11.63 c) Paris Rome holding a temple and of the three temples of 2728 d) Paris 2729 e) SNGCop 1394 f) Vienna Smyrna, three times neokoros, soon became a part 32712 g) Berlin, von Knobelsdorff h) New York, of Smyrna’s numismatic repertoire. They all contin- Petrie. ued to appear down to the last gasp of Smyrnaean COIN TYPE 18. Obv: coinage, in the reign of Gallienus. A K G I OUH MAJI- MEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Maximinus r. Rev: COIN TYPE 12. Obv: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN AU K M AU ANTVNE- Amazon Smyrna Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Ela- EP % M AU POPLIOU PRO INO% holding small temple, double axe and shield.105 gabalus r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN a) Vienna 17858. PRVTVN A%IA% EPI %TR (AIL APOLLVNIOU, abc; G KL DIOGENOU%, def) Three temples, cen- COIN TYPE 19. Obv: obliterated, Maximinus or ter one four-column, Rome seated within; side Maximus. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN two two-column.99 a) Paris 2689 (illus. pl. 20 fig. 63) b) Paris 2716 c) SNGvA 2224 d) Berlin, Imhoof- 100 Blumer e) Berlin 824-1877 f) New York, Newell. MvS 296 no. 1 (1 further ex.); Pick 1904, 4 no. 13, cf. 15. 101 MvS 296 nos. 2-3 (these exx.). 102 MvS 297 no. 1 (4 further exx.). 103 MvS 300-301 nos. 1-3, 5 (5 further exx.); Pick 1904, 4 nos. 14, 16. 98 Cassius Dio 79.20.4, 80.7.4. 104 MvS 300-301 no. 4 (5 further exx.); Pick 1904, 4 no. 10. 99 MvS 295 nos. 1-2 (1 further ex.). 105 MvS 303-304 no. 3 (2 further exx.); Pick 1904, 4 no. 17. 52 part i – section i. koinon of asia

PRVTVN A%IA% EP % M AUR POPLIOU Three side temple, seated goddess Rome in the center temples, side two two-column, turned toward cen- one.111 a) Oxford 8.15 b) Paris 2779 (illus. pl. 20 ter, center one four-column, goddess Rome seated fig. 64) c) Paris 2779A d) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer within.106 a) Paris 2737. e) Berlin 10728 f) New York, Newell g) BMC 470. COIN TYPE 20. Obv: AU KAI M ANT GORDI- COIN TYPE 25. Obv: AUT K P(O, ab) LIK(IN, ANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian ab) GALLIHNO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust III r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN PRVTVN of Gallienus r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEV(K, A%IA% EP (%T ROUFINOU %OFI, ab; %TR MENE- bdeijklmqtux) EPI (%, bcdeinoqtux) (M AUR, KLEOU%, cd) Three temples, side two turned bcdefghnpuvx) %EJ%TOU Seated goddess Rome toward center, center one four-column, goddess holding small temple and spear.112 a) Boston Rome seated within.107 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer 63.1109 b) BMC 467 c) BMC 468 d) BMC 469 e) b) Paris 2741 c) Paris 2742 d) SNGvA 2228. London 1920.4-5-5 f) Oxford 7.89 g) Oxford 6.29 h) Oxford 12.35 i) Oxford 6.05 j) Oxford 5.65 k) COIN TYPE 21. Obv: FOURIA TRANKUL- Paris 2796 l) Paris 2797 m) Paris 2798 n) Paris Diademed draped bust of Tran- LEINA %EB 2799 o) Paris 2800 p) SNGCop 1406 q) SNGCop quillina r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN %TR 1407 r) SNGCop 1408 s) SNGvA 2236 t) SNGvA Amazon Smyrna holding small ROUFINOU %OFI 8011 u) Vienna 17877 v) Vienna 17878 w) Vienna temple, double axe and shield.108 a) BMC 446 b) 17879 x) Vienna 28467 y) Warsaw 58631 z) BMC 447 c) Oxford 11.46 d) Oxford 15.13 e) Berlin, Löbbecke, and others. Oxford 9.81 f) Paris 2761 g) Vienna 17872 h) Berlin 1291/1878 i) Berlin, Löbbecke j) Ber- COIN TYPE 26. Obv: AUT K P(O, abcefqtuz) lin, Imhoof-Blumer k) New York 51.38 l) SNGvA LIK(IN, qsuz) GALLIHNO% Laureate draped 8009. cuirassed bust of Gallienus r. Rev: %MUR(NAIVN, befqruyz bcefghijklmnopqstuwxz COIN TYPE 22. Obv: ) G NEVK(O, ) EP %MURNAIVN PRVTVN not in u Amazon Smyrna Veiled draped female (Asia) with sheaves (% ) M AUR %EJ%TOU A%IA% holding small temple, double axe and shield.113 and cornucopia (dated to time of Philip) Rev: a) Boston 67.884 b) BMC 459 c) BMC 460 d) BMC Ama- %MURNAIVN G NEV E % AF EPIKTHTOU 461 e) BMC 462 f) Oxford 5.74 g) Oxford 5.05 zon Smyrna holding small temple, double axe and h) Oxford 6.11 i) Oxford 5.88 j) Oxford 5.57 k) shield.109 a) Boston 67.877 b) Paris 2767 c) SNGvA Oxford 5.37 l) Oxford 7.99 m) Paris 2780 n) Paris 2195 d) Berlin, Fox. 2781 o) Paris 2782 p) Paris 2783 q) Paris 2784 r) COIN TYPE 23. Obv: A K PO LIKI OUALER- Paris 2785 s) SNGCop 1409 t) SNGCop 1410 u) IANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Vale- SNGCop 1411 v) SNGvA 2235 w) Vienna 34946 x) rian r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN EP % Vienna 27788 y) Vienna 34483 z) Berlin, Imhoof- FILHTOU IPPIKOU Three temples, side two two- Blumer, and others. column turned toward center, center one four- COIN TYPE 27. Obv: column, figure within.110 a) BMC 455 b) Paris KOR %ALVNEINA %E (Diademed, cd) draped bust of Salonina r. Rev: 2772 c) SNGvA 2233. %MURNAIVN G NEV EP (%, cd) %EJ%TOU Seated COIN TYPE 24. Obv: AUT K P LIK GALLI- goddess Rome holding small temple and spear.114 HNO% Laureate draped bust of Gallienus r. Rev: a) Oxford 6.94 b) Paris 2608 c) Berlin 5180 d) Ber- %MURNAIVN G NEVK EP(I %, eg) %EJ%TOU lin, Imhoof-Blumer. Three four-column Corinthian temples on podia, COIN TYPE 28. Obv: each with wreath on apex; an emperor in each KOR %ALVNEINA %E Diademed draped bust of Salonina r. Rev: %MUR-

106 MvS 303 no. 1 (1 further ex.) For obliteration of the ob- 111 MvS 316 nos. 3-4 (3 further exx.). verse due to condemnation of the memories of Maximinus and 112 MvS 322-324 nos. 51-59 (17 further exx.); Pick 1904, 4 Maximus, see MvS 119. no. 11. 107 MvS 306-307 nos. 2, 11-13 (5 further exx.). 113 MvS 320-322 nos. 36-50 (16 further exx.); Pick 1904, 6 108 MvS 310 nos. 1-3 (2 further exx.); Pick 1904, 5 no. 19. no. 21. 109 MvS 194 no. 1 (1 further ex.); Pick 1904, 5 no. 20. 114 MvS 326 no. 7 (1 further ex., 1 missing); Pick 1904, 4 110 MvS 314 no. 1 (1 further ex.). no. 12. chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 53

(NAIVN, acdefijkm) G NEV(K, befghikl) EP (%, 5. IvS 767. Dedication to the river Hermos and to abcfghjlm) (M, abdefghikl) (A, ei or AUR abdfghkl) Antoninus Pius. Enumeration restored. %EJ%TOU Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, 6. IvS 672. Fragment, from Haci Köy. Dated only double axe and shield.115 a) BMC 475 b) BMC 476 by neokoria. c) Oxford 6.19 d) Oxford 6.27 e) Oxford 6.92 f) 7. IvS 815. Milestone from Hacilar, on the Smyrna- Oxford 5.47 g) Paris 2807 h) Paris 2808 i) SNGvA Sardis road, set up under the proconsul Lollianus 2239 j) Vienna 31994 k) Vienna 36690 l) Berlin, Gentianus, whose term is dated to 201/202.118 Löbbecke m) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Smyrna is “most illustrious, first of cities of Asia and twice neokoros of the Augusti.” In the mid-third century the Amazon Smyrna even 8. IvS 814. Milestone from west of Pinarbaâi, on the took her small temple with her when she served as Smyrna-Sardis road. Similar to inscription 7 and of symbol of the city on concord coins: same date. COIN TYPE 29. Obv: AU KAI M ANT GORDI- Three times neokoros: ANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian 9. IvS 637. Statue base of an Asiarch, dated to the III r. Rev: A%IA %MURNA OMONOIA EP % first half of the third century. Enumeration of the PVLLIANOU Asia with sceptre and phiale and the neokoria restored, but titulature is same as that of Amazon Smyrna with small temple, double axe inscription 10, below. and shield, an altar between them.116 a) Paris 10. IvS 667. Statue base of an athlete honored by 2739 b) Vienna 17865 c) London 1893.6-4-56. Valerian and Gallienus; Smyrna is “first of Asia in beauty and greatness, most illustrious, metropolis, This may serve as a final illustration of Smyrna’s three times neokoros by the decrees of the most long-standing pride in its status as neokoros. sacred Senate and jewel of Ionia.” 11. IvS 640. Statue base of a chief priestess. Undated; titulature same as that of inscriptions 9 and 10. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: 12. IvS 665. Statue base of an athlete. Undated; titulature same as that of inscriptions 9-11. Neokoros: 13. IvS 666. Probably a statue base of an athlete. 1. IvS 657. Statue base from Olympia, dated after Undated; titulature same as that of inscriptions 9- 41 C.E. but before second neokoria. The neokoros 12. people honor an athlete and fellow citizen. 14. IvS 674. Fragment, undated, probably with 2. IvS 634. [The ...] neokoros people honor M. titulature same as that of inscriptions 9-13. Atilius Bradua; set up by M. Aurelius Perperos. 15. IvS 638. Statue base of an Asiarch. Enumera- Beurlier 1877-1910, 58 posited that the (plural?) tion restored; titulature similar to that of inscriptions number of neokoriai was missing from the stone, and 9-13 but “three times neokoros of the Augusti and a first line with the article should indeed be restored; jewel of Ionia by decrees of the most sacred Sen- but PIR2A 1303 attributed the inscription to M. ate.” Atilius Postumus Bradua, proconsul of Asia under 16. IvS 673. Statue base, undated. Smyrna is “most Domitian, in 94/95 according to Eck, and a Domi- illustrious and metropolis and three times neokoros tianic date for Perperos may be confirmed.117 So the of the Augusti by decrees of the most sacred Sen- city was simply neokoros. ate.” 3. IvS 696. List of contributors toward harbor con- 17. IvS 646. Fragment, undated. Petzl restored struction. Undated. titulature similar to that of inscriptions 9-13, but the first line is much longer than the rest; titulature simi- Twice neokoros: lar to that of inscription 16 is more likely. 4. IvS 697. The ‘gymnasium inscription’ document- 18. IvS 603. Imperial letter? Fragmentary, undated, ing the second neokoria and Hadrian’s gifts on ac- though previously attributed to Hadrianic times due count of Polemon. See discussion in text above. to the word ‘to Olympian’ (Zeus or Hadrian?). Enumeration missing; restored on the model of in- 115 MvS 325 nos. 1-4 (7 further exx.); Pick 1904, 6 no. 22. 116 MvS 344 no. 1 (6 further exx.); Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 215-216 nos. 2235-2248; Pick 1904, 5 no. 18. 117 Eck 1982, 322; Thomasson 1984, 219 no. 81. 118 Christol and Drew-Bear 1995. 54 part i – section i. koinon of asia scriptions 9-13, but the order of the titles is differ- 8010; SNGLewis 1403; SNGRighetti 913, 914; Berlin ent and the syntax a bit strained. (9 exx.), London, New York (3 exx.), Oxford (12 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw. Non-imperial obverse, time of Gordian III: BMC 239, 240; SNGCop 1314-1318; SNGvA 7991; SNGLewis COINS CITING NEOKORIA: 1405; Berlin (8 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford (12 exx.), Paris (15 Three times neokoros: exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw. Caracalla: BMC 403-417; SNGCop 1389; SNGvA 2220, Philip BMC 452; SNGvA 2231. 2221, 8005; Berlin (6 exx.), New York, Oxford (7 Otacilia: BMC 453; SNGCop 1404; SNGvA 2232; Berlin exx.), Paris (9 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw. (3 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Caracalla and Julia Domna: Oxford. Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Julia Domna: BMC 389-394; SNGCop 1385; SNGvA 2219; Non-imperial obverse, time of Philip: BMC 247; SNGCop Berlin (9 exx.), Boston, London, New York (2 exx.), 1325; SNGvA 2195; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston, New York Oxford (8 exx.), Paris (13 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.). (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (2 Elagabalus: SNGvA 2224; Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Paris exx.). (2 exx.). Valerian: BMC 454-456; SNGvA 2233; Oxford, Paris (3 Julia Maesa: Oxford, Paris (2 exx.). exx.). Severus Alexander: BMC 428-433; SNGvA 2225, 2226; Gallienus: BMC 458-469, 471-474; SNGCop 1405-1416; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston, London, New York (3 exx.), SNGvA 2234-2238, 8011, 8012; SNGLewis 1409, Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). 1410; SNGRighetti 915, 916; Berlin (22 exx.), Boston Julia Mamaea: BMC 434-439; SNGCop 1394-1396; (4 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (10 exx.), Ox- SNGLewis 1399; SNGRighetti 912; Berlin (4 exx.), ford (25 exx.), Paris (29 exx.), Vienna (17 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (8 exx.), Warsaw. Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). Salonina: BMC 475-478; SNGCop 1417-1419; SNGvA Non-imperial obverse, time of Severus Alexander: BMC 2239-2241; Berlin (5 exx.), London, New York, 244; SNGvA 2195; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (3 Oxford (8 exx.), Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). exx.), Vienna. Valerianus: Boston, New York, Oxford, Paris (2 exx.). Maximinus: Paris, Vienna. Non-imperial obverse, time of the joint rule of Valerian Maximinus and Maximus Caesar: BMC 441; SNGCop and Gallienus: BMC 246; SNGCop 1326; SNGvA 2196; 1397; SNGLewis 1400; Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Berlin, New York, Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). exx.). Maximus Caesar: London, Oxford. Non-imperial obverse, not dated: BMC 227-231, 233-237; Gordian III: BMC 442, 444, 445; SNGCop 1399, 1400; SNGCop 1321-1324; SNGvA 2190-2192, 7990; SNGvA 2227-2230; SNGLewis 1402; Berlin (9 exx.), SNGTüb 3754, 3755 (Philadelphia, concord issue); Boston, London (3 exx.), New York, Oxford (13 Berlin (15 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York exx.), Paris (9 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw. (8 exx.), Oxford (22 exx.), Paris (21 exx.), Vienna (9 Tranquillina: BMC 446-451; SNGCop 1401-1403; SNGvA exx.), Warsaw (6 exx.). chapter 3 – miletos in ionia 55

Chapter 3. Miletos in Ionia: Koinon of Asia

First Provincial Temple: Gaius ruling out several Asian cities that wanted to build the temple to Tiberius: “The Pergamenes (and they The precedents of Augustus and Tiberius combined were using this itself as an argument) were judged with his own inclinations to assure that Gaius Cae- to have been honored enough by the temple to sar, better known as Caligula, was worshipped in a Augustus there; the Ephesians and Milesians were provincial temple in Asia. The fullest account is that seen as having totally devoted their cities to the of Cassius Dio, though it exists only as a paraphrase worship of Artemis in the former case, Apollo in the from later compilations (ep. 59.28.1): “Gaius ordered latter.” Gaius’ reasoning, as (para)phrased by the epi- that a precinct be set aside for his worship in Miletos tomator of Dio, seems to have followed the Senate’s in the province Asia, giving as his reason that in Tacitus: a city could be ‘preempted’ by another Artemis had preempted Ephesos, Augustus Perga- major cult from getting a provincial imperial temple, mon, and Tiberius Smyrna; but the truth was that at least in this period. he wanted to appropriate for himself the large and Suetonius, in his life of Gaius (21), confirms that very beautiful temple that the Milesians were build- the emperor indeed took an interest in the Didy- ing for Apollo.” This is the first of a series of anec- maion at Miletos: he included its completion in a dotes all having to do with Gaius’ temple building list of semi-impossible projects that Gaius intended and temple altering for the sake of his favorite cult, to undertake.2 But Suetonius listed this among his his own. They are grouped with events of the year actions as head of state; though extravagant, it was 40, and may have simply been placed at this point not considered outrageous, and Suetonius made no to serve as variations on a megalomaniac theme. mention of changing the cult. Other documents, however, have indicated that in Inscriptions confirm that provincial officials and the beginning of his reign at least, Gaius followed workers gathered at Didyma in the reign of Gaius. an Augustan/Tiberian tradition of modesty even in A base for a statue of the emperor himself, dated accepting honorific statues, and a date late in his to 40/41, was found near the southwest corner of reign is not inconsistent with the inscriptional evi- the temple at Didyma.3 The dedicants were a group dence (below).1 The terminology that Dio used in of neopoioi, officials responsible for construction or this instance differs sharply from his previous treat- physical upkeep of a temple, in this case, the temple ment of the events of 29 B.C.E., where Augustus of Gaius Caesar “in Miletos.” Robert first pointed “gave permission” to the Greeks of Asia to build a out that they represented each city center of thir- temple at Pergamon (q.v.); here Gaius “commands,” teen judicial districts, and thus the whole of the but one cannot place too much faith in the word- province Asia.4 He also indicated that the temple’s ing of a passage that is only known in epitome. being ‘in Miletos’ did not necessarily rule out the The large but still incomplete temple that Gaius Didymaion, as it was also within the territory and is said to have coveted must have been the monu- under the administration of that city.5 Less securely mental temple of Apollo at Didyma. Ironically, it had dated, but perhaps from the same time, is an inscrip- previously taken Miletos out of the running for a provincial temple eventually given to Smyrna. Taci- 2 Pülz 1989, 8-9 n. 25 had doubts about the probability of tus (Annals 4.55) listed the reasons for the Senate’s this list. 3 Rehm 1958, no. 148. 4 L. Robert 1949. 1 Oliver 1989, 69-77 no. 18: Gaius requested a decrease 5 Note also that the Didymaion had won the titles ‘sacred’ in the number of statues set up in his honor, allowing only the and ‘asylos’ for the city of Miletos itself in the third century ones at the major Panhellenic sanctuaries. B.C.E.: Rigsby 1996, 172-178. 56 part i – section i. koinon of asia tion that mentions the craftsmen of Asia working on organization or funding of the project, as Suetonius the temple at Didyma.6 But why would provincial implied, it is not evident from the other documents, craftsmen be working on Miletos’ Didymaion if it but his building projects elsewhere were numerous were not a provincial temple? And why would pro- and this is not inconsistent with them.13 vincial officials in charge of building a temple to If the Didymaion served as the third provincial Gaius dedicate a statue to him in the sacred area imperial temple in Asia, it is the first whose ruins of a different temple? On the current balance of we can identify (illus. pl. 1 fig. 3, pl. 4 fig. 16). And evidence, it seems that Dio was right, and that the if the temples of Augustus at Pergamon and of koinon temple to Gaius was going to be the Didy- Tiberius at Smyrna were anything like it, they must maion. have been on a truly magnificent scale, which was Some historians have downplayed Dio’s account what had attracted Gaius to Didyma in the first as error, prejudice, or scandal-mongering.7 But place. The Didymaion was a colossal Ionic dipteros, neither Suetonius nor the inscriptions contradict facing east, with ten columns on the short side and him. Though his attempts to deify himself in Rome twenty-one on the long; its stylobate, at 51.13 x could be interpreted as sheer madness, Gaius’ move 109.34 m., was almost as large as that of the Arte- into the Didymaion, at least as a cult partner to mision at Ephesos.14 Strabo (14.1.5) thought it the Apollo, would probably not have been considered largest of all temples, and that its lack of a roof was so outrageous by the Asians, who had the precedent due to its great size. It had been under construction of provincial temples to Augustus and Tiberius.8 since at least the beginning of the third century Certainly Dio was familiar with such new cults in B.C.E. Its layout was unusual, and was perhaps old temples for an emperor he knew well (and also dictated by the requirements of the oracle of Apollo disliked): Caracalla’s cult was moved into the temple which issued from it.15 What seemed to be a stan- of Rome at Smyrna and into that of Asklepios at dard, though grandiose, approach through a twelve- Pergamon, and Dio served as administrator of both column pronaos (three rows of four columns each) those cities shortly afterward.9 was stymied by a huge door with a threshold too The neopoioi inscription documents how the build- high (1.5 m.) to enter; one could just look into a ing of one temple, now made provincial and impe- double-(Corinthian)-columned room accessible only rial, was organized by the koinon. Each city that was from the other side. Instead, access to the interior the seat of a judicial district of the province sent a was indirect, down one of two stone-lined tunnels. representative neopoios, presumably to oversee the One followed them out into an enormous hypaethral collection and disbursement of funds as well as court that dwarfed the small building sunk into its temple construction.10 We know less of the crafts- middle; this may have been a naiskos for Apollo’s men of Asia, but they too may have been organized statue, though the presence of a well indicates that and sent as representatives of their cities or judicial it may have served the oracle. The decorative districts.11 Thus all parts of the provincial koinon scheme was predictably Apolline, with a frieze along were represented at, and responsible for, the build- the inner wall of griffins, winged lions, and lyres, ing of this (and by extension other) provincial im- more griffins and bulls’ heads on the column capi- perial temples.12 If the emperor took any part in the tals, as well as busts of Zeus and of Apollo, and gorgoneia on the exterior frieze. 6 Rehm 1958, no. 107. The connection is given new em- Archaeological evidence is not decisive on the phasis by Herrmann 1989a. temple’s state of construction during the reign of 7 Parke 1985, 71-72; Fontenrose 1988, 21-22, 169. Gaius. Coins of Miletos show a hexastyle temple at 8 Herrmann 1989a, 195 suggested the synnaos relationship. Barrett 1989, 143-144 judged it “by no means implausible” that this and at other periods, but are not specific enough Gaius meant to take the Didymaion for himself alone, com- to identify the Didymaion or any particular struc- paring this action to his proposal to take over the Temple at Jerusalem. Ibid. 140-153 on Gaius’ divine honors and contem- porary attitudes toward them. 13 Barrett 1989, 192-212; Herrmann 1992, 70 believed that 9 Cassius Dio 79.20.4, 80.7.4. the emperor played a financial role. 10 Habicht 1975, 90-91. 14 Knackfuss 1942; Voigtländer 1975; Gruben 1976, 359- 11 Herrmann 1992, 69-70 believed that the craftsmen were 375; Tuchelt 1992, with current bibliography. paid by the province as well. 15 Parke 1985, 210-219; Fontenrose 1988, 78-85. Tuchelt 12 The doubts of Magie 1950, 1366-1367 as to the provin- 1992, 12-13 was more pessimistic about reconstructing the cial status of this temple seem unfounded. rituals from the remains. chapter 3 – miletos in ionia 57 ture.16 Work on the huge project may have been one temple per emperor that the koinon of Asia had taken up again at around this time, but the details established thus far: Augustus’ provincial temple was of construction and ornament cannot be dated spe- in Pergamon, Tiberius’ in Smyrna. We have no cifically.17 We do not know whether any changes evidence on whether or where Asia built a temple were intended in order to accommodate Gaius’ cult, to Claudius. There is, however, one later inscription and in any case the shortness of his reign hints that of Miletos as neokoros: not much was accomplished; he was assassinated in INSCRIPTION 1. Rehm 1958, 164. Decree hon- January 41.18 oring an athlete. [ } | The chief priest on the neopoioi inscription, Gnaeus MeilÆtou t w] e[rvtãthw } ¤ Vergilius Capito, had already served as chief priest mhtrop]Òlevw t[ w ÉIvn aw k(a‹)] nevkÒro[u t«]n } } ¤ of Asia twice before serving this, his third term, as Sebast«n k(a‹) toË [t] w ÉAttik w eÈgene a[w \ chief priest of the temple of Gaius Caesar in Miletos. é]ji matow. . . He was obviously a powerful figure in his city and Rehm dated the decree to the early third century. province, and came from a Milesian family to whom It is not impossible that enumeration is missing the imperial cult was important.19 The neokoros of before ‘neokoros,’ but the space is tight and a single the temple, Tiberius Julius Menogenes, was eminent neokoria is consistent with the evidence of later coins as well, having already been chief priest twice.20 The (below). As for the terminology, ‘neokoros of the chief neopoios also held the offices of sebastoneos, oth- Augusti’ assures us that Miletos did not achieve its erwise unknown, and sebastologos, for delivering prose title for the cult of its patron god Apollo at the Didy- eulogies of the emperor. Thus some of the person- maion. Moretti assumed that ‘neokoros of the nel of the third provincial imperial temple in Asia Augusti’ and ‘of the rank of Attic nobility’ should have been laid out for us. be combined into one phrase, but Robert corrected The death of Gaius and the obliteration of all him; they are independent titles.22 Price attributed reminders of him must have put an end to the es- this first neokoria to a temple of Augustus, but that tablishment of his cult and the building of his temple was a municipal, not a provincial, temple.23 In fact, (qua koinon temple, though of course the Didymaion the field is wide open, being limited only to emper- would go on).21 As Gaius’ death and dishonor came ors from Claudius to Septimius Severus whose names before ‘neokoros’ became a title for cities with koinon were not subsequently wiped from the records. temples, Miletos never became neokoros for his temple. Second Neokoria: Elagabalus

First Neokoria Miletos declared itself twice neokoros of the Augusti on coins with portraits of Elagabalus, his mother It is possible that Miletos tried to retain the honor Julia Soaemias, his grandmother Julia Maesa, and it had received from Gaius by diverting the worship his successor, Severus Alexander, adopted and made intended for him to some other emperor, whether Caesar in 221. current (Claudius) or previous (Augustus or Tibe- COIN TYPE 1. Obv: rius). No evidence for this has been found, however, [AUT K M] AUR ANTV- Laureate draped cuirassed bust of and an attempt to dedicate the temple to a previ- NEINO% %EB Elagabalus r. Rev: ous emperor would have contradicted the policy of EPI ARX MINNIVNO%; MILH%IVN DI% NEVKORVN TVN %EB Two two- column temples on high podia, a disc in each 16 E.g., BMC 143 and SNGCop 1007, with obverses of Gaius. pediment, turned toward each other; within each 17 Voigtländer 1975, 123-130; Pülz 1989, 8-9. 18 Barrett 1989, 169-171; Kienast 1996, 85-87. 19 Herrmann with S. Greger 1994. 20 Rehm 1924 (= IvM 6.1.A), no. 258 documents a neokoros 22 Moretti 1959, 202-203; J. and L. Robert 1961, 266-267 official of perhaps the second century, but the cult served is no. 582. restored ‘of the Augusti.’ 23 S. Price 1984b, 257. See Herrmann with Greger 1994, 21 Cassius Dio 60.4.1, 5-6. On the nature of his condem- 225-226, on the municipal priest of Augustus, and 230 on the nation, see Barrett 1989, 177-180 and Varner 1993, 14-77. temple of Augustus, previously incorrectly located north of the Riccardi 1996, 209 n. 270, and passim on neokoria, was de- council house. On the latter, Herrmann with McCabe 1986, pendent on outdated information. 180. 58 part i – section i. koinon of asia

a male figure with sceptre. a) Paris 1912 (illus. pl. must have offended the Milesians, perhaps intention- 20 fig. 65). ally. We are assured that the initial neokoria at least COIN TYPE 2. Obv: IOU %OAIMIA% %EBA%TH remained valid, however, by coins issued during the Diademed draped bust of Julia Soaemias r. Rev: two or three months in 238 C.E. when Balbinus and Two MILH%IVN B NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN Pupienus ruled as joint emperors with the young prize crowns, one labeled , the other OLUMPIA Gordian III Caesar. They again proclaim Miletos , on an agonistic table. a) Paris 1921. PUYIA simply neokoros. This is the first time that the title appeared on Milesian coins, so we can assume that the city was proud of its achievement of a second neokoria, and INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: wished to draw attention to it. Again, ‘twice neokoros of the Augusti’ assures us that neither of the two Neokoros: neokoriai was for Apollo Didymaios or any other 1. Rehm 1958, 164. Decree honoring an athlete, divinity. The two imperial temples on type 1 are dated to the early third century. See text above. abbreviated to become two-column structures iden- Note: Herrmann 1997, 205 restores a fragment (g) tical to each other in every detail, including the to Rehm 1924 (= IvM 6.1.A 1997) no. 259; the frag- imperial cult statues. Echoing that type is type 2 for ment ends . . . ]nƒ tØn |er[ . . ./ . . . ]v nevk[or- . . ./ two festivals, Olympia and Pythia. These may have ; according to Herrmann, “schwer been festivals for the temples which made the city . . . ]LOS[ . . . verständlich.” neokoros, but if they are, the type gives little infor- mation beyond the fact that one was modeled on COINS CITING NEOKORIA: the Olympic, the other on the Delphic, festival.24 Twice neokoros: Elagabalus: Paris. Withdrawn: Severus Alexander Julia Soaemias: Paris. Julia Maesa: Sardis 106. Miletos had never made much of being neokoros Severus Alexander Caesar: SNGMün 784; Berlin. before the time of Elagabalus. It presumably re- Neokoros: Balbinus: BMC 164; SNGCop 1021; Berlin (3 exx.), Lon- turned to that state just after his death and the don, Paris, Vienna, Warsaw. condemnation of his memory which wiped out many Pupienus: Berlin, London, Paris (2 exx.). cities’ neokoriai, Miletos’ included.25 No known Balbinus, Pupienus, Gordian III Caesar: London, Paris. Milesian coins mention neokoria during the reign of Severus Alexander. But this was exactly the pe- riod when Magnesia, Miletos’ neighbor and a rival sanctuary, first boasted that it was neokoros of its 26 patron goddess, Artemis Leukophryene.26 This vaunt The rivalry was long-standing: Rigsby 1996, 175. In the late third century B.C.E., Miletos had sought and obtained rights of asylum, and then a quinquennial Panhellenic festi- 24 For a female neokoros of Artemis Pythie, and Megala Pythia val. The Magnesians copied them and sought the same privi- Panionia games at Miletos, see Günther 1985, 185-188, 186 n. leges soon after, with indifferent success. There was then a 28. border conflict between them, now dated to the late 180s 25 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417. B.C.E.: Herrmann 1997, 182-184. chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 59

Chapter 4. Ephesos in Ionia: Koinon of Asia

One of the largest, wealthiest, and most prominent rivals as the foremost city in the province, it was the cities in the province of Asia was Ephesos. Its im- primary seat of the governor, and also a significant portance was recognized by a third-century impe- port.4 Pergamon, however, was the center of the rial decree according to which each new proconsul province’s pre-Roman administration, and thus also was required to make Ephesos his first landfall in for the koinon of the Hellenes, which was permit- the province.1 Yet Ephesos was not the first city to ted to worship Augustus himself. Despite Dio’s state- receive an imperial temple for the Hellenes in its ment that Ephesos was the foremost city of the province; that honor went to Pergamon (q.v.). On province at that time, the chief temple and center the other hand, it was one of the first cities to call of provincial cult in Asia was to be in Pergamon, itself neokoros. not in Ephesos. In 29 B.C.E., at the same time that he allowed a The location of Ephesos’ sanctuary for Rome and provincial temple for his own cult at Pergamon, the hero Julius, as well as that of a Sebasteion built Augustus permitted that there be a sacred precinct by the city and documented on local inscriptions, for Rome and the hero Julius Caesar in Ephesos, are problems that are not entirely settled. A consen- which Cassius Dio called the chief city of Asia.2 The sus of opinion has located both imperial shrines in best evidence that Ephesos’ shrine to Rome and the the ‘state agora’ of the city, a monumental square deified Julius was not a provincial imperial temple including the prytaneion and bouleuterion, devel- would come when cities began to acquire the title oped in the first century B.C.E. Whether the shrine ‘neokoros’ for such temples. Under Domitian, when of Rome and the hero Julius can be identified as the Ephesos called itself neokoros, it had a single iden- structure previously known as the ‘state altar’ (re- tifiable provincial imperial temple, that ‘of the stored as two diminutive four-column prostyle Augusti,’ not of Rome and Caesar; and its chief temples on the same podium), or as the six-by-ten priest did not begin to be called ‘chief priest of the column temple in the center of the state agora (first [plural] temples in Ephesos’ until the temple of identified as a temple of Isis, then of Dionysos/Mark Hadrian, for which Ephesos became twice neokoros, Antony, and then as the Sebasteion), is uncertain.5 was built. There appears to have been a Sebasteion connected Dio stated that Augustus designated Ephesos’ with the great temple of Artemis outside the city as sanctuary to Rome and the hero Julius for the use well.6 of resident Romans. That there was already an orga- Ephesos was among the eleven cities of Asia that nized body of them is proved by an inscription of competed to build a koinon temple to Tiberius, but 36 B.C.E. set up by the conventus of Roman citizens was passed over as being too wholly occupied by the doing business in Ephesos.3 Though Ephesos had cult of Artemis.7 This reason was used again to rule out a temple to Gaius.8 Yet in a province eager to 1 Ulpian, Digest 1.16.4.5, by Caracalla: Alan Watson 1985, establish a temple to each of its rulers, such a promi- 32; Millar 1987, xi. 2 Cassius Dio 51.20.6-7; see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon.’ Wein- stock 1971, 401-404, constructed an earlier history for this cult 4 Haensch 1997, 286, 298-321. at Ephesos: already in 41 B.C.E. Antony had carried a letter 5 Thus far no decisive evidence for either identification has from the Senate to sacred delegates in Asia regarding it. The been adduced. Alzinger 1970, 1648-1649; Jobst 1980; Scherrer letter, however, does not mention Ephesos as the cult place at 1995a, 4-5; Walters 1995, 293-295; Scherrer 1997, 93-100; all, nor can Weinstock’s identification of its priesthood and the Scherrer 2001, 69-71. Both monuments have the same build- flaminate of Caesar with the chief priesthood of the province ing technique: Waelkens 1987, 96. Asia be correct. See Whittaker 1996, 93-99. 6 Engelmann 1993. 3 IvE 658, supplemented by Knibbe, Engelmann, and 7 Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56; chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ Iplikçioglu 1989, 235-236; see also Scherrer 2001, 85. 8 Cassius Dio 59.28.1; chapter 3, ‘Miletos.’ 60 part i – section i. koinon of asia nent city, seat of the Roman governors, center of a First Neokoria: Nero world-famous cult and of a judicial district, should not have had to wait for long; the only question is, The first appearance ever on a coin of the title ‘neo- how long? koros’ occurred at Ephesos. An inscription of Kyzikos (q.v.) had used the term COIN TYPE 1. Obv: Laureate ‘neokoros’ in connection with the city’s imperial cult NERVN KAI%AR head of Nero r. (l., e) Rev: as early as the reign of Gaius, but another early AOUIOLA ANYUPATV acefgh af literary citation associated it with Ephesos’ temple (AIXMOKLH%, ) EF(E, ) NEVKORVN a Four-column Ionic? temple in of Artemis. Saint Paul visited Ephesos around the (NEOKORVN, ) three-quarter view on three-step podium. a) Lon- years 52-54; at that time a local silversmith who don 1972.8-7-12 (illus. pl. 21 fig. 66) b) Oxford made his business out of selling silver images of the 10.12 c) Paris 626 d) Vienna 31480 e) Berlin, temple of Artemis roused the citizens against him, Löbbecke f) Berlin, Bernhard-Imhoof 1928 g) so that a riot erupted. According to the account in Berlin h) SNGvA 7863.12 the Acts of the Apostles, when the people flocked to the theater shouting “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” COIN TYPE 2. Obv: NERVN KAI%AR Laureate they were quieted by the city’s secretary, the gram- head of Nero r. Rev: EFE%IVN NEOKORVN mateus, who is quoted saying “Who does not know Six-column Ionic? temple on three-step podium, that Ephesos is neokoros of the great goddess disc in pediment, Victories as akroteria; to either Artemis and of the heaven-fallen [image]?”9 Most side, a bee. a) London 1973.5-1-4 (illus. pl. 21 fig. studies of Acts have indicated that, though the ac- 67).13 count is not that of an eyewitness, it is a fairly reli- Type 1 is dated by the name of the proconsul M’. able representation of the events of Paul’s mission Acilius Aviola; as his name appears on coins with and his visit to Ephesos; the text itself may have been portraits of both the Empress Poppaea and her prepared twenty-five years or more after the event.10 successor Messalina his proconsulship of Asia must The term ‘neokoros’ was not cited here as part of have been in 65/66.14 Type 1 is also one of the the city’s official titulature; the grammateus used it earliest coin types to show a temple in three-quar- as a metaphor, to illustrate the city’s relationship to ter view, and probably represents the same temple Artemis’ temple and image. As a detail, however, shown in facade on type 2, which was likely issued it places the episode precisely in the late Claudian/ at around the same time. But whose temple was it? early Neronian period.11 For very soon after, the title Though the better examples make it appear Ionic ‘neokoros’ was to be become part of official civic like the Artemision, Price and Trell thought it was titulature in Asia, identified exclusively with the Corinthian; also, Victory-akroteria do not appear on provincial imperial cult, not the possession of the coin images of the temple of Artemis.15 The bees on temple of Artemis. type 2 do not help, as they are the symbols of the 9 Acts of the Apostles 19.35; on the office, Schulte 1994. city itself on much of Ephesian coinage. One shows Images seen as primitive were often classed as ‘heaven-fallen’: up on another coin of this Neronian series, and ac- Willemsen 1939, 18-35, esp. 28-32 on Artemis; see chapter 9, companies a bust of the goddess Rome; this draped ‘Philadelphia.’ LiDonnici 1992, 395-396, incautiously deni- grated both the Acts citation and the evidence for Artemis’ and mural-crowned city goddess is also shown hold- headdress (below). ing a statuette of the Artemis of Ephesos.16 All these 10 Haenchen 1965, 60, 77, 672; Molthagen 1991, 65-71, types show a close connection between Ephesos and dates the text ca. 90 C.E.; also see Gill and Gempf 1994, ix- xiii; and Trebilco 1994. the personification of Rome, who after all had shared 11 White 1995, 37 doubted a Neronian date for the events cult with the hero Julius in the temenos for resident in Acts despite the appearance of ‘neokoros’ on later Neronian Romans established in the city in 29 B.C.E. But why coins, and supported a date closer to the turn of the second century; yet the grammateus’ use of the term ‘neokoros of Artemis’ as if it were well known would not have been per- 12 RPC 1:438 no. 2627 (example e) and 2626 (all but e). mitted in the early second century, as by that time Ephesos 13 RPC 1:438 no. 2628. was officially neokoros of the Augusti, and only of the Augusti. 14 Stumpf 1991, 178-181; Thomasson 1984, 214-215 no. Indeed, the title would not have been appropriate again until 59. Ephesos did become neokoros of Artemis, at the beginning of 15 Pace Karwiese 1999, fig. 9, who did not distinguish be- the third, not the second, century; see below. The same ap- tween these akroteria and (unwinged?) figures in the pediment; plies to Koester’s own doubts about the episode’s timing and M. Price and Trell 1977, 262 no. 380; Trell 1945. historicity: Koester 1982, 310; idem 1995, 130-131. 16 RPC 1:438 nos. 2629, 2632. chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 61 would so old a cult suddenly be celebrated on coins tivals.22 It is remotely possible that a petition for a of 65/66 C.E.? And is it only a coincidence that the koinon temple in a city that had once established a Ephesian kouretes, an association dedicated to the cult koinon temple for Nero would not be among the and rituals of Artemis Ephesia, add the title cases heard by Vespasian with favor, or that there philosebastoi, ‘Augustus-loving,’ to their lists of was some other reason for delay. But on the whole, members just at this period?17 Asia was apparently prosperous during the reigns of It has long been thought that Ephesos was declar- Vespasian and Titus, and could have begun (or ing itself to be neokoros of Artemis on the Aviola continued?) building a provincial imperial temple if coins, just as the grammateus declared the city permission for one were granted. neokoros of Artemis in Acts.18 But it is just possible Only later, however, under the emperor Domi- that instead Ephesos was calling itself neokoros for tian, did a group of cities of the koinon of Asia make a provincial temple that it had been seeking since dedications for “the common [koinos, implying pro- the reign of Tiberius, and which it may have finally vincial status] temple of Asia of the Augusti [Sebastoi] won in the reign of Nero.19 If that was so, it was a in Ephesos.”23 Though the dedications were to the particularly unfortunate time for the establishment current emperor, the temple was not called a temple of such a temple. Some two years later, in June 68, of Domitian, but of the Augusti.24 This could mean Nero was declared a public enemy by the Senate and that the cult in this provincial temple included the killed himself, after which his name, not to mention current rulers (Domitian with his consort Domitia), his cult, was condemned.20 all three emperors of the Flavian dynasty, or all their honored imperial predecessors, each without ruling out the presence of the others. The latter group was Rededication: Vespasian or Later not necessarily limited to those recognized as divi at Rome: for example, Tiberius, though never deified, If Ephesos had been granted permission to build a continued as an object of the Asian provincial cult temple to Nero, petitions to change the object of cult in Smyrna’s temple at least into the third century, to a subsequent emperor may have been similarly and his mother Livia, as Julia Sebaste, shared that unfortunate. Within the infamous year 69, Galba, temple well before Claudius deified her.25 Later Otho, and Vitellius each attempted to serve as head inscriptions, datable to the early third century, of state, and each was displaced in turn. Vespasian record a temple of the god Vespasian, probably finally succeeded in holding power and passing it on referring to the main object of worship at the pro- to his sons, but it is uncertain how long it would have vincial temple of the Augusti at Ephesos.26 taken for the pleas of an Asian city and its koinon On the inscriptions that celebrated the founda- regarding a lost provincial temple for a dishonored tion, and probably stood around this temple, ten emperor to be presented or to be heeded. Though Vespasian’s advent was apparently greet- 22 ed with enthusiasm in Asia, local disputes may have Dräger 1993, 39-54, 66-70, 77-89, though several of his assumptions are highly questionable; see below. been serious enough to necessitate lengthening the 23 J. Keil 1919; IvE 232-242, 1498, 2048. term of the proconsul Eprius Marcellus.21 There was 24 E. Meyer 1975; pace S. Price 1984b, 58, 254-257. Al- some Flavian reorganization of the province, and though one inscription cities a “chief priest and neokoros of Domitian Caesar and Domitia Sebaste and their house and the expenditure, some imperial and some local, was Senate,” it is likely that this was a local office, held in his home made on the road system, earthquake repair, pub- town of Tmolos. Note also SIG4 820, an inscription copied by lic works in the cities, and the celebration of fes- Cyriacus of Ancona, which joined the cult of the theoi Sebastoi with the ancient cult of Demeter at Ephesos in the proconsulship of L. Mestrius Florus (ca. 88/89, around the time of the dedication of the temple of the Augusti). 25 Pace Scherrer 1997, 100-106, all too dependent on Dräger 17 Rogers 1999. 1993; see ‘Smyrna,’ chapter 2. 18 J. Keil 1919. 26 IvE 710 B and C, 3038; Friesen 1993, 37 n. 27 was un- 19 RPC 1:433. necessarily perturbed over the fact that the provincial status 20 Kienast 1996, 96-98; Varner 1993, 78-187; and Rose of the temple was not explicitly mentioned in these inscriptions, 1997b, 112-113. Individual cities could be haphazard in their and postulated a municipal temple of Vespasian. But see be- approach to the condemnation, especially in early cases such low, where Ephesos’ own second provincial temple, which made as Nero’s. it twice neokoros, is called simply ‘the temple of the god 21 Thomasson 1984, 215 no. 65. Hadrian’ (contra Friesen 1993, 34). 62 part i – section i. koinon of asia cities adhered to a ‘short formula’ of dedication, The first inscription to call the city neokoros is which may have been modeled on a motion in the of uncertain date: though it may come from the koinon council.27 The two free cities, Aphrodisias Neronian period of the Aviola coins, it may on the and Stratonikeia, expanded on that formula, empha- other hand show that Ephesos was neokoros of the sizing that they were not bound by the koinon’s Augusti by late 85 to 86 C.E. actions, but joined in the dedication as a voluntary INSCRIPTION 1. IvE 2034 (FiE 2:34; SEG act.28 Only the free cities and Philadelphia in Lydia, 4:563). Building inscription of the skene of the which used a formula of its own in setting up a statue theater. { ¤ of the demos of Ephesos, called the city of Ephesos neo[kÒ]row [t«n Sebast«n ÉEfes] vn neokoros (inscriptions 2, 3, and 4, below). The free pÒ[liw]. . . cities emphasized their own status in their inscrip- The dedication is to an emperor who was tions, while Philadelphia, a less important city, Germanicus at the time of his eleventh imperial played up its relationship with neokoros Ephesos. acclamation, and whose name was later obliterated. Friesen believed that these inscriptions tended to This could have been either Nero or Domitian. If “minimize the significance of the cult for Ephesus, Nero, the date would fall between late summer 66 while emphasizing the role of the other cities of the and 67, just after the issue of Ephesian coins with province.” But it is not that the inscriptions mini- the title ‘neokoros’ under Aviola, and providing mize the significance of the cult; they only play up further indication that the title ‘neokoros’ was offi- their own cities’ importance. Naturally so, as these cial (and likely for the Augusti) at that time. If were not inscriptions of Ephesos, even if they stood Domitian, the inscription dates between October/ within that city; their function was to document the November 85 and March/April 86 C.E., two years donors’ piety in contributing toward, or celebrating before the dedications began to be set up for the the dedication of, the common temple of the prov- temple of the Augusti at Ephesos.29 Either is pos- ince. A parallel example is Ephesos’ own dedication sible, as both occur around a time when the neokoria to Hadrian at the Olympieion at Athens (inscription was otherwise documented. 37, below): its magniloquence celebrated Ephesos’ Keil believed that since there was only one pro- titles, not Athens’. At the temple of the Augusti at vincial temple in Ephesos, the reading of inscription Ephesos, neokoros was not a denigrating term, as 1 should be restored as ‘neokoros of the Augustus,’ Friesen implied. It only stated the terms under which but this would be unparalleled. Certainly the temple the current dedications were being made: Ephesos itself is called that of the Augusti, not of the held the new provincial temple which was being Augustus, as noted above. In any case, additional celebrated. evidence is needed before the date of inscription 1 When was the temple of the Augusti decreed? can be decided. First of all, the coins issued by Ephesos under Aviola Dräger, taking the date of inscription 1 as Domi- (65/66) make it possible that the title ‘neokoros’ had tianic and using as his model Tacitus’ description already come to Ephesos for a provincial imperial of how Smyrna (q.v.) received its provincial temple temple in the reign of Nero, and that the ‘temple under Tiberius, spun a scenario that had the koinon of the Augusti’ had been at some stage the temple voting a provincial temple to Domitian (and Zeus of Nero (its image shown, but presumably as a pro- Olympios) in 83, to celebrate Domitian’s German jection, not yet built) for which the city had called victory, complete with a debate on where to build itself neokoros on coins two decades before the time it held in summer 84.30 The result is more in the of Domitian, when the temple was completed. The nature of historical fiction than history, based as it delay would have been long, as noted above; but the period comprehended the disruption of an empire, 29 Kienast 1996, 96-98, 115-118. Heberdey’s FiE publica- the fall of one dynasty, and the foundation of an- tion opted for Nero, but the Domitianic date suited J. Keil 1919, other. 116 n. 5, and was also adopted in IvE. The similar skene at Miletos proved to be Neronian, however: Herrmann 1986, 183, on the Ephesian question; and Herrmann 1998, no. 928. 30 Dräger 1993, 122-135, 181-182. The usefulness of Drä- 27 Friesen 1993, 29-49. They include Aizanoi (twice), Kere- ger’s work was also vitiated by his tendency to refer to any pro- tapa, Klazomenai, Silandos, Teos, Kyme, Tmolos, Hyrkanis, vincial imperial cult as “Neokoriekult” even in cases where the Synaos, and an unknown city. title ‘neokoros’ never appeared (e.g. Lycia in the first century, 28 Reynolds 1982, 109, 167-168; Reynolds 1999, 135. 246-249; see chapter 33, ‘Patara’). chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 63 is on coincidences, and filled in with imagination. architectural facade of its terrace were not added As for IvE 230, which was postulated to concern the until the mid-second century (see below). grant of the neokoria by Domitian, the inscription It has already been noted that the official desig- is much too fragmentary to be certain about its nation of the temple even at its final dedication subject; neither the temple nor the title is mentioned. under Domitian was ‘the temple of the Augusti.’ When, and for whom, was the temple of the Previous provincial temples had not used this para- Augusti at Ephesos finally built? J. Keil, who first phrase: even in the lifetimes of the emperors in gathered and analyzed the evidence, noted that after question, the temple at Pergamon was called that Domitian’s death, his name was obliterated from the of Rome and Augustus, that at Smyrna of Tiberius, dedications of the cities and that of ‘the god Julia, and the Senate, that at Miletos of Gaius Cae- Vespasian’ written in. He believed that not only the sar. Why was the Ephesian temple not called ‘the inscriptions but the temple itself underwent the temple of Domitian’? Possibly because there had process of rededication, and that it had originally been a delay in its construction, and its original ob- been built for the worship of Domitian. Magie, on ject of cult was not the current emperor. If Ephe- the other hand, attributed the original temple to an sos was originally granted a provincial temple for emperor earlier than Domitian, but this hypothesis Nero, lost it due to the condemnation of his memory, was based on an early date, 83/84 C.E., for the first had it regranted under Vespasian (who was remem- proconsul of Asia, L. Mestrius Florus, under whom bered into the third century as the chief object of the cities set up their dedications.31 In fact, Eck has cult of this temple), but didn’t complete it until af- dated Florus’ proconsulship five years later, to 88/ ter that emperor’s death and the death of his im- 89.32 The city dedications, set up under three dif- mediate successor, then ‘temple of the Augusti’ might ferent proconsuls perhaps from 88 to 91, certainly have been the best compromise as the title for a indicate that the temple was completed and dedi- building with such a varied history. Vespasian’s place cated in the reign of Domitian. Friesen dated the as the temple’s chief object of cult in the third cen- completion of the temple to exactly 90 C.E., based tury has already been noted; Domitian, emperor on the absence of the temple’s neokoros official on when the temple was completed, would surely have all but two dedications dated to the proconsulate of been included; and Titus’ portrait head is what later L. Luscius Ocr(e)a.33 As two of the rest of the inscrip- identified the temple (below). The empress Domitia tions are incomplete and four feature a prominent may have had her place as well, but no sign of the erasure, one cannot place too much dependence on cult of any emperor previous to Vespasian has been this assumption from silence. found.35 It is still possible that the temple had been granted The koinon temple of the Augusti at Ephesos has earlier, under Vespasian, or even under Nero. been identified as an east-facing octastyle structure Though the long delay in building would still have set axially on a monumental 50 x 100 m. vaulted to be explained, there is a parallel for it: the festi- terrace (illus. pl. 4 fig. 17).36 Though not extraor- val in the name of Ti. Claudius Balbillus, established dinary in size, its position and its artificial height by permission of Vespasian, was also not celebrated made it a major building project; it took over resi- until Domitian’s time.34 The year 88/89 (or 85/86, dential areas and made them civic space, part of and if inscription 1 proves to be for Domitian) is only dominating the state agora to its east.37 Inscription the point by which the neokoria and the temple of the Augusti must have been granted. Dedicated 35 Scherrer 1997, 103-106 reasoned across provincial lines between 88 and 91, its point of absolute completion to produce an official cult of the divi Augusti (including Augustus and Claudius as well as Vespasian, Titus, and some empresses) may have been yet later: its decorated altar and the under Domitian, but his chief source, the imperial statues in the Metroön at Olympia, only represent one particular case of dedications made over time, probably by Elis; see the re- evaluation by Rose 1997a, 147-149, who noted that no dedi- 31 Magie 1950, 1432-1434 n. 18. cations to Claudius of Flavian date survive in the eastern 32 Eck 1970, 85, 139; Eck 1982, 315. Thomasson 1984, 217- Mediterranean region. 218 no. 75, assigned it only to a year of Domitian’s reign before 36 Still often called the ‘Temple of Domitian’: J. Keil 1931/ 90. 32, 54; Boëthius and Ward-Perkins 1970, 392; Lyttelton 1987, 33 Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 77 (85-91 C.E.); Friesen 1993, 44; Scherrer 1995b, 94. On the building technique, Waelkens 45-49. 1987, 96. 34 Brunet 1997 dates it to 85 or 86 C.E. 37 Vetters 1972-1975; Scherrer 2001, 74. 64 part i – section i. koinon of asia

9, of the mid-90s C.E., mentions the “new magni- head and the left forearm found with it were the tude of the Augustan works,” perhaps referring to best-preserved parts of the colossal statues that stood the temple and its terrace, and suggests that reno- in the provincial temple at Ephesos. Pieces of a pair vation of the older monuments (perhaps those of the of legs and an open-handed right arm were also state agora below) would be fitting.38 Access to the found built into late walls.43 The find of a third temple was by climbing monumental stairways to its colossal hand proves that the statue of Titus did not terrace at the north and southeast. Only the foun- stand alone, and makes it at least possible that not dations remain to show the temple’s plan (illus. pl. all the parts so far found came from the same statue. 1 fig. 2): an eight-by-thirteen column peristasis, The position of the knees shows that one statue pseudodipteral, with a four-column (prostyle) cella did stand, and one raised its left arm to hold a spear and no opisthodomos, set six steps up on a stylobate or long sceptre (illus. pl. 8 fig. 27).44 The standing of ca. 24 x 34 m. It follows the typical plan of Ionic statue must have been stupendous if only for its size temples as canonized by the Greek architect Hermo- (the Titus head alone is 1.18 m. high). Judging by genes in all respects, except for the omission of the the treatment of the base of Titus’ neck, the statue opisthodomos and the corresponding loss of two was acrolithic, with the flesh represented by white columns on the long side. Scanty fragments of the marble; the marble legs accommodated a wooden superstructure left on the site do not permit recon- armature that held the statue together. No part of struction, nor can the order be established, except a torso has been found, and it is likely that it was as non-Doric. It is likely, however, that parts of the made of perishable wood, which could then be temple were reused in the time of Theodosius I to painted, gilt, or bronze-covered (for the acrolithic rebuild the ‘tetragonos agora’ to the northwest. technique, see summary chapter 39 on temples and These may include Corinthian capitals decorated statues in Part II). At least one statue’s costume was with eagles and dolphins.39 An altar with reliefs of probably a cuirass, indicating an emperor in trium- weapons and sacrifices stood on a columned and phant military mode. About four times life size, the stepped platform east of the temple and on its axis. Titus statue may have stood 7 m. tall, and together Both it and the figural decoration of caryatid bar- with a companion statue of Vespasian and, until his barians (at first misidentified as the gods Attis and death, one of Domitian, would have filled the ca. Isis) along the north side of the temple terrace may 7.5 x 13 m. interior of the cella.45 Since one (cui- date significantly later than the building itself, per- rassed?) statue raised a sceptre in his left hand, it is haps to the mid-second century.40 These facts ob- possible that another mirrored his gesture on the viate Friesen’s theory of the terrace representing the right; these two were likely Titus and (at first) gods supporting the emperors, and substitute a more Domitian, with Vespasian placed between them, earthly and martial metaphor of imperial triumph.41 though the father’s guise is unknown. Strocka recon- The keystone for the identification of this temple structed the post-Domitianic group as a cuirassed was the discovery of marble pieces of colossal stat- Titus, lacking the shield that Meriç restored on the ues, including one head, in the vaulted substructures incorrect side, with Vespasian in the pose of a stand- of its terrace (illus. pl. 8 fig. 26). The head was at ing Zeus, and speculated that the sculptors came first supposed to be Domitian’s, but Daltrop, in his from Aphrodisias.46 Scherrer proposed an overly reexamination of Flavian iconography, identified it speculative reconstruction of five statues (Augustus, as a portrait of Domitian’s elder brother Titus, who Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian) on 2 x reigned briefly after their father Vespasian.42 This

14. Varner 1993, 226-227, led by Price, argued unconvincingly 38 Winter 1996, 80, 325 no. 40. Other projects may have for Domitian, and apparently believed that cult statues would been included among the ‘Augustan works.’ be allowed to stand in an imperial cult temple in a Christian 39 Scherrer 1995b, 19-20, 22. empire until the triumph of Islam. 40 Bammer 1978-1980, 81-88; Schneider 1986, 125-128; 43 Meriç 1985, where the third hand is plate 23.13, not Bammer 1988, 153-156. 23.16 as labeled. 41 Friesen 1993, 68-75. 44 Kreikenbom 1992, 103, 213-215, still led on a Domitianic 42 Daltrop, Hausman, and Wegner 1966, 26, 86, 100, pl. tangent by the legacy of J. Keil 1919. The restoration of Rose 15b; Rose 1997b. H. von Heintze, in Gymnasium 76 (1969) 372 1997b, fig. 5 is illustrated here (R. Hagerty, artist), based on criticized the identification but not convincingly. Surprisingly, Meriç 1985, pl. 24. it is still sometimes called Domitian, even by Meriç 1985; he 45 Miltner 1958a, 38-40. apparently led S. Price astray, above n. 24; also Rogers 1991, 46 Strocka 1989, 85-87, 92 n. 58. chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 65

3.5 m. bases, one against the cella’s back wall and that the provincials could worship the living em- two each on either side facing each other.47 Bammer peror. So though it is likely that the head was carved visualized the standing Titus outdoors, either on the close to the time of the temple’s dedication, in the axis between altar and staircase or elsewhere on the reign of Domitian, the divine traits are not an in- temple terrace. This would have been an odd place dependent confirmation of that date. for an acrolithic statue, whose wooden structure Early scholars, and later ones who have depended required protection from the weather, but one head on them without checking the coins themselves, have of a colossal statue found at Sardis (q.v.) did show been deceived by two falsified Ephesian coins that signs of exposure to the elements. Meriç noted that called the city twice neokoros under Domitian.51 holes in the portrait’s back indicate that the head COIN TYPE 3 (LEGENDS RECUT). Obv: and perhaps the arms were doweled into the back wall of the cella (or a niche) as a means of accom- DOMITIANO% KAI%AR %EBA% GERMANIKO% Laureate head of Domitian r. Rev: modating the statue’s great weight.48 So though AUTOKRAT Four-column temple, Bammer’s open placement should probably be ruled EFE%ION B NEOKORVN Artemis Ephesia within. a) Munich. out, it is not impossible that a statue could stand outside the cella but in a sheltered area, such as the COIN TYPE 4 (ENTIRELY REWORKED). temple’s porch; nonetheless, it is much likelier that Obv: DOMITIA %EBA%TH Draped bust of the colossal statue(s) stood in the cella. Domitia r. Rev: [NEV]KORVN EFE%IVN Eight- The treatment that the Roman Titus received at column temple on podium, disc in pediment, the hands of the Asian sculptor is remarkable, and Artemis Ephesia within. a) Paris 668. not only due to the portrait’s size and the height and The recutting was probably done to make obscure angle at which it was displayed. Since the head and coins more valuable, with the legend based on post- neck turn so powerfully to the left, the hair on the Hadrianic coinage. Keil was deluded by these coins left side is swept forward so that it can be better seen into the belief that the Ephesians added their pos- from the front. The right eye is larger and wider session of the new provincial temple to their claim open than the left, and there are other asymmetries to being neokoroi of Artemis.52 The contemporary that suit a portrait made to be seen from far below.49 inscriptions, as has been seen, properly called the But beyond these visual tricks, the commonplace, city neokoros. even homely features of Titus have been transformed Ephesos was one of the eventually five known by his apotheosis. The mouth is open, as if breath- cities whose provincial temple(s) were presided over ing; the brow is lowering and intensely furrowed, the by a specifically designated chief priest of the koinon eyes deepset, and the hair falls in baroque, wind- of Asia (see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ and chapter 41 swept curls. All these traits are familiar from por- on the koina). The names of chief priests appeared traits of that paradigm for apotheosis, Alexander the in the Domitianic dedications at the provincial Great, and were picked up by Asian sculptors to temple (above), and the wife of at least one early convey the same divine or divinely inspired leader- chief priest was entitled chief priestess of the temple ship in their Roman rulers.50 So Titus the head of at Ephesos.53 Though the latter documents are only state at Rome has become the deity at Ephesos. This approximately dated to the start of the second cen- elevated style, however, should not be interpreted tury, the presence of a chief priestess has been taken to mean that the emperor was deified at Rome, i.e. to imply some cult of the Augustae.54 Likely Domitia dead, at the time of the portrait’s production. The was worshipped in the provincial temple of the distinction that Augustus made had already provided

47 Scherrer 1997, 106-107. 51 RPC 2:165 nos. F 1064, F 1065: RPC 1:433; Burnett 1999, 48 Bammer 1972-75; see S. Price 1984b, 255 no. 31 and 140-141. For the Munich coin, Pick 1906, 236 no. 1; confirmed Meriç 1985. as recut by Klose 1997, 257, 261 no. 3. 49 Kreikenbom 1992, 102-103, 213-215, pl. 19 (with bib- 52 Keil 1919, 118-120; the latest scholars to fall into this liography). trap were Friesen 1993, 56-57 (which makes the title of his book 50 Zanker 1983, 23, attributes some of the oddity of the por- rather ironic), and Dräger 1993, 292-293 nos. 112, 113. trait to the sculptor’s indecisiveness in combining Titus’ indi- 53 Campanile 1994a, nos. 12, 18, 22; perhaps 34 a and b vidual features with the heroic mold of ruler portraits in Asia (T. Flavius Varus and Flavia Ammion, from Phokaia). Minor. For those models, L’Orange 1947; Michel 1967. 54 Herz 1992. 66 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Augusti in Ephesos during and perhaps after her der Trajan also mention it, generally in abbrevia- husband’s reign (she became Augusta in 81); pos- tion (NEV). It is unfortunate that all the inscriptions sibly Julia, daughter of Titus, was as well (Augusta that call Ephesos neokoros of the Augusti are frag- since 79, she was deified at her death in 89).55 It mentary (nos. 1, 2, 11, 32). The unadorned title should be noted, though, that no real trace of such appears well into the reign of Hadrian, who would honors to any Augusta has been found here, and that give the city a second provincial imperial temple, later statues of female agonothetai at Ephesos itself thus making it (for the first time) twice neokoros. and elsewhere show both male and female Augusti on their crowns.56 The temple’s officials included a neokoros at least Second Neokoria: Hadrian from 90 C.E.57 There were also fourteen thesmodoi of the provincial temple of the Augusti in Ephesos, When Hadrian granted a second neokoria to and perhaps nine or more theologoi under the di- Ephesos, he had already allowed the Smyrnaeans to rection of the chief priest of that temple.58 add a temple for his own cult to their previous pro- The first chief priest of the provincial temple at vincial temple; earlier still, Trajan had done the same Ephesos yet known was Tiberius Claudius Aristion, for Pergamon. Great cities were no longer to be who served in that office in 89 C.E. and became the considered occupied by one cult to the exclusion of temple’s neokoros in the very next year. He has now others, and the same emperor could allow a single been daringly identified with a skeleton whose sar- province to build more than one temple in his honor. cophagus was reburied to include a marble portrait In the case of Hadrian and Asia, three separate head with a diadem of imperial busts.59 Though the provincial cults are known to have been established, skeleton and the portrait may well be the same man, in Kyzikos, Smyrna, and Ephesos. no evidence explicitly identifies either one as Arist- In his account of Hadrian’s gift to Smyrna (q.v.), ion, whom the scholars settled on because he was Philostratos wrote that “Hadrian, who had previ- the most eminent of the city’s benefactors of the late ously favored the Ephesians, [the orator Polemon] first/early second century, the date of the sarcopha- converted to the Smyrnaeans’ side.” Since the gus and of the portrait. But the site of the find was emperor’s grant of a second neokoria to Ephesos was beside the monument which Thür and her col- later than that to Smyrna, however, likely Philo- leagues wished to identify as the ‘heroön of Andro- stratos was overinterpreting Hadrian’s favor as a klos,’ so they opined that the sarcophagus could not choice. In fact, Hadrian never seems to have have come from that monument, but from one near frowned on the Ephesians, and for his benefactions the nymphaeum of Trajan which Aristion donated; was hailed as ‘founder’ even before he made the city why the Ephesians of late antiquity would have twice neokoros.60 The date of that grant can be dragged the great stone sarcophagus so far up the established from the inscriptions: no. 31, the last to Embolos to bury it is never adequately explained. call Ephesos simply neokoros, dates to 130/131, Inscriptions 1-34 use the simple title ‘neokoros’ whereas the first to call it twice neokoros has been to describe the city or its people; coins issued un- dated to 132:61 INSCRIPTION 37. IG II2 3297, from Athens. 55 Kienast 1996, 114, 118-119. Statue base of Hadrian from the Olympieion. { 56 The Ephesos examples are Severan: Rumscheid 2000, mhtrÒpoliw [pr\th ka‹ meg¤sth] t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ 122-123 nos. 17-18. See also chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ 57 Friesen 1993, 45-49; Campanile 1994a, no. 12. d‹w n[evkÒrow ÉEfes¤v]n pÒliw. . . 58 IvE 27 (inscription 17, below) lines 457-458, 532-535 (thesmodoi), 258-265 (theologoi). Rogers 1991, 46-54 noted the Hadrian visited Ephesos on at least two and prob- integration of these officials of the imperial cult temple into ably more of his journeys through the East. In 124 processions and lotteries honoring Artemis primarily and the he listened as the ephebes sang his praises in the emperors as well. IvE 645, a third century dedication to theater;62 and perhaps it was on his way back from Artemis, mentions a synedrion of hymnodoi, theologoi and thesmodoi. Hymnodoi at Ephesos are usually those of Artemis, though there are some nonspecific citations, and as the latter 60 Gifts to Artemis, grants of grain shipments, rebuilding inscription shows, functionaries of the imperial cult and of the the harbor and restoring the river Kaystros: IvE 274; Winter city’s chief goddess seem to have been closely associated; see 1996, 71, 143-144. Rogers 1991, 55-56. 61 Magie 1950, 1480 n. 30. 59 Thür 1997; Rumscheid 2000, 120-121 cat. no. 13. 62 IvE 1145. chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 67 his last trip in 131 that he called in at Ephesos and of the temple (singular) in Ephesos, while the same awarded that city its second provincial imperial inscription called the city twice neokoros.66 Though temple.63 But the grant need not have been con- the title was official, the new temple was not yet nected with any particular visit. Since the time of standing by 134/135. Another document of this Trajan, the Ephesians had seen their rivals Perga- temple is an inscription honoring a chief priestess mon and Smyrna become twice neokoroi, whereas of Asia of the temples in Ephesos.67 There it is called they only held that honor once. Moreover, Hadrian simply ‘the temple of Lord Hadrian Caesar.’ As both had already shown himself willing to allow more temples were now standing, the inscription must than one provincial temple for his own cult in Asia. postdate the previous one of 134/135, but the It is likely that the Ephesians did not cease to lobby uninflated titulature for Hadrian should place it until they won the second neokoria that brought before his death in 138. Thus the completion of them back onto the same level with the other lead- Hadrian’s temple and the chief priesthood of Dio- ing cities in their koinon, Pergamon and Smyrna. phantos can be dated after 134/135 and before 138. The moving spirit behind the second neokoria was After the temple of Hadrian was completed, many Tiberius Claudius Piso Diophantos. A statue base inscriptions referred to the chief priest, chief priest- from Ephesos records his accomplishments: “. . . ess, or Asiarch of the temples (plural) at Ephesos.68 [Tiberius Cl]audius Piso Diophantos, who was chief Occasionally the inscriptions detail exactly how priest of the two temples in Ephesos, under whom many temples the official had in his or her charge.69 the temple of the god Hadrian was consecrated, who Inscriptions also document hymnodoi ‘of the god first asked for (it) from the god Hadrian and obtained Hadrian’s temple’ in Ephesos.70 (it).”64 Thus the request for the temple was presented The temple itself has been identified as the cen- by Diophantos, probably acting as advocate for the ter of a monumental complex in the northern dis- city and/or koinon. We know little else of Dio- trict of Ephesos (illus. pl. 4 fig. 19); though no actual phantos; if his request won approval from Hadrian, proof beyond size and a Hadrianic date of construc- who was a connoisseur of orators, he must have been tion has been offered, its identification as the temple an accomplished speaker. His memory may have that made the city twice neokoros is not unreason- lasted long in the city’s annals, if not in ours, since able.71 The new complex was part of a mid-impe- a bronze statue of him was perhaps re-erected in rial expansion of the city to the west and north, built Ephesos as late as 405-410 C.E.65 In any case, the on landfill near, or perhaps in, the former harbor. koinon likely rewarded him for his talents by pro- It consisted of a huge colonnaded temenos, ca. 225 viding that he be chief priest (of Asia) when the temple of Hadrian was consecrated, making him the 66 first chief priest of two provincial temples in Ephesos. Eck 1970, 210; Campanile 1994a, no. 70. 67 IvE 814; Rossner 1974, 101-142, esp. 139. Of course, there must have been some delay until 68 Rossner 1974, 115, 117, 119, 126, 128, 129, 135, 137, the temple itself was built. This is shown by the 139; for additional citations, see Kearsley 1988a. Also note the following inscription: error in citation by Rossner 1974, 127: CIL 3 (not CIG) 6835- 6837, from the Roman colony Antioch in Pisidia, document INSCRIPTION 39. IvE 279. Base of a statue of Cn. Dottius Plancianus as ASIAR(CH) TEMPL at Ephesos, which should be restored TEMPL(orum), as there were plural the empress Sabina. { filos°bastow [ÉEf]es¤vn temples making Ephesos neokoros in the time of Marcus boulØ ka‹ ~ nev[kÒ]row d‹w d}mow . . . Aurelius. This is also of interest as recording a citizen of a Roman colony who took a high position in a koinon of a dif- Dated to 134/135 by the proconsulship of Antoninus ferent province. Pius, it was set up by Tiberius Claudius Magnus 69 Rossner 1974, 124 (two temples, time of Hadrian), 129 (Asiarch of twice neokoros Ephesos), less likely 133 (perhaps Charidemos, probably the last chief priest of Asia twice chief priest rather than of two temples) and 140 (three times Asiarch rather than of three temples). There is also a chief priestess “of the greatest temples in Ephesos” honored by the 63 Halfmann 1986a, 194, 199-201, 204, 208; Lehnen 1997, koinon: see Kearsley 1990 and Wörrle 1992, 368-370; below, 86-87, 90, 257, 260, 265; Schorndorfer 1997, 28 n. 44, an inscription no. 91. unpublished inscription possibly from the first trip. 70 IvE 921, also 742. On hymnodoi in general, see Halfmann 64 IvE 428, where the language is characterized as “hoch 1990. stilisiert.” See Campanile 1994a, no. 77. 71 Karwiese 1982-1985 has incorrect architectural details 65 Both Knibbe 1995a, 100-102 and Scherrer 1999, 139 and measurements; corrected by Vetters 1986; Karwiese 1995a misinterpreted the reference to Hadrian yeÒw as being posthu- and 1995b, 102-103; Scherrer 1995 b, 186; Schorndorfer 1997, mous, thus after 138; but see S. Price 1984a. 168-170 (incorrect measurements); Hueber 1997, 259-261. 68 part i – section i. koinon of asia x 350 m. including all the stoas, although only the rian and a complex known as the Olympieion at stoa on the south has been fully explored. In the Ephesos.77 center of the temenos was a south-facing temple Pausanias (7.2.8-9), in his great aside on the whose foundations show it to have had a peristasis Ionians that leads into his guide to Achaea, men- of approximately 33 x 60 m. and a cella 9 m. wide tioned that the tomb of Androklos, founder of whose door wall is still undetermined (illus. pl. 1 fig. Ephesos, was still visible at the city, beside the road 5). A battered capital shows the temple to have been from the shrine of Artemis past the Olympieion to of Corinthian order. No reliable restoration of the the Magnesian gate. Pausanias’ road was the same peristasis has yet been published; though at first as the route of the procession endowed by C. Vibius Karwiese postulated a dipteral temple with an outer Salutaris in 104 C.E., which went from the Arte- ring of twelve by twenty-one columns and an inter- mision around the east side of PanayÌrdaÅ to enter nal one of eight by seventeen (for a total of 104 the city at the Magnesian gate.78 Attempts to iden- columns), he later called it pseudodipteral with a tify the tomb of Androklos as a U-shaped monument total of seventy-four columns; the latest city plans in the ‘triodos’ of the city have ignored Pausanias’ of Ephesos make it pseudodipteral with nine(!) col- association of it with the road from the Artemision umns on the front and fifteen on the sides.72 As the to the Magnesian gate, whose position is not in peristasis is only slightly larger than that of the doubt.79 Both tomb and Olympieion would have temple of Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia, the been outside the city, far from the great temple temple is unlikely to have been any greater than currently identified as that of Hadrian.80 What form decastyle.73 The south stoa of the plaza, as yet the the Ephesian Olympieion took is as yet impossible only one explored, has been dated in its first phase to tell. only to the mid-second century, with a second phase Zeus Olympios had appeared and been named on around 200 C.E.; a connection with an eastern coins of Ephesos since the reign of Domitian.81 Also, colonnade has been found, but further work is though a contest known as Olympia was celebrated needed to clarify the entire complex’s building his- in Ephesos under Domitian, this was probably a tory and the placement of its temple, plaza, and revival of an earlier festival; the evidence does not colonnades.74 It has been suggested that the ‘Par- associate it with either the provincial temple of the thian monument,’ an Antonine relief frieze, once Augusti or with Domitian personally.82 The prob- stood in this complex, perhaps forming part of its lems in interpreting festivals known as (great) altar.75 In the years of crisis after the third century, Hadrianeia and Olympia at Ephesos are not entirely its north and west temenos walls were used as for- resolved, but it is clear that the two were to be dis- tifications. tinguished from each other; the Olympia in fact far The excavators have chosen to call this temple complex ‘the Olympieion,’ on the same policy of premature (mis)naming that gave us the ‘temple of 77 C. Jones 1993. The term ‘Hadrianeion’ is not docu- Domitian’ and the little ‘temple of Hadrian’ (below), mented at Ephesos, as Jones admitted, but his analysis still holds despite the carping of Thür 1995a, 77-80 and Scherrer 1999. and that has continued to bedevil the Ephesos pub- For the Ephesian dedications to Hadrian with Zeus Olympios lications.76 Despite the fact that at Ephesos (as ev- in his titulature, see IvE 267-271a; Knibbe and Iplikçioglu erywhere in the Greek-speaking world) Hadrian was 1981/82, 135 no. 143; Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1989, 163-166 no. 2; elsewhere, Benjamin 1963; Spawforth and often assimilated to Zeus Olympios, there is no nec- Walker 1985; Willers 1990, 48-60. essary connection between Ephesos’ temple of Had- 78 Rogers 1991, 80-126; the later foundation of the sophist Damianos (Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.23) monumental- ized and covered the already existing road: Knibbe 1999. Earlier levels of this road date back at least to the beginning 72 Pl. 1 in Friesinger and Krinzinger 1999. of the first century C.E.: Thür 1999, 168. 73 My reconstruction is illustrated on pl. 1 fig. 5. The old 79 Thür 1995b; her version of Pausanias’ road not only goes reconstruction was republished in Wiplinger and Wlach 1996, through the city in the longest possible way, but makes sev- 114-115. eral turns to do so. Scherrer 1999 reinterpreted Pausanias’ text 74 Karwiese 1989, 10-15, 42-43; the hoped-for conclusions instead, but was no more convincing. have apparently affected the termini. 80 Engelmann 1996. 75 Hueber 1997, 260-261, 264. For the monument, see 81 RPC 2:167 no. 1073. Oberleitner 1999. 82 Engelmann 1998, 305-308 has finally cleared away the 76 S. Price 1984b, 256; Karwiese opera citata; Scherrer 1995b, false association between the cult of Zeus Olympios, the Olym- 94, 120, 186; Scherrer 1999; Scherrer 2001, 78. pia, and honors to Domitian at Ephesos. chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 69 predated Hadrian.83 In any case, one cannot depend this particular shrine, though the presence of a head upon the names of festivals to give dependable in- of the mural-crowned city goddess on the keystone formation on the object of worship in a temple; any of the arched facade should indicate a civic cult or ‘Olympieion of Hadrian’ is a purely modern agglom- cults.88 eration for what the Ephesians called ‘the temple of The coinage of this period, though sparse, bears Lord Hadrian Caesar’ (IvE 814) or ‘the temple of out other evidence on the second neokoria of the god Hadrian’ (IvE 428, 921). Ephesos. All catalogued types that call Ephesos twice Though often assumed to have begun at Had- neokoros name Hadrian Olympios, thus dating after rian’s first visit, and dated to 123 or 124, the Hadria- 128/129; the second neokoria also appears on a joint neia contest must have started later: one Aristokrates issue of Hadrian and his short-lived heir, L. Aelius son of Hierokles was chief priest of Asia of the Caesar, probably in 136-137 C.E.89 Most important temples in Ephesos and agonothetes of the second is one of the earliest multiple-temple types, a type pentaeteria of Hadrianeia in the reign of Antoninus that showed both imperial temples (portrayed as Pius.84 This would place the festival’s first celebra- identical) and thus served as a symbol of neokoria: tion four years before, perhaps at the time of the COIN TYPE 5. Obv: ADRI[ANO%] KAI%AR provincial temple’s completion or consecration by OLUMPIO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Diophantos. Later a member of the Vedii family Hadrian r. Rev: [EFE%IVN] DI% [NE]VKORVN served as hereditary agonothetes for life of the great Two two-column temples turned toward one an- Hadrianeia festival (inscription 51, below).85 other, an emperor within each. a) Paris 684 (worn) The confusion that has resulted from erroneously (illus. pl. 21 fig. 68). naming a small though decorative streetside shrine The titulature of the period of the second neokoria in Ephesos ‘the Temple of Hadrian’ has begun to soon became a type of formula. Some inscriptions dissipate, though the name unfortunately has con- continued to attribute the title ‘neokoros’ to the tinued in use.86 The name was given because of the people (nos. 38, 39, perhaps 76, 82, 85), just as was building’s dedication to [Artemis], Hadrian, and the most common when the city was simply neokoros. neokoros people of Ephesos (inscription 26); that Beyond that the city uses the titulature ‘first and Artemis was the first dedicatee was largely ignored. greatest metropolis of Asia and twice neokoros of the Dedicatory inscriptions using similar formulae, to the Augusti city of the Ephesians’ with few exceptions. patron god, the current emperor, and the city itself, Inscriptions 40, 77, and 84 included philosebastos, were common at Ephesos and elsewhere, on build- ‘Augustus-loving,’ an epithet usually used for the ings and parts of buildings, sacred and profane, large council, in this formula. 87 and small. Such formulae cannot be taken to in- That Ephesos’ precise titles were regulated by the dicate which cult specifically was practiced within emperor is shown by a letter from Antoninus Pius to the Ephesians. They had complained that Smyrna and Pergamon had not given Ephesos the correct 83 See summary chapter 40, below. Lämmer 1967 was not as rigorous an examination as one might wish; see above, n. titulature, one in a decree about a joint sacrifice, the 82. other in a letter. Antoninus Pius, who stated that he 84 IvE 618; Campanile 1994a, 110-111 no. 111. Bowie 1971, had already decreed the proper titles for Ephesos, 139 n. 9; J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques 85 (1972) 455. decided that Pergamon was not at fault and 85 IvE 730; Fontani 1996, 231. Smyrna’s slight was accidental, but cautioned both 86 IvE 429; Price 1984b, 149-150, 255-256; Scherrer 1995b, Ephesos and Smyrna to be more punctilious in fu- 120. Schorndorfer 1997, 162-165 named it as such, though she 90 also cited the evidence for its dedication to other city cults, ture. It was probably to honor the emperor’s deci- specifically that of Artemis. Fontani 1996, 229 still considered it a temple of Hadrian. 87 To Artemis, emperor(s) and Ephesos: IvE 404, a basilica; 88 Outschar 1999 would have it a heroön to the founder IvE 430, revetment of a stoa; IvE 431 and 438, gymnasia; IvE Androklos as identified with Hadrian’s beloved Antinoös, but 424 and 424A, a nymphaeum; IvE 509, a statuary group. To this raises more problems than it solves. Artemis and emperor(s): IvE 411, the stadium; IvE 413, a 89 Kienast 1996, 131-132. nymphaeum; IvE 414, a fountain; IvE 415 and 416, waterworks; 90 IvE 1489, 1489a, 1490; Oliver 1989, 293-295 no. 135 IvE 422, a propylon; IvE 435, a reservoir; IvE 443, workshops. a-b. See also chapter 2, ‘Smyrna,’ and chapter 38, ‘Historical To emperor(s): IvE 423, a stoa(?); IvE 410, the ‘Sockelbau’; IvE Analysis.’ Collas-Heddeland 1995, 422 unfortunately mistrans- 432, a sundial; IvE 455, a latrine. lated important aspects of the dispute (see Année Epigraphique 70 part i – section i. koinon of asia sion that Ephesos issued a series of coins celebrating The three temples were even illustrated without its concord with the other two cities.91 Smyrna soon mention of neokoria, but with the simple legend ‘first after had to send an embassy to Antoninus to de- of Asia.’ fend ‘the temples and their rights,’ probably the COIN TYPE 9. Obv: status of the temples which made the city twice AU KAI L %EP %EOUHRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius neokoros; this dispute over temples and rights im- PER Severus r. Rev: Three plies that the emperor’s letter and the concord coin- EFE%IVN PRVTVN A%IA% age did not bring the bickering to an end, and that temples on podia, two side ones turned toward perhaps Ephesos, by questioning some privilege of one another, emperor in each; center one four- Smyrna’s, was retaliating for the offense. column, Artemis Ephesia within. a) Paris 798 b) The use of the two imperial temples as a coin type Vienna 33914 c) BMC 261 d) Berlin, Imhoof- carried on throughout the period of Ephesos’ sec- Blumer. ond neokoria, but after their independent appear- COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AU KAI MAR AU AN- ance under Hadrian they were generally shown TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of flanking the temple of Artemis or the goddess her- Caracalla r., youthful. Rev: EFE%IVN PRVTVN self. Ephesos always saw the goddess as its primary A%IA% Three temples on podia, two side ones patron, but never claimed more than its proper two-column, turned toward one another, an 92 number of neokoriai. emperor in each; center one four-column, Artemis COIN TYPE 6. Obv: T AILIO% KAI%AR AN- Ephesia within. a) Paris 824 b) Berlin, Imhoof- TVNEINO% Laureate draped bust of Antoninus Blumer. Pius r. Rev: EFE%IVN DI% NEVKORVN Two two- The plainness of the legend is unusual, and its com- column temples, each with emperor within, bination with the three-temple reverse type may turned toward one another; between them, indicate that Ephesos considered its temples to Artemis Ephesia. a) BMC 235 b) Vienna 17173 c) Artemis and to the emperors to be part of its claim Berlin, von Knobelsdorff. to primacy. Triple-temple coin types such as these COIN TYPE 7. Obv: T AILIO% KAI%AR AN- inspired imitation in cities that were to become three TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust (head, times neokoros later. b) of Antoninus Pius r. Rev: EFE%IVN DI% NEVKORVN Three temples on podia, side two two-column, each with emperor within, turned Third Neokoria: Geta; Neokoria of Artemis: Caracalla toward one another; the center one four-column, Artemis Ephesia within. a) Paris 711 b) New York, Septimius Severus died in 211, leaving his sons Newell c) Oxford 29.55 d) London 1961.3-1-234 Caracalla and Geta as co-rulers; by the end of the (illus. pl. 21 fig. 69). year Geta too was dead, killed by his brother. In this context the question of Ephesos’ third neokoria COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU[T] KAI PO %[EPT] arises. It is a complex one, made yet more complex GETA% Laureate head of Geta Augustus r., ma- ture. Rev: B NEOKO[RVN] EFE%IVN Two two- by changes in coin legends, misreadings of those column temples on high podia, an emperor within legends by early authorities, and blind dependence each, Artemis Ephesia between them. a) Berlin, on those misreadings by later scholars. Löbbecke. Fortunately Ephesos’ coinage under the Severans is both abundant and well preserved. Those of Geta as Augustus show the change from a boyish portrait (while his father still lived) to a more mature like- 1995 no. 1476) and misunderstood the nature of Ephesos’ ness, lightly bearded and with a close resemblance neokoria of Artemis. to his brother Caracalla, like type 8 above, with the 91 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 38-39 nos. 305-316; title ‘twice neokoros.’ Then one of his coins declares Kampmann 1996, 29-34, 108-109; Kampmann 1998, 377-379. 92 Karwiese 1995b, 105-106 saw such types as an illegal at- Ephesos three times neokoros: tempt to claim a third neokoria under Antoninus Pius. His ac- count (85-125) contains several inaccuracies and exaggerations COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT KAI PO %EP GETA% of the Ephesian obsession with neokoria. %EB Laureate undraped bust of Geta Augustus chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 71

r., mature. Rev: TRI% NEVKORVN EFE%IVN COIN TYPE 16. Obv: AU K M AUR ANTVN- Artemis subduing deer. a) formerly Gotha, EINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla Munich. r., slight beard. Rev: EFE%IVN DI% NEVKORVN KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% Two emperors on horse- There is now no way of directly examining the 93 back ride toward and salute Artemis Ephesia. a) coin, however. More certain is a reverse legend BMC 269 (illus. pl. 21 fig. 71). known for several issues, claiming that Ephesos is ‘three times neokoros and of Artemis’: Thereafter issues of Caracalla and of Julia Domna simply call Ephesos ‘three times neokoros,’ though COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AU K M AUR AN- some of these may in fact be contemporary with the TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of coin of type 11, if that should be found to be gen- Caracalla r., youthful. Rev: EFE%IVN TRI% uine. NEVKORVN KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% Two emper- This bleak numismatic narrative can be illumined ors on horseback ride toward and salute Artemis by a document of inestimable importance found at Ephesia. a) Berlin, Löbbecke b) SNGvA 7871. Ephesos, here inscription 124. As Robert’s meticu- COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AU(T, abcef) K(AI%, ace) lous analysis has shown, it is part of an epigraphic M AUR ANTVNEINO% KAI P(O, adef) %EP dossier of documents on the same subject, in this case GETA%; NEOI HLIOI Laureate draped busts of imperial letters concerning privileges for the cult of Caracalla and Geta turned toward one another. Artemis, collected and inscribed in a public place. Rev: EFE%IVN TRI% NEVKORVN KAI TH% Inscription 124 is preceded by part of a letter from ARTEMIDO% Two emperors on horseback ride Julia Domna to the Ephesians, in which she made toward and salute Artemis Ephesia. a) BMC 292 reference to some favor that they had (presumably) (illus. pl. 21 fig. 70) b) Paris 848 c) SNGCop 436 asked of her “dearest son.” This may have been the d) SNGvA 1904 e) Berlin, Fox f) Berlin, Löbbecke. neokoria, as the next letter in the dossier runs on that topic: COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT K PO %E GETA% INSCRIPTION 124. IvE 212 (L. Robert 1967, 44-57 no. Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Geta Augustus 6). Imperial letter. ÑO kÊriow ÉAntvn[e]›now tª [ÉAs¤&:] r., slight beard. Rev: EFE%IVN TRI% NEVKORVN épedejãmhn [t]}w gn\mhw Ímçw mey' w pros[n°mein . . . tª] KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% City goddess leads bull to- lamprotãt_ t«n ÉEfes¤vn pÒlei: kr¤sei går tØn t[eimØn ward Artemis Ephesia. a) London 1961.3-1-243 b) kayÆkei] prosn°mein: diÒper éji\sasin Íme›n ka‹ sunapo[dejam°noiw to›w ÑR\]mhw {goum°noiw tØn Íp¢r Berlin, Löbbecke. ÉEfes¤vn a‡thsin ¶dvka k[a‹ sun_´ne]sa tr‹w e‰nai nevkÒrouw tØn pÒlin: tØn d¢ §p\num[on §mautoË] nevko- COIN TYPE 15. Obv: IOULIA %EBA%TH r¤an katå tØn §mØn a¸d« énat¤yhmi tª §narges- Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: EFE%IVN tãt_ ye“ …w mØ §j §moË karpoËsyai tØn teimØn éll' §k TRI% NEVKORVN KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% City t}w kata[log}w t}w yeoË?. . .] goddess leads bull toward Artemis Ephesia. a) Lon- Lord Antoninus to Asia: I have seen with favor your don 1894.11-4-1 b) Paris 820 c) Berlin, Löbbecke. proposition to grant (the neokoria) to the illustrious city of Ephesos; by (my) decision, it is suitable to grant the That these coins were minted with obverses of honor. Wherefore to your petitions and with the approval Caracalla, Geta, the two together as ‘new sun gods,’ of the leading men at Rome, I have granted your claim on behalf of the Ephesians and have consented that the and their mother Julia Domna indicates that they city should be three times neokoroi (sic). Due to modesty, are firmly dated to the period of joint rule. Finally, however, I refer the neokoria in my name to the most one lone coin of Caracalla proclaims the aftermath: manifest goddess, so that they may enjoy the honor not from me, but out of regard for the goddess... though it still uses the outmoded reverse of the two horsemen and Artemis, the legend has been changed So many crucial points are made by this document to ‘twice neokoros and of Artemis’: that it is difficult to know where to begin. First, the addressee: it is not the Ephesians but the koinon of Asia. This confirms that the neokoria was still a provincial honor even after two centuries and a rapid 93 The photos are in Kraft 1972, 121 pl. 11.10; Dr. Dietrich multiplication of neokoroi cities. The koinon is said Klose stated that, judging from the photograph, the coin did to have petitioned on behalf of the Ephesians, not appear doubtful to him (personal communication, 15 Oct. though the letter gives no hint of how (and in what 2002). 72 part i – section i. koinon of asia atmosphere) the koinon decided which city should campaigned for himself and against his brother.98 receive the honor. Thus when the koinon first brought its petition for Secondly, the Roman Senate is mentioned, not (probably a single) neokoria for Ephesos to Rome, directly but as “the leading men at Rome.” They it may at first have dealt with Julia Domna, as the are part of the triad (koinon, Senate, and emperor) new emperors had not yet returned from Britain. that had to approve before neokoria could be Once they did, however, the koinon’s representa- awarded. The emperor, however, could modify their tives probably had to face two emperors who decision. Caracalla transferred the grant of neokoria couldn’t share a palace, much less a temple, and a from his own cult to that of another god without any Senate factionalized between the two. Although the mention of senatorial consent. Later Ephesian in- sources are hostile to the surviving brother, two scriptions sometimes make special mention of an include accounts of Caracalla’s refusal to be called imperial decision in addition to the Senate’s decree, by the name of Hercules or that of any other god.99 or seem to exclude the neokoria of Artemis from While each puts the event in a different time and those in the Senate’s domain (nos. 126 and 134, context, the statement itself was probably meant to below). ingratiate Caracalla with some powerful group, such When we attempt to reconcile Caracalla’s letter as the soldiers, the Senate, or the people of Rome. with the numismatic evidence, however, we hit a Certainly what can be discerned of Caracalla’s own snag. The inscription is worded as if it dated from propaganda put a distinct emphasis on his pietas.100 the period of Caracalla’s sole rule, after Geta’s death Adding this to the evidence of the Ephesian coins, at the end of 211.94 The fact that it was preceded we may conclude that Geta accepted the offer of a by a letter from Julia Domna, who is known to have temple to his own cult, and that his action sent handled Caracalla’s correspondence while he was on Caracalla into a display of politic modesty of a sort his eastern campaign, seemed to suit that period.95 little seen since Julio-Claudian times.101 According Even Robert assumed that this was so, although he to inscription 124, Caracalla refused divine honors also observed from the abbreviation of titulature and for himself, transferring them instead to the glory omission of flowery greetings that the letter as in- of Artemis. Such a show of high principles and old scribed was not the letter as sent.96 Yet the coins Roman virtue seems designed to excite the approval show that both the third imperial neokoria and that of the Senate, before which this little drama might for Artemis had already been granted during the even have been enacted; inscription 124 itself refers joint rule of Caracalla and Geta. Robert’s picture to ‘the leading men at Rome.’ By contrast, Geta’s of a single neokoria designated for both emperors acceptance of honors that were by now only the and then diverted to Artemis by a miffed Caracalla usual fare for emperors could have been exagger- cannot be made to conform with that fact. ated to imply tyrannical tendencies. The lack of trustworthy historical sources for this What the koinon had likely proposed as one period makes it difficult to guess what events could neokoria had thus been transformed into two: one have led to such a complex situation. Cassius Dio for the imperial cult due to Geta, and one for exists only in epitome, Herodian is inexact and over- Artemis due to Caracalla. In a spirit of jubilation, rhetorical, the Historia Augusta is curt and confused, Ephesos minted the coins that called its imperial though fortunately its life of Caracalla comes before benefactors ‘new sun gods.’ Coins once issued are its plunge into historical fiction.97 On one thing they hard to recall; thousands can be melted down, but all agree: Caracalla and Geta hated one another. In the survival of even one can tell the entire story. addition to his expansive description of their pro- Inscriptions are another thing. The dedication of the posed partition of the Empire, Herodian stated that east hall of the agora at Ephesos was carved in that the opinions of all those of any standing in Rome were divided between them, and each emperor 98 Herodian 4.3.1-2 (according to Alföldi 1972, 30-33 over- dramatized, especially in the supposed plan to divide the Em- pire). 94 Kienast 1996, 162-167. 99 Cassius Dio ep. 78.5 (protecting Cilo after trying to as- 95 Williams 1979, 86-87; the fulsome language of the let- sassinate him), and Historia Augusta, Caracalla 5 (on campaign ter fits with other edicts of Caracalla. in Raetia). Also see Cerfaux and Tondriau 1957, 369. 96 L. Robert 1967, 45-46, 50 n. 5. 100 Oliver 1978. 97 Meckler 1994; Alföldi 1972. 101 Charlesworth 1939. chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 73 time of celebration, and Geta’s name and the titles 128, a statue base of Caracalla datable by his ‘three times neokoros of the Augusti’ and ‘neokoros titulature (Parthicus Maximus and Britannicus of Artemis’ were likely prominent. That prominence Maximus but not yet Germanicus Maximus), gives became an embarrassment after Geta’s murder, and an assured point in time for this period of eclipse the inscription had to be erased and recarved. of both the neokoria for Geta and that of Artemis: Unfortunately the enumeration of the neokoriai must INSCRIPTION 128. IvE 297. } \ be restored, but the words ‘according to the decrees t w pr thw ka‹ ¤ } ¤ of the most sacred Senate’ (first version) and ‘of meg sthw mhtropÒlevw t w ÉAs aw ka‹ d‹w ¤ Artemis’ (second version) assure that it was there. nevkÒrou ÉEfes vn pÒlevw . . . It was inscribed sometime between February 212 INSCRIPTION 125. IvE 3001 (second version). and October 213, but on it Ephesos is simply twice [ } \ t“ nevkÒrƒ dÆmƒ t w pr thw pas«n ka‹] neokoros again, as if the neokoriai for Geta and for ¤ } meg st[hw] ka‹ §ndoj[otãthw mhtropÒlevw t w Artemis had never existed. ¤ } ÉAs aw ka‹ nevkÒrou t w ÉArt°]midow ka[‹ d‹w Another statue base, datable by Caracalla’s hav- } nevkÒrou t«n Sebast«n katå tå dÒgmata t w ing become Germanicus Maximus after October | ¤ ervtãthw sunklÆtou ÉEfes vn pÒlevw]. . . 213, shows how the problem was settled: What happened there can be paralleled with what INSCRIPTION 133. IvE 300. } \ befell the base of a statue of Ulpius Apollonios t w pr thw ka‹ ¤ } ¤ Plautus, grammateus of the council, advocate of meg sthw mhtropÒlevw t w ÉAs aw ka‹ tr‹w \ Ephesos, and designated Asiarch.102 Its original in- nevkÒrou pr thw, d‹w m¢n t[«]n Sebast[«]n, } { scription trumpeted the city as neokoros of the most ëpa[j] d¢ t w ÉArt°midow, filos°bastow ¤ ~ d sacred Artemis and three times neokoros of the ÉEfes vn boulØ ka‹ nevkÒrow Æmow . . . Augusti by decrees of the Senate and by imperial The neokoria of Artemis was reconfirmed, and when decision; perhaps Plautus had even earned his added to the two previous imperial neokoriai, made Asiarchy by pleading Ephesos’ case for neokoria suc- up a total of three, so the inscription states explic- cessfully. How could he foresee the fall of Geta, of itly: “First three times neokoros, two of the Augusti one neokoria, and perhaps his Asiarchy with it? His and uniquely of Artemis.” More compressed ver- inscription was erased, but so lightly that the proud sions, as with the coin legends, simply say ‘three titles could still be read beneath the chisel’s scratches: times neokoros’ without further specification. Among this latter group is a series of bases from statues of INSCRIPTION 126. IvE 740. { } [ ] boulØ t w cities (inscriptions 130-132, including Carthage, \ ¤ pr thw pas«n ka‹ meg sthw ka‹ §ndojotãthw Knidos, and Nikaia in Lydia; also Kos, IvE 2055, } ¤ } mhtropÒlevw t w ÉAs aw ka‹ nevkÒrou t w the neokoria only restored), the occasion for whose | ervtãthw ÉArt°midow ka‹ tr‹w nevkÒrou t«n dedication may have been an empire-wide festival } | Sebast«n katå tå dÒgmata t w erçw sunklÆtou to celebrate the return of the third neokoria, but may ¤ ¤ ¤ ka‹ tØn ye an kr sin ÉEfes vn pÒlevw... equally have been some other (likely agonistic) oc- That Ephesos’ neokoria itself underwent a similar casion. One of the group includes the words “city eclipse is borne out by inscription 127: of the Ephesians, three times neokoros by the de- cree from the authorities”: INSCRIPTION 127. IvE 647. Dedication to Ti. Claudius Serenus (PIR2 C.1017). t}w pr\thw INSCRIPTION 131. IvE 2054. Statue of Knidos. pas«n ka‹ meg¤sthw ka‹ §ndojotãthw ka‹ { pr\th ka‹ meg¤sth mht[rÒ]poliw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ nevkÒrou t}w tr‹w nevk[Ò]row ÉEfes¤vn pÒliw katå tÚ _ÉArt°midow ka‹ tr‹w nevkÒrou t«n Sebast«n´ kÊ[rv]yen cÆfisma...... This phrase may allude, albeit vaguely, to whatever Only the words ‘Artemis and three times neokoros special permission the Ephesians had to obtain to of the Augusti’ are erased, while the rest of the in- reactivate their third neokoria. scription (including ‘neokoros of,’ the last words The case of Ephesos’ third neokoria shows per- before the erasure) was allowed to stand. Inscription fectly how the evidence of coins, inscriptions, and historical references can be combined to produce a 102 Campanile 1994a, 141-142 no. 167. complete picture, where dependence on only one of 74 part i – section i. koinon of asia them could have led to inconsistency. Keil offered pose.106 The goddess is well known both from a model for this procedure in his 1915 article on this Ephesian coins and from large-scale statues of Ro- topic, and further documents have confirmed it. man date, and it is particularly interesting from the Ephesos in fact received a third and a fourth neo- point of view of this study that she often appears with koria in 211, the one for Geta and the other for miniature temples set on top of her tall crown, as if Artemis. The third fell with Geta, while that of she were another type of ‘temple bearer.’ Chapou- Artemis was eventually allowed to stand, and to be thier even suggested that the templed headdress re- counted in for a total of three. Thus the inscription presented the city’s status as neokoros, with the of Caracalla’s letter, no. 124, is both an informative number of temples varying to suit the number of and a misleading document. Inscribed well after the temples for which Ephesos was neokoros.107 This event, it did not alter the truth so much as tell a particular hypothesis can be disproved from various partial truth. Geta had become a non-person; if there representations whose dates are known; for example, had been any mention of him, or even if he had the (probably Trajanic) ‘great Artemis’ found in written the letter along with his brother, any hint Ephesos bears five temples, while the Ephesians were of it would have been excised from the later dos- never known to be five times neokoroi (illus. pl. 9- 103 sier. The Ephesians would have been happy to 10 figs. 28-31).108 Moreover, Fleischer plausibly iden- avoid explicit reference to a time when they had tified a young hunter on the reused frieze from the climbed to a peak and then fallen from it. Caracalla so-called temple of Hadrian as Androklos founder was subsequently to give third neokoriai, both im- of Ephesos, and he too bears a (three-column!) perial, to Pergamon and Smyrna, taking the lead temple on his head. among neokoroi away from Ephesos and leaving the Examination of the various temple-crowned im- three cities again locked in competition. ages shows that where there is room for detail the The cult of Artemis had finally gotten its neokoria order of the temple(s) is Ionic, with at most four for Ephesos, so it seems worthwhile to examine it columns on the facade.109 The temples are gener- here. The temple of Artemis at Ephesos appears on ally assimilated to one another, just as they are on many lists of wonders of the ancient world. As it multiple-temple coins, but the central one is por- stood in Roman times, which is how I reconstruct trayed as dominant. On the ‘great Artemis’ the it in the illustration (pl. 3 fig. 14), it was an enor- central temples are shown with discs in their pedi- mous Ionic octastyle, dipteral, with twenty-one col- ments, and the towered city walls appear in the umns along its length and nine columns across its back.110 Though the temples are never more than back; the space within the peristasis measured 50.48 generic, their Ionic order recalls the Artemision it- x 107.11 m., the stepped platform that it sat upon self. The towers indicate that the crown is meant to 63.36 x 128.20 m. The front resembled a forest of represent the entire city of Ephesos, with its temples, columns with sculptured bases and drums.104 In its including the provincial temples of the emperors and main pediment it had three openings, the center one that of Artemis herself (though the latter was actu- larger than the side two, and figural sculpture as well.105 To the west was a U-shaped and colonnaded ally outside the city walls), as its main ornaments. altar court, as this temple, like others to the god- Artemis wears Ephesos as a crown, in the same way desses of Asia Minor, faced west rather than east. that a city goddess wore a mural crown. Even the cult statue (in some versions) may have During the reign of Caracalla’s successor Macri- referred to the temples that made Ephesos neokoros. The ‘heaven-fallen’ image of Artemis of Ephesos 106 Thiersch 1935; Fleischer 1973, 1978, 1984a, and 1999. echoed the indigenous tradition of Asia Minor with For the recent find of belts and amber objects (‘breasts’?) in its monolithic stance, elaborate costume, and hieratic the Artemision see Bammer and Muss 1996, 71-78. 107 Imhoof-Blumer 1911; Chapouthier 1938. This idea has been resurrected by Knibbe 1995b, referring only to ‘the great Artemis’ from the prytaneion, with several misinterpretations, 103 Mastino 1978/79. and without response to Fleischer’s objections. 104 Bammer 1972 and 1984; Rügler 1988; Scherrer 1995b, 108 Fleischer 1973, 54-58, cat. no. E45. 46-59; Bammer and Muss 1996, 45-61 and 65-70. 109 Thiersch 1935, nos. 19, 26, 32, 34, 42, 44, 45, and coins 105 Trell 1945; M. Price and Trell 1977, 126-132; Bingöl on pl. 49 nos. 12, 15; pl. 51 nos. 4, 6; Fleischer 1973, cat. nos. 1999. Karwiese 1999 would identify two figures with raised E17, E31, E43, E45, E49, E63, E85, E88, E92, E93, E96a and arms in the pediment as two Victories, though wings are not coin on pl. 56a. apparent. 110 Miltner 1958b, pls. 5, 6. chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 75 nus, Ephesos preferred other titles (such as ‘first of coin type 17 is falsified) issued no coinage that men- Asia’) to neokoros for coin legends. There is one tioned the neokoria whatsoever in the reign of possible exception, but it is worn and appears re- Macrinus: Pergamon, Smyrna, Laodikeia, Philadel- worked: phia, Tralles, and Antandros (the latter two inter- mittent anyway); some, like Pergamon and Smyrna, COIN TYPE 17 (RECUT?). Obv: [AU] K M issued no coinage at all. Kyzikos, perhaps the only Laureate draped bust of OPEL MAKRINO% neokoros for Caracalla beside these, changed its titu- Macrinus r. (legend tooled?) Rev: EF[E%]I[VN] lature from ‘twice’ to simply ‘neokoros.’ All this in- Four-column temple . . . [%]EBA . NEVK[OR]VN dicates that some question was thrown on the in which togate emperor, sacrifice of bull at al- neokoriai granted by Caracalla after his death. This tar below. a) Vienna 32385 (worn) (illus. pl. 21 instability is further indicated by another Ephesian fig. 72). inscription: The reverse type is similar to that of a coin that does INSCRIPTION 135. Knibbe, Engelmann, and not mention neokoros in its legend, but illustrates Iplikçioglu 1989, Beibl. 166-167 no. 3. Statue base the annual vows taken on behalf of the emperor.111 of Caracalla as Armeniacus and new Helios. Another Ephesian coin puts Macrinus’ name on the Originally erected by the council } \ reverse as well as his portrait on the obverse, along t w pr thw ka‹ ¤ } ¤ with the figure and name of the goddess Justice.112 meg sthw m`[htro]pÒlevw t w ÉAs aw ka‹ _[tr]´‹w \ These coin types and the insistence on the title ‘first [nevkÒ]r_ou pr thw, d‹w m¢]n`´ t«n Se`[bast«n], } ¤ of Asia’ may tie in with an inscription in honor of _ëpaj d¢ t w ÉArt°mid]o`w´ ÉEf[es vn] pÒlevw, later changed to an Ephesian advocate who went before Macrinus to (d)‹w [nevkÒ]r_ou[ m¢]n`´ t«n ¤ defend Ephesos’ “primacy and the rest of the rights” Se`[bast«n] _ o`w`´ ÉEf[es vn] pÒlevw . . . and won his case.113 Though the title was never officially granted, ‘Arme- Why did Ephesos stop boasting on its coins of its niacus’ did appear on an inscription of Caracalla status as three times neokoros? Winning the right, after 215; the Ephesians had hailed both him and perhaps temporarily the sole right, to be ‘first’ was his brother as new sun gods during their joint reign, one reason, but another may have been a question as does this inscription.116 Moreover, inscription 136, about the neokoria itself. Asia fell into ferment on another Ephesian document, used very similar titles, the death of its benefactor Caracalla, a state that the both imperial and civic, and was similarly erased. new emperor Macrinus tried unsuccessfully to con- The original titulature of inscription 136, ‘first three trol.114 Pergamon, perhaps deprived of previous times neokoros [i.e. twice of the Augusti and alone privileges, heaped insults upon him and was dishon- of Artemis]’ is correct for 215. Though the editors ored further; that city and Smyrna were assigned to attributed the erasure to rivalry on the part of neigh- the special charge of the historian Cassius Dio by bors and could go little farther, it must be seen in the emperor himself.115 Not only these cities were the context of the unstable situation, not only in affected, however. Of eight cities in Asia that had Ephesos, but in many of her sister cities, during the become neokoros for Caracalla, six (seven if Ephesos’ reign of Macrinus. It is known that under Macrinus the Senate nul- lified certain of Caracalla’s acts.117 The removal of 111 BMC 293; Price 1984b, 214-215, 256-257, fig. 3a. For the title ‘neokoros of Artemis’ granted by Caracalla a fantastical explanation of type 17, with the invention of a to Ephesos can be accounted for by such an event. ‘neokorate’ temple for Macrinus somewhere in the precinct of Pergamon’s, and perhaps Smyrna’s, disgrace may the temple of Hadrian, and the basilical stoa south of it as the third ‘neokorate temple,’ see Karwiese 1995a, 314-315. have helped make Ephesos uncontestedly first of 112 Leypold 1995, 32-34 no. 6; also note no. 7, another ‘first Asia; but the city may have still been forced yet again of Asia’ type. to drop the neokoria that Caracalla had granted, at 113 IvE 802; J. Keil 1956; with the caution of Deininger least until the death of Macrinus and the subsequent 1965, 50 n. 4. See also Ziethen 1994, 145. 114 Cassius Dio ep. 79.22.3-4. Macrinus’ problem in choos- condemnation of his memory. ing a governor for Asia cannot have helped. The provincial picture is not covered, however, by Baharal 1999. 115 Cassius Dio ep. 79.20.4, 80.7.4. See chapter 1, ‘Perga- mon,’ chapter 2, ‘Smyrna,’ and chapter 38 of part II, ‘Historical 116 Mastino 1981, 50-57; CIL 8:10236 (dated). Analysis.’ 117 Cassius Dio ep. 79.18.5. 76 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Fourth Neokoria: Elagabalus statue of Artemis Ephesia held out by city goddess. a) Oxford 9.95. If Ephesos had been deprived under Macrinus, it Type 20 alludes to some sign of honor made by the would make up for it under Elagabalus. According emperor toward the goddess and/or the city. All to Cassius Dio’s account of Elagabalus’ journey from these issues proudly proclaim the fourth neokoria. the East, his route to Rome bypassed the province Even inscriptions that were already standing were of Asia entirely.118 Nonetheless, four cities in that recarved to read ‘four times’ rather than ‘three times province would gain a neokoria during his reign, in- neokoros’ (though inscription 137 was to have a cluding Ephesos, which became four times neokoros, melancholy subsequent history, see below): more than any other city of its day. It is certainly possible that Ephesos sent a delegation to the em- INSCRIPTION 137. IvE 625 (See J. and L. Rob- peror on his passage from Antioch or during his ert, Revue des études grecques 1974 280 no. 503). winter at Nikomedia, or even that the emperor him- Statue base of a chief priest of Asia. katå tå self may have traveled beyond the itinerary that Dio dÒgm[a]t[a t}w |ervtãthw s]unklÆtou t}w recorded. _tet[rãkiw]´ nevkÒrou _ . . . ´ { krat¤sth boulØ Of the newly honored cities only Ephesos is docu- ka‹ ~ |er\tatow t«n pãnta pr\tvn ÉEfes¤vn mented as having received its neokoria as early as d}mow... 220, during Elagabalus’ marriage to Julia Paula. The coin legends also take on a particularly exult- Coin type 18, which shows him sacrificing before the ant note: the Ephesians are ‘alone, first of all four temple of Artemis, seems to imply his actual pres- times neokoroi’ (types 18, 19, 22) or the city is ‘four ence in the city, though it may merely represent his times neokoros, the first of all and greatest’ (type 21): sending honors to Artemis from a distance. COIN TYPE 21. Obv: COIN TYPE 18. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV- AUT K M AUR AN- Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Laureate draped cuirassed bust NEINO% AUG TVNEINO% %EB Elagabalus r. Rev: of Elagabalus r. Rev: EFE%IVN D NEVKOR H EFE%IVN MONVN A Four two-column Laureate, togate PRVTH PA%VN KAI MEGI% PA%VN TETRAKI NEVKORVN temples in a row, outer two turned toward cen- emperor sacrifices at tripod beside four-column ter; a figure in each. a) Paris 899 (illus. pl. 22 fig. Ionic temple on high podium, dot and two open- 74) b) Oxford 18.52. ings in pediment, Artemis Ephesia within. a) Paris 895 b) Oxford 17.05 c) Oxford 21.84 d) Vienna COIN TYPE 22. Obv: AUT K M AUR AN- 30811 e) Berlin, Löbbecke f) Berlin, Fox (illus. pl. TVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust 21 fig. 73) g) New York 71.279. of Elagabalus r. Rev: EFE%IVN MONVN A Four two-column Types, like 19, that show the emperor crowned by PA%VN TETRAKI NEVKORVN temples in a row, outer two turned toward each Victory are likely to allude to his defeat of Macrinus, other, a male figure in each; in the center two and thus are probably also early in his reign: temples, Artemis Ephesia and a male figure. a) COIN TYPE 19. Obv: AUT K M AUR AN- Berlin, Löbbecke b) SNGCop 442. Laureate draped cuirassed bust of TVNEINO% COIN TYPE 23. Obv: Elagabalus r. Rev: AUT K M AUR AN- EFE%IVN MONVN A PA%VN Laureate draped cuirassed bust Victory with wreath and palm TVNEINO% %EB D NEVKORVN of Elagabalus r. Rev: crowns togate emperor who holds phiale over PRVTVN A%IA% D NEVK Four temples, lower two two-column altar. a) Vienna 34451.119 EFE%IVN and turned toward one another, a cuirassed COIN TYPE 20. Obv: KORNHLIA PAULA %EB emperor in each; upper two four-column, Artemis Draped bust of Julia Paula r. Rev: D NEVKORVN Ephesia in one, a togate figure in the other; a dot EFE%IVN Seated emperor holds wreath over in the pediment of Artemis’ temple, an opening in the other three pediments. a) BMC 305 (illus. pl. 22 fig. 75) b) Berlin, Löbbecke c) Berlin, 118 Cassius Dio ep. 79.40.2, 80.3.2; Halfmann 1986a, 230- Dannenberg. 231. 119 Leypold 1995, no. 8 is similar, but with mistranscribed reverse. chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 77

COIN TYPE 24. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV- provincial imperial temples were spruced up in NEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of celebration.121 Elagabalus r. Rev: DOGMATI %UNKLHTOU Much has been made of a series of festivals named EFE%IVN OUTOI NAOI Four two-column temples on coins of Elagabalus and of Julia Paula, which in a row, outer two turned toward one another, would date the celebrations, like the fourth neokoria, a cuirassed emperor in each; in center two, to the early part of his reign.122 The appearance of Artemis Ephesia and a togate figure. a) BMC 306 a table with four crowns (three prize crowns and a (illus. pl. 22 fig. 76) b) Vienna 29867. wreath) may seem to tie in with the four temples on contemporary issues. The contests are called ‘great’ These medallion-sized coins show all the temples or ‘worldwide’ and are specified as Ephesia, Hadria- that made Ephesos four times neokoros (types 21- neia, Pythia (the three prize crowns) and Olympia (the 24). The most detailed examples of type 23 distin- wreath). But if the first two can be interpreted as guish clearly among the cult statues: one of the festivals for Artemis Ephesia (third neokoria) and center temples is the third temple for which the city Hadrian (second neokoria), the next two don’t cor- was neokoros, with Artemis Ephesia inside; next to respond so well to individual neokoriai. Olympia, of it is the new fourth temple, within which is the togate course, has already been determined to predate all emperor. The two earlier provincial temples, to the Ephesos’ neokoriai. References to Elagabalus’ cult Augusti/Vespasian and to Hadrian, shown below, are equivocal, not confined to one festival: his por- depict only generalized imperial figures in military trait sometimes appears within the Olympic wreath, dress within. It is an interesting aspect of type 23 sometimes atop the Ephesia prize crown.123 Thus the that all the temples appear to be Ionic. This is likely correspondence of contests to neokoriai is not exact. because all three imperial temples were assimilated to the most famous of the four, the Ionic temple of Artemis. Even the pedimental decoration of the Withdrawn: Severus Alexander Artemision is distributed among them: the Artemi- sion retains its shield, but the three imperial temples After Elagabalus’ death Ephesos was able to issue each get one of its three pedimental openings. There at least fourteen different reverse types for Severus are as yet no remains to tell us of the true decora- Alexander and two for Julia Maesa that still called tion of the imperial temples’ pediments, or whether the city four times neokoros. Kibyra even issued they actually had such openings, which are gener- coins celebrating its concord with Ephesos as four ally associated with epiphanies.120 times neokoros.124 Coin type 25 merely shows a Type 24 also shows the four temples and their cult gesture of concord, but type 26 is more explicit and statues as described above, but its legend proclaims probably signifies that an Ephesian embassy went “these temples of the Ephesians by decree of the to Rome to seek some decision from the emperor; Senate.” This must refer to the fact that it was both types optimistically proclaim Ephesos four times through the Roman Senate’s decree that the temples neokoros. made the city four times neokoros. The city, which had possibly lost its neokoria in the previous reign, COIN TYPE 25. Obv: AUT K M AUR ALEJ- thus publicly declared that the fourth neokoria for ANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus was official. Laodikeia (q.v.) also empha- Severus Alexander r. Rev: (D, ab; TETRAKI%, c) sized the Senate’s decree on its coins at just the same NEVKORVN EFE%IVN Togate emperor seated on time, perhaps because its joint neokoria for Com- curule chair grasps hand of city goddess holding modus and Caracalla had been questioned. All the statue of Artemis Ephesia. a) Oxford 18.89 b) BMC Ephesian coins further indicate that Ephesos did 314 c) Vienna 32629. have an independent temple for the cult of Elaga- balus, which means that Knibbe’s attempts to asso- 121 Knibbe 1970, 281-284. Alzinger 1970, 1649-1650 of- ciate the fourth neokoria with the construction of a fers a date for the altar only after the middle of the second new altar before the Flavian temple are not securely century. 122 Karl 1975, 51, 118; Johnston 1984, 58. founded, though it is not impossible that all the 123 Johnston 1984, 59 tentatively identified the bust on the prize crown as Julia Paula; the Empress is in fact portrayed as looking much like her husband on these issues. 120 Bingöl 1999. 124 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 98 nos. 988-992. 78 part i – section i. koinon of asia

COIN TYPE 26. Obv: AUT K M AUR ALEJ- INSCRIPTION 141. IvE 4336. Base of statue of ANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III. { pr\th ka‹ meg¤sth mhtrÒpoliw t}w Severus Alexander r. Rev: TETRAKI% NEVKO- ÉAs¤aw ka‹ nevkÒrow t}w ÉArt°midow ka‹ d‹w RVN EFE%IVN Togate emperor seated on curule nevkÒrow t«n Sebast«n ÉEfes¤vn pÒliw. . . chair hands scroll to city goddess who holds statue of Artemis Ephesia. a) Berlin, Fox (illus. pl. 22 fig. 77). Fourth Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus COIN TYPE 27. Obv: AUT K M AUR ALEJ- Like other cities that had lost a neokoria, however, Laureate draped cuirassed bust of ANDRO% %EB in the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus Ephesos Severus Alexander r. Rev: EFE%IVN MONVN came back to the number of neokoriai that it had Victory writes on shield hung on PRVTVN NEVK had under Elagabalus. The date of the grant does palm tree. a) Vienna 17248. not conflict with that at Nikomedia (q.v.). Coins of The outcome, however, was not good. Elagabalus’ both Gallienus’ sons Valerianus and Saloninus were memory was condemned and temples to his cult issued over the transition between Ephesos’ third and were no longer viable.125 Where once neokoros had fourth neokoriai. On all but one where no title is been by far the most common title on Ephesian given, Valerianus is named Caesar. Thus the re- coins, on the later coins of Severus Alexander any granting of Ephesos’ fourth neokoria must have mention of neokoria once again lapsed (as in the dated between the year 255, when he received that reign of Macrinus) in favor of titles like ‘first of Asia.’ title, and 258, when he died.126 It is notable that Coins issued after his reign confirm that Ephesos had Ephesos was also issuing coins with the portrait of become three times neokoros, but where cities like his young brother Saloninus at the same time. Nikomedia and Sardis (qq.v.) still issued coins with Saloninus has no title, as was proper; he did not the title ‘neokoros’ (its enumeration decreased) dur- become Caesar until after his brother’s death. Both ing Severus Alexander’s reign, Ephesos and Beroia boys generally appear in armor and with laurel seem to have chosen to avoid mentioning the title crowns, though Valerianus appears bareheaded on at all, at least for a time. The only exception is type one type where his title is Caesar. 27, which recalls the happier past with its claim that Unlike Nikomedia’s, Ephesos’ coin types do not the Ephesians are ‘alone first neokoroi’; this is one reflect any special jubilation at the return of the of the only coin types from which Ephesos omitted fourth neokoria. The reverses continue to concen- its full enumeration of neokoriai. This lack of speci- trate on the gods, especially on the city’s patron ficity is comparable to that of an inscription at Sardis Artemis in her various manifestations. Coinage that (q.v.) that called the city ‘many times neokoros’ cited the neokoria, in fact all coinage, was soon to without specifying how many. At Ephesos, inscrip- cease, whether due to inflation, war, or both. In 261/ tion 137, which as mentioned above had been joy- 262 a Gothic force took ship, crossed the Hellespont, ously re-engraved to add the fourth neokoria, now and invaded the province of Asia. One of their chief had the word ‘four times’ erased. goals was Ephesos, where they pillaged and burned The enumeration of neokoriai returned to the great temple of Artemis for which the city was Ephesian coins in the time of Severus Alexander’s neokoros; the grim signs of burning elsewhere in the successor Maximinus. Then it would be a sober city may also have been their doing.127 Ephesos was ‘three times neokoros,’ with other legends, especially to recover and continue, but its coinage ceased, ones referring to Artemis, just as common. The perhaps ca. 263/264.128 The title ‘neokoros’ would multiple-temple types no longer appeared. The in- not appear in its documents any more. Still, as late scriptions, unlike the coins, make the distinction between the neokoria for Artemis and that for the 126 Augusti instead of adding the three together. Typi- Kienast 1996, 220-221. 127 Jordanes 107-109; Salamon 1971, 124-125. The argu- cal of a datable group from the reign of Gordian III ments of Karwiese 1985, for an earthquake in 262 (documented (nos. 138-141) is the following: only by the Historia Augusta) causing the destruction, are based on two sections of one residential building and a statistical anal- ysis of too few coins; the destruction layers elsewhere are not closely datable. See Foss 1979, 190-191. 125 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417. 128 H.-D. Schultz 1997. chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 79 as the time of Maximinus Daia (305-313 C.E.), it by Cn. Pedanius Fuscus, proconsul 99/100.135 was still considered an honor to have Asiarchs of the 14. IvE 2037. Dedication to Artemis Ephesia, Trajan, temples in Ephesos as one’s forebears.129 and the city, dated by imperial titulature to 102-112. 15. IvE 509. Bilingual dedication of a statue group to Artemis Ephesia, Trajan, and the city, under C. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Aquilius Proculus, proconsul 103/104.136 This is the only example of the Latin transliteration of neokoros Neokoros: outside of the coins of Neapolis (q.v.). 1. IvE 2034. Architrave of theater skene, dated either 16. IvE 517. Bilingual dedication of a statue group, 66-67 or 85-86 C.E. See text above. similar to nos. 15, 18 and 22; dated by imperial 2. IvE 233. Dedication at the koinon temple of the titulature late in or after 102.137 Augusti, to the god Vespasian, over erased name of 17. IvE 27. Decree of the foundation of C. Vibius Domitian, by city of Aphrodisias under M. Fulvius Salutaris, under C. Aquilius Proculus, proconsul Gillo, proconsul likely in 89/90.130 103/104.138 3. IvE 237. Similar to no. 2, dedicated by Stra- 18. IvE 858. Bilingual dedication of a statue group, tonikeia under L. Luscius Ocr(e)a, proconsul likely similar to nos. 15, 16 and 22, under L. Albius Pullae- in 90/91.131 nus Pollio, proconsul ca. 104/105.139 4. IvE 236. The city of Philadelphia honors Ephesos, 19. IvE1385. Decree dated by the name of the probably on same occasion as that of inscriptions 2 prytanis to ca. 105. and 3. 20. IvE 3060. The city honors a citizen of Salamis 5. IvE 508 plus errata l. 5. Dedication to an emperor, in Cyprus for piety to the goddess; dated by letter under P. Calvisius Ruso, proconsul likely in 92/ forms to ca. 106. 93.132 21. IvE 36 A-D. Dedication of benefits performed 6. IvE 415 plus addendum. Dedication of fountain by the honoree of no. 17, under L. Nonius Asprenas to Domitian, dated by titulature to 92 C.E. Torquatus, proconsul ca. 107/108.140 7. IvE 416. Similar to inscription 6 above. 22. IvE 857. Bilingual dedication of a statue group, 8. IvE 3008. Building inscription to Domitian, un- similar to nos. 15, 16, 18, under Valerius Asiaticus der M. Ateilius Postumus Bradua, proconsul perhaps Saturninus, proconsul ca. 108/109.141 94/95.133 23. IvE 422 plus errata. Dedication of a propylon 9. IvE 449. Decree of the city on the renewal of to Artemis Ephesia, Trajan, and the city, dated by imperial building projects, which IvE suggested re- imperial titulature between August 114 and Febru- ferred to the provincial temple of the Augusti. In- ary 116. scribed under the same grammateus as no. 8. 24. IvE 1500. Statue base of Trajan, under Q. Ful- 10. IvE 793. Honorific inscription, same grammateus vius Gillo Bittius Proculus, proconsul 115/116.142 as nos. 8 and 9. 25. IvE 492. Dedication by a priestess of Artemis to 11. IvE 3005. Dedication to Domitian (name erased) Artemis (restored) and [tª p]r\t_ t«n [Sebast«n on agora gate. nev]k[Òr]ƒ ÉEfe[s¤vn pÒlei]. The proconsul’s name 12. IvE 264. Statue base? of Nerva dedicated by is Fulvius, probably Q. Fulvius Gillo Bittius Proculus Carminius Vetus, proconsul 96/97.134 as in no. 24; the Asiarch is probably also the same 13. IvE 1499. Base of statue of the Senate dedicated as the one mentioned in no. 24. The position of

129 Rossner 1974, 141, inscription of the Sempronii Aruncii, 135 Eck 1970, 154-155; Thomasson 1984, 220 no. 87 (98- from Panamara. 102 C.E.). 130 Eck 1970, 85-86; Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 76 (84-90 136 Eck 1970, 161; Thomasson 1984, 220-221 no. 90; C.E.). Stumpf 1991, 263-264; Weiser 1998, 281. On these bilingual 131 Eck 1970, 85, 141; Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 77 (85- dedications, Kearsley 1999 and 2001, 155. 91 C.E.). 137 Eck 1997b, no. 4. 132 Eck 1970, 84-85, 143; Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 79; 138 Rogers 1991. Stumpf 1991, 230-232. 139 Eck 1970, 163; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 91 (105 C.E.). 133 Eck 1970, 86, 145; Thomasson 1984, 219 no. 81 140 Eck 1970, 168; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 93 (107 C.E.). (Domitianic, after 84 C.E.). 141 Eck 1970, 170; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 94 (108 C.E.). 134 Eck 1970, 84, 148; also Thomasson 1984, 219-220 no. 142 Eck 1970, 180; Stumpf 1991, 275-276; Thomasson 1984, 86 (if no. 85, Peregrinus, is spurious). 223 no. 104. 80 part i – section i. koinon of asia the words ‘of the Augusti’ is unusual; see inscription 40. IvE 21. Resolution for a holiday on Antoninus 1. Pius’ birthday, probably from early in his reign, ca. 26. IvE 429. Dedication of the shrine erroneously 138. known as the temple of Hadrian, to Artemis (re- 41. IvE 1503. Dedication of altar to Artemis, Anto- stored), Hadrian, and the neokoros people, under ninus Pius, and the city. Servius Innocens, proconsul ca. 117/118.143 42. IvE 22 [partial publication of Clerc 1885; cor- 27. IvE 4333. Statue base of Hadrian, under Ti. rected by A. Wilhelm, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Caepio Hispo, proconsul ca. 118/119 if Servius Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 24 (1929) 191-194]. Innocens is dated to 117/118.144 From Nysa: the technitai of Dionysos, gathered for 28. IvE 266. Statue base of Hadrian dated by his the Great Epheseia “in the greatest and first, metropo- titulature and the proconsulate of M. Peducaeus lis of Asia, and twice neokoros of the Augusti city Priscinus to 124.145 Forms a pair with no. 29. of Ephesos,” honor the citizen of Nysa T. Aelius 29. IvE 280. Statue base of Sabina, forming a pair Alkibiades, ca. 141 C.E. or shortly after.150 Lines with no. 28. 74-75 (not in IvE) announce a different decree, t}w 30. IvE 441 plus addendum. Statue base of Sabina, |erçw ÑAdrian}w ÉAntvne¤n[hw] yumelik}w peri- under L. Hedius Rufus Avitus Lollianus, proconsul p[o]listik}w megãl[hw] ne[vkÒrou?] §p‹ ÑR\mhw 128/129.146 sunÒdou.151 For the synod of the technitai at Rome 31. IvE 430. Dedication of a stoa to Artemis, as perhaps neokoros, see chapter 35, ‘Herakleia.’ Hadrian (as Zeus Olympios) and the people, under 43. IvE 3035. The city honors a quaestor; set up by Afranius Flavianus, proconsul 130/131.147 a member of the Vedii family, probably in Antonine 32. IvE 340. Fragment, undated. times; also Antonine by letter forms.152 33. IvE 480. Fragment of building inscription? 44. IvE 697 B. Honorific set up by a member of the Undated. Vedii. 34. IvE 582. Inscription on a marble slab, perhaps 45. IvE 2039. Building inscription for theater con- an acclamation of Ephesos as neokoros. Undated. struction; the grammateus is one of the Vedii, dated Twice neokoros: ca. 140-144. 35. IvE 986. The city honors the daughter of the 46. IvE 438 plus addendum. Dedication of the gym- builder of the shrine of no. 26 for her own building nasium of Vedius to Artemis, Antoninus Pius, and projects. the city, under L. Antonius Albus, proconsul, whose 36. IvE 1089 C. Decrees of an athletic synod; an office has been dated from as early as 146/147 to Olympic winner ca. 129 is mentioned on another as late as 160/161.153 fragment (B). 47. IvE 431. Dedication on epistyle of the palaestra 37. IG II2 3297. From Athens; Ephesos’ dedication of the gymnasium of Vedius. of a statue of Hadrian as Olympios Panhellenios in the 48. IvE 728. Statue base of the builder of the gym- Olympieion, ca. 132. nasium of Vedius. Dated after visits of Lucius Verus 38. IvE 278. From copy by Cyriacus of Ancona; to Ephesos in 162 and 163.154 statue base of Sabina, under C. Julius Alexander 49. IvE 2066. The city honors a member of the Vedii Berenicianus, proconsul 132/133.148 family; letter forms of the late second century. 39. IvE 279. Statue base of Sabina, under T. Aurelius 50. IvE 726. The city honors a member of the Vedii Fulvus Antoninus (Antoninus Pius), proconsul ca. family. 134/135.149 See text above. 51. IvE 730. The city honors a member of the Vedii

143 Wörrle Archäologischer Anzeiger 88 (1973) 470-477; Thomasson 1984, 223 no. 107 (117-119 C.E.). 150 For the person and the date, L. Robert 1938. 144 Eck 1970, 185 n. 300, 186 n. 309; Thomasson 1984, 151 Restored by Kourouniotis 1921-22, 83-85 fig. 67. 223 no. 106 (118 C.E.). 152 For the Vedii in these and the following inscriptions, 145 Eck 1970, 197; Thomasson 1984, 224 no. 113 (124/125 see Fontani 1996 and Engelmann 1999. C.E.); Weiser 1998, 283. 153 Early: PIR2 A.810, Eck 1972; ca. 146-148 C.E.: 146 Eck 1970, 202; Thomasson 1984, 225 no. 116. Thomasson 1984, 227 no. 128; ca. 147-149 C.E.: Halfmann 147 Bowie 1971, 139 n. 8; Thomasson 1984, 225 no. 118. 1970, 148 no. 58; 148/149 C.E.: Fontani 1996, 228. Late: 148 PIR2 J.141; Thomasson 1984, 226 no. 120. Bowersock 1967; J. and L. Robert, Bulletin Epigraphique 1968 149 Eck 1970, 210; Thomasson 1984, 226 no. 121 (133-137 no. 171. C.E.). 154 Halfmann 1986a, 210-211; Fontani 1996, 228, 234. chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 81 family as agonothetes for life and hereditarily of the 68. IvE 3037. The city honors a legatus pro praetore great Hadrianeia festival. Asiae, probably before 175-180. 52. IvE 661. The city honors a citizen; dated ca. 140- 69. IvE 692. Base of statue of a “twice Asiarch of 150. Asia of the temples in Ephesos,” his career dated 53. IvE 642. Statue base of a chief priest of Asia of 154-174 (IvE 1105 A, 1130). the temples in Ephesos; probably dated before the 70. IvE 699 A. The city honors a local official; dated proconsulate of L. Antonius Albus (see above no. 46). around the reign of Marcus Aurelius. 54. IvE 611. Statue base of M’. Acilius Glabrio, 71. IvE 718. The city honors a quaestor pro praetore consul in 152 and then legatus Asiae and curator Asiae; except for the city’s titulature, this inscription rei publicae of Ephesos.155 is wholly in Latin. Dated by letter forms to the mid- 55. IGUrbRom 26 [IGRR 1.147]. Dedication of a second century. building for Ephesian shipowners and merchants in 72. IvE 2069. The city honors a chief priest of Asia Rome, to Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius of the temples in Ephesos; dated around the mid- Caesar, dated January 18, 154. second century. 56. IvE 2049. Statue base of Antoninus Pius and 73. IvE 3036. The city of Selge honors an Ephesian, members of his family, dated 146-161. the son of the chief priest of Asia honored in no. 72, 57. IvE 2050. Six statue bases of Antoninus Pius, who was proconsul of Pamphylia and Lycia; dated each dedicated by a different Ephesian tribe. The after 178. grammateus is the same one who was in charge of 74. IvE 1555. Fragment of honorific; mid-second setting up inscription 56. century. 58. IvE 282D. Statue base of Antoninus Pius, simi- 75. IvE 721. The city honors a chief priest of Asia lar to no. 57. of the temples in Ephesos; dated between 170 and 59. IvE 1541. The city honors a quaestor pro 184/185. praetore; dated to the reign of Antoninus Pius. 76. IvE 1380 B. Dedication to an emperor who was 60. IvE 288 (4) C and D. Statue base of Hadrian son Germanicus (Marcus Aurelius or Commodus). of Marcus Aurelius (born 152, died before 166).156 77. IvE 613 A. The city honors a citizen. Dated to 61. IvE 288 (5). Base of the family of Marcus the reign of Commodus. Aurelius, including the Hadrian of no. 60. 78. IvE 627. The city honors an equestrian official 62. IvE 4341. The city honors a legatus Asiae and honored by Commodus (name erased). curator of the city; dated to the 160s, in the reign 79. IvE 367. The city honors an Asiarch of the of Marcus Aurelius. temples in Ephesos; dated after the second half of 63. IvE 696. The city honors a legatus pro praetore the second century. Asiae and curator of the city, dated before 167; set 80. IvE 3049. The city honors a citizen of Tralles, up by the same two men who set up no. 62. father of a curator of Ephesos. Dated around the end 64. IvE 24 B. Part of a dossier containing an edict of the second/beginning of the third century. of the proconsul C. Popillius Carus Pedo, probably 81. IvE 3052. The city honors a procurator vicesimae in 162/163.157 hereditatum. Dated by letter forms to the end of the 65. IvE 1543. The city honors a legatus pro praetore second/beginning of the third century. Asiae, before 163. Except for the city’s titulature, this 82. IvE 4109. Statue base of Septimius Severus and inscription is wholly in Latin. his family, dated 198-210. 66. IvE 672 A. The city honors a sophist and bene- 83. IvE 294. Base of Septimius Severus (name factor, ca. 166. restored) as ‘new Helios,’ dated by the editors to 210- 67. IvE 665. The city honors Pomponia Triaria, 211; but the titulature could also be that of Cara- daughter of A. Junius Rufinus, proconsul of Asia, calla, who was occasionally given the titles Arabicus and wife of C. Erucius Clarus, consul in 170.158 and Adiabenicus after 211. The inscription would thus date before he became Germanicus in 213, like inscription 128 below.159 Thus the enumeration of 155 Merkelbach 1971; Syme 1980, 446-448. 156 Kienast 1996, 140. 157 Hanslik, ‘Popillius. 37’ in RE 22 (1953) 67 (162/163 or 158 Eck 1999 dates the inscription to the time of Avidius 163/164); Thomasson 1984, 229-230 no. 146; Stumpf 1991, Cassius’ revolt in Syria. 299-300. 159 Mastino 1981, 50-57. 82 part i – section i. koinon of asia neokoria could be [d]‹w nevkÒrou t«[n Sebast«n 107. IvE 1926 (2). Fragment, undated. ÉEfes¤]vn pÒlevw. 108. IvE 2909. Top of base, undated. 84. IvE 1238. Base of statue of Tyche given by Probably twice neokoros: Pisidian Antioch; the city secretary is son of the chief 109. IvE 708. Statue base of a local official. Undated. priest of Asia of no. 72. 110. IvE 683 B. [Riemann, Bulletin de correspondance 85. IvE 2052. A statue of the People set up by the hellénique 1 (1877) 290 no. 77, from Cyriacus of Anco- council. Undated. na, CIG 3004]. The people honor a citizen; though 86. IvE 644. The city honors a citizen. Undated. the title is restored as only ‘neokoros,’ the formula 87. IvE 687. The city honors a citizen; here neokoros is that typical of the second neokoria. modifies ‘the Ephesians,’ not ‘the people’ or ‘the 111. IvE 893. The city honors a citizen. Undated. city.’ Undated. 112. IvE 1907 (2). Top of base, undated. 88. IvE 664 B. The city honors a chief priest of Asia 113. IvE 2908. Fragment, undated. of the temples in Ephesos. Undated. 114. IvE 1921 (3). Fragment of a base, undated. 89. IvE 985. The city honors a priestess of Artemis. 115. IvE 1921 (2). Upper corner of a base, undated. Undated. 116. IvE 1915 (2). Fragment, undated. 90. IvE 686. The city honors M. Julius Aquila, chief 117. IvE 1909 (1). Fragment of base, undated. priest of Asia of the temples in Ephesos. See the 118. IvE 1906 (2). Top of a base, undated. following. 119. IvE 2908. Fragment, undated. 91. IvE 689. The city honors the mother of Aquila, 120. Knibbe and Iplikçioglu 1981/82, 90 no. 6. Half chief priest of Asia of no. 90. Her name now restored of a torus capital, reused; undated. from a new inscription from Amorion as Aelia 121. IvE 1918 (3). Top of statue base, undated. Ammia, “chief priestess of the greatest temples in 122. IvE 1902 (2). Fragment of statue base, undated. Ephesos” by Kearsley 1990. See above, n. 69. Al- 123. IvE 1810. Fragment, undated. most certainly paired with inscription 90, above.160 Three times neokoros and following: Despite Kearsley’s arguments to the contrary, this 124. IvE 212. Letter of Caracalla granting neokoria indicates that Aelia Ammia served as chief priest- of Artemis, for a total of three. See text above. ess when her son was Asiarch (as expressed on the 125. IvE 3001. Inscription of east hall of agora, new inscription), presumably because he was unmar- inscribed 211, recarved 212 or after. Probably ried, widowed, or simply wished to give his mother changed from ‘neokoros of Artemis and three times this great honor. Kearsley’s geneaology would date neokoros of the Augusti’ to ‘neokoros of Artemis and this to around 190 C.E. twice neokoros of the Augusti,’ though the enumera- 92. IvE 1606. The city honors a winner of contests. tion is restored. See text above. Undated. 126. IvE 740. Inscription of Ulpius Apollonius 93. IvE 4342. The city honors a citizen. Undated. Plautus, designated Asiarch, who is also mentioned 94. IvE 649. The city honors a citizen. Undated. in inscription 133, below. Ephesos is neokoros of 95. IvE 1517. Fragment, undated. Artemis and three times neokoros of the Augusti. 96. IvE 1563. Fragment, undated. Dated to 211, subsequently all erased. See text 97. IvE 1532. Fragment, undated. above. 98. IvE 2909 A. Fragment, undated. 127. IvE 647. Dedication to Ti. Claudius Serenus. 99. IvE 1902 (1). Fragment, undated. Ephesos is neokoros of Artemis and three times 100. IvE 1906 (1). Top of base, undated. neokoros of the Augusti. Dated to 211, subsequently 101. IvE 1909 (3). Fragment, undated. erased. See text above. 102. IvE 1913. Fragment, undated. 128. IvE 297. Base of Caracalla, dated between 103. IvE 1915 (1). Top of base, undated. February 212 and October 213. Ephesos is only 104. IvE 1921 (1). Corner of base, undated. twice neokoros of the Augusti. See text above. 105. IvE 1923 (1). Fragment, undated. 129. IvE 834 plus addenda. Unfortunately fragmen- 106. IvE 1926 (1). Fragment, undated. tary honorific, placed at this point by its use of the formula ‘twice neokoros of the Augusti by decrees of the most sacred Senate.’ The mention of the 160 See Wörrle 1992, 368-370, restoring sun[ierasa]m°nhn Senate is characteristic of the period after the grant t“ u|“ in lines 11-12. by Caracalla and Geta, while the count of only two chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 83 imperial neokoriai allies it to no. 128; though it for the Augusti and once for Artemis; later erased might also date to the reign of Macrinus. and changed to twice neokoros of the Augusti only. 130. IvE 2053. Base of a statue of the city of See text above. Carthage, one of a group including nos. 131, 132, Enumeration uncertain: and IvE 2055 (the latter a base of a statue of Kos 136. IvE 291. Statue base of an emperor who was on which the neokoria is only restored). Ephesos is Germanicus Maximus and Armeniacus, probably here three times neokoros, so the occasion may have Caracalla. Remains of the words ‘twice’ and ‘of the been a festival to celebrate the restoration of the Augusti’ are still on the stone but are interspersed neokoria for Artemis, which is being counted in. with erasures. The editors attribute this to Christians Carthage’s participation was likely in return for obliterating the name of Artemis, but it is more likely Ephesos’ at the inauguration of the Pythia at the result of the changes in neokoriai that occurred Carthage.161 The dedicator here later became city in the reign of Macrinus, as in inscription 135. secretary and set up statues of Caracalla and Julia Four times neokoros: Domna after October 213 (no. 133, below). 137. IvE 625. Base recarved from ‘three times’ to 131. IvE 2054. Statue of Knidos. See text and in- ‘four times neokoros,’ enumeration later erased scriptions 130, 132. completely. See text above. 132. IvE 2056. Base of a statue of Nikaia in Lydia, Three times neokoros: one of a group of city statues; see above inscriptions 138. IvE 304. Base of a statue of Gordian III, un- 130, 131. Ephesos is three times neokoros. der Decimus Junius Quintianus, logistes ca. 243/ 133. IvE 300. Base of Caracalla and Julia Domna, 244, at the end of Gordian’s reign.163 Ephesos is dated after October 213. Ephesos is three times neokoros of the most holy Artemis and twice neokoros, twice of the Augusti, once of Artemis. See neokoros of the Augusti. text above. One of the board who voted and set up 139. IvE 304 A. Base of a statue of Tranquillina wife the statue is Ulpius Apollonius Plautus, the desig- of Gordian III, with the same formula of neokoriai nated Asiarch of inscription 126, above. and set up under the same logistes as no. 138. 134. IvE 2040. Building inscription of theater aw- 140. IvE 467. Architrave inscription, one fragment ning. Ephesos is twice neokoros of the Augusti by of which may mention the logistes of nos. 138 and decrees of the sacred Senate and neokoros of 139, and whose formula of neokoriai can be restored Artemis, i.e. a total of three; by the wording, the in the same way. Senate’s decrees seem to pertain only to the 141. IvE 4336. Statue base of Gordian III. See text neokoriai of the Augusti. The construction was partly above. financed from funds found by the proconsul Q. Probably three times neokoros (two of the Tineius Sacerdos, whose office has been dated ca. Augusti, one of Artemis): 206-208 by the inscription of the skene at Hiera- 142. IvE 300 A. Statue base? in fragments. Formula polis.162 As that surely predates Caracalla’s grant of similar to that of inscription 133. the neokoria for Artemis (inscription 124), however, 143. IvE 284 A. Fragmentary dedication to an it is clear that this inscription dates after Sacerdos’ emperor named Ant[oninus?] and to the city: tª proconsulship; the fund-gathering and reconstruc- pr\[t_ ka‹ meg¤st_] mhtrop[Òlei t}w ÉAs¤aw] ka‹ tion of the awning probably took some time. The nev[kÒrƒ...] The editors restore nev[kÒrƒ t«n titulature should postdate the reappearance of the Sebast«n ÉEfes¤vn pÒlei] and postulate Antoninus third neokoria for Artemis in 213, as shown by in- Pius or Marcus Aurelius, but Ephesos was twice scription 133. neokoros on inscriptions of their reigns. More likely 135. Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1989, is a restoration on the lines of no. 138; the emperor Beibl. 165-168 no. 3. Statue of Caracalla, dated after would then be Gordian III, his name Ant[onius]. 215. The city is originally three times neokoros, twice 144. IvE 1910 (2). Fragmentary, undated; the city is neokoros of Artemis, first, greatest, metropolis of Asia, and twice neokoros of the Augusti. 161 L. Robert 1978a, 468-469; Weiss 1998, 59. 162 Ritti 1985, 108-113 and L’Année épigraphique (1994) no. 1638 (206/207); for Sacerdos, PIR 3.332.170; KP 5.854 no. 3; Thomasson 1984, 233 no. 175 (under Septimius Severus?), Magie 1950, app. 1 (202-214). 163 PIR2 J.803. 84 part i – section i. koinon of asia

145. IvE 1916. Upper right corner of statue base, Septimius Severus: BMC 259, 260; SNGCop 411; SNGvA undated. My restoration: [k]a‹ nev[kÒrou? t}w ÉAr- 1893, 7869; SNGMün 152-155; SNGRighetti 853; ? Berlin (7 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York (3 exx.), t°mid]ow ka‹ d[‹w nevkÒrou t«n Seba]st[«n]. Oxford (10 exx.), Paris (12 exx.), Vienna (7 exx.). 146. IvE 1904 (2). Fragment of base, undated. Could Julia Domna: BMC 263, 265; SNGCop 415, 416; SNGvA be restored as ‘three times’ or perhaps ‘four times 1895; SNGMün 158; SNGLewis 1449; Berlin (2 exx.), neokoros.’ Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). 147. IvE 1908 (3). Fragment, undated. Could be Caracalla: BMC 271-275; SNGCop 419-423; SNGvA 1896- restored as twice (or three times) neokoros of the 1898; SNGMün 160, 161, 163, 164; Berlin (9 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (7 exx.), Paris Augusti and of Artemis. (6 exx.), Vienna (10 exx.). 148. IvE 473 (3). Fragment of archivolt, undated. Geta Caesar: SNGCop 425; SNGvA 7874; SNGMün 168; Ephesos is twice or three times neokoros. Oxford, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Uncertain and restored: Geta Augustus: BMC 281, 282; SNGCop 431; SNGvA 1902, 149. IvE 2906. Fragment of Hellenistic ashlar block. 1903, 7877; SNGMün 173; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston, London, New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (5 exx.), From the context, it may refer to a neokoros offi- Vienna (4 exx.). cial rather than the city’s titulature. Three times neokoros: 150. IvE 1907 (1). Fragment, undated. Geta Augustus: Gotha (genuine?). 151. IvE 2040. Fragment, undated. Three times neokoros and of Artemis: 152. IvE 1908 (2). Fragment, undated. Julia Domna: Berlin, London, Paris. 153. IvE 1551. Fragment, undated. Caracalla: SNGvA 7871; Berlin. Caracalla and Geta: BMC 292; SNGCop 436; SNGvA 1904; 154. IvE 1924 (3). Fragment, undated. Berlin (2 exx.), Paris. Geta Augustus: Berlin, London. Twice neokoros and of Artemis: COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Caracalla: BMC 269. Three times neokoros: Neokoros: Julia Domna: BMC 266, 267; SNGCop 417; Berlin (4 exx.), Nero: SNGvA 7863; Berlin (3 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna Oxford, Paris, Vienna. (5 exx.). Trajan: BMC 223; SNGvA 1884; Berlin (2 exx.), New Caracalla: BMC 276-279, Adramyttium 24, 25; SNGvA York, Oxford. 1899, 1900, 7872, 7873; SNGMün 162, 165, 166; Twice neokoros: SNGLewis 1450; SNGParis Adramytium 59; Berlin (17 Hadrian: BMC 227, 228; SNGMün 127; Berlin, New York, exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (6 exx.), Oxford Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). (6 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (13 exx.), War- Hadrian and Aelius Verus: Paris. saw. Antoninus Pius: BMC 233-236; SNGCop 397; SNGvA 1888; Uncertain: SNGMün 132, 133; Berlin (7 exx.), London (2 exx.), Macrinus: Vienna (falsified?). Four times neokoros: New York (2 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (7 exx.), 165 Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw. Elagabalus: BMC 300, 302-305, 307; SNGCop 442-448 ; Marcus Aurelius Caesar: BMC 242; Berlin (2 exx.), SNGvA 1905, 1906; SNGMün 184; SNGRighetti 854; Oxford, Paris (2 exx.).164 Berlin (21 exx.), London (7 exx.), New York (4 exx.), Oxford (8 exx.), Paris (19 exx.), Vienna (13 Marcus Aurelius Augustus: BMC 243; SNGCop 400; 166 SNGvA 1890, 1891; SNGMün 141-145; SNGLewis exx.). 1448; Berlin (10 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Julia Paula: BMC 308; SNGCop 453, 454; SNGvA 1907; Oxford (4 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (9 exx.), SNGRighetti 856; Berlin (4 exx.), London, Oxford (2 Warsaw. exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Faustina the Younger: BMC 235; SNGCop 402; Berlin (4 Annia Faustina: BMC 309; SNGvA 1908; SNGMün 187 (fal- exx.), Oxford, Paris, Vienna (2 exx.). Lucius Verus: BMC 247; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris. Commodus Caesar: BMC 254; Berlin, Boston, New York, 165 SNGCop 444 and several Berlin examples have been Paris. identified as late 17th century casts from genuine ancient coins; Commodus Augustus: BMC 255; SNGCop 409; Berlin (2 for the purposes of this study, the use of such casts is less exx.), London, New York, Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (2 problematic than the use of recut coins, as the legends and types are true copies of ancient coins, not inventions. See H.-D. exx.). Schultz 1995. 166 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 114 no. 1116, a concord 164 One issue celebrating concord between Ephesos TR NEO coin of Laodikeia with Ephesos three times neokoros under and Hierapolis is presumably an engraver’s error: Franke and Elagabalus, is presumably retouched on the reverse as well as M. Nollé 1997, 41 nos. 323-325. on the obverse, and should be considered falsified. chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 85

sified);167 Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris (4 exx.), 1457; SNGRighetti 861-863; Berlin (23 exx.), Boston Vienna. (2 exx.), London (8 exx.), New York (12 exx.), Ox- Julia Soaemias: New York, Paris (2 exx.). ford (12 exx.), Paris (19 exx.), Vienna (12 exx.), Julia Maesa: BMC 310; Paris (3 exx.). Warsaw. Severus Alexander Caesar: BMC 312; SNGMün 189; Gallienus: BMC 370-376; SNGCop 510-512; SNGvA 1928- Berlin (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna. 1930, 7887; SNGMün 249-254, 263; SNGLewis 1459; Severus Alexander Augustus: BMC 311, 314, 318, Kibyra Berlin (20 exx.), Boston, London (5 exx.), New York 94; SNGCop 460-462; SNGvA 7880; SNGMün 190, (3 exx.), Oxford (10 exx.), Paris (12 exx.), Vienna (7 193, 196; SNGLewis 1453; SNGRighetti 857; Berlin (4 exx.). exx.), London, New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (8 Salonina: BMC 390-394;168 SNGCop 532-534; SNGvA exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). 1933, 1934; SNGMün 266-268, 270; SNGLewis 1461; Julia Mamaea: BMC 328; Berlin. Berlin (6 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York (4 exx.), Neokoros: Oxford (7 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.), Severus Alexander Augustus: Vienna. Warsaw (2 exx.). Three times neokoros: Valerianus: SNGMün 276; SNGLewis 1463; Berlin, New Maximinus: BMC 329, 330; SNGCop 472, 473; SNGvA York, Oxford, Paris (2 exx.). 1912; SNGMün 208, 209; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston, Saloninus: SNGCop 541; Berlin, London, Paris. London (3 exx.), New York, Oxford (4 exx.), Paris Four times neokoros: (8 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.). Valerian: BMC 359?, 360-363; SNGCop 501-503; SNGvA Maximus Caesar: SNGMün 212; London, Paris. 1924, 1925; Berlin (4 exx.), London, New York (2 Gordian III: BMC 331; SNGvA 1913; SNGMün 213-215; exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). SNGLewis 1454; SNGRighetti 860; Berlin (2 exx.), New Gallienus: BMC 377-384; SNGCop 513-521; SNGvA 1931, York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). 7888, 7889; SNGMün 257-260; SNGRighetti 864, 867, Philip: Berlin. 868; Berlin (12 exx.), London (6 exx.), New York (6 Otacilia: BMC 342, 343; SNGCop 486; Berlin, New York exx.), Oxford (9 exx.), Paris (13 exx.), Vienna (10 (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris, Vienna. exx.).169 Philip Caesar: SNGCop 488, 489; SNGvA 1914; SNGMün Salonina: BMC 395; SNGCop 535, 536; SNGMün 275; 224; New York, Oxford, Paris, Vienna (2 exx.). SNGRighetti 869; Berlin (4 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Trajan Decius: SNGvA 1916; Berlin, London, Oxford, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Paris (2 exx.), Vienna. Valerianus: SNGCop 538; Berlin, Vienna. Valerian: BMC 350-358; SNGCop 496-500; SNGvA 1921- Saloninus: Paris. 1923; SNGMün 234-238, 240, 241, 243; SNGLewis

168 BMC 392 is a cast of an ancient coin. See H.-D. Schultz 1995, no. 6. 169 Includes several casts of ancient coins, e.g. BMC 380, 167 Another coin in Munich noted as false by Klose 1997, 384; SNGCop 521; SNGRighetti 867. See H.-D. Schultz 1995, 258, 261 no. 6. nos. 3-5. 86 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 5. Kyzikos in Mysia: Koinon of Asia

Kyzikos had a checkered relationship with the Helios,’ was serving an honorific term as hipparchos, emperors and their cult. According to Tacitus, in 25 the city’s chief magistrate.3 Whatever the exact C.E. the emperor Tiberius deprived it of its status object(s) of cult to which the title alludes, this is the as a free city for, among other serious charges, first use of ‘neokoros’ to describe a city’s association neglecting the cult of the deified Augustus. Cassius with the imperial cult, and indicates the conditions Dio amplified this account: the Kyzikenes did not under which it would later become a recognized title. complete the heroön to Augustus that they had begun to build.1 The heroön was likely a munici- pal shrine, as Asia’s koinon temple to Augustus was First Neokoria: Hadrian of course the one in Pergamon (q.v.). Some years later, Kyzikos produced the first in- In 123 C.E., according to the Chronicon Paschale, scription yet known to call a city neokoros: Hadrian visited Kyzikos, where he founded a temple and paved a marketplace with marble.4 Though INSCRIPTION 1. Dittenberger 1960, SIG4 799 unremarkable at first sight, this reference provides (IGRR 4:146). Decree honoring Antonia Try- an origin for a project as elusive to trace as it is phaena, dated to 38 C.E. ¤ meg stƒ ka‹ [§pifa- important, the construction of a provincial temple ¤ ¤ ¤ nes(tã)tƒ ye“ _Ga ƒ´ Ka sari érxa an ka‹ to Hadrian that was to gain the title ‘neokoros’ for progonikØn toË g°nouw aÈtoË nevkÒron §pa- Kyzikos. The evidence for this temple is scattered naktvm°nh pÒlin. . . through a number of late and obscure sources, and The phrasing is unique, not formulaic; this is a its very object of cult has been doubted, while the metaphor, comparing the city to the neokoros offi- remains of the temple itself only recently began to cial of a shrine, and does not yet represent an offi- be revealed.5 cial title. The Kyzikenes call their city “ancient and Though the Chronicon Paschale mentioned nothing ancestral neokoros of the family” of the “greatest and of a temple beyond Hadrian’s foundation of one, a most manifest god Gaius Caesar” (Caligula, whose scholion to Lucian’s Icaromenippus 24 stated that the name was erased after his death and the condem- Olympieion in Athens stayed uncompleted for over nation of his memory), much as an Ephesian (q.v.) three hundred years due to lack of money, like the could call his home “neokoros of the great goddess temple in Kyzikos, and that neither of them would Artemis and of the heaven-fallen [image].” One may have been finished had not Hadrian taken up the wonder whether Kyzikos called itself neokoros here work with public (i.e. imperial) funds.6 This infor- due to the now completed heroön of Augustus, mation may derive from Arethas, the tenth-century Gaius’ great-grandfather, or whether the city had a bishop of Kaisareia in Cappadocia; presumably the shrine honoring his grandfather Agrippa, who held temple at Kyzikos is introduced as a comparison imperium in the East in 15 B.C. when Kyzikos’ 3 IGRR 4:145 (= SIG 4 798). status as a free city was restored, and who is men- 4 Chronicon Paschale 475.10 (Dindorf); Halfmann 1986a, 191, 2 tioned in line 7 of this inscription. The city also cel- 199 (preferring a date of 124); Lehnen 1997, 87; Birley 1997, ebrated a festival in honor of Drusilla, Gaius’ sister, 162, 164 (inferring that the temple of Hadrian was originally under the titles of ‘goddess, new Aphrodite,’ in 37 a temple of Zeus begun by the kings of Pergamon). 5 Excavations directed by Prof. A. YaylalÌ, with many new during her lifetime, when Gaius himself, called ‘new finds, especially of architectural fragments. See YaylalÌ 1990; Koçhan 1991; YaylalÌ, Koçhan, and Baâaran 1991; and YaylalÌ and Özkaya 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. 1 Tacitus, Annals 4.36; Cassius Dio 57.24.6. 6 Rabe 1906, 107 sec. 20, ll. 16-22. On the funds, see 2 Cassius Dio 54.7.6, 23.7. Winter 1996, 90, 101. chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia 87 because its story was well known to him or to the huge size of the temple, though Dio’s epitomator scholiast. But how far is the comparison to go? The Xiphilinos is not specific about its identification. The figure of three hundred years seems to refer to the earthquake should date only shortly before Pius’ Athenian Olympieion, and probably represents the death in March 161, because his successor Marcus interval between the start of its construction on Aurelius gave a speech before the Senate and asked Peisistratid foundations in 174 B.C.E. and its final for aid to be sent to the stricken Kyzikenes, prob- dedication by Hadrian in 131/132.7 If we apply a ably in August of that same year.10 similar lapse to the temple in Kyzikos, it too would In 166 or 167 the orator Aelius Aristides deliv- have been founded in the second century B.C.E., ered a panegyric in Kyzikos that included the temple but the excavation has produced no sign of so early there as one of its main themes.11 A proper occa- an origin. In fact, unlike Athens’ Olympieion, whose sion for such a speech might have been the dedica- construction seems substantially Hellenistic, the tion of the temple, but Hasluck, disturbed by the foundations of the Kyzikos temple are completely forty-year gap between inception and panegyric, Roman, with vaulted substructures of cement and preferred to call it the anniversary of the dedication, agglomerate. The scholiast, then, may be referring which he placed in 139, the date suggested by to some period of incompletion of a temple at Boeckh for the first celebration of Hadrianeia Olym- Kyzikos, though not necessarily of three hundred pia at Kyzikos.12 Yet such a delay from inception to years. He may even be conflating Cassius Dio’s completion does recall the scholiast on Lucian, reference to the heroön to Augustus still incomplete though forty years cannot compare with the three in 25 with the later temple founded by Hadrian. The centuries of the Olympieion at Athens. It is then words of the scholiast make no doubt, however, of likely that Aristides’ speech did commemorate the the role of Hadrian and his money in both Athens dedication of the temple of Hadrian; it had been and Kyzikos. begun ca. 123 or 124, had probably still been un- The sixth-century author Johannes Malalas con- finished when it had been thrown down by an earth- nected Hadrian’s foundation with aid given to quake late in Antoninus Pius’ reign, and was finally Kyzikos after a disastrous earthquake. He called it dedicated (but was it finished?) in 166 or 167. “a very large temple, one of the wonders.”8 The folly It is unfortunate for us that Aristides’ oration is of building such a large monument in a proven not more specific about the temple’s history and even earthquake zone would soon become apparent. about its object of worship, but a flowery panegy- During the reign of Antoninus Pius another earth- ric did not need to mention such commonplace facts, quake shook Kyzikos and threw down what was, well known to both orator and audience. When according to Cassius Dio, “the largest and most Aristides speaks of the temple (sections 16-21), it is beautiful of all temples.”9 Both accounts stress the in such hyperbolic and metaphorical terms that he cannot be taken literally.13 The temple competes 7 Travlos 1971, 402-411; Willers 1990; Tölle-Kastenbein with mountains; it is so great a landmark that navi- 1994; C. Jones 1996, 33. gators sailing to Kyzikos will no longer need bea- 8 Johannes Malalas 11.16; ed. Dindorf (Bonn 1831) 279; E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, and Scott 1986, 147-148. This earth- con fires to guide them. Each of its blocks is as big quake, on the night of November 10, probably in 120, has been as a temple, the temple itself as big as a sanctuary associated with different seismic events of Hadrian’s reign, no- precinct, and the sanctuary precinct as big as a city. tably an earthquake in Nikomedia and Aoria dated to 128, by Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 233-234 no. 112. It is difficult to say whether there is more marble On earthquakes and chronology in Malalas, see E. Jeffreys in the temple than had been left over in its quarry 1990, 155-160, 166. on Prokonnesos. 9 Cassius Dio ep. 70.4.1-2; other cities were also affected. Barattolo 1995, 60-62 n. 15, attempted to move this section of Dio from the reign of Antoninus to that of Marcus Aurelius, 10 Fronto, Letters to the Emperor Antoninus 1.2.4; ed. M. van but the argument is special pleading, largely incoherent. B. Keil den Hout 86-91. Van den Hout 1999, 231 on 89.3 dates the 1897 dated the earthquake too early, between 150 and 155 C.E. letter to October 161; Behr 1968, 92-93 n. 1b. Winter 1996, See Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 236-237 no. 102-103 put the earthquake in 160 and the speech in 162. 116, where the date is no more exact than the mid-second 11 Oration 27 (Keil, 125-138); P. Aelius Aristides, The Com- century, and two seismic events (this at Kyzikos, and another plete Works, tr. C. Behr (Leiden 1981) 2:98-106, with commen- at Ephesos and Nikomedia) that may have been diverse are tary 379-382; Heinze 1995; Swain 1996, 285-288. See also again associated. But there were many earthquakes in the area Bowersock 1973, 195-196. during this period, and it is likely that the same cities were 12 Hasluck 1910, 187-188; CIG 3674. repeatedly shaken: Eusebius, History of the Church 4.13. 13 Boulanger 1923, 342-346, esp. 344 n. 1. 88 part i – section i. koinon of asia

The orator then began his transition to the next and dated to the twelfth or thirteenth century, lists essential part of his speech, praise of the rulers: the temple eighteenth, as “the [temple] of Hadrian in Kyzikos, unfinished.”16 §pegrãcasye m¢n går tÚn êriston t«n e¸w §ke›non tÚn xrÒnon basil°vn: ¥kei d¢ Ím›n tÚ ¶rgon prÚw If it was never finished, it was no wonder. Almost t°low §n to›sde to›w kairo›w, o„ tå kal«n aÔ every author who mentioned the temple at Kyzikos kãllista e¸lÆxasin ka‹ Íp¢r œn dikaiÒtat' ín xari- harped on its prodigious size. Aristides dredged up stÆrion tosoËton •sthkÚw e‡h to›w yeo›w, §peidÆper hyperbole after hyperbole for it. Like Johannes oÈ =ñdion [hâ n] me›zon §jeure›n. Malalas, an anonymous poet during the reign of You [Kyzikenes] have had written [on the temple] Anastasius (491-513 C.E.) classed it among the the name of the best of rulers up to that time. But wonders of the world, though in this epigram it is the work has come to completion in these times, specified as coming after the Roman Capitolium and which have brought about the best of good things Pergamon’s grove of Rufinus and before the pyra- and on account of which so great a thank-offering to the gods would have been most rightly set up, mids, the colossus of Rhodes, and the lighthouse at since it should not be easy to find a better one. Alexandria: (section 22) mhd¢ tanupleÊroisin érhrÒta, KÊzike, p°troiw, ÑAdrianoË basil}ow émemf°a nhÚn ée¤seiw. Presumably ‘the name of the best of rulers up to that time’ was that of Hadrian written on the temple, Nor will you sing, Kyzikos, the blameless temple of King Hadrian, close-joined with enormous stones. though even this would not assure that he was the object of cult and not simply the donor. Aristides Greek Anthology 9.656 also refers to the temple as if it were “a thank- Also in the opinion of Niketas of Herakleia, an elev- offering to the gods,” which has made some think enth-century author, Hadrian’s sanctuary in Kyzikos that this was the explanation for the temple’s foun- was the seventh of the wonders.17 dation.14 Aristides expresses a possibility, however, Cassius Dio (70.4.1-2) seems to sum it all up, not a fact: saying that the temple would make a fine writing that “in general, the details were more to be thank-offering for the fortunes of present times says nothing about why it was originally built. In fact, Aristides never mentions the cult for which the 16 Codex Vaticanus graecus 989, last page, 110, bound into a collection of works ascribed to Xenophon: B. Keil 1897, 503 temple was built in any but the most allusive (and n. 1; Corso 1991, 158-163 (giving the date). Barattolo 1995, to us, elusive) manner; he saves specificity for present 73 amended the Greek ét°[le]stow for no reason but his own times and present rulers, as when he compares argument, not explaining why the temple of Hadrian should be referred to as ‘fulfilled,’ t°lestow. Barattolo (71) also mis- Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus to Asklepios and interpreted Aristides, who never said that the work came to Serapis. an end “thanks to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus,” but only The speech does make clear, however, that the in their time; see also 73, where he imagined that they would have naturally put their portrait busts on the temple with current celebration was in honor of a great work, Hadrian’s. For those emperors’ actual attitude toward honors i.e. the temple, which had been started in a previ- to their forebears, Pekáry 1985, 38. 17 15 Niketas, in Philonis Byzantini Libellus de septem orbis specta- ous emperor’s reign. The size and scope of the culis... aliorum scriptorum veterum de iisdem septem spectaculis testimo- project were probably reason enough for delay, even nia, fragmenta Callinici Sophistae et Adriani Tyrii adque indicem if no earthquake had intervened; in section 21 of the graecitatis adiecit Jo. Conradus Orellius (Lipsiae 1816) 144. See Broderson 1992, 129. Schott 1891, 30, postulated that the speech Aristides notes that the temple’s construction temple substituted for earlier lists’ citation of the Artemision had even necessitated the invention of new engineer- at Ephesos, though in order to support his belief in a Helle- ing devices and means of transport. But Aristides nistic dating for this reorganization, he had to state that the “temple at Kyzikos” cited in the wonder lists of Georgios never states that his oration was to celebrate the Kedrenos (chart no. IX) and in the two lists in Anecdota completion of the temple, as is often assumed. An Graeca, Codex Ambrosianus c. 222 (chart no. XIIa and b) differs anonymous list of thirty things most beautiful and from the explicitly cited “temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos” of the lists given by Niketas and Codex Vaticanus graecus 989. He chose worth seeing, probably amassed from previous lists instead the shrine cited by Pliny Natural History 36.22.98, which holds a marble statue of Apollo crowning an ivory Zeus, and then stated that this was later rebuilt by Hadrian. See below n. 63, and Broderson 1992, 66, 68, 84, 96, 106 (again explic- 14 Pace S. Price 1984b, 153; following him, Swain 1996, 285. itly naming the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos), 122 (see be- See also C. Jones 1986, 84 n. 28. low), 130 (Kedrenos), 132, 136, 140 (Cyriacus’ translation of 15 This fact is passed over by Barattolo 1995. Niketas), 140, 142, 144. chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia 89 wondered at than praised.” His further statement east and turning its south flank towards one of Kyzi- that each column was a single block is scarcely to kos’ harbors, probably the Chytos.22 be believed, especially as he gave their proportions In the fifteenth century the main use of the temple as four orguiai (about 24 feet) thick, though that pre- at Kyzikos was as a stone quarry for building in sumably represents their circumference, and fifty nearby Bursa. It was in this condition that the trav- cubits (about 75 feet) in height, a measurement that eler and antiquarian Cyriacus of Ancona saw it in has been found by modern scholars to be not far off 1431, with thirty-one of its columns still standing.23 the mark.18 Dio’s epitomators Xiphilinos and Zona- He attempted to convince the governor of the pro- ras agreed on the figures, though Zonaras com- vince that the depredations should be stopped, but mented parenthetically, “if these things should not when he returned in 1444 two more columns had appear incredible to anyone.”19 disappeared. In view of this, Cyriacus described, An octastyle Corinthian temple with the legend measured, and sketched what remained of the ‘neokoros’ begins to appear on coins of Kyzikos late temple. His judgment was good. Bonsignore Bon- in the reign of Antoninus Pius; the archon’s name, signori, who traveled in the area in 1498, saw only Hestiaios, also appears on the first coins of Anto- twenty-six columns, which he noted (against the ninus’ successors, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius testimony of Dio) as being not monolithic, but made Verus.20 in ten parts; by then, the drums were being used to make cannonballs, and large pieces of marble hid COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI ADRI ANTVNEI- what remained of the floor.24 By the nineteenth cgi) (Laureate, ahi) head (draped bust, NO% (%EB century the structure had been plundered down to dgh) of Antoninus Pius r. Rev: (EPI E%TIAIOU the platform. So Cyriacus’ careful account, preserved ai b ARXONTO%, ; AR E%TIAIOU, ) KUZI(KHNVN, in several copies, provides information about the cdfgh Eight-column Corinthian ) NEVKORVN temple’s original state that would otherwise be un- temple on podium (disc in pediment, adghi) a) obtainable.25 London 1895.6-6-14 b) London 1961.3-1-172 Though not at his best at history or epigraphy, (illus. pl. 22 fig. 78) c) BMC 218 d) Oxford e) Barattolo has made a significant contribution to- SNGParis 659 f) SNGParis 662 g) SNGvA 1260 h) wards reconstructing the temple that Cyriacus saw.26 Vienna 16147 i) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. He used the podium structure, still extant though Even if the temple was not yet finished by the time overgrown on the site, to confirm that the temple of issue of these coins, it still had risen far enough was octastyle and contained long galleries under- to be portrayed in some detail. It would continue ground, conforming to Aristides’ description. Cyria- to be a theme of Kyzikos’ coins so long as the city cus measured the stylobate to be 110 cubits by 40 issued them. cubits (165 x 360 feet), and originally with sixty-two Though Aelius Aristides’ speech is not a model columns in all, though only twenty-nine were stand- of lucid description, it too offers some hints as to the ing when he described them. Barattolo accounted temple’s structure and placement. In section 20, he for the impossibility of reconciling all of Cyriacus’ compares it to a three-story house or a trireme in observations with any coherent modern reconstruc- being threefold, with passages that followed a cir- tion of an ancient temple by positing that the col- cuit from subterranean vaults to the customary onnades of the back and both sides of the temple shrine and then to hanging walks, presumably up- had been so thoroughly robbed that Cyriacus did per galleries. Indeed, underground vaults in the not recognize that they had been there. Thus Barat- foundations of the temple have long been acces- tolo made one restoration of the original temple as sible.21 In addition, Aristides’ comment that mari- a monumental octastyle structure with seventeen ners would no longer need beacons but could use the temple to guide them is quite apposite: the 22 temple stood in the western part of the city, facing Hasluck 1910, 5; YaylalÌ 1990, 179-181. 23 Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 28; Scalamonti 1996, 61- 62 gave the figure as thirty-three columns still standing. See also Barattolo 1998. 18 Schulz and Winter 1990, 81. 24 Schulz 1995. 19 Zonaras 12.1. 25 Ashmole 1956; P. Lehmann 1973. 20 Münsterberg 1985, 66. 26 Barattolo 1995, 77-108; preferable to Schulz and Win- 21 Ertüzün 1964, 124-142. ter 1990, 33-82. 90 part i – section i. koinon of asia columns along the flanks, dipteral, with an extra row eastern frieze, which may represent an emperor’s of eight in both front and back, and both pronaos apotheosis.34 The apotheosis of Hadrian would be and opisthodomos distyle in antis. It is to be hoped a very suitable subject for the entrance to his temple, that the new excavations led by YaylalÌ (who restores especially as he had already died and been deified the temple with eight by fifteen columns, as here at Rome by the time that the frieze was finally illus. pl. 2 fig. 7) will clear up the matter.27 sculpted. The cella can be restored with more certainty, From over a large and magnificent door, perhaps with two rows of five vine-wreathed columns down that leading into the cella itself, Cyriacus copied the its center, and half-columns to match along the walls; following metrical inscription:35 drawings copied from Cyriacus’ originals show the w[ ¤ cella’s interior wall topped with a continuous frieze, ÉEk dap°dou m' ryvsen ˜lhw ÉAs aw [. . .] éfyon¤_ xeir«n d›ow ÉArist(°)netow. and fragments that conform to such a frieze (pro- cessions of Dionysiac and marine deities) are in At the end of the first line, Reinach restored [dapã- Istanbul.28 An upper gallery resting on the cella’s n_sin], and this was generally accepted: “from level interior columns would have given the temple the earth, with [wealth] of all Asia (and) no lack of third, upper level of Aristides’ three-decked meta- hands, godlike Aristenetos erected me.”36 Wilhelm phor, and was so restored by Barattolo. Other draw- pointed out, however, that the two datives and no ings seem to indicate an arcaded forecourt in front connectives made the restoration untenable, and of the temple, and this may in fact have been part offered [parexoÊshw] instead: “from level earth, with of a large rectangular walled courtyard that adjoined no lack of hands of all Asia [offering], godlike the temple’s north flank.29 One might have expected Aristenetos erected me.”37 The genitive is still awk- such a monumental temple to stand in the center ward, and so far no version offered has been quite of its own courtyard; but archaeologists have not yet satisfactory. Herrmann, however, compared this defined or dated the ‘agora’ north of the temple. A inscription with that found at Didyma concerning manuscript of Cyriacus also illustrates one of the the craftsmen of Asia working on the temple for temple’s elaborate Corinthian capitals adorned with Gaius at Miletos (q.v.), and agreed with Wilhelm that gorgon’s heads.30 Fragments of capitals and columns the emphasis of the Kyzikos inscription should fall suitable in scale and material to such a building have on the workers, not the wealth, of Asia.38 So this been identified, and Barattolo estimated the peris- inscription cannot be used to document who (be- tasis columns to have been 72.5 feet high, right sides, of course, Hadrian) paid for the erection of a between Cassius Dio’s and Cyriacus’ measurements provincial temple, though likely craftsmen from all of 75 and 70 feet respectively.31 A fragment of what the province worked on it.39 Still, this does at least was probably the exterior continuous frieze shows confirm that the temple that Cyriacus studied was eastern barbarians fleeing on horseback, and more produced by the koinon of Asia. recent finds include a figure of a Roman soldier.32 Both theme and style are suitable to a date in the 160s, around the time of Lucius Verus’ Parthian ‘Parthian monument’ at Ephesos (for which Oberleitner 1999 campaigns.33 Also suggestive are fragments of the gives the most cogent arguments for a date after 166, and likely after 169). In any case, as Laubscher 1967 pointed out, the Kyzikos frieze’s combats with generic easterners might be 27 See above, n. 5. suitable for the times of either Trajan or Verus, not for the 28 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fols. 133v– “grand programme” of Hadrian. 136r; Barattolo 1995, pls. 35-39 and 31.3-4. 34 Gates 1997, 294. 29 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fols. 132v– 35 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fol. 133v; 133r; Barattolo 1995, pls. 32-33; Lyttelton 1974, 261-263. Barattolo 1995, pl. 34. Colin 1981, 555 preferred to interpret 30 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fol. 136v; this (and almost all the epigrams given by Cyriacus) as copied Florence, Laurentian Library, Ms. Ashburnensis 1174 fol. 122v; from a Byzantine anthology; arguing for the authenticity of the P. Lehmann 1973, 48-49 figs. 30A and B. For the gorgoneion inscription, Barattolo 1998, 109-110. as a decorative element on the temple of Zeus Philios and 36 Reinach 1890; IGRR 4:140. Trajan, see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon.’ 37 Wilhelm 1938, 56. Preger 1889 offered [m°ga yaËma]; 31 Barattolo 1995, 96. this would remove the centrality of the assistance of the koinon 32 Laubscher 1967; YaylalÌ 1990, 174 fig. 6. of Asia, and should be rejected in view of Herrmann’s com- 33 Pace Barattolo 1995, 104-105, more special pleading for ments, below. a Hadrianic date while ignoring the iconographic difficulties 38 Herrmann 1992, 69-70; 1989a. this presents for interpreting the frieze’s comparandum, the 39 Pace Schulz and Winter 1990, 37. chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia 91

There has been some controversy over the pedi- Jove best and greatest and of the kind blessed Vir- mental sculpture of the temple at Kyzikos. The gin and of the most holy John the Evangelist,’ or ‘the earliest sources for it are the contemporary and later birthday of incarnate Jove,’ meaning Christmas.43 coins, which often show a large disc in the center Thus Cyriacus was not describing a statue of Zeus, of the pediment: but saying that the statues in the pediment were protected by God’s power and their great height, COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU KAI L AURHLIO% which made them unreachable to stone plunderers. Draped cuirassed bust of Lucius Verus OUHRO% This sentiment conforms with both Cyriacus’ sense r. Rev: (sic) EPI KL E%TIAIOU NEVKOROU of mission as a preserver of the past and his tendency Eight-column Corinthian temple on KUZIKHNVN to conflate his Christianity with a romanticized view podium, disc in pediment. a) London 1893.4-5- of the ancient world.44 2 (illus. pl. 22 fig. 79). Can the disc of the coins, the bust of Malalas’ text, COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU KAI M AU(RH, abd) and the statues of the gods of Cyriacus’ description KOMMODO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of be reconciled? Perhaps, if a leaf of the Destailleur Commodus r., bearded. Rev: KUZIKHN(VN, cd) manuscript of Cyriacus can be trusted.45 It shows NEVKOR(VN, a) Eight-column Corinthian tem- the facade of an octastyle Corinthian temple, rather ple on podium, disc in pediment. a) BMC 241 b) sketchily copied. In the right side of the pediment SNGParis 748 c) SNGCop 122 d) SNGvA 1274. is a reclining male figure with hand outstretched toward a squiggle in the corner, and in the pedi- Such a disc may be merely a numismatic conven- ment’s center is a shieldlike disc. On that is a de- tion for pedimental decoration, but it could reflect piction of something the copyist probably did not reality. Johannes Malalas observed that Hadrian “set understand and therefore had difficulty conveying: up a marble portrait, a large bust of himself, there an abbreviated figure on a pedestal, its left arm(?) in the roof of the temple, on which he wrote ‘of the raised or with something protruding from behind its god Hadrian,’ as it is still.”40 It is not impossible that back, and squiggles to either side. The great disc, Malalas himself saw it there.41 which fills the pediment’s center from base to apex, Cyriacus of Ancona also described (probably) is a detail confirmed by the coins, and the object in pedimental sculpture in the temple at Kyzikos at his its center, though distorted, may have been the bust first visit as “different very splendid statues of the of Hadrian mentioned by Malalas. Such a shield gods in the front,” but again later in his visit of 1444: portrait is well known in Roman art, and the clos- “But those splendid and very beautiful marble stat- est architectural parallel is offered by the bust of ues of the gods in its noble and wonderful facade Marcus Aurelius set in a shield in the pediment of are preserved unhurt, with the best Jove himself as the greater propylaea at Eleusis.46 There are no their guardian and with the protection of their lofty additional statues in that pediment, but of course the height, and they remain untouched in almost their propylaea was much smaller than the temple at original glory.”42 Simon Price took the phrase about Kyzikos, which would have offered enough room Jove to refer to a specific statue of Zeus in the pedi- and to spare for both a shield portrait and statues. ment, to support his contention that this was not a Unfortunately Cyriacus gave no explicit descrip- temple of Hadrian but of Zeus (see below). A closer tion of statuary in or around the temple. Miscella- look at other parts of Cyriacus’ journals, however, neous fragments of colossal statues have been found reveals that in his enthusiastic antiquarianism he was accustomed to refer to the Christian God as ‘Jove,’ 43 Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 57 ll. 1069-1071, 1051; with such phrases as ‘with the auspicious power of similar examples pp. 32, 37, 50, 58. Cyriacus himself defended this practice in a letter of March 15, 1423: Scalamonti 1996, app. 1, 166-180. 44 C. Mitchell 1960. For a disapproving view of this ten- 40 Johannes Malalas 11.16 (ed. Dindorf, Bonn 1831, 279). dency, Colin 1981, 281-288. The translation of E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, and Scott 1986, 147- 45 Ashmole 1956, pl. 35c. But also note the doubts of 148 is not sufficiently precise. On the word stÆlh meaning ‘por- Barattolo 1995, 88 n. 206; the drawing shows an octastyle trait,’ used both of statues and other forms, see Stichel 1982, facade, and Barattolo believed that Cyriacus thought the build- 23-25; for the dative used for ‘portrait of’ see Tuchelt 1981, ing to be hexastyle, even stating (p. 92) that Cyriacus described 170-171 n. 17. it so, which he did not explicitly do. 41 Croke 1990, 6. 46 Hommel 1954, 110; Winks 1969; Deubner 1937, pls. 39- 42 Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 28 ll. 248-251. 42; Giraud 1989. 92 part i – section i. koinon of asia on the site: a hand holding a sceptre, 30 cm. from tion of the temple of Hadrian. The date of the in- wrist to end of thumb; part of a female head with scription is uncertain, but the slight prevalence of an eye 75 cm. long (originally described as 7.075 m. names of Aurelii and the presence of a strategos long!); and a phallus 29 cm. in circumference. These, Aelius Onesiphoros, perhaps identical with an ar- though they seem to suit a temple of large size, have chon under Caracalla, makes it likely to have been not been proven to be from the temple of Hadrian, early third century, a time when Halfmann has much less to have been its cult images.47 The church posited a reorganization of the hymnodoi of Asia as historian Sokrates wrote that Hadrian was wor- a unified body, covering all the neokoroi of the shipped in Kyzikos as ‘the thirteenth god,’ but out- koinon. side of preserving the fact that Hadrian was indeed In addition to temple and title, a festival was an object of cult at Kyzikos (and not identified with granted, which was called either Hadrianeia Olympia, Zeus, who would of course be the first of the canoni- Hadrianeia, Olympia, or once Hadrianeia Olympia Koinon cal twelve gods), this statement is too vague to base Asias.51 Its inception, if correctly dated to 135 C.E., any iconographic reconstruction upon it.48 postdates the grant of the temple by at least eleven Once the cult was established, and perhaps even years, and predates Aristides’ panegyric by about before the temple was completely finished, a chief thirty. As in the case of Pergamon’s temple to Rome priest of Asia of the temple in Kyzikos was brought and Augustus (q.v.), a petition and grant of a festi- to office, making Kyzikos one of the five known cities val of sacred status could accompany, but was not to have chief priests, chief priestesses, or Asiarchs a necessary result of, the building of a provincial 49 of specific temples. One of the earliest may have imperial temple; cities without provincial temples been Gaius Orfius Flavianus Philographos: that celebrated festivals named for emperors are too INSCRIPTION 2. Mordtmann 1881, 42-43 no. numerous to mention.52 Therefore the old assump- 1 (IGRR 4:155). Heading of a prytany list. tion that the date of initiation of a festival must be érxier°vw d¢ t}w ÉAs¤aw naoË §n Kuz¤kƒ G. that of the dedication of the temple associated with 53 ÉOrf¤ou FlaouianoË Filogrãfou ka‹ érxiere¤aw it should not be resumed. Even if a temple’s roof OÈib¤aw P\llhw, grammat°vw d¢ t}w nevkÒrou were not on, its columns could still be garlanded, boul[}w] P. A¸l¤ou PrÒklou ÑEl°nou. . . and sacrifices take place at its altar; the contests took place in the theater, odeion, stadium, or gymnasium, The city’s new title ‘neokoros’ is here applied to the not in the temple.54 council in particular; the same is true for inscriptions Olympios was an epithet associated with Hadrian, 3 and 4 below, which are similar prytany lists. The so the name Hadrianeia Olympia cannot be taken to names include only one Aelius and no Aurelii, so indicate that Hadrian shared his temple at Kyzikos the list has been provisionally placed in Hadrianic with another deity, Zeus Olympios. Though this fes- times. tival may have been associated with the temple and Another inscription found near Kyzikos records granted with it, its subsequent history is not neces- three (presumable) Kyzikenes as hymnodoi ‘of sarily tied to the temple’s, and names of festivals were Asia.’50 This office recalls the hymnodoi of the 55 Olympia temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon, as well often ephemeral. could also mean only that as those at Smyrna and Ephesos (qq.v.). There is no explicit documentation that a choir of hymnodoi was 51 Moretti 1953, 266; Malavolta 1976-1977, 2056-2057. The established at Kyzikos after, or due to, the construc- date of inception hinges on IGRR 4:162, a document of the eleventh Olympiad. Based on IGRR 4:160, Moretti 1954, 283 n. 3 and 286 n. 1, held that the koinon Asias was founded in 47 Perrot 1876a; Mendel 1909, 275 no. 32 (cat. no. 256). 139, and was a separate festival from the Hadrianeia Olympia. 48 Sokrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 3.23.59, ed. G. Hansen (Ber- 52 Moretti 1953, passim. For a general view, see Ziegler 1985, lin 1995) 224; polemical, like most Christian references to dei- 9-12 and 62-64 on provincial contests. fication. For another thirteenth god (Alexander the Great) see 53 This is one of the flaws in the reasoning of Barattolo 1995; John Chrysostomos on 2 Corinthians, Homily 26.4-5; J.-P. Migne, though not of Schulz and Winter 1990, 41 n. 80, 50 n. 158; Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca Prior 61 (Paris 1862) 580- Schulz nonetheless conflates the temple’s hieromenia and panegyris, 581. celebrated by Aristides’ oration, and the Olympic contest (agones) 49 For other chief priests of Asia of the temple in Kyzikos, at Kyzikos, 54-55; on the distinction see L. Robert 1969a, 54. see IGRR 4:153 and 157 (Aebutius Flaccus, and nameless). 54 S. Price 1984b, 101-132, esp. 108-111. Rossner 1974, 112, 134, 139. 55 L. Robert 1969a, 49-58; J. and L. Robert 1948, 43-48, 50 Halfmann 1990; SEG 40 (1990) 1128. 72-79; Herrmann 1975. chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia 93 the festival was isolympic, modeled on that of the endow a new temple to Zeus Olympios at Kyzikos as famous sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia, Greece. But well? Or we could take the words of the scholiast it is likely that the name was applied well after 123 to Lucian more literally and posit a pre-existing (for or 124, when the temple (and probably the festival) three hundred years?) cult at Kyzikos. It is even was first granted. Some years later, Hadrian had tempting to associate that unfinished temple that work restarted on the Olympieion in Athens, and Hadrian took over with the unfinished heroön when that was complete, subsidized the building of mentioned by Cassius Dio (but would that, likely a a Panhellenion in the same city.56 These cult names, municipal shrine, have been so gigantic in scale?). originally of Zeus, came into the emperor’s titulature, Outside the scholion, there is no direct evidence for becoming standard after 128. It is not unexpected a standing temple or cult taken over by Hadrian at that at Kyzikos, as in many cities throughout the Kyzikos. Again, the only positive evidence for a cult East, there were dedications to Hadrian Olympios as associated with Hadrian’s at Kyzikos is the name of savior and founder of the city.57 So either the Hadria- the festival Hadrianeia Olympia, which again brings us neia festival was of the Olympic type, or the name back to Zeus Olympios. It seems too great a coinci- became attached to the festival as an epithet of dence for Kyzikos to have had a large and incom- Hadrian. Note that in the case of Pergamon (q.v.), plete temple of Zeus Olympios for Hadrian to see and where Trajan did share cult with Zeus (Philios), the take up as a project even before his fateful visit to festival was not called Traianeia Phileia, but Traianeia Athens.61 There are indeed intermittent occurrences Diphileia, with Zeus named explicitly.58 of this cult in Asia Minor, but most of them origi- Simon Price, however, contended that the temple nate with Hadrian himself and his identification with in Kyzikos was not dedicated to Hadrian at all, but that deity.62 The name of the festival Olympia, which to another god, probably Zeus Olympios; Schulz and sometimes only indicates that the contest was mod- Winter took him up enthusiastically; and subsequent eled on that of Olympia, has been discussed above. scholars have followed along.59 Price’s arguments One must also ask what effect a cult of Zeus would went back to Nock’s basic belief that where emper- have had on Kyzikos’ neokoria. Price never ques- ors shared cult with gods, the emperors were sub- tioned that Kyzikos first became neokoros for this ordinated; and in many cases, especially where an temple. Yet neither on its inscriptions nor on its coins emperor was introduced into a pre-existing cult, this did Kyzikos call itself neokoros of Zeus, as Aezani was true. In this case, however, the individual ar- would (q.v.). The coinage left the reason for neokoria guments are not well based, and would necessitate unspecified, both at this point and later, when an- a preceding course of events that is far more improb- other (imperial) neokoria was added. Ephesos (q.v.), able than an initial dedication to Hadrian alone. when it became officially neokoros for Artemis, of- Hadrian granted a temple to Kyzikos about a year ten distinguished this honor from its imperial before his visit to Athens in 124/125, when he took neokoriai, though not invariably. the uncompleted Athenian Olympieion under his Price preferred what he believed was the testi- aegis.60 It is mainly the latter act that gave him his mony of Cyriacus to that of several (admittedly late) close association with Zeus Olympios. Are we to sources calling it a temple of Hadrian. But as we believe that an earlier premonition told Hadrian to have seen, Cyriacus never identified a statue of ‘Jove’ in the pediment at Kyzikos. If Cyriacus did hint that 56 C. Jones 1996, 33. the temple he described at Kyzikos could have been 57 IGRR 4:138, 139. For similar dedications from elsewhere dedicated to Zeus, it was a guess based on an an- in Mysia, see E. Schwertheim 1983, no. 27 a-d. cient reference (Pliny the Elder’s Natural History 58 Magie 1950, 594-595, 1451 n. 7. 59 S. Price 1984b, 153-154, 251-252; Schulz and Winter 36.22.98) to a statue of Zeus crowned by Apollo that 1990, passim; Birley 1997, 162, 164; Boatwright 1997, 126-130. stood in an unnamed shrine at Kyzikos; but Pliny Barattolo 1995 seems to accept it judging from his title, but wrote of this statue a half century before Hadrian not necessarily his text, where Price is not mentioned. The error has penetrated so far that Schorndorfer 1997, 53-37, 79, 146- 153, has postulated from it undocumented cults of Zeus at the temples to Hadrian at Ephesos and Smyrna as well. Boatwright 61 The attempt of Schulz and Winter 1990, 37 n. 46, to 2000, 157-162 makes similar assumptions for Smyrna. introduce the name of Zeus into the Aristenetos inscription was 60 This is true whether one accepts the Chronicon Paschale’s scotched by Herrmann 1992, 70. date of 123 for the visit to Kyzikos (above, n. 4), or moves it, 62 Kruse 1939; Schwabl 1972, 342-344; idem 1978, 1466- as does Halfmann 1986a, 191, 199 to 124. 1468. 94 part i – section i. koinon of asia even visited Kyzikos to found the temple.63 And neokoros under Caracalla. The city had already Cyriacus was only guessing: on his later visit, he been honored with the emperor’s names in his implied that the temple was a different Kyzikene father’s reign, as recorded on coins of his short-lived shrine, that of Persephone, known from other an- marriage to Plautilla (202-205).65 Coins of Kyzikos cient references.64 The fact is that Cyriacus had no twice neokoros were issued later, during his sole rule; idea to whom this giant temple was dedicated. Caracalla’s portrait is mature, while his mother’s title The ancient sources, however, that identify the is regularly transliterated as Augusta, rather than temple by anything but its size (the fragment from translated to Sebaste as on earlier coins of the city. the Codex Vaticanus, which groups it with monuments COIN TYPE 4. Obv: no later than Antonine; the poem in the Palatine AUT KAI M AURHLI Laureate draped cuirassed bust Anthology; and Johannes Malalas) all call it the temple ANTVNINO% AUG of Caracalla, r. Rev: of Hadrian; and the church historian Sokrates af- ARX AIL ONH%IFOR AUR Laureate firmed that Hadrian was worshipped at Kyzikos. As ANTVNEINIA KUZIKH DI% NEOKORVN cuirassed Caracalla hands small temple to the city Price noted, the cult had probably ended and the goddess, who holds another six-column temple; cult statues been despoiled by the sixth century, but between them, an altar. a) Berlin 955/1904 (illus. we cannot assume that the Kyzikenes of that date pl. 22 fig. 80). had completely forgotten the object of a cult that was probably practised into the fourth, if not the COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT K M AURH AN- fifth, century in the largest temple in their city. One TVNINO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of Cara- would have to suppose late antiquity a dark age calla, r., with spear, bearded. Rev: ARX AIL indeed, of the sort interposed between Cyriacus of ONH%IFOROU AUR ANTVNEINIA KUZIKHNVN Ancona and the ruins he was trying to interpret, to B NEOKORVN Two eight-column temples on imagine that the Kyzikenes of that period had to podia, a disc in each pediment. a) SNGvA 7378. read the dedication inscription on the temple to COIN TYPE 6. Obv: puzzle out what it was. AUT KAI M AURH AN- Laureate head of Caracalla, r. Rev: In fact, the survival of the identity of Hadrian’s TVNINO% temple down to the wonder lists of the sixth century AUR ANTVNEINIANVN KUZIKHNVN DI% NEO- Two eight-col- and beyond indicates that the emperor to whom a KORVN ARX AIL ONH%IFOROU umn temples turned toward one another, a dot cult was dedicated was not necessarily subsumed into in each pediment. a) SNGParis 780 (illus. pl. 22 a cult of ‘the Augusti’ or of a god who shared the fig. 81) b) SNGParis 781. temple, but could stand independently to the end of the cult and beyond. COIN TYPE 7. Obv: [AUT K] M AURHLI AN- TVNIN[O%...] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla, r. Rev: AUR ANT[VN]EI[NIANVN Second Neokoria: Caracalla KU]ZIKHNVN DI% NEOKORVN Nine-column temple on podium, and round shrine of Deme- Though no inscription remains to record the honor, ter and Kore, the latter flanked by snake-entwined the coins indicate that Kyzikos became twice torches. a) Berlin 955/1904. Coins of the archon Aelius Onesiphoros make the most of the (probably recent) second neokoria. On 63 Scalamonti 1996, 61-62; Barattolo 1995, 77 also correctly observed the chronological difficulty, 72 n. 122 and 108; Colin type 4 the actual grant is metaphorically portrayed 1981, 480 on Cyriacus’ knowledge and use of Pliny. Pliny’s when the emperor hands a second temple to the citation is indeed in a list of wonders, but it focuses on the mural-crowned city goddess, who already holds one. golden tube or thread inset into the temple’s stones, not the temple itself. Nonetheless, it is likely that this citation led to Caracalla was also shown sacrificing among military much confusion for later wonder compilers. Kosmas of Jerusa- standards and saluting one of Kyzikos’ chief gods, lem, in the eighth century, added it to his rather garbled list Hades/Serapis.66 These types allude to the empe- as a temple formerly of Apollo, now dedicated to the Virgin: ror’s presence in the area in 214-215 on his way to above, n. 17 and Broderson 1992, 122. 64 Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 28; B. Keil 1897 misiden- tified Dio’s very large temple destroyed by earthquake as the temple of Persephone; see P. Aelius Aristides, The Complete 65 Johnston 1983, 64 n. 9. Works, trans. C. Behr (Leiden 1981) 2:379, 393. 66 SNGvA 1277, 7379; SNGParis 776-779. chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia 95 the Parthian front; they do not necessarily indicate found at the temple’s east side came from lime kilns, that Caracalla visited the city, but only that he gave may represent collection from other areas, and honors to it and to its god.67 Coins of Onesiphoros’ should not be used to recreate the temple’s history archonship also show the two temples together, the or sculptural program. new one portrayed as the twin of the eight-column temple of Hadrian. This does not mean that it was the same size as the temple of Hadrian, or even Withdrawn? Macrinus necessarily built within Onesiphoros’ term of office; it is never shown in any detail. The only coin that Unfortunately, the honor of Kyzikos’ second neo- may portray it without its predecessor (type 7) shows koria was not to last long, nor to leave enough evi- it carelessly as nine-column beside the round shrine dence for us to be sure of its nature. After the death of Kyzikos’ patron goddesses Demeter and Kore.68 of Caracalla, Kyzikos seems to have lost its second The temple is not identified, however, and could well neokoria: on coins from the reigns of Macrinus and be the temple of Hadrian instead. Elagabalus the city is only neokoros, with no enu- Multiple temple types usually show the temples meration mentioned. Though other cities of Asia, for which the city was neokoros, but type 7 con- including Pergamon, Smyrna, and probably Ephe- tradicts types 5 and 6 by showing the round shrine sos, also appear to have lost neokoriai granted by instead of a second peripteral temple. Was the im- Caracalla (see ‘Historical Analysis,’ chapter 38), they perial cult moved into the round shrine? It is pos- would all have their titles restored by the time of sible, as Caracalla also granted neokoria to many Elagabalus. Kyzikos, however, was unique in not cities in Asia, such as Pergamon and Smyrna, where regaining its lost second neokoria on coins of the imperial cult was moved into the temple of Elagabalus. And it would (to its misfortune) be another god. Less likely is that Kyzikos was given unique in gaining and losing the same honor yet its second neokoria for the cult of Demeter and again, this time for Severus Alexander. Kore, as no inscription states that Kyzikos’ neokoria Coins of Kyzikos issued in Severus Alexander’s was for any but the imperial cult. Either the inter- early years, those with military reverses proper to pretation of the coin type should be less strict, and the time of his eastern campaign of 231, and coins it shows Hadrian’s temple and the round shrine with the portrait of Julia Mamaea still proclaim simply as sources of civic pride to Kyzikos; or the Kyzikos only neokoros. This is also true of a lost round shrine was made the temporary home to the inscription which honored a governor of Thrace in imperial cult until another temple could be built. that reign. In any case, the fact that two temples are gener- INSCRIPTION 6. Sayar 1998, no. 21 (IGRR ally shown on coins celebrating Kyzikos’ second 1:797). From Perinthos, copied by Cyriacus of neokoria should indicate that the new imperial cult Ancona. Statue base for M. Ulpius Senecio was at least housed in a different temple from that Saturninus, governor of Thrace under Severus of Hadrian. The current excavators of the temple, Alexander, benefactor of Kyzikos and patron of however, attribute any third-century elements found the concord between it and Perinthos { in its area to Caracalla’s introduction of the provin- . } ¤ cial imperial cult for Septimius Severus and Julia lamprotãth mhtrÒpoliw t w ÉAs aw nevkÒrow Domna into the temple of Hadrian itself.69 This Kuzikhn«n pÒliw. . . contradicts the evidence of the coins’ chronology as Senecio is known to have been legatus Augusti pro well as iconography. Though some late architectural praetore of Thrace under Severus Alexander.70 His elements may have been due to repairs to the term is not firmly dated, except that it cannot in- temple, many miscellaneous pieces of sculpture tersect with that of Rutilius Pudens Crispinus ca. 227.71 But it should also be noted that since inscrip- tion 6 only calls Kyzikos neokoros, Senecio’s gov- 67 Halfmann 1986a, 228. 68 For Kore as patron, L. Robert 1978a, 460-477; for the ernorship should not be dated to the very end of Demeter-Kore shrine, see M. Price and Trell 1977, 109-115, Severus Alexander’s reign, when the coins would call figs. 198-202. Barattolo 1995, 65-67 interprets the peripteral temple as that of Hadrian. 69 YaylalÌ and Özkaya 1993, 542-543; 1994, 109-112; and 70 Thomasson 1984, 172-173 no. 52. 1995, 315. 71 Sayar 1998, 203-204. 96 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Kyzikos twice neokoros (below). As for inscription appearing only where space allowed. Under Severus 7 (below), a papyrus from Egypt, it is precisely dated Alexander, coins of Kyzikos neokoros go up to 38 to 230 C.E. but is unfortunately indecisive about the mm. in diameter, offering plenty of room for the number of Kyzikos’ neokoriai. brief enumeration, were it warranted. On the other An eight-column Corinthian temple, probably the hand, coins as small as 21 mm. across can still fit in temple of Hadrian, was still used as a reverse type the word ‘twice.’ One magistrate’s name, Flavius on coins that proclaimed the city neokoros during Trophimos, appears on a coin of the city twice Severus Alexander’s reign. neokoros (BMC 264), not on those of the simple neokoria. There is also a tendency for coins of the COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU [KAI M AUR %EU]HRO% second neokoria to change their spelling of the title, Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus ALEJANDRO% from that more common at Kyzikos (with an omi- Alexander r., mature, with shield. Rev: EPI %TR cron) to the spelling standard elsewhere (with an Eight- MENELAOU K[UZIK]H[NVN] NEOKORVN omega).73 column Corinthian temple on podium, disc in pediment. a) London 1919.4-17-147 (illus. pl. 23 fig. 82). Withdrawn? Maximinus COIN TYPE 9. Obv: M AUR %EOUHR ALEJ- ANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of And again, Kyzikene history appears to have re- Severus Alexander r. Rev: KUZIKHNVN NEO- peated itself: just as with Caracalla, the title ‘twice KORVN Agonistic table, upon it two prize crowns, neokoros’ changed to a simple ‘neokoros’ after Seve- over one a radiate bust of Severus Alexander, over rus Alexander’s death. the other a bust of Julia Mamaea. a) SNGvA 1281. COIN TYPE 11. Obv: G IOU OUHRO% MAJI- MO% KAI Draped cuirassed bust of Maximus Cae- sar r. Rev: KUZIKHNVN NEOKORV Eight-column Second Neokoria: Severus Alexander temple on podium (disc in pediment, c). a) Lon- don 1919.4-17-151 b) Oxford c) Vienna 16188 Coins that again name Kyzikos twice neokoros were (illus. pl. 23 fig. 84). minted when imperial contests were being cele- One might suspect that the title granted by Severus brated, as the reverse of type 9 is all but identical Alexander was negated by his successor, Maximinus, with type 10, which now boasts the second neokoria. or simply that the condemnation of Severus COIN TYPE 10. Obv: M AUR %EUH ALEJ- Alexander’s memory was here given its full effect.74 ANDRO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus But this is true of none other of the neokoroi. It is Alexander l., r. hand raised. Rev: KUZIKHNVN difficult to tell the exact events from the coinage, as DI% NEVKORVN Agonistic table, upon it two prize only nine neokoroi (Nikomedia, Kyzikos, Pergamon, crowns, over one a bust of Severus Alexander, Ephesos, Magnesia, Smyrna, Sardis, Anazarbos and over the other a bust of Julia Mamaea. a) SNGParis Tarsos) minted during Maximinus’ brief reign. None 821 (illus. pl. 23 fig. 83). shows diminished neokoria except Kyzikos, but of course, only Kyzikos and Magnesia had been Thus the city’s brief pretensions to reclaiming its granted neokoria by Severus Alexander. Of these second title probably fall in the emperor’s last years, two, Magnesia’s honor was for Artemis and so was as his portrait is fully mature, after his Eastern tri- unlikely to be affected by a condemnation of the umph in 233, as seen above, and perhaps only emperor’s memory, though its neokoria might have shortly before his death in a military revolt on the been threatened by a condemnation of his acts; but German front in 235.72 the latter can be ruled out, as Magnesia’s honors The evidence seems to retrace the previous va- were untouched. cillation to twice neokoros under Caracalla. But again, the enumeration here cannot be explained as 73 SNGCop 133, a coin of the second neokoria, appears to have been mistranscribed with an omicron in the catalogue. 74 Kienast 1996, 177-179; pace Varner 1993, 418-422, who 72 Halfmann 1986a, 231-232. believed that the condemnation was unofficial. chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia 97

What of later developments? Three other cities Did the project get any further under Severus can be added that had been made neokoroi by Alexander? Without more evidence, the question Severus Alexander. Although they minted no coins must remain unresolved. that cited neokoria under Maximinus, they began to do so again soon after his reign, Aigeai as early as 238, Kaisareia by 240, and Neokaisareia by 241/ Second Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus 242. All three included their neokoriai for Severus Alexander in the count; so only Kyzikos did not. Like several other cities, Kyzikos regained its lost Therefore Kyzikos’ problem must have been unique neokoria under the joint rule of Valerian and to itself, and cannot be explained by a condemna- Gallienus. The restoration probably took place later tion of Severus Alexander’s memory. here than at Nikomedia or Ephesos (qq.v.). Coins If Kyzikos were using ‘neokoros’ and ‘twice of Valerianus the younger as Caesar call Kyzikos neokoros’ indiscriminately, as Kaisareia in Cappa- only neokoros, while only a few coins of his grand- docia may have done (q.v.), we might expect a scat- father Valerian proclaims the city twice neokoros. tering of coins with the twice-neokoros title This evidence indicates a date of restoration after throughout the reigns of emperors after Caracalla. early 258, when the young Caesar died, and before Instead, we find unanimity: Kyzikos is twice neo- the summer of 260, when the emperor was captured koros on late coins of Caracalla, on late coins of by the Persians.75 Severus Alexander, and nowhere else until ca. 258- COIN TYPE 12. Obv: 260 C.E. Was Kyzikos then behaving like Perinthos AU K LIKI OUAL[ER]I- Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Valerian, (q.v.), which continued to call itself just neokoros ANO% r. Rev: Two even after it had received a second neokoria? Not %TR AUR %V%TRATOU KUZ B NEVK snakes wound around torches drop fruit onto likely; though Perinthos used its title without enu- altar. a) SNGvA 7386. meration, its coin types still showed two temples. But so far as is known, Kyzikos’ types showing two Though coins with Gallienus’ portrait proclaiming temples are confined to coins on which the title is Kyzikos twice neokoros are common, those of his given as twice neokoros. Perhaps more importantly, wife Salonina only document the simple neokoria, cities that did not count out all their neokoriai on though she was the only other member of the im- their coins were the only neokoroi in their koina, perial family to be coined for after 260.76 Of mu- unrivaled, when they did so. Kaisareia never had a nicipal officials, the second neokoria appears during serious rival in Cappadocia; and when Perinthos the magistracies of Sostratos and of Apollonides, as gained a Thracian rival, neokoros Philippopolis, it coins with these names give either the simple title immediately began to call itself twice neokoros, as ‘neokoros’ or ‘twice neokoros.’ The other magis- it properly could. Kyzikos, on the other hand, had trates who subsequently issued coins with the title any number of neokoroi in the koinon of Asia to twice neokoros under Gallienus (with and without envy and emulate. We should assume that it claimed imperial portraits) were Cl. Basileus, Ae. Paulus and as many neokoriai as it could. Loc. Severus.77 Why was Kyzikos unique in its ephemeral second COIN TYPE 13. Obv: (sic) neokoria? No explanation offers itself from the writ- KORH %VTEIAR Draped bust of Kore Soteira, r. Rev: ten records. Of course, the city had a long history %TRA LOK (sic) Eight- of promising more to the imperial cult than it could %EBH[ROU] KUZIKHNVN DI% NEKO column temple, disc in pediment, and round fulfill. It had once been deprived of its freedom shrine of Demeter and Kore. a) Vienna 16137 because it had failed to complete its promised heroön (illus. pl. 23 fig. 85). to Augustus. It certainly took a very long time to dedicate its temple of Hadrian, and when it did the COIN TYPE 14. Obv: KUZIKO% Head of the temple may not have (ever?) been complete. As for hero Kyzikos, r. Rev: (%, a) LOK %EBHROU KU- the temple for which Kyzikos became twice neoko- ros, it appeared only briefly on coins, and then as a twin to the temple of Hadrian. Was a new imperial 75 Kienast 1996, 214-216, 220-221. 76 Ibid., 222-223. temple promised under Caracalla, but never built? 77 Münsterberg 1985, 66-67. The SNGParis catalogue of- ten misses the enumeration on these coins. 98 part i – section i. koinon of asia

ZIKHNVN DI% NEOKORVN Round shrine of SNGParis 894 c) Vienna 30574 (illus. pl. 23 fig. Demeter and Kore and eight-column temple, disc 88). in pediment. a) London 1975.4-11-104 b) Berlin, Kyzikos remarkably remained twice neokoros, and Imhoof-Blumer c) New York, Newell (illus. pl. 23 the single temple on the coins, probably still the fig. 86). provincial temple of Hadrian, was a symbol of civic COIN TYPE 15. Obv: KUZIKO% Head of the pride to the end of the city’s coinage. hero Kyzikos, r. Rev: KUZIKHNVN B NEVKO- RVN Two six-column? temples turned toward each other, dot in each pediment. a) BMC 199 INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: (illus. pl. 23 fig. 87) b) SNGParis 548 (incorrect). Neokoros: This last return of the second neokoria prompted 1. Dittenberger 1960, SIG4 799. Reign of Gaius; title types similar to some issued under Caracalla, when probably metaphoric, not official. See text above. Kyzikos first became twice neokoros. Type 15, like 2. Mordtmann 1881, 42-43 no. 1. Prytany list, pos- earlier types 5 and 6, shows the second temple as sibly Hadrianic. See text above. an exact copy of the great temple of Hadrian, though 3. Mordtmann 1881, 43-47 no. 2. Heading of here the number of columns is abbreviated from prytany list similar to inscription 2 and dated shortly eight. Types like 13 and 14, coupling a peripteral after it. temple with the shrine of Demeter and Kore, re- 4. CIG 3663. Prytany list similar in type and date semble coin type 7. Again, this does not necessarily to inscriptions 2 and 3. mean that the round shrine was a temple for which 5. CIG 3665 (= IGRR 4:154). Ephebe list dated af- the city was neokoros, as such types may simply show ter the beginning of the third century. the city’s chief monuments. If so, the peripteral 6. Sayar 1998, no. 21 (= IGRR 1:797). From shrine on types 13 and 14 is more likely to be the Perinthos, copied by Cyriacus of Ancona. Statue temple of Hadrian than the second imperial cult base for M. Ulpius Senecio Saturninus, governor of temple. But if the ‘new’ imperial cult was moved into Thrace under Severus Alexander, benefactor of the shrine of Demeter and Kore, perhaps just until Kyzikos and patron of the concord between it and its own temple could be built, the double-peripteral- Perinthos. See text above. temple types like 15 would be purely metaphoric. 7. Zahrnt 1979, 217-218. Fragment of Egyptian There is not enough evidence to decide, and it is papyrus dated to 230 C.E.; unfortunately the area unlikely that a new temple was built at this time. where one could expect the enumeration of neokoria Despite its bad luck with imperial temples, is obscure. Kyzikos came through the trials of the third century better than many other cities of its stature. A Gothic attack, probably in 258, had been forestalled by a COINS CITING NEOKORIA: flood of the Rhyndakos river, causing the Goths to double back and burn Nikomedia and Nikaia in- 78 Neokoros: stead. Later, in 267/268, the Goths sent a raid- Antoninus Pius: BMC 215, 216, 218, 220; SNGCop 106, ing fleet into the Propontis, but Kyzikos held out 107; SNGvA 1260, 1261; SNGParis 654-662, 664-666; against them.79 The city continued to mint coins that Berlin (9 exx.), London (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), mentioned its neokoria down to the time of Claudius Vienna (2 exx.). Gothicus (268-270), later than most of its neighbors. Marcus Aurelius Caesar: BMC 222; SNGvA 1264; SNGRighetti 697; SNGParis 682-686; Berlin, Vienna, COIN TYPE 16. Obv: AUT K M AUR KLAUDIO% Warsaw. Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Claudius Marcus Aurelius Augustus: SNGCop 110, 112; SNGvA %EB 1265; SNGParis 687-690, 695, 697, 699, 700; Berlin Gothicus, r. Rev: %TRA %EPT PONTIKOU (6 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York KUZIKHNVN B NEVKORVN Eight-column (2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). temple, disc in pediment. a) SNGParis 893 b) Faustina the Younger: BMC 225-227; SNGCop 113-115; SNGvA 7373; SNGParis 702-713; Berlin (7 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), 78 Zosimus 1.35. Vienna (5 exx.). 79 Salamon 1971, 114. Lucius Verus: BMC 228, 229; SNGParis 715, 716; Berlin chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia 99

(2 exx.), Boston, London, New York (2 exx.). 824; London, Oxford (2 exx.). Commodus Caesar: BMC 230, 231; SNGvA 1266-1268; Neokoros: SNGRighetti 698; SNGParis 724-729, 731-733; Berlin Maximinus: BMC 266, 267; SNGvA 7382; SNGParis 828, (5 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York, 829; Berlin (3 exx.). Oxford (3 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Maximus Caesar: BMC 268; SNGvA 1282; SNGParis 830, Commodus Augustus: BMC 235-241, 245, 246; SNGCop 832, 833; Berlin (2 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York, 119-123; SNGvA 1270, 1271, 1273, 1274, 7375; Oxford, Vienna (3 exx.). SNGLewis 1312; SNGRighetti 699; SNGParis 734, 737, Gordian III: BMC 269-271; SNGvA 1283-1285, 7383, 740-742, 745-759; Berlin (19 exx.), Boston, London 7384; SNGParis 834-852; Berlin (14 exx.), Boston (2 (11 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Vienna exx.), London (7 exx.), New York (8 exx.), Oxford (6 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.). (3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw. Septimius Severus: BMC 248; SNGCop 124; SNGRighetti Tranquillina: BMC 272; SNGCop 135, 136; SNGvA 7385; 700, 701; SNGParis 760-772; Berlin (7 exx.), London Berlin. (4 exx.), New York (4 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna, Philip: BMC 274; SNGParis 853, 854; London, New York. Warsaw (2 exx.). Otacilia: Berlin. Julia Domna: BMC 249; SNGRighetti 702; Berlin (2 exx.), Philip the Younger, Caesar: SNGParis 855, 856; Berlin Warsaw. (2 exx.), New York, Oxford, Vienna, Warsaw. Caracalla: SNGRighetti 703; SNGBraun 962; SNGParis 774, Valerian: SNGCop 137; SNGvA 1286, 7387; SNGParis 857, 783?; London. 858, 862, 863; London, New York (3 exx.), Vienna. Plautilla: BMC 256; SNGCop 127; SNGParis 789; Berlin, Gallienus: BMC 275; SNGvA 1287; SNGParis 865, 868, London, New York. 871-875, 879-882, 885; Berlin (12 exx.), London (4 Twice neokoros: exx.), New York, Oxford, Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw Julia Domna: SNGCop 125; SNGParis 773; London, Ox- (2 exx.). ford. Salonina: BMC 285-288; SNGCop 142, 143; SNGParis 890- Caracalla: BMC 225; SNGCop 126; SNGvA1277, 1278, 892; Berlin (7 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York, 7378, 7379; SNGParis 776-782, 784-788; Berlin (7 Oxford (3 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York, Oxford Valerianus Caesar: Berlin. (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Twice neokoros: Neokoros: Valerian: SNGvA 7386; SNGParis 860, 861. Macrinus: BMC 259, 260; SNGCop 129; SNGvA 1279; Gallienus: BMC 276-284; SNGCop 139-141; SNGvA 7388; SNGParis 791-793; Berlin (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.), SNGParis 866, 867, 870, 876-878, 883, 884, 886-889; Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Berlin (21 exx.), London (8 exx.), New York (10 exx.), Diadumenian Caesar: BMC 261; SNGParis 794, 795, 797; Oxford (8 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw. Berlin, London (2 exx.), New York, Oxford (4 exx.), Claudius Gothicus: BMC 289; SNGParis 893, 894; Vienna Vienna. (2 exx.) Elagabalus: BMC 250-252, 254; SNGCop 130; SNGvA Non-imperial obverse, neokoros: 1276, 1280, 7380; SNGRighetti 704; SNGBraun 961; BMC 175-177, 180-184, 202-205, 292; SNGCop 87, 88, SNGParis 798-810; Berlin (8 exx.), New York (5 exx.), 91, 96, 99; SNGvA 1246, 1247, 1249, 1256, 7360, Oxford (5 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.). 7361, 7367; SNGLewis 1314; SNGRighetti 693, 695; Julia Maesa: Berlin. SNGParis 525-548, 549, 556, 560-568, 570-578, 583, Severus Alexander: BMC 262, 263; SNGCop 131, 132; 586-587, 589, 590, 599, 600, 608, 610; Berlin (39 SNGvA 1281; SNGParis 812-820, 822, 823, 825; Berlin exx.), London (9 exx.), New York (13 exx.), Oxford (7 exx.), London (9 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (9 exx.), Vienna (9 exx.), Warsaw (6 exx.). (2 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.). Non-imperial obverse, twice neokoros: Julia Mamaea: BMC 265; SNGCop 134; SNGvA 7381; BMC 198-201, 206-209; SNGCop 92, 93, 95-97, 102; SNGParis 826; Berlin (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), SNGvA 1248, 1250, 1251; SNGRighetti 694; SNGParis Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). 605, 607, 609, 611, 612-614, 616-619; Berlin (12 Twice neokoros: exx.), London (5 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford Severus Alexander: BMC 264; SNGCop 133; SNGParis 821, (9 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw. 100 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 6. Sardis in Lydia: Koinon of Asia

Sardis was among the most ancient and eminent to have been enough time to get a vote through the cities in the province of Asia. Despite the ravages koinon and send out an embassy before the emperor of an earthquake not ten years before, in 26 C.E. it to be honored had fallen. Vespasian, Titus, or Domi- had been one of two finalists in the contest to build tian could possibly be available, though again sub- the provincial temple of Tiberius, his mother, and ject to the prior demands of the temple of the the Senate.1 Along with rich countryside, wide rivers, Augusti at Ephesos. Nerva is possible, but Trajan’s and good climate, the Sardian ambassadors boasted temple was in Pergamon. of their kinship with the Etruscans and a long alli- Hadrian granted several temples to Asia, however, ance with Rome. Though Sardis lost that contest to and Sardis’ may have been yet another. One inscrip- Smyrna, its qualities did not allow it to go unre- tion from Sardis mentions a Hadrianeion, possibly cognized for long. We shall see that definitely by the in association with Sardis’ participation in the time of Lucius Verus, and very likely due to his Hadrianic Panhellenion in Athens; and a Hadrianeia adoptive father Antoninus Pius, Sardis became festival is also known, but there is no evidence as neokoros for the second time. This means that at to whether either the building or the festival was of some time after the city’s unsuccessful try in the reign provincial status, or local to Sardis.3 A coin with the of Tiberius and before its second success for portrait of Antinoös that purported to show Sardis Antoninus Pius, Sardis built a provincial temple for as neokoros provides no proof, as it has been found which it first received the title ‘neokoros.’ to be a recut or retooled coin of Delphi.4 In any case, Sardis is one of the five cities known to have had a chief priest of Asia to preside over its provincial First Neokoria imperial temples.5 All four of the other cities (Perga- mon, Smyrna, Ephesos, and Kyzikos) had received Unfortunately no known documents, inscriptions or at least one provincial temple by the time of coins attest Sardis’ first koinon temple. A process of Hadrian. Therefore it is likely that Sardis did as well. elimination may reveal the emperors to whom it There is one further piece of evidence, great but might have been dedicated, however. We may as- enigmatic: part of a large temple found on the north- sume (or at least, there is no evidence to the con- ern slopes of the Sardian acropolis (illus. pl. 2 fig. trary) that the policy of one temple per emperor per 10).6 Two seasons of limited excavation revealed province continued up to Hadrian. Augustus, Tibe- only the eastern corner of the structure. It probably rius, and Gaius may be ruled out, as their provin- faced southeast, on the same orientation as the still cial temples were elsewhere; Claudius is possible, unexcavated theater and stadium of the city, to its Nero less so, as Ephesos may have been the chosen east.7 The temple was pseudodipteral Ionic or neokoros for his cult (q.v.).2 Galba, Otho, and Vitellius are highly unlikely due to the shortness and the hectic nature of their reigns: there is not likely 3 Herrmann 1993a, 213, 217-218; Buckler and Robinson 1932, nos. 13, 14. 4 In Naples; Blum 1914, 51 Sardes no. 3; A. Johnston, in 1 Tacitus, Annals 2.47, 4.55-56; see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ On Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 11 n. 36. John- the earthquake, see n. 29 below. ston’s corpus of Sardis’ coins is forthcoming. 2 There were, however, municipal temples to Augustus and 5 Campanile 1994a, 25-27; Rossner 1974, 119 (a chief priest to Tiberius in Sardis: Herrmann 1995. A coin of Nero that of temples in Sardis, of the time of Elagabalus), 132 (Libonia- seemed to declare Sardis twice neokoros (SNGLeypold 1214) does nus, below), and 140 (a chief priestess, of the third century). not in fact exist: the reverse is that of a coin of Julia Domna, 6 Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986. SNGLeypold 1220. 7 Vann 1989, 47-55, 100. chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 101

Corinthian (no column capitals were found), prob- center for a judicial district of the province Asia.10 ably octastyle with prostyle porch, and perhaps 20 About the only way to account for this block is x 32 m., on a scale about the same as that of the that a personification of the city of Adramyteion was temple of Zeus at Aizanoi (q.v.). depicted, or was intended to be depicted, in the Unfortunately no further excavations were done, temple’s pediment, and about the only way to ac- and none of the probes included layers beneath the count for that is to suppose that this was a koinon foundations, so the structure can only be dated on temple, whose sculptural decoration included patron stylistic grounds. From the building technique of deities, heroes, or personifications representing major mortared rubble in the foundations, the temple has cities of the province. The close association between been plausibly dated after the time of Augustus.8 The the thirteen centers of judicial districts in Asia and style of the small amount of architectural ornament the construction of a provincial imperial temple has found is suitable to a first century date, but one can- already been shown by the inscription of neopoioi for not be precise without more extensive comparanda Gaius’ temple in Miletos (q.v.). In the case of this from Sardis itself; though Howe leaned toward a temple at Sardis, that association may have been period in the second or third quarter of the first immortalized in its pedimental sculpture. century (based on comparisons from Ephesos and It is difficult, however, to find a precise parallel. Ankyra), his less precise but more assured date was There are certainly precedents for the appearance ‘Augustus to Hadrian.’ of unlabeled personifications of cities that partici- The temple’s basic structure was finished: its pated in a certain cult (e.g. the frieze of the temple column bases were elaborately decorated, the one of Hecate at Lagina), or of named cities (the Puteoli partial column that has been found was fluted, and base of cities restored by Tiberius) or of named the stylobate was used long enough to have had peoples on a building associated with the imperial 11 graffiti carved on it. Fragments of monumental cult (the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias). There are city bronze sculpture (including the paw of a lion), some goddesses in pediments, but not identified by label; inscriptions in pediments tend to be votive or grave of it gilt, were found in the excavations, hinting at 12 rich decor or dedications. But many fragments of the inscriptions. The letters on the Sardian pediment superstructure and decorative details from the top block are too large and long to be a builder’s inscrip- tion, like the one matching a personification to its of the temple were left roughly claw-chiseled, not 13 polished down to their final finish. base at Aphrodisias. In any case, the placement Among these fragments is one that gives rise to of cornice blocks would have been architecturally more self-evident than that of the Aphrodisias re- the probability that this temple was provincial. It is liefs. As ‘Adramyteon’ is nominative but neuter, what a section of the left-hand raking cornice, including sort of personification could it have been? On the a half-finished egg-and-tongue molding and the Puteoli base, some personifications of cities with surface of one of the pediments.9 Though it has masculine-form names are masculine (Tmolos, clamp-cuttings with lead and iron in them, indicat- Temnos), though Ephesos is represented by one of ing that it was put into place on the temple, its face its founding Amazons; all the rest are female. was only claw-chiseled; a broken-off extrusion likely Adramyteion could have been represented by the attached to pedimental relief sculpture, though it is normal city goddess, or perhaps by Adramys/ impossible to say what sort. Most importantly, to the left of the extrusion was the word ADRAMU/THON, in letters 8 cm. high, deeply cut and carefully shaped 10 SEG 36 (1986) 1103; Habicht 1975, 70. See below, chap- but again only claw-chiseled and without serifs. The ter 11, ‘Antandros.’ 11 word is a version of the name , Adra- Kuttner 1995, 69-93 with these and many other ex- ÉAdramÊteion amples; though on 249 n. 52 she went beyond the evidence myteion, a city in Mysia which was, like Sardis, the regarding the Sardis pseudodipteros, which she called a Sebasteion, restoring “at the corners enthroned figures facing and framing the center” on its pediment. Lagina: Webb 1996, 8 Waelkens 1987, 96-97 noted that Sardis had a local tra- 108-120. Puteoli base: CIL 10.1624; Mingazzini 1976 (who dition of mortared rubble walls, and so more readily adopted attempted to move its date from 30 to 81-90 C.E. mainly based that Roman technique, especially after the earthquake of 17 on style); Vermeule 1981. Aphrodisias: Reynolds 1981, 323- C.E. and the massive rebuilding of the city under Roman super- 327; Smith 1988. vision. 12 Hommel 1954, 52, 105-106. 9 Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986, 54-55, 63-65, pl. 3 fig. 3. 13 Smith 1988, 61. 102 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Adramytes, its eponymous founder. term ‘twice neokoros,’ though, especially at this early Whatever its date and decor may have been, the period. temple at Sardis did not have long to flourish. A There is another problem with Foss’ chronology. layer of dark grey ash lying directly on top of its The roughed-out state of the pediment and frag- podium and similar destruction layers to the north ments of the decoration indicate that the temple still produced bronze coins of Hadrian, Faustina the lacked only some few final touches, mainly on the Elder thea (‘goddess’), and Marcus Aurelius Caesar, upper levels of the building, before it was finished. some of the latter in mint condition.14 As Sardian These were moldings, surfaces, and inscriptions, coins that titled Faustina Sebaste, ‘Augusta,’ are ear- basic tasks of journeymen carvers, not master sculp- lier than those that title her thea, the coin finds should tors, and though placed high, they were important probably be placed after her death in 141 C.E.15 and in full view.18 If this were a temple to Vespasian, Thus the temple had to have been destroyed some- it would have stood for seventy or eighty years in time after 140-150 C.E. It appears to have been this state, its inscriptions blurry, its moldings rough, intentionally dismantled after an accidental collapse, when only a minimum of work could have brought its parts being broken down and burnt for lime right it to completion. But if the pseudodipteros was only on the podium. After that, the site was abandoned built a short time (perhaps a decade or two) before to later Roman waterworks, conceding to the slope’s its destruction, the architectural sculptors of Sardis natural drainage. would not be as dilatory as it previously seemed, Foss identified the pseudodipteros as the first though they might stand out as being quite conser- provincial imperial temple of Sardis.16 Though that vative in their style. If the preponderance of the may well be correct, it is by no means the only al- evidence should tip the scales toward Sardian con- ternative, as we shall see. Foss, probably influenced servatism, the pseudodipteros might represent yet by the bounds of Howe’s preferred limits (second to another provincial temple of Hadrian; if toward a third quarters of the first century) for the ornamen- building project left long unperfected, then possibly tal style of the temple, limited the object of cult to a cult for Claudius, for whom no Asian temple has emperors up to Vespasian. If we disregard that limi- yet been found. Any decision must await further tation in favor of Howe’s more extended but surer evidence. dating, we end with Nerva and Hadrian, as we have There is yet another (though more remote) pos- seen. Foss inclined toward Vespasian due to a se- sibility for the pseudodipteros. As we shall see, ries of coins with tetrastyle temple reverse issued at Sardis’ second provincial imperial cult, for Antoninus Sardis during his reign, but there is nothing on these Pius, was moved into the old temple of Artemis. This to indicate that this is even an imperial temple.17 is the first known instance in which a provincial im- Foss also guessed that since this was the first pro- perial cult was set up in a previously existing struc- vincial temple, after its destruction the cult moved ture rather than a new one. Such a measure cannot elsewhere while resources concentrated on the necessarily be explained by lack of funds: Sardis, like temple that gained the city its second neokoria, i.e. most of the cities of Asia that would have contrib- that of Artemis (below); or even that the first pro- uted to a provincial temple, was prosperous in vincial imperial cult moved in with the second, which Antonine times.19 It may be accounted for, however, would have stuffed the precinct that still belonged if a new temple just on the point of completion had to Artemis with three temples’ worth of cults. Hav- been demolished by an earthquake and/or landslide. ing two provincial imperial cults housed in the same When this happened at Kyzikos the temple was temple would have made rather a mockery of the rebuilt on the same spot. The pseudodipteros at Sardis, however, was abandoned, perhaps because 14 The identification of coin C81.82 in Ratté, Howe, and the site had become too uncertain to build upon. It Foss 1986, 48 n. 7 is in error: this is a coin of Sardis with por- is just possible, then, that the pseudodipteros was trait of Faustina the Elder, not the Younger, of the type SNGvA built as Sardis’ second provincial temple, not its first, 3154, BMC 139. 15 Dated coins of Alexandria show the change very clearly: Geissen 1992. In other cases, the term theos/thea is often used for the living ruler: S. Price 1984a. 18 See Rockwell 1990. Though the ‘Sebasteion’ sculpture 16 Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986, 63-68. stood with many roughed-out details, its inscriptions were care- 17 BMC 67-70; SNGvA 3148; Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, fully finished. and Bates 1981, Greek nos. 246, 247, 251-255. 19 Hanfmann 1983, 145. chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 103 early in the reign of Antoninus Pius, but was de- of Lucius Verus perhaps dates to his return from his stroyed by some natural disaster only about a de- eastern campaign in 166: cade later. The mid-second century was a bad time INSCRIPTION 1. S. Johnson 1960, 10 no. 4 for earthquakes in Asia Minor, and according to (Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 178 no. 276; Foss Cassius Dio 70.4, many cities were shaken in 1986, 169-170 no. 2; SEG 36 [1986] 1093).24 { Antoninus’ reign.20 Faced with the daunting neces- ' sity of starting from scratch, a decision may have b nevkÒrow Sardian«n pÒliw... been made to move the provincial imperial cult into This means that one cannot attribute Sardis’ second an older temple instead. The tumbled remains of the neokoria to Septimius Severus, as has recently been new temple could be reused elsewhere or burned for done.25 lime on the spot; the destruction layers of the As is mentioned above, it is just possible that the pseudodipteros are indeed the result of such a lime- provincial cult of Antoninus Pius was originally burning process. Again, this would explain why the centered in the pseudodipteros at Sardis but had to pseudodipteros’ upper architectural ornament was be moved when that temple was destroyed sometime only preliminarily roughed out, never finished, after 140-150. Whether or not that was so, the cult though it would make the architectural sculptors of ended up in a temple that was and is one of Sardis’ Sardis even more stylistically conservative than they landmarks: the temple of Artemis, where in 1882 had appeared before. George Dennis, the British Consul at Smyrna, found among the ruins the head of a colossal statue of Faustina the Elder, Antoninus’ wife. In later and Second Neokoria: Antoninus Pius more formal excavations at the temple, H. Butler found a companion piece, the lower part of the We reach more certainty once Sardis became twice colossal head of Antoninus himself.26 More recent neokoros for a cult of Antoninus Pius. An inscrip- excavations have shown the temple to have been well tion records that a certain L. Julius Libonianus was populated with colossal sculpture, and pieces of at chief priest of Asia ‘of the Sardian temples in Lydia,’ least six statues in all (three male, three female) have i.e. at a time when Sardis had more than one such been found. temple; this same Libonianus served as strategos in The history of the temple of Artemis before the the reign of Trajan, and his career cannot have arrival of the imperial cult is controversial, as are lasted much more than twenty-five or thirty years.21 the adaptations that were to accommodate that cult A hint at significant honors granted to Sardis early thereafter.27 Designed as a huge (45.51 m. x 97.94 in Antoninus Pius’ reign is a dedication to that m.) eight-by-twenty-column Ionic structure, aspir- emperor which, though dated after his death in 161 ing toward the lines of the great temples at Ephesos (by the term ‘hero’), gives his titulature as it was in or Didyma, it was probably begun in the third cen- 139 at the start of his rule.22 Yet another dedica- tury B.C.E. Like other temples to Artemis, at tion names him Olympios, a continuation of the epi- Ephesos and Magnesia, it opened to the west. The thet best known for his adoptive father Hadrian.23 earliest design may have been for a dipteral temple, This may date the inscription soon after Hadrian’s with two rows of columns ranged around the cella, death and Antoninus’ succession, and may also hint but if so, the plan was changed before the founda- at his divine role at Sardis (below). Certainly Sardis tions for the colonnade could be built. Instead, it was was twice neokoros, and probably had been for some time, by the reign of Antoninus’ sons and succes- 24 See J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques 75 (1962) sors, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. The rather 200 no. 290; Herrmann 1993b, 251. simple declaration ‘twice neokoros’ on a statue base 25 Herz 1998, 134 n. 3. 26 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, nos. 79 and 251, the latter now in the British Museum. 20 Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 236-237 no. 27 F. Yegül is to publish an analysis of the temple; see 116, probably referring to several separate incidents. Greenewalt and Rautman 2000, 673-675; also Howe 1983 and 21 Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 47; Hanfmann 1983, 1986. Early description: Butler 1925. For Hanfmann’s views 144; Campanile 1994a, 101-102 no. 99. vs. those of Gruben 1961: Hanfmann 1983, 119-121 (by W. 22 Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 58. Mierse). Hoepfner 1990a, 3-7 proposed moving columns for 23 Sardis inventory no. IN 70.4; Hanfmann and Ramage a prostyle east porch, but this has been disproved by the cur- 1978, no. 161. rent excavations. 104 part i – section i. koinon of asia to be treated as a pseudodipteros, with an interior As has already been mentioned, Faustina the aisle instead of a double colonnade. Elder’s colossal presence in the temple of Artemis Some time after the long, west-facing cella was is assured, and Antoninus Pius’ head has been plau- completed, it was lengthened, divided in half by a sibly identified. R. Smith has now reidentified a long- cross wall, and a door was opened through its east- known colossal head, which Hanfmann thought was ern wall into the opisthodomos (illus. pl. 2 fig. 9). Zeus in the guise of the Seleucid pretender Achaeus This produced two back-to-back cellas, one facing (above), as Antoninus’ son and successor Marcus west, the other east. The original statue base, with Aurelius, and part of another colossal head found two hoards of third-century B.C.E. coins still wedged at the temple as Marcus Aurelius’ son Commodus.33 into the stones of its foundation, now lay in the In addition, parts of two female colossi beside the eastward-facing cella, while a new base of similar size elder Faustina have been found. All colossi were was constructed for the shortened western cella.28 acrolithic, with some parts executed in materials Ironically, the alteration was aided by the fact that other than stone, probably erected on a wooden the building had been shattered by the disastrous framework.34 earthquake of 17 C.E., and reconstruction was pro- Fragments from the statue of Antoninus Pius ceeding slowly, if at all.29 New excavations indicate indicate that he (or another of the male colossi) was that many of the columns on the flanks of the temple about four times life size, nude, and seated.35 His were never erected.30 head, turned strongly to his left, was diademed with Hanfmann held that the division of the cella was a plain fillet, and he likely held a sceptre or spear done at the end of the third century B.C.E. for the in his left hand (illus. pl. 11 figs. 32, 33, pl. 17 fig. introduction of a cult of Zeus. He based this on an 45). The pose and attributes are those of Zeus, which inscription that refers to the precinct of Artemis and recalls the fact already mentioned, that Antoninus Zeus Polieus, and on a colossal bearded head in was called by the epithet Olympios at Sardis. The por- whose battered features he discerned a likeness to trait was carved with a lavish use of the running drill the Seleucid pretender Achaeus, who held Sardis to produce rich baroque contrasts of light and dark from 220 to 214 B.C.E.31 Thus the male god would in the curls of the moustache and beard. As on the have a proper east-facing cella, while Artemis held colossal portrait of Titus from Ephesos (q.v.), the the west-facing one as before. Howe saw the divided mouth is slightly open, conveying the ideal of an cella as a Roman innovation, however. He discerned inspired ruler; that and the turn of head produced no mid-Hellenistic architectural phase, but held that a dynamic effect.36 The head of Antoninus does not the cella was only divided in the second century C.E. fit into any known type, but shares features of both to accommodate the provincial imperial cult. Lime- early (Croce Greca 595) and late portraits (Vatican, mortared rubble typical of the Roman period was Sala dei Busti 284) of the emperor.37 One notable indeed found under the new door to the eastern idiosyncracy is the fan-shaped tuft of hair isolated cella, in the new west statue base, and reinforcing between lower lip and line of beard. the dividing wall between the two cellas, as well as The mien of Faustina the Elder is more com- in the foundations of the outer colonnade. Greene- posed, as was usual for a lady and an empress (illus. walt has noted that the back-to-back cellas recall the pl. 12 figs. 34, 35). Her head is turned slightly to temple of Venus and Rome in Rome, in whose her right, her lips just barely parted. But where other design Hadrian was said to have played a decisive portraits show Faustina’s eyes as unremarkably al- role, but which may have only been completed as late as the reign of Antoninus Pius.32 Boatwright 1987, 119-133; Gros 1996-2001, 1:179-180, cites earlier examples of such cellas. 33 Greenewalt and Rautman 2000, 675-676. 28 On the hoards, LeRider 1991. 34 For the acrolithic technique, see chapter 39 of part II 29 Tacitus, Annals 2.47; Hanfmann 1983, 141-142; Guido- on temples and cult statues. boni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 180-185 no. 79. 35 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, nos. 79-87, esp. 79, 81, 30 Greenewalt and Rautman 2000, 673-675. 82 and 87. The description of no. 79 seems in error, as the 31 Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 8, of 2 B.C.E.; Hanf- illustrations show that the neck and head turn to the viewer’s mann and Ramage 1978, no. 102. right, not the figure’s. 32 C. Greenewalt, Jr., personal communication of April 3, 36 Zanker 1983, 21-22 saw these traits as typical to Asia 2001; I am most grateful for his help and information regard- Minor, with roots in Hellenistic ruler portraits. ing these and other Sardian matters. For the temple in Rome, 37 Wegner 1939, 15-25, 125-153. chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 105 mond shaped, the colossus’ eyes are exaggerated and meeting with the neck. As with the Antoninus, the deepset, with intense shadows under the brows, a head was about four times life size, and turned to sculptural effect designed to dramatize the statue’s its left. The back of the head preserves several of the gaze, so far above the viewer in the darkened cella. dowel holes that keyed the great weight of the head Seen face-to-face, the eyes seem preternaturally wide into the armature of the acrolithic statue (illus. pl. and blank. The hair is carved into loose, rippling 13 fig. 37). Other fragments, including more pieces waves, once again with copious use of the drill. Like of a head and a hand curved as if to hold a sceptre, all acrolithic heads, this one was hollowed out to have been tentatively assigned to this statue.41 reduce the weight, with dowel holes left for attach- But a problem comes with Smith’s identification ing other parts (illus. pl. 13 no. 36). Perhaps the back of a new fragment as Marcus Aurelius’ son and of the head was covered with a veil of painted, gilt, successor Commodus. The implication would be that or metal-sheathed wood. The veil is not only char- he (and likely his wife, Crispina) were added as a acteristic of Faustina’s posthumous coinage, but as third generation of colossi, to stand with his father an attribute of Hera would make her the perfect and (adoptive) grandfather. Commodus, however, pairing for her husband posed as Zeus.38 Her statue’s was murdered at the end of 192 C.E., and his prototype and date are slightly more secure than memory condemned.42 Though his name was reha- those of the Antoninus. Despite the peculiarities and bilitated and Septimius Severus deified him as his distortion engendered by her colossal size and her brother in 195, one wonders what would have hap- function as a deity, the Faustina has been closely pened to his colossal statue in the intervening time. allied to a type (Imperatori 36) classified by Wegner It is possible that it simply stood there, waiting for as standard in Rome around 138-139.39 She stood a decision to be made; or discredited portraits could between three and three-and-a-half times lifesize, be stored up in ‘recycling centers’ to be recarved, thus on a slightly smaller scale than the Antoninus meaning that this one could have been rescued from Pius. This may have been a way of denoting her such a marble yard and reinstalled after Commodus’ position as subsidiary to the emperor’s; on the other consecration.43 As for Crispina, she had been ac- hand, if they were posed as a pair and he was seated cused of adultery, exiled to Capri, and then killed and she standing, her smaller scale would have made in 192; her memory was condemned, with no re- the difference in their heights less obvious. habilitation. Smith’s confirmation that the colossal head once The new fragment consists of the lower part of a identified as Zeus was actually Marcus Aurelius adds bearded face and powerful neck (illus. pl. 15 fig. 40). to the consistency of an Antonine family group (illus. The acrolithic treatment is the same as that of the pl. 14 figs. 38, 39). Hanfmann dated the work to other male heads, as is the scale, though the regu- Hellenistic times because of the preponderance of larity of the neckline hints that this statue was chisel-work over drillwork in its sculptural treatment, clothed, probably cuirassed. The mouth is open, with but it is possible that the showier and higher-relief the teeth visible. The moustache is sketchy and light, passages of drillwork in the moustache and beard only gently overshadowing the upper lip, which is have been battered off; the head is badly damaged, noticeably fleshy and full. The beard grows in ba- and looks as if it was defaced by deliberate hammer- roque twisted locks from just below the cheekbones, ing.40 From what is preserved, the mouth was open with strong accents of drillwork among curls that are and breathing, shadowed by a wide, full moustache. lightly windswept to the figure’s left. The chin is The beard started just below the gently rounded but marked by two swirling double-ended locks. The line narrow cheekbones, and there is a sensuous contrast of the mouth and the outgrowth of the beard from between the skin’s high polish and the feathered between the corners of the lips and down to the chin opacity of the edging locks of beard. Three isolated forms a rectangle, in the center of which is an iso- locks come down in a triangle from the lower lip. lated tuft of three locks of hair, which flare out from The beard itself was full and wide, rounded at its under the lower lip.

38 Mikocki 1995, 62. For possible models, see chapter 39 41 Ibid., nos. 103-105. of part II on temples and cult statues. 42 Kienast 1996, 147-151. 39 Wegner 1939, pls. 10, 13B; pls. 4, 6B; 26-32, 153-166. 43 Kinney 1997, 134-135; Varner 1993, 295-341 on the 40 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, no. 102. condemnations of Commodus and Crispina elsewhere. 106 part i – section i. koinon of asia

This idiosyncratic portrait does not correspond until they are almost semicircular. The mouth is exactly with any one portrait type of any Antonine small and open, and probably had cupid’s-bow lips. or Severan emperor. Still, the colossus of Antoninus Unfortunately the back of the head does not survive, Pius shows that idiosyncratic likenesses conforming and with it went the details of hairstyle that are such to no exact type should be no surprise here. The indicators for the Antonine empresses. Still, what is physiognomy is quite dissimilar to Marcus Aurelius’ left shows a simple central parting that breaks into mature portraits, in which an abundant moustache wind-tossed waves, seemingly blown to her left. (like that of his reidentified Sardian colossus) always Though it is possible that this head represents a covers the upper lip.44 The same is true for Septimius goddess rather than a human, the clean separation Severus, though the locks of the beard and the of the face indicates that it was an acrolith, prob- squareness of the patch of skin below the mouth ably attached to a veiled head in another material; recall several of his portraits.45 Commodus’ lips are such a depiction would be very unusual for the thinner than those of the fragment in question, es- Artemis suggested by Hanfmann, though it would pecially the upper one, and his moustache is more suit a Hera, a Demeter, or an empress as one of the luxuriant. goddesses, as it did Faustina the Elder (above). It is The likeliest subject for the new Sardis colossus more likely to be a portrait of a young girl with not is Lucius Verus. His portraits show the individual very individualized features. The head resembles traits of full lips, a wispy moustache, and a full neither Faustina the Younger nor Crispina, both of curling beard that often falls into separate locks, whom had thinner, more oval faces; Faustina’s hair sometimes with an isolated tuft of hair above it. The generally fell in crisp scallops to frame her face, while patch of skin between lower lip and beard on most Crispina’s browline was more ogival.48 The resem- of Verus’ portraits, however, is not generally so blance is closest to Lucilla, daughter of Marcus rectangular as on the Sardis fragment, but more Aurelius and Faustina the Younger, who married her ovoid. Still, a portrait head from Athens (National father’s co-emperor and adopted brother Lucius Museum 3740) is closely comparable to the Sardis Verus when she was still in her early teens. A life- head.46 But the best argument for this being Lucius sized portrait in Izmir is closest to the Sardis head: Verus is that the absence of a portrait of him in a it shows a similar broad flat face with full cheeks, group that included his co-emperor and adoptive though the eyes are more almond shaped and the brother Marcus Aurelius would be almost inexpli- style flatter and less sculptural.49 The Sardis head’s cable, especially at the time of the Parthian war, drilled and wind-tossed hair, its wider eyes, empha- when he himself often visited the province Asia. sized by deepened lids, and its parted lips are prob- Two further colossal acrolithic heads of females ably due to its colossal size and its aim of portraying were found at the Artemis temple. One has been an apotheosized ruler. variously identified as Artemis, as Faustina the The main group of Lucilla’s portraits probably Younger (wife of Marcus Aurelius), or as Lucilla (wife dates between the time of her marriage to Lucius of Lucius Verus).47 The front of this head (illus. pls. Verus, ca. 163 or 164, and the time of his death in 15-16 figs. 41-43) is well preserved except for a bro- early 169; when paired with him, she is sometimes ken-off nose, and its baroque drilled style is entirely shown wearing a diadem, or with a veil, as Ceres. consistent with the Antonine date of the other co- But Lucilla was implicated in a plot against her lossi, though it is slightly smaller in scale (the head brother Commodus shortly after his accession, prob- is .80 m. tall, where the elder Faustina’s head is .91 ably in 181. She was exiled to Capri and killed, and m. from chin to crown). The woman’s face is broad there are signs that some of her portraits underwent and square, with the plump cheeks of youth. As on defacement, although no true condemnation of her the colossus of Faustina the Elder, the eyes are memory is documented.50 unnaturally wide, but here the brows are arched 48 Wegner 1939, 48-55, 210-225 (Faustina the Younger), 44 Wegner 1939, 33-47, 166-210 (Marcus Aurelius), 66-73, 74-78, 274-276 (Crispina). 252-274 (Commodus). 49 Von Heintze 1982, no. 5. See also Wegner 1939, pls. 47, 45 McCann 1968; perhaps the portrait closest to the Sardis 64; 74-78, 249-252 (Dresden and coin portraits, of same sub- representation is Dresden Kunstsammlung (Albertinus) 393. group); and Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 24-25 no. 24 pl. 33 46 Wegner 1939, pl. 45; 56-65, 226-249. (Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo inv. 2766). 47 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, no. 252. 50 Pace Varner 1993, 317-319, 322; Kienast 1996, 145-146. chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 107

As for the other female head, there is little left of Faustina, may have stood in the east-facing cella.52 it but a fragment of a wide-arched eye, nose, and It is extremely unlikely, however, that any imperial cheek, consistent in style with all the others (illus. image displaced Artemis from the western cella. pl. 17 fig. 44).51 If one of the colossi was Marcus Sardian Artemis’ sanctuary had received the coveted Aurelius, this may have been his empress, Faustina title asylos, confirmed by Julius Caesar himself the Younger. shortly before his death.53 The city would not have It is likely, then, that the colossi from the temple forgone this honor to rededicate the temple entirely. of Artemis at Sardis represented Antonine rulers and Still, imperial colossi could have been placed else- their consorts. The emperor Antoninus Pius and his where than on the cella bases. The head attributed wife, Faustina the Elder, were almost certainly here to Lucius Verus shows marks of water that present. Antoninus’ adoptive son and successor Mar- flowed down its neck when it still stood upright, in- cus Aurelius, and his wife, Antoninus’ and Faustina’s dicating that it may have stood in a semi-exposed daughter Faustina the Younger, were likely present. area, perhaps in one of the temple’s porches; in fact, The third imperial couple were probably Lucius it was found in a late Roman pit in the eastern Verus and his wife Lucilla, as Marcus Aurelius raised porch. Hanfmann noted that the colossi had vary- Verus to be his full partner and co-ruler. Though ing fates: Faustina and Antoninus Pius apparently none of the statues is strictly datable, it is most likely stayed in the temple until their wooden parts fell to that Antoninus and Faustina the Elder were the pieces, while the head here identified as Marcus original cult pair. Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the Aurelius was badly battered, and a piece of it ended 54 Younger were added at a time when he was fully up built into a church foundation. It is certainly mature and well bearded, either as designated suc- possible that one or more of the heads could have cessor or after succeeding Pius. A joint succession been exposed to the elements in this period of dere- was unexpected, so Lucius Verus could have only liction. been introduced after Pius’ death, and Lucilla after Statue groups of the Antonine family were not 55 their marriage. Each of the male heads has an iso- uncommon. Also, more is becoming known about the grouping of freestanding imperial statues, espe- lated tuft of hair under the lip which, though dif- 56 fering in form, may be a grace note typical of an cially in Sebasteia and Kaisareia. But the Sardis eastern, perhaps Sardian, sculptural workshop. group is a special case. All are colossi, and all are Though no scientific testing has yet been done, all in or around a temple whose purpose was the pro- vincial imperial cult; and if the identifications pro- the colossal marbles are consistent with the prod- posed above are correct, all the individuals portrayed ucts of local quarries. were reigning emperors and their consorts. Other It is not certain how these statues were arranged. Antonine groups often include children as well as They show slight differences in scale, with males rulers, while municipal temples might have been largest, the senior female (Faustina the Elder) slightly more idiosyncratic than provincial ones. smaller, and junior females (e.g., the portrait here The comparanda are discussed more fully in part identified as Lucilla) smaller still. Though it is most II, in the summary chapter 39 on temples and stat- likely that they stood as pairs of consorts, it is not ues, but a few may be mentioned here. Strongest impossible that the males took one area of the among the parallel cases are those of the other neo- temple, perhaps the eastern half, while the females koroi. At Ephesos, Titus’ colossal statue stood in a stood with Artemis in the west. No matter how large the temple, six colossal stat- ues would be difficult to place. The cella was 18.35 52 For such a composition, see the relief of the Severan arch m. wide, and in its divided form, each side had a at Leptis Magna (below, n. 57). 53 Herrmann 1989b, 127-158; Rigsby 1996, 433-437. statue base of approximately six m. square wedged 54 Hanfmann 1983, 193. between its central columns. This base could have 55 For several examples, Bol 1984, 31-45, 88-89. Also supported one colossus, or a pair if one were stand- Moretti 1968 (IGUrbRom) fasc. 1 no. 25, a Delphian dedica- tion at Rome. An inscribed base from Patara in Lycia (IGRR ing; the senior pair, Antoninus Pius and the elder 3:665) places Marcus Aurelius in the center, with his wife Faustina on the left (at his right hand) and Lucius Verus on the right. 56 Pekáry 1985, 92-96, 104-106; Inan 1993; Rose 1997a, 51 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, no. 88. 147-149 with bibliography. 108 part i – section i. koinon of asia temple of (probably) Vespasian, while at Pergamon, perhaps as a group rather than piecemeal; the ear- Hadrian’s colossus stood near or with the temple’s liest possible date for this addition would be 163 or original inhabitants, Zeus Philios and Trajan. Among 164 C.E., after the marriage of Lucius Verus and municipal imperial temples, acrolithic statues of Lucilla. This took place not so far away, at Ephesos, Augustus and Rome held the dual cellae of their and the ceremonies connected with the wedding and temple in Leptis Magna, while Tiberius and Livia the emperor’s progress among the cities of western were enthroned elsewhere, perhaps in the porch. At Asia Minor toward his Parthian war may have been the temple of the Gens Septimia Aurelia at Cuicul, the the impetus behind the addition of the new colossi.59 cella was probably held by the emperor under whom But where they stood is uncertain, as no other ped- it was dedicated, Severus Alexander, perhaps accom- estals have been found. If placed one by one, the panied by his mother Julia Mamaea; acrolithic stat- four statues could have been set among the columns ues of his forebears, Septimius Severus and Julia on either side of the eastern cella, before their en- Domna, could have stood in the great niches at the throned parents. If they stood as two pairs of con- back of the precinct. The tiny Sebasteion at Boubon sorts, they would have fit better in the eastern porch, showed that Septimius Severus could be imported in the open space on either side of the entry stairs. into an Antonine family group, which becomes an In either case, it is likely that they remained, despite important precedent if the Sardis colossus here iden- the opprobrium into which Lucilla fell, until pagan- tified as Lucius Verus should prove to be Septimius ism was replaced by Christianity at Sardis. Severus instead. Though Foss has stated that the new, imperial Another trend at Boubon was to place an empress incarnation of the Artemis temple is “evidently” at her husband’s right hand. If that was true at recognizable on coins, the case is slightly more com- Sardis, however, the pairs of consorts would be plex.60 The coins in question, issued by Claudius portrayed as looking away from one another, which Fronto as Asiarch and strategos, show on the obverse is not what Julia Domna and Septimius Severus do Faustina the Elder thea and on the reverse a hexastyle on the Severan arch at Leptis Magna.57 Posed as temple with a standing male figure (in a short cos- Juno and Jupiter of the Capitoline triad, she stands tume and holding a sceptre) inside. The clearest gesturing toward him, while his throne is canted examples, however, show that the hexastyle temple toward her. A Fortuna figure and a peacock were is of the Corinthian order, while the temple of added on Julia’s side to echo the standing Minerva Artemis at Sardis was Ionic.61 So if the coin type and owl beyond Severus, thus bracketing and em- represents any provincial imperial cult temple in phasizing the imperial couple rather than the triad. Sardis, it should be the first one, not be that of The pattern of seated male/standing female was not Antoninus Pius and Artemis. Following this chain unusual: enthroned statues of Marcus Aurelius and of remote possibilities, if the pseudodipteros were the Lucius Verus were found with a diademed statue of first provincial imperial temple of Sardis, a coin Faustina the Younger and a veiled statue of Lucilla commemorating it would be found in the debris of in the theater at Bulla Regia.58 its destruction. The coincidence would be pleasantly Unfortunately, there is too little evidence to tell ironic, though the multitude of other possibilities how the Sardis colossi were arranged around the make its likelihood remote. temple of Artemis. Perhaps the most logical arrange- Moreover, the figure in the temple, unlike ment is based on pairs of consorts. Antoninus Pius Antoninus Pius, is beardless, and may in fact depict and Faustina the Elder, as the senior pair, would some god who was generally represented in a short have taken the main statue base in the eastern cella, tunic. That costume, which has been taken to repre- he enthroned, she standing, possibly at his left hand (on the right), and were probably installed during his reign and lifetime. The statues of his successors 59 Lehnen 1997, 260; Halfmann 1986a, 210-212. Karwiese and their consorts would have been added later, 1990 seems to be based on an argument from silence and a series of misreadings. 60 In Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986, 66 n. 98; also Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 12 no. 289; 57 Bartoccini 1931, 83-85 fig. 48. S. Price 1984b, 260. 58 Von Heintze 1982, 171 no. 9; similar dynastic groups 61 BMC 139; SNGvA 3154; Sardis C81.82 (found in the came from the theater in Leptis Magna and the temple at destruction layer of the pseudodipteros, above); Paris (Babelon Sabratha, 174. 1898, 5254). chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 109 sent an emperor’s military costume, is probably neokoros’ on its coins, early in the reign of Septimius different from that of the imperial image from Sardis’ Severus (when Albinus was still Caesar, perhaps 193- temple of Artemis, where, as has been discussed, 195).66 The type remained popular throughout the Antoninus was probably enthroned and caparisoned Severan period. as Zeus. On the other hand, numismatic convention often showed the emperor in cuirass, because he was COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI% L %EPTIMI more recognizable that way. Could the figure in the %EOUHRO% PERTINAJ Laureate draped cui- temple be the (clean-shaven) emperor for whom rassed bust of Septimius Severus r. Rev: EPI G I Sardis was first neokoros? KRI%POU ARX %ARDIANVN DI% NEVKORVN A more distinct possibility is that the coins show Two six-column temples, a disc in each pediment, a temple of Dionysos, whose origins were thought turned toward one another; a leafy wreath over to be Lydian, and whose cult is well documented at one, a plain one over the other. a) SNGvA 3155 Sardis.62 A similar temple, little clearer except for b) Paris 1248 c) Ireland 2000, no. 1714. a tall leaflike attribute (a thyrsos?) in the central COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU KAI L %EPTI %EOU- figure’s right hand, appears on a coin of the koinon HRO% PER Laureate draped cuirassed bust of of thirteen Ionian cities, of which Sardis was not a Septimius Severus r. Rev: EPI %TR[A K]OR 63 member. This type was issued by the same man OUETTHNIANOU A%IARX D %ARDIANVN DI% who issued the Sardis coins, the Asiarch Claudius NEVKORVN MHTROPOLEV% A%IA% Two six- Fronto, but here he gave his title as chief priest of column temples, a disc in each pediment, turned the Ionian koinon, whereas on the Sardis coin he toward one another; a leafy wreath over one, a stood in the office of strategos of that city. Though plain one over the other. a) Paris 1248A (illus. pl. he used the title ‘Asiarch’ on both issues, this does 24 fig. 89). not necessarily mean that he issued these coins in that capacity, or that the office had anything to do COIN TYPE 3. Obv: L %EPTI GETA% K[...] with the subject of the coins’ reverses.64 But the cult Draped cuirassed bust of Geta as Caesar r., boy- of the wine god was a major theme of the series of ish. Rev: EP %TRA KOR OUETTHNIANOU [...] Ionian coins underwritten by Fronto.65 On balance %ARDIANVN DI% NEVKORVN MHTROPOLEV% of evidence, then, the temple portrayed on Fronto’s A%IA% Two six-column temples turned toward issues at Sardis is more likely to be that of Dionysos one another, a wreath over each. a) SNGvA 3162. than that of Antoninus Pius and Artemis. As usual, the buildings are assimilated to each other So far as is known, the temples that made Sardis to convey the concept ‘temples for which the city is twice neokoros only appear on the multiple-temple neokoros,’ though architecturally they may have coins so dear to neokoroi cities. Sardis began to issue looked quite different and been far separated from such types about as soon as it began to include ‘twice each other. The only distinction is in the (agonis- tic?) wreaths, one smooth, one leafy, that are shown 62 Hanfmann 1983, 93-94, 118, 133, 155 with particular over the temples. This may indicate that contests in note of the coins of Fronto showing Hermes and Dionysos. The honor of the two temples were of different types: for temple is tentatively identified as Dionysos’ by M. Price and Trell 1977, fig. 380, though their catalogue (268 n. 486) con- example, a wreath of laurel might symbolize a tinued to call it an imperial temple. Pythian festival, one of olive an Olympian. 63 SNGvA 7814. Also associated with the two provincial imperial 64 Campanile 1994a, 80 no. 67. 65 Engelmann 1972, not a very acute analysis; 188 n. 4 states temples is the enigmatic draped figure of a goddess, that the dies of SNGvA 3154 (the Sardis coin) and SNGvA 7814 the Lydian Kore.67 She is not there as an object of (the Ionian league coin) are “almost identical,” a meaningless koinon cult but as Sardis’ patron deity. Artemis Ephe- term even if direct comparison between the photographs did not show great differences in legends and proportions between sia had appeared in the same way on coins of both pairs of dies, though the reverses may show the same Ephesos (q.v.) as early as the reign of Antoninus Pius. temple. Engelmann is followed by Lindner 1994, 144-149, and by Kampmann 1997, who would attribute the connection between Sardis and the Ionian cities to a simultaneous celebra- tion of the koinon games of Asia for the dedication of Sardis’ 66 Kienast 1996, 160-161. second provincial temple and a festival for the thirteen Ionian 67 Identified by a scene of Kore’s abduction by Hades on cities, specifically between 141 and 145 C.E. See also Kamp- a statue of Lydian Kore in Padua: Fleischer 1999, 606; for other mann 1998, 379-380. evidence, idem 1973, 187-201; 1984c. 110 part i – section i. koinon of asia

At Sardis, Kore was shown between the two temples, In the joint reign of Caracalla and Geta, Septi- either alone or in her temple. mius Severus’ successors, Sardis began to use more COIN TYPE 4. Obv: IOULIA %EBA%TH Draped magniloquent titulature, including mention of the Senate’s role in according neokoria and the fact that bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: EPI G I KRI%POU AR Sardis was twice neokoros of the Augusti. These %ARDIANVN DI% NEVKORVN Two six-column temples, a leafy wreath over one, a plain one over details are documented by the building inscription the other, turned toward one another; between of the ‘marble court,’ the magnificent central room them Lydian Kore. a) Paris 1251 b) Vienna of the bath/gymnasium complex at Sardis: 19580. INSCRIPTION 2. Foss 1986, 170 no. 3 (Herr- COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR %E AN- mann 1993b, 233-248 no. 1). { mhtrÒpoliw t}w TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of ÉAs¤aw [k]a‹ d‹w nevkÒrow t«n Sebast«n katå tå Caracalla r. Rev: EPI AN ROUFOU ARX(ON, d) dÒgmata t}w |erçw sugklÆtou f¤lh ka‹ sÊmmaxow A TO G %ARDIANVN DI% (B, cde) NEVKORVN [ÑRvma¤vn] ka‹ o¸ke›a t«n kur¤vn {m«n Three temples, side ones six-column with emperor aÈtok[ratÒr]vn Sardian«n pÒ[l]iw. . . within each (four-column in three-quarter view, Other major cities, such as Ephesos and Smyrna no figure, cde; a wreath over each, abe), center (qq.v.), also began to proclaim that their neokoriai one four-column with arched entablature, Lydian were according to decisions of the Senate at this Kore within. a) H. W. Bell 1916, 300 b) Oxford time.71 It is possible that this practice started after (illus. pl. 24 fig. 90) c) Paris 1268 d) Paris 1269 Ephesos obtained two neokoriai at once, a deed e) SNGCop 532. previously unprecedented; the Senate’s decrees seem These coins, and coin type 6, below, provide evi- to be cited to affirm that the titles are official. Sardis, dence against the theory that the Lydian Kore was however, did not gain any new neokoriai at this time. identical to Artemis, and thus was worshipped in the temple of Artemis at Sardis.68 As the temple of Third neokoria: Elagabalus Artemis was also the second temple of Sardis for the provincial imperial cult, that of Antoninus Pius, it Sardis had already been issuing coins for Elagabalus must be one of the two ordinary imperial temples for some time before it became three times neokoros. shown on the coin. Yet the temple of Kore is shown The coins issued under the archon Claudianus still as distinct from it. Nor is it likely that the temple of call the city twice neokoros, while those of Kore and the imperial temple represent two ‘aspects’ Hermophilos include the third neokoria for the cult of the same temple. In other cases where an emperor of the emperor. Coins of Hermophilos issued for moved into a god’s temple, for example Caracalla Severus Alexander as Caesar would date his office, at Pergamon and at Smyrna, or Elagabalus at and the grant of the third neokoria, to include June Nikomedia, only a single temple is shown, never two. 221 or shortly thereafter.72 Sardis issued medallion- The fact that Kore stood as patron and symbol of sized bronze coins to celebrate its new honor: the city on some of its coins does not necessarily mean that she and Artemis were one and the same. COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV- Unlike Ephesos with its Artemis, Sardian loyalty NEINO% %E Laureate draped cuirassed bust of seems to have swayed among a number of divine Elagabalus r. Rev: %ARDIANVN TRI% NEVKO- Four temples; patrons. For example, when Hellenistic kings had RVN EP ERMOFILOU AR A TO B below, two six-column temples turned toward one wished to inscribe their letters in the preeminent another; above, one six-column temple with temples of Asia Minor, they chose the Metroön emperor within and a four-column temple with (probably the temple of Kybele) at Sardis, not the arched entablature, Lydian Kore within. a) BMC Artemis temple.69 And when the city chose a patron 171 (illus. pl. 24 fig. 91). divinity to represent it on concord coins, Zeus Lydios 70 occasionally took Kore’s place in that role. 70 BMC 214; Pera 1984, 67unverified; her results are viti- ated by an unwary use of old catalogues. For a subtle investi- 68 Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates gation on the pecking order of deities, see M. Nollé and J. Nollé 1981, 7-10, ultimately an argument from silence; see Hanfmann 1994, 248-249. 1983, 129-135. 71 See chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ in Part II. 69 Gauthier 1989, 54-58; Knoepfler 1993; Roller 1999, 196. 72 Kienast 1996, 177-179. chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 111

This type again includes the temple of Kore with the people he ruled. So far as this study has found, the temples for which the city was neokoros, just as the title ‘neokoros’ had historically implied the ex- type 5 had. The latter had been similar to the more istence of a temple, and where these have been impressive types of cities like Pergamon and Smyrna found, they have not been small shrines but large, that were three times neokoros, though the legend independent peripteral structures. This is what the never claimed more than the proper two for Sardis. coins show for Elagabalus as well, and that is what This tendency simply continued on type 6 under we should believe unless there is some positive evi- Elagabalus: though Sardis was only three times neo- dence against it. koros, with the addition of the temple of Kore its Sardis coin type 6 illustrates the temple to multiple-temple reverses resembled contemporary Elagabalus as six-column, a shield in its pediment. issues of four-times neokoros Ephesos (q.v.). The imperial statue shown within is very small but Some doubt has been expressed as to whether this appears to be the usual cuirassed figure, with left arm or any temple to Elagabalus was ever built.73 raised, perhaps propped on a sceptre or spear. Though Johnston never made the logic behind her Contemporary coins under Hermophilos show a skepticism explicit, her reasoning appears to be that parade of agonistic types, often with four prize there were simply too many temples to Elagabalus crowns, recalling type 6 with four temples.74 Only crammed into too short a reign; therefore his cult three of the temples made the city neokoros, how- must have been moved into other temples, likely ever, and none of the ‘worldwide’ contests on the including that of Kore at Sardis. It is true that at coins can be tied to any specific emperor. The Koina Nikomedia and at Philippopolis there is coin evi- was indeed a provincial imperial festival, but had dence that the emperor’s cult was moved into the already been celebrated at Sardis since the first temple of the city’s chief deity. But for Sardis as for century.75 A festival called Elagabalia at first looks Ephesos, Miletos, and Hierapolis (qq.v.), the coins promising, but is in fact named after Elagabalus the are our only form of evidence and we cannot disre- sun god of Emesa, not the emperor properly known gard what they say. The coins of Sardis show a third as Antoninus.76 The nickname ‘Elagabalus’ would imperial temple for Elagabalus, separate from the not have been publicly used for the emperor at any temple of Kore. They give no indication that the time before his death. Though a festival for his god emperor shared his temple with any other deity. might well have been allied with one for the em- That no such temple has yet been found is insignifi- peror, there is no evidence for or against it. cant, an argument from silence: none of these cit- ies has been excavated so completely that we could expect to find all its temples. As for the shortness Withdrawn: Severus Alexander of Elagabalus’ reign: that may have affected whether temples to him were completed, but it should not Sardis does not appear to have issued coins for affect whether or not they were begun. Any city that Severus Alexander’s sole rule that still claim the city’s became neokoros for Elagabalus presumably trusted third neokoria. That there was a period of indeci- that his would be a long and honorable rule, per- sion about the status of the neokoria for Elagabalus, haps to be followed by legitimate successors, and that however, is shown by Sardis inscription 7: the Severan dynasty would continue. The fact that INSCRIPTION 7. Herrmann 1993b, 248-266 the historical sources preserved to us are unani- no. 2 (Sardis inventory no. IN 82.16). } mously hostile and portray Elagabalus as a sex- [t w | crazed religious maniac should not lead us to prvtÒxyonow ka‹ erçw] t«n [ye«n ka‹ mhtro- } ¤ ¤ imagine that he could be slighted with impunity by pÒlevw t w ÉAs a]w ka‹ L[ud aw èpãshw ka‹

74 Karl 1975, 76-79, 134-135; Johnston in Buttrey, John- 73 Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates ston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 12-14. 1981, 9-10, 12; Johnston 1984, 58. If her theory that the temple 75 Moretti 1954, the earliest document Neronian; also note of Kore was the temple of Artemis were also correct, the temple Année Epigraphique 1993 no. 1527, which mentions the Severeia of Artemis would have then housed two provincial imperial koina Asias in Sardis, a festival that could not have originated cults, that of Antoninus Pius and his house, and that of from any of Sardis’ provincial imperial temples, though they Elagabalus. This makes the temple as crowded as did Foss’ may have been involved in its celebration. theory that the first provincial imperial cult moved into the 76 L. Robert 1976, 53-54; apparently unknown to Johnston temple of Artemis, above. 1984, 58. 112 part i – section i. koinon of asia

pr\thw ÑEllã]dow ka‹ pollãkiw [nevkÒrou t«]n his name appearing on coins of Severus Alexander Sebast«n katå tå [dÒgma]ta t}w |erçw sug- with the legend ‘twice neokoros’ (e.g. type 8).80 klÆtou f¤lhw ka‹ summãxou ÑRvma¤vn ka‹ o¸ke¤aw Despite the loss of its third neokoria for Elaga- toË SebastoË t}w lamprotãthw Sardian«n balus, Sardis continued to feature its neokoria pÒlevw. prominently on its coins. Under Maximinus a repre- sentation similar to type 4 was revived: This is a statue base of an agoranomos, C. Asin(n)ius Neikomachos Frugianus.77 His grandfather as strate- COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT K G IOU OUH MAJI- gos had donated toward celebrations for a visit of MEINO% %EB Laureate draped bust of Maximinus Marcus Aurelius and Commodus; this can be dated r. Rev: EPI %EP MENE%TRATIANOU [ARX A?] to their eastern tour from late 175 to 176 C.E., and %ARDIANVN (D[I%], a; B, b) NEVKORVN Two conforms with a date around the time of Severus four-column temples, over each a wreath, em- Alexander for this inscription (below).78 The city’s peror? in each; between them, Lydian Kore on full titulature is given, but includes ‘many times neo- pedestal. a) Paris 1300 b) Vienna 32632. koros of the Augusti by the decrees of the sacred A gap occurs in the recording of neokoria on Sardis’ Senate.’ This wording is unique. The neokoroi were coinage with imperial portraits from after the reign generally meticulous about including the number of of Philip into that of Valerian; the bulk of the coins times that they had been given the honor, both on were issued with non-imperial obverses. This ex- inscriptions and on coins. The reason must be ei- plains why so few coins with portraits of Valerian ther that the correct title was still in adjudication, or Gallienus proclaim Sardis only twice neokoros. or that the Sardians did not wish to admit openly That would soon change, however, when Sardis that due to the condemnation of Elagabalus’ joined the many cities that had lost neokoriai for memory they, like many other cities, had lost a Elagabalus but regained the honor under Valerian. neokoria.79 The former is more likely, as the coins issued under Severus Alexander return with no sign of hesitation to the title ‘twice neokoros’ and the type Third Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus of the temple of Kore between the two imperial temples: Types 10 and 11 assure us that Sardis became three COIN TYPE 7. Obv: [...] AUR %E ALEJANDRO% times neokoros once more during the magistracy of Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus the magniloquent Dom(itius) Rufus, Asiarch, son of Alexander r. Rev: EPI [...]A[...] %ARDIANVN DI% a twice-Asiarch, the most powerful first archon, who NEVKORVN Three temples, each with wreath at served during the joint reign of Valerian and Gal- peak; side two six-column, an emperor in each; lienus, and whose coins appeared with both titles, center one four-column with arched entablature, twice and three times neokoros.81 Lydian Kore within. a) Oxford 17.57 (illus. pl. 24 COIN TYPE 10. Obv: fig. 92). AUT K P LIK GALLI- HNO% AU Radiate draped cuirassed bust of COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT K M AUR %E ALEJ- Gallienus r. Rev: EPI DOM ROUFOU A%IARX K ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of UIOU B A%IARX K KRATI%T AR A %ARDIANVN Severus Alexander r. Rev: EPI ARX G A%IN B NEVKORVN Three prize crowns on agonistic NEIKOMAXOU FROUG %ARDIANVN B NEVKO- table. a) SNGvA 8262. Lydian Kore and Demeter. a) Vienna 19587 RVN COIN TYPE 11. Obv: (illus. pl. 24 fig. 93). AUT K P LIK GAL- LIHNO% %E Radiate draped cuirassed bust of The coinage also confirms the chronology of inscrip- Gallienus r. Rev: EPI DOM ROUFOU A%IARX K tion 7, as after C. Asinnius Neikomachos Frugianus’ UIOU B A%IARX K KRAT ARX A %ARDIANVN G term as agoranomos he became archon of the city, NEVKORVN Three prize crowns on agonistic

77 Herrmann 1993b, 248-266 provided a full discussion of the family. 80 Münsterberg 1985, 148-149; Neikomachos’ grandfather 78 Halfmann 1986a, 212-216. is likely the Neikomachos named on coins of Marcus Aurelius. 79 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417. 81 For the magistrate, Herrmann 1993b, 257 n. 84. chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 113

table. a) Paris 1332 b) Vienna 33649 c) Berlin, the safety and victory of the lord of the inhabited Imhoof-Blumer. world Flavius Leo, eternal Augustus and emperor,” yet it is placed “in the most illustrious and twice It is noteworthy that festival types 10 and 11 both neokoros metropolis of the Sardians.” feature three prize crowns, though type 10 only Some who have dealt with this inscription have counts two neokoriai. This indicates once more that assumed that the continuation of the title ‘neokoros’ since coincidences between number of times meant the continuation of the imperial cult even in neokoros and the number of contests in other cities a Christian empire.84 One detail that stands in the may be coincidental, a direct connection between way of this interpretation, however, is the fact that neokoria and festivals should not be assumed with- the city is only twice neokoros. What happened to out direct evidence. the third neokoria re-granted by Valerian and Sardis can boast the last known document that Gallienus? The evidence is scanty, but the cases of called a city neokoros, up to one hundred fifty years Perge and Side tend to indicate that the neokoriai later than the latest ones otherwise, at Side, Synnada, they granted were not withdrawn, but even added and Sagalassos (qq.v.). The massive changes that to, in later years. Then why is that last known took place in that interval can be found in any his- neokoria of Sardis not counted in this inscription? tory of late antiquity.82 The Empire and its emper- To answer, we must ask how those who composed ors became Christian; the provinces were subdivided and engraved this inscription could have found out and administered by a complex hierarchy of impe- how many times Sardis was neokoros. If ‘neokoros’ rial officials; the cities, though they clung to the were an important title in common use or a source names of their old institutions, gradually lost admin- of civic pride, we might expect it to be common istrative, financial, and ultimately legal autonomy to knowledge that the correct number was three, or the central government. Independent civic coinage possibly more, but no less. The fact that the num- became a memory, and even the carving of civic ber is given as two argues not for continuity but for inscriptions dwindled away. Though Christianity discontinuity of the imperial cult. Those who set up had a deep effect, there was still some continuity in the inscription had forgotten exactly how many times culture, in education, in the manner of life; yet the neokoros Sardis was, and perhaps even what the title motives and the rationale behind all of these had meant. changed. A notable product of that change is Sardis This failure of memory contrasts with the long- inscription 12. held memory of the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos INSCRIPTION 12. Buckler and Robinson 1932, (q.v.). But that building, surely the city’s largest, had no. 18 (Le Bas-Waddington 628; CIG 3647). [t}w] been magnificent enough to be classed as a wonder lam(protãthw) Sard(ian«n) mhtropÒlevw (line 2) of the world, and may have stood substantially in- . . . §n tª lam(protãt_) ka‹ d‹w neokÒrvn tact to the eleventh century and beyond. Any temple Sard(ian«n) mhtrop(Òlei). . . (lines 4-5) that made Sardis three times neokoros, even if be- gun under Elagabalus, may have only been built in This inscription records an agreement and oath from the mid-third century, when unsettled political and a hereditary corporation of builders and artisans to economic conditions made any construction beyond the defensor of Sardis, an imperial overseer who, as defensive walls haphazard, if not impossible.85 If it defender of the common people, took many civic was ever finished, it does not seem to have impressed functions out of the hands of the city’s elite. Whether itself on the minds of the Sardians. owing to strikes or to contractual disputes, some How, then, did inscription 12 come up with the builders had apparently undertaken projects and title ‘twice neokoros’? The answer lies on the stone then abandoned or even obstructed work on them. itself. The agreement of the builders and artisans, The inscription lays out a system of contingencies for example, is inscribed on an old statue base of 83 and terms by which this problem could be solved. Septimius Severus. Such relics of the earlier empire The document is dated April 27, 459 C.E. and is were everywhere in the city, available for perusal and sworn to “by the holy and life-giving Trinity and by often reuse. The majority of them, however, named

82 A. Jones 1973 and MacMullen 1976 are still classic. 84 Buckler 1923, 36-48; see Hanfmann 1983, 193. 83 Foss 1976, 19-20, 110-113 no. 14. 85 S. Mitchell 1993, 2.238. 114 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Sardis twice neokoros, a title that the city held for 3. Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 178-179 no. 277 over a century at the time of its highest prosperity. (Foss 1986, 170-171 no. 4; SEG 36 [1986] 1095). Inscriptions of the third neokoria would naturally be Statue base of children of Kore, dated to 211 by rarer: that title was correct only from perhaps 220 dedication to Caracalla and Geta, the latter’s name or 221 to 222 during the reign of Elagabalus, and erased. by the time it was reinstated in the joint reign of 4. L. Robert 1967, 48 n. 6 (Foss 1986, 171 no. 5; Valerian and Gallienus, probably just before 260, SEG 36 [1986] 1096). Statue base of Caracalla, prob- few inscriptions were being set up. It is no accident ably dated to his sole rule (212-217), as the epithet that of Sardis’ eight inscriptions citing neokoria ‘relative of the lord emperor’ is singular not plural; (where enumeration is preserved, and other than this the two neokoriai of the Augusti are by decrees of last one), only one records the city as three times the Senate. neokoros.86 5. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 63 (Cichorius In fact the source of the titulature may have been 1889, 371-373 no. 3; IGRR 4:1528; corrections by right above the builders’ noses. Members of their L. Robert 1940, 56-59). Sardis is twice neokoros of corporation must have been involved in the various the Augusti by decrees of the Senate. Similar in form renovations and building projects of the bath/gym- to inscription 4 except for added titles ‘sacred’ and nasium complex at Sardis from the late fourth ‘first of Hellas.’ The more grandiose formulae are through the fifth century. Perhaps the most exten- peculiar to Caracalla’s reign, but Bowersock 1995, sive of these renovations was commemorated in a 85-98 tried to redate inscription 5 to Lucius Verus’ long inscription, dated in the middle to late fifth time. For a rebuttal, see SEG 45 (1995) no. 2353. century, around the podium of the ‘marble court.’87 6. Sardis inventory no. IN 74.7, unpublished. And just above, on the entablature, ran the great Titulature similar to no. 5; again, the neokoriai are dedication inscription from the joint reign of Cara- by decrees of the Senate. calla and Geta, cited above, calling Sardis ‘metro- Many times neokoros: polis of Asia and twice neokoros of the Augusti.’ 7. Herrmann 1993b, 248-266 no. 2 (Sardis inven- Despite its best efforts, Sardis appears to have tory no. IN 82.16). Probably dated to Severus been fated to go down the centuries as only twice Alexander’s reign, 222-235 C.E. See text above. neokoros. But thanks to that error, we can recog- Neokoria of indefinite number: nize that the last known document of the neokoria 8. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 64 (CIG 3464; commemorates not the survival of the imperial cult, SEG 4:638; IGRR 4:1516; corrections by L. Robert but an attempt to recapture the glories of the past. 1929, 138 n. 2). Fragment of honorific. Titulature By the mid-fifth century, the title ‘neokoros’ was a other than neokoria similar to that of inscription 7; Herrmann 1993b, 240-241, time of Severus dead letter. Alexander–Gordian III? 9. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 70. Fragment; neokoria by decrees of the Senate. Titulature other INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: than neokoria similar to that of inscription 7; Herrmann 1993b, 240-241, time of Severus Alex- Twice neokoros: ander–Gordian III? 1. S. Johnson 1960, 10 no. 4 (Hanfmann and 10. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 67. Fragment. Ramage 1978, 178 no. 276; Foss 1986, 169-170 no. 11. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 69. Fragment. 2; SEG 36 [1986] 1093). Dedication to Lucius Verus, Twice neokoros: probably ca. 166. See text above. 12. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 18. From the 2. Foss 1986, 170 no. 3 (SEG 36 [1986] 1094; reign of Leo, dated 459 C.E. See text above. Herrmann 1993b, 233-248 no. 1). Inscription of ‘marble court,’ dated to 211 by dedication to Caracalla and Geta, the latter’s name erased. See COINS CITING NEOKORIA: text above.

86 Twice neokoros: Sardis inventory no. IN 76.4, unpublished: Herrmann Albinus Caesar: BMC 146; Berlin, London, Vienna. 1993b, 252 n. 63. 87 Foss 1976, 40, 113-114 nos. 15, 16; Hanfmann 1983, 160; Septimius Severus: SNGvA 3155; SNGRighetti 1087; Ber- Foss 1986, 171-172 no. 8. lin, Paris (4 exx.). chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 115

Julia Domna: BMC 147-157; SNGCop 529, 530; SNGvA Julia Mamaea: SNGvA 8260; SNGRighetti 1090; Paris (5 3156, 3157, 8256; SNGTüb 3815-3816; H. W. Bell exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). 1916, 299; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKen- Maximinus: BMC 180; H. W. Bell 1916, 302; Berlin (2 zie, and Bates 1981, 53-54 nos. 293-296; Berlin (9 exx.), Paris, Vienna (2 exx.). exx.), Boston (2 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford (3 Maximus Caesar: BMC 181; Paris (2 exx.), Vienna. exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (8 exx.). Gordian III: BMC 182, 184-191; SNGCop 535-538; SNGvA Geta Caesar: BMC 168; SNGvA 3162; Berlin, Paris. 3163, 8261; SNGTüb 3824, 3825; H. W. Bell 1916, Caracalla: BMC 158, 162-167, 214; SNGCop 531-534; 303, 304; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, SNGvA 3159-3161; SNGTüb 3818-3821; SNGLewis and Bates 1981, 56 nos. 310, 311; Berlin (12 exx.), 1511; SNGRighetti 1088, 1089; H. W. Bell 1916, 300; Boston (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.). Bates 1981, 54 nos 297-299; Berlin (10 exx.), Bos- Tranquillina: BMC 192-195; SNGRighetti 1091; H. W. Bell ton (3 exx.), London, New York, Oxford (2 exx.), 1916, 305; Berlin (4 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (2 Paris (16 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Macrinus: Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, Non-imperial obverses, time of Gordian III: BMC 89; and Bates 1981, 54 no. 300; Berlin, Boston, Paris. Berlin (2 exx.), Paris (2 exx.). Diadumenian: BMC 169. Philip I: BMC 196-199; SNGCop 539; Berlin (4 exx), Elagabalus88 (C. Sal. Claudianus archon for the second Boston (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris time): BMC 159-161; SNGvA 8257; Johnston in (3 exx.). Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 55 Otacilia: BMC 200, 201; Paris (3 exx.), Vienna. nos. 301-304; Berlin (8 exx.), Boston, New York (2 Philip II Caesar: BMC 202-205; SNGCop 540-542; exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Three times neokoros: Bates 1981, 57 nos. 312, 313; Berlin (5 exx.), New Elagabalus (S. Ulp. Hermophilos first archon for the York, Oxford (6 exx.), Paris (9 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). second time): BMC 170-172; SNGvA 8295; SNGTüb Philip II Augustus: New York. 3822; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, Non-imperial obverses, time of Philip: London, Paris. and Bates 1981, 55-56 nos. 305-306; Berlin, Boston Gallienus (Dom. Rufus, Asiarch): SNGvA 8262. (2 exx.), London (2 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (3 Non-imperial obverses, twice neokoros: BMC 83, 84, 90- exx.). 92, 94-96; SNGCop 511-513; SNGvA 3141; SNGLewis Julia Soaemias: BMC 173. 1512; SNGRighetti 1081; H. W. Bell 1916, 275, 276, Julia Maesa: BMC 174; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, 278; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 56 no. 307; Berlin (3 Bates 1981, 47-48 nos. 260, 261, 264-266; Berlin (12 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna. exx.), Boston, London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford Severus Alexander Caesar: Oxford, Vienna. (7 exx.), Paris (18 exx.), Vienna (8 exx.). Twice neokoros: Three times neokoros: Severus Alexander (archons Damianos, C. Asin. Valerian (Dom. Rufus, Asiarch): BMC 206, 207; SNGvA Neikomachos Frug.): BMC 175-179; SNGTüb 3823; 3164; SNGTüb 3826; Berlin, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna. Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Gallienus: Berlin (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna. Bates 1981, 56 nos. 308, 309; Berlin; Oxford; Paris Salonina: BMC 208-211; SNGCop 543, 544; SNGvA 3165; (2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 57 no. 314; Berlin (4 exx.), New York, Oxford, Paris, Vienna. 88 Elagabalus is often misidentified as Caracalla on these Non-imperial obverses, three times neokoros: Berlin (2 coins. exx.). 116 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 7. AIZANOI IN PHRYGIA: KOINON OF ASIA

Neokoria of Zeus: Commodus The temple of Zeus, which still stands in great part today, apparently formed the centerpiece of a whole Coins and inscriptions of Aizanoi agree in proclaim- new urban plan for Aizanoi.6 The date of this plan ing the city to be neokoros of Zeus, though both do can be postulated from the remains of the temple’s so only rarely. Starting from the reign of Commo- foundation documents, preserved on its north dus, the documents make this the first official neoko- pronaos wall. The income from cleruchic land, al- ria for a deity yet known; though in Acts of the Apos- lotted to Zeus by decisions of kings of Pergamon and tles 19.35 a magistrate of Ephesos had earlier hailed Bithynia, had lapsed, and a reorganization was his city as neokoros of Artemis (q.v.), that was not undertaken under Hadrian; the emperor himself yet an official title. Aizanoi is so far the only city wrote letters concerning it, and they were proudly known to have been neokoros of Zeus. inscribed on the walls of the new temple.7 New Two coin types mention neokoria in their legends, boundary stones had been laid out in 127/128 C.E., both showing the mature, bearded portrait of and the return of income no doubt paid for the new Commodus likely to date from Saoteros’ fall in 182 temple of Zeus and prompted the city’s reorganiza- (see ‘Nikomedia,’ chapter 15) to the end of Com- tion and renewal.8 This fostering of Hellenic civic modus’ reign, in 192. life is typical of Hadrian, and it is probably no co- COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU KAI M AURH KOMO- incidence that the cult of Zeus at Aizanoi got this DO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Commo- boost at the same time as that of Zeus Olympios at dus r., bearded. Rev: AIZANEITVN NEVKORVN Athens. Later, a prominent citizen and descendant TOU DIO% Seated mother goddess with tympanum of a family deeply involved in the temple’s building holds the infant Zeus, a lion at her feet; three would represent Aizanoi in Hadrian’s Panhellenion Korybantes around her.1 a) Boston 1973.606. in Athens.9 The blocks of the pronaos’ southern and door COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU KAI M AURH KOMO- walls are missing, and would likely have been as DO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Commodus r., carefully inscribed as its north wall was.10 Names bearded. Rev: AIZANEITVN NEVKORVN TOU 2 that probably stood among the missing documents DIO% Zeus with sceptre and eagle. a) Paris 241 can now be restored from inscriptions found else- (illus. pl. 24 fig. 94). where in the city.11 Surely M. Ulpius Appuleius The imagery of these types refers to the cult of Zeus Flavianus and his family were among them, as a as practiced in Aizanoi: his birth to the mother letter from Antoninus Pius honoring his grandson goddess, Meter Steuene, in the grotto Steunos south Eurykles was among the preserved documents on the of the city;3 his adult manifestation; and on another north outer wall of the pronaos.12 A prominent citi- coin his open-air cult place: a high column on which an eagle perches, flanked by an altar and a tree.4 Zeus’ cult was important enough to win asylos sta- tus as well as the neokoria for Aizanoi.5 6 R. Naumann 1979; Rheidt 1995, 715; Gros 1996-2001, 1.183. 7 Smallwood 1966, 165-166 no. 454; Laffi 1971. 1 Von Aulock 1968, 48 pl. 3.9. 8 Levick 1987; Levick, S. Mitchell and Potter 1988, xxiii- 2 Babelon 1898, no. 5581. xxix; Winter 1996, 89-90. 3 Roller 1999, 189, 336-341. 9 C. Jones 1996, 35-36, 41. 4 L. Robert 1981a, 352-353; J. and L. Robert, Revue des études 10 R. Naumann 1979, 34-36. grecques (1982) 406 n. 399. 11 F. Naumann 1985; Wörrle 1992. 5 Rigsby 1996, 447-448; see inscriptions 1 and 2, below. 12 Oliver 1989, 321-322 no. 155. chapter 7 – AIZANOI IN PHRYGIA 117 zen of Aizanoi, Appuleius Flavianus undertook with eight columns on the facades and fifteen along embassies to Rome, likely concerning the cleruchic the sides.15 Its stylobate was approximately 21.5 x land income. He also held the koinon position of 36.5 m. It stood on a high podium, broached only chief priest of Asia for the temples at Pergamon (the by an eastern staircase; atop the podium, and pre- plural showing that his post was held after 114-116 sumably giving access to the temple on all sides, was C.E. when Pergamon was made twice neokoros). He a seven-stepped krepis, unfortunately omitted from passed his civic interests down to his son: M. Ulpius this plan. The temple stood in its own colonnaded Appuleianus Flavianus was priest of Zeus for life and court (130.5 x 112 m., illus. pl. 5 fig. 21), and was agonothetes (and likely founder) of the first-ever Deia approached from an enclosed courtyard or agora 95 contest held in Aizanoi in Zeus’ honor. In the next m. square, whose entry aligned with the temple generation, Eurykles became his city’s representa- court’s original entry stairway (later a propylon), the tive to the Panhellenion in Athens, and this honor altar, and the east door into the cella itself. stands among the foundation documents of the The cella, with four composite columns set be- temple at Aizanoi, giving Naumann his closing date fore its porch, faced east and was dedicated to Zeus. for the building of the temple. The grandfather’s The west-facing opisthodomos had two more com- advocacy for the temple and the father’s role in posite columns in antis, and contained two doors that starting the Deia festival help to explain the son’s led via stairs to the roof, or down to an underground prominent place in the temple documentation. It is vault that was likely the domain of the mother god- 16 also possible that either the grandfather or the fa- dess. No remains of cult statues or hints at their 17 ther of Eurykles may have helped to get other hon- arrangement have been found. ors for his city and temple at the same time, perhaps That Zeus had had some sort of shrine even even the title ‘neokoros’ itself. One cannot date the before the completion of this temple is shown by careers exactly; the grandfather reached the provin- coins from the time of Domitian that portray Zeus 18 cial summit of chief priesthood of Asia sometime in a four-column Ionic temple. These coins indi- after 114, and his grandson’s activities stretch from cate the temple’s lintel as either flat or arched to show the cult image within; the arched facade also Antoninus Pius’ reign to Commodus’. One would 19 imagine that the new title, and perhaps the Deia appears on coins of Hadrian. In the reign of Anto- festival, followed the confirmation of land rights and ninus Pius an eight-column facade with a disc in- the building of the new temple under Hadrian; but stead of a cult statue within it appears, possibly absolute certainty is not yet possible. celebrating the completion of the new temple. Af- According to Naumann’s analysis of the docu- ter Marcus Aurelius’ accession, however, the type reverts back to Zeus in his four-column arched ments inscribed on its cella wall, the temple of Zeus shrine. It may be that the four-column structure rep- was built between 126 and 157, in the reigns of resents an aediculum rather than the full-scale Hadrian and Antoninus Pius.13 Strocka’s wide-rang- temple; more likely, it is shorthand for a temple, and ing studies of Hadrianic architecture in Asia Minor, the arch is a convention that allows the cult statue however, categorize the temple’s architecture and to be displayed more prominently.20 details as too all-of-a-piece to have been produced over such a stretch of time. He agreed with Nau- mann in associating its origins with a confirmation of land rights for the cult of Zeus and the mother 15 R. Naumann 1979, passim. goddess after 125/126; but he preferred to date the 16 R. Naumann 1986 defended these identifications. start of work in 128 or 129, and the finish within 17 R. Naumann 1986, however, placed a small statue of only a few years.14 Presumably, then, there was space Kybele (i.e., the mother goddess) centrally in the underground vault; reports of an aediculum in the cella are the result of a left on the cella’s walls for subsequent inscriptions misinterpretation of the opisthodomos wall (R. Naumann 1979, to be carved. 18). The temple of Zeus at Aizanoi (illus. pl. 3 fig. 13) 18 R. Naumann 1979, 63-64 would consider restoring an earlier temple west of the Doric courtyard which abuts and was an impressive Ionic pseudodipteral structure enters the new temple’s courtyard at the southeast corner; this suite would have provided a model for the new temple and the agora that approaches it. 13 R. Naumann 1979, 36, 65-75. 19 Von Aulock 1979, nos. 43, 44, 49, 53, 54, 57, 59. 14 Strocka 1981, 29-30 and n. 83. 20 Drew-Bear 1974; M. Price and Trell 1977, 19-33. 118 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Neither of the two known coin types that use cial temples, even though that temple had gained ‘neokoros’ in their legends explicitly refers to this its city the title of ‘neokoros.’ This is despite the fact temple, nor do they appear to celebrate a new grant that some dedications pair honors to the emperors of neokoria. It is therefore possible that the title was with those to Zeus.22 The distinction between cities given earlier, perhaps when the Hadrianic temple that were neokoroi for the emperors and those that was completed. That it was retained after Commo- were neokoroi for gods also meant that the former’s dus’ death is shown by the two inscriptions, one temples (at least, in the five metropoleis of Pergamon, certainly and the other probably of Severan date, Smyrna, Ephesos, Kyzikos, and Sardis)23 were ad- which call Aizanoi neokoros of Zeus. ministered by officials of the koinon, while the latter’s probably continued to be run by their own priest- INSCRIPTION 1. Le Bas-Waddington 988 (CIG hoods. Though Appuleius Flavianus and Eurykles 3841d; IGRR 4:567). Base of statue of Caracal- both held chief priesthoods of Asia, neither held that la dated to 198-210. { ~ bou[l]Ø ka‹ nevkÒr[ow] office in their own city, as could most likely have | ¸ t[oË D]iÚw erÚw ka‹ [êsul]ow [A] [zaneit«n] been arranged if Aizanoi had had a koinon temple.24 d} mow. . . To sum up, neokoria for a god appears to have INSCRIPTION 2. Le Bas-Waddington 875 (CIG been an honor that was only to be assumed by per- 3841g; IGRR 4:581). Fragment of a seat from the mission of the authorities, but was metaphorical in temple area, Severan letter forms. [t}w |erçw ka‹] value. The city that received it was assured that even ésÊlou ka‹ [nevkÒro]u toË DiÚw [A¸zanei]t«n if it lacked a provincial imperial temple, its own pÒlevw [{ filos°ba]stow boulØ [ka‹ ~ lam- patron god’s temple was as renowned as any of the prÒta]tow d}mow. . . provincial temples and that its status was to be com- pared to that of the other neokoroi. The question must arise, was this neokoria for the chief god of a city sanctioned by the Roman authori- ties, or was it simply assumed by Aizanoi with no INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: need for official approval? The latter has been as- sumed, but there is in fact no explicit evidence that Neokoros of Zeus: any city could use the title ‘neokoros’ as a result of 1. Le Bas-Waddington 988 (CIG 3841d; IGRR its own decision, and there is some indirect evidence 4:567). Base of Caracalla. See text above. that it could not.21 2. Le Bas-Waddington 875 (CIG 3841g; IGRR 4:581). Only three cities—Aizanoi, Ephesos, and Mag- Severan? See text above. nesia—are known to have ever called themselves neokoroi of a divinity. If it were a title that any city could claim, why did not more do so? Yet even COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Ephesos (q.v.), which in one literary source had been called neokoros of Artemis as early as the middle of Neokoros of Zeus: the first century, did not use the title for its god once Commodus: Boston, Paris.25 ‘neokoros’ became an official title connected with the koinon temples of emperors. Only later would Ephesos become officially neokoros of Artemis, and then it would only be by permission of the emperor Caracalla himself. Thus it is probable that Aizanoi 22 Wörrle 1995b, 68-76. Fischler 1998, 166 n. 8 misinter- preted a priestly official neokoros as the title of the city. too would have needed imperial approval to call 23 See chapter 41, ‘The Koina,’ in Part II. itself neokoros of Zeus. 24 Campanile 1994a, nos. 110 and 110a. There is no evidence that the koinon of Asia 25 There has been some confusion due to coins of Aizanoi counted Aizanoi’s temple of Zeus among its provin- that mention the title ‘archineokoros,’ but this an individual’s, not the city’s, title: see Münsterberg 1985, 156. Both archineo- koroi and neokoroi for the temple of Zeus are well known at 21 Magie 1950, 637. Aizanoi. For the prominent status of these officials, see Levick 1987, 262, 267; Wörrle 1995a, no. 4; idem 1995b, 71-72. chapter 8 – laodikeia in phrygia 119

Chapter 8. Laodikeia in Phrygia: Koinon of Asia

In 26 C.E., during the competition among eleven preserves the name ‘Commodus’ or ‘Commodan,’ cities for the second koinon temple in Asia, the Robert reasoned that Commodus must have made Roman Senate eliminated Laodikeia (among others) Laodikeia neokoros, but that the title was withdrawn as unequal to the honor.1 Laodikeia may have been after his death and the (short-lived) condemnation a judicial center and a faithful ally, but the temple of his memory.5 of Tiberius, his mother, and the Senate went to one Barnes suggested that, since Commodus made of the greatest cities of the province, Smyrna.2 Only Nikomedia (q.v.) neokoros due to the influence of by the late second century did Laodikeia at last his chamberlain Saoteros, Laodikeia probably got achieve the title of ‘neokoros.’ the honor for the same reason, via Saoteros’ succes- Many of Laodikeia’s monuments (theaters, an sor Cleander.6 The Historia Augusta, Commodus 7.1, amphitheatral stadium, bath/gymnasium complexes) records that one of Cleander’s last actions was to are still only lightly covered with earth, permitting have Arrius Antoninus condemned on false charges a fairly accurate appraisal of the ruins from the sur- as a favor to one Attalos, whom Antoninus, as pro- face.3 Where excavation has taken place, results have consul of Asia, had judged against. Barnes identi- been rewarding, as for example in the discovery of fied this Attalos as P. Claudius Attalos, the son of an unusual nymphaeum.4 Recent surveys have even the orator Polemon of Smyrna (q.v.). Like his father, revealed what may have been the site of a ceremony he was a sophist and a citizen of both Smyrna and held by the emperor Caracalla himself (below). the smaller Laodikeia. Did he get the neokoria for Laodikeia as his father had for Smyrna? The influ- ence in this case, however, would be indirect (Attalos First Neokoria: Commodus/Caracalla influenced Cleander, who influenced Commodus), where for Nikomedia it was direct (Saoteros got Regarding the establishment of the neokoria, how- Commodus to make his own home city, not some- ever, one of Laodikeia’s most important documents one else’s, neokoros). We must also wonder why, if has already come to light: Attalos’ influence at court was so great, Arrius Anto- ninus dared to pass an unfavorable judgment on INSCRIPTION 1. Corsten 1997 (= IvL) no. 45; him. Did this seasoned official willingly martyr him- L. Robert 1969b, 281-289 no. 5. Fragment of self for the sake of his principles?7 Though not statue base. Original inscription: { [ _ne]okÒrow´ impossible, the case for Attalos’ obtaining the neoko- Engraved over erasure: La[odik°vn pÒ]liw. . . ria for Laodikeia (as well as revenge against Anto- [fi]los°bastow ninus for himself) is tenuous, but would date the This inscription was masterfully explicated by Louis grant to 185-189, the time of Cleander’s greatest Robert, who noticed that though it referred to Lao- influence. dikeia as ‘Augustus-loving,’ that title was engraved But there is an important piece of evidence that over an erasure, from the traces of which Robert suggests that the honor was granted very early in read the title ‘neokoros.’ As the inscription also Commodus’ reign, not later. Laodikeia often issued coins that celebrated its concord with other Asian

1 Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56; see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ 2 Mileta 1990, 440-442. 5 L. Robert 1969b, 281-289; detail pl. 112. See also S. Price 3 Bean 1971, 247-257; YÌldÌz 1994; Traversari 2000 (with 1984b, 264-265. color aerial photos). 6 Barnes 1969. 4 Des Gagniers 1969; for a critique, Sperti 2000, 40. 7 Pflaum 1972, 212-216, 246-247. 120 part i – section i. koinon of asia cities, but on only one occasion did it mint for a he was still three times imperator, between October Bithynian city: coins with obverses of Commodus as 213 and an unknown month of 214; his fourth (un- Lucius, thus dated before October 180, and of official) acclamation would come with his campaign Crispina, whom he married in 178, show that the against the Parthians.13 two cities shared some important connection at this INSCRIPTION 2. Moretti 1968, IGUrbRom 37 time.8 It is most likely that both became neokoros (IG 14:1063; IGRR 1:130). Statue base, from for Commodus early in his reign, and Laodikeia Rome. { issued the coins commemorating this bond. Niko- [ ] Laodik°vn t«n prÚw t“ LÊkƒ media’s neokoria was so strongly tainted by associa- ne[vkÒrvn] pÒliw . . . tion with Saoteros that it was withdrawn during The restoration of neokoria to Laodikeia thus an- Commodus’ own lifetime, after 182. It is doubtful tedates the Parthian campaign, though it has often that Laodikeia would choose to issue coins for the been connected with Caracalla’s presence on the embarrassed city after that point. Laodikeia’s, how- eastern front.14 ever, may have been associated with the emperor, Later Laodikeia celebrated the renewal of its not with his satellites. Its loss and eventual restora- neokoria, among other things, with a special issue tion might reflect what happened to Commodus. of coins labeled ‘year 88’ or ‘the eighty-eighth,’ with On the last day of the year 192, Commodus was obverse portraits of Caracalla and his mother Julia assassinated by a palace plot. The next day, January Domna; reverse types show temples within the city: 1, 193, he was declared a public enemy, his statues COIN TYPE 1. Obv: torn down and mutilated, his name erased from all AUT K M AUR ANTV- Laureate draped cuirassed bust of public and private records.9 This act meant that NEINO% Caracalla r. Rev: Laodikeia’s temple of Commodus, as well as the part LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO Three temples on high podia; side two two- of the Deia Kommodeia festival that celebrated his cult PH column and turned toward the center, in one a along with that of Zeus, were officially wiped out.10 female or togate figure, in the other a male with As enforcement was spotty, especially far from sceptre; the center temple four-column, male fig- Rome, one cannot tell how far the Laodikeians went ure with sceptre within. a) SNGvA 3858. in expunging their cult of Commodus. Tarsos (q.v.) seems to have regained its neokoria COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV- for Commodus as soon as the reign of Septimius NEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus, who claimed Commodus as his brother and Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN T PH thus rehabilitated his memory.11 Laodikeia’s docu- Six-column temple with arched entablature and ments, however, only show the return of the Deia pagoda-like roof, togate emperor with phiale Kommodeia festival under Severus.12 Its neokoria within. a) Paris 1611 (illus. pl. 25 fig. 95). would not return to sight until the sole rule of that COIN TYPE 3. Obv: emperor’s son, Caracalla. Titulature that is almost AUT K M AUR ANTVNEI- Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla certainly that of Caracalla on Laodikeia’s inscrip- NO% r. Rev: Six- tion 2 shows that the neokoria had returned while LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO PH column Ionic temple with arcuated lintel, cuirassed emperor with sceptre and phiale on pedestal within. a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer (illus. 8 Kienast 1996, 147-150; Franke and Nollé 1997, 107, 117 pl. 25 fig. 96).15 nos. 1152-1158; Weiss 1998, 64. 9 Cassius Dio ep. 74.2.1-3; Historia Augusta, Commodus 18- If type 3 is not a reworked version of type 2, the 20; Varner 1993, 295-317. 10 L. Robert 1969b, 283-284. Karl 1975, 80-81 suggested deliberate distinctions between the imperial images that the contest’s name meant that Commodus became a cult within the temples should indicate that two separate partner in Zeus’ temple, but this is unnecessary: such festival names are agglutinative. See Miranda 1992-1993, 75-76. 11 Merkelbach 1979. Kommodeia (coupled with Antoneina, with Deia, and with other 12 On coins: Berlin; Paris (2 exx., one of them Babelon 1898, festivals), see below. no. 6295). S. Mitchell 1993, 1:221: “Commodeia at Laodi- 13 Kienast 1996, 162-165. cea...were renamed Severeia,” overinterpreted Robert in imply- 14 Levick 1969, 433-434 no. 43; Johnston 1983, 70 no. 43. ing that the name of Commodus was lost. For the survival of 15 Imhoof-Blumer 1901-1902, 273 no. 49; there are several unusual features of its module and types which led Bernhard chapter 8 – laodikeia in phrygia 121 emperors are intended. Type 1 shows three temples, ‘Eighty-eight’ on these issues has been interpreted and if coins like Ephesos’ inspired this type, the side as the year 88, indicating a Laodikeian era that prob- temples should be those of the emperors (unfortu- ably started with a documented visit by Hadrian in nately faint, but the figure in the left temple is per- 129 C.E.16 If so, the eighty-eighth Laodikeian year haps togate, while the right one does appear to be would be mid-August 215 to mid-August 216. It is cuirassed). The center temple, like Ephesos’ of Arte- not impossible that the celebration was connected mis, may be that of Laodikeia’s patron god, Zeus with Caracalla’s passage through Asia Minor on his Laodikeus, though all that can be seen of the central way to the Parthian War. But it should be noted that figure is that it is male and holds a spear or sceptre, the coin types of ‘eighty-eight’ refer more to the city’s while Zeus Laodikeus generally carries an eagle as temples and festivals than they do to the imperial well. A possible alternative is offered by coins issued presence. Instead, undated issues in the name of the at the same time that emphasized festivals rather Asiarch P. (or L.) Aelius Pigres (minted with obverse than temples. heads of Julia Domna, of Caracalla, and of the ‘People of Laodikeia neokoroi,’ in this case a rec- COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU [K M] AU ANTVNEI- ognizable portrait of Caracalla) are the ones whose NO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla reverse types indicate Caracalla’s presence and ac- r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO PH Three tivities in the area. prize crowns, center one labeled ANTVNIA, right Coins of Pigres show Caracalla in a chariot, but one [KO]M[ODIA], left one obscure; all on ago- instead of commonplace horses he is drawn by li- nistic table, its edge labeled [. . .]EIA, three ons or centaurs; sometimes he rides a horse over a amphorae below. a) Vienna 34019. fallen enemy.17 These are generic representations for COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR AN- a triumphant emperor, but other Laodikeian issues of Pigres are more specific and hint at a possible visit TVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust by the emperor to Laodikeia itself, which after all of Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO seems to have been the site of a temple to his cult PH Prize crown with palms, labeled ANTVNHNA, and two purses on agonistic table, its edge labeled that made the city neokoros. A%KLHPEIA, amphora with palms and the word COIN TYPE 7. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR ANTV- PUYIA below. a) Paris 1617 (illus. pl. 25 fig. NEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of 97). Caracalla r. Rev: EPI L AIL PIGRHTO% A%IAR LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Veiled, togate emperor COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR AN- stands between Zeus Laodikeus and Asklepios. a) TVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust London 1970.9-9-125. of Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO PH Prize crown with palms, labeled ANTVN, (and COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR ANTV- two purses, bc) on agonistic table, its edge labeled NEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of KOMODEIA (KOMODO%, c), hydria with palms Caracalla r. Rev: EP[I AIL PIG]RHTO% A%IAR below. a) BMC 230 b) Paris 1616 c) Vienna 34278. LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Emperor, togate with phiale over tripod, presides at sacrifice before Type 4 shows three prize crowns just as type 1 eight-column Ionic temple with three openings in showed three temples, but unfortunately only the the pediment; at his side two city goddesses hold- center one is legible, and it proclaims the Antonia or ing statues; to the left, attendants (accompanied Antoneina festival for Caracalla. Types 5 and 6 both by aulos-player) slaughter a bull before a military show the Antoneina prize crown alone, but the name of the Komodeia festival for Commodus is added to the table upon which the crown sits on type 6, whereas type 5 has Asklepieia/Pythia instead. Thus Weisser of the Berlin Münzkabinett to suspect it of being false or recut. My thanks to Dr. Weisser for his communication in Asklepios, whose festival was being celebrated on the this matter (letter of 19 Dec. 2002). same coins of ‘eighty-eight’ as those for Caracalla 16 Leschhorn 1993, 382-385; despite the doubts of L. Robert and Commodus, may be the figure in the center 1969b, 263. Duke 1953, no. 11, misdated the era to 124 and was justifiably blasted by J. and L. Robert in Bulletin Épigraphique temple. 1954, no. 231, but inexplicably followed by Johnston 1983, 70 122 part i – section i. koinon of asia

standard.18 a) Berlin 664/1914 (illus. pl. 25 fig. resembles that pictured on coin type 9. The model 99). for the design was likely the imperial fora of Rome, and the use of spiral columns indicates a date after COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR AN- the mid-second century. But until full excavations Laureate draped cuirassed bust TVNEINO% %EB are done, it remains uncertain whether this complex of Caracalla r. Rev: L AIL PIGRH% A%IARXH% was extant at the time of Caracalla. It is even more In a G ANEYHKEN LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN uncertain whether this temple is one of those that two-column temple within a rectangular precinct made Laodikeia neokoros, as Sperti hypothesized. (seen from above), the emperor holds a wreath to- Though the legend on the ‘forum’ coin includes that ward citizens who advance from either side.19 a) title, so do most of the other coins of the city at that Boston 1971.45 (illus. pl. 25 fig. 100) b) BMC 227 time. The type, however, celebrates the emperor’s c) Oxford d) Paris 1689 e) Paris 1690 f) Paris 1695 presence and his honors to various men, likely in- g) Berlin h) Berlin 5182. cluding Pigres. Whether Caracalla stood on the steps Type 7 shows Caracalla greeted by Zeus Laodikeus of his own (or Commodus’) temple on a visit to and Asklepios, perhaps signifying a welcome to the Laodikeia cannot be assured. city, while type 8 shows him presiding at a sacrifice It is possible, then, that coin types 7-9 refer to an before a temple that resembles that of Artemis at imperial visit to Laodikeia.21 On the other hand, Ephesos or of Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia; two type 7 might represent a metaphor for the welcome city goddesses flank the emperor, but they are not that was sent by all the cities to the emperor on his specifically identifiable. Type 9 represents a bird’s route, whether he visited them or not; type 8 could eye view of a ceremony taking place in a forum-like refer to a sacrifice at Ephesos or Magnesia, not Lao- precinct whose sides are lined with an honor guard dikeia; and the scene on type 9 may have been of soldiers. On the steps of the two-column temple enacted elsewhere. Two thin and enigmatic figures at the far end stands the emperor, in military dress. that stand in the center of the columned facade of Five citizens in Greek himatia advance to salute him the ‘forum’ may possibly be the twin Nemeseis of and over the head of the foremost one, shown as Smyrna, which would set the ceremony in that city.22 bearded on example h, he holds a wreath. Not only And in the two outer spaces of the facade, figures is this representation unique, but this is the only seem to be raising their arms to snakelike ribbons reverse type that specifies that Pigres, Asiarch for the that hang from the columns, a detail that is hard to third time, ‘dedicated’ it. It may be that the citizen place in any particular location. In any case, Pigres’ being crowned is Pigres himself, that he wished his issues are not explicitly dated to the year of the honor to be commemorated, and that the ‘forum’ ‘eighty-eight’; Caracalla may have visited Laodikeia, pictured was in Laodikeia. but if so, the date remains uncertain. The survey team that worked at Laodikeia from The nature and objects of cult of the neokoria 1993 to 1999 located remains that resembled, at least declared on Laodikeian coins of the time of Cara- superficially, this ‘forum.’20 It consists of a large scalla are clarified by an extraordinary series of coins colonnaded temenos set on a major street near the minted subsequently under Elagabalus. city’s eastern gate. On a low podium at its back COIN TYPE 10. Obv: (north) wall was a monumental building, probably AUT K M AU ANTVN- Laureate draped cuirassed bust of a temple, with spiral-fluted columns set on square EINO% %EB Elagabalus r., beardless. Rev: bases. No excavations were carried out and no KOMODOU KE measurements given, but from the plans, the temple AN[TV]NEINOU LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN DOG- Emperor crowned by appears to have been about 20 m. on its long side, MA[TI] %UN[KL]HTOU eagle, between two captives; he holds statue of the temenos perhaps 30 x 65 m. The layout thus Zeus Laodikeus. a) Paris 1693. no. 43; though she, like the Roberts, corrected his addition. For Hadrian’s visit, see Halfmann 1986a, 193, 204. 17 Lions: BMC 225, Berlin 604/1913; centaurs: Paris 1688; on horseback: Paris 1604. 20 Sperti 2000, 91-92 (building 12), pls. 8, 18, 22. Plate 18 18 M. Price and Trell 1977, 129 fig. 226, incorrectly as six shows the temple actually projecting out of the temenos, but column. plan 22 shows its back wall as coterminous with that of the 19 Ibid. fig. 23. temenos. chapter 8 – laodikeia in phrygia 123

COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT K M AU ANTV- Laodikeia’s neokoria and the status of its contests in NEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of particular. Though types 11 and 12 show only two Elagabalus r. Rev: KOMODOU KE ANTVNEINOU temples, type 13 specifies four festivals (unfortunately LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Two four-column unnamed) as ‘worldwide’ and allies them with the temples turned toward each other. a) Berlin, (two?) temples under the rubric of the Senate’s de- Löbbecke (illus. pl. 25 fig. 98) b) Berlin 622/03. cree. Perhaps it is only that the Senate had finally confirmed Laodikeia’s unusual dual neokoria and the COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AUT K M AUR AN- status of the allied two imperial contests of the four Laureate draped cuirassed bust of TVNEINO% ‘worldwide’ ones it boasted. Whatever the details, Elagabalus r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN these coin types add valuable evidence that as late Two two-column tem- DOGMATI %UNKLHTOU as the third century, the Senate played a vital role ples on high podia turned toward each other, a in confirming the status of cities, including their figure in each. a) BMC 242 b) Paris 1615. neokoriai. COIN TYPE 13. Obv: IERO% DHMO% LAO- The question could be asked, how many times was DIKEVN Laureate draped bust of the People of Laodikeia truly neokoros? On none of its coins or Laodikeia r. Rev: NAOI AGVNE%; DOGMATI inscriptions does any enumeration appear before the %UNKLHTOU; OIKOUMENIKOI; LAODIKEVN title. The coins show the existence of two separate NEVKORVN Four prize crowns on agonistic table, temples, one for Commodus and the other for amphora below. a) SNGvA 8414. Caracalla, but type 1 adds a third, unidentified temple and type 13 refers to four festivals. It is just Type 10 declares “Laodikeia neokoros of Commo- remotely possible that Laodikeia was in fact twice dus and Antoninus by decree of the Senate.” Type neokoros, once for Commodus (a title perhaps re- 11 shows and identifies the two imperial temples, stored in the reign of Septimius Severus, as Tarsos’ each with a wreath, perhaps symbolizing a festival, was), then again for Caracalla. It seems odd, how- above it, and type 12 reiterates the Senate’s decree. ever, that a city in Asia, that hotbed of neokoroi, In fact, most of Laodikeia’s coins proclaim the city with a rival neokoros like Hierapolis not far away, neokoros by decree of the Senate at this time. Type should be so particular to claim that it was neokoros 13 states “temples, contests, by decree of the Sen- by Senatorial decree but fail to specify that it held ate, worldwide, of the neokoroi Laodikeians” and that honor twice over. More likely Laodikeia was illustrates a table with four prize crowns.23 only once neokoros but gained the title for unifying The reason for this insistence on the Senate’s a former cult of Commodus with that of his post- decree on coins of the time of Elagabalus is un- humously adopted nephew Caracalla during the known.24 Sardis, Smyrna, and Ephesos had often reign of the latter. No other city is known to have referred to themselves as neokoroi by the Senate’s been once neokoros for two different imperial decrees on inscriptions from about the time of the temples. joint reign of Caracalla and Geta. Under Elagabalus, Laodikeia continued to commemorate its two Ephesos also issued a coin which mentioned “these imperial temples, its festivals, and its title ‘neokoros’ (four) temples of the Ephesians by decree of the on coins down to the reign of Philip.25 Senate.” Perhaps there was some wide-ranging in- vestigation into the cities’ proper titulature or hon- COIN TYPE 14. Obv: M IOUL FILIPPO% ors after the reign of Macrinus; Laodikeia is not KAI%AR Draped cuirassed bust of Philip Caesar known to have issued any coinage that specified it r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Two two-col- as neokoros during that troubled time. Or perhaps umn temples on high podia, an emperor in each, there had been a challenge to the legitimacy of turned toward one another. a) Berlin, Imhoof- Blumer b) SNGvA 3864. A different Laodikeian coin type of Philip mentions 21 Lehnen 1997, 77-84, 182, 353, more on literary than visual evidence, and on the latter tending more to the late a ‘renewal,’ probably referring to a renewal of ties antique Roman than to the high empire in the provinces. 22 Halfmann 1986a, 228-229. 23 Karl 1975, 65 held the noun ‘temples’ (NAOI) equiva- lent to the adjective ‘sacred’ (IEROI) but gave no reason or uncommon in coin legends where much information must be precedent for it. I take it to be simply a case of asyndeton, not crammed onto a small surface. 124 part i – section i. koinon of asia of kinship with the other cities of Phrygia and of koros after the change. It is likely that it did, how- Caria (see below).26 ever, as even Synnada (q.v.), up in the central Just after the time of Philip, probably ca. 250 Phrygian highlands, could call itself twice neokoros C.E., Laodikeia’s region of Phrygia was detached at the end of the third century. from the province Asia and joined with Caria to become the independent province of Phrygia and Caria.27 Laodikeia, then, was separated from the INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: province for which it held its imperial temples and neokoria, and may have lost its primacy in the area Neokoros: to Aphrodisias.28 It is uncertain what, if anything, 1. IvL 45. Inscription of time of Commodus, with was done to regularize the situation. A fragment of ‘neokoros’ erased. See text above. a letter from an emperor or governor found at Lao- 2. IGUrbRom 37. Statue base from Rome, dated dikeia may refer to the rivalries of this time.29 October 213–214. See text above. Did the new province equip itself with a koinon? 3. IvL 50 (= CIG 3938, IGRR 4:863). Statue base, Some coins of Apamea mention a koinon of Phrygia, dated by neokoria after Caracalla. but they extend back as early as the reign of Nero, 4. IvL 135 (= L. Robert 1969b, 288; IGRR 4:859). and do not seem to extend the koinon’s sphere Fragment including the titulature ‘the emperor-lov- beyond Apamea itself.30 Another early text that ing neokoros metropolis of Asia, Laodikeia,’ dated distinguishes Phrygia from Asia is Acts of the Apostles by neokoria after Caracalla. 2.9-11, where a passage mentions Jews from “Cap- 5. IvL 136 (= CIG 3941). Fragment dated by padocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia.” neokoria, though it may refer to neokoroi officials Though the text is not exactly dated, it surely re- (as in IvL 53). fers to a time when Phrygia was administratively part of the province Asia; so ‘Asia’ can refer specifically to the Greek cities of the Aegean coast.31 Dräger COINS CITING NEOKORIA: attempted to date the new province of Phrygia and Caria’s existence as far back as the time of Caracalla, Neokoros: despite the fact that Laodikeia then still celebrated Caracalla: BMC 225-236; SNGCop 589-591; SNGvA 3856- the Koina Asias and called itself ‘metropolis of Asia’ 3862, 8418, 8419; SNGRighetti 1200, 1201; Berlin (25 (inscription 4). The coin type (BMC 228) he used as exx.), Boston (8 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (7 exx.), Paris (25 exx.), Vienna (6 evidence, however, only showed the city’s goddess exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.).32 between personifications of Phrygia and Caria, in Julia Domna: BMC 213-218, 221; SNGCop 583-586; whose borderlands Laodikeia indeed stood, just as SNGvA 3851-3854, 8417; SNGLewis 1608; SNGRighetti a similar coin type of the time (BMC 229) presented 1197; Berlin (13 exx.), London, New York (3 exx.), the same goddess between personifications of the Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). Non-imperial obverses, time of Caracalla: Berlin (2 exx.), city’s rivers, the Lykos and Kapros. The formation Oxford. of the province should remain dated to the 250’s, Elagabalus:33 BMC 228-245; SNGCop 595-597; Berlin (9 as above. Unfortunately, we have no documents of exx.), London, New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (7 any koinon of Phrygia and/or Caria (outside of the exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). Apamean one) organized after the new province, nor Annia Faustina: BMC 246; SNGCop 598; SNGvA 3863; SNGRighetti 1202; Berlin, Paris, Vienna. do we know how Laodikeia held its status of neo- Julia Maesa: BMC 247-250; SNGCop 599; SNGvA 8420; SNGLewis 1609; Berlin (7 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (3 24 Talbert 1984, 95-97; see chapter 42, ‘The Roman exx.). Powers,’ in Part II. Severus Alexander Caesar: BMC 251-253; SNGCop 600, 25 Deia Kommodeia and Koina Asias under Philip: SNGCop 606 (mistranscribed); SNGvA 8422. 26 Hecht 1968, 30 no. 9 (pl. 4.8, sic): reverse of the city goddess between Phrygia and Caria. For renewal of kinship ties between cities, see L. Robert 1977a, 119-129. For a mis- interpretation of ‘renewal’ and this coin type, see below, n. 30. 28 For a criticism of Roueché’s argument, Haensch 1997, 27 Roueché 1989a, 1-4; S. Mitchell 1993, 2:158. 297 n. 199. 29 IvL 10. chapter 8 – laodikeia in phrygia 125

601; Berlin (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Otacilia: BMC 254-258; SNGCop 602-605; SNGvA 3866; Vienna, Warsaw.34 Berlin (12 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford Non-imperial obverses, time of Elagabalus: SNGvA 8414; (3 exx.), Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.). Berlin, Paris. Philip the Younger: BMC 259-261; SNGCop 606-609; Philip: New York, Paris, private collection (Hecht).35 SNGvA 3864, 3865, 8421, 8422; SNGLewis 1611; Berlin (13 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (6 exx.), 30 Dräger 1993, 70-77. Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw. 31 Trebilco 1994, 302. Non-imperial obverses: BMC 126-132; SNGCop 540, 541; 32 Warsaw exx.: Corsten and Huttner 1996, nos. 29, 30. SNGvA 3832; SNGLewis 1610; SNGRighetti 1195; 33 See also Corsten and Huttner 1996, no. 31 (private Berlin (10 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris collection). (6 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). 34 Warsaw ex. incorrectly assigned to dates of sole reign by Corsten and Huttner 1996, no. 32. 35 See above, n. 26. Also Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 229 nos. 2370-2371, for an issue of Tripolis under Philip, celebrating concord with neokoros Laodikeia. 126 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 9. PHILADELPHIA IN LYDIA: KOINON OF ASIA

First Neokoria: Caracalla founds you” on the epistyle. The important phrase comes at the end of the emperor’s letter: “I do this In the case of Philadelphia, one document gives us gladly for your sake, on account of whom I have more information on its neokoria than we have for given even the neokoria itself to the Philadelphians.”2 cities with hundreds of coins and inscriptions. Phila- This phrase may explain why the letter was carved delphia inscription 1 gives the text of a letter from on a stele shaped like the new temple that Caracalla the emperor Caracalla to a man named Aurelius, had founded with his grant.3 It is also possible that whose cognomen, now established as beginning with the epistyle inscription represents an acclamation an M, has been erased: that was shouted in the theater, or even that the emperor was honored as kt¤sthw (presumably of the INSCRIPTION 1. Bartels and Petzl 2000 4 4 city) for granting the neokoria. It is unlikely, how- (Buresch 1898, 15-26 no. 13; IGRR 4:1619; SIG ever, that Caracalla actually contributed toward the 883). Stele in the form of a distyle Ionic temple temple’s construction.5 The imperial grant of neo- with rounded pediment, on its entablature: ÉAntv- koria was enough. ne›now se kt¤zei. Between the columns: AÈto- Aurelius M., whom Caracalla addressed as “most krãtvr Ka›sar Mçrkow AÈrÆliow ÉAntvne›now honored and beloved by me,” but whose name was EÈsebØw SebastÚw ParyikÚw m°gistow, Bretta- later erased, is otherwise unknown. As for Julianus, nikÚw m°gistow, GermanikÚw m°gistow AÈrhl¤ƒ that name frequently appears for magistrates on the _ . . . ´vi t“ timivtãtƒ xa¤rein: e¸ ka‹ mhde‹w coins of Philadelphia, including those of Geta Cae- a|re› lÒgow tÚn Filadelf°a ÉIoulianÚn épÚ t«n sar (before 209) and later under Elagabalus and Sardian«n e¸w tØn t}w patr¤dow metaye›nai Severus Alexander.6 This profusion of Juliani pro- filoteim¤an, éll' ˜mvw sØn xãrin {d°vw toËto hibits us from identifying any of the archons named poi«, di' ˜n ka‹ tØn nevkor¤an aÈtØn to›w F[il]a- on coins as the reluctant liturgist. We can be cer- delfeËs[in d°]dvka: ¶rrvso M_ . . . ´e, timi\tat° tain only that the neokoria was granted by Novem- moi ka‹ f¤ltate. ÉAnegn\syh §n t“ yeãtrƒ ¶touw ber 18 or 19, 214 C.E., when the letter to Aurelius sme', mhnÚw ÉApella¤ou e' é(piÒntow). M. was read in the theater.7 At that time, Caracalla 8 The letter concerns one Julianus, presumably a cli- was in Asia Minor for his Parthian campaign. No ent or relative of Aurelius M., who was to be allowed to perform a liturgy (likely provincial) in his home 2 Williams 1979, 87-88 found the fulsome language and city of Philadelphia and not in Sardis (the closest city emphasis on personal benefaction typical of Caracalla’s style. that had a provincial imperial temple).1 This bit of 3 Most authorities on this inscription have interpreted the business, though doubtless of importance to Julianus, second person (rather than first person) singular pronoun to mean the temple or the neokoria. See S. Price 1984b, 69 n. is not what caused the letter to be read out in the 61, 259. city’s theater and then inscribed on a 2 m. high 4 Bartels and Petzl 2000, 185; S. Mitchell 1987, 20-21. temple-shaped stele with the declaration “Antoninus 5 Winter 1996, 71, 335 no. 55; contra Guarducci 1969-1975, 119-120. 6 Münsterberg 1985, 145. 7 Bartels and Petzl 2000, 188; Philadelphia used the cal- 1 Oliver 1989, no. 263. The cognomen was supposed by endar of the Province Asia, which began the year on Augustus’ Buresch and all who followed him to be (another) Julianus: A. birthday. Note, however, that in Syria the Aktian era began Johnson, Coleman-Norton, and Bourne 1961, no. 279. Guar- in October 32/31, and the month Apellaios fell early in the ducci 1969-1975, 119-120 even believed that the addressee and year, thus still in 213: Jalabert, Mouterde, and Mondésert 1959, the liturgist were the same. The misinterpretation of this in- no. 2085, with a conjunction between Aktian and Seleucid eras. scription by White 1998, 343-344 was egregious. 8 Levick 1969, 432 no. 30; Johnston 1983, 68, though John- chapter 9 – philadelphia in lydia 127 visit to the city is specifically mentioned, however, 86 b) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer c) Berlin 28425 d) so we have no evidence of any particular motive for Berlin 5292 e) New York 71.279 (illus. pl. 26 fig. granting a neokoria to Philadelphia outside of the 101) f) SNGvA 3081. personal influence of Aurelius M. The figure that stands within and identifies this It is suggestive, however, that Aurelius’ petition temple is distinctive to Philadelphia: he wears a short to let a (koinon?) liturgy be fulfilled at Philadelphia tunic, perhaps a cuirass, a cloak, military boots, and rather than its grander neighbor Sardis was part of a radiate crown; he holds a short sceptre, shouldered the same package as a request for the neokoria for rather than raised. The catalogues identify him as his city. The petition implies that Julianus would Helios, but though that god does appear frequently need a temple in order to fulfill his liturgy, and that on Philadelphian coins he is generally shown naked Caracalla’s grant of neokoria would result in the and running, with rays in halo-fashion emanating foundation of a koinon temple which he could serve from around his head.10 The figure in this temple in Philadelphia. Julianus’ office is then unlikely to clearly wears a separate crown with parallel spikes have been agonothetes, since a provincial temple was attached, as Caracalla does on the antoniniani of his not necessary to a city that held a provincial con- reign, and though it is too small to be a real por- test; Philadelphia itself had already been the site of trait, its blunt features and stocky body hint at the Koina of Asia as early as the mid-second century.9 Caracalla rather than the idealized Hellenic Helios. Could the office have been a chief priesthood or All the Severans had frequently been associated with Asiarchy? Chief priests or Asiarchs are only speci- solar imagery; Caracalla (both with and without fied as having served in the temple(s) of five cities, Geta) was hailed as ‘new Helios’ at Ephesos.11 At later called the five metropoleis (below); if the other Philadelphia, Caracalla also appears as triumphator neokoroi cities had koinon officials to serve their in a frontal chariot like that of the sun god.12 It seems temples, we do not know their statuses or names. likely, then, that Caracalla was assimilated to Helios Inscription 1 also draws attention to the city’s (at least, in some attributes) in his temple at Phila- ambition, or rather, the ambition of the citizens for delphia. their city. Philadelphia was to be raised in rank, The same temple continues to appear on coins made equal to the other neokoroi, or at least to the of Severus Alexander, during the archonships of cities that had one neokoria. In 214, these would various Juliani: have been Kyzikos, Aizanoi (for Zeus), and perhaps Miletos and Laodikeia, all once neokoroi; while COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EUHR Pergamon, Sardis, and Smyrna were twice neokoroi, ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of and Ephesos alone, though its titles waxed and Severus Alexander r. Rev: EPI ARX A TIB IOUL waned, may have been three times neokoros. As will IOULIANOU FL FILADELFEVN NEVKORVN be seen below, the Philadelphians wished their city Four-column (Ionic, a) temple with arched enta- to rank among the highest as well as wanting their blature, within it emperor with attributes of provincial benefactions exercised in their own city, Helios. a) BMC 94 (illus. pl. 26 fig. 102) b) Paris not a neighboring one. 1019. Coins of Claudius Capito as archon are the first COIN TYPE 3. Obv: to show the new temple for which Caracalla made AUT K M AUR %EUHR Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Philadelphia neokoros. ALEJANDRO% Severus Alexander r. Rev: EPI IOUL ARI%TON COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT K M AUR %E AN- IOULIANOU ARX FL FILADELFEVN NEVKO- TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of RVN Four-column temple with arched entabla- Caracalla r., bearded. Rev: EPI KL KAPITVNO% ARX A FL FILADELFEVN NEVKORVN Four- 10 BMC 86; cf. BMC 73 (pl. 22:10) or SNGvA 3085. Yalouris column temple with arch in entablature, emperor and Visser-Choitz 1990, 1030 do not even distinguish between with radiate crown and sceptre within. a) BMC the naked Helios (no. 367) and the clothed emperor/Helios (no. 368). The only other sun god shown in military dress, that of Palmyra, has a rayed halo, not a radiate crown. 11 Bergmann 1998, 267-274, 277-281. On emperors in gen- ston 1982, 114, had previously misdated the grant to 212. See eral assimilated to Helios, Hijmans 1996, 147-149. Halfmann 1986a, 229. 12 Harl 1987, 46-47; for the coin of Capito found at Sardis, 9 Moretti 1954. see list below. 128 part i – section i. koinon of asia

ture, within it emperor with attributes of Helios. case at Hierapolis (q.v.), the designs of the Philadel- a) BMC 95 b) Paris R 3853 (1964) c) Berlin, phian coins carefully separate each of the two cit- Löbbecke d) SNGvA 3083. ies’ titles, with Smyrna receiving its full enumeration of neokoriai. The coins record the temple with at least four col- umns, and the best-preserved specimen distinguishes COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT K M ANT GORDIANO% them as Ionic, which agrees with the stele on which Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III r. inscription 1 was engraved. In all cases the temple Rev: FL FILA NEVK KE %MUR (ZMUR, b) G is shown with an arched entablature; and the stele, NEVK(OR, a) EPI (AUR, a) MARKOU ARX A TO though unfortunately never illustrated by those who B; OMON(OIA, a). Artemis (huntress, a; Anaitis, published it, is described as having a round-topped b17) between the two Nemeseis of Smyrna. a) BMC pediment filled with spiral ornament, and with a 119 b) SNGCop 393. decorated cornice.13 This agreement of two forms In 255 C.E. Philadelphia successfully petitioned of evidence, numismatic and sculptural, on some Valerian and Gallienus to be released from its con- round feature associated with the temple’s pediment, tribution to the metropoleis toward the support of hints that such a feature actually existed.14 An ex- the provincial chief priesthoods and festivals, on the ample of both an arcuated and a rounded pediment grounds that it had once (under Elagabalus) been a used on the same sacred building is the small metropolis itself.18 Just as when Julianus had trans- streetside shrine formerly known as the ‘temple of ferred his liturgy from Sardis to his home city and Hadrian’ in Ephesos (q.v.). Aurelius M. had requested the neokoria, Philadel- Philadelphian coins under Caracalla also feature phia was again trying to raise itself to the level of new agonistic types. Like the temple of Caracalla/ the highest cities of the province, Ephesos, Perga- Helios, they appear on coins that name Claudius mon, Smyrna, Sardis, and Kyzikos, the cities where Capito as archon, and either show the prize crowns the chief priests and/or Asiarchs served.19 Valerian’s of two festivals on an agonistic table or name the reply also hinted at this social-climbing aspect to the festivals themselves: the Deia for Zeus and the Haleia Philadelphians’ request, and warned them to take for Helios.15 There is no mention of the emperor’s their success in a modest spirit, as if the metropoleis name, though the abbreviation of festival names was themselves had agreed to it, and not as if it would usual on such small documents as coins. It is only be a deprivation to them or to any other city. This Caracalla’s assimilation to Helios, documented on warning shows that the emperor was fully aware of other coins, that possibly associates the temple for the discord that could arise from rivalry and ambi- which Caracalla gave Philadelphia the title ‘neoko- tion like the Philadelphians’. ros’ and the Haleia festival. As Philadelphia is not known to have issued coins with ‘neokoros’ in their legends under Macrinus, it INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: is impossible to tell whether its neokoria for Cara- calla was threatened or withdrawn by that emperor Neokoros: (see ‘Historical Analysis,’ chapter 38). 1. Bartels and Petzl 2000 (Buresch 1898, 15-20 no. Under Gordian III, Philadelphia as neokoros is- 13; IGRR 4:1619; SIG4 883). Grant of neokoria by sued coins of concord with Smyrna, three times Caracalla. See text above. neokoros. The two cities had issued earlier concord coins, under Commodus and the Severans, but this is the first to call both cities neokoroi.16 Unlike the III (ibid. 179-180 nos. 1782-1790). See also Pera 1984, 115- 116. 17 On the Artemis Anaitis of Philadelphia, often mistaken 13 Buresch 1898, 15. Though the stele itself is lost, Bartels for Artemis of Ephesos, see Diakonoff 1979, 172-173. See and Petzl 2000, 183 cited extant squeezes of it; an illustration below, n. 20. would have aided its study immeasurably. 18 SEG 17:528; Oliver 1989, no. 285, mis-cites the evidence 14 M. Price and Trell 1977, 19-21; Lyttelton 1974, 196-197. for the title metropolis under Elagabalus: it is BMC (Lydia) 92, 15 L. Robert 1937, 161-164; Karl 1975, 53-54. below. 16 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 177-179 nos. 1745-1781 19 On the five metropoleis, FiE 3:72 (= IvE 3072), ll. 23- would date this coinage to Caracalla’s time, though the style 27, dated ca. 270. See summary chapter 41, ‘The Koina,’ in and legends only match concord coins with obverses of Gordian Part II. chapter 9 – philadelphia in lydia 129

2. “Funde” in Mitteilungen des Deutschen archäologischen Philip: BMC 104, 105; SNGCop 388-390; SNGvA 8242; Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 20 (1895) 231-244, esp. New York, Paris (5 exx.). 243-244 (from G. Sarantides, June 2, Otacilia: Paris. N°a SmÊrnh Philip Caesar: BMC 106, 107; Berlin (2 exx.), Paris. 1895). The council and the “most illustrious and Trajan Decius: SNGvA 3085; Berlin, Paris (2 exx.); neokoros people” vote honors to a grammateus of SNGRighetti 1065.20 the great sacred Deia Haleia Philadelpheia. Etruscilla: BMC 111; SNGvA 3086; SNGRighetti 1064; London, Paris. Herennius Etruscus: BMC 108-110; SNGCop 391; Berlin (2 exx.). COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Hostilian: Berlin. Non-imperial obverses: BMC 37-47, 49, 50, 113-118; Neokoros: SNGCop 355-361, 365-368, 392; SNGvA 3064-3070; SNGTüb 3752-3755; SNGRighetti 1054, 1055; Caracalla: BMC 86, 87; SNGvA 3081; Buttrey, Johnston, SNGBraun 1124-1126; Berlin (33 exx.), Boston, New MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 41 no. 178; Berlin (4 York (11 exx.), Oxford (21 exx.), Paris (24 exx.), exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris. Vienna (14 exx.). Julia Domna: BMC 79-82, 84; SNGTüb 3757; SNGRighetti 1063; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston, London, New York, Paris (4 exx.). 20 Franke and Nollé 1997, 175 nos. 1729-1731, listing the Elagabalus: BMC 92; Berlin. type as Tyche of Philadelphia and possibly the Dioskouroi Julia Maesa: BMC 93; London. before a temple; it in fact represents Iphigeneia holding the Severus Alexander: BMC 94-102; SNGvA 3083, 3084, Taurian Artemis (Anaitis, the point of contact between Ephesos and Philadelphia), with Orestes and Pylades approaching her 8241; SNGTüb 3760, 3761; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston temple. Both images were ‘heaven fallen’ (Artemis Ephesia: Acts (3 exx.), New York, Oxford, Paris (8 exx.). 19.35; Artemis of the Taurians: Euripides, Iphigeneia among the Julia Mamaea: SNGCop 386; Berlin (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris. Taurians ll. 87-88, 977-978, 1384-1385). I will publish an analy- Gordian III: BMC 103, 119, 120; SNGCop 387, 393; Berlin sis in a forthcoming article, to be entitled ‘Iphigeneia in Phila- (4 exx.), New York, Paris (5 exx.). delphia.’ 130 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 10. TRALLES IN LYDIA: KOINON OF ASIA

The documents for Tralles as neokoros are few, Rev: [TRALLIANVN NEV]KORVN TVN [%EB] scattered, and difficult to pin down. Its ruins were Tyche with rudder and cornucopia, wheel at feet. used as a stone quarry, a lime kiln, and a statue a) Vienna 19684. mine, and as the city is now buried beneath the The identification of the broad-headed, mature and present-day provincial capital of Aydin, any remains bearded portrait as Caracalla is not without its prob- of the temple that made it neokoros or sculpture 1 lems. The most important reverse type, no. 1, seems associated with it are unlikely to be found. to illustrate the city’s title of ‘neokoros’ by showing its six-column imperial temple, a cuirassed statue within, next to the six-column temple of Tralles’ First neokoria: Caracalla chief god, Zeus Larasios. Issued under the gramma- teus P. Claudius Pankratides, the obverse portraits Some of the first coins to declare Tralles neokoros vary from bearded and mature to a more youthful seem to appear with a portrait of the mature Cara- image. Though the latter can be interpreted as calla, datable to his sole rule, on the obverse. Elagabalus, that the same grammateus’ name on the COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU(T, c) KAI M AUR AN- same coin type should overlap those two reigns at 2 TVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust a distance of over a year seems unlikely. r., (youthful, a; bearded, c). Rev: EPI GR PO KL The confirmation of Caracalla is crucial because PAGKRATIDOU TRALLIANVN NEVKORVN TVN the title neokoros is known to appear afterwards on %EBA%TVN Two six-column temples, each with Tralles’ coins only during the reigns of Elagabalus disc in pediment, on long podium; within one, and Severus Alexander. If no coins of Caracalla had seated Zeus Larasios, within the other, emperor been found (or if it could be proved that Caracalla’s with sceptre and globe. a) Boston 63.2586 b) Paris portrait was being reused for his putative son), it 1697 c) Paris 1698 (illus. pl. 26 fig. 103) d) Paris would have appeared that the title was granted by 1699 e) New York, Newell f) SNGvA 3290. Elagabalus and then withdrawn under Severus Alexander, as would be the case for Beroia, Niko- COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNE- media, Ephesos, Miletos, Sardis, and Hierapolis.3 INO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust r., bearded. Inscriptions would normally be used to clarify the Rev: EPI GR EUELPI%TOU TRALLIANVN situation, but unfortunately in Tralles’ case the in- NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN Asklepios, a snake scriptions have generally been dated from the untwining from his staff. a) London 1926.1- neokoria and provide little independent evidence. 6-2. One may make the attempt to identify the honor- ees of the inscriptions with magistrates on the city’s COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU K M AUR ANTVNE- coins, but the repetition of cognomina down the Laureate draped cuirassed bust r., bearded. INO% generations makes any conclusion less than certain. Rev: Fe- TRALLIANVN NEVKORVN TVN %EB For example, inscription 1 honors an agoranomos and male (Artemis?) with laurel branch. a) Paris 1702 logistes, Tiberius Claudius Glyptos. b) SNGCop 696.

COIN TYPE 4. Obv: [A K M AUR] ANTVNE- 2 Johnston 1983, 69 no. 3 apparently accepted the identi- INO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust r., mature. fication as Caracalla, though in her previous article, Johnston 1982, 116, she implied that the youthful variant must be Elagabalus. 1 Magie 1950, 129-130, 991-992; Bean 1971, 208-211; S. 3 See chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ for Elagabalus’ Price 1984b, 260-261; Özgan 1995, 4-11. neokoroi. chapter 10 – TRALLES IN LYDIA 131

INSCRIPTION 1. Poljakov 1989 (= IvT) 74. t}w was erased, perhaps Nero.7 But such a proliferation lamprotãthw pÒlevw t}w nevkÒrou t«n Sebast«n of Diadoumenoi does not help us to date inscription |erçw toË DiÚw katå tå dÒgmata t}w sunklÆtou 2 independent of its mention of neokoria. In fact, Trallian«n. . . none of the six inscriptions so far known to call Tralles neokoros can yet be independently dated. Poljakov dated this inscription broadly to the third From the first, both coins and inscriptions declare century, but mistakenly alleged that Tiberius Clau- that Tralles was neokoros (singular) of the Augusti dius Glyptos’ full name had appeared on Tralles’ (plural).8 This not only confirms that the title was coinage; instead, the single name ‘Glyptos’ appeared held for the imperial cult and not (for example) for as grammateus on coins predating the neokoria, Zeus Larasios, but also shows how pervasive was the during the reign of Septimius Severus.4 If this were tendency to associate other emperors with the one the same man, inscription 1 could antedate his be- who allowed the original grant and title. That the coming grammateus, but that would date the use of grantor was Caracalla, incidentally, cannot be defi- neokoros on Tralles’ inscriptions well before the nitely affirmed. The appearance of the title is irregu- word ever appears on coins. That is a heavy con- lar, so the evidence can only affirm that the title was clusion to draw from what seems to be a common held during Caracalla’s reign but not when it was name in the city; a P. Licinius Glyptos was gram- given. mateus later, in the time of Philip the Arab, accord- Coin type 5 mentions an Augousteia among other ing to IvT 55. festivals: Similar is the case for inscription 2: COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV- INSCRIPTION 2. IvT 81. [t}w] lamprotãth[w NEINO% (%EB, c) Laureate draped cuirassed bust mhtro]pÒlevw t}w [ÉAs¤aw ka‹] nevkÒrou t«[n of Elagabalus r. Rev: GR AUR MENEKRATOU% Sebast«n] ka‹ |erçw toË [DiÚw toË La]ras¤ou EUTUXIDOU TRALLIANVN NEVKORVN TVN k[atå tå dÒgmata] t}w |ervtã[thw sunklÆ]tou %EBA%TVN; OLUMPIA AUGOU%TEIA PUYIA Kaisa[r°vn Trallia]n«n pÒl[evw]. . . Festival names in three wreaths on an agonistic There the council and people honor Flavius Diadou- table. a) Paris 1700 b) Vienna 19682 c) Berlin, menos; there is a gap of one letter’s size after his Fox. name, and he is categorized as ‘of the emperor’ and Though Augousteia may well be a festival in celebra- ‘a relative of consulars.’ Poljakov dated the inscrip- tion of Tralles’ temple of the Augusti, the type does tion specifically under Caracalla, before 217, though not establish any more specific connection with the his reasoning was nowhere made clear; Buresch had original grantor, and likely object of cult, of the allied it to Caracalla’s grant of neokoria to Phila- neokoria. Augousteia might refer to any emperor, delphia (q.v.), which he dated incorrectly to 215, but though most references to that festival date later than was willing to place the inscription at any point from this coin, to the reign of Valerian and Gallienus.9 that time to the reign of Severus Alexander.5 On IvT It is worth noting that inscription 1, and prob- 55, the same inscription of the reign of Philip on ably 2 as well, mention plural decrees of the Sen- which a Glyptos also appeared, a (restored) T. Fl. ate. While these decrees may have concerned only Diadoumenos the Younger was among the gram- their immediate antecedent, the city’s status as sa- mateis, and coins of Philip also cite that post as held cred to Zeus Larasios, it is tempting to connect them by “the associates of Flavius Diadoumenos”; presum- with the neokoria as well, the mention of which ably he himself did not serve due to youth or inabil- immediately precedes that phrase. Despite the old ity.6 Buresch posited that this last Diadoumenos was view of the Senate as playing a diminished part in the son of the Fl. Diadoumenos of inscription 2, and administration, cities like Tralles, Ephesos, Smyrna, that an ancestor, one Ti. Claudius Diadoumenos, Sardis, and Laodikeia specified that they were neo- had made a dedication to an emperor whose name koroi by decree(s) of the Senate in the third cen-

4 IvT 55 ll. 13-14; L. Robert 1937, 418, citing coins from 7 IvT 42; Buresch 1894, 111-115; Barbieri 1952, 381-382 Paris and Berlin (Imhoof-Blumer); SNGvA 3289; Münsterberg no. 2177. 1985, 153. 8 L. Robert 1967, 55 n. 1. 5 Buresch 1894, 111-115. 9 Karl 1975, 24-26, though with errors, and unaware of this 6 Münsterberg 1985, 153; BMC 357. coin type for Tralles. 132 part i – section i. koinon of asia tury.10 The cities apparently hoped that the Senate’s 4. IvT 94. Fragment, probably same formula as no. approval would confirm the legality of their titles and 3. Dated to third century, by neokoria. set the seal on the emperor’s grant. 5. IvT 58. Fragment of honorific to a consular, same formula as no. 3. Dated under Caracalla (by neo- koria?). INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: 6. IvT 59. Fragment mentioning an Antonine (em- peror?), probably same formula as no. 3. Dated to Neokoros of the Augusti: third century, by neokoria. 1. IvT 74. See text above. 2. IvT 81. See text above. 3. IvT 52. Inscription of “the most illustrious me- COINS CITING NEOKORIA: tropolis of Asia and neokoros of the Augusti Caesarea Tralles” honoring a proconsul. Dated un- Neokoros: der Caracalla (by neokoria?). Caracalla: SNGCop 696; SNGvA 3290; Berlin, London, New York, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna. Elagabalus: SNGvA 3291; Berlin, Boston, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). 10 See chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers.’ Talbert 1984, 95- Severus Alexander: BMC 161; SNGTüb 3878; Paris, 97; also note IvT 16, an inscription for a priest of the god Senate, Vienna. found between Tralles and Magnesia. Julia Mamaea: BMC 164, 165; SNGvA 3292, 3293. chapter 11 – ANTANDROS IN THE TROAD 133

Chapter 11. ANTANDROS IN THE TROAD: KOINON OF ASIA

Antandros was a small city in the southern Troad, imperial coins from Antandros. First, the reverse type facing onto the gulf of Adramyteion, its back to Mt. looks like the Asklepios common on other Antan- Ida. Its origins seem to have been so ancient that drian coins, but lacks his serpent-entwined staff.5 no one could agree on who its founders were.1 Second, though the coin’s spelling of ANTANDREVN Though its ruins have been noted as “a city of some is known on coins up to the time of Antoninus Pius,6 importance,” it has never been excavated.2 It was later coins of Commodus, Septimius Severus, of best known as the administrator of a local shrine of Caracalla himself, and of the time of Elagabalus Artemis; there are few other facts to color its insig- generally spell the city’s name ANTANDRIVN.7 All nificance. Its far more important neighbor, Adramy- these features might be explicable if there were more teion, was the center for the judicial district, but was Antandrian coins known with which to compare never neokoros, so far as is known.3 them, but there are not. Thus there remain ques- tions about the sole document for neokoria. Only extraordinary circumstances could explain First Neokoria: Caracalla Antandros as neokoros, and the most extraordinary circumstance available is the emperor’s presence in Thus the discovery of a single coin of Caracalla the area. At the end of the year 213, Caracalla declaring Antandros neokoros comes as a complete crossed the Hellespont to Asia to begin his campaign surprise.4 Cities like Laodikeia and Philadelphia at against the Parthians.8 Among his first stops was least had pretensions toward being of importance Ilion, and there he imitated Alexander by paying within their koinon; so far as we know, Antandros special honor to the tomb of Achilles.9 Herodian had none. even states that he gave one of his favorite freed- men a funeral like Patroklos’, by some accounts COIN TYPE 1. Obv: ? [AUT ] KAI M AUR having poisoned him for that purpose. Radiate head of Caracalla r., AN[TVNINO%] Though Antandros is not far from Ilion, it is not bearded. Rev: ANTANDREVN NEVKORVN recorded as one of Caracalla’s stops. Still, the his- Bearded god with sceptre (Asklepios, Zeus, or torians’ accounts of his eastern travels and Parthian Serapis). a) Athens, Numismatic Museum (illus. campaign are extremely sketchy. Some demonstra- pl. 26 fig. 104). tion of devotion to the emperor (or to Alexander), Though the coin does not appear to have been recut or some whim of Caracalla’s, could have made the or in any way falsified, it has some odd features that Antandrians neokoroi. But the title should still be do not jibe with the (admittedly scanty) corpus of

5 Asklepios reverses: BMC 13 and Berlin (Kraft 1972, pl. 1 Hirschfeld 1894, 2346. 89 no. 22a) (Commodus); BMC 14 and Paris (Kraft 1972, pl. 2 Cook 1973, 267-271. 65 no. 16b) (Septimius Severus); SNGCop 221 and Paris 3 Habicht 1975, 70; see above chapter 6, ‘Sardis.’ SNGParis (Septimius Severus), SNGCop 223 (Julia Paula, first wife of (Mysie) xxxvii and Adramyteion 67, on which B NE has been Elagabalus). See Schwertheim 1996, 104 for a discussion of the taken to attribute a second neokoria to Adramyteion, repre- cult of Asklepios in the Troad, and 109-110 for a decree from sents the name of the strategos, Aur. Gaius B NEOU: Antandros. Münsterberg 1985, 262. 6 BMC 11 (Marcus Aurelius Caesar). 4 Formerly in the Evelpides collection. Thanks to Alan 7 All in n. 4 above, plus SNGCop 222 (Caracalla). Walker, for the initial information and casts; to Eos Tsourti, 8 Halfmann 1986a, 223-230; Letta 1994b documents the of the Athens Numismatic Museum; and to Kenneth Sheedy, emperor’s arrival in winter quarters at Nikomedia on 1 Janu- who recently re-examined the coin and provided the illustra- ary 214. tion. 9 Cassius Dio ep. 78.16.7; Herodian 4.8.4-5. 134 part i – section i. koinon of asia confirmed by further coins and inscriptions; one COINS CITING NEOKORIA: unique coin is not a firm foundation for anything but vague speculation. Neokoros: Caracalla: Athens, Numismatic Museum (formerly Evel- No inscriptions of Antandros as neokoros are yet pides collection). known. chapter 12 – hierapolis in phrygia 135

Chapter 12. HIERAPOLIS IN PHRYGIA: KOINON OF ASIA

The city of Hierapolis is well described by its Turkish would logically suit a date early in the reign, when name Pamukkale, ‘Cotton Fortress.’ Set high on a he was making his way west from the area of the terrace formed by cascades of white travertine from Parthian War and his contest with Macrinus for the its own mineral springs, its strategic position guards Empire.6 In Johnston’s view, all the coins for both the plain where the Lykos joins the Maeander Elagabalus and his family were issued around 221, River and the passage from Phrygia across the so the types that appear to be earlier would be retro- mountains into Lydia.1 spective, referring back to the time when the em- peror was in the East. Though the coin types seem to imply that Ela- First Neokoria: Elagabalus gabalus visited Hierapolis and sacrificed at the temple of Apollo (and perhaps at that of the moon There was some initial thought that Caracalla vis- god Men, below), this implication contradicts Cassius ited Hierapolis and made it neokoros in honor of Dio, who implied that he passed from Syria to Bithy- his late teacher, the sophist Antipater, whose home nia by the direct route, via Cappadocia.7 We may it was.2 In his final days, however, Antipater’s ac- perhaps be able to believe that Elagabalus sacrificed tions had not been calculated to please Caracalla: at the temple of Artemis at Ephesos (q.v.); it was, he wrote the emperor a lament on the death of Geta, after all, one of the seven wonders of the world, and then starved himself to death.3 It seems more likely he might even have journeyed from his winter quar- that Hierapolis’ neokoria was for the homonymous ters in Nikomedia to see it. But it is extremely doubt- successor and putative son of Caracalla, Elagabalus.4 ful that he would have turned so far aside from his The city issued an unusually lavish series of coins route to visit Hierapolis. It is most likely, then, that to celebrate becoming neokoros. The series includes Hierapolis’ coin types are allegorical, referring to coins for Elagabalus’ second wife Aquilia Severa, a benefits and honors to the city that were conferred Vestal Virgin whom he may have married, divorced, from a distance. Certainly Hierapolis was named and then remarried all in the space of a year, 221; neokoros on no form of evidence that need be dated for Annia Faustina, married in the interval between earlier than 221. his marriages to Aquilia Severa; and for Severus On their coin reverses, some cities added their Alexander as Caesar (late 221-early 222).5 These patron god’s temple to the temple(s) that made them coins date late in Elagabalus’ reign, after he had neokoroi, resulting in a more impressive picture. settled in Rome. Hierapolis went even further, placing its single im- It is then curious that Hierapolis also issued coins perial temple between two others. that seem to allude to the emperor’s presence in the COIN TYPE 1. Obv: city. He sacrifices before a temple of Apollo, is [AUT K M AUR AN]TVNEI- Laureate cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r., greeted and crowned by the city goddess, or sacri- NO% beardless. Rev: fices at the same altar with her; another type shows IERAPOLEITVN NEVKORVN; ( retrograde); [ ] Three the emperor riding over an eastern enemy, which AIYUP PUYIA AKTIA temples on podia, the outer two turned toward

1 D’Andria 2001; De Bernardi Ferrero 1993; Ritti 1985; Humann, Cichorius, Judeich, and Winter 1898 (= AvH). 5 Kienast 1996, 172-175, 177-179; Barnes 1972, 74. 2 Cichorius, in AvH 26. 6 Johnston 1984, 64-65 nos. 5, 9-11, 4. 3 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.24; Ritti 1988. 7 Cassius Dio 79.39.6-40.2; Halfmann 1986a, 230-231; pace 4 Johnston 1984; von Papen 1908, 178-181. Johnston 1984, 60. 136 part i – section i. koinon of asia

the center, the center one four-column, an arch frequently shown on coins of this period holding out in the pediment; within, emperor in military dress a phiale.12 It is possible, then, that the sacrificing with sceptre, r. arm outstretched; above, two emperor in military dress who stands within a wreaths. a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer8 (illus. pl. 26 temple, as on types 1-3, represents the object of cult. fig. 105). If the three coin types represent the same temple, it appears to have featured some architectural oddi- The result resembles triple-temple coins that had ties. Type 1 shows it with a solid architrave across recently been issued by such eminent cities as the facade as well as an arch, perhaps decorative, Ephesos, Pergamon, Sardis, and Smyrna (qq.v.); the within the pediment. Type 2, whose temple has six latter was still using this type. The side temples have (Ionic or Corinthian) columns, the maximum num- no identifying figure within, but the fact that two ber known, also indicates pedimental decoration: a wreaths float before their rooftrees may signify that facing bust (of the moon god Men?) with a crescent they are the temples for which Hierapolis celebrated behind its shoulders. A shieldlike feature is also noted sacred festivals (below). The central temple has no on type 3, but is abbreviated to a simple disc. It is wreath, but is distinguished by a cuirassed figure remotely possible that type 2 represents the emperor standing within, and should represent the imperial sacrificing to Men as he did to Apollo on other coins, temple for which Hierapolis became neokoros. A but those show him before, not in, the temple. It similar figure appears within a lone temple on types is more likely that the god Men was associated 2 and 3: with the temple, perhaps as a deity who shared the COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M AU ANTV- emperor’s cult. It is even possible that the cult of N[EIN]V% %B (sic) Laureate draped cuirassed bust Elagabalus was moved into a previously existing of Elagabalus r., beardless but mature. Rev: temple of a god, as was the case at Nikomedia and IERAPOLEITVN NEVKORVN Six-column temple Philippopolis, but that possibility is difficult to affirm on three-step podium, in pediment a facing bust solely from a pedimental decoration on a coin im- with crescent at shoulders; within, emperor in age. military dress holds phiale over altar. a) Berlin, The two temples that flank the imperial temple Löbbecke9 (illus. pl. 26 fig. 106). on type 1 contain no images, but the word Pythia is written (in reverse) over the left-hand one, and from COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU K M AUR ANTVNEI- contemporary agonistic types Aktia may be restored Laureate cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r., NO% %E over the other.13 Two wreaths, probably symboliz- beardless, youthful. Rev: [IERAP]OLEITVN ing the festivals, float between the apices of the three Two-column temple in three-quar- NEVKORVN temples. It is noteworthy that the numbers of festi- ter view, disc in pediment; within, emperor in vals and of temples do not match in this instance; military dress with sceptre holds phiale over al- what von Papen saw as a prize crown above the tar. a) Paris 1335.10 center temple is only the temple’s akroterion.14 Here the additional space allowed the die-cutter to Though we have seen several instances of festivals indicate a detail omitted on the triple-temple type: linked to temples that made their city neokoros, it the emperor is shown offering sacrifice. A similar was plainly not a necessity that each such temple image was seen on coins of Ephesos under Macrinus, have a festival, and in this case both festivals were showing the annual vows for the emperor’s health, probably associated with the flanking temples, pre- but there Macrinus was costumed as a togate priest, dating the new imperial temple that conferred not in military dress; the vows were for him, not to neokoria in the center.15 him.11 Elagabalus wears the same priestly dress when he sacrifices before Apollo’s temple on Hierapolis’ 11 S. Price 1984b, 264 no. 86 (though he makes little of this), coins (above). But that a figure pours a libation does and 214-215 pl. 3a on the Ephesos coin. 12 not rule out its being a deity; Zeus, for example, was Kremydi-Sicilianou 1997, 371 and nos. 445, 458-460, 516-521. 13 Johnston 1984, 70-71 nos. 39-42. 14 Von Papen 1908, 161. 8 Johnston 1984, 65 no. 8; Ritti 1985, 79 misdated it to 15 Pace Chuvin 1987, 101-102, conflating the Aktia and Pythia the time of Caracalla. into the festival on the Chrysorhoas; the piling up of previously 9 Johnston 1984, 64 no. 6. existing festivals to celebrate a new neokoria is not implausible, 10 Ibid., no. 7. but not provable either. chapter 12 – hierapolis in phrygia 137

There have been several attempts to identify the he stands as the city’s patron and symbol on ‘con- two side temples of type 1 by their associated festi- cord’ coinage where that festival, the Pythia, also vals.16 Von Papen interpreted the Aktia (illegible on represents the city. Thus the inclusion of his temple the coin itself, but presumably for the right-hand in a multiple-temple coin type stands within the temple) as a “neokorate” contest, since Aktia were established tradition of cities like Tralles, Nikomedia, based on the festival for Augustus’ victory at Actium. and Sardis (qq.v). But the festival may predate the neokoria: an Au- Less likely is Johnston’s contention that the cult gustan inscription of Hierapolis perhaps refers to the of Elagabalus was installed in Apollo’s temple, since same Aktia under the term ég«new toË SebastoË.17 coin type 1 shows the imperial temple as distinct Weber more plausibly associated the Aktia and the from the other two. The lower part of a colossal right-hand temple with another temple labeled ‘to cuirassed imperial statue was indeed found in the the family of the Augusti’ on coins of the time of area of the temple of Apollo, but it has been dated Claudius.18 This six-columned Ionic structure was too early, to the second century C.E., and was not in all probability damaged in the earthquake that in situ anyway, but reused as later building mate- devastated Hierapolis and several other Phrygian rial.23 cities in the year 60.19 Its subsequent history is Johnston went still further in using its cult of uncertain. But beside the question of its continued Apollo to explain why Hierapolis of all places be- existence, Weber’s further theory that this temple came neokoros. Robert opined that Elagabalus had was the source of Hierapolis’ neokoria is ruled out awarded neokoriai to Sardis, Ephesos, and Niko- by several considerations. First, it has never been media because he had wed his Emesene baetyl to identified as a provincial but only a municipal im- Kore, Artemis, and Demeter in those cities.24 perial temple; if every city that possessed such a Johnston then reasoned that the emperor may have structure could have claimed to be neokoros, there also identified his sun god with the Apollos wor- would be closer to three hundred neokoroi than shipped not only in Hierapolis, but in Perinthos, thirty. Second, Hierapolis would apparently lose its Philippopolis, and Miletos. Unfortunately, Johnston neokoria after Elagabalus’ death, a fact that ties the did not deal with Elagabalus’ other neokoriai, for title explicitly to that emperor’s cult; though the coins Beroia (Macedonia) and perhaps Tripolis (Phoeni- do not document them specifically until the reign cia); neither had a notable cult of Apollo. But her of Elagabalus, the Aktia continued to be proclaimed presumption that all festivals named Pythia were for on coins of the time of Philip when the neokoria did the cult of Apollo is not tenable. In fact, Pythia of- not.20 ten meant isopythian, a festival of the sort celebrated Johnston associated the festival Pythia and the left- for Apollo at Delphi, but not necessarily for the cult hand temple on type 1 with the cult of Apollo.21 The of Apollo.25 At Perinthos, for example, the Pythia Pythia, unlike the Aktia, had appeared on Hierapolis’ appear to have been also Philadelphia, a contest as- coins under Septimius Severus, well before the title sociated with the second imperial temple, not with ‘neokoros’ appeared.22 Those coins do celebrate Apollo. If the coinage is any guide, Apollo’s cult was Apollo as the chief god of Hierapolis; his head also not very important at Perinthos; the city’s founder appears on the obverse of many coins of the city and was Herakles, its eponym the hero Perinthos, and its symbol on ‘concord’ coinages a city goddess. At 16 Bibliography in Johnston 1984, 56, 59; Ritti 1985, 83- Miletos, whose patron god was indeed Apollo, his 84. festival was the Didymeia, not the Pythia, as Johnston 17 Ritti 1979, no. 2; Pleket 1981; Ritti 1983a, 172 no. 1; admitted; a Pythian festival at Miletos (q.v.) may and on Anathema, 1989-1990, 870-872 no. 2. 18 RPC 1:481 no. 2973, where the obverse head is identi- have been associated with one of the imperial fied as Apollo. temples. In all, twenty-three cities recorded Pythia 19 Tacitus, Annals 14.27.1; Magie 1950, 564, 1421; Ritti on their coins at some time, but only a few were 1985, 23-28; Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 194- notable for cults of Apollo, and fewer still became 195. 20 Karl 1975, 8-12, 120 n. 1 misattributed coins of neokoroi for Elagabalus. Elagabalus to Caracalla and misinterpreted the alpha in A PUYIA to refer to Aktia. See n. 22 below. 21 Johnston 1984, 57-60; also see Ritti 1985, 78-84. 23 Bejor 1991, 53-54 no. 24. 22 SNGvA 8381, 8382; the prize crown reads A PUYIA, ‘first’ 24 L. Robert 1967, 58 n. 8. either in rank or in order of celebration. See n. 20 above. 25 Karl 1975, 110-121. 138 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Johnston reached this impasse because she found ander (the latter name erased). { nevkÒrow boulØ Hierapolis too unimportant a city to become neo- ka‹ [~ d}]mow... koros. Of the cities in Asia that Elagabalus made The fact that Hierapolis, or rather its council, could neokoros for his cult, all are known to have been still be called neokoros under Severus Alexander fits metropoleis, or at least to have been sites of the Koina in with evidence from the seven other eastern cities festival, except for Hierapolis. What Johnston over- that became neokoroi for Elagabalus: there was some looked, however, was the enumeration of neokoroi: delay, likely of years rather than months, before the with Elagabalus’ grants, Ephesos was four times honor was withdrawn (see chapter 38, ‘Historical neokoros, Sardis three times, Miletos twice, and Analysis’). The word ‘neokoros,’ however, was al- Hierapolis only once neokoros. There is no impli- lowed to stand on inscription 1, just when the cation that Hierapolis needed to be of the same rank Ephesians were erasing inscriptions boasting their as these larger cities to gain its single neokoria. If fourth neokoria for Elagabalus and changing the we compare the standing of all the neokoroi of Asia number to three. Ephesos, of course, was the main yet known during the reign of Elagabalus, Ephesos headquarters of Roman administration of the prov- is alone at four, with Pergamon, Smyrna, and Sardis ince, and probably had to be more punctilious in all at three, Miletos at two, and Kyzikos (problem- using its proper titulature where it would be often atic), Philadelphia, Tralles, Laodikeia, perhaps seen. On the other hand, this inscription stood long Antandros, Aizanoi (for Zeus), and Hierapolis all at enough for the name ‘Alexander’ to be erased, due one. Certainly most of these are known to have had to the condemnation of Severus Alexander’s memory a Koina festival, but there are some (and those the after his death in 235. Did the Hierapolitans take a more recent single neokoroi, Antandros and Hiera- special pleasure in eliminating the name of the polis) that are not.26 As will be discussed in chapter emperor who had eventually removed their neo- 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ the title ‘neokoros’ was koria? But one may wonder why, if Hierapolis was filtering down among the smaller cities. Johnston only neokoros for a few years under Elagabalus and took this as a sign of the elimination of the koinon’s early in the rule of Severus Alexander, it has pro- role in mediating between city and emperor; and duced four inscriptions that cite it with that title. there have already been signs of that trend, start- ing even as early as Hadrian, and seen particularly clearly in, for example, Caracalla’s grant to Phila- Withdrawn: Severus Alexander? delphia (q.v.). Johnston’s explanation for Hierapolis’ neokoria, After minting its varied and plentiful series of coins like Robert’s for those of Sardis, Ephesos, and for Elagabalus and its first neokoria, Hierapolis is- Nikomedia, focused on Elagabalus’ personality, sued no more coins for twenty years. Though ear- doubtless an effect of the biographical nature of our lier authorities would have attributed this gap to the sources for this period. In the broader context of this Roman authorities’ withdrawal of minting privileges, study, however, Hierapolis may be less out of place it is now recognized that minting could be an in- as neokoros than it initially seemed. Certainly we termittent affair for many cities; Laodikeia under- would like to know more about the city’s standing went a similar hiatus.27 Still, following the example in the koinon, its relationship with its neighbors of other cities that had become neokoroi for Elaga- (especially the recently-confirmed-neokoros Laodi- balus, it is possible that Hierapolis lost the title af- keia, a possible rival), and its other associations with ter that emperor’s death and the condemnation of Rome and its rulers. But these, like the arguments his memory, and expressed its chagrin by abstain- made by the Hierapolitans in favor of their becom- ing from one medium on which it had boasted being ing neokoroi, are thus far lost. neokoros.28 Only one closely dated inscription of Hierapolis as neokoros has yet been found. INSCRIPTION 1. Ritti 1983a, 181 no. 2. Statue 27 Johnston 1984, 61-62. base of Julia Mamaea, mother of Severus Alex- 28 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417. It would be instructive to know what titulature the city was given on the Nymphaeum of the Tritons, which bore a dedication, not 26 Moretti 1954. yet published, to Severus Alexander: D’Andria 2001 111. chapter 12 – hierapolis in phrygia 139

The city did not forget its claim to neokoria when in every case it was the other city, but not neces- it again began to mint. It issued a series of coins that sarily Hierapolis, that was neokoros; thus Johnston illustrated its close ties with the greatest neokoroi of hypothesized that Hierapolis was not in fact the province Asia. The coins were minted with neokoros at this time. It was this wording that had obverses of Philip, his wife Otacilia, their son Philip, led Weber into thinking that Hierapolis’ neokoria and with personifications of the Senate or of Apollo. had been granted by Caracalla, since the title seemed The reverse types proclaim ‘concord’ with a neo- to persist after Elagabalus’ death.33 But as Johnston koros city: the partner can be Pergamon, Smyrna, noted, the title ‘neokoros’ never appears on Hiera- Ephesos, Sardis, or Kyzikos.29 The concord is illus- polis’ own, non-concord, coins under Philip, so she trated by types of the cities’ patron divinities, where reasoned that the city was not entitled to it.34 On Hierapolis, represented by Apollo, joins hands with the other hand, Hierapolis had issued similar con- the Pergamene Asklepios, the Ephesian Artemis, or cord coins even when it was surely neokoros, under the Sardian ‘Kore’; or by two city goddesses clasp- Elagabalus, and on those it had again been the other ing hands; or even by the clasped hands alone. The city (in this case Ephesos, specified as four times concord coinage also refers to festivals: Hierapolis’ neokoros) to which the title was attributed.35 Thus Pythia is paired with Ephesos’ Ephesia, Sardis’ Chrys- Kampmann denied Johnston’s hypothesis, stating anthina, or an unnamed contest at Smyrna.30 that the neokoria lost after Elagabalus’ death was The nature of the list is interesting in itself: Hiera- simply regranted early in Philip’s reign, before his polis celebrated its concord only with the most son was made Augustus.36 There is no other case prominent cities of Asia, each one neokoros. But where a lost neokoria for Elagabalus was regranted except for Kyzikos (q.v.), which was merely neokoros under Philip, however; there are three where it was on contemporary coins, all were multiple neokoroi: regranted in the joint reign of Valerian and Pergamon, Ephesos, and Smyrna each had three, Gallienus. The only other neokoria that can be plau- while Sardis had two, though Hierapolis specified sibly associated with Philip was that of Neapolis, no enumeration for the neokoriai on these coins. close to his homeland; and he had no discernible There were at least five and possibly six other cit- reason to honor Hierapolis. ies in the koinon of Asia with one neokoria apiece It is dangerous to read too much into such ab- under Philip: Miletos, Philadelphia, Laodikeia, per- breviated and disparate documents. From the haps Antandros, Aizanoi (for Zeus), and Magnesia present evidence it may be that the coins of Hiera- (for Artemis); but so far as is known, Hierapolis did polis were designed to make the city appear to be not boast of her concord with this ‘second rank.’ Nor both neokoros and the equal of the metropoleis of does the choice have much to do with the Koina its koinon, when in fact it was not. The argument festival, as many cities outside the ones mentioned is ultimately based on silence, i.e. the lack of dat- celebrated Koina.31 In fact, Hierapolis’ partners in able contemporary documents that call Hierapolis these concord coinages were the ‘five metropoleis,’ neokoros with no possibility of misinterpretation; the the five known cities in which chief priests of Asia appearance of even one such document could con- are documented as presiding over the temples that tradict it. Still, it is possible that rank and titles were made them neokoroi.32 important enough that Hierapolis could stretch the Given this element of social climbing in Hiera- truth for their sake. polis’ choice of partners, another facet of this coin- At this time or just after, it is possible that Phrygia age becomes clear: the wording of the legends was detached from the province Asia, and along with appears deliberately to obscure the possibility that Caria became an independent province; Hierapolis, of course, would have become part of the new prov- ince, as did its neighbor Laodikeia (q.v.).37 Hiera- 29 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 67-91; L. Weber 1912. Weber attributed the concord issues to commercial connections. 30 Pera 1984, 70-77, though she dealt with earlier coins, attributed the concord issues to such festivals, as von Papen 33 L. Weber 1911, 466-468. had before. 34 Johnston 1984, 53. 31 Moretti 1954. 35 Johnston 1984, 64 no. 3; Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 70 32 Mentioned on a later Ephesian inscription of ca. 270 nos. 656-658. C.E.: FiE 3:72 (= IvE 3072), ll. 23-27. See ‘The Koina,’ chap- 36 Kampmann 1996, 86-91; 1998, 389-390. ter 41 in Part II. 37 Roueché 1989a, 1-4; S. Mitchell 1993, 2:158. 140 part i – section i. koinon of asia polis, then, would have been separated from the tain basis for asserting or for denying the neokoria province for which it had once held its imperial of Hierapolis. The city may have been only stretch- temple and neokoria. Though there are some early ing the same point it made under Philip by isolat- references to a koinon of Phrygia, they are limited ing the title with its own name instead of that of its to the city of Apamea and do not refer to this pro- ally. If the claim were unjust we would expect to find vincial reorganization.38 Thus it is very surprising it protested and redressed, but as Hierapolis’ coin- that Hierapolis would continue to celebrate its ties age comes to an end after this series we cannot see to Asia in subsequent reigns, with further concord any outcome. If type 4 makes a legitimate claim, coinages allying it to the old province’s greatest Hierapolis may join Nikomedia, Ephesos, and Sardis neokoroi cities. in having lost its neokoria for Elagabalus and re- gained the title under Valerian and Gallienus. It is not impossible, however, that the title had been First Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus? restored to Hierapolis earlier, under Philip, as Beroia’s was under Gordian III; or even that it had Possibly Hierapolis, like Nikomedia, Ephesos, and never been lost at all. Sardis (qq.v.), regained a neokoria that it had lost after the death of Elagabalus during the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus. As under Philip, all of INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Hierapolis’ coinage citing the title ‘neokoros,’ whether with or without portraits of Valerian or Gal- Neokoros: lienus, proclaims the alliance between Hierapolis and 1. Ritti 1983a, 181 no. 2. Statue base of Julia a great neokoros city of Asia.39 No coins of alliance Mamaea; see text above. with Pergamon or Kyzikos are found any more; 2. Ritti 1983b, 221-230, Hierapolis museum inv. no. Hierapolis seems to have given its attention only to 664. Statue base; the neokoros council and the most its nearer eminent neighbors, Ephesos, Smyrna, and illustrious people and the most revered gerousia Sardis. None of these was in the province of Phrygia honor Melitine Artemas, with terms of her bequest. and Caria. Otherwise, Hierapolis’ concord coinage Very elaborate lettering, with many ligatures, of the under Valerian and Gallienus is exactly parallel with first part of the third century. that under Philip, with one important exception: 3. Judeich 1898, (AvH) no. 34. The neokoros people honor M. Aurelius Apollonides Ammianos Daphnos. COIN TYPE 4. Obv: IERAPOLEITVN NEV- Undated. efgh d Victory with K(ORVN, ; NEOKORVN, ) 4. Judeich 1898, (AvH) no. 234. Tomb inscription wreath and palm. Rev: K EFE%IVN OMONUA of a chief priest Ti. Claudius Cleon with a bequest Laureate veiled bust of the goddess of Concord to the neokoros council. Undated. r.40 a) London 1921.5-20-67 b) Oxford 6.17g c) Oxford 4.88g d) Paris 1006(5) e) Vienna 19870 Inscriptions on ivory objects that were supposed f) Berlin g) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer h) Berlin, to mention neokoros Hierapolis have been found to Löbbecke (illus. pl. 26 fig. 107). be forgeries copied from coins: J. and L. Robert, Bul- letin Épigraphique (1969) 556 a, 60. Here ‘of the neokoroi Hierapolitans’ is isolated on the obverse, while the legend continues ‘and Ephe- Also note a neokoros official: Ritti 1983a, 180. sians, concord’ on the reverse. That this issue dates to the time of Valerian and Gallienus is assured by the consistent misspelling of ‘concord’ on this and COINS CITING NEOKORIA: others of their coins.41 One coin issue is an uncer- Neokoros: Elagabalus: BMC 139, 140, 142-144; SNGCop 461; SNGvA 38 Pace Dräger 1993, 70-77. 39 3658, 8383, 8384; Berlin (16 exx.), Boston (3 exx.), A possible exception, SNGBraun 1811, is too obscure even London (2 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), to attribute firmly to Hierapolis. Non-imperial obverses with- Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). Concord with out mention of concord are not incontrovertibly dated. 42 40 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 77 nos. 755-764, with Con- Ephesos, four times neokoros: Paris. cord identified as the Council and placed on the obverse. 41 Johnston 1984, 53-54. 42 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 70 nos. 656-658. chapter 12 – hierapolis in phrygia 141

Aquilia Severa: BMC 145; Berlin, Paris. Non-imperial obverses, time of Philip: Concord with Annia Faustina: BMC 146-148; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Ephesos neokoros:52 BMC 177-180, 186; SNGCop Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). 467, 468; SNGvA 3662; Berlin (4 exx.), New York, Severus Alexander Caesar: Berlin, Paris, Vienna. Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Concord with Kyzikos Non-imperial obverses, time of Elagabalus:43 BMC 46, neokoros:53 BMC 185; Boston. Concord with Sardis 47, 60, 61, 65, 70-75, 84-89, 92; SNGCop 439-446; neokoros:54 BMC 184; Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris, SNGvA 3627-3629, 3631-3633, 3636, 8379; SNGLewis Vienna (2 exx.). Concord with Smyrna neokoros:55 1623; Berlin (19 exx.), London, New York (7 exx.), BMC 181-183; SNGCop 474; Berlin (2 exx.), New Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (14 exx.), Vienna (10 exx.). York (2 exx.), Oxford, Vienna. Philip: Concord with Ephesos neokoros:44 BMC 170; Valerian: Concord with Ephesos neokoros:56 BMC 188, SNGCop 473; SNGLewis 1625 (identified as Philip II); 189; SNGRighetti 1189; Boston, New York, Paris (3 Berlin (4 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Con- exx.), Vienna. Concord with Sardis neokoros:57 cord with Pergamon neokoros:45 BMC 171; SNGCop SNGvA 3668; Berlin, New York, Paris, Vienna. 466; Berlin, Paris. Concord with Sardis neokoros:46 Concord with Smyrna neokoros:58 BMC 190-192; SNGvA 3666; Berlin, Boston. Berlin (3 exx.). Otacilia: Concord with Ephesos neokoros:47 BMC 172, Gallienus: Concord with Ephesos neokoros:59 Berlin. 173; SNGCop 472; SNGRighetti 1188; Berlin (3 exx.), Concord with Sardis neokoros:60 Berlin. Concord Boston, London, New York, Vienna (2 exx.). Con- with Smyrna neokoros:61 SNGvA 3669; Berlin (3 cord with Sardis neokoros:48 BMC 175, 176; exx.), Oxford, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). SNGLewis 1626; Berlin, New York, Paris (2 exx.). Non-imperial obverses, time of Valerian and Gallienus: Concord with Smyrna neokoros:49 BMC 174; SNGvA 3637; SNGRighetti 1186; Berlin. Concord with SNGCop 475, 476; London, Paris (2 exx.). Ephesos neokoros:62 BMC 187; SNGCop 469, 470; Philip the Younger: Concord with Ephesos neokoros:50 SNGvA 3663; Berlin (7 exx.), London (2 exx.), New Berlin. Concord with Sardis neokoros:51 SNGvA 3667; York, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), London, Paris. Warsaw. Concord with Sardis neokoros:63 Berlin (3 exx.), London, Oxford, Paris, Vienna.

43 Coins with non-imperial obverses dated on bases other 52 Ibid., 73-75 nos. 709-732. than number of neokoriai by Johnston 1984, 63-80. 53 Ibid., 80 nos. 793-798. 44 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 70-71 nos. 659-678. 54 Ibid., 84 nos. 844-847. 45 Ibid., 81 nos. 805-807. 55 Ibid., 88 nos. 884-898. 46 Ibid., 82 nos. 816-821. 56 Ibid., 75-76 nos. 733-750. 47 Ibid., 72-73 nos. 689-708. 57 Ibid., 84-85 nos. 848-859. 48 Ibid., 83-84 nos. 830-843. 58 Ibid., 89-90 nos. 899-905. 49 Ibid., 87-88 nos. 875-883. 59 Ibid., 76-77 nos. 751-753. 50 Ibid., 71-72 nos. 679-688 (the first with Philip the 60 Ibid., 85 no. 860. Younger as Caesar). 61 Ibid., 90-91 nos. 906-918. 51 Ibid., 83 nos. 822-829 (all with Philip the Younger as 62 Ibid., 77-79 nos. 754-792. Caesar). 63 Ibid., 85-86 nos. 861-874. 142 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 13. Magnesia in Ionia: Koinon of Asia

Magnesia on the Maeander had been trying to possibly to avoid hostility between former and new achieve a provincial imperial temple since the time neokoroi (see ‘Historical Analysis,’ chapter 38). In of Tiberius, when it was judged to be not up to the any case, their neighbors’ misfortune probably only honor (Tacitus Annals 4.55; see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna’). added spice to the Magnesians’ achievement. The city was not even the center of a judicial dis- An examination of the cult of Artemis that won trict, and its only real claim to prominence was its Magnesia neokoros status may also illuminate that sanctuary of Artemis Leukophryene. of the other neokoroi, to which it was implicitly compared. The image of Artemis Leukophryene as a goddess of Anatolian type wearing ‘ependytes’ only Neokoria of Artemis: Severus Alexander appeared on coins of Magnesia after ca. 190 B.C.E., but Xenophon (Hellenica 3.2.19) already knew a “very Magnesia finally proclaimed itself neokoros on coins holy” sanctuary of this Artemis.2 The importance of during and after the reign of Severus Alexander, but her shrine at Magnesia on the Maeander is shown for its cult of Artemis, not for the imperial cult. This by the fact that it was one of the places where a copy makes it the third and last of the cities known to have of the treaty between the Smyrnaeans and the sol- become neokoroi of gods, following Aizanoi under diers on Mt. Sipylos (ca. 240s B.C.E.) was to be set 3 Commodus and Ephesos under Caracalla (qq.v.). In up. In 221/220 B.C.E., prompted by an epiphany fact, Ephesos’ inscription 133, dated 213-217, im- of Artemis, by an oracle, and probably by envy of plies that Ephesos was at that time the only city to titles recently obtained by Miletos, the city had be neokoros of Artemis, and so assures that Mag- sought Panhellenic recognition of its status as sacred 4 nesia’s neokoria was granted sometime after. and asylos. Apparently the attempt was unsuccess- Miletos, Magnesia’s neighbor and possessor of a ful; it was only the later spur of the Milesians ob- rival sanctuary, had gotten its second neokoria for taining Panhellenic status for their Didymeia festival the worship of Elagabalus. It lost that honor, how- that prompted Magnesia to try again, this time for ever, after that emperor’s death and the condem- both the titles and their own ‘crowned’ contest. At nation of his memory, and seems to have issued no last, in 208 B.C.E., they succeeded. The favorable coins that named it neokoros during the reign of Ela- replies formed part of the largest known archive gabalus’ sucessor, Severus Alexander. On the other documenting a city’s quest for asylum status, and took up a great part of the walls of the city agora.5 hand, this was exactly the period when Magnesia The temple of Artemis Leukophryene was one of the first declared itself neokoros of its patron goddess masterpieces of the Hellenistic architect Hermo- Artemis. One might wonder whether the long-stand- genes, who wrote a book on its design.6 A consen- ing rivalry between the two sanctuaries made the sus has grown for settling its date, as well as that of honoring of Magnesia part of Miletos’ dishonor.1 To its architect, at the end of the third/beginning of the reward one city in order to punish its rival does not second century B.C.E.7 Though the Magnesian seem to have been Severus Alexander’s policy, however: he generally granted his neokoriai in prov- inces that had no previous neokoriai for Elagabalus, 2 Fleischer 1973, 140-146; updates: idem 1978, 341-342; idem 1984b; Donohue 1988, 63 with bibliography. 3 Petzl 1987 (= IvS), no. 573 ll. 84-85. 1 On their rivalrous quest for rights of asylum and quin- 4 Rigsby 1996, 179-279, esp. 179-190. quennial festivals for their patron gods in the late third cen- 5 Rigsby 1996, 180, 185; Kern 1900, nos. 16-87, pl. 2. tury B.C.E., see below. On the border conflict between them, 6 Humann 1904; Vitruvius, On Architecture 3.2.6; 7 pref. 12. and its resolution, now dated to the late 180s B.C.E., Herrmann 7 Kreeb 1990. Some still date the building to the second 1997, 182-184. century solely on stylistic grounds: Akurgal 1990. chapter 13 – magnesia in ionia 143 archive of inscriptions is not explicit on this point, steps, disc in pediment; within, Artemis such a date jibes with the time of the cult’s greatest Leukophryene, eagles at her feet, Victories on either ambition and growth. The resulting temple, though side.12 a) Vienna 34601 (illus. pl. 26 fig. 108) b) smaller in size and number of dedications than that SNGMün 631 c) SNGvA 7923. at Ephesos, was judged far superior in the harmony and artistry of its building (Strabo 14.1.40). COIN TYPE 2. Obv: IOULIA MAMAIA %EB The abundant remains of the temple at Magne- Draped bust of Julia Mamaea r. Rev: MAGNH- sia (illus. pl. 3 fig. 15) show it to have been large (ca. TVN NEOKORVN TH% ARTEMI Laurel wreath, 41 x 67.3 m. at the base of its stepped podium, with within it Z TH% A%IA%.13 a) Paris 1529 b) Private a ca. 31.6 x 57.9 m. stylobate), Ionic and pseudo- collection (Hecht). dipteral, with eight columns on its facade and fif- Magnesia always titled itself neokoros of Artemis, teen on its flank. Like other temples of Artemis, at never simply neokoros. The title does not appear Ephesos and Sardis, its entrance faced (basically) often, as space in Magnesian coin legends was gen- west, towards a monumental sculptured altar.8 Both erally devoted to the names of the local magistrates. temple and altar were placed on the axis of a 200 The neokoria appeared on coins of at least five m. long temenos lined with colonnades (illus. pl. 5 grammateis during the reign of Severus Alexander fig. 22). This axial layout of a temple in the midst alone: Stratoneikos, Ael. Demoneikos Severianus of a colonnaded courtyard (though here the court- (each for the second time), Hermos, Pr. Aulus, and yard was not itself symmetrical) would become as Theseus. As type 2 shows, Magnesia was precise popular and long-lasting as Hermogenes’ pseudo- about its titles, claiming only to be seventh, not first, dipteral plan itself.9 All around the temple was a of Asia.14 This and the imperial sanction that was sumptuous but repetitive frieze of Greeks and Ama- necessary to make Ephesos’ neokoria of Artemis zons in combat, stretching over 180 m.10 In the west official (q.v.) should indicate that Magnesia’s neo- pediment were three openings similar to those of the koria of the goddess was just as carefully approved temple of Artemis at Ephesos, and the central in- by the Roman authorities, and not simply taken on tercolumniation was made wider than the others, as by the city. if the cult statue on its base could be glimpsed down Magnesia inscribed its neokoria of Artemis inter- the expanse of the pronaos and column-lined cella.11 mittently on coins down to the reign of Gordian III. Coin type 1 shows the typical numismatic short- Shortly thereafter, a coin with the portrait of Otacilia hand for this temple: the eight columns are abbre- wife of Philip appeared with the following legend: viated to four, the nine-step platform to four steps. The pedimental design is expressed by a simple disc, COIN TYPE 3. Obv: MAR VTA %EUHRA Dia- but the Ionic order is correct, as are the high veg- demed draped bust of Otacilia, r. Rev: EPI GR etal akroteria. The cult statue of Artemis, flanked TUXIKOU B NE MAGNHTVN Hephaistos with by eagles and crowned by Victories, is brought out hammer and tongs seated before anvil. a) SNGvA into the widened central intercolumniation: 7924. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT K M AUR (%EUHR, bc) The appearance of B or TO B after a magistrate’s ALEJANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed name is not unusual at Magnesia, meaning ‘for the bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: EPI GR (GAR, second time’ (see type 1). If that is what it means c) %TRATONEIKOU (%TRATONEIIKOU, sic b) TO here, the NE that follows may stand for the city’s title B; MAGNHTVN NEVKORVN TH% ARTEMID ne(okoros), but if so, this is the first time that the title Four-column Ionic temple on high podium of four has appeared without its qualifier ‘of Artemis.’ Another possibility is that both B and NE, ‘twice 8 The actual orientation is west-southwest, and probably neokoros,’ apply to Magnesia, and that the city had reflects that of an earlier temple on the site. For the most recent gained another neokoria during the reign of Philip reconstructions of the altar, with a stoa-like Ionic facade and and was combining the count of its god-neokoria and interior lined with statues, see Hoepfner 1990a, 16-18; Hoepfner 1989. 9 Schmaltz 1995. 10 Devesne 1982; YaylalÌ 1976; Herkenrath 1902. 12 S. Schultz 1975, nos. 245-246. 11 Bingöl 1999, reconstructing a possible epiphany of the 13 S. Schultz 1975, 304 (transpose R16 and R17), 305. statue. 14 L. Robert 1967, 53. 144 part i – section i. koinon of asia imperial neokoria as Ephesos did. This possibility Munich, New York, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna, War- 16 seems unlikely, however, as no coin types appear to saw. Julia Mamaea: BMC 73; SNGCop 886; SNGMün 638; celebrate what would have been an important ad- Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), dition of honors to any Asian city; indeed, this is the Private collection (Hecht).17 only coin known to document it. It is more likely Maximinus: Berlin, Vienna.18 that B NE refers to the magistrate, not to the city: Maximus Caesar: Berlin (2 exx.), London.19 Tychikos is not only grammateus for the second Gordian III: Glasgow, Vienna.20 Non-imperial obverse: SNGCop 858; Berlin (2 exx.), time, he is n°(ow), ‘the young(er),’ as distinguished Vienna.21 from a predecessor of the same name.15

There are no inscriptions of Magnesia as neokoros yet known.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA:

Neokoros of Artemis: Severus Alexander: SNGvA 7923; Berlin, London, 16 S. Schultz 1975, 237-239. 17 S. Schultz 1975, 288, 290-293, 300, 303, 303A, 305. 15 Accepted as such by Münsterberg 1985, 96, 256; the 18 S. Schultz 1975, 312, 313. abbreviation is spelled out in some other cases, e.g. 71 (Perga- 19 S. Schultz 1975, 343, 348, 349. mon), 75 (Aegai), 78 (Elaia), and 155 (Akmonia). For the usage, 20 S. Schultz 1975, 408, 409. see L. Robert 1981b, 353. 21 S. Schultz 1975, 512-515. chapter 14 – synnada in phrygia 145

Chapter 14. Synnada in Phrygia: Koinon of Asia (?)

Set in the remote plateau of central Phrygia, Synna- itself divided into two provinces, the second of which da was a city of respectable size and antiquity, a was headed by Synnada. Moreover, the terms me- member of the Panhellenion that traced its origins tropolis, first, or neokoros could be used in contem- back to both Athenian and Spartan heroes.1 It was porary documents for cities (e.g. Sagalassos) that did also a judicial district center of Asia, and a trans- not head provinces.6 shipment point for the famous marble quarries of There is no evidence for the procedure of whole- Dokimeion, thirty miles to its northeast.2 Synnada sale granting of neokoriai to new metropoleis of may have been removed from its former province, provinces as envisioned by Perrot, at Synnada or in however, at the formation of a new province, Phry- any other case; in fact, no neokoria thus far can be gia and Caria, ca. 250 C.E.3 definitely dated to the Tetrarchic period, though Side (q.v.) remains a possibility. In addition, it is as yet impossible to say what koinon Synnada was affi- First and Second Neokoria: by 293-305 liated with when its neokoriai were granted. The only known koinon of Phrygia appears to have been Only one inscription is known that calls the city “il- exclusively associated with the city of Apamea.7 lustrious metropolis and twice neokoros of the The two neokoriai of Synnada may well antedate Augusti”: the inscription that records them, and could have INSCRIPTION 1. MAMA 4.59 (IGRR 4:700). been given separately at any time. The city issued Statue base of Constantius Chlorus as Caesar, agonistic coin types under Gordian III, but its pos- thus dated 293-305. { lamprå t«n Sunnad°vn mh- session of a Hadrianeia festival has now been doubted, trÒpoliw ka‹ d‹w nevkÒrow t«n Seb(ast«n)... and in any case, the names of festivals, even if as- sociated with emperors, are of little use in determin- Perrot believed that Synnada was given two neo- ing neokoria (see summary chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ koriai at once during a reorganization of the pro- in Part II).8 It is more important to note that Syn- 4 vinces by Diocletian (284-305). The titles were nada (with Sagalassos) offers one of the latest docu- supposed to suit Synnada’s new position as metropo- ments of neokoria and proves that the title was at lis of Phrygia Secundus (later Salutaris). But recent least still used during the Tetrarchy. The case of Syn- studies have allowed more precision on the admin- nada then shows that a city could still value the title istrative changes that affected this area. It is likely ‘neokoros,’ even at a time when the provincial or- that only Phrygia and Caria split off from one an- ganization from which it presumably derived the title other ca. 301-305, and the chief city of the prov- was in a state of flux. ince Phrygia is likely to have been Laodikeia, not Synnada.5 Only on the Verona list, which reflects a situation datable to ca. 314/315–324, was Phrygia

6 Bowersock 1985; 1995, 85-98; Haensch 1997, 24-26, 251- 1 Nafissi 1995. 254. 2 Mileta 1990; S. Mitchell 1993, 1:64-65, 121, 159; Sartre 7 Pace Dräger 1993, 70-77. 1995, 198-201. 8 Wallner 1997, 88-89, though he also drew a fanciful con- 3 Roueché 1989a, 1-4; S. Mitchell 1993, 2:158. nection between Synnada and the Gordiani based on Historia 4 Perrot 1876b, 195-197 no. 1. Augusta, Gordiani 32.1-2: the columns on one side of their villa’s 5 Belke and Mersich 1990, 77-78, 393-395. peristyle were of Synnadan marble. 146 part i – section i. koinon of asia

INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: No coins of Synnada that cite the title ‘neokoros’ are yet known. Twice neokoros: 1. MAMA 4.59. Statue base of Constantius Chlorus as Caesar, thus dated 293-305. See text above. chapter 15 – nikomedia 147

SECTION II. KOINON OF BITHYNIA

Chapter 15. Nikomedia: Koinon of Bithynia

First Neokoria: Augustus tus gave Nikaia the temple to Rome and the dei- fied Caesar, which implies at least some Roman resi- Though the origin of Nikomedia’s neokoria ante- dents to worship there. In contrast, in Asia, which dates the actual use of the title by more than a received the same cults at the same time as Bithynia century, it can be traced back to 29 B.C.E. At that did, the cult of Caesar was assigned to Ephesos as time the man soon to be named Augustus acceded foremost in the province (and seat of the governor, to petitions from the Hellenes of Asia and Bithynia but also a major port), whereas Pergamon, center and allowed the establishment of precincts for the of Hellenistic rule, became the center of the koinon imperial cult in those two provinces.1 According to and received the temple where the provincials wor- Cassius Dio 51.20.6-7 (a passage already examined shipped Augustus. in detail in chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ q.v.), the honors Evidence for the temple at Nikomedia is fairly for Bithynia were assigned as follows. Nikaia, which scanty.4 It first appears as a reverse type on silver the patriotic Dio called “foremost in honor at that cistophori and bronzes minted under Hadrian after time,” received a precinct to Rome and the hero 128, as evidenced by the emperor’s title of P(ater) Julius Caesar, which was designated for use of the P(atriae) on the cistophori.5 This late date should be Romans resident in the province.2 It was Nikomedia, considered merely a point by which the temple however, that received what was probably the actually existed, and as such it cannot indicate how greater prize: permission to build a temple to the long before the coins appeared that the temple was living Caesar, not the deified one, for the use of the actually built. provincial Hellenes. Dio’s account omits one detail, Bithynia did not issue any silver cistophori before which Suetonius (Augustus 52) fortunately supplies: the reign of Hadrian, and the early bronze coinage Augustus only permitted temples to himself if the cult of the province and of the city of Nikomedia very of the goddess Rome accompanied his own. rarely shows any type of architecture except for altars Cassius Dio’s passage ranked Nikaia above Niko- (generally that of Zeus). Before Hadrian, provincial media, and there was a long-running rivalry between bronzes had given more space to the Roman gov- the two cities for titles and honors. Nikomedia, as ernor’s name than the name of the province; indeed, chief residence of the Bithynian kings and center of the latter was often omitted entirely. Occasionally pre-Roman administration, logically became me- a city goddess or patron god stood over the simple tropolis of the koinon of Bithynia and seat of the legend BIYUNIA.6 Under Hadrian, however, the provincial cult of Augustus and Rome. No document situation was reversed: the governor’s name dropped reveals whether it or Nikaia was the primary seat off, while the name of the koinon of Bithynia held of the governor.3 Nikaia was inland, whereas Niko- pride of place on the reverse. It is at just this point media was a major port of the province; but Augus- that the first provincial silver coinage begins; the

4 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 164-166 no. A25. 1 Ameling 1984, though he assumed undocumented pro- 5 Metcalf 1980, 137-143, esp. 139-140, where he dates the vincial games, 124; S. Price 1984b, 185, 266, and later 67; silver issue to the time of C. Julius Severus’ special mission to Ziethen 1994, 92-93, 257 treated this embassy as if it came Bithynia, probably in 136. Metcalf’s argument against any pre- from the city of Nikomedia alone, ignoring the koinon’s role Hadrianic koinon is not persuasive; see the evidence for offi- (and that of the city of Nikaia as well). cials under Domitian, below, not to mention Cassius Dio 2 Whittaker 1996, 93-99. 51.20.6-7. 3 Haensch 1997, 282-290. 6 RPC 2:96-99. 148 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia temple of Rome and Augustus makes its first appear- dence itself is in doubt, while a look at the coins ance on reverses of both metals. The provincial themselves, combined with a knowledge of their temple, however, was in any case a suitable theme conventions and their limitations, could have solved for a new provincial coinage, and need not indicate the problem. that the temple was built or even restored at that In fact, both the silver and the bronze coinage of time.7 Bithynia give a fairly consistent, or at least recon- Reconstructing the form of the temple of Rome cilable, picture of the temple at Nikomedia. and Augustus presents certain problems, although these are not insurmountable. Misuse or misunder- COIN TYPE 1. Obv: IMP CAES TRA HADRI- standing of the numismatic evidence has led to sev- ANO AVG PP Laureate (head, b; draped [cuiras- eral points of confusion regarding the temple at sed, a]) bust of Hadrian r. Rev: (SPR, a; SPQR, Nikomedia, and unquestioning acceptance by a c) COM BIT Eight-column temple, ROM (SP ab) chain of scholars has perpetuated them. AVG in entablature, disc (dot, b) in pediment. a) The initial error was that of Mattingly, who iden- BMCRE 1098 b) BMCRE 1099 c) BMCRE 1100. tified the octastyle temple that appears on the cisto- COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT KAI% TRAI ADRIANO% 8 phori of Bithynia as Ionic. Luckily, the illustrations %EB(A, fi) Laureate (radiate, nopw; bare, v) head that accompany this description show that the col- of Hadrian r. Rev: KOINON BEIYUNIA% Eight- umns are either Corinthian or composite: though column temple; in pediment (male figure sacri- abbreviated, the capitals consist of three dots sup- ficing, abhst; wolf and twins, cdku; star, pq; disc, ported by rising volutes, and this is inconsistent with efglmn); (Victories as akroteria, py). a) BMC 12 the two dots and plain band of Ionic capitals as they b) BMC 13 c) BMC 14 d) BMC 15 e) BMC 16 f) usually appear on coins. The dots indicate the deco- BMC 17 g) BMC 18 h) BMC 19 i) BMC 20 j) BMC ration of the capital, and the confusion arises when 21 k) BMC 22 l) BMC 23 m) BMC 24 n) BMC 25 a die-cutter has chosen to use two dots instead of o) BMC 26 p) BMC 27 q) SNGvA 288 r) SNGvA three or one. If such coins were viewed in isolation, 289 s) SNGvA 290 t) SNGvA 6916 u) SNGvA 6917 the temple might indeed look Ionic, but when the v) SNGCop 324 w) SNGCop 325 x) SNGCop 326 y) whole series is consulted, that possibility is ruled out. London 1928.5-5-1 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 109). Dependence on Mattingly’s description, however, led Mellor into writing that the temple in Nikomedia It was first reconstructed by Bosch, in his monumen- is portrayed as “sometimes Corinthian, sometimes tal unfinished work on the coinage of Asia Minor, Ionic,” and that the coins should not be trusted in as an eight-column Corinthian structure on a step- any case, since they sometimes show the temple as ped podium.11 The possibility that it had compos- distyle and as such the “columns clearly could not ite capitals, Ionic volutes set in a Corinthian-style support the roof.”9 Mellor’s lack of familiarity with capital, cannot be ruled out.12 numismatic conventions led to greater errors by Though the temple is generally known as that of Tuchelt. Adopting Mellor as his authority, he was Rome and Augustus, the coins indicate that there able to dismiss the evidence of the coins entirely, so were additional objects of cult within. On the that it could not obstruct his thesis that the precinct cistophori, the temple is identified by the words on of Augustus at Nikomedia (and that at Pergamon as its entablature: ROM S P AVG at its fullest, presum- well) consisted of an altar alone, and not necessar- ably ROM(ae) S(enatui) P(opulo) AVG(usto).13 On some ily a temple at all.10 So Mattingly’s initial slip has issues this legend is shortened to ROM(ae) AVG(usto), been magnified until the nature of numismatic evi- and these issues have a full S(enatui) P(opulo)q(ue) R(omano) in the fields. There are also coins that men- tion the Senate and People both on the entablature 7 Metcalf 1980, 139; rebutted by Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, of the temple and in the fields, as S(enatui) P(opulo) 166. 8 BMCRE, Hadrian nos. 1096-1100 pls. 75.8-12; see be- low, coin types 1 and 3. 9 Mellor 1975, 141-142. For the background of numismatic conventions, see above, ‘Introduction: Methodology,’ section 11 C. Bosch 1935, 190-196. iiib. 12 Strong 1960 dated this innovation as early as the 30s 10 Tuchelt 1981, 185 n. 105. For a rebuttal, see Hänlein- B.C.E.; Gros 1996-2001, 2:499-503. Schäfer 1985, 13, 165. 13 C. Bosch 1935, 194. chapter 15 – nikomedia 149

R(omano).14 Thus the cult included Rome, Augustus, within the temple at Nikomedia is more difficult.19 the Senate, and the People. The legend serves to There are several different images, only one of which identify the temple on the coin, and it need not imply is common to both the silver cistophori and the a Latin inscription on the entablature of the actual provincial bronzes. That figure is a male, a mantle temple.15 Bronze coins with Greek legends lack this or himation draped across him and gathered over form of identification, probably because the Greek the left elbow, leaning on a staff or sceptre with his equivalent would have had to be either an awkward right hand and with a little Victory, who raises her transliteration or an unwieldy translation, the two wreath toward him, in his left.20 equally incomprehensible unless spelled out more COIN TYPE 3. Obv: IMP CAES TRA HADRI- fully. Instead, the bronzes simply refer to the koinon ANO AVG PP (Laureate, b) head of Hadrian r. of Bithynia, whose chief temple, and whose coinage, Rev: COM BIT Four-column temple, ROM SP this was. AVG in entablature, dot in pediment; within, em- The cistophori generally show the pediment peror in mantle (cuirassed? b), with sceptre and empty, or with a disc, dot, or disc between two dots Victory. a) BMCRE 1096 b) BMCRE 1097 (illus. within. This summary sort of filling ornament is pl. 27 fig. 110) c) SNGCop 322. probably only numismatic shorthand for ‘pedimental decoration.’ The bronzes, however, make up in the COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT KAI% TRAI ADRIANO% pediment for what they lack on the entablature. In %EB Laureate head of Hadrian r. Rev: KOINON addition to the shorthand forms found on the BEIYUNIA% Eight-column temple, disc in pedi- cistophori, different bronzes may show a star, the ment; within, emperor in mantle, with sceptre and Roman wolf and twins, or a male figure in short Victory. a) BMC 9 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 111). costume, a sceptre in his left hand, sacrificing with The iconography is that of a heroized emperor, a phiale at an altar.16 These more unusual figures based on classical prototypes.21 Yet a figure in the serve to identify the temple in the lack of a legend same stance and with the same attributes, but in on the entablature; they may have actually stood in military dress, appears on some of the cistophori.22 the pediment. The wolf and twins, sign of the ori- Despite the change in dress, the legend on the temple gins of Rome, mark a temple to Roman state divini- does not vary; ROM S P AVG on the silver. No ties, and the sacrificing figure may be a variant of bronze coin, however, shows the figure in military the Roman Genius who appears as a reverse type dress. on other, probably Bithynian, cistophori of the same The cistophori occasionally show a single com- period, though there he holds a cornucopia in his panion to the male figure: left hand rather than a sceptre.17 On the other hand, the figure may represent an emperor in military dress COIN TYPE 5. Obv: IMP CAES TRA (see below). Another unusual feature that appears HADRIANO AVG PP Laureate bust of Hadrian on certain coins of both the silver and the bronze r. Rev: COM BIT Four-column temple, ROM series is the presence of side akroteria of Victories SP AVG on entablature, disc in pediment; within, erecting trophies; these likely refer to Augustus’ helmeted female in long dress at r. crowns victory at Actium.18 cuirassed emperor with Victory and sceptre at l. Reconciling the various depictions of cult statues a) Vienna 39125 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 112).23

14 Metcalf 1980, 134, types B12, B13; the catalogue wrongly omits the S P from the entablature, as the plates indicate. 19 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 83-84. 15 Metcalf 1980, 137-139. 20 Bronze: type 4a, above. Silver: Metcalf 1980, 132, type 16 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 69-71. B5, described as togate; the chest is clearly bare, and the drap- 17 Metcalf 1980, 141-142. Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 165 ery has a diagonal hem, not the curve characteristic of a toga. doubted the identification of the pediment figure as a Genius, Compare the togate Hadrian on reverses from Metcalf’s Asian due to the sceptre; but both sceptre and sacrificial phiale are Mint C, 86-87, type 92. characteristic of the Genius type, though they are rarely com- 21 Niemeyer 1968, 55-59, “Hüftmantel” type; note the bined. See Kunckel 1974, 14-17, esp. pl. 2.5 (type M III 13, review by Fittschen in Bonner Jahrbuch 170 (1970) 541-552, esp. an as of Antoninus Pius, 160-161 C.E.) 545. 18 Silver: Metcalf 1980, 132-133, type B7, pl. 30 no. 25. 22 Metcalf 1980, 132-133, types B6, B7; here coin type 3b. Bronze: coin type 2p and 2y, above. 23 Metcalf 1980, 133-134, types B9-B10. 150 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

Whether draped or cuirassed, he is joined by a cally reliable, though subject to abbreviation.27 In helmeted female who stands at the right and the case of Nikomedia, a die-cutter’s misinterpreta- raises a wreath toward his head; in her lowered left tion of a figure copied from earlier coins is unlikely, hand is a long curved object, perhaps a cornucopia, especially in the silver issue, which was unusual, though it may be a palm branch or a naval aphlas- carefully produced, and may have lasted only a year. ton. The bronzes, however, are unique in adding a So let us assume that all the following features were third figure to the group, another female at the left based on reality: 1) a half-draped male with Victory whose only attribute is a sceptre held in the right and spear/sceptre, 2) a male identical with number hand: 1 but in cuirass, 3) a helmeted female with cornu- COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT KAI% TRAI ADRIANO% copia crowning 1 or 2, 4) a female with sceptre, and %EB (Radiate, b) head of Hadrian r. Rev: 5) a male in short outfit with phiale and sceptre. KOINON BEIYUNIA% Two-column temple, sac- Number 3 is not difficult to interpret: the goddess rificing male in pediment; within, armed female Rome is generally a helmeted female, the cornuco- in long dress at r. crowns emperor in mantle with pia indicates her role as a city goddess, and we know Victory and sceptre in center, female with sceptre from the literary evidence that she shared cult with at l. a) BMC 10 b) BMC 11. Augustus.28 Rome was also portrayed crowning Augustus in their cult statues at Pergamon (q.v.). COIN TYPE 7. Obv: %ABEINA %EBA%TH Dia- Number 5 is only difficult insofar as he appears both demed draped bust of Sabina r. Rev: KOINON in the temple and within its pediment; he has been BEIYUNIA% Two-column temple, sacrificing male in pediment; within, helmeted female in long identified as a Genius, and may in fact be the Ge- dress at r. crowns emperor in mantle with Vic- nius of the Roman people, whose presence within tory and sceptre in center, female with sceptre at the cult was hinted by the legends on the entabla- 29 l. a) BMC 32 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 113) b) SNGCop ture and in the fields of the cistophori. 329.24 Numbers 1 and 2 are identical except for their dress, and both are crowned by Rome. They are A cistophorus that depicts the helmeted female with clearly meant to be an emperor, or emperors. Were 25 two males has been reported, but is unconfirmed. there were two (or more) different male statues, or And finally, a little-noticed example shows a male one in different outfits? If it were the latter, and if figure in a short costume, perhaps a cuirass, but this the coinages of silver and bronze were meant to time standing left, holding a round object, probably reach different audiences, one might guess that the a phiale, in his right hand and the spear/sceptre in military iconography, unique to the silver, was for his left; this sacrificial posture recalls that of the the wider, or more official, or more Roman audi- sceptred figure (emperor? Genius?) often shown in ence, while the other, like the temple at Nikomedia the pediment.26 itself, was for the Hellenes. This was probably not From their depiction within the temple, we can the case, however. The two coinages both show the have little doubt that these figures are either its objects of cult or images strongly enough associated half-draped male, though only the silver shows the with the temple to identify it. Is there any way of military figure. Though the silver has Latin legends reconciling them with each other, or must we con- and the bronze Greek, they were both issued by the clude that the die-cutters misinterpreted their mod- same authority and may have even been produced els, or that the numismatic evidence should be by the same die-cutters, as shown by the fact that disregarded? the spelling of Latin words on the cistophori tends 30 Within the limits of their small scale, depictions to become a trifle Hellenized. The bronze seems of cult statues on coins have been found to be basi-

27 Vermeule 1987, 9-22 on interpretation of numismatic evi- 24 Note a retouched coin of this type: Klose 1997, 257, 261 dence. no. 4. 28 Suetonius, Augustus 52, cited above. The Nikomedia 25 Metcalf 1980, 134, type B11. image is not mentioned by di Filippo Balestrazzi 1997. 26 Metcalf 1980, 133, type B8, where he is identified as the 29 In the pediment: above, types 2abhst, 6 and 7. In the emperor in military dress holding a wreath; but a wreath is temple: see above, n. 26. usually held high, in the act of crowning. Phialai, however, are 30 Metcalf 1980, 138, on Greek die-cutters; though stylis- generally held in this position. tically he ruled out any connection, 152. chapter 15 – nikomedia 151 to have been designed as complementary to the to have been impressive. Dio writes of the two grants silver, circulating as a fractional currency and reach- in Asia and Bithynia as if they occurred simulta- ing the same audience. If one rules out a mere die- neously, and it is likely that the temples that resulted cutter’s mistake (and with such persistent and from them also had parallel histories. At the least, contemporaneous types, one probably can), one the koinon of Bithynia would not want to be out- comes to the conclusion that there were two differ- done by the koinon of Asia in showing its loyalty to ent male statues: one, an emperor heroized or de- the new ruler. Any lack of zeal (or expense) could ified, the other an emperor in the role of imperator. come to the notice of the emperor, whose resultant It has been suggested that one figure is Augustus, displeasure might outweigh his initial gratification the other Hadrian, though there has been little at the petition for cult. agreement on which is which.31 The heroized statue On the other hand, there were certain differences type, however, has been found to be limited to the even from the beginning: Pergamon asked for and Julio-Claudian period, and would be more appro- received a contest with sacred status in honor of its priate to the deified Augustus.32 The other emperor, temple, and Dio’s passage mentions no such request whose statue is also crowned by a reduplicated from Bithynia or Nikomedia. As a native of the Rome, is presumably Hadrian, who certainly visited province, Dio must have known whether or not the Nikomedia and may have wintered there more than Bithynians requested or received a contest; and once; on other coins, he is hailed as the restorer of despite his pride in his home city Nikaia, his atti- both the city specifically and the province as a tude was too Roman and senatorial for him to sup- whole.33 Thus the temple established for one em- press mention of Nikomedia’s festival because of peror truly became a temple of the Augusti by the rivalry between the two.36 He certainly mentions the addition of statues of subsequent rulers: a colossal festival the Nikomedians would later be granted for statue of Hadrian, again in military dress, echoed Commodus (below and n. 60). Not just because of the colossus of his adoptive father in the temple of Dio’s silence, but based on other evidence that is Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon, and Antoninus assembled in chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ we cannot Pius may have been surrounded by his successors assume that a festival with sacred status invariably at Sardis (qq.v.). accompanied the grant of a koinon temple. The last statue, number 4, holds no attributes Another difference is that the Asian koinon seems beyond her sceptre. Bosch identified her as the to have built further temples for subsequent emper- Senate.34 Personifications of the Senate, however, ors: there was a specific reason for that to Tiberius are generally (though not exclusively) male.35 Per- (see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna’), and then Caligula appears haps the sceptred figure represents the Senate, or to have commandeered a temple at Miletus (q.v.). perhaps the goddess of the province Bithynia, but But there is no record of a second provincial temple such goddesses usually hold cornucopiae. There is for Bithynia until Hadrian (see chapter 16, ‘Nikaia,’ not enough evidence to come to a conclusion. below). The ancient city of Nikomedia lies under the There is no evidence for the personnel of Bithy- modern city of Izmit, and except for limited exca- nia’s provincial organization or temple until the time vation beneath derelict or destroyed buildings, there of Domitian, after which we hear of both Bithy- is little chance of unearthing the remains of its first niarchs and archons of the koinon of the Hellenes provincial imperial shrine. Still, it may be assumed in Bithynia.37 The title of chief priest of Bithynia is not attested, but as the wife of the Bithyniarch was often called the chief priestess, we can assume that 31 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 84 saw the military type as Augustus, the heroized type as Hadrian, and the mysterious he fulfilled the priestly function as well. Several female standing at the left as Sabina, though the long sceptre Bithyniarchs were also named as Helladarchs, but should indicate a goddess rather than an empress. Mikocki the exact boundaries of these offices are unclear.38 1995, 197 nos. 327-328, agreed, but misidentified the goddess Rome as Victory. 32 Niemeyer 1968, 55-61, cat. nos. 71-81. 36 Aalders 1986; Ameling 1984, 133-134. 33 Halfmann 1986a, 188-210, esp. 190, 191, 199. On 37 Campanile 1993; Deininger 1965, 60-64. For a compari- Hadrian’s building at Nikomedia, Schorndorfer 1997, 143-145. son with the officials in other provinces, see summary chapter 34 C. Bosch 1935, 195. 41, ‘The Koina.’ 35 Kienast 1985, 253, 266-267; Harl 1987, 74-75, pl. 30.9- 38 Ameling 1985, 31, 55; nos. 7, 47. There was also a 11. Hellenarch, no. 46. 152 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

There is no record of hymnodoi for the temple Hadrian’s reign. No such inscriptions are yet known at Nikomedia like the ones at Pergamon, but there from Nikomedia, but ‘neokoros’ began to appear on are references to a sebastophant and a hierophant its coins under Antoninus Pius. The reverse types of the mysteries of the koinon temple of Bithynia.39 of these coins make no overt reference to the title, The hierophant’s title is the same as that of the probably because it had been in existence for some initiating priest at Eleusis: he demonstrated sacred time. The same is true for coins of the reign of Mar- things in a mystery cult, and a sebastophant did the cus Aurelius, including those of his son Commodus same with respect to the cult of Augustus or the as Caesar and successor. It is only during Com- Augusti. Presumably the function of these officials modus’ sole rule that the coins show drastic changes, was to teach the rituals and show images of the as well as a reawakening of interest, in Nikomedia’s emperor(s) during the rites; several Bithyniarchs filled neokoria. these offices as well.40 Due to the association of the hierophant with the koinon temple of Bithynia, Langer believed that the office of hierophant was Second Neokoria: Commodus identical to that of the chief priesthood in other provinces.41 There is nothing in the documents to The first coins of Commodus’ reign at Nikomedia indicate this, however; in Asia, for example, officials show a youthful, beardless portrait, though more other than the chief priest were also associated with mature than his boyish looks as Caesar; they date the koinon temples, so it is more likely that the from his sole rule, specifically after October 180, as Bithyniarch acted as chief priest as well. An epitaph his name has already changed from Lucius to of a theologos was found at Nikomedia, but it is Marcus.44 Coins with this early portrait type all uncertain whether that office was attached to the proclaim Nikomedia twice neokoros, pushing the imperial cult or to some other one.42 title metropolis off the coin and illustrating the honor Dio Chrysostomos took the Nikomedians to task with a number of new celebratory reverse types. The for their rivalry with their neighbor Nikaia over titles city’s patron goddess Demeter appears with the two and primacy in the koinon.43 Though it is likely that temples, or the city goddess holds them, or they Nikomedia became neokoros (by grace of its provin- simply appear above a ship representing Niko- cial temple of Rome and Augustus) as soon as that media’s great harbor: title was officially sanctioned, it may not have used COIN TYPE 8. Obv: it until its rival began to flaunt the title as well. In AUT K M AUR KOMMODO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Asia, ‘neokoros’ had appeared on Ephesian coins as ANTVNINO% Commodus r., beardless. Rev: early as Nero’s reign, but the title only began to be DI% NEVKORVN Demeter between two eight-col- popular on inscriptions of Ephesos, Pergamon, and NIKOMHDEVN umn temples. a) BMC 25 b) Paris 1342 (illus. pl. Smyrna from the later first century on. In Bithynia, 27 fig. 114). Nikaia called itself neokoros on an inscription from COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT K M AUR KOMMODO% ANTVNINO% Laureate head (draped cuirassed 39 L. Robert 1960c, 321-322 n. 3; Pleket 1965. bust, b) of Commodus r., beardless. Rev: 40 Campanile 1993, 348-350 (Tiberius Claudius Piso, Titus NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Seated city god- Ulpius Aelianus Papianus). The former is named êrxonta t[}w] patr¤dow ka‹ t}w §parxe¤[aw] (ll. 5-6) and Beiyun[i]ãrxhn (l. 10) dess holds two eight-column temples (one of them in one inscription, Ameling 1985, 47. This led Campanile 1993, seven-column, b).45 a) SNGvA 7106 b) London 346 to conclude that the archonship of the koinon and the 1920.1-11-2 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 115). Bithyniarchate were separate and distinct. But the reference to the archonship of the eparchy is in fact rather vague (as COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K M AUR KOMMO- Ameling observed), and does not name the office “archon of Laureate head (draped the koinon of the Hellenes in Bithynia” explicitly, as other DO% ANTVNINO% inscriptions (Campanile 1993, 350-351) do. cuirassed bust, af) of Commodus r., beardless. 41 Langer 1981, 30, 95-105; at 41 n. 69 she corrected Magie Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eight- 1950, 451, 1301, who identified the two offices of sebastophant column (Corinthian, b) temples, below them a and hierophant as one. 42 Dörner 1941, 93-94 no. 97; L. Robert 1943, 184-185. 43 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38, ‘To the Nikomedians, on Concord with the Nikaians.’ See Swain 1996, 219-225; C. Jones 44 Kienast 1996, 147-150. 1978, 83-89. 45 Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.1. chapter 15 – nikomedia 153

galley. a) BMC 34 b) London 1961.3-1-121 c) been most powerful as well, and due to this the Paris 1354 d) Vienna 15790 e) Berlin 8639 f) Nikomedians obtained from the Senate the right to Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer g) Berlin, Löbbecke. hold a contest and to build a temple of Com- modus.”49 The procedure as Dio portrays it (and, COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AU K M AUR KOMMODO% as a member of the Senate under Commodus, he Laureate (radiate, b) head of ANTVNINO% was in a position to know) was that the Nikomedians Commodus r., beardless. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN overtly asked the Senate for both temple and festi- sic b Eight- (NIKOMHDEIA%, ) DI% NEVKORVN val, but their success could be wholly attributed to column temple with outsloping entablature. a) the position and behind-the-scenes influence of their Berlin, Fox (illus. pl. 27 fig. 116) b) Paris 1353. native son. This explanation is not only Dio’s opin- ion, but is confirmed by the coins: if Nikomedia had had more to recommend its case than a cham- Withdrawn: Commodus berlain’s influence, perhaps it could have kept its second neokoria. But the city’s honors were evidently Yet within a very short time, as soon as Com- seen simply as due to Saoteros, and so were lost with modus’ coin portrait changed to a more mature, his eventual fall from favor, and death. bearded type, the second neokoria was gone and This is not the only case of one man being cred- Nikomedia’s title switched back to a mere neo- ited with obtaining or perpetuating the neokoria for koros.46 That this is not an accidental omission of his city.50 There was Polemon in Smyrna and Dio- the correct number is shown by a coin type in which phantos in Ephesos, and perhaps Python in Beroia. the city goddess holds only one temple instead of the Yet all of these presumably triumphed by speaking previous two: well, presenting arguments rather than pulling COIN TYPE 12. Obv: A K M AU KO ANTVNIN strings. Saoteros, however, is the only man credited Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Commodus r., with both gaining and losing the neokoria for his city. bearded. Rev: MHTRO NEVKOR NIKOMHD In fact, Nikomedia’s is the only case where the honor Seated city goddess holds six-column temple and was permanently revoked during the lifetime of the sceptre.47 a) Paris 1347 (illus. pl. 28 fig. 117). emperor whose cult was to be celebrated. Most withdrawn neokoriai known are due to the death and COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AU K M AU KO ANTVNIN condemnation of the emperor, not the petitioner. Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Commodus r., Perhaps a more strong-minded emperor could have bearded. Rev: b c b MHT(RO, ) NEV(KOR, ; -KO, ) dissociated a perfectly plausible temple and festival Eight-column temple with disc (dot, a) NIKOMH in his own honor from any machinations of Saoteros. in pediment. a) BMC 33 b) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer But Commodus was portrayed by historical sources c) Berlin, Löbbecke. as passive in state affairs, putty in the hands of one Fortunately a passage of Cassius Dio has been pre- chamberlain until he passed to the next.51 If it was served to let us know what happened. While discuss- not an indignant Senate that cancelled Nikomedia’s ing Commodus’ various disreputable favorites, he honors as usurped (while imputing no blame to the mentions Saoteros of Nikomedia, who had been the emperor, of course), probably Saoteros’ successor emperor’s chamberlain from 180 to 182, before the Cleander would have seen to it. advent of Cleander.48 “That one [Saoteros] had The Nikomedians may or may not have had a chance to build their temple of Commodus. The depiction of this structure on most coins is summary 46 The sheer brevity of Nikomedia’s possession of the sec- ond neokoria was not understood by Weiser 1989, 72; he at best, where it is shown with, and is an echo of, believed that coins showing the bearded Commodus with the other temple that made Nikomedia neokoros, Nikomedia merely neokoros were dated before the grant of the that of Rome and Augustus. Type 11 is the only one second title, not after its loss. He based his rejection of Nikomedia’s loss of the second neokoria on his exposure of one coin of Pescennius Niger as a recut version of a coin of Commodus (see n. 54 below), but did not take into account 49 Cassius Dio 73.12.2: ka¤toi ka‹ §ke›now m°giston the titulature nor the portrait types of Commodus in as much ±dunÆyh, ka‹ diå toËto ka‹ o| Nikomhde›w ka‹ ég«na êgein ka‹ detail as was necessary. nevÅ n toË KommÒdou poiÆsasyai parå t}w boul}w ¶labon. 47 Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.2. 50 See chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ in Part II. 48 Pflaum 1972, 203, 209, 238, 243. 51 Cassius Dio 73.1, 73.10.2. 154 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia that may show it alone, though the temple is not was forced to give up all pretensions to being ‘me- explicitly identified; in this type, it has one unusual tropolis’ and ‘first’ of the province as well as losing detail, an outsloping entablature. If it was built (and her neokoria. Nikomedia was rewarded with all that later events indicate that it probably was), it may Nikaia had lost, with uncontested right to be ‘first’ have simply been demoted from provincial to mu- and ‘metropolis,’ and as it was already neokoros for nicipal status, remaining a temple to the imperial the venerable temple of Rome and Augustus, with cult.52 As for the festival, there is no sign that it was a second neokoria for Septimius Severus. The honor ever celebrated. Instead Nikomedia’s chief rival was granted within the first few years of Severus’ Nikaia was awarded a Kommodeia festival, which it reign, as it appeared on coins of Caracalla as Cae- celebrated in a burst of coinage designed to rub salt sar, a title he held from 195 or 196 to 197.56 Thus into the Nikomedians’ wounds.53 The Nikomedians’ the embarrassment that had been caused by Niko- coinage reverted to the terse expression of its titles, media’s loss of its second neokoria under Commodus of which ‘metropolis’ slipped back into first place. was swept away in the latest triumph over Nikaia, Nikomedia inscription 1 should date from around and the joy is evident on a coin whose legend takes this time: up its entire reverse: “with Severus as ruler the world is fortunate, the happy Nikomedians twice neo- INSCRIPTION 1. CIG 1720 (FdD 3.6.143; TAM koroi.”57 4.1.34). Delphi; from a copy by Cyriacus of Reverse types of a single temple under the Seve- Ancona. Decree of Nikomedia for a prizewinning ran family were presumably meant to represent the flautist and citizen of Nikomedia (among other second provincial imperial temple. Like the title cities): { \ ¤ mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ pr th Beiyun aw PÒntou ‘twice neokoros,’ depictions of the second temple | ÑAdrianØ neokÒrow NeikomÆdeia erå ka‹ êsulow appear early, under Caracalla as Caesar, but at this ¤ f lh ka‹ sÊmmaxow [ê]n[v]yen t“ dÆmƒ t“ time the temple is only sketchily indicated: ÑRvma¤vn. COIN TYPE 14. Obv: The inscription can be dated by the honoree’s vic- M AURH ANTVNINO% Head of Caracalla Caesar r., boyish. tory in the Kommodeia (in Smyrna), but Nikomedia’s KAI%AR Rev: Eight- title is merely ‘neokoros.’ NEIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN column temple, dot in its pediment. a) BMC 51. Later, when Caracalla’s brother Geta had become Second Neokoria: Septimius Severus Augustus (209-211), Nikomedia issued a large bronze that omitted all but the two end columns in order A fortunate choice soon returned the second neo- to show the temple’s objects of cult in detail: koria to Nikomedia. In the confusion following COIN TYPE 15. Obv: Commodus’ death, the city had at first supported AUT K P %EP GETA[% Laureate head of Geta Augustus, mature, the eastern claimant to the Empire, Pescennius AUGOU] r. Rev: Two- Niger, though a Nikomedian coin that purported to NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN column Corinthian temple with outsloping enta- represent him turned out to be a falsified coin of blature, within it three cuirassed imperial figures, Commodus.54 But Nikomedia turned to Septimius each with sceptre; at apex, double capricorn, Severus’ side after Niger’s first serious reverses in Victories in bigae as side akroteria, eagle? between battle at Kyzikos.55 As will be seen, Nikomedia’s rival two griffins? in pediment. a) Köln 62.58 Nikaia (q.v.) held its loyalty to Niger, more through hatred for Nikomedia than for any other reason. The three figures within are undoubtedly Septimius Once Severus conquered, he meted out matching Severus and his sons, all holding sceptres or spears punishment and rewards to the two rivals. Nikaia high in their left hands, and all in military dress. The coin provides unparalleled details, such as the double capricorn at the temple’s apex, the Victories driving 52 C. Bosch 1935, 192-193. 53 L. Robert 1977b, 31-32; Miranda 1992-1993, 80. 54 Coin in Paris, Waddington, Babelon, and Reinach 1976 no. 168, reverse showing Nikomedia as neokoros: Weiser 1989, 56 Kienast 1996, 162-165; Weiser 1983, 132-133. 71-72 no. 37. 57 Paris 1368; J. Nollé 1998, 345-347. 55 Herodian 3.2.7-9. 58 Corsten 1996 = Köln, with coin number. chapter 15 – nikomedia 155 chariots as side akroteria, and further elements of COIN TYPE 20. Obv: (AUTOK, b) M AUR sculpture in the pediment. Several of these elements, ANTVNEINO% AUGO(U%TO%, bcd) Laureate such as the capricorns and Victories, may have been (radiate, d) draped cuirassed bust (head, c) of Ca- intended to echo the earlier temple of Rome and racalla r. (youthful, b; mature, acd) Rev: NIKO- Augustus. MHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Eight-column temple Other, less detailed, coins agree that the temple on podium (cross in pediment, d). a) Paris 1396 was Corinthian, at least eight-columned, and with b) Paris 1397 c) SNGvA 774 d) Berlin, Fox. an entablature that sloped out as it went up, form- These single-temple types are reminiscent of the ing an overhang: abortive second temple for Commodus, an octastyle which had a similar overhanging entablature (type COIN TYPE 16. Obv: L %EPTIMI GETA% 11, above). Probably, then, the temple originally KAI%(AR, c) Draped cuirassed bust of Geta Cae- dedicated to Commodus recovered its provincial sar r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN status and was rededicated to the cult of Septimius Eight-column (Corinthian, a) temple with out- Severus (with his sons); Commodus himself, reha- sloping entablature on three-step podium (in pe- bilitated as the ‘brother’ of Severus, may have been diment, two figures holding a shield, a; star, be). moved into a secondary role, though Nikomedia had a) London 1961.3-1-123 (illus. pl. 28 fig. 118) b) little reason to be grateful to him. London 1975.4-11-81 c) SNGCop 573 d) SNGvA The coins do not agree, however, on the temple’s 776 e) New York, Newell. pedimental sculpture; type 15 may show an eagle COIN TYPE 17. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRON between griffins, type 16 two Victories(?) holding PER %(E, a) Laureate head of Septimius Severus either a shield between them or a simple star, while r. Rev: NEIKOMH DI% NEVK Eight-column types 17 and perhaps 20 show what is meant to be temple with outsloping entablature on four-step a figure, perhaps with a sceptre. Of course, there is podium, in the pediment a figure with sceptre. a) more room for sculpture on a real pediment than a Berlin 5206 JF (illus. pl. 28 fig. 119) b) New York numismatic one, and some of these depictions may 55.59. reflect some aspect of reality; but it is possible that some were merely numismatic shorthand for ‘pedi- COIN TYPE 18. Obv: AU(T, ab) (K, ceghijl- mental sculpture.’ mnpqrs) L %EP(TI, abc) %EUHRO% (P, abcfhp; The rest of the Severan twice-neokoros coinage PE gmn) (%, fhp; %E, d) Radiate (laureate, iloqrs) also echoes the short-lived issues for the second head (cuirassed bust, fhjklns) of Septimius Severus neokoria under Commodus: the two temples are r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Eight- shown above a galley (type 21), flanking the city’s column temple with outsloping entablature on patron goddess Demeter (type 22), or in the hands three-step podium. a) BMC 40 b) BMC 41 c) Paris of the seated city goddess, the personification of 1361 d) Paris 1362 e) Paris 1363 f) Paris 1364 g) Nikomedia twice neokoros (type 23): Paris 1365 h) SNGvA 767 i) SNGvA 768 j) Vienna COIN TYPE 21. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% 15793 k) Vienna 15794 l) Vienna 15795 m) Ber- [P %] Radiate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev: lin, Löbbecke n) Berlin, Löbbecke o) Berlin 8160 NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eight-col- JF p) New York, Newell q) New York, Newell r) umn temples, a galley below. a) Berlin 703/1878 New York, Newell s) Köln 58. (illus. pl. 28 fig. 120).

COIN TYPE 19. Obv: IOULIA DOMNA %E(BA, COIN TYPE 22. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% acg) Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: P % Radiate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Eight-column NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Demeter be- temple with outsloping entablature on three-step tween two eight-column temples. a) Paris 1357 podium. a) London 1970.9-9-45 b) London 1910. (illus. pl. 28 fig. 121). 6-11-11 c) Paris 1373 d) Paris 1374 e) Vienna COIN TYPE 23. Obv: IOULIA AUGOU%TA 15796 f) Warsaw 58652 g) New York, Holzer. Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: NI- KO[MH]D[EVN] DI% NEVKORVN Seated city 156 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

goddess holding two six-column temples.59 a) Paris taken to represent exact topographic reality, though 1370. a columnar monument to Demeter is by no means impossible at Nikomedia. The coins also celebrate ‘great Severeia,’ a contest presumably in honor of the emperor and the new temple: Third Neokoria: Elagabalus COIN TYPE 24. Obv: AU K L %EPTI %EUHRO% P Radiate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev: Nikomedia obtained a third neokoria soon afterward NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN; %EUHRIA by a grant from Elagabalus. Of all the neokoroi MEGALA Two prize crowns with palms on ago- made by that emperor, Nikomedia is the only one nistic table. a) Berlin, von Rauch (illus. pl. 28 fig. to have a well-documented relationship with him, 122). as he wintered there in the first months of his reign.62 Cassius Dio’s account is the most circumstantial, as But even the abject Nikaians were eventually allowed he was in the area at the time, though it is also quite to celebrate Severeia of their own.60 prejudiced against the emperor. There was a revolt Celebration of the now-secure double neokoria in the fleet nearby, at Kyzikos, during that winter. never quite abated, and further coin types were soon Gannys, who had commanded Elagabalus’ troops introduced to express it. The city’s patron Demeter, and had even been treated as a possible co-ruler, was previously shown standing between the two temples murdered at Nikomedia, allegedly by the emperor’s (type 8, now type 22), now also takes the role of the own hand, since none of the soldiers had the cour- city goddess and holds the two temples, or is shown age to begin the attack. This is the first and last we on a high column between them: hear of Elagabalus’ martial prowess; Herodian states COIN TYPE 25. Obv: ANTVNINO% (ANTVNEI- that he spent most of his time in Nikomedia more NO%, b) AUGOU%TO% Laureate head (draped peacefully, wearing the outrageous eastern vestments cuirassed bust, b) of Caracalla r. Rev: NIKO- of his priesthood and enacting the rituals of his god, MHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Seated Demeter hold- while the Historia Augusta only records a winter of ing two eight-column temples.61 a) Paris 1381 b) debauchery.63 Vienna 15808. The coins of Nikomedia proclaim that city three times neokoros as early as 220 C.E., the year of COIN TYPE 26. Obv: AUT K P %EP GETA% Elagabalus’ marriage to the first of his wives, Julia AUGOU Laureate head of Geta Augustus r. Rev: Paula (type 27).64 It is not unexpected that the NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two six-column emperor should promptly reward his host city with temples turned toward each other, between them honors and titles. The coin reverses make it clear, a figure of Demeter atop a tall column. a) Paris however, that the temple of the third neokoria, 1401 (illus. pl. 28 fig. 123) b) New York, Ne- shown between schematic representations of the well. temple of Rome and Augustus and that of Septimius Severus, was in fact the city’s temple of Demeter, This last type was probably inspired by coins of as the goddess herself often stands within it. Pergamon under Marcus Aurelius (q.v.) that had shown that city’s two provincial imperial temples on COIN TYPE 27. Obv: IOULIA KOR PAULA AUG either side of a tall column with a male figure atop Draped bust of Julia Paula r. Rev: TRI% it. As at Pergamon, the Nikomedian coin cannot be NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN Three temples, the center one facing, the others four-column and turned toward it. a) BMC 56 b) New York, 59 Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.3. 1944.100.42315 (illus. pl. 28 fig. 124). 60 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:220-221, was overconfident in stat- ing that “the reward for the cities of a successful petition [for neokoria] was not simply the right to erect a prestigious temple, but to stage a magnificent imperial agonistic festival.” Again, Cassius Dio 73.12.2 makes it clear that a petition had to be 62 Cassius Dio, ep. 80.3.1, 6.1, 7.3-4; Bowersock 1975; made for both festival and temple; the one did not necessarily Halfmann 1986a, 231; Lehnen 1997, 143. follow from the other. See chapter 40, ‘The Cities.’ 63 Herodian 5.5.3-4; Historia Augusta, Heliogabalus 5.1. 61 Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.4. 64 Kienast 1996, 172-174. chapter 15 – nikomedia 157

COIN TYPE 28. Obv: M AURH ANTVNEINO% One possible reason for the temple sharing is (ANTVNINO%, c) AUG(OU, bc) Laureate draped economic. Some years before, Nikomedia had borne cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: TRI% NEV- Caracalla’s winter visit, and Caracalla was notori- KORVN NIKOMHDEVN; (DHMHTRIA, ac) Three ous for his high expectations of cities granted the temples, center one six-column, facing (Demeter honor of entertaining him; then the city had to within, bc), the others (six-column, ac; four-col- entertain Elagabalus at similar length, and no doubt umn, b) turned toward it. a) Paris 1406 b) Vienna at similar expense.65 There would have been little 15817 c) Berlin, Bonnet (illus. pl. 29 fig. 125). to spare in the city’s budget for building a new temple. One may also wonder whether the other COIN TYPE 29. Obv: M AURH ANTVNEINO% cities in the koinon, among them a still hostile AUGOU Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elaga- Nikaia, would have been generous in funding a third balus r. Rev: TRI% NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN; provincial temple in Nikomedia when no other city ANTVNIA; DH[MHTRI]A written across prize in the Bithynian koinon had one. crown with palms. a) Vienna 15815 (illus. pl. 29 Parallel to the economic motive is a religious one. fig. 126). Of all that is said about Elagabalus, the sources are COIN TYPE 30. Obv: M AURH ANTVNINO% unanimous in accenting his religious fervor toward 66 AUGOUTO% (sic) Laureate draped cuirassed bust the black stone that represented his god. All also of Elagabalus r. Rev: TRI% NEVKORVN NIKO- refer to his plans to wed the god to prominent god- MHDEVN; PU[YI]A Three prize crowns with desses, such as Urania (Dea Caelestis) of Carthage, palms. a) Vienna 15816. or even the Palladium, sacred image of Athena, when he finally arrived in Rome. Louis Robert Demeter was Nikomedia’s patron and had already suggested that he had been doing the same all along appeared in connection with the twice-neoko- his route from Antioch.67 This may well have been, ros city’s two temples. On the coin types discussed and if so would add another reason to honor these above, however, she is more than just the city’s re- particular cities. But again, despite the confusion in presentative and chief goddess: she stands within her modern nomenclature, we must hold to the fact that temple, which appears and is counted for the first Nikomedia was neokoros not of the Emesene baetyl time towards the number of Nikomedia’s neokoriai. but of the emperor. If the emperor did marry his Yet Nikomedia never called itself ‘neokoros of De- god to Demeter, it was he, not his god, who moved meter,’ and as we shall see, the third neokoria would in with her. lapse after Elagabalus’ death, just as would be ex- The Nikomedian coins that proclaim the third pected if it were for the emperor; a neokoria for the neokoria also record contests: one is the Demetria, goddess would probably not have been affected by whose fuller title is the Demetria Antonia or Antonia the fall of the emperor who had granted it. Demetria (types 28, 29). This was a festival for the The most likely explanation is that Elagabalus had ‘new’ temple’s cult partners, and the use of the become cult partner in an extant temple in the neo- emperor’s proper name confirms that the cult is the koros city. There was good precedent for cult sharing emperor’s, not the Emesene god’s.68 Type 30 com- in Nikomedia, where Augustus’ temple also included memorates three festivals, only one of which, the the goddess Rome and other personification(s) of the Pythia, is mentioned. Though the number of contests Roman state. The cult of Caracalla had recently and neokoriai is the same, there is not enough in- joined resident divinities in older temples at Per- formation to affirm that these are specifically the gamon and at Smyrna (qq.v.). There, however, three temples’ festivals. Caracalla had loaded the province with imperial temples; whereas this temple is the only one known for Elagabalus in Bithynia. But we may note that 65 Cassius Dio 78.9.5-7; Millar 1977, 31-36; Lehnen 1997, Elagabalus probably also shared an older temple in 88, 93-95, 182; Ameling 1984, 137-138. 66 Herodian 5.3.5, confirmed by coins: M. Price and Trell Philippopolis in Thrace (q.v.), another city at which 1977, 167-170. he stopped on his way to Rome, and which he made 67 Cassius Dio 80.12; Herodian 5.6.3-5; Historia Augusta, neokoros. Again, the temple chosen was that of the Heliogabalus 6.8-9; L. Robert 1964, 79-82; 1967, 57-58 n. 8. 68 L. Robert 1976, 53-54. S. Mitchell 1993, 1:220-221 is city’s patron deity, in that case Apollo’s. in error in this regard. 158 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

Withdrawn: Severus Alexander East to face Ardashir, king of the new Sassanid Persian empire.71 Thus so far as is known, the loss Nikomedia continued to issue similar coins under of Nikomedia’s third neokoria probably antedates Severus Alexander; perhaps one quarter of his the war, or at least the coinage issued in prepara- known types still boast the third neokoria, while the tion for that war.72 There appears to have been little rest go down to twice neokoros. This shows that the shame attached to the loss, if the subsequent coin condemnation of Elagabalus’ memory eventually types are to be trusted as indicators: ‘neokoros’ re- had its effect, nullifying neokoriai granted for that mained the most popular title on coins, and types emperor’s cult.69 All the coins issued for Julia Ma- of the two temples, in many variations, were com- maea that claim neokoria only mention two. mon. Even the Severan type 26, showing Demeter on a tall column between the two temples, was COIN TYPE 31. Obv: M AURH %EUH ALEJ- brought back (below, type 45), either to recall Radiate draped cuirassed bust of ANDRO% AU Demeter’s role in the lost third neokoria, or simply Severus Alexander r., boyish. Rev: TRI% because it was an effective design. NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN Three temples, two below four-column, turned toward one another, COIN TYPE 35. Obv: G IOU OUH MAJIMEINO% the one above six-column, facing, Demeter within. AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of a) London 1970.9-9-46 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 127). Maximinus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKO- City goddess holding two temples.73 a) Paris COIN TYPE 32. Obv: RVN M AUR %EUH ALEJ- 1429 b) Vienna 33827 c) Köln 74. ANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% COIN TYPE 36. Obv: [G IO]U OUH MAJI- NEVKORVN City goddess holding two six-column MEINO% [AUG] Laureate draped cuirassed bust temples.70 a) Paris 1418 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 128) b) of Maximinus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% SNGCop 574. N[EVKOR]VN Seated city goddess holding two temples, one six-, one seven-column. a) Köln 75. The number of temples shown in the coin types echoes the enumeration of the title; though single COIN TYPE 37. Obv: G IOU OUH MAJIMO% K temple types continue to appear, the building on Draped bust of Maximus Caesar r. Rev: those coins is not specifically identified. It is diffi- NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Demeter hold- cult to date the turning point from three back to two, ing two temples, one six-, one seven-column. a) but only the coins that call Nikomedia twice New York 71.279 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 129). neokoros include martial types such as the emperor COIN TYPE 38. Obv: on horseback brandishing a spear, or military stan- G IOU OUH MAJIMO% a Draped bust of Maximus Caesar r. Rev: dards: K(AI%, ) DI% NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN Two six-column COIN TYPE 33. Obv: M AUR %EUH ALEJ- temples turned toward each other. a) SNGvA 798 ANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of b) SNGvA 799. Severus Alexander r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% COIN TYPE 39. Obv: Cuirassed emperor rides horse r. a) G IOU OUH MAJIMO% K NEVKORVN Draped cuirassed bust of Maximus Caesar r. Rev: Paris 1419. NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eight-col- umn temples, below them a galley. a) London COIN TYPE 34. Obv: IOULIA MAMAIA AUG 1901.6-1-32 b) Paris 1439. Diademed draped bust of Julia Mamaea r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Cuirassed em- COIN TYPE 40. Obv: AUTOK K M KLVD POU- peror with spear rides horse r. a) London 1970.9- PIHNO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of 9-48 b) SNGvA 786. Pupienus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Seated city goddess holding two six-column Severus Alexander is not known to have fought a temples. a) SNGvA 807 b) SNGvA 808. war until 231, when he traveled from Rome to the

71 Halfmann 1986a, 231-232. 69 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417. 72 Ziegler 1993b, 71-82. 70 Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.5. 73 Pick 1904, 8 no. 3.6. chapter 15 – nikomedia 159

COIN TYPE 41. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% (KA, COIN TYPE 49. Obv: AU KA TRAIAN DEKIO% bc; AU, a) (Radiate, a) draped cuirassed bust of AU %E Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Trajan Gordian III r. Rev: DI% NEVKORVN NIKO- Decius r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN; MHDEVN City goddess holding two temples G City goddess seated on rock holding two six-col- stands opposite seated goddess Rome.74 a) Lon- umn temples.75 a) Köln 15476 b) Köln 153. don 1970.9-9-49 b) SNGvA 810 c) Berlin 8404 JF. COIN TYPE 42. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% AUG Third Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus Radiate cuirassed bust of Gordian III r. Rev: City goddess hold- NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORV Nonetheless the return of the third neokoria must ing two temples, one five-, the other six-column. have been welcome. Judging from the following a) Oxford 1953 b) SNGvA 815 c) Köln 99 d) Köln types, it was granted by Valerian and Gallienus 100. when Gallienus’ son Valerianus was associated with COIN TYPE 43. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% AUG them as Caesar, from 255 to the boy’s death in Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III r. 258.77 In celebration of the third neokoria, coin types Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Seated city veered from glorifying the emperors’ martial prow- goddess holding two six-column temples. a) SNGvA ess (as they did during the second neokoria) to fo- 814. cusing on the city and its renewed honor. COIN TYPE 44. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% AUG COIN TYPE 50. Obv: AUT OUALERIANO% Laureate (radiate, d) draped cuirassed bust of GALLHNO% OUALERIANO% (KAI%A, dnq; KAI%, Gordian III r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKO- low; K, cj) (%EBBB, bcdefghijlmoqrsw) Laureate RV Two six-column temples. a) Vienna 15846 b) (radiate, dloqrw) draped cuirassed busts of Vale- Köln 110 c) Köln 111 d) Köln 112. rian and Gallienus turned toward one another; below, (laureate, l) draped cuirassed bust of COIN TYPE 45. Obv: M IOULIO% FILIPPO% Valerianus, r. Rev: Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Philip r. NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKO- AUG ow Three temples, lower two Rev: Two eight- RVN (NEKORVN, ) NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN six-column (four, enpsv; two, ak) turned toward column temples, disc in each pediment, a tall one another, center one six-column (two, ak), column between them (Demeter on it?). a) Köln Demeter within; a snake-entwined altar in their 121 (worn). midst. a) Boston 62.315 b) London 1961.3-1-128 COIN TYPE 46. Obv: M IOULIO% FILIPPO% c) BMC 68 d) BMC 69 e) BMC 70 f) Oxford Christ AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Philip r. Church 827 g) Paris 1466 h) Paris 1467 i) Paris Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eight- 1468 j) SNGCop 582 k) SNGvA 859 l) SNGvA 860 column temples, disc in each pediment. a) SNGvA m) Vienna 15851 n) Vienna 34453 (illus. pl. 29 834 b) New York 71.279 c) Köln 122. fig. 130) o) Vienna 15852 p) Berlin 316/1922 q) Berlin, Löbbecke r) Berlin, von Rauch s) New COIN TYPE 47. Obv: M OTAKILAIA %EUHRA York, Newell t) New York 42.148 u) SNGvA 7141 Draped bust of Otacilia r. Rev: AU NIKO- v) SNGTüb 2146 w) SNGTüb 2147. MHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN City goddess holding two six-column temples. a) Köln 131 a) Köln COIN TYPE 51. Obv: 132. PO LIK OUALERIANO% AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Valerian COIN TYPE 48. Obv: AU KA TRAIAN DEKIO% r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% NEVKORVN Three AU %E Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Trajan temples, center one six-column, Demeter on its Decius r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN; apex, side two four-column and turned toward G City goddess holding two six-column temples. a) Köln 155. 75 Pick 1904, 8 no. 3.8. 76 Weiser 1983, 360 (pl. 31 figs. 1-2, pl. 36 figs. 4-5). 77 Kienast 1996, 220-221. Weiser 1983, 74-76, comparing the coin issues of Nikomedia with those of Nikaia, would date 74 Pick 1904, 8 no. 3.7. the return of the third neokoria exactly at 256. 160 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

one another, Victories on their apices reach out ceremonies for the imperial cult as well as for to crown Demeter. a) Oxford 11-7-1938 (illus. pl. Demeter herself would now take place. Bosch, how- 29 fig. 131) b) New York 71.279 c) SNGvA 7139 ever, took the numismatic grouping of all the temples d) Köln 180.78 that made the city neokoros to represent topographi- cal reality. He conflated these coins with the ear- COIN TYPE 52. Obv: PO LI EGN GALLHNO% lier type 26, which shows a column bearing a statue AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus of Demeter between the two imperial temples.80 The r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% NEVKORVN Three resulting design, huge temples on three sides facing temples, center one six-column, Demeter on its into a square forum which contains a central col- apex, side two turned toward one another, Vic- umn and the round altar, has no precedent in tories on their apices reaching out to crown Roman imperial architectural tradition. Coins that Demeter. a) London 1975.4-11-86 b) SNGvA 7148 group the temples that made a city neokoros are not c) Köln 199 d) Köln 200 e) Köln 201 f) Köln 202. meant to convey topographical reality but only the COIN TYPE 53. Obv: PO LIK EGN GALLHNO% city’s pride in its neokoriai. More solid evidence for AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus Nikomedia’s third neokoria and temple to Demeter r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% NEVKORVN Three may be the 1897 description of a large, six-columned temples, two below turned toward one another, building found by the expedition of Pogodin and center one eight-column, Demeter within. a) Wulff; nearby was a dedication to Demeter on a 81 SNGvA 7147. fragment of column. But column fragments are movable, and a dedication to Demeter would not COIN TYPE 54. Obv: AUT OUALERIANO% GAL- be out of place anywhere in Nikomedia. LHNO% %EBB Radiate draped cuirassed busts of The coin type of a patron goddess holding two Valerian and Gallienus turned toward one an- temples had been popular at Nikomedia since its other. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% NEVKORVN (unfortunate) second neokoria from Commodus. The Three temples, center one six-column, a figure addition of a temple for the third neokoria, however, within, side two turned toward one another; be- created a problem for a goddess with only two hands. low, a galley. a) London 1970.9-9-51 b) Paris 1465 This was solved by putting the third temple on her c) SNGvA 858 d) Warsaw 58660 e) Berlin, von head: Rauch f) New York, Newell. COIN TYPE 55. Obv: PO LIK OUALERIANO% The third temple for which Nikomedia was neokoros AU Radiate cuirassed bust of Valerian l. with was again that of the city’s patron Demeter, again spear and shield. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% probably for reasons of expense as much as for rea- NEVKORVN Seated city goddess with a six-col- sons of cult. The three temples are grouped together umn temple in each hand and one on her head. but hers, the ‘newest,’ is paramount, always above a) SNGvA 7138. or between the other two. The goddess identifies her COIN TYPE 56. Obv: temple by standing within (types 50, 53) or on its PO LI EGN GALLHNO% AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus peak, where she is crowned by Victories that perch r. (youthful, cde) Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% on the other two temples (types 51, 52). These re- NEVKORVN Seated city goddess with a six-col- call the fact that Victories did feature as akroteria umn temple in each hand and one on her head. on coin images of both imperial temples, though in a) London 1961.3-1-131 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 132) b) different poses. One novelty on these coin types is Berlin 90/1933 c) SNGvA 7145 d) SNGvA 7146 e) a snake-entwined altar that occasionally appears in Köln 196 f) Köln 197 g) Köln 198. the temples’ midst (type 50).79 The altar is most likely that of Demeter’s temple, at which sacrifices and Nikomedia’s coinage came to an end soon after its third neokoria had been granted, as did almost all civic coinage. The city was one of the prime targets 78 Corsten 1996, no. 180, but central figure misidentified of the Goths on their march through Bithynia, prob- as emperor. 79 Weiser 1983, 368 pl. 34 fig. 9-10, a coin from a Ger- man private collection, also seems to depict a bow to the right 80 C. Bosch 1935, 214-218. of the altar. 81 Ibid., 218 nn. 48, 49. chapter 15 – nikomedia 161 ably in 258.82 Though the Nikomedians fled before Commodus: BMC 29, 30, 33, 36; SNGCop 568; SNGvA the attack, the Goths found plenty of loot in the city, 766, 7103, 7107; Berlin (9 exx.), Boston, London (1 and on their return journey they burned both it and ex.), New York (3 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.). its old rival Nikaia. The city persevered even after, Twice neokoros: but we hear no more of its neokoria. Septimius Severus: BMC 38-43; SNGCop 569; SNGvA 767- 769; Köln 58; Berlin (8 exx.), London, New York (5 exx.), Oxford, Paris (12 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.), INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Warsaw. Julia Domna: SNGvA 770, 771; Köln 59; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York, Paris (6 exx.), Neokoros: Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw. 1. CIG 1720. Agonistic inscription from Delphi, reign Caracalla Caesar: BMC 51, 53. of Commodus. See text above. Caracalla Augustus: BMC 44-50, 52; SNGCop 571; SNGvA Twice neokoros: 772-775, 7108-7110; Köln 60, 61; Berlin (11 exx.), Boston, London, New York (4 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), 2. CIG 3771 (IGRR 3:6; TAM 4.1.25). Altar for Julia Paris (24 exx.), Vienna (14 exx.), Warsaw. Domna, erected after 197 under Septimius Severus, Plautilla: SNGCop 572; Berlin, London, New York, Paris, as there are plural Augusti and her title is simply Vienna. ‘mother of the armies.’ That date was accepted for Geta Caesar: BMC 54; SNGCop 573; SNGvA 776; Berlin the careers of the officials mentioned, M. Claudius (2 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York, Paris, Vienna. Demetrios (PIR2 C 846; Thomasson 1984, 250 no. Geta Augustus: Köln 62; Berlin, New York, Paris. 2 Macrinus: BMC 55; SNGvA 777, 7111; Berlin, London 49) and Caesernius Statianus (PIR C 179). TAM (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris, Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw. wrongly dated the altar to the Empress’ stay in the Diadumenian: Vienna (2 exx.). city in 214/215; but that was during Caracalla’s sole Three times neokoros: rule and the mention of ‘Augusti’ would not have Elagabalus: SNGvA 778; Berlin (3 exx.), London, Oxford, been tolerated. Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Julia Paula: BMC 56; New York. Severus Alexander: SNGCop 578; SNGvA 779, 780; Köln 64, 65; Ireland 2000, no. 1639; Berlin (4 exx.), COINS CITING NEOKORIA: London (3 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (9 exx.). Twice neokoros: Neokoros: Severus Alexander: BMC 57-59; SNGCop 574-577; SNGvA Antoninus Pius: BMC 15, 17; SNGCop 552, 555; SNGvA 781-785, 7113, 7114; Köln 66-68; Berlin (14 exx.), 749, 751; SNGRighetti 659; Berlin (2 exx.), London, London (6 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris Oxford (2 exx.), Paris, Vienna, Warsaw. (14 exx.), Vienna (15 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.). Marcus Aurelius: BMC 19, 20; SNGCop 557; SNGvA 754- Julia Mamaea: SNGvA 786, 787; Berlin, Boston, London, 757, 759, 760, 7104; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston, Lon- Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw. don (3 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Maximinus: BMC 60; SNGvA 788-796; SNGRighetti 661; Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw. Köln 69-78; Berlin (4 exx.), London (2 exx.), New Faustina the Younger: BMC 22, 26-28, 31, 35, 37; York (3 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), War- SNGCop 560, 566, 567; SNGvA 762-765, 7105; Ber- saw (3 exx.). lin (10 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (3 exx.), New Maximus Caesar: BMC 61, 62; SNGvA 797-805, 7115, York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (16 exx.), Vienna (5 7116; SNGRighetti 662, 663; Köln 79-87; Berlin (2 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.). exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus: SNGCop 561; Berlin, Oxford, Paris (6 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw. New York, Paris, Vienna (2 exx.). Balbinus: SNGvA 7117; London. Lucius Verus: BMC 24; Paris (2 exx.); Weiser 1989, 61 Pupienus: SNGvA 806-809; Berlin, Paris. no. 22. Gordian III: BMC 63; SNGvA 810-826, 7118-7121; Commodus Caesar: BMC 26-28, 31, 35, 37; SNGCop 565- SNGRighetti 664; Köln 88-113; Berlin (7 exx.), Boston 567; SNGvA 765. (3 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (4 exx.), Ox- Twice neokoros: ford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw. Commodus: BMC 25, 34; SNGvA 7106; Berlin (4 exx.), Tranquillina: BMC 64; SNGvA 827, 828, 7122; Köln 114, London (2 ex.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (1 ex.) 115; Berlin, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna. Neokoros: Philip: SNGvA 829-834, 7123; Köln 116-123; Berlin, New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris. Otacilia: SNGCop 580; SNGvA 846, 847, 7124; Köln 127- 135; New York, Oxford, Paris. 82 Zosimus 1.35; Syncellus 716; Historia Augusta, Gallienus 4 (misplaced). See Salamon 1971, 121-123. Philip II Caesar: SNGCop 579; SNGvA 835-845, 7125; 162 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

SNGRighetti 665; Köln 136-146; Berlin (2 exx.), Bos- Volusian: BMC 66; Berlin. ton, London (3 exx.), New York (6 exx.), Paris (2 Valerian: BMC 67; SNGvA 7135-7137; Köln 173-179; exx.), Vienna. Boston, New York. Philip II Augustus?: Köln 124, 125.83 Gallienus: SNGvA 7142-7144; Köln 185-193; Berlin (3 Trajan Decius: BMC 65; SNGvA 848-852, 7126-7130; exx.), London, New York, Paris (2 exx.). SNGRighetti 666; Köln 147-159; Berlin (3 exx.), Lon- Three times neokoros: don, New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (6 exx.), Valerian: SNGvA 7138-7140; Köln 180-183; Berlin, New York Vienna. (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris. Etruscilla: SNGvA 853, 854; Köln 160, 161; Berlin. Valerian, Gallienus, Valerianus Caesar: BMC 68-72; SNGCop Herennius Etruscus: Köln 162; Berlin. 582; SNGvA 859, 860, 7141; SNGLewis 1233; SNGRighetti Hostilian: SNGvA 7131; Köln 163. 670; Köln 184; Berlin (5 exx.), London, New York (4 exx.), Oxford, Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). Trebonianus Gallus: SNGvA 855, 856, 7132-7134; 84 Valerian and Gallienus: SNGvA 858; Berlin, London, New York, SNGRighetti 667-669; Köln 164-172; Berlin (3 exx.), Paris, Warsaw. London, New York (4 exx.), Paris (4 exx.). Gallienus: SNGvA 7145-7149; Köln 194-209;85 Berlin (2 exx.), London (3 exx.), Paris (2 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw. Salonina: BMC 73; SNGvA 861-866, 7150; Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Paris (4 exx), Vienna, Warsaw. 83 Weiser 1983, 335 pl. 25 figs. 3-4. Despite Weiser’s iden- tification based on the portrait’s laurel wreath, it resembles the elder Philip. See Riccardi 1996, 124 n. 131. 84 Weiser 1983, 361 pl. 32 figs. 7-8, pl. 36 figs. 6-7. 85 Weiser 1983, 358 pl. 31 figs. 9-10, 361 pl. 32 figs. 7-8. chapter 16 – nikaia 163

Chapter 16. Nikaia: Koinon of Bithynia

Nikaia is perhaps best known as Nikomedia’s rival polis’ or ‘first’ of the province.4 Around 120 C.E. for primacy of Bithynia. Nikaia’s star rose for a while both cities suffered a devastating earthquake, after when Nikomedia’s sank after the Mithridatic wars, which many of their civic structures had to be re- but though Nikaia had older and more mythic ori- built.5 Hadrian appears to have visited the area on gins, Nikomedia had more vital advantages, most his tour of 123-124, perhaps soon after passing important of which was its harbor.1 Nikomedia, as through Armenia Minor (see Nikopolis); he assist- center of pre-Roman administration, became the ed both Nikaia and Nikomedia.6 Nikomedia added koinon center, but there is no document that assures the epithet ‘Hadrianic’ to its titulature to express its which city was the primary seat of the governor.2 gratitude (see Nikomedia inscription 1); it probably Although Nikaia had the disadvantage of being had already received the title ‘neokoros’ from its inland and lacking a port, Cassius Dio, a native of long-standing temple of Rome and Augustus, though the city, ranked it above Nikomedia, at least in the title itself is not documented there until the time writing of events in 29 B.C.E. At that time, Augus- of Antoninus Pius. But until recently it was not tus gave Nikaia the privilege of building a temple known whether Nikaia was able to do anything sim- to Rome and the hero Julius (Caesar), which was to ilar. Then when late walling around the city’s east- be for the use of Romans resident in the province, ern gate (the Lefke Kapi) was cleared away, a long- indicating that there were some.3 In Asia, which known dedication to Hadrian on both sides of its received the same cults at the same time that architrave was revealed to have once proclaimed Bithynia did, Ephesos received the cult of Rome and Nikaia as neokoros of the Augusti: Caesar, whereas Pergamon became the center of the INSCRIPTION 1. ”ahin 1979, no. 29 (also re- koinon’s cult and received the temple where the stored on no. 30, other side of gate, and no. 30a, provincials were to worship the living emperor on northern gate, Istanbul Kapi) (= ”ahin 1978, Augustus. Ephesos, like Nikaia, was classed by Dio 1.5). ¤ as foremost in its province, but was also the assured AÈtokrãtori Ka sari yeoË TraianoË Par- | | seat of the governor and a major port; Pergamon, yikoË u “ yeoË NeroÊa u vn“ Traian“ ÑAd[ria]- } ¤ { like Nikomedia, had been the center of Hellenistic n“ Sebast“ dhmarxik w §jous aw eÈsebestãth rule. _nev[kÒ]row [t«]n Sebast«n´ épÚ DionÊsou [ka‹ ÑHrakl°]ouw _[pr]\[t]h [Bi]yun[¤a]w ka‹ PÒntou { mh[tr]Ò[p]oliw d¢ ka[tå tå kr¤mata] t«[n } | First Neokoria: Hadrian aÈ]to[kr]a[t]Òr[vn ka‹] t w erçw s[u]nklÆtou´ ”ahin attributed the newly discovered neokoria to In the early second century Dio Chrysostomos be- Nikaia’s temple to Rome and the deified Julius Cae- rated the Nikomedians for quarreling with the Ni- sar, established, like Nikomedia’s temple to (Rome kaians over empty honors, such as who would walk and) Augustus, in 29 B.C.E.7 But the parallel evi- first in provincial processions, and whether one or the other should have exclusive title to be ‘metro- 4 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38, ‘To the Nikomedians, on Concord with the Nikaians.’ See Swain 1996, 219-225; C. Jones 1978, 83-89. 1 Guinea Díaz 1997, 323-335. 5 Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 233-234 no. 2 Haensch 1997, 282-290. 112, though this conflates several earthquakes in the area in 3 Cassius Dio 51.20.6-7, a passage examined in fuller de- the 120s C.E. tail in chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ and chapter 15, ‘Nikomedia.’ For 6 Halfmann 1986a, 190-191, 198-199; Birley 1997, 157. cults of Rome and Caesar, see Whittaker 1996, 93-99. 7 ”ahin 1978, 22-25, followed by Merkelbach 1987. 164 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia dence of Ephesos (q.v.), which got a temple to the (indeed no Nikaian issues are known from this pe- same cults at the same time as Nikaia, but only fi- riod).12 nally became neokoros for a later (Flavian) temple Inscription 1 specifies that Nikaia held such titles of the Augusti, rules it out. As noted above, the as ‘neokoros of the Augusti,’ ‘first of Bithynia and temples for Rome and the hero Julius were desig- Pontus,’ and ‘metropolis, according to judgments of nated by Augustus as being for resident Romans, and the emperors and of the Roman Senate.’13 The use so had no status within the koina of the provinces of the term ‘neokoros of the Augusti’ confirms ear- which housed them. True provincial imperial lier evidence from Ephesos, Beroia, and elsewhere temples were maintained by the koina, like those for that provincial temples were built to honor the cult Rome and Augustus at Pergamon and Nikomedia of plural emperors, not just that of their grantor administered by the koina of Asia and Bithynia re- specifically (see the summary chapter 42, ‘The spectively, and it was only these that later gained Roman Powers,’ in Part II). Pergamon and Nikomedia the title ‘neokoroi.’ Nikaia The mention of the Senate’s part in judgments at that time had no such koinon temple.8 regarding the status of the city confirms the earlier We have no record of Bithynia requesting or account in Tacitus’ Annals 4.55-56, where Tiberius receiving permission for further koinon temples or sat in the Senate and let it debate which city in Asia cult from 29 B.C.E. up to the reign of Hadrian. (eventually Smyrna, q.v.) should house his temple. Where Asia had had at least five imperial temples By the reign of Hadrian, imperial legates rather than in various cities, Bithynia seems to have had only senatorial proconsuls sometimes had primary con- the one at Nikomedia. Nikaia had given pentaeteric trol of Bithynia, but this seems to have made no Koina from the reign of Nero on, but this does not difference to the Senate’s role in confirming Nikaia’s necessarily imply the presence of a provincial tem- titles.14 The ‘judgments’ cited may imply that Nikaia ple.9 The absence of the word ‘neokoros’ on Nikaia’s had to put up several fights for some or all of these earlier, Flavian gate inscriptions only hints that the titles, with its most likely opponent being Nikomedia. title had not been awarded by the time of its engrav- But the state of the inscriptions today also shows that ing; but any mention of the title as early as the Nikomedia eventually did triumph: many of Nikaia’s Flavian period was rare.10 titles have been erased, and it is possible to figure Hadrian came to earthquake-stricken Nikaia and out when. gave it new civic structures: colonnaded streets, an agora, and city walls.11 In honor of his assistance and his visit, the Flavian gates of the city were rededi- Withdrawn: Septimius Severus cated to him. In view of these other benefactions, it is possible that he made Nikaia neokoros as well. In the contest for the Empire between Septimius This would have brought Nikaia onto a par with Severus and Pescennius Niger in 193-194, Niko- neokoros Nikomedia, an action that would have media soon turned toward the former, while Nikaia been most welcome to the Nikaians and not incon- held onto its loyalty to Niger partially out of pure sistent with what had been done in Asia. It would hatred for Nikomedia.15 When Niger finally lost, also have been consistent with what Hadrian was Nikaia suffered the consequences: it was stripped of about to do: grant the neokoria to Kyzikos (also a all its official titulature, and the erasure of those victim of earthquake), Smyrna, and Ephesos, all in formerly proud titles stood on the city gate as a the same province of Asia. Still, no corroborative evidence for Hadrian doing anything similar in 12 Weiser 1983, 200. Bithynia has been found on inscriptions or on coins 13 Langer 1981, 140-147 gave an unsatisfactory account of Nikaia and its titles, mainly based on out-of-date and misun- derstood numismatic evidence from Waddington, Babelon, and Reinach 1976. For a corrective, Weiser 1989, 55-58. For the 8 Guinea Díaz 1997, 225-228. multiplication of metropoleis (among them both Nikaia and 9 Deininger 1965, 61. Note Karl 1975, 24-26, with sev- Nikomedia) in the eastern provinces under Hadrian, Bowersock eral errors (e.g. Nikomedia, not Nikaia, received the first temple 1985. of Rome and Augustus). 14 Remy 1986, 64-65, 76-77. 10 ”ahin 1979, nos. 25-28; J. and L. Robert in Revue des études 15 Herodian 3.2.7-9, overdramatic as usual; basic to study grecques 92 (1979) 511 n. 541; S. Price 1984b, 76-77, also 266. of this and all such rivalries is L. Robert 1977b, esp. 22-25; 11 Schorndorfer 1997, 141-143; Winter 1996, 90-91, 101. also see Birley 1988, 110. chapter 16 – nikaia 165 painful reminder. Only those names that referred to 249) they issued coins that showed the reverse type the city’s religious status or patron deities were al- most frequently used by neokoroi cities, that of two lowed to stand. Severus also matched Nikaia’s pun- or more temples: ishment with rewards to its rival: Nikomedia was COIN TYPE 1. Obv: bc given all that Nikaia had lost, the uncontested right MARKIA OTAK(I, ) Diademed draped bust of Otacilia to be ‘first’ and ‘metropolis,’ and, as it was already %EOUHRA AUG Severa r. Rev: Two four-column neokoros for the venerable temple of Rome and NIKAI[E]VN temples turned toward one another. a) New York Augustus, a second neokoria for a temple of Sep- 73.191 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 133) b) Cologne21 c) Co- timius Severus. logne. Nikaia was not allowed to languish in complete disfavor for long, however. Cassius Dio 76.15.3 The objects of cult of the temples are unspecified, records that Severus himself, along with his prae- but this was true of many of the types issued by torian prefect Plautianus, spent time in the city, neokoroi as well. With so many coins of the Greek probably in 202 on the way back from their east- provinces still scattered or unpublished, it is difficult ern campaign.16 There, an inscription honoring to be sure, but this type seems to be one of the only Plautianus’ daughter (and Severus’ daughter-in-law) multiple-temple coin types issued by a non-neokoros Plautilla during her brief and ill-fated marriage to city.22 On the other hand, the two temples were also Caracalla in 202-205 calls Nikaia “most illustrious sometimes depicted on coins celebrating the concord and greatest, friend and ally, faithful to the Roman between two cities, each of which had a famous people and ancestral relative to the house of the shrine.23 Still, it is possible that the Nikaians were emperors, Aurelian Antoninian, most pious city of imitating contemporary coin types of their rival the Nikaians.”17 Of course, there is no sign of the Nikomedia which celebrated its two provincial previous and most desired titles ‘first,’ ‘metropolis,’ temples.24 Nonetheless, the legend carefully limits or ‘neokoros’; Nikomedia still maintained its primacy itself to the words ‘of the Nikaians,’ with no trace there. But the rest sounds magniloquent enough. of a claim to the title ‘neokoros.’ That Nikaia became ‘Aurelian Antoninian’ hints that the city was restored to favor on Caracalla’s peti- tion; in several cases Severus allowed his former INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: anger to abate at such pleas of his successor- designate, who thus won the gratitude of the city in Neokoros: question.18 Nikaia also celebrated Severeia Philadelphia 1. ”ahin 1979, no. 29 (also restored on no. 30, other in honor of Severus and both his sons, probably side of gate, and no. 30a, on northern gate, Istanbul around 204.19 The city may have continued to re- Kapi) (= ”ahin 1978, 1.5). Under Hadrian, erased call its earlier and ill-fated political decision, how- under Septimius Severus. Also note correction by ever: Nikaia later issued coins celebrating its concord Bowersock 1985, 86 nn. 38-39. with Byzantion, another city that had been stalwart for Niger and suffered for it.20 No coins of Nikaia as neokoros are yet known.25 Though there is no further evidence for Nikaia as neokoros, it is doubtful that the Nikaians forgot their lost neokoria: as late as the reign of Philip (244- 21 Exx. b and c: Weiser 1983, nos. 108-109. 22 M. Price and Trell 1977, 257 no. 291 and indices; see ‘Introduction: Methodology,’ above. 16 Halfmann 1986a, 218. 23 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 57 no. 549 (Ephesos and 17 ”ahin 1979, no. 59; L. Robert 1977b, 25-26; Birley 1988, Alexandria), 128 no. 1270 (Magnesia and Ephesos), 210 nos. 142. 2133-2144 (Smyrna and Pergamon). Incidentally, the only non- 18 Historia Augusta, Caracalla 1; L. Robert 1977b, 27-28 n. neokoros city involved was Alexandria in Egypt, though Mag- 134. nesia issued its double-temple concord coin under Caracalla 19 Weiser 1983, 122, 223. but only became neokoros later, under Severus Alexander. 20 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 20-22 nos. 125-139, 140-148 24 See chapter 15, ‘Nikomedia,’ coin type 37; Weiser 1983, nos. 1352-1451; Sheppard 1984-1986, 234, 237; the concord 245, and 75 for another occasion on which Nikaian types had nothing to do with fishing rights: Weiser 1983, 47-48. Weiss imitated those of Nikomedia. 1998, 64-65, noted the alliance, but missed the connection with 25 For recut/falsified coins with the title, see ”ahin 1978, Niger. 22 n. 52, 23 n. 53. 166 part i – section iii. koinon of galatia

SECTION III. KOINON OF GALATIA

Chapter 17. Ankyra: Koinon of Galatia

First Neokoria: Augustus nances of an Eastern province soon after its incor- poration. These would have included a koinon and The earliest and most famous surviving provincial a cult of Augustus and Rome, and both were cen- temple to the imperial cult is the temple at Ankyra tered in Ankyra, which thus became metropolis as (modern Ankara) in the province of Galatia.1 It is well.3 Despite Greek, Roman, Phrygian, and other best known for the monumentum Ancyranum, the populations that made up the province, the elite class great inscription of Augustus’ accomplishments, was Celtic, and in its earliest documents the koinon engraved in Latin on the interior walls of the pronaos was ‘of the Galatians,’ not of the Hellenes of the and translated into Greek on the exterior wall of the province, as in, for example, Asia and Bithynia.4 The cella of the temple. But despite the years of study suggestion that Galatia looked to the West rather devoted to this inscription there are questions about than the East for the basis of its imperial cult, and the temple itself that have not been resolved, ques- was inspired in this by the fact that the Gauls had tions that have some bearing on the neokoria. set up an altar of Rome and Augustus in Lugdunum The first problem is that though we know that in 12 B.C.E. is, however, unconvincing.5 The insti- Ankyra was neokoros, all of the evidence for it is late; tutions of the koinon of the Galatians were basically it held the title twice by the joint reign of Valerian like, and probably inspired by, those of neighbors and Gallienus (253-260). Moreover there is no state- in Asia Minor, where Asia and Bithynia had had ment of the cults to which the city owed those hon- their provincial temples to Rome and Augustus since ors. One must then look back over the history of 29 B.C.E. The temple at Ankyra is of thoroughly Ankyra to discover what event(s) could have obtained eastern and Hellenizing form. A Celtic emphasis on neokoria for this chief city of Galatia, and it is al- feasting, as well as Roman blood games, were no most unimaginable that the establishment of the first doubt added onto these traditions. and greatest imperial temple of the province, that The temple at Ankyra is one of the few and likely of Augustus and Rome, should not be one. This is the earliest of the temples built for the provincial not to say that every provincial imperial temple in imperial cult that can be archaeologically examined every province resulted in the neokoria for its home (illus. pl. 1 fig. 1). A thorough architectural analysis city, but that since Ankyra is known to have been of the remains of the temple was published by neokoros, it was most likely given that title for the Krencker and Schede in 1936.6 Through excavation temple of Augustus and Rome. they were able to prove that the relatively well- Galatia had became a Roman province after the preserved cella, opening to the southwest, had been death of its king, Amyntas, in 25 B.C.E. Ankyra was surrounded by a pseudodipteral peristasis of eight a natural choice as seat of the governor: already the columns on the short sides and fifteen on the long fortress of the Tectosage Galatians, its strategic sides. The peristasis was 23.6 x 42.42 m. measured position controlled the most important part of the along the centers of the columns, and probably stood somewhat heterogeneous province.2 It is likely (but on an eight-stepped base measuring 36 x 54.82 m. not certain) that Galatia received all the appurte-

3 Cross and Leiser 2000, 70-79; Deininger 1965, 20-21. 1 S. Price 1984b, 109, 152 n. 47, 167-168, 177 n. 31, 208 4 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:109-111; idem 1980. n. 7, 229 n. 105, 267-268. 5 Fayer 1976, 131-132. 2 Haensch 1997, 277-281; S. Mitchell 1993, 1:54-55, 61- 6 Krencker and Schede 1936; see also Gros 1996-2001, 69, 86-89; Remy 1986, 21-27; Magie 1950, 455, 459. 1:161, 163. chapter 17 – ankyra 167

The pronaos had four columns prostyle, the opis- Both Halfmann and Mitchell have dated the first thodomos two columns in antis. priesthood originally listed on the temple’s anta to The only architectural features that hinted at the 19/20 C.E.10 Halfmann, however, pointed out that order of the temple were the anta capitals. Though the name of the imperial legate to Galatia, a con- badly preserved, the remains of a figure of Victory stant element in the rest of the inscription, is lack- hovering over acanthus leaves were recognizable, ing over the entry for the first priest. It is therefore and seem more suitable to the Corinthian than the possible that the anta inscription is simply a continu- Ionic order. This order was apparently confirmed ation of a priest list begun elsewhere, and that the when later excavations turned up four battered Augustan refinements of the temple’s decoration Corinthian capitals which matched the height of the confirm its pre-Tiberian date. Krencker and Schede anta capitals.7 The architectural ornament in gen- had noted that the antae upon which the monu- eral is particularly fine and elaborate, and follows mentum Ancyranum was engraved were originally Hellenistic models so closely that Schede dated it in not intended for that purpose, but had had to be the second century B.C.E. despite the chronologi- smoothed down to receive the inscription: one block cal disparity between this and the Roman imperial in the topmost course of the area to be inscribed was inscriptions on the walls. A continuous frieze of flow- left with drafted edges instead of being smoothed ering acanthus shoots, interspersed with an occa- flat.11 It is likely, then, that 19/20 C.E. is only a sional Victory, scrolls along the outer cella walls. The point after which the provincial priesthood of Victories are of classicizing style, but their position Augustus and Rome must have existed. among the foliage recalls the archaized Victories The anta inscription also records a seeming para- whose legs turn into acanthus scrolls on the temple dox. A very important man, Pylaimenes, son of of the Deified Julius Caesar in the Forum at Rome.8 Amyntas the last king of Galatia, served as priest in More flowered scrolls adorn the great door into the 19 or 20 C.E., and among his donations are re- cella, and the sacred nature of its interior is empha- corded “the places where the Sebasteion is, and sized by a frieze of hanging garlands. The sculptural where the festival takes place, and the racecourse” theme of the whole might be characterized as ‘vic- (lines 27-29). Hänlein supposed that the temple of tory and fruitfulness.’ Augustus and Rome itself was the Sebasteion, and that The inscription most useful for establishing the Pylaimenes had given its site before he had served chronology of the temple is that on the left (west) as priest, leaving time for the building to be built.12 anta of the pronaos.9 The inscription preserves a list Tuchelt threw doubt on the identification: Sebasteia, of priests of the Galatians for ‘the god Augustus and in his view, were simpler structures built on a simi- the goddess Rome.’ They are listed in the order in lar pattern throughout the provinces, and this which they held office, and the name of the procon- peripteral temple did not suit that pattern, so it must sular legate of the province heads a group that held have been dedicated to Kybele.13 Mitchell, Half- the priesthood during his tenure. A summary of each mann, and Hänlein(-Schäfer) have all pointed out priest’s benefactions, such as public banquets, gladi- the errors in this thesis.14 On the other hand, Hän- atorial games, and provision of oil for the baths, lein’s reconstruction was based on several assump- generally follows his name, but the list is not a cata- tions, all of which should be made explicit, as any logue of gifts; one priest (line 39) apparently gave of them may be questioned: that the priesthood was nothing at all. The engraving was the work of sev- founded at the point at which the extant list of priests eral different hands, and it is likely that each priest’s begins; that the list begins when the temple was name was inscribed as he left office. founded; and that the word Sebasteion refers to the temple upon which the list is inscribed. Halfmann doubted all these assumptions.

7 Bittel and A. Schneider 1941. For a reminiscence at some distance, see Güterbock 1989; his observation that at one point a foundation course for the peristasis did not bond with that 10 Halfmann 1986b; S. Mitchell 1986; 1993, 1:103-105, 107- for the pronaos columns is only a constructional detail, and 112. cannot be taken as proof that the peristasis long postdates the 11 Krencker and Schede 1936, 22, 51; also Fittschen 1985. pronaos. 12 Hänlein 1981. 8 Vollkommer 1997, no. 269. 13 Tuchelt 1981; Tuchelt and Preisshofen 1985. 9 E. Bosch 1967, 35-49 no. 51. 14 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 13-15, 185-190, 289-290. 168 part i – section iii. koinon of galatia

Perhaps it is best not to be too exact in dating the Yet another inscription decorates and documents completion of the temple at Ankyra. Mitchell dated the temple at Ankyra. Now largely eroded, it was the organization of Galatia as a province, from chiseled onto the right (south) anta of the pronaos, which its era began, to 22-20 B.C.E.; Halfmann to and so corresponds with the list of priests of the 23-22; Leschhorn to 25/24.15 Whichever is correct, Galatians discussed above. Here, however, the list between that point and 19-20 C.E. the temple of begins “Those who in their terms of chief priesthood Augustus and Rome was proposed, agreed upon, promised works for the contributions,” and the first planned, built, and dedicated. Though authorities and only name preserved is that of Cocceius Seleu- have made various assumptions about what equip- kos, chief priest of Augustus.19 As the Roman name ment must have existed for the cult to have taken Cocceius was probably obtained with Roman citi- place, even such an essential as an altar was not zenship during the reign of M. Cocceius Nerva, this donated until 37 or 38 C.E.; as the list records the list should not date before 96; one Cocceius Alex- sacrifice of a hekatomb well before this (by Albiorix andros, perhaps a relative of Seleukos, was active in son of Ateporix, who also donated statues of ‘Cae- Ankyra at the time of Antoninus Pius.20 In any case, sar and Julia Sebaste’ in ca. 23 C.E.), a temporary it is noteworthy that the former ‘priests of the or simple altar must have been used until a donor Galatians’ have apparently become chief priests, and gave a more grandiose permanent one. As for the that, unless her name stood in a rather small area statues of Tiberius and his mother, Bosch had as- of damaged letters, the cult of the goddess Rome has sumed that they were cult statues and that as such fallen away, leaving only Augustus. The ‘works’ that they should have been set up in the temple as soon were promised appear to have involved construction, as possible after Tiberius’ accession; but the Greek so it seems that some building was still going on in word used for them (andriantes) only means ordinary the precinct into the second century. statues, which could have stood anywhere in the Schede believed that he knew exactly what those sanctuary or even in the city itself.16 On the other works were and that he could date them precisely. hand, if Albiorix’ term has been correctly dated, it This was due to his interpretation of coins issued by fell in the same year that the koinon of Asia was the koinon of the Galatians and by Ankyra.21 Early granted permission to build a temple to Tiberius, his imperial coins that showed a facade of four (Ionic) mother, and the Senate; the influence of this action columns were taken to be the tetrastyle pronaos of may have traveled east to Galatia as it did west to the temple of Augustus, but its peristasis was not Spain.17 supposed to have been built until the time of Marcus To return to Pylaimenes’ gifts: Hänlein believed Aurelius, when an eight-column facade first ap- that “the places where the Sebasteion is, and where peared on the coins. Schede had to admit that the the festival takes place, and the racecourse” were all foundations for these columns were contemporary interconnected, and found precedent for this ar- with those of the pronaos, but believed that noth- rangement in another provincial temple to Augustus ing had been put on them for the three centuries of at Tarraco.18 Thus she thought that the temple at building history that he postulated. On the other Ankyra (which she identified with the Sebasteion) was hand, coins of Vespasian, Nerva, and Trajan that the high point of a grandiose complex, with the showed a six-column temple were considered to racecourse at its foot. Given that the identification represent another building entirely. of temple and Sebasteion is not certain, this hypothesis That numismatic convention frequently abbrevi- cannot be confirmed, though it is certainly not ates the number of columns on a peripteral struc- impossible; the existence of modern Ankara makes ture is now well known, and has already been it difficult to test by excavation. discussed in the introduction (‘Methodology’). So it will be worthwhile to reevaluate the relevant coins with temple reverses here. This has become simpler 15 Leschhorn 1993, 398-414; 1992. Stumpf 1991, 125-131 inclined towards Halfmann’s estimate. 16 E. Bosch 1967, 43. 17 Tacitus, Annals 3.66-69; 4.37 on Hispania Ulterior’s re- 19 E. Bosch 1967, 118-120 no. 102; S. Mitchell 1993, 1:112, quest (denied by the emperor) to build a temple to Tiberius 116. and his mother. See chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ 20 Krencker and Schede 1936, 57-59. 18 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 39-40, 185-190, 289-290; accepted 21 Krencker and Schede 1936, 40-42 (coins henceforward by Gros 1996-2001, 1:229-231. ‘Schede’ with his type letters). chapter 17 – ankyra 169 since Arslan’s studies of Ankyra’s Roman-period again shows the moon god Men, but its reverse coinage have appeared.22 explicitly identifies a temple of the emperors: First, it should be pointed out that the temples COIN TYPE 1. Obv: shown on coins of one city may be associated with KOINON GALATVN Phrygian-capped bust of Men, crescent at shoul- various cults, not necessarily with a single cult. For ders, l.29 Rev: Six-column temple, example, prominent on the coins of the koinon of %EBA%TVN disc in pediment (no pediment, b).30 a) SNGvA the Galatians was the moon god Men, whose cult 6113 b) SNGParis 2388 d) SNGParis 2389 e) An- had been important in the area since the time of the kara (Arslan 12) f) Ankara (Arslan 13) g) Ankara Phrygians.23 Sometimes the god’s head is on the (Arslan 14). obverse, more frequently his figure is on the re- verse.24 In one case, the emperor may have been COIN TYPE 2. Obv: GALBA% %EBA%TO% Bust assimilated to the god: coins of Galba with his name of Galba, l. Rev: [%E]BA%TVN Six-column on both obverse and reverse show a reverse figure temple, disc in pediment.31 a) SNGParis 2407 (illus. of Men, and though portrait features are not discern- pl. 30 fig. 134) b) New York. ible, it is possible that Galba was honored as the new The reverse of these types likely represents the Men.25 Also, certain koinon coins issued early in the temple in Ankyra, the most prominent imperial reign of Trajan under T. Pomponius Bassus, the temple and center for the koinon. If so, it should be legatus of Galatia and Cappadocia (98-100 C.E.), noted that the temple is labeled not ‘of the god show reverses of a temple of Men either with the Augustus and the goddess Rome,’ as the priests of god himself within or with his symbol, the crescent, the temple were, nor ‘of Augustus,’ as the chief in the pediment; on some examples the temple’s priests were, but ‘of the Augusti,’ with emperors after central facade is shown as arched.26 But there is no Augustus included in the cult. reason to identify this temple, or the cult of Men, Other depictions of a temple are less identifiable, with the temple and cult of Augustus and Rome in only showing a circle or dot in the pediment. The Ankyra.27 After all, Lycia’s provincial festival hon- koinon continued to mint until the reign of Trajan, ored Rome and Leto, and there was a provincial and among its reverse types were a four-column, priest for the ancestral Apollo, but we need not perhaps Ionic, temple (under Nero)32 and a six-col- assume that either of those cults shared a temple with umn temple (under Trajan).33 Ankyra began to mint the emperor(s).28 Furthermore, the portrait of its own coins from the reign of Vespasian, and they Macedonia’s hero Alexander the Great was the most showed a similar six-column temple.34 Under Nerva, frequent obverse of the koinon coinage issued by however, a variant appeared on the city’s coinage: Beroia (q.v.), but this did not mean that the hero’s sometimes an eagle spreads its wings below the shield cult shared a temple with the long-standing provin- in the pediment of the six-column (Corinthian) cial imperial cult. temple.35 The eagle, which Schede held to symbol- On the other hand, an imperial temple may be explicitly identified on other koinon coins of type 1, 29 Occasionally misidentified as Attis, but the crescent is below. Minted without imperial portrait but datable decisive. by comparison with type 2, of Galba, its obverse 30 RPC 1:543-549, esp. no. 3567. Note that the redating of the left anta inscription of the temple at Ankyra (in order to solve an iconographic problem in the coins of the proconsul Basila) has not been thought through sufficiently. 22 Arslan 1997 (coins henceforward ‘Arslan’ with coin 31 RPC 1, no. 3566. number). The major part of the corpus is from the Anatolian 32 SNGParis 2398, 2399; Arslan nos. 2-4; Schede type A; Civilizations Museum in Ankara. This latest publication incor- RPC 1 no. 3563. porates several earlier studies of the same material, including 33 SNGParis 2427-2432 (the last five-column); Arslan nos. Arslan 1991. 32-37; Schede type I/J. For similar coins issued with only the 23 S. Mitchell 1993, 2:24-25, 186, with a list of shrines. name of the governor, not that of the koinon, Grant 1950, 44 24 Obverse: Arslan nos. 12-14. Reverse: Arslan nos. 19, 20, nos. 4-6, issued under (T. Helvius) Basila, after 35 C.E., all with 27-29, 44-46, add. 1. reverse of a six-column temple. For Basila, see n. 30 above; 25 Arslan nos. 10-11. Stumpf 1991, 128-131; and Weiser 1998, 275-277. 26 Schede types F, G, H; Arslan nos. 30, 31; SNGvA 6123, 34 Arslan nos. 15-18, Schede type B, SNGvA 6130, SNGParis 6124; SNGParis 2424-2426; BMC 8. For T. Pomponius Bassus, 2436. see Stumpf 1991, 239-258. 35 No eagle: Arslan nos. 25, 26, Schede type C. With eagle: 27 As does Arslan 1991, following Anabolu 1970, 33-35. Arslan nos. 24, 26a, Schede types D and E, SNGParis 2441- 28 See ‘Patara,’ chapter 33, below; Deininger 1965, 77. 2443. 170 part i – section iii. koinon of galatia ize Zeus, would be just as appropriate for a tem- chief priests of Augustus, as has been seen. Later ple to the Roman imperial cult, and especially to inscriptions also document Galatarchs; in fact, ap- Augustus, who was often assimilated to Jupiter.36 An parently some officials were chief priests, some were eagle also appears in the pediments of likely impe- Galatarchs, and some were both.40 There were also rial-cult temples in Tarsos and in Kaisareia in sebastophantai, as was the case in Bithynia. In Cappadocia (qq.v.).37 A disc in the pediment can Ankyra their office was limited to the cult of Augus- sometimes be an abbreviation for some sort of pedi- tus, as it was specifically distinguished from the mental sculpture, but as it continued to appear even position of ‘hierophant of the theoi sebastoi’ for the when that sculpture (the eagle) was present, it too other Augusti. A woman could be sebastophantes, may represent reality, perhaps a shield or portrait and the job included certain revenues which were shield. And that reality may well be the original form customarily used to underwrite a gift of oil to the of the temple of Augustus and Rome at Ankyra. city baths and gymnasia. One sebastophantes, how- In the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius ever, boasted of spending these funds on a munici- Verus, Ankyra’s coins still showed the familiar fa- pal building project and supplying money for the oil cade with disc in pediment, but occasionally with out of his own pocket.41 eight columns instead of six.38 The eight columns Mitchell claimed that there were other provincial became standard on coins of Caracalla and of temples of the Galatians beside that at Ankara, Geta.39 Schede used his type N, an issue of Cara- namely at Pessinus and perhaps at Pisidian An- calla, to prove that the peristasis of the temple of tioch.42 The latter, at least, is highly unlikely. First Augustus was Ionic, as each column capital on this of all, Antioch was not one of the centers of the three coin consists of two dots; he did not observe, how- Galatian tribes, and thus of their koinon: these were ever, that the bases also consist of two dots, and that Ankyra for the Tectosages, Pessinus for the Tolisto- all the decoration of gables, friezes, and podium is bogii, and Tavium for the Trocmi. Secondly, An- indicated by lines of dots. The dots are shorthand tioch was a Roman colony founded from an actual for ‘decoration’ and cannot be taken to define the settlement of legionary veterans, and there is no order of the temple. None of these coin types is document of a colony having a temple to the living inconsistent with any other, and all may represent emperor, or being part of the provincial cult struc- an eight column Corinthian temple, a shield and an ture, as early as Augustus’ lifetime. In fact, if Cassius eagle depicted in its pediment, with elaborate deco- Dio 51.20.6-9 is correct, a gulf was intended between ration on gables, friezes, and perhaps even on the the imperial cult to be practiced by Romans and by steps of the podium. And again, these features do provincials: the one group was to worship the dei- not conflict with the possible reconstructed form of fied Julius Caesar and the goddess Rome, the other the temple in Ankyra. Augustus himself. The design and inspiration for the It appears that the priests of the god Augustus and Antioch sanctuary is all western, the inscriptions all the goddess Rome of the Galatians later became Latin; it was completed during Augustus’ lifetime, by 2/1 B.C.E., and though the excavators preferred 36 Kuttner 1995, 65-68, even in his lifetime; though Rose to assign it to the cult of Augustus himself, it is more 1997a, 75 observed that the extant statues were Tiberian or likely to have been for the cult of deified Caesar and later. Note the domestic eagle under Augustus’ chair on the Rome.43 It was only by the end of the second cen- Gemma Augustea in Vienna (Kuttner 1995, pl. 16). 37 M. Price and Trell 1977, figs. 378 and 379 explicitly tury that the line between Roman colony and pro- compared the temples in Ankyra and Kaisareia, though the vincial city began to be blurred, and in the third Ankyra reverse is incorrectly identified as a coin of Nero rather century that perhaps first Nikopolis, later Thessa- than Nerva. 38 Six columns: Arslan no. 62 (Lucius Verus); eight columns: lonike and Neapolis, were both colonies and neo- 44 SNGvA 6142 and SNGParis 2460 (Verus) and Schede type K koroi. (Marcus Aurelius). 39 Geta: Arslan no. 112; BMC 38; SNGvA 6181, 6186; SNGParis 2527. Caracalla: Arslan nos. 93-95, 96 (worn, mis- described); BMC 32; SNGvA 6158, 6163 (octastyle in three- 40 S. Mitchell 1977, 73-75 no. 7. quarter view), 6173; SNGRighetti 1744; SNGParis 2484, 41 E. Bosch 1967, nos. 98, 105-106, 139. 2487-2489; Schede L, M, N; Hexastyle? but in three-quarter 42 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:103-107. The doubts expressed by view: SNGParis 2481, Arslan no. 97. Also their mother Julia S. Price 1984b, 268-270 still seem justified. Domna: SNGParis 2474, 2478 (the latter octastyle in three- 43 S. Mitchell and Waelkens 1998, 113-173. quarter view). 44 J. Nollé 1995. chapter 17 – ankyra 171

Pessinus, as tribal center of the Tolistobogii Certainly citizens of Pessinus became high offi- Galatians, is a thornier problem. Mitchell took as cials of the koinon. Two of the priests whose names his proof of the presence of a koinon temple IGRR appeared on the left anta of the temple at Ankyra, 3:230, which honors one (Tiberius Claudius) Heras. Lollius and Q. Gallius Pulcher, were likely from Pes- He was a priest for life of the great Mother of the sinus; one gave a feast, festival, and a cult statue gods at Pessinus and Meidaeion and (priest) of the (agalma), the other a hekatomb sacrifice, at their emperors six times, chief priest of the koinon of home city. M. Cocceius Seleukos, the chief priest Augustan Galatians and agonothetes, and also whose name is on the right anta, was also from Pes- sebastophantes of the temple in Pessinus. The prob- sinus, where an inscription honoring him and his lem is that the clearly provincial offices, the chief parents, who were themselves chief priest and (twice) priesthood and headship of the festival, are not chief priestess of the koinon, has been found.48 But explicitly connected to a temple in Pessinus. That these names of provincial officials were not carved an imperial cult was practiced in Pessinus is ensured on the temple at Pessinus, but on the antae of the by the post of sebastophantes (which may have been Ankyra temple; nor is any priest or chief priest of for Augustus, as at Ankyra, or for the Augusti in the Galatians ever specified as being ‘of the temple general), as well as implied by a priesthood of the at Ankyra’ or ‘of the temple at Pessinus,’ as they emperors held six times, but neither is explicitly ‘of often were in Asia. Koina contests were probably held the Galatians’ in this inscription, where local and at Pessinus, as at Tavium, but again, such festivals provincial offices appear in no clear order.45 could be celebrated in towns where there was no Another difficulty with Mitchell’s interpretation provincial temple.49 is that he identified all coins with a hexastyle temple In addition, the temple that has been excavated on the reverse as the hexastyle temple found at Pes- at Pessinus has only been identified with the impe- sinus, despite the fact that some of these coins were rial cult by indirect means: no dedicatory inscrip- not issued in the name of the city but with that of tions or imperial statues were found there, and a the governor or of the koinon. Thus the building Sebasteion (itself not a term exclusively denoting a portrayed on them could be the provincial imperial provincial temple, as seen above) is mentioned in the temple at Ankyra, even if some of the coins were city only in the second century.50 Though the exca- minted at Pessinus. Mitchell did not take numismatic vators have interpreted a western-style theatral area abbreviation into his consideration, though neither built into the temple’s steps as a viewing area for did Grant, whom he took as his authority.46 As has gladiatorial shows, this feature has not been docu- been seen, it is perfectly possible for the octastyle mented at other imperial temples, and was not an temple at Ankyra to have been represented as ideal venue for gladiators anyway, as it backed onto hexastyle, though again, care should be taken where one side of a colonnaded plaza.51 Firmer proof is a temple type is not explicit: there were certainly at least two temples represented on the Galatians’ 48 koinon coinage, that of Men and that of the Augusti, Devreker and Strubbe 1996, 53-55 no. 1. 49 Deininger 1965, 68; for Asia, Moretti 1954. and there may have been others less clearly identi- 50 Waelkens 1986, 67-73; Devreker, Thoen, and Vermeulen fied; a six column temple appears on civic coins of 1995. Pessinus from the time of Claudius down to the Seve- 51 For the subterranean structures and built seating neces- 47 sary for gladiatorial shows in the Roman Forum, see Gros 1996- rans. 2001, 1.318-320. Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 51-63 found that early provincial temples in the East were all of Greek type; munici- 45 The inscription was misinterpreted by Devreker in pal temples could imitate Roman buildings, but their form was Devreker and Waelkens 1984, 20; 221 no. 10.3.17 also gives most often rostral, like the temple of Julius Caesar in the Roman conflicting dates, late first century and late second century. S. forum, which is rather the reverse of a cavea temple. Hanson Mitchell 1993, 1:116 corrected the error: Heras could not have 1959, 54-55, 93-96 found some (municipal) imperial cult been six times chief priest of the koinon, but only of a civic temples associated with theaters, but the temples themselves cult, though he himself misrepeated the office as “six times high were in open fora, not above the cavea, as the one at Pessinus priest of the emperors”—the unmentioned office should refer is. Hanson’s citation (66) of Syrian shrines with caveae over- to the last office mentioned, i.e., priest. looking courtyards, however, does resemble the situation at 46 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:104 n. 30; Grant 1950, 46 n. 27. Pessinus. The Pessinus cavea would have suited ludi scaenici, but 47 Devreker and Waelkens 1984, 175 and nos. 13 (Claudius), these were fitting either for the cult of Magna Mater (as trans- 61-62 (Marcus Aurelius), 107 (Septimius Severus), 110-111 planted to Rome) or for the imperial cult: the provincial priests (Julia Domna), 176 (Geta Caesar), 205 (Geta Augustus), and of the Ankyra temple list often gave plays, though not specifi- 161-162 (Caracalla). cally at Pessinus. 172 part i – section iii. koinon of galatia needed before the temple in Pessinus can be called The assumed equivalency between number of either provincial or for the imperial cult. prize crowns and number of neokoriai has led some It is more likely that Ankyra’s status as metropo- to declare (without proof) that Ankyra was twice neo- lis and sole site of a provincial temple of the Ga- koros since the reign of Caracalla.55 It is certainly latians was unrivaled, at least for a time. Perhaps that possible that Caracalla granted a second provincial is why it did not even bother to use the title ‘neo- temple and neokoria to Ankyra, but the actual title koros’ until its second neokoria, under Valerian and only appears on coins issued about forty years later. Gallienus. Yet as we have seen, coin types that prob- One inscription of the first celebration of the Askle- ably represent its first provincial temple, that of pieia Sotereia festival gives it the name of Caracalla Augustus and Rome, had appeared intermittently himself, as if celebrating the imperial cult; but on since the time of Galba; it was most likely this temple other inscriptions (even as early as the festival’s that eventually gave Ankyra the title ‘neokoros.’ second celebration) and on all the coins Antoneineia Under Caracalla Ankyra issued a series of coins drops out; Robert called the addition of the impe- that showed the prototypical symbol of the city as rial name “banale et de pur forme.”56 neokoros, the patron god holding a temple. The coin types above simply hint at Ankyra’s COIN TYPE 3. Obv: ANTVNINO% AUGOU%TO% neokoria, but one obverse type implies a more di- Laureate head of Caracalla r. Rev: A%KLHPEIA rect connection between Caracalla and a temple, %VTHREIA I%OPUYIA ANKURA% City goddess which appears on his shield as well as on the coin’s seated on a rock labeled MHTRO, she holds an reverse. 52 eight-column temple and a prize crown. a) COIN TYPE 7. Obv: ANTVNEINO% AUG- London 1975.4-11-188 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 135) b) OU%TO% Laureate draped bust of Caracalla l, SNGParis 2507 (worn, raised edges). holding spear and shield, on which an eight-col- COIN TYPE 4. Obv: ANTVNEINO% AUG- umn temple is depicted, a Victory before its al- OU%TO% Laureate head of Caracalla r. Rev: tar. Rev: (MHTROPOLEV%, a) ANKURA% Eight- MHTROPOLEV% ANKURA% City goddess holding column temple (anchor in exergue, b). a) SNGParis four-column temple and sceptre, an anchor in the 2484 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 136) b) SNGvA 6174. 53 field. a) Berlin, Löbbecke. It should be noted, however, that the eight-column COIN TYPE 5. Obv: ANTVNEINO% AUG- temple reverse had been used on Ankyran coins OU%TO% Laureate head of Caracalla r., bearded. since the second century, and was very popular Rev: MHTROPOLEV% ANKURA% Seated city before Caracalla’s sole rule. goddess holding four-column temple leans against Another coin, unfortunately very worn, shows two anchor. a) SNGvA 6169. temples, and has been attributed to Caracalla’s successor Macrinus: COIN TYPE 6. Obv: ANTVNEINO% AUG- OU%TO% Laureate head of Caracalla r. Rev: COIN TYPE 8. Obv: . . .OPA . . K . . O . . Radi- MHTROPOLEV% ANKURA% Seated Athena in ate head of Macrinus? r., obscure. Rev: MHTROP aegis holding four-column temple and sceptre. a) B . . . RA . . . Two two-column Ionic? temples on Berlin 279/1911. the same podium, thymiaterion in each, at least The anchor in types 4 and 5 is the punning symbol one in three-quarter view; obscure. a) SNGParis for Ankyra, while the prize crown of type 3 is for 2530 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 137). the ‘great Asklepeia Sotereia Antoneineia,’ an isopythian This would seem to indicate that Ankyra was twice festival founded during Caracalla’s reign, and cel- neokoros in the reign after Caracalla’s. It is more ebrated in a more abbreviated fashion on contem- likely, however, that this is a worn example similar porary coins, with types of up to two prize crowns.54

SNGvA 6164-6166; SNGParis 2492, 2496, 2500, 2501, 2504, 2513, 2514. 52 Pick 1904, 10 no. 5.2. 55 Karl 1975, 11; also 86, misattributing to Ankyra a third 53 Ibid., 9 no. 5.1. neokoria under Valerian when the coins themselves specify only 54 L. Robert 1960a. The coins generally abbreviate to two (below). Asklepeia Sotereia Isopythia: e.g. Arslan no. 98; BMC 22-24, 28; 56 L. Robert 1960a, 362; S. Mitchell 1977, 75-77 no. 8. chapter 17 – ankyra 173 to coin type 10, below, and should be reattributed Rome, most citations of Augousteia contests in fact to the reign of Gallienus. date to the reign of Valerian and Gallienus.60 The It is nonetheless possible that Caracalla made number of neokoriai and of prize crowns (= festi- Ankyra twice neokoros during his sole rule, perhaps vals) do not correspond, so Ankyra may serve as a in connection with his eastern campaign. If so, the warning against those who would assume equiva- name of the sacred festival he gave the city may lency between them. Though Ankyra was likely neo- indicate that the honor was associated with Askle- koros for the temple of Augustus and Rome, the cult pios; perhaps the imperial cult shared a previously for which it got the second honor must remain existing temple, as it did at such cities as Pergamon uncertain. The Asklepieia Sotereia, though founded (also with Asklepios) and Smyrna (with the goddess under Caracalla, may have honored the god rather Rome). Certainly an important Galatian official than the emperor; Augousteia Aktia could have been made three embassies to the emperor: Titus Flavius granted as late as the time of Valerian; and the Mysti- Gaianus, chief priest of the koinon, Galatarch and kos is documented as early as Hadrian.61 None of sebastophantes, was not only twice agonothetes of the three prize crowns assuredly represents a festi- the koinon festival of the Galatians but twice of the val for a temple that made Ankyra neokoros.62 great Asklepeia Isopythia, and some of his embassies Ankyra’s coins abbreviated its title from ‘twice may have had to do with that festival.57 But no ex- neokoros’ to a bare BN, but its two inscriptions, the plicit evidence for temple or neokoria is yet known, first firmly dated by its reference to the empress and if Caracalla did make Ankyra twice neokoros, Salonina, wife of Gallienus, confirm the interpreta- it could be the only city outside Asia that he hon- tion: ored in that fashion. INSCRIPTION 1. S. Mitchell with French and Greenhaigh 1982 (RECAM 2) no. 403 (IGRR 3:237). From Aspona, 65 miles from Ankyra. Second Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus Statue base of Salonina (her name and Gallienus’ erased), reused as a milestone under Constantine Troops for the emperor Valerian’s campaign against and Licinius. { } ¤ ' the Sassanian Persians likely passed through Ankyra, mhtr(Òpoliw) t w Galat aw b as milestones record the roadwork carried out in nevk(Òrow) ÖAnkura. . . Galatia for the occasion.58 Though the emperor’s On coins issued by Ankyra under Gallienus, the die- personal contact with Ankyra is not documented, the cutting of the reverses becomes clumsy, but the type importance of the East as a theater of war (in Vale- of a single (still unidentified) temple reappears. rian’s case, a disastrous one) led to increased atten- COIN TYPE 9. Obv: b tion to the great cities of those provinces. Certainly (G, ) POUB LIK GAL- Radiate draped cuirassed bust of a great many neokoriai were granted under Vale- LIHNO% AUG Gallienus r. Rev: Four- rian and Gallienus, and presumably by the former, MHTROP B N ANKURA% column temple. a) Ankara (Arslan 137) b) Ankara since he was in the area. It is possible that Ankyra (Arslan 138). only became twice neokoros at this time. Contemporary agonistic types show either one or The temple has only four columns now, and those three prize crowns, and mention Aktia, Pythia, and so ineptly conveyed that their bulbous tops appear Mystikos festivals.59 The Pythia is almost certainly the Ionic. In addition, there is a coin type that shows Asklepieia Sotereia, while inscriptions record an two identical temple-like structures confronting one Augousteia Aktia; though it would be tempting to as- another: cribe this festival to the temple of Augustus and COIN TYPE 10. Obv: POUB LIK GALLIHNO% AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus 57 L. Robert 1960a, 360-361. Gaianus was honored by each r. Rev: MHTROP B N ANKURA% Two two-column of Ankyra’s twelve tribes, so there are many copies of his temples without rooflines indicated, on one po- honorifics: S. Mitchell 1977, 73-75 no. 7. 58 Foss 1977b, 31-33, reprinted as Ch. 6 in Foss 1990, took the roadwork as evidence for Valerian’s presence in Ankyra, but it more likely indicates movements of troops than those of 60 L. Robert 1960a, 367; Karl 1975, 25-26. emperors. See Halfmann 1986a, 236-237. 61 E. Bosch 1967, no. 128. 59 SNGvA 6299, obverse of Salonina. 62 Karl 1975, 86. 174 part i – section iii. koinon of galatia

dium, a thymiaterion in each. a) BMC 45 b) The city suffered much, and nothing further is heard SNGFitzw 5395 c) New York 58.44.14 (illus. pl. of Ankyra as twice neokoros. 30 fig. 138) d) Ankara (Arslan 139) (worn). This is the usual composition for conveying temples INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: for which the city is twice neokoros, but there are unusual features on coin type 10 (shared by type 8, Twice neokoros: above). The buildings in question show no roof-line, 1. S. Mitchell, with D. French and J. Greenhaigh their side walls are of masonry rather than colum- 1982 (= RECAM 2) no. 403 (IGRR 3:237). From nar, and they contain incense altars instead of cult Aspona, 65 miles from Ankyra. Statue base of statues. These facts led Price and Trell to call them Salonina, reused as a milestone under Constantine “gates to altar courts” as well as temples.63 It would and Licinius. See text above. be foolhardy to put too much emphasis on the ex- 2. Ramsay 1883a, 16-17 no. 3 (IGRR 3:179). Both actitude of the type, as the design is very sketchy, Ramsay and E. Bosch 1967, 348-350 nos. 287, 288 the die-cutting inept, and the details left out may dated this to the period of Valerian by the reference have merely been suppressed or abbreviated. More- to the second neokoria. over, altars had appeared within temples before, at Neokaisareia (q.v.). But this coin type may also be a hint that the second shrine for which Ankyra was COINS CITING NEOKORIA: neokoros was not as magnificent as the first had been. If so, it is intriguing that the great eight-col- Twice neokoros: umn temple of Augustus and Rome should be as- Valerian: BMC 39-41; SNGCop 120; SNGvA 6188-6191; similated to its humbler new counterpart. SNGRighetti 1747, 1748; SNGParis 2535-2544; An- Though not directly attacked by the Persians, kara/Arslan 117, 118, 122, 123; Private Collection/ Ankyra and its province experienced Gothic incur- Arslan 115, 121; Berlin (7 exx.), London, New York sions, fell into the hands of Zenobia of Palmyra, and (3 exx.), Oxford (6 exx.), Vienna. 64 Gallienus: BMC 42-45; SNGCop 121; SNGvA 6192-6194, then were retaken by the emperor Aurelian in 271. 6196-6198; SNGRighetti 1749; SNGParis 2545-2554; Ankara/Arslan 126, 128-131, 133, 135-141, 143; Berlin (8 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Salonina: BMC 46, 47; SNGvA 6199-6201; SNGParis 2555, 63 M. Price and Trell 1977, 213 fig. 449, 270 no. 525. 2556; Ankara/Arslan 144, 146, 147, 152, 153; Pri- 64 Foss 1977b and 1990 ch. 6; the sources are usefully vate Collection/Arslan 145, 150, 151; Berlin, New collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 85-95. York (3 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw. chapter 18 – perge 175

SECTION IV. CITIES OF PAMPHYLIA

Chapter 18. Perge: (Association of) Cities of Pamphylia

First Neokoria: Vespasian from one larger province to another. Apparently in the reorganization by Vespasian an attempt was One of the latest inscriptions to mention the title made to give Pamphylia some features of neighbor- ‘neokoros’ nonetheless gives valuable information on ing provinces. A vital part of this could have been the early relationship between the organization of the establishment of a temple of the imperial cult, the province Pamphylia and imperial cult. Inscrip- and the title ‘neokoros’ to accompany it.6 tion 2 of Perge, which dates to the reign of Tacitus, Though Perge became neokoros ‘from Vespasian,’ states that the city was neokoros ‘from Vespasian.’ he is not specified as the object of cult, but it is the most likely scenario. It is more remotely possible that INSCRIPTION 2. Kaygusuz 1984 (Merkelbach the Pamphylian provincial temple was to Augustus and ”ahin 1988, 115-116 no. 22). Acclamation and Rome; there were pentaeteric Kaisareia, but these of the city. Lines 5-6: [ { aÔje P°rgh ] épÚ were likely also founded under the Flavians (see Line 14: OÈes[pasianoË n]evkÒrow... aÔje P°rgh below).7 Perge’s probable position as chief city of its ' Lines 25-26: ¤ d nevkÒrow... pãnt[a] tå d kaia provincial organization is indicated by silver cisto- [d]Ògmati sunklÆtou... phori minted under Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian; The reason for Vespasian’s granting neokoria to they show Perge’s famous shrine of Diana/Artemis Perge is uncertain. An eminent Pergaian, the Ro- Pergaia.8 Though no document makes it incontrovert- man senator M. Plancius Varus, has been restored ible, Perge has been judged to have the best claim as active in Vespasian’s support in 69-70, and a likely to having been the seat of the governor of Lycia/ ambassador to the new emperor on his city’s behalf.1 Pamphylia.9 Beyond this hypothetical personal connection, the How much trust can be placed in inscription 2? closest known association that Vespasian had with It is two centuries later than the grant of neokoria Perge was his reorganization of its province Pam- to which it refers; but most of its claims that can be phylia, which he detached from Galatia and annexed checked show a kernel (or more) of truth. Other to Lycia.2 Lycia, however, had a long-standing inscriptions refer to Perge’s festival the Artemeiseia koinon of its own. Pamphylia formed an indepen- Vespasianeia; indeed, three inscriptions not yet pub- dent provincial organization, known from a few lished mention the (probably provincial) ‘chief priest inscriptions as ‘the cities in Pamphylia,’ and directed of the Augusti and agonothetes of the great pentae- by Pamphyliarchs.3 Cooperation does not seem to teric Kaisareia and agonothetes of the Artemeiseia have been natural to the Pamphylian cities, and in Vespasianeia.’10 Though inscription 2 records a jubi- no document yet found do they call their organiza- lant acclamation of Perge, surely by its citizens, it tion a koinon.4 nonetheless seems to expect and take measures Pamphylia had first been annexed by Rome in against dissent by referring to the decree of the the late Republic.5 Since then it had been shuffled Senate that made its honors official. The dissent

1 Houston 1972, 177-178 n. 45; Levick 1999, 144 elevated the possible Pergaian embassy to a seeming certainty. 6 J. Nollé 1993–2001 (= SiA) 1:303 n. 14; Magie 1950, 285, 2 ”ahin 1995, 1. 301, 418, 530, 576. 3 Magie 1950, 576, 1440 n. 28; Deininger 1965, 27, 81- 7 Kaygusuz 1984. 82. 8 Magie 1950, 623, 1485-1486 n. 50. 4 J. Nollé 1993. 9 Haensch 1997, 290-297; though the honor has been as- 5 Remy 1986, 21, 35, 40-46, 50, 62-63, to be modified by signed to many different places, 290 n. 162. J. Nollé 1993, 308-310; ”ahin 1994. 10 ”ahin 1995, 18 and n. 35; Kaygusuz 1984. 176 part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia probably came from its neighbor and rival Side, norship of P. Julius Aemilius Aquila is correct.15 which has also been proposed as the provincial INSCRIPTION 1. Lanckoronski 1890-1892, center of Pamphylia by its patriotic excavators.11 1.167 no. 34 (IGRR 3:793; Merkelbach and ”ahin The inscription may imply that the Pergaians had 1988, 126 no. 46). { ~ } } the advantage of the only neokoria from Vespasian, [ ] boulØ ka‹ d mow t w | as there is no evidence to indicate the creation of erçw ka‹ lamprçw ka‹ §ndÒjou ka‹ nevkÒrou ¤ two neokoroi in the same province for the same Perga vn pÒlevw. . . emperor before the time of Hadrian. The coins of Perge and Side show no overt signs An arch erected in Perge by two brothers, Deme- of a quarrel over titles in the early part of the third trios and Apollonios, honored all three Flavian century; their reverse legends read simply ‘of the emperors, but especially the current ruler Domi- Pergaians’ or ‘of the Sidetans,’ though Perge some- tian.12 The central inscription for him on the arch’s times refers to its asylia of Artemis, and Side to its east side was carefully erased after his death in 96 festivals.16 During the reign of Gordian III they even C.E., and a part of the city’s titulature, restored as issued coins celebrating their concord, perhaps due ‘sacred, neokoros,’ also disappeared from the west to their participation in joint sacrifices at festivals.17 side. Dräger postulated that this meant that Perge Perge apparently left neokoros off its coins until the was originally neokoros for Domitian, and lost that joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus, including the honor with the condemnation of his memory.13 period when Gallienus’ son Valerianus was Caesar ”ahin, however, observed that the erasure on the (255-258). At that time both Perge and Side began west side is lighter than that on the east, and may to boast of being neokoros on their coins.18 Both also have been done subsequently, much as the name of used the letter alpha, probably a claim to the status Artemis was occasionally erased by Pergaian Chris- of ‘first.’ Though it is uncertain who started the tians; and that Ephesos didn’t lose its neokoria af- rivalry, it is possible that Perge, which had long been ter Domitian’s death, so why should Perge?14 Here neokoros, had no reason to vaunt its title on coins we may point out that the case of Ephesos (q.v.) is until Side, perhaps a recent neokoros, began to. not comparable: that city did not become neokoros Perge did not use multiple-temple or temple- for Domitian, but for a temple of the Augusti, and bearing deity reverses, as Side did. A two-column the honor, probably granted earlier by Vespasian, Ionic temple of the city goddess does appear, with was thus not endangered by the condemnation of an alpha, probably the mark of Perge’s claim to first Domitian’s memory. The erasure on the west side rank, in the pediment.19 The city goddess also per- of the Pergaian arch was plainly not done by Chris- sonifies the city as neokoros, as is shown by the tians, as they allowed the name of Artemis to stand reverse legend of coin type 1: right next to it. But the entire argument is moot, as it is unsure whether the word ‘neokoros’ was what 15 Magie 1950, 1599. The argument of PIR2I 118 that his was erased: the block on which it stood is completely consulship must be near Valerian’s reign because the neokoria missing; only possible remains of a final omega and only appears on coins that late should not be considered bind- ing, though followed by Thomasson 1984, 1:285.69; inscrip- iota (for the dative) stand on the next block; the space tion 2 shows that the title was granted early, and its appearance left seems rather small for the restoration; and so far on coins very much later is not unusual in the context of other as is known, neokoros is not used on other Pergaian neokoroi elsewhere. 16 J. Nollé 1993, 310-313 extends the enmity back as far inscriptions of this early a date. as the organization of the province, though virtually all the evi- That Perge was called neokoros by the mid-sec- dence yet known for it dates after the middle of the third ond century may be shown by inscription 1, if century. 17 Weiss 1998, 60-63; Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 1:167- Magie’s date of 141/142 for the provincial gover- 170, 191-193 (though not documented for the reign of Philip, as the chart on 167 implies). 18 Kienast 1996, 214-221; S. Price 1984b, 271. 19 The temple of the city goddess with alpha is on coins of 11 Mansel 1963, 10. Valerian (BMC 70, SNGParis 547, Aykay 74), Gallienus (Aykay 12 ”ahin 1999 (= IvPerge) no. 56; ”ahin 1995, 4-10 no. 3, 174; New York, Newell), Salonina (SNGvA 4750, SNGParis 608), with bibliography. Valerianus the Younger (SNGvA 4751, SNGParis 609), and 13 Dräger 1993, 251-255. Saloninus (SNGParis 615). The alpha also appears in the pedi- 14 ”ahin 1995, 10 and n. 11, which mentions two unpub- ment of the temple of Artemis Pergaia on contemporary coins, lished inscriptions of neokoros Perge; and IvPerge 79-80 esp. n. but their legends do not refer to neokoria, which is why I do 25. not interpret alpha to mean ‘first to be neokoros.’ chapter 18 – perge 177

COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU K P L GALLIHNON % have flourished in the latter years of the third cen- KOR %ALVNEINAN Radiate draped bust of tury, though perhaps only in contrast to its less for- Gallienus l. and diademed draped bust of Salo- tunate neighbors.23 From the few documents of the nina r., I between them. Rev: PERGH NEVKO- Pamphylian cities, we can trace their continuing RO% Seated city goddess holds branch (prize competition for neokoria, a competition that may crown? b) a) SNGParis 602 b) Berlin 974/1901 have also gone on in the areas for which we have (illus. pl. 30 fig. 139).20 less evidence. The two cities’ rivalry is made explicit by a pair of (un)complementary reverse types on coins with Fourth Neokoria: Aurelian obverses of Gallienus featuring an iota (a mark of value which Nollé dates after 260, meaning that the In 269 Side defended itself against a Gothic raid, issues were about contemporaneous).21 and it is likely that other Pamphylian cities, perhaps COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT KAI PO AI GAL- including Perge, had been threatened as well.24 LIHNO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Aurelian may have honored the cities who had Gallienus r., I to r. Rev: PERGAIVN NEVKORVN managed to fight off the raiders; on coins with his Artemis with bow and quiver crowned by Athena portrait Side boasted that it was three times with wreath and spear. a) Boston 66.819 b) Bos- neokoros, while Perge’s coins also add an element, ton 63.843 c) BMC 80 d) SNGParis 553 e) SNGParis though its meaning is not as clearcut. It is the letter 554 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 140) f) Vienna 18815 g) delta, and though it may mean ‘four,’ it does not Vienna 34039 h) Berlin, Bernhard-Imhoof i) New appear directly before the word neokoros but some- York 68.244. where else on the coins’ reverses; yet it never ap- pears where neokoros is not. SIDE COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AUT(O, abd) KAI POU LI EGN GALLIHNO% %E(BA, bcf) Radiate COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K L(OU, abdhj) DOM(I, draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r., I to r. Rev: abdh; DO, c) AURHLIANO% (%EB, efgijkl- %IDHTVN NEVKORVN Seated Athena with phiale mnpqrstuvwx) Laureate draped cuirassed bust of (or an A, b) and palm crowned by Artemis with Aurelian r., I in field. Rev: PERGAIVN NEVKO- wreath and bow. a) BMC 101 b) SNGParis 882 RVN Two-column temple, D in pediment, Artemis (illus. pl. 31 fig. 148) c) Berlin, Löbbecke d) SNGvA Pergaia within. a) BMC 100 b) BMC 101 c) Lon- 4850 e) Boston 62.1259 f) SNGPfPS 4.855. don 1938.12-4-3 d) Oxford 8.77 e) SNGParis 616 f) SNGParis 619 g) SNGParis 620 h) SNGParis 621 Perge issued type 2, representing its own Artemis (in i) SNGCop 366 j) SNGCop 367 k) Vienna 28792 Hellenic style as huntress, rather than in the (illus. pl. 31 fig. 141) l) Vienna 1298a m) Vienna moundlike shape shown in her temple on other 1298b n) Vienna 1299 o) Warsaw 102350 p) Ber- coins) being crowned by the Athena of Side; many lin, Imhoof-Blumer q) Berlin, Löbbecke r) SNGvA of its other contemporary coins also include the title 4758 s) SNGPfPS 4.451 t) SNGPfPS 4.452 u) or symbol for ‘first.’ At the same time, Side issued SNGPfPS 4.453 v) SNGPfPS 4.454 w) SNGPfPS its type 13, which shows the reverse situation, a regal 4.455 x) SNGPfPS 4.456 y) Brussels.25 Athena crowned by Artemis. So each city issued coins that showed its own goddess as victor and the COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT LOU DOMI AURH- other city’s goddess in a subordinate position ac- LIANO %EB Radiate draped bust of Aurelian r., knowledging that victory. I in field. Rev: PERGAIVN NEVKORVN; D Radi- Few cities of the East issued their own coinage or ate Artemis with torch and bow. a) London even erected honorific inscriptions after Gallienus’ 1920.5-16-86. reign; Perge and Side did.22 In fact, Pamphylia may COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT K L DOM AURH- LIANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Au- 20 A similar reverse but with ‘Perge’ in the dative (?), ob- verse of Valerianus the younger: Aykay 312. 21 J. Nollé 1987, 261. 23 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:216, 238. 22 Naster 1987; Lauritsen 1979, though needing update with 24 Alaric Watson 1999, 46. regard to denominations: e.g. Kromann 1989; J. Nollé 1990, 25 Naster 1987, 137 no. 7, though he takes the delta as the 245-249. stylization of an eagle. 178 part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia

relian r., I in field. Rev: PERGAIVN NEVKORVN ably meant either to avert any challenge to some of Seated Zeus holding sceptre and D. a) SNGParis the more far-fetched of Perge’s titles, or to contrast 617 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 142) b) SNGParis 618 c) Brus- the solid basis of Perge’s claims against the (implied) sels.26 shoddiness of a rival’s, probably Side’s.30 The pillar on which inscription 2 stood has now The delta stands independently, much as the letter been joined by a similar one; its inscription uses alpha standing for ‘first’ had, and often in the same poetic meter and speaks in the voice of the city it- position on the coins. Was Perge four times neokoros self, but its date is the same and the theme is again or had the city become ‘fourth’ rather than ‘first’? Perge’s titulature and status.31 Like the acclamation, The former is more likely: within a few years of the it cites former honors: earlier emperors called Perge coins’ issue Perge would call itself four times neoko- ‘head of Pamphylia,’ ‘summit of cities,’ ‘praecipua’ ros more openly. (Latin transliterated into Greek), and Caracalla is The evidence is again Perge’s inscription 2 (above), specifically named as granting it the titles ‘friend and which has already documented Perge’s first neo- ally’ (of Rome). But it is ‘Zeus Tacitus’ who made koria. It records an acclamation made under (less the city metropolis, ‘like Ephesos of Asia’; and in the likely, after) the emperor Tacitus, who in 275/276 last lines, “all the Pamphylians sacrifice with vota at fought off one of a series of Gothic invasions of Asia my side; and now also the chief priests are of the Minor.27 The acclamation praises Perge for a num- god Tacitus.” The latter line may sound odd in ber of reasons, including its status as asylos28 and first English, but other documents show that there were of the judicial centers, its sacred vexillum, its silver already chief priests of the emperors, likely provin- coinage, and its treasury of the emperor. Perge is cial ones, in Perge before Tacitus’ reign.32 It is “where consulars seek honors and serve as ago- unlikely that the epigram refers to municipal chief nothetai . . . summit of Pamphylia . . . not false with priests, since they are spoken of in the plural, and respect to anything at all; all the rights are by de- having more than one chief priest makes no sense cree of the Senate.” Listed among these rights are for a single municipal temple; the mention of all the ‘neokoros from Vespasian’ (already discussed), and Pamphylians in the previous line also indicates a eight lines further down, ‘four times neokoros’; the provincial imperial cult. Tacitus gave Perge no delta of enumeration is written larger than the other additional temple or neokoria for his own cult, but letters. Nonetheless, if Perge had already become the standing chief priests now added the cult of four times neokoros in the time of Aurelian, Tacitus Tacitus to their worship, and Perge stood unchal- did not augment the city’s neokoriai at all. This is lenged (at least for a while) as the center of that probably why coins of Tacitus pass by neokoria and provincial cult. concentrate on other honors he gave to the city: he Did Tacitus visit Perge, or was he stationed there? made it ‘metropolis of Pamphylia’ and granted it a He was certainly in Cilicia for his campaign against festival.29 These honors may also have stood on the invading Goths.33 Coins that show the emperor inscription 2, which has a gap after the emperor’s greeting the city goddess of Perge or handing her name is mentioned in the second line. Also of in- terest is that the inscription specified that all the city’s 30 rights (including the neokoria) were ‘by decree of the Not due to Tacitus’ being chosen by the Senate, as Merkelbach, ”ahin, and Stauber 1997, 73 would have it; this Senate,’ a late example of this proviso which had is another figment of the Historia Augusta. See Alaric Watson been used by several Asian cities earlier in the third 1999, 106-107, 109-112; Kienast 1996, 250-251. 31 century (see chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ in the Merkelbach, ”ahin, and Stauber 1997, 73-74. 32 ”ahin 1995, 17-18 noted the similarity between offices summary chapters in Part II). The phrase was prob- held by an Attaleian (“chief priest of the three pentaeteric games and agonothetes of the pentaeteric games”) and a Pergaian (“chief priest three times and agonothetes of three Augustan 26 Naster 1987, 138 no. 8; here he takes the delta as either games”) in the early second century C.E. Though he calls these a mark of value or as enumeration of the neokoriai. men municipal officials, he allies them with “Neokoriekult,” 27 Kaygusuz 1984. See also Roueché 1989b; Weiss 1991; and though Pamphylia must be considered an unusual case, and Merkelbach, ”ahin, and Stauber 1997. The translation in these chief priesthoods are possibly provincial. He also cites Abbasoglu 2001 is a trifle awkward. three unpublished inscriptions that mention “chief priest of the 28 Rigsby 1996, 449-452; C. Jones 1999b, 13-17. Augusti and agonothetes of the great pentaeteric Kaisareia games 29 Documented, e.g. by BMC 103, SNGvA 4759, SNGParis and agonothetes of the Artemeiseia Vespasianeia games”. 622-623, SNGPfPS 4:457-458. 33 Alaric Watson 1999, 107; Halfmann 1986a, 240. chapter 18 – perge 179 the prize crown symbolizing the new festival have Lanckoronski 1890-1892, 1.158 no. 10). Bottom tempted scholars into positing that he was.34 In fact, of honorific base from Attaleia. ÑH |e[r]å [êsulow one trend of scholarship is to posit an imperial pres- or ka‹ lam(prå)] ka[‹] ¶ndoj[ow] w nevkÒrow ence as the reason for almost every honor granted Perga¤vn pÒl[iw]... to a city in this area.35 But the coins may only be Lanckoronski reported that the stone had been seen referring to a grant allegorically, and do not neces- by von Schneider and Studniczka as well as by sarily depict an actual event. Moreover, if the em- Petersen. Basing its reading on that, the 1988 pub- peror had actually visited the city, that fact would lication pointed out the problem: there seems to be have been hailed in the acclamations of his benefits. an extra sigma before ‘neokoros,’ and the editors Perhaps it was, in the lacuna after Tacitus’ name in wondered whether this meant . But in Ramsay’s the crown of inscription 2; or other inscriptions may [d‹]w publication, from a copy by Sir C. Wilson, a stigma yet be found. Until then, Tacitus’ visit to Perge must (), not a sigma ( ), immediately preceded ‘neokoros,’ remain a hypothesis. w and that siglum could mean that the enumeration It seems most likely that the delta on Perge’s coins ‘six’ was intended. Of course, it is very difficult to under Aurelian refers to the neokoria, so probably argue from old transcriptions, lacking any illustra- Perge was four times neokoros at the same time that tion of the letters or the base itself. It is to be hoped Side declared itself three times neokoros, and cer- that a careful revision, with photographs, will fol- tainly so within five years. This escalation hints at low soon in the course of the Perge publications. But the same sort of one-upmanship between these two until that occurs, it falls within the realm of possi- cities that has already been noted for the time of bility that at some point Perge, like Side, became Valerian and Gallienus. Nowhere are the specific six times neokoros. objects of cult that accounted for the rapidly accu- It is as yet impossible to tell how, and when, the mulating neokoriai in either city mentioned.36 It may race for titles between Perge and Side ended. Perge even be possible that the cities played off one em- certainly seems to have kept ahead up to the time peror against another, though both Perge and Side of Aurelian, and perhaps beyond. It is even uncer- apparently had extraordinary favors under Aurelian. tain which of the two was to become metropolis of As has been seen, Tacitus made Perge metropolis, the new independent province of Pamphylia; later but a later emperor would probably do the same for the Christian church made each city the seat of a Side soon after.37 metropolitan bishop.38

Sixth? Neokoria: after 276 INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Until recently, it was thought that Side, with its Neokoros: unprecedented six neokoriai, had outstripped all 1. Lanckoronski 1890-1892, 1.167 no. 34 (Merkel- other cities in that honor, including Perge. This still bach and ”ahin 1988, 126 no. 46). Statue base of may be true, but one inscription offers a slight provincial governor P. Julius Aemilius Aquila, ca. chance that Perge too became six times neokoros 141/142 C.E.? See text above. after the time of inscription 2. Four times neokoros: INSCRIPTION 3. Ramsay 1883b, 265-266 no. 2. Kaygusuz 1984 (Merkelbach and ”ahin 1988, 7 (Merkelbach and ”ahin 1988, 125 no. 43; 115-116 no. 22). Acclamation of the city under Tacitus, also documenting the city as neokoros from Vespasian. See text above. 34 Merkelbach and ”ahin 1988, 116; Merkelbach, ”ahin, Six? times neokoros: and Stauber 1997, 69-70. 35 SiA 1:88-94, 287-288; Ziegler 1993b, 152-153 on the late 3. Ramsay 1883b, 265-266 no. 7 (Merkelbach and bloom of Pamphylia, with 153 n. 146 on Perge’s fourth neokoria ”ahin 1988, 125 no. 43: based on Lanckoronski under Aurelian. 36 Merkelbach, ”ahin, and Stauber 1997, 72 guessed the four temples to be relatively small buildings from which pro- cessions could come out at certain times; but the lack of evi- 38 Foss 1996, Ch. 4, p. 3; J. Nollé 1993, 313-316; idem dence is complete. 1986b, 202 n. 2: Pamphylia and Lycia became separate prov- 37 J. Nollé 1993, 313. inces between 311-313 and 333-337. 180 part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia

1890-1892, 1.158 no. 10). Bottom of honorific base Gallienus and Salonina: Berlin. from Attaleia. ÑH |e[r]å [êsulow or ka‹ lam(prå)] Salonina: BMC 86, 90, 95; SNGCop 362; SNGvA 4740, 4745, 4746, 4750, 8529; Istanbul Aykay 286; (or ?) ¤ ka[‹] ¶ndoj[ow] w nevkÒrow Perga vn pÒl[iw] SNGParis 586, 588, 594, 595, 599, 602, 605, 608; See text above. Berlin (4 exx.), Boston (6 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). Valerianus Caesar: BMC 98; SNGvA 4751; Istanbul Aykay COINS CITING NEOKORIA: 312; SNGParis 609, 610; SNGRighetti 1293; Berlin (3 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (2 exx.), Vienna. Neokoros: Saloninus: BMC 99, 99A; SNGvA 4753, 4755-4757; Valerian: BMC 70; Istanbul Aykay 7439; SNGPfPS 4.415; Istanbul Aykay 327; SNGParis 612-615; SNGPfPS Berlin, London, New York, Oxford, Paris, Vienna. 4.442; Berlin (3 exx.), Boston, London (3 exx.), New Gallienus: BMC 73, 75, 79-81; SNGCop 358; SNGvA 4723, York, Vienna. 4724, 4727, 4729, 4734, 4735, 8522-8524; Istanbul Four (times?) neokoros: Aykay 83, 152, 155, 174, 225; SNGParis 553-555, Aurelian: BMC 100, 101; SNGCop 366, 367; SNGvA 4758; 567, 578, 580, 581; SNGRighetti 1289; SNGPfPS 4.421, SNGParis 616-621; SNGPfPS 4.450-456; Berlin (2 422, 431, 432, 436, 437; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston (3 exx.), London (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (6 exx.), Vienna exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford, (4 exx.), Warsaw. Vienna (6 exx.).40

39 Aykay 1967 (= Aykay); only illustrated coins cited here. 40 Tekin 1994, no. 18, a coin citing neokoria with reverse of Serapis, but not illustrated. chapter 19 – side 181

Chapter 19. Side: (Association of) Cities of Pamphylia

Side’s relationship to its Pamphylian neighbors was neokoros, once for Apollo and once for Athena (see often troubled.1 Though in the Hellenistic period its below). The syntax, however, is very unusual, fea- chief enemy was Aspendos (q.v.), with which it turing two participles with dative formed on com- shared a border, by later Roman times the rivalry parison with inscription 4 (below), which is itself was between Side and Perge (q.v.) for primacy in incomplete and restored at this point. In addition, the province. No document states explicitly which the sole basis for the restoration of n[eokoria] to one was seat of the governor of Lycia and Pam- Apollo is a doubtful letter, lambda- or alpha-shaped phylia; current scholarly opinion has tilted toward rather than like a nu. Nollé has replaced Bean’s res- Perge, while Side was probably a judicial district toration ‘asylos for the ancestral god (and) founder center.2 The two seem to have had an amicable Apollo’ with the neokoria, based on a suggestion of interval during the reign of Gordian III, when each the Roberts.4 One reason is that Perge’s inscription issued coins celebrating its concord with the other.3 3 (q.v.), an ‘acclamation’ from the time of Tacitus, calls Perge { mÒnh êsulow. Nollé concluded from this that Side could not have used the title asylos until First Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus after the time of Tacitus.5 His conclusion disregards the fact that both Side and Sillyon in Pamphylia had Perge, neokoros since Vespasian, was probably the actually used the title ‘asylos’ on coins under only Pamphylian city to hold that title until the mid- Aurelian (270-275), and that Rigsby found no diffi- third century, but did not refer to that fact on its culty in seeing Perge’s boast as magniloquent rather earlier coinage. Then during the joint reign of than legalistic and dating the asylia of both Perge Valerian and Gallienus, as early as the period when and Side to the Hellenistic era.6 In any case, the Gallienus’ son Valerianus was named as Caesar coins mentioned above call Athena, not Apollo, (255-258), both Perge and Side began to proclaim asylos. But no matter if we cannot accurately restore themselves neokoros on coins, and to use the letter inscription 1; a questionable restoration that contra- alpha to proclaim themselves ‘first.’ dicts other evidence is worse than no restoration at Side apparently also called itself neokoros on a all, and the contemporary coins only state that Side fragmentary but datable inscription: was neokoros at this time. If the city could have claimed the honor twice to its rival Perge’s once, why INSCRIPTION 1. SiA 1 no. 44 (Bean 1965, no. did it never declare it explicitly? 183). Statue base of Gallienus as twice consul, thus The reason for Side’s new prominence and 255-256. { ¤ ¤ ` [ f lh] sÊmm[axow pi]stØ ÑRvma vn titulature, as for that of other cities of this province, ¤ ` [S dh m]ust‹[w] ka‹ n[evkoroËsa t“ patr]–ƒ is not far to seek. Rome’s ongoing defense against ¤ _ y[e“] kt[ s]t ÉApÒll[vni ka]‹ nevkoroË[s]a the Sassanian Persian empire required the presence [ye“ ÉAyhnò . . .] of armies, and sometimes of the emperor himself, In his SiA publication, Nollé restored the inscription in the East.7 Syria had been the usual base for to claim that in 255, Side was not once, but twice

4 J. and L. Robert, in Revue des études grecques (1982) 417- 1 J. Nollé 1993; J. Nollé 1993-2001 (= SiA) 1:88-94. 422 no. 450. 2 Haensch 1997, 290-297. 5 SiA 1:316; but cf. 1:90. The argument in vol. 1 was made 3 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 167-170, 191-193 (though not difficult to follow by manifold references to parts of SiA that documented for the reign of Philip, as the chart on 167 im- had not yet appeared. plies). For the possibility that the cities participated in joint 6 Rigsby 1996, 449-455; Nollé replied in SiA 2:650-651. sacrifices at sacred festival(s), Weiss 1998, 60-63. 7 J. Nollé 1987, 254-264. 182 part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia

Roman armies fighting eastern wars, but that prov- called neokoroi gave the city its pretext for its later ince was vulnerable to land attack; it and its chief multiple neokoriai (below). city Antioch were overrun by the Persians under In addition to the standard form of coinage Shapur in 252-253.8 The neighboring province of minted in the name of the citizens as neokoroi, Side Cilicia was similarly vulnerable, and was also in- issued types of the city goddess (often with pome- vaded in Shapur’s subsequent campaign of 260.9 granates, the punning symbol for Side) as neokoros.12 Pamphylia, on the other hand, was guarded by an COIN TYPE 2. Obv: ab arc of mountains which made access difficult from AUT KAI PO LI(K, ) Laureate draped cuirassed bust of anywhere but the sea. Of the cities that occupied GALLIHNO% Gallienus r., to r. Rev: that narrow crescent of land, Side had two strate- IA %IDH NEVKORO% Seated city goddess with pomegranates. a) Lon- gic advantages. Whereas Perge and Aspendos were don 1925.1-5-85 b) SNGParis 676 c) Paris 695 d) sited farther inland, Side was on the coast, more SNGCop 428 e) Warsaw 57951 f) Berlin, Imhoof- directly accessible to the Roman fleet; and though Blumer g) SNGPfPS 4.830 h) SNGPfPS 4.831. Attaleia too controlled a harbor, Side’s was the easternmost on the Pamphylian coast, closer to the COIN TYPE 3. Obv: KORNHLIA %ALVNINA theater of war. %EB(A, dgj) Diademed draped bust of Salonina Certainly Side received honors beside the title r. (IA to r., g; IB, efi) Rev: %IDH MU%TI% ‘neokoros’: at least one festival’s status was an im- NEVKORO% Veiled, mural-crowned, draped bust perial gift (dorea), though it is unlikely that the fes- of city goddess r.13 a) BMC 126 b) SNGParis 930 tival was connected with the grant of neokoria.10 c) SNGParis 931 d) SNGCop 431 e) SNGRighetti 1312 Side’s ‘sacred’ and ‘worldwide’ festivals were the f) Vienna 34870 g) Berlin, Löbbecke h) Berlin, Mystikos—whose origins are uncertain but likely pre- Imhoof-Blumer i) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer j) Hadrianic—and the Pythia, short for Apolloneios SNGPfPS 4.869. Gordianeios Antoneinios isopythios ekecheirios iselastikos, COIN TYPE 4. Obv: founded well before any known claim of neokoria, POU LIK KOR OUALERIA- Draped cuirassed bust of in the reign of Gordian III.11 NON KAI %EB Valerianus the Younger r. (IA to r., b) Rev: %IDH COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI PO LI GAL- NEVKORO% Veiled, mural-crowned, draped bust LIHNO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of of city goddess r. a) Berlin, Löbbecke b) Side Coins Gallienus r. Rev: %IDHTVN NEVKORVN Apollo 143.14 and emperor clasp right hands. a) BMC 111 (illus. The same concept was expressed when the city pl. 31 fig. 143). goddess was shown holding a temple, a standard Side’s coin type 1 implies some contact between the pictorialization of the concept of a city as neokoros: city and its ruler. On it an emperor in military dress, COIN TYPE 5. Obv: probably Gallienus’ father Valerian, joins hands with AUT KAI PO LI GAL- Laureate draped cuirassed bust of one of Side’s patron gods, Apollo. This gesture may LIHNO% %EB Gallienus r., to r. Rev: refer to anything from an imperial visit to concord IB %IDHTVN NEVKORVN City goddess holding small temple and prow?, be- in its vaguest sense, or even to a grant of some hind her an army standard.15 a) London 1970.9- privilege, which may include the neokoria. Side had 9-167 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 144) b) SNGParis 912 c) a tendency to use its patron gods on coins as stand- Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer d) SNGvA 4845. ins for the city itself. This numismatic practice was usual in other cities as well, especially on alliance Side even used its Olympian gods to represent the coinage, but Side extended the metaphor visually city as neokoros. Athena, the city’s chief patron, also and verbally. It may even be that the many gods Side occasionally held a temple among her other at- tributes:16 8 The sources are usefully collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 50-56. 9 J. Nollé 1986a. 12 SiA 1:121, 123 n. 425. 10 SNGvA 4856; Karl 1975, 41-42. On whether such games 13 On the goddess as mystis, J. Nollé 1986b, 204-206. were actually financed by the emperor, see Wörrle 1988, 177 14 Atlan 1976 (= Side Coins). n. 134. 15 Pick 1904, 12 no. 10.1. 11 Weiss 1981; SiA 2:438-439, 442-451. 16 SiA 1:106-112. chapter 19 – side 183

COIN TYPE 6. Obv: KORNHLIA %ALVNINA Athena and like the city goddess, Sidetan Apollo %E(BA, acg) Diademed draped bust of Salonina could represent the city, and if the city had the title, r., IA to r. (eagle below, bdef) Rev: %IDHTVN then Apollo could also be called neokoros. NEVKORVN Athena holding small temple and Pick thought that the imperial cult was housed in spear.17 a) BMC 120 b) BMC 121 c) SNGParis 940 Apollo’s temple, making the emperor(s) cult part- d) SNGParis 937 e) Vienna 18858 f) SNGvA 4852 ner(s) of the god, and this hypothesis may turn out g) SNGPfPS 4.867. to be correct, despite the fact that contemporary coins show the Sidetan Apollo standing alone in his COIN TYPE 7. Obv: KAI %EB POU LIK KOR temple, not with a companion.21 On another type OUALE[RIANON] Laureate draped cuirassed bust issued before 260, Apollo actually sacrifices before of Valerianus the Younger r., eagle below. Rev: a temple with an arched lintel; unfortunately its [%I]DHTVN NEVKORVN Athena holding small portal is empty.22 This representation reminds us, temple and spear. a) Boston 63.857. however, of several cases where emperors were The Sidetan Apollo not only joined hands with the shown on coins sacrificing before the temples that emperor (type 1) but was named neokoros just as the they shared with other gods: Caracalla to Asklepios city goddess had been:18 at Pergamon, Elagabalus to Apollo at Philippopolis, Severus Alexander to Asklepios at Aigeai (qq.v.). It COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT KAI PO LI GALLIHNO is just possible that Apollo of Side was shown sac- %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus rificing to the emperor(s) in the temple he shared r. (IA to r., c) (eagle below, a) Rev: APOLLVNO% with them, the temple that made Side (and, meta- %IDHTOU NEVKOROU Apollo with laurel wreath phorically, Apollo) neokoros. and staff. a) London 1969.10-21-7 (illus. pl. 31 fig. Later, under Aurelian, Asklepios too may have 145) b) Warsaw 89218/166807 c) Berlin, Imhoof- served as neokoros, though the only known example Blumer. is unclear at a crucial point:23 COIN TYPE 9. Obv: POU LIK KOR OUALER- COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K L DOM AURHL- Draped cuirassed bust of IANON KAI %EB IANO% %EB Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Valerianus the Younger r., IA to r. Rev: APOLL- Aurelian, IA to r. Rev: A%KLHPIV NEVKOR[V](?) VNO% %IDHTOU NEVKOROU Apollo with laurel %IDHTVN Asklepios with snake-entwined staff. a) wreath and staff. a) Oxford 15.21 b) SNGParis 948 Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer (illus. pl. 31 fig. 146). c) Berlin 12/1882. On type 10 it is possible that the adjective ‘neokoros’ The types that show Apollo as neokoros have pro- does not modify Asklepios, but the Sidetans; one voked more than their share of controversy.19 would then wonder why the enumeration is lacking, Babelon and Six believed that the emperor was to as Side is three times neokoros on other coins issued be identified with Apollo, though that identification under Aurelian (below). would make the emperor/Apollo neokoros of him- Side was not strict in its use of multiple-temple self. Nock believed that Apollo was being portrayed reverse types either; under Gallienus it minted types as a neokoros official because the funds of his temple helped defray the cost of the imperial cult; Nollé that had generally been used by cities that were three further explained that the god’s name was in the times or twice neokoros. genitive because his temple treasury also paid for that COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT KAI PO LI GAL- 20 issue of coins. None of these theories takes full LIHNO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of account of Side’s habit of using its chief gods to Gallienus r., IA to r. Rev: NEVKORVN %IDHTVN represent the city; here, it may have only stretched Three temples; lower two four-column, turned to- its metaphor further than other cities did. Like

17 Pick 1904, 12 no. 10.2. 21 SNGPfPS 4:808 (Gallienus), SNGParis 934, SNGPfPS 4:873 18 SiA 1:112-115. (Salonina); though the god can look much like an emperor in 19 Nock 1930b, 36-37. Robert was atypically pessimistic military costume, his short cloak is distinctive. about finding any explanation: J. and L. Robert, Revue des études 22 With obverse of Valerian: SNGParis 874; Leypold 1983, grecques (1982) 417-422 no. 450. 40 no. 25. 20 J. Nollé 1990, 249 no. 36. 23 SiA 1:115-116. 184 part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia

ward one another; center one four-column (two- It is less easy to explain the pretensions of coin column, a), A in pediment, horseman raises right type 12. Instead of holding the single (imperial?) hand within.24 a) SNGParis 915 b) New York temple as she does on type 5, here the city goddess 1944.100.50964 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 147) c) SNGvA of Side holds two miniature temples. Since Side 4840 d) SNGvA 4841. seems to have imitated multiple-temple types of other cities, it may have picked this one up from COIN TYPE 12. Obv: KORNHLIA %ALVNINA elsewhere as well—again, Smyrna was still issuing %EB Diademed draped bust of Salonina r. Rev: types of goddesses holding temples. The mark of %IDHTVN NEVKORVN Seated city goddess hold- value on type 11 and the epsilon countermark on ing two six-column temples. a) Boston 66.30925 both examples of type 12 probably date their origi- b) Private collection.26 nal issue before 260.29 Thus the many coins issued after them continued to proclaim the city simply Type 11 looks like a claim of three neokoriai, as the neokoros. J. Nollé (see below) held that Side was in title is carefully included in the midst of the temples fact twice neokoros when coin type 12 was issued, and accentuated by a ground line. But it is more and three times neokoros for coin type 11, but the likely that the type was adopted wholesale from city did not choose to express that enumeration on Smyrna, which was still issuing triple-temple coins, the coins. Yet the two types were close to contem- or from one of the other three-times neokoroi, as a poraneous; and Side’s rivalry with Perge was then symbol of the status neokoros. If so, probably the hot enough that it would likely claim all the center temple, with the letter alpha standing for ‘first’ neokoriai it could. So the balance of the evidence in its pediment, would be the temple for which Side tilts toward Side’s being once neokoros, but having was neokoros. Within is an equestrian figure, a statue its coin types pretend at more. type well suited to an emperor though less suitable Side’s declaration of neokoria appears to have as a cult statue; perhaps the monument stood else- provoked a reaction from its neighbor and rival where within the temple precinct but the die-cutter Perge. Though Perge had been neokoros since the transposed it to make the temple more recogniz- time of Vespasian, it had never used the title on its able.27 On some examples a male figure can be seen coins so far as we know. As soon as it had a rival in standing to the right of the horseman, so there may for the title, however, Perge also began to give have been other figures in the group. As for the other neokoros pride of place on its coinage for Valerian, two temples, no cult statues identify them, but they Gallienus, Salonina, Valerianus Caesar and Salo- may represent the shrines of Side’s chief gods Apollo ninus. and Athena. These have been identified as two late As noted above in chapter 18, ‘Perge,’ the two second-century C.E. Corinthian temples lying side cities’ rivalry is made explicit by a pair of comple- by side next to the harbor.28 Only an odd semicir- mentary reverse types on coins with obverses of cular temple of the moon god Men, not usually Gallienus, both probably dated after 260:30 equestrian, was found near these two; but then multiple-temple coin types cannot be taken to rep- COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AUT(O, abd) KAI POU LI resent topographical reality. Side’s coin type 11 may EGN GALLIHNO% %E(BA, bcf) Radiate draped fit the precedent set at other cities, such as Tralles cuirassed bust of Gallienus r., I to r. Rev: and Sardis, of allying temple(s) for which the city was %IDHTVN NEVKORVN Seated Athena with phiale neokoros with temple(s) of patron god(s), resulting (or an A, b) and palm crowned by Artemis with in a more impressive coin type. wreath and bow. a) BMC 101 b) SNGParis 882 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 148) c) Berlin, Löbbecke d) SNGvA 4850 e) Boston 62.1259 f) SNGPfPS 4.855. 24 M. Price and Trell 1977, fig. 453 identified it as the PERGE COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT KAI PO AI temple of Apollo and two imperial temples, minted under Laureate draped cuirassed bust Trebonianus Gallus (sic). See also J. Nollé 1990, 252 no. 59. GALLIHNO% %EB 25 Hecht 1964, 163 no. 13 pl. 11. of Gallienus r., I to r. Rev: PERGAIVN 26 J. Nollé 1990, 252 no. 58. 27 Bergemann 1990, 14-19 on status and placement; 113 notes an equestrian statue found at Side, though there is no necessary association with this coin type. 29 J. Nollé 1990, 245-249. 28 Mansel 1965; Gros 1996-2001, 1:189-190. 30 J. Nollé 1987, 261. chapter 19 – side 185

NEVKORVN Artemis with bow and quiver Aurelian r., IA to r. Rev: %IDHTVN G NEVKO- crowned by Athena with wreath and spear. a) RVN Hekate or Demeter with torch and snake. Boston 66.819 b) Boston 63.843 c) BMC 80 d) a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer b) Berlin, Bernhard- SNGParis 553 e) SNGParis 554 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 140) Imhoof. f) Vienna 18815 g) Vienna 34039 h) Berlin, On coins with portraits of the same emperor, Perge Bernhard-Imhoof i) New York 68.244. added the letter delta, whose significance has been Side issued type 13, which shows its patron Athena discussed in that chapter (18). Perge was certainly enthroned in a magisterial chair, holding the palm four times neokoros within five years of when Side of victory and, on one example, an alpha signifying declared itself three times neokoros. Again it seems ‘first’; behind her stands Artemis, chief goddess of that the two cities were in competition, this time in Perge, holding out a wreath with which to crown sheer numbers of neokoriai. In neither city are the her. But Perge counterclaimed with its type 2, rep- objects of these cults mentioned. It may even be resenting the reverse situation; many of its other possible that the cities played off one emperor against contemporary coins also include the title or symbol another in requesting these honors. But the fact that for ‘first.’ Each city thereby stated its possession of Perge seems to have jumped to four times neokoros the same titles of ‘first’ and ‘neokoros,’ while also while Side became three times neokoros under the portraying its rival’s goddess as subordinate to its same emperor may show that Aurelian granted the own. favors but tried to balance honors between the two cities, with Perge allowed to hold a slim advantage.

Third Neokoria: Aurelian Sixth Neokoria: after 275 As has been mentioned in the discussion of Perge, the Pamphylian cities were exceptional in continu- The latest evidence yet known, however, may have ing to issue civic coins after Gallienus’ reign. From given the advantage to Side. It eventually attained their evidence and that of the cities’ inscriptions, the the unprecedented title of six times neokoros, plac- continuing competition for neokoria between Perge ing it well beyond the last-known status of even such and Side can be followed to a period later than at cities as Ephesos and Thessalonike. Some time af- other cities. A little over a decade after Side had first ter Aurelian, when the last coins of Side listed three claimed its neokoria, the city’s coin legends began neokoriai, Side’s inscription 4 clearly proclaimed the to boast that it was ‘three times neokoros.’ The city as six times neokoros, while inscription 3, though emperor at the time was Aurelian (270-275), who damaged, could indicate either the same or another spent a large proportion of his reign fighting the number, perhaps four or five as Welles suggested,32 Palmyrenes and recovering Rome’s eastern prov- or ‘many times’ as in Sardis inscription 7 (q.v.); there inces. Once again it may have been Side’s strategic is plenty of room on the stone. It is even (remotely) position at this time of emergency that made it possible that inscription 3 postdates inscription 4, worthy of such abundant honors, or it may have 31 and that it once referred to the city as seven or more been its brave resistance to a Gothic siege ca. 269. times neokoros. COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT K L DOM AURHLI- ANO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Aurelian INSCRIPTION 3. SiA 2 no. 112 (Mansel, E. r., IA to r. Rev: %IDHTVN G NEVKORVN Apollo Bosch, and Inan 1951, no. 2). Inscribed sculptured with laurel wreath and staff. a) SNGParis 950 (in- column set up by the gerousia of the Tetrapolitai. correct) b) Berlin 393/1887 c) Berlin, Bernhard- t}[w mhtro]pÒlevw S¤d[hw ßja]kiw nevk[Òrou] Imhoof d) SNGvA 4864 e) Side Coins 146. The date of inscription 3 has been debated. Foss COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AUT K L DOM AURH- favored a date after 286 in the Tetrarchic period for LIANO% %EB Radiate draped cuirassed bust of

32 C. Welles, review of Mansel, E. Bosch, and Inan 1951 31 Salamon 1971, 137; SiA 1:95, 167-168; Foss 1996, Ch. in American Journal of Archaeology 57 (1953) 300-302; J. and L. 4, 25-28; Alaric Watson 1999, 46. Robert, Bulletin Épigraphique 1951, 194 no. 219. 186 part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia both inscriptions 3 and 4 (below), though this was probably had little to do with the supposed senato- primarily based on the number of neokoriai; also, rial basis of the emperor Tacitus’ rule, but with a he excluded the “troubled years which preceded” function more crucial to the eastern cities: the Sen- the Tetrarchy, though those are the very years in ate confirmed titulature, and such a confirmation which Side and Perge had climbed from simple was either now achieved or fervently hoped for by neokoroi to three and four times neokoroi.33 Nollé Side.35 The statue was set up beside other ‘divine’ favored a date after Probus, who, he held, made Side monuments of an individual emperor; note that a metropolis, which is also why SiA restored the enu- single Augustus is mentioned, not Augusti or meration as precisely six times neokoros (granted, Caesares, which would make a date after 286, when according to Nollé, by Tacitus; see discussion be- Diocletian began to take colleagues, appear less low). Without further information, however, we can likely. The dedicators of the statue are “the most be no more precise about the date of inscription 3 illustrious council and the steadfast people and the than ‘from ca. 275 to the early fourth century.’34 most powerful and emperor-loving and strong, sa- cred. . . council of elders of the most illustrious and INSCRIPTION 4. SiA 1 no. 26 (Mansel, E. famed six-times neokoros city of the Sidetans.” From Bosch, and Inan 1951, no. 67; SEG 6:731). { la- that point, all that can be recognized is intermittent ~ d} mpr[otãth] boulØ ka‹ eÈstayØ`[w ]mow ka‹ words: “of neokoros (genitive). . . to the asylos (da- { ¤ semnotãt[h ka‹ f]ilos°bastow ka‹ kr[at sth tive, perhaps a reference to Athena), new (dative, or } t] w lamprotãthw k[a‹ §ndÒj]ou •jãkiw neokoros again). . . to (the god?) Dionysos (dative), | nevkÒ[rou Sidht]«n pÒlevw erå ka[‹ megãlh the one in its (sacred?) dining-room.” None of this ¤ ge]rous a nevkoroË[sa ÉAyhnò tª ye]“ ésÊlƒ disconnected terminology fits the usual formula else- | ` ka‹ nev[koroËsa ye]“ DionÊsƒ t“ §n t“ e[r“] where, of a city being neokoros either of emperors } ¤ aÈt w deipnisthr ƒ. or of deities, where the object of cult is genitive. Side The syntax of Side’s inscription no. 4 is distinctly had previously used odd terminology on its coins, odd in every published restoration, especially in this such as type 10 (“to Asklepios neokoros?, of the last part, when the number of letters to be crammed Sidetans”), but the use of the dative for the object in makes each line longer than it should be, though of cult of the neokoria, as inscription 3 is currently little sense is thereby obtained. Restoring participles interpreted, appears clearly on none of these coins based on the verb nevkor°v allowed the various or inscriptions (inscription 1 cannot serve as a pre- editors to deal with the fact that a genitive (of the cedent, since it has itself been restored based on city) is followed by nominatives (modifying ‘gerousia’) inscription 4). Dionysos, whose name appears toward and then what appears to be another genitive of the end of inscription 4, was worshipped in Side, nevkÒrow. None have explained why the longer though if his only shrine was in the gerousia’s din- participle, unprecedented in any unrestored inscrip- ing room, we must wonder how such a minor cult tion discussed in this book, should have been cho- could have won a separate neokoria (if so restored) sen by those who set up this particular base, when for Side.36 And since Side was six times neokoros the simple adjectival noun nevkÒrow is what the at the time of inscription 4, we may also wonder why editors perceive them to have meant, and what they only two objects of cult, (perhaps) Athena and have translated. Dionysos, are mentioned here. It seems more likely In order to have a basis for any solid reasoning, that the last line refers to the location where the we should strip this inscription of all but the most statue of the Senate was to be set up. As for repeated obvious restorations. The result is a base for a statue use of the title neokoros in oblique cases which do of the personified Roman Senate. The monument not modify the city’s name, it is possible that, as on the coins mentioned above, inscription 4 referred to the city’s patron gods as neokoroi. 33 Foss 1977a, 168-169. Reprinted as Ch. 7 in Foss 1990. 34 This opinion, along with the provision below, that a pre- Tetrarchic date was more likely than not for inscription 4, was 35 Pace SiA 1:289; see Kienast 1996, 250-251; Alaric Watson also stated in my unpublished dissertation, Neokoroi: Greek Cit- 1999, 106-107, 109-112. ies of the Roman East (Harvard University 1980) 467; the date 36 SiA 1:116-117. SiA 2 nos. 153 and 154 are inscriptions attributed to me by S. Price 1984b, 272 was the result of a of a sacred dining room of the gerousia, dated to before 212 miscommunication. C.E. chapter 19 – side 187

Having laid out the evidence, we must now turn Side never clearly claimed to be neokoros of any to the interpretations of J. Nollé. Based on the pre- god, yet the city’s gods played a larger than usual sumption that Side’s rank and titulature went hand- role in the neokoria. Among them was the city in-hand with Perge’s, and with some disregard for goddess, who as at other cities personified the the actual words of the ancient coins and inscrip- neokoros city and carried the temple(s) on coinage. tions, he has constructed out of possibilities and Athena, the city’s chief patron, was not called surmises what can only be called a historical fic- neokoros but like the city goddess carried a temple, tion.37 He would have Side, like Perge, first made and her name has been restored near the title in neokoros under Vespasian (for which no document inscriptions 1 and 4. Apollo Sidetes took the name exists) and given a pentaeteric festival as a matter ‘neokoros’ on coins and may have shared his temple of course. His restoration of inscription 1, judged with the imperial cult for which the city first became above to be highly uncertain, was coupled with coin neokoros, though a restoration of neokoria near his type 12 to propose that Valerian and Gallienus made name in inscription 1 is very uncertain. Asklepios Side twice neokoros before 256. The three temples was possibly named as neokoros on one coin issue, of coin type 11 were then taken to prove that Side and Dionysos’ name has been tenuously associated was three times neokoros before the defeat of Vale- with the title in inscription 4. We should note, how- rian in 260. All the while the coin legends of this ever, that at the time that the city goddess, Athena, very rivalrous city give no hint of enumeration be- and Apollo were portrayed as neokoroi on coins fore the title ‘neokoros.’ Then, in the reign of under Valerian and Gallienus, Side only claimed to Aurelian, when the Sidetans finally put the enumera- be neokoros, not twice or three times neokoros. tion for three times neokoros on their coin legends, These coin types, then, cannot indicate that Side was Nollé believed that Aurelian actually granted them neokoros for any of these gods at that time, but only a fourth neokoria, again based on no document but that the gods personified the city. If, as is just pos- because Perge’s coins claimed four neokoriai at that sible, coin types 8 and 9 indicate that Apollo was time. According to him, Tacitus was the specific neokoros because the imperial cult was moved into emperor who granted Side an additional two his temple, the corollary is that the cult could not neokoriai, again due to rivalry: Tacitus had to make have moved into the temple of Athena or the temple up for Perge’s becoming metropolis. But though the of the city goddess as well. By the time of Aurelian, Asklepios may have total of six Sidetan neokoriai is assured by inscrip- provided another temple for the three neokoriai of tion 4 and perhaps others, none of these honors can Side (coin type 10); and by the time of inscription be specifically dated to Tacitus’ reign. Again, Nollé 4, ca. 275-286 C.E., Athena’s and (less likely) Diony- chose Probus as the emperor who granted metropolis sos’ shrines may have been added, making up four status to Side soon after Perge received it, though at most of the six temples for which Side claimed no document points at him specifically. Some of neokoros status. Certainly allotting the title for pre- these hypotheses are contradicted by the data, and viously existing temples would have saved the cost none are proved by them. This drive towards over- of building new ones, especially when manpower and exactitude based on supposition is not the wisest material were scarce, and what there was was de- approach to ancient evidence, which is always voted to the armies and self-defense.38 We may also lacunose and open to surprising new finds. wonder whether the city was simply making up its Let us sum up rather more soberly. Side declared own titles, but firm evidence for or against any of itself to be neokoros under Valerian and Gallienus, these hypotheses has yet to be found. sometime before the end of Gallienus’ second con- Side, at six, may still have the highest number of sulship in December 256. Then on coins of Aurelian neokoriai we know; but for most other cities, the it claimed to be three times neokoros. After that, but documents end with Gallienus, when Side was still likely before 286, it was six times neokoros. It is only an unremarkable neokoros. The few cities that certainly possible that a single emperor granted Side provide later evidence of the title’s continuing sta- more than one neokoria at a time, as Trajan Decius tus include Perinthos, still twice neokoros under had to Thessalonike (q.v.). Aurelian; Synnada, twice neokoros around 293-305, in the Tetrarchic period; Sagalassos, still twice 37 SiA 1:85, 88-94, 122-125. He also defended the histori- cal stylings of the Historia Augusta: SiA 1:288 n. 28. 38 J. Nollé 1990, 255; SiA 1:130. 188 part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia neokoros under Constantine and his sons (333-337); Six times neokoros: and Sardis, twice neokoros as an anachronism in 459 4. SiA 1 no. 26 (Mansel, E. Bosch, and Inan 1951, C.E. no. 18). Likely dated 275-286 C.E.; see text above. And then there is Side’s rival Perge. In the reign of Aurelian, Perge had still been one neokoria ahead of Side, at four to Side’s three. Perge was last seen COINS CITING NEOKORIA: as four times neokoros in the reign of Tacitus, and the fervor with which Perge hailed that emperor, Neokoros: who had made it metropolis, may indicate that he Valerian: Side Coins 115; SNGvA 4835, 4836; SNGParis 874; didn’t allow any advantage over Perge to Side. And SNGPfPS 4.791-793, 795-796, 798; Berlin (4 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.). now a revision of Perge’s inscription 4 may tell us Gallienus: Side Coins 118, 120, 123-125, 127, 129-131, whether Perge too became six times neokoros, some- 133; BMC 108-116, 117a, 118-119a; SNGCop 425- time after Tacitus’ reign. If so, it is possible that 428; SNGvA 4840-4845, 4847-4850, 8545-8548; Perge held its advantage over Side until both Chris- SNGParis 881-913, 915-925; SNGRighetti 1309, 1310; tian cities dropped all mention of neokoria and its SNGPfPS 4.804-836, 838-847, 849-858; Ireland 2000, no. 1725; Berlin (29 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London implication of imperial cult from their titulature. (11 exx.), New York (12 exx.), Oxford (11 exx.), Vienna (14 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.). Salonina: Side Coins 135-139, 141; BMC 120-123a, 124- INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: 126; SNGCop 429-433; SNGvA 4852, 4854, 4856- 4863, 8550, 8551; SNGParis 930, 931, 933-942; SNGRighetti 1311, 1312; SNGPfPS 4.860-880; Berlin Neokoros: (13 exx.), Boston (4 exx.), London (7 exx.), New York 1. SiA 1 no. 44 (Bean 1965, no. 183). See text above. (9 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Vienna (11 exx.), Warsaw 2. SiA 2 no. 158 (Bean 1965, no. 97). Fragmentary (3 exx.). inscription referring to the gerousia as neokoros of Valerianus the Younger: Side Coins 143, 144; BMC 127, a god, gods, or of something divine? Letter forms 128; SNGCop 434, 435; SNGParis 943-948; SNGRighetti of later third century. 1313; SNGPfPS 4.881-888; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), Oxford, Vienna (2 exx.). At least four times neokoros: Three times neokoros: 3. SiA 2 no. 112 (Mansel, E. Bosch, and Inan 1951, Aurelian: Side Coins 146; SNGvA 4864; SNGParis 950 (in- no. 2). Likely dated after 275 C.E.; see text above. correct); SNGPfPS 4.891; Berlin (5 exx.). chapter 20 – aspendos 189

Chapter 20. Aspendos: (Association of) Cities of Pamphylia

First Neokoria: Gallienus and the same mark appears on coins of Side and other Pamphylian cities.7 From such slim evidence, Three cities in Pamphylia are known to have been however, it cannot be assured that Aspendos actu- neokoroi: Perge, Side (qq.v.), and about equidistant ally became neokoros later than Side, which does between them, Aspendos. Aspendos had from early announce the title on coins with the portrait of Va- on shared a border with, and been hostile to, Side.1 lerian; a single such coin from Aspendos could prove But at the time in question, the mid-third century the titles contemporaneous. C.E., the chief rivalry was between Perge and Side, Aspendos’ reverse type is a temple-shaped plaque, and Aspendos took sides with its old enemy, even suitable to, but not informative about, an announce- issuing coins of concord with Side.2 Aspendos, ment of neokoria. That it represents a plaque and judged as third among the cities of Pamphylia, may not a temple is shown by the thin outline that sur- have been only a judicial district center.3 Its great rounds it, outside the columns. Contemporary coins pentaeteric Kaisareoi contest probably antedated the that announce ‘Marcus (Antoninus) founded the neokoria, and the only other known festival it cel- temple’ portray a four-column temple with an eagle ebrated was of the lower-ranked type with monetary in the pediment and Victories as side akroteria, but prizes.4 Only a single reverse coin type, issued with the half-draped male figure enthroned within is as obverses of Gallienus and his wife Salonina, indicates likely to be Zeus as it is to be an emperor in Zeus’ that Aspendos was also neokoros.5 guise.8 On the other hand, the document that es- tablished Philadelphia in Asia as neokoros, its in- COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI PO L GAL- scription 1, was inscribed on a temple-shaped plaque Laureate draped cuirassed bust of LIHNO[% %E] and began with “Antoninus founds you,” likely re- Gallienus r., I to r. Rev: A%PENDIVN NEVKO- ferring to Caracalla making Philadelphia neokoros. Temple-shaped plaque on which the title is RVN If the plaque and the temple on coins of Aspendos engraved. a) London 1921.4-12-117 (Weber 7326)6 refer to the same building, it could mean that an em- (illus. pl. 32 fig. 149). peror was enthroned like Zeus in the temple for COIN TYPE 2. Obv: KORNHLIA %ALVNINA which the city was neokoros; and that the temple Diademed draped bust of Salonina r., I to r. Rev: had been founded, like Perge’s, well before the city A%PENDIVN NEVKORVN Temple-shaped plaque claimed neokoria on coins. If this is so, the founder on which the title is engraved. a) SNGParis could have been Marcus Aurelius, as the SNGParis 218. suggested, or perhaps Caracalla. The latter granted many neokoriai, but primarily in Asia; the former Types 1 and 2 date the honor to the reign of Gal- is not known to have granted any. lienus (253-268), likely after 260, as no coins of It is possible that the concord coinage between Valerian, his father and co-ruler to that time, have Aspendos and Side shows a voting bloc in the pro- yet been found to cite the title ‘neokoros.’ The mark vincial organization at this time: Side and its smaller of value on the obverse is also suitable to that time, neighbors allied against Perge to get neokoria and

1 J. Nollé 1993. 7 J. Nollé 1990, 245-249. 2 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 15; J. Nollé 1990, 261-262. 8 SNGParis 221, Valerianus the Younger; a similar seated 3 Philostratos, Life of Apollonios 1.15; Haensch 1997, 294. Zeus (with eagle and seated or standing Hera) appears on coins 4 IGRR 3:804; Karl 1975, 57-58; Wallner 1997, 154-155. of, e.g., Maximinus, Maximus (SNGPfPS 4.99, BMC 91), Trajan 5 S. Price 1984b, 271. Decius (SNGParis 198), and Valerianus the Younger (SNGvA 6 Forrer 1922-1929, 3.2 pl. 262. 4607). See L. Robert 1960b. 190 part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia other benefits for themselves. But as well as issuing was, after all, neokoros on coins. That the coins date concord coinage with Aspendos and Attaleia, Side perhaps a century later did not concern him, nor issued it with cities outside Pamphylia, such as Myra, should it concern us too much, as Perge also didn’t Sagalassos, Alexandria in Egypt, and Delphi.9 In name itself neokoros on coins until long after it fact, so little is known about the association of Pam- received the title. What is of paramount concern, phylian cities that it may be better not to hypo- however, is that the inscription as restored above thesize. makes no sense, since it lists Zenon’s benefactions Though Aspendos offers a plethora of remains in (money, gardens, or some other work), in Franz’s excellent condition, it has not been excavated in any edition attributes the grant of neokoria to them, and organized manner.10 It may be that future finds will then jumps back to Zenon’s good qualities. But offer more evidence for the city as neokoros. But Zenon was no Hadrian, nor a Polemon of Smyrna some confusion has already arisen over whether (on whose inscription 4 Franz modeled his restora- Aspendos was given that title well earlier than the tion; and Smyrna inscription 4, it should be noted, coins mentioned above. The confusion arose when attributes the grant of the neokoria not to private Brandt dredged up one of several restorations from gifts, but to a decree of the Senate). In fact, the errors an old copy of one of the inscriptions from Aspendos’ in these imaginative restorations were long since theater.11 The theater probably dates to the second pointed out by Waddington, who printed the origi- century C.E., and its builder, Zenon son of Theo- nal copy of Ross de Bladensburg from which both doros, was honored prominently on the building for Kennedy-Bailie and Franz produced their versions. his works and benefactions.12 It reads The variant Brandt approved was edited by Franz I I T E I I E N V K O G R O ...... N I as CIG 4342 d3 (vol. 3 p. 1162); its line 7 is given as Waddington’s comments are valuable: “J’ai repro- duit la copie de Ross, la seule qui Bailie ait connue, ~]te nevkÒrow [{ pÒliw §g°neto { Sidht«]n . . . pour montrer ce qu’il en a fait, et comment il a from which the city of the Sidetans became neoko- ros . . . induit Franz et LeBas en erreur. Sauf les trois premières lignes, on ne peut restituer l’inscrip- Brandt, though not citing the original source, went tion...”14 Until further evidence is found, we should back to Kennedy-Bailie’s old restoration at least for follow his advice. the name of the city:13 { te nevkÒrow pÒliw t«n ÉAspend°vn §t¤mhsen. . . No inscription of Aspendos as neokoros has yet been found. To give Brandt his due, there is better reason to restore the name of the Aspendians than that of the Sidetans, as the theater is in the city, and the city COINS CITING NEOKORIA:

Neokoros: 9 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 190-196. Gallienus: London. 10 Jameson 1970; Bean 1976b; Özgür 1993. Salonina: SNGParis 218. 11 Brandt 1988, 248-250. 12 CIG 4342d, with addenda. 13 Kennedy-Bailie 1846, 208-209 no. 210b l. 6. 14 Le Bas–Waddington, pt. 5 no. 1383 l. 6. chapter 21 – beroia 191

SECTION V. KOINON OF MACEDONIA

Chapter 21. Beroia: Koinon of Macedonia

Beroia was the seat and center of the koinon of ‘neokoros,’ which properly described the city of Macedonia. When it gained that position, and even Beroia, was extended, at least on the coins, to in- when the koinon was organized, is not entirely clude all the Macedonians of the koinon. clear.1 Beroia may have had a moral advantage among cities of the province in having been the first city to give itself up to the Romans in 168 B.C.E., First Neokoria: Nerva but Thessalonike was the second, and both acted within the space of two days.2 In any case, by the The reign of Nerva offers the first evidence for neo- time of Nerva, Beroia had achieved exclusive rights koria in the province of Macedonia.4 Inscription 1 as metropolis of the koinon and neokoros of the of Beroia is a decree in honor of Quintus Popillius provincial cult of the Augusti. In fact, Beroia and Python, chief priest of the Augusti for the koinon of the koinon were so strongly identified with one Macedonia, agonothetes of the provincial festival, another that they could share both the title and citizen of Beroia, for his many services.5 One ‘neokoros’ and the coinage on which it appears. of these was an embassy to Nerva on behalf of Generally, all the cities discussed in this work Beroia, requesting that the city be “the only one to issued coins whose obverses showed the reigning have the neokoria of the Augusti and the rank of emperor, while the reverses trumpeted themes of metropolis”: civic pride in the name of the citizens (genitive case). INSCRIPTION 1. Gounaropoulou and Hatzo- Beroia, however, minted coins in the name of the poulos 1998 no. 117. ¤ } koinon of Macedonia. In fact, there are only six (late) tÚn diå b ou érxier t«n types on which the name of the city is mentioned Sebast«n ka‹ égvnoy°thn toË koinoË M[a]ke- ¤ along with that of the koinon; the former is in the dÒnvn K. Pop llion PÊyvna, p[r]esbeÊsanta } ¤ ¤ genitive, the latter nominative/accusative where Íp¢r t w patr dow Bero aw §p‹ yeÚn N°rouan Íp¢r ¤ completely expressed. On all other issues the name toË mÒnhn aÈtØn ¶xein tØn nevkor an t«n } ¤ of the koinon appears alone. Yet it is certain that Sebast«n ka‹ tÚ t w mhtropÒlevw éj vma ka‹ Beroia was the mint for these coins, not only because §pitÊxonta. . . it was the seat of the koinon, but because reverse Python probably undertook his mission in connec- types of the city show a close, almost an exact, cor- tion with his office as chief priest of the provincial respondence in style and subject with those of the imperial cult at Beroia, and was successful.6 The koinon. Indeed, certain reverse dies of the city coin- point of the mission was not to petition for new age were altered to serve for the provincial coinage.3 honors, however, but to request that titles which But most remarkable is the fact that the title Beroia already possessed be kept exclusive to it; on

1 Nigdelis 1995, with comments by M. Hatzopoulos in 4 A dedication perhaps to Vespasian, Gounaropoulou and ‘Bulletin Epigraphique—Macedoine’ in Revue des études grecques Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 61, cannot be considered as evidence; 109 (1996) no. 247; Deininger 1965, 91-96; Kanatsoulis 1956. the title ‘neokoros’ is completely restored, and is unprecedented 2 Livy 44.45.1-5. that early. 3 Gaebler 1904, 292; pace Riccardi 1996, 21-24, 27-28. 5 Tataki 1988, 259-261 no. 1114. Though extensive sharing of obverse dies was documented by 6 Ziethen 1994, 33-34, 253-254, useful on Python’s social Kraft 1972, the sharing of reverses is far less common. The position but too definite in attributing the neokoria to Titus forthcoming work of K. Liampi on Beroia and the koinon mint and Domitian and in claiming that theos=divus; see Tataki 1988, will likely clarify the situation: Liampi 1997, 81. 447-448. 192 part i – section v. koinon of macedonia another inscription, perhaps commemorating the COIN TYPE 1. Obv: (AU KE, cd) MA(R, ab) OP same mission, Nerva is honored for preserving the AN(T, ab) DIADOUMENIANOS (KE, ab). (laureate, rights of the metropolis, not for granting them: cd) draped cuirassed bust of Diadumenian r. Rev: sunthrÆsanta aÈtª tå t}w mhtropÒlevw d¤kaia.7 KOI MAKEDONVN NEVKORV(N, ab) Emperor The date of inscription 1 is not precisely set: Nerva rides r., raises r. hand. a) London1940 10-1-25 is called ‘god,’ but in the Greek provinces this term b) Berlin, Fox (illus. pl. 32 fig. 150) c) Berlin 1491/ was applied to emperors both in their lifetimes and 1905 d) Paris 158. after death.8 Nerva became emperor on September The city of Beroia, so far as is known, did not mint 18, 96 C.E. and died on January 27, 98.9 Sometime any independent issues during this time. The reverse within that short reign he confirmed Beroia in an type of the emperor on horseback raising his hand honor that already stood. Whether or not he him- in greeting bears the youthful features of Diadu- self had granted that honor, this is intriguingly close menian, and similar types without mention of to the time when ‘neokoros’ became an official title, neokoria were minted for Macrinus. Gaebler took as first documented in the reigns of Nero and these coins with equestrian emperors to refer to an Domitian in Ephesos (q.v.). Perhaps the earliest imperial progress through Macedonia after the document of (most likely) the Macedonian koinon Parthian war, but historians do not mention any in the imperial period can be dated to the procon- such visit, and considering the turbulent situation in sulship of Lucius Baebius Honoratus, around 79-84 the East it seems unlikely.13 The types may refer to C.E.;10 this document, together with the start of the the emperors’ presence in the East generally, or may koinon coinage under Domitian, and the confirma- have anticipated a visit that never happened.14 In tion of Beroia’s rights by Nerva, may show that the any case, the title ‘neokoros’ was engraved onto older organization or official recognition of the imperial coin dies that had been prepared without it. This cult in the Macedonian koinon took place during the novel appearance of a title that had been held by Flavian era. Beroia since the time of Nerva may have been a Python’s embassy implies that Beroia had a rival previously unanticipated privilege or the result of (or rivals) for its position in the province. One likely some new balance of power within the koinon itself. contender was Thessalonike, which was the seat of Python presumably defended the rights of Beroia the governors and administrative center of the prov- in his role of chief priest of the provincial temple of ince; Strabo called it the metropolis of Macedonia.11 the Augusti (at Beroia) and head of the koinon, as Though metropolis is less likely to be an official title well as a loyal Beroian. Later documents add the title than a reflection of the city’s size and status, it may Macedoniarch for the head of the provincial koinon; have been in common enough use for Thessalonike Beroia’s inscription 4 indicates that the same man to challenge Beroia for the right to be called me- could hold the offices of Macedoniarch, chief priest tropolis. (of the Augusti?), and agonothetes of the provincial The earliest coins datable by imperial obverse that festival, and that his wife could be the provincial cite the ‘koinon of the Macedonians neokoroi’ are chief priestess, in the third century C.E.15 Once, of Diadumenian, who was made Caesar and succes- however, a lady’s office was given as Macedoni- sor by his father Macrinus in April 217 C.E.; a few archissa.16 call him Augustus, a title he received at the end of May 218.12 Second Neokoria: Elagabalus 7 Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 63; Cormack 1940. This monument mentioned another provincial chief There is no direct connection yet known between priest, Tiberius Julius ...krates; see Tataki 1988, 179 no. 626. Beroia and the emperor Elagabalus except for his 8 S. Price 1984a. 9 Kienast 1996, 120-121; the death date may have been Jan. 25. 13 Gaebler 1904, 294-295; Halfmann 1986a, 230. 10 Tataki 1988, 132 no. 318, 447-448; Papazoglou 1988, 14 Ziegler 1993b, 74-75. 65-66. Nigdelis 1995 would date the chief priest T. Flavius 15 Nigdelis 1995, 176-177, and see discussion of Valerius Paramonos to Flavian times. Philoxenos, below. Nigdelis 1996, 137-141 documented some 11 Strabo 7.7.4 and fr. 21; Papazoglou 1979, 361; 1988, Macedoniarchs after 231 C.E. who also were hierophantai, 141-148, esp. 144; Haensch 1997, 104-112. though these did not include the honoree of inscription 4. 12 Kienast 1996, 170-171. 16 Kanatsoulis 1956, 64-65; Deininger 1965, 93 n. 6. chapter 21 – beroia 193 grant of the second neokoria. Assuming that Ela- The renderings are schematic, the two temples as- gabalus took the direct route across Thrace toward similated to and indistinguishable from one another. Moesia on his triumphal way to Rome, passing near One variant shows a tall column between the Beroia would have meant a considerable detour temples: south, all the way into the center of the province.17 COIN TYPE 3. Obv: ALEJANDROU Head of None of the coinage minted for Beroia or the koinon Alexander r. Rev: KOINON MKEDONVN (sic) B of the Macedonians shows a portrait of any of NEV Two four-column temples, between them a Elagabalus’ wives, so the grant cannot be dated to column on which a cuirassed statue stands r. with any particular point in his reign. It is possible that spear and parazonium. a) Athens (AMNG 466). the koinon and/or the Beroians sent a deputation north to greet the emperor on his route, and that it A recent study attempted to use this type to illus- was at that time that he made them twice neokoros. trate a ‘sanctuary of the Augusti’ where both impe- As has already been mentioned, Beroia was uni- rial temples and monuments were grouped.19 But que in minting its coinage in the name of the koinon coin type 3 is similar to types that had appeared at of which it was the metropolis. Only a few coins Pergamon and Nikomedia (qq.v.), and is not any mention the city’s name at all. The coins that cite more likely than they to represent topographical the title ‘twice neokoros’ are also difficult to date: reality. In the case of Nikomedia, the patron god- most of them have obverses of Alexander the Great, dess Demeter is shown on or off a column among while only a few have more datable portraits of the the temples for which the city was neokoros. In emperor. These issues were analyzed by Gaebler in Macedonia the figure atop the column also appears his volumes on the coins of Macedonia, but certain as an independent coin type: an armored male with considerations must be taken into account if his spear and parazonium standing in contrapposto, his chronology is to be accepted.18 The first and most head twisted to one side. This idiosyncratic position obvious is that this chronology was partly based on of the head led Gaebler to identify the figure as changes in number of neokoriai, and therefore it Alexander the Great, though Brocas-Deflassieux saw would be circular reasoning to use it as evidence for the tiny figure on the column as “certainly an em- the changes themselves. Still, Gaebler’s conclusions peror.” Even if Gaebler was correct, the image need are substantiated by the study of over 550 die com- not mean that Alexander was specifically associated with the imperial cult; as Demeter represented the binations for the coinage citing neokoria alone. In Nikomedians, so Alexander represented the Mace- addition, the Alexander-obverse coins can be dated donians of Beroia and their pride in their ethnic from the correspondence of their reverses to coins heritage. In the third century his name was indeed of the imperial series. associated with the provincial festival (below). In any The Beroians, again in the name of the koinon, case, Brocas-Deflassieux used finds of various dedi- celebrated their second neokoria by issuing coins cations to emperors, plus parts of Doric columns of with obverses both of Alexander the Great and of unspecified magnitude, to locate an imperial sanc- Elagabalus. Two new reverse types also began, and tuary in the south of the city, at a position along one were subsequently associated with the title ‘twice of Beroia’s main streets. Though one of Beroia’s two neokoros’: one shows two temples, the prototypical imperial temples may indeed have stood in that area, reverse type illustrating what made a city neokoros; the hypothesis still needs more solid facts to prove the other, two prize crowns representing festivals it. which were perhaps associated with the temples. An agonistic table with two prize crowns served COIN TYPE 2. Obv: ALEJANDROU Head of as the reverse for coins with and without portraits Alexander r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN B of Elagabalus during his reign. NEV(K ab) Two five-column (seven-column, cde) COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU KE MAR AUR AN- temples facing. a) Paris 187 b) Berlin, Dannen- TVNO% (sic) Laureate draped cuirassed bust of berg c) Paris 269 d) Vienna 16117 e) Berlin 698/ Elagabalus, r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN B 1929 (illus. pl. 32 fig. 151).

19 Brocas-Deflassieux 1999, 78-82. The sanctuary is located 17 Halfmann 1986a, 230-231. at ‘3’ on fig. 45, though this, like most plans in the book, lacks 18 Gaebler 1906, 3.1 (=AMNG with coin number). both scale and orientation. 194 part i – section v. koinon of macedonia

NEVKO Two prize crowns with palms on agonistic festival of the Macedonians, the agon Alexandreios; his table. a) Munich (AMNG 303). wife, Valeriane Ammia, was chief priestess of the Augusta (Julia Mamaea, whose name was also COIN TYPE 5. Obv: ALEJANDRO(U bcd, % a) erased), and together they put on three days of hunts Head of Alexander r. Rev: KOINON MAKE- and gladiatorial combats in Beroia. One may won- DONVN B NEV(KOR, ad; NEVKO, c ) Two prize der, though one must not argue from this silence, crowns with palms on agonistic table. a) London whether Beroia’s second neokoria was in doubt or 1940-10-1-24 b) Berlin, Prokesch-Osten c) Ber- lost by 229; certainly, like other cities that were lin, Imhoof-Blumer d) Berlin 696/1929. neokoroi for Elagabalus, it seems to have lost that status by the outbreak of the Persian war in 231.24 Unlike later coins, however, none of these types Gaebler’s die study may indeed show an example specifically names the festivals they were meant to of deliberate silence: the coins minted under Severus celebrate, and it cannot be absolutely confirmed that Alexander with ‘twice neokoros’ and those with a the festivals were instituted in honor of the temples simple ‘neokoros’ were apparently separated by a that made the city twice neokoros.20 small series that suppressed the title ‘neokoros’ al- together.25 He dated this series to exactly 231 on the Withdrawn: Severus Alexander basis of coins without neokoria that nonetheless shared this type: Beroia’s neokoria for Elagabalus did not far outlast his death and the condemnation of his memory.21 COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU K MAR %E ALEJ- Of the city’s sparse koinon issues with imperial ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Seve- portraits, one type of Severus Alexander still includes rus Alexander r., light-bearded. Rev: KOINON the second neokoria: MAKEDONVN NEV Emperor on horseback rides r. a) Berlin, Löbbecke (illus. pl. 32 fig. 154). COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AU K M A %E ALEJ- ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of From the reverse of the emperor on horseback, Severus Alexander r., youthful. Rev: KOINON Gaebler assumed that Severus Alexander paid a MAKEDONVN B NE Athena seated l. a) Paris 160 personal visit to Beroia on his way to the Persian (illus. pl. 32 fig. 152). war. This cannot be confirmed; as has been noted, Beroia had issued similar types for Diadumenian, The rest go back to the simple title ‘neokoros,’ in- who is unlikely to have visited the city; and the scene cluding: is little different from that of type 7, where the perso- COIN TYPE 7. Obv: M AURHL %E ALEJ- nification of Victory makes it more clearly meta- ANDRO% Laureate draped bust of Severus phorical. But one fact does emerge: since some of Alexander, r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN the ‘twice neokoros’ and ‘neokoros’ coins were struck b) Emperor on horseback led r. by Vic- from the same obverse die, any interval of coinage NEV(KO, 26 tory. a) London 1892.6-11-16 b) Paris 161 (illus. without the title must have been brief. We might pl. 32 fig. 153). say that the lapse reflects either a period of doubt as to the proper title, or of embarrassment on the This reverse refers to Severus Alexander’s military city’s part that the glory of being twice neokoros had operations, which began ca. 231.22 It is noteworthy just been halved. that an inscription dated to 229 does not mention Soon after the simple ‘neokoros’ was restored to Beroia as neokoros.23 The inscription records the koinon’s coins, a few types celebrated a pact of Valerius Philoxenos, Macedoniarch, chief priest of concord with Thessalonike. The rival city is not the Augustus (i.e. Severus Alexander, whose name explicitly named; indeed, the legends simply read was later erased), and agonothetes of the koinon ‘koinon of the Macedonians; concord.’ But the re- verse type clearly shows a city or provincial goddess 20 Leschhorn 1998, 400-405, overconfident about iden- confronting the eponymous Victory of Thessa- tifications. 21 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417. 22 Halfmann 1986a, 231-232. 24 See chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis’, below. 23 Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 68; Tourat- 25 AMNG 11-18, nos. 322-340; this no. 313. soglou 1970, inscription A. 26 AMNG nos. 306, 307 (twice) with 308 (single). chapter 21 – beroia 195 lonike.27 These coins imply that some understand- newly neokoros, and Beroia, still head of the koinon ing was reached either between Thessalonike and and now (for the second time) twice neokoros. The Beroia or between Thessalonike and the rest of the coins that name Beroia are in all other ways simi- koinon (which may have come to much the same lar to those that name the koinon alone; they share thing). But the understanding was not over the right some obverse dies, and one reverse was reworked to neokoria, as Gaebler thought. Beroia had only to add the city’s name.30 Both include celebratory reverted to the simple title to which it had had types that show the two temples for which the city exclusivity since the reign of Nerva, while Thessa- was neokoros looking much the same way they had lonike still did not call itself neokoros. Of course, during the previous, short-lived second neokoria for concord coins were issued between notorious rivals, Elagabalus, though more often in three-quarter view, and orators like Dio Chrysostomos and Aelius as on types 9 and 10. Aristides addressed speeches on concord to those COIN TYPE 10. Obv: who most lacked it.28 And Thessalonike was soon AUT K MAR ANT GOR- Radiate draped cuirassed bust of to have what Beroia had previously kept to itself DIA[NO%] Gordian III, r. Rev: alone. KOINON MAKEDONVN B NEVKOR[VN] Two temples on high podia turned towards one another; a prize crown between them. a) Paris 164 (illus. pl. 32 fig. 155). Second Neokoria: Gordian III Inscription 2, below, shows that the second neokoria Since the reign of Nerva, when Python had won the must have been granted by 239 C.E. In the next primacy of Macedonia for Beroia, that city had year, inscription 4 shows that the Macedoniarch remained the only neokoros of the province. It could Lucius Septimius Insteianus Alexandros, chief priest proclaim its neokoria on coins of the koinon with- (of Augustus or the Augusti?) and agonothetes of the out even including the city’s own name in the leg- Macedonian koinon festival, along with his wife, the end. But during the reign of Gordian III, Beroia chief priestess Aelia Alexandra, gave three days of finally had to admit its rival to the status whose celebrations, including hunts and gladiatorial com- exclusivity it had defended: Thessalonike issued coins bats. The festival, again the Alexandreios, is specified with the title ‘neokoros.’ Beroia, however, managed as being sacred, eiselastic (i.e. winners would be to retain primacy by regaining the second neokoria carried in triumph into their city) and isaktian or from the same emperor. Beroia then added a new possibly isolympian; other inscriptions refer to Alex- element to some of its legends: the name of the city andreia Olympia in Beroia.31 Alexandria are mentioned itself, on coins with both imperial and Alexander on Macedonian coins with agonistic reverse types obverses. under Gordian III, and Olympia both on coins of Gordian III and those of Philip dated to 275 of the COIN TYPE 9. Obv: Head of ALEJANDROU Actian era, or 243/244 C.E.32 But it must be noted Alexander r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN DI% that the Alexandreios contest cannot be associated with Two four-column temples NEVKO BEROIEV Beroia’s second neokoria, as mention of the festival turned towards one another. a) London 1913.6- was first made in 229 under Severus Alexander, 21-12 b) Berlin, Prokesch-Osten.29 probably just when the second neokoria was with- This and other types with the city’s name served to drawn. emphasize the distinction between Thessalonike, Associating neokoriai with festivals is chancy in any case, as festival names are notoriously aggluti- 27 Gaebler 1904, 334-338 reverse types IIIc, IVc, Vc, pl. native and fluid, and agonistic coin types are prone 7.18-20; followed, with some errors, by Sheppard 1984-1986, to abbreviation. Leschhorn, reasoning only from 235-236, and by Nigdelis 1996, 139-140. Franke 1987, 100- 101 identified the goddess making the pact with Victory as ‘Boule.’ The goddesses of the three reverse types are in fact not 30 Gaebler 1904, 292; 1907. closely identifiable, except for the polos hat; they are shown 31 E.g. IGRR 1:802, from Perinthos; J. and L. Robert, standing or seated, with sceptre or with cornucopia, and car- Bulletin épigraphique (1971) 454-455 no. 400. On the other hand, rying a statuette of a god too small to be identified. the provincial games Python gave were isaktian; see inscrip- 28 See chapter 41, ‘The Koina,’ in the summary chapters tion 1. in Part II. 32 Leschhorn 1998, with an unfortunate mistranscription, 29 Gaebler 1935, 48 no.4, pl. 11 no. 27. 402. 196 part i – section v. koinon of macedonia maximum number of prize crowns on Beroia’s coin served as its agonothetai. But what that festival was reverses, not from actual types, believed that the two called over time, and whether a new festival was prize crowns represented provincial festivals (sepa- added for each temple that made Beroia neokoros, rate Alexandreia and Olympia) and that each had to cannot yet be proved. be associated with the imperial temples of Beroia; One could postulate that Beroia put the title ‘twice so the Alexandreia must have been for an emperor neokoros’ on its coins because it counted all the associated with Alexander the Great, likely Severus neokoriai within the koinon; since Thessalonike was Alexander, despite the fact that under his rule a member of the koinon,36 its new neokoria could Beroia’s second neokoria was withdrawn, and his be included. But this cannot explain Beroia’s ear- and his mother’s names later suffered condemnation lier second neokoria for Elagabalus, nor the fact that in the city.33 It is more likely that the Macedonian Beroia chose this moment to put its name on the provincial festival celebrated Alexander the Great, koinon coins that it had long issued, as if to distin- not the emperor(s), primarily; on that same inscrip- guish itself from Thessalonike. Also, it does not fit tion where the ‘Alexander’ of the emperor’s name the picture of city rivalry that has been documented was erased, the festival’s name ‘Alexandreios’ remained so often in this study (especially below in chapter 41) unharmed. and elsewhere. It is more likely that Beroia was able Leschhorn also tried to ally a gold medallion from to win back its second neokoria by complaining to Aboukir in Egypt, supposedly dated to 275, with the the emperor and/or the Senate that Thessalonike, Beroian Olympia of that year, from an old sugges- with its first, was encroaching on Beroia’s primacy tion of Dressel’s; but the medallion shows a female in the province. This insistence on the pecking or- portrait and the legend OLUM PIADO% (= ‘Olym- der was not to be long preserved: Thessalonike was pia 274’?), while the coins give the (Aktian era) year situated at a strategic point for the armies that would of celebration as EO% (=275).34 The medallion can- have to face the Goths; Beroia was inland and less not have been a prize for a pentaeteric festival which strategic, though not out of harm’s way. Beroia the coins celebrated a year later. In any case, new ceased to issue coinage in its own name or in the finds make it more likely that the Aboukir medal- koinon’s after Philip. lion simply says ‘of Olympias,’ identifying the por- It is at just this point that an unfortunate confu- trait on it as the mother of Alexander the Great, who sion makes Beroia seem to leap out of obscurity and (with his family) is the most frequent subject of such back into the spotlight. In trying to explain why medallions.35 Thessalonike became four times neokoros under Coin types at this period frequently combine Trajan Decius, Ziegler unfortunately confused imagery of temples with that of festivals. But there Beroia in Macedonia with Beroe in Thrace (Augusta is no easy equivalency of temples and crowns: coin Traiana, the modern Stara Zagora), a city that was type 10, above, shows two temples and one prize prominent in the battles between the Roman forces crown, while 11, below, shows a single temple and and the Goths in the mid-third century.37 Due to two crowns. this geographical error, he believed that Beroia had been on the side of Philip because he died there, and COIN TYPE 11. Obv. Diademed ALEJANDROU that Philip’s enemy and successor Trajan Decius draped cuirassed bust of Alexander r. (head in would naturally have punished it and rewarded its lionskin, b) Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN B NE rival Thessalonike (though each of these suppositions b) Four-column temple on podium (DI% NEVKOR, is highly questionable in itself). Yet as inscriptions at l., two prize crowns on agonistic table at r. a) 5, 6, and 7 show, Beroia was not dishonored at that Paris 193 (illus. pl. 32 fig. 156) b) Berlin, Prokesch- time, but retained its status of twice neokoros well Osten. into the mid-third century. Certainly Macedonia celebrated a provincial festi- val at least since the time of Python, since he and chief priests and Macedoniarchs after him also 36 Deininger 1965, 92, 195; but see Edson 1972, 23 no. 38. 37 See ‘Thessalonike,’ chapter 22; Ziegler 1988b, 395-401, 33 Touratsoglou 1970, inscription A; Varner 1993, 418-422. with full bibliography; restated in Ziegler 1994, 202. He had 34 Leschhorn 1998, 402-403; also Gagé 1975, 4-5. earlier discounted Beroia as the site of Philip’s death: Ziegler 35 Savio 1994-1995. 1985, 104 n. 236. chapter 21 – beroia 197

Thessalonike would eventually go back down to Valerian, dated 253-256 C.E.; in fact, the metropolis twice neokoros, equal with Beroia, and shortly af- and twice neokoros Beroia honors Saloninus Cae- terward up again to three times neokoros. This in- sar, his grandson; thus it dates 258-260 C.E.39 crease may reflect the situation within the province: 8. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 108 Thessalonike, a vital harbor and the scene of usur- (A. Woodward 1911/1912, 148-149 no. 7; Tataki pations and Gothic invasions, was probably more 1988, 134 no. 329). Undated statue base, letter forms important to Gallienus than the inland metropolis of the mid-third century. Beroia. If the cities continued their contest afterward, 9. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 71. however, there is no evidence to show it. Letter forms of third century.

INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: COINS CITING NEOKORIA:

Neokoros:38 Neokoros: 1. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 117 Diadumenian: SNGLewis 1233; Berlin (2 exx.), Paris, (SEG 17 [1960] 315; L. Robert 1939, 131-132; London. Twice neokoros: Tataki 1988, 259-261 no. 1114): Neokoria confirmed Elagabalus: Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Paris. by Nerva. See text above. Severus Alexander: Paris. Twice neokoros: Neokoros: 2. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 481. Severus Alexander: Berlin (4 exx.), London, Paris (2 exx.). Milestone, dated by the second tribunician power Twice neokoros: Gordian III: BMC 158, SNGCop 1350, Berlin, Paris (2 of Gordian III to 239 C.E. exx.). 3. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 485. Philip (year 275 = 243/244 C.E.): Paris. Milestone similar to inscription 2, and tentatively dated to the same year. Alexander obverse, neokoros: BMC 99, 100, 102-104, 4. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 69 107, 113, 114, 117-119, 120, 125, 142; SNGCop 1358-1365; SNGRighetti 392; Berlin (50 exx.), Boston, (Touratsoglou 1970, 285 inscr. B; Tataki 1988, 270- London (6 exx.), New York (6 exx.), Oxford (8 exx.), 271 no. 1170). Announcement of celebrations Paris (18 exx.), Vienna (11 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.). funded by a Macedoniarch and chief priest (of the Alexander obverse, twice neokoros: BMC 101, 105, 106, Augusti?) under Gordian III, dated 240 C.E. See 108-110, 121-124, 126-136, 140, 144; SNGCop 1351- reference above. 1353, 1355, 1356, 1366-1374, 1376-1378, 1380; 5. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 109 SNGLewis 1234-1235; SNGRighetti 393; Berlin (117 exx.), Boston, London (26 exx.), New York (17 exx.), (Contoleon 1902, 141-142, date mistranscribed; A. Oxford (15 exx.), Paris (67 exx.), Vienna (36 exx.), Woodward 1911/1912, 148 no. 6; Tataki 1988, 123 Warsaw (13 exx.). no. 270). Honorific, dated after 249/250 by the Alexander obverse, twice neokoros, with name Beroia: provincial era. BMC 1; Berlin (3 exx.), London. 6. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 509 Alexander obverse, twice neokoros (year 275 = 243/244 C.E.): BMC 111, 112, 137; SNGCop 1379; SNGLewis (L. Robert 1939, 128-129 no. 1; Tataki 1988, 129 1235; Berlin (17 exx.), Boston, New York (4 exx.), no. 300, 464-465). Honorific altar, dated 250/251 Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw. by the Aktian era. Alexander obverse, twice neokoros (year 275 = 243/244 7. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 70, C.E.), with name Beroia: SNGCop 134; Berlin, Lon- where it is misidentified as an honor to the emperor don, New York, Paris.

38 Not included here are Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 nos. 61, 66, and 483, where the word ‘neokoros’ is un- certain, largely restored. 39 Keinast 1996, 221-222. 198 part i – section v. koinon of macedonia

Chapter 22. Thessalonike: Koinon of Macedonia

With all the advantages of its splendid harbor and column temple in three-quarter view on high strategic location on the via Egnatia, Thessalonike podium, star to r., snake? to l., prize crown with had likely been the seat of Roman governors since palm above. a) SNGCop 435 (T 346).4 Macedonia became a province in 146 B.C.E.1 In 42 COIN TYPE 2. Obv: abc c B.C.E., after the victory of the second triumvirate AU(T, ) K M (R, ) abd b, c Lau- at Philippi, it was awarded the status of free city. The ANT(V, , NIO%, NO% ) GORDIANO% reate draped (cuirassed, b) bust of Gordian III, metropolis and seat of the koinon of the Macedo- r. Rev: abd) nians, however, was Beroia (q.v.). Strabo called YE%%ALONIKEVN NEVK(ORVN, Four-column temple in three-quarter view Thessalonike the metropolis of Macedonia, less likely PUYIA l. a) London 1920.8-5-1684 (T 352) b) Paris 1459 as an official title than a reflection of the city’s size (T 342) c) Berlin, Löbbecke (T 345) d) Berlin and status; a native poet called it “mother of all 21326 (T 351). Macedonia.”2 Calling Thessalonike ‘metropolis’ may have been common enough for Thessalonike to COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K M ANTV GORDIA- challenge Beroia for that title and that of ‘neokoros NO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust (laureate of the Augusti.’3 Beroia, however, defended its ex- head, c) of Gordian III, r. Rev: YE%%A- clusive rights before the emperor Nerva, and Beroia LO(NIKEVN, abcd; -NEIKEVN, efgh) NEV- won. KOR(VN, abcd; NEVK, g; NEVKORV, e) It is likely, then, that Thessalonike looked on the Four-column temple in three-quarter view r. (l., honors of Beroia with rather a jaundiced eye, and cd) on high (low, gh) podium. a) BMC 120 (T 377) perhaps even welcomed the occasion when Beroia b) Boston 63.2964 (T 347) c) London 1968.6-4- lost its neokoria for Elagabalus. It was probably after 13 (T 360) d) Paris 1460 (T 350) e) Paris 1461 this misfortune that Beroia and Thessalonike de- (T 374) f) Paris 1462 (T 370) g) Berlin, Dressel clared a state of concord, with koinon coins show- (T 365) h) Berlin, Löbbecke (T 368). ing the koinon’s goddess sacrificing along with Except for type 3 above, the name of the festival Thessalonike’s eponymous Victory (see Beroia, Pythia appears on almost all types of Gordian III’s above). reign, occasionally coupled with other festival names (Kabeiria, Epinikia, or K(ai)sareia), but alone on types of the temple.5 On type 1 the temple’s attributes of First Neokoria: Gordian III a prize crown, a star, and the word Pythia may in- dicate that the Pythia was a sacred festival for the It is not until the reign of Gordian III that an ex- temple that made Thessalonike neokoros. On the ceptionally large and varied issue of coins first de- other hand, no mention is made of the emperors, clares Thessalonike neokoros, and celebrates the title and an inscription commemorating the fourth cel- with the following types: ebration of the festival is dedicated to Apollo Pythios COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT K M R ANTV GORDI- himself.6 The editor of that inscription also posited ANO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III, r. Rev: YE%%ALONIKEVN NEV PUYIA Four- 4 Pace Touratsoglou 1988, who interpreted this and other tetrastyle temples as two-column, presumably seeing the facade 1 Papazoglou 1979, 356, 361; Touratsoglou 1988 (= T with as the inner view of the far side of the peripteron. coin numbers) 5-19, esp. 6-7 n. 10; Haensch 1997, 104-112. 5 Touratsoglou 1988, 70-71 n. 148; Leschhorn 1998, 406- 2 Strabo 7.7.4 and fr. 21 E; Palatine Anthology 9.428. 408. 3 Papazoglou 1979, 361; 1988, 144, 189-212. 6 Edson 1972, no. 38. chapter 22 – thessalonike 199 that at the foundation of the Pythia, Thessalonike As ancient Thessalonike is hidden beneath the withdrew from the koinon of Macedonia, as no thriving modern city, it would be difficult to find and inscriptions of Macedoniarchs or other provincial authenticate the temple that made the city neokoros; officials at Thessalonike have yet been found to it is only sketchily illustrated on the coins. Some postdate that point. On the other hand, the earliest imperial portrait statues have been found in the area record of a Macedoniarch from Thessalonike dates of an archaic Ionic temple, but such honorifics could to 219 C.E.; there has even been some discussion be set up at any temple or in most public spaces, as to whether a free city like Thessalonike could be and do not necessarily identify the temple as one a member of the koinon.7 But the inscriptions of dedicated to the imperial cult.10 Macedoniarchs from Thessalonike indicate that it was, and one cannot argue much of a case from the absence of such inscriptions either beforehand or Fourth Neokoria: Trajan Decius after. In a parallel case in the province Asia, free cities and their citizens could participate in koinon Though Thessalonike continued to call itself activities, they were simply not constrained to do so.8 neokoros in later coin legends, the types tended to It may be that Beroia, jealous of its privileges, was repeat those minted under Gordian III, and to con- generally able to control the koinon assembly centrate on the Pythian festival. Then suddenly coins (synedrion) and keep Thessalonike in a subordinate showing Trajan Decius and his son Herennius condition within that context. Etruscus (as Caesar, thus before June 9, 251 C.E.) In his exhaustive study of the mint of Thessalo- declare Thessalonike to be metropolis, colony, and nike, Touratsoglou saw the exceptional honors of a four times neokoros.11 This leap in titulature is new pentaeteric festival and a grant of neokoros unprecedented for this time, though Side and per- status as grouped around the time of the wedding haps Perge may have accomplished a similar jump of Gordian III and Tranquillina, with the first Pythia later; and Nikopolis in Armenia Minor and Neapolis taking place in August 241.9 He explained the in Syria Palaestina (qq.v.) also combined colony emperor’s choice of Thessalonike for such honors status with neokoria.12 As for the title of ‘metropo- as due to Gordian’s philhellenism, but that alone lis,’ it had previously been applied only to Beroia would not fully explain why Thessalonike was singled within the province, as confirmed by the emperor out from hundreds of Greek cities. On the other Nerva; now Macedonia, like Asia and other eastern hand, it seems to be no accident that under the same provinces, had more than one metropolis.13 But ‘four emperor both Thessalonike, perhaps the most stra- times neokoros’ went well beyond Beroia’s two tegic city of its province, and Beroia, less strategic neokoriai and made Thessalonike the foremost but still head of the provincial koinon, each received neokoros city known of its time. Only Ephesos (q.v.) a new neokoria and a new festival. Even if Thessa- had yet become four times neokoros, an honor that lonike left the koinon at this time (and there is no had died with Elagabalus. evidence on whether it did), there may have been A fascinating series of inscriptions documents some reasoning that the two cities should keep the Thessalonike’s jump in status. A series of statue bases same status relationship as before. Beroia had al- honors the youths who were priests and agonothetai ready become twice neokoros by the year 240; Thessalonike’s increase in honors may also have 10 Pace Vickers 1970, 247-250; idem 1976; Touratsoglou dated to around that time. In any case, whether his 1988, 9-10 nn. 29-33. Much of the exploration has concen- motive for the honor was philhellenism or something trated on the later palatial center of Galerius’ time: Moutsou- poulos 1977. else, Gordian III or his advisers seem to have taken 11 Kienast 1996, 204-207. careful account of the pecking order within the 12 Ziegler 1988b, 390, 405 n. 35 posited that Thessalonike province. received ius Italicum, and concomitant freedom from certain taxes, along with its status as colony. On the combination of freedom with colonial status, see Touratsoglou 1996. 13 Hadrian was active in this regard: Bowersock 1985; but 7 Papazoglou 1988, 207-208; contra, Deininger 1965, 92, see ‘Patara,’ chapter 33, below. Bowersock (78-79) suggested 195. For ‘freedom’ in the strict sense, see Bernhardt 1971, 233. Pella rather than Thessalonike as Beroia’s rival, and repeated 8 See ‘Ephesos,’ chapter 4, on the dedications at the Flavian this suggestion in 1995, 89. But Pella, though a Roman colony, temple of the Augusti. was far less strategic than Thessalonike in this period. See 9 Touratsoglou 1988, 67-72. Nigdelis 1996, 139-140 n. 47. 200 part i – section v. koinon of macedonia of the ‘god Aurelius Fulvus,’ most likely a son of Thessalonike’s choice of ruler became crucial. Be- Marcus Aurelius who died at a tender age.14 The sides being the center of Roman administration for bases are carefully dated and for the most part fol- all Macedonia, the city was both the hub of road low the same format, so a sudden change stands out. systems to the west and north and a strong harbor, Thus when the city, which on the bases dated from and thus crucial for transport of troops and supplies 219 to 240 C.E. called itself simply ‘the fatherland,’ when roads across the war-torn provinces of Dacia, thereafter names itself ‘metropolis and colony and Moesia, and Thrace were impassable. If Thessalo- four times neokoros’ as well, we can assume that nike wavered, if it declared itself for Priscus for Thessalonike’s citizens were showing off new titles example, this lifeline would break apart. Thessalo- of which they were proud. nike’s new titles may be seen as rewards for hoped- for loyalty, bonds to Trajan Decius as emperor, and INSCRIPTION 1. Edson 1972, no. 162 (dated a recognition of the city’s strategic importance at a 246/247) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 10). { [ Yessa- time of emergency. They may also reflect the fact ¤ ¤ ' lonei]ka vn mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ kolvne a ka‹ D that the emperor was in the Balkan area, accessible { ¤ nevkÒrow patr w ... and even eager to do favors for important cities, so INSCRIPTION 2. Edson 1972, no. 163 (dated long as they didn’t divert resources from the war 248-250) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 11). t}w effort.16 lamprçw Yessalonika¤vn mhtropÒlevw ka‹ The coins both celebrate and illustrate Thessalo- kolvne¤aw ka‹ (t)etrãkiw nevkÒrou ... nike’s four neokoriai: most reverse types emphasize the four temples that gave the city its title, or four INSCRIPTION 3. Edson 1972, no. 164 (dated prize crowns, presumably one for each temple: 249/250) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 12). { Yessa- lonika¤vn mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ kolvn¤a ka‹ D' COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUTO KAI% KUIN TRAI- nevkÒrow { patr¤w ... AN`O`%` D`E`K`I`O`%` Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Trajan Decius, r. Rev: INSCRIPTION 4. Edson 1972, no. 165 (dated YE%%ALONIKH [KOL MHTR?] D NEVKORO% Four four-column temples, 250/251) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 13). { Yessa- two above two, turned towards one another, an- lonika¤vn mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ kolvne[¤]a ka‹ other D above them. a) London 1972.8-7-5 (illus. { ¤ tet[r]ãk[i]w nev[kÒ]row patr w ... pl. 33 fig. 157) (T 5). One notes a chronological distinction: the coins of COIN TYPE 5. Obv: the fourth neokoria date exclusively from the reign KAI KUIN EREN ME[%I Draped cuirassed bust of Trajan Decius, yet inscription 1 dates as early as ETROU%KILL]ON DEKION of Herennius Etruscus Caesar, r. Rev: 246/247, about two years before his accession. Did Four three neokoriai granted by Philip endure through YE%%A[LONIKH KOL M]HTR D NEVKORO% four-column temples, two above two, turned to- the reign of Decius? A simpler explanation is that wards one another. a) Berlin, Löbbecke (T 11). the inscriptions commemorate the year in which the priesthood was served, and may have been set up COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUTO KAI% KUIN TRAI- at the end of that year or even after, depending on ANO% DEKIO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust of how long it took to vote the honor, allot the money, Trajan Decius, r. Rev: YE%%ALONIKH KO(LV, and carve the base and the statue. a) MH(TROP, a) D NEVK(ORO%, b) Four prize The explanation for Thessalonike’s sudden dec- crowns with palms, two above two.17 a) BMC 140 laration of this plethora of titles is probably tied to (T 2) b) Berlin, Fox 188 (T 3). events in the Balkans.15 Gothic armies were rampag- COIN TYPE 7. Obv: ing through the provinces north of Macedonia. KAI KUIN EREN ME%I Draped bust of Priscus, the governor of Macedonia, who was also ETROU%KILLON DEKION Herennius Etruscus Caesar, r. Rev: the imperial legate to Thrace, was trapped there in YE%%A- Kabeiros with Philippopolis by the Gothic invaders and eventually LONIKH KOL MHT D NEVKORO% hammer and rhyton standing l., four prize crowns declared himself emperor. Under the circumstances,

16 Halfmann 1986a, 235-236. 14 L. Robert 1946; Edson 1972, nos. 153-170. 17 A similar reverse for Decius’ wife Herennia Etruscilla, 15 Touratsoglou 1988, 18 n. 85 unique and very obscure, is in Parma: T 7. chapter 22 – thessalonike 201

with palms in field around him. a) London Gordian III. The apparent rivalry with Beroia, 1958.3-4-112 (T 8) b) Paris 14.99 (T 9). however, makes it likely that each of the two cities would proclaim as many titles as they could, in The equation of temples and prize crowns is inter- competition with each other. esting. Thessalonike neokoros had minted with re- Ziegler sought to explain Thessalonike’s extraor- verse types of one prize crown, but that type was dinary honors by proposing a scenario in which common to many cities, neokoroi or not. An exact Beroia supported Philip as emperor while Thessa- correspondence between four temples and four prize lonike, Beroia’s rival, stood up for the eventual vic- crowns is more striking and may perhaps indicate tor, Decius, and won three neokoriai thereby.19 that a festival for each temple was included in the Though this is not impossible, it is tenuous, and there grant. The contests are not named any more than is no direct evidence for it. A single source, the monk the temples are, however. The Pythia festival had John of Antioch, stated that Philip, on campaign already appeared on coins of the time of Gordian against the ‘Scythians,’ heard the news of Decius’ III, sometimes coupled with the names Kabeireia, revolt at Perinthos in Thrace and fled towards Beroe; Epinikia, or K(ai)sareia, but these three festival names a city by that name (also known as Augusta Traiana, are not documented later. In fact, one must won- the modern Stara Zagora) was a notable crossroads der whether the four temples for which the city was in the province of Thrace.20 Even if Philip was killed neokoros, if new, were ever completed. In a time of in or near Beroe (rather than Verona, as the Latin dire emergency, of armies passing in and out of the sources hold), this is much likelier to be the city in city, of inflation and exaction and flight, such diver- Thrace, closer to Perinthos, than Macedonian Be- sion of funds seems unlikely, especially when there roia; if Philip was fleeing, why would he travel so were three new neokoriai at once. Perhaps older far down along the coast into Macedonia, and then temples received new aspects of the imperial cult inland, where he could be more easily trapped?21 instead. Most historians accept a battle at Verona and dis- Gaebler suggested that the three new neokoriai count the version of John of Antioch entirely;22 and were for Trajan Decius, his wife Etruscilla, and their even those who don’t discount it place the events son Herennius Etruscus.18 But there is no precedent in Thracian Beroe, not Macedonian Beroia.23 In any among the neokoroi for an emperor’s wife receiv- case, the fact that the emperor was (just possibly) ing honors equivalent to those of the emperor him- killed at a city does not indicate that the city in self. Normally one would expect her to be enshrined question supported him; if anything, the reverse. And in the same temple with the emperor, as Faustina finally, even if Decius were getting back at Beroia and Antoninus Pius (as well as other members of in Macedonia by rewarding its rival Thessalonike their family) were at Sardis. It is slightly more likely (which in this scenario did nothing on its own to earn that both sons of the emperor, Herennius Etruscus its honors), why were Beroia’s two neokoriai left and his younger brother Hostilian, were worshipped; untouched at just this period, as Beroia’s inscription the former was named as Augustus late in his father’s 4 shows? Septimius Severus, whose actions at the end reign. The neokoriai for Septimius Severus, Cara- calla, and Geta at Perinthos (q.v.) might serve as a precedent, but in that case the father’s cult was 19 Ziegler 1988b, 395-401, with full bibliography; restated instituted first, followed by a joint cult for the two in Ziegler 1994, 202. Ziegler 1985, 104 n. 236 had earlier dis- sons as Augusti. But Herennius Etruscus appears on counted Beroia as the site of Philip’s death. 20 C. Müller 1878-1885, 4:597-598 no. 148; Dusanic 1976, the coins of Thessalonike four times neokoros with 428 n. 6; Schönert-Geiss 1989. For a misattribution of neokoria only the title Caesar, not Augustus, and Hostilian to Augusta Traiana after 209, see Gerasimov 1966; corrected is not known to have appeared at all. Outside of by Schönert-Geiss 1991, 43 n. 6, 132 no. 495. One example of the coin in question was damaged, and resembled an em- Trajan Decius himself, the objects of cult of the three peror handing a temple to a city goddess; other examples from new neokoriai at Thessalonike cannot yet be known. the same reverse die make it clear that they merely join right It is just barely possible that Thessalonike had hands. 21 masked a gradual acquisition of neokoriai under the Peachin 1991, 340 n. 63 also confused Beroe in Thrace with Beroia in Macedonia. plain title ‘neokoros,’ known on its coins since 22 E.g. Selinger 1994, 13-14; Potter 1990, 254-256; Pohl- sander 1982, 220-221. 23 Prickartz 1993, though without realizing that Ziegler 18 Gaebler 1935, 130. meant the Macedonian city, 64 n. 74. 202 part i – section v. koinon of macedonia of a long civil war Ziegler took as the model for INSCRIPTION 8. Edson 1972, no. 167 (dated imperial behavior towards all rivalrous cities, did not 253/254) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 15). { Yessa- just reward his adherents, but punished his and their lonika¤vn mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ kolvne¤a ka‹ d‹w enemies with loss of all privileges, as he had by nevkÒrow { patr¤w... exalting Perinthos (q.v.) over Byzantion. Though It is notable that the formula of civic titles on later Trajan Decius exalted Thessalonike, he did not bases of the priests of Fulvus returns to calling abase Beroia. Thessalonike simply ‘the fatherland.’25 This simpli- One must wonder about the provincial status of fication may reflect a certain unwillingness to boast temples and titles granted wholesale, in batches of of titles that had lately been decreased. three. Were such temples integrated into the koinon One could explain the loss of two neokoriai from of Macedonia, its head still presumably Beroia, and the Roman side as a condemnation of Trajan De- if so, how did they operate? Unfortunately, no evi- cius’ memory by his successor. But the situation was dence exists on which to base a decision. Thessa- not simple: Trebonianus Gallus was Decius’ com- lonike’s four neokoriai do show that there was still rade-in-arms and saw to it that he was deified. On enough esteem for the title ‘neokoros’ to make it the other hand, Gallus then had to adopt Decius’ worth seeking, or at least worth boasting of. The younger son Hostilian as his co-ruler, and may have problem is that the single title alone does not seem fallen out with him soon; perhaps a month after his to have been sufficient, especially when there was accession, Hostilian was dead, and both his and his rivalry over titles among the cities. Thessalonike’s father’s names were erased from monuments, no honors were piled on almost indiscriminately and all doubt by Gallus’ orders.26 But if three of Thessalo- at once, a milestone in the process of titular infla- nike’s four neokoriai were for Decius and his fam- tion. It appears as if Decius had promised to make ily, why were only two eliminated by the eventual Thessalonike the most illustrious city in the East, and condemnation of their memories? had done it with titles, not only making the city There is no evidence that the loss of two neo- metropolis and colony but giving it more neokoriai koriai was punishment inflicted on the city for some than any other city of its time. It is unfortunate that infraction. Thessalonike was as strategic a city as it the coins are not more explicit about the temples ever had been; our (admittedly exiguous) sources and the objects of cult in them. In any case, have documented no political error on its part. In Thessalonike would not keep its four neokoriai long. any case, had the city defied or insulted the ruler it would likely have been stripped of all its titles. Yet it remained metropolis and colony and retained two Two Withdrawn: Valerian and Gallienus of the four neokoriai, one more than it had had before the time of Decius. We should also compare After the issues for Trajan Decius the city issued no Anazarbos in Cilicia (q.v.), which received a third coinage for Trebonianus Gallus, so far as is known; neokoria under Trajan Decius, but did not lose it but this is not uncommon among eastern cities, very afterward despite the condemnation of his memory. few of which minted in that reign. When the title It makes more sense to reason that Thessalonike started to appear again, on coins of Valerian, Gal- as four times neokoros was far out of line with its lienus, and Gallienus’ wife Salonina, it was as early province and even with the rest of the Roman East. as 253/254 C.E., and the number of neokoriai had The reduction to two (at the complaint of rival cit- diminished to two.24 The reverse types are over- ies, perhaps Beroia?) only restored the balance to a whelmingly agonistic, with no overt reference to situation that was closer to the reality of intercity temple(s) for which the city was neokoros. This is relations. Presumably Trajan Decius had given borne out by another inscription of a priest and Thessalonike extraordinary honors as a reward for agonothetes of the god Fulvus dating after 253/254 extraordinary service or loyalty, whether promised and calling Thessalonike twice rather than four times neokoros: 25 Edson 1972, nos. 168, 169 (dated 258/259 and 262/263). 26 Kienast 1996, 204-210; Peachin 1990, 32-35, 239-265; Ziegler 1988b, 391-392; 1994, 188-197. The condemnation was documented but not fully understood by Varner 1993, 487- 24 Touratsoglou 1988, 77. 488. chapter 22 – thessalonike 203 or fulfilled. After his death that action, seen at some COIN TYPE 10. Obv: ...GALLHNO% AUG Ra- distance and in the perspective of other cities’ sta- diate draped bust of Gallienus, r. Rev: YE%%A- tus, may have looked less wise. Thessalonike was not, LON[IKH M]H K G NE Three prize crowns with however, to be driven back to being merely neo- palms, one above the others. a) Vienna 10084 (T koros, the title it claimed up to the time of Philip. 4) (illus. pl. 33 fig. 160). Instead it probably was allowed to keep one neokoria Only type 10 is new; its three prize crowns, as for- (for Trajan Decius? or for whom?) and only lost the merly under Trajan Decius, match the number of superfluous two. That still gave it equal standing with neokoriai and thus may celebrate contests associated Beroia, at least when that city’s neokoriai were last with them, though this is probable rather than as- documented in 250/251. This fluctuation in the sured. neokoriai of Thessalonike shows how titulature could The reign of Valerian and Gallienus was more still serve as a barometer of status among cities. A often a time of restoring neokoriai to cities than of city would grasp at an opportunity for more neoko- taking them away; perhaps the city’s shock at be- riai, but other cities kept a jealous eye on the pro- ing stripped of two neokoriai was being moderated cess, thus controlling its expansion. Yet this was at by the restoration of one. But as it happens, Thessa- a time when funds for building temples and hold- lonike was the center of much activity in the mid- ing festivals must have ranged from rare to nonex- third century. Perhaps the most likely occasion for istent. Even if such tangible benefits were in doubt, returning the third neokoria was to reward the city the title ‘neokoros,’ especially in multiples, must still for holding off a Gothic invasion ca. 254.28 The have been both desired and envied. Goths had reached Thessalonike after ravaging southern Thrace, and there was fear that they would proceed south into Greece, as is evident from the Third Neokoria: Gallienus fact that the Athenians and Peloponnesians suddenly began to rebuild their old walls. The Goths sur- Part of Thessalonike’s loss would soon be made up. rounded Thessalonike, but its citizens held out and Some few coins of Gallienus and Salonina proclaim fought back with courage. They broke the siege and the city three times neokoros. They are dated to the attackers seem to have turned back for home. Gallienus’ sole reign, after Valerian’s capture by Thus Thessalonike could be said to have saved Shapur I in 260.27 Coin types are similar to those Greece. Certainly such an achievement would merit already in use for the second neokoria: a third neokoria, and would also explain why the COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT K POPL LIK EG city goddess of Thessalonike now carried an image GALLHNO% Radiate draped bust of Gallienus, r. of Victory. On the other hand, Macedonia, and Rev: YE%%ALONIKH MHT(R, c) KOL (KOL MHT, specifically Thessalonike as the headquarters of its b) B NE City goddess with cornucopia and statu- governors, was likely the scene of the revolt of Valens ette of Kabeiros. a) London 1975.4-11-1 b) Paris ‘Thessalonicus’ against Gallienus, which lasted un- 1507 (T 60) (illus. pl. 33 fig. 158) c) Warsaw 57019 til 261.29 A third neokoria may have been the city’s (T 59). reward for returning to its loyalty to Gallienus. On coins of the third neokoria, minor changes are made: for example, the city goddess carries a Vic- tory instead of Kabeiros, and a letter for the denomi- nation is included in the field. COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT GALLIHNO% AUG 28 Zosimus 1.29.2-3; Joannes Zonaras Epitome historiarum ed. Radiate draped bust of Gallienus, r. Rev: M. Pinder (Bonn 1841-1897) vol. 30 593 (12.23); Georgios YE%%A- Synkellos, Ecloga Chronographia, ed. A. Mosshammer (Leipzig LONIKH MH [K]O G NE City goddess with cor- 1984) 465-466, anno mundi 5748. Some of the descriptions nucopia and statuette of Victory, D in field. a) duplicate an earlier incursion under Trebonianus Gallus: Paris 1508 (T 27) (illus. pl. 33 fig. 159) b) Oxford Bleckmann 1992, 183-189; but also Potter 1990, 310-314. 29 Ammianus Marcellinus 21.16.10, Epitome de Caesaribus (T 3). 32.4; also the Historia Augusta, Thirty Tyrants 19, which called him proconsul of Achaia. Barbieri 1952, 311-312 no. 1735; Schlumberger 1974, 150-151; Thomasson 1984, 196 no. 52; 27 Touratsoglou 1988, 81; Kienast 1996, 214-216. Kienast 1996, 227. 204 part i – section v. koinon of macedonia

INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Tranquillina: BMC 132; SNGCop 439; Berlin, London, New York. (T 426-439). Four times neokoros: Philip: BMC 135-137; Berlin (6 exx.), London, New York (4 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (5 1. Edson 1972, no. 162 (dated 246/247) (L. Robert exx.), Warsaw. (T 1-38, 42-53, 57-101). 1946, 40 no. 10). See text above. Otacilia: BMC 138; Berlin; Paris. (T 107, 109-112, 114- 2. Edson 1972, no. 163 (dated 248-250) (L. Robert 122). 1946, 40 no. 11). See text above. Philip Caesar: BMC 139; Berlin, London, Oxford, Paris, 3. Edson 1972, no. 164 (dated 249/250) (L. Robert Vienna. (T 124-149). Four times neokoros: 1946, 40 no. 12). See text above. Trajan Decius: BMC 140; Berlin, London, Paris. (T 1-3, 4. Edson 1972, no. 165 (dated 250/251) (L. Robert 5). 1946, 40 no. 13). See text above. Herennius Etruscus: Berlin, London, Paris. (T 7-9, 11). 5. Edson 1972, no. 150. Honors Tiberius Claudius Twice neokoros: Magnus, a praefectus classis. Dated by neokoria. Valerian: SNGCop 441; Berlin (2 exx.), London, New York (4 exx.), Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.) (T 6. Edson 1972, no. 177. Honors Flavia Claudia 1-13, 16-30). Silvane, a chief priestess and gerousiarch. Gallienus: BMC 441; SNGCop 443, 444; Athens, Alpha 7. Edson 1972, no. 231. Fragment of inscription Credit Bank (2 exx.);30 Berlin (4 exx.), London (3 from a pavement. exx.), New York, Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Twice neokoros: Warsaw. (T 31-64, 66-72). 8. Edson 1972, no. 167 (dated 253/254) (L. Robert Salonina: BMC 142, 143; Berlin (4 exx.), New York (4 exx.), Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Warsaw. (T 73-106). 1946, 40 no. 15). See text above. Valerianus: (T 107-109). Non-imperial obverse: SNGCop 394; Boston, Paris. (T emission VI group Q, emission X group B, and emis- COINS CITING NEOKORIA: sion XI, all in joint rule of Valerian and Gallienus). Three times neokoros: Neokoros: Gallienus: Paris, Vienna. (T 1-4). Gordian III: BMC 118-122, 124, 126-131; SNGCop 429, Salonina: Paris. (T 5). 430, 432, 434-438; SNGRighetti 376; Berlin (26 exx.), Boston (3 exx.), London (9 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford, Paris (23 exx.), Vienna (11 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.). (T 104-112, 129-133, 143-153, 155-203, 218-319, 321-359, 362-425). 30 Touratsoglou 1996, 177-178 nos. 2, 3. chapter 23 – neokaisareia 205

SECTION VI. KOINON OF PONTUS

Chapter 23. Neokaisareia: Koinon of Pontus (Polemoniacus)

In order to understand the situation of the neoko- were merged into the same province.5 When the roi of Pontus, it is necessary to examine the full his- huge province of Galatia/Cappadocia was divided tory of the area and its organization. These are topics later in the reign of Trajan, both parts of Pontus that are still uncertain, and further study may alter went with Cappadocia; eventually, under Severus the conclusions. Nonetheless, the fact that the ter- Alexander, they were split off from Cappadocia to ritory of Pontus was early divided among various form a Pontic province of their own.6 But as late as client-kings and Roman provinces affected the koi- the early fourth century, Pontus Polemoniacus could na within it and the cities that were members of be distinguished and divided from the other Pontus, those koina. now called Diospontus. Pompey annexed the territory of Pontus after his There is ample evidence that the Pontic cities victory over Mithradates VI Eupator.1 Among its associated themselves into koina, but the question cities were Amaseia, the old capital of the kings of is, how many? Until recently, the dominant theory Pontus; and Kabeira, later to be renamed Neokai- was that there was one grand koinon of Pontus, sareia, a fortress commanding the Lykos river val- which overlapped provincial lines and may have ley and former residence of Mithradates himself.2 followed the borders of Pompey’s original annex- Subsequently Mark Antony took a large portion of ation.7 On the other hand, strong arguments have the Pontic territory that included Kabeira/Neokai- existed for several distinct koina of Pontus, and these sareia and assigned it to a client-king, Polemon, and have now been remarshaled by Marek.8 Unfortu- his heirs; this area later became known as ‘Pontus nately, most of the evidence, both inscriptional and Polemoniacus.’ Amaseia, however, was in the region numismatic, postdates the era at which Pontus which was transferred to the Roman province of Galaticus and Pontus Polemoniacus were united. Galatia (and so later called ‘Pontus Galaticus’) in 3/ In favor of the unitary theory, it is true that none 2 B.C., from which ‘liberation’ it dated its new era. of the inscriptions or coins, found outside both In 64 C.E., when the last client-king, Polemon II, Pontus Polemoniacus and Galaticus as far as ‘retired,’ Pontus Polemoniacus also came into a Herakleia in the Pontic part of the province Bithynia, Roman province, and Neokaisareia began its new makes any distinction or subdivision: all name era.3 From the fact that Neokaisareia seems to have Pontarchs, or chief priests of Pontus, or the koinon gained the status of metropolis itself, rather than of (the cities in) Pontus. On the other hand, the same coming under Amaseia as metropolis, it is likely that situation prevails in an area very far distant: there Pontus Polemoniacus was placed under the admin- were Pontarchs at the other end of the Black Sea, istration of the governor of Cappadocia, not with a koinon of Pontus centered on Tomis.9 We Galatia.4 Later, under Vespasian, these two prov- inces were united under the same governorship, and Pontus Galaticus (including Amaseia) and the inland 5 Marek 1993b, 79-81; Remy 1986, 51-61 on Vespasian’s of Pontus Polemoniacus (including Neokaisareia) unification, and 67, 71 on a document still using the names Pontus Galaticus and Pontus Polemonianus, which Marek placed in the late first century and Remy in 114 C.E. S. Mitchell 1993, 2:155 explained the controversy. 1 Marek 1993b, with earlier bibliography. 6 Remy 1986, 101-104, 106-108. 2 Magie 1950, 180-181, 369-371. 7 Deininger 1965, 64-66. 3 Leschhorn 1993, 130-143, 471-474. 8 Marek 1993b, 73-82. 4 Marek 1993b, 62 n. 421, contradicting Remy 1986, 43 9 Nawotka 1997, 216-236; though at one point Tomis is and S. Mitchell 1993, 2:153. specified as the “metropolis of left (eÈ\numow) Pontus.” 206 part i – section vi. koinon of pontus cannot realistically imagine that too as part of some Presumably if their koina had remained separate monstrous ‘superkoinon’ of Pontus. they would have specified each (even with an ab- Marek, however, chose a very weak keystone for breviation) on their coins, but both claim identical his argument for several separate koina: a coin of honors: metropolis and first of Pontus. Neokaisareia, Neokaisareia issued under Septimius Severus. Its however, seems to have become the chief center of reverse shows the city goddess of Neokaisareia as the the (unified) koinon, and minted coins for it. central figure in a group of five other similar god- desses. The legend, which has been often misread or misinterpreted, is KOIN PON NEO-KAI MHTRO, First Neokoria: Trajan that is, ‘Neokaisareia, metropolis of the koinon of Pontus.’10 From the number of city goddesses, Marek Neokaisareia may have been the first of the two deduced that the koinon of which Neokaisareia was Pontic metropoleis to declare itself neokoros on a the metropolis could have had only six cities; and, coin. since the coin was issued when Pontus Galaticus and COIN TYPE 1. Obv: Pontus Polemoniacus had already been united, he [AUT KAI%] NER [TRAI- Laureate head of Trajan, r. Rev: had to go through intense efforts to rule out cities ANO% %EB...] Legend in double generally found therein. But the principles of numis- NEOKAI%ARIA NEVKORVN laurel wreath. a) Paris 1277 (illus. pl. 33 fig. 161). matic interpretation should caution us: in a small space, numbers of figures, like columns on a temple The coin is so far unique. Though worn, the por- front, may be abbreviated. If there were as many trait is recognizably Trajan, his titulature arranged as fifteen cities in the Pontic koinon, how would you in a similar manner to that on other contemporary show them all on a coin only a few centimeters in coins of Neokaisareia.13 Most of the reverse design diameter? The coin, therefore, only indicates that is given over to this grammatically odd declaration there were at least six cities in the koinon to which of neokoria, at a time when no other city but Ephe- Neokaisareia belonged, but does not rule out that sos had yet begun to proclaim itself neokoros on there were more. coins. On the other hand, other cities outside Asia On the whole, the evidence seems to favor a basic had begun to stake claims to neokoria, as Beroia did principle: a single koinon would generally not over- under Nerva, though the title is documented through step the boundary of a Roman province, and the inscriptions rather than coins. It may be that the cities in it would not be responsible, some to one Trajanic coin commemorates Neokaisareia’s estab- governor, others to another.11 If this were so, what lishment as koinon center of the reorganized Pontus, would result if, as in the divided Pontus, two sepa- as documents of this koinon first began to appear rate koina had been allowed to develop, one for during the reign of Trajan.14 Though Amaseia ri- Galaticus, the other for Polemoniacus, which then valed Neokaisareia in claiming to be metropolis of were made to reunite when the two territories Pontus, Neokaisareia was probably as yet the only merged in the same province? The answer is what neokoros city in the provincial organization; this we know did in fact happen: two cities of Pontus, would explain the boast of coin type 1, and Ama- Amaseia and Neokaisareia, each claimed to be seia’s failure to retort (so far as is known) in any but metropolis well before the proliferation of metro- the most indirect and allusive manner. poleis within a single province became common.12 There has been some debate over what emperor’s cult could have been established in the temple that first made Neokaisareia neokoros. A temple of Rome 10 Best seen (though also misread): BMC 2, pl. V.9. Marek 15 1993b, 74 and 76, cited the same coin legend two different and Augustus was posited as the simplest solution. ways, the former a serious misreading taken from an earlier Of course, Pontus Polemoniacus, including Neokai- authority and including the word ‘neokoros.’ 11 F. Cumont 1903; Haensch 1997, 288 overlooked this problem when he compared one koinon overlapping provin- cial boundaries to one financial administrator doing the same: 13 Weiser 1988. The earliest issues of Neokaisareia yet whereas a single financial administrator could interact with each known are those issued by the legatus of Galatia/Cappadocia, governor independently regarding affairs in his province, a (Quintus Orfitasius) Aufidius Umber, dated to 100/101 C.E. koinon making unified decisions while overseen by two or three Stumpf 1991, 280-282; Remy, Amandry, and Özcan 1995. governors is extremely rare (only the concilium Galliarum). 14 Deininger 1965, 64-66; idem 1983. 12 Bowersock 1985. 15 F. Cumont and E. Cumont 1906, 268. chapter 23 – neokaisareia 207 sareia, did not belong to any Roman province, but result looks Ionic. It is most often four-column, al- was part of a client kingdom until 64; on the other though one example shows five columns, probably hand, nothing rules out a temple to Rome and in error. The masonry of the cella is usually depicted Augustus in a client kingdom.16 If the legend of coin in the side intercolumniations and above the deco- type 1 is true, anyone after Trajan is excluded.17 Of rated doors in the center intercolumniation. Occa- emperors whose monuments did not suffer condem- sionally these doors stand slightly open. On one coin nation, that leaves Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, or Tra- two radiate busts seem to be imposed on the doors jan himself. above two ‘door knocker’ shaped objects, while on Both Neokaisareia and Amaseia began to use the another a single radiate bust hovers over a flaming title ‘neokoros’ regularly on their coins at the same altar in the central intercolumniation. A single, non- date, 161/162 C.E. (year 98 of the era of Neokai- radiate bust appears over a ‘door knocker’ that floats sareia). in the air without benefit of doors; the same ‘door knocker’ is set on a sort of armature with the bust COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUTO K OUHRO% %EBA- above it, like a legionary standard, in a gabled niche Laureate head of Lucius Verus, r. Rev: %TO% ADR within the temple. Again, three busts float in the d The NEOK NEVKO PR(O, ) PON ET qH spaces between the column capitals, or like the ra- Dioskouroi with spears, stars over their heads (an diate busts, two hang on shields on the double doors, altar between them, bcde). a) SNGvA 97 b) Ox- while in the intercolumniations two male statues ford 25.9.1929 c) Berlin, Löbbecke d) Berlin, stand in contrapposto on tall pedestals. A single statue Imhoof-Blumer e) Berlin 550/187. in a similar pose and on a similar pedestal but hold- By that year Neokaisareia also issued coins with a ing a sceptre also appears in the central intercolum- four-column temple on the reverse for the koinon niation. of Pontus.18 This same temple, and occasionally the Though all these may well represent one temple, title ‘neokoros’ as well, appears most frequently on no evidence declares what that one temple was. Ols- civic coins of Septimius Severus and his sons, but hausen saw a resemblance between the male stat- the representations are so varied and so strange that ues and the Dioscuri, but did not collect all the it may be hard to reconcile one with another, or any varying representations.20 Price and Trell identified with a particular cult.19 the building as the gate to a sanctuary of Ma, the war goddess whose best-known Pontic shrine was at COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% a different city, Komana.21 The reasoning behind Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius the identification of the structure as a gate instead Severus r. Rev: KOI PON NEOKAI% NEV MHT ET of a temple is that sometimes a lighted altar appears (year 142 = 205/206 C.E.) Four-column RMB within, and since sacrifices were properly made in temple with double doors open, disc in pediment. front of the temple and not within it, Price and Trell a) Berlin 7909 (illus. pl. 33 fig. 162). reasoned that this must be the gate to an altar court. COIN TYPE 4. Obv: P %EP GE[TA% KAI%] Unfortunately, they were rebutted by their own fig- Draped bust of Geta Caesar r., boyish. Rev: KOI ure 179, which shows lighted altars in the same [PON] NEOKAI% NEVK [MH] ET RMB Four-col- position within two temples. These should not be umn temple, dot in pediment. a) Oxford, gates because they are shown in three-quarter view Godwyn. as independent rectangular structures with gabled tile roofs. We should perhaps see the type as sym- The temple in question generally appears with the bolic, abbreviating, and compressing: the altar sym- dotted capitals that indicate Corinthian columns, bolizes the cult within the temple, or is moved from though where the die-cutter used only two dots the before it to within it due to lack of space. If the Neokaisareia temple is that of a deity, it was 16 Perhaps the best documented is that in Herod the Great’s a deity so syncretistic as to be unidentifiable from foundation of Caesarea on the harbor Sebastos: Josephus, Jewish War 1.414 and Jewish Antiquities 15.339. the available evidence. On the other hand, none of 17 M. Price and Trell 1977, 94-98 for Septimius Severus. 18 SNGvA 6992. 19 M. Price and Trell 1977, 95-97 figs. 165, 166, 168-174 20 Olshausen 1990, 1879. for the representations on coins that do not cite neokoria. See 21 M. Price and Trell 1977, 95-97. On Ma, Olshausen 1990, also S. Price 1984b, 150-151, 181, 267. 1886-1887. 208 part i – section vi. koinon of pontus the coin types explicitly conflicts with representations COIN TYPE 8. Obv: obscure, worn. Laureate of the imperial cult, and some may hint at it. Mul- draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. tiple cult statues may represent the successive em- Rev: [. . . ] MHTROPO DI% NEVKO ET RJG Two perors, while imperial busts on military standards six-column temples, dot in each pediment, in and on honorific shields are well known.22 three-quarter view facing each other; stairs lead- ing up to each. a) Tokat 7.1.2, from Erbaa.24 COIN TYPE 9. Obv: Second Neokoria: Severus Alexander AU K M AU %E ALEJ- ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: The dated coins of Neokaisareia show that the city MHTR NEOKE%ARIA% (year 171 = 234/235 C.E.) became twice neokoros by 226/227 C.E. Thus DI% NEVKOR ET ROA Two four-column temples, a dot in each pedi- Neokaisareia was one of three cities that apparently ment; between them an amphora with palms, became neokoros for the cult of Severus Alexander. above, a prize crown with palms. a) Paris 417 b) The reign of that emperor is better known for the Berlin, Löbbecke. withdrawal of all the neokoriai for Elagabalus (see Historical Analysis, chapter 38, below). His rare COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AU K M AU %E ALEJ- grants of the title seem to have been mainly in prov- ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of inces where no such awkward withdrawals had to Severus Alexander, r. Rev: MH NEOKE%A DI% be made, and Pontus is among these. NEVKO ET ROA Two four-column temples, a The grant was the occasion for issuing celebratory prize crown with palms above. a) Paris 416 b) types showing the two temples for which the city was Boston 69.1084. neokoros, and associating them with one or two COIN TYPE 11. Obv: b b festivals, symbolized by prize crowns. A(U, ) K M AU(R, ) %E(OU, b) ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped COIN TYPE 5. Obv: A K M [AUR] %EOU ALEJ- cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: ANDRO% Laureate draped bust of Severus NEOKAI(%A, a) MHT(R, ab) DI% NEVK(O, bd) ET Alexander, r. Rev: [PR]O P[ON NEOKAI]%A ROA Two four-column (Corinthian, b) temples, a MHTROPO DI% NEVKOR ET RJG (year 163 = dot in each pediment. a) London 1973.1-4-4 b) 226/227 C.E.); IEROU Two four-column temples, Paris 1972.922 (illus. pl. 33 fig. 164) c) Paris 1290 a dot in each pediment; above each a prize crown d) Vienna 14145 e) Berlin, Löbbecke. with palm.23 a) Berlin 58/1874. The two temples for which Neokaisareia was neo- COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AU K M AUR %EO ALEJ- koros are shown as identical, as usual for multiple- A[NDRO%] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of temple coin types. The columns are clearly Corinth- Severus Alexander, r. Rev: NEOKAI MHTR DI% ian on some examples, but again appear Ionic when NEVKOR ET RJG Two two-column temples shown with only two dots for capitals. One type turned toward one another, a round altar within shows a single temple in an unusual three-quarter each, a prize crown with palms above. a) London view: 1973.1-12-2 (illus. pl. 33 fig. 163). COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AU K M AU %E ALEJ- COIN TYPE 7. Obv: A(U, b) K(AI, b) M AU(R, ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of b) %EOU ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cui- Severus Alexander, r. Rev: KOI PO NEO- rassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: NEOKAI KE%ARIA% MH ET ROA Six-column temple in MHTR DI% NEVKO ET RJG Two four-column three-quarter view. a) SNGRighetti 570 b) Ireland temples, disc in each pediment. a) Warsaw 84269 2000, no. 1342. b) Berlin, Löbbecke. This may be one of the temples of the Pontic koinon for which Neokaisareia was neokoros, but it should be noted that the title ‘neokoros’ is not in the 22 Winks 1969. 23 Çizmeli, Amandry, and Remy 1995, 103 no. 19 appears from the illustration to be the same type, with a legend men- tioning neokoria in the exergue, but this has not been noted 24 Amandry, Remy, and Özcan 1994 (= Tokat with coin in the transcription. no.), 125, pl. 33. chapter 23 – neokaisareia 209 legend, though it appeared in the same year as coins COIN TYPE 14. Obv: %AB TRANKULINA %EB of the second neokoria. Draped bust of Tranquillina, r. Rev: KOIN PON There are also several agonistic types that men- MH NEOKE%ARIA% ET ROH (year 178 = 241/242 tion the Pontic koinon or its contests, and type 5 uses C.E.) Two four-column temples, dot in each the term ‘sacred’ in the genitive singular, even pediment. a) Tokat 8.1.18, from Neokaisareia though the type seems to refer to two festivals; (Niksar). perhaps the sigma is missing from IEROU(%) COIN TYPE 15. Obv: .25 Unfortunately, the same word is very AU K PO LIK OUALER- (AGVNA%) Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Vale- worn on the following type, but it floats between two IANO% rian, r. Rev: (year 192 prize crowns: MH NEOKE%ARIA% ET RqB = 255/256 C.E.) Two four-column temples on a COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AU K M AUR %EO ALEJ- single ground line, dot in each pediment; a prize ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of crown above, between their roofs. a) Coll. F. L. Severus Alexander, r. Rev: KOI PO NEOKE%A Kovacs.28 ? MHTROPO DI% NEVKORV ET RJG; IE[ROU% ] One must note, however, that the title ‘neokoros’ Table with two prize crowns on it, each with does not appear on either of these. palm. a) Tokat 5.1.30, mistranscribed (from Zela) One agonistic type of these later years refers to b) Ireland 2000, no. 1344. Aktia, which may conceivably represent a festival for The fact that ‘twice neokoros’ is wedged beneath this one of the two temples that made Neokaisareia agonistic table, plus the frequent appearance of prize neokoros. But this cannot be certain, as the Aktia crown(s) floating over the two temples, indicates that appear well after the second neokoria.29 each temple for which Neokaisareia was neokoros had an associated festival, though those festivals There are no inscriptions yet known that call Neo- remain unnamed. The multiple-temple and agonistic kaisareia neokoros. types were issued in two series eight years apart, in 226/227 and 234/235. They may have been minted to celebrate the occurrance of pentaeteric contests COINS CITING NEOKORIA: (one type of 234/235 mentions isaktios), but the gap between mintings may have been normal.26 Neokoros: Neokaisareia minted no coins with the title Trajan: Paris. ‘neokoros’ under Severus Alexander’s successor Lucius Verus: SNGvA 97; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford. Commodus: SNGvA 98, 6758; Berlin. Maximinus. Thus we cannot tell whether the sec- Septimius Severus: Berlin. ond neokoria was withdrawn due to the short-lived Geta Caesar: SNGTüb 2070; Oxford. condemnation of Alexander’s memory between 235 Twice neokoros: and 238.27 Certainly the city continued to be entitled Severus Alexander: Tokat 5.1.28, 5.1.30, 7.1.2, 8.1.14; Ire- ‘twice neokoros’ on coins of Gordian III, Valerian, land 2000, nos, 1341, 1343, 1344; Berlin (7 exx.), Boston (3 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.), and Gallienus. There is even a revival of the double- Oxford, Paris (5 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (2 exx.). temple reverse type with obverses of Gordian’s wife Gordian III: SNGvA 111, 6761; Paris. Tranquillina, and a yet later one for the emperor Valerian: BMC 16; Istanbul;30 Paris. Valerian: Gallienus: Ireland 2000, no. 1380; Paris (2 exx.).

28 Klose and Stumpf 1996, 113 no. 210. 25 Karl 1975, 61; the suggestion for restoration is thanks 29 Karl 1975, 8-12 and n. 15; but Neokaisareia did not date to an anonymous reader. its coins by the Aktian era, as he stated. See also Jürging 1991, 26 Klose and Stumpf 1996, 112 no. 206. 44-47, assuming nonetheless a connection between Aktia and 27 Kienast 1996, 177-179; Varner 1993, 418-422 believed neokoria. that the condemnation was unofficial. 30 Çizmeli, Amandry, and Remy 1995, 107 no. 34. 210 part i – section vi. koinon of pontus

Chapter 24. Amaseia: Koinon of Pontus (Galaticus)

The situation of Amaseia, ancient capital of the hypothesis cannot be proved without further evi- Pontic kings, with respect to the rest of Pontus has dence. already been discussed in chapter 23, ‘Neokaisareia,’ above.1 Amaseia had been one of the chief cities of Pontus Galaticus and thus belonged to a Roman First Neokoria: Marcus Aurelius province since 3/2 B.C.E. It is likely that at first it and its rival for Pontic primacy, Neokaisareia, were It is more significant that with the exception of the under the administration of different provincial anomalous early issue of Neokaisareia under Trajan, governors, Amaseia under the governor of Galatia, both cities’ coinages began regularly to trumpet the and Neokaisareia under that of Cappadocia.2 Later, title ‘neokoros’ (along with ‘metropolis and first of under Vespasian, Galatia and Cappadocia were Pontus’) at the same date, 161/162 C.E. (year 164 united under the same governorship, and Pontus of the era of Amaseia, 98 of that of Neokaisareia). Galaticus (including Amaseia) and the inland of Amaseia was also proud of its epithet ‘Hadrianic’: Pontus Polemoniacus (including Neokaisareia) were it preceded the city’s name on virtually all of its post- merged into one province.3 Both cities called them- Hadrianic coinage, and in the Severan period epi- selves metropolis and first of Pontus. thets from the reigning emperor’s name were added When Neokaisareia issued its first coin claiming as well. the title ‘neokoros,’ under Trajan, Amaseia minted The neokoria of Amaseia comes before the title coins with no mention of neokoria but with an metropolis on its first coins of Marcus Aurelius and unidentified temple on the reverse.4 Set on a high Lucius Verus, but slips down after it on all sub- podium with parastades flanking the steps, its design sequent issues. This initial emphasis on neokoria may is much like that of the slightly later temple of Zeus have been the sign of a recent official grant of the Philios and Trajan at Pergamon (q.v.). Though pre- title, or a way of drawing attention to its first appear- cise in architectural details (four fluted Ionic? col- ance on the coins. Certainly the reverse types show umns on high bases) and in date (115 of the no sign of a temple, as they had under Trajan, but Amaseian era, or 112/113 C.E.),5 the type does not are instead purely imperial, referring to the rulers specify the object of cult within the temple. If the and the concord between them: image represented is an imperial temple, use of the COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI% M AUR AN- type may have been a subtle way for Amaseia to TVNINV(%, a; ANTVNINO, d) %EB Laureate assert its status as a holder of a temple of the impe- draped cuirassed bust of Marcus Aurelius r. Rev: rial cult against neokoros Neokaisareia, though that ADR AMA% NEVK K MHT K PRV P(ON, cd; PONT efg) (K, c); ET RJD (year 164 = 161/162 1 In general, the picture presented here is that given by C.E.). Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, both Marek 1993b (with earlier bibliography); to this add Haensch 1997, 281-290, with Amaseia as possible seat of the governor togate, join right hands. a) SNGvA 24 b) of the unified Pontus in the third century. SNGRighetti 543, year obscure c) Paris 94 d) 2 See chapter 23, ‘Neokaisareia,’ n. 4. Warsaw 58633 e) Berlin, Löbbecke f) New York 3 See chapter 23, ‘Neokaisareia,’ n. 5. 1944.100.41180 (obv.=illus. pl. 34 fig. 165) g) New 4 SNGRighetti 538, 539; SNGvA 18; Ireland 2000, nos. 103, 106; M. Price and Trell 1977, 93 fig. 164; though the latter York, 1944.100. 41179 (rev.=illus. pl. 34 fig. 166) named it the temple of Zeus Stratios, no evidence is given for h) Tokat 5.1.3, year obscure.6 or against this identification. See also S. Price 1984b, 267. For the temenos of Zeus Stratios, centered on a high altar, see Olshausen 1990, 1901-1903; French 1996a, 91-92; idem 1996b. 6 Amandry, Remy, and Özcan 1994 (= Tokat with coin no.), 5 Leschhorn 1993, 115-124, 466-469. 123 pl. 29. chapter 24 – amaseia 211

Also of interest are later coins, dated to 225/226 Lucius Verus: BMC 5; SNGvA 23, 25; SNGRighetti 544; C.E., that show a general view of the city. Though Ireland 2000, no. 144; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), either a tetrastyle or hexastyle temple facade was London, Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Commodus: SNGCop 107; SNGvA 27, 6701, 6702; shown on the lower central slopes of the fortress, SNGRighetti 545-547; Ireland 2000, nos. 171, 172, there is no way of identifying such a summary sketch 182; Berlin (8 exx.), Boston, London (4 exx.), New as any particular temple, much less an imperial one.7 York (4 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (14 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.).8 COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K %EOUHRO% ALEJ- Septimius Severus: BMC 6-16; SNGCop 108-110; SNGvA ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of 28-30, 6703; SNGRighetti 548, 549; Ireland 2000, nos. Severus Alexander r. Rev: ADR %EU ALEJ 192, 199; Berlin (18 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (7 exx.), Oxford (3 exx), Paris AMA%IA% MHT NE PR P(ON, c) ET %KH (year (20 exx.), Vienna (7 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.). 228 = 225/226 C.E.). View of the city of Amaseia; Julia Domna: SNGCop 111; SNGvA 31; Ireland 2000, no. five towers to the left, five to the right; two temples 204; Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris (3 exx.), Vienna. and rocky landscape between. a) SNGvA 44 b) Geta Caesar: BMC 36, 37; Ireland 2000, no. 230; Ber- Berlin 1025/1893 c) New York, 1944.100.41218 lin, London (2 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Paris (2 exx.), (illus. pl. 34 fig. 167) d) Ireland 2000, no. 232. Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw. Caracalla: BMC 17-32, 34, 35; SNGCop 112-117; SNGvA Amaseia continued to use ‘neokoros’ among its 32-40, 6704-6709; SNGRighetti 550, 551; Ireland titles on coins down to the time of Severus 2000, nos. 209-214, 219, 221; Berlin (33 exx.), Bos- Alexander, but no inscriptions that mention the city ton (2 exx.), London (5 exx.), New York (25 exx.), Oxford (10 exx.), Paris (46 exx.), Vienna (11 exx.), as neokoros are yet known. Warsaw (6 exx.). Severus Alexander: BMC 39, 40; SNGCop 119; SNGvA 41- 44, 6710-6712; SNGRighetti 552-554; Ireland 2000, COINS CITING NEOKORIA : nos. 231-235, 238, 240, 246, 257; Berlin (9 exx.), Boston (3 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (7 exx.), Neokoros: Paris (21 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw (5 exx.). Marcus Aurelius: BMC 3; SNGvA 22, 24, 6700; SNGRighetti 542, 543; Tokat 5.1.3; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London, New York (3 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.). 8 A possible addition to this group was found in a tomb at Özükavak: Remy 1990, 86 no. 16, but the title was misspelled 7 M. Price and Trell 1977, 91-93, figs. 159, 162. (NRVKOR) and no photograph was published. 212 part i – section vii. koinon of CILICIA

SECTION VII. KOINON OF CILICIA

ChaptER 25. TARSOS: KOINON OF CILICIA

The earliest appearance of the title ‘neokoros’ in the column Corinthian temple, disc in pediment, province of Cilicia was on coins of the city of Tarsos. outer aisles grilled and garlanded; within, volute Level Cilicia, on whose plain Tarsos stood, had been krater on pedestal. a) BMC 159 (illus. pl. 34 fig. a Roman possession since the late Republic and part 168). of the unified province of Cilicia since the reign of The appearance of the word ‘neokoros’ on this Vespasian; Tarsos, besides being a free and invio- 1 particular coinage does not indicate that Tarsos late city, was likely the seat of the governor. It was 5 also headquarters of the koinon of Cilicia, whose became neokoros for the cult of Antinoös, however. representatives pursued the prosecution of Cossu- In fact the only reason for this novel use of the title tianus Capito in 57 C.E.2 Dio Chrysostomos ad- may have been the large size and unusually spacious dressed several orations to the Tarsians, noting that design of this special issue of coins. Tarsos gener- though their city had been metropolis from the start, ally preferred its title ‘metropolis,’ which precedes it was not getting along with the smaller Cilician ‘neokoros’ on coins with Antinoös’ portrait. Judg- cities; they resented its dominance, the fact that they ing from the types, veneration for Antinoös at Tarsos had to go there to sacrifice, and that Tarsos had was both eclectic and syncretistic. He received the pursued several prosecutions of Roman officials on epithets and attributes of both Dionysos and Apollo its own hook.3 and was probably also assimilated to the local river god Kydnos. The temple for which the neokoria was granted, however, was not the one that appears on First Neokoria: Hadrian or before type 1, which is probably a heroön of Antinoös as Dionysos/Osiris. Tarsos’ first known use of ‘neokoros’ is on coins with A more likely candidate for the temple that made obverses of Antinoös as hero, issued sometime af- Tarsos neokoros appears on coins issued from the ter his death in Egypt in 130. Antinoös’ depiction time of Hadrian to that of the young Commodus. with the Egyptian hem-hem crown is probably based A few examples follow: on dated Alexandrian coins that were first issued COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT KAI YE TRA PAR UI after October 134.4 YE NER UI TRAIA ADRIANO% %E; P P Laureate COIN TYPE 1. Obv: ANTINOO% HRV% Ivy- draped cuirassed bust of Hadrian l. Rev: crowned head of Antinoös l. Rev: ADRIA TAR%OU ADRIANVN TAR%EVN MHTROPOLEV%; KOI- MHTROPO NEOKOROU NEV IAKXV Four- NO% KILIKIA% written across architrave of ten- column temple, wreath in pediment. a) In trade.6 1 Haensch 1997, 267-272; Rigsby 1996, 475; Ziegler 1993a; COIN TYPE 3. Obv: Remy 1986, 61-62; Bernhardt 1971, 190, 228. TAR%OU MHTROPOLE 2 Tacitus, Annals 13.33, 16.21; though a date as early as Veiled mural-crowned draped bust of city god- Augustus may not be proved, this does indicate the koinon’s existence by 57. The arguments of Ziegler 1995b for no inde- pendent koinon before Hadrian are ultimately based on silence 5 Despite H. Meyer 1991, 150 and Ziegler 1985, 67 n. 2; regarding Ciliciarchs and independent koinon festivals. later corrected in Ziegler 1995b, 184-185 n. 10. See also S. 3 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 33.51; 34.7-15, 27, 47-48; Price 1984b, 274. Swain 1996, 187-206; C. Jones 1978, 76; preferable to the in- 6 Ziegler 1995b, 185 pl. 23.4, a silver tetradrachm. The terpretation of Kienast 1971. On the rivalry with Anazarbos author does not state whether he himself examined the coin, (and also Aigeai), Ziegler 1993b, 126-128. so its genuineness must be taken as provisional. On silver coins 4 H. Meyer 1991, 137-140, 149-151. of Tarsos under Hadrian, Ziegler 1993b, 94-95. CHAPTER 25 – TARSOS 213

dess r. Rev: KOINO% KILIKIA% written across Cilicia’s first koinon temple was built at Tarsos for architrave of ten-column temple, eagle in pedi- the cult of Hadrian, which made the city neokoros ment. a) SNGCop 351 b) BMC 138 (illus. pl. 34 fig. at that time, but the suggestion cannot be taken as 169) c) SNGParis 1435 d) SNGParis 1436 e) Ziegler definitely proved.11 Sammlungen 674.7 COIN TYPE 4. Obv: a b c AUT(O, ) (KAI, ; K, ) (TI, Second Neokoria: Commodus bc) AI(LIO%, a) (KAI%AR, a; ADRI, bc) bc Laureate draped ANTVNINO% %EB (EU PP, ) It was assuredly under Commodus that Tarsos be- bust of Antoninus Pius r. Rev: ADRIANVN came twice neokoros. The coins make it clear by not , TAR%EVN MHTROPOLEV%; KOINO% KILIKIA% only proclaiming the title but by showing the new the latter in architrave of ten-column temple, temple, either alone or with its predecessor: wreath (or eagle, ad) in pediment. a) SNGvA 5989 b) SNGParis 1444 c) SNGParis 1445 d) SNGParis COIN TYPE 5. Obv: (AUT KAI, acd) (M, cd) (L 1446 e) SNGLevante 1014 a) SNGvA 5989 AIL, befg) AURH KOMODO% %E(B, f) Laureate draped cuirassed (wearing crown and garments Coin type 2, if genuine, dates after Hadrian took the of demiourgos, c) bust of Commodus r., (unbeard- title p(ater) p(atriae), though that title occasionally ed and youthful, a; bearded and mature, b-g). appears on other coins before it became official in Rev: TAR%OU MHTROPOLEV%; DI% NEVKO- 8 128. The temple is identified by the words (~) ROU; KOMODEIO% Ten-column temple (eagle in koinÚw (naÒw) Kilik¤aw, ‘common (temple) of Cilicia’ pediment, ac). a) SNGParis 1462 (illus. pl. 34 fig. written on its entablature. This was certainly a 170) b) BMC 169 c) SNGParis 1463 (illus. pl. 34 temple for the provincial (imperial) cult, situated in fig. 171) d) SNGParis 1464 e) SNGCop 362 f) SNGvA the chief city of the province, Tarsos. 5995 g) Boston 63.939. Whether Tarsos’ koinon temple and resultant neokoria were actually due to Hadrian, or only first COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT KAI% AUR KOMODO% appear on coins of his reign, can be debated back %EB Bust of Commodus r. wearing crown and garments of demiourgos. Rev: and forth. The province was established under ADRIAN Vespasian, so it seems unlikely that it had no com- KOMODIANH% TAR%OU MHTROPOLEV% DI% written across the mon temple until as late as 128; on the other hand, NEVKOROU; KOINOI KILIKIA% entablatures of two ten-column temples, a wreath by the time of Hadrian’s successor Antoninus Pius, above them. a) BMC 168 b) SNGvA 5996 c) Ber- Cilicia’s provincial arrangements had been changed, lin, Fox. and it was joined with Isauria and Lycaonia to form the ‘three eparchies.’9 Tarsos’ neokoria and a pro- On the former issue the new temple is identified by vincial temple both first appear on coins under the legend ‘Commodian’ on its entablature. An eagle Hadrian, and Hadrianeia Olympia are documented sometimes appears in the pediment, a justaposition later; but Tarsos had long been metropolis of Cilicia, that recalls the earlier provincial temple. Both it and and many non-neokoroi (including Anazarbos, the temple to Commodus are identified on type 6 Tarsos’ rival in Cilicia) celebrated Hadrianeia. as ‘common (temples) of Cilicia,’ and above them Hadrian did visit Tarsos at the beginning of his hangs a wreath, which either symbolizes the new reign, though a substantive visit that could include festival in honor of this temple, called ‘isolympic 12 a reorganization of the koinon on his later sea jour- worldwide Kommodeios,’ or the crown of the Tarsian ney from Egypt is more questionable.10 On full magistrate, the demiourgos, which Commodus wears consideration of all these facts, it is possible that on the obverse of types 5c, 6 and others. Several emperors were made (honorary) demiourgoi of

7 Ziegler 1988a (= Ziegler Sammlungen, with coin no.). 8 Kienast 1996, 128-131. 9 Ziegler 1999; cf. Remy 1986, 78-81, 96-98 (‘the three 11 Despite Ziegler 1993b, 22-23; 1995b; and 1985, 21, 67- eparchies’ as a single province from Antoninus Pius, then a 68. break, then again from Septimius Severus). 12 CIG 4472; Miranda 1992-1993, 84-85; Karl 1975, 80- 10 Birley 1997, 259-260; Halfmann 1986a, 190, 194. 81. 214 part i – section vii. koinon of CILICIA

Tarsos and are shown in the distinctive official dress was more likely granted earlier than has previously on the coins.13 been realized, as mentioned above. As early as ca. The date of Tarsos’ neokoria for Commodus can 180-182, Commodus made Nikomedia twice be isolated using the emperor’s portrait and neokoros at the behest of one of his courtiers, but titulature. One coin that shows his new temple, type the title was soon withdrawn when that courtier fell. 5 example a, shows him unbearded and youthful; It is difficult to tell what influence made Commodus it does not specify his praenomen, but the portrait turn toward Tarsos in the same way, and probably probably dates shortly after his succession in 180, only a short time after. when he also granted neokoria to Nikomedia (q.v.).14 The decastyle temple of Commodus at Tarsos Dated coins of Tarsos’ neighbor Anazarbos show may have been found at the site known as Donuktaâ Commodus as bearded by 183/184 C.E.15 Un- (illus. pl. 2 fig. 11).19 This is east of and probably fortunately type 5a is obscure where the neokoria outside the ancient city; the remains of one of the should be mentioned; on the other hand, its illus- few other civic buildings yet found at Tarsos, the tration of the new temple should be decisive. Un- theater on Gözlü Kule, are about one km. away.20 less coin 5a inexplicably revived a very out-of-date Though largely robbed out, the remains of cement/ portrait type of the emperor, Tarsos seems to have conglomerate foundations can restore the outlines become twice neokoros before ca. 183/184. of a temple large enough to have had ten columns Later coins of the second neokoria, with bearded along the facade (which is 49.60 m. long) and twenty- portraits, name the emperor first Marcus Aurelius one along the flank (105.30 m.). Set on a podium Commodus, and later Lucius Aelius Aurelius 11.57 m. high, it faced northeast, and was ap- Commodus, a change back to an earlier name that proached from the front by a steep staircase; vaulted he affected after 18 August 191.16 The coins with corridors led from the pronaos to the lower cella. his portrait in the dress of demiourgos either show Fragments of white marble architectural decora- the former name or do not specify. Therefore tion show the order as Corinthian, with a column Commodus’ grant of the neokoria to Tarsos and height of ca. 20 m.; a ca. 9 x 13 m. foundation his demiourgeia both assuredly date before August block at the back of a cella ca. 73 m. long may have 191. It is likely that the neokoria came first, the served as a base for cult statues. Nothing specifical- demiourgeia afterward. The delay would have al- ly identifies this as an imperial temple, or as that of lowed the temple to be started and arrangements for Commodus rather than the decastyle on coins of the celebratory festival, the isolympic worldwide Antoninus Pius, but in the excavator’s opinion the Kommodeios, to be made.17 drilled style of the architectural ornament argues for The reason for Commodus’ special favor is not a date toward the end rather than the middle of the clear. So far as is known, at this time Tarsos was second century.21 In the late Roman period, a cir- chief city of its koinon and sole neokoros of its prov- cular altar or monument was added to the center ince. A second neokoria put it on the level of the of the stairs in the front, a design which recalls the greatest cities of Asia, such as Pergamon, Ephesos, temple of the deified Julius Caesar in the Forum in Smyrna, and Sardis. It is certainly possible that Rome; in this case, however, the function of the Commodus’ chief point of interest in Tarsos was its addition is unknown. A piece of white marble co- patron god Herakles, with whom the emperor iden- lossal statuary, apparently of Roman workmanship, tified strongly later in his reign.18 But the neokoria was found on the site, but consists only of a thumb and forefinger.22 Tarsos continued to celebrate its twice-neokoros 13 Ziegler 1977, 36-38 summarizing Cilician neokoroi; status with double-temple coin types, temple-bear- 1993b, 119 n. 312 on the timing of Commodus’ term as ing divinities, and illustrations of the crown, stud- demiourgos (though not precise on the neokoria, see below). 14 Kienast 1996, 147-150; after October 180, Commodus’ name changed from Lucius to Marcus. 19 Baydur 1990a. Among Baydur’s yearly (up to 1993) 15 SNGParis 2041; SNGLevante 1401. reports, the most important are Baydur 1989 and 1990b. 16 Shelton 1979, 103; see above, n. 14. 20 Zoroglu 1995, 39, 68-70. 17 Ziegler 1985, 22, 68-71 and 1993b, 104 was unaware of 21 Ziegler and Weiss preferred a Hadrianic date, based on type 5a and so dated the neokoria late in the 180s and asso- Zeigler’s beliefs concerning the foundation of the koinon: Weiss ciated it with the cult of Herakles. 1997, 33. 18 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:221. 22 Baydur 1992, 415-416; Cuinet 1891, 45-46. CHAPTER 25 – TARSOS 215 ded with imperial portrait busts, that the head of the the) three (eparchies of Cilicia Isauria and Lykaonia), koinon of Cilicia wore when he presided over its two (times neokoros),’ formulae which occur on the festivals.23 inscription. Thus the second neokoria was being cited on the coins, though in so abbreviated a form COIN TYPE 7. Obv: ADRIANH KOMODIANH as to be incomprehensible up to recent times. TAR%O% H MHTROPOLI% Seated city goddess, An example of the use of these abbreviations is river god Kydnos at feet. Rev: KOINO% KILIKIA% on a sculpture that gives us a precious glimpse of a TAR%OU DI% NEVKOROU Agonothetic crown 25 with eight portrait heads. a) SNGParis 1470 b) Ber- Ciliciarch in full dress. Found at Pompeiopolis on lin, Prokesch-Osten c) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. the coast west of Tarsos, he is dressed in tunic and himation and holds a scroll. His tall modius-crown COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT KAI% L %EPT %EU- has a wreath at its base adorned with five imperial HRO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of busts, all male, and five letters, which left to right Septimius Severus r. Rev: TAR%OU MHTRO TVN read GMAKB; but if one reads from the center and G EPARXEIVN; KOINOI KILIKIA% Two six?-col- most important letter, alternating left to right there- umn temples turned toward each other. a) after, one gets the familiar AMKGB, ‘first, greatest SNGParis 1473 (incorrect) (illus. pl. 34 fig. 172) b) and most beautiful, set before the three eparchies, SNGLevante 1022. twice neokoros.’ From this titulature, the sculpture In spite of the fact that many of these reverse types has been convincingly dated to the time of Tarsos’ seem to celebrate the second neokoria, until recently second neokoria, with the two Victories and the it appeared that after Commodus the title itself had letters attached to the crown also paralleled on the slipped off the city’s coinage. In its place came a city’s coins in the mid-third century; a strong stylis- series of single-letter abbreviations of longer titles. tic support is offered by a portrait of Trajan Decius These could be explicated by comparison with the (249-251 C.E.) in Rome.26 Anazarbos, which also inscriptions, where the titles were written out in full: held some of these titles, is farther off from the findspot; its coins refer less often to the koinon and INSCRIPTION 1. Le Bas-Waddington 1480 the Ciliciarch’s crown, which the Tarsians may have (IGRR 3:880; OGIS 578; Laminger-Pascher 1974, tried to keep from them; and only used the titles 32 no. 1, after revision by Wilhelm in 1891). Dedi- ‘first, greatest, and most beautiful’ intermittently at cation to Severus Alexander. ÉAlejandrianØ the time to which the statue probably dates.27 Tarsos [Seouhria]nØ ÉAntvneinianØ [ÑAdrianØ] Tãrsow constantly boasted those titles, and it is important { pr\th k[a‹ meg¤sth] ka‹ kall¤sth m[htrÒpoliw] to note how things that should be specific to one city t«n g' §parxei«n [Kilik¤aw] ÉIsaur¤aw Lukaon¤aw have found their way onto the adornment of a pro- proka]yezom°nh ka‹ b' nevkÒr[ow] mÒnh teteimh- m°nh dhm[i]ourg¤aiw te ka‹ Kilikiarx¤ [aiw] §par- vincial official; with its titles on the Ciliciarch’s xik«n ka‹ §leuy°rƒ k[oi]noboul¤ƒ ka‹ •t°raiw crown, Tarsos shows its continued domination of the ple[¤]staiw ka‹ meg¤staiw ka‹ §jair°toiw dvre- koinon. a¤w. . . Despite Commodus’ eventual downfall and an initial condemnation of his memory, Tarsos retained For example, ‘first and greatest and most beautiful’ its second neokoria, probably due to the favor of in Tarsos inscription 1 boiled down to AMK. Less Septimius Severus, who won a great victory over his easily interpreted were the letters G and B, which rival for empire Pescennius Niger in Cilicia in 194. began to appear on the coins just as ‘twice neokoros’ As a newcomer to the throne, Severus needed the disappeared, in the reign of Septimius Severus. distinction and sense of continuity that descent from These enigmatic symbols were not abbreviations for an imperial family could convey. Thus he called names but numbers, ‘three’ and ‘two.’24 Amplified to their full significance, they stand for ‘(set before 25 Recognized by L. Robert 1961, 178; Rumscheid 2000, 131-132 cat. no. 34. 26 Frey 1982; Weiss 1997, 29. 23 Rumscheid 2000, 24-31, 133-138, cat. nos. 36-56. 27 See ‘Anazarbos,’ chapter 26, esp. coin type 7; that city 24 Weiss 1979; J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques was ‘first, greatest, and most beautiful’ in and briefly after the (1982) 424 no. 460. See chapter 26, ‘Anazarbos,’ below, for a reigns of Elagabalus and Trebonianus Gallus. Ziegler 1999, similar situation. 149-151; pace Rumscheid 2000, 131-132 cat no. 34. 216 part i – section vii. koinon of CILICIA himself the brother of Commodus, rehabilitating the COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV- memory of an emperor who had been execrated for NEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of two years, and installing him among the honorable Caracalla r. Rev: [...ANTV]NIANH% %EUHR ADRI and deified dead.28 Since no documents exist that TAR%OU A M K G B Togate emperor with phiale show Tarsos going back to a single neokoria in the and lituus before temple in three-quarter view; interval of Commodus’ dishonor, we cannot tell below it, male figure raises axe over bull. a) exactly how long it may have lasted, but certainly SNGParis 1514 (retouched) (illus. pl. 34 fig. 173). portraits on Tarsos’ coins show that the city was COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR %EOU- twice neokoros shortly after the youthful Caracalla HRO% ANTVNEINO% P P (Laureate draped was made Augustus in 197, which is also close to cuirassed, a-c; in crown and dress of demiourgos, the time that Anazarbos received its first neokoria.29 d) bust of Caracalla r. Rev: ANTVNIANH% Ziegler has suggested that Tarsos was initially on %EUHR ADR(IANH%, a-c) TAR%OU A M K G B the side of Pescennius Niger, while its rival Ana- Seated city goddess holding two ten-column zarbos gained the advantage by declaring for 34 30 temples. a) London 1925.10-1-6 b) Berlin c) Septimius Severus early. But though Anazarbos Adana 19035 d) SNGLevante 1059. indeed garnered some new titles, Severus did not mete out the punishment to Tarsos that was his usual COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR %EOU- treatment for partisans of Niger. The same author HRO% ANTVNEINO% (%EB, bd) P P Laureate has posited that, as at Laodikeia (q.v.), a member head of Caracalla r. Rev: ADRI %EOUHRI of the Severan family shared cult with Commodus ANTONEINOU(POL, ad) TAR%OU (MHTRO, bcd) at Tarsos.31 Though this is not impossible, it can- KOINOBOULION G B Goddess (Koinoboulion)36 not be proved from Ziegler’s evidence, which was with cornucopia and phiale between two six-col- the names of the festivals that Tarsos chose to cel- umn (four-column, b) temples (in three-quarter ebrate. Though the Kommodeios ceased to be men- view and surmounted by eagles, d). a) SNGParis tioned as often on coins, and Severeia appeared, such 1492 b) Berlin, Löbbecke c) BMC 190 d) festivals were common to many cities that were never SNGLevante 1036 e) Boston 61.1063. neokoroi, and cannot be taken to indicate the ob- COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AUT K M ANT GORDI- ject of cult in a neokoros city’s temple (see chapter ANO% %EB P P Radiate draped bust of Gordian 40, ‘The Cities,’ in the summary, Part II). III r. with spear and shield. Rev: TAR%OU MH- Caracalla during his sole rule favored Tarsos as TROPOLEV% A M K G B Seated city goddess his father had, granting it his name as an epithet, a holding two temples, one five-column and one silver coinage, grain from Egypt, and perhaps some four-column37 (both seven-column, g; one eight honor to one of its temples, before which he is shown 32 and one six? h). a) London 1919.8-22-10 (illus. pl. sacrificing on coin type 9. Like Commodus, he 35 fig. 174) b) Vienna 38659 c) Berlin, Löbbecke took the office of demiourgos, but he may have 33 d) New York, Newell e) New York, Tarsus 1975 actually been in the city, or at least in the area. f) SNGLevante 1143 g) SNGLevante 1144 h) Tarsian coins of his time (and later, under Gordian SNGRighetti 1684. III) celebrated the two koinon temples, either held by the city goddess as neokoros (coin types 10 and In the reign of Elagabalus, Anazarbos began to 12), or as the setting for the meetings of the koinon use to use titles like ‘first, greatest, and most beau- council at Tarsos (coin type 11). tiful’ that previously had been peculiar only to Tarsos, though Tarsos underwent no known dis- honor during his reign. They only appear on Anazarban coins and inscriptions from the time of 28 Merkelbach 1979. Lendon 1997, 172 n. 332 misunder- stood this as a new grant of neokoria by Septimius Severus. 29 Ziegler 1995a, 179 n. 13; Kienast 1996, 162-165. 30 Ziegler 1985, 79; Ziegler 1999, 143. 34 Pick 1904, 10 no. 6.2. 31 Ziegler 1985, 22, 28, 75-77; after him S. Mitchell 1993, 35 Cox 1941 (=Adana with coin no.). 1:221. 36 Ziegler 1985, 85 n. 126; a personification of the Meet- 32 Ziegler 1984 attempted to associate the hero of an an- ing of the Provincial Assembly, despite Gaebler 1929. cient novel with Caracalla in particular. 37 Pick 1904, 10 no. 6.2. See also Butcher 1991, 186 no. 33 Halfmann 1986a, 223-230; Ziegler 1985, 81-84. 66. CHAPTER 25 – TARSOS 217

Elagabalus to early in the reign of Severus Though all these contests honor emperors, they Alexander, however, and it is possible that they were do not necessarily coincide with the neokoriai of withdrawn by the new emperor, possibly by petition Tarsos. ‘Neokoros’ first appeared on coins under of the Tarsians. Anazarbos then pulled ahead to Hadrian, though the title may have antedated the become three times neokoros in the reign of Trajan coins. The second neokoria was for Commodus, Decius. This may have galled Tarsos, but it was not whose cult was presumably restored by Septimius due to any action on that city’s part that we know Severus. The third neokoria was likely for Valerian, of, nor does it seem to have been intended to dis- and perhaps for Gallienus as well. Ziegler, however, honor Tarsos, which kept its full titulature.38 Tarsos was struck by the fact that there is a coincidence on continued to declare itself (abbreviatedly) twice some coins of Valerian and Gallienus between num- neokoros into the early reign of Valerian and ber of neokoriai (three) and number of prize crowns Gallienus. (three). This led him to assume that Tarsos definitely became neokoros under Hadrian (Hadrianeia); that its second neokoria for Commodus was subsumed Third Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus under the name of Septimius Severus, and that the name of the same second “neokorate” festival Later coins of Valerian, Gallienus, and Gallienus’ changed from ‘isolympic worldwide Commodan’ to wife Salonina, however, changed the enumeration ‘Severan Olympia’ to ‘isolympic Antoninian’ and from GB to GG, meaning that Tarsos had finally back to ‘Severan’ again; and that the third festival become three times neokoros. The change may have was known simply as ‘Augustan’ rather than being been due to Valerian himself, as there is good evi- named after Valerian or Gallienus (the great major- dence for his presence in the East, and even in ity of citations of Augustia do occur on coins issued Cilicia.39 But though coins of Anazarbos better under Valerian and Gallienus).42 The first and third document his advent, it was Tarsos he honored with are in fact possible, or at least not contradicted by a third neokoria. other evidence. The second, however, is both overcomplex and contradicted. COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AU KAI POU LI OUA- To deal with the coincidence of prize crowns and Radiate draped cuirassed bust LERIANO% %E P P neokoriai: only one of the agonistic coin types issued of Valerian r. Rev: TAR%OU MHTROPOLEV% A when Tarsos was twice neokoros shows two crowns; M K G G; %EUHRIA OLUM; ADRIANIA the rest show one.43 True, three-crown types were b b) b Three EKI(XIRIAI, ) AUGOU%(TI, AKTI(A, ) issued after the grant of the third neokoria, for fes- prize crowns (one labeled , a) on agonis- AK[TI]A tivals including the imperial names Severus, tic table. a) SNGvA 6077 (misread b) SNGLevante ) Hadrian, and Augustus.44 But in the same period, 1185 with corrigendum c) Ziegler Sammlungen 829 coins of Anazarbos proclaim that city three times d) Ziegler Sammlungen 830 (obscure) e) SNGRighetti neokoros but show up to five prize crowns; Sardis 1714 f) Anamur, Ayvagedigi hoard no. 16540 g) (q.v.) issues types showing three prize crowns both Anamur, Ayvadegi hoard 166. before and after it is made three times neokoros; and Tarsos’ issues concentrated on festivals rather than innumerable cities mint coins with types of prize temples at this time. Type 13 shows three prize crowns without any of them being neokoros.45 There crowns for the contests Severeia Olympia, Hadrianeia is no necessary dependence of prize crowns from Ekecheiria, and Augustia Aktia.41 The names of the neokoriai. contests are minuscule, and there may be an element As to Septimius Severus’ usurpation of the cult of wishful thinking in trying to see them on the coins, established for Commodus, it is known that Tarsos’ especially when they are placed on the prize crowns ‘isolympic worldwide Kommodeion’ festival was in fact themselves.

38 Despite Ziegler 1985, 85-87, 104-105, ultimately based 42 Ziegler 1985, 26-31; Karl 1975, 24-28, 106. on silence. 43 One crown: Ziegler 1985, types A4, 5, 7-11, 17-19, 25; 39 Halfmann 1986a, 236-237; Ziegler 1985, 114-119. two crowns: type A12. 40 Rebuffat 1994, 101. 44 Ziegler 1985, types A20-23. 41 Ziegler 1985, 25, 29-30, 118, especially on the Ekecheiria, 45 Ziegler 1985, types B47, B49; see chapter 40, ‘The Cit- usually associated with the Olympic truce. ies,’ in Part II. 218 part i – section vii. koinon of CILICIA celebrated after Commodus’ death; an inscription man provinces, and Tarsos is named among the honoring a boxer from Laodikeia in Syria, dated to great cities that they sacked.52 221 C.E., states that he won at this festival as a youth, probably during Caracalla’s sole rule.46 The Severeia festival mentioned on coins of Severus him- INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: self, and presumably on those later, could be one of two known at Tarsos: the Severeia Olympia Epinikia, Twice neokoros: associated with the victory of Severus’ forces over 1. Le Bas-Waddington 1480. Dedication to Severus Pescennius Niger’s at the borders of Cilicia, and Alexander. See text above. celebrated at ‘the Quadrigae’ not only by Tarsos, 2. Waddington 1883, 281 no. 1 (IGRR 3:879). De- but by Anazarbos and perhaps by Antioch in Syria dication to Severus Alexander similar to no. 1, but as well;47 or the Severeios Antoneinianos, a worldwide enumeration restored. contest honoring Severus and Caracalla, mentioned 3. Dagron and Feissel 1987, 74-75 no. 30. Another on an inscription of Tarsos itself.48 Neither of these dedication to Severus Alexander. This time the city’s associates it necessarily with a neokoria for Tarsos. imperial names are in descending order by date, and It would be best to await clearer evidence before the epithet ‘sacred’ follows ‘twice neokoros.’ affirming a direct rather than a coincidental asso- ciation of neokoriai and festivals at Tarsos. Ziegler has dated the grant of the third neokoria COINS CITING NEOKORIA: to precisely 255/256.49 He based his argument partly on Valerian’s passage through the city on his return Neokoros: to Rome, though Halfmann doubted that Valerian Antinoös: BMC 158, 159; SNGCop 360; SNGLevante 1004; made any such return.50 But the same period saw SNGParis 1415-1422; Berlin (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). grants of neokoriai to as many as ten cities, few of Twice neokoros: which could have been personally visited by either Commodus: Adana 185; BMC 168-170; SNGCop 362; Valerian or Gallienus. Coins of Tarsos offer no types SNGvA 5995-5997; SNGParis 1463-1468; SNGLevante or titulature that can be precisely dated. Thus 1019, supplement 1.260; Ziegler Sammlungen 684, Tarsos’ third neokoria can only be dated with cer- 685; SNGPfPS 6.1349, 1350; Berlin (3 exx.), Boston, London, Oxford (2 exx.). tainty within the range 253-260, before Valerian was Non-imperial obverse, time of Commodus: SNGParis captured by the Persians and coinage with his por- 1470; Berlin (2 exx.). trait ceased.51 Twice (neokoros): The third neokoria brought Tarsos back into line Septimius Severus: Adana 187; BMC 172-174; SNGvA with its rival Anazarbos, which had been made three 5999, 6000; SNGParis 1474-1478; SNGLevante 1024- 1029, supplement 1.261; Ziegler Sammlungen 687-689; times neokoros by 249/250. The only other Cilician SNGPfPS 6.1351; Berlin, London (2 exx.), New York. neokoros, Aigeai, was still issuing coins with the Julia Domna: SNGvA 6002-6004; SNGParis 1479-1481. simple title, and was not on the level of rivalry Caracalla: Adana 189-191; BMC 182, 183, 185-191, 193- reached by the other two. Tarsos, however, was soon 201, 206 (the last misattributed to Elagabalus); to suffer: after King Shapur captured Valerian, SNGCop 367, 370; SNGvA 6006, 6008-6015, 6017- Persian forces pushed their way deep into the Ro- 6019, 6022 (the last misattributed to Elagabalus); SNGParis 1482-1493, 1504, 1506, 1507, 1509-1517, 1520-1523, 1525-1531, 1533-1539, 1541, 1542; SNGLevante 1032-1036, 1043-1044, 1046, 1049, 1050, 46 IGRR 3:1012. 1052, 1054, 1057-1066, 1068, 1069, supplement 47 Herodian 3.3.6-3.4.5 gives details of a crucial battle at 1.262-264, 266-269; SNGLewis 1738, 1739; Ziegler a mountain pass, though not explicitly the Cilician gates north Sammlungen 690-692, 695-697, 700, 703-717; of Tarsos; Cassius Dio 75.7.1-8 goes directly to Issos. Both are SNGRighetti 1661-1663; SNGPfPS 6.1353, 1355, 1356, “at the borders of Cilicia,” where the victory took place; see Harper 1970; Mutafian 1988, 241-242; J. Nollé 1998, 330-331. For a possible identification of Quadrigae/Kodrigai as Qatragas near Issos, see Hild and Hellenkemper 1986, 96-97, 108-111; Hild and Hellenkemper 1990, 1:389-390. 52 Joannes Zonaras Epitome historiarum ed. M. Pinder (Bonn 48 IGRR 3:881. 1841-1897) vol. 30 594 (12.23); Georgios Synkellos, Ecloga 49 Ziegler 1985, 116-117. Chronographia, ed. A. Mosshammer (Leipzig 1984) 465-466, anno 50 Halfmann 1986a, 236-237. mundi 5748. The sources, including the ‘res gestae divi Saporis,’ 51 De Blois 1976, 25. are usefully collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 57-65. CHAPTER 25 – TARSOS 219

1358-1360, 1362-1365, 1367, 1368, 1370, 1371; Philip:53 Adana 207-209; SNGCop 394, 395; SNGvA 6058- Berlin (2 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), Paris. 6060, 6062, 6063; SNGParis 1729-1743; SNGLevante Plautilla: BMC 202; SNGParis 1545; SNGLevante 1071. 1150-1154; Ziegler Sammlungen 794-798, 799 (iden- Geta Caesar: BMC 203; SNGParis 1546; SNGLevante 1072. tified as Philip II); SNGRighetti 1698-1701; SNGPfPS Macrinus: Adana 193; BMC 204-205; SNGCop 371; SNGvA 6.1424-1428. 6020; SNGParis 1552-1554; SNGLevante supplement Otacilia: Adana 211; SNGCop 396; SNGvA 6064; SNGParis 1.272, 273; Ziegler Sammlungen 719, 720. 1744-1753; SNGLevante 1155; Ziegler Sammlungen 800- Elagabalus: BMC 207; SNGCop 366, 369, 373; SNGvA 802; SNGRighetti 1702, 1703; SNGPfPS 6.1429-1433. 6023-6025; SNGParis 1557, 1558, 1560-1568; Trajan Decius: Adana 213, 216; SNGCop 397-402; SNGvA SNGLevante 1078-1080, supplement 1.274; Ziegler 6065, 6066; SNGParis 1754-1773; SNGLevante 1156- Sammlungen 722-733; SNGPfPS 6.1374-1378. 1165, supplement 1.290, 292; SNGLewis 1753; Julia Paula: SNGParis 1571, 1572; SNGLevante 1086; Ziegler Sammlungen 803-811, 813; SNGRighetti 1704, Ziegler Sammlungen 736; SNGRighetti 1666. 1705; SNGPfPS 6.1434, 1435, 1437-1442, 1444, Julia Maesa: SNGPfPS 6.1379. 1445. Severus Alexander: Adana 197; SNGvA 6027, 6028; Etruscilla: SNGCop 403; SNGvA 6067-6071; SNGParis SNGParis 1573-1576, 1579, 1581-1583; SNGLevante 1774-1780; SNGLevante 1166-1172, supplement 1087, 1088, 1090, supplement 1.275, 276; Ziegler 1.293; Ziegler Sammlungen 814, 815; SNGPfPS 6.1447- Sammlungen 737; SNGPfPS 6.1380; London, Paris. 1456; Ireland 2000, no. 1747. Julia Mamaea: SNGParis 1584. Herennius Etruscus: SNGParis 1781. Maximinus: Adana 198, 199; SNGCop 375-379; SNGvA Hostilian: SNGParis 1782, 1783. 6029-6032; SNGParis 1585, 1586, 1588-1606, 1608- Trebonianus Gallus: SNGCop 404, 405; SNGvA 6072-6075; 1614; SNGLevante 1092-1104, supplement 1.277, 278; SNGParis 1784-1792; SNGLevante 1173-1177, supple- SNGLewis 1747-1749; Ziegler Sammlungen 738-744; ment 1.294; Ziegler Sammlungen 816, 817; SNGRighetti SNGRighetti 1667-1672; SNGPfPS 6.1381-1384; 1707, 1708; SNGPfPS 6.1457. Vienna. Volusian: SNGParis 1794 (misidentified), 1795, 1796; Maximus Caesar: BMC 237; SNGvA 8716; SNGParis 1616- SNGLevante 1178. 1620; SNGLevante 1106-1109; Ziegler Sammlungen 745; Valerian: SNGCop 406; SNGvA 6076; SNGParis 1797-1813; SNGRighetti 1673, 1674. SNGLevante 1179-1184; SNGLewis 1754; Ziegler Balbinus: SNGCop 380; SNGvA 6033, 6034; SNGParis 1621- Sammlungen 820-828; SNGRighetti 1709-1713; SNGPfPS 1630; SNGLevante 1110, 1111, supplement 1.280; 6.1459-1465; Ireland 2000, no. 1748. Ziegler Sammlungen 746; SNGRighetti 1675-1677; Gallienus: SNGCop 409; SNGParis 1826, 1827; SNGLevante SNGPfPS 6.1385. 1194; SNGPfPS 6.1466-1470. Pupienus: Adana 200; SNGvA 6035; SNGParis 1631-1639; Three (times neokoros): SNGLevante 1112-1116; Ziegler Sammlungen 747-749; Valerian: Adana 217; SNGCop 407, 408; SNGvA 6077, SNGRighetti 1678, 1679; SNGPfPS 6.1386-1390. 6078; SNGParis 1814-1825; SNGLevante 1185-1187, Balbinus, Pupienus, Gordian III Caesar: SNGLevante 1117; 1190-1193; Ziegler Sammlungen 829-832; SNGRighetti Ziegler Sammlungen 750. 1714-1716; SNGPfPS 6.1471-1474; Berlin. Gordian III: Adana 201-206; SNGCop 381-389, 391; SNGvA Gallienus: SNGCop 410; SNGvA 6079, 6080; SNGParis 6036-6043, 6045-6055; SNGParis 1640-1673, 1675- 1828-1832; SNGLevante 1195, 1197, supplement 1711, 1713-1723; SNGLevante 1118-1147, supplement 1.295; Ziegler Sammlungen 833, 834; SNGPfPS 6.1475, 1.281-288; SNGLewis 1751, 1752; Ziegler Sammlungen 1476. 751-777, 779, 781-787; SNGRighetti 1680-1696; Salonina: Adana 218; SNGCop 411; SNGvA 6082; SNGParis SNGPfPS 6.1391-1411, 1413-1416; Berlin, London, 1833-1837; SNGLevante 1198-1200; Ziegler Samm- New York (2 exx.), Vienna. lungen 835, 836; SNGPfPS 6.1477. Tranquillina: SNGCop 393; SNGvA 6056, 6057; SNGParis 53 1724-1728; SNGLevante 1148, 1149, supplement Similarity in portrait and titulature make distinguishing 1.289; Ziegler Sammlungen 788-792; SNGRighetti 1697; between Philip and his son of the same name as Augustus dif- ficult, especially when the coins are worn. Kienast 1996, 198- SNGPfPS 6.1417-1423. 200; see also Leypold 1989, 89-90 nos. 14-15. 220 part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia

Chapter 26. Anazarbos: Koinon of Cilicia

Anazarbos was a prosperous city in an area of east- rather than Anazarbos, though that claim is not ern Cilicia that Pompey allotted to client kings; in dependable, as it derives from a reference within the 19 B.C.E. its ruler, Tarkondimotos II, named it poem itself.5 But more importantly, internal evidence ‘Kaisareia at Anazarbos’ in honor of Augustus, and indicates that the only one of the poems ascribed to the city began a new era.1 Its part of Level Cilicia Oppian that is datable to the Severan period, On came under direct Roman control in 17 C.E., the Hunting, was not written by a Cilician at all, but by whole was joined with Cilicia Tracheia by Vespasian a Syrian from Apamea, who dedicated it to around 72 C.E., and that Cilician province was then Caracalla. Though the author of the other, On Fish- joined with Isauria and Lycaonia to form the ‘three ing, was indeed Cilician, and may even have been eparchies’ in the time of Hadrian or Antoninus Pius. from Anazarbos, references in the poem to an The seat of the governor and of the Cilician koinon emperor Antoninus and his mature son (likely was Tarsos (q.v.), a city with which Anazarbos would Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, as Eusebius set spar for primacy in the province. this Oppian’s visit to Rome in 172 C.E.) should date the Cilician poet’s work well before the advent of Septimius Severus. If that emperor exiled anyone’s First Neokoria: Septimius Severus father, it was that of the later Oppian, so from Apa- mea, not Anazarbos.6 Anazarbos began to proclaim itself neokoros in the Where the literary evidence is illusory, the coins reign of Septimius Severus.2 The title, as in other offer a more secure contemporary document for cases, may have been the result of the emperor’s what is likely to be the grant of the neokoria, and is presence in the East, perhaps in the aftermath of his at the very least the first known appearance of the campaign against Pescennius Niger, or more likely title at Anazarbos: in his subsequent wars against the Parthians. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: Several scholars have used an anecdote about a [GETA]% K; AU K M AN- Togate figures poet, Oppian, to prove that Anazarbos was a stop TVNINO%; AU K L %E %EOUHRO% of Geta, Septimius Severus, and Caracalla seated on Severus’ travels.3 But the biography from which on curule chairs l. Rev: the anecdote comes is contradicted by other sources. %EU [ANTV] KAI%AR ‘Vita A’ of Oppian records that Septimius Severus ANA[ZARBV] PRO N[EV]KOROU; ALUTARXIA%; (year 217 = 198/199 C.E.) Festival crown visited Anazarbos, home of the poet and his father ET ZI% with nine busts. a) London 1962.11-15-27 (illus. Agesilaos: though it was Agesilaos’ duty as a public pl. 35 fig. 175) b) Ziegler Sammlungen 1029 (ob- figure in his city to greet the emperor, as a philoso- scure).8 pher he refrained, so Severus banished him to an island.4 Other biographies, including the Suda, lo- The obverse shows Septimius Severus and his two cate the poet’s hometown in Korykos in Cilicia sons seated in Roman magisterial chairs, while the

1 Sartre 1995, 133, 135, 168-169, 216; Ziegler 1993b, 22- 24, 68; Mutafian 1988, 195-211. On the royal family, see 5 A. Mair, Oppian Colluthus and Tryphiodorus (Cambridge MA Dagron and Feissel 1987, 67-71. 1928) xiii-xxiii. 2 S. Price 1984b, 272. 6 Hamblenne 1968. 3 As does Ziegler 1985, 73-79; Gascó 1992, 235-239; 7 Woodward 1963, 7 no. 2. Also see Ziegler 1985, 38 type Lehnen 1997, 240; see Halfmann 1986a, 216-223. B21; Ziegler 1993b, no. 281. 4 Westermann 1845, 63-68. On the duty of citizens, espe- 8 Ziegler 1988a (=Ziegler Sammlungen). Ziegler’s interpre- cially those of high rank, to attend at imperial visits, see Lehnen tation of the titulature (1993b, 262 no. 281; 1985, 33 type B8) 1997, 231-243, 259-262. has been questioned by J. Nollé and Zellner 1995. chapter 26 – anazarbos 221 reverse dates the coin to a time when Severus and municipal rather than provincial. Also, Anazarbos his family were in the East for his second campaign celebrated a sacred Hadrianeia festival, though such against the Parthians, when Caracalla had recently festivals were not invariably of provincial status nor been declared Augustus and Geta Caesar.9 The due to neokoriai; most of the evidence for the legend refers to the position of alytarch, or senior Hadrianeia dates from the third century.15 steward, at a celebration of an Olympic festival, A large structure similar to the ‘common (temple) which the emperor may have held honorifically or of Cilicia’ that was shown on coins of Tarsos (types even in person.10 This is likely the Severeia Olympia 2-4) had appeared on Anazarbos’ coins as early as Epinikia at Quadrigae, also celebrated by Tarsos, 160/161 C.E., well before Anazarbos proclaimed perhaps as the koinon festival of Cilicia.11 The itself neokoros: reverse’s pictorial type is the crown, studded with nine portrait busts, generally used by an agonothetes COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K T AIL ADR ANTV- when presiding at the festival he gave, and here NINO% %EB EU P P Laureate bust of Antoninus presumably worn by the alytarch. A similar crown, Pius r. Rev: KAI%AREVN TVN PRO% TV ANA- but with the letters of Anazarbos’ titles interspersed ZARBV ETOU YOR (year 179 = 160/161 C.E.) among the busts, is labeled ‘of the Ciliciarchy’ on Ten-column temple, star or sun in its pediment. later coins of Severus (below, coin type 7). Worn by a) London 1970-9-9-206 (illus. pl. 35 fig. 176). the head of the koinon when presiding over its fes- The temple appears on many coins with obverses tival, such a crown, labeled “common (koinos) of of Antoninus Pius and his family.16 The Anazarban Cilicia,” and therefore provincial, had previously temple’s star/sun does not specify the object of cult; been represented on Tarsos’ coins after Commodus later, under Commodus, its image changes slightly, made that city twice neokoros (Tarsos, coin type 7). with only a dot in the pediment but more emphasis Here, Anazarbos may have put the crown on its on flowery akroteria and antefixes.17 The Tarsian coins as a way of alluding to its celebration of the coins, on the other hand, show a ten-column temple (new?) festival and its title neokoros, i.e. its claim to 12 labeled ‘common,’ i.e. provincial, with either a honors previously unique to Tarsos. It should be wreath or an eagle in its pediment; and later, un- noted, however, that Tarsos also put such a crown der Commodus, two such temples. Though the simi- on its coins early in the reign of Septimius Severus, larity of Anazarbos coin type 2 to types 2-4 of Tarsos around the time of Anazarbos’ coin type 1 and its makes it just possible that both represent the same alytarch’s crown. Coupled with an obverse of the koinon temple, the two cities’ rivalry makes it more young Caracalla, Tarsos’ coin legend around its likely that Anazarbos showed its own decastyle crown is no longer ‘koinos of Cilicia’ but ‘koinos of the temple on its coins, and all we can say about that three eparchies,’ not just Cilicia but Isauria and temple is that its scale was comparable with that of Lycaonia as well.13 Tarsos was apparently keeping the provincial temple(s) at Tarsos. The Anazarban one step ahead of Anazarbos. coins do not mention the koinon, so whether It is possible that the neokoria was celebrated on Anazarbos had a provincial cult temple (or even a this issue because the honor had just been granted neokoria) in the Antonine period cannot be shown by Severus, though there are earlier references to imperial cult at Anazarbos.14 One inscription ad- from these coin types. It is more likely that they dressed Domitian as ‘Dionysos Kallikarpos’ and re- reflect Anazarbos’ envy of Tarsos’ provincial corded a priest of the god Titus Caesar Augustus. temple(s). The dedicators, both priests of the goddess Rome, Though the city of Anazarbos is largely un- also promised an (unspecified) temple to the city, excavated, remains that would suit a monumental probably one for the imperial cult but certainly Corinthian temple, its columns 1.25 m. in diameter at the base of the shaft and perhaps 12 m. high, were

9 Ziegler 1995a. 10 Rumscheid 2000, 25-26, 114 no. 3; Ziegler 1985, 77-78; Karl 1975, 98. 15 Ziegler 1985, 32-33, 67-68. 11 See chapter 25, “Tarsos,” above. 16 Ziegler 1993b, nos. 147 (Antoninus Pius), 148-149, 197- 12 Ziegler 1985, 59-60. 200 (Marcus Aurelius), 150, 201-203 (Lucius Verus), 151 13 Rumscheid 2000, 133 cat. nos. 36, 38. (Faustina the younger), 181-196 (Aurelius and Verus). 14 S. Price 1984b, 170-171; Ziegler 1985, 143-146. 17 Ziegler 1993b, nos. 261-272, year 202 = 183/184 C.E. 222 part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia found reused in a wall in the northern part of the We know the Cilician koinon to have been a fairly city.18 Foundations for nine columns running north/ contentious place, with Tarsos attempting to hold south found nearby could represent one short side its primacy against all comers. That city’s coins had of a decastyle temple facing east or west. This may boasted a second neokoria and two provincial tem- be the temple of the coins, but it cannot be proved ples since Commodus’ reign. If Anazarbos had also that its remains are those of a temple to the impe- been neokoros at that time, would it not have ad- rial cult. Worn blocks from the frieze only showed vertized that fact? It seems likely, then, that garlands adorned with female heads and held by Septimius Severus granted Anazarbos the title of erotes, an iconography as yet unprecedented in other neokoros for a newly-built temple to his cult. temples that conferred neokoria. One must wonder, however, to what extent the An image more likely to be that of the temple that neokoria of Anazarbos equaled the status of Tarsos’, made Anazarbos neokoros, if only due to the tim- especially with respect to the koinon. Anazarbos’ ing of its first appearance close to that of the neo- coins rarely refer to the koinon, only occasionally koria, is the following: to its meetings and the Ciliciarch’s crown (type 7); its temples are never labeled ‘common’ or ‘of Cilicia.’ COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K L %EP %EUHRO% Tarsos’ coins, on the other hand, dwell on those Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus r. PERT %EB themes often.24 It is likely that Tarsos retained Rev: %EUH ANTV[. . .]N ANAZARBEVN NEO- enough control in the koinon so that it remained the (year 218 = 199/200 C.E.) Four- KORON; ET HI% organization’s focus. It is possible that Anazarbos’ column Ionic temple, star in its pediment. a) temple(s) and Ciliciarchs stood in second place to SNGLevante supplement 327.19 those of Tarsos. Reference to a cult of Septimius Severus himself occurs on Anazarbos’ later coinage: a pair of ele- phants draws a small temple on a cart, and above Second Neokoria: Son(s) of Septimius Severus are the words ‘of the god Severus.’ Both the last document that calls Anazarbos simply COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV- neokoros, and perhaps the first to call the city twice Laureate draped cuirassed bust of NEINO% %EB neokoros, include portraits of Plautilla, Caracalla’s Elagabalus r. Rev: YEOU %EUHROU; A M K; short-lived wife: ANAZARBOU Two elephants draw a four-column temple on a cart r. (l., b) a) SNGLevante 142220 COIN TYPE 5. Obv: [F]OU PLAUTILLA %E b) SNGLevante 1421.21 Draped bust of Plautilla r. Rev: ANAZARBEVN a-c (year 221 = 202/203 A similar scene was used on coins of Elagabalus’ NEVKO(RVN, ) ET AK% C.E.) Prize crown (on it, , d). a) Ber- mother Julia Maesa and later for his successor OLUMPIA lin, Fox b) SNGLevante 1411 c) Ziegler Sammlungen Severus Alexander.22 It probably represents the 1030 d) SNGPfPS 6.156. procession by which Severus’ statue was brought into a festival in honor of his temple, an image of which If it has been correctly interpreted, the following coin is on the cart.23 So though the neokoria is not may be the first document of Anazarbos’ second mentioned on these coins, it is likely that they refer neokoria, though it was issued in same year as coin to a festival associated with the first neokoria. type 5: COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT K M AU ANT[V- NEIN]O% %E [. . .]LA [. . .?] Laureate draped bust 18 Gough 1952, 106-108. of Caracalla r., draped veiled bust of Plautilla l. 19 Ziegler 1993b, no. 288 shows more clearly what appears Rev: Two temples, to be a star (not an eagle as in SNGLevante) in the pediment. ANAZ[. . .] NEVKORVN E AK% Another coin that shows a four-column temple, Ziegler 1993b, both four-column. a) SNGLevante supplement 328. no. 280, is dated a year earlier, but judging from the photo- graph, may have been reworked. For Ziegler’s latest view on this coin, Ziegler 1999, 147. 20 Ziegler 1993b, no. 446. 21 Ibid., no. 447. 22 Ibid., 116, nos. 448, 449, 635. 24 Ziegler 1985, 58-66; idem 1993b, 113-114; idem 1999, 23 On imperial images at festivals, Roueché 1993, 145-147. 149-151. chapter 26 – anazarbos 223

There are several oddities about this unique coin: pontifex maximus, a title he would only assume after the year is given, as well as the full title ‘neokoros’ his father’s death in 211.28 proper to the period before the second neokoria was These abbreviations now show that Anazarbos granted, but the image shows two temples rather was twice neokoros from at least 204/205 (or per- than one. In fact, both obverse and reverse images haps even late in 202/203) to 249/250.29 If the first very closely resemble those of coin type 9 (below) neokoria was for the cult of Septimius Severus, the of Elagabalus and Julia Paula. Ziegler took the type second was probably for both his sons. Again, Pe- as neokoros Anazarbos’ challenge to twice-neokoros rinthos is a precedent, and though the names of Tarsos.25 But within two years, Anazarbos was to festivals cannot be held as deterministic, Ziegler become twice neokoros officially, and it seems odd detected on Anazarban coins one letter’s worth of that the city should issue this coin type prematurely, evidence for a festival called Philadelpheia, after the while its claim to the title, if any, was still on shaky ‘brotherly love’ between Caracalla and Geta.30 Since ground. As the coin is very worn, it is even possible Anazarbos retained its second neokoria after Geta’s that the enumeration for ‘twice’ has worn away. death, presumably the temple was rededicated solely In any case, it is certain that by 204/205 Ana- to Caracalla at that time. If Caracalla had later zarbos had became twice neokoros, probably for the avoided or failed to honor Anazarbos, this cult that cult of Septimius Severus’ son(s). The coin types of he had shared with the brother he later killed could this period, just shortly after type 7, might not seem have been the reason why.31 But in fact the city may to celebrate the neokoria, but they do, in a drasti- have been honored late in his reign with Roman cally abbreviated way: triumphal monuments for a Parthian victory, which continued to be celebrated under his successors.32 COIN TYPE 7. Obv: AUT K L %EP %EOUHRO% Scholars have dwelt on the fact that in the third Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus r. Rev: PERT century Anazarbos seems to imitate its more emi- %EUHRIANH% ANAZARBOU MHTROPOLEV%; nent neighbor Tarsos with such titles as ‘metropo- (year 223 = 204/205 KILIKARXIA%; ET GK% lis,’ ‘first, greatest, and most beautiful’ and ‘set before C.E.) Festival crown of Ciliciarch with thirteen the three eparchies Cilicia, Lycaonia, and Isauria.’33 heads and letters . a) SNGParis 2046 b) Bos- B G But Anazarbos was careful not to claim titles that ton.26 the city had no right to or could not defend, and As with Tarsos from Septimius Severus on, here the this restraint is shown in its treatment of the neokoria letters G and B are in fact numbers, signifying that on its coins. Tarsos had been neokoros since at least Anazarbos was ‘(set before the) three (eparchies of the reign of Hadrian, and was already twice neo- Cilicia, Isauria, and Lykaonia)’ and ‘two (times koros when Anazarbos began to proclaim itself neokoros).’27 These titles are spelled out more fully simply neokoros. If Anazarbos had merely been par- in inscription 1, a statue base of Caracalla: roting Tarsos’ titulature it would have called itself twice neokoros on coins even before 204/205. There INSCRIPTION 1. Sayar 2000, no. 4 (Gough was surely a rivalry for titles between the two cit- 1952, 85-150 no. 2; SEG 12:514). Set up by hiera- ies, but that meant that each would aim to outdo phoroi. } } } t w [kt]htik w ÉAnaza[rbhn] w mhtropÒ- the other, not that one would copy the other’s titles ¤ ¤ levw [t]«n tri«n §parxei«n Kilik aw [ÉI]saur aw and lay itself open to accusations of falsehood. ¤ Lukaon aw prokayezom°nhw [k]a‹ d‹w nevkÒrou... Septimius Severus may have granted Anazarbos Dated within Caracalla’s tenth tribunician power the title neokoros in 198/199, and certainly allowed (December 10, 206–December 10, 207), the inscrip- the city another temple and title for the cult of one tion makes the not infrequent mistake of naming him 28 Mastino 1981, 42 n. 107, 104. 29 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:221 mistakenly attributed Anazarbos’ second neokoria to Elagabalus, confusing it with contests cel- ebrated in that emperor’s honor; he was followed in the error by Lendon 1997, 172. 25 Ziegler 1993b, 112-113 no. 300. 30 Ziegler 1985, 34-35; idem 1993b, no. 303. 26 Rumscheid 2000, 115 no. 4; Ziegler 1993b, no. 306; 31 Ziegler 1993b, 114 n. 290. Vermeule 1983, 21 pl. 36. 32 Sayar 2000, 24 n. 73. 27 Weiss 1979; J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques 33 Gough 1952; Ziegler 1999. Also see Ziegler 1977, 36- (1982) 424 no. 460. 38 on the neokoria. 224 part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia or more likely both of his sons about seven years gabalus r, draped veiled bust of Julia Paula l. Rev: afterwards. If so, he seems to have done the same ANAZARBOU MHTROPOL; A M K; G B Two thing in Perinthos (q.v.). But there is no documented temples, one six-column, the other four-column.40 reason why Septimius Severus should have favored a) SNGLevante supplement 336 b) SNGPfPS 6.168. Anazarbos in particular. Ziegler has assumed that COIN TYPE 10. Obv: it was due to Anazarbos having supported Severus IOULIA MAI%A %EB Diademed draped bust of Julia Maesa r. Rev: in his contest for the empire against Pescennius Two temples, one Niger.34 This was indeed true of Perinthos, but ANAZARBOU MHTROPOL G B four-column, the other six-column.41 a) SNGLevante Severus’ tendency at that time was to exalt his al- supplement 339. lied city while abasing its rival, as Byzantion was made tributary to Perinthos. In this case, though COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT K M A % ALEJ- Anazarbos was indeed exalted, Tarsos is not known ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Se- to have been abased, and retained its full titulature verus Alexander r. Rev: ANAZAR ENDOJ even in Severus’ early years as emperor. MHTROPO ET HM% (year 248 = 229/230); B G It may simply be that Anazarbos became impor- Two four-column temples turned toward one an- tant during Severus’ Parthian wars, when it was a other.42 a) SNGFitzw 5227 b) SNGLevante 1461. crucial hub on the road system.35 Bilingual grave- Types 8, 9 and 10 are unusual in showing the two stones show that the city was probably the winter temples together but dissimilar, unlike types 6 and quarters for the imperial cavalry guard, the equites 11 which assimilate them in the way that is usual singulares Augusti, in the early third century.36 What- elsewhere. The former are therefore valuable in ever the origin or intention, the effect of Septimius indicating that one of the temples was on a smaller Severus’ grant(s) was to bring Anazarbos closer to scale than the other. That one is never shown with Tarsos’ level in the provincial hierarchy. After more than four columns hints back at coin type 3, Tarsos issued coins that showed its city goddesses possibly a temple for Septimius Severus; the larger enthroned among and crowned by the goddesses of temple could therefore be that for his son(s), and the three eparchies, Anazarbos issued a coin show- where not assimilated to the first is shown with a ing its city goddess in the same position; this was in maximum of eight columns (type 8). just the same year that it began to proclaim itself Two temples are also shown on coins issued under twice neokoros, and the letters loom large below the Elagabalus whose reverse types give a view of the goddess Anazarbos herself.37 acropolis of Anazarbos. Anazarbos was one of the few neokoroi to issue coins (and inscription 2, below) with the title dur- COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV- ing the reign of Macrinus.38 In his reign and after- NEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of ward, the reverse type of the two temples for which Elagabalus r. Rev: ANAZARBO% MHTROPOLI%; Anazarbos was neokoros recurs fairly frequently. A M K Two temples in three-quarter view, B G between them, on a rocky hill with stairs.43 a) COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT K M OP %EU SNGLevante 1419. MAKREINO% %EB Laureate head of Macrinus r. Rev: (ANAZ, ac) END(OJ, bc) MHT RVM TROP These may or may not be the temples for which the KEK (ANAZ, b) G B (ET EL%, a) Two temples, one city was neokoros, but they appear dissimilar to the four-column, the other eight-column.39 a) representations of the Anazarban acropolis presided SNGLevante 1416 b) London 1970.9-9-208 (illus. over by the bust of Zeus on coins of Claudius and pl. 35 fig. 177) c) SNGPfPS 6.158. of Trajan.44 Ziegler would conflate the two, posit- ing that at least one older temple (that of Zeus, and COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT K M A ANTVNINO% perhaps that of the goddess Rome as well) on the %E I PAULA %E Laureate draped bust of Ela-

34 Ziegler 1985, 79; idem 1993b, 23, 127; idem 1995a, 179. 40 Ibid., no. 378. 35 Ziegler 1995a, 176-179. 41 Ibid., no. 376. 36 Sayar 1991. 42 Ibid., no. 541, 542. 37 J. Nollé and Zellner 1995, 42-43. 43 Ibid., no. 445; also no. 451, same reverse die, for Julia 38 On the titulature, Ziegler 1993b, 114-115. Maesa. 39 Ibid., nos. 324, 325. 44 Ibid., nos. 37-43, 97. chapter 26 – anazarbos 225 hill was counted toward the city’s neokoriai because scriptions carved shortly after his reign, under his the imperial cult was moved into an extant temple successor Severus Alexander:50 of a god.45 This is possible, not proven; the two INSCRIPTION 4. Sayar 2000, no. 13 (Gough temples that made Anazarbos neokoros may have 1952, no. 25; SEG 12:517). Milestone from be- stood on the acropolis, but if so, the coins only in- tween Anazarbos and Tozlu, dedicated to Severus dicate that they were there by the time of Elagabalus. Alexander and Julia Mamaea (names erased). Other coins of Elagabalus show a single four-column ÉAnazãrbou t}w a' k(all¤sthw) [m(eg¤sthw) ka‹ temple in three-quarter view with steps, but though §ndÒ]jou mhtropÒlevw t«n g' §p[ar]xei«n pro- the steps are reminiscent of those leading up to the kayezom°nhw ka‹ d‹[w] nevkÒrou ka‹ ÑRvmaÛko›w acropolis, the building’s location and cult remain tropa¤oiw kekosmhm°nhw, teteimhm°nhw ple¤staiw unspecified.46 Though the Anazarban hill has been ka‹ meg¤staiw ka‹ §jair°toiw dvrea›w ka‹ much built upon, it may possibly have held more §leuy°rƒ koinoboul¤ƒ than two shrines; none of the representations of it are precise enough to identify the objects of cult This inscription must date early in the reign of within the temples. Severus Alexander, for on coins of 229/230 and Elagabalus may have passed through this area of thereafter the titles ‘first, greatest, and most beauti- Cilicia on his way to Rome in 218, and though ful’ do not appear; advantage: Tarsos.51 It is ad- Anazarbos had received honors and titles from mittedly an argument from silence, but there are Macrinus, it nonetheless celebrated a festival in many Anazarban coins to consult, and the formula honor of his defeat at the new emperor’s hands.47 A M K would not have been difficult to fit onto them; Afterwards Elagabalus held the office of demiourgos, it was nearly omnipresent on Tarsian coins of the and is shown in that costume on Anazarban coins time. Thus it is possible that these titles, probably of 221/222 C.E., though he was in Rome at the allowed by Elagabalus, were removed much as the time.48 The procession in honor of his ‘grandfather’ neokoriai granted by Elagabalus were, and at around Septimius Severus, commemorated on coins of his the same time, by the new emperor (and likely due reign, has already been noted (coin type 4). A re- to Tarsos’ protests). cently published inscription documents the city’s Later, at the outbreak of Severus Alexander’s titles under Elagabalus: Parthian War, Anazarbos issued coins that showed the emperor sacrificing before a temple: INSCRIPTION 3. Sayar 2000, no. 12. Milestone, from Akdam Höyük. Septimian}w Seouhrian}w COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AUT KA MA AU %EOU ÉAntvneinian}w Kaisare¤aw t}w prÚw t“ ÉAna- ALEJANDRO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Seve- zãrbƒ t}w §ndÒjou mhtropÒlevw t«n tri«n rus Alexander r. Rev: ANAZARBOU MHTRO- §parxei«n Kilik¤aw ÉIsaur¤aw Lukaon¤aw pro- POLEV% ET YM%; G B (year 249 = 230/231). kayezom°nhw ka‹ d‹w nevkÒr[ou] ka‹ ÑRvmaÛko›w Radiate cuirassed emperor, bull at feet, holds tropa¤oiw kekosmhm°nhw, teteimhm°nhw ka‹ koi- phiale over altar before temple in three-quarter noboul¤ƒ view; from its apex, a Victory crowns him.52 a) SNGLevante supplement 344. Sometime after this inscription, Elagabalus may have allowed Anazarbos to call itself ‘first, greatest, and Though Severus Alexander traveled from Rome to most beautiful,’ just as its neighbor and rival Tarsos Antioch in 231, the location of the sacrifice shown did at that time.49 The abbreviated expression for on the coin is not specified, and cannot be taken to these titles (A M K) on coins with his portrait issued mean that the emperor visited Anazarbos.53 In any at Anazarbos can be explicated by reference to in- case, the coin was issued so early in the campaign that it may only represent the sacrifices Severus Alexander made upon leaving Rome (Herodian 45 Ziegler 1985, 89 n. 150. 6.4.1-3). 46 Ziegler 1993b, nos. 360, 424; a similar depiction, with- out steps, under Severus Alexander, no. 625. 47 Ibid., 115-117. 48 Halfmann 1986a, 230-231; Ziegler 1993b, 118-119; 50 L. Robert 1977b, 37 n. 177. SNGParis 2072, 2073. 51 Ziegler 1993b, 119-121. 49 Ziegler 1985, 36, 87-89, though adventus types cannot 52 Ziegler 1993b, no. 628a; no. 628 is similar. prove the emperor’s visit to Anazarbos in particular. 53 Halfmann 1986a, 231-232. 226 part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia

During the reign of Severus Alexander and shortly Another type’s obverse echoes that of coin type 1, afterward, a single, frontal temple became a popu- the proclamation of the first neokoria, in showing lar reverse type, perhaps even the sign of a denomi- the reigning emperor and his two sons on curule nation, on coins of Anazarbos.54 The depictions are chairs:64 generally hasty, often show a dot, rarely a star or the letters G B, in the pediment, and sometimes COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AUT KA TRAI DEKKIO%; elaborate the acroteria at the expense of the pedi- ETR ME% DEKION; ME KUINTO% Togate figures ment itself. The number of columns on these temple of Herennius Etruscus, Trajan Decius, and reverses varies greatly: four,55 five,56 seven,57 eight,58 Hostilian seated on curule chairs. Rev: ANA- nine,59 ten,60 and eleven.61 They may represent the ZARBOU ENDOJ MHTROPO G G ET YJ% (year ten-column temple that had been appearing on Ana- 269 = 250/251 C.E.). City goddess with axe 65 zarban coins since Antoninus Pius (type 2 above), before bull. a) SNGParis 2122 b) SNGLevante 1497 but they are anything but specific. c) SNGLevante 1498. Under Philip, even the enumeration of the neo- Other types make no obvious fuss over the new koria slips off the coins of Anazarbos—the only title neokoria, but only change the enumeration of the on the city’s coins is that of metropolis, occasion- title from ‘two’ to ‘three.’ Instead, the coins issued ally with mention that the city boasted a free in the year 268, and especially those of 269 (249– koinoboulion.62 251) concentrate on the city’s festivals. COIN TYPE 16. Obv: AUT K KUI TRA DEKKIO% Third Neokoria: Trajan Decius %EB Radiate head of Trajan Decius r. Rev: ANAZ ENDOJ ET HJ% (year 268 = 249/ But soon Anazarbos became the first city in Cilicia 250); OIKOUMENIKO%; G G Prize crown labeled to be three times neokoros, outpacing its rival Tarsos DEKIO%.66 a) SNGLevante 1495 b) SNGPfPS 6.239 by a few years. The first coins known to claim this c) SNGPfPS 6.240 honor are dated to 249/250 C.E. One type shows the three temples and spells the title out in full: COIN TYPE 17. Obv: ME%%ION KOUINTON Cuirassed bust of Hostilian Caesar r. COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT K KUI TRAIAN KAI%ARA Rev: (year 268 = 249/ DEKIO% %E Radiate cuirassed bust of Trajan ANAZ ENDOJ ET HJ% 250) Prize crown labeled Decius r. Rev: ANAZARBOU ENDOJ MHTROPO ; OIKOUMENIKO%; G G .67 a) SNGLevante 1502 b) Ziegler Samm- G; KAI G NEVKOROU; ET HJ% (year 268 = 249/ DEKIO% 250 C.E.). Three temples, the topmost seven- lungen 1133 c) SNGParis 2125 d) SNGPfPS 6.241 column, the lower two four-column with masonry e) SNGPfPS 6.242. sides in three-quarter view, on high podia.63 a) SNGLevante supplement 354. COIN TYPE 18. Obv: ERENNIAN ETROU%- KILLAN %EB Diademed draped bust of Herennia 54 Ziegler 1993b, 34. Etruscilla, crescent at shoulders. Rev: ANA- 55 Ibid., no. 580: Severus Alexander. ZARBOU ENDOJ MHTROP; G G; ET YJ% (year 269 56 Ibid., no. 557: Julia Mamaea. = 250/251). Seated city goddess of Anazarbos, the 57 Ibid., nos. 475, 484, 485, 556-568, 575, 576: Severus Alexander; nos. 510, 561, 562, 565: Julia Mamaea; no. 644: river god Pyramos at her feet, saluted with two Maximus Caesar. wreaths and a prize crown by three other city 58 Ibid., nos. 569-571, 577, 581: Severus Alexander; nos. goddesses (the three eparchies).68 a) SNGCop 552-555, 558-560: Julia Mamaea. 59 Ibid., nos. 572-574, 578, 579, 582: Severus Alexander; 53. nos. 511, 517, 551, 556, 563: Julia Mamaea. 60 Ibid., no. 496: Severus Alexander; nos. 512-514, 564: Julia Mamaea; no. 645: Maximus Caesar. 64 Also note SNGParis 2164 and SNGPfPS 6.297, which use 61 Ibid., no. 515: Julia Mamaea. a similar type as a reverse for a coin of Valerian (with 62 Ibid., 329-332, nos. 723-741; for koinoboulion types un- Gallienus). der Caracalla, nos. 308-322; under Trebonianus Gallus nos. 65 Ziegler 1993b, no. 773. 789-790 (specified as free, as it also had been on inscription 66 Ibid., no. 744. 4, early in Severus Alexander’s reign). 67 Ibid., no. 745. 63 Ibid., no. 753; no. 752 also shows three temples. 68 Ibid., no. 770. chapter 26 – anazarbos 227

It is likely that a festival in honor of the neokoria type 18, Tarsos issued coins under Trebonianus for Trajan Decius, the Dekios oikoumenikos, may be Gallus that showed its own city goddess enthroned referred to on the prize crown of the earlier coin and crowned by the three eparchies as Anazarbos’ types 16 and 17, issued for Decius and his younger had been; the difference is that for Tarsos, one of son Hostilian.69 Other types dated 249-251 C.E. the crowns is that of the Ciliciarch.75 Though both show five prize crowns in total, and thus go beyond cities were metropoleis and Anazarbos had one neo- mere celebration of the new Decian festival.70 Type koria more, Tarsos was probably still claiming pri- 18 illustrates what Anazarbos perceived as its posi- macy as seat of the leader of the koinon. tion in the province, enthroned before the three The abbreviation for ‘three times neokoros’ con- eparchies. Anazarbos’ neokoria, its festival, and thus tinued to appear on Anazarbos’ coinage down to the its triumph over Tarsos probably were rooted either reign of Valerian and Gallienus, when the evidence in the city’s strategic importance or support for comes to an end; the last year for which coinage was Trajan Decius during a time of turbulence in the issued was 272 (253/254 C.E.). East.71 But of the specifics we know little or noth- One final question is whether Anazarbos’ attain- ing. ment of three neokoriai (as well as its frequent In June 251, however, Trajan Decius was killed, emissions of coinage) was due to the increased pres- and though he was initially deified, his name was ence of emperors and their armies in the area, as later erased from the monuments, probably under Ziegler wished to interpret it.76 The answer is par- his successor Trebonianus Gallus.72 Yet Anazarbos’ tially yes, as strategic places in the Empire were more third neokoria survived the condemnation of Decius’ likely to receive rewards, such as titles, to encour- memory; indeed, under Trebonianus Gallus Anazar- age their loyalty. But Ziegler’s argument can become bos boasted yet another festival, as the coins show circular: Anazarbos was rewarded, therefore six prize crowns, and once again called itself ‘first, Anazarbos must have been strategic (or have cho- greatest, and most beautiful.’73 The reason for the sen the right side); Trajan Decius granted the city continuation of the third neokoria is unknown, and a neokoria, therefore Trajan Decius must have vis- Ziegler’s guess that it was for the cult of Dionysos ited; and if the sources indicate that he did not, then rather than that of the emperors has little to stand he must have planned to. behind it.74 But by this time it may be that neokoros As well as examining Cilicia, an area that was (and any temple that could be built for it in this time near the Romans’ eastern theater of war, we should of trouble) was considered just one more title rather compare it with Asia, more remote from direct troop than being so closely associated with the emperor movements. For example, Antoninus Pius made one who granted it. For example, Thessalonike in Mace- of Asia’s cities neokoros, despite the fact that he donia (q.v.) was given three additional neokoriai by never left Italy while he was emperor. Later, Trajan Decius, but did not lose them all after his Caracalla gave eight neokoriai in Asia alone, though death, retaining one and falling into line with its few of them can be placed on his route to the East; provincial rival, Beroia, at two neokoriai each. In a Elagabalus granted four, though his path from similar way Anazarbos and Tarsos still jousted for Emesa to Rome may have bypassed Asia completely; position: almost as a reply to Anazarbos’ boast on Severus Alexander one or two, one of them for the cult of Artemis, and again, connected neither with 69 BMC (Cilicia) p. cv; Karl 1975, 34; Ziegler 1993b, 124. imperial visits nor with troop movements. There was 70 Ziegler 1993b, nos. 751, 771, 772. then a twenty-year interim, until Valerian granted 71 Ziegler 1985, 99-108 (and after him S. Mitchell 1993, at least three neokoriai in Asia, all to cities that had 1:224; Lendon 1997, 172), though an eastern journey for Decius is based solely on a misunderstood coin of Caesarea Maritima; lost one previously, with no apparent consideration see Halfmann 1986a, 235-236. of their strategic value in the Eastern wars he was 72 Kienast 1996, 204-210; Ziegler 1994, 188-197; Peachin fighting. 1990, 32-35, 239-265; Ziegler 1988b, 391-392. The condem- Certainly both troop movements and imperial vis- nation was documented but not understood by Varner 1993, 487-488. its could be factors in proliferating honors and coin- 73 Ziegler 1985, 41, 50, 108-113 and idem 1993b, 125, again connecting the honor with the emperor(s)’ “projected” Eastern journey, without showing why Anazarbos specifically 75 Rumscheid 2000, 138 no. 56 (Volusian); Ziegler 1985, merited imperial attention. 26, 60-61. 74 Ziegler 1985, 49; idem 1993b, 124-125. 76 Ziegler 1993b, 145-146, 150-151, 159-160. 228 part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia age, but they were not the only factors, as Ziegler poet and scholar. Dated by the period of the sec- himself admitted. More importantly, Anazarbos ond neokoria. always had an eye on Tarsos, and vice versa, in their mutual competition for status and honors. Eventu- ally the junior city became the equal, for a time in COINS CITING NEOKORIA: terms of neokoria and of sacred festivals even the superior, of its eminent neighbor. This may have Neokoros: been due to strategic position or direct imperial Septimius Severus (earliest year possibly 217 = 198/199 79 favor, but it is also possible that a rival to Tarsos C.E.): SNGLevante 1406, supplement 1.327; was deliberately fostered by the smaller cities of the SNGPfPS 6.153; London, New York (Ziegler 1993b, 77 nos. 280?, 282, 284-286, 288-289, 291-292). koinon. We can only hope for further evidence to Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta Caesar (earliest see whether either or both applied. year, 217 = 198/199 C.E.): London (Ziegler 1993b, Anazarbos’ later history is unclear. Like Tarsos, no. 281); Ziegler Sammlungen 1029 (obscure). Aigeai, and the rest of the province, it is likely to Julia Domna (earliest year, 218 = 199/200 C.E.): Pri- have suffered in Shapur of Persia’s third campaign, vate collection (Ziegler 1993b, no. 293). Caracalla: SNGPfPS 6.154-155; London (Ziegler 1993b, in which he captured the emperor Valerian and no. 291).80 78 made deep incursions into the eastern provinces. Plautilla (latest year, 221 = 202/203): SNGLevante 1411, 1412; Ziegler Sammlungen 1030-1033; SNGParis 2052; SNGPfPS 6.156; Berlin, London (Ziegler 1993b, no. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: 294-299). Geta Caesar (earliest year 218 = 199/200): Berlin (Ziegler 1993b, no. 283) ; SNGPfPS 6.152. Twice neokoros: Twice (neokoros): 1. Sayar 2000, no. 4 (Gough 1952, 85-150 no. 2; Caracalla and Plautilla? (year 221 = 202/203; see text SEG 12:514). Statue base of Caracalla, December above): SNGLevante supplement 1.328 (Ziegler 1993b, 206–December 207 C.E.; see text above. no. 300). 2. Sayar 2000, no. 11 (Gough 1952, no. 16; SEG Septimius Severus (earliest year 223 = 204/205 C.E.): SNGLevante 1407; SNGParis 2046 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 12:516). From Akdam. Milestone dedicated to 301-302, 306). Macrinus and Diadumenian (names erased), dated Julia Domna (earliest year 223 = 204/205 C.E.): Bos- before December 31, 217. ton (Ziegler 1993b, no. 305). 3. Sayar 2000, no. 12. Milestone, from Akdam, Geta Caesar (earliest year 223 = 204/205 C.E.): inscribed under Elagabalus. See text above. SNGLevante 1413; Ziegler Sammlungen 1033a (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 303-304). 4. Sayar 2000, no. 13 (Gough 1952, no. 25). In- Caracalla (earliest year, 223 = 204/205 C.E.): BMC 15; scribed under Severus Alexander; see text above. SNGCop 43; SNGLevante 1409, 1410; Ziegler 5. Sayar 2000, no. 6 (Dagron and Feissel 1987, 161- Sammlungen 1034; SNGParis 2047-2051; SNGPfPS 163 no. 101). Dedication to Severus Alexander by 6.157 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 307-322). the council and people of the Alexandrian Septimian Macrinus: SNGLevante 1414-1416; Ziegler Sammlungen Severan Antoninian Kaisareans at Anazarbos, glo- 1035-1037; SNGParis 2053, 2054; SNGPfPS 6.158, 160-163; London (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 324-327, 341- rious metropolis, set before the three eparchies 347). Cilicia, Isauria, and Lycaonia and twice neokoros. Diadumenian Caesar: BMC 16; SNGCop 44; SNGvA 5483; 6. Sayar 2000, no. 18 (Ramsay 1882, 157 no. 18; SNGLevante 1417, 1418; Ziegler Sammlungen 1038, IGRR 3:898). Milestone, from a mile south of Ana- 1039, 1042-1045; SNGParis 2055-2059; SNGRighetti zarbos. Undated. 1501; SNGPfPS 6.159 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 323, 328- 340). 7. Bourget 1929, no. 206 (Kaster 1983; Sayar 2000, Elagabalus: BMC 17, 19, 20; SNGCop 45; SNGvA 5484- 14-15 no. 3). From Delphi. Epigram of Naevianus, 5488; SNGLevante 1419, 1420, 1423, 1426-1436, supplement 1.330, 334, 335; Ziegler Sammlungen 1049-1060; SNGParis 2062, 2064, 2066, 2068-2073;

77 For early evidence of anti-Tarsos feeling among other 79 Ziegler 1993b, no. 280, with earliest date, appears re- cities in the koinon, see Dio Chrysostomos, Orations 33.51 and worked; the earliest year for the others is 218 = 199/200 C.E. 34.7-15, 27, 47-48; Ziegler 1993b, 126-128. 80 Previously identified as Elagabalus by Hill 1923, 222-223 78 The sources, including the ‘res gestae divi Saporis,’ are no. 17, through a misreading of HIC (218 = 199/200 C.E.) usefully collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 57-65. as MC (240 = 221/222 C.E.). chapter 26 – anazarbos 229

SNGRighetti 1502; SNGPfPS 6.164, 165, 170-175, 177, Tranquillina: SNGvA 5503; SNGLevante 1489, 1490; (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 348-350, 355, 356, 358-363, Ziegler Sammlungen 1120; SNGParis 2109, 2111; 365-373, 391, 395-411, 417, 420, 422, 424-426, 431, SNGRighetti 1508; SNGPfPS 6.227-229 (Ziegler 1993b, 433, 434, 436, 441-445, 461-471). nos. 706-708, 710-715, 722).81 Elagabalus and Julia Paula: BMC 22; SNGLevante 1437, Three times (neokoros): 1438, supplement 1.336; SNGPfPS 6.167, 168 Trajan Decius (earliest year: 268 = 249/250 C.E.): BMC (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 377-379). 35; SNGLevante 1494-1496, supplement 1.354; Julia Paula: BMC 23, 24; SNGLevante 1439-1442, supple- SNGPfPS 6.239, 240, 243, 251 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. ment 1.337, 338; Ziegler Sammlungen 1065, 1067- 744, 748, 752, 753, 759, 771, 772). 1069; SNGParis 2074-2077; SNGPfPS 6.169, 180, 181 Trajan Decius, Herennius Etruscus, Hostilian: SNGLevante (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 380-384, 386-390, 392, 393, 1497, 1498; SNGParis 2122 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 751, 437-440). 773). Julia Maesa: SNGLevante 1443, supplement 1.339, 340, Herennia Etruscilla: BMC 36; SNGCop 52, 53; SNGvA 342, 343; Ziegler Sammlungen 1061, 1063; SNGParis 5505; SNGLevante 1499, supplement 1.355; Ziegler 2078, 2079; SNGPfPS 6.146, 183 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. Sammlungen 1140; SNGParis 2120, 2121; SNGRighetti 351-354, 375, 376, 455-459). 1511; SNGPfPS 6.246-250 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 758, Julia Soaemias: Ziegler Sammlungen 1064 (Ziegler 1993b, 760-770). no. 374). Herennius Etruscus (earliest year: 268 = 249/50 C.E.): Severus Alexander: Adana 78, 79; BMC 26-29; SNGCop SNGCop 54; SNGLevante 1500, 1501, supplement 46, 47; SNGFitzw 5227, 5228; SNGvA 5489-5498; 1.356; Ziegler Sammlungen 1131, 1132; SNGParis SNGLevante 1446-1466, 1469-1472, supplement 2123, 2124 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 743, 749, 756, 757). 1.344-346; Ziegler Sammlungen 1070-1096; SNGParis Hostilian (earliest year: 268 = 249/250 C.E.): SNGLevante 2081-2096; SNGRighetti 1503, 1504; SNGPfPS 6.184- 1502, 1503; Ziegler Sammlungen 1133; SNGParis 2125, 186, 188-191, 196-202, 206-216 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 2126; SNGPfPS 6.241, 242 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 745- 472-475, 478-480, 482-494, 498-507, 518, 519, 521- 747). 529, 531-549, 566, 567, 569, 570, 572, 573, 575- Trebonianus Gallus: SNGLevante 1504-1506, supplement 581, 583, 585-622, 624-640, 642, 643). 1.357; Ziegler Sammlungen 1141; SNGParis 2128-2130; Julia Mamaea: BMC 30; SNGvA 5499; SNGLevante 1473- SNGRighetti 1512; SNGPfPS 6.261-263 (Ziegler 1993b, 1475, 1477-1479; Ziegler Sammlungen 1099, 1100, nos. 780, 781, 789-791). 1102; SNGParis 2097, 2098; SNGPfPS 6.187, 193, Volusian: BMC 37, 38; SNGvA 5506; SNGLevante 1507- 195, 203-205 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 481, 497, 508-510, 1512, supplement 1.358-360; Ziegler Sammlungen 512-515, 517, 552, 554-557, 559-563). 1142-1157; SNGParis 2131-2139; SNGRighetti 1513; Maximinus: SNGvA 5500 (misread); SNGLevante 1480, SNGPfPS 6.252-260, 264, 265 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. supplement 1.348; SNGParis 2099 (Ziegler 1993b, 774-779, 782-788, 792-797, 799-802).82 nos. 653-656, 661-665). Valerian: Adana 81; BMC 40-45; SNGCop 56-61; SNGFitzw Maximinus and Maximus: SNGLevante supplement 1.350 5231; SNGvA 5508-5515; SNGLevante 1513, 1515, (Ziegler 1993b, no. 652). 1516, 1518-1522, 1524-1528, supplement 1.361; Paulina: SNGLevante 1482 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 649-651). SNGLewis 1728; Ziegler Sammlungen 1164-1183, 1185- Maximus Caesar: Adana 80; SNGLevante 1483, supplement 1213; SNGParis 2140-2163; SNGRighetti 1514-1516; 1.351; SNGParis 2102, 2104; SNGRighetti 1505; SNGPfPS 6.267-289, 292-305 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. SNGPfPS 6.218, 219 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 646-648, 803, 804, 807-819, 825-827, 829-831, 833-840). 659, 669, 670, 672-674); Ireland 2000, no. 1737. Gallienus: SNGvA 5516; Ziegler Sammlungen 1214-1220; Gordian III (latest year, 262 = 243/244): BMC 31, 32; SNGParis 2165, 2166; SNGPfPS 6.290, 291 (Ziegler SNGCop 49, 50; SNGvA 8668 (= SNGLevante 1486); 1993b, nos. 820-824). SNGLevante 1487, 1488, supplement 1.352; Ziegler Sammlungen 1104, 1108, 1109, 1114-1116, 1119; SNGParis 2105-2108; SNGRighetti 1506, 1507; SNGPfPS 6.221, 223-225, 230-233 (Ziegler 1993b, 81 See also Leypold 1991, 72 no. 1. nos. 683, 688, 697-705, 716, 718, 720, 721). 82 See also Leypold 1991, 72 no. 2. 230 part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia

Chapter 27. Aigeai: Koinon of Cilicia

First Neokoria: Severus Alexander staff to r. Rev: [MAK YE?] EUG P[I%?] NEVKOROU AIGAIVN; ZO% (year 277 = 230/231 Aigeai, an important harbor and intermittently a free C.E.) Laureate (cuirassed?) emperor with snake- city with the right of asylum, became the last of the entwined eagle sceptre, bull at feet, holds phiale three known neokoroi in Cilicia.1 Both its eminent over altar before a four-column temple in three- predecessors, Tarsos and Anazarbos (qq.v.), were quarter view with arch in entablature, Asklepios already twice neokoros. There was an old rivalry within. a) SNGLevante 1771. between Tarsos and the people of Aigeai, who felt COIN TYPE 3. Obv: [ oppressed by the power of the larger city.2 Aigeai AUT KAI] ALEJANDRON ? Laureate draped certainly would have declared itself neokoros as soon ARX M[E OI]K K A%KLH cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r., snake- as possible, just as it claimed as many other titles, entwined staff to r. Rev: [ including imperial names, as it could.3 Since the title MAK EUG] PI% YE Lau- does not appear on coins until the reign of Severus ALEJ[ . . . ] NEVKOR[ . . . ] AIGAIVN [ . . .] reate, cuirassed emperor with snake-entwined Alexander, it is likely that it was given by him; its eagle sceptre holds phiale over altar before earliest date is 277 of the city’s era, or 230/231 C.E.4 Asklepios at l.; at r., mural-crowned city goddess The emperor was in the East in 231 for his con- crowns emperor. a) Ziegler Sammlungen 1394.7 frontation with the Persians. Due to its strategic port, Aigeai was of great importance to the Roman cam- COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT KAI ALEJANDRON paign.5 Though an imperial visit to Aigeai or its ARX ME OIK K A%KLH Laureate draped cui- vicinity is not verbally documented, several coin srassed bust of Severus Alexander r., snake- types allude to Severus Alexander’s presence, or at entwined staff to r. Rev: MA(K, b) EU(G, b) PI% least interest, in the city.6 YEOF(I, a) (ENDOJVN, b) NEVKOROU AIGAIVN; (year 278 = 231/232 C.E.) City goddess COIN TYPE 1. Obv: HO% AUT K ALEJANDRON ARX seated on altar, a goat (punning symbol of the city) Laureate draped cuirassed bust ME OIK A%KLH at her feet, holding four-column temple with arch of Severus Alexander r., mature; snake-entwined in entablature in three-quarter view. a) SNGLevante staff to r. Rev: ALEJANDROUPOLI% ADRIANVN 1775 b) London 1962.11-15-1 (illus. pl. 35 fig. (year 277 = 230/231 C.E.) Lau- AIGAIVN; ZO% 178).8 reate, cuirassed emperor rides horse r., raises r. hand. a) SNGLevante 1772 b) SNGParis 2365. COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EU ALEJ- Laureate head of Severus Alexander r., COIN TYPE 2. Obv: ? ANDRO% AUT K M A %EO ARX [ME ] snake-entwined staff to r. Rev: Laureate draped cuirassed bust of MAK EUG PI% YE ALEJANDRON (year 278 = 231/232 C.E.); Severus Alexander r., mature; snake-entwined NEVKOROU; HO% AIGAIVN Four-column temple with arch in enta- blature in three-quarter view, Asklepios within. a) SNGLevante 1774. 1 Bernhardt 1971, 162-163, 191; Rigsby 1996, 460-462. See also S. Price 1984b, 272. Had type 1, showing the emperor’s arrival for his 2 Dio Chrysostomos, Orations 33.51, 34.10, 34.14, 34.47-48. 3 L. Robert 1978b; idem 1973. military campaign, stood alone, there would be little 4 Ziegler 1985, 93-94; Woodward 1963, 7. Of course this evidence for Severus Alexander’s direct connection assumption can only be based on coins known to date. For the era beginning in 47/46 B.C.E., see Bloesch 1989, 11-22. 5 Ziegler 1993b, 81-82, 128-129. 7 Ziegler 1988a (= Ziegler Sammlungen). 6 Weiss 1982, 198-203; accepted by Halfmann 1986a, 115. 8 Woodward 1963, 5 no. 1 pl. 1.4. chapter 27 – aigeai 231 with Aigeai. But type 2 shows not some generalized before him; the same staff had appeared at the shoul- scene but the emperor sacrificing before the temple der of Asklepios himself on the obverse of a rare of Asklepios at Aigeai. This temple, which other silver alloy issue of Aigeai under Caracalla.13 The coins show with as many as eight (Corinthian?) col- reverses of types 2 and 3 also show the emperor umns and/or an eagle in its pediment, is here iden- holding an eagle-topped sceptre entwined by a tified by Asklepios’ cult statue and by an arch in the snake, a combination of imperial and divine at- facade, a recurrent feature that may represent ei- tributes that had appeared on coins of Aigeai just ther an arched entry or a niche that stood over the the year before.14 The obverse legends of types 1- statue.9 Since it recurs even in the most minuscule 4 honor Severus Alexander (in the accusative case) representations, such as on the temple held by the with titles that have now been interpreted as ‘greatest city goddess in type 4, it should reflect reality, as it chief priest of the world and of Asklepios.’15 A well- was probably included to make the temple identifi- minted, unworn example such as the obverse of type able to those who handled the coins. Type 5’s larger 3(a) shows the sloppily formed letters typical of format shows the details of temple and image more Aigeaian coins more clearly than usual, especially clearly. Type 3 is similar to 2, though the god here the crucial double kappa. So it is likely that Aigeai stands independent of the temple and the emperor made Severus Alexander, already pontifex maximus himself is crowned by the city. Type 4 shows the at Rome, its chief priest of Asklepios, and perhaps temple, again with arched facade, held by the city was made neokoros in return. Also, it should be clear goddess, a visual symbol of neokoria. The city’s other that if the snake-entwined staff on the obverse of titles, ‘Macedonian,’ ‘noble,’ ‘faithful,’ ‘god-loving,’ these coins means an identification with Asklepios, ‘of good repute’ (also ‘mistress of ships’ on type 7 the emperor Valerian was so assimilated too, as the below) are abbreviated;10 the title ‘neokoros,’ how- same symbols appear on his coins later (type 7, ever, is carefully spelled out, though it too would be below). abbreviated on later coins. Again, this shows that the The coins leave little doubt that Aigeai was neo- coins were probably issued shortly after the title was koros for the temple of Asklepios. We cannot assume granted. from this that the title was for the god and not for On type 1 the city also called itself ‘Alexan- the emperor, however.16 No document yet known droupolis’ after Severus Alexander, but as it had specifies that Aigeai was neokoros of Asklepios, while earlier called itself ‘Makrinoupolis,’ before that at the same time Magnesia (q.v.) issued no coin with ‘Antoneinoupolis,’ and before that ‘Severiana,’ the word neokoros without ‘of Artemis.’ Though on ‘Commodiana,’ and ‘Hadriana,’ this is not an indi- type 2 the emperor sacrifices before the temple in cator of extraordinary imperial favor. Cassius Dio, question, Pergamene coins (q.v.) had shown Cara- in relating how in 15 B.C.E. it had taken a Senato- calla sacrificing to his cult partner in the temple they rial decree to get Paphos the title ‘Augusta,’ wrote shared, at a time when Pergamon was three times that in his own (and Severus Alexander’s) time, the cities had only to make out a list of whatever im- 11 perial names they liked. This may be an over- priest, but this is more than the worn depictions can bear out. statement, but Dio’s disillusion reflects a real Rumscheid 2000, in her exhaustive catalogue of agonothetic proliferation, and consequent devaluation, of such crowns, did not include it. The depiction somewhat resembles the headdress of the demiourgos on coins of Tarsos and eponyms. Anazarbos (qq.v.), and Aigeai had such a magistrate, at least The obverses of types 1-4 reveal a complication, in the Hellenistic period (Cohen 1995, 355, 357 n. 7). But Bastien however. The emperor is portrayed in normal guise, 1992, 2:421-424, did not note any depictions of emperors as 12 demiourgoi at Aigeai. wearing military costume. But at the same time a 13 SNGLevante 1740; pace Bloesch 1965, pl. 23.1, on the snake-entwined staff, symbol of Asklepios, hovers identification of Asklepios and emperor; though the god has a lowering brow, I do not see any other resemblance to Caracalla, not even via Alexander the Great. 9 Bloesch 1989, 34-41. For an earlier eight-columned ex- 14 SNGLevante 1765. For the eagle sceptre, Bastien 1992, ample with straight lintel, under Macrinus, see SNGPfPS 6.65. 2:421-424. 10 Cohen 1995, 355-357; on ‘mistress of ships,’ Adams 1984, 15 Weiss 1982, 200, 202; but Bloesch 1989, 34-35 n. 37 corrected by Ziegler 1993b, 129 n. 364. disagreed, preferring “founder of the eiselastic worldwide (com- 11 Cassius Dio 54.23.7-8. mon?) Asklepieia (festival).” Weiss’ hypothesis is preferable, but 12 The catalogues and Ziegler 1994, 200-201 n. 71, inter- the question is by no means settled. preted the emperor’s serrate-edged wreath as the diadem of a 16 S. Price 1984b, 272 no. 143. 232 part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia neokoros of the Augusti, not of any god; and Elaga- secuting.20 But Decius otherwise showed no extraor- balus had been shown in the same way before his dinary attention to Asklepios; the god did not ap- temple and Apollo’s at Philippopolis (q.v.). On types pear on his Roman coinage, nor did the emperor 2 and 3, Severus Alexander holds the snake- honor Asklepios’ other, more famous shrines at Per- entwined eagle sceptre, the attributes of Asklepios gamon, Epidauros, or Kos.21 It is more likely that and imperial triumph combined; that and the snake Aigeai itself either requested the title ‘Asklepioupolis,’ staff of Asklepios on the obverses of coin types 1-5 specifically, or was granted it instead of an eponym assimilate the emperor to the god. It is thus likely from the current emperor’s name, an honor it had that Severus Alexander became Asklepios’ cult part- often taken before but which in this case had been ner, as well as his priest, in the temple at Aigeai. awarded to its inland neighbor Mopsos instead.22 Aigeai minted no coins with the title ‘neokoros’ This is reminiscent of Caracalla’s diversion of the under Severus Alexander’s successor Maximinus, so neokoria for Ephesos (q.v.) from his own name to it is impossible to say whether its neokoria was that of the city’s patron goddess, Artemis. endangered by a condemnation of Alexander’s me- Like Severus Alexander, the emperor Valerian mory after his death.17 In any case, the problem was appears to have had some contact with Aigeai. As obviated after Alexander’s consecration in 238; in- with Severus Alexander, it is possible that he visit- deed, he is among the deified emperors commemo- ed the city in person: he journeyed to the eastern rated on an altar to Gordian III and his family at front for his own Persian war in 254, within the Aigeai.18 Doubtless the deified Severus Alexander following coin type’s year of issue. Coins of Ana- continued to be specially honored in the city he had zarbos also hint at an imperial visit in the same year, made neokoros. and by January 255 the emperor was already sta- Thereafter a steady scatter of coins over the years tioned just across the Gulf of Issos, in Antioch.23 kept calling Aigeai neokoros, with an occasional COIN TYPE 7. Obv: reappearance of a type that alludes to the title: AU K POU LIKI OUA- LERIANO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust COIN TYPE 6. Obv: MAR IOU FILIPPON EPI of Valerian r., snake-entwined staff to r. Rev: KE% Laureate (radiate, c) draped cuirassed bust AIGAIVN NEV NAUARXIDO%; T (year 300 = 253/ of Philip Caesar r., beardless. Rev: EU PI YE MA 254 C.E.) Laureate togate emperor with snake- AIGEVN NE; Bq% (year 292 = 245/246 C.E.) entwined staff holds phiale over altar before two- Seated city goddess, a goat at her feet, holds a column temple with arched entablature in small temple in three-quarter view with arch in three-quarter view. a) BMC 39 b) Vienna c) New entablature, a figure within, eagle at apex.19 a) York 1944.100.53037 (illus. pl. 35 fig. 180) d) London 1975.4-11-296 (illus. pl. 35 fig. 179) b) SNGLevante 1801.24 SNGParis 2375 (ascribed to Philip Senior) c) Type 7 is a distinct echo of type 2, and though togate SNGCop 39 d) Berlin 694/1914 e) Ziegler Samm- rather than in military attire, Valerian is represented lungen 1398. with some of the same attributes that Severus Coins showing the portraits of Trajan Decius and Alexander had had. He also allowed a sacred and his family indicate that under him (but not after) worldwide festival in Asklepios’ honor, the first Aigeai was allowed to call itself ‘Asklepioupolis,’ known at Aigeai (and so not a direct result of the while coin reverses of the goddess Hygieia were given neokoria, which had been granted almost twenty- the features of the Empress Herennia Etruscilla. five years earlier).25 It is then possible that he, who Ziegler believed that these coin types and legends like Severus Alexander came to the East to fight the emanated from a religious policy of the emperor Persians, was also named chief priest of Asklepios himself, to honor Asklepios in opposition to the new Savior whose partisans, the Christians, he was per-

20 Ziegler 1994. 17 Kienast 1996, 177-179; pace Varner 1993, 418-422, who 21 Selinger 1994, 22-28. believed that the condemnation was unofficial. 22 Von Aulock 1963, nos. 77-78. 18 Weiss 1982; for the order and date of inscriptions on the 23 Halfmann 1986a, 236-238. altar, see Dagron and Feissel 1987, 124. 24 Weiss 1982, n. 31 pl. 5 fig. 7. 19 Pick 1904, 12 no. 9.1. 25 Despite Ziegler 1985, 51, 94, 115; idem 1994, 201. chapter 27 – aigeai 233 and/or received cult in the temple of Asklepios for Philip: SNGRighetti 1487; Berlin. which Aigeai was neokoros. Philip, Otacilia, Philip Caesar: SNGLevante 1780; SNGParis The war turned out badly for both Valerian and 2376; Berlin. Otacilia: SNGLevante supplement 1.414; Ziegler Sammlungen Aigeai, however; the Sassanid king Shapur boasted 1399; New York. of having captured the one, probably in 260 C.E., Philip Caesar:29 SNGCop 39; SNGLevante 1781, 1782; and conquered the other soon after.26 No later docu- Ziegler Sammlungen 1398; Berlin, London, Paris. ments of the neokoria are known. The city’s pride, Trajan Decius: SNGPfPS 6.73 its temple of Asklepios, seems to have survived the Herennia Etruscilla: BMC 38. Herennius Etruscus: Private collection, Hecht.30 sack, only to be destroyed later, at the behest of the Hostilian: SNGLevante 1785; Ziegler Sammlungen 1401; 27 Christian emperor Constantine. Berlin.31 Volusian: SNGLevante 1786. No inscriptions of Aigeai as neokoros are yet known. Aemilian: SNGLevante 1787-1789; SNGParis 2379, 2380; SNGRighetti 1488; London (2 exx.), New York, Vienna. Cornelia Supera: SNGLevante 1790-1792; Vienna (2 exx.). COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Valerian: BMC 39, 40, 42; SNGCop 40; SNGvA 5460; SNGLevante 1793-1801, supplement 1.416, 417; Neokoros: Ziegler Sammlungen 1402, 1405; SNGParis 2381-2387; Severus Alexander: BMC 37; SNGLevante 1771, 1774, SNGPfPS 6.74-77; Berlin (3 exx.), New York (4 exx.), 1775; Ziegler Sammlungen 1394; SNGParis 2357, 2369; Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw.32 London. Gallienus:33 BMC 43; SNGvA 5461; SNGLevante supple- Julia Mamaea: SNGLevante 1778; Ziegler Sammlungen 1397; ment 1.418; SNGParis 2389, 2390; SNGPfPS 6.79-80; SNGParis 2371; Berlin, Paris. Ziegler Sammlungen 1406, 1407; Berlin. Balbinus: SNGLevante 1779; Paris. Salonina: SNGLevante 1804; Ziegler Sammlungen 1408; Pupienus: SNGParis 2373; Berlin. Berlin (2 exx.). Balbinus, Pupienus, Gordian III: SNGLevante supplement 1.411; SNGParis 2374.28 Gordian III: London. Tranquillina: Berlin. 29 See Ziegler 1994, 197 on his titles EPI(fan°staton) KE%(ara). 26 The ‘res gestae divi Saporis,’ ll. 27-29, lists the Cilician 30 Hecht 1968, 34 no. 21; Ziegler 1994, 194. cities conquered; Bleckmann 1992, 118-119. The sources are 31 See Ziegler 1994, 188-199. collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 57-65. 32 Weiss 1982, n. 31 pl. 5.7. See also Butcher 1991, 195 27 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.56; Sozomenos 2.5.5. no. 259. 28 Weiss 1982, 196 n. 17. 33 See also Butcher 1991, 195 no. 260. 234 part i – section viii. koinon of armenia

SECTION VIII. KOINON OF ARMENIA

Chapter 28. Nikopolis: Koinon of Armenia (Minor)

Nikopolis was founded by Pompey in the Pontic indicate that the emperor may have visited Nikopolis territory of Armenia Minor. Its name commemorat- or at least the area in 123-124 or 129-131.5 This may ed his victory over Mithridates VI of Pontus in 66 have been the occasion for a grant of neokoria, but B.C.E., and there he settled the soldiers wounded it is possible that the title was awarded earlier, when in his campaigns.1 the territory was absorbed among the Roman prov- Armenia Minor passed through the hands of inces. various client kings before it was annexed to the Roman empire ca. 71/72 C.E., from which ‘libe- ration’ Nikopolis dated its new era.2 The territory Second Neokoria: by time of Gordian III probably was under the command of the governor Only one inscription documents the fact that Niko- of Cappadocia, but Armenia Minor had a koinon polis became twice neokoros by the time of Gord- of its own with an Armeniarch at the head of it.3 ian III. Nikopolis had few rivals for primacy in its koinon, as it was one of the few urban centers in the area. INSCRIPTION 2. Grégoire 1909, 35 no. 13. { The inscription that mentions the first Armeniarch mhtrÒ[poliw] ka‹ d‹w [n]ev[kÒrow] Nikopolit«n (who was also first of the Hellenes) was found there, [¸t]a[l]ikØ kolvn¤[a]. . . and the occasional issues of coinage in the name of The inscription is dated by the name ‘Gordiana’ the koinon are identical in many respects to the rare given to the Legion XIII Gemina Pia. The city of coins of Nikopolis.4 Thus it seems that Nikopolis was Nikopolis holds the titles of metropolis, twice neoko- neokoros due to its position as metropolis and head ros, ‘Italian’ colony (with ius italicum). of the koinon, much as Beroia was for Macedonia By the time of this inscription, in the third cen- (q.v.). Nothing is known of temples built in the city, tury, there was no contradiction in a city’s being both however. a colony and the center of a provincial imperial cult. That distinction had seemed basic to Augustus’ foun- dation of cults in Asia and Bithynia, as discussed by First Neokoria: by time of Hadrian or after Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9 (see ‘Pergamon,’ chapter 1): Romans were to worship the deified dead, Hellenes Inscription 1, though obscure at a critical point, is the living ruler, and only the latter temples later probably a document of Nikopolis’ first neokoria. conferred neokoria. INSCRIPTION 1. CIG 4189. ÑAdrian}w Niko- On the other hand, the number of provincials pÒ(l)evw t}w [-?- ne]vkÒ(r)ou ka[‹ mh]tro- who became Roman citizens burgeoned over time, pÒle[vw]. . . and they continued to participate in koinon activi- ties and cults, until Caracalla finally granted Roman The title ‘Hadrianic’ appears on the city’s coins citizenship to most of the peoples of the Empire. As under Hadrian himself, and other documents for colony status, though it earlier had important im-

1 Marek 1993b, 37-39, 48-53. 5 F. and E. Cumont 1906, 307; Magie 1950, 622, 1484, opted 2 Leschhorn 1993, 144-149, 475; S. Mitchell 1993, 1:118; for the later trip, as repairs were made to the main road in Remy 1986, 30, 53. 129, but Halfmann 1986a, 188-210, esp. 198, held that Hadrian 3 Deininger 1965, 32, 82 n. 10. returned from Egypt by sea in 131, leaving only 123/124 for 4 IGRR 3:132; Pick 1914. his trip along the eastern border up to Trapezos. chapter 28 – nikopolis 235 plications as to the kind of taxes colonists paid, the Neapolis in Syria Palaestina and Thessalonike in distinction between Roman and non-Roman munic- Macedonia (qq.v.) would soon follow. ipalities became increasingly blurry, especially after Septimius Severus’ wholesale grants of colonial sta- tus; the title colonia no longer implied any change in INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: the composition of the city’s population.6 Nikopolis’ status as a colony rested on a firmer Neokoros: basis than sheer honorific, as its original settlement 1. CIG 4189. Fragmentary, Hadrianic or after. See was by Pompey’s wounded soldiers. But it is the first text above. example of a neokoros Roman colony yet known. Twice neokoros: 2. Grégoire 1909, 35 no. 13. From Gumuâden, southeast of Nikopolis. Dated to the time of Gord- ian III or thereafter. See text above. 6 Bernhardt 1982; Levick 1967, 1-6, 184-192, on other colonies with ius italicum, 84 n. 7; J. Nollé 1995. No coins of Nikopolis citing neokoria are yet known. 236 part i – section ix. koinon of thrace

SECTION IX. KOINON OF THRACE

Chapter 29. Perinthos: Koinon of Thrace

When the emperor Septimius Severus confronted a First Neokoria: Septimius Severus challenger for the Empire, Pescennius Niger, his greatest obstacle lay at the Hellespont. Asellius One of the earliest issues of Perinthos celebrating Aemilianus, proconsul of Asia and one of Niger’s the neokoria is coin type 1, which honors Septimius ablest generals, had already seized Byzantion and Severus’ second visit to the city in 196, following the therefore held the key to the Black Sea as well as a capture of Byzantion. bridgehead into Europe.1 Niger’s forces advanced COIN TYPE 1. Obv: on nearby Perinthos, seat of the governor of Thrace, AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P Laureate head (draped cuirassed bust, b) of which was held for Severus by Fabius Cilo.2 Niger’s Severus, r. Rev: sic d army was at first successful, but had to retreat back EPIDHMIA (EPIMHDIA, ) Eight- into Asia at the arrival of Severus’ main forces. The B %EUHROU PERINYIVN NEVKORVN column temple, below it a galley rowing l. in emperor himself soon arrived on the scene and took whose bow the emperor raises his right hand; in up headquarters at Perinthos while his generals the stern, two military standards. a) BMC 33 (illus. besieged Byzantion and drove Niger and his armies pl. 35 fig. 181) b) Vienna 8891 c) Berlin, Löb- back through Asia and Bithynia. becke d) New York 1923.17.17 (S-G 461, 463, The eastern cities had to choose which contestant 464).4 they would support. Perinthos, of course, stood be- hind its imperial occupier. Byzantion held firm for Though this coin shows that Perinthos must have Niger for over two years, through an increasingly become neokoros by the time of Severus’ second visit hopeless siege. When Severus finally triumphed, he in 196, scholars have postulated that the honor was alloted rewards and punishments among the vari- granted and the temple begun during the emperor’s ous cities as he saw fit. The punishment for Byzan- previous stay, in winter 193/194, while the issues tion’s crimes of revolt and stubborn defiance was of 196 celebrate the temple’s completion and its particularly severe. All the soldiers and magistrates dedication by the emperor, which made the neokoria were put to death, the walls were demolished, and official.5 Though this chronology is certainly possible, citizens’ property was confiscated. In addition, it does not necessarily follow from the situation. Severus turned his enemy’s loss into its rival’s gain: In 194 Byzantion and Perinthos were both under he deprived Byzantion of its freedom and civic sta- siege, the one by hostile, the other by friendly forces. tus, made it tributary, and handed it and its terri- Occupation by legions, even allied ones, was a har- tory over to the Perinthians, who treated it none too rowing and expensive predicament. The presence well.3 As a bonus, Severus gave Perinthos the right of the emperor himself was an additional honor and to build a temple to his own cult and thereby to call an additional expense.6 As the campaign headquar- itself neokoros, the first neokoros city known in ters for the emperor and his armies, Perinthos must Thrace. have given all its energies, all its men, transporta- tion, and supplies, to the siege of Byzantion and the war in general. It is doubtful whether the citizens

1 Birley 1988, 102, 105, 108-120; Halfmann 1986a, 216- 223. 4 Schönert-(Geiss) 1965 (= S-G with coin numbers). 2 Sayar 1998, 74-75, 115-116; Haensch 1997, 329-332. 5 Hasebroeck 1921, 86-87; Schönert-(Geiss) 1965, 45; 3 Cassius Dio 75.14; Herodian 3.6.9; Sayar 1998, 116-118, Halfmann 1986a, 216, 219. 158-159. 6 Lehnen 1997, 42, 93-95; Ziegler 1993b, 138-140. chapter 29 – perinthos 237 could have devoted any time, personnel, or even podium. a) London 1920.11-11-4 b) Oxford, draught animals to constructing a large (at least Godwyn c) Paris 1118 d) Paris 1119 e) SNGCop octastyle) temple in the midst of a war. After the war 741 f) Vienna 8892 (illus. pl. 36 fig. 182) g) Ber- was won and Byzantion capitulated, however, lin, Imhoof-Blumer h) Berlin, Knöbelsdorff i) Severus rewarded his partisans the Perinthians with Berlin, Löbbecke (S-G 462, 466-473, 488-491). Byzantion and all its lands. Ziegler suggested that COIN TYPE 5. Obv: such grants of enemy land were Severus’ way of AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus, making up for years of drain on his allied cities’ r. Rev: Eight-column economies.7 This may have finally allowed Perinthos PERINYIVN NEVKOR temple on three-step podium. a) SNGCop 742 b) to begin building a temple for the cult of Septimius Paris 1120 c) Vienna 8894 d) New York, Newell Severus to fulfill its new title ‘neokoros.’ The coin e) Berlin, Löbbecke f) Berlin, Imhoof. (S-G 514, types that may be dated to 196 only show a sche- 515). matic octastyle temple, and could just as well cel- ebrate the inception of building as its completion. COIN TYPE 6. Obv: L %EPTI GETA% KAI- The first (and thereafter frequent) appearance of %AR Draped cuirassed bust of Geta Caesar, r. the eight-column temple on the early issues that Rev: PERINYIVN NEOKORVN (NEVKORVN, feature the title ‘neokoros’ tends to indicate that it d) Six-column (eight-column, d) temple on represents that temple for which the city was neo- three-step podium. a) Paris 1186 b) Berlin, koros. In addition, coin types show Septimius Löbbecke c) SNGFitzw 1755 d) Cambridge, Severus himself holding a temple, as if in presenta- McClean (S-G 634, 635). tion, or the city goddess holding it, symbol of the Schönert-Geiss believed that the festival known city as neokoros. as Severeia antedated the neokoria granted to Perin- COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU K L %EPTI %EUHROE thos.9 The name Severeia Perintheia appears on a coin (sic) PE Laureate head of Severus, r. Rev: type (S-G 458) which does not mention the neokoria, PERINYIVN NEVKORVN Laureate, cuirassed and though this silence does not assure a date prior Severus standing l., with spear and small six-col- to the grant, the almost invariable reference to umn temple. a) S-G 479 (2 exx.). neokoria on coins afterwards makes it likely. At first associated with Perintheia (presumably a festival for COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P an eponymous hero Perinthos), the Severeia, with the Laureate head of Severus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN qualification ‘first,’ appears alone on coins with, and City goddess standing l. with cornu- NEVKORVN without (S-G 457), the title ‘neokoros’: copia and small eight-column temple held over altar. a) S-G 474 (2 exx.). COIN TYPE 7. Obv: [AU] K L %EPTI %EUH- Laureate head of Severus, r. Rev: Though intermittent excavations have been un- [RO%] %EBH- Prize dertaken around Perinthos, no sure sign of a temple REIA PRVTA PERINYIVN NEVK[ORVN] crown with palm and trumpet on agonistic table. that could have made the city neokoros has yet been a) BMC 32 (S-G 476). found.8 Large-size coins with reverse type of the temple alone, such as type 4, show a Corinthian octastyle with figural sculpture in the pediment; smaller coins give more summary representations. Second Neokoria?: Sons of Septimius Severus COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% Later in his reign, probably around autumn 209, a Laureate head (draped cuirassed bust, P(E, ) Severus made his younger son, Geta, Augustus; his cegi) of Severus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN NEVKORVN elder son Caracalla had been Augustus since 197.10 beh Eight-column Corinthian (NEOKORVN, ) It was around the time that Geta’s status was raised temple, disc (figures, f) in pediment, on three-step that Perinthos began to show two temples instead

7 Ziegler 1978. 8 Sayar 1998, 53-55; for an inscription of a building dedi- 9 Schönert-(Geiss) 1965, 46; followed by Leschhorn 1998, cated to Hadrian and Sabina and containing multiple cult 410-412; Karl 1975, 108-109, 127. statues, 219-220 no. 37. 10 Kienast 1996, 162-167; Birley 1988, 186-187. 238 part i – section ix. koinon of thrace of the previous single temple on its coins.11 In ad- vals, float above them, and one is qualified as Aktia, dition, the legends proclaim a new festival, the the other Pythia. Philadelpheia or festival of brotherly love, named in COIN TYPE 12. Obv: honor of the supposed concord between Caracalla AU K L %EP %EUHRO% Laureate (draped, a) cuirassed bust of Seve- and Geta, who are shown joining hands: P rus, r. Rev: FILADELFEIA PERINYIVN NEVKO- COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU(T, abde) K(RA, abe; KAI RV(N, abcd); AKTIA; PUYIA Two four- d) P %EP GETA% %EB Radiate draped column temples on podia, turned toward one an- bust of Geta as Augustus, r. Rev: FILADEL- other, above each a prize crown with palm. a) FEIA PERINYIVN NEVKORVN The two young Boston 63.1241 b) Paris 1132 c) Paris 1133 d) New emperors, togate, join r. hands. a) BMC York, Newell (illus. pl. 36 fig. 185) e) Berlin, 49 b) BMC 50 c) Paris 1179 d) Paris 1180 e) Löbbecke (S-G 518, 519). Paris 1181 (S-G 640, 641). COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EOUHR The city goddess who earlier held one temple now ANTVNINO% AUG Laureate (draped, fj) cuirassed holds two: bust of Caracalla r. (with spear, abcdefghi) Rev: COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P PERINYIVN NEVKORVN; AKTIA; PUYIA (LKTI Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus, r. Rev: MUYIL, sic m) Two eight-column (six-column, g) FILADELFEIA PERINYIVN NEVKORVN; temples on podia, turned toward one another, AKTIA; PUYIA City goddess with two temples above each a prize crown with palm. a) BMC 42 (one in l. on top of cornucopia, cd)12 a) Berlin, b) BMC 43 c) Paris 1165 d) Paris 1166 e) Paris Rauch b) Berlin, Imhoof c) Paris 1131 d) 1167 f) Paris 1168 g) New York 47.56 h) Berlin, Munich (S-G 516, 517). Pfau i) Berlin 455/1915 j) Berlin, Fox k) Berlin, Löbbecke l) Vienna 8919 m) SNGCop 746 n) COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EOUH(R, SNGMil 538 (S-G 599-601, 614-618). abcdfg; %EUHR, e) ANTVNINO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of Caracalla, r. Rev: PERINYIVN COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT P %EP GETA% % NEVKORVN City goddess with two six-column Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Geta, r. Rev: temples, altar to l.13 a) BMC 41 (illus. pl. 36 fig. FILADELFEIA PERINYIVN NEVKORVN; 183) b) Paris 1160 c) Paris 1161 d) Paris 1162 e) AKTIA; PUYIA Two four-column temples on high Paris 1163 f) Berlin, Imhoof g) Vienna 8910 h) podia, turned toward one another, above each a Oxford (S-G 594-598). prize crown. a) Paris 1189 (S-G 668). COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT KRA P %EP GETA% The celebration appears to have been composed of %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Geta, r., two (perhaps pre-existing) contests: the Aktia, mod- bearded. Rev: PERINYIVN NEOKORVN City eled on the festival that Augustus fostered to com- goddess with cornucopia and one small eight- memorate his victory at Actium; and the Pythia, on column temple, a second in field r.14 a) Munich; the pattern of the festival at Apollo’s sanctuary in scratches over the second temple (illus. pl. 36 fig. Delphi.15 The Severeia that was celebrated earlier in 184) (S-G 653). Perinthos may be represented here simply by its generic name, Aktia, whereas the Pythia, which is The two temples are portrayed on coins as being exactly alike. Prize crowns, symbolizing their festi- mentioned more often, is probably the new festival Philadelpheia; in one case (S-G 505) a type of a single prize crown is labeled Philadelpheia Pythia. Of all these agonistic and double-temple coin types, only one or 11 For a misattribution of neokoria to another city in Thrace, Augusta Traiana, at just this time, see Gerasimov 1966; cor- two can be securely dated before 209 or 210, when rected by Schönert-Geiss 1991, 43 n. 6, 132 no. 495. One Geta still had the title Caesar; for example: example of the coin in question was damaged, and resembled an emperor handing a temple to a city goddess; other examples from the same reverse die make it clear that they merely join right hands. 12 Pick 1904, 8 nos. 4.1, 4.2. 13 Ibid., 9 no. 4.4. 15 Moretti 1953, no. 75, dated to second half of the second 14 Ibid., 8 no. 4.3. century C.E.; also IGRR 1:802, 4:161. chapter 29 – perinthos 239

COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AU(T, cd) K M AU second temple became his alone. The (ironic) festi- ANTVNEINO% KAI P %EP GETA% KAI(%AR, abe) val name Philadelpheia of course disappeared from the Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. and coins after Geta’s death. It should be noted, how- draped cuirassed bust of Geta Caesar l. Rev: ever, that throughout this period Perinthos’ coins FILADELFEIA PERINYIVN NEVKORVN; only call the city neokoros, without enumerating how AKTIA; PUYIA Two prize crowns and palm on many times it held the honor. This is probably an agonistic table, five apples and an amphora because it had no rivals in the province, no other beneath. a) Boston 62.367 b) BMC 46 c) Paris neokoroi, so there was no need to specify.18 As we 1176 d) Paris 1177 e) Berlin, Löbbecke (S-G 627- shall see, when a rival arose, Perinthos immediately 630). began to claim its honors in full. In spring 219 Caracalla’s putative son, the new The majority of types fall after he became Augustus, emperor Elagabalus, set out from Nikomedia for thus the series probably began a little before Sep- Rome. The sources affirm that he traveled via tember/October 209 (or possibly autumn 210).16 It Thrace, and directly on his route lay Perinthos.19 is notable that inscriptions (nos. 1-4 and possibly 5 The city commemorated his passage with coins that below) that name Perinthos neokoros probably all show him radiate-crowned, at sacrifice, among date previous to this; there is no document besides military standards, or in a triumphal chariot, and the coins that securely dates between 209 and 249 all name Perinthos twice neokoros. An issue for his (the latter date for inscription 6, below). first wife Julia Paula (whose short-lived marriage may As the new festival was for Caracalla and Geta, have been confined to the year 220)20 confirms the whom their father intended to share the Empire, early date by which Perinthos began to use the full presumably they shared the temple at Perinthos also. enumeration: It was a significant honor for a city to become neokoros not just for Septimius Severus but for his COIN TYPE 16. Obv: IOUL KORNH PAULA sons, all within a period of just over a decade, and %EB AUT KAI%AR ANTVNEINO% AUG Draped it shows that Perinthos’ ties to the Severan dynasty bust of Julia Paula r. and laureate draped bust of were particularly close. The only other city that may Elagabalus l. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% NEVKORVN have been made twice neokoros in this way was Julia and togate Elagabalus join right hands.21 a) Anazarbos in Cilicia (q.v.). Paris 1201 (illus. pl. 36 fig. 186) b) Paris 1202 One may wonder about the reason for such an There are also types of the two temples, either alone enhancement so soon after the original honor, how- or held by the city goddess as neokoros. But similar ever. As early as 202, on his way back from his types showing two temples had already been minted eastern campaigns, Severus began to abate his en- at Perinthos since the last years of Septimius Severus’ mity towards the cities that had supported Niger reign. The new types echo the old, even down to almost a decade before. He and his family visited the mention of Aktia and Pythia (formerly with Nikaia (q.v.) at that time, and even Byzantion was Philadelpheia) contests. restored to its civic status.17 The latter city then received permission to take the imperial name COIN TYPE 17. Obv: AUT K M AURH Antonina, implying that Caracalla was the one who ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of interceded for his father’s forgiveness: in the Historia Elagabalus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% NEVKORVN; Augusta, Caracalla 1, he often took that role. But AKTIA; PUYIA Two eight-column temples turned Byzantion’s restoration removed it from the grasp toward one another, above each a prize crown of Perinthos. It may have been to make up for this with palm. a) S-G 714 (1 ex.). that Perinthos was so soon given yet another impe- COIN TYPE 18. Obv: rial temple, this time for the sons of the emperor who AUT K M AURHLI granted the first one. ANTVNEINO% %E Laureate draped cuirassed bust Adjustments were undoubtedly made after Sep- of Elagabalus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% timius Severus’ death: Caracalla soon eliminated his brother ruler, and no doubt the cult in Perinthos’ 18 Though this was doubted by Ziegler 1993b, 113. 19 Cassius Dio 79.3.2; Halfmann 1986a, 230-231. 20 Kienast 1996, 173-174. 16 Kienast 1996, 166-167; also see Birley 1988, 218. 21 It should be noted that this type did not appear in the 17 Birley 1988, 142-143; Halfmann 1986a, 218, 221. corpus of Schönert-(Geiss) 1965. 240 part i – section ix. koinon of thrace

NEVKORVN Two temples turned toward one that other cities, including Nikomedia, Philippopo- another. a) SNGMil 540 (S-G 684, 685). lis, Beroia, Ephesos, Miletos, Sardis, Hierapolis, and perhaps Tripolis, would all lose their neokoriai for COIN TYPE 19. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV- Elagabalus with no opportunity for rededication. Of Laureate cuirassed bust of Elagabalus NINO% AUG those, only Beroia would regain its second neoko- l. with aegis. Rev: PERINYI[VN DI%] NEVKORVN ria as early as 240, under Gordian III; Nikomedia, City goddess with one small temple, a second on Ephesos, and Sardis would not regain their titles until top of her cornucopia.22 a) Paris 1191 (illus. pl. the reign of Valerian. Why would Perinthos alone 36 fig. 187). have received the privilege of such repetitive reded- COIN TYPE 20. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EUH ications when all these other cities did not? ANTVNEINO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of Robert suggested an alternate theory: that the loss Elagabalus r. with aegis. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% of the second neokoria caused Perinthos such em- NEVKORVN Seated city goddess with two barrassment that it ceased to issue any coinage temples.23 a) Vienna 8929 (S-G 719). whatever until the title was restored.26 It is true that no Perinthian coin is known for the reign of Severus The extraordinary circumstance is that Perinthos’ Alexander’s successor Maximinus. Yet this could title ‘twice neokoros,’ which first appeared under have been due to a number of factors, the most likely Elagabalus, outlasted the condemnation of that a short lapse between mintings. Robert’s theory also emperor’s memory. All the cities that became does not account for the fact that of all the cities neokoroi for the cult of Elagabalus would lose that whose number of neokoriai increased under honor under his successor, Severus Alexander, and Elagabalus, only Perinthos used martial coin types probably at a time before Alexander went East to of Severus Alexander with that number still undi- war (see ‘Historical Analysis,’ chapter 38). Perinthos, minished. This should indicate that Perinthos was however, remains twice neokoros on all known coins still twice neokoros in the 230s, and that its second of Severus Alexander, a particularly extensive series neokoria, though datable to Elagabalus’ reign, was which includes types that show the emperor on not due to that emperor’s cult. horseback, crowned by Victory, and sailing on a It seems more likely that, though the second galley with Egyptian gods, probably referring to neokoria appeared under Elagabalus, it was not for those eastern campaigns of 231-233.24 The persis- a cult of Elagabalus, and that the similarity of the tence of a neokoria of Elagabalus for ten years af- new double-temple, twice-neokoros issues to the ter that emperor’s murder and the condemnation of old double-temple, single-neokoros issues under his memory seems inexplicable. Indeed, the title Septimius Severus was not an accident. Even the would persist on subsequent coinage even after Aktia and Pythia remained; they would continue Severus Alexander’s own death. under Severus Alexander, Gordian III, and down Schönert-Geiss, in her exhaustive study of the to the end of Perinthian coinage at the time of coinage of Perinthos, explained this persistence by Gallienus: positing an unlikely sequence of events: that twice neokoros Perinthos’ temple to Elagabalus was reded- COIN TYPE 21. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EU icated upon his death to Severus Alexander, and that AL[EJAN]DRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust upon his death it was again rededicated, this time of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% to Gordian III.25 This hypothesis overlooks the fact NEVKORVN Two six-column temples turned to- ward each other. a) Paris 121627 (illus. pl. 36 fig. 188).

22 Pick 1904, 9 no. 4.5. Again, this type did not appear in COIN TYPE 22. Obv: AU K M AUR %EU the corpus of Schönert-(Geiss) 1965. ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of 23 Pick 1904, 9 no. 4.6. Severus Alexander, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% 24 S-G 740, 782, 786, 787, 790; Halfmann 1986a, 231-232; the possibility of an Egyptian visit is bourne out by the Perinthian coin type. 25 Schönert-Geiss 1965, 22, 46; the first accepted by Sayar 26 L. Robert 1976, 53 n. 28. 1998, 76, 81, but without mention of the condemnation of 27 This type did not appear in the corpus of Schönert-(Geiss) Severus Alexander. 1965. chapter 29 – perinthos 241

NEVKORVN Eight-column temple in three-quar- resoundingly over its nearby rival, Byzantion. It had ter view. a) SNGFitzw 1757 (S-G 756) one, and then another provincial temple to the emperors at a time when no other city in its prov- COIN TYPE 23. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EU ince was neokoros, much less twice neokoros. All this Laureate cuirassed bust of ALEJANDRO% AUG changed, however, when Elagabalus rode through Severus Alexander r. with aegis. Rev: PERIN- Thrace and made that province’s nominal, though YIVN IVNVN B NEVKORVN; AKTIA; PUYIA overshadowed, metropolis Philippopolis (q.v.) neoko- City goddess with one small temple, another on ros. It is no accident that at the very time Philip- top of her cornucopia; to either side a prize crown, popolis began to advertise its new neokoria, on coins one with a purse, the other with five apples on of Elagabalus and of Julia Paula, Perinthos suddenly top.28 a) Oxford b) Paris 1228 c) Vienna 8943 started to give itself the full title of twice neokoros. (S-G 784). Previously there had been no need for Perinthos to COIN TYPE 24. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% AUG specify its full titulature, but now there was. As in Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian other koina, the situation in Thrace can be explained III, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% NEVKORVN Two only by considering intercity rivalry as one of eight-column temples turned toward each other. the most powerful explanatory factors behind neoko- a) Vienna 8948 (S-G 824). ria. Perinthos’ number of neokoriai would never di- COIN TYPE 24. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% AUG minish, down to the end of its history. Inscription Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III, 7, dated to 274-275, still names Perinthos “the most r. Rev: PERINYIVN IVNVN B NEVKORVN; illustrious twice neokoros.” AKTIA; PUYIA City goddess with two small temples; to either side a prize crown, one with a purse, the other with seven apples on top.29 a) INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Paris 1255 b) Berlin 869/1900 c) SNGFitzw 1758 d) SNGMil 546 (S-G 861). Neokoros: COIN TYPE 26. Obv: AUT GALLHNO% %EBA% 1. Sayar 1998, no. 56 (Dumont 1876, 149-150 no. Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus, r. 72c; IGRR 1:787). From copy of Cyriacus of Anco- Rev: PERINYIVN DI% NEVKORVN Two six-col- na. Vow for the health of Septimius Severus and his umn temples turned toward one another. a) Lon- family, including Caracalla Caesar, thus dated from don 1905.10-14-2 (S-G 909). (at earliest) mid-195 to autumn 197.30 2. Sayar 1998, no. 40 (Taâliklioglu 1953, 483-487; The evidence of the coins indicates that the sec- SEG 14:482) from Bisanthe. Milestone with ond neokoria had already been granted late in the Septimius Severus as Parthicus Maximus (after Janu- reign of Septimius Severus for the joint cult of ary 198) and Geta as Caesar (before autumn 209 or Caracalla and Geta, and after Geta’s death for 210).31 Caracalla alone. The question is, why didn’t Per- 3. Sayar 1998, no. 10 (CIG 2022; Dumont 1876, 155 inthos claim to be ‘twice neokoros’ at that time? no. 74c; IGRR 1:786). Statue base of Septimius Unfortunately Perinthos so far lacks inscriptions that Severus as Parthicus Maximus but not yet date securely to the period in question, from slight- Britannicus Maximus, thus 198-210.32 ly before autumn 209 to 218 C.E., which could 4. Sayar 1998, no. 11. Fragment of a dedication amplify the evidence of the coins. Cities in Asia like mentioning Julia Sebaste, probably Julia Domna, and Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna were certainly if so dated between 193-217 C.E. giving their full enumeration of neokoriai on coins 5. Sayar 1998, no. 307 (Seure 1912, 321-322 no. 20). and inscriptions. But the key must lie in the situa- From Sariköy. Statue base of Caracalla Augustus, tion within the province of Thrace, not in Asia. thus after autumn 197 to his death in 217. Though From the outset of the Severan dynasty, Perinthos Sayar dated it to his sole reign, the titulature is not had been the premier city of Thrace. It triumphed

30 Kienast 1996, 162-165. 28 Pick 1904, 9 no. 4.7. 31 Ibid., 158, 166. 29 Ibid., 9 no. 4.8. 32 Ibid., 158. 242 part i – section ix. koinon of thrace so exclusive, and it is also possible that the statue Septimius Severus: BMC 31; SNGMil 534; Berlin (10 exx.), was part of a group set up during his father’s or Boston, London, New York (2 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), brother’s lifetime.33 Vienna (2 exx.) (S-G 494-504, 516-527). Caracalla Augustus: BMC 42, 43; SNGCop 746, 747; Twice neokoros: SNGMil 538; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (11 exx.), 6. Sayar 1998, no. 12 (Le Bas-Waddington 1664; Vienna (3 exx.) (S-G 577-581, 586, 588, 595-601, CIG 2023; Dumont 1876, 155 no. 74d; IGRR 1:788). 614-618). Statue base of Trajan Decius. Caracalla Augustus and Geta Caesar: BMC 46; Berlin, 7. Sayar 1998, no. 13 (Kalinka 1926, 133 no. 29). Boston, Paris (2 exx.). (S-G 627-630). Geta Augustus: BMC 49, 51, 52; SNGCop 751; Berlin (5 Statue base of Ulpia Severina, wife of Aurelian, as exx.), Boston, Munich (2 exx.) Paris (6 exx.), Vienna 34 Augusta, thus 274-275. Aurelian’s martial activi- (2 exx.) (S-G 639-641, 646-650, 653, 661-668). ties meant that he was frequently in the area of Twice neokoros: Perinthos and Byzantion; he was in fact killed on Elagabalus: BMC 53-57; SNGCop 753; SNGRighetti 301; the road between the two in 275.35 SNGMil 539, 540; Berlin (8 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Paris (12 exx.), Vienna (8 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.) (S-G 669-726). Elagabalus and Julia Paula: Paris (2 exx.). COINS CITING NEOKORIA:36 Julia Paula: London, New York, Oxford, Paris (S-G 727). Julia Maesa: London, New York, Oxford, Paris (S-G 728- Neokoros (types that record one neokoria but show 732). two temples, two prize crowns, or the Philadelpheia Severus Alexander: BMC 58-61; SNGCop 754-756; are separately indicated below): SNGFitzw 1757; SNGMil 541; Berlin (17 exx.), Bos- Septimius Severus: BMC 27, 29, 30, 32, 33; SNGCop 740- ton (4 exx.), London, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (25 exx.), 742; SNGRighetti 297; SNGMil 533; Berlin (8 exx.), Vienna (9 exx.), Warsaw (S-G 733-790). London (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Julia Mamaea: SNGCop 757; Berlin, London, New York, Paris (9 exx.), Vienna (8 exx.) (S-G 459-493, 505- Paris (S-G 791-797). 515). Gordian III: BMC 1, 62-71, 62a; SNGCop 758-761; Julia Domna: BMC 34-36; Berlin, Paris (4 exx.), Warsaw SNGFitzw 1758; SNGMil 542-546; Berlin (15 exx.), (S-G 530-545). Boston (2 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Caracalla Caesar: BMC 37; New York (2 exx.), Paris, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (26 exx.), Vienna (17 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.) (S-G 546-552). Warsaw (4 exx.) (S-G 798-862).37 Caracalla Augustus: BMC 38-41, 44; SNGCop 748, 750; Tranquillina: BMC 72-74; SNGCop 762, 763; SNGMil 547, SNGFitzw 1753, 1754; SNGRighetti 299, 300; SNGMil 548; Berlin (4 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Paris 536, 537; Berlin ( 6 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York (7 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw (S-G 863-895). (6 exx.), Paris (24 exx.), Vienna (8 exx.) (S-G 553- Gallienus: BMC 75; SNGFitzw 1759; Berlin, Boston, 576, 582-585, 587, 589-594, 602-613, 619-626). London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Geta Caesar: SNGFitzw 1755, 1756; SNGMil 535; Berlin Vienna (S-G 896-903, 905-913). (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (3 exx.) (S-G 631, 633-638). Non-imperial obverse: BMC 10-12; SNGCop 730, 731; Geta Augustus: BMC 47, 48; SNGCop 752; Berlin (2 exx.), Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.) (S-G 207-221, dated Boston, Paris, Vienna (S-G 642-645, 651-652, 654- to time of Severus Alexander). 660). Non-imperial obverse: Berlin, Paris (2 exx.) (S-G 203- 206). Neokoros with types for second neokoria (two 37 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 172-174 nos. 1718-1725, list temples, two prize crowns, Philadelpheia): issues of Perinthos twice neokoros under Gordian III celebrat- ing concord with the following cities: Ephesos, Kyzikos, Nikomedia, and Smyrna; see S-G 914-917. Weiss 1998, 64- 33 Mastino 1981, 86-87. 65, saw Perinthos as celebrating its connection with other 34 Kienast 1996, 233. neokoroi, but its minting for Nikomedia may also recall the 35 Sayar 1998, 119-123; Halfmann 1986a, 239-240. closer connection between the two when both stood for Septimius 36 The basic reference for all Perinthian coins is Schönert- Severus, against Byzantion and Nikaia (q.v.) for Pescennius Geiss 1965 (= S-G with coin numbers). Niger; the latter two also minted concord coins for each other. chapter 30 – philippopolis 243

Chapter 30. Philippopolis: Koinon of Thrace

First Neokoria: Elagabalus rinthian and as octastyle at most, identified by the figure of the god within: On the emperor Elagabalus’ route from Emesa in COIN TYPE 2. Obv: Syria across Thrace and Moesia to Rome lay the AUT K M AUR ANTV- Laureate draped bust of Elagabalus, l. city of Philippopolis.1 Though it was the center of NEINO% with spear and shield. Rev: the koinon of Thrace, it had apparently not yet MHTROPOLEV% Six-column become neokoros.2 Perinthos, seat of the Roman FILIPPOPOLEV% NEVKOROU temple, shield with spear diagonally behind it in governor and strategically situated on the Propontis, the pediment; Apollo with bow and laurel stand- had overshadowed it.3 But a previous imperial trav- ing within. a) Vienna 32498 (illus. pl. 37 fig. 190). eler on this route, Septimius Severus, had likely given it the title of metropolis, and Elagabalus’ passage Thus Elagabalus and Philippopolis’ patron god prob- offered a similar opportunity for the city to request ably shared cult in Philippopolis’ chief temple, just an honor.4 Coins issued in the name of Julia Paula as they did in Nikomedia (q.v.). On one coin type confirm that Philippopolis was neokoros by 220.5 Elagabalus himself is shown sacrificing to Apollo Coin type 1 symbolizes the new grant: Kendrisos in front of the temple they shared, much as Caracalla sacrificed to his cult partner Asklepios COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT K M AURHL ANTV- on coins of Pergamon, or Severus Alexander to Laureate draped cuirassed bust of NEINO% %EB Asklepios at Aigeai (qq.v.).9 Elagabalus, l. Rev: MHTROPOLEV% FILIPPO- The table, prize crown, and apples on these coins Apollo and the laureate, POLEV% NEVKOROU represent the festival Kendreiseia Pythia, first mentioned togate emperor hold an eight-column temple, in on this series: three-quarter view, between them; below it, a prize crown with five apples on a table.6 a) Ber- COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K M AURHL ANTV- lin, Dressel (illus. pl. 36 fig. 189). NEINO% %EB Laureate (radiate, b) cuirassed bust of Elagabalus, r. with aegis. Rev: Elagabalus stands opposite Apollo Kendrisos, patron KENDREI%EIA Eight-col- god of Philippopolis.7 Together they hold a temple PUYIA EN FILIPPOPOLI NEVKORV umn Corinthian temple, shield with spear diago- over an agonistic table and its prize crown. In the nally behind it in pediment. a) Vienna 9047 (illus. temple’s pediment is a shield with a spear diagonally pl. 37 fig. 191) b) Berlin, Löbbecke. behind it, the symbol of this Greco-Thracian Apol- lo.8 The temple also appears independently, as Co- COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT K M AURHL(IO%, e) ANTVNEINO% %EB Radiate cuirassed bust of Elagabalus, r. Rev: KENDREI%EIA PUYIA EN 1 Halfmann 1986a, 230-231. FILIPPOPOLI NEVKORV Eight-column (Corin- 2 Danov 1979, 245-267; Deininger 1965, 96-98. Another thian, f) temple in three-quarter view, disc in city in Thrace, Augusta Traiana, was misidentified as being neokoros for Geta after 209 by Gerasimov 1966; corrected by pediment. a) SNGRighetti 307 b) London 1905.10- Schönert-Geiss 1991, 43 n. 6, 132 no. 495. See chapter 29, 14-8 c) Paris 1352 d) Berlin, Löbbecke e) Berlin ‘Perinthos,’ n. 11. 851/1900 f) Berlin 57/1874 g) New York, Newell. 3 Haensch 1997, 329-332; Velkov 1980. 4 Halfmann 1986a, 216-223. 5 Kienast 1996, 173-174. 6 Pick 1904, 11 nos. 7.2, 7.3, the latter with no table, only the prize crown below. 9 Kolev 1991, 513 no. 2. Only the reverse of the coin was 7 Kolev 1991. illustrated, so the attribution to Elagabalus, though likely, cannot 8 Szubert 1978, 42-45. be confirmed. 244 part i – section ix. koinon of thrace

The emperor’s name does not appear, so perhaps he must have served as imperial legatus to Thrace the festival was associated with the god only.10 A no later than 232 C.E.15 Pythian festival had been celebrated at Philippopolis before Elagabalus, and Pythia and Kentreseia (sic) continued well into the mid-third century.11 That Withdrawn: Severus Alexander Philippopolis was neokoros for the emperor and not for the god, however, will be shown by the title’s No subsequent inscription calls Philippopolis disappearance shortly after Elagabalus’ death. neokoros, and it is likely that, like many other cit- The hilltop sanctuary of Apollo Kendrisos has been ies, Philippopolis lost the title due to the condem- identified as Dzendemtepe in the modern Bulgar- nation of Elagabalus’ memory in the early years of ian city of Plovdiv; some votives and rooftiles have Severus Alexander’s reign.16 Though ultimately an been found, but a Christian basilica took the temple’s argument from silence, it is the one alternative that presumed place on the summit.12 A coin of Caracalla explains Philippopolis’ frequent proclamation of the shows a panoramic view of the temple and its ac- title for only that particular decade, but never be- companying temenos, with altar, statues, and per- fore and never after, and also jibes with the evidence haps a propylon, atop the wooded hill.13 As noted of rivalry from Perinthos (q.v.). Coins of the larger above, large-module coin types show the temple as city may have subsumed two neokoriai under the Corinthian, at least eight-column, with the shield- simple title ‘neokoros’ until Elagabalus gave and-spear motif in the pediment; smaller types are Philippopolis the title; after that, Perinthos’ title was more summary: always ‘twice neokoros,’ even after Philippopolis’ neokoria was lost. COIN TYPE 5. Obv: IOUL KORN PAULA %EB The events at Philippopolis show a noteworthy Diademed draped bust of Julia Paula, r. Rev: aspect of Roman administration. Though Thrace MHTROPOLEV% FILIPPOPOLEV% NEVKOROU had been a Roman province since 45/46 C.E., with Eight-column temple, disc in pediment. a) BMC a koinon documented since the time of Antoninus 52 b) Paris 1355 (illus. pl. 37 fig. 192). Pius, the metropolis of that koinon may not have The city goddess herself is also shown at this time become neokoros until 219 C.E. Even then, if Ela- holding the small temple, personifying the city as gabalus had chosen a more roundabout route to neokoros.14 Rome, it is possible that Philippopolis never would The later fortunes of neokoros Philippopolis are have become neokoros. In that case Perinthos, the hard to relate, as the city stopped minting coins soon seat of the Roman governor, would have remained after these issues. Four inscriptions refer to the city the only neokoros in the province. Contrast the as neokoros; all date to the reign of Elagabalus’ province Macedonia: it too separated the functions cousin and successor Severus Alexander, but with of metropolis of the koinon (Beroia) from those of Alexander’s name erased due to the condemnation the center of Roman government (Thessalonike). But of his memory after his death in 235. Inscriptions Beroia not only became neokoros first, it claimed 1-3 are all milestones set up when Rutilius Pudens exclusivity for that title from the time of Nerva up Crispinus was governing the province; no. 1 is the to Gordian III. Was there a difference in this prac- most complete, but all give the same formula: tice between the koina of provinces whose governors were chosen by the emperor (Thrace, its center INSCRIPTION 1. IGBR 3.1.1373 (= IGRR neokoros only late) and proconsular ones (Mace- 1:719). { } ¤ lamprotãth t w Yrak«n §parxe aw donia, its center neokoros early)? Yet Perge (q.v.) in mhtrÒpoliw FilippÒpoliw nevkÒrow... the imperial province of Pamphylia had been As Rutilius later accompanied Severus Alexander on neokoros ‘from Vespasian.’ his eastern campaign and was with him at Palmyra, The point is that the situation varies from prov- ince to province and koinon to koinon. The posi-

10 Karl 1975, 75. 11 Leschhorn 1998, 412-413; Vagalinski 1994. 12 Frova 1976; Tsontchev 1938, 25-28, 147-148. 15 IGRR 3:1033; Thomasson 1984, 172 no. 51; Barbieri 1952, 13 Kolev 1991, 513 no. 1. 227-228 no. 1147. 14 Pick 1904, 10 no. 7.1. 16 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417. chapter 30 – philippopolis 245 tion and title of neokoros was not conferred from carrying off the wealth, and many of the citizens, above, but had to be requested from below. It was of Philippopolis. not automatically accorded to Philippopolis simply because it was the metropolis of its koinon. Indeed, the temple for which Philippopolis finally became INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: neokoros was not even a temple to the imperial cult, but that of the city’s chief god. This makes it pos- Neokoros: sible that despite the presence of Thracarchs and 1. Mihailov 1956-1961 (= IGBR) 3.1.1373 (= IGRR koinon festivals, Philippopolis had no provincial 1:719). Milestone from Tugugerum, twelve miles imperial temple as such even up to the third cen- from Philippopolis, erected before 232, under tury; such temples were not handed out automati- Severus Alexander. See text above. Similar to nos. cally to furnish every new koinon. 2 and 3. Jordanes stated that Philippopolis was founded by 2. IGBR 3.1.897 (= IGRR 1:1471). Milestone simi- the emperor Philip, but he plainly confused the lar to nos. 1 and 3. Thracian city with the one of the same name in 3. IGBR 3.1.898 (= IGRR 1:1472). Milestone simi- Arabia, that emperor’s place of origin.17 Though lar to nos. 1 and 2. Kolendo proposed that the city in Thrace was re- 4. Botusarova 1972, 161-164 no. 2. Dedication to founded at that time instead, it would not need Severus Alexander by a Thracarch. rebuilding until a few years later, under Trajan Decius, when Gothic armies invaded Thrace and besieged Philippopolis.18 Priscus, governor of Mace- COINS CITING NEOKORIA: donia and imperial legate to Thrace, was trapped in the city and had to declare himself emperor and Neokoros: make a pact with the invaders.19 Despite that, the Elagabalus: BMC 43, 44, 46-51, 47a, 55 and Lydia vol- Goths destroyed Philippopolis and killed Trajan ume, Philadelphia 92 (misattributed); SNGCop 784, 786; SNGRighetti 306, 307; SNGMil 569, 570 (both Decius in battle at Abrittus. The new emperor misidentified as Caracalla), 573, 574; Berlin (25 exx.), Trebonianus Gallus then allowed them to withdraw, London (7 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (19 exx.), Plovdiv (4 exx.),20 Vienna (9 exx.). Julia Paula: BMC 52; Berlin, Paris, Vienna. 17 Kolendo 1992. 18 Zosimus 1.24.2; Ammianus Marcellinus 31.5.17; Bleckmann 1992, 161-162, 165-167, 174. 19 Aurelius Victor 29.2; Polemius Sylvius 39-40; Dexippus fr. 18; PIR2 I 489 (T. Julius Priscus); Kienast 1996, 208; Potter 20 Zaprjanov and Kolev 1971, 278-279 nos. 1.5, 1.6, 3.9, 1990, 280-281. 4.11. 246 part i – section x. koinon of cappadocia

SECTION X. KOINON OF CAPPADOCIA

Chapter 31. Kaisareia: Koinon of Cappadocia

Set in the heart of a rough and little-urbanized Greek legends and the name of the city on the re- province, Kaisareia, under its former names Mazaka verse, so Kaisareia is the only city yet known to have and Eusebeia, had been the capital of the kings of issued coins with the title ‘neokoros’ in (alloyed) silver Cappadocia. In 17 C.E. its last king, Archelaos II, as well as bronze.7 This fact is not relevant to the who had been called to Rome to stand trial before current study, however, and the metals of the coins the Senate, died, and his realm became a Roman will not be distinguished here, especially since in- province.1 Kaisareia may have continued to func- creased alloying during this period, coupled with tion as the seat of government for the province and conditions of the coins’ production and decay, makes as the koinon center also, though little is known of accurate distinction between the metals by sight the latter beyond the existence of a Cappadocarch alone difficult. at its head and a Koina festival as early as 25 C.E.2 COIN TYPE 1. Obv: Kaisareia’s bronze coins claim the title metropolis AU K L %EP %EOUHRO Laureate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev: during the reign of Commodus and thereafter.3 the latter From the time of the province’s absorption un- MHTROP KAI%ARI; ET ID; NEVKOROU in central intercolumniation of two-column der Tiberius, Kaisareia served as an official Roman Corinthian temple, star in pediment (year 14 = mint for the eastern provinces.4 As such it issued 205/206 C.E.). a) Berlin 709/1914 (illus. pl. 37 silver coins of a distinctly Roman style, early on with fig. 193). Latin legends, though later with Greek, and often dated by the emperor’s regnal year. Its high points The earliest coins of Septimius Severus that show of production can be associated with heightened the title ‘neokoros,’ like type 1, date to the fourteenth activities on the eastern front, especially the Parthian year of his rule, or from the end of 205 to the end conflicts.5 The city also issued its own municipal of 206 C.E.8 Sydenham’s monograph on coins of coinage in bronze with Greek legends, but this was Kaisareia may seem to contradict this fact, as it cites only intended for local circulation. coins of Julia Domna and Caracalla that include the title and dates them to the second and fourth year of Severus’ reign, or as early as 193/194.9 The First Neokoria: Septimius Severus source of confusion becomes clear when it is noted that Sydenham’s type 480 (BMC 271), dated to 193/ Kaisareia first appears as neokoros on coins of 194, gives Caracalla the title Augustus, which he did Septimius Severus and his family.6 By this time both not receive until autumn 197 at the earliest.10 In fact, silver and bronze coinages were being issued with Sydenham assumed that all regnal dates on these coins had to be Septimius Severus’, with the result that he dated no coins of either Caracalla or Julia 1 Tacitus, Annals 2.42; Cassius Dio 57.17. S. Mitchell 1993, 1:63, 97-98; Remy 1986, 30-33. 2 Haensch 1997, 272-276; Deininger 1965, 82; Moretti 1953, 7 Butcher and Ponting 1997; Metcalf 1997. The separa- 164 no. 62. tion of silver and bronze minting in earlier phases, noted by 3 Sydenham rev. Malloy 1978 (= S/M with coin numbers) Metcalf 1996, 149-151, would not necessarily apply to this later 145 nos. 345a and 346a, attributed to Marcus Aurelius, are period, but the question needs to be investigated. reported from old sources and should be reexamined. 8 Metcalf 1997, 177-178. 4 Sydenham rev. Malloy 1978, 2-16, 139-140. 9 S/M 457, 480; also note Malloy’s misassignment of no. 5 Kunisz 1986; Bar 1985. 396a, a coin of year 16, to year 12. 6 S. Price 1984b, 269. 10 Kienast 1996, 162-165. chapter 31 – kaisareia 247

Domna after 213, when Caracalla ruled alone. In celebration of the ‘brotherly love’ of the two men fact these coins were minted in the second and fourth who were supposed to share the empire, the regnal year of Caracalla’s own rule, after his father’s death, clock was reset for Caracalla once he and his brother which would explain his titulature and the maturi- were both Augusti; then, after his brother was killed, ty of his portrait as well as the use of the title ‘neoko- the mint went back to Caracalla’s own regnal dates, ros.’11 as if Geta had never existed, and issued coins at least The problems of Kaisareia’s chronology are not up to Caracalla’s year 20 (217/218), though he died entirely solved by looking at the Cappadocian cal- in the East on April 8, 217, in Kaisareia’s year 19. endar, which probably had its new year on Decem- It may appear that the problems in Kaisareia’s ber 12.12 Severus’ first year, then, only lasted from chronology have thus all been worked out: delays his elevation to Augustus on April 9, 193 to Decem- in recognizing the deaths of emperors, Caracalla’s ber 12 of that year, but there are Kaisareian coins dual regnal years, Julia Domna’s count from the for him in what would have been his twentieth year, reign of her husband and both of her sons. But the and for Julia Domna in the twenty-first, though he following coin type does not fit this pattern: died in the nineteenth.13 Was the delay in commu- COIN TYPE 2. Obv: nications between Britain, where he died, and A K M AURH ANTVNEINO Laureate head of Caracalla r., beardless. Rev: Cappadocia that great? And/or did Kaisareia mint its new issues well in advance of the appropriate KAI%AREVN TVN PRO% TV ARGAIV NEVKOR (year 13 = 210/211? 204/205?) within year? ET IG pearled border.17 a) Paris 600 b) Berlin, Löbbecke There are also coins of Geta’s third year; yet from (illus. pl. 37 fig. 194). his father’s death to his own was less than one year, with the Cappadocian new year’s occurrence shortly If dated by Caracalla’s own regnal years, the beard- before his death giving a count of two years at less portrait on the obverse is far more youthful than most.14 It is likely that there was some overlap be- other, mature portraits from that year; but if cal- tween reign counts, that is, that coins for Julia culated by Septimius Severus’ regnal years, it do- Domna continued to be issued with her husband’s cuments the neokoria a year earlier than any of regnal year even after his death; and that an inde- Severus’ own coins. pendent count for new coins of both Caracalla and In deciding whether coins of Caracalla as Geta harked back to origin points before their Augustus used his father’s regnal year count, it is father’s death. If Geta’s count started in 209, when useful to look at agonistic types: the same year(s) that he was made Augustus, coins of Geta’s year three saw the first use of ‘neokoros’ on Kaisareian coins would date to 211, the year of his death; it was also also were first to prominently feature festivals. Coins the fourteenth year (according to Kaisareia’s count) of the Severan family show Mt. Argaios, the genius, of his co-ruler Caracalla, and some coins of Julia site, and symbol of Kaisareia, between two prize Domna show both dates simultaneously.15 On the crowns, and name contests as Severeios, Philadelphios, other hand, it is plain that some coins of Caracalla koinos of Cappadocia, and ‘sacred.’18 Thus the fes- were dated not from the time he was made Augustus, tival or series of festivals included contests in honor but from the time that his brother was; thus of Severus himself, the supposed fraternal devotion Sydenham’s coin type 480, mentioned above, is between Caracalla and Geta, and the long-standing unlikely to be Caracalla’s year 2 as Augustus (199/ provincial festival of Cappadocia, and it is very likely 200 C.E.) since the obverse of Caracalla is recog- that at least one of these was connected with the nizably his fully mature portrait, and the neokoria grant of neokoria. Like the issues with the title it boasts would then be placed well earlier than it ‘neokoros,’ where dates are clear the agonistic issues appears on any other coins.16 It is likely that as a

11 Metcalf 1997, 174; this is more likely than the hypoth- mentioned coins of Julia Domna that equate Geta’s year 3 with esis of Ziegler 1985, 35 n. 84, who would simply add an un- Caracalla’s 14; it equates Caracalla’s year 1 with Severus’ year seen iota (= 10) to each anomalous coin. seven, which is as much as a year later than Caracalla’s actual 12 Bland 1991, 214-215. elevation; see Kienast 1996, 162-165. 13 Julia Domna, SNGCop 267. 17 S/M 483. 14 Kienast 1996, 156-168. 18 Weiss 1998, 63; Karl 1975, 78, 126, 132. Also note Année 15 Metcalf 1997, 179-181. Epigraphique 1993 no. 1528, which mentions a festival Antonea 16 This is calculated by counting back from the previously Severeia in Cappadocia. 248 part i – section x. koinon of cappadocia with obverses of Septimius Severus are dated to the Though the entablature of the facade is continuous, year 14.19 Issues of Julia Domna, however, appear the pediment appears broken (though at that point for both years 13 and 14,20 and there is an issue of the relief is quite faint) and the two central columns Geta Caesar for year 13.21 Thus when similar issues seem either thinner or farther away than the other for Caracalla, youthful and beardless, are dated to four. the years 13 and 14,22 it seems more likely that the Whether types 1, 3, and 4 represent the same whole family is using Severus’ regnal years and that structure or not, the sudden appearance of temples, the festivals fell during the years 204/205-205/206 imperial and provincial contests of sacred status, and rather than moving Caracalla’s issues alone to cre- the title ‘neokoros’ on Kaisareian coins of 205/206 ate a repeat of the Severeios and Philadelphios in 210/ (possibly even 204/205) raises the question, was this 211-211/212. a new neokoria? The thought of a province like It is plain that for this complicated chronology to Cappadocia going without a provincial temple and be fully understood, all of the Kaisareian coinage, neokoria for so long seemed impossible to Buech- both silver and bronze, needs to be restudied in ner.25 He posited that, like Ankyra (q.v.) in Galatia, terms of metrology, die linkage, and portraiture. Kaisareia had had a provincial imperial cult temple The Corinthian shrine on coin type 1 surely rep- since the foundation of the province, but did not see resents the temple for which Kaisareia was neokoros, fit to publicize it on the coins until many years later. as that title is wedged into its central intercolumnia- It is dangerous to assume conditions in one prov- tion. More elaborate variants of the same temple are ince using evidence from another, however. And shown on types 3 and 4 (the title appears on the there is a counterexample to Ankyra: Philippopolis lowest step of the latter). in Thrace (q.v.), though metropolis of its koinon, COIN TYPE 3. Obv: [...%]EPTI %EOUHRO% apparently only got its first neokoria in the third Laureate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev: MHTR century, and then housed it in its temple of Apollo, [...] KAI%A NEVK Six-column temple with bro- rather than an independent provincial temple to the ken pediment (eagle? within), on tall podium, emperors. Certainly there must have already been staircase at front. a) Private collection, Foss.23 some accommodation for the practice of the provin- cial imperial cult at Kaisareia, but we have no way COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU KAI M AURH ANTV- of knowing what it was. Kaisareia’s temple may have Laureate head of Caracalla r. Rev: NINO% been old or new, and it is possible that the title b (year MHTROP KAI%ARI(A, ); NEVKOR; ET ID ‘neokoros’ was newly granted. This is certainly the 14 = 211/212). Six-column temple on three-step title’s first appearance in Cappadocia, for though podium, eagle in pediment, columns garlanded. Nikopolis in Armenia Minor (q.v.) may have been a) Paris 59124 b) Paris 602 (illus. pl. 37 fig. 195) part of the same province administratively, it was c) London 1974.4-6-1. part of a different koinon.26 Both are hexastyle structures with an eagle shown An inscription from Ankyra documented an ath- in the pediment, but the former (unfortunately a very lete who won at a contest celebrated for Commodus worn example) gives more particular details. Its at Kaisareia; from this, Mitchell hypothesized that temple appears to be set on a high podium and Kaisareia’s neokoria was for Commodus.27 Though approached by a central staircase, much like the this is again just possible, like Buechner’s restora- temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon (q.v.). tion of likely cults to Rome and Augustus, it is in no way necessary. Festivals in Commodus’ name were celebrated in at least six other cities, but only 19 S/M 435a (= SNGvA 6461). SNGvA 6454, dated to year two (Laodikeia and Tarsos) are known to have been 2, shows a beta in high relief after a blank space, so is perhaps recut; its obverse die is the same as that of S/M 436, the date neokoros for that emperor’s cult. Moreover, at of which is worn away; I have not seen a coin in New York, Miletos, the right to celebrate the long-standing Didy- S/M 436.1, also dated to year 2. meia with the name of Commodus added was actu- 20 S/M 458 (year 13), 464a (year 14). 21 S/M 501b (= SNGvA 6491). 22 S/M 491a (=SNGvA 6485), 491-494 (year 13), 495 (year 14). 25 Buechner 1888, 96. 23 My thanks to Clive Foss for showing me this coin. 26 Remy 1986, 30, 53; Deininger 1965, 32, 82 n. 10. 24 M. Price and Trell 1977, fig. 378. 27 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:218, 221. chapter 31 – kaisareia 249 ally requested from the Senate in the lifetime of ever!”34 Embassies to the Senate for confirmation, Marcus Aurelius, and had nothing to do with a administrative details, or even construction of a neokoria for Commodus.28 temple if one did not already exist, could explain the Though there was likely some earlier provincial delay in appearance of the title neokoros, (and fes- imperial cult at Kaisareia, the coincidence of title, tivals possibly allied with it) until 204 or 205, but temple, and Severeia Philadelphia Koina from the year(s) Kaisareia as neokoros is most likely to have begun 204?-206 on indicates that Kaisareia was probably with the interaction between Severus’ presence and neokoros for Septimius Severus, with honors for his interest in the province during his eastern wars, and sons, now designated Augustus and Caesar, included Kaisareia’s reciprocal expressions of loyalty and good within the cult.29 The emperor fought two Parthian feeling. wars, and he and his family spent a good deal of time in the East. Road construction projects that he had instituted in Cappadocia continued after his eastern Second Neokoria: Severus Alexander wars, lasting to 208 and later; he obviously recog- nized the importance of the region.30 Severus is at Kaisareia apparently demonstrated its close ties to least known to have visited Tyana in the southern another Severan, Severus Alexander, even before the part of Cappadocia, probably on his way back to city documented its second neokoria on coins. 31 Rome for his decennalia in 202. A coin type of COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AU K %EOUH ALEJAND Kaisareia that shows three figures (perhaps Severus, Laureate cuirassed (with aegis) bust of Severus Caracalla, and Geta) saluting the god of Mt. Argaios Alexander r. with sceptre. Rev: MHTROPO KAI- on the holy mountain itself may not prove an ac- %ARIA% NEVKOR ET G (year 3 = 223/224 C.E.) tual imperial visit to Kaisareia, but implies honors Togate emperor holding Mt. Argaios and sceptre granted to the city and its deity, perhaps from rides in quadriga. a) BMC 30235 b) Oxford 23.35 nearby.32 c) Berlin, Löbbecke. There was no bond of early alliance between Severus and Kaisareia: as mentioned above, the COIN TYPE 6. Obv: [AU K %]EOUHRO% imperial mint had issued coins for his rival, Pescen- ALEJANDRO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: nius Niger.33 The longer his reign remained unchal- MHTROPOLE (year 7 lenged, however, the more Severus seemed willing KAI%ARIA% NEVKOROU ET Z; ALEJAN = 227/228 C.E.) Mount Argaios flanked by coni- to forgive and give benefits even to cities that had cal simulacra. a) BMC 326.36 earlier been hostile to his cause: for example, Nikaia (q.v.) received an imperial visit and a Severeia Phila- Coin type 5 does not necessarily indicate an other- delphia festival. Kaisareia’s eventual loyalty (perhaps wise unknown and inexplicable imperial visit to accompanied by a tribute of crown gold for impe- Cappadocia in that year; Mt. Argaios can appear rial victory), or its gratitude for favors or forgiveness, almost anywhere on Kaisareia’s coinage.37 On type is expressed by a coin also dated precisely to Severus’ 6 either the city or a festival (more likely the former) year thirteen: its legend is the (missspelled) acclama- has acquired the name Alexandreia after the emperor. tion EIS EVNA TOUS KURIOUS, “the emperors for- Type 7 proclaims the new title ‘twice neokoros’: COIN TYPE 7. Obv: AU K %EOU ALEJAN Ra- 28 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:220; Miranda 1992-1993; Karl 1975, diate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander 80-81. r. Rev: A M K G PON K AR MHTROP KAI%ARIA 29 Ziegler 1985, 35, concentrating only on the Philadelphia ̣ aspect of the festival, would attribute the cult solely to Caracalla DI% NE ET (E, ab; , c) (year 5 = 225/226 C.E., 38 and Geta. year 6 = 226/227 C.E.) in plain border. a) 30 Magie 1950, 676-677, 1545-1546. 31 Halfmann 1986a, 216-223; Cassius Dio 76 (75).15.4. 32 Weiss 1985, 33-34 nos. 26, 46-47, pl. 12. Metcalf 1997, 178 postulated that the type means that Severus, Caracalla, 34 J. Nollé 1998, 342. and Geta’s cult (for which the city was neokoros) moved into 35 S/M 546, incorrect transcription. the temple of the god on Argaios; but the type in question shows 36 S/M 579. no temple, and Metcalf was reasoning solely from the silver, 37 Weiss 1985; Börker-Klähn 1989, 242-255 would have without the more various bronze types of temples and games. avoided many errors had she seen Weiss’ work. 33 Bastien 1972; Nony 1971. 38 S/M 597 from year 9, 230 C.E. 250 part i – section x. koinon of cappadocia

Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer (illus. pl. 37 fig. 196) b) reia’s second neokoria was granted earlier, only that Berlin 1623/1892 c) Warsaw 55017. it was granted by the time of Severus Alexander’s reign. Type 7 celebrates Kaisareia’s entire titulature, and As Kaisareia did not issue coins using the title though it uses only a plain border and no pictorial ‘neokoros’ under Maximinus, we cannot tell whether type, there is still not enough room to spell it out its second neokoria was endangered by the short- totally. So Kaisareia used an acronym similar to that lived condemnation of Severus Alexander’s memo- used by Cilician cities like Tarsos and Anazarbos ry.41 Afterwards, in any case, Kaisareia named itself (qq.v.) at the same time, to call itself ' \ A (pr th) twice neokoros more consistently, though abbre- ¤ ¤ ' M(eg sth) K(all sth t«n) G (§parxei«n) PÒn(tou) viatedly ( or ), on coins of the time of Gor- ¤ ¤ ¤ B N B NE K(appadok aw) ÉAr(men aw) mhtrÒp(oliw) Kaisar a dian III down to 244; these were the last issues of : “first, greatest, most beautiful of the d‹w ne(vkÒrow) the Kaisareia mint.42 Two coins that are document- three eparchies Pontus, Cappadocia, Armenia; ed as giving the title without enumeration may metropolis Kaisareia twice neokoros.” simply indicate that Kaisareia reverted once or twice Kaisareia’s second neokoria presents a chronologi- to its old habit.43 cal problem, however. Though the title is only Kaisareia’s later history was unfortunate. When known to have been declared on type 7, that type the Sassanian king Shapur captured the emperor was issued in the fifth, sixth, and ninth years of Valerian in 260, Persian forces pushed their way Severus Alexander’s reign. But other issues of his deep into the Roman provinces, including Cappa- sixth, seventh, and eighth regnal years give some docia; Kaisareia is named among the great cities that version of ‘neokoros’ with no indication of ‘twice.’ they sacked.44 If the second neokoria was given in 226, why were coins that call the city only neokoros minted from No inscriptions of Kaisareia as neokoros are yet 227 to 229? known. As mentioned previously, the design of type 7 indicates a special effort made to include all the city’s titles. The other coins abbreviate less and spell the COINS CITING NEOKORIA: individual words out more fully in the limited space available. These coins most likely omitted the enu- Neokoros: meration ‘twice’ although the city was entitled to use Septimius Severus, year 14: SNGvA 6464; SNGRighetti it. If so, for how long had that been happening? Had 1786; Berlin (2 exx.), Oxford, Vienna. the city been twice neokoros since Septimius Severus, Year 15: SNGvA 6468;45 Berlin (2 exx.), Paris. for example, as Perinthos was? And why omit what Year 16:46 Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna, could be expressed with a single letter? Warsaw. We can document this titular vacillation at Kai- Year 17: BMC 229; SNGvA 6469; Berlin (3 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (2 exx.). sareia because the city issued dated coins. The same procedure could have occurred at other cities, like Perinthos and perhaps Kyzikos (qq.v.). It seems, however, that in provinces where there were many 41 Kienast 1996, 177-179; Varner 1993, 418-422 believed cities and intense rivalry over titles and privileges, that the condemnation was unofficial. the cities were more likely consistently to proclaim 42 Bland 1991, 217 n. 14 incorrectly stated that Gordian granted the second neokoria. the maximum number of neokoriai to which they 43 S/M 605 and 613a; as they could not be directly inspected, were entitled.39 Cappadocia was not an urbanized they are not included in the lists of coins citing neokoria, be- province like Asia; Kaisareia was not just its chief low. 40 44 Joannes Zonaras, Epitome historiarum ed. M. Pinder (Bonn city but almost its only major city. In the absence 1841-1897) vol. 30 594 (12.23); Georgios Synkellos, Ecloga of rivals, it could afford to be casual in expressing Chronographia, ed. A. Mosshammer (Leipzig 1984) 465-466, anno its titulature without enumeration. So the answer mundi 5748; Potter 1990, 274-276. The sources are collected must be that we cannot be certain whether Kaisa- in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 57-65; also 51, allegedly an inva- sion of Kaisareia along with Tyana and Antioch as early as 253. 45 Malloy, in Sydenham rev. Malloy 1978, no. 401c, mis- 39 Nonetheless, see ‘Introduction: Methodology,’ n. 26. dated. 40 Magie 1950, 200-201. 46 S/M 396a, 401a. chapter 31 – kaisareia 251

Year 18: BMC 230, 231; SNGCop 260; Ireland 2000, no. (4 exx.), Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw (3 1902 (date mistranscribed); Berlin (5 exx.), Oxford, exx.). Paris (2 exx.), Vienna. Year 3: SNGCop 284; SNGvA 6502; Berlin, Warsaw. Year 19: BMC 232; Berlin. Year 4: SNGvA 6505. Unknown year: Private collection, Foss. Uncertain year: Ireland 2000, nos. 1926, 1927.

Septimius Severus and Caracalla, year 15: BMC 237; Julia Maesa, Elagabalus’ year 2: BMC 295; SNGRighetti Berlin. 1796; Berlin (4 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Warsaw.

Julia Domna, Severus’ year 14: BMC 253, 254; Berlin, Severus Alexander, year 1: SNGvA 6509; Berlin, Paris (3 London, Paris (2 exx.). exx.). Year 15: SNGCop 265; Berlin (2 exx.), London. Year 3: BMC 302, 307; SNGCop 288; SNGvA 6511; Ber- Year 16: BMC 255; SNGvA 6478; Berlin (2 exx.), Vienna. lin (6 exx.), London, Oxford, Paris, Warsaw. Year 17: SNGCop 266; Berlin, London, Paris, Warsaw. Year 4: Berlin. Year 18: SNGvA 6479; Berlin (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.). Year 6: Oxford, Paris, Warsaw. Year 19: BMC 257; SNGCop 268; Berlin, New York, Paris. Year 7: BMC 326. Caracalla’s year 4(?): BMC 259. Year 8: Berlin, Paris. Unknown year: Paris. Caracalla: Severus’ year 13?:47 Berlin, Paris. Severus’? year 14: SNGCop 270, 273; Ireland 2000, no. Twice neokoros: 1902; Berlin (8 exx.), London, New York, Oxford, Severus Alexander, year 5: Berlin (2 exx.). Paris (2 exx.). Year 6: Warsaw. Caracalla’s year 8 (= Severus’ year 14?): Boston. Year 9: S/M 597. Caracalla and Geta’s year 2: London, Paris (2 exx.). Year 4?: Boston. Gordian III, year 3: BMC 340; SNGCop 303; SNGvA 6523; Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 15: Berlin (2 exx.), Paris, Berlin (9 exx.), London, Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (2 Warsaw. exx.).50 Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 16: SNGCop 271; Berlin Year 4: BMC 341-344; Adana 231; SNGCop 304-306, 308; (2 exx.), London, Paris, Warsaw. SNGvA 6524, 6526-6530; SNGRighetti 1804-1806; Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 17: Ireland 2000, no. 1914; Ireland 2000, no. 1942; Berlin (35 exx.), Boston, Berlin (4 exx.), London, Paris (4 exx.), Warsaw (3 London (4 exx.), New York, Oxford (5 exx.), Paris exx.). (13 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.), Warsaw (18 exx.).51 Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 18: Berlin (3 exx.). Year 5: Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna, Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 19: Berlin (2 exx.), Vienna. Warsaw (2 exx.).52 Year obscure: Ireland 2000, nos. 1910, 1911. Year 6: SNGCop 310; SNGLewis 1724; Berlin (3 exx.), London, Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (3 Geta Caesar: Severus’ year 14: Paris. exx.).53 Year 16: Berlin, Paris. Year 7: BMC 346-349; SNGCop 311; SNGvA 6531; Year 17: Berlin (2 exx.). SNGLewis 1725; Berlin (9 exx.), New York (6 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (11 Geta Augustus: Severus’ year 18: Berlin, Paris, Vienna. exx.).54 Severus’ year 19: Berlin (2 exx.), Paris. Year unknown: SNGvA 6525; Berlin (6 exx.), London, Caracalla and Geta’s year 3: Adana 228;48 BMC 277, 278; Paris, Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw. SNGCop 276; SNGvA 6494; Berlin, Paris. Tranquillina, Gordian’s year 4: SNGvA 6532; Berlin, Macrinus, year 2: BMC 281; SNGvA 6496; Berlin (2 exx.), London, New York, Paris (2 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.).55 Paris, Warsaw. Year 6: SNGCop 312; SNGRighetti 1807, 1808; Berlin, Boston, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna.56 Macrinus and Diadumenian Caesar, year 2: BMC 282- Year 7: BMC 350; SNGCop 313; SNGvA 6534; Berlin (3 284; SNGvA 6498; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), exx.), Boston, New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3 Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). exx.), Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw.57 Year unknown: Warsaw. Diadumenian Caesar, Macrinus’ year 2: Berlin. 50 Bland 1991, 232-235 nos. 1-18, 244 no. 72. Elagabalus, year 2: BMC 289; BMC 27149; SNGvA 6499; 51 Ibid., 235-241 nos. 19-57, 245 nos. 73-75, 77. SNGRighetti 1795; Berlin (9 exx.), London, Oxford 52 Ibid., 242-243 nos. 61-68. 53 Ibid., 246-247 nos. 85, 88, 89. 54 Ibid., 247 nos. 91, 92. 47 S/M 483. 55 Ibid., 241-242 nos. 58-60, 245 nos. 76, 78. Also coins of 48 Cox 1941, 228. year 5 and year 4 or 5, 243-244 nos. 69-71. 49 Catalogued as Caracalla; Weiss 1985, 34 identified this 56 Ibid., 247 no. 87. as a reworked coin of Elagabalus. 57 Ibid., 247-248 nos. 90, 93, 94. 252 part i – section xi. koinon of phoenicia

SECTION XI. KOINON OF PHOENICIA

Chapter 32. Tripolis: Koinon of Phoenicia

First Neokoria: Elagabalus? Under Elagabalus, however, Tyre may have fallen under a cloud. The titles ‘metropolis’ and ‘colony’ Tripolis is the only city in Phoenicia yet known to disappear from its coins, which read simply ‘of the have been called neokoros. The evidence, moreover, Tyrians,’ though still in the Latin proper to a col- is scanty: a single coin from a private collection, ony.7 At the same time Elagabalus gave these titles unillustrated, in an old publication.1 An identical to nearby Sidon.8 Tyre apparently had shown itself coin was described earlier by Mionnet, and there is in favor of Macrinus, for whom it issued coins. Did always a chance that another example will surface.2 Elagabalus do what Septimius Severus had done But there is also the possibility of misreading where before him by not only abasing the cities that op- the coin itself could not be checked. posed him, but elevating their rivals in their stead? This would depend on an argument from silence, COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU K M AU ANTVNINO% and would also be an atypical action for that em- Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus peror, who is better known for granting titles than r. Rev: Ship TRIPOLIT NAUARX NEVK ALF for withdrawing them; the Tyrians may instead have sailing l. a) Private collection (Dr. P. Schroeder, altered their coinage by their own choice. It is still Beirut). barely possible that Tripolis was made neokoros as The coin is dated to 219 C.E. (531 of the Seleucid part of the process of abasing Tyre, or simply be- era) and claims the titles nauarchis (‘mistress of cause Elagabalus favored it. Of the Phoenician cit- ships’) as well as neok(oros). The former, at least, is ies it is one of the closest to his home city Emesa, well known on coins of Tripolis, which was one of which was also named metropolis at this time. the major harbors of the Phoenician coast.3 As the evidence for Tripolis as neokoros for El- Tripolis had at one time been the seat of the agabalus is based on only one unexamined coin, we common council of Phoenicians, but not since the cannot draw conclusions from the cessation of the fourth century B.C.E.4 When Septimius Severus split evidence. If Tripolis was indeed given the neokoria Phoenicia off as a province separate from the rest by Elagabalus, like all the other cities that received of Syria, he favored Tyre, which had been so firm- the title from Elagabalus, it lost it after his death. ly on his side early in his reign that it had been burned by Pescennius Niger’s troops for its partisan- No inscriptions of Tripolis as neokoros are yet ship.5 Tyre was made a colony and issued coins for known. the koinon of Phoenicia which showed a large sev- en-(!) or eight-columned temple, probably for the provincial imperial cult.6 COINS CITING NEOKORIA:

1 Rouvier 1903, 43 no. 1754. Neokoros: 2 Mionnet 1806-1808, 5:406 no. 454. Elagabalus: Private collection (see above). 3 Adams 1984. Note that though this title appears on coins only intermittently, Tripolis had claimed it since the earlier second century: see the honorific inscription from the Athe- nian Akropolis, IG II/III2 4210, after 128/129 C.E. 4 Diodorus Siculus 16.41.1. obverse: BMC 361-366; Latin, under Caracalla: BMC 376; Latin, 5 Herodian 3.3.3-5. under Macrinus: BMC 381, Chehab 1977, 59 no. 1595. 6 Millar 1990, 31-32, 34-37; Kindler 1982-1983; Deininger 7 Head 1911, 801. 1965, 88. Coins showing the temple, Greek inscriptions, Melqart 8 Millar 1993, 285-295; 1990, 50-51. chapter 33 – patara: koinon/ethnos of lycia 253

SECTION XII. KOINON/ETHNOS OF LYCIA

Chapter 33. Patara: Koinon/Ethnos of Lycia

Though initially a league of free cities, Lycia was delegates chose. There was an eponymous chief annexed by Claudius in 43 C.E. because of inter- priest of the Augusti, who may or may not have been nal strife and the deaths of Roman citizens.1 It was different from the Lyciarch; if so, the same person previously thought that under Claudius, and after was often chief priest in one year and Lyciarch in a short interval again by 74 C.E., the territory was the next.7 Occasionally a chief priestess is mentioned administered jointly with Pamphylia, which was as well.8 But in no known case were these officials detached from Galatia for that purpose.2 The dis- called ‘chief priest (or chief priestess or Lyciarch) of covery that at the foundation of the province the temples’ in Lycia or in any city therein. roads were measured from Patara has led some to see Lycia as possibly a distinct province at the time of Claudius, with Patara likely the seat of its gover- First and Second Neokoria: by third century? nor.3 Lycia and Pamphylia each had its own sepa- rate koinon association, but this was not uncommon, By the mid-second century C.E. at least thirty-six and does not rule out their being administered within cities were members of the Lycian koinon, with a single province. several calling themselves metropolis. Strabo, follow- The structure of the Lycian koinon (also known ing Artemidoros of Ephesos, recorded that there as the ethnos of the Lycians) differed from those of were six leading cities that cast three votes in the other imperial koina discussed in this work.4 For one koinon.9 This pre-Roman situation likely corre- thing, it had functioned as a strong and independent sponds with the group of later metropoleis, among association as early as the Hellenistic era. Also, them Xanthos, which presided over the koinon’s despite the internal strife that led Claudius to an- sanctuary at the nearby Letoön; Patara, site of the nex Lycia, the individual cities appear to have oracle of Apollo and of the koinon archive; Myra, formed more institutional bonds among themselves Telmessos, and Tlos. Limyra may be added to make than other koina of Anatolia and its environs did. up six.10 The earliest known appearance of the title The koinon had lawcourts and an assembly as well metropolis at Lycia, an addition to Xanthos’ titula- as a council, and prominent men could hold citizen- ture on a base of Nerva, inclined Balland to attribute ship of their home city plus that of another Lycian a systematization of Lycia’s provincial imperial cult city, several cities, or even all of them.5 The cities to the time of that emperor, and specifically to the voted in and contributed to their koinon differen- governor of Lycia/Pamphylia from 96 to 99, L. tially, in proportion to their size; the largest cities Iulius Marinus Caecilius Simplex.11 The timing had three votes, the mid-size two, and the smallest one.6 Koinon meetings were held wherever the that city’s success in suppressing bandits: Schindler 1972, no. 2. 7 FdXL 8-10. 1 Suetonius, Claudius 25.3; Cassius Dio 60.17.3. 8 Adak 1996, 134 and n. 13; FdXL 235-239 no. 71. 2 Balland 1981 (= FdXL), 1-8; Remy 1986, 34-35; Kolb and 9 Strabo 14.3.3. Kupke 1992, 25-27. 10 FdXL 53-55 no. 29, 176-177. 3 ”ahin 1994; Haensch 1997, 290, 293-297. 11 FdXL 132-136 no. 50, recording that the governor 4 Deininger 1965, 8-9, 69-81; Jameson 1980; Troxell 1982, (re)organized a yearly panegyris, probably that allied with meet- 1-13. ings of the koinon (but see also 231-235 nos. 69-70, 246-250 5 FdXL 177-180. no. 78). FdXL no. 50 dates early in the reign of Trajan, how- 6 In 190 C.E. the koinon voted (and Commodus approved) ever, so the author’s specification of Nerva’s reign for the that Bubon should get three votes rather than two, in view of governor’s action is no more firmly founded. 254 part i – section xii. koinon/ethnos of lycia recalls Nerva’s confirmion of Beroia as the sole importance of the governor for the dedication.18 neokoros of Macedonia (q.v.), but that does not Thus it is likely that the Trajanic governor Mettius necessarily imply that Nerva undertook some grand Modestus was responsible for the construction or trans-provincial reorganization. Balland’s argument extension of an aqueduct to Patara, and he and his that Xanthos’ titulature on this base could only have family (father, mother, uncle of the same name, and been augmented in Nerva’s reign is not watertight; perhaps other relatives) were honored for it by the Akalissos (q.v.) apparently had ‘neokoros’ added to koinon and by Patara, which was already named an inscription at some distance of time. In any case, metropolis by 102 C.E. Later, as proconsul of Asia Xanthos was certainly metropolis by 102 C.E.12 in 119/120, Modestus would undertake similar Known documents for the other cities are later, but benefactions for an Asian city, Thyateira, which this does not eliminate the possibility that Xanthos would honor him with an inscription on the Athe- was not the only city to become metropolis around nian akropolis.19 the turn of the first and second centuries C.E. The Lycians had established a cult of the city of Patara declared itself metropolis of the Lycian Rome in the Hellenistic period, and when Gaius ethnos on a triple arch that bore busts or small sta- Caesar, Augustus’ grandson and heir, died at Li- tues of Mettius Modestus, governor of Lycia and myra, a magnificent cenotaph was built there for Pamphylia, and his family. This is the governor of him.20 Tiberius and perhaps Germanicus and 99-102 C.E., C. Trebonius Proculus Mettius Modes- Drusus were worshipped by the Lycian koinon be- tus.13 Bowersock tried to redate this monument to fore it became a Roman province.21 There was also the time of Hadrian, since he believed that Hadri- a koinon cult of the ancestral god Apollo (IGRR an was the first to allow metropolis status to more 3:473), and a panegyris in Patara associated his cult than one city per province.14 That situation may with that of the emperor.22 Festivals specified as pro- have been true for Syria, but a blanket case should vincial were the Rhomaia Letoa at Xanthos,23 possi- not be applied to other provinces, least of all to bly an isopythian contest dedicated to Rome and atypical Lycia. Moreover, Bowersock’s hypothesis Augustus,24 and possibly the great isolympic Vespa- requires that a different Mettius Modestus, not other- sianeia, though there is no evidence for a Lycian wise documented, was governor of the same prov- neokoria for Domitian, subsequently devoted to ince very shortly after the first one, ca. 130 C.E.15 Vespasian, which Dräger restored from the name of Though gates to welcome Hadrian were built else- the latter festival.25 Koinon festivals were also cel- where in the East, most notably in nearby Phaselis ebrated in Myra, Limyra, and Telmessos, and there for a visit ca. 131, there is no overt indication that was even a great Kasseia festival for a governor of the triple arch in Patara acclaimed that imperial the province.26 visitor.16 In fact, the triple arch is not a gate built Aside from league issues, the only emperor un- to honor an emperor, but the end of an aqueduct; der whom each Lycian city struck its own coinage and subsequent excavations have found an inscrip- was Gordian III, so it is not unexpected that ‘neoko- tion honoring Trajan, not Hadrian, nearby.17 The ros’ has not been noted on the few Pataran coins prominence of the busts/statuettes that punctuated both sides of the monument emphasized the primary

18 Pekáry 1978, 740, and 1985, 93. 12 FdXL 55-56 no. 30. 19 C. Jones 1999a, 4-5. 13 PIR2 M 568; Remy 1989, 291-293 no. 238; idem 1991, 20 Fayer 1976, 12, 37-40, 133-134, 171; IGRR 3:474, 490, 174 nos. 112-113; FdXL 136-140 no. 51. 563; FdXL 37-40 no. 18; R. Jakobek and Dinstl 1990, 33-34, 14 Bowersock 1985, 82-86. 85-92, 96; J. Borchhardt and B. Borchhardt-Birbaumer 1992, 15 Following Bowersock, Eck 1983, 169-171 n. 415; 108-110. Thomasson 1984, 280 no. 25; Wörrle 1988, 43; Letta 1994a, 21 IGRR 3:474, 680; TAM 2.2.420; Haensch 1997, 296 n. 229. C. Jones 1999a, 4-5 found further evidence for the origi- 197. nal Modestus, rather than a later one, in the later Hadrianic 22 FdXL 191 nos. 125-127. period, though he did not dispute Bowersock. 23 Fayer 1976, 40; Wörrle 1988, 238-239. 16 J. Schäfer 1981, 88-89, 141, 151-154; Halfmann 1986a, 24 FdXL 37-39 no. 18. 130-131, 194, 208 (accepting Bowersock). 25 IGRR 3:487; Dräger 1993, 246-249, whose use of the 17 Excavations led by F. IâÌk since 1988: for the arch in term ‘Neokoriekult’ for all types of provincial imperial cult begs particular, see IâÌk and YÌlmaz 1989, 7-8; IâÌk 1990, 33-35; the question. 1991, 40; 2000, 81-82. 26 TAM 2.2.428; Remy 1991, 176; Wörrle 1988, 238-239. chapter 33 – patara 255 known.27 The sole evidence for Patara as neokoros which also held the ethnikon Kaisareion.31 Here again is the following inscription: the Lycian koinon shows itself different from the other koina which organized themselves around INSCRIPTION 1. Marek 1993a, 97-98 no. 5 worship of the emperor; it kept its sanctuaries to (SEG 44 [1994] no. 1210). Statue base of a promi- ancestral Lycian gods, and brought the imperial cult nent citizen. { Patar°vn lamprå ka‹ ¶ndojow into association with them. On the other hand, other { { } pÒliw, mhtrÒpoliw, érxiprof tiw ka‹ d‹w cities that were neokoroi of gods—Aizanoi, Ephe- ¤ nevkÒrow toË Luk vn ¶ynouw... sos, and Magnesia, all in Asia—generally made that Though Marek placed the inscription in the first to fact clear on their inscriptions and coins. We sim- second centuries C.E., Bresson dated it in the third ply cannot say what the situation was in Lycia with- century.28 The latter is perhaps preferable, as the out further information. third century was a time when neokoriai proliferat- Incidentally, if Patara was twice neokoros, it is ed elsewhere, but it cannot be assured without fur- probable that Xanthos, as administrator of provin- ther data. On other inscriptions, Patara was gener- cial cult at the Letoön, and other major cities were ally content to call itself simply polis and metropolis as well.32 Documents attesting this status may yet be of the Lycian ethnos.29 found. But it is possible that the interconnected and On inscription 1, the three provincial titles are less rivalrous structure of the Lycian koinon made grouped: as well as being metropolis, Patara is ‘chief the individual cities less likely to boast of their var- prophet’ and ‘twice neokoros’ of the Lycian ethnos. ied titles, and that that is why so few such documents Regarding ‘chief prophet,’ the Lycian philanthropist have appeared. Opramoas gave twenty thousand denarii to the Patarans “for Apollo, the god of their ancestors, whose oracle after a long silence has once more INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: begun its prophecy” in time for the panegyris over which Opramoas presided, in or shortly after 139 Twice neokoros: C.E.30 1. Marek 1993a, 97-98 no. 5 (SEG 44 [1994] no. From the evidence available, there is no way of 1210; A. Bresson, L’Année épigraphique [1994] no. knowing for what emperors or deities Patara was 1729). Statue base of a citizen, not securely dated. twice neokoros. One possibility is Apollo, though the See text above. inscription does not specify the name of the deity; the sanctuary of Apollo Patroos at Patara was a koi- No coins of Patara as neokoros are yet known. non sanctuary, and the god’s festival, as has been seen, was celebrated for the emperor as well. The 31 FdXL 25-28 no. 11, 185-191 no. 67, 270-272; S. Price same applied to the sanctuary of Leto at Xanthos, 1984b, 263. That Claudius donated a hall in the north stoa of the Letoön, and that later a statue of Matidia stood therein, does not make it the ethnikon Kaisareion that Opramoas spent thirty thousand denarii on; nor is Balland’s alternate sugges- tion (FdXL 60 n. 130) that the Kaisareion was the nymphaeum 27 Von Aulock 1974. that featured a statue of Hadrian erected in 131 (Letta 1994a, 28 A. Bresson, L’Année épigraphique (1994) no. 1729. 220-221, 242) more satisfactory. IGRR 3:482 refers to a temple 29 E.g. Marek 1993a, 98 no. 6 (= SEG 44 [1994] no. 1211). of Caesar (and its peribolos) at Xanthos, though not specified 30 FdXL 191-192; Parke 1985, 185-193; Zimmermann 1994, as provincial or at the Letoön: Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 197. 109-111. For Opramoas, see Letta 1994a, with bibliography. 32 FdXL 237-238. 256 part i – section xii. koinon/ethnos of lycia

Chapter 34. Akalissos: Koinon/Ethnos of Lycia

Akalissos, whose site has been described as “some- dedication’s placement whose council and people what inaccessible,” was not among Lycia’s major were in question (IGRR 3:762, for Phaselis).5 cities, though it headed a small local sympolity.1 The base’s top surface had holes for the feet of Until an inscription naming Patara neokoros ap- two statues, and Keil posited that Crispina was origi- peared (q.v.), Akalissos was the sole neokoros city nally to stand with her husband Commodus. But known in Lycia, and even the relationship between there is no mention of her on what is preserved of the title and the provincial imperial cult was the stone, and it is also possible that the second fig- doubted.2 Finds of further inscriptions may show that ure was either a personification of the city itself or despite their comparative reticence in flaunting titles, of some other deity who crowned or interacted with Lycian cities of the late second and third centuries Commodus. The last and crucial two words, ‘of the could boast of neokoriai as much as Asian cities neokoros’ (city), were inscribed in letter forms con- could. siderably different from and later than those of the dedication to Commodus. Perhaps Akalissos was so proud of gaining the title that the city added it even First Neokoria: after Commodus to earlier inscriptions. It is not known for whose cult, or when, Akalissos Akalissos, like most other cities of Lycia, is only was made neokoros. But with the discovery of Patara known to have issued its own coins under Gordian as twice neokoros, Akalissos fits more comfortably III; the title ‘neokoros’ has not been noted on the into the pattern of a city of middle rank that was few examples known.3 The sole evidence for Akalis- first made neokoros in the third century, after its sos as neokoros is the following: superiors had achieved that honor at least twice. A parallel in Asia might be Philadelphia, Tralles, or 1. TAM 2.3.879 (IGRR 3:656). Statue base of Hierapolis. Commodus, final two words of different letter forms and ligatures, probably added in the third century. { ~ } } [ÉAkaliss°vn boul]Ø ka‹ d mow t w INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: nevkÒrou. The emperor’s name was erased from this stone after Neokoros: his death and the (short-lived) condemnation of his 1. TAM 2.3.879 (IGRR 3:656). Statue base of memory, 193-195 C.E.4 Also missing is the name of Commodus, with the title added later, probably in the city whose council and people dedicated the the third century. See text above. statue, though the restoration is reasonable: the base was found in Akalissos itself. Dedications with similar No coins of Akalissos as neokoros are yet known. wording (without additions or loss of the city’s name) were found at Korydalla (IGRR 3:743) and Olympos (IGRR 3:747). On some occasions, the city did not even need to state its name, as it was obvious by the 5 In one case where the cities of Akalissos and Korydalla set up dedications in Phaselis, it was for a special occasion, a 1 Bean 1976a. visit of Hadrian, for which many smaller and more remote cities 2 Broughton 1938, 742-743; FdXL 237. must have sent representatives and set up altars: TAM 2.3.1192- 3 Von Aulock 1974. 1193 (= IGRR 3:756-757); FdXL 70-71; Halfmann 1986a, 130- 4 Kienast 1996, 147-150. 131, 194, 208. chapter 35 – herakleia: koinon of the cities of pontus 257

SECTION XIII. KOINON OF THE CITIES OF (WEST-CENTRAL) PONTUS

Chapter 35. Herakleia: Koinon of the Cities of (West-Central) Pontus With a Note on the Synod of Theatrical Artists

The ancient city of Herakleia (modern Eregli) on the kleia is so far the only neokoros known within its Black Sea’s southern shore was a foundation of koinon, others may yet appear, as the presence of Megara and retained until Roman times its Pontarchs is attested elsewhere, notably in Amastris, motherland’s Doric dialect on coins and inscrip- which also claimed the title of metropolis and was tions.1 It became a free ally of Rome early in the probably also a seat of the koinon.5 The city cel- second century B.C.E., and a temple of the goddess ebrated an isaktian festival called the Hadrianeon Rome is shown later on its imperial coins that boast Herakleion, but Hadrian allowed many such festivals the title ‘neokoros.’ in all sorts of cities, so the existence of this festival does not indicate that Herakleia was necessarily neokoros for Hadrian.6 First Neokoria: Philip In any case, Herakleia only began to proclaim itself neokoros with regularity on coins in the reign COIN TYPE 1. Obv: M IOULIO% FILIPPO% of Philip and thereafter. Additional evidence is given AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Philip r. by inscriptions, but their testimony regarding Rev: HRAKLHA% NEVKORVN A T POLIVN; YEA neokoria is difficult to interpret, and their use of the RVMA Six-column temple with arched entabla- term ‘neokoros’ may not refer to Herakleia at all. ture, the goddess Rome enthroned within.2 a) London 1970.9-9-32. Synod of Theatrical Artists Neokoros? This coin should not be taken to mean that Herakleia was neokoros for its temple of Rome; the Inscription 1 was a statue base erected in 130 C.E., wording of the legend shows that ‘goddess Rome’ in the consulate of Q. Fabius Catullinus and M. is in the exergue to identify the temple, not to modify Flavius Aper.7 On the other side was a decree of the ‘neokoros’; the legend therefore reads “of Herakleia, synod of theatrical artists (technitai) sent to the home first of the neokoroi cities.”3 city of one Marcius Xenokrates; another inscription Administratively, Herakleia was included in the from Herakleia identifies Marcius Xenokrates as a province of Bithynia-Pontus, but it belonged to a physician, and it was probably for his professional koinon of Pontic cities within that province rather services that the theatrical artists honored him.8 than to the koinon of Bithynia dominated by Thus, though the name of the city is not spelled out Nikomedia; occasionally, however, the same person on inscription 1, the fact that the stone was found served as Bithyniarch and Pontarch.4 Though Hera- at Herakleia, that a Marcius Xenokrates is known there, and that the eponymous magistrate basileus 1 Jonnes 1994, 1, 7, 51-54; Ameling 1994, 118-119. For the mentioned has also been found in other inscriptions earlier history and literature, Bittner 1998, 1-6. On the liter- ary sources, Ehrhardt 1995, 35-41, 46. Still useful is Magie 1950, at Herakleia, safely indicate its previously doubted 307-310, 967 n. 89, 1191-1192 n. 23, 1194 n. 31. 2 M. Price and Trell 1977, fig. 7; Fayer 1976, 178. 5 Deininger 1965, 61-62, 64-66. 3 Pace S. Price 1984b, 266. 6 Moretti 1953, 235-237 no. 80. 4 Marek 1993b, 34-36, 73, 75, 77 and n. 534, 78-81; Remy 7 PIR2 F 25, 208. 1986, 19-21. 8 Jonnes 1994, 9 no. 7. 258 part i – section xiii. koinon of the cities of (west-central) pontus provenience.9 Unfortunately, the stone was copied rights of immunity from taxation and liturgies.14 hurriedly before being broken up for use in construc- They also associated worship of the emperor(s) with tion, so its likely misreadings cannot be checked. that of their patron, Dionysos; for instance, during the reign of Septimius Severus, an inscription was INSCRIPTION 1. Jonnes 1994, 4-6 no. 2 (IGRR set up by their chief priest of Dionysos Kathegemon, 3:81). | { ¶dojen tª erò m«n ÑAdrianª ANT.EI who was also the chief priest of Caracalla as ‘new _ nevkÒrƒ peri[poli]stikª [y]u[m]e[l]ikª megãl Dionysos.’15 §p‹ ÑR\mh{w} sunÒdƒ . . . A long, informative inscription from Nysa prob- If this reading is correct, the synod of theatrical ably dates to ca. 141 C.E. and gives the best details artists at Rome calls itself neokoros. But is it cor- of the organization and its titulature just after the rect? There are several stubborn mistranscriptions time of Herakleia inscription 1: its lines 74-75 an- in the text as reported, some of which have not been nounce a decree t}w |erçw ÑAdrian}w ÉAntvne¤n[hw] satisfactorily interpreted. For example, Mordtmann yumelik}w perip[o]listik}w megãl[hw] ne[vkÒrou?] restored the epithet ‘Antonine’ after ‘Hadrianic,’ but §p‹ ÑR\mhw sunÒdou.16 With some small changes there is not enough room for all the letters, and an (yumelik}w and perip[o]listik}w reversed, ‘Anto- abbreviation of the later epithet seems odd when the nine’ spelled out in full), it echoes Herakleia inscrip- earlier one was spelled out in full.10 The same ap- tion 1, which is perhaps why Kourouniotes restored plies to Le Guen-Pollet’s restoration of the epithet neokorou here from a mere nu and the upper part of as naming Antinoös, Hadrian’s beloved, who died an epsilon at the end of a line. The synod of the in 130.11 The latter was an attempt to solve another association had as its headquarters a |erÚn §p‹ problem, that of the consular date of the inscription ÑR\mhw t°menow, which is presumably the sacred on the other side of the stone; if the Xenokrates space that may have made the synod neokoros. Also inscription is contemporary with it, both antedate mentioned in the same inscription is a particular any Antonine emperor by at least eight years. reverence on the part of the artists at Rome for the This is the only occasion that a body outside the god Hadrian, on whose birthday there was an an- structure of a city calls itself neokoros. Elsewhere the nual distribution. Hadrian may have granted the title is occasionally attributed to the council, more artists their temenos in Rome, as he also granted often to the people or to the city as a whole. Is this headquarters in Rome to the worldwide association application of the title a unique occurrence, or is it of athletes;17 if the synod of theatrical artists was an artifact of the hurried copying of the inscription? neokoros at all, it was more than likely neokoros for A study of other inscriptions of the synod of the- a temenos to Hadrian at Rome. atrical artists may shed some light. The association Le Guen-Pollet believed that the Xenokrates of of theatrical artists, whose patron god was Dionysos, inscription 1 himself obtained the neokoria from extended throughout the Greco-Roman world, with Hadrian; but the modesty of the honors decreed to members traveling from city to city to participate in him there, perhaps statue(s) erected in his home city, various festivals.12 As early as the third century does not accord with so great a benefaction.18 About B.C.E. their association could make decrees and a decade later, the honoree of the Nysa decree got receive ambassadors, much as a city would.13 Later statues in all the temples of the emperors in Asia they corresponded with, and sent embassies to, the because he paid for celebrations and donated some emperors as cities did, though their main concern books and land to the technitai; how much greater seems to have been preservation of their members’ should the honors have been for one who, like Pole-

9 Jonnes 1994, nos. 1 and 4, where both magistrates were 14 Millar 1977, 458-462. women. 15 Merkelbach 1985. 10 Mordtmann 1889, 316. 16 The inscription also refers to the neokoria of Ephesos, 11 Le Guen-Pollet 1990. There was a dedication to Antinoös and is cited above as Ephesos inscription 42. Clerc 1885; title (assimilated to Hermes) set up by the Hadrianic synod at Rome: ‘neokoros’ restored by Kourouniotes 1921-22, 83-85, fig. 67. IGUrbRom 1:124-125. 17 Pleket 1973, 210-211, 225-226. 12 Roueché 1993, 50-57, 223-237; Pickard-Cambridge 1988, 18 Le Guen-Pollet 1990, 676-678; with several misunder- 279-321; Poland 1934, 2517-2519. standings. The Nysa decree mentions a chief priesthood, but 13 Rigsby 1996, 245-247. it is not specified as ‘of the Augusti.’ chapter 35 – herakleia 259 mon of Smyrna, obtained a neokoria for his orga- condemnation of his memory.22 Neapolis in Samaria nization. (q.v.) also declared itself neokoros first on coins under We may hesitate before declaring the synod of Philip, and there too the title seems to have survived theatrical artists indubitably neokoros, however. his death. But little else is known of the precise object Hirschfeld, the original editor, did not believe that and origin of the cult that made Herakleia neokoros. the word ‘neokoros’ featured in inscription 1 at all: As to whether the synod of Dionysiac artists was he restored the crucial line as [y]u[m]e[l]ikª megãl_ truly neokoros, more and better-preserved evidence [épÚ o¸]ko[um°n]h[w?] sunÒdƒ.19 If true, his restora- is desirable. In any case, the coins assure us that the tion would throw doubt on the restoration of city Herakleia was neokoros from the reign of Philip neokoros from a letter and a half in the Nysa inscrip- on. tion as well, as it is based on inscription 1. Certainly a recently-published inscription of the synod of the- atrical artists under Antoninus Pius shows no sign INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: of the title ‘neokoros.’20 There is another inscription that associates Hera- Neokoros: kleia with neokoria, but again, the epithet appears 1. Jonnes 1994, 4-6 no. 2 (IGRR 3:81). Honors to a to be misapplied. Herakleian, with the synod of Dionysiac artists as neokoros. See text above. INSCRIPTION 2. Struve 1965 no. 59 (Latyschev 2. Struve 1965 no. 59 (Latyschev 1890, 2 no. 44; 1890, 2 no. 44; IGRR 1:890 [incorrect]). ...? IGRR 1:890 [incorrect]). From Kertsch (Pantika- ÉIoÊl]iow Telese›no[w ÑHrak]l[e\]thw toË PÒn- peion). Herakleia (actually Pontus!) as neokoros in [tou k]a‹ nevkÒrou... 250 C.E. See text above. This text was inscribed on a statue base from Kertsch (Pantikapeion) dated to 547 of the Bosporan era (250 C.E.); on it, this citizen of Herakleia calls COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Rhescuporis (V), king of Bosporus, his benefactor.21 But if the restoration is correct, neokoros modifies Neokoros: not Herakleia, but the territory of Pontus! Perhaps Philip: SNGvA 6964; Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris. the mistake may be attributed to the confusion of Otacilia: SNGvA 446, 447. Philip Caesar: SNGvA 444, 445, 6965; Boston. the stonemason; though citizens of other cities fre- Gallienus: BMC 59; SNGvA 448-460, 6966, 6967; Amasra quently honored the Bosporan kings with dedications 7123; Berlin (9 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York, Ox- at Pantikapeion, the formulation of this inscription, ford, Paris (5 exx.). with the individual’s name, citizenship, and addi- Salonina: BMC 60; SNGvA 462, 6968; Berlin (5 exx.), tional title, is rather unusual. Boston, Paris (2 exx.), Warsaw. Valerianus Caesar: Paris. If the neokoria mentioned on inscription 2 was Saloninus: SNGvA 463, 464; Cologne24; Boston. actually Herakleia’s, as seems likely, it confirms what Macrianus: SNGvA 465.25 the city’s intermittent coinage could not: that the title Non-imperial obverse: New York. survived the death of Philip and the occasional

19 Hirschfeld 1893, 11 n. 1 (on no. 794). 22 Kienast 1996, 198-199; Varner 1993, 484-487. 20 YÌldÌz and Corsten 1997, 50-51. 23 Ireland with Atesogullari 1996. 21 For the difficult chronology of the Bosporan kings, see 24 Corsten 1996, no. 32. Frolova 1983, 1-4 and Gajdukevic 1971, 358, 460-461. For the 25 Kienast 1996, 224-225. Herakleia was one of the few citizen Teleseinos, see Ameling 1994, 162. cities to mint for this contender for the Empire, 260-261 C.E. 260 part i – section xiv. syria palaestina

SECTION XIV. SYRIA PALAESTINA

Chapter 36. Neapolis: in Samaria, Syria Palaestina

Neapolis is the only neokoros yet known in Syria model, west of the old site of Shechem.7 The new Palaestina, an area not known to have had a koinon.1 name has been passed down to the current day as Yet the city did possess a famous shrine. The moun- Nablus. tain above Neapolis, Mt. Gerizim, had been sacred The second Jewish Revolt broke out in the reign to the Samaritans before the city itself was founded.2 of Hadrian, and his name is also associated with cult Shechem (now identified as Tell Balatah) was the on Mt. Gerizim. The sources are Samaritan, the name of the city at the mountain’s foot in 332 Kitab al-Tarikh of Abu ’l-Fath and the ‘Adler Chron- B.C.E., when, according to Josephus, Alexander the icle.’ Both treat the emperor as rather a folktale Great allowed Sanballat and his fellow Samaritans figure who visits the temple in Jerusalem (destroyed to build a temple atop Gerizim to rival the temple fifty years before), argues with the High Priest, and in Jerusalem.3 Josephus is hardly an unbiased ob- burns the city.8 Here Hadrian is at first beneficent server; as a Jew of priestly family, he despised the to the Samaritans, and builds a great temple for Samaritans for being apostates, who in times of them, the ‘Safis’ or ‘temple of Sospes,’ on which he Seleucid hostility to Jewish worship claimed that hangs the copper doors from the temple in Jerusa- their nameless sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim was not lem.9 The temple is on Gerizim, or on the moun- the temple of the Greatest God (as worshipped by tain next to it (perhaps Tell er-Ras?) according to the Jews), but of Zeus Hellenios, or in one variant the Kitab; but it is later burned, and the doors sto- Zeus Xenios.4 When the Jewish priest-king John len, to the great anger of Hadrian. Hyrcanus captured Shechem and Mt. Gerizim af- In 193-194 C.E. Neapolis chose to support Pes- ter 129 B.C.E., he destroyed the temple that had cennius Niger as emperor rather than Septimius Se- dared to imitate that in Jerusalem.5 verus. When Severus came to power he revoked the Despite the destruction of their temple, rebellious city’s rights, according to the Historia Augusta.10 It is Samaritans made Mt. Gerizim their refuge and likely that he was not satisfied with that penalty stronghold both before and during the first Jewish alone, however, but intensified Neapolis’ punishment Revolt.6 This is perhaps why as early as 72 C.E., by exalting its neighbor and probable rival, the city after the Jerusalem temple had itself been destroyed of Sebaste. Such was his policy with many other and the revolt all but extinguished, Vespasian pairs of rivals: Perinthos (q.v.) profited at the fall of founded a city, Flavia Neapolis, formed on the Greek Byzantion, Nikomedia triumphed over Nikaia (qq.v.), Tyre over Berytos, and Laodikeia in Syria over Antioch.11 In this case, Sebaste received either 1 Haensch 1997, 237. 2 Kippenberg 1971. 7 Millar 1993, 368-369. 3 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 11.321-325, 340-347; for a 8 Zangenberg 1994, 219 sec. 5.4.6; Mor 1989b, 25-29; critique of the source, P. Schäfer 1995, 2-5. See Mor 1989a Stenhouse 1985, 156-162. On Hadrian’s visit to Judaea, and for a persuasive interpretation of the politics involved. on Talmudic stories regarding him, Birley 1997, 231-234. Bull 4 Letter to Antiochus IV Epiphanes: Josephus, Jewish An- 1997, 408 has conflated this account concerning Hadrian with tiquities 12.257-264 (167/166 B.C.E.). Xenios: 2 Maccabees 6.2. Marinus of Neapolis and Zeus Hypsistos, discussed below. Note the interpretation of Eusebius, Hieronymi Chronicon (R. Helm, 9 ‘Safis’ may transliterate to Sospes, ‘safe;’ Sospes or Sispes ed., Eusebius Werke 7 [Berlin 1956] 140), that in 167 B.C.E., may also be an obscure aspect of Jupiter, as his consort Juno acceding to the request of the Samaritans themselves, Antiochus was worshipped as Sospita in Italy; but the connection is fairly built a temple to ‘Jupiter Peregrinus’ on the peak of Mt. Gerizim. tenuous. 5 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 13.254-256. 10 Historia Augusta, Severus 9.5. 6 Josephus, Jewish War 3.4, 32, 307-315; Jewish Antiquities 11 Cassius Dio 75.8.3-4 and 75.14.1-4; Herodian 3.4.7 and 18.85-89. 3.6.9; Historia Augusta, Severus 9.4-8. See Ziegler 1978, who ob- chapter 36 – neapolis 261 all or a part of Neapolis’ territory; even into late ure plowing with yoked ox and cow).17 The only antiquity, Sebaste held the land of Akrabattene, even temple shown is that on one of the peaks of Mt. though it was cut off from Sebaste’s contiguous ter- Gerizim, and as Mt. Gerizim appears on many coin ritory by Neapolis itself.12 types of Neapolis, and had since the time of Some years afterward, however, Septimius Seve- Antoninus Pius, there is no telling whether this was rus is said to have revoked the punishment he had the temple for which Neapolis was made neokoros; inflicted on ‘the Palestinians’ for supporting Niger, the question will be dealt with below.18 a statement that almost certainly refers to the citi- The holy mountain also appears in the back- zens of Neapolis in particular.13 Again, this resembles ground of several reverse types showing the impe- the emperor’s actions toward Nikaia, where he prob- rial family, as if illustrating an imperial visit. Again, ably allowed Caracalla to gain public approval by Gerizim is there not to set the locale, but because ‘winning him over’ to the cause of a former enemy it is almost omnipresent on Neapolis’ coins (as Mt. city.14 As a compensation for its loss of Neapolis’ Argaios was on those of Kaisareia, q.v.). These re- territory (with the possible exception of Akrabattene), verses can range from standard type scenes of im- Sebaste likely received the status of a Roman colony, perial victory,19 adventus,20 or of Philip and his son under the name Lucia Septimia Sebaste, after 201/ sacrificing,21 to unusual scenes such as that show- 202.15 This pattern of punishment and reward, re- ing three figures (probably Philip, his wife Otacilia, conciliation and compensation, is peculiar to and their son Philip) advancing in a chariot: Septimius Severus, and is discussed in chapter 38, COIN TYPE 1. Obv: M OT SEVERAE AVG ‘Historical Analysis,’ in Part II. M C Draped diademed bust of Otacilia on cres- cent r. Rev: NEAPOLI NEOCORO; COL Fac- ing quadriga with three figures (two males, a First Neokoria: Philip female at the right), all raising their right hands and holding scepters in the left; above, Mt. Coins with the portraits of the emperor Philip and Gerizim.22 a) BMC 138 (illus. pl. 37 fig. 197). his family proclaim Neapolis both neokoros and colony. Of the two honors, the coloniate is named There is no record of the imperial family having more often. Neapolis celebrated its new status by come to Neapolis, and coins showing imperial pro- using Latin instead of Greek for its coin legends, cessions or arrivals do not necessarily indicate that becoming ‘colonia Iulia Flavia Sergia Neapolis’; the the emperor visited the city in question.23 On the Julian name came from Philip, the Flavian from other hand, this emperor came from the neighbor- Vespasian the original founder, and the Sergian ing province Arabia, on the other side of the Jor- possibly from the colony’s tribal affiliation.16 The dan, and may have been in the vicinity for the reverses of Neapolis’ coins celebrated Roman colo- naming of Philippopolis, likely his birthplace, in his nial symbols: the Forum statue of Marsyas, the wolf honor.24 His presence is implied by Aurelius Vic- and twins, and the foundation ritual (a togate fig- tor: “with eastern affairs settled, and when the town of Philippopolis in Arabia had been founded, (Philip and his son) went to Rome.”25 The emperor is served that at first, the enemy city’s territory (Antioch) was given known to have taken the sea route west, and the to its rival (Laodikeia in Syria) to help restore losses suffered harbors most convenient to Philippopolis could be in war; when later (ca. 198) Antioch was restored to civic sta- tus, Laodikeia was compensated by becoming a colony. It would be dangerous to extrapolate from the particular timing in this 17 Harl 10, 12, 18, 19, 24-26, 32, 35, 36, 40-42, 47, 48, 51, case to other rival cities in other provinces, but it does seem to 52, 55, 66, 75, 75a, 76, 78-80, 94, 95, 98, 99. apply to Neapolis and Sebaste. Also see Sünskes Thompson 18 Meshorer 1993, 141-142; M. Price and Trell 1977, 173- 1990, 137-155. 175. 12 A. Jones 1977, 276-279. 19 Harl 62. 13 Historia Augusta, Severus 14.6. 20 Harl 63, 64, 93. 14 Historia Augusta, Caracalla 1. 21 Harl 5, 30, 31, 56, 65. 15 Isaac 1992, 359-360; note SNGANS 1080, a coin of Julia 22 Harl 57; the same reverse with an obverse of the younger Domna for that year: the obverse has the Latin legends of the Philip is Harl 77. subsequent colonial coinage, but the reverse is still in Greek, 23 Halfmann 1986a, 234-235; Peachin 1991 was overopti- with no colonial title. mistic. 16 Harl 1984 (= Harl, with catalogue number) nos. 27 (in- 24 Freyberger 1992; Kienast 1996, 198-201. correct for SNGANS 1019), 54; Galsterer-Kröll 1972, 84, 140. 25 Aurelius Victor, Caesares 28. 262 part i – section xiv. syria palaestina reached either by crossing Syria Palaestina itself (via population.31 As a known trouble spot, Syria Palae- Bostra to Caesarea Maritima or Akko/Ptolemais) or stina and its surroundings already had some actual through Syria and Phoenicia (via Damascus to Tyre military colonies, such as Berytus (founded in 15 or Berytus).26 A recent re-analysis of sources for B.C.E.), Akko/Ptolemais (since Claudius), Caesar- Philip’s first year has shown that he did not neces- ea (since Vespasian) and Aelia Capitolina (Hadrian’s sarily reach Rome as early as late July 244, as had refoundation of Jerusalem).32 As mentioned above, previously been thought.27 On the other hand, the it is likely that Septimius Severus granted colonial coins of Neapolis as colony and neokoros were status to Sebaste in order to exalt it when he dis- apparently issued later in Philip’s reign, when his son honored Neapolis; he also made colonies of Tyre in had already been named as Augustus in summer Phoenicia and Heliopolis in Coelesyria, probably 247; the coins’ reverses may refer to the previous from a similar animus against Berytus. Later, coins imperial presence in the area, or may simply be issued under Elagabalus named the city Tiberias a celebrating Philip’s triumph in Rome in that year.28 colony, as were Sidon and Arka-Caesarea in Phoe- In favor of the notion that Philip directed some nicia, and Petra in Arabia.33 Bostra, chief city of attention toward Syria Palaestina, if not proof of his Arabia, got that title under Severus Alexander, and passage through it, the Kitab al-Tarikh records a as already mentioned, Philip exalted it further with Samaritan uprising that set Syria Palaestina in an the title metropolis, as well as making colonies of uproar around the time of a Persian war (either Neapolis, Damascus, and Philippopolis. Gerasa, Caracalla’s or Alexander Severus’); the Samaritan Askelon, and Gaza were also made colonies some- reformer and military leader Baba Rabbah took time in the third century. advantage of the situation to build up a Samaritan The only evidence for a military presence in army and hold back taxes to the Roman state.29 Neapolis is later than Philip, when coin types issued Though the account is highly anachronistic, Gordian under Trebonianus Gallus indicate that two legions, III is also said to have acted against the Samaritans, the X Fretensis (stationed in Jerusalem) and the III and Baba Rabbah was later enticed to ‘Constanti- Cyrenaica (stationed at Bostra), had probably de- nople’ and held in custody by ‘Philip’ himself.30 Cer- tached some troops to the city.34 tainly Philip’s personal attention to some Samaritan Was there a conflict between Roman colonial unrest after his Persian settlement is not out of the status and the emperor worship that is implied by question. The Hellenized city of Neapolis, though the title ‘neokoros’? If we return to the origins of the not directly on either of the routes from Philippo- provincial imperial cult, as portrayed by Cassius Dio polis, may have appeared as a bulwark of loyalty in 51.20.7-8, Augustus had meant for a gulf to be fixed Samaria, and its reward could have included hon- between the xenoi (= peregrini), who were to wor- ors like the coloniate and the neokoria. On the other ship the living emperor, and Romans, who only hand, Philip granted many privileges in the area, worshipped the deified dead. Yet even in the early especially in Arabia: Philippopolis and Damascus empire, the eminent provincials who became chief were also made colonies, and Bostra, already a priests of their koinon were also Roman citizens.35 colony, was made metropolis of Arabia. In the end, Septimius Severus’ wholesale grants of colonial sta- the specific reasons for Neapolis’ honors, including tus, not to mention Caracalla’s grant of Roman the neokoria, remain uncertain. citizenship to most of the peoples of the Empire, The status of colony, granted to non-Roman and further blurred an already fuzzy distinction. Neapolis non-Latin towns since the reign of Claudius, had been given with increasing frequency from the sec- 31 J. Nollé 1995; Salmon 1969, 154-157. On the economic ond century, especially under Septimius Severus, implications of colonial status, Bernhardt 1982. The following who often gave colonial status as a reward without discussion will focus on colonies in the area around Syria implying any change in the composition of the city’s Palaestina, Arabia, and Phoenicia, without discussing those further off in Syria or Mesopotamia. 32 Millar 1990, 53; Kindler 1982-1983; A. Jones 1977, 276- 26 Peachin 1991 preferred Bostra, but then led Philip along 288. an unnecessarily circuitous land route. 33 Meshorer 1985, 12 (incorrect re. Akko), 20, 34-35, 44, 27 Trout 1989. 49-51 (incorrect re. neokoros), 60-61, 70, 88, 106. 28 Kienast 1996, 198-201. 34 Kindler 1980, 56-58. 29 Stenhouse 1985, 186-205; Crown 1989, 54-56, 62. 35 Quass 1993, 149-151; Deininger 1965, 151-153; pace 30 Hall 1989, 52-54. White 1998. chapter 36 – neapolis 263 had a precedent as neokoros and colony, the city of but the return probably reflects misfortune for the Nikopolis in Armenia Minor, and would be followed city. by Thessalonike in Macedonia (qq.v.). Harl’s detailed study showed that in all likelihood There is also the question of what relationship the Neapolis lost its colonial status under Trajan Decius; neokoros city could have to provincial imperial cult the reason was less likely the city’s loyalty to its in this case, as there is no record of a koinon of benefactor Philip than a resulting lack of respect for Samaria or of Syria Palaestina—the nearest were his successor Decius.40 Though some of Philip’s in- those of Syria, centered on Antioch, and Phoenicia, scriptions were erased after his death, no official centered on Tyre.36 Nonetheless the chief city of condemnation of his memory or his acts has been Syria Palaestina, Caesarea Maritima, already a documented.41 Herakleia (q.v.) also declared itself colony, was named metropolis under Severus Alex- neokoros on coins first under Philip, and there too ander; this may imply a leadership position among the title seems to have survived his death. Neapolis other cities of the province, though it may also have apparently coined nothing in Decius’ reign; subse- been purely honorific.37 One city, Antipatris, in a quently, coins issued under Trebonianus Gallus use short-lived coinage for Elagabalus, minted what Greek legends and occasionally the title ‘neokoros,’ appears to be a twice-neokoros coin type, of two but never ‘colonia.’42 It was only later in Gallus’ tetrastyle temples facing one another; but this im- reign that a renewal of Latin-legend coinage boasted age may only be intended to represent the city’s the return of colonial status to Neapolis. The sig- sacred spring between the two shrines.38 nificance of these facts should not be missed: appar- Not only do we know nothing about how these ently Neapolis was allowed to retain its neokoria cities related to one another, we cannot even be cer- even when the title colonia had been stripped from tain for what sort of temple Neapolis was neokoros. it; it is less likely that both were removed but that The coin legends never state whether it is neokoros the neokoria was returned first. Perhaps the city’s of the emperors or of a deity. The latter was gener- sins were minor enough so that the removal of only ally specified, as at Aizanoi and Magnesia (qq.v.). its greatest honor was considered sufficient. Or On Ephesos’ coins the neokoria for Artemis was gen- perhaps Neapolis was not neokoros for the imperial erally counted in with the others during this period, cult, specifically for that of Philip, but for a temple but Ephesos was a special case, neokoros both of whose cult remained even after Philip’s would have emperors and of Artemis, and counted the three fallen into abeyance. And the shrine for which Nea- together on coins where space to specify was lim- polis was most famous was on Mt. Gerizim. ited. Archaeological excavations conducted by I. Once it was made a colony, Neapolis celebrated Magen in Neapolis from 1979 to 1988 and on Mt. its additional Romanness by using the Latin lan- Gerizim from 1983 to 1990 have uncovered several guage on its coins, but transliterated its Greek title new facts.43 On the higher ridge of the mountain, (neocorus) instead of translating it to something like Magen found a Hellenistic city about 100 acres in aedituus. The grammatical form was also left as area, which flourished from ca. 200 B.C.E. to the Greek, with two terminations, and no attempt at a time of John Hyrcanus; the latest coins date to ca. Latinized form (*neocora?) to agree with colonia. There 111 B.C.E. Above, at the very summit of Gerizim, are parallels from such cities as Tyre, Sidon, and was a sacred precinct of about five acres, where Laodikeia in Syria, whose coinage as early as the dedications on sections of wall (in Aramaic) and Severan period, as well as under Philip, used Ro- priestly inscriptions (in Hebrew, using both the ‘Jew- man letters to call each city metropolis as well as ish’ script and the palaeo-Hebrew that later became colonia.39 The reverse is also true, and many a third century colony called itself KOLVNIA on coins and/ or inscriptions. In fact, Neapolis’ coins would go back 40 Harl 67-73. 41 to Greek legends and titles within only a few years, Varner 1993, 484-487. 42 Harl 103, a unique coin of Hostilian, could have been issued after his father Trajan Decius’ death, as he was adopted and made Augustus by Trebonianus Gallus in June 251, and 36 Haensch 1997, 254-261; Deininger 1965, 87-88. survived about a month longer; Kienast 1996, 207-208. If this 37 Lehmann and Holum 2000, 1, 45-47, 84-86. is true, it is a good indication that Neapolis’ Greek coinage 38 Meshorer 1985, 54 no. 150. was indeed issued early in Gallus’ reign. 39 Millar 1990, 32, 35, 50. 43 Magen 1993 (with bibliography). 264 part i – section xiv. syria palaestina

‘Samaritan’) were found.44 The summit sanctuary’s dedicated to Zeus Olympios, an aspect of the god identification as the place sacred to the Samaritans especially popular in the Hellenic world from the is strengthened by the fact that a fortified octago- time of Hadrian on, and one with whom that em- nal church was later built on top of it. This is prob- peror himself was identified after 128 C.E. The ably the church of Mary Mother of God, which the name recalls other eponyms of Zeus probably asso- emperor Zeno built on the site of the Samaritan ciated with the shrine on the higher summit of ‘synagogue’ to punish them for their uprising against Gerizim, and noted above: Hellenios according to the Christians in Neapolis.45 Josephus and Xenios in Maccabees (probably trans- Below the summit and the Hellenistic city is Tell lated to ‘Jupiter Peregrinus’ by Eusebius). Also, a er-Ras, an artifically raised mound ca. 80 x 120 m. fifth-century-C.E. neoplatonist from Neapolis, Ma- and 10 m. high that directly overlooks Neapolis from rinus, referred to a most sacred shrine of Zeus Hyp- the north slope of Gerizim. The four-column temple sistos on Gerizim, where “Abraham the ancestor of atop it sits on a prominence to the left of the sum- the Hebrews was consecrated.”47 This may refer to mit as viewed from the city, and was reached by a a Samaritan tradition that Abraham led Isaac to long staircase that started at a monumental propylon sacrifice on Gerizim; the scene may actually have at the mountain’s foot, just as Neapolis’ coins illus- been illustrated on a coin of Neapolis.48 It is all very trate.46 The temple’s original date is problematic. syncretistic, but it seems that a ‘most high’ god al- Bull used the Samaritan chronicles to attribute it to ways found some place on Gerizim; when the sum- Hadrian, and believed that it was set on top of San- mit was made empty or difficult to approach, a more ballat’s temple. Magen noted that what Bull identi- conventional substitute was erected below. The latter fied as an earlier temple was in fact the monumental was the chief sanctuary of Hellenized Neapolis; but substructure that retained the earth for the temple the Samaritans apparently never lost their dedica- temenos (a walled plaza ca. 44 x 64 m., actually an tion to the summit sanctuary, as they continued to irregular oblong with its long axis running north- try to take it back even after Zeno built his church south), but dated its construction to Antoninus Pius’ on top of it.49 reign based on its first appearance on the city’s coins. Through comparisons with the coins’ portrayals Both temple and plaza were apparently enlarged to of Mt. Gerizim, it seems sure that the Tell er-Ras the north sometime in the third century, but the temple of Zeus Olympios was a chief temple of Nea- extension probably collapsed sometime after the polis. Its date may have been Hadrianic, as Ha- reign of Julian the Apostate (360-363 C.E.). drian’s propagation of that cult carried it throughout Set in the center of a stone-paved plaza, the the Greek world.50 This date would not conflict with temple (illus. pl. 3 fig. 12) was apparently tetrastyle the temple’s first appearance on coins under prostyle, its exterior facing of limestone, and had Hadrian’s successor Antoninus Pius. It may even attached columns on its exterior walls (pseudoperi- have been dedicated to Hadrian as well as Zeus pteral). It was about 14 x 21 m., stood on a three- Olympios, though there is no direct evidence for this. stepped krepis, but was apparently approached by Though the reading of the Samaritan chronicles a frontal staircase of at least eleven steps. Its facade regarding Hadrian is unclear, at least the Kitab al- columns were Corinthian, possibly with shafts of red Aswan granite. The interior was arranged as a pro- naos and naos, and at least part of its floor was paved for both. For the image of the temple on coins, see above, n. with marble. 18. From inscriptions on a limestone column fragment 47 Damaskios’ life of Isidoros, no. 242 preserved in Photius, Bibliotheca, ed. I. Bekker (Berlin 1824) 345b ll. 18-28; Marinus, and on a copper ex voto from a well, the temple was however, is berated by the author for being a Hellenizer. Zangenberg 1994, 178. Hypsistos is an epithet for Yahweh in the Septuagint (e.g. Genesis 14.18, Deuteronomy 32.8), though it was also applied to Zeus and other non-Jewish gods: de Hoz 44 Naveh 1998, 93-94. 1991. See S. Mitchell 1999, esp. 93-94 (a theatral place of 45 Johannes Malalas, Chronicle 15.8; Procopius, Buildings prayer outside Neapolis). 5.7.1-17; Chronicon Paschale 603.19-604.13; Zangenberg 1994, 48 Meshorer 1989, 175-177, no. 3; also pointing out the 275-278, 316-318. syncretism between Zeus and Yahweh (El Elyon). 46 The account is that of Bull 1997, on his earlier excava- 49 Procopius, Buildings 5.7.1-17. tion, modified by that of Magen 1993. Neither is without its 50 See discussions in chapters 2, ‘Smyrna’; 4, ‘Ephesos’; and problems, however, and full and final publication is still needed 5, ‘Kyzikos.’ chapter 36 – neapolis 265

Tarikh of Abu ’l-Fath places the ‘Safis’ he built on Philip and Philip the Younger Augustus: BMC 130-134 the mountain next to Gerizim, which may be Tell (Harl 38, 37, 42, 44, 45); SNGANS 1020, 1021 (Harl er-Ras; but what connection ‘Safis’ had to Zeus 38, 44); Rosenberger 88, 91, 92 (Harl 45, 40, 44); Oxford (Harl 46);53 Paris (3 exx., Harl 35, 37, 45); Olympios is uncertain. Finally, whether this was also Berlin. the temple that made Neapolis neokoros cannot be Otacilia: BMC 138 (Harl 57); SNGANS 1023 (Harl 59); assured. Jerusalem, Franciscan Biblical School;54 Israel Mu- seum (Rosenberger 96, Harl 60);55 Paris (Harl 60); No inscriptions of Neapolis as neokoros have yet Berlin (2 exx.). Philip the Younger Augustus: AUB 5056 (Harl 61); Rosen- been found. berger 74 (misattributed), 100, 105, 108 (Harl 74, 62, 76, 75a); London (Harl 76); Paris (3 exx., Harl 77-79); Berlin. COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Trebonianus Gallus: BMC 153, 154 (Harl 112, 111); SNGANS 1036; Rosenberger 111, 128 (misattributed) Neokoros: (Harl 119, 111) Paris (2 exx., Harl 112, 118); Ber- Philip: BMC 123 (Harl 21)51; SNGBraun 1473; Rosen- lin. berger 82, 8352 (Harl 21, 19); London (Harl 11); Volusian: BMC 164 (Harl 141); AUB 56 (misattributed), Vienna (Harl 20); Berlin. 61 (Harl 137); Rosenberger 127 (Harl 137); Paris (2 exx., Harl 137); Oxford.

51 Harl 1984 (= Harl with catalogue number). Individual examples on which the word for neokoros is completely ob- 53 Milne 1947, 60-61; Meshorer 1989, 176-177 no. 3. scure (e.g. BMC 120, 122) will not be listed here. 54 Meshorer 1985, 52 no. 146. 52 Rosenberger 1977 (= Rosenberger with catalogue num- 55 Meshorer 1989, 175-176 no. 2. ber). 56 Baramki 1974 (= AUB with catalogue number), 27-29. 266 part i – section xv. pisidia

SECTION XV. PISIDIA

Chapter 37. Sagalassos: in Pisidia

Sagalassos lay in Pisidia, a rich but remote and ity affected the development of a koinon among the mountainous region of Anatolia, separated from the cities of Pisidia is uncertain (see below). Certainly sea by the Pamphylian plain.1 The Pisidians were the only evidence for a Pisidian city being neoko- best known as warriors, and the Sagalassians as the ros is extremely late, from the end of the third or most warlike of the Pisidians, at least in the time of beginning of the fourth century C.E. Alexander the Great, who had some difficulty in subduing the city.2 The relations between the various Pisidian cities First and Second Neokoria: by 293-305 do not appear to have been close, though there were occasional alliances as well as enmities, and perhaps An inscription of the first Tetrarchy calls Saga- even a small koinon in the Milyas area, between lassos “sacred, illustrious and honored twice neoko- Pisidia and Lycia.3 No koinon of Pisidia is document- ros city, first of Pisidia, friend and ally of the Ro- ed, though the existence of one has been posited.4 mans”: Sagalassos did call itself ‘first of Pisidia’ from at least INSCRIPTION 1. Pace 1916-1920, 38-39 no. 21 the time of Commodus, but that boast does not (SEG 2 [1924] no. 735). To Diocletian and necessarily indicate that the city was the center of Maximian as Augusti and to Constantius Chlorus a koinon, or that other cities in Pisidia agreed with and Galerius as Caesares, thus dated 293-305.8 5 the claim. { |erå k¢ lamprå k¢ ¶ndojow b' nevkÒro[w] Our understanding of the Roman administration Sagalass°vn pÒliw pr\(th) t}w Pisid¤aw f¤lh of Pisidia is made more difficult because the area k¢ sÊmmaxow [ÑRv]m°vn was moved from the aegis of one governor to that of another.6 Originally included in the Galatian Several milestones also reinforce the fact that Sa- realm of King Amyntas, it passed to Rome at his galassos was twice neokoros under Diocletian. There death in 25 B.C.E., and became part of the prov- are other milestones, however, from as late as Clau- ince Galatia. Galatia (including Pisidia) and Cappa- dius Gothicus and even under the first Tetrarchy, that do not mention ‘neokoros’ among the city’s docia occasionally merged to form one great prov- 9 ince, in Nero’s and again in Vespasian’s time. In the titles. Nor does the city’s coinage, which goes down to the reign of Claudius Gothicus, cite it.10 One later Flavian period, however, Pisidia may have been should not argue from silence, though, and it is ceded for a brief time to the province Asia before it certainly possible that Sagalassos was (twice) neoko- went back to Galatia and finally passed into Lycia- ros before the end of the third century, but saw no Pamphylia by ca. 144-147 C.E.7 How this instabil- need to proclaim it explicitly, especially if it had no close rivals for the title. Sagalassos’ chief importance in the third century 1 French 1992; Waelkens 1993. 2 Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander 1.28. was likely as a source of grain supplies for the Ro- 3 Bracke 1993, 19, 23. man armies in the East; its coins often show a small 4 Deininger 1965, 68-69; Kornemann 1924, 932. 5 IGRR 3:350, 352, 353; Devijver and Waelkens 1995, 115- 116 no. 1; Haensch 1997, 279 n. 90. uncertain which province the governor Proculus (named on the 6 Remy 1986, 21-22, 25, 39-40, 51-65, 73, 82-85. temple of Apollo Klarios) governed, and when. 7 Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 295. The new datum is an 8 Kienast 1996, 264. inscription to a governor of Asia in 86 C.E.; note, however, 9 French 1988, 113 no. 299, 105 no. 275; IGRR 3:336. that Pisidia was under a legatus of Cappadocia-Galatia in 82 10 Weiss 1992, 159; also 155, stating that no Pisidian city and of Galatia in 113/114: Remy 1986, 64, 67. It is now was neokoros. chapter 37 – sagalassos 267 wheat ear, once under the joined hands of the spolia used for a Christian basilical church on the Romans and Sagalassians (under Claudius Gothi- same site, perhaps as early as the fifth century. cus).11 The city had been proud of its title ‘friend Though the excavators occasionally state that the and ally of the Romans’ perhaps as early as the time temple was ‘re-dedicated to the cult of the imperial of Antoninus Pius.12 But despite all this and long family,’ the inscription on the architrave clearly being ‘first of Pisidia,’ after the empire-wide provin- reads: “To Apollo Klarios and to the gods Augusti cial reorganization that occurred between 308 and and to the fatherland...”17 The formula is exactly 311, Pisidia’s chief city was the Roman colony comparable to that on the small streetside shrine at Antioch, not Sagalassos.13 And though later inscrip- Ephesos (q.v.), which was long misnamed ‘the temple tions honoring Constantius II (dated from 346 to of Hadrian’ despite its actual dedication to Artemis, 361) accord Sagalassos the title metropolis, in the Hadrian, and the neokoros people of Ephesos; its lists of bishoprics, Sagalassos still falls behind An- actual object of cult is still uncertain. Also, many tioch and Philomelion.14 secular buildings had similar formulae of dedication, If Pisidia only developed a koinon structure late, both at Ephesos and elsewhere. Another architrave it is possible that a pair of local temples at Sagalassos found at Sagalassos switches the order of imperial were then adapted for koinon cult.15 Scholars have and divine dedicatees, reading “to the gods Augusti indeed associated two Sagalassian temples with the and (gods) of the fatherland and to the people.”18 cult of Roman emperors. In neither case, however, The purpose of the inscription of the temple at can the theory that they were koinon temples, or that Sagalassos is not to name all the cults practiced the neokoria was bestowed for them, be proved. therein, but is simply a formula of dedication, as it The first is the temple of Apollo Klarios.16 It is is in Ephesos and elsewhere. The decoration around prominently placed on a hill buttressed with terrace the temple, including metopes of bows and arrows walls, overlooking the west side of the city’s (lower) and of wreaths in the Doric frieze of the propyla, is agora, from which an axial propylon, Doric with- well suited to a temple of Apollo. The festival Klareia out and Ionic within, led into the temenos. Anoth- is mentioned in local inscriptions from the mid-first er propylon entered the precinct from the northwest. to third century C.E., and it is never coupled with The excavators have depended mainly upon stylis- any imperial name.19 tic analysis of the architecture to date its phases, the A better case for dedication to the imperial cult first of which may have been Augustan. This early may be made for a temple in the southern extreme temple may have been destroyed in an earthquake, of Sagalassos. Again, the identification is based on and the second phase, currently dated in the early an inscription from the architrave, but this is to the second century, had six by eleven Ionic columns. emperor Antoninus Pius and his house, with no The dedication on the architrave, discussed below, mention of another dedicatee preserved.20 The records the names of the chief donors: Titus Flavius temple was built up on a large terrace, where it could Collega and various members of his family gave the be seen by all who entered the gates. It was set peripteron, the revetment of the (interior) walls, and axially in a broad temenos, 82.40 x 60.40 m., with other features of the temple, which he apparently porticoes on all four sides, entered from the west via dedicated during his own chief priesthood. The a propylon, possibly with composite capitals (illus. temple itself was later completely dismantled and the pl. 5 fig. 20). The temple itself is on a similar scale to that of Apollo Klarios, with six by eleven columns,

11 Weiss 1992, 159-163; BMC 59; SNGvA 5208-5209, the 17 Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 295. Lanckoronski 1890- latter’s reverse type surmounted by a wreath and what may be 1892, 2 no. 200 (= IGRR 3:342). a bow (symbols of the Klareia? See below). 18 Lanckoronski 1890-1892, 2 no. 205; found in the area 12 IGRR 3:348 (much restored), 350-353; Devijver and of W, not of E, though IGRR 3:343 attributed it and 342 to Waelkens 1995, 115-116 no. 1. the same monument. 13 Waelkens 1993, 47. 19 Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 308-310; also note Devijver 14 Devijver and Waelkens 1995, 116-117 nos. 2-3; Belke and and Waelkens 1995, 119 no. 7. Other contests are the Rhodoneia Mersich 1990, 368-369. and the Vareia (both named for private founders: Lanckoronski 15 Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 312. 1890-1892, 2 nos. 193 and 195) and the Kallipianeios Neikatoreios. 16 S. Mitchell, Owens, and Waelkens 1989, 70-73; Waelkens, 20 Lanckoronski 1890-1892, 2 no. 188 (= IGRR 3:348). S. Mitchell, and Owens 1990, 185-190; Waelkens 1993, 46; Waelkens, Mitchell, and Owens 1990, 190-193; Waelkens 1993, Vandeput 1997, 50-57, 198-202. 46; Vandeput 1997, 64-82, 203-207. 268 part i – section xv. pisidia but is Corinthian, not Ionic, and faces west, not east that an impetus for new developments in the pro- (illus. pl. 2 fig. 8). Its pronaos, with two columns in vincial imperial cult in the late Flavian period could antis, is almost as deep as its cella, at 8 m. and 9.3 have been a brief incorporation of Pisidia into the m. respectively. province of Asia, with its well developed koinon This temple’s rich but delicate architectural dec- focused on worship of the living emperor. oration, featuring acanthus scrolls and palmettes with A recent find from the lower agora of Sagalassos lotus, has led some of its excavators to date it in the offers the latest known example of the title ‘neoko- Hadrianic period, despite the dedication to Antoni- ros’ in current use. The only securely dated later nus Pius; they justify this date by positing a long appearance was at Sardis (q.v.), and that was an building period, which necessarily implies that the anachronism, probably imitated from earlier inscrip- temple was at first to be dedicated to Hadrian.21 But tions. The Sagalassian inscription is on a reeded it is extremely unlikely that Antoninus, who was said column reused for a dedication to Constantine as to have been given the name Pius for his punctili- Augustus and to Constantine II, Constantius II, and ousness in honoring his adoptive father, would have Constans as Caesares, thus dated between 25 De- allowed a temple originally for Hadrian to be reded- cember 333 and Constantine’s death in May 337 22 icated to his own cult. It certainly did not happen C.E.26 The inscription was slightly altered between at Kyzikos (q.v.), where despite a delay of over for- 340 and 350 when Constantius II and Constans were ty years the temple was still dedicated to the orig- the sole remaining Augusti. The dedication to the inal object of cult, Hadrian. The schema of stylistic rulers is in Latin. The city’s titulature follows in development that Vandeput has generated can only Greek, and though its first line was erased and re- offer a relative chronology; indeed, its sole dose of cut, it was apparently not substantially changed. absolute chronology comes from the same kind of inscriptional evidence that he here overrides. It is INSCRIPTION 4. Devijver and Waelkens 1997, more likely, then, that the temple to Antoninus Pius 310-313 no. 6. Original dedication to Constantine was requested from, and granted by, Antoninus Pius, and his three sons, 333-337 C.E; slightly altered and that one Sagalassian stonecarving workshop under Constantius II and Constans, 340-350 C.E. continued to use a ‘Hadrianic’ style for a longer time First version: _{ |erå ka‹ lamprå´ ka‹ ¶ndojow than usual.23 In any case, the temple began to be b' nevk[Ò]row Sagalass°vn pÒ[liw] pr\th t}w dismantled in late antiquity, and parts of its frieze Pisid¤a[w] f¤lh ka‹ sÊmma[x]ow ÑRvma¤vn were reused in another basilical church to the west It is noteworthy that the title ‘twice neokoros,’ proud of the city in the fifth or early sixth century C.E.24 mark of the city’s worship of the emperors, was still Sagalassos’ first chief priest of the Augusti, Titus being used at Sagalassos while the Empire was ruled Flavius Neon, probably was the first in his family by Christian emperors. Yet Constantine does not to receive Roman citizenship, in the Flavian peri- seem to have taken direct action against pagan tem- od.25 He was also agonothetes for life, though the ples; indeed, if Zosimus can be trusted, he founded name of the contest is not mentioned; and one of two in Constantinople itself, one of the Mother of his descendants, Titus Flavius Severianus, was per- the Gods, the other of the city goddess Rome.27 But petual agonothetes, likely by endowment, as well. Neon’s office does imply an imperial cult temple in even if the emperor did not generally support pa- the Flavian period, before the temple of Apollo gan shrines, he did believe in his own divine mis- sion, and it is unlikely that he would have chosen Klarios was reconstructed in the early second century. 28 Nothing dictates that his chief priesthood was pro- the imperial cult as a target for disgrace. vincial rather than municipal. But it is just possible Whatever Constantine’s stance, the evidence for Sagalassos as neokoros, indeed for almost all the neokoroi, ends after this point. At least one of the 21 Vandeput 1997, 75-77. temples for which the city may have been neokoros, 22 Cassius Dio ep. 70.1-2; Historia Augusta, Hadrian 24, 27. There is, of course, the possibility that the emperor was not informed, but this seems unlikely for such a prominent temple in a major city, even if not a koinon temple. 26 Kienast 1996, 298-303, 310-317. 23 Vandeput 1995, 131. 27 Zosimus, New History 2.31; the pagan Zosimus was no 24 Vandeput 1993, 93. friend to Constantine. 25 Devijver 1993, 2.3, 3.3. 28 MacMullen 1990, 107-116. chapter 37 – sagalassos 269 that of Antoninus Pius, was dismantled about a inscribed under the first Tetrarchy, same time as century after inscription 4 was reengraved. Sagalas- inscriptions 1 and 3; reinscribed in Constantinian sos appears to have had a vocal, and active, Chris- times. tian community early on; a recently found dedication 3. French 1988, 101 no. 264. Enumeration restored. to the “pure goddesses who heed prayer” was first Milestone originally inscribed under the first Tet- scratched with the rebuttal: “one God!” and then rarchy (like inscriptions 1 and 2), reinscribed twice torn down to be reused as paving over a gutter.29 subsequently, once in 333-335 and again in 340-350 C.E. 4. Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 310-313 no. 6. See INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: text above. First version of 333-337 C.E., parts re- cut 340-350. Twice neokoros: Uncertain, fragment: 1. Pace 1916-1920, 38-39 no. 21. Dated 293-305 5. Pace 1916-1920, 39 no. 22 (SEG 2 [1924] no. C.E., like inscriptions 2 and 3. See text above. 736). No enumeration preserved. 2. French 1988, 104 no. 273. Milestone originally No coins of Sagalassos that cite the title ‘neokoros’ 29 Waelkens et al. 1997, 147, fig. 67; see also 162. are yet known. This page intentionally left blank chapter 35 – herakleia 271

PART II. SUMMARY CHAPTERS This page intentionally left blank chapter 35 – herakleia 273

INTRODUCTION

The following chapters summarize the material that the title ‘neokoros’ in the later first century, to the has been presented in the chapters on each neoko- last use of the title ‘neokoros’ in the fifth century C.E. ros city. Those who need a general and chronolog- Chapter 39 examines what we know of the temples ically arranged picture of the development of the themselves and of the images within them; it also provincial imperial cult among all the neokoroi, discusses the coins issued by the neokoroi and how instead of in one particular city or koinon, may begin to interpret the evidence they offer. Chapter 40 here. This arrangement involves some repetition of focuses on the neokoroi cities and their operations, material, but it allows the reader to get a broader while 41 widens that focus to the koina to which picture of certain themes. Full discussion and cita- those cities belonged. Finally, chapter 42 looks at the tion of sources is not given here, however, but in Roman side of the equation, the actions and atti- each individual city chapter. tudes of the emperors, the governors, and the Sen- Chapter 38 presents the historical development ate toward the koina, the neokoroi, and their tem- of koinon cult from 29 B.C.E., through the rise of ples. This page intentionally left blank chapter 38 – historical analysis 275

Chapter 38. Historical Analysis: the Development of Neokoria

Augustus The emperor, who was still in Asia at the time, was not making these decisions out of thin air, but likely The koinon cult of the emperors started with the first in response to petitions from the two provinces in- emperor, Augustus, and thus antedated the use of volved, specifically from the provincial organizations, ‘neokoros’ as an official title for a city by about a the koina, that were to make the provincial impe- century.1 These earlier foundations will be found to rial cult their main concern. Augustus was proba- have counted when the title became current and bly being offered cult in line with a long tradition when total neokoriai were reckoned up, however. of ruler worship by Greek cities and organizations, The few historical accounts regarding the origins of stretching through the Hellenistic period and includ- koinon cults also offer crucial information that other ing honors to Roman magistrates as well.2 But it is sources on later periods pass over in silence. likely that he introduced modifications as he thought Chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ has already provided an proper, modifications that would have played well analysis of Cassius Dio’s account of events of 29 before the Roman audience that was then his prime B.C.E., which was probably taken fairly literally from concern. These modifications will be examined more an official Roman document. The passage shows closely in chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers.’ how the victor of Actium, later to be named Those whom Augustus called Hellenes, i.e. the Augustus, handled requests to establish the imperial koina of the Hellenes of Asia and of Bithynia, were cult in the provinces of Asia and Bithynia. to be allowed to worship Augustus himself, the In the meantime Caesar, besides taking care of af- Asians at Pergamon and the Bithynians at Niko- fairs generally, gave permission that there be estab- media. Dio then appends his interpretation of the lished sacred areas to Rome and his father Caesar, event: as a senator who could survey the history of whom he named the hero Julius, in Ephesos and in two subsequent centuries, he saw a line of demar- Nikaia; for these were at that time the preeminent cation separating, not East from West, but Roman cities in Asia and in Bithynia respectively. He com- Italy, where people worshipped only the deified manded that the Romans resident there honor those divinities, but he permitted the foreigners, whom he dead, from the non-Roman Empire, where people called Hellenes, to consecrate precincts to himself, could worship a living ruler. Dio did not mention the Asians’ in Pergamon and the Bithynians’ in the fact that the goddess Rome shared cult not just Nikomedia. From that beginning, the latter practice in Caesar’s temple but in Augustus’ as well.3 Per- has been carried on under other emperors, not only haps Dio omitted to name her because her presence in the Greek provinces but in the others as well, insofar as they obey the Romans. For in the capital would have obscured his point that Augustus’ was itself and the rest of Italy none of the emperors, no the model for subsequent imperial cult; as Dio knew, matter how worthy of fame, has dared to do this; later emperors did not consider themselves obliged still, even there they give divine honors and build to honor Rome in the temples dedicated to them. shrines as well to dead emperors who have ruled justly. Or it may be that the personification of Rome was These events happened in the winter, and the introduced into cults of Augustus sometime after he Pergamenes got permission to hold the contest known as ‘sacred’ in honor of his temple. accepted these two temples. Though Dio named Ephesos and his own city of Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9 Nikaia as preeminent in their provinces, the honor of being among the first neokoroi was to escape

2 The most comprehensive treatment is still Habicht 1970. 1 Up-to-date bibliography is in Southern 1998. 3 Suetonius, Augustus 52; see also Tacitus, Annals 4.37.3. 276 part ii – summary chapters them. The temples of Rome and the hero Julius were program of the temple at Ankyra will follow in designated for Romans, and did not serve as head- chapter 39, ‘The Temples,’ below. quarters of the provincial imperial cult as the temples to Rome and Augustus would. Even the petitions of Pergamon and Nikomedia, Tiberius both submitted and granted at the same level and by the same emperor, seem to have undergone sig- In 23 C.E., the Hellenes of Asia petitioned to build nificant differences in treatment. For one, Dio a second temple to a reigning emperor, Augustus’ mentions that the Pergamenes received permission successor Tiberius. The immediate motive was a to hold a sacred contest in honor of Augustus’ series of Senatorial judgements favorable to the temple. This request appears to have been an ad- province, and as a consequence the Senate was to dendum, perhaps made by the city of Pergamon be honored along with the emperor. Also included itself, to the larger petitions made by the two koina. in the honor was the emperor’s mother, the widow Dio’s wording makes it clear that the festival was of Augustus, Livia (now known as Julia). It should supplementary and established in honor of the be noted that Bithynia, which had previously acted temple, not an invariable result of its foundation. We in concert with Asia in requesting a temple to must remember that a sacred contest was not the Augustus, took no part in the Tiberian petition. This inevitable concomitant of a temple’s foundation was because Bithynia had no interest in the success- when we turn to later periods, when such festivals ful prosecutions of Asian governors which supplied would proliferate. the immediate motive for offering the temple. But The crucial passage of Cassius Dio, and Sueto- the Asians’ petition also indicates a point at which nius’ observation that Augustus only allowed his cult the two provinces began to diverge. Bithynia offers to be practiced along with that of the goddess Rome, little evidence, but its koinon may have been con- show how he ‘reinvented’ the tradition of ruler cult tent with its one temple, that of Rome and Augustus as already practiced by the Hellenes, and made it at Nikomedia, for the entire first century, whereas accommodate his own purposes.4 Moreover, thanks the koinon of Asia may have made some attempt to to Augustus’ unrivaled authority and status, which build a new provincial temple for each emperor. his successor Tiberius would guard closely, this new The temple would eventually be built in Smyrna, tradition of granting to a koinon a single temple to but not without a debate before the Roman Senate the emperor and cult partner(s) continued to be among the eleven cities that wanted it.5 Two aspects honored (with certain exceptions, and chiefly in Asia) of this debate are especially noteworthy. The first over a century later. is that instead of presenting an agreed-upon petition, As neither the temple at Pergamon nor that at as they likely did in offering a cult for Augustus at Nikomedia has survived, only the temple of Augustus Pergamon in 29 B.C.E., the cities of Asia may have and Rome at Ankyra is left to represent the temples been deadlocked over which of them was to have of Augustus that would eventually gain the title the temple of Tiberius. Rivalry over the temples and ‘neokoros’ for their cities. The temple dates some- their rights was only to increase over the coming time between Galatia’s absorption as a Roman prov- centuries. The second aspect is that the Senate elimi- ince in 25 B.C.E. and the point at which the list of nated certain cities from competition, some because priests of the province was inscribed on its left anta, they weren’t of a status suitable to this high honor, 19/20 C.E. Further evidence for the temple’s func- others because they were already devoted to one tion as an archive for the province is showed by the particular and important cult. Among the latter were inscription of Augustus’ accomplishments, the res Ephesos (devoted to Artemis), Miletos (to Apollo), gestae, on its walls; the temple at Pergamon is known and Pergamon, which had been ‘honored enough’ from epigraphic references to have fulfilled a simi- by its temple to (Rome and) Augustus. Thus in the lar function. A fuller discussion of the architectural early days of the Empire the Senate equated a koinon temple with some of the greatest sanctuar- ies of the province, and judged it proper that a city have no more than one koinon temple. 4 Hobsbawm 1983. For figures like Augustus as bricoleurs in Levi-Strauss’ sense, manipulators of extant traditions, see Boholm 1996, 190-191. 5 Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56. chapter 38 – historical analysis 277

Tiberius himself frowned on extending the impe- cult in all corners of the Empire.7 There is no record rial cult beyond the limits set by Augustus, which of whether Gaius was to share his temple with a god he interpreted rather strictly. In 25, a delegation or personification, though it is possible that Apollo from the province of Hispania Ulterior asked per- was accommodated at his side. As the Didymaion mission to build a shrine to Tiberius and his mother, was to become a koinon temple, a board of neopoioi using the temple he had granted to Asia as a prece- was established representing each judicial district of dent. This gave Tiberius an opportunity to state his Asia, and work commenced on the building’s new opposition to divine honors for himself: he had only incarnation. But it was to be short lived: the empe- granted the temple to the Asians because Augustus ror’s murder and the condemnation of his memory had set the precedent of granting a temple to his own meant that the Didymaion, no longer a koinon tem- cult and Rome’s at Pergamon, but he (Tiberius) had ple, was soon returned to Apollo. been the more ready to follow that precedent be- cause the cult of the Senate had been linked with his own.6 According to Tacitus, this speech, deliv- From Claudius to Vitellius ered before the Senate itself, was attributed by many to the worst motives, though some saw it in the way Of the provincial imperial cults in the East, little that Tiberius probably intended, as an act of (osten- specific information survives from the reigns of tatious) modesty. Tiberius was making a show of his Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, or Vitellius. More refusal to go beyond the hallowed example of generally, however, the second half of the first cen- Augustus before a Roman audience. tury is a fascinating time, as it produced several documents that allow us to trace the birth of ‘neo- koros’ as a title for cities. Gaius As early as Gaius’ reign, Kyzikos was the first city known to use ‘neokoros’ to describe itself on an In contrast, Gaius, better known as Caligula, appar- inscription, and that was for possession of a shrine ently chose the site of his own temple in Asia rather dedicated to a member of the emperor’s family. Two than leaving the choice to either the koinon or the further instances of the term occur in Ephesos. In Senate. Cassius Dio 59.28.1 states that Gaius “or- Acts of the Apostles 19.35, during the riot of the sil- dered that a precinct be set aside for his worship in versmiths in the theater at Ephesos, the city’s sec- Miletos in the province Asia.” In this passage, just retary is said to have asked, “Who does not know as in Tacitus’ discussion of Tiberius’ temple, certain that Ephesos is neokoros of the great goddess cities were excluded from consideration because they Artemis and of the heaven-fallen [image]?” Though were ‘preempted’ by other gods (again, Artemis held this episode was likely set in writing a quarter cen- Ephesos), including emperors (Augustus held Per- tury after it occurred, the terminology does fit the gamon, Tiberius held Smyrna). Miletos itself had period of Paul’s visit to Ephesos in the early 50s. previously been cast out of the running for the Then, in Nero’s reign, Ephesos became the first city temple to Tiberius because it was considered already to call itself neokoros on a coin. These coins, dated to be dedicated to Apollo; but that fact would not to 65/66 C.E., might represent the first use of be an obstruction to Gaius’ command, because the ‘neokoros’ as a title for a city with a koinon temple. koinon cult of Gaius was to be established in Apollo’s If so, Ephesos’ novel honor was to be plagued with own temple, the Didymaion. uncertainty, as Nero, the likely object of cult, died In choosing a particular city and temple for his in disgrace only a few years after the coins appeared. cult, and the latter not only already consecrated to a god but one of the biggest buildings in the Greek world, Gaius went well beyond the example hal- The Flavians: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian lowed by his great-grandfather Augustus in several ways. That was not unusual for this emperor, whom Apparently it was the last, successful emperor of the the historians portray as eager to establish his own year 69, Vespasian, who gave Perge in Pamphylia

6 Tacitus, Annals 4.37-38; Charlesworth 1939. 7 Barrett 1989, 140-153. 278 part ii – summary chapters its first provincial imperial temple; at least, the city interruptions caused by civil war and the deaths of claimed to be ‘neokoros from Vespasian’ two cen- rulers), such a lapse of time is not impossible to turies later. The closest sure connection that Ves- imagine. pasian had with Perge was his reorganization of As founder of a new dynasty distinct from that Pamphylia, which he annexed to Lycia. Lycia had of the Julio-Claudians, Vespasian thoroughly reor- a long-standing koinon of its own. Pamphylia, on the ganized several provinces; in the process, he may other hand, formed an independent provincial or- have instituted the imperial cult, as we have already ganization, known from a few inscriptions as ‘the seen in the case of Perge in Pamphylia.8 He had cities in Pamphylia,’ and directed by Pamphyliarchs. made no objection to early rumors about his divine Perhaps in the reorganization by Vespasian, some powers or imperial destiny, so long as they aided his attempt was made to regularize Pamphylia in the progress toward imperial rule. Once that was accom- model of neighboring provinces. An important part plished, it was probably in his interest to strengthen of this reorganization could have been establishing his position by using the Augustan example of ac- a temple of the imperial cult, and the title ‘neoko- ceptance of his own worship by the Hellenes of the ros’ would either have been a recent innovation to provinces, the same kind of ‘routinization of cha- signify possession of such a temple, or could later risma’ that Bloch saw in the appropriation of royal have become attached to it. But these possibilities healing outside dynastic or familial bounds.9 It was are in fact extremely uncertain, and it is dangerous crucial to the founders of new dynasties to install to generalize from province to province. themselves firmly in an already dominant tradition. Possibly as early as 85/86, but at least by 88/89, Therefore it is rather odd that several scholars in the reign of Vespasian’s son Domitian, Ephesos have attributed wide-ranging reforms of the ‘impe- had a koinon temple of the Augusti and was named rial cult’ (in all its aspects and across several prov- neokoros on inscriptions as it had been on coins inces) not to Vespasian, but to Domitian, his younger earlier. This is the time by which neokoros seems son and second successor.10 After Domitian’s death to have become a title that was solely applicable to his image and name were erased from many (though possessors of koinon temples, not just a metaphor by no means all) monuments; and some scholars for the possession of any important temple. It is have assumed from this condemnation that when unfortunate that the documents only show the re- ancient texts attribute the initiation or modification sult, not the process. of a cult to Vespasian or Nerva, they are covering That process can no longer be attributed with- up an initial attribution to Domitian. This is a faulty out question to Domitian. For one thing, it is be- assumption, however: though the name of Domitian coming clearer that Ephesos may have already been was often erased or passed over, there are no ac- neokoros for Nero, and the petition for reinstatement counts of his acts being attributed to any other of a koinon temple for Ephesos could have been emperor.11 Specifically, the long history of misinter- initiated as early as the time of Vespasian. The fact pretation of the remains of the first temple to make that the inscriptions around the temple were set up Ephesos neokoros (with the statue of Titus found to honor Domitian may mean only that the project there miscalled Domitian; its temple of the Augusti took a long time to complete. A construction period miscalled the temple of Domitian; and the city it- of over twenty years is about twice as long as those self misnamed twice neokoros from falsified coins of likely for some of the temple’s predecessors, e.g. the Domitian’s time) has clouded the issue and made temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon or the Domitian’s name loom larger than it perhaps should. temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate at Smyrna; Historians and litterateurs who wrote on Domitian on the other hand, the third koinon temple of Asia, emphasized his autocratic tendencies, his famous the Didymaion as rededicated to Gaius, was never completed. Of course Ephesos’ temple of the Au- gusti, despite its massive vaulted platform, was no 8 Levick 1999, 134-151, 165-169 modified the picture pre- Didymaion. But as the time between the first appear- sented by Garzetti 1974, 250-253. For Vespasian’s reorgani- ance of ‘neokoros’ on coins of 65/66 and the hon- zation of the provincial imperial cult in various provinces of orifics around the temple in 88/89 may have the West, Fishwick 1998, 107-112. 9 Bloch 1973, 21-27. included much negotiation in the koinon and sev- 10 Dräger 1993, 238-256; Scherrer 1997. eral different embassies to Rome (not to mention the 11 Vittinghoff 1936, 19-20, 30, 98. chapter 38 – historical analysis 279 wish to be called ‘lord and god,’ and his hatred for to be proved or disproved. But it is important to rec- his brother and predecessor Titus.12 Of course, it is ognize that Titus’ eventual deification and the con- important to recognize that almost all the sources struction of his long-delayed triumphal arch in the that survive were hostile to Domitian, and thus prone Roman Forum indicate that Domitian did give his to interpret his actions for the worse.13 Domitian’s brother prominent posthumous honors. Thus when ‘autocracy’ has been re-interpreted as an increase evaluating the colossal statue of Titus found at in efficiency and centralization of administration, Ephesos, we cannot use alleged personal hatred to tending toward direct imperial control, in a num- rule out the possibility that the statue was carved and ber of spheres.14 But his interests seem to have been set up by the Ephesians and the province of Asia more focused on correction of specific cases than on under Domitian. the wide-ranging reorganization of some provinces, That the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos was as Vespasian’s had been. Indeed, Domitian’s admin- completed during Domitian’s reign is indubitable. istration appears to have been rather legalistic and Ephesos then began to call itself neokoros for that precise, except in the case of his edict against vine- koinon temple, and inscriptions of Smyrna name that growing in Italy and the provinces, which was soon city neokoros at this time as well. Smyrna also be- rescinded anyway. Moreover, frequent dedications came the first to show its city goddess as neokoros, to Domitian do not mean that the projects were holding a small model of its temple of Tiberius, Julia, funded by or even known to him.15 and the Senate, on coins of Domitian’s reign. In general, emperors made very few blanket de- cisions that were to be applicable to all provinces. Though the emperor always stood at its center, Nerva administration of the provinces was not a homoge- neous and overarching organization, but was During his brief reign, the emperor Nerva agreed handled according to varying laws and traditions in to a petition by Beroia for the right to keep the titles each province, by a scanty bureaucracy that changed ‘metropolis’ and ‘neokoros’ strictly to itself within the frequently and had considerable power of decision.16 province Macedonia. This implies that the title The emperor’s role in most cases was responsive ‘neokoros’ was not only already current, but that rather than proactive, and always subject to what there was a rival for it in that province, probably information he received by personal contact or by Thessalonike. letter.17 Though the formation of a koinon and the It was also under Nerva that a Lycian city was practice of the imperial cult could be encouraged first called metropolis, though the title ‘neokoros’ by the emperors, these actions were not enforced by would appear in that province (perhaps first at empire-wide decree.18 Instead, cult honors were Patara) only at a subsequent time. generally offered to, and perhaps then modified by, an emperor himself.19 The exception was Gaius, but even Domitian was no Gaius. In sum, it is very Trajan unlikely that the exact form of provincial cult estab- lished in diverse provinces like Asia, Macedonia, So far as is known, Trajan only allowed one pro- Pamphylia, or Achaea were on the same pattern, or vincial temple to his cult to the koinon of Asia. He originated out of the expressed desires of Domitian. followed Augustus’ example not only in this way, but As for Domitian’s reputed hatred for Titus, such in sharing his temple with a cult partner (in this case an emotion in a person long dead is unlikely ever Zeus Philios), in allowing a contest in honor of the temple to be established, and in giving that contest 12 Suetonius, Domitian 13.2. the same status and privileges that the games for 13 Southern 1997, 34-59. Rome and Augustus had. But in granting this temple 14 Garzetti 1974, 265-268. to Pergamon, the same city that Augustus himself 15 Levick 1982; Devreker 1982, 510; pace 513, the start of a coinage does not necessarily indicate a new grant of civic status. had so honored, Trajan set a new and important B. Jones 1992, 109-112 accepted Devreker uncritically. precedent. The historians’ accounts agree that in 16 Eck 1997a, 107-145, 167-185. previous competitions for provincial temples, cities 17 Millar 1977, 379, 392; the latter on the edict on vines. 18 Deininger 1965, 35. could be ruled out if they already had one other 19 S. Price 1984b, 65-77. major shrine; thus Pergamon itself was held to have 280 part ii – summary chapters acquired enough honor through its temple to (Rome of Apollo, and the establishment of the temple of the and) Augustus to be ruled out of consideration first Augusti at Ephesos despite that city’s famous temple for a temple to Tiberius, and then for one to Gaius. to Artemis. But the definitive step was Trajan’s grant Trajan, however, allowed Pergamon a second of a second provincial temple to Pergamon. It en- koinon temple, and thus it became the first city sured that no city could be disqualified by having a known to be twice neokoros, as its inscriptions previous koinon temple when it came to choosing quickly proclaimed. the site of a new koinon temple. Trajan’s action certainly appears to have broken A unique coin of Trajan may indicate that Neo- the ice, and thereafter many of the larger and more kaisareia was the first neokoros known in a koinon important cities of Asia would strive to attain mul- of Pontus. Trajan had some role in reorganizing tiple neokoriai. Pergamon’s achievement of a sec- Pontus, as late in his reign the province Galatia/ ond neokoria must have opened the floodgates to Cappadocia was broken up, and both Pontus Pole- similar demands from the other neokoroi, like Smyr- moniacus (with Neokaisareia as its metropolis) and na and Ephesos, as well as from cities that had not Pontus Galaticus (with Amaseia at its head) went yet become neokoroi. One can imagine the acri- with Cappadocia. Documents of a unified koinon of monious discussion in meetings of the koinon, with Pontus first appear at this time, and it is possible that the argument centering round the question of its headquarters were established at Neokaisareia, whether the largest cities should hold a virtual mon- which also was allowed to call itself neokoros. opoly on neokoria, or whether the title should be It is difficult to isolate any overriding policy prac- allowed to descend to the next lower rank. How the ticed by Trajan as regards the provincial imperial cities were represented within the koinon of Asia is cult, except an emulation of Augustus.21 The choice uncertain, though it is likely that the larger and more of Zeus Philios in particular as a cult partner may important cities cast more votes than the smaller have been appropriate to Trajan’s own propaganda: ones.20 In the case of the temple to Tiberius, Julia, Dio Chrysostomos named that aspect of the deity and the Senate, even smaller cities (Hypaipa, Tralles, in his first oration on kingship, and praised friend- Laodikeia, Magnesia, and Ilion) had competed for ship’s benefits to kings in his third oration, both the honor, but when the decision was left to the perhaps delivered before the emperor himself.22 Roman Senate, it chose Smyrna, one of the great- Trajan’s allowing a new provincial temple to his cult est cities, reflecting the magnitude of the honor to in Asia could be connected with his presence in the be conferred upon it. The largest cities must have East for war with Parthia (114-117), and a reorga- been quick to agree with this criterion, but that can- nization of the Pontic provinces may have been the not have stopped the smaller ones from advancing occasion for Neokaisareia’s first use of the title their claims. In their favor was the previously men- ‘neokoros.’ The question remains: why choose tioned tendency toward exclusivity which had fa- Pergamon, which was already once neokoros, over vored cities that were not already ‘occupied’ by other the many cities that had no koinon temple at all? cults. Thus the Senate had passed over Pergamon, No special connection or specific visit of Trajan to Ephesos, and Miletos to choose Smyrna for the tem- Pergamon is known. Was Pergamon’s good fortune ple to Tiberius, and later the emperor Gaius passed due to the influence of the Pergamene C. Antius over Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna, appropriat- Aulus Julius Quadratus, Trajan’s ‘most illustrious ing Miletos’ Didymaion for his own cult. Had this friend’? Or how otherwise did the Pergamenes con- tendency continued it would have led to neokoriai vince Trajan to overstep the precedent of allowing for progressively smaller or less important cities as only one temple per city per province? the larger ones became ‘occupied.’ But whether by preference of Rome, machinations of the larger cities, or both, this movement downward was checked, at least temporarily. First there were the 21 Bennett 1997, 208-209, a trifle harsh on Trajan’s pro- provincial imperial temples built in cities with famous paganda (“the Roman people had been the victim of a well- local cults, such as Gaius’ takeover of Miletos’ temple managed confidence trick”); Trajan’s cult with Zeus Philios at Pergamon was not unusual for Asia, except as discussed be- low. 22 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 1.37-41 (echoed in the Olym- 20 See chapter 41, ‘The Koina,’ below. pian oration, 12.75-76), Oration 3.86-132. chapter 38 – historical analysis 281

Perhaps a narrow interpretation of that precedent Hadrian is incorrect. When Cassius Dio discussed Augustus’ original grant of precincts for Rome and the hero If cities that were already neokoroi were no longer Julius in 29 B.C.E., he stated as reasons for choos- to be ruled out for further honors, there was prob- ing Ephesos and Nikaia that “these cities were fore- ably a clamor among the greatest cities of Asia to most in Asia and in Bithynia at that time.” This build a temple for Trajan’s successor, Hadrian. They could have been Augustus’ own expressed motive, were to succeed and to accomplish more than they or Dio’s rationalization of it; Pergamon and Niko- perhaps at first intended, for Hadrian not only media were rivals to Ephesos and Nikaia, not poor granted second neokoriai, but allowed the Asians to second choices, and their ultimate destiny was to build more than one temple to his cult within the become yet greater by their possession of Augustus’ same province. Hadrian thus let go of a prime as- own cult. In any case, Dio expresses Augustus’ choice pect of the previous tradition; and there is no evi- as based on positive attributes rather than negative dence that he shared his temples with cult partners ones. Tacitus’ presentation of the Senatorial debate either. over Tiberius’ temple shows a reversed approach. It is difficult to discern the exact chronology of Faced with eleven candidates, the Senate went Hadrian’s benefactions, simply because he passed through a process of elimination, either by reason through the East so often and gave so much. Per- of insignificance or for being already devoted to a haps his earliest grants of neokoria were to Kyzikos particular deity (Ephesos to Artemis, Miletos to and to Nikaia, both affected by earthquake, in 123/ Apollo). Though not specifically in the latter group, 124. Smyrna was also made neokoros in 124, by the Pergamon was held to have been honored enough good offices of the orator Polemon. Ephesos and by the temple of (Rome and) Augustus. According perhaps Tarsos became neokoroi later in Hadrian’s to the epitome of Dio, when Gaius made his choice reign, Ephesos sometime between 130 and 132, of Miletos, sanctuaries of gods and emperors were Tarsos on coins honoring the dead Antinoös, prob- disqualified in the same category: Artemis pre- ably by the mid-130s. It is also possible that empted Ephesos, Augustus Pergamon, and Tiberius Hadrian’s attention toward the reorganized sanctu- Smyrna. ary of Zeus at Aizanoi led to that city’s becoming How far this process of elimination could go was neokoros of Zeus, though the honor is only docu- the problem. Pergamon, Smyrna, and Ephesos are mented later, in the reign of Commodus. Neokoria known to have been furnished with koinon temples for Nikopolis in Armenia Minor is only tentatively by Trajan’s time. Sardis, a finalist for Tiberius’ tem- Hadrianic, and the title on an inscription of the ple, may have had one as well: its first neokoria synod of Dionysiac artists at Herakleia in the koinon cannot yet be firmly dated. Were provincial impe- of Pontos in Bithynia is dated to 130, but questions rial temples to go to progressively more insignificant cloud its interpretation. cities? The answer must have been ‘yes’ on the It may be that Pergamon’s having two koinon smaller cities’ part, ‘no’ for the larger cities. The de- temples increased the demand for that honor among ciding factor was probably the emperor’s preference the greater cities of Asia, which could be one rea- (or, more likely, what the koinon interpreted his son why Hadrian extended the honor to more than preference to be). Rather than descend to putting one city in that province. The emperor’s own policy provincial temples in cities whose age was greater of fostering cities provided another.23 As Cassius Dio than their population, the honor was for a time stated (69.5.2-3), “he assisted the cities, both allied preserved for the largest and wealthiest. and subject, most generously. For he had even seen In fact, Trajan’s allowing a second koinon temple many of them, more than any other emperor, and at Pergamon could be interpreted as following he aided almost all: giving a water supply to some, Augustus’ precedent in several ways: in making a harbors to others; and grain, and public works, and positive choice for preeminence, in sharing his cult money, and other kinds of presents to others.” with another deity, in giving the festival associated Dio’s statement brings up another point: Hadrian with the temple all the rights and privileges of that likely allowed more neokoriai because Hadrian was celebrated for Rome and Augustus, and in placing the temple in the same city in which Augustus had placed his. 23 Boatwright 2000. 282 part ii – summary chapters on the spot, on his famous travels throughout the table that the failure of an emperor to grant a re- Empire. These travels, indeed, may have been part quest made on the spot by residents of the area is of a cogent policy of fostering civic life in the prov- extremely rare, perhaps unique in the literature. In inces, as implied by Dio.24 Not only was access to 70 Titus refused to expel the Jews or cancel their him easier, but the provincials’ enthusiastic recep- civic privileges at the petition of the citizens of tion would have made it more likely for him to grant Antioch.29 In this case, the negative decision was them privileges in return. The reciprocal bond be- probably the result of Titus’ unwillingness to allow tween petitioning city and generous emperor was his presence to be the cause of distress to anyone strengthened by the immediacy of the action and by in the city as much as the palpable injustice of the the emperor’s presence as if in epiphany. Indeed the request. Visits of emperors (or emperors’ sons) to effect was a proliferation of all scales of imperial cult, their dominions were supposed to be scenes of re- not only provincial but municipal and personal, as joicing, not of despair. is shown by the hundreds of small altars dedicated An imperial visit was thus an exercise in reciproc- to Hadrian, perhaps for household sacrifices along ity: the emperor conferred the honor of his presence his processional route.25 (a recognized benefit) while the citizens housed, fed, The presence of the emperor, in itself a source and entertained him, his entourage, and if they were of prestige, also opened the possibility of increased really unlucky, his army.30 If the imperial tourist access to him for requests, and perhaps the oppor- cared to linger, the options widened to include elabo- tunity to bypass provincial officials and go straight rate rituals and sacrifices, tours of notable monu- to the top.26 Gifts, honors, titles, altars, or statues ments, oratorical displays, gladiatorial combats, do not necessarily mean that the emperor visited a hunts, and festivals, generally put on at the expense city in person, however. Embassies from over a wide of wealthy local citizens. Certainly such demonstra- area followed along his route or went to meet him tions of loyalty would have put any ruler into a mood on his way. For example, the Termessians sent three to grant favors. ambassadors from north Lycia to call upon Hadrian In addition, part of the ideal of imperial liberal- during his visit to Ephesos in 124, where he gave ity was to give great gifts after accepting small ones: them permission for the foundation of a festival.27 in this the emperor was the ultimate patron, the The emperor was in fact followed on his travels world his client. Even ambassadors—at least the by petitioners from all across the Empire. Logically successful ones—could expect gifts from the emperor this should mean that the only real advantage for as a matter of course.31 In the same way, cities that local residents (apart from the remote chance of received the emperor could also anticipate his gen- catching the emperor’s attention while his mules erosity. As late as 310 an orator from Autun, urg- were being shod)28 was the ease of approach: one ing Constantine to visit that city, visualized him didn’t have to send an expensive embassy halfway granting gifts (or shows) and privileges, repairing around the world, but just stand at the roadside and temples and public places, and generally bringing wait. Yet it seems that requests from cities and resi- the city back up to its former glory.32 Of course the dents from the area through which the emperor extent of the gifts could vary depending on the traveled were either more frequent or more fre- emperor’s generosity, the lavishness or enthusiasm quently granted. ‘More frequent’ would be the re- of his welcome, the nature of the privileges re- sult of ease of access and the ability to make small quested, and the persuasiveness of the advocate. and self-seeking petitions as well as great, important Titus, who refused the Antiochenes’ petition against ones. ‘More frequently granted’ cannot be even the Jews, is also portrayed as being badgered by remotely quantified, as we do not know how many Apollonius of Tyana into granting privileges asked requests were made in the first place. But it is no- by the Tarsians.33 Among the gifts an emperor could give to cities were privileges/titles, new public buildings/repair 24 Halfmann 1986a, 40-44, 110-142. On the connection between Hadrian’s travels and his gifts of buildings, Schorndorfer 1997, 22-30. 29 Josephus, Jewish War 7.5.2. 25 Price 1984b, 112, 216. 30 Millar 1977, 28-40. 26 Millar 1977, 36-38. 31 E.g. Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.21. 27 Wörrle 1988. 32 Panegyrics 7(6).22.3-4. 28 Suetonius, Vespasian 23.2. 33 Philostratos, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 6.34. chapter 38 – historical analysis 283 of old ones, and contests/festivals. A grant of neo- benefactions an outgrowth of that, rather than see- koria of the emperors necessarily involved the former ing his panhellenism as an aspect of his efforts two, and could include the latter as well. The title to foster cities.36 On the contrary, in none of the ‘neokoros’ had its attractions on both sides: it reified temples that made their cities neokoroi was Hadrian a reciprocal bond between city and emperor, gave explicitly worshipped with Zeus or as Zeus. The the city higher standing among its peers, and if the temples at Kyzikos and Smyrna were granted ca. emperor so chose, could involve no further expense 123-124, well before Hadrian took on the comple- on his part. Moreover, after Trajan granted a sec- tion of the Athenian Olympieion or was hailed as ond koinon temple to Pergamon, ‘neokoros’ became Zeus, Olympios, or Panhellenios: in 125 the emperor open to multiplication in a way that titles such as was still thinking of making Delphoi’s Amphiktyony ‘first,’ ‘metropolis,’ and ‘greatest’ could never be: if the panhellenic council.37 Indeed, the temple built a city’s rivals became neokoroi, that city could strive at Kyzikos was called in all pre-Renaissance sources to be twice neokoros. the ‘temple of the god Hadrian,’ while Smyrna had As for expenses, the koinon of Asia bore at least ‘hymnodoi of the god Hadrian,’ not of Zeus and some of the burden for building Hadrian’s temple Hadrian. Even Ephesos, which did receive its neo- at Kyzikos, and Hadrian himself was notably gen- koria from the emperor after 128, when he had erous. At Smyrna he gave money that may have begun to be called Olympios, only called its temple been for the temple as well as other projects. He also ‘the temple of the god Hadrian’ or ‘temple of the funded festivals at many of the cities he visited, which lord Hadrian Caesar.’ As for occurrences of Hadria- could have included those established for the new neia Olympia, names of festivals are often ephemeral, neokoroi.34 Kyzikos, Smyrna, Ephesos, and Tarsos, and this one may only indicate isolympic status. As along with many other cities that were not neokoroi chapter 40 on the cities and their festivals shows, for Hadrian, celebrated Hadrianeia and/or Hadrianeia these contests cannot be taken to indicate the ob- Olympia in his honor. jects of cult in the temples of the neokoroi. The connection between Hadrian’s visits to Asia Several of the temples of the neokoroi for Hadrian Minor and a proliferation of neokoriai, especially in appear to have been large, with eight or more col- the province Asia where the demand was likely umns on their facades. More explicit comparisons greatest, thus seems clear. Cities of the eastern prov- will follow in chapter 39, ‘The Temples.’ Here let inces were also drawn into Hadrian’s later plans us observe that the temple at Kyzikos is known from centered in Athens: indeed, one of the first inscrip- both archaeology and historical sources as being of tions known to call Ephesos twice neokoros was its huge size and prominent placement, visible from far statue base of the emperor in Athens’ temple of Zeus across the sea. In fact it may have resembled Olympios, whose precinct Hadrian had completed in Ephesos’ Artemision not only in being numbered 131/132. These dedications, perhaps known to the among the wonders of the world, but in being Athenians as apoikoi poleis, ‘colony cities,’ could have dipteral. Though the ruins of Hadrian’s temple at been associated with the Panhellenic council, also Smyrna have not yet been located, ancient descrip- fostered by Hadrian.35 tions noted the same features of great size, promi- Unfortunately, these later events have led to some nent placement, and visibility from afar. What has syncretism in recent scholarship: an assumption that been identified as the temple of Hadrian at Ephesos Hadrian was worshipped only with, or as, Zeus Olym- also has a large foundation and was set in an enor- pios, in every temple throughout the East; a tendency mous temenos, while the first koinon temple at to call all Hadrianeia festivals Olympia, and vice versa, Tarsos in Cilicia, whether Hadrianic or before, was without direct proof; and a concentration on the at least decastyle. So many massive and expensive Athenian program of his later reign, making his dedications would be more of an argument for the provinces’ great devotion to Hadrian than for the emperor’s own modesty.38 34 Cassius Dio 69.10.1: “He established both theaters and contests while traveling about the cities.” 35 Ephesos inscription 37; Willers 1990, 52; C. Jones 1996; 36 Schorndorfer 1997, 53-57, 72-82; Boatwright 2000, 160. Birley 1997, 266; Boatwright 2000, 147-153. Spawforth 1999, 37 Spawforth 1999, 341-342; Birley 1997, 186-187, 218-220; on the other hand, believed in a very limited membership for Willers 1990, 99-100. the panhellenic council. 38 Schorndorfer 1997, 60-62. 284 part ii – summary chapters

There is a corollary to Hadrian’s generosity to- honors outweighed consideration of their expense), ward the cities, however. In granting so many tem- but to careful emperors and their administrators, ples directly to cities he favored, whether because who were familiar with the problems of cities that of the eloquence of an orator, as earthquake relief, overreached their resources.40 or for any other reason, he probably began an in- Another reason for fewer grants of neokoria may sidious process of looking to the city rather than the have been imperial interests and preferences. koinon in granting neokoria. Certainly Asia became Antoninus Pius was familiar with the eastern prov- almost overloaded with huge koinon temples. Now inces and Asia in particular, whose proconsul he had there were five cities over whose temples the koinon’s been only a few years before his accession. After it, chief priests, priestesses, and Asiarchs would preside: however, he refrained from both travel and war.41 Pergamon, Smyrna, Ephesos, Sardis, and Kyzikos His care for the well-being of the provinces was (the latter Hadrian’s grant). But after Hadrian, the scrupulous, and he certainly ruled on the titulature Asian koinon apparently stopped assigning its chief of at least one Asian city, and likely more (see be- priests to temples in new neokoroi (see below). This low); but we know of only one city, Sardis, that was too would add to the creeping ‘municipalization’ of neokoros for his cult. Though Marcus Aurelius’ reign what had previously been a title tied to provincial included a Parthian war and a Syrian revolt, his imperial cult. eastern travels do not seem to have resulted in any neokoriai. Perhaps his philosophic convictions dis- couraged any types of cult beyond the most time The Antonines honored. Such speculation is, however, unverifiable; neither in his Meditations nor in his letters did Marcus The period of Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Aurelius express thoughts about the imperial cult Lucius Verus, and Commodus at first seems to have specifically.42 Lucius Verus fought his Parthian war, been a breathing space in the history of the neokoria. followed Marcus Aurelius’ decisions in administra- Even Commodus, who delighted in comparing him- tion, and died young. As for Commodus, his inter- self to Hercules, is only known to have made one ests (chariot races, hunting, and gladiatorial combat) city per koinon neokoros: Nikomedia for Bithynia seem to have centered on Rome, leaving provincial (and that was soon withdrawn), Tarsos for Cilicia, affairs (including the neokoria of Nikomedia) to his and Laodikeia for Asia. The neokoria of Zeus at favorite-of-the-moment. His identification with Aizanoi in Asia may stand outside the count, as it Hercules may have promoted the interests of Tarsos, was established for the cult of a deity rather than which was the cult center of a deity syncretized with that of the emperor, and takes Commodus’ reign that hero. He certainly allowed his name to festi- only as the point by which it had been given. After vals for Herakles at Thebes and at Tyre, but also the profusion offered by Hadrian, the Antonine to contests honoring Asklepios at Pergamon, neokoriai seem scanty. Dionysos at Thebes, Apollo at Didyma, Zeus at Lao- Though this is partly due to a lack of evidence, dikeia, Hadrian at Ephesos and Smyrna, and even it may also indicate a move towards containing Artemis at Ephesos (again, see chapter 40, ‘The certain koinon cults, notably Asia’s, within more Cities’). Many of these must have been in response reasonable bounds. The trouble and expense im- to requests from the cities for an imperial imprima- posed on a province by more and more imperial tur on their festivals, not from Commodus’ individual temples, each with its chief priest, its functionaries preferences. and administrators, its possible festivals and definite upkeep, must have been considerable. Certainly in these prosperous times there were wealthy men (and 40 Cassius Dio 52.30.3, 52.35.4, 52.37.9-10 (written from women) available who would pay for the privilege a third-century ideal); Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.23, 24, 37- of being provincial chief priests, chief priestesses, and 40, 43, 44 (a unique and invaluable dossier, though earlier than 39 the period in question and written under special circumstances); agonothetai, but were there enough to go around? also see Liebenam 1900, 133-134. This would have been of concern not only to the 41 Most of the sources for Antoninus’ life are collected by provincials (among many of whom eagerness for the Walentowski 1998. The arguments of Ziegler 1993b, 97-103 for an eastern trip in the 150s are unconvincing. See also Syme 1983. 39 Millar 1983. 42 Bowersock 1973, 186; Oliver 1970, no. 4 IV. chapter 38 – historical analysis 285

Under the Antonines more and more neokoroi Previous discussion has focused on the forces that began to proclaim their honors on more and more continued, modified, limited, or expanded neokoria coin issues.43 Though ‘neokoros’ had been an offi- in Rome’s eastern provinces. The question of why cial title at least since the reign of Domitian and more and more cities chose to include ‘neokoros’ in likely before, only four cities (Ephesos and probably their coin legends is related to the topic of expan- Pergamon in Asia, Neokaisareia in Pontus, and sion: the more the title was boasted of, the more Tarsos in Cilicia) are known to have put that title cities wished to boast of it. We have seen how Trajan on their coins up to the reign of Hadrian. Even those made Pergamon in Asia the first twice neokoros, and were extraordinary issues, with the majority of coins how Hadrian’s presence was connected with more not mentioning the neokoria. Then under Antoninus cities in Asia obtaining neokoriai, while the honor Pius the cities of Nikomedia and Kyzikos, both was also granted in other provinces. Though actual neokoroi on the Propontis (though the former in the expansion seems to have slowed in Antonine times, province of Bithynia and the latter in Asia), began the cities’ interest in the title did not, as their coin to announce that status on a significant proportion legends show. Once a city had established its asso- of their coin issues, though ‘neokoros’ was not a new ciation with the Roman emperor through neokoria, title for them. At the same time Ephesos began to why did it choose to proclaim that fact more and proclaim itself twice neokoros on its coins more more widely, and why did it do so on inscriptions regularly. By the time of Marcus Aurelius, Amaseia and coins that few Roman officials, much less the in Pontus had joined in, with its first issues as neo- emperor himself, were likely to see? The answer koros appearing in significant numbers, while must lie in a factor that is expanded upon in chap- Neokaisareia in Pontus met Amaseia’s issues in the ter 40: city rivalry, which had its main outlet in same year with more frequent issues of its own. Also, disputes over titulature. Pergamon began to boast the title more consistently, Antoninus Pius himself had to smooth over a com- and on datable issues. This trend would increase as plaint from the Ephesians that the Pergamenes and time went on, until for cities like Perinthos, Niko- Smyrnaians had omitted Ephesos’ full and proper media, Kyzikos, Ephesos, Sardis, Smyrna, and later titulature (as decided by Antoninus himself) in a Perge and Side, coinage that did not mention neo- letter and a decree about a common sacrifice.46 The koria would be the exception to the rule. Pergamenes were judged not guilty, while the em- It is unlikely that any decision from above forced peror explained Smyrna’s omission as a chance lapse these cities’ proclamations of neokoria. The bronze and urged the parties to be more punctilious in coins of the eastern cities were technically autono- future. The Ephesians were clearly pleased at the mous, issued under the authority of the city itself, result, since they set up at least two copies of the not the Roman government. The obverses, of course, emperor’s reply. It was probably to celebrate this showed the emperor’s official portrait and titulature, imperial reconciliation that Ephesos issued coins and could be shared among a group of cities.44 The claiming ‘concord’ among the three cities: the re- fact that several cities were producing their coins by verse shows Ephesos’ Artemis in the place of honor, means of the same minters indicates one way (aside the center, flanked by Pergamon’s patron Asklepios from some intercity circulation) in which city offi- and a Nemesis of Smyrna.47 But even with emper- cials could be made aware of what other cities were ors and orators like Aelius Aristides (Oration 23) putting on their coins. But the reverses proclaimed urging them toward it, the only long-lasting concord the city’s name, its proudest titles, its chief gods and the Ephesians were to achieve with their rivals was temples; and though similar to other cities’ in style this word on the back of a coin. Probably shortly and composition, they were customized to be unique after Antoninus’ letter to the Ephesians, Polemon the to each city. The coins, in fact, were a city’s means sophist had to go on an embassy to that emperor of demonstrating its pride and patriotism.45 to defend Smyrna’s temples and their rights, i.e.,

43 The following estimates, of course, are simply from coins 46 IvE 1489, 1489A, 1490; Oliver 1989, 293-295 no. 135 known to the author and reflect accidents of preservation, a-b; L. Robert 1977b, 21-22. The documents are dated to 140- collection, and publication rather than actual numbers of coins 144, and perhaps this sacrifice itself was shown on coins of originally issued. Ephesos under Antoninus Pius: Hecht 1968, 28 no. 1. 44 Kraft 1972. 47 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 1:38-39 nos. 305-316; 45 Harl 1987. Kampmann 1996, 29-34 (but see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna’). 286 part ii – summary chapters probably its two neokoriai, one of which he himself Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta had garnered from Hadrian. Though Polemon died before he could complete his mission, Antoninus was At the death of Commodus, the Empire was fum- persuaded by a reading of the speech he had com- bled from the hands of various contenders until it posed, and Smyrna “came away having won first reached Septimius Severus, who held it tenacious- place.”48 Such missions are also well known from ly. The prize was not uncontested, however, and one inscriptions, such as honorifics given to ambassadors of his first tasks was to crush a rival, Pescennius who won their cases, or edicts of emperors laying Niger, governor of Syria. When Severus went East, out their decisions.49 it was not only to do battle with that counterclaim- The possession and number of neokoriai was a ant to the Empire but to enforce and consolidate his potent cause for dispute. As has been mentioned, rule in provinces that were essentially enemy terri- ‘neokoros’ had a unique advantage over other titles. tory.51 It was not a minor task, and he gave the scene A city could be called ‘first,’ but if its rivals in the of the contest, which stretched from Perinthos in province then also won that title, as they often did, Thrace to Antioch in Syria, his closest attention. The it could not become ‘more first.’ The same disad- cities of this area had been little troubled by civil vantage operated for ‘metropolis,’ for superlatives war since Augustus’ victory founded the Empire. In like ‘greatest’ and ‘most beautiful,’ and for imperial the year 69 it had been Vespasian, the candidate eponyms like ‘Augustan,’ ‘Hadrianic,’ or ‘Com- who came from a command in the East, who had modan.’ After the time of Trajan, however, the title triumphed, and his progress west toward Rome had ‘neokoros’ could be multiplied. If a neokoros city’s been peaceful. Now the cities generally supported rival also became neokoros, the first city could re- the eastern candidate again, but this time they ended establish its preeminence by becoming twice up with a war on their doorstep and were forced to neokoros. Then its rival could campaign for the same take sides in earnest. Perinthos, Septimius Severus’ honor, promoting a gradual but effective inflation headquarters in Thrace, was just down the Propontis in number of neokoriai. from Byzantion, a bastion for Niger, which held firm Inflation and devaluation, however, are two sides through a siege of over two years.52 In Bithynia, of the same coin. Under Augustus and Tiberius, only Nikomedia changed sides as soon as news of Niger’s the first rank of cities were seriously considered as first serious defeat came out. While that city sent sites for provincial imperial temples. As discussed ambassadors welcoming Severus’ army, its neighbor above, the inevitable passage of time and emperors Nikaia chose to do the contrary and receive Niger’s filled up the first rank with neokoriai, so some re- forces, not through any abstract feeling of loyalty but ceived the honor a second time. That meant that through sheer hatred for its rival Nikomedia.53 Sim- to be simply neokoros was no longer a symbol of the ilarly Tyre in Phoenicia turned to Severus through highest status among cities. The first rank now strove rivalry with Berytos, Sebaste and Neapolis in Sama- to be twice neokoros, and if the rivalry among them ria probably did the same, and even in Niger’s own was fierce (as it certainly was in Asia), less eminent province of Syria, Laodikeia broke away from him cities could likely extract concessions as the price of because of its hatred for the seat of the governors, their support in the koinon council.50 The neokoria, Antioch.54 When Niger was able he punished the now less exclusive an honor, could have been among turncoats, but his time was not long. He and his those concessions. armies were defeated at Issos early in 194, and he was killed while fleeing from Antioch. The victor was left to mete out rewards and 48 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.10 (539-540). 49 L. Robert 1969b, 286-288. punishments as he wished. Some of his decisions 50 As in the Bithynian koinon; Dio Chrysostom, Oration 38.34- were fundamentally practical: in need of funds to pay 35, urging cooperation between Nikomedia and Nikaia: “By his soldiers, he exacted from both cities and indi- joining forces you will dominate all the cities; and the gover- viduals four times whatever amount they had (vol- nors too, should they ever want to do an injustice, will be hesitant and even afraid before you. But as it is now, the other cities are overjoyed by the quarrel between you; for you seem to need them, in fact you really do need them, because of your contest 51 Sünskes Thompson 1990, 137-155. with each other. . . the result is, while you [two] fight over first 52 Birley 1988, 108-120. place, chances are that those whom you’re lobbying have first 53 Herodian 3.2.7-9; L. Robert 1977b, 22-25. place.” 54 Herodian 3.3.3-5; Historia Augusta, Severus 9.5. chapter 38 – historical analysis 287 untarily or not) given to Niger. But he also used the received the title of Caesar. It was after this time that rivalries that had driven the cities into opposite Severus began to abate his hostility toward the cit- camps both to reward his partisans and punish his ies he had punished. He visited Nikaia; Antioch was opponents.55 rehabilitated, and in 202 C.E. he and Caracalla Antioch, which had offered resistance after Issos, entered their joint consulate there; Neapolis was was captured and deprived of civic status. Its privi- likely also forgiven. Some of this must have been in leges, plus the ius Italicum, were given to its rival Lao- view of assuring a favorable reception for his suc- dikeia, which had supported Severus. As Byzantion’s cessor, whose role in healing wounds and pleading crimes of revolt and defiance were of similar mag- the cause of former enemies was played up for that nitude and still more prolonged than Antioch’s, its purpose.56 punishment upon capitulation was of the same type, Additional favors were granted to friends as well: though much more severe. All soldiers and magis- Perinthos likely, and Anazarbos definitely by or trates were put to death, the city’s walls were torn before 204/205, received second neokoriai from down, and citizens’ property was confiscated. Here Septimius Severus, the same emperor who had again, Severus turned an opposition city’s loss into granted their first. For each, the second honor was its rival’s gain: he deprived Byzantion of its freedom probably for the joint cult of the ‘loving brothers’ and civic status, made it tributary, and handed it and Caracalla and Geta. In many cases, Severus seems its territory over to his own allies the Perinthians. to have given additional titles or privileges to his In addition, Perinthos was given the right to build staunch allies to make up for the fact that he was a temple to Severus and to call itself neokoros, the forgiving and restoring their rivals, his former en- first neokoros city known in Thrace. The Bithynian emies. So where he had previously treated pairs of rivals Nikaia and Nikomedia got the same treatment: rivals with joint punishment and reward, now he Nikaia, Niger’s ally, was stripped of its titles, losing turned to reconciliation with one city, compensation the right to be called metropolis, first, or neokoros; for the other. Nikomedia gained these titles uncontestedly, and as When Geta reached the age of twenty in 209, he it was already neokoros for its temple of Rome and too was made Augustus. Caracalla and he were Augustus, gained an additional, second neokoria for perhaps too close in age for Severus to preserve a the cult of Severus himself. It is possible that some- strict primogeniture, as Vespasian had for Titus and thing similar, though without the involvement of Domitian. In addition, Marcus Aurelius, who had neokoria, happened to another of Niger’s allies, chosen to share the empire with his younger adopted Neapolis, which lost its civic rights, and at least some brother Lucius Verus, had since provided a model of its territory, to its neighbor Sebaste. for the joint rule of imperial colleagues. The liter- Thus Septimius Severus used neokoria, like other ary sources make much of Severus’ plans and anxi- titles, privileges, and possessions, as part of the re- eties for his sons, most of them probably apocryphal, ward for his partisans, while its removal was a pow- but the fact remains that on his death in 211 he left erful symbol of the defeat of his opponents. For the them co-Augusti, to share the rule in some fashion.57 cities, the reward or the punishment was twofold: As it turned out, the joint rule of natural broth- as rivalry had been part of the reasoning behind the ers did not work half so well as that of adoptive ones. choosing of sides in the first place, a Severan city Enemies even before their father’s death, Caracal- could gain double triumph in seeing, and sometimes la and Geta became yet more estranged afterward. in profiting by, its rival’s abasement. They divided up the imperial household and were Around 197 Septimius Severus elevated his son even said to be planning to divide up the Empire.58 Antoninus, better known by his nickname Caracalla, The story of their probable rivalry over the neoko- to the rank of Augustus, while his younger son Geta ria of Ephesos is told in chapter 4: the city appar- ently was to be neokoros both for Geta and for Caracalla, but the latter diverted the honor from his 55 Cassius Dio 75.8.3-4 and 75.14.1-4; Herodian 3.4.7 and 3.6.9; Historia Augusta, Severus 9.4-8. J. Nollé 1998, 347-351; Ziegler 1978 took the practical view that Severus reduced hostile cities to chattel in order to bolster the drained economies of 56 Historia Augusta, Caracalla 1. his allies, their rivals; this does not account for cases where the 57 Herodian 3.10.4, 3.13.3-6, 3.15.5-7; Cassius Dio ep. 77.14; emperor seems to have stripped the city of rank but not of land Historia Augusta, Severus 20.1-3, 23.5-7. or goods, as in the case of Nikaia. 58 Herodian 4.1.5, 4.3.5-9. 288 part ii – summary chapters cult to that of Artemis. Ephesos’ delight at thus announcement came later, but is notable as the first getting two neokoriai where it had only sought one known neokoros in Cappadocia, just as Perinthos was shortlived. Geta was killed, probably before the had been the first in Thrace. In all, Severus may end of 211, leaving Caracalla sole emperor.59 Ge- have made four cities neokoroi, one in Thrace, one ta’s name and honors were then erased all over the in Bithynia, one in Cilicia, and one in Cappadocia. empire, an action from which Ephesos’ neokoria Asia, the province with the most neokoriai thus far, suffered, as will be seen. is not known to have received any from Septimius The years of rule by Septimius Severus and the Severus, though an inscription first calls Miletos year of his sons’ joint rule thus saw further expan- neokoros at about this time. sion of neokoriai. More cities began to use the title As has been seen, many cities that Severus had on their coinage, many from the moment of a new honored with neokoriai seem to have been further grant (Perinthos and perhaps Anazarbos and Kai- honored. Perinthos and Anazarbos apparently be- sareia, under Septimius Severus). Perinthos is almost came twice neokoros for the sons after being neoko- invariably neokoros on its coins, though it did not ros for the father. Ephesos’ fortunes suffered from need to give its likely title of twice neokoros in full the discord between Caracalla and Geta as co-em- until it gained a rival for neokoria in its own prov- perors. Its proposal to become three times neokoros ince (below). Many cities use the title on coins more of the emperors was at first accepted, but then frequently than they omit it, and are prompt to Caracalla diverted his part in it to the cult of Arte- reflect an increase (e.g. Pergamon, Ephesos, Smyr- mis, leaving Geta to appear hubristic merely for accepting koinon cult. The happy Ephesians were na, perhaps Philadelphia). Intermittent or infrequent thus preparing to take an unprecedented fourth uses, like those at Antandros or Tralles, are rare. neokoria when Geta was killed, and even their For Septimius Severus, there is particularly good neokoria for Artemis fell under the cloud of impe- evidence for two factors already noted as promot- rial displeasure. It was eventually restored, but it is ing neokoria: the imperial presence and city rival- possible that by that time Caracalla had already ry. In fact, the grants he made in the wake of the begun to make Ephesos’ rivals Pergamon and Smyr- war with Pescennius Niger combine the two. On the na rise to equal its status. one hand, the contest over the eastern provinces only emphasized their importance to the emperor, who had to be on the spot to direct the war. His pres- Caracalla ence itself within the city was an honor, assuming he won; if not, a danger. At the successful conclu- During his sole rule, Caracalla’s actions with regard sion of his visit, he could make the honor of associ- to making neokoroi could be called the opposite of ation with him permanent by grants of neokoria, his father’s. Of the neokoriai he may have granted, with not only a title but all the reciprocity of wor- with the exception of a possible neokoria of Ankyra, ship offered and received assured for the future. On every one was in the province Asia, which Severus the other hand, we have already seen how Septimius had eschewed completely. What is more, where his Severus used the rivalry between cities not only to father had initially made only one city per province bind his allies to him but to punish his enemies in neokoros, Caracalla seems to have made as many the same action, and how he used neokoria as one as eight in Asia: Ephesos, Pergamon, Smyrna, Phila- of his tools. Indeed, Severus seems to have been very delphia, Tralles, Laodikeia, and possibly Kyzikos direct in his choice of cities as neokoroi. Thrace and and Antandros. What can explain this change in Bithynia were crucial in the war against Niger, and policy? we have already discussed the two neokoroi, Per- As Caracalla spent his latter years in the East inthos and Nikomedia, there. Both the later neokoroi fighting a Parthian war, it is natural to attempt to were farther east, in the area affected by his second tie in the neokoroi with his presence there, and even Parthian War. Anazarbos may have been made to trace his path by connecting the dots between neokoros during the actual campaign; Kaisareia’s cities where he granted honors or was honored.60

59 Halfmann 1982, 229-230 n. 49. 60 Levick 1969, 426-446. chapter 38 – historical analysis 289

There are certain problems with this procedure, the contest, and so referred it to Caracalla, who however. First, the evidence used and the honors decided for Ephesos. The proconsul’s landing point given would have to be datable to the period of the is unlikely to have been the only bone of contention. Parthian War.61 Of the neokoroi in Asia, at least two In Asia, the chief contenders for primacy, and to (Ephesos and Laodikeia) likely antedate Caracalla’s become first three times neokoros, were Ephesos, journey to that province. Second, there should be Pergamon, and Smyrna. Their rivalry probably good independent evidence that Caracalla was in meant that almost any question could lead to a three- fact in the city, or at least in the area. Such evidence way deadlock in the koinon. The problem of the pro- is scarce, and of the remaining six Asian neokoroi consul’s landing was sent to the emperor. It is likely only Pergamon is known to have received an impe- that he had to deal with the would-be neokoroi as well. rial visit.62 By the end of Caracalla’s reign all three of the Any assumption that equates an honor such as the top contestants had been put on a level as regards neokoria granted to a city with the actual presence neokoria. Ephesos, of course, had already almost of the emperor within that city is not sufficiently flown as high as four times neokoros, but was in fact nuanced. Caracalla spent the entire winter at held to three; its involvement in the rivalry between Nikomedia, yet the city that was neokoros for his Caracalla and Geta probably did not earn it the father did not change its titulature for the son. survivor’s love, but at least it retained its neokoria Certainly the emperor’s presence within an area for Artemis. Afterwards Ephesian coin legends sim- made it more likely that the cities would receive ply call the city three times neokoros. Pergamon and benefits. But the emperor did not have to be in the Smyrna, however, issued coins under Caracalla city itself to give it gifts or to make it neokoros, as whose legends and types read like challenges to one we have already noted.63 another. Both issued types that showed their three Beyond his activities at Ilion and Pergamon, all imperial temples, each carefully identified with let- we know of Caracalla’s journey in Asia is Herodian’s ters in the pediment; Pergamon was ‘first three times bare statement that “he traveled through the rest of neokoros,’ while Smyrna was ‘first (of Asia) three Asia and Bithynia and the rest of the provinces, times neokoros of the Augusti’ (Pergamon types 22 making necessary administrative decisions.”64 and 23, Smyrna types 7 and 8). They even issued Kyzikos, Smyrna, Philadelphia, and Tralles need not coins whose reverses were devoted entirely to titles have been on his route to have won privileges from that seem like challenges across the centuries: him. The one case where one is tempted to use Pergamon: Obv: Caracalla’s presence as an explanation for neokoria AUT KRAT K MARKO% AUR Laureate cuirassed bust of is Antandros, which seems to have had little else to ANTVNEINO% Caracalla r. Rev: recommend it.65 [EPI %TR] IOUL ANYIMOU H Imperial visits, however, are not the sole factor PRVTH TH[% A]%IA% KAI MH[TRO]POLI% in the proliferation of neokoriai. The rivalry among PRV[TH KAI] TRI% NEVKORO% PRVTH TVN Wreath. a) the cities of Asia that Antoninus Pius had had to %EBA%TVN PERGAMHNVN POLI% BMC 318 (‘Pergamon,’ chapter 1, coin type 25). mediate had not gone away. The Digest preserves a rescript of Caracalla to the koinon of Asia on this Smyrna: Obv: Laure- topic.66 Apparently the largest cities were quarrel- A K M AUR ANTVNEINO% ate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: ing over which of them should have the honor of first receiving the proconsul on his entry into the %MURNAIVN PRVTVN A%IA% G NEVKORVN province of Asia. The koinon was unable to settle TVN %EBA%TVN KALLEI KAI MEGEYI EPI %TRATH TIBERIOU KL KRHTARIOU Wreath. a) BMC 405 b) BMC 406 c) Berlin 619/1914. 61 Johnston 1983. If Smyrna was to be ‘first of Asia three times neo- 62 Halfmann 1986a, 223-230. koros of the emperors, (first) in beauty and great- 63 Millar 1977, 38-39. 64 Herodian 4.8.6. ness,’ Pergamon could claim that it was ‘first of Asia 65 L. Robert 1967, 57-58 n. 8 used the same reasoning for and first metropolis and first three times neokoros Juliopolis before its neokoria was discovered to be based on a of the emperors.’ It may also be significant that after false coin (see ‘Introduction: Methodology,’ and Revue des études grecques 95 [1982] 323 no. 12). this time Smyrna issued a coin to commemorate the 66 Digest 1.16.4.5. ‘concord’ between the two cities, and its reverse was 290 part ii – summary chapters the multiple-temple type that usually symbolized of neokoria. Also, deadlock among the most pow- neokoria for a city.67 It may be that the two tem- erful cities meant that crucial decisions depended on ples in this case represent the temples of Caracalla the votes of the other koinon members, hence lesser in both cities, though both reused extant buildings cities could extract favors (possibly including support for that cult (Smyrna the temple of Rome, Perga- for their own neokoriai) as the price of their coop- mon the temple of Asklepios). eration. It is more likely, then, that the proliferation of Smyrna: Obv: Lau- AU K M AUR ANTVNEINO% neokoriai in Asia during the reign of Caracalla was reate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla, r. Rev: not so much a result of Caracalla’s own needs or %MURNAIVN PERGAMHNVN OMONOIA EP %TR policy as of city rivalry. The emperor’s role was not Two four-column temples turned to- GEMINOU to distribute neokoria as a reward to whatever city ward one another. a) BMC 509 b) BMC 510 c) he visited, but simply to accede to petitions, which Paris 2814 d) Paris 2694 e) Vienna 30395 f) SNGvA were only made more difficult to refuse when he 2248 (= MvS 339-340 nos. 3, 4). himself visited the area. Probably more of these In fact, none of the new three-times-neokoroi seems petitions were for the title ‘neokoros’ than had been to have built a new temple, as Ephesos’ third temple the case before. was the Artemision. The early third century should The most crucial question arising from this is have been fairly prosperous for the cities of Asia, whether or not ‘neokoros’ was still a provincial title.69 with the province relatively peaceful and money and In order to answer it, we must clarify our ideas on donors not lacking. On the other hand, the presence what ‘provincial’ means. All authorities, I believe, of the imperial armies was a drain on private and would agree that the koinon temples established by public resources, especially those of cities that the permission of Augustus and his successors later made emperor honored with his presence, and Caracalla the cities that owned them neokoroi. They were certainly did not consider expense when it came to administered by the koinon and presided over by its his army or his expeditions.68 Perhaps the koinon chief priest. Perhaps by the time of Nero, or at lat- was also unwilling—or unable—to extend itself to est that of Domitian, the cities that possessed them building three new provincial temples in cities that received the name neokoroi. already had two each. Then the title began to proliferate. The temple Before Caracalla, Asia’s neokoroi had been Ephe- that made Pergamon twice neokoros, that of Zeus sos, Pergamon, Smyrna, Sardis (all twice); among the Philios and Trajan, was designed to be the equal of single honors were Kyzikos, Miletos, Aizanoi (of that of Rome and Augustus, right down to the pres- Zeus), and Laodikeia (which fell into abeyance af- ence of a cult partner and the provincial standing ter Commodus). All except the latter two were ar- of its games. The duplication of temples in one city, guably within the first rank, and Laodikeia had been therefore, did not alter the fact that thus far all trying for a provincial imperial temple since the time koinon temples made their cities neokoroi, and that of Tiberius. With the reign of Caracalla, however, all neokoriai so far were for koinon temples. The the granting of neokoriai definitively stepped down only adaptation needed was that the koinon’s lead- past the first rank of cities, and possibly even past ers become chief priests of the temples at Pergamon, the second: Laodikeia became unquestionably and then at Smyrna, Ephesos, etc. The same per- neokoros, uniquely for two emperors. Tralles, which sonnel could be in charge of several koinon temples had also tried for the temple of Tiberius, became in the city. neokoros as well. Philadelphia’s citizen Aurelius may Hadrian soon expanded the honor, so that more have pulled strings to get the honor from Caracalla; than one city in a province could become neokoros and we have already discussed the problematic case for the cult of the same emperor. Also, his grants of Antandros. As has been noted, inflation in num- appear to have been due to his direct contact with bers of neokoriai meant depreciation in the honor the city, rather than negotiated by the koinon. Yet

67 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 210 nos. 2133-2144; Kamp- 69 The old debate between municipal (ranging from Mon- mann 1996, 44, 121 nos. 136, 137. Klose 1987 (= MvS), 70-71 ceaux 1885 to Deininger 1965, 143 n. 5, with bibliography) placed the strategos Geminus after Kretarios. and provincial (Robert 1967, 46-50) has, I hope, closed, with 68 Cassius Dio 78.9.4-7. opinions generally on the latter’s side. chapter 38 – historical analysis 291 he still kept to the great cities, in Asia Kyzikos, neokoroi was, or what officials served them. It may Ephesos, and Smyrna, two of which already were be that as neokoria proliferated, it lost some of the neokoroi. It would take little adaptation to fit these features of provinciality, or at least, the features that cities into the standing procedure of provincial would have made its functions within the koinon imperial cult: another temple, another chief priest impracticable. At a time when the wealthy were of Asia for Kyzikos, perhaps more festivals in the becoming more hesitant to take on the mammoth calendar. expenditure of provincial chief priesthood, it would What makes the term ‘provincial’ seem out of have been difficult to suggest that there be ten or place for the neokoroi really occurs in Asia during more chief priests of Asia instead of five, or that three the reign of Caracalla: many cities well beyond the new koinon temples be built all at once. We have first rank of eminence begin to claim the title. We no evidence of what arrangements the koinon of Asia have no record of chief priests, chief priestesses, or may have made to accommodate these changes. Asiarchs for the temples that made Laodikeia, Phila- Still, there were certain basic and established delphia, or Tralles, much less Antandros, neokoroi. functions of the koinon that still tied it to the neo- Indeed, the only cities for which we have documents koria. The chief ceremonial function of the koinon of koinon officials for their temples are Pergamon, was the imperial cult; that cult was carried on in the Smyrna, Ephesos, Kyzikos, and Sardis.70 It is likely temples of the neokoroi. The koinon represented its that these are ‘the five metropoleis’ in which a chief member cities on embassies; embassies were often priest could serve, as mentioned in an inscription of necessary for obtaining the neokoria or certifying it later third-century Ephesos.71 The connection of before the Senate. We have extensive proof that the offices to koinon temples in these cities is clear, in koinon did take part in the grant and administra- that Asiarchs and chief priests and priestesses of Asia tion of temples that made their cities neokoroi in the were occasionally designated ‘of the temple(s)’ in one first and early second centuries. Even Caracalla of the five cities; when a new provincial temple was wrote to the koinon of Asia, not to Ephesos, to make added to that city, the enumeration of the inscrip- Ephesos neokoros of Artemis. It is likely, then, that tion reflected it. In looking into their chronology, despite the fact that neokoria resulted from the we see that the first three cities possessed the ear- emperor’s personal favor to a city (say, Philadelphia), liest koinon temples in Asia: Pergamon from Augus- or even a citizen (Aurelius M...), custom and pre- tus, Smyrna from Tiberius, and Ephesos from at cedent probably insured that there still be a formal latest the time of Domitian. The first imperial temple petition from the koinon, agreement from the em- of Sardis is not yet datable, and that of Kyzikos was peror, and approval by the Roman Senate. In fact, probably the great temple of Hadrian. So the five it is just at this period that several cities’ inscriptions, metropoleis in which the chief koinon officials served and then coins, begin to emphasize that they are were also likely the first five possessors of provincial neokoroi by decree of the Senate. imperial temples, and later became neokoroi for What we are seeing in the proliferation of neo- those and for any additional temples. Cities that koriai in the third century is a cheapening of the title, received their first neokoria afterwards (as, for ex- not a change in its basic nature. This was a time ample, Laodikeia under Commodus), however, may when Asia had five metropoleis and almost as many not have had provincial chief priests assigned. So the ‘first cities’ (none second or third, Magnesia nota- college seems to have been limited to the five some- bly seventh); yet out of the fabled five hundred time after Hadrian (who gave Kyzikos’ first temple) cities, only fourteen that we know of ever called and before Commodus. themselves neokoroi. If any city could claim the title By the time of Caracalla, ‘neokoros,’ previously for a local shrine, why did so few? a title signifying possession of such a temple, spread Perhaps the neokoria did mean less when Cara- beyond those five. We do not have the documents calla, and after him Elagabalus, granted it so indis- to prove precisely what the status of these new criminately. Often the cult of the emperors was moved into extant temples, perhaps to avoid the 70 Rossner 1974, 109-111. ruinous cost of building new ones. But these con- 71 FiE 3:72 (= IvE 3072), lines 23-27, dated ca. 270. On siderations did not alter the basic machinery by multiple metropoleis within a province, see Bowersock 1985. For further details, see chapter 41 in Part II, on the koina and which neokoria was bestowed. To acquire it still their officials. required the good will of the emperor, the permis- 292 part ii – summary chapters sion of the Senate, and the backing, perhaps even Indeed, his relationship with at least one and prob- the aid or the administration, of the koinon. In this ably more of the cities of Asia appears to have been sense, little had changed. stormy. Cassius Dio records that the Pergamenes, having been deprived of privileges they had received from Caracalla, insulted Macrinus in some blatant Macrinus fashion and for it were publicly dishonored by him. Dio would have known the facts well, as Macrinus In 217, in the midst of his campaign in Mesopo- put him in charge of Pergamon and Smyrna.74 It is tamia, Caracalla was assassinated and his praetorian noteworthy that, aside from being especially hon- prefect, M. Opellius Macrinus, succeeded him.72 ored by Caracalla’s visit, Pergamon had become Macrinus was only to rule a little over a year, after neokoros for his cult. Removal of that third neokoria which his memory was condemned. Therefore docu- may have prompted the Pergamenes’ insults; or, if ments dating to his reign are proportionately the removal was not part of Macrinus’ original ac- scarce.73 Though over fifty eastern cities issued coins tion, their behavior may have prompted him to with his portrait (or that of his son Diadumenian), abrogate it and probably the rest of their titles. there are at least as many cities for which no such In Asia alone, of the eight cities that had become coins have been found. This lack need not be a sign neokoroi for Caracalla, only Sardis now issued coins of disaffection, as many cities only minted intermit- with its claim for neokoria unchanged. Six issued no tently; perhaps their intervals of coinage simply did coinage asserting that title: Ephesos (previously not fall within Macrinus’ short reign. But it adds to ‘neokoros’ on almost all its coins, now replacing that the difficulty of tracing the history of the neokoroi; title with ‘first of Asia’), Pergamon, Smyrna (no coins almost any argument would be either from silence issued at all), Laodikeia, Philadelphia, Tralles, and or from very little evidence. Antandros (the latter two only occasional anyway). With that caveat stated, we may note that of six- The eighth city, Kyzikos, went from being ‘twice teen cities that had claimed to be neokoroi on ear- neokoros’ to simply ‘neokoros’ on coins of Macrinus, lier coins, only six proclaim themselves neokoroi on though unlike the other cities’ this second neokoria coins of Macrinus or Diadumenian: Nikomedia, was not restored even after Macrinus’ death. Kyzikos, Sardis, Anazarbos (which also put its title Ephesos’ emphasis on being ‘first of Asia’ ties in on one of the rare surviving dedications to Macri- with an inscription in honor of an Ephesian advo- nus), Tarsos, and Kaisareia. One city, Beroia, neoko- cate who went before Macrinus to defend ‘primacy ros since the time of Nerva, begins to place that title and the rest of the rights’ of the city, and won his on coinage with imperial portrait obverses. Five case.75 If Ephesos and Pergamon and perhaps Smyr- whose coins had often claimed neokoria, however, na were once again bickering over titles, and Ma- now cease to boast it: Amaseia, Ephesos (except for crinus ruled that Ephesos was to have more exclusive one, probably recut, coin), Pergamon, Smyrna, right to the term ‘first’ than had been practiced Philadelphia, and Laodikeia; Perinthos and Smyrna, under Caracalla (when all three cities were ‘first’), both stalwart declarers of neokoria, and whose cor- that decision might have been the occasion for the pora of coins have been published, probably issued disappointed Pergamenes’ conspicuous insults, fol- no coins under Macrinus at all. For five more cities lowed by Macrinus’ punishment. On the other hand, we have found none, but their coins only claimed as Keil pointed out, one of Ephesos’ chief claims to neokoria intermittently anyway: Neokaisareia, primacy was that it was three times neokoros. De- Antandros, Aizanoi, Tralles, and Ankyra (the latter spite the fact that Ephesos had technically been the probably neokoros since Augustus, but not claim- first to hold that honor, during its lapse after the ing the title until the time of Valerian). death of Geta, Pergamon had won its third neokoria, Though all his brief reign was spent in the East, and under Caracalla, Pergamene coins proclaim that Macrinus is not known to have created any neokoroi. city ‘first three times neokoros’ or, more fully, ‘first of Asia and first metropolis and first-three-times- 72 Cassius Dio ep. 79.4-6; Herodian 4.12.13. 73 The best summary is Cavuoto 1983, 34-49. More recently, Baharal 1996, a revision of a dissertation chapter; and Baharal 1999, the same, with neither covering the situation in the 74 Cassius Dio ep. 79.20.4, 80.7.4; Habicht 1969, 18-19. provinces. 75 IvE 802; J. Keil 1956. chapter 38 – historical analysis 293 neokoros-of-the-emperors city of the Pergamenes.’ Artemis, Pergamon’s for Asklepios, and Smyrna’s for It seems that Ephesos and Pergamon could not only Rome. But that still left four or possibly five temples fight about who was first, but about who was first for Asia and its cities to build, at Philadelphia, to be neokoros. But under Macrinus apparently all Laodikeia, Kyzikos, Tralles, and perhaps even An- the neokoroi were threatened, and it may be that tandros. they were not acting in rivalry, but were united in Caracalla only granted neokoriai in Asia, but defending their ‘rights’ against the emperor’s (pos- during his father’s reign two cities in other provinces sible) cancellation of neokoriai granted by Caracalla. had been made twice neokoros, probably for a joint It was perhaps at this time that mention of even cult of Caracalla and Geta, and later likely for Ephesos’ neokoria for Artemis, also granted by Caracalla alone. Do they show the same pattern as Caracalla, was erased from its inscriptions. the Asian cities that were neokoroi? Anazarbos in The latter case indicates that the cities did not lose Cilicia actually minted coinage under Macrinus, and their neokoriai due to a condemnation of the it kept the title ‘twice (neokoros)’ that it had had since memory of Caracalla, which would not have threat- 204/205. Perinthos in Thrace is more doubtful; it ened the honor for Artemis. What remains of Cassius did not yet declare its full number of neokoriai on Dio’s history, which appears to have quoted Ma- its coins, and in any case minted none under crinus’ actual letters to the Senate, states that no Macrinus. Still, there is no sign that the other prov- decree against Caracalla was ever passed, and that inces were in danger of losing neokoriai for Caracalla even Macrinus did not call him either ‘deified’ or a as Asia seems to have been. But perhaps this was ‘public enemy,’ but only ‘Emperor.’76 This did not because these honors were in fact granted in the stop informal vilifications in the Senate and the reign of Septimius Severus, well before Caracalla’s destruction of certain statues in Rome, some of gold sole rule. and silver, others representing Caracalla and his hero The evidence is building that the Asian cities that Alexander, which were allegedly thrown down at were made neokoroi by Caracalla lost that honor Macrinus’ instigation.77 The attitude Dio attributed under Macrinus. Ephesos apparently won its case to Macrinus was that he did not dare to condemn for being ‘first,’ but may have lost its third neokoria Caracalla for fear of offending the soldiers, but would even though that was for the temple of Artemis. have welcomed that action on the part of the Sen- Kyzikos went from twice neokoros to simply neo- ate and people of Rome. This attitude, however, is koros, though again, Kyzikos may be a special case. not the same as formal condemnation of memory. Smyrna and Pergamon were in a state of unrest, and In the course of discussing extraordinary expen- Pergamon went so far as to sling insults at the empe- ditures by the treasury and by some communities ror; whether this was a cause or a result of the loss at Caracalla’s command, the epitomes of Dio men- of neokoria is uncertain. The discontent of these tion that Caracalla’s enactments were abolished.78 major cities may have been shared by the province This probably means only those concerned with the as a whole: Macrinus brought C. Julius Asper out extraordinary expenditures, but the neokoria could of exile because it was thought that he could restore certainly have involved extraordinary expenditures order in Asia, though he soon sent him back, replac- by the cities, especially when eight had been con- ing him with Q. Anicius Faustus, whose term there ferred in the same koinon. One of the major themes was extended.80 of Macrinus’ short reign was reducing public expen- In any case, the problem soon came to a conclu- diture, though his approval of work on such prac- sion: all the cities but Kyzikos once again minted ticalities as the road network is documented by coins with undiminished titles after Macrinus’ death milestones throughout the Empire.79 Of course, at and the condemnation of his memory. least three of the temples for which Caracalla made cities neokoroi were already standing: Ephesos’ for

80 Cassius Dio ep. 79.22.3-4; Thomasson 1984, 234 nos. 180, 76 Cassius Dio ep. 79.9.2, 79.17.2-79.19.4. 181. J. Keil 1956 associated the advocate’s latest mission with 77 Varner 1993, 397-399. the unrest in Asia, but attributed that mission to his advocacy 78 Cassius Dio ep. 79.18.5. for the koinon; it is more likely to have been for Ephesos. Note 79 Cavuoto 1983, 34-49. the caution of Deininger 1965, 50 n. 4. 294 part ii – summary chapters

Elagabalus and Severus Alexander wife Julia Paula, indicating that the grant predated news of her divorce in 220.84 Macrinus had been overthrown by his own armies’ If we accept Dio’s account of Elagabalus’ gloat- rebellion in favor of a fourteen-year-old cousin (and ing over Macrinus’ dead body (ep. 79.40.2), however, putative son) of Caracalla. The new emperor adopt- his route to Bithynia was directly through Cappa- ed the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus after his docia, avoiding the province of Asia completely. supposed father, but is better known as Elagabalus, Though the cities off his route may have sent em- which is properly the name of the god whom he bassies to meet him, there is no proof that he ever worshipped.81 It is natural that he would have re- visited them, not even Ephesos. stored any neokoriai granted by Caracalla if they Three of the off-route cities declared themselves were imperiled by the usurper Macrinus. neokoroi later in Elagabalus’ reign. Hierapolis as Elagabalus’ chief contact with the eastern prov- neokoros issued coins for Aquilia Severa and Annia inces was at the start of his reign. He was discov- Faustina, each of whom was empress in 221, and ered at his home city, Emesa in Syria, by the soldiers Miletos and Sardis for Severus Alexander as Cae- stationed nearby. His grandmother Julia Maesa, sar, in 221-222.85 Of this later group, Sardis issued sister of the former empress Julia Domna, issued the its initial coins for Elagabalus with the same count gossip and the gold that persuaded them to declare of neokoriai it had had in previous reigns, indicat- him emperor. After his troops’ victory over Macri- ing that this honor did not date as early as his jour- nus, he spent some months in Antioch before pro- ney from the East. Not much is known of the timing ceeding via Cilicia and Cappadocia to Bithynia. He of Beroia’s neokoria, and it lies off his route. spent the winter of 218/219 in Nikomedia, then In Nikomedia and Philippopolis the new cult of journeyed on to Rome through Thrace, Moesia, and the emperor was moved into previously existing Pannonia. He never returned to the East.82 temples, in each case that of the city’s chief deity, Elagabalus appears to have granted about as Demeter and Apollo Kendrisos respectively. But no many neokoriai as Caracalla had. There was a data from Beroia, Ephesos, Sardis, Miletos, or possible neokoria for Tripolis, the first known in Hierapolis indicate that the emperor shared his Phoenicia; one in Bithynia (Nikomedia), one in temple with any other deity. Thrace (Philippopolis), one in Macedonia (Beroia), The sources (mainly the tatters of Cassius Dio, and four in Asia (Ephesos, Miletos, Sardis, and Herodian, and, for what it’s worth, the Historia Hierapolis). Why did he choose these cities, or what Augusta) make almost as much of Elagabalus’ religious did they do to be chosen? interests as of his sexual ones. Recent attempts to At least two neokoriai, and possibly three, are explain the parcel of scandals that these sources have likely to date from Elagabalus’ earliest days of rule, left us have concentrated on seeking religious expla- his journey from the East to Rome.83 Tripolis was nations where earlier scholars sought sexual or psy- the port closest to his home city, Emesa, where he chological ones: Elagabalus is no longer a pampered was first declared emperor, though there is no data mama’s boy or misunderstood transsexual, but an in the sources to show why it should have been sin- Emesene priest carrying out a considered policy of gled out as neokoros. Nikomedia served as Elaga- importing various Syrian/Aramaic/Phoenician gods balus’ winter quarters in 218/219, and Philippopo- and religious practices into Rome.86 In this line, lis was directly on his route across Thrace and Johnston has also sought religious motives for the Moesia to Rome. All these cities, and Ephesos, is- various grants of neokoria made by Elagabalus, sued coins declaring their new neokoriai for Elaga- especially that for Hierapolis.87 The sources make balus early: Tripolis its unique coin type with the much of the emperor’s tendency to marry his baetyl title, dated to 219, the others for Elagabalus’ first god to various goddesses, or at least to Carthage’s Urania/Dea Caelestis;88 but there is no clear evidence

84 Kienast 1996, 173-174. 81 Barnes 1972, 53, 60. 85 Ibid., 174-175, 177-179. 82 Herodian 5.3-5; Cassius Dio ep. 79.30.2-80.3.1-2; Historia 86 M. Frey 1989. Augusta, Heliogabalus 3, 5; Halfmann 1986a, 230-231; L. Rob- 87 Johnston 1984. ert 1964, 79-82, 99. 88 Cassius Dio 79.12; Herodian 5.6.3-4. M. Frey 1989, 52- 83 L. Robert 1964. 54 doubted Herodian’s account of a marriage to the Palladium chapter 38 – historical analysis 295 for such sacred marriage among the new neokoroi. or demoted.90 The many neokoriai granted for his Only Herodian (5.5.2) notes religious excesses in cult were thus in jeopardy. Elagabalus’ early reign; elsewhere, he and his men- Of the eight cities concerned, three had their sole tors are portrayed as behaving discreetly until he was neokoria for Elagabalus (Tripolis?, Philippopolis, and well settled and well received in Rome. Hierapolis), while the other five (Nikomedia, Beroia, It must be emphasized that despite what the lit- Ephesos, Miletos, and Sardis) were more than once erature might lead us to expect, Elagabalus’ grants neokoros. Sometime after Elagabalus’ death the first of neokoria were not much out of line with what three ceased to call themselves neokoros, while the Caracalla had given before. Indeed, Elagabalus other five all gave up one neokoria from the enu- appears to have been more moderate, at least where meration of their titles. the province Asia was concerned: there are only four In considering the single neokoroi, as well as those new neokoriai there as compared to Caracalla’s like Beroia and Miletos which go from two to the possible eight, and all except Ephesos were likely simple title, we face a methodological problem. If granted in or after 221. Previously, Elagabalus had they dropped the enumeration, or even dropped all granted one per province, very likely to cities to mention, of neokoria from their coins and inscrip- which he had some cause to be gracious during his tions, it might have been by choice because other time in the East: Tripolis for Syria; Nikomedia, his titles or honors became more important to them. No host city in Bithynia; Philippopolis on his route edict stated that each city had to declare all its titles all the time. Tripolis’ claim to be neokoros is based through Thrace; and off his route, Ephesos for Asia on a single coin, so it does not take much to end and Beroia for Macedonia. The total, admittedly for the evidence. The case is plainer for the multiple a short reign, comes to eight. There is no proof of neokoroi: these cities continued to claim their title Elagabalus preferring cities with cults of the sun god, minus one, a clear indication that neokoriai for Ela- nor of him marrying his baetyl to Demeter at gabalus were indeed being blotted off the record. Nikomedia, to Artemis at Ephesos, or to Lydian Nikomedia and Sardis, which went down from three Kore at Sardis. to two neokoriai, and Ephesos, which went from four In June 221 Elagabalus adopted his younger to three, show this diminution incontrovertibly. We cousin Severus Alexander, designating him Caesar 89 can extend this to the single- and twice-neokoroi and successor. Though this act may have been cities that no longer declare the title after Elagabalus’ intended to bolster his own waning popularity, it death: no doubt their neokoriai were withdrawn as only offered his opponents a younger, more attrac- well. tive alternative. He tried to revoke the adoption and Collating the evidence from the eight cities, we even to murder Alexander, but in March of the next find that after a lapse of time (anything from a few year he and his mother were killed in a revolt of the months to a few years, considering that most cities Praetorian guard. His body was dragged through the minted irregularly) all the neokoriai for Elagabalus city, then thrown into the Tiber River. seem to have been withdrawn. The timing of the Severus Alexander was only thirteen years old withdrawal is curious, as our sources, such as they when he succeeded his cousin. The power lay in the are, give no hint of an explanation for the delay in hands of his (and Elagabalus’) grandmother, Julia the cities’ reduction of their claims. Nikomedia, Maesa, and of his mother, Julia Mamaea. Though Beroia, Ephesos, and Philippopolis continued to the new rule was thus closely linked with the old, claim their neokoriai for Elagabalus on coins well that association was played down. Elagabalus’ name after they had been informed of Severus Alexander’s was erased from inscriptions, his religious policies succession and, presumably, the mode of Elagabalus’ were reversed, and his favorites were killed, expelled, death. Did they assume that Severus Alexander would continue to honor the memory of his cousin? If so, their memories were short. Though they might on the grounds that it does not fit with the Syrian triad men- not have remembered Claudius’ renunciation of his tioned on an altar found at Cordoba, Spain (bibliography 52 nephew Gaius, Caracalla’s behavior toward his n. 1). He allies the sun god Elagabalus with an Aphrodite fig- ure as consort; any Athena figure would perhaps be a daugh- ter of those two. 90 Herodian 6.1.1-7; Cassius Dio ep. 80. 21.2-3; Kienast 1996, 89 Barnes 1972, 72. 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417. 296 part ii – summary chapters brother Geta should have been fresh in their minds. problems, but Kaisareia was likely neokoros for Was the new regime at first more inclined toward Severus Alexander by 225/226, Neokaisareia by dynastic solidarity than our sources make it appear? 226/227, and Aigeai by 230/231. Or did all the neokoroi attempt to save their titles Severus Alexander eventually allowed neokoriai by rededicating their temples to the new emperor? in the province Asia as well. Under him Magnesia The coins of Ephesos hint that embassies were sent first declared itself neokoros of Artemis. To make to Rome, and an inscription from Sardis indicates one city neokoros when others in the province had a period when it may have been uncertain which lost that title could be dangerous, as it would exac- way the decision would go. It is possible that all the erbate the rivalry among the cities. The case of endangered neokoroi and their koina, representing Magnesia fits well in this context, as its contempo- at least five provinces, sent embassies, as all would rary claim to be ‘seventh’ in a province all too well be affected by the answer. It is likely that the pro- supplied with ‘firsts’ shows a sharp interest in sta- cedure was long, especially if the petitions of the tus as reflected in titulature. The Magnesians could neokoroi for Elagabalus became mixed up with those no doubt have pointed to several cities already of new applicants. The koina that had neokoroi for neokoroi whose status they considered inferior to Elagabalus would probably have defended their case, theirs. On the koinon’s side, there may have been holding that these cities had priority to neokoria. If need to preserve tangible signs of the emperor’s favor so, there would have been no new applicants from toward the province, and his pardon for any acri- the provinces of Macedonia, Thrace, Bithynia, Asia, mony in the debate over Elagabalus’ neokoroi. The or Phoenicia. New neokoriai were granted to pre- problem was to avoid reopening those scarcely viously uninvolved cities in previously uninvolved healed wounds of the cities that had lost neokoriai, provinces starting from 225/226 (below). The pro- and the solution may have been to choose Magne- cess of disappointing the former neokoroi for sia, but as neokoros of Artemis, not of the emperor. Elagabalus may have taken even longer; it was over Later, Kyzikos may have been readmitted to its by the time of the Persian War, nine years after Ela- standing as twice neokoros, certainly after 231 and gabalus’ death. probably close to Severus Alexander’s death in 235; Why has such a proceeding left no record? Sim- that is, if Kyzikos was not simply repressing the ply stated, because the Emperor’s answer was no. enumeration of its second neokoria, as it had after Cities did not build monuments or carve inscriptions the death of Caracalla. If there was going to be honoring their ambassadors for an unsuccessful another neokoros chosen for the province Asia, a city mission. No one would record for all posterity to that had already lost the honor through no fault of read a flat refusal, even from an emperor. No city its own (but not for Elagabalus—that wound was too won, so no city commemorated the process. Indeed, recent) would have been a good choice. Once again, the only record resides in the erasure of titles from however, the second neokoria of Kyzikos was not previous inscriptions. As for the historians, Herodian to endure for long. preferred more dramatic material, Cassius Dio was preoccupied and in poor health,91 and the Historia Augusta for this and all subsequent reigns is a farrago The Empire After 235 of spicy gossip, with facts few and far between. Record of the emperor’s decision was doubtless kept At the murder of Alexander, last representative of in the imperial archives, but it has not survived.92 the Severan dynasty, the Roman Empire fell into Severus Alexander granted neokoriai as well as turbulence. There were frequent wars with Goths taking them away. There is evidence for three cit- and Vandals, Franks and Alamanni. In the East, the ies gaining a neokoria during his reign: Neokaisareia energetic, aggressive Sassanians looked only for the in Pontus, Kaisareia in Cappadocia, and Aigeai in opportunity to raid, or even to reclaim, the long-lost Cilicia. Not one of them is in a koinon whose cities empire of the Achaemenid Persians.93 All that was had had and lost a neokoria of Elagabalus. All is- needed was a weakness in the center, and this was sued dated coins, and these are not without their not lacking either. The occasional murder of an old emperor and proclamation of a new one was not 91 Cassius Dio ep. 80.1.2-80.2.1. 92 Millar 1977, 259-268. 93 Kettenhofen 1982. chapter 38 – historical analysis 297 without precedent, but after 235 the entryway to The inflation would have had some effect on power became a rapidly revolving door, from which private fortunes, though these were more likely to not all the contestants could be cleared as new can- be in property than coin. Still, many members of the didates entered.94 elite began to refocus their activities and interests For the cities, this instability only multiplied the from their home cities to the larger sphere of the factor of uncertainty that had prevailed in previous Roman bureaucracy.99 Now those who managed to civil wars, such as that between Septimius Severus retain their wealth were growing unwilling to take and Pescennius Niger. It was possible for a city to on civic offices and responsibilities; increasingly, obliterate an emperor’s inscriptions and then, chas- liturgies had to be forced on them. And as the bonds tened, to reinscribe the same name over the erasure of civic patriotism weakened, so did the eagerness a month later.95 Even those fortunate cities that of the wealthy to serve as chief priests and priest- chose the ‘correct’ side could find themselves in- esses and agonothetai of their koinon. In the same vaded by friendly forces and their supplies of food, way, cities themselves became unable or unwilling clothing, and animals requisitioned away. Worse, for to contribute to the coffers of their koinon and its the first time since the first century B.C.E., cities in chief cities.100 The koinon may not have been able eastern provinces well within the Empire’s borders to enforce its demands; judging from inscriptions and were subject to the threat of foreign invasion. While coins, evidence for the provincial koina blinks out, the Sassanians snapped up Roman territories east bit by bit, across the Empire, to a virtual disappear- of the Euphrates and threatened those beyond, the ance of data after the reign of Gallienus.101 Goths and their allies repeatedly raided the Greek An end to the evidence, however, does not nec- peninsula and Asia Minor both by land and by sea.96 essarily imply an end to the koinon, nor to neokoria. The Palmyrenes, for a while Rome’s bulwark against The ‘crisis’ years are notoriously short on all forms the Sassanians, began to emulate them in taking over of evidence. The end of civic coinage has already Roman possessions, and at one time Syria, Arabia, been mentioned. Though inscriptions were still being and Egypt fell under their dominion. carved, there were many fewer of them. No won- Economic and social consequences were slower der: there were fewer buildings built, fewer statues to appear but harder to counteract, and they had a erected, fewer gifts or dedications to gods or emper- particular effect on the coins and inscriptions that ors, even fewer gravestones, though apparently the are our major sources of evidence for the neokoroi. epigraphic habit died harder in the East than in the There was an increasing debasement and con- West.102 The parlous state of the literary evidence sequent inflation of the standard Roman silver for this period echoes that of these archaeological coinage.97 The bronze civic coinage, which had records. Herodian’s history ends with the accession flourished for two centuries as a token currency and of Gordian III in 238. There are the Historia Augusta, a symbol of the cities’ autonomy (also token), prob- though it contains more fiction than fact; Zosimus, ably fell victim to this economic situation. As the who is not the latter-day Polybius he may have value of the official coinage, now more bronze than wanted to be; and epitomators such as Aurelius silver, fell while prices rose, there was less need of Victor and Eutropius, who give an outline, not a a fractional currency to supplement it, especially one history. Though calling the age a ‘crisis’ has been issued in good bronze. Soon after, official Roman criticized, the later third century was ‘dark’ in both mints were established in the East, and their prod- senses of the phrase: chaotic and little docu- ucts likely supplanted the old civic coinages.98 Most mented.103 eastern cities ceased to issue coins after the reign of The procession of short-lived emperors must have Gallienus, and with them our humblest but most had an effect on the imperial cult in the provinces, dependable well of evidence for neokoria runs dry. and on the neokoroi in particular. On the one hand, there were many more emperors and thus more

94 Hartmann 1982; though MacMullen 1976 indicates the nuances obscured by the term ‘crisis.’ 99 De Blois 1984. 95 Herodian 7.5.8, 7.9.11; CIL 8.757, 10047. 100 E.g. Philadelphia in Asia, SEG 17:528; Millar 1977, 390. 96 Wolfram 1979. 101 Deininger 1965, 182-183. 97 Callu 1969. 102 Winter 1996, 232; MacMullen 1986. 98 Butcher 1996. 103 Rogers 1988; Bleckmann 1992. 298 part ii – summary chapters opportunities for establishing their cult; moreover, and there are signs that many were. But again, the the koinon as an organization may have been grow- more it was granted and the less eminent the cities ing weaker and losing the ability to mediate among that boasted of it, the less valuable the simple honor the cities regarding what titles they could claim. On became: just like the coinage, neokoria was to ex- the other hand, the imperial cult and its benefits perience rampant inflation. Indeed, for a city’s sta- became much more uncertain. Was it worth send- tus to be made truly significant, it could instantly ing ambassadors all the way to the Rhine to request become several times neokoros, as we will see in the neokoria from an emperor who was as likely to be cases of Thessalonike under Trajan Decius, and of killed by his own officers as by the enemy before the Perge and Side under Aurelian and thereafter. embassy could even arrive? If the cult and title could actually be granted, how long would it be before that emperor was killed and his enemy, now theirs, took Maximinus his place? It is ironic to a modern sensibility that, at a time A professional soldier, Maximinus may not have when the emperors seem less and less powerful, there instigated the army revolt in which Severus Alex- may have been an increased tendency to worship ander was murdered, but he certainly benefited by the emperor, and for him to proclaim his close re- it.107 The sole event of his reign that concerns the lationship with the gods.104 By the same token there neokoroi was that Kyzikos went back to calling it- was a current belief that the welfare of the entire self simply neokoros on his coins after having been empire depended on the proper maintenance of twice neokoros on late coins of Severus Alexander. official Roman religion.105 It may have been grasp- Was this due to a condemnation of Alexander’s ing at straws, but no hope, however small, was to memory?108 Nine neokoroi cities declared their title be rejected. If a city became neokoros of an emperor, on coins during Maximinus’ reign: Nikomedia, Per- perhaps his troops would come to its rescue, would gamon, Ephesos, Smyrna, Sardis, Anazarbos, Mag- protect it, or just not pillage it. The emperor’s name, nesia, and the aforementioned Kyzikos. Only the the status of neokoros itself, might form the city’s latter two had become neokoros under Severus Alex- aegis. Whether this was a realistic expectation was ander, and Magnesia as neokoros of Artemis was probably a question not to be asked. certainly less likely to lose that honor because of an From an emperor’s point of view, there was little obliteration of Alexander’s memory. As for Aigeai, reason not to grant neokoria, and much to favor it. Kaisareia, and Neokaisareia, the neokoroi for There is no trustworthy evidence for any emperor Severus Alexander who did not mint with the title after Caracalla modestly refusing to be worshipped. in Maximinus’ reign all began to mint with undi- Indeed, emperors were increasingly likely to claim minished titulature soon after, Aigeai as early as 238, the special protection of particular gods.106 The next Kaisareia by 240, and Neokaisareia by 241/242.109 usurper could rise out of nowhere, and no city’s Kyzikos did not. It seems that either Kyzikos’ pledge of loyalty was to be despised. An emperor troubles were not caused by a condemnation of could bind the cities to himself by granting gifts, but Severus Alexander’s name, or that it was simply what money there was was needed for the army; suppressing the enumeration from its titulature. other privileges could be expensive or impossible to arrange, and exemption from taxes or requisitions was out of the question. The neokoria, however, Gordian III required no outlay of imperial funds, and if the city in question reused an extant temple, there was little Though successful in his war against the Germans, expense on that side either. Maximinus was less able to pacify Italy and the pro- These factors probably made the title ‘neokoros’ easier to get for those cities that still were interested, 107 Herodian 6.7.10-6.9.8; the following account based on Herodian books 7 and 8. 108 Kienast 1996, 177-179; Varner 1993, 418-422 held that 104 Cerfaux and Tondriau 1957, 407-409; Taeger 1960; the condemnation was unofficial. Turcan 1978. 109 Aigeai was the only city in Cilicia to strike coins for the 105 Nock 1930a. elder Gordiani, though these did not mention the neokoria; 106 E.g., Aurelian; Alaric Watson 1999, 183-198, 201-202. see Weiss 1982, 196-197. chapter 38 – historical analysis 299 vinces. Revolt broke out in Africa, where the pro- the troops massed for war against the Sassanians to consul Marcus Antonius Gordianus and his son of revolt, kill Gordian, and declare Philip emperor.112 the same name were declared co-emperors. The The sources’ bias against Philip is partly racial: he Senate had been alienated by Maximinus and con- was an Arab from Trachonitis, east of the Jordan. firmed the Gordiani, but within thirty-six days both He did not linger in the East after Gordian’s death, men were dead, the son in battle against Maximinus’ but made peace with the Persians, named his son troops, the father by suicide on hearing the news of Philip Caesar, and founded a city, Philippopolis, his son. The Senate was stuck; it had already out- near his birthplace. It may have been around this lawed Maximinus and he was leading his armies to time that he made Neapolis in Syria Palaestina invade Italy. Two compromise candidates, Pupienus neokoros. Then he proceeded back to Rome, where and Balbinus, were selected from the Senate itself. he triumphantly celebrated the millennium of the To placate the people, among whom the Gordiani city with secular games. were still popular, a grandson of the proconsul was named Caesar and successor. Though only thirteen, within two months he became the emperor Gordian Trajan Decius III: Maximinus, unsuccessful at besieging Aquileia, had been killed by his own soldiers, while Balbinus Philip appointed the city prefect Decius to command and Pupienus were murdered by their Praetorian the restive armies of Pannonia and Moesia, and this Guard. was probably his greatest mistake. The armies de- Gordian III, though young, had good advisers and clared Decius emperor, Philip had to march against philhellenic tendencies.110 There are few sources for him, and he was killed in battle.113 Though some his reign, however, and most concentrate on his war of Philip’s inscriptions were erased after his death, against the Sassanian Persians and their king Shapur no official condemnation of his memory has been I.111 Under his rule Thessalonike in Macedonia documented.114 Neapolis did not issue coins and became neokoros; and by 240 its rival in the prov- probably lost its colonial status under Trajan Decius, ince, Beroia, had again become twice neokoros and perhaps because favoritism towards its benefactor first began to put its name on the koinon coinage Philip turned the city against his successor.115 But to underline that fact. It is possible that he allowed subsequently coins issued under Trebonianus Gallus Thessalonike that honor because it would be an occasionally use the title ‘neokoros.’ Herakleia in the important transshipment point for the proposed koinon of Pontus also declared itself neokoros first eastern campaign, and that Beroia, though less stra- on coins under Philip, and there too the title seems tegic, was honored at the same time to concede its to have survived his death; but its neokoria may have long-held primacy in the province. But in fact no been granted some time before. clear connection can be made between Gordian The survivor ruled under the name Trajan (who only went East for the war two years later, in Decius, recalling better times for the Roman Em- 242) and these honors to Macedonian cities. Arme- pire; in flattery, Pergamon put out an issue of coins nia Minor was closer to the scene of action, and an that showed its temple of Zeus Philios and (the origi- inscription from the time of Gordian III first docu- nal) Trajan, the one that had made it twice neokoros ments Nikopolis there as twice neokoros. But that 135 years before. But Decius’ reign was anything but only provides a time by which the title had been prosperous. The Goths had begun attacks on Moesia granted, and does not assure that Gordian himself late in Philip’s reign; combating them had been part granted it. of Decius’ assignment to that province.116 His rise to the throne did not discourage their incursions, however. The Gothic armies launched a two- Philip pronged invasion of Moesia and of Thrace. They

According to Zosimus, Gordian’s praetorian prefect 112 Zosimus 1.17-20; Aurelius Victor 27.7-28; Eutropius 9.2- Philip contrived a shortage of supplies which caused 3; de Blois 1978/1979; Kettenhofen 1982, 19-37. 113 Aurelius Victor 28.10-11; Orosius 7.20.4; Eutropius 9.3. 114 Varner 1993, 484-487. 110 L. Robert 1970, 14-17. 115 Harl 1984, 67-73. 111 Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 34-45. 116 Zosimus 1.23; Jordanes, On the Getae 16.18. 300 part ii – summary chapters besieged the city of Philippopolis, metropolis of the the rest. The Danube border may have been breach- Thracian koinon and formerly neokoros, and even- ed again, and for the first time it is possible that the tually captured it.117 At around the same time raiders took ship, extending their grasp to the the Carpi, allies of the Goths, were advancing into wealthy cities of Asia Minor.122 Also ominous was Dacia. Of course, with foreign war went further a successful attack by the Sassanian empire; King internal rebellions: Priscus, governor of Macedonia Shapur I had been checked by Gordian III’s expe- and imperial legate to Thrace, was besieged in dition, but afterward continued raiding Roman ter- Philippopolis and had to declare himself emperor ritories. In Gallus’ reign he seized a long-awaited and make a pact with the Goths.118 In this context opportunity, and in a series of campaigns took Ar- Thessalonike declared itself four times neokoros, menia, invaded Mesopotamia and Syria, and sacked three more neokoriai than it had under Gordian III; Antioch.123 this probably reflected the city’s importance to the Balkan front. Anazarbos in Cilicia, however, which now declared itself three times neokoros, was far Aemilian away from the major war of the time. Decius sent his son and Caesar, Herennius Etruscus, to the front The only Roman military success in this period was first, while he himself followed soon after.119 The rest that of Aemilian, governor of Moesia, who beat back of their lives would be spent in combat in the Balkan the Goths from his province in 253. It was thus area, but that would not be a long time. Trajan predictable that his troops would declare him em- Decius became the first Roman emperor to die in peror.124 Aemilian at once set out with his armies battle against a foreign enemy. to invade Italy. Trebonianus Gallus summoned troops from fighting the Alamanni to combat Aemi- lian, but there wasn’t enough time. Gallus’ own Trebonianus Gallus soldiers, seeing that they were outnumbered, killed him and went over to Aemilian. The murder did not It was hinted that some responsibility for Trajan stop Gallus’ reinforcements, still on the march from Decius’ death rested with Trebonianus Gallus, his the Upper Rhine. They declared their commander, ally and military commander of Moesia, who is said Valerian, emperor, and as they outnumbered Aemi- to have plotted with the Goths to lure Decius into lian’s troops, this time it was Aemilian who was a trap.120 Such suspicions always tended to linger betrayed and killed by his own soldiers. around the successor. Though the Senate made Gallus co-ruler with Hostilianus, Decius’ surviving son, a plague, convenient to Gallus but deadly to Valerian and Gallienus the rest of the Empire, soon carried Hostilianus off. Thessalonike would lose two of its four neokoriai at The new emperor, Valerian, combined military some point after Decius’ death, certainly by 253/ expertise with consular dignity and an illustrious 254. This loss was less likely due to a condemna- family background.125 On his arrival at Rome, he tion of Decius’ memory, however, than it was to raised his son Gallienus, already made Caesar by the restoring the balance between cities in the same Senate, to the status of Augustus and full partner in province, so that Thessalonike and its rival Beroia the realm. Both emperors would be needed, as would each be twice neokoros.121 Trebonianus Gallus made peace with the Goths 122 Zonaras 12.21; Zosimus 1.28.1; the latter perhaps an and guaranteed them a yearly subsidy, but buying anticipation of the invasion described in 1.31-35. The accounts off one segment of the attackers did nothing about are plagued by doublets and repetition, but some cities may have actually been invaded more than once: Potter 1990, 310- 314; Bleckmann 1992, 156-219; Salamon 1971. 117 Zosimus 1.24.2; Ammianus Marcellinus 31.5.17. 123 Zosimus 1.27.2, with problems of interpretation simi- 118 PIR2 I 489 (T. Julius Priscus); Kienast 1996, 208; Aurelius lar to those of his account of the Gothic sea raids; Bleckmann Victor 29.2; Polemius Sylvius 39-40; Dexippus fr. 18. 1992, 54-155. 119 Aurelius Victor 29.3-5; Dexippus fr. 16a; Zonaras 12.20. 124 Zosimus 28.1-29.2; Eutropius 9.5-6; Aurelius Victor 31- 120 Zosimus 1.23.2-1.25.2. 32.1. 121 Kienast 1996, 204-210; Peachin 1990, 32-35, 239-265; 125 Aurelius Victor 32-33; Zosimus 1.29-1.40; Eutropius 9.7- Varner 1993, 487-488. 8. chapter 38 – historical analysis 301

Rome now had to fight wars on every side. Gallienus There are two outliers to this group of neokoroi. took command at the Rhine and at the Danube Kyzikos, which had not been neokoros of Elagabalus frontier while Valerian went east to combat first the but whose second neokoria had wavered several Goths, then the Persians. Many of the great cities times, named itself twice neokoros again between of the East, some of them neokoroi, came under 258 and 260. Thessalonike, which had been four attack. The emperor Valerian himself was captured times neokoros under Trajan Decius, was reduced by the Persians in 260, after which Gallienus reigned to two times by the time of Valerian but then upped alone.126 The presence of armies in the East may to three times by Gallienus’ sole reign. The reap- have encouraged a temporary increase in the issues pearance of Kyzikos as twice neokoros definitely of bronze coinage, as it did in Athens between Gal- postdates the neokoriai to Nikomedia and Ephesos, lienus’ visit in 264 and the Herulian invasion in and that to Thessalonike may postdate all of them. 267.127 The chronology of this period is just short As usual, the situation of Kyzikos is uncertain; it of chaos, however. To the detriment of this study, may have only been suppressing the enumeration most of the bronze civic coinages, those abundant from its title. If that was not the case, however, and and dependable informants on city titulature, fade if we extend the confined cluster from only Ela- out after Gallienus’ reign. Without them there is gabalus’ neokoroi to take in these two outliers, a darkness, with only intermittent inscriptions to show remarkable coincidence occurs. The larger set now us the subsequent history of the neokoroi. includes every city known to have lost a neokoria. At least ten grants of neokoria have been associ- The exceptions are again those cities for which we ated with the names of Valerian and Gallienus, a lack all evidence of their status at this time: Beroia, total that exceeds even those granted under Cara- Philippopolis, Miletos, and Tripolis as before, with calla or under Elagabalus. Ideally, one might wish only Nikaia added. Thus we no longer need look for to look at these and discern some cogent series of the unlikely reason why Valerian and Gallienus circumstances that accounts for them all. But the restored lost neokoriai of Elagabalus, but rather why only historical evidence we have is anecdotal, not they may have restored all lost neokoriai. explanatory, while the archaeological evidence is, as There were other neokoriai granted at this time always, partial and subject to interpretation. Still, the that do not fall into the ‘regained neokoriai’ group. neokoroi under Valerian and Gallienus do seem to Tarsos seems never to have lost a neokoria, but cluster into groups, or at least into one group with became three times neokoros, and Ankyra, Side, and some outliers. Aspendos, which had never been documented as The most notable cluster is that of cities that were neokoroi previously, now claim that honor, Ankyra restored to the status they had held in the reign of as twice neokoros. It is noteworthy that these cities Elagabalus, before the condemnation of his memory fall into a geographic area that is distinct from that removed one neokoria from each. This includes of the cities that regained neokoriai: they are in the Ephesos again four times neokoros, Sardis and south and east, while the ‘regained neokoriai’ are Nikomedia at three times each, and perhaps Hiera- in the north and west. The one group was prima- spolis at one. All of these had regained the honor rily threatened by Sassanian incursions, the other before 260, and Nikomedia and Ephesos offer evi- primarily by the Goths. dence that their neokoriai were granted by 256-258. One unifying factor is war, which brought the If Valerian and Gallienus had for some reason emperor Valerian to the East and made him wish reinstituted the cult of the emperor Elagabalus, we to reward and encourage cities to hold out against might expect to see Beroia, Philippopolis, Miletos, the invaders. But the factor of war is so widespread and Tripolis also with restored neokoriai. Unfortu- as to be unhelpful to these considerations. If we could nately all of these had ceased to issue coinage show- overlay maps with all the various Gothic invasions ing the title by this time, and no other evidence is and Sassanian incursions, we would find that no city yet known. Beroia, at least, had already become in the East was safe, none out of raiding distance, twice neokoros again in the reign of Gordian III. none far from the paths of armies. Then why were these particular cities singled out as neokoroi? The answer may lie with the unusual group of 126 De Blois 1976. cities with regained neokoriai. Most of these had lost 127 Kroll 1997. a neokoria less than forty years before, a few even 302 part ii – summary chapters more recently. In a situation where many cities, per- point of view. From a provincial viewpoint, however, haps even every city, wanted close ties to the em- the neokoriai of Side and then of Aspendos (the latter perors, which cities could have been seen to have during Gallienus’ sole rule) changed the balance of most claim to the honor? Of necessity, those that had titulature: Perge, since Vespasian probably the only once had it but lost it through no fault of their own. neokoros, suddenly had to accommodate its rivals. In addition, the fact that they had had it once as- The change, as always, goes beyond mere titulature sured that they were important cities already deemed to put in question former relationships among cit- worthy of neokoria. A grant to them would have the ies and between them and the emperor: Perge was air of a restoration, harking back to times of peace no longer alone (and therefore first), but the three and prosperity only a generation before. cities stood on equal footing at least as regards As it happens, the ‘restored’ group centers in neokoria, and thus on an equal footing towards the northern Greece and western Asia Minor, where emperor. Perge’s reaction to Side’s neokoria was to Elagabalus happened to make his grants. What of publicize its long-unstated status as neokoros more the area to the south and east, where Valerian him- intensively. As the rivalry between the two was self was leading the Roman armies? Here the choice heated enough to be alluded to on coins, it may be seems to emphasize not restoration of particular that Aspendos was only later added to the neokoroi neokoriai, but restoration of balance among the in order to dissipate the tension. neokoroi. To sum up, a multitude of neokoriai were granted In Cilicia, Tarsos and Anazarbos had been neck- or regranted during the joint reign of Valerian and-neck in neokoriai since the Severan period, and Gallienus, when Valerian was leading his cam- though Tarsos had originally had precedence. Yet paign against the Sassanians. A common thread under Trajan Decius, Anazarbos had become three runs through these grants, a thread of restoration, times neokoros, leaving Tarsos behind. Now balance whether of a title previously withdrawn or of a city’s was restored; Tarsos too became three times position in the province or the Empire. A restora- neokoros. Both cities, plus Aigeai, the other Cilician tion could have the effect of recalling the great days neokoros, were soon to be sacked by the Sassanians of a city, often less than a generation before yet in the invasion that also carried the emperor Vale- perhaps seeming sadly remote. Valerian’s neokoriai rian off to captivity.128 in Pamphylia, however, were not so much a resto- Ankyra in Galatia was more remote, though not ration as a recognition of the current status of cit- untouched. The city built a fortification wall in the ies based on their strategic importance. Thus Side, face of famine and barbarian invasions; probably the a vital port, was made equal with Perge, and Aspen- Goths followed the ‘royal road’ through Ankyra on dos was eventually added too. It is likely that two their way into Cappadocia in 261/262.129 So far as basic ingredients, the imperial wish to bind cities in is known, Ankyra had no rivals in its province. We loyalty by means of grants of neokoriai, and the cannot even affirm that the city was actually given cities’ rivalry with one another, combined in Pam- its second neokoria under Valerian and Gallienus, phylia as it had in other provinces to promote an only that it began to announce it. Still, there may inflation of neokoriai once again. be some point in comparing Ankyra not to other cities in its province but to other provincial metro- poleis. Even Kaisareia in Cappadocia had been twice Aurelian and After neokoros for some time, and the cities of Asia and Bithynia had passed that mark even longer before. There is no evidence for a formal end to neokoria; The status of twice neokoros would have only at last sight, especially at Perge and Side, it was un- brought Ankyra up to its proper status among the dergoing rapid escalation in the chaotic years at the capitals of the East. end of the third century. On coins of Aurelian, the Pamphylia had recently become strategically Pamphylian cities show a definite inflation in important, a status which made grants of honors and neokoriai; both went from simply neokoros to Perge titles understandable, at least from an emperor’s claiming to be four times and Side three times neokoros. It is difficult to tell why these cities were 128 Kettenhofen 1982, 106-112. so honored. Though Pamphylia had just suffered 129 IGRR 3:209; Salamon 1971, 128-129. from Gothic raids, with Side defending itself with chapter 38 – historical analysis 303 particular distinction, Aurelian’s itineraries for his ized to build new ones. In many cases, private houses war with Palmyra bypassed the province com- and workshops encroach upon former public ar- pletely.130 Side’s harbor may have made it vital for eas.134 There is also a new emphasis on refuge, supply lines, but the pecking order still gave the behind walls or in high citadels, especially in places precedence to Perge. It would be interesting to know more threatened by invasion, as in the West, the how many times Perge was neokoros when Side later Balkans, and Greece. claimed its sixth; one document may show that Perge Most important for the neokoroi, temples began too became six times neokoros. to be either despoiled for or converted to Christian Inscriptions of the first Tetrarchy, 293-305, call churches. The process is generally dated to the fifth Synnada and Sagalassos twice neokoros, though both century, following the provisions in the Theodosian cities were not known to have been neokoroi at all Code for the closing of the temples (below). Of up to that point. Sagalassos was still twice neokoros course, it is obvious from the repetitions in the Code on inscriptions even down to the time of Constantine itself that its injunctions were often unheeded; along and his sons. with the anecdotes of Christian zealots destroying It may seem remarkable that the title ‘twice neo- temples well before the law allowed, there were koros,’ symbol of the cult of the emperors, was still places where pagan shrines were winked at, or even being used while the Empire was ruled by Christians. vigorously defended, even in the fifth century.135 Yet Constantine deified his father (and was later Temples to the emperors may have been the last to himself deified), and accepted a temple at Hispellum have been attacked—after all, to impugn the dig- and priests dedicated to his Flavian gens.131 Orators nity and privileges of emperors was dangerous, no who spoke before the emperor himself not only matter how anti-pagan the emperors themselves may praised his ‘divine mind’ but could attribute his have been. victories to a vision of Apollo; he is said to have put The Theodosian Code assembles imperial proc- up his own image in pagan temples, or even to have lamations, including those on various aspects of the built pagan temples in the city he founded, Con- temples. Pagan priesthood, for example, was not stantinople.132 Though some of these statements may abolished at once: in 386 C.E. Valentinian II and have arisen from pagan/Christian bickering, it is Theodosius I decreed that chief priests of the em- certain that the emperors of the house of Con- perors were to be chosen from non-Christians of the stantine did nothing that would lessen their power decurion class who had performed the most services as rulers, their Christianity notwithstanding. for their cities.136 The more research is done on the late antique A number of regulations in the code assume that period, the clearer it becomes that reports of the pagan temples should be preserved, though rituals death of civic life have been greatly exaggerated. practiced around them, especially sacrifice, were Great eastern centers like Ephesos, Sardis, and strictly forbidden. In a ruling of 326 (CT 15.1.3), pro- Aphrodisias were prosperous up into the sixth cen- vincial officials were warned against starting new tury, though the governmental role formerly handled public building projects without finishing the old by their elites gradually passed into the hands of ones, but temples were excepted. Later CT 16.10.3, imperial officials and leaders of the church.133 Prob- dated to 342, stated that temples outside the walls ably due to breakdowns in large-scale transport and of the city were not to be injured, since festivals in supply lines for any but imperial and military pur- their honor were for the entertainment of the Ro- poses, local building begins to be done with the man people. One of the most famous provisions, CT materials on hand, and old structures are cannibal- 16.10.4, dated somewhere between 346 and 356, closed the temples in all places and in all cities; but then CT 16.10.8 (382 C.E.) protected a particular 130 Alaric Watson 1999, 46, 70-84; Halfmann 1986a, 239- temple at Osrhoene, with its images and festival, 240. though sacrifice was again prohibited. Various rul- 131 Drake 2000, 180-187; Clauss 1999, 196-208. 132 Sokrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.18.1, ed. G. Hansen (Berlin ings of 399 C.E., directed at Spain, ‘the five pro- 1995) 57-58; Zosimus 2.31. See Setton 1941, 196-211, on fourth- century Christian proskynesis toward the emperor or his im- age. 134 Cameron 1993, 152-175. 133 Roueché 1989a, and the works of Foss, especially 1979 135 MacMullen 1997, 20-25, 34-39, 50-59. and 1976. 136 CT 12.1.112; the following according to Pharr 1952. 304 part ii – summary chapters vinces,’ and Africa, protected temples empty of il- were demolished and deserted, though some pro- licit altars and statues (CT 16.10.15, 18). Though vided good building material for churches; others many fourth-century decisions were aimed at pagan survived in good enough condition to be themselves worship and rituals, they assumed that the temples turned into churches after the late fourth century.138 themselves would continue, as public property, Rome, the former world capital, sacked by the under the administration of the cities’ decurions.137 Visigoths in 410 and by the Vandals in 455, was a At the end of the fourth century, however, the special case: in 458, Majorian (in Ravenna) forbade emperors’ decrees turned toward the destruction of that public buildings (including temples) in Rome be temples or reuse of their remains. For example, a demolished for reuse of their materials.139 decision of 397, CT 15.1.36, directed the Count of We do not know precisely when, or how, most the Orient to use certain material from destroyed temples for which cities were neokoroi were closed, temples in constructing roads, bridges, and aque- secularized, Christianized, and/or knocked down. ducts. While CT 16.10.15 seems to have protected Constantine himself had had the temple of Asklepios temples in cities of some provinces in 399 (above), at Aigeai destroyed; the temple for Antoninus Pius CT 16.10.16, issued in the same year, declared that at Sagalassos was carefully demolished and some of temples in country districts should be torn down. In its stones reused in a local church, perhaps in the 407, CT 16.10.19 stated that temples in cities, towns, fifth century; and one side of the temenos of what or outside towns should be turned to appropriate was probably the temple of Hadrian at Ephesos was public use, and that their administrators should refashioned into the Church of Saint Mary, certain- destroy them. In 425, Theodosius II forbade ado- ly before 431, when the Ecumenical Council of ration of imperial statues or images when they were Ephesos met there. The last inscription to document set up at festivals or on ordinary days (CT 15.4.1). neokoria, at Sardis in 459 C.E., calls the city twice The last word was the decree of Theodosius and neokoros when previously it had been three times Valentinian, CT 16.10.25, in 435 C.E.: if any pa- neokoros. The superannuated title had likely been gan temples or shrines remained, they were to be copied off old inscriptions, from monuments under destroyed, and purified by erection of the sign of repair or broken up for reuse. This last statement Christianity. of neokoria indicates that by the fifth century the Of course, it was still a big Empire, and not every title had lost its meaning, rather than that it still community behaved in the same way. Many temples retained any.

137 Provisions against worship, not temples: 356? C.E., CT 16.10.4; 381, CT 16.10.7; 391, CT 16.10.10-11; 392, CT 16.10.12; 395, CT 16.10,13, more vigorous enforcement of 16.10.12. CT 15.1.40, of 401 C.E.: buildings that belong to any temple, and all public buildings, are the responsibility of the 138 Krautheimer 1986, 41. decurions of the city. 139 Novels of Majorian 4.1; Pharr 1952, 553-554. chapter 39 – the temples 305

Chapter 39. The Temples

The word ‘neokoros’ means ‘temple warden,’so the Augustus temples at Pergamon and at Ankyra.3 An existence of a temple that the neokoros cares for is important benefactor could be signally honored by explicit in the term. Even before ‘neokoros’ came statues placed around the temples in neokoroi cit- to designate a city that possessed a koinon temple, ies: so around 141 C.E., Titus Aelius Alkibiades’ a temple building was understood to be a vital part statues were to be set up in the “sacred temples of of provincial imperial cult. For example, though the emperors of (the koinon of) Asia.”4 The precincts Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9 states that Augustus allowed of the temples were enlivened by statues and dedi- the building of sacred precincts (temen¤sai) to him- cations set up by other cities, to commemorate the self in Pergamon and Nikomedia, in the same pas- temple’s foundation, celebrate a festival, or simply sage he specifies that the Pergamenes were permitted honor the emperor, as at the Flavian temple of the to celebrate a sacred contest “in honor of his temple” Augusti at Ephesos. Thus the temples of the emper- (§p‹ tª toË naoË aÈtoË timª). Thus scholars who ors that made their cities neokoroi were the settings wished to envision the precincts at Pergamon and where dramas of loyalty were enacted, in the present at Nikomedia solely as altar courts should have by the priests and officials of the koinon sacrificing turned to the evidence of both coins and literature.1 to the emperors, and in the past through the per- According to this evidence, both were peripteral manent record of statues and documents. temples, though we have not yet found the remains This chapter will examine the evidence for the of either. temples, cult statues, and other realia of the neokoroi. A Greek temple served many functions. Concep- In order to keep the focus on these provincial cults, tually, it was a house for a deity or deities, who were evidence for imperial cult or for temples in cities that generally represented in the form of cult statues were not neokoroi will only be used as comparanda. within the adyton/cella of the temple. The temple First the surviving remains of temples of the neokoroi was also a focus of sacrificial ritual, usually accom- will be examined; for ease of comparison, all temple plished on an altar placed before the temple’s main plans are drawn to the same scale, with temenos entrance. A temple’s rituals and upkeep were the plans following in a smaller scale. Then follows the responsibilities of its priests and/or priestesses, neo- evidence for temples whose remains have not yet koroi, hierophantai, hymnodoi, and other officials; been discovered, but whose appearance is docu- there may have been facilities for the cult’s equip- mented by depictions on coins. The conventions of ment and practices around the temple itself, though architectural representation on coins have already these are often difficult to isolate archaeologically.2 been discussed in the ‘Introduction: Methodology,’ As mentioned above, the temple was also the focus allowing their evidence to be interpreted correctly. of festivals in honor of its cult (examined in chapter Separate sections will then examine what we know 40, ‘The Cities,’ below), and scene of their sacrifi- of the funding of the temples, how long it took to cial rites, though the contests themselves were held build them, and their place in the urban fabric of in theaters, stadia, or other entertainment complexes. each neokoros city. We will then look at the cult Temples of the neokoroi were often collection images that stood in the temples, and ask what other points for documents of province-wide importance, especially the earliest ones such as the Rome and 3 Fayer 1976, 110-111 n. 8. Also note Augustus’ edict con- cerning the Jews, which is directed to Asia and to be inscribed in Augustus’ temple, but in a city whose name is corrupt, closer 1 Tuchelt 1981; for the rebuttal, see Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, to Ankyra than Pergamon: Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 16.162- 13-14, 166-168, no. A26. 165. 2 E.g. Bergquist 1998. 4 L. Robert 1938, 48; see Ephesos inscription 42. 306 part ii – summary chapters cults accompanied those of the emperors in temples couldn’t actually be entered; instead, access to the that made their cities neokoroi, including instances interior was via two stone-lined tunnels into the where the imperial cult was moved into the extant hypaethral court and its small central naiskos. The temple of a god. Finally, we will look at the temples architectural decoration kept to Apolline themes. of other gods (rather than emperors) that nonethe- The temenos (illus. pl. 4 fig. 16) was irregular in less made their cities neokoroi: Aizanoi’s temple of shape and not expansive, but the sheer size of the Zeus, and the temples of Artemis at Ephesos and temple itself still stuns the viewer. It is not possible Magnesia, all of which have remains preserved to to say what, if any, modifications would have been our time. introduced for worship of Gaius; the cult lasted only until his death and the condemnation of his memory. Temples Known Archaeologically The temple of the Augusti at Ephesos (illus. pl. 2 fig. 2, pl. 4 fig. 17) is not as well preserved nor as The earliest surviving temple that made its city large as the temple in Ankyra, much less the neokoros is that of Augustus and Rome at Ankyra Didymaion, but its site was designed to make it (illus. pl. 1 fig. 1), a foundation that antedated its imposing. Set axially on a vaulted 50 x 100 m. ter- city’s first declaration of neokoria by over two hun- race, it overlooked the state agora, site of Ephesos’ dred years. Though only the cella stands today, the governmental buildings and possibly also of Ephesos’ temple was octastyle, likely Corinthian, with fifteen shrine to Rome and Julius Caesar. The terrace’s columns along its flank. The pronaos had four col- north face, two stories tall, may have later been umns prostyle, the opisthodomos two columns in decorated with galleries of Doric columns and cary- antis. The peristasis was 23.6 x 42.42 m. measured atids of barbarians, though their actual placement along the centers of the columns, and probably stood is uncertain. Finished in the reign of Domitian, the on an eight-stepped base. Its pseudodipteral plan, temple of the Augusti was octastyle and pseudo- in the tradition of Hermogenes’ temple of Artemis dipteral like the temple at Ankyra, but lacked an at Magnesia (below), gave it broad aisles around the opisthodomos and had only thirteen columns on its cella, and the fineness of its ornamentation led early flank. Its stylobate was thus only ca. 24 x 34 m., but authorities to call it Hellenistic instead of Roman. its high position both dominated and helped to shape What little is left of its architectural sculpture shows the civic/religious center of Ephesos. Its altar deco- an outer frieze and anta capitals of flowering acan- rated with weapons, and the barbarians on its ter- thus scrolls with occasional Victories, a program race facade, play on themes of war and triumph, but recalling that of the temple of the deified Julius Cae- these are later than the original building. The sar in the Roman Forum. In the cella, a high frieze temple’s order is uncertain; though Corinthian of garlands, typical ornament of altars, surrounds the columns decorated with dolphins and eagles have interior. The themes of the sculptural decoration been associated with it, the temples on coins thus included victory, fruitfulness, and the sacred. that boast the title ‘neokoros’ in Nero’s reign look The possible scale of provincial imperial temples Ionic. is shown by the fact that the cult of Gaius (Caligula) Even more magnificently sited was the temple of designated for Miletos was likely moved into one of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon (illus. pl. 4 fig. the largest and most elaborate temples in Asia, the 18). It was built out on vaults from the highest point Ionic temple of Apollo at Didyma (illus. pl. 1 fig. 3). of the city’s acropolis. Its 68 x 58 m. terrace was It is possible, however, that this only reflected Gaius’ broader than it was deep, and was eventually sur- own thought as to the magnificence his worship rounded by stoas on three sides, with a 23 m. high deserved. The temple is a colossal dipteros, facing wall retaining its open front. The temple itself (illus. east, with ten columns on the short side and twenty- pl. 1 fig. 4) was a hexastyle Corinthian, its stylobate one on the long; its stylobate measures 51.13 x 20 x 32 m., and unlike all the temples yet discussed, 109.34 m. It had been under construction since at it was isolated on a high podium in the Roman least the beginning of the third century B.C.E., and fashion, accessible only by a frontal staircase facing was never finished. Its unusual layout, probably south. Its shallow depth, with a flank of only ten dictated by the requirements of its oracle of Apollo, columns, suited its position in the center of a broad was a deep twelve-column pronaos leading to a high terrace, where it was best seen from below. The door which looked into a two-columned room but architectural decoration combined the acanthus chapter 39 – the temples 307 motif with gorgoneia, which had also been used in that of the temple of Artemis Leukophryene in Mag- the friezes of the temples of the Deified Julius Cae- nesia, and was possibly pseudodipteral as well. sar and of the Deified Vespasian in Rome. The It is to be regretted that Hadrian’s temple at akroteria featured Victories, so the themes of the Smyrna has not been definitely located, but if the architecture also recall those of the temple of ruins noted at Deirman-tepe by Walter and Prokesch Augustus and Rome at Ankyra. The coins indicate von Osten were indeed of this building, its scale, at that there may have been a shield or tondo in the least in column dimensions, was comparable to that pediment. of the Olympieion in Athens (which had a stylobate The remains of the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos, of ca. 41.11 x 107.89 m.). It has sometimes been celebrated for its grandeur and huge size even in assumed that all the temples of Hadrian that made antiquity, were under excavation in the 1990’s (illus. their cities neokoroi were based on the Olympieion pl. 2 fig. 7). The publication of a full report will and were part of Hadrian’s panhellenic program.6 clarify the description given by Cyriacus of Ancona But as was shown in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analy- in the fifteenth century, but so far it seems that the sis,’ the temples at Kyzikos and Smyrna antedated building was a massive Corinthian octastyle, with Hadrian’s involvement with the Olympieion in Ath- fifteen or seventeen columns on its flank, each col- ens. Moreover, though the temple at Kyzikos was umn over seventy feet tall, rising from a stylobate indeed monumental and possibly dipteral, that at of ca. 48.84 x 106.56 m.5 Its models were such Ephesos was not quite on that scale, while those at massive dipteral temples as the Artemision of Smyrna and perhaps Nikaia and Tarsos are not yet Ephesos or the Didymaion of Miletos. There may known. have been a shield portrait of Hadrian, along with It is not yet certain whether the temple of Anto- other statues, in the pediment. Fragments of elabo- ninus Pius at Sagalassos served a provincial cult, or rate vine-wreathed columns were probably from the even if it was a temple for which the city was interior, and drawings from manuscripts of Cyriacus neokoros. It stood axially in a large temenos (ca. 82 hint at a high frieze of groups and processions of the x 60 m.) with porticoes on all four sides, the whole gods and also large gorgoneia inside the cella. Parts raised on a terrace where it could be seen by all who of a continuous frieze have been discovered, show- entered the southern gates (illus. pl. 5 fig. 20). One ing combat between Romans and easterners and a entered via a propylon, possibly with composite possible apotheosis of Hadrian, reflecting the fact capitals, from the west. The temple was Corinthian that the temple was largely built in the age of Marcus (illus. pl. 2 fig. 8), a modest six by eleven columns Aurelius and Lucius Verus. One unusual feature on a stylobate ca. 13.8 x 26.8 m., but rich vegetal which the manuscripts hint at was a portico of ornament decorated its door, friezes, and cornices. arches, possibly in the precinct before the temple; It also had certain oddities of design: its pronaos, such arches recall the facade of the Basilica Julia in with two columns in antis, is almost as deep as its Rome, or a cryptoporticus surrounding a raised cella, and its pediment is rather steep, the latter temple terrace, though none has yet been recorded peculiarity seen in other Sagalassian temples as well. at Kyzikos. A fragment of a pediment featuring a personifi- Though big enough, Ephesos’ likely temple of cation of another major city of the province identi- Hadrian was not quite as grandiose as that at fies what was probably a koinon temple at Sardis Kyzikos. Sited on infilled ground near the harbor, (illus. pl. 2 fig. 10). The one corner of the building its temenos was an expansive 225 x 350 m., includ- that has been unearthed is enough to tell us that it ing colonnades on all four sides (illus. pl. 4 fig. 19). was built on a pseudodipteral plan, probably In the center was a south-facing Corinthian temple octastyle and comparable to, although slightly with a peristasis of approximately 33 x 60 m (illus. smaller than, the temple of Rome and Augustus at pl. 1 fig. 5). Though the excavators have vacillated Ankyra. It was set into the lower slopes of the concerning the temple’s measurements and possible akropolis hill, with no sign of the grandiose terrac- reconstruction, it is unlikely to have been any larger ing seen at the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos or than decastyle, as its stylobate is only slightly larger that of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon. It took

5 Barattolo 1995, 84. 6 Schorndorfer 1997, 60-62. 308 part ii – summary chapters its orientation from the theater, however, and may staircase. The facade columns were Corinthian, pos- have been intended as a centerpiece of a great sa- sibly with shafts of red granite; the rest was faced cred/civic complex. with limestone, and part of the floor was paved with More is known of Sardis’ other temple that con- marble. ferred neokoria: it was the Hellenistic temple of Thirty-five cities were at some time neokoroi for Artemis, which was refitted to accommodate the cult temples of emperors, or at least not specifically of of Antoninus Pius and his family (illus. pl. 2 fig. 9). other gods; if each neokoria meant one temple dedi- Originally intended to be another colossal Ionic cated or rededicated to the cult of the emperors, only dipteral octastyle like the Artemision at Ephesos, the about one-seventh of those temples have been pre- temple at Sardis was cut down to pseudodipteral, but served, that is, we have found archaeological remains even so was never quite completed. It was meant to of only ten; eleven if Sagalassos’ temple of Antoninus have eight by twenty columns in a 45.51 x 97.94 m. Pius is included. This is a very small sample, and peristasis. While Artemis continued to preside in the cannot be taken as representative. Nonetheless, sev- west-facing shrine, a dividing wall and door at the eral features stand out. rear of the cella provided an east-facing shrine for Eight of the eleven temples ranged in size from the Augusti. The six colossi found on site will be large to gigantic (among the latter, the Didymaion, dealt with below; it is likely that Antoninus Pius and temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos, and the temple of his wife Faustina the Elder were the chief couple Artemis at Sardis). The average size, if we can speak among the cult statues, with their adoptive sons from such a small number of examples, was octa- Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, and their sons’ style. But even the three smaller temples, the temple wives Faustina the Younger and Lucilla, in support- of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon, the temple ing roles. of Antoninus Pius at Sagalassos, and the tetrastyle It is possible that the decastyle temple that made temple at Neapolis, were set in grandiose contexts, Tarsos twice neokoros for Commodus is identical dominating their cities from prominent positions. with the remains at Donuktaâ outside the ancient city The temple of Antoninus Pius commanded the view (illus. pl. 2 fig. 11). These cement/conglomerate of anyone entering Sagalassos from the south. The foundations are large enough to have had a peristasis other two, set on hillsides, are also the most ‘Ro- of ten by twenty-one columns. The temple’s total man’ temples: the temple at Pergamon on its high footprint was 49.60 x 105.30 m. Set on a podium podium with stairs only in front and parastades on 11.57 m. high, and thus isolated and dominant in either side, the one at Neapolis prostyle and pseudo- the Romanizing fashion, it was approached from the peripteral. Also emphasizing the facade was the northeast by a steep staircase; vaulted corridors led temple at Tarsos, set on its enormous podium, only from the pronaos to the lower cella, recalling the approachable via the stairs on its facade. layout at Didyma. Fragments of marble show that Eight of the eleven temples were freestanding and the order was Corinthian, with architectural orna- fully peripteral structures set on a krepis of standard ment datable toward the end of the second century. Hellenic type. Of course, two of them, the Didy- Though Neapolis was only called neokoros after maion and the temple of Artemis at Sardis, were in the reign of Philip, it is possible that it received the fact Hellenistic temples that predated the imperial title for a second century C.E. temple on Tell er- cult practiced in them. Still, of the eight temples Ras on Mount Gerizim (illus. pl. 3 fig. 12). The newly built for the imperial cult, four follow a Hel- temenos was an irregular oblong with its long axis lenistic model, the pseudodipteral temple canonized running north-south, around 44 x 64 m., approached by Hermogenes; the temple at Ankyra so closely that by a long staircase that started at a monumental it was at first dated to the second century B.C.E. This propylon at the mountain’s foot, in the city itself. is not to say that these temples were untouched by Approximately centered in the temenos, the mod- newer trends and tastes in Roman imperial archi- est four-column (14 x 21 m.) prostyle looked north tecture: the temple of the Augusti in Ephesos, for over the city. Though the temple had a three- example, was shortened and set up on a high vaulted stepped krepis, some aspects of its design were more terrace typical of Roman urban design.7 And the Roman than Greek: it had attached rather than free- standing columns on its exterior walls (pseudo- peripteral), and was approached by a frontal 7 MacDonald 1986, 119-121, 135. For a detailed compari- chapter 39 – the temples 309 pseudoperipteral design of Neapolis’ temple was mains have been found, the temples of the neokoroi Roman-inspired. But none of these temples was set continue the long-standing tradition (itself notable into the back wall of its temenos on the model of for magnificent size and elaboration) of temple the imperial fora at Rome, like, for example, the building in Asia. Sebasteion at Aphrodisias.8 Five of the temples were set axially in the center of sacred spaces, often ringed by porticos, visible (and generally approachable) Temples Shown on Coins from all sides, again in the manner hallowed by Hermogenes’ temple of Artemis at Magnesia. In More of the temples that made their cities neokoroi other words, in these temples, the Roman emper- appear on contemporary coins than have remains ors were housed in a very Greek fashion. extant. Yet it must be remembered that coin types Also noteworthy is what we don’t see. The mul- can be schematic and abbreviated, and can vary in tiple-column and aediculated facade of the ‘marble details represented. The interpretation of coin types style’ has been played up as the very type and sym- has already been discussed in the ‘Introduction,’ and bol of the imperial cult.9 Yet not a single example closer examinations of each case have been given of this design is in or around any extant temple of in the City chapters in Part I. What follows here is the koinon cult of the emperors. It was not used in a compilation of what evidence the coins can give the interior of any cella (as it was, for example, in us for temples that conferred neokoria. the ‘temple of Bacchus’ in Baalbek); nor in the gates The temple of Rome and Augustus at Nikomedia of the precincts, nor in the colonnades that circled appears on both silver cistophori of the koinon and them. Of course, this may be an accident of pres- bronze coins of the city; on the former, it is explic- ervation. Still, the association of the aediculated itly identified by the legend. Though the represen- facade with the imperial cult has been overstated: tations differ in style, they can be reconciled to the inscriptions of the so-called Kaisersäle in fact call indicate that the temple had at least eight columns on the patron deities of the cities in question in on the facade, and was of the Corinthian (or per- addition to, and generally before, the emperors. This haps Composite) order. Pedimental decoration may ostentatious and theatrical decor, with its multi- have included such Roman symbols as the wolf and colored and imported marbles, was a sign of wealth, twins, and the akroteria were of Victories erecting even a form of conspicuous consumption; but many trophies. gods and personifications, not just the emperors, The contemporary temple in Pergamon also were associated with it, in gates, nymphaea, librar- appeared on both silver and bronze coinages, and ies, gymnasia, and especially in stage buildings. But as at Nikomedia was labeled. Corinthian in order, not in the temples of the neokoroi. it had at least six columns on the facade. Akroteria Instead, we find the rather austere and delicate and pedimental decoration were present, but on the treatment of the temple of Augustus and Rome at coins they were only expressed by numismatic ab- Ankyra, with its high interior frieze of garlands breviations: floral curlicues for the akroteria, a dot encircling the sacred space. Later, the temple of or disc in the pediment. Hadrian at Kyzikos may have had a more elabo- The picture of the temple of Rome and Augustus rate interior, judging from the few remains and from in Ankyra given by the coins is especially valuable, the manuscripts of Cyriacus of Ancona: its cella lined as it can be checked against the building itself. The with vine-wreathed columns, a continuous frieze of building is shown as Corinthian, with up to eight processions of deities above them, and perhaps columns, and this representation does not conflict gorgoneia below. But this sort of elaborate interior with the remains as we have them. had been known in Greek temples since that at The temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate in Bassae, in the fifth century B.C.E. Where their re- Smyrna, known only from coins, is shown with four fluted Corinthian columns. The figure of the em- son between Asia Minor’s Roman-period temples and their Hel- peror, however, stands within the temple’s facade lenistic predecessors, see Pohl 2002, 169-179, 186-188. in all known representations, and takes up space that 8 Smith 1987. Further exploration at Laodikeia may asso- would ordinarily be devoted to columns; so it is ciate its ‘forum temple’ with the neokoria, but at present, this is uncertain. possible that the temple was actually larger than 9 Yegül 1982. tetrastyle. 310 part ii – summary chapters

The first temple that made Neokaisareia neokoros shield between them, a figure perhaps holding a was probably built by the time of Trajan, but its sceptre, and a star or cross. The variety in pedimen- object of cult is uncertain. The coins generally il- tal sculpture again recalls the temple of Rome and lustrate it as tetrastyle, but on one type pentastyle. Augustus, as do Victories as side akroteria, but where It was Corinthian in order, with large and elaborate the first temple’s Victories erect trophies, the double doors, around which the masonry of the cella second’s drive two-horse chariots, details likely to walls is usually indicated. reflect reality. A comparison between coins and remains is again More summarily shown is the temple of Septimius possible with the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan Severus at Perinthos, a Corinthian octastyle with at Pergamon. Though seen as four-column on coins, figures or a disc in the pediment. His temple at the reason for this abbreviation of a hexastyle struc- Kaisareia generally appears as a standard Corinthian ture is obvious: the coins show the two cult statues, hexastyle, though one (unfortunately very worn) coin so the die-cutter reduced the columns from six to may indicate that it was set on a high Roman-style four to allow them room. Details which do not in- podium, and that its baroque ‘broken’ pediment terfere with the cult statues, however, are very clearly featured an eagle. delineated, especially the parastades that flank the The temple that likely made Perinthos twice steps and indicate that the temple is on a podium, neokoros (though it did not enumerate the title at as the remains at Pergamon indeed are. the time) was for Caracalla and Geta, but is only The temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos appeared on shown as the twin of the city’s earlier temple for coins late in the reign of Antoninus Pius, five or six Septimius Severus. At Anazarbos, however, when years before its dedication but almost forty years the two temples for the same emperors are shown after its inception. It is shown as octastyle and Corin- together, they are sometimes assimilated but some- thian, which agrees with what we know of it from times distinct; the latter is so unusual that the coin written sources and remains. It also appears with a image may represent the two temples’ actual appear- disc in its pediment, which may represent a shield ance. The likely temple for Septimius Severus had portrait. Other temples of Hadrian, for example at already appeared as a four-column Ionic structure Smyrna and at Ephesos, only appear on multiple- with a star or sun in the pediment, while that of temple reverse types, so little can be told about them Caracalla and Geta is shown as larger, with eight individually. columns. The temple of Commodus at Tarsos is shown as The temple of Caracalla at Philadelphia appears decastyle with a wreath or eagle in its pediment, like on coins as Ionic, agreeing with the columns on the its predecessor koinon temple in the same city. This stele that documents the emperor’s grant of neokoria. may reflect reality, however, as the new temple, The coins show additional details: up to four col- clearly identified, is occasionally shown by itself. The umns, and an arched lintel. Though the latter fea- individual temple’s coin image is what allowed the ture could have been meant to allow more space on remains of a structure at Donuktaâ, of the correct the coin to show the cult statue, the stele shows a date and likely decastyle, to be identified as the rounded pediment on the temple, and it is possible temple of Commodus. that this temple actually did have arched feature(s) The temple of Septimius Severus that finally made in its facade. Coins indicate that Caracalla and Com- Nikomedia twice neokoros may have been the same modus each had an individual temple at Laodikeia, as one earlier dedicated to Commodus, for which though the city was only (once) neokoros for their neokoria was given but then withdrawn. Both are cults: both temples are shown with six columns, but shown as Corinthian and octastyle with outsloping at least one appears with an arched lintel and an odd entablature. Nikomedia’s temple of Rome and pagoda-like roof. Temples for Caracalla at Tralles Augustus was also Corinthian octastyle, but is shown and probably Kyzikos only appear schematically on with a standard entablature. Three imperial figures, coins of their cities, the former with six columns, the likely Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, also latter with as many as nine. identify the second temple, as do specific architec- In two cities the cult of Caracalla was introduced tural touches like the double capricorn at the peak into a previously existing temple of a god. Both the of its roof, and pedimental sculpture including an temple of Asklepios at Pergamon and that of Rome eagle between griffins, two Victories(?) holding a at Smyrna are shown as Corinthian tetrastyles of chapter 39 – the temples 311 standard peripteral type; the latter, however, only resented than the first. Anazarbos also became appears with the other two temples to which it is neokoros for Trajan Decius, though again the temple assimilated. is only shown in the most summary manner, with Of the temples to Elagabalus that made cities four up to seven columns. neokoroi, two were extant temples to patron gods, Of the many neokoriai granted or regranted who thus became partners in the imperial cult. under Valerian and Gallienus, very few are reflected Elagabalus’ cult was moved into the temple of by depictions of the temples on coins. Nikomedia Demeter at Nikomedia, shown with up to six col- issues types echoing those of its lost third neokoria umns on the coins, and into the temple of Apollo for Elagabalus; again, the third temple is that of Kendrisos at Philippopolis, whose eight-column Demeter. Ankyra depicts two temples so schemati- Corinthian temple is often marked by a shield with cally that we cannot be sure whether they are ac- diagonal spear in the pediment. The temple in tual temples or altar courts, while Kyzikos either Hierapolis also had a pedimental feature hinting at shows two identical hexastyle temples or its temple the presence of another cult, that of the moon god of Hadrian accompanied by the round shrine of Men, but it is uncertain whether the temple was Demeter and Kore. Aspendos’ coin type shows a originally his or was built for the city’s neokoria, in temple-shaped plaque rather than a temple. Only which case Elagabalus and Men may have shared Side issues a coin with a specific depiction of its likely cult. The Hierapolis temple is also shown with four imperial temple, shown between two others as columns and an arch in the pediment, once with a tetrastyle with an equestrian statue within. solid lintel below the arch. The oddity of the latter One may then ask if many of the third-century detail may reflect reality rather than an effort to temples were ever built. Most of the coins issued allow room for the cult statue on the coin. from Caracalla onward depict the temples as sche- The rest of the coin representations of temples matic rather than individualized, making us won- that made cities neokoroi for Elagabalus are rather der whether they represent an actual temple or only schematic; each city’s coinage shows all the temples the promise of one. That more than one neokoria that made it neokoros together, and individualizing could be granted at once raises yet more doubts: how details are rare. So Beroia’s two temples are shown could Thessalonike have possibly built three new as identical, with up to seven (!) columns, while temples under Trajan Decius, Perge another three Miletos’ two have two columns and a dot in each under Aurelian, and Side two under Aurelian and pediment. Ephesos’ temple of Elagabalus has up to three more by the last quarter of the third century, four columns and a togate cult statue, but its image despite the troubled times and pinched finances? is affected by that of the Artemision beside it. Sardis Certainly cases where emperors’ cults moved into only emphasizes its new (hexastyle) temple by show- already extant temples of gods increased in the third ing the figure of the cuirassed emperor within, and century. The first century had only Gaius moving by placing it next to the temple of the patron god- in with (or supplanting) Apollo at Didyma, and the dess, Lydian Kore. second only Antoninus Pius and his family taking Severus Alexander’s cult apparently moved into half of the temple of Artemis at Sardis. But from the Aigeai’s temple of Asklepios to make the city start of the third century, Caracalla’s cult was placed neokoros. The temple is shown with up to eight in the temple of Asklepios at Pergamon and that of (perhaps Corinthian) columns. Its arched facade and Rome at Smyrna; then Elagabalus moved in with the eagle in its pediment appear with regularity on Demeter at Nikomedia, Apollo Kendrisos at Philip- even the smallest images, and so probably represent popolis, and perhaps with Men at Hierapolis; and real, recognizable features. By contrast, Neokai- Severus Alexander was apparently identified with sareia’s temple for Severus Alexander is only shown Asklepios in his temple at Aigeai. It is very possible as the twin of the other temple that made it neo- that this also happened in other cases that we don’t koros, both Corinthian with up to six columns. know about. The two temples built to the cult of Gordian III A feature that appears on the coins showing in Macedonia, in Beroia and in Thessalonike, are temples of the neokoroi, but not yet on any of the only shown as sketchy four-column structures. Then temples that survive, is the arched lintel. As men- under Trajan Decius, Thessalonike added three tioned in the ‘Introduction,’ coins sometimes show more temples, none of them more specifically rep- a temple with arched lintel in order to make the cult 312 part ii – summary chapters figure larger and clearer despite the small space. For of Bithynian cities, not of the koinon. Indeed, as the example, coins of Aizanoi show Zeus in an arched province shows no evidence of having built more shrine or baldochino, though his temple at Aizanoi than a single koinon temple up to Trajan’s time, that is extant and its entry is certainly not arched. For of Rome and Augustus at Nikomedia, its expenses other temples of the neokoroi, arched lintels appear were likely devoted more to its festivals and embas- on coins at Philadelphia, Laodikeia, Hierapolis, and sies than to building projects. Aigeai. In none of these cases do we have remains Asia’s first koinon temple, that of Rome and of temples to contradict the coin images. All of them Augustus at Pergamon, was built ‘by Asia,’ that is, come from the early third century, from Caracalla at the expense of the koinon and likely under the to Severus Alexander; not a single one of the pre- direction of its officials. Later, the hymnodes of served temples dates that late. An arch in a temple’s Rome and Augustus were also maintained by a levy facade is certainly architecturally possible, with on the entire province. No contemporary document examples ranging from the little shrine at Ephesos states how contributions were assessed, though it is formerly known as the temple of Hadrian, to the likely that, as later, payments were organized by giant triple gate at Baalbek. Until firm evidence to judicial district, and judicial district centers paid the 12 the contrary is found, it remains possible that some highest amount (see below). Thirty years earlier, temples of the neokoroi had arched features in their however, Asia had offered to build ‘a temple and facades. monument’ to Cicero and his brother Quintus, and The procedural problem is this: where no ar- in this case the member cities appear to have de- chaeological remains have been found, it can never creed the funds each would contribute to the project be confirmed whether a temple illustrated on coins from the outset, rather than taking them from any was built, or really looked the way it appears to. accumulated koinon budget or central fisc. It is Though specificity and repetition of details inclines noteworthy that Cicero refused the honor, keeping his eye squarely on the reaction of Rome rather than us to believe that the depiction reflects reality, we 13 cannot be positive. On the other hand, even the that of the Asians. clumsiest and most schematic image on coins does For the second koinon temple, that of Tiberius, not indicate that the temple it represents did not in Julia, and the Senate in Smyrna, the Senate assigned fact exist. a special commissioner to the proconsul of Asia to take charge of the temple. This does not mean that Rome was to fund the building, but more likely that the authorities thought it best to have a man on the Funding spot to see that the Asians did not overspend their budget or misallocate funds, leaving the temple The question of whether third-century temples were incomplete. After all, Kyzikos had been disciplined actually built brings us to another crucial point: just one year previously, in 25 C.E., for failing to where did the funds necessary for building and complete its shrine to Augustus. Later, when the maintaining a temple that made its city neokoros temple at Smyrna collapsed in the great earthquake come from? There is only limited information avail- of ca. 177, Aelius Aristides (Oration 19.13) wrote that able, for the cities, much less the koina, of the east- it could be rebuilt with the help of Asia, and only ern Roman empire seldom inscribed their financial imperial approval, not funds, was needed. matters in stone.10 Also, virtually all the evidence Construction on the temple of Gaius at Miletos, comes from Asia; other koina may have differed in likely the Didymaion, was also the work of the prov- how they dealt with their own projects. For example, ince as a whole, and was supervised by its represen- the younger Pliny’s letters from Bithynia show both tatives, the neopoioi of the thirteen judicial districts his and Trajan’s concern for possible misappropria- of the koinon. Craftsmen of Asia probably worked tions, peculations, and sheer failures of building on the same project, and may have been paid out projects in the province.11 Pliny, however, appar- of pooled provincial funds or those voted by their ently concentrated his investigations on the finances cities, though the emperor himself may also have

10 Deininger 1965, 156-158. 12 Habicht 1975, 90. 11 Harris 1964; Talbert 1980; S. Mitchell 1984. 13 Cicero, Letters to Quintus his Brother 1.1.26. chapter 39 – the temples 313 played some role in underwriting the great unfin- cities grouped according to judicial center, as in the ished temple where his cult was to join or supplant case of Miletos under Gaius. Once the temple was Apollo’s. built, however, expenses became much lighter, Numerous dedications to Domitian for the koinon merely the costs for hymnodoi if any, regular ritu- temple of the Augusti at Ephesos were set up by als and sacrifices, etc. Festivals, on the other hand, various cities over a period of around three years. involved heavy costs each time they were celebrated. Those found so far are only from cities of Asia: Thus when private citizens founded contests, they Aizanoi (two copies), Keretapa, Klazomenai, Phila- often gave a large initial endowment, the income delphia, Silandos, Teos, Kyme, Tmolos, Hyrkanis, from which was to pay for the festival. It is possible and Synaos, and the free cities Aphrodisias and that the koinon too may have set up such endow- Stratonikeia.14 Perhaps these represent members of ments, thus avoiding the necessity of making its the koinon whose contributions built the new temple, members pay large yearly or quadrennial assess- though they could also commemorate participation ments.17 Of course, chief priests and agonothetai in the dedication ceremonies; the two lists would would make substantial contributions toward or even largely coincide. Later, at the time of Ephesos’ third endow provincial festivals, as when C. Antius Aulus neokoria, another series of dedications, this time set Julius Quadratus paid for the Traianeia Deiphileia at up by Ephesos, commemorated cities outside the Pergamon. koinon such as Carthage, and may represent these Hadrian was known for being favorable to Greek cities’ participation in a worldwide festival held at cities and generous with imperial funds, and his Ephesos. We cannot rule out such outside partici- projects in the provinces went far beyond the nor- pation for the earlier temple; so the dedications for mal range of imperial building (generally earthquake the temple of the Augusti should still be called those relief and large schemes requiring military engin- of ‘celebrants’ rather than ‘contributors.’ eering).18 Some sources state that two great temples Probably in the time of Trajan, Dio Chrysostomos to Hadrian’s own cult, that at Kyzikos and that at gave a speech of praise to the people of Apamea in Smyrna, were in fact built out of funds given by the Phrygia. He pointed out that it was an argument for emperor. The foundation of the temple at Kyzikos the city’s power and high status that it paid the was connected with Hadrian’s benefaction after an largest assessment possible, sharing in “the sanctu- earthquake, and it was once compared to the Olym- aries of Asia” and paying as much of their expenses pieion in Athens as a long-unfinished project com- as any city in which they were situated.15 It seems pleted out of the public purse. Likely Hadrian made clear that he is referring to cities with koinon a grant of money to Kyzikos, some of which the city temples; when Dio gave his speech, these would have may have diverted to its share in the construction included Pergamon, Smyrna, and Ephesos. Dio’s costs of this huge temple. When another earthquake statement also implies that cities contributed to the struck, Marcus Aurelius went before the Senate and koinon on a sliding scale according to their status gave a speech asking for assistance to the Kyzikenes; and ability to pay; Apamea was one of Asia’s thir- again, some of the relief funds may have been de- teen judicial centers, as Dio observes, and so con- voted to the temple, which was finally dedicated tributed at the highest rate.16 about five years later. Yet an epigram copied by Funding arrangements for building a koinon Cyriacus indicates that all Asia joined in the con- temple likely differed from those for other expenses struction, perhaps in the same way that it had in incurred by Asia. For one thing, it occurred seldom, Gaius’ temple at Miletos. In the case of Smyrna, at least until the time of Hadrian when his temples Philostratos states that Hadrian gave the city ten proliferated. It required a large initial contribution million drachmai, out of which it built a grain from all koinon members, and possibly also the market and a gymnasium as well as the temple; an assignment of supervisors and a workforce for the inscription puts the emperor’s gift at a more mod- est one and a half million. In any case, when a gen-

14 Friesen 1993, 29-49; on the Macedonian settlement of Hyrkanis, Cohen 1995, 209-212. 17 Wörrle 1988; for the Republican period, Erkelenz 1999, 15 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 35.14, 17; C. Jones 1978, 68- 49-53. 69. 18 Winter 1996, 67-138, 196-199, 232-236; S. Mitchell 1987; 16 Sartre 1995, 198-201. MacMullen 1959. 314 part ii – summary chapters erous emperor stood ready to pour money into be saved by moving the imperial cult into an older building projects, it may be imagined that the koinon temple. and city would gladly accept. After all, Asia even- tually would build three major temples to Hadrian, these two and the later one at Ephesos. Construction Times The third century witnessed an explosion in the number of temples in Asia that made their cities Once a koinon temple had been decreed, the funds neokoroi, but information on how they were funded for it allotted, and the petition finally accepted by is scanty, and there is a distinct possibility that few the emperor and Senate, how long did it take for it new temples were actually built. As mentioned be- to be built? Once again, with a few exceptions, evi- fore, Caracalla’s cult was moved into several already dence chiefly comes from the koinon of Asia. extant temples, saving money that presumably would One such exception is Ankyra, whose temple of have been spent on building them. Caracalla ‘found- Augustus and Rome was built by the koinon of the ed’ an apparently new temple at Philadelphia, Galatians. The last Galatian king, Amyntas, died in though that was likely done just by granting the 25 B.C.E. The organization of Galatia as a Roman neokoria, not by donating the money. But by the province, from which point its era began, has been mid-third century, Philadelphia was trying to get out variously dated, but ranges between 25/24 and 22- of its contribution to the metropoleis for the expenses 20 B.C.E. On the left anta of the temple itself is of chief priesthoods and of festivals. The motive for preserved a list of priests of the Galatians “of the this request may have been Philadelphia’s wish to god Augustus and the goddess Rome”; the term of take on the status of a metropolis itself, but it is also the first priest on the list may be dated to 19-20 C.E., true that while temples and festivals had multiplied, but it is quite possible that the beginning of the list times were harder. It may be, then, that the system was inscribed elsewhere and did not survive. Thus of city contributions to koinon functions was under the temple of Augustus and Rome can only have strain, or even breaking down. Philadelphia in fact vague dates within a range of forty years or more won its exemption from the emperor Valerian. to cover the time needed for its planning and con- To sum up the evidence, the koinon of Asia prob- struction. This period is comparable to that of the ably built its temples with money voted by its mem- Forum of Augustus in Rome, vowed in 42 and ber cities at the inception of a project. Assessments dedicated in 2 B.C.E., though the length of that seem to have been made according to size or im- project may have been due to its long-delayed start.20 portance of the cities, with the thirteen judicial dis- Even the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias, begun under trict centers contributing the most. A neopoios from Tiberius, was only ‘finished’ under Nero.21 each judicial district was likely appointed to a board Back in Asia, there is more data for the earlier of overseers; they may have supervised a team of temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon. Augus- craftsmen or workers from each district, or may tus granted permission for it to be built when he was simply have taken care of how the money was spent. still in the East, in 29 B.C.E. According to an in- From the point at which the offer of a koinon temple scription of Mytilene, it was in process of construc- was accepted by the emperor and permitted by the tion ‘by Asia’ in 27 B.C.E. The earliest date for silver Senate, the city in which it stood became neokoros, cistophori of Asia that show the temple standing in not waiting until the completion of the building (see full detail is 19 B.C.E.; though buildings could be below). The koinon’s funding process did not exclude portrayed on coins before they were built, there is the grants of benefactors, however, whether impe- no sign that that is so here, since the early depic- rial or private. When neokoriai proliferated in the tions do not disagree with later ones.22 So from third century, however, funds were scarcer, donors acceptance to erection, the temple probably took ten and officers less willing to serve and less generous years. when they did, and even imperial projects (with the Asia’s temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate exception of military buildings) fell away.19 Cities still had a slower start. Though initially offered and competed to become neokoroi, but expenses could

20 Steinby 1993-2000, 2:289-295 (V. Kockel). 21 Rockwell 1990; Smith 1987. 19 Winter 1996, 232. 22 Burnett 1999, 141-142. chapter 39 – the temples 315 accepted in 23 C.E., it took three years more be- projects like the temples at Pergamon and at fore the field of cities vying for it could be narrowed Smyrna. In addition, Ephesos’ new temple was set down to eleven contestants. The Senate decided for on a large, vaulted artificial terrace that would have Smyrna in 26 C.E., and the temple soon appears in been a project in itself. Unfortunately the dating some detail on coins issued between 29/30 and 34/ material from the excavation of this area has not 35 C.E. A priest of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate been fully published, since a Domitianic date was is documented by 29-31 C.E., but it is not certain assumed. Certainly work went on there even later, that he served in Smyrna. This temple may have as both the altar and the architectural decoration been built quite speedily, and was probably stand- of the terrace’s facade may date to the mid-second ing within a decade from the decision to build it at century. Smyrna. The temple that made Pergamon twice neokoros, From current evidence, it seems that the koinon that of Zeus Philios and Trajan, was granted some- of Asia introduced the cult of Gaius into the temple where between August 114 and February 116, and of Apollo at Didyma, which was not only one of the appeared in detail on coins issued before the most enormous buildings of the Greco-Roman world emperor’s death in 117. This speedy start on the but one that had been started early in the third temple itself did not carry through to the entire century B.C.E. and was still under construction. project, however. The porticoes on either side of the Inscriptions document that some work was done temple’s precinct and the wing buildings attached during Gaius’ reign, and the first board of koinon to them were only constructed later, likely after 135, officials responsible for the building dedicated a at the end of Hadrian’s reign. statue of Gaius in 40/41. That emperor, however, Like the Didymaion, the temple of Hadrian at was killed on January 24, 41 C.E. in Rome, ending Kyzikos was renowned both for its colossal size and the Didymaion’s career as a koinon temple. As we for remaining long unfinished. It was granted as early shall see, there were to be other huge projects long as 123 or 124 C.E., but the huge scope of the project unfinished among the temples that made their cit- (even necessitating the invention of new techniques ies neokoroi. of building, according to Aelius Aristides) slowed it The next koinon temple of Asia known is Ephesos’ down. A chief priest of this temple was recorded temple of the Augusti. Much of its history has been perhaps as early as Hadrian’s reign. It did not ap- obscured, however, by misinterpretations. An early pear on coins until late in the reign of Antoninus appearance of a temple and the word ‘neokoros’ on Pius, but an earthquake hit the city shortly before Ephesian coins dated to 65/66 may indicate that the Pius’ death in March 161 and threw the temple koinon temple was originally to be for Nero. His down. Nonetheless, it was dedicated with an oration death and the condemnation of his memory in 68 by Aelius Aristides in 166 or 167. This construction put the project into limbo. We hear no more of it span of over forty years eclipses even the twenty-plus until the city again began to be called neokoros, this years of the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos, much time specifically ‘of the Augusti,’ perhaps by 85/86; less the ten of the early temples at Pergamon and the title also appears on dedications that were likely Smyrna. On the other hand, this temple was on such set up around the temple’s own precinct between a scale that over forty years seems reasonable, even 88/89 and 90/91. Though the dedications were to brief, considering the earthquake. Since its unfin- the current emperor, Domitian, the temple is called ished state became rather a byword, it is in fact ‘the common temple of Asia of the Augusti in possible that, like the Didymaion, the temple at Ephesos,’ a colossal statue found there represents the Kyzikos was dedicated and in use before it was ever emperor Titus, and later inscriptions call it the completed. temple of Vespasian. If this is the temple that had Ephesos became neokoros for a temple to Hadrian appeared on coins of Nero, it took twenty to twenty- sometime between 130/131 and 132. Yet there was five years to complete. On the other hand, if the still only a provincial chief priest ‘of the temple’ in honor of a koinon temple had been granted by Nero, Ephesos as late as 134/135, which shows that though lost after his death, stymied by changes of emperor the city was twice neokoros, the second temple was and dynasty, and eventually regranted by Vespasian, not yet standing. It is likely, however, that the a twenty-odd-year lapse would not seem so out of ‘temple of Lord Hadrian Caesar’ was complete line with the decade needed for more straightforward enough for Ti. Claudius Piso Diophantos to serve 316 part ii – summary chapters as the first chief priest of two temples at Ephesos Temples in Urban Space before the emperor’s death in 138. We turn from the province of Asia to Sagalassos Placing a new koinon temple in the extant fabric of in Pisidia. A temple of Antoninus Pius has been a city must have presented problems to the planners. identified by the inscription honoring that emperor When new shrines were brought into a city, gener- and his house on the building’s architrave. Some ally the city itself was new, and the shrines not scholars, however, have preferred to call the temple large.23 The reverse was true of the neokoroi. Again, Hadrianic, basing their date on the style of archi- how prominent koinon shrines were accommodated tectural sculpture that decorates the temple, and in extant cities is best studied in the eleven temples positing an initial dedication to Hadrian, a long known directly from their remains, all but four of building period, completion after Hadrian’s death which are in Asia. in 138, and a final dedication to Antoninus Pius. The Two temples did not have to be inserted, as they pious Antoninus is unlikely to have usurped Ha- already existed: the temple of Apollo at Didyma, and drian’s temple, however, while it is very possible that that of Artemis at Sardis. In both cases, though, the a team of architectural sculptors should have been temple chosen to receive the imperial cult was the working in something other than an up-to-the- most prominent temple of the city. The same situ- minute fashion. If anything, the architectural style ation applies, of course, to the temples of Artemis may indicate a very short building period, early in that made Magnesia and Ephesos neokoroi for the Antoninus’ reign; but one would need further data goddess. These precincts had already existed for for proof. It is not even certain that this temple centuries. By contrast, Aizanoi’s new Hadrianic conferred neokoria on Sagalassos. urban plan made the temple of Zeus, for which the Sardis became twice neokoros for the cult of city became neokoros, its centerpiece. Antoninus Pius, and the history of its temple should Other cities either had to rework or to create land give some last caveats on interpreting the intersec- to ensure the new temple a prominent place in the tion between a temple’s function, its history of con- city. At Ephesos, the temple of the Augusti was struction, and when it can be called finished. For placed on an artificial platform, both to overcome at Sardis, the cult of the emperors was introduced the irregularity of the terrain and to let the koinon into a far older temple, that of Artemis. Begun temple loom over the state agora’s civic buildings perhaps in the third century B.C.E. as a colossal and shrines; later additions may have made the side dipteros, it was redesigned as a pseudodipteros. After of the terrace a sort of triumphal monument, with the disastrous earthquake of 17 C.E., despite aid sculptured barbarians lined up as in the Forum of from the emperor Tiberius, the rebuilding of the Trajan at Rome. At Pergamon, the temple of Zeus temple continued slowly if at all: it seems that most Philios and Trajan was also built on a new high of its side colonnades were never even erected. terrace, over remains of the Hellenistic palace com- Nonetheless Sardian Artemis’ cult remained one of pound, and several monuments of the kings had to the greatest in the city, with asylum status; her priest- be transplanted there. It is difficult to tell what form esses were eminent; and the cella of her temple was the previous buildings on the Pergamene akropolis divided and one half devoted to the imperial cult that had taken, but it is likely that the new complex made Sardis twice neokoros. So how long should we completely changed the shape of the city’s heights, say that the temple’s construction lasted? In a sense, and may have even determined the line of its new the temple was always under construction, never street grid. From that point on, the temple of Zeus fully finished. Yet priestesses of Artemis as well as Philios and Trajan, with its terrace overlooking the chief priests of Asia served and sacrificed there, and Pergamene acropolis, both crowned and dominated colossal statues stood within. One may say, then, that the city. the cult image and the sacrifice signal a function- To make a place for an enormous temenos, Ephe- ing temple rather than a ‘finished’ one; this distinc- sos reclaimed and filled in the marshy land near its tion applies to all the temples discussed above, except harbor, and built what was likely the temple to where direct archaeological evidence can show that Hadrian that made the city twice neokoros. Indeed, every part of the temple planned was actually built. all Hadrian’s temples in Asia appear to have been

23 Jost 1994. chapter 39 – the temples 317 monumental buildings visible from the sea. Ephesos’ city. At Ephesos, the temple of the Augusti faced was close to the harbor, and Smyrna’s was said to east, while that likely to be Hadrian’s faced south. have “challenged Mimas” across the straits. Accord- The temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan faced south- ing to Aelius Aristides, Kyzikos’ temple not only southwest, in order to take best advantage of its competed with mountains, but was so great a land- position on the Pergamene akropolis, overlooking the mark that navigators sailing to Kyzikos would no city. Location on a height also determined the ori- longer need beacon fires to guide them. Excavations entation of the temple on Tell er-Ras over Neapolis at Kyzikos have borne out this picture, as the temple (north) and likely that of Ankyra (southwest). The was erected on flat open land in the westernmost temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos, built on flat ground, part of the city, just northeast of its built harbor. It faced east toward the older core of the city, while faced east, and thus turned its south flank to ships the temple at Tarsos that was probably dedicated sailing along the bay. Kyzikos’ temple, however, does to Commodus faced northeast, away from its city. not appear to have been set in the midst of a great The pseudodipteros on the lower slopes of Sardis’ temenos like that at Ephesos. Instead, an expansive acropolis likely faced southeast, aligned towards the walled courtyard or agora adjoined it on the north city’s theater and stadium. The temple of Antoninus side, and may have included an arcaded portico. Pius at Sagalassos faced west, toward the city’s south- Some of the temples that made their cities neo- ern gate. And of course, the temples that had pre- koroi were built in proximity to theaters and festi- viously served other deities maintained their val complexes. The temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan orientation, though a divided cella at Sardis let the at Pergamon loomed above the city’s theater; the Antonine imperial family face east while the god- likely temple of Hadrian at Ephesos was not far from dess Artemis still faced west. the city’s stadium; and the pseudodipteros at Sardis To sum up, the temples of the neokoroi tended was not far from, and apparently on the same ori- to be large, prominently placed, and when newly entation as, the stadium and theater. But, where built, Corinthian. They also tended to follow Hel- datable, these entertainment venues predate the lenistic rather than contemporary Roman models, temples and were placed to benefit from the natu- and to be fairly conservative in their decorative ral slope of the terrain. The temples of the neokoroi, programs. Beyond that, they followed no cookie- then, cannot be called theater temples. Indeed, large cutter pattern, but were adapted to conditions in the koinon temples, like stadia, had to be placed where cities where they were built. they would fit, and both were often put in newer and less built-up districts. Of the four temples known outside the province Cult Statues Asia, Ankyra’s temple of Augustus and Rome seems to have been centrally located on top of the city’s The objects of worship within these temples were citadel. It must be admitted that not much is known statues of the emperors, members of their families, of Ankyra’s plan, but this temple was likely one of and deities or personifications who shared the cult. its earliest and most important monuments, built Some fragments of statuary have been found in the when the urban armature was still fairly open. Fur- ruins of the temples; some images can be identified ther excavation is needed to fill in the urban history from coins. As other evidence for the cult practiced of Sagalassos, but certainly the broad terrace and within the provincial imperial temples is scanty, an axial entry of the temple of Antoninus Pius were built analysis of these statues, where identifiable, is cru- to dominate the city’s southern approach. The cial. temple at Tarsos, on the other hand, was apparently The accent is on ‘identifiable’ because it is diffi- built well outside the ancient town, probably due to cult to say which statues were cult statues, here its great size. The position of Neapolis’ temple on defined as statues that were prominent within the Tell er-Ras was likely determined by the sacred temple and represented the object(s) of cult.24 Even status of Mt. Gerizim, from whose slopes the temple colossal, not to mention life-sized, portraits of em- looked north over the city. Temple and city were perors could simply be honorifics, whether set up in connected by a long staircase and propylon. Orientation of the temples varied, again based on the lay of the land and of extant monuments in the 24 Donohue 1997 is cautionary. 318 part ii – summary chapters a temple or anywhere else around the city. For or anointing the statue, lighting torches before it, example, the Athenians set up a colossus of Hadrian carrying it in procession or into festivals in the behind their Olympieion among other portraits of emperor’s honor, presenting hymns or orations the emperor, and there were four other statues of before it, or revealing it, as the focus of imperial Hadrian in front of the temple, but none are men- mysteries.30 One must also consider that the origi- tioned inside; the cult statue was a gold and ivory nal intention for a statue (whether agalma or not) Zeus.25 Even in ancient terms, the line between a does not necessarily indicate how it was treated ‘likeness’ (eikon) and what is often called a ‘cult throughout its existence, or what rituals may have statue’ (agalma) was not always as clear as archae- been practiced or omitted in connection with it. ologists would like; a cult statue could be a likeness, Most of the identifiable images dealt with here but a few likenesses were classed as cult statues; and were found in the vicinity of the temples themselves, the limits of the definitions could vary with time and or among their debris, and are of colossal size. place. When the technitai of Dionysos in the second Though not assured as being cult statues, these century B.C.E. honored Ariarathes V of Cappadocia colossi were at least prominent images in the with both an agalma and an eikon, the statues when temples; koinon temples were generally large and discussed together were called eikones.26 In the first colossi would have dominated the space effectively. century B.C.E., private individuals were honored Also, each of the statues so far found has been with “a marble agalma” or “a colossal golden acrolithic. In this technique, a statue was built on a eikon.”27 The latter may have honored the recipi- wooden core, with only the flesh and extremities ent on an equal level with gods, but may not have (head, hands, legs, feet) of marble; clothing was stood in a temple. On the other hand, a ‘colossal represented in wood, which could then be covered eikon’ of Hadrian may have been the object of in sheet metal, gilt, or paint.31 This was a method worship in the Panhellenion at Athens.28 particularly appropriate to colossal statues: it less- Nor does style of dress necessarily determine ened the weight of the image, was easier to manipu- whether a statue represented an individual as god late than either a monolith or jointed stone sculpture or mortal. To quote two early examples, a cuirassed of so great a size, and probably gave the impressive statue of Attalos III was classed as an agalma and appearance of an ivory and golden image while worshipped as a cult partner of Asklepios Soter at being far less expensive. Though metal and paint Pergamon, while an Italian businessman had him- would have protected acroliths to some extent, their self depicted as a heroically naked colossus as a wooden-dowelled structure was sensitive to weather, dedication to Apollo at Delos.29 Given that gold or and most would have been set up in roofed areas. ivory statues rarely survive, that a statue when found Many of the colossi found vary in some respect is not often labeled agalma or eikon, that few stat- from the standard models of imperial portraits dis- ues have been found actually in a temple’s cella, and seminated from Rome.32 Some of this difference is that colossi were not always cult statues, the entire due to the visual tricks needed to remake a portrait discussion that follows here contains many elements to such a giant scale: facial features would be regu- of uncertainty. To top it off, all the evidence we have larized and idealized, while the eyes were enlarged only represents a tiny proportion of what once ex- so that they would not appear small or squinted in isted. Not only are the vast majority of cult statues a face seen only from an angle far below.33 Making lost, but we have only indirect evidence of the hon- the ruler appear heroic or godlike also affected the ors that were once offered to them, possibly includ- image: even an aged or veristic imperial portrait ing sacrifice, offerings of incense, crowning, clothing, could get a dynamic turn to the head, longer wind- tossed locks of hair, a wide high brow, arched eyes, 34 25 Pausanias 1.18.6. The hips and belly of a colossal stand- and a breathing mouth. These features were also ing naked male were indeed found in the Olympieion: Willers 1990, 46-48, pls. 6.1-2, 4.4-6. 26 Nock 1930b, 22; S. Price 1984b, 176-179. 30 Pekáry 1985, 107-143; S. Price 1984b, 188-191; Pleket 27 Kreikenbom 1992, 39-51; Tuchelt 1979, 68-70; Pekáry 1965. 1978 and 1985, 56-57, 66-83. 31 Despinis 1975. 28 Nock 1930b, 32-33. 32 Rose 1997a, 57-59; Riccardi 1996 (though the general 29 Attalos III: OGIS I no. 332; Stemmer 1978, 137. The point is not best proved by study of ‘crisis’ years). businessman C. Ofellius Ferus: Kreikenbom 1992, 40-41, 141- 33 Kreikenbom 1992, 113. 142. 34 Zanker 1983, 15-25, 44, 47. chapter 39 – the temples 319 characteristic of the sculptural ateliers of Asia Mi- under which the eyes are made larger and deeper nor, with their Hellenistic ‘baroque’ background set. The mouth, in Roman portraits usually set in a typified by the Pergamon altar of Zeus. prim smile, now opens to breathe divine aither; the Local sculptors were not always so adept at pro- emperor’s crisp, wavy hair becomes heavy, baroque ducing acceptable portraits: Arrian, on his voyage curls; and the entire head strains to the left on a neck around the Black Sea, wrote to Hadrian that he had whose muscularity hints at the treatment given to seen a statue of him at Trapezous, in a good loca- the rest of the body. The final effect may not be quite tion and making a grand gesture toward the sea, but what the artist had in mind: Titus, though not pre- it was a poor likeness and a bad statue in any case, cisely godlike, has nonetheless ceased to be human, and Arrian asked him to send another.35 But it was and the total impression is as strange as it is awe- the local style, not just the poor likeness, that dis- some. pleased Arrian, for he also asked the emperor to send It is likely that the statue was cuirassed, and raised better cult statues for the temple of Hermes, speci- a sceptre in his left hand. An isolated third hand fying the sizes (five feet for Hermes, four for his cult shows that Titus had at least one colossal compan- partner and descendant Philesios) that would be ion, though their placement is uncertain. Possibly suitable for the space. The local sculptors’ work may when the temple was dedicated, in the reign of have suited the locals, if not Arrian; or it may have Domitian, cuirassed figures of Titus and Domitian simply been the best their sculptors could produce. stood in mirror poses on either side of an image of Of extant remains that may have been from cult their father Vespasian. Titus’ head may have been statues in neokoroi cities, the earliest yet known is doweled for further support into a wall or niche, the colossal Titus found in the substructures of the another indication that it stood within the temple temple of the Augusti at Ephesos (illus. pl. 8 figs. 26, rather than outside, and is more likely to be a cult 27). Any official portrait of Titus that the Asians may statue. have used as a model probably resembled his stat- Fragments of three statues were found in the ues found in Italy: an affable strongman, benevo- debris of the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at lent prince, scion of hearty Italian stock, as portrayed Pergamon. They too were colossal, but only about most carefully by artists who decorated the sturdy two and a half times lifesize. The parts of the statue Republican model with touches of Flavian sculptural of Zeus Philios that have been discovered show that elegance. Once in Asia, however, the image changed the god was enthroned; and there are enough body to such an extent that one cannot really distinguish fragments to identify two standing statues with well which portrait type inspired it. There was no need preserved portrait heads, one of Trajan, the other for restraint or hints at the ruler’s civilitas. The of his successor Hadrian (illus. pl. 7 figs. 24, 25). Both Ephesian portrait is intended to portray a god made were portrayed in the same pose, right arm raised manifest, or at least a ruler into whom godhead has and left arm lowered, and dressed in armor. Coins been breathed. The most obvious way of achieving that portray the cult images, however, only show this effect was simply to increase the size. At about Zeus and Trajan, not Hadrian. Apparently the four times lifesize, the sheer scale of the statue could Pergamenes had wanted to erect a new temple for awe the credulous and impress the sophisticated. But Hadrian, but he only allowed them to set up an then the sculptor faced a conflict between nature and eikon of him in the temple of his father. art. To portray an apotheosized Alexander the Great Though the portrait of Trajan shares certain traits was no problem; according to all accounts he fit the with that of Titus (parted lips, sweeping curves in Greek notion of the heroic physiognomy anyway. the hair, a certain broadening of scale necessary to But what to do with the pudgy face and homely adapt the portrait to colossal dimensions), its sculp- features of Titus, who must be made to look like a tural style is more restrained and classical. This was god and nonetheless retain his recognizability as a also typical of its Roman model, which can be dated Roman emperor? The sculptor did the best he could. ca. 109-113. In contrast, the head of Hadrian seems Titus’ wrinkled forehead becomes a lowering brow, fussy and overworked: the forehead wrinkles and bulges, the hair appears crimped with large drilled curls, even the eyebrows are ruffled. Its model has 35 Arrian, Periplous 1.3-2.1. been dated around 131, and Hadrian indeed granted 320 part ii – summary chapters permission for this eikon at the end of his reign. Still, show whether they stood or were seated. One male, Zanker noted that these statues are closer to their here identified as Lucius Verus, probably wore ar- Roman prototypes than the ‘Asianized’ Titus.36 mor. Where the mouths are preserved, the females’ The two emperors were portrayed as equals, par- lips are just parted, while the males breathe more allel in dress and stance, not as an interacting pair. dramatically. Though the Faustina the Elder comes This is natural if one was set up later than the other, closest to its Roman prototype, all the statues de- but even Trajan and Zeus Philios, as shown on coins, part from their models considerably, and show com- were turned toward each other but did not inter- mon traits in the treatment of hair and beards that act. How the statues would have been placed in the may indicate the work of a local atelier. Like the temple is uncertain. It may be instructive to com- Antoninus Pius, the two males were approximately pare this temple with the temple of Augustus and four times lifesize, while the two females were closer Rome at Lepcis Magna (a city that was not neokoros) to three, even smaller than the statue of Faustina the in Tripolitania. In that temple, two separate cellas Elder. If their identifications as Faustina the Younger were reserved for the enthroned acrolithic statue of and Lucilla are correct, the difference in scale may Augustus and for the goddess Rome, while an en- again reflect hierarchy, this time among the genera- throned statue of Tiberius and one of his mother, tions: the one would have been her daughter, the Augustus’ wife Livia, must have been placed else- other her granddaughter. The latter was likely veiled where, probably in the pronaos.37 as well. There were at least six colossal acrolithic figures There are not many precedents for this large an in or around the temple that made Sardis twice imperial family group among colossi. One is from neokoros (illus. pls. 11-17 figs. 32-45). These included Africa, and its temple was municipal, not provincial. Antoninus Pius and his wife Faustina the Elder, and The temple whose frieze bears a dedication to the four figures that may have represented their sons and Gens Septimia Aurelia at Cuicul (Djemila) in Numidia sons’ wives: Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the was finished ca. 229 under Severus Alexander; the Younger, and Lucius Verus and Lucilla. Enough inscription details his lineage through his ‘father’ fragments have been found to show that Antoninus Caracalla back to Trajan (skipping Hadrian and of was four times life size, naked, diademed, enthroned, course Elagabalus).38 Found in the temple were and may have held a sceptre, in the pose of Zeus. colossal acrolithic heads of Septimius Severus (head The sculptural treatment is baroque, with dramatic and neck 1.10 m. tall, about four times lifesize) and light-and-dark effects produced by skillful drillwork. Julia Domna (probably once veiled).39 The cella itself Hair and beard fall into unruly, flamelike curls and was large for a mere tetrastyle Corinthian temple, the lips are slightly parted; the head was turned 11.10 m. wide including the walls; at the back was strongly to the left. Faustina was more composed; a crosswall, possibly supporting a base for cult stat- her neck inclines only slightly to the right and her ues ca. 2.85 m. deep and as wide as the whole cella. lips are barely parted. She was over three times life This confined viewpoint may explain the stiff size, and so on a smaller scale than her husband, frontality of the preserved colossi. Two Corinthian either as a sign of lower status or, if she was stand- colonnades flanked the temple, and at the back of ing, in order to bring her closer to his seated statue’s the precinct on each side were two niches, one in- height. Her wide, blank eyes are probably designed side and one outside each colonnade, probably for to be seen from below; her hair also shows the strong four colossi of the family. The names of Severus effects of the running drill, and she probably wore Alexander and Julia Mamaea were most prominent a veil added in painted, gilt, or metal-sheathed wood. on the facade, but were then erased after their death These two, probably in the guise of Zeus and Hera, and the condemnation of their memories. It is likely were almost certainly the main cult statues of the that their statues (or at least heads) were removed imperial group, he enthroned at the viewer’s left, she at that point, and the heads of Severus and Domna, seated or standing at the viewer’s right. The other formerly perhaps in the side niches, were put in their four colossi were similar in sculptural treatment and places. Thus Septimius Severus and his wife, the effect, though not enough parts have been found to

38 Pensabene 1992; Cagnat 1913, 41-46. 36 Zanker 1983, 24. 39 McCann 1968, 153 no. 45 pl. 53; Schlüter 1971, 83-84, 37 Rose 1997a, 182-184 no. 125, with bibliography. 134. chapter 39 – the temples 321 elders of the Septimii, eventually reigned in the cella, probably veiled, while Antoninus Pius was shown in as Antoninus Pius and his wife probably did at godlike undress; the Lucius Verus at Sardis, along Sardis. with Trajan and Hadrian at Pergamon and Titus The temple at Sardis was large, and had a back- at Ephesos, appeared in military costume. to-back divided cella. As it had rights of asylum for the cult of Artemis, it is likely that the goddess still ruled in her west-facing cella, while the imperial cult Cult Statues on Coins was set up in the new eastern-opening cella. The torsion in the necks of the colossi, where preserved, A good deal of additional information can be dis- hints that they were made to be viewed from dif- covered from observing imperial cult statues as ferent aspects, not strictly from the front, as at shown on coins. Though they cannot give us any Cuicul. At least one of the colossi, that possibly of idea of the size of the original images, they do in- Lucius Verus, shows evidence of water having trick- dicate how the statues appeared when they were led down its neck while it was still in an upright posi- intact, how they were set within the temple, what tion; thus it may have been exposed to the elements, relationship they bore to one another, and under despite being acrolithic. Perhaps Antoninus Pius and what aspect the emperors were portrayed. Faustina the Elder ruled as Zeus and Hera on the It is important to consider certain numismatic single pedestal in the eastern cella, while their suc- conventions, however. The most secure case is when cessors and their wives, at least four statues, were the image stands on a pedestal within a labeled placed either among the columns on either side of temple, and is repeated over a period of time yet the cella or two by two in the eastern porch, per- still preserves its peculiarities of stance, costume and haps on either side of the stairs that led into the cella. attributes. These characteristics should indicate that Fragments of colossal statuary have also been the statue was still standing as a model, or at least found around the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos and as a check, for the die-cutter, and also that it was at that likely to be the temple of Commodus at still recognizable to the populace among whom the Tarsos, but so far they are too scanty to be inter- coin was current. One must also note that general- preted. ized images in military dress often simply mean ‘an The statues from the temples of the neokoroi emperor’ rather than any specific statue. These were share certain significant traits. All are colossal, im- used when space was limited or when the coin de- pressing the beholder with sheer size (though admit- sign was otherwise rough or schematic. For example, tedly, the observation is tautological, as colossality we know that the original cult image of Tiberius at is one of the features that identified them as cult Smyrna was togate, yet when all three of Smyrna’s statues). All are acrolithic, in order to lighten the temples are crowded onto one coin, the small fig- immense weight that a colossus brings to bear, and ure in the temple labeled with his name wears mili- perhaps as well to introduce more elaborate effects tary dress. Thus it is always possible that such with metal additions, gilding, and/or painting. The imperial images on coins do not reflect the actual likelihood is that these acrolithic colossi stood within cult statues. On the other hand, if we did not have the temple, and that at least some of them had the the remains of the cuirassed colossus of Trajan from status of cult statues. Finally, all show the deepset Pergamon, we might wonder whether its represen- eyes, turned head, and parted lips that denote their tation on coins was just such a conventional image. status as divinities or divinely inspired mortals. In The statues of Augustus and Rome at Pergamon the one case where we have statues of both the are best observed on the silver cistophori; the civic emperor and the deity with whom he shared the bronze issues are freer in design, cruder in execu- temple, Trajan and Zeus Philios, the two are the tion, and often omit the figure of Rome. Augustus, same size, though the god is seated and the emperor in military dress and with a spear or staff in his right stands. At Sardis, where the emperors are grouped hand, stands in strong contrapposto looking back at with their consorts, the men are all on the largest Rome, who raises a wreath to crown him; she is scale, the senior empress next, and her female de- costumed as a city goddess and holds a cornucopia. scendants smaller, though the range is only between Though the size of the statues is impossible to cal- four times life size at the largest and three times at culate from coin images, the goddess and the em- the smallest. Two of the Sardian female colossi were peror must have been on the same scale, as she raises 322 part ii – summary chapters her arm to hold the wreath over his head. The same weight on the right leg. Similarly, among the frag- pair, with minor variations, is seen on coins from ments of sculpture is a right arm lifted to hold a staff, Claudius to Trajan. but the statue on the coins raises the staff in its left The various statues in the temple of Rome and hand. That the pose of the sculpture reverses that Augustus at Nikomedia are described more fully in of the coin image does not necessarily denigrate the chapter 15. The statue of Augustus was dressed as accuracy of the coins. There are two possibilities: a Greek god, probably Zeus; he held a staff in his either the die-cutter reversed the stance in order to right hand and a small figure of Victory in his left. better integrate the image of the emperor with the Accompanying him was Rome, this time in her usual composition of the coin type, or he simply cut the helmeted guise. She stands to the right of Augustus, die as he saw the image, so that the coin, when on some issues holding a palm branch in her left struck, came out reversed. hand, and crowns him with a wreath as at Perga- The coins’ version of Zeus Philios is enthroned at mon. Again, this relationship implies that Augustus the viewer’s left, and holds up a short sceptre in his and Rome were on the same scale. Some of the left hand. Though he and the emperor are turned bronze coins include a third figure, a goddess in toward one another, they do not interact the way chiton and himation with a sceptre in her right hand. the groups of Rome and Augustus did; but the sculp- She is difficult to identify. The architrave of the tural remains show that they were on the same scale. temple is labeled “Rome, Senate, People, Augustus,” What the coins do not indicate is the cuirassed so it is possible that she personifies the Senate, statue of Hadrian whose remains were also found though this figure would usually be male; another on the site. Of course the statue would not have male figure occasionally shown in the temple prob- appeared on coins of Trajan because Hadrian was ably represents the Genius of the Roman people. not yet the designated successor. But the coin types Sometimes, however, the emperor appears in armor; for Trajan Decius, issued a century and a half later either the die-cutter was conventionalizing the im- to play on the reappearance of Trajan’s name, con- age to make it more recognizable, or else there was firm that the same images, Trajan and Zeus Philios, a parallel statue group of a different emperor. were still the main cult statues. It is uncertain where The temple to Tiberius, his mother Julia, and the the colossus of Hadrian would have stood in his Senate at Smyrna had yet another kind of cult adoptive father’s temple at Pergamon. image. Tiberius is togate, as Pontifex Maximus, The coin representations of cult images that ap- within his temple; his head is veiled, and he carries pear within the first temple that made Neokaisareia a priestly implement, the simpulum. The image is neokoros are fairly strange. Drawn out to adorn the specifically Roman, and one wonders how much facade, from one to three radiate or non-radiate influence the Senatorial commissioner in charge of busts hover about the temple; they may represent this temple had on the choice of its cult image. the Augusti, the emperors who were brought in to Tiberius’ two cult partners appear only as busts on share the primary cult. The cult image itself is a the other side of the coin: the Senate has been naked male figure standing in contrapposto upon a tall personified as a young man, whereas the emperor’s pedestal; he holds a staff or spear in his left hand. mother is shown for the first time with the diadem This image is not incompatible with an emperor of a goddess. portrayed as a god. The appearance of two such We have already examined the actual cult stat- images on Neokaisareia’s coins may indicate a situ- ues from the temple of Trajan and Zeus Philios at ation similar to that in the temple of Zeus Philios and Pergamon, and can compare them with the coin Trajan at Pergamon, where Hadrian’s statue looked representations. Coins of Trajan and of Trajan much like Trajan’s. Decius show the laureate and cuirassed Trajan, with It is likely that the three figures in the temple that a staff or spear in his left hand, standing to the right made Nikomedia twice neokoros, on a coin of Geta of his cult partner. The fragments of sculpture show Augustus, are images of Septimius Severus and his no laurel wreath, but it could have been of metal, sons, though they are too small to be distinctly iden- which would not have survived. The coins confirm tifiable. All are shown in military dress, and each that the statue of Trajan was cuirassed, but differ raises his left arm to rest on a long staff or spear. with respect to stance: they indicate the left leg as All are in contrapposto, but the one on the left puts weight-bearing, whereas the coins show the figure’s his weight on his left leg and leans in to the right, chapter 39 – the temples 323 whereas the other two do the reverse, weight on right Finally, coins of Side show perhaps the most leg, leaning in to the left. This is an interesting treat- unusual imperial cult image of all. The temple that ment of a group of three, as all repeat the same made the city neokoros for Valerian and/or gesture, and the two on the right are identical; the Gallienus is likely that shown between two others, central figure is not marked out in any way, and it and in it appears the tiny representation of an eques- is otherwise difficult to tell which is the senior and trian statue (and perhaps another statue standing which are the two junior Augusti. behind the horse—a soldier?). Though such a statue The image of Caracalla that stood in his temple would be perfectly suitable for an emperor, an eques- in Philadelphia was unusual. As illustrated on coins, trian cult statue within a temple would seem as odd he wears a short tunic with a cloak over it, holds a as having a horse in the house. It is more likely that sceptre over his left shoulder, and extends his right it stood somewhere else within the sanctuary, but hand. He also wears the radiate crown so well known was shown instead of the real cult statue because it from the antoniniani issued during his reign. The was more recognizable. element of portraiture is not lacking even on so small From both coins and actual images, the majority a representation, and Caracalla looks distinctly of emperors in the temples of the neokoroi appear pudgy. Though he has some of the attributes of in military dress. These include the images of Helios, that god appears otherwise on coins of the Augustus at Pergamon; Septimius Severus, Cara- same city: naked, running, with rays emanating from calla, and Geta at Nikomedia; either Commodus or his head rather than spikes from a distinct crown. Caracalla at Laodikeia; and Elagabalus at Hiera- Caracalla (as well as Geta) had been ‘new Helios’ polis. Some of these images, of course, may be con- at Ephesos, and apparently was shown in that guise ventionalized, but three or four actual colossi also at Philadelphia too. wore the cuirass: Titus at Ephesos, Trajan and Where the coins of Laodikeia show an imperial Hadrian at Pergamon, and perhaps Lucius Verus at cult image, they seem to contradict themselves. One Sardis. The usual attributes are a laurel wreath and coin of an issue shows the emperor as togate, hold- a staff or sceptre, occasionally also a libation bowl. ing a libation bowl in his right hand; another shows Two images, though also cuirassed, had unusual an imperial statue wearing military dress and hold- attributes that may indicate assimilation to a deity: ing a sceptre in the left hand as well as the libation Caracalla was shown with a radiate crown, perhaps bowl in the right. The latter (if genuine) should re- as Helios, at Philadelphia, and Severus Alexander present a statue because it stands on a pedestal in with a snake-entwined eagle sceptre, similar to that its temple; the other could perhaps be the emperor of Asklepios, at Aigeai. himself sacrificing within a temple. On the other Some imperial images were naked or half draped, hand, the coins later declare that Laodikeia is more directly assimilated to gods or heroes. Thus neokoros of both Commodus and Caracalla, and it Augustus at Nikomedia looked like Zeus Nikephoros, is likely that two different emperors are represented and the cult statue of Antoninus Pius at Sardis was here. likely naked, enthroned, and diademed, again like Coins of Ephesos’ fourth neokoria show the lat- Zeus. The statue or statues in the temple that made est temple in the center, in the place of honor next Neokaisareia neokoros may have been naked and/ to the temple of Artemis Ephesia. Within it stands or radiate. the togate Elagabalus, while the two temples on the Three emperors were shown as togate: Tiberius outside, representing that of the Augusti/Vespasian at Smyrna, either Commodus or Caracalla at Lao- and that of Hadrian, only show cuirassed figures. At dikeia, and Elagabalus at Ephesos. The former was Hierapolis, however, Elagabalus is shown in military specifically garbed as Pontifex Maximus, while the attire, with a sceptre in one hand and a libation bowl latter two probably wore the toga as a sign of civil in the other. status, as princeps. As for the unique equestrian statue The coins of Aigeai do not show Severus Alex- of Valerian or Gallienus at Side, it probably stood ander in the temple he probably shared with As- before the temple rather than in it. klepios, but standing in front of it. The emperor is shown as laureate and in military dress, but carries a snake-entwined eagle sceptre, perhaps to show his assimilation to the god. 324 part ii – summary chapters

Emperors and Their Cult Partners Much less documentation remains for the cult partners of Augustus at Nikomedia. The only evi- It has long been held that when gods and emper- dence is that of the coins, specifically silver cistophori ors shared a temple, the gods’ cult was considered upon which the temple is labeled ROM(ae) S(enatui) primary, whereas the emperors received lesser and P(opulo) AVG(usto). That Augustus was perceived as more equivocal honors.40 But in most of the cases the most important of the four is again shown by where this occurs, the imperial cult was introduced the fact that he most often appears alone. Next in into a previously existing temple of the gods. We importance was Rome; her cult statue was helmeted shall see that in the provincial temples, the princi- this time, but was otherwise quite similar to that in pal cult was that of the emperors, and any gods who Pergamon, in a long gown and raising a wreath over were introduced to share the temple were consid- Augustus’ head. In both cities the function of Rome ered secondary. This hierarchy was natural; as chap- was to support and to glorify the emperor. Again, ter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ shows, when gods or though the statue of Augustus often appears alone, personifications were specifically included in early that of Rome does not. A few bronze coins show a temples, it was generally done to accommodate third cult partner, a female with a sceptre who stands Roman attitudes rather than those of the provincials. on the other side of Augustus from Rome. It is un- The first and most famous cult partnership was certain whether she personifies the Senate or the that of Augustus with the goddess Rome. As Sue- People; likely the former, as another image associ- tonius stated, “Though he knew it was the custom ated with the temple, a male in a short costume with to vote temples even to proconsuls, in not one prov- sceptre and libation bowl, may represent the Genius ince did he accept one unless it was in the name of of the Roman people. Rome as well as in his.”41 It is evident from the There are good Hellenistic precedents for groups placement of this anecdote among those of Augustus’ of a ruler or benefactor with a god or personifica- melting down his silver statues and not allowing a tion crowning him, and sometimes the two are speci- temple to himself to be built in Rome that this was fied to be the same size: for example, an Antiochene one of the acts of politic modesty by which the first dedication at Delphi had two bronze statues, Antio- emperor impressed the Senate and secured his po- chus III and the Demos of Antioch, and each was sition in Rome.42 Such qualms about divinization eight ells tall.43 Where rulers’ images were intro- probably puzzled the provincials, but the gesture was duced into other gods’ temples, on the other hand, not aimed at them. they were often smaller. The case of the neokoroi Rome was indeed present in the three provincial is more like the former than the latter. cults of Augustus in question here, though her ico- Unfortunately we have no images of Augustus and nography and companions varied. In the temple at Rome as they were established in the temple at Pergamon she appeared as an unarmed city goddess Ankyra. The emperor’s name took precedence over with a cornucopia as her attribute. Her appearance that of the goddess in the first catalogue of priests was constant on the cistophori, intermittent on lo- inscribed on its anta, as early as the reign of Tiberius. cal bronzes of narrower circulation. Her secondary, By the time of Nerva, these officials were known as or rather supplementary, position to Augustus is the chief priests of Augustus, and the name of Rome emphasized by the pose of her statue, which held a had disappeared. wreath of victory over his head; they are on the same The provincial temple at Smyrna was shared by scale, and though he could be illustrated indepen- Tiberius, his mother, and the personified Senate. It dently (as on many bronze civic coins), she could not is likely that this time the Asians themselves sug- be shown crowning empty air. As early as 27 B.C.E., gested the cult partnership; that of Augustus had set before the temple at Pergamon was even complete, the precedent, and Tiberius was even more hesitant the name of Rome could drop out and the temple to accept divine honors than his predecessor had be called simply that of Augustus, or later, the been. As the Asians had voted the temple in grati- Sebasteion. tude for successful prosecutions before the Senate, they chose to enshrine the Senate with the emperor, and according to Tacitus (Annals 4.37) that was one 40 Nock 1930b; S. Price 1980; 1984b. 41 Suetonius, Augustus 52. 42 Charlesworth 1939. 43 Rose 1997a, 212 n. 4; Kreikenbom 1992, 29, 48. chapter 39 – the temples 325 of the reasons why Tiberius allowed it. The reasons had a powerful precedent: that of Rome and Augus- for including Livia, now named Julia, in the cult are tus in the same city. The epigraphical dossier on the more obscure, as according to rumor Tiberius re- festival for the new cult specifically provided that it sented her, and after her death in 29 he forbade her have the same privileges and status as the older one. deification, “this having been her own wish” (Tacitus It is likely that the same regard for precedent ap- Annals 5.2). But Tiberius also was accustomed to plied to the temple itself, and that Zeus Philios was refuse cultic honors to himself, so the resentment is provided for Trajan to better equate them with likely overstated. In any case, her position in Rome Augustus and his partner Rome. The coins often was powerful and unique: widow of the deified compare the two temples, one on the obverse, the Augustus, adopted by his will into his gens, sole other on the reverse, and always represent the Augusta, and mother of the emperor, to whom he emperors either as both alone or both with their cult owed his rise to power. She may have been included partners (though again, the coins never show Rome as a matter of course; the temple in Spain that or Zeus without their emperors). Tiberius refused in Annals 4.37 was also to be dedi- Of all the emperors, Hadrian was perhaps clos- cated to him and his mother, though without the est to speaking directly to the Greeks in the dialogue Senate. Nevertheless, coins that present the temple of benefaction and cult, so it is ironic that his own at Smyrna and its cult images indicate that the cults cult has been so misunderstood. As early as 123 he of Julia and the Senate were seen as secondary to sent earthquake relief to Kyzikos, and the koinon that of the emperor. On them, Tiberius stands alone and city built him a monumental temple that makes within the temple, while Julia and the Senate are some lists of the wonders of the world, and whose not shown in full figure at all, but as busts on the remains are being excavated today. Some modern other side. The Senate was personified as a young authors, however, have miscalled it a temple of Zeus man, and this is the first image of Julia known that and Hadrian. True, Hadrian later became involved wears a goddess’ diadem. with the temple of Zeus Olympios in Athens; but that After Tiberius, the subject of cult partners drops project was only taken up well after the temple at off. Gaius may have tried to move in on Apollo in Kyzikos had been granted. Also, Hadrianeia games his temple at Didyma. There is no sign of any deity at Kyzikos were sometimes called Hadrianeia Olym- or personification sharing the cult of the Augusti pia; but again, that was later, after Hadrian himself (including Titus and Vespasian) at Ephesos. So it took that epithet, and may only indicate that these comes as rather a surprise when the Augustan pat- were isolympic games modeled on the ones at Elis. tern was revived for Pergamon’s temple of Zeus Finally, some scholars took as a proof of Zeus be- Philios (Jupiter Amicalis) and Trajan. ing worshipped in the temple at Kyzikos the words So far as is known, there was no previous cult of of Cyriacus of Ancona in 1444, that the statues of Zeus Philios on that site at Pergamon. This aspect the gods in the pediment were still intact, thanks to of the god appears to have been new and specifi- their lofty height and to “the best Jove their protec- cally designed to accompany Trajan in his temple. tor”. Since in Cyriacus’ peculiar Latin ‘Jove best and Unlike Rome or the Senate, he was not the personi- greatest’ means the Christian God, he was not in- fication of an institution or of Roman power, but a dicating the presence of a statue of Zeus. Rather, deity in his own right, and his cult statue as shown he was making the point that Kyzikos’ pediment was on the coins does not support or glorify that of the protected from stone robbers by its height and God’s emperor in any way. Instead he was enthroned in will. In fact, Cyriacus was uncertain to what god the majesty and self-sufficiency, like many another Zeus. great temple was dedicated. The epithet Philios, however, does hint at a policy In fact, the ancient sources agree that the temple by which that god was chosen as suitable to share at Kyzikos was to Hadrian, without mentioning any Trajan’s cult: Zeus is patron of kings, and in this other god. Aelius Aristides at its dedication said that aspect presides over friendships and alliances. In- the name of the “best of rulers up to that time” was deed, on a contemporary coin issued to commemo- written on it. A list of wonders calls it the temple rate Pergamon’s concord with Thyatira, Trajan “of Hadrian at Kyzikos, unfinished”; an early sixth himself is identified as ‘Zeus Philios.’ century poem from the Palatine Anthology named Zeus Philios was probably added as a cult part- it “the blameless temple of King Hadrian”; Johannes ner at Pergamon because the new temple of Trajan Malalas said that there was a bust of “the god 326 part ii – summary chapters

Hadrian” in the temple’s roof; and the church his- Artemis and the emperors in the temple at Sardis torian Sokrates said that Hadrian was worshipped is the architecture itself and fragments of colossal there as “the thirteenth god.”44 Moreover, excava- statues that were found in and around it. The temple tions at the site have found what appears to be an was Hellenistic, and as it had the honor of asylum imperial apotheosis portrayed in the frieze on the status for the goddess, she cannot have been moved temple’s facade. There is no evidence for Hadrian out when Antoninus Pius and his family moved in. sharing cult with Zeus at Kyzikos. The cella was divided to accommodate the impe- The same false assumption, however, has been rial cult, with Artemis’ half still facing west and the extended to the two other provincial temples to emperors’ facing east. One cannot help but look for Hadrian built in Asia. Likely in 124, Antonius Pole- special circumstances to explain this double use of mon used his influence and his oratory to get a huge a standing temple, as the mid-second century was grant and another provincial temple for Smyrna on the whole an age of prosperity for Asia Minor. from Hadrian. Again this was well before Hadrian’s Perhaps it was due to the destruction of the involvement with Athens’ Olympieion. And again, shortlived pseudodipteros which could have been the though festivals named Hadrianeia, Olympia, and original home of Sardis’ second provincial imperial Hadrianeia Olympia were celebrated, there is no sign cult; but that speculation is very tentative. Perhaps of any god but Hadrian in representations of this it was only a means of rejuvenating the temple of temple at Smyrna. Artemis, which had had a long period of dereliction At Ephesos, a large temple complex near the city’s after the disastrous earthquake of 17 C.E. Certainly the introduction of the provincial imperial cult could harbor has been named ‘the Olympieion of Ha- have provided additional funds for continuing to drian,’ a term with no ancient basis whatsoever. build a temple that had never been fully finished. Pausanias does mention an Olympieion at Ephesos, Caracalla created many neokoroi in Asia. There but he relates it to the Magnesian gate, at the op- is no evidence for gods sharing his cult in any new posite end of the city from the new temple. What is temples, but two cities that were already twice more, the cult of Zeus Olympios was already estab- neokoroi became three times neokoroi by installing lished in Ephesos in the Flavian period. Again, the the cult of Caracalla in extant temples of other name of the festival Hadrianeia Olympia is not deci- deities. The main evidence for both is the coin types sive for the cult in the temple, though this particular they issued to show their three temples that con- festival was established after Hadrian’s identification ferred neokoria together. with Zeus Olympios at Athens and elsewhere. But the Smyrna’s ‘new’ third temple, shown between fact is that the temple that made Ephesos twice those of Tiberius and Hadrian, is the temple of neokoros is never called the Olympieion in ancient Rome, with the goddess’ image or name clearly sources, only ‘the temple of the god Hadrian.’ There- indicated; but the same coins specify that Smyrna fore, until better evidence is found, it cannot be is ‘three times neokoros of the Augusti.’ It seems, asserted that Hadrian shared cult with Zeus at any then, that the imperial cult had been moved into of his provincial temples, whether at Kyzikos, Smyrna’s venerable temple of Rome, built in 195 Smyrna, or Ephesos. B.C.E., the first anywhere in the Greek world. The goddess’ usual image on coins had been armed and enthroned, often with a Victory in her hand, but Emperors in Other Gods’ Temples after the third neokoria a small temple is often sub- stituted for the Victory. Thus she, like the epony- Moving the statue of an emperor or emperors into mous Amazon Smyrna, becomes a symbol of a standing temple of another divinity was a common neokoria, guardian of the imperial cult in her own practice. But unless Gaius allowed Apollo to remain temple. as his cult partner in the temple at Didyma, this was On coin reverses of Pergamon, an image of not the practice in temples that conferred neokoria Asklepios is shown enthroned in a temple between until the mid-second century C.E. those of Augustus and Trajan, but Caracalla’s name Our only evidence for the relationship between is in the pediment, and the coin legends proclaim Pergamon three times neokoros of the Augusti. 44 Aelius Aristides Oration 27.22; list in Codex Vaticanus graecus 989; Palatine Anthology 9.656; Johannes Malalas 11.16; Sokrates Likely the cult of Caracalla was moved into Askle- Historia Ecclesiastica 3.23.59. pios’ temple, where sometimes the emperor himself chapter 39 – the temples 327 is shown sacrificing before the temple of his cult popolis too lost its neokoria after Elagabalus’ death, partner. or at least the evidence for it ceased. In each case where Caracalla granted neokoria A more uncertain case is that of Hierapolis, where to a city already twice neokoros (the third, of course, one coin type appears to show a bust of the moon was to Ephesos for Artemis), no new temple was god Men in the pediment of the temple of built. Since Caracalla may have allowed as many as Elagabalus. This may hint that the emperor’s cult eight new neokoriai for Asia, building new koinon moved into a temple of Men, or may simply indi- temples in cities that already had two each would cate the pedimental decoration. have been a strain on the province’s finances even Aigeai in Cilicia received its first and only at a time of high prosperity. Perhaps most impor- neokoria for the cult of Severus Alexander, but the tantly, it would have provoked protests from smaller temple that keeps appearing on coins is that of cities of the koinon who might be expected to con- Asklepios. It is a Corinthian structure with six or tribute more to those who already had too much. more columns, often shown with an arcuated lintel In this dilemma, cult partnership in an older temple and/or an eagle in the pediment. The first hint that may have appeared as the perfect answer. It had the cult of Severus Alexander was moved into this impeccable precedents from Augustus on, and had shrine is the coins that show the city goddess hold- already been used at Sardis for Antoninus Pius. The ing a temple. This coin type is one of the symbols only problem might be in choosing the deity most of neokoria, and the small temple should logically proper for the emperor to move in with. The em- be that for which the city was neokoros. The most peror with Rome was of course a natural combina- detailed and clearest examples of the type represent tion; while Asklepios was the chief god at Pergamon. the little temple with an arcuated lintel, and once Such precedents during the reign of Caracalla with an eagle in the pediment, both recognized likely made it natural that the practice be contin- attributes of the temple of Asklepios. In addition, the ued into the reign of Elagabalus. Whether or not the obverses show Severus Alexander and a snake-en- emperor arranged marriages between his Syrian twined staff, an attribute of Asklepios. Moreover, just baetyl and other goddesses, it was he who moved as Caracalla had sacrificed to his cult partner into the temple of Demeter, the chief goddess of Asklepios on Pergamene coins, and Elagabalus may Nikomedia. On coins that proclaim Nikomedia three have sacrificed to Apollo before their temple on coins times neokoros, her image appears within the cen- of Philippopolis, Severus Alexander, holding an ter temple, draped and veiled, holding a long torch imperial eagle sceptre entwined with an Asklepian in her left hand and a few ears of wheat in her right. snake, sacrificed before Asklepios’ temple on Aigeai’s Nikomedia never called itself neokoros of Demeter, coins. So it is likely that the cult of Severus but it never specified that it was three times neokoros Alexander joined that of Asklepios in his temple to of the Augusti either. How can we be sure that the make Aigeai neokoros. And though the argument third neokoria was for Elagabalus? Simply by its from silence is not compelling on its own, it should disappearance. Like all other neokoriai for that be noted that in the reign of Maximinus, when emperor, this one was revoked during the reign of Severus Alexander’s memory was condemned, Severus Alexander, and Nikomedia reverted to being Aigeai never claimed to be neokoros, but returned twice neokoros. Had the third neokoria been for the to the title immediately afterward, under Pupienus goddess Demeter there would have been no reason and Balbinus. for removing it despite Elagabalus’ death and the There are also a few late uncertain cases. Kyzikos condemnation of his name (see the case of Magne- declared itself twice neokoros under Valerian and sia, below). During the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus, but its coins show either two temples, or Gallienus the third neokoria was given again, and one and the round shrine of Demeter and Kore; it the coins indicate that again the imperial cult was is remotely possible, then, that the imperial cult was moved into the temple of Demeter. practiced in the latter. At the same time and after- Elagabalus’ cult was also moved into the temple ward, Side named Athena, Apollo, probably Askle- of Philippopolis’ patron god, Apollo Kendrisos. Coins pios, and perhaps Dionysos either as neokoroi on show the emperor and Apollo holding Apollo’s its coins or called itself neokoros for them in inscrip- temple, recognizable by the shield-and-spear motif tions. It is uncertain, however, whether this meant in its pediment, between them. Apparently Philip- that they shared cult honors with emperors. 328 part ii – summary chapters

Where emperors shared cult with other gods in remains may also fill out the exiguous evidence for temples that conferred neokoria, there is a striking the other neokoroi and help to show what sort of contrast between the earliest cases (where the temple could get the title neokoros for its city. temples were newly founded, with cult partners The first city known to have become officially chosen as suitable to the emperors’ modesty or neokoros of a god was Aizanoi, neokoros of Zeus personae) and these later instances, where the em- from the time of Commodus. As the city’s temple peror was introduced into a cult partner’s extant of Zeus was begun under Hadrian, the neokoria may temple. One of the chief reasons behind the latter have been granted then. There is no evidence that trend was probably the multiplication of neokoriai the koinon of Asia counted Aizanoi’s temple of Zeus and the difficulty of accommodating this increase among its provincial temples; provincial imperial into the system. It is likely that when the provincial temples were administered by officials of the koinon, imperial cult was introduced into the temple of a while Aizanoi’s temple was administered by its city’s patron deity, however, that temple, its officials, priests of Zeus. and its rituals, still focused on the city, not on the The temple of Zeus at Aizanoi is well preserved, province. This factor may have promoted the ‘mu- with much of its colonnade still standing (illus. pl. 3 nicipalization’ of koinon temples, for it threw them fig. 13). It was an Ionic octastyle, pseudodipteral, into a vicious circle: the more cities vied for neokoria, with fifteen columns on its flanks and a stylobate of the more temples were granted, and the more rea- 21.5 x 36.5 m. It was approached from the east via son there was to use older civic temples. Thus, the a staircase which led to the seven-stepped krepis. more the honor was identified with the city, not the Composite-capitaled columns stood before the east- province, the more it was sought as an honor inde- facing cella of Zeus and the west-facing opistho- pendent of the koinon, and the greater was the domos; the latter led to an underground vault for possibility that the koinon either abrogated its re- the cult of the mother-goddess. The temple stood sponsibility for the temple or was simply passed over. in a squarish colonnaded temenos of 130.5 x 112 m. (illus. pl. 5 fig. 21), which was itself approached from an enclosed courtyard or agora 95 m. square; Temples of the Gods that Gave Neokoria the agora’s entry aligned with the temenos’ original entry stairway (later a propylon), the altar, and the Calling a city neokoros of a god may antedate the east door into the cella itself. The axially symmetrical title’s application to a koinon temple of an emperor, plan emphasized the approach from the east while if in the mid-50s C.E. a grammateus of Ephesos actu- still preserving a fully Hellenic aspect, recalling its ally asked “Who does not know that Ephesos is predecessor, the temple built by Hermogenes for neokoros of the great goddess Artemis and of the Artemis at Magnesia (below). heaven-fallen [image]?”45 By the time of Domitian As mentioned above, the Ephesians may have at the latest, however, Ephesos was officially neo- called their city ‘neokoros of Artemis’ informally koros only for the koinon temple of the Augusti, not before the title became exclusive to provincial for the goddess; and once that title was used to temples. Later, when Ephesos was already twice designate a city that had a provincial temple, the neokoros for koinon temples, it applied for a third informal use of it for the chief local god was no doubt imperial neokoria during the joint reign of Caracalla forbidden. We also know that Ephesos later became and Geta. It is likely that Geta agreed, but Caracalla officially neokoros of Artemis, but only because refused. As his letter stated, “due to modesty. . . I Caracalla diverted the honor from his own cult. It transfer the neokoria in my name to the most mani- is likely, then, that neokoriai for gods, like all other fest goddess, so that (the Ephesians) may enjoy the neokoriai, had to be granted by Roman authorities. honor of a temple not from me, but from reverence All three temples that made their cities neokoroi for the goddess.” Thus Ephesos finally became of- for gods and not emperors have been located, and ficially neokoros of Artemis. The Senate’s approval their preservation ranges from excellent (Aizanoi) to may have already been gained for the proposed problematic (Ephesos). An examination of their imperial neokoria, and was probably unnecessary for the transfer to the name of Artemis. Some Ephesian inscriptions appear to make a distinction between 45 Acts of the Apostles 19.35. the two imperial neokoriai, which were issued by chapter 39 – the temples 329 decree of the Senate, and the one of Artemis, which the (short-lived) condemnation of Alexander’s was the emperor’s gift. As the only city that was neo- memory. koros both for emperors and for its patron god, The temple of Artemis at Magnesia (illus. pl. 3 Ephesos could either distinguish its neokoria for fig. 15) was the famous octastyle pseudodipteros Artemis or count it in with the others; occasionally designed by the Hellenistic architect Hermogenes, both are spelled out. It is possible that Ephesos lost who wrote a book about it. It was the basis for the its neokoria for Artemis when some of Caracalla’s design of the temples at Ankyra and Aizanoi, among acts were nullified under his successor Macrinus, but many others. Though its 31.6 x 57.9 m. stylobate if so, the title was quickly restored after Macrinus’ was not colossal like that of the Artemision of fall. Ephesos, it was larger than that of the temple of The temple of Artemis at Ephesos was often Rome and Augustus at Ankyra, and probably only counted among the seven wonders, as well as one a touch smaller than that of the temple identified of the largest buildings, of the ancient world. As it as Hadrian’s at Ephesos. The remains show that the stood in Roman times, it was an enormous Ionic temple at Magnesia had eight Ionic columns on its octastyle, dipteral, with twenty-one columns along facade and fifteen on its flank. Like the temples of its length and nine columns at its back (illus. pl. 3 Artemis at Ephesos and Sardis, it faced westward, fig. 14). Its stylobate was approximately 51.44 x toward an altar lined with statues in a stoa-like Ionic 111.48 m. The west front had three rows of columns facade. Both temple and altar were on the axis of a with sculptured bases and drums, and then four 200 m. long temenos lined with colonnades (illus. more rows of two columns each in the pronaos; the pl. 5 fig. 22). The temple’s Ionic frieze consisted of opisthodomos had three rows of three columns each. combats between Greeks and Amazons. In the west In the temple’s main pediment were three openings, pediment were three openings similar to those of the the center one larger than the side two, and figural temple of Artemis at Ephesos, either for epiphany sculpture as well. To the west was a U-shaped and of the goddess, or to throw light on her cult statue colonnaded altar court, as this temple, like others within. to the goddesses of Asia Minor, faced west rather Aizanoi, Ephesos, and Magnesia are the only than east. assured neokoroi of gods, and so these cities can help During Caracalla’s reign Ephesos could call itself illumine what the standards were for this honor. All the only city to be neokoros of Artemis, but this was three had shrines of considerable fame, size, and not to be so for long. Magnesia on the Maeander splendor, all of which had asylum status; and all were also became neokoros of Artemis from the time of in Asia, the koinon that had the greatest number of Severus Alexander. The city always specifies the title neokoroi cities. But there were other shrines just as with the goddess’ name, never calling itself simply old, honored, and enormous whose cities were not neokoros. In all probability some exactitude was neokoroi for their gods, so far as is known; one might necessary, as the plain title could have been misin- mention the temple of Hera at Samos, or Miletos’ terpreted to mean the possession of a koinon temple. Didymaion of Apollo, once site of the koinon cult Although none can be proved, there are several of Gaius. Compared to those, Aizanoi’s temple might possible methods by which Magnesia could have seem a small and recent foundation. It may be that become neokoros of Artemis. It may have been by the neokoria for a god was granted on similar terms the same process as at Ephesos, that is, diversion of as that for an emperor, but was for some reason or the honor of the title from the cult of the emperor another diverted, as is known to be the case for to that of a god. It is also possible that the Mag- Ephesos. nesians, offended at the preeminence of the Ephesian When a city had but one neokoria, and that for goddess, applied directly for the neokoria of their a god, it was usually careful to use the name of the own Artemis Leukophryene. Their great rival, Miletos, god instead of calling itself simply neokoros. This had just lost its second neokoria for Elagabalus, and tendency, noticeable in both Magnesia and Aizanoi the Magnesians were likely eager to be at least on (though for the latter there is less evidence), makes the level of Miletos neokoros. It should be noted that it less likely that any others of the known but un- if it was Severus Alexander who made Magnesia specified neokoroi were in fact neokoroi of gods. For neokoros for Artemis, the title was still used even in example, Herakleia appears to have connected its the reign of his successor Maximinus, unaffected by neokoria with honor for the goddess Rome, but this 330 part ii – summary chapters does not indicate that the city was neokoros of Where order can be discerned, temples that con- Rome. Neapolis’ most famous shrine was probably ferred neokoria were generally Corinthian; the Ionic dedicated to an aspect of Zeus, but as the city never exceptions are earlier structures and/or are dedi- claimed to be neokoros for the god, we are inclined cated to other than imperial gods (the Didymaion, to believe that Neapolis too held the honor for an temples of Artemis at Ephesos, Magnesia, and imperial cult temple. Sardis, and the temple of Zeus at Aizanoi), though But when a city had more than one neokoria and the temple of Septimius Severus at Anazarbos was one of them was for a god, as Ephesos had, there likely Ionic. The temple of the Augusti at Ephesos were more options. Where space was plentiful, the and the pseudodipteros at Sardis are surely non- entire title could be written out, with the name of Doric, but otherwise uncertain. Still, the Corinthian the god mentioned. Or the divine neokoria could order was more popular in the Roman period for be included among the imperial neokoriai, bringing all kinds of temples, not just those of the emperors, the total number up by one, but in this case the titles and was particularly adaptable on grandiose temples could not be designated ‘of the emperors.’ So dur- of large size. In design and structure more temples ing the reign of Caracalla, Ephesos could call itself that conferred neokoria tended to follow Hellenis- either ‘twice neokoros of the emperors and neokoros tic rather than Roman models. The architecture was of Artemis’ or ‘three times neokoros.’ On coins, there not without Roman influences, however, especially appears to have been a tendency to use whichever in placing the temple prominently by raising it on was most impressive: the neokoria of Artemis was a vaulted substructure or a high podium. Temples of the neokoroi were often fairly conser- used more when Ephesos was the only city to have vative in their decorative programs, though there is it; in the time of Elagabalus it was counted in to total no consistent pattern. Eagles appear in the pedi- a unique four; afterward it went back down to three, ments of temples represented on coins at Ankyra in order to at least equal the count of Ephesos’ ri- (along with a shield), Tarsos, and Kaisareia. Victo- vals, Pergamon and Smyrna. ries serve as akroteria on coin depictions of the first two temples at Nikomedia, and also appear among the remains of the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan Summary at Pergamon, as well as on the friezes of the Ankyra temple. Apotropaic Gorgoneia hint at the aegis of Of the temples that conferred neokoria, including Athena, and featured on the temple of Zeus Philios both those of gods and emperors but excluding those and Trajan at Pergamon and that of Hadrian at shown only schematically on multiple-temple coin Kyzikos, as they also did on the cuirasses of impe- reverses, fifteen are octastyle or larger (two of those rial statues. Other decorative details vary from are decastyle); seven are hexastyle; and nine tetra- temple to temple, but center on themes of Roman style. But since many of the above are only repre- imperial triumph and of fruitfulness. There is no sign sented on coins, which often show an abbreviated of the aediculated ‘marble style’ that has been sup- number of columns, many of the four- and six-col- posed to be associated with the imperial cult. umn images probably represent larger structures. If Among the cult images, most emperors seem to we look at the actual remains, only the temple at have been portrayed in military costume, though Neapolis (and that only possibly, but not certainly, some were caparisoned as gods and others wore the conferring neokoria) was tetrastyle, and only the toga. They could be accompanied by their succes- temples of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon and sors or consorts. Where remains of the statues sur- that of Antoninus Pius at Sagalassos (again, the lat- vive and have been identified, they are colossal and ter uncertain) were hexastyle. Probably five were acrolithic. The original portrait models are often octastyle, two (the temple at Tarsos and the Didy- manipulated in order to make them larger in scale maion at Miletos) were decastyle, and one (Ephesos’ and more godlike in appearance. Koressos temple) either octastyle or decastyle. Thus, On the whole, despite three centuries of differ- temples that made their cities neokoroi tended to be ing preferences, requirements, and circumstances large and impressive structures. They also tended to among the provinces and cities that built them, the be prominently placed, though sometimes their sheer temples and cult images of the neokoroi present a size made them difficult to integrate in an extant fairly consistent image, adapting Roman figures to urban plan. a Hellenic frame. chapter 40 – the cities 331

Chapter 40. The Cities

Though from the beginning the honor of building (oil for the gymnasium, gladiatorial shows, feasts) that a provincial temple to an emperor was granted to were expected by the populace; the truly mag- a koinon, that temple was set within a city, and that nificent added other benefits on top of that.3 This city, not the koinon, was named neokoros as a re- emphasis on offices as liturgies concentrated power sult. This chapter will examine the internal struc- and responsibility in the hands of a wealthy elite ture of the neokoroi, the elites and benefactors who class. The Roman governors looked to this class to helped them gain the temple and title, and the fes- ensure stability, obedience, and financial rectitude; tivals some of them celebrated in connection with their activities thus saved the scanty Roman bureau- their koinon temples. Their relationships with one cracy the job of governing the cities directly. On the another, however, are treated in the summary of other side, Rome was (ideally) a guarantor of peace, ‘The Koina,’ chapter 41. prosperity, and favorable treatment for the city elite, who were generally quite successful in cultivating good relations with Romans in power. Structure Even for the wealthy and influential, this system was no Utopia. There could be crime, corruption, City structure in the eastern provinces was basically and quarreling at all levels, within the city, between a continuation of what it had been in the previous city and city, and between cities and the Romans Hellenistic period, but Roman administration tended who were their overlords. to introduce certain modifications.1 Though the details varied from province to province and among the cities depending on their status, the body of the Elites: Greek Culture, Roman Status voting citizens (demos, meeting as an ekklesia) still existed, with the oversight of a council (boule). Plu- Though Roman authority may have imposed adjust- tarch’s instructions to an aspiring politician of late ments on established Hellenic traditions only super- first century Sardis focus on persuading the people, ficially and piecemeal rather than rigorously and and generally assume a democratic system of city universally, its cultural presence and legal influence government.2 Civic inscriptions often describe the worked profound changes on the social structure of city as a union between council and people, and gen- its provinces.4 The greatest, of course, was that the erally it is the people or body of citizens who are overlord was no longer a Hellenistic king, but of a described as neokoros, though at Kyzikos and Hiera- very different culture. No matter how friendly to or polis the council is sometimes called neokoros too. adept in Hellenic culture the emperor happened to Under Rome, there tended to be a maximum be, he, his Senate, his legions, and his administra- number of council members allowed, of a certain tion were of another world, speaking another lan- standard of wealth and usually possessing Roman guage. This was especially obvious in the conduct citizenship, each contributing an amount of money of civic affairs, where the ideal of autonomy could for the privilege. From them the magistrates and exe- be easily contradicted by the actuality of Roman cutives were drawn, who generally had to pay the officials. As Plutarch’s instructions to the aspiring expenses of their offices as well as certain benefits magistrate famously note, “But you must say to

1 The basic picture is still that of Liebenam 1900; more 3 Veyne 1976; Delorme 1960; Gauthier and Hatzopoulos recently, S. Mitchell 1993, 1:198-226; Quass 1993; Lewin 1995. 1993; Pantel 1992, 255-420; L. Robert 1971. 2 Plutarch, Political Precepts, esp. 21 (816). 4 Brunt 1990. 332 part ii – summary chapters yourself, ‘You rule (but are ruled) over a city sub- ligible is shown by the three cities that combined the ject to proconsuls, to Caesar’s procurators. . . “this status of colony with that of neokoros: Nikopolis in is not ancient Sardis, nor that former power of Armenia Minor, Neapolis in Syria Palaestina, and Lydia.” You must keep your general’s cloak well Thessalonike in Macedonia. This meant that a city tucked in, and not think a lot of your crown or trust technically composed of Roman citizens got a title in it; look from your headquarters to the [governor’s] that was primarily associated with temples to the tribunal, and you see his boots above your head!’”5 living emperor. Nikopolis was probably the first, a Another great change was the admission of the colony with ius Italicum and a component of real elite to Roman citizenship. As an orator of the Roman veterans, perhaps metropolis and neokoros Antonine period proclaimed to a Roman audience, since Hadrian, but certainly twice neokoros after “You have divided all the people of your Empire into Gordian III became emperor. In this case, the sta- two parts. . . the more cultured, better born, and tus appears to be the result of Nikopolis’ being the more powerful everywhere you have declared [Ro- major, almost the sole, urban center of a very man] citizens, even if of the same stock [as the oth- unurbanized province. But colonial status was in- ers]; the rest, subjects under command.”6 Yet the creasingly granted to towns with no veteran com- preservation of Hellenic culture, through descent, ponent from the second into the third century, as a education, purity of language, and institutions both reward, or an inducement, for loyalty.9 The distinc- political and cultic, was still crucial to civic elites in tion between Greek city and Roman colony was the Roman period.7 The intercombinations between blurred in any case by Caracalla’s grant of Roman Greek culture and Roman status are visible not only citizenship to most of the peoples of the Empire. So through novels, speeches, and other writings pre- the emperor Philip made Neapolis (among others) served to us, but through the careers of the people colony and neokoros; it lost its colonial status, but themselves, the buildings they built, the statues they likely not the neokoria, under his successor Trajan set up, and the gods they honored. Their coins had Decius. Decius, on the other hand, granted the titles the emperor on the obverse but an ancestral god, of colony and four times neokoros to Thessalonike, founder, or point of civic pride on the reverse. Their a particularly strategic city for the empire’s defense building inscriptions generally honored first their in the Balkans. Two of the four neokoriai were patron god(s), then the emperor(s), and then the suppressed after his death, but the rest remained. As council and people of the city itself. at Neapolis, the titles appear to have been granted If the interpretation of Cassius Dio 51.20.7-8 wholesale, to show imperial favor; they did not af- given in chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ is correct, those who fect the city’s population or their civic status, and were allowed to worship the living emperor were they could be removed at the next emperor’s will. xenoi, that is, peregrini; Romans, at least in Italy, were The temptation to rise in Roman administration to worship the deified dead. This distinction would could certainly pull elite males’ attention away from seem to present a problem for the chief priests of civic and provincial offices and direct it toward koinon temples, people of wealth and high status for Roman aims, a path culminating if possible in a whom this office was the acme of a civic and pro- senatorial career centered in Rome itself. The two vincial career, but most of whom were Roman citi- paths were not mutually exclusive, of course, and zens.8 Of course, the dissonance, if it was felt at all, we can track a variety of choices.10 On one was Dio was soon obviated by the passage of time and the Chrysostomos, who remained an orator and philoso- death of emperors to whom koinon temples were pher, urging concord on the cities and undertaking dedicated. And in any case, it was possible for the building projects for his home Prusa, though he only same person to behave differently in his home prov- got tangled in lawsuits as a result. On the other was ince than he did at Rome. Cassius Dio, who referred to his city Nikaia in an That the ostensible conflict between Roman citi- indulgent way, but was not overly concerned with zenship and koinon cult was, or soon became, neg- its quarrels, and took a firmly Roman and senato- rial viewpoint despite the fact that he was writing a 5 Plutarch, Political Precepts 17 (813), rather freely translated. 6 Aelius Aristides, Oration 26.59-60; see also Oration 27.32; Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 41.9. 7 Woolf 1994; Swain 1996. 9 J. Nollé 1995; Millar 1990. 8 Deininger 1965, 151-153. 10 Eck 1980. chapter 40 – the cities 333

Greek history. Of course, there was also a middle tomos supposedly so impressed Trajan that, accord- way: C. Antius Aulus Julius Quadratus, a Pergamene ing to an anecdote, the emperor took him up in his who became consul and then proconsul of Asia golden chariot and said “I do not know what you under Trajan, likely won his city its temple for are saying, but I love you as myself.”15 Trajan’s level Trajan and Zeus Philios, then endowed its festival; of erudition was certainly higher than implied, and his son probably served as chief priest of Asia after his enthrallment likely lower: Dio’s rivals at home the temple was completed.11 attacked him for not doing as well as other orators were rumored to have done for their cities.16 Still, Dio did win important privileges for Prusa from Brokers of Beneficence Trajan, and accompanied the emperor on his Dacian campaign.17 One man’s influence with the emperor sometimes One orator who attained neokoria for his city was became a reason to make a particular city neo- M. Antonius Polemon of Smyrna. A man who koros.12 Orators could sway the emperors’ opinions, “spoke with kings as equals” (and who had the nerve and so could chamberlains; and some men are cred- to kick the proconsul and future emperor Antoninus ited with gaining neokoria simply by asking the em- Pius out of his house), he was of special value to the peror for it, though we do not know precisely why community as an ambassador to emperors. His they were so influential. We may call them ‘brokers oratory worked magic upon the philhellene Hadrian; of beneficence,’ as they were not only benefactors though the emperor “had previously favored the in themselves, but also the means by which the Ephesians, he converted [him] to the Smyrnaean emperor’s benevolence was channeled to a particular cause, so that in one day he poured out ten million city. [drachmai] on Smyrna, from which the grain mar- As mentioned above, C. Antius Aulus Julius Qua- ket was built, as well as the most magnificent gym- dratus probably had some influence in obtaining nasium in Asia and a temple that can be seen from Pergamon’s second provincial temple from Trajan, afar.” This temple was the one that got Smyrna the which broke the previous practice of having only one title ‘twice neokoros,’ as is made clear by that city’s koinon temple per city. The inscriptions specify that own inscription: “. . . we gained from the lord Caesar this ‘most illustrious friend’ of the emperor, a citi- Hadrian on account of Antonius Polemon a second zen of Pergamon who had risen so far in the Ro- decree of the Senate, by which we became twice man world that he not only became consul ordinarius neokoros.” Polemon served as agonothetes for the in 105 but was then proconsul in Asia shortly be- festival celebrated in this temple’s honor, but died fore the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan was in the midst of a mission to defend Smyrna’s granted, paid for the new festival in honor of the “temples and their rights” before the emperor Anto- temple. ninus Pius.18 This phrase probably refers to the Then there were the speakers. According to Aelius koinon temples, in which Polemon, having obtained Aristides, “the orator has trained so that he will be a second temple and neokoria for Smyrna, had a able not only to save himself or one other besides, special interest. So it seems that, despite confirma- but also his friends, city, and allies.”13 Cities used tion by the Senate, even Smyrna’s status as twice their orators and sophists for embassies, not only neokoros could be challenged by rivals in the koinon. because of the persuasiveness of their speech, but in The likeliest is perhaps Ephesos, as shortly before, the hope that their renown would help the cities gain Smyrna had offended that city by not giving its pre- access to and influence in the court.14 Dio Chrysos- cise titulature in a decree about a joint sacrifice. In this case, Antoninus Pius read the speech that Pole-

11 IvP no. 269. See ‘Pergamon,’ chapter 1; and H. Müller 2000, 519-520 n. 6. tendency to save money by using ambassadors who could pay 12 For Greek friends of prominent Romans obtaining privi- the costs of the mission themselves. leges for their cities and receiving honors and offices in return, 15 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.7. See Dio Chrysostomos, from the late Republic on, see Quass 1993, 138-149, 151-164, Orations 40, 44, 45, among others; Swain 1996, 194-195, 225- 187-192. 241, 397. 13 Aelius Aristides, Oration 2.376 (P. Aelius Aristides, The 16 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 40.13-15. Complete Works 1, tr. C. Behr [Leiden 1986] 137). 17 C. Jones 1978, 53. 14 Quass 1993, 168-176; but note also 192-195, on the cities’ 18 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.10 (539-540). 334 part ii – summary chapters mon had prepared and ruled in favor of Smyrna. had obtained, and was first to serve in it as “chief Philostratos concludes, “thus Smyrna came away priest of the two temples in Ephesos.” Diophantos’ having won first place, and they declared that memory was still honored in Ephesos as late as the Polemon had come back to life to help them.” fifth century. The inscription mentioned above makes it clear One man who obtained the neokoria for his city that the privileges Hadrian bestowed on Smyrna by personal influence was neither consular, ambas- were due to Polemon; he is not just the eloquent sador, nor orator. He was Saoteros, chamberlain to pleader of a worthy cause, he is the cause himself. the emperor Commodus, who got a koinon temple This is why the Smyrnaeans endowed him and his and a second neokoria for his home Nikomedia. It descendants with the right to preside at the sacred is unlikely that Saoteros appeared openly on behalf contest for which he was responsible, and why he of his city, but his position made him powerful with continued to defend the temples, even posthumously. the emperor, and the Senate went along with what This reciprocal relationship between great man and pleased Commodus. Nonetheless, after Saoteros’ fall great city was based on the honor each could give from favor and death the neokoria was promptly to the other. Of course, the emperor was the ulti- revoked, either on the initiative of his successor, or mate benefactor of both man and city, and his gifts by a Senate indignant after the fact. to both (of honor and assent to one, of titles and We have seen that the Smyrnaeans viewed Pole- assistance to the other) were too great to be repaid mon as the reason for their obtaining the neokoria, in full.19 All that Hadrian could receive in return was and the Ephesians probably felt the same way about cult, as practiced in the new koinon temple in Diophantos. Certainly the grant was not withdrawn Smyrna. But Polemon and his like may truly be from Nikomedia because it was an unworthy city, called ‘brokers of beneficence,’ conduits for impe- but because Saoteros was an unworthy citizen. In- rial favor, and thus to be honored for the emperor’s scriptions and literature show that the Greeks of the gifts as well. East believed one man’s influence or power of speech Though Hadrian had allegedly favored the Smyr- to be the key to the emperor’s favor, and from that naeans over the Ephesians once, a decade later favor could come titles, festivals, temples, and show- Ephesos seems to have won his favor back. The man ers of drachmai. responsible for this was one Tiberius Claudius Piso We hear a similar story of Philadelphia, but from Diophantos, “who was chief priest of the two temples the emperor’s side. One Aurelius M... of Philadel- in Ephesos, by whom the temple of the god Hadrian phia asked Caracalla if another Philadelphian, was consecrated, [and] who first requested it from Julianus, could be permitted to carry out his pro- the god Hadrian and obtained it.” Although we vincial duties in his home city and not at Sardis. This know less about Diophantos than we do about Pole- the emperor graciously allowed (if nothing else for- mon, it is apparent that he too pleaded his city’s bade it), and then added “I do this gladly for your cause before Hadrian, though this time no competi- sake, on account of whom I have given even the tors are mentioned. It may be that Hadrian wished neokoria itself to the Philadelphians.” The letter calls to compensate for his previous decision, if he had Aurelius “most honored and beloved by me,” but favored the Ephesians before Polemon got up to gives no hint of why. speak. In any case, Diophantos was successful, and A less fortunate outcome was that of Ulpius Apol- the Ephesians and the koinon showed their gratitude. lonius Plautus, grammateus, advocate of Ephesos, Diophantos was made chief priest, not immediately and designated Asiarch on an inscription that also but as soon as the temple of Hadrian was complete; calls Ephesos neokoros of the most sacred Artemis thus he was able to consecrate the temple that he and three times neokoros of the emperors. Thus it dates to the joint rule of Caracalla and Geta, be- fore Geta’s death and the cancellation of his temple. 19 Lendon 1997, 78-84, 113-129, 148-149, 156-157. On the That melancholy result is symbolized by the fact that assertion (put into the mouth of Maecenas) that nothing could be given to an emperor that would be better than what he the whole inscription was negated, crossed out with already possessed, Cassius Dio 52.35.2. On the other hand, a chisel, but so lightly that it could still be read. It Augustus weighed acts of loyalty to himself as if they were gifts is likely that, like Diophantos as chief priest, Plautus worthy of being requited on a sliding scale, and refused the status of free city to the Samians because they did not merit it was designated Asiarch to serve a term once the new as had the Aphrodisians: Oliver 1989, 25-26 no. 1. koinon temple was built, probably because he had chapter 40 – the cities 335 led the delegation to obtain it. When it fell through, one thing, their names are often agglutinative; im- his honor may have as well. perial names could be suddenly attached to a These individuals were perceived as being a chief longstanding festival, but later disappear.21 Full titles cause of the neokoria being granted to their cities. of festivals are often abbreviated to the point of (our) Of what did their benefaction consist? Basically, of incomprehension on inscriptions and on coins; on asking for an imperial temple, and getting it. Some the latter especially, where one prize crown is of- headed a formal embassy to the emperor, though ten taken as equivalent to one contest, sometimes a Saoteros can be considered an embassy in himself. single contest’s name appears on two crowns; and But if merely making the request were all one had coins often show fewer crowns than the city had to do to be credited with gaining the neokoria, why contests.22 Specific names for contests could also be do we know of so few who were accorded that sta- masked under the title of Koina, province-wide fes- tus? Perhaps in order to be seen as brokers of be- tivals. Such Koina were often celebrated by cities that neficence, they had to succeed overwhelmingly, win did not yet have provincial imperial temples, a fact additional benefits, or as Polemon may have done, that argues against an invariable temple/festival sway an emperor from favoring another city. The connection. Some celebrations of the Koina were not reward was often a leading provincial position once even in the name of an emperor, such as the Koina the new temple was dedicated, and/or the presi- of Asia Balbilleia at Ephesos, Smyrna, and Perga- dency over the contests, if any had been obtained. mon.23 And many koinon temples, especially early On the emperor’s side, the relationship varied ones, are linked to no known specific sacred festi- with the emperor’s character and tastes: Hadrian val. In some instances, it may be that a sacred fes- honored a famous Greek orator, Commodus a pal- tival was not granted until later, in the third century, ace insider. But from the Roman viewpoint, such when cities both neokoroi and not acquired the right exchanges fall into the time-honored relationship of to celebrate more and more sacred and imperial- patron and client. The patron could offer gifts and named festivals. assistance and protection; the client loyalty, honor, As often, we must return to Cassius Dio 51.20.6- and his talent, often eloquent speech. But in this 9 to learn of the festival associated with the koinon situation the emperor had not only one man as his cult of the first emperor at its origins in Asia and in client, but through him the entire city. Thus the man Bithynia. The requests to build provincial temples served as intermediary or broker of the emperor’s emanated not from the individual cities, but from patronage, and was recognized and honored as such the two koina. Dio then adds the fact that one city, by both the city and the emperor. Pergamon, also got permission to hold a sacred contest in honor of Augustus’ temple. He says noth- ing of the sort for Nikomedia and its temple, and Agonistic Festivals as a Bithynian, he ought to have known. Pergamon indeed celebrated a Rhomaia Sebasta festival, later Though many have assumed that every grant of perhaps subsumed among the Koina of Asia; so far neokoria was associated with a ‘sacred’ contest in as we know, Nikomedia celebrated no Rhomaia athletics and/or the performing arts, this study has Sebasta. A Koina festival of Bithynia is only mentioned found a much looser association between the two. later, in Neronian times, and there as in Asia, Koina Despite many excellent investigations, there is still were celebrated in cities that had not yet received much that is uncertain about these festivals.20 For a koinon temple (such as Prusias and Claudiopolis). Lycia’s koinon, unique in so many ways, associ- 20 In general, Roueché 1993; S. Mitchell 1990; Wörrle 1988; ated its provincial imperial cult with the established along with many other works, L. Robert 1984 and 1960a; cults of ancestral gods, and its festivals often unified Moretti 1954 and 1953. Weiss 1998 notes some interesting cor- the two. We have no knowledge of Lycia’s building respondences between neokoroi, festivals, and concord coin- one or several separate koinon temples as Asia and ages. Unfortunately there is no encyclopedic work that unites the evidence of coins and inscriptions, but for the inscriptions, Bithynia did, and no city in Lycia is known to have Malavolta 1976-1977, and for the coins (though vitiated by some dubious and outdated material), Karl 1975, are useful. The trans- literations that follow will be based on the majority or the best- 21 Herz 1990, 177-178, 189 n. 21. preserved of the surviving monuments, whether coins or in- 22 L. Robert 1960a, 364, 366. scriptions. 23 Moretti 1990, 266. 336 part ii – summary chapters called itself neokoros until the third century.24 It is of a festival specifically for its first provincial temple therefore risky to reason backward from Patara’s to Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate.27 There is none panegyris for Apollo and the emperor, or Xanthos’ for the provincial temple of Gaius at Miletos either, Rhomaia Letoa, or an isopythian festival to Rome and but this is not surprising, as it lasted only a short time Augustus, or the great isolympic Vespasianeia, or any (Miletos did celebrate Koina of Asia by 90 C.E.). of the Koina celebrated in Myra, Limyra, and Tel- There is also no sign of any festival granted to messos, to account for the eventual neokoria of Ephesos under Nero. Akalissos or the two of Patara. Of the cities known to have become neokoroi The passage of Cassius Dio cited above implies from Nero to Trajan, Perge in Pamphylia became that a sacred festival in honor of a koinon temple neokoros under Vespasian, and is known from later was a separate privilege, for the city, not the prov- documents to have celebrated a festival Artemeiseia ince, and had to be requested in addition to the Vespasianeia, joining the cult of the emperor to that petition for the temple itself. Moreover, as it was of the city’s patron; but the Kaisareia at Perge was certainly possible for a city to have contests, even also founded under the Flavians, and it is uncertain provincial ones, without a temple, so it could have which festival (if either) would have been associated been possible to have a koinon temple without a with the temple for which the city became neokoros. contest of sacred status. Ankyra, despite its cel- The case is more difficult for the Asian koinon ebrated temple for Augustus and Rome, is not temple of the Augusti at Ephesos, which was finished known to have celebrated any specific sacred festi- in Domitian’s reign. It has often been associated with val in its honor, at least at first; Koina were probably a celebration of Olympia, but this was likely a revival held there, but also at Pessinus and Tavium, cities of an earlier festival, and may not have been asso- whose possession of a koinon temple to the impe- ciated with the provincial temple at all; instead, Koina rial cult is doubtful. associated with the astrologer Balbillus were being Admittedly, to argue a lack of sacred festivals at established at around the same time that the temple Nikomedia, Ankyra or anywhere else can only be was being granted and built. In Macedonia, the chief done from silence. Evidence for a strict connection priest Python who asked Nerva to confirm Beroia between koinon temples and festivals may yet be as sole neokoros was also agonothetes of the koinon found. But until that is true, one should not assume festival, an isaktian contest; this too may date ear- an inevitable association between temples, neokoriai, lier, to the Flavian period, but cannot be confirmed and sacred or imperial-named festivals. It is espe- to honor a temple of any particular emperor. Un- cially dangerous to date a grant of neokoria because der Trajan, Neokaisareia first declared itself of a festival named for an emperor. As has been neokoros, and a koinon festival of Pontus was cel- noted, such names could be ephemeral; and just as ebrated in that period, but no name of a specific many cities celebrated sacred and imperial-named sacred festival survives.28 Agonistic coin types that festivals without ever calling themselves neokoroi, the hint at one festival per neokoria and temple appear neokoroi celebrated them for different emperors than there only in the third century. Pergamon, however, the ones for whom they had provincial temples.25 was granted the Traianeia Deiphileia, a festival of To associate coin types that show the round prize sacred and eiselastic status, in honor of its new pro- crowns awarded at contests with specific neokoriai vincial temple to Zeus Philios and Trajan; but also goes beyond the evidence: again, many cities Pergamon had been punctilious about requesting a never known as neokoroi issued such types, and the festival for its first koinon temple, and was now being association between number of crowns and number no less careful to acquire one of equal status for its of temples can be misleading.26 second. The fact that the Pergamene citizen and Smyrna may have been the first city to celebrate former proconsul Quadratus took on the expenses Koina of Asia under that title, but has left no record of the new festival only added to its attractions. Hadrian’s interests in Hellenic culture and in fostering the cities, already noted in chapter 38, 24 S. Price 1984b, 262-263; no. 79, the naos of Caesar at ‘Historical Analysis,’ led to his allowing festivals in Xanthos, was likely municipal, not provincial. 25 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:217-225; Wallner 1997, 35-36. 26 Ziegler 1985, Wallner 1997, and Leschhorn 1998 are 27 Moretti 1954, 282. unwary on this point. 28 Moretti 1953, 191, 194. chapter 40 – the cities 337 his name to more cities than any previous emperor.29 The emperor’s name was often attached to a festi- These cities included some that are known to be val of another god or emperor, such as the Kommodeia neokoroi for temples to him: Kyzikos, Smyrna (for Dionysia Herakleia at Thebes; the Artemisia Kommodeia which Polemon and his descendents were agono- and the Hadrianeia Kommodeia at Ephesos; perhaps the thetai), and Ephesos. Some cities that celebrated Kommodeia Hadrianeia Olympia at Smyrna, Olympia Hadrianeia may or may not have also been neokoroi Asklepeia Kommodeia at Pergamon, the Didymaia Kom- for him, such as Tarsos, Sardis, and Herakleia, and modeia at Miletos, the Herakleia Kommodeia at Tyre, some were probably not neokoroi for his cult, like and the festival at Laodikeia (below). Anazarbos, Ankyra, and Synnada. Also, no Hadria- Among the neokoroi, Nikomedia received a neia is yet documented at Nikaia or Nikopolis, two temple, a festival, and a second neokoria for Com- cities that may have been neokoroi for him. But modus, but lost all in the fall of the chamberlain many of the cities that celebrated Hadrianeia were Saoteros. Instead, Nikomedia’s rival Nikaia got the never known to be neokoroi at all, including Ath- festival, though not, so far as is known, an additional ens, Hadrianeia, Magnesia on Sipylos, Thyateira, temple or neokoria. Tarsos certainly became twice Gaza, Antioch, and Alexandria. neokoros for a koinon temple to Commodus, and Of the cities that were surely neokoroi for temples also received a worldwide isolympic Kommodeios fes- to Hadrian, all three had Hadrianeia or Hadrianeia tival. Laodikeia had already been the site of Koina Olympia. Kyzikos’ Hadrianeia Olympia may once be in the first century, well before it became neokoros. qualified as a koinon festival. At both Smyrna and Then, as well as receiving the neokoria for Com- Ephesos there had already been Olympia previous to modus, the city added his name to its festival of Zeus, Hadrian; it is possible that Olympia means either that now the Deia Kommodeia, of sacred and eiselastic sta- the Hadrianeia festivals were of isolympic status; that tus. The name was wiped out with Commodus’ the epithet Olympios, often applied to Hadrian af- death, but it returned when his memory was again ter 128, became associated with the festival in his honored by Septimius Severus; an Antoneina was also honor; or that he allowed his name to be associated celebrated, and Laodikeia became neokoros for tem- with a preexisting Olympia festival. It cannot be taken ples to Commodus and Caracalla. to imply that Hadrian was identified as or shared Septimius Severus seems to have granted festivals the temple with Zeus Olympios; the temples at Kyzi- along with temples to several neokoroi, though to kos and at Smyrna were founded before Hadrian’s other cities as well, especially those on the scene of identification with that god, and at Kyzikos and his wars. Nikomedia again became twice neokoros, Ephesos they are only ever called temples of and now celebrated a great (Augousteia) Severeia con- Hadrian. test. At this point the city began to issue coin types Few festivals, but also few neokoriai, were granted on which the number of prize crowns matches the under Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Sardis number of neokoriai. It is possible that an additional became twice neokoros, surely for the cult of Anto- sacred festival had been assigned to the old temple ninus Pius and his family introduced into its temple of Rome and Augustus, but no specific name offers of Artemis. Later Sardian coins show two temples, proof. As for Nikomedia’s rival, though at first each with a wreath over it, perhaps symbolizing two Severus stripped Nikaia of all honors, the city later festivals; but neither is specifically named for the celebrated the great Severeia Philadelphia in honor of Antonines. Amaseia first declared itself neokoros by him and his sons, especially Caracalla, who may 161/162 C.E., but ceased its coinage in the early have pled the city’s case. Apparently the city did not third century, just when agonistic types were increas- regain its lost titles, however, which included ‘neo- ingly popular, and no festival for its neokoria is koros.’ known. Severus may have even granted both neokoria Commodus gave his name to many festivals in and a festival for his cult, and then another neokoria cities such as Caesarea in Mauretania, Athens, and festival for his sons, to two cities, Perinthos and Sparta, Nikaia, Kyzikos, Kaisareia in Cappadocia, Anazarbos. Perinthos first called itself neokoros and Antioch; none of these were neokoroi for him.30 shortly after the Severeia Prota (and/or Perintheia) began to be advertised on coins. This festival may also have 29 Boatwright 2000, 99-104. been named Aktia, and around a decade later it was 30 Miranda 1992-1993. joined by a new contest, the Philadelpheia, also called 338 part ii – summary chapters

Pythia. Coin types show two temples, each with a second century, but didn’t become neokoros until prize crown, and probably Perinthos was twice 214; it did not seem to celebrate Antoneina either, but neokoros, though it only calls itself neokoros. this may be because Caracalla was assimilated to Anazarbos probably also received a temple and Helios there, so the Haleia festival for the god may celebrated a festival for Septimius Severus, or at least have celebrated the emperor as well. No imperial- shared the Severeia Olympia Epinikia at Quadrigae with named festivals are known for two third neokoriai, Tarsos and the rest of the koinon of Cilicia. The city Pergamon’s for Caracalla (in Asklepios’ temple) and then got a second neokoria for Caracalla and Geta; Smyrna’s for Caracalla (in the temple of the god- some evidence has been detected for a Philadelphia dess Rome); on the other hand, both cities’ coin contest as well. types of three temples show each with an (agonis- In other cases, Kaisareia took the title ‘neokoros’ tic?) wreath above, possibly for Pergamon’s long- on coins from 204-206 C.E., at the same time as it standing Asklepieia and Smyrna’s Rhomaia. Ephesos celebrated a sacred contest Severeios Philadelphios, koinos also got a third neokoria, but for Artemis, and if of Cappadocia. Tarsos celebrated Severeia, but there Caracalla’s name was associated with her Ephesia or is no sign that Severus took over its provincial temple Artemisia, record of it has not come down to us. for Commodus. Sardis too had Severeia, though Kyzikos likely received a second neokoria for Severus granted it no new neokoria. Miletos first Caracalla, but a report of a coin proclaiming Anto- called itself neokoros at this period; there is no evi- neina could not be confirmed.32 Antandros, though dence for its celebrating Severeia or any other sacred perhaps neokoros for Caracalla, is not yet known to festival, though it had allied Commodus’ name with have celebrated any sacred festivals at all. Ankyra the longstanding Didymaia for Apollo (above). boasted ‘great Asklepeia Sotereia Antoneineia,’ an Caracalla’s Parthian war and his travels in the isopythian festival, during Caracalla’s reign; but the East, his grant or restoration of up to eight neokoriai emperor’s name disappeared as early as the festival’s in Asia and possibly one in Galatia, all could have second celebration, while the city’s claim to be twice resulted in Antonineia (as it is usually spelled); the only neokoros first appeared on coins issued decades problem is that the same name was applied to fes- afterwards; the two are not directly associated. tivals for Elagabalus, so if the reference occurs in the Antonineia proclaimed under Elagabalus may have latter’s reign, it is difficult to tell which emperor is honored him or his putative father Caracalla, but being honored.31 the only festival associated with Elagabalus’ grants If we confine consideration to the neokoroi, of neokoria is that at Nikomedia. That city cele- Laodikeia celebrated Antoneina, and that was likely brated Demetria Antonia or Antonia Demetria, as Ela- associated with a neokoria shared between Com- gabalus was sharing the temple of Demeter, and also modus and Caracalla; Komodia, Asklepeia, and Pythia issued a coin type showing three prize crowns, per- are mentioned as well, though under Caracalla haps alluding to a festival for each neokoria; but the known types only go up to three prize crowns. Under doubts on this have been expressed above. Ela- Elagabalus coin types show four prize crowns, and gabalus’ cult was also moved into a patron god’s declare that Laodikeia’s temples and festivals were temple at Philippopolis, where he shared with Apollo confirmed as worldwide by the Senate’s decree. But Kendrisos; but the coins of that time only mention the Laodikeia never became more than once neokoros, Kendreseia and Pythia, contest(s) that had existed pre- so far as we know. Tarsos celebrated a contest called viously and that outlasted the condemnation of Severeios Antoneinianos, but was neokoros for neither Elagabalus’ memory, as the neokoriai did not. Severus (above) nor his son. Tralles, which had al- Of the cities made neokoroi for independent cults ready celebrated Koina of Asia by the early second of Elagabalus, none is known to have celebrated century, was probably made neokoros of the Augusti Antonineia; those that name their contests on coins by Caracalla: among the names for the three ago- do so under such shortened and generic terms that nistic wreaths on its coin for Elagabalus are Olym- no association with an imperial sacred festival can pia, Augousteia, and Pythia, and if any is a festival for be asserted. Ephesos, for example, became four times the neokoria, it is most likely the Augousteia. Phila- neokoros early in Elagabalus’ reign, and a coin is- delphia had been the scene of Koina since the mid- sue shows a table with three prize crowns (Ephesia,

31 L. Robert 1970, 20-27. 32 Karl 1975, 16. chapter 40 – the cities 339

Hadrianeia, and perhaps Pythia) and one wreath (Olym- vexed case of Kyzikos, the city may have been cel- pia). But only the first and second can be associated ebrating the (short-lived) return of its second with specific temples for which the city was neokoros, neokoria under Severus Alexander with coin types that of Artemis and that of Hadrian. The Ephesian showing two (unnamed) prize crowns; the radiate Olympia predated the neokoria, and Pythia might emperor’s portrait hovers over one crown, a portrait represent any contest modeled on that at Delphi. of Julia Mamaea over the other. But if each crown The ‘evident’ correspondence between crowns and means a festival, the type seems to say that both were neokoriai is only on the surface. The same applies for the current emperor and his mother, neither for to Sardis, three times neokoros under Elagabalus, the first temple to make Kyzikos neokoros, that of whose contemporary coins parade agonistic themes, Hadrian. often featuring four prize crowns. Only three of the Gordian III founded one of the few Greek-style crowns can represent temples that made the city contests established in Rome, in honor of Minerva/ neokoros, and none can be tied to any specific Athena Promachos, so it has seemed natural to schol- emperor; but some may represent festivals for which ars that similar contests should be associated with Sardis had no provincial temple, such as the Elaga- neokoriai he granted.34 The case is unfortunately not balia (for the sun god of Emesa, not the emperor so clear. Beroia, having regained the second neo- Antoninus) or the Severeia Koina Asias.33 Both Beroia koria it lost after Elagabalus, issued coin types for and Miletos were twice neokoros, and issued coins the koinon with either two temples and one prize showing two prize crowns; but the former never crown or one temple and two prize crowns; there identifies the crowns, while the latter only calls them is no exact correspondence between temples and Olympia and Pythia, the last probably Pythia Panionia festivals. Some Macedonian koinon coins of Gordian and likely not for an imperial temple. Tripolis in III mention Alexandreia, an isolympic festival honor- Phoenicia is called neokoros on only one coin, re- ing Alexander the Great; the Koina festival of Mace- portedly of Elagabalus, and is not known to have donia, established by the late first century and celebrated a sacred festival for any emperor. possibly (though not certainly) honoring the temple Perhaps the most interesting agonistic coin types for which Beroia was first neokoros, had been issued by neokoroi are those of Hierapolis. Though isaktian, not isolympic. But much as one would like the city was likely neokoros solely for Elagabalus, its to interpret the Alexandreia as a festival for Beroia’s coins show three temples and two wreaths, repre- second neokoria, it had in fact been celebrated well senting the contests as Aktia and Pythia; the central before, at least since Severus Alexander. Thessalo- temple with the figure of the emperor has no wreath, nike under Gordian III became neokoros and cel- however. This implies that though Hierapolis had ebrated Pythia, possibly for a temple to that emperor; two temples associated with sacred games, the one the names Kabeiria, Epinikia, or K(ai)sareia are occa- that made the city neokoros was not one of them. sionally associated, and the last two at least have Severus Alexander allowed three neokoriai for his direct associations with the imperial cult. Nikopolis own cult, but no specific festival is associated with in Armenia Minor, on the other hand, was twice that honor at any of the cities involved. Kaisareia neokoros under Gordian III, but no sacred festivals in Cappadocia issued a coin type with Alexan(drea) are yet known there. in its legend, but this is likely only an honorific title Considering neokoriai granted in the reign of for the city itself. Neokaisareia, twice neokoros, is- Philip, no document is known for a festival corre- sued types showing two temples and up to two prize sponding either to the neokoria of Herakleia nor for crowns associated with them; but the only festivals that of Neapolis in Syria Palaestina. Thessalonike named are Aktia and Koina. Aigeai probably became under Trajan Decius celebrated its title of four times neokoros for the cult of Severus Alexander intro- neokoros with coin types of either four temples or duced into the city’s temple of Asklepios, but Aigeai’s of four prize crowns. The types’ consistency indicates sacred and worldwide festival in Asklepios’ honor a direct association between temples, titles, and appears to have been first granted almost twenty- contests there (see below). Anazarbos was probably five years later, by the emperor Valerian. And in the awarded a sacred festival in honor of its neokoria

33 Année Epigraphique 1993 no. 1527; Sardis had celebrated Koina since Neronian times. 34 Wallner 1997, 78-83. 340 part ii – summary chapters for Trajan Decius, the Dekios oikoumenikos; but other koros, celebrated two contests: the Pythia, already types dated 249-251 C.E. show five prize crowns in founded under Gordian III, and the Mystikos, which total, and thus go beyond the mere three neokoriai. appears at this point but may be earlier. Coins of Though Anazarbos remained three times neokoros, its rival Perge, now first proclaiming the neokoria the total of prize crowns on its coins would go up the city had held since Vespasian, do not refer to a to six from the time of Trebonianus Gallus. festival for that emperor but illustrate two prize In the joint reign of Valerian and his son Gal- crowns for Asylia Pythia and Olympia Augousteia, both lienus, many neokoriai were either granted or re- apparently recently established. Aspendos’ only stored. The clearest case in which a city’s festivals known imperial festival, its great pentaeteric Kaisareoi, (if we take them as symbolized by the highest num- antedates its neokoria under Gallienus, when the city ber of prize crowns shown on coin reverses) go up boasted no sacred contests. Ankyra first calls itself and down to equal its number of neokoriai is twice neokoros under Valerian, but its agonistic types Thessalonike. The city lost two of its four neokoriai show either one or three prize crowns, and mention and two of its four crowns after Trajan Decius’ Aktia, Pythia, and Mystikos festivals. The latter was death: under Valerian, it was twice neokoros, with granted by the time of Hadrian, the Pythia is likely coin types of up to two prize crowns (named as the Asklepeia Sotereia (by now no longer Antoneineia), Pythia, for the cult of Gordian III, and Aktia, the and though it is tempting to ascribe the Augousteia object of which is nowhere named). Later, in Aktia to Ankyra’s provincial temple of Augustus and Gallienus’ sole rule, the city went up to three times Rome, most citations of Augousteia in fact date to the neokoros and its coins show up to three crowns, time of Valerian and Gallienus. though none of the temples is illustrated. Niko- Tarsos may seem to have one festival per neo- media’s case is probably similar, though it went koria: it became three times neokoros in Valerian’s through fewer changes: under Valerian it went back and Gallienus’ joint reign, and its coins show up to to being three times neokoros and put up to three three prize crowns. But the contests specified are the crowns on its coins. The third temple was again that Severeia Olympia, Hadrianeia Ekecheiria, and Augustia of the city’s patron Demeter, but none of the con- Aktia, and though all contain emperors’ names, they tests is explicitly named. do not necessarily coincide with the neokoriai of On the other hand, several cities at this time Tarsos. It is possible, though not certain, that Tarsos showed a difference between the numbers of first became neokoros for Hadrian, and three times neokoriai and festivals that they boasted. Coin types neokoros for Valerian and perhaps Gallienus; of Sardis, for example, illustrate three prize crowns Hadrianeia and Augustia would apply well to these when the city calls itself twice neokoros, and still neokoriai. But the second neokoria was assuredly for three crowns when it goes up to three times neo- Commodus, whose contest continued under Sep- koros. In fact, the cities of Asia, though granted timius Severus and afterward, but is not among the additional neokoriai at this time, apparently were not three festivals celebrated on these coins. showered with more sacred contests, as cities on the The end of city coinage, mainly after the reign northern and southeastern campaign fronts often of Gallienus, though in Pamphylia somewhat later, were. Ephesos again became four times neokoros, means the end of our major source of information. but boasted no new festivals and issued few agonis- Of cities that were documented as neokoroi in these tic coin types. The same is true of Kyzikos (again later years much is uncertain, but the lack of equiva- twice neokoros) and Hierapolis (neokoros again). Of lency between neokoriai and festivals continues. course, many of these cities (especially Nikomedia, Perge was made four times neokoros under Aurelian, Nikaia, and Ephesos) were troubled by Gothic raids and Side three times neokoros, but neither city is that stole their wealth, disrupted transportation and known to have boasted additional festivals at the trade, and destroyed their monuments, while the time, nor did their few coins emphasize agonistic emperors’ attention and troops were elsewhere. types. Afterward, Tacitus made Perge metropolis of The cities of Anatolia’s south coast, entryway for Pamphylia and gave it a new festival, though no imperial armies on their way to the Persian conflict, neokoria. Side (and perhaps Perge as well) became issued many coins referring to festivals; but even so, six times neokoros after 275, though again there is those festivals do not exactly correspond with their no sign of new festivals. Synnada, twice neokoros on neokoriai. Side, though newly (and only once) neo- an inscription dated after 293 C.E., issued coin types chapter 40 – the cities 341 with a single prize crown under Gordian III; little Armenia Minor; it started out being true of Tarsos else is known of it. The evidence of Sagalassos as for Cilicia and Beroia for Macedonia as well. But twice neokoros is also from the Tetrarchic period; in the latter two koina, rivals soon arose. And as in Flavian times its chief priest of the Augusti had chapter 41 will show, when cities quarreled most been an agonothetes, but likely for a municipal fes- over the things they called ‘common,’ like the tival, and Sagalassos’ other known contests were temples of their koinon, those things were no longer privately founded ones. From the Tetrarchy onward, considered to be shared, but the property of one city civic inscriptions also become infrequent, so our or the other. Thus city rivalry, as well as adminis- sources of information on neokoria dry up. trative structure, led to the increasing ‘municipal- As the above evidence indicates, it should no ization’ of the title ‘neokoros.’ longer be simply assumed that a provincial temple Therefore ‘neokoros’ cannot be called entirely a and the title ‘neokoros’ went hand-in-hand with a ‘provincial’ or a ‘municipal’ title.35 It was granted sacred contest in the temple’s honor. Too often a for temples administered by the koinon and presided particular festival cannot be allied to a particular over by its officials. When those temples began to grant of neokoria, and vice versa. From the begin- proliferate, the koinon officials often were said to ning, it is likely that a sacred festival had to be re- preside over several of them—but only within one quested in addition to a provincial temple, not as particular city. In Asia, we hear of a chief priest of an unvarying accompaniment to it. In later centu- the temples in Pergamon, never of the temple in ries, the popularity of sacred and worldwide contests Sardis and the temple in Smyrna. meant that more were asked for and granted, either As has been noted in chapter 38, ‘Historical to supplement the honor of a long-standing temple Analysis,’ Hadrian’s generosity toward individual and neokoria or as an accompaniment to new cities not only spread the honor of neokoria among temples; but new contests could eclipse older ones, more cities, but subtly refocused its import, away names could be added to or taken from a contest from negotiations between himself and the koinon, to the point of incomprehensibility, or festivals could and toward a more direct dialogue between himself lapse through loss of income or mismanagement of and the city he favored. Then Septimius Severus funds. The interrelationship among cities (whether used the honor to punish and reward rivals in the neokoroi or not), temples, and festivals was compli- same koina, hardly a technique to promote coop- cated, varied according to individual circumstances, eration within the koinon. Caracalla granted it to and still requires much research before it can be fully many cities (some not very eminent) in Asia, often understood. for personal reasons and direct contact, despite the fact that he still directed his decisions to the koinon. We have no record of the smaller cities’ having chief Neokoria: City versus Koinon priests, chief priestesses, or any other koinon offi- cial in charge of the temples that made them neo- As was stated at the beginning of this chapter, it was koroi. the city that became neokoros, not the koinon; even Again in Asia, the title ‘neokoros’ was occasion- when coins call the koinon of Macedonia neokoros, ally granted (or diverted) to a city’s patron god, as this apparently reflected the position of its headquar- Caracalla did for Ephesos’ temple of Artemis. And ters, Beroia, where the coins were minted, and which in all provinces, starting from the third century, the had long fought for its sole right to the title. This cult of the emperors was apparently moved into usage reflects a basic tenet of both Hellenic (or extant temples more often, perhaps because of the Hellenized) social structure and Roman administra- expense of building new ones. Sometimes cities got tion of that structure: the organizing unit was gen- three new neokoriai at a time, as did Thessalonike; erally the city, not the koinon, despite the fact that likely such honors not only bypassed the koinon, but ‘neokoros’ was originally a title gained by the pos- threw its membership off balance. All these factors sessor of a koinon temple. tended to detach the honor from the koinon and Where one city dominated the activities of the move it closer to the city. koinon, there was of course no conflict between their interests. This was probably true of Kaisareia for 35 Municipal: Deininger 1965, 143 n. 5, with bibliography. Cappadocia, Ankyra for Galatia, and Nikopolis for Provincial: L. Robert 1967, 44-64, with bibliography. 342 part ii – summary chapters

On the other hand, the koinon continued to between city and emperor, precedent probably in- administer its temples of the imperial cult in the neo- sured that, officially at least, neokoria would result koroi cities. It represented its members on embas- from an initial petition by the koinon, acceptance sies, and corresponded with the emperor and Senate by the emperor, and approval by the Senate. The about their rights. And no matter the direct contact next chapter will examine this role of the koinon. chapter 41 – the koina and their officials 343

Chapter 41. The Koina and Their Officials

If there is a thread that runs through the history of and easing the way toward further and higher hon- neokoria and draws it together, it is the relationship ors. And at the center of the web was primacy, the among cities within their koinon. They celebrated begrudged and competed-for place of first among the rituals of the imperial cult together, but quar- the cities of one’s koinon. reled over who was to go first in koinon processions. Modern scholars have often interpreted ancient They complained to the emperor if other cities did cities’ aspirations in modern terms. Thus the prof- not give them the full titulature they deserved, and its of a city’s being a judicial district center, for struck coins celebrating their concord. Their enmi- example, are often seen as basically economic, as if ty could reach such a pitch that they could support the Hellenized elite of a city in Asia had the same a contender for the throne solely because their closest motivations as an American city council calling for rival was supporting his foe. It is as if all the ener- a new convention center.2 They generally cite Dio gy, all the talent, and all the resources that in a truly Chrysostomos, whose Oration 35 points out the eco- autonomous city would have been directed toward nomic advantages of attracting a motley throng of administration and foreign affairs were instead di- litigants, but they sometimes overlook the satirical verted to fighting over precedence and titles. Ora- tone of this speech.3 When addressing his own fel- tors deprecated it, Roman officials derided it. But low citizens of Prusa, the same orator stressed not we should not be misled into thinking that it was a the economic side, but the indignity if one had to squabble over nothing. go for trial elsewhere: it was as if one’s own city had The urban structure of the Roman East was high- the status of a mere village.4 Being a judicial district ly hierarchic, and this type of stratification, as we center was desirable because it came closest to the shall see, was encouraged by Rome. Rivalrous cit- ancient ideal of autonomy: to go to no other city to ies can be seen as ‘niche competitors,’ struggling for seek justice, in fact to have citizens of other cities desirable positions in the local hierarchy.1 In prov- come to you. It was a matter of honor, not just cash.5 inces where there were many cities, like Asia, com- In the same way, some of the rivalry for neokoriai petition for rank and position was fierce, whereas must have been based on the fact that, if a city was less urbanized provinces, like Cappadocia, had one neokoros, not only it but all the members of the primary center that served many functions (e.g. seat koinon were probably (or, by the later third century, of the governor, center of the koinon, mint, focus theoretically) celebrating at and contributing toward of trade and markets) without challenge from rivals. its temple. Smaller and less fortunate cities not only One can visualize this particular form of hierarchy had to go somewhere else, but had to send their as a web, with cities seeking to make their way from money somewhere else too. their side of the periphery to the center of attention, This chapter examines the structure of the koina, using any means available. Where one city’s ancient how they and their officials related to the imperial temples and gymnasia were ranged against another’s cult as practiced in neokoroi cities, and what role harbor and strategic position, the former could gain neokoria played in intra-koinon and intercity rela- a sacred contest, the latter a squadron and the title tions, especially in the competition for position on nauarchis; and the two could be eclipsed by another the hierarchic web. that had both historic and strategic importance. The acquisition of titles of various sorts was a way of 2 Burton 1975; more recently, Rogers 1991, 3-4. making a city’s position in the web more evident, 3 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 35.15-17. 4 Ibid., Oration 40.10, 33. 5 Rigsby 1996, 23-24; Lendon 1997, 136-142, 151-154, 168- 1 Woolf 1997, 9-12. 172. 344 part ii – summary chapters

Koinon Structure among the latter perhaps as late as the third cen- tury. As mentioned in the ‘Introduction: Methodology,’ Certain cities in the provinces had the status of a koinon (‘commonality’) was an association of cit- ‘free,’ which they were granted by Rome, and held ies of similar ethnic background within a region.6 by Rome’s favor. ‘Freedom’ meant that they were Its borders did not necessarily conform to those of not covered by the formula provinciae, were outside the a Roman province, though they seldom crossed direct control of the Roman governor, and that their them; there could be several koina within one prov- citizens could not be forced to undertake the litur- ince. The koinon had no administrative or govern- gies of the koinon.8 Neither these cities nor their mental capabilities; those were still vested in the citizens were kept from membership and participa- cities, the true administrative sub-units within each tion in the koinon, however; they did so at their own province. A koinon was simply a cooperative orga- pleasure, much as a free city could ask a governor nization of cities, bound together by common inter- to look into its affairs if necessary. Under Domitian, ests and the practice of a particular cult; at the time cities of the Asian koinon set up dedications in honor of our investigation, the cult was generally that of of their koinon temple of the Augusti at Ephesos. the Roman emperor. Ten of them used the same wording, perhaps based Not all such organizations had specific titles for on a previous decree of the koinon. Two free cities, the cities that held their sanctuaries to that cult. At Aphrodisias and Stratonikeia, made longer and more least to our knowledge, the neokoroi only appear in elaborate dedications that emphasized that they were the koina of the East, not in their counterparts, the not bound by any decision of the koinon, but were concilia of the West. Even in the East, no neokoroi participating voluntarily. Incidentally, nothing pro- have yet appeared in Crete, Cyprus, Lycaonia, or hibited the city of Philadelphia, neither free nor Syria, though all had koina. None are known in particularly eminent at the time, from aggrandizing mainland Greece or in Egypt, places that lacked itself in its own particular dedication, rather than stable koina in imperial times.7 On the other hand, keeping to the koinon formula. In Cilicia, Tarsos was both Sagalassos in Pisidia and Neapolis in Syria free but was also metropolis of its koinon, as well Palaestina were made neokoroi, admittedly late, as neokoros from at least the time of Hadrian. Thes- without known membership in any koinon. salonike, also free, had citizens who served as Mace- Even the koina known to have had neokoroi dif- doniarchs, and became neokoros under Gordian III. fer from one another, both in structure and in how Koina that had one obvious center and few other they maintained their sanctuaries. Though the major cities (Cappadocia with Kaisareia, Galatia Hellenes of Asia and Bithynia apparently acted to- with Ankyra, Armenia with Nikopolis) generally only gether in requesting their first temples to the ruler proclaimed that city neokoros late, though they soon to be named Augustus, the Asians may have probably long had koinon sanctuaries and perhaps attempted to build a koinon temple to each subse- even the neokoria; cities with few rivals had little quent emperor, whereas the Bithynians may have need to boast of their titles explicitly, so there are kept to the single one at Nikomedia for about a fewer documents to come down to us. In more ur- century. The Galatians, who were not Hellenes, also banized regions, the centers of pre-Roman admin- may have built a provincial temple to Augustus and istration were sometimes first to receive koinon Rome as early as his lifetime, and very much in the temples, for which they were later made neokoroi, Ionic style perfected in Asia; on the other hand, their as Nikomedia was in Bithynia and Pergamon in Asia. center at Ankyra only calls itself neokoros over a In the latter case, as in some other provinces, century after Asian cities regularly used the title. The there was rivalry between the seat of the koinon and cities of Pamphylia had rather hostile relations with the center of Roman administration. Though Perga- one another, while those of Lycia acted in concert mon had the first koinon temple, Ephesos was where to an unusual degree; but the former had a neokoros Asia’s governor generally had his headquarters, and city as early as Vespasian, while we hear of neokoroi as will be seen, the cities were frequently at odds with one another. Macedonia’s metropolis of the koinon

6 The basic work is still Deininger 1965; now also Marek 1993b and Haensch 1997. 8 Ibid., 195; Bernhardt 1971; Reynolds 1982, nos. 14, 16; 7 Deininger 1965, 35, 88-91. Herrmann 1993b, 246. chapter 41 – the koina and their officials 345 was Beroia, and it not only became neokoros first, It is possible that the close structure of the unique it claimed exclusivity for the title from the time of koinon of Lycia made the individual cities less ri- Nerva on, probably warding off challenge from the valrous, which is perhaps why so few cities (only center of Roman government, Thessalonike. The Patara and Akalissos known so far) boasted of be- latter only became neokoros under Gordian III, and ing neokoroi. Patara held the koinon sanctuary of probably at the cost of a second neokoria for Beroia, Apollo Patroos; but it is likely that Xanthos, which preserving that city’s notional primacy. had the ethnikon Kaisareion in its sanctuary of Leto, In Thrace, however, the situation was the oppo- was neokoros as well, though the title is not yet site: Philippopolis, metropolis of the koinon, didn’t documented there. become neokoros until 219 C.E., and likely wouldn’t Though administered within the same Roman have even then if Elagabalus had not favored the province, Pamphylia’s cities were far less inclined to city on his route to Rome. In that case Perinthos, cooperation than those of Lycia. Indeed, their or- the seat of the Roman governor, would have re- ganization didn’t even call itself a koinon, only the mained the unchallenged neokoros in Thrace; in- ‘cities of Pamphylia.’ Though Perge became deed, Perinthos probably only boasted that it was neokoros quite early, under Vespasian, that city was in fact twice neokoros because Philippopolis was only officially made metropolis by Tacitus, about two made (once) neokoros. centuries later. Perge, however, did not begin to The reason for this distinction was not that flaunt its neokoria on its coins until its rival, Side, Thrace was an imperially administered province also became neokoros. In this it was like Perinthos, while Asia, Bithynia, and Macedonia were procon- which did not specify that it was twice neokoros until sular. Perge, arguably the governmental center of Philippopolis became neokoros. Cities often took Pamphylia, was neokoros from Vespasian’s time, well most care to declare their full titulature when a before any of its rivals, and Tarsos, headquarters of challenger to their titles appeared; but if the city had the governor of Cilicia, also dominated its koinon no close rival, it might proclaim its full titles only and was its first neokoros; both were in imperial rarely. For example, Cappadocia’s metropolis provinces. The situation in fact varies from koinon Kaisareia added ‘neokoros’ to its coins only under to koinon. The position and title of neokoros was Septimius Severus, though it may have long had a not automatically accorded to headquarters either koinon temple, and even the title; and when granted of governors or of koina, but had to be requested, a second neokoria under Severus Alexander, it still and was sometimes only accorded to a city due to used the exact title and enumeration only intermit- some special association with an emperor. tently from that point. The koina of Pontus are extraordinary, since there Asia is the koinon we know the most about, and were apparently several, separated by the borders also the one with the most neokoriai. As such, we of the provinces into which Mithridates Eupator’s must not let the preponderance of its data over- kingdom was divided. Likely Neokaisareia was shadow the situation in other koina that offer less metropolis of Pontus Polemoniacus and Amaseia that evidence. These organizations had different histo- of Pontus Galaticus, each in a separate province until ries, different relationships with the Romans, differ- the time of Vespasian; each city thereafter retained ent hierarchies among their members. Even so, koina its status of metropolis and first of Pontus, and for could act in concert (as Asia and Bithynia may have each the frequent proclamation of neokoria began in offering temples to Augustus) or copy another on issues of coins from the same year, 161/162 C.E. koinon’s action (as Hispania Ulterior did in offer- Amastris also claimed to be metropolis of Pontus and ing a temple to Tiberius and his mother, “with the likely seat of a koinon, but this one was in yet an- precedent of Asia”).9 One factor that may have led other province, Bithynia-Pontus, where the same cities and their koina to seek neokoriai was the glit- person served as Bithyniarch and Pontarch; Amastris tering example of Asia, with so many famous cities, has not yet been documented as neokoros, and each endowed with temples and titles. Herakleia is as yet the only neokoros known in that Pontic koinon. Yet another koinon of Pontus, known as left-hand, with its center at Tomis, is not yet known to have had any neokoros. 9 Tacitus, Annals 4.37. 346 part ii – summary chapters

Officials of the Koinon and of its Temples tributions), but for such things as gladiatorial games and feasts, special building projects or even the pay- The koina were generally headed by chief priests, ment of taxes for the entire province. For this out- who presided over the provincial imperial temples lay, and especially when presiding over the contests and their ceremonies.10 In their official functions, (s)he gave, the chief priest or chief priestess was often they may have come to be called ‘leader of the (in- allowed the right to dress in purple, to wear a crown dividual koinon),’ so Asiarch, Lyciarch, Pamphy- set with busts of the Augusti, and to walk at the head liarch, Pontarch, etc. In some cases, a woman also of the ritual procession of the koinon.15 served the koinon as chief priestess; often she was Bithynia had Bithyniarchs, and female relations the wife or relative of a chief priest or of a koinon of the Bithyniarch often appear as chief priestesses leader. It has been suggested that her chief respon- of Bithynia. Bithynia also had archons of the koinon sibility was the cult of the Augustae; in Asia at least, of the Hellenes in Bithynia, which may have been Tiberius’ mother shared his cult in the provincial the same office as that of Bithyniarch.16 That one temple in Smyrna from 26 C.E.11 But it should be person could be both Bithyniarch and Pontarch has noted that where chief priestesses and priests are already been mentioned. Other known offices were portrayed as agonothetai and wear imperial portrait sebastophantes and hierophantes of the mysteries of busts on their crowns, both male and female busts the koinon temple of Bithynia; both would have been appear on crowns of both priests and priestesses, as in charge of revealing rituals to worshippers, though on the crown of Plancia Magna of Perge, chief priest- the former likely specialized in Augustus’ cult, as was ess of the Augusti.12 true in Galatia (below). There was possibly a Hel- In most provinces there was only one chief priest ladarch, and a theologos is discussed below. per year, though Asia apparently had more than one Pamphylia’s association of cities was led by Pam- chief priest serving simultaneously once its second phyliarchs; at Perge, a ‘chief priest of the Augusti koinon temple was built in Smyrna, after 26 C.E.13 and agonothetes of the great pentaeteric Kaisareia From that point on, chief priests (and later, Asiarchs) games and agonothetes of the Artemeiseia Vespasianeia were distinguished by the name of the city whose games’ is also known. temples they presided over: chief priest of the koinon In Macedonia, the chief priest of the Augusti was temple(s) at Pergamon, at Smyrna, at Ephesos, at also often named as agonothetes of the koinon fes- Sardis, or at Kyzikos. tival, and later as Macedoniarch. Some third-cen- Chief priesthood of a koinon was considered the tury Macedoniarchs were also hierophantai, but summit of a provincial career.14 Chief priests were there is no necessity that this provincial office (likely generally not just Roman citizens but knights or similar to that of Bithynia or Galatia) be the same sometimes even of senatorial family, and frequently as that of the hierophantes of Kabeiros, patron god they were friends of prominent Romans in power. of Thessalonike.17 Sometimes the wife of a chief The office was very costly, and could involve mas- priest and/or Macedoniarch is called chief priest- sive outlay not only to add special magnificence to ess of (the current) Augusta, though one is Macedo- koinon festivals (for which the cities also made con- niarchissa. It is noteworthy that between ca. 20 and 96 C.E. the former ‘priests of the Galatians for the god 10 The picture here presented is generally (though not in some particulars) that of Rossner 1974 and Deininger 1965, Augustus and the goddess Rome’ became simply 148-154; for Asia, 38-41; Bithynia, 60-64. The controversy over ‘chief priests of Augustus.’ Later, some officials were chief priests and priestesses of Asia and Asiarchs is still being chief priests, some were Galatarchs, and some were fought, but does not have a vital bearing on this work. See Kearsley’s articles: 1986, 1987a and b, 1988a and b, 1990, 1994, both. There were also chief priestesses, and sebasto- and 1996; also Friesen 1999a and 1999b, with a website pre- phantai limited to the cult of Augustus, as it was senting statistics, but flawed arguments; see below, n. 13. For specifically distinguished from the position of ‘hiero- rebuttals, Wörrle 1992, 368-370; Herz 1992; Campanile 1994a; phantes of the theoi sebastoi’ for the other Augusti. and Engelmann 2000. 11 Herz 1992. 12 Rumscheid 2000, 31-32 cat. no. 32. 13 The main argument of Friesen 1999a, 283-284, and 15 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38.38; Merkelbach 1978, tem- 1999b, 304, is flawed by his failure to recognize that there could pered by Haensch 1997, 284 n. 125. be more than one chief priest (=Asiarch?) per year. 16 Campanile 1993. 14 Quass 1993, 150-151, 216-218, 307-308. 17 Pace Nigdelis 1996, 137-141. chapter 41 – the koina and their officials 347

A statue identified as a Ciliciarch dates to the mid- came in third or fourth in the balloting, i.e., was third century, and probably portrays an official who elected. This implies that, had he not wheedled an served at temples in Tarsos; Tarsos’ titles are even exemption from the governor of the province, he included on his agonothetic crown.18 Tarsos was not would have become chief priest of the third or fourth only metropolis of its own koinon (Cilicia) but of city out of the five possible in Asia (see below). three eparchies (also Lycaonia and Isauria), and the Aristides’ account does not tell us whether the Ciliciarchs at first only presided at Tarsos, though chief priests were considered to be of equal or un- later they may have served at Anazarbos as well.19 equal rank: though the first one elected could have Most is known of the koinon of Asia, but it again been allotted the most honorable place, it is also proves to be a unique and complex case. In Au- possible that the electees drew lots for assignments. gustan times its chief priest bore the title of the sole Fayer believed that the provincial chief priest at koinon temple (in Pergamon), ‘chief priest of the Pergamon held precedence over the others, as he goddess Rome and of the emperor Caesar Augustus, had been the koinon’s first chief priest, originally son of the god (Julius).’ Asia, however, kept adding known as the chief priest of Rome and of Augustus.21 koinon temples for later emperors, as has already Campanile guessed that there were three or four been noted. The priests’ objects of cult could still chief priests of Asia, equal in rank to one another, be specified, as with the ‘chief priest of the temple though she correctly observed that they did not of Gaius Caesar in Miletos’; but this same man had necessarily preside in the temples in their own cit- already served as ‘chief priest of Asia,’ unspecified, ies or judicial district centers; a chief priest could twice before. When the koinon temple of the Augusti serve two different terms in two different cities.22 She was finished in Ephesos, under Domitian, the man took her number from Dio Chrysostomos, who in who presided there was simply known as the chief the satirical address to the Apameans mentioned priest of the koinon of Asia. As a result of the mul- above referred to ‘three or four long-haired men’ tiplication of koinon temples, however, the particu- whom he compared to chief priests of Asia; but this lar city was often specified, and early on we hear of reference is too vague to be an argument either for a ‘chief priestess of the temple at Ephesos.’ It is the chief priests’ number or equality in rank.23 possible that the ‘chief priest of Asia’ could later be Though documents mentioning their offices are known as ‘Asiarch,’ as both titles are occasionally abundant, chief priests of Asia or chief priestesses clarified by a statement of which temple(s) the par- or Asiarchs are specified as presiding over temples ticular official presided over; but this issue is still in only five cities: Pergamon, Smyrna, Ephesos, contested, as has been noted. Sardis, and Kyzikos. That these temples also made A precious account of the election of a chief priest their cities neokoroi is clear: when the title changes of Asia is offered by Aelius Aristides.20 In 147 C.E., from, e.g., ‘chief priest of the temple’ to ‘chief priest Aristides went into the assembly at Smyrna and was of the temples,’ the city in question also goes from offered ‘the common priesthood of Asia,’ presum- being neokoros to twice neokoros, as happened to ably the city’s nomination as its candidate for chief Pergamon under Trajan, to Smyrna and Ephesos priest. Though he at some point had a dream (Ora- under Hadrian, and to Sardis under Antoninus Pius tion 50.53) in which someone in Smyrna hailed him (the change is not documented for Kyzikos, whose as ‘Asiarch,’ Aristides was unwilling to serve. He second neokoria remains problematic). Three of the tried to scotch the plan, and believed he had suc- five cities possessed the earliest provincial temples ceeded, but later on the Smyrnaean delegates went in Asia yet documented: Pergamon that of Rome to the koinon meeting at Laodikeia, and Aristides 21 Fayer 1976, 112-113. 22 Campanile 1994b. She believed that Miletos was one of 18 L. Frey 1982; Rumscheid 2000, 131-132 cat no. 34 the “three or four” cities, despite the unlikelihood of a provin- claimed that the crown could refer to either Tarsos or Anazarbos; cial temple to Gaius maintaining its status after his death; there but she did not note that Anazarbos (q.v.) did not use the titles are no records of chief priests, chief priestesses, or Asiarchs of ‘first, greatest, most beautiful’ at the time to which the statue provincial temples at Miletos after Gaius. She was also incor- dates. rect and anachronistic in unifying these cities under the title 19 Ziegler 1995b; 1999. neokoroi: there were eventually at least eight other neokoroi 20 Aelius Aristides, Oration 50 (Sacred Tales, 4).100-104. For in Asia, none of which is yet known to have had a provincial the identity of the governor who exempted him, Swain 1996, chief priest, chief priestess, or Asiarch of their temple(s). 272-273. 23 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 35.10. 348 part ii – summary chapters and Augustus, Smyrna that of Tiberius, Julia, and metropoleis’ later referred to in the Ephesian docu- the Senate, and Ephesos that of the Augusti, com- ment of 270, and this probable fact solidifies their pleted in the time of Domitian. The first imperial connection with the chief priesthood of the koinon. temple of Sardis, however, is not yet datable, and The cream of the provincial temples in Asia, then, that of Kyzikos was probably the great temple of were in only five cities; yet by the end of the sec- Hadrian. So the five cities in which chief priests or ond century the neokoria, previously a title signify- Asiarchs served may represent the first five possess- ing possession of such a temple, spread beyond those ors of provincial imperial temples, and later were five. We do not have the documents to prove pre- named neokoroi for those and for any additional cisely what the status of these new neokoroi was. temples. There are many neokoroi in Asia that are Certainly there was a provincial contest at neokoros never documented as having a provincial chief priest, Tralles, which occasionally even called itself me- chief priestess, or Asiarch of their temple(s), however, tropolis, though no chief priest is yet known to have and it may be that cities that received their first served there. It seems that, as has been noted, once neokoria later, such as Laodikeia under Commodus, neokoroi proliferated in Asia, they lost some of the did not have provincial chief priests assigned or features of ‘provinciality,’ or at least, the features that elected. So the number of chief priests of the Asian would have made functioning within the koinon koinon was likely limited to five sometime after impracticable, as will be seen. Also, in the third Hadrian (Kyzikos’ first temple) and before Com- century, at a time when even the wealthy were be- modus. coming unwilling to take on the mammoth expen- The five cities in question were probably the ‘five diture of provincial chief priesthood, it may have metropoleis’ specified in an Ephesian inscription been difficult to suggest that there be ten or eleven dated ca. 270 C.E.24 The lady who was its subject, chief priests of Asia each year instead of five, or to a member of the eminent family of the Vedii, arrange their election and their order of prece- boasted in each generation a chief priest in the five dence.27 Asia had a hard enough time with three metropoleis. But note that the term ‘metropolis’ did ‘first’ cities and five or more metropoleis. But in fact not exclusively denote the fact that chief priests of we do not know enough about the administration the koinon presided over the city’s temples; it could of temples of the neokoroi outside those five also refer to the city’s having established colonies, metropoleis to make any assumptions at all. being a center of administration, or simply being Thus the koinon of Asia had chief priests, perhaps large and important.25 later referred to as Asiarchs, and chief priestesses; The case of Philadelphia is relevant to the ques- in one or two cases, mainly in the mid-first century, tion of chief priests and metropoleis. The city was chief priests were also sebastophantai.28 In addition, rather a social climber: though its judicial district the koinon of Asia assigned neokoroi officials to at center had once been Sardis, it became a center itself least some of its temples. They are recorded to have by the mid-second century.26 It was also the site of served at Pergamon, at Smyrna, at the short-lived the Koina festival of Asia by around the same time. koinon temple of Gaius at Miletos, and at Ephesos. Its citizen Aurelius M... then directly petitioned Neokoros must have been quite an honorable office, Caracalla, who allowed the city to become neokoros as the men who served as such in the latter two cities in 214. Philadelphia was given the title metropolis had already been chief priests of Asia. The official by Elagabalus, but apparently lost it with his death. at Smyrna was called ‘neokoros of the Augusti’ in Nonetheless, on the basis of that lost status, in 255 the third century; this may mean that the one offi- it successfully petitioned Valerian and Gallienus to cial was responsible for all three temples that made be released from its contribution to the metropoleis Smyrna neokoros in his time. There were also for the expenses of the chief priesthood and pane- panegyriarchs, as the petition from Philadelphia gyriarchy. The cities that were thus deprived of discussed above asked that that city be released from Philadelphia’s contribution were likely the same ‘five the expenses of that office; one panegyriarch held office for the koinon temples at the metropolis of Pergamon. 24 FiE 3:72 (= IvE 3072), lines 23-27. 25 Despite Bowersock 1985; inexplicably pursued in 1995, 85-98. See Haensch 1997, 24-26, 252-254. 27 Rossner 1974, 111. 26 Aelius Aristides, Oration 50.96-98; Habicht 1975, 75. 28 Campanile 1994a, nos. 15, 16. chapter 41 – the koina and their officials 349

Associations of hymnodoi to sing the emperors’ chief priest of Asia twice; and a chief neopoios who praises were established at specific provincial temples was also sebastoneos (an otherwise unknown office) and of Asia by imperial permission.29 The first and most sebastologos (who like the theologos delivered prose famous group was that for Augustus at Pergamon, eulogies, but specifically of Augustus or the Augusti). an elite hereditary organization of up to forty men, supported by a levy on the entire province. Smyrna apparently also had hymnodoi for its temple of Koinon and Neokoria Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate; both they and the Pergamene group were likely exempted from the The increasing number of neokoroi over time edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus of 44 C.E., which prompts the question if, or when, the title ‘neokoros’ otherwise diverted the duties of hymnodoi to the became detached from the koinon and its funding ephebes. Hadrian appears to have granted hym- or administration of a particular temple. One may nodoi for all three of his temples in Asia, at Kyzikos, wonder whether Septimius Severus’ grants to his civil Ephesos, and Smyrna; the latter were twenty-four war allies, or Caracalla’s rain of favors on Asian cities in number. large and small, or Elagabalus’ prodigality, or Trajan Allied with the hymnodoi in some cases, and of Decius’ giving Thessalonike three neokoriai at once, similar elevated status, were theologoi who cel- all involved the building of koinon temples at koinon ebrated the imperial god(s) in prose.30 P. Aelius expense and administered by koinon officials (see Paion of Side had been rhapsode to Hadrian before chapters 39 and 40 on ‘Temples’ and ‘Cities,’ above). he became theologos of the temples in Pergamon; Certainly when the title was accorded to honor the and later, one of the Pergamene hymnodoi was the temple of a deity, as happened by the later second son of a Pergamene theologos.31 The provincial century at Aizanoi, neokoros of Zeus, that temple temple of the Augusti at Ephesos had nine or more was not put under the control of the koinon. On the theologoi (and also fourteen thesmodoi, deliverers other hand, Caracalla’s letter making Ephesos of precepts or oracles) under the direction of the chief neokoros of Artemis was apparently still directed to priest. Hadrian gave Smyrna theologoi as well as the koinon of Asia, not just to Ephesos. By the time hymnodoi, and outside the province Asia there is an of Philip, Neapolis became neokoros, though we epitaph for a theologos (though not explicitly of the know of no koinon of Samaria or Syria Palaestina emperors) at Nikomedia. to which it belonged. But this silence may be because The koinon of Asia also had secretaries (grammateis) our records are incomplete, as Caesarea Maritima ‘of Asia,’ ‘of temples in Asia,’ and ‘of temples of Asia in that province was metropolis (of a koinon?) from in Ephesos.’32 the time of Severus Alexander. Miscellaneous other officers are known from We would gain a great deal of insight into the particular temples in Asia. The short-lived provin- origins and development of neokoroi cities if we cial temple of Gaius Caesar at Miletos (i.e. the knew more about how the various koina chose them, Didymaion) had neopoioi from all Asia, one from each or had them chosen. Unfortunately there are even judicial district. Such officials were in charge of the fewer records of deliberations within the koina than temple’s fabric, and in this case the group probably of deliberations within individual cities. Again the oversaw funds for the new construction, and perhaps best documented koinon is that of Asia, though as directed teams of craftsmen of the province. The both the most urbanized and most rivalrous of the neopoioi inscription also specifies a chief priest of provinces it cannot be taken as typical. It had yearly Gaius’ temple at Miletos (whose third term as chief meetings; one held in 4 B.C.E. had 150 represen- priest of Asia this was); a neokoros who had also been tatives present.33 Major cities such as Smyrna sent more than one representative, and at least three cities, Pergamon, Smyrna, and Ephesos, had the

29 right to voice their opinions before the others, so that Halfmann 1990; IvE 17-19, 3801; Oliver 1989, 90 no. 34 21. their views were privileged. It is not explicitly stated 30 L. Robert 1943, 184-186. 31 Ibid. and 1980b, 16-17; Roueché 1993, 144-145; IvP nos. 374, 525. 33 Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 8. 32 Asia: IvE 3040; IGRR 4:821, 822 (Hierapolis); in Ephesos, 34 Aelius Aristides, Oration 50 (Sacred Tales 4).103 and Ora- IvE 3080. See Deininger 1965, 50 n. 2, 155. tion 23.34. 350 part ii – summary chapters that some cities had more votes than the others, a single metropolis, were it powerful and well favored though that was so in the koinon of Lycia, which by service to Rome (as Tarsos was), could either gave the largest cities three, the medium-sized two, swing its whole koinon willy-nilly behind it, or pro- and the rest one vote.35 ceed without the koinon’s cooperation. The situa- Financial obligations were likely proportional, and tion was different in Bithynia, which had two rival Asia’s thirteen judicial district centers paid the most: ‘first’ cities, Nikomedia and Nikaia. There, Dio Dio Chrysostomos praised one of them, Apamea, for pointed out the myriad dangers of their failure to sharing in ‘the sanctuaries of Asia’ and paying as get along with one another: it not only allowed much of their expenses as any city in which they Roman governors to play off one city against another were situated (at that point, only Pergamon, Smyrna, by flattering it with titles, but gave real power to the Ephesos, and perhaps Sardis were neokoroi).36 The smaller cities in the koinon.39 “By joining forces you inscription of neopoioi for Gaius’ temple at Miletos [i.e. Nikomedia with Nikaia] will dominate all the also shows that the Asian koinon used its judicial cities; and the governors too, should they ever want districts organizationally, for choosing representa- to do an injustice, will be hesitant and even afraid tives and perhaps for collecting funds and allotting before you. But as it is now, the other cities are staff and work for a provincial temple.37 Judicial overjoyed by the quarrel between you; for you seem districts were not, however, an organizing principle to need them, in fact you really do need them, for neokoroi: from the beginning, cities were cho- because of your contest with each other. . . the result sen to hold koinon temples on the basis of their is, while you (two) fight over first place, chances are individual eminence, not from any aim at geographi- that those whom you’re lobbying have first place.” cal representation. For example, eleven cities vied (Oration 38.34-35). This passage describes very effec- for Tiberius’ temple, and among them were the judi- tively how smaller cities could end up wielding power cial district centers Ephesos, Pergamon, Miletos, and perhaps winning privileges for themselves by Halikarnassos, Sardis, and Smyrna (the latter ulti- taking sides in their koina. In the same koinon but mately the winner). Tralles was at least a former at a later time, the little city of Kios did not sup- center, but Hypaipa, Laodikeia, Magnesia, and Ilion port its close (and probably bossy) neighbor Nikaia, were not judicial centers at all (though Ilion was itself which sided with Pescennius Niger, but fell into the the focus of a small koinon worshipping Athena Ilias). camp of Nikaia’s rival Nikomedia in supporting Though our knowledge of the extent of the judicial Septimius Severus: ‘the enemy of my enemy is my districts (as of the neokoroi) remains incomplete, friend.’ When its side won, Kios expressed its joy neither the centers Alabanda, Halikarnassos, Adra- in a coin legend that precisely echoed one at myttion, Kibyra, Apamea, and Philomelion, nor any Nikomedia: “with Severus as king, the universe is city in their districts, are known to have ever been happy, the Kianans are fortunate!”40 neokoroi. If the cities of Bithynia tended to line up behind one of two cities, Asia was yet more divided. We have already seen how eleven cities of various ranks Koinon Politics vied for Tiberius’ temple, probably because as a koinon the Asians were unable to settle on which Where literature has allowed us a glimpse into the city should have that honor. When Aelius Aristides working of the various koina, we can see intense addressed a meeting of that koinon at Pergamon, political maneuvering and bloc voting among the three cities claimed to be foremost: Pergamon, cities. Dio Chrysostomos berated the metropolis of Smyrna, and Ephesos.41 The quarrel was not just Cilicia, Tarsos, for being at odds with its smaller among those three, however, as all the others took neighbors, and apparently prosecuting cases against sides with one of them against the other two. As Roman officials on its own hook.38 It appears that mentioned before, the three had the right to voice their opinions before the others; but as Aristides was careful to point out, when their views were at vari- 35 Strabo 14.664-665. 36 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 35.14, 17; see chapter 39, ‘Temples.’ 39 Ibid., Oration 38.26-38. 37 Mileta 1990; Sartre 1995, 198-201. 40 J. Nollé 1998, 345-347. 38 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 34, esp. 7-15, 27, 47-48. 41 Aelius Aristides, Oration 23, esp. 12, 34. chapter 41 – the koina and their officials 351 ance, the entire koinon fell into faction. This meant Competition and Concord that the Asian koinon was open to the same kind of maneuvering that Dio Chrysostomos deprecated in From the epics of Homer on, it was taken as a prin- Bithynia. ciple that men would vie with their fellows to be- Koinon institutions and activities could themselves come foremost in honor and fame. Hesiod said that be a potent cause of hostilities. Aristides played on there are two kinds of strife, one good, one bad: the that contradiction in the same oration to the koinon bad seeks to bring its rival low, while the good seeks meeting at Pergamon cited above: “I am amazed to outperform the competition.43 Tellingly, Aelius that while you pride yourselves most on the temples Aristides quoted that passage almost a millennium and contests you think of as common (i.e., of the later, to urge the factionalized Rhodians to cling to koinon), it is over these very things that you have the good kind of strife, and banish the bad.44 The become divided. When you even quarrel over what lessons of fifth- and fourth-century Greece were you’re proud to hold in common, over what will you ready to hand in the repertoire of the orators of the ever agree? . . . As if you meant them to be contra- ‘second sophistic,’ who practiced their art in the pe- dictions against divisiveness, you have called your riod of this study.45 These orators explicated con- council chambers ‘common,’ your temples and your temporary and local events through the examples contests ‘common,’ pretty much all the most impor- offered by the great events of the Hellenic past, tant things ‘common.’ Don’t you have to be wrong which is how a dispute over who came first in one one way or the other? For if you’re rightly proud koinon could be compared to the Peloponnesian of these things being common, why aren’t you war. Thucydides had not only applied to cities the ashamed to be quarreling over them?”42 principle that had generally applied to men, but By the time of Aristides’ oration, 167 or 168 C.E., extended it: it was not enough that Athens be at Pergamon, Smyrna, and Ephesos had been at odds Sparta’s level, or Sparta at Athens’, but one of them over proper titles and standing within the koinon for had to be first, to have proteia; and it was not enough twenty years or more. Aristides called it a quarrel that the first city be fully autonomous, but it had to over proteia, over who was to be preeminent. All three have cities below that were subservient and tribu- already had the right to address the council before tary. This was the exalted background against which others, and one may wonder how the conflicting the Roman Empire’s Hellenic cities fell into rivalry precedence was handled; and all were, or would and were urged toward concord. soon be, entitled ‘first’ in some way. But the primary A number of excellent works have illuminated the issues that Aristides addressed were, as mentioned agonistic nature of relations among Greek cities in above, the temples and contests called ‘common,’ the Roman empire in general, as well as the rival- koina. The common temples are likely those that ries between particular ones.46 But few have suffi- distinguished cities as neokoroi, and they do seem ciently emphasized the place of the koinon as the to have been the focus of intense competition in the main sphere for rivalry. In almost every case docu- koinon of Asia. mented in the ancient sources, the cities at odds with Aristides was careful to call each of the three rival each other were in the same koinon. And this was cities equally praiseworthy, and to laud each for its not just because neighbors always tend to fall out. individual attributes, as well as praising the koinon As we shall see, the points of their dispute were often as a whole; but he reminded the audience that such intimately associated with their places in the web of points of pride are transient gifts of fortune, and koinon hierarchy. spent the rest of the speech on the virtue truly worthy The terms of discussion in documents and of pride, concord within the koinon. But as will be speeches of the Roman East in the first three cen- seen, this virtue was all the more to be prized be- cause it was in fact so rare. 43 Hesiod, Works and Days 11-26. On Greek culture as ba- sically agonistic, Burckhardt 1998, xxxii, 71-72, 162-184. 44 Aelius Aristides, Oration 24.13. 45 Swain 1996, 65-100. 46 Among many, Magie 1950, 635-639, 1496-1501; L. Robert 1977b; C. Jones 1978, 83-94; Herrmann 1979; Ameling 1984; Gascó 1990; J. Nollé 1993; and last but by no means 42 Aelius Aristides, Oration 23, esp. 65, 66. Dated to 167 by least, Lendon 1997, 74-77, 136-139, 170-172 (though incor- Behr 1968, 104-105, to 168 by Swain 1996, 288-293. rect on Anazarbos’ neokoria). 352 part ii – summary chapters turies C.E. do not translate happily into modern whereas under Augustus it took a decree of the English terms; present-day Western culture has a Senate to allow Paphos to call itself Augusta as a sign much more ambivalent attitude toward competition. of real honor, in his own time most cities made out Where the documents speak of philotimia, ‘love of a list of names to suit themselves.51 Such freedom honor,’ we often translate ‘rivalry.’ This does not of selection may have applied to imperial names, mean that the Greeks couldn’t use philotimia in a which were honorific without implying any real denigrating manner, just as we can use ‘rivalry’ in change in a city’s status. But from the time of the a good sense—but the basic sense of the Greek word high empire, and even later, both Roman authori- is good, the English one less so.47 The all-important ties and other cities kept a strict eye to see that titles proteia, ‘firstness,’ translates (weakly) as ‘primacy,’ like ‘neokoros’ were not misappropriated. Antoninus ‘preeminence,’ or ‘being foremost’—and not only Pius himself regulated the titles of Ephesos; at the did several cities quarrel over being ‘first,’ but sev- end of the third century the citizens of Perge cried eral would actually become ‘first,’ and somehow out that their city was “not false with respect to each of those could lead a procession, or speak its anything at all; all the rights are by decree of the opinion, ‘first.’ Greek homonoia, ‘being of the same Senate”; and even in the tetrarchic period, Ephesos mind,’ is usually translated (via the Latin) as ‘con- had to send a dossier of documents to the governor cord,’ since ‘unanimity’ has become confined to to justify its preeminence, perhaps as the result of contexts of voting. The opposite of homonoia is either another city’s challenge.52 eris, ‘conflict, discord,’ or stasis, ‘faction’; orators and It is important to distinguish between a city ‘com- inscriptions used any of these for agreements or ing in first’ in some particular contest and that same disagreements among people, among cities, or within city taking the title ‘first,’ as both Nikomedia and a city.48 Nikaia did in Bithynia. For example, in Asia, One of the most common issues over which cit- Pergamon seems to have used the title ‘first’ by the ies of the Roman East could compete was titulature. time of Trajan, and Ephesos by the time of Hadrian; Though this type of competition may seem less sen- but even though Smyrna ‘won first place’ in an sible to us than disputing over such solid items as embassy to Antoninus Pius regarding the temples territory or harbor rights, titles reflected a city’s place and their rights, and had the right to speak among in the hierarchic web, and as we will see, influenced the first in the koinon council by 167-168, it is not both its current and its future treatment. Thus the known to have called itself ‘first’ until the start of quarrel between Nikaia and Nikomedia that Dio the third century. Nysa and Magnesia were even- Chrysostomos derided was over onomata, ‘names,’ i.e. tually proud to call themselves ‘sixth’ and ‘seventh titles, specifically being acclaimed or inscribed as of Asia,’ implying that ranking by number went ‘first,’and it continued for a century at least.49 beyond ‘first.’53 Though these were not the great- Cassius Dio wrote from a more remote, senato- est cities in terms of size or strategic placement, rank rial viewpoint than his possible relative, Dio was probably judged not only on those bases, but Chrysostomos, but he too saw little good in titles. took into account ancestry, ancient cults, foundation In his opinion, the best course was to eliminate the myths, associations with gods and heroes, and rela- cities’ hatreds and rivalries by not allowing them tions with Rome, as had the contest for Tiberius’ empty names, or anything else that set them at odds, temple in Asia, already discussed in chapter 2, advice which he put into the mouth of Augustus’ ‘Smyrna.’ advisor Maecenas.50 He further complained that Some titles conveyed relations not just in the provincial hierarchy but specifically with the rulers. 47 E.g. Aelius Aristides, Oration 23.80, where C. Behr (Aelius To be called ‘friend and ally of Rome’ implied a Aristides, The Complete Works 2 [Leiden 1981] 44) translates “let relationship of equality and of military assistance that us engage in an honorable rivalry” for filotimhy«men. See also was long obsolete but that still may have evoked MacMullen 1974, 168 n. 14. respect in a Roman audience. To be named ‘colony’ 48 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:204-206, pointed out that the very cities that had the most internal turbulence were the ones that conveyed close cultural and social identification with had the most intercity rivalry as well; though perhaps this is so just because these are the cases best documented by exhorta- tions of orators. 51 Cassius Dio 54.23.8. 49 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38.22-31; L. Robert 1977b. 52 Chapter 18, ‘Perge,’ inscription 3; IvE 217. 50 Cassius Dio 52.37.10; Gascó 1988. 53 S. Price 1984b, 129. chapter 41 – the koina and their officials 353

Rome, even when the city also became neokoros for The fact that neokoria was so clear an indicator, a living emperor rather than a deified one, and even became so popular among cities in competition, and when most of the ‘colonists’ preferred speaking could be attained directly from the emperor, even- Aramaic or Greek to Latin. tually changed its nature to some degree. The sys- Among the various titles, ‘neokoros’ was an im- tem of koinon cult, with its officials and temples and portant weapon in the pursuit of honor and rank.54 contributions, could only expand so far. As we shall It conveyed both status within the province and see, it is likely that from the later second century on, relationship with Rome. Awarded for the provincial Asia did not continue to create chief priests to pre- imperial cult, at first its mere possession was a sym- side in all its many neokoroi, but confined that of- bol of preeminence, as the title was at first granted fice to five cities, known as the five metropoleis. only to the greatest cities by a consensus of koinon, Though the title and the temples were still techni- emperor, and Senate. Trajan, however, allowed the cally under the aegis of the koinon, the temples title to be duplicated, introducing another layer of outside the five metropoleis were not (to our knowl- hierarchy based on number of koinon temples and edge) called ‘common,’ and evidently did not have symbolized by the title ‘twice neokoros.’ This action specific chief priests of Asia assigned to them, though made neokoros different from all other titles, and in either of these observations may be an accident of its way more desirable. Both Ephesos and Pergamon preservation of the documents. It is no wonder that claimed to be ‘first,’ and it was hard to say that one Deininger preferred to see neokoria as a municipal, was ‘first-er’ than the other; but Pergamon as twice not a provincial, honor, though Robert affirmed the neokoros was obviously superior to Ephesos as just koinon’s role in it.55 neokoros, which meant that Ephesos would not rest Cities that had the advantage in neokoria worked until it was twice neokoros too. Then Hadrian al- hard to preserve the pecking order. Beroia managed lowed neokoria to spread yet more widely, making to hold off all competition in Macedonia until the the title accessible to more cities within the Asian reign of Gordian III, and then when Thessalonike and Bithynian koina, and possibly allowing it as far finally became neokoros, Beroia kept its advantage, afield as Cilicia. Where the smaller cities saw the becoming twice neokoros. Anazarbos eventually beat great ones accumulating multiple neokoriai, the price Tarsos to a third neokoria, though Tarsos may never of their support in the koinon may have become have entirely given up its dominance as metropolis neokoria for themselves. of the koinon. It was likely not an accident that Neo- A direct request to the emperor could also achieve kaisareia, perhaps neokoros since Trajan, only be- results: Hadrian’s philhellenism, Septimius Severus’ gan to put that title on its coins regularly when rewards, and Caracalla’s and Elagabalus’ generos- Amaseia began to do so. On the other hand, cities ity with titles led to a rampant escalation in neo- without rivals for neokoria often saw no need to koriai. Since many of these were apparently granted advertise their status, as Perinthos did not bother to due to direct relationships between city/citizens and specify that it was twice neokoros until its rival emperor (e.g. Hadrian to Polemon, Septimius Philippopolis became neokoros. Perge was long Severus to his partisans, Caracalla to Aurelius of neokoros without declaring it, but Side’s becoming Philadelphia, Elagabalus to Nikomedia and Philip- neokoros produced sudden and rapid escalation: popolis), it may be that these grants more or less both cities’ coins begin to constantly proclaim them bypassed the koinon, which previously had mediated neokoroi under Valerian, then Side became three between the two. This is a powerful explanation of times neokoros and Perge four times, and the evi- how the title begins to appear to be divorced from dence ends with Side (and maybe even Perge) as six the koinon and purely municipal. Soon leading cit- times neokoros. ies boasted the honor three or even four times, the The greatest evidence for neokoria arises wher- single title spread to Philadelphia, Aizanoi, or even ever inter-city rivalry was strongest. It is no accident Antandros, and likely by the start of the fourth cen- that among the first cities to gain, publicize, and tury, Side was six times neokoros. multiply neokoriai were Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna, whose three-way contest for primacy in Asia

54 Collas-Heddeland 1995 also tried to show this, but was unfortunately vague and incorrect at points (see L’Année Epigraphique 1995 no. 1476). 55 Deininger 1965, 143 n. 5; L. Robert 1967, 44-64. 354 part ii – summary chapters was the subject of Aelius Aristides’ lecture to their it is interesting to watch that association’s exchange koinon. of concord issues, and speculate on the relationships That oration, like many by Dio Chrysostomos, they represent. Both Perge and Side had minted deplores rivalry and celebrates concord, a virtue that coins for their mutual concord under Gordian III. orators were as eager to recommend as cities were In the reign of Valerian and Gallienus, however, loath to practice.56 According to Aristides, the best when there is almost a war of coin types between and most cultivated of the emperors (perhaps Ha- the two cities, Perge advertised her concord only drian or Antoninus Pius) said that he would judge with cities outside Pamphylia, while Side not only that city best which first willingly practiced concord, advertised hers with even more foreign cities, but thus only changing the terms of inter-city competi- also minted concord coins with Attaleia and even tion to rivalry over lack of rivalry.57 Of course, this with its old enemy Aspendos. Can this indicate a new harping on concord may result from the chance voting bloc within the provincial organization, with survival of the speeches preserved to us. Aelius Aris- Side and its neighbors allied against the previously tides noted that it was a common practice for other dominant Perge? Certainly first Side, and then orators (whom he called bad speakers) to praise the Aspendos, became neokoros in rivalry with Perge at city that they were currently visiting, but then slan- this time. der the same city once they left, especially if they visited her rival.58 It is likely that the cities heard as many speeches exacerbating their rivalry as smooth- Rivalry and the Orators ing it over. Occasionally cities issued coins in celebration of Some of the same orators who deprecated cities’ their concord.59 Though much is still uncertain constant competitiveness nonetheless often chose about the occasions for these coins, they do not seem their headquarters according to the hierarchy that to represent formal treaties or agreements. Instead, competition established. Skopelianos, a chief priest they appear to be advertisements for a new or re- of Asia and descendant of chief priests, refused the newed connection of good relations between the pleas of his home city Klazomenai to set up his cities in question, often in connection with cultic or school there, preferring the more cosmopolitan festival celebrations, or in celebration of common Smyrna. Most of the embassies he led were not for origins or interests. It is even possible that concord Klazomenai but on behalf of Smyrna, though he also coins were issued as a reflection of rivalry, especially represented the koinon of Asia as a whole in the when only one of the cities involved minted such matter of Domitian’s prohibition against vine-grow- coins, instead of both cities minting reciprocal issues. ing.60 Antonius Polemon and Aelius Aristides also For example, only Ephesos seems to have issued set their more obcure birthplaces (Laodikeia and coins of its concord with Pergamon and Smyrna Hadrianoi) in the background and adopted Smyrna, under Antoninus Pius, and though this too may which by their activities gained additional luster as represent an accident of preservation, I have sug- a center of rhetoric; what is more, by the favors these gested that they stood as a claim to Ephesos’ winning orators obtained for their adopted city instead of an argument over titulature that is epigraphically their homelands, Smyrna not only gained a second documented as well. Less is known of the associa- koinon temple and neokoria but was swiftly rebuilt tion of Pamphylian cities than of other koina, but with imperial help after an earthquake. Dio Chry- sostomos, on the other hand, preserved his loyalty to his home city Prusa even in the face of political 56 Aelius Aristides, Oration 23.53; Dio Chrysostomos, Ora- 61 tions 34, 38, 40, 41. I omit many other references that concern opposition from his fellow citizens. concord within a city rather than among cities: see Plutarch, Cities that were rivals could choose to support Political Precepts 32 (824). rival orators, as in Polemon’s battle against the 57 Aelius Aristides, Oration 23.74. Ephesian-backed Favorinus (note that Favorinus was 58 Ibid., Oration 23.5. 59 Pera 1984; Franke 1987; M. Nollé and J. Nollé 1994; Franke and M. Nollé 1997; Weiss 1998; Kampmann 1998; Swain 1996, 181 on concord for the elite. On the personifica- 60 Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists 1.21 (515-516, 520); tion of Concord, specifically between cities, Thériault 1996, Campanile 1994a, 49-50 no. 27. On the orators in general, 81-99; a treatment which does not assume that all concords Bowersock 1969; Swain 1996. represented the settlings of (otherwise unknown) quarrels. 61 Salmeri 2000. chapter 41 – the koina and their officials 355 originally from Arelate in Gallia Narbonensis).62 The sos: he decided that Pergamon had not erred and rivalry of two orators, if played out for an emperor’s Smyrna’s slight was accidental, but cautioned Ephe- favor, could gain not just personal wealth and honor sos and Smyrna to be more careful with each other’s for the winner but great honors for his city, as titles.67 It was probably at this point that Ephesos Polemon’s did for Smyrna. Hadrian, however, did issued the coins alluded to above, celebrating its not take his disdain of Favorinus out on Ephesos, ‘concord’ with the other two cities. And later, it may which he eventually honored with its second have been Ephesos that sought to retaliate for the neokoria. original fault by challenging Smyrna’s temples and their rights, likely their neokoriai; a case which Polemon won, albeit posthumously, for Smyrna. Roman Views of Rivalry But the same emperor who urged polite reciproc- ity on the cities himself used the hierarchy they One of the chief reasons that orators gave for dep- fought over to decide their privileges. Antoninus Pius recating the competition for honors among the cit- addressed a letter to the koinon of Asia that later ies was that it weakened the cities’ autonomy, not came to universal application, alloting exemptions only due to faction in the koinon, but because of the from liturgies for doctors and teachers according to reactions of the Romans. Historians also noted how their city’s size or rank: the smaller cities got the the cities’ rivalry over titulature was perceived, es- fewest exemptions, the greater got more, and the pecially in Rome, as a weakness in the moral char- greatest cities got the most. This ruling was clari- acter of the Greeks. For example, Dio Chrysostomos fied by the jurist Modestinus in the early third said that the quarrel between Nikaia and Nikomedia century: he interpreted ‘the greatest’ cities to be made them a laughing stock to the Romans, who metropoleis of provinces, ‘the greater’ as judicial called such disputes “Hellenic foibles.”63 Aelius district centers, and ‘the smaller’ as all the rest.68 Aristides called the strife a “madness” and “fight- In fact, it is clear that rivalries over hierarchy and ing over a shadow,” and said it annoyed the gover- titulature were not entirely ‘fights over a shadow.’ nors.64 And when Herodian wrote of a particularly Witness Tacitus’ account (Annals 4.55-56) of the vicious outbreak of rivalry during the war between Senate’s debate over which of eleven Asian cities Septimius Severus and Pescennius Niger, he called should get the temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the it “the old illness of the Greeks,” which had weak- Senate: each city’s standing was thoroughly evalu- ened them to the point that they were open to ated, as if points were allotted for resources, age, Macedonian, and then to Roman, domination.65 mythic ancestry, and loyalty to Rome. Pliny the The Roman overlords’ role in neokoria is covered Younger urged an official sent to Achaea to respect in the next chapter, but their response specifically its cities for the gods their founders, their ancient to Greek cities’ rivalry was probably as negative as glory, and their very age; while a proconsul of Asia the orators feared it would be. A letter from an praised Aizanoi as well born, ancient, and inferior emperor or other high official, set up in Laodikeia, in recent construction to none of the chief cities.69 urged an end to ‘useless contentiousness’ over the Thus the Romans made frequent evaluations of primacy of cities, and bid them be more dignified.66 which cities in a province were foremost in impor- The most famous case of imperial intervention in tance and honor, and it was generally those that won rivalry took place when Ephesos accused Smyrna of further and greater honors. A similar hierarchy not giving its correct titulature in a decree about a prevailed in public building: not only were more joint sacrifice, and Pergamon of doing the same in buildings donated in the provinces that were already a letter. The quarrel went before Antoninus Pius, most urbanized, but the bigger a city was, the more who had already decreed the proper titles for Ephe- and better buildings and dedications it received. Provincial centers like Ephesos received the most, 62 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.8.4 (490-491); Gleason 1995, 21-29. 67 See chapters 4, ‘Ephesos’ and 2, ‘Smyrna’; and, in Part 63 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38.36-38. II, chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis.’ The rivalry between Ephesos 64 Aelius Aristides, Oration 23.59, 62-64. and Smyrna was almost proverbial even earlier: Dio Chry- 65 Herodian 3.2.7-8. sostomos, Oration 34.48. 66 { mata¤a filonike¤a: MAMA 6.6; Corsten 1997 (= IvL) 68 Digest 27.1.6.2: Alan Watson 1985, 783. no. 10; cf. L. Robert 1969b, 287-288. 69 Pliny the Younger, Letters 8.24.3; IGRR 4:572. 356 part ii – summary chapters probably because that was where the propaganda Byzantion’s to Perinthos; though whether Nikaia lost value of such donations was greatest.70 “For who- real wealth and not just titles is not yet known. But soever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have Ziegler has since extended Severus’ ‘reward/re- more abundance.”71 venge’ policy to cover many less clear cases of ri- valry over titulature: that is, where a city gains new titles, it must be because it supported one contender Rival Cities, Rival Emperors in civil war, while its rival in the province chose the other.75 If true, this would make titulature yet more Long after Dio Chrysostomos had pointed out how dependent on particular emperors and historical Roman governors could use rivalry between the events. cities for their own advantage, the emperor Sep- But the tussle for empire between Philip the Arab timius Severus did use it, after his war for the em- and Trajan Decius, which Ziegler believed to ac- pire against Pescennius Niger. Apparently some cities count for honors granted to Thessalonike and Ana- had chosen which contender to support based on zarbos and withheld from their rivals Beroia and their rival’s having chosen the other.72 In the after- Tarsos, was utterly unlike Severus’ civil war. That math, Severus deprived cities hostile to him of their had dragged on for over two years until Byzantion titles and privileges, and rewarded his partisans, their finally fell, and ranged across the entire eastern rivals, in the same coin, with new titles and pri- empire; probably every eastern city had little option vileges. This has been discussed in chapter 38, but to choose one emperor or the other. Philip’s last ‘Historical Analysis,’ as well as in the chapters on fight for power, however, was brief, lasting only Perinthos, which triumphed at the expense of By- through the summer of 249; and as was shown in zantion, and Nikomedia, which did the same over chapter 22, ‘Thessalonike,’ it was probably confined its old enemy Nikaia (chapters 29 and 15 respec- to Pannonia, where Decius was declared emperor, tively). It is possible that Severus also deprived Nea- and either northern Italy or Thrace, where the last polis of privileges and land, to the benefit of its rival decisive battle was fought. Why would cities in prov- Sebaste. inces far away choose to risk everything by prema- Severus’ actions, however, were taken at the end turely taking sides in what was becoming a routine, of a long and bitter civil war.73 By the early 200s albeit dangerous, way of changing emperors? And he had abated his hostility to the punished cities, why would Cilician Anazarbos have been singled out probably at the request of Caracalla, the designated for honors, as its partisanship likely consisted of only successor whose popularity was to be augmented by an embassy and the usual gifts? Nor did Aigeai have such acts of grace. The old enemy cities were re- such a famous shrine of Asklepios that Decius should stored to civic status, and some took the name Anto- have sought to honor it first of all. As for the cities nineia in Caracalla’s honor, while others got imperial that were supposedly dishonored for their lack of visits or Severeia contests. The old allies, on the other support, Beroia’s titles and status were apparently hand, received yet more titles, which both kept them unaffected. Decius likely did take colonial status from ahead of their rivals and comforted them for their Neapolis, but unlike Septimius Severus, he did not loss of whatever spoils they had been enjoying up strip it of civic rights, of territory, or even of its other to that point. honors, including the title ‘neokoros.’ It may just be Ziegler contended that the purpose of Severus’ that after the death of Philip, who granted it, the decisions after the civil war was not only to punish coloniate was deemed to be too extraordinary an enemy cities but to restore allies that had drained honor for Neapolis’ place in the hierarchy. Some- their treasuries in his cause.74 This is possible as thing similar happened soon after to Thessalonike: regards Neapolis’ territory given to Sebaste and Trajan Decius’ grant of three neokoriai probably reflected his view of the city’s importance to his Gothic wars, but after his death they were likely 70 Winter 1996, 233-234; also 54-61 on building as an in- judged excessive. Nonetheless, only two were re- strument of rivalry. moved: Thessalonike was not dishonored for estab- 71 Gospel According to Matthew 13:12. 72 MacMullen 1985, 73-74; J. Nollé 1998, 347-351. 73 Sünskes Thompson 1990, 137-155. 75 Ziegler 1988b, 395-401; 1993b, 145-146, 150-151, 159- 74 Ziegler 1978. 160; 1994, 202-204. chapter 41 – the koina and their officials 357 lishing temples to Decius, but retained two neokoriai, tice. Still, when a governor chose a Syriarch from a number equal to what its rival Beroia already had. Beroia rather than from Antioch, Libanius wrote an This maneuvering hints at what was really going on, outraged letter addressed to the emperor Theodosius and who might have deemed certain honors exces- (379-395 C.E.).79 “One who pulls down a first city sive: not the emperors, but other cities within the and raises up one not even of the second rank and koinon. After all, it was never within a new empe- allows it to insult its better, doesn’t he wrong your ror’s interest to seek out cities to punish, simply household? . . . He was not sent, O Emperor, to because they had been loyal to his predecessor. But disturb the proper order of the cities, or to debase just as the cities and their koinon requested particu- their standing or to put the lesser above the greater lar honors, leaving the emperor to grant or modify . . . But he . . .cried out to all that this city [Antioch] those requests, so the competitive cities operating must be subordinate to that other [Beroia], must give within the koinon may have sought to restore bal- up the title ‘metropolis’ to it, that our council must ance when one city’s gifts brought it too far above yield to theirs, our citizens to theirs, that we must what its fellows thought was its place. acknowledge them our betters! You could recognize the insult in this from the sorrow it gave our well- wishers and the pleasure it gave our enemies.” Note Later Developments that a city’s prestige had direct implications for its citizens, especially in their relations with citizens of It may be that, by late antiquity, a city’s place in other cities; and that a major city could still be said the hierarchy had become more important than to have enemies and friends, probably among other ever: its greatness could determine its very survival. cities—which may mean that there were still voting Smaller cities lost power as the host of wealthy citi- blocs in post-Diocletianic koina.80 zens who formerly undertook their liturgies faded away, while large cities flourished.76 Even in the third century, the Asian koinon had begun to lose Summary some of its glory. Its chief priests and priestesses now came mostly from the great cities, there were appar- When one looks back at what we have seen of the antly fewer to vie for the office, and those provided koina, there is staggeringly little information con- fewer and less remarkable festivals and gifts to the cerning the participants, much less the practices, of province.77 It is even possible that the post-Dio- institutions that lasted for three centuries and more. cletianic trend of dividing provinces into smaller and We can only guess at the machinations and maneu- smaller units was encouraged by favors to various verings of the delegates at any one meeting of any cities that wanted to preserve themselves by becom- one koinon, much less the fourteen directly involved ing metropoleis (and later seats of bishops). Though in this study. Yet the koina were the major inter- Asia had been divided in this way, it still managed mediaries between emperors and cities, and their to muster four metropoleis, one of them Ephesos, temples were the reasons why the title ‘neokoros’ was as sites for its games and providers of Asiarchs, initially given. The exact actions and relationships though by an imperial decree of Valens citizens of among cities in their koina are often obscure, but smaller cities were also allowed to hold that office.78 this study has found them to be the crucial link that Contention over titles and privileges was there- brought cities to pursue, attain, and boast of the title fore still fierce in the fourth century, though in a ‘neokoros.’ Christian empire claims of neokoria likely declined Each koinon was like a web, with cities arranged along with the rest of the trappings of pagan prac- in various positions on its strands. Those positions represent how ancient were the city’s origins, how notable its citizens, how divine or heroic its associa- tions, how great its size or beauty, how strategic its 76 Roueché 1989b, 215-221. 77 Campanile 1994a, 171. 78 IvE 43, dated 372-378; Schulten 1906, 66, proposed the other three metropoleis as Smyrna, Sardis (now in a separate 79 Libanius, Oration 33.22-23. Beroia was ranked well be- province of Lydia?), and Pergamon; Kyzikos was in the prov- hind Laodikeia and Apamea, two cities that went before Julian ince Hellespontus. But as Deininger 1965, 60, wrote, “doch to contest the rank of second in Syria: Libanius, Oration 18. handelt es sich hierbei bereits um eine neue Institution.” 80 Deininger 1965, 183-188. 358 part ii – summary chapters importance, how grand its temples or monuments, could have been very tangible indeed. A ‘first city,’ and how loyal it was to Rome. The cities and their in the center of the web, could expect the highest citizens set and fostered this hierarchy, only trying representation or voice in the koinon, and also the to have their city’s position improved or their rival’s highest influence, which meant more than just worsened. The Romans in their turn recognized the marching first in provincial festivals. It could sway same hierarchy, basing their own actions toward the smaller cities’ votes in the koinon, holding its own cities on their positions in the web. Those positions against important rivals and their supporters; or it were signaled by titles. Honor (as represented by could incur resentment and resistance. Certainly the titles) was therefore not as intangible as ancient cities desired the influx of people and of business that authors and modern scholars often portray it. It was came to a judicial center, or the financial contribu- the means of gaining favor and gifts from above, tion to metropoleis. These were the incidentals, loyalty and obedience from below. Titles were of- however; titles like ‘neokoros’ were ultimately sought ten the path to further privileges, some of which for the sake of honor and place in the hierarchy. chapter 42 – the roman powers 359

Chapter 42. The Roman Powers

The king’s greatest payment is praises and renown the beneficent rule of the Senate. That stories from among all, and obeisance for their benefactions, and Rome’s remote history had power to affect later whatever statues, temples, and sanctuaries they have events is shown by Julius Caesar, killed by (among from their subjects—these too are wages for the care and forethought they exert in always providing for others) a descendant of the original regicide Brutus. the common good and making it better. The situation is paralleled by the quandary of Alexander the Great. Macedonian kings, though Lucian, Apology 13 they claimed descent from Herakles, had not raised ...And this man themselves far above their companions in the Ma- Is now become a god, and Cassius is cedonian elite. When Alexander tried to do so, A wretched creature and must bend his body whether the objection was to deification or to Per- If Caesar carelessly but nod on him... sianization, it came from Macedonians of his inner Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed circle as well as from his own historian Kallisthenes.1 That he is grown so great? In Rome itself, the emperor could be viewed as Shakespeare, Julius Caesar I.2 a civic personality, a magistrate, or a benefactor, not the owner of his Empire but its patron.2 This per- We will now attempt to look at the imperial cult spective helps to explain some aspects of his persona, practiced by the neokoroi from a Roman point of but not his connection to divinity. There is currently view. Sheer familiarity may blind the classicist to the a scholarly tug-of-war over whether in Italy and the oddity of the Roman situation as regards imperial western provinces the living emperor was rarely, or cult. Though the concept that kings were outright constantly, treated as a god.3 These efforts to make gods (as in Egypt or Japan) has been relatively rare a universal case, at least as regards geography, go in human history, countless cultures across the globe back to Cassius Dio (below); but tend to efface the had kings who were viewed as descended from gods multifarious levels on which statements, offers, and or having special relationships to gods. But in almost actions took place. Simon Price recognized the prob- all cases, the king’s divinity was especially recognized lems and contradictions in the situation.4 Though within the core region which he ruled, and mani- there are many cases where emperors were treated fested in his capital. The Roman emperor, however, as gods in Rome, in Italy, and in the western prov- was a different case. He could be hailed as a god inces, not all such instances are the same; nor were by the provinces or cities or citizens of his empire, they in the East, as this work has tried to show. A both west and east; but in Rome, the living empe- synthesis between the two opposing theories is still ror’s godhead could only be classed as problematic: needed, one which will treat each geographical area accepted at some times and by some people, not by and each level of dedication (provincial, municipal, others. group, or personal) as a distinct phenomenon, with By the time of Augustus, Rome had been a com- no preconceptions involved. The imperial cult was petitive oligarchy for centuries. There were many a series of behaviors and positions over time, each families with as long a history and as much claim varying based on situation and viewpoint. Gener- to divine and mythic ancestry as the Julii, and far more than their successors, the later Augusti. At least 1 Bosworth 1996, 98-132. a segment of the elite did not have to derive its sta- 2 Veyne 1990, 346. tus from connections with the god-king, but pos- 3 Fishwick 1987-1992; Clauss 1999. These recent works provide references and bibliography for the substance of this sessed it on its own. More, the foundation myths of chapter. the Roman state glorified the overthrow of kings and 4 S. Price 1984b, 1-22; idem 1987. 360 part ii – summary chapters alizations in this realm must be made with caution, Romans who chided them for ‘vain competitiveness.’ as they can blind as much as they explain. For the Romans, Hellenic culture could be either In this chapter, we follow the viewpoint of some rewarded or derided for the same characteristics. An of the men of Rome, at least the ones who left emperor who refused to take divine honors, or at writings behind or whose actions were recorded by least to take them seriously, was a desirable persona those who wrote. The constraints and biases of such to present in Rome: a civilis princeps who had to put writings were discussed in the introduction. In ad- on a god’s dress for the provincials.8 Only a Caligula dition, it should be clear that by ‘men of Rome’ we would take his deification seriously. But as we shall are not discussing the racial or geographic origins see, there were senators who did not hesitate to of individuals, whether emperors, senators, or gov- propose divine honors for the emperor before the ernors, not to mention the wide range of people who Senate, and in Rome there were flatteries more inhabited the actual city of Rome. Our interest here abject than are known in any province. is in those who, by virtue of office or authority within From the cities, whose organization was the sub- the Roman governmental system, affected the course structure of the eastern Roman provinces, the em- that provincials took in establishing worship of the perors desired loyalty, peace, and taxes promptly emperor within their koina and their cities. And it paid. But this was not all. The cities and koina of should not be forgotten that those provincials were, the Empire could also offer gifts of acclaim, of crown increasingly over time, Roman citizens themselves. gold, of cult in all its manifestations. We cannot For example, C. Aulus Antius Julius Quadratus was attribute to them love or fear or religious awe, in- likely instrumental in obtaining a new provincial dividual emotions that are irrecoverable and any- temple and contest for Pergamon, but did he do so way inapplicable to actions taken on behalf of whole as proconsul of Asia, as a wealthy and eminent Per- provinces. But we may conclude that provinces and gamene risen to the highest senatorial rank, or as cities offered such things as their role and the the ‘most illustrious friend’ of the emperor Trajan? emperor’s right.9 On the other side, the emperor Though the offer of worship soon became part could accept cult as a recognition of his own honor, of the dialogue between Roman authorities and in itself a means of government;10 or could modify provincial subjects, Romans could turn such an offer it to suit some purpose of his own, as we shall see. to their own purposes by needling those who made An offer of cult by the province met by a favorable it for flattery or levitas; the contrast was usually to reply from the emperor certainly eased the relation- the advantage of Roman gravitas.5 Such adulation ship between them, but even an unfavorable re- was held to be especially typical of Hellenes: Tacitus sponse clarified the nature of that relationship. calls Mytilene’s voting of divine honors to its citi- Where an offer was refused, the officials of the prov- zen Theophanes (for using his influence with ince were forced to rethink it, and next time make Pompey) ‘Greek flattery.’6 But the charge was not one more suitable to that emperor’s persona or limited to the Greeks. Tiberius refused a temple to purposes. As well as making an imperial acceptance his own cult offered by a Latin-speaking western pro- all the more valuable, the occasional refusal played vince (Hispania Ulterior), saying that “the honor well in Rome, especially before the Senate. Cultic paid to Augustus would become empty if it were honors were carefully meted out, since to accept cult made common by indiscriminate flatteries.”7 in every instance would be to cheapen it.11 But the Nonetheless, as has been shown in chapter 41, fortunate province and city from which the emperor ‘The Koina,’ cities that were most dedicated to pur- accepted cult would be raised in the estimation of suing this form of ‘flattery,’ and even the ones that its neighbors. The result was a system in which every fell into rivalry and competition thereby, were the action and counteraction carried implications about ones most often chosen for rewards by the same the emperor, the provinces, the cities, the Senate, and their presentation in the wider world of the Empire at that particular time. 5 Woolf 1994. 6 Graeca adulatio: Tacitus, Annals 6.18. On Theophanes, L. Robert 1969c; Salzmann 1985; Anastasiadis and Souris 1992. 8 Wallace-Hadrill 1982. I thank Kathryn Welch for her insight on this subject. 9 J. Nollé 1998, 347-351. 7 Tacitus, Annals 4.37: et vanescet Augusti honor, si promiscis 10 Lendon 1997, 13-27, 107-175. adulationibus vulgatur. See below. 11 Ibid., 160-171. chapter 42 – the roman powers 361

The way that Romans responded in the dialogue The scene is Asia, after Actium; recent study has had a profound effect on the development of the clarified Augustus’ decisions, and the relative re- provincial imperial cult, and later neokoria. Unfor- straint of his actions toward his own glorification tunately, historically documented responses that after that battle.13 The victorious emperor answered resulted in the building of temples in cities that thus petitions from people he called Hellenes. In this became neokoroi are actually few. Offers of provin- context, Augustus’ designation does not refer to cial imperial cult seem to have become normalized Hellenes everywhere, but to the specific koina known in the eyes of the emperors and the Senate, until as the Hellenes of Asia and the Hellenes of Bithynia. gradually the historians found them so quotidian that Though these provincials made their petitions on they ceased to discuss them at all. To supplement their own home territory, Dio calls them xenoi, them, some reference will be made to cults in prov- ‘strangers,’ referring to their Roman status as pere- inces that had no neokoroi, or to some emperors’ grini. But what exactly did they offer? Undoubtedly, recorded attitudes toward their own cult. The in- in line with a tradition stretching back to Hellenis- tent is not to be encyclopedic, nor is it to trace some tic times, they offered temples to the ruler himself, pattern or policy in provincial proposals or any and likely specified that these would be in their chief particular emperor’s responses. In my view, our cities of Hellenistic administration, Pergamon and information is so fragmentary, the emperors so re- Nikomedia. sponsive to the needs of the moment rather than Augustus, however, seems to have manipulated some consistent policy, Roman officials so thinly this offer, adding modifications that would have spread, and government conducted on such an ad played well before a Roman audience, not the Greek hoc basis and so particularized to the situation in embassies that stood before him. Thus the first cult each province, that any discernable pattern is more discussed in the passage above, and likely in the likely to be imposed by modern scholars than prac- document it derived from, is probably not the one ticed by the ancients. that the embassies of the two koina originally re- quested, which was almost undoubtedly that of the emperor himself. Instead the man soon to be named The Emperors Augustus was careful to first address the establish- ment of shrines to the goddess Rome and to his For one last time we return to the start of the pro- father the deified Julius Caesar.14 This action was vincial imperial cult in 29 B.C.E., as documented unlikely to have been motivated by filial piety, or by Cassius Dio two and a half centuries later.12 To concern for the sensibilities of Romans who lived in paraphrase, the man soon to be known as Augustus Ephesos and Nikaia. More likely, Augustus was gave permission that precincts be established to taking the opportunity to send this message to his Rome and the hero Julius in Ephesos and in Nikaia Roman audience: that his own cult was for the (cities which Dio calls preeminent in Asia and in provincials, not for Romans, i.e. that he was not Bithynia at that time), and ordered the Romans aiming at deified kingship. The temples for the resident there to honor those divinities. But he per- Hellenes then follow in Dio’s account as if by after- mitted the xenoi, whom he called Hellenes, to con- thought, though in fact they would become the secrate precincts to himself, the Asians’ in Pergamon headquarters for koinon cult in Asia and Bithynia. and the Bithynians’ in Nikomedia. Dio then carries A similar response had been given thirty years the story to his own time: from that beginning, the before, when Asia had offered to build a ‘temple and practice of dedicating provincial temples to living monument’ to Cicero and his brother Quintus. emperors has continued, not only in the Greek prov- Cicero declined the honor, and wrote that he didn’t inces but all others as well; while Rome and Italy know how they were taking it in Asia, but that his only worship dead emperors who have ruled justly. refusal was earning him a lot of praise in Rome.15 Just as Cicero had kept his eye squarely on the reaction of Rome rather than that of the Asians, so

12 Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9. For an assessment of the reliabil- ity of the source, see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon’; for its place in 13 Gurval 1995. the development of neokoria, see chapter 38, ‘Historical Analy- 14 See ‘Introduction,’ n. 26. sis.’ 15 Cicero, Letters to Quintus his Brother 1.1.9 (26). 362 part ii – summary chapters

Augustus reacted to offers of worship by provincials gods, since he wanted to be worshipped in temples with provisions of cult for Romans; though the and in the image of divinities by flamines and provincials’ worship was not rejected. Had Caesar priests.”18 acted so circumspectly, Roman history might well The next dialogue of offer and acceptance was have been different. But in this conjunction Hellenes transacted solely between Asia and Rome. In 23 and Romans were talking past one another; or C.E., after winning two prosecutions of former gov- rather, the Roman ruler altered a Greek cultural ernors before the Senate, the cities of Asia decreed communication to convey an additional message to a temple to Tiberius, his mother, and the Senate, Romans: that a line was to be drawn between xenos and permission was granted by the emperor and and Roman, that that line was the worship of the Senate.19 Likely due to a deadlock in the koinon, the living emperor, and that he was not crossing it. decision of which city should get the new temple Augustus’ modesty was also admired by Sueto- came back to the Senate, with Tiberius himself in nius, who wrote that the emperor accepted a temple attendance.20 There eleven cities contended on the in no province unless it was in the name of Rome basis of their antiquity, noble ancestry, and loyalty 16 as well as in his own. Dio did not mention this deity to Rome, but most were rejected outright as parum as Augustus’ cult partner in his account, perhaps validi, ‘not up to it.’ Of the major cities, Pergamon because Rome was added to Augustus’ cult as well argued its possession of the temple to Augustus, but as Caesar’s sometime after Augustus accepted the was ruled out on that very count (one was enough), temples at Pergamon and Nikomedia (but before 19 while Ephesos and Miletos were also too wholly B.C.E., when cistophori of Asia show both Rome devoted to cults of patron gods to get a new one. and Augustus in the temple at Pergamon); or because After a long debate between Sardis and Smyrna, the of Dio’s own interpretation of Augustus’ action as Senators voted overwhelmingly for Smyrna, later a the precedent for later developments which would contender for primacy in the province. not include the goddess. In any case, apparently In due course of time a delegation from Hispania Augustus never imposed his worship, nor even ac- Ulterior used the Asian temple as a precedent to ask cepted an offer of cult too baldly; though he allowed such honors to be showered upon him, he seems to permission to build its own shrine to Tiberius and have modified many or most. On the other hand, his mother. Refusing it gave Tiberius a platform to we have no record of his outright refusal, as has been state before the Senate his opposition to any exten- postulated from later refusals by his successors.17 As sion of divine honors for himself beyond Augustus’ his own account boasts (Res Gestae 24), he had eighty limits. He justified his permission for the Asian silver statues of himself converted into golden offer- temple in this way: “Since the deified Augustus did ings to Apollo—which means that he had previously not forbid that a temple to himself and to the city accepted, or at least allowed, eighty silver statues of of Rome be built at Pergamon, I who view as law himself. all of his deeds and words have followed his example It is no accident that the sources that report a all the more readily because reverence for the Sen- clear division between cults for Romans and for non- ate was joined with my own cult.”21 Again, the Romans, like most historical writings, emanate from emperor’s response to a province’s petition was the (usually senatorial) upper class. That Romans aimed primarily at a Roman audience, in this case, and Italians by definition only worshipped the the Senate which heard the embassy from Spain. emperors when they were dead and deified was What mattered to Tiberius, whether personally, apparently an important part of senatorial self-pre- politically, or both, was obedience to Augustus’ sentation down to the time of Cassius Dio. But not precedent and expression to the Senate of his own everyone in that class believed in Augustus’ unwill- modesty in Augustus’ wake; thus both the acceptance ingness to accept divine honors; Tacitus presented of one cult and the refusal of another were part of a pro and (mainly) con analysis of Augustus’ reign after his death: “Nothing was left as an honor for 18 Tacitus, Annals 1.10.6: Nihil deorum honoribus relictum, cum se templis et effigie numinum per flamines et sacerdotes coli vellet. 16 Suetonius, Augustus 52; see also Tacitus, Annals 4.37.3 19 Tacitus, Annals 4.15. above. 20 Ibid., 4.55-56. 17 Charlesworth 1939. 21 Ibid., 4.37-38: in 25 C.E. See Charlesworth 1939. chapter 42 – the roman powers 363 his imperial persona. The Asians’ temple had also Senate that a temple to divus Nero, presumably in given him the opportunity to trumpet his associa- Rome itself, be built as soon as possible from pub- tion with, and exaltation of, the Senate, a motive lic funds.24 According to Tacitus Nero refused be- that may have been sincere on his part, though cause such a temple could have been interpreted as Tacitus always interprets it for the worst. The choice an omen of his death, but the episode shows that of the personified Senate as a cult partner in the an eminent Senator could think it proper (or at least proposed temple was thus uncommonly fortunate expedient) to make such a proposal to a living for, or percipient of, the Asians. The introduction emperor at that time. Nero may have also granted of the goddess Rome to Augustus’ cult had likely a provincial temple to Asia, which made Ephesos, taught them that it was prudent to include a per- at least until his death, one of the first cities to call sonification of Roman power in their petition for a itself neokoros; but the grant is anything but certain, temple of the living emperor; and in this instance, and the circumstances unknown. they were able to show their gratitude toward the There are few documents to record what the end Senate in particular. The Spanish province, how- of the Julio-Claudian dynasty meant regarding ever, overlooked that part of the message, making worship of the living emperor. Certainly Galba’s its petition easier to reject. taking the names Caesar and Augustus smoothed the The attitude of Gaius (Caligula) toward accep- transition. In Galatia, coins issued under Galba may tance of cult was rather different from those of his show the temple at Ankyra, but call it ‘of the Au- predecessors. Though at first he followed Tiberius’ gusti,’ no doubt including the current emperor with pattern of modest refusal of cultic honors, later he his predecessors. Perhaps under Vespasian, and cer- was eager to see his worship established, and not just tainly by the time of Domitian, a provincial temple by the provincials but in Rome itself. There some in Ephesos (perhaps one originally allowed by Nero) hailed him as divus and some deus, and the Senate was called ‘of the Augusti,’ centered on the new went so far as to vote him a temple, in addition to Flavian dynasty, with no sign of gods, personifica- another that he established for himself on the Pa- tions, or even Julio-Claudian predecessors to share latine.22 In comparison with this and his attempt to the cult. A colossus of Titus stood there, and surely commandeer the temple in Jerusalem, his demand another of Domitian, who was remembered with for a temple in Miletos, even such a great one as hatred by the Senate for being called dominus et deus, the Didymaion, does not appear to have provoked though perhaps more for being ‘master’ than ‘god.’25 indignation. But in Rome Gaius was the first to Trajan, however, returned to Augustus’ precedent break through the persona of the civilis princeps, and in Asia explicitly: his temple was built in Pergamon though the Senate gave him divine honors of vari- like that of Rome and Augustus, and he too shared ous sorts in his lifetime, they ended by hailing his it with a cult partner, Zeus Philios. In Dacia, how- murder and condemning his name thereafter. ever, the province he conquered, later inscriptions Claudius is not known to have granted temples record only provincial priests of the Augustus, with that later made their cities neokoroi. While he prob- no cult partner mentioned, so it is likely that his ably emphasized the distinction between his own modesty was not doctrinaire. character and that of Gaius by frequently refusing Hadrian’s travels and enthusiasm for fostering cult, as Tiberius had to Hispania Ulterior, he seems Hellenic and other cities resulted in his being wor- to have had a temple in Britain, possibly since the shipped in many parts of the Empire. He was gen- province was conquered under his auspices.23 Nero, erous with his attention and with benefactions, and though often assimilated to Apollo, was portrayed had no disinclination to be honored or worshipped by historians as more interested in being an artist in return. He was identified with Zeus Olympios, and than a god. In 65, in the aftermath of the Pisonian occasionally Eleutherios, among the Hellenes, espe- conspiracy, a consul designate made a motion in the cially once he promoted Athens as the seat of a panhellenic council and completed the temenos of its Olympieion. For sites of his own provincial cult 22 Cassius Dio 59.4.4, 59.26.5, 59.28.2; Suetonius, Caligula 22.3-4; Barrett 1989, 140-153. 23 Seneca, Apocolocyntosis 8.3; pace Fishwick 1995. See S. Price, review of Fishwick 1987-1992, in Phoenix 42 (1988) 371-374, 24 Tacitus, Annals 15.74.3. esp. 373. 25 Suetonius, Domitian 13.2; Cassius Dio 67.13.3-4. 364 part ii – summary chapters he was careful to accept cities among the greatest fall. Again the situation at Rome, specifically who in their koina: Kyzikos, Smyrna, Ephesos, and pos- was in favor or not, was more determinative of sibly Nikaia, Nikopolis and Tarsos. One important provincial cult than the situation of the bewildered refusal of cult is known: he did not permit Pergamon or disappointed Bithynians. Indeed, Nikomedia may to build a (municipal?) temple to him, but modified have been punished further for its citizen’s presump- the Pergamenes’ request by allowing them to put his tion when its rival Nikaia was given the Kommodeia statue in their provincial temple to Zeus Philios and festival that it had lost. Trajan. This occurred at the end of his reign, and Commodus’ identification as a god, specifically as his relationship with the Senate was then so bad that the Roman Hercules, is played up in historical ac- even a modest refusal of cult may not have impressed counts.29 Mitchell therefore attributed Commodus’ them; after his death, they would not deify him until grant of a second provincial temple to Tarsos to its his successor Antoninus Pius insisted on it.26 But fame as a cult center of Herakles/Sandan, and Hadrian was so concerned for the cities that his thought that Nikaia received a contest in the refusal may not have been even intended to impress emperor’s name because it was founded by Hera- the Senate, but simply to restrain spending at kles.30 But the grant to Tarsos was not out of line Pergamon, where they were still working on the with its position in the province, and we have seen porticoes around Trajan’s temple. that the festival at Nikaia was mainly a way of abas- Antoninus Pius’ attitude toward his own cult is ing Nikomedia. In chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ are listed not expressed in what is preserved of the historians, the many cities unconnected with Herakles who but he saw to it that both his adoptive father Hadrian nonetheless celebrated festivals in Commodus’ name, and his wife Faustina were deified after death, and while many cities closely associated with or even after his own he joined Faustina in her temple in founded by Herakles (eight or more Herakleias, the Roman Forum. His successor Marcus Aurelius Perinthos, Kallatis, Kios, and Nakoleia) received no took the same care for him and for his other adopted known favors from Commodus. Though it is tempt- son, Lucius Verus. The Antonine rulers and their ing to attribute particular grants to emperors’ in- consorts were also enshrined in the temple of Arte- terests, a look at the broader picture shows that mis at Sardis, which had probably gained the sec- Commodus did not necessarily focus his favors in ond neokoria for the city from Antoninus Pius. this way. In any case, cults were probably still ini- Marcus Aurelius leaves us little in his own writings tiated by the provincials, not by the emperor. regarding ruler cult, but he and his son Commodus It is important to note, however, that Cassius wrote to the gerousia of Athens in 179 to modify its Dio’s mention (ep. 73.12.2) of Nikomedia’s ill-fated offer of gold or silver statues as honors more suited temple and contest in honor of Commodus is the to the gods, accepting bronze busts of a size that last explicit citation by a historian of the grant of a could be transported on festal occasions.27 As it provincial imperial temple that made its city happens, one of the few solid gold busts of an em- neokoros. This may simply be due to the fact that peror preserved to us is of Marcus Aurelius.28 The we have so few historical sources for the time sub- context of the modest reply to the gerousia is un- sequent to Commodus, as well as the confused, known, but it certainly harks back to Julio-Claudian incomplete, or downright fictitious state of what we precedents, and possibly was intended to reflect well do have. But it is also likely that such honors were on the good character of the new Augustus, Com- being taken for granted by the historians as noth- modus. ing out of the ordinary; indeed, Dio would probably Commodus’ behavior as sole ruler was not to be not have mentioned Nikomedia’s case had it not so considerate. He and the Senate first granted a been so unusual and so tied up with the fate of second provincial temple and a sacred contest to Saoteros. Nikomedia thanks to the influence of his chamber- Historians do document how Septimius Severus lain Saoteros, and then withdrew them at Saoteros’ used the grant and withdrawal of honors as a weapon in his first contest for the Empire. His 26 Cassius Dio ep. 69.23.3, ep. 70.1.2-3; Historia Augusta, Hadrian 27. 27 Oliver 1989, no. 196. 29 Cassius Dio ep. 73.15.2-16.1; Historia Augusta, Commodus 28 From Aventicum (Avenches in Switzerland); Fishwick 8.9, 9.2. 1987-1992, 535-536. 30 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:220-221. chapter 42 – the roman powers 365 message was simple: his friends would be rewarded to his Parthian war, many of his neokoriai are traced with the spoils taken from their rivals, his enemies. in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ to other motives. Neokoria was simply one of the many rights and Some were apparently personal favors (as at Phila- honors that cities desired; when granted to his al- delphia), others reflected rivalries within the koinon lies it was an impressive reward, when taken from of Asia. Macrinus’ removal of titles such as ‘neo- his enemies a sign of their disgrace. So far as is koros’ can also be seen as a response to specific local known, Severus acted directly upon the provincial situations, implying little about his own attitude cities, with no byplay towards the Senate, to Roman toward the grant or the withdrawal of rights to sensibilities, or even to the koina involved. Thus worship the emperor. Severus reinforced his newly gained power (“the lord The flawed sources on Elagabalus’ reign empha- giveth, the lord taketh away”) in provinces recently size his concern with the cult of the sun god of unsettled, and doubly delighted those that had cho- Emesa, rather than with his own. Certainly he sen correctly when they saw their rivals’ fall.31 Later granted many neokoriai, some of which can be as- in the reign, his son and successor Caracalla took sociated with his route to Rome at the outset of his the role of asking mercy for former enemies and reign. The rest cannot be pinned to any particular smoothing over his father’s harsh policy. Since mercy imperial interest, such as cults of other sun gods or to enemies deprived friends of their rivals’ goods, the of goddesses for his god to marry; there were few friends were also compensated with further honors. ancient cities that could not boast one or the other Cities like Perinthos and Anazarbos likely got two such cult. Though historians undoubtedly played up neokoriai each, one for their loyalty early in Severus’ (and in some cases fictionalized) Severus Alexander’s reign, another later, perhaps for the joint cult of character as a contrast to Elagabalus’, he does seem Caracalla and his brother Geta. to have chosen a persona of youthful Roman mod- Once Caracalla and Geta inherited the Empire, esty with regard to imperial cult.35 He withdrew all their mutual hatred drove each to try to convince the neokoriai that Elagabalus had granted, and the Roman Senate, people, and army that his seems to have been quite judicious in granting any brother was dangerous and that he was the only more. He may have allowed himself to be wor- hope. The sources, though confused and partial, shipped with or as Asklepios at Aigeai, and permit- nonetheless contain accounts of Caracalla’s refusing ted Magnesia to become neokoros for its patron to be called by the name of Hercules or that of any goddess Artemis Leukophryene. But the supposition other god.32 The mention of Hercules recalls that that he winnowed the ranks of the deified Augusti god’s imitator Commodus, officially deified but still from twenty down to twelve would have been out of unpleasant memory to the Senate (if Cassius Dio’s of character, and is based on an error.36 attitude be taken as typical). Caracalla’s refusal of The onslaught of civil and military emergencies cult, especially if enacted in Rome, recalls Tiberius’ that followed Severus Alexander’s reign left the conspicuous modesty, and was also likely aimed at emperors little time for debate in the Senate regard- a Roman audience. Caracalla also redirected the ing their own cult; and if there were such, they are neokoria which was offered to him to the cult of not well preserved in our scanty historical sources Artemis at Ephesos, and probably used the occasion to impute the worst motives to his brother’s accep- 35 33 For the fiction, Historia Augusta, Alexander Severus 18; on tance of cult there. Certainly the Senate and sol- the sources, Bertrand-Dagenbach 1990. diers went along with the propaganda and 36 Usener 1902, resurrected by Clauss 1999, 375. When John considered Geta a public enemy, once Caracalla had Chrysostomos (on 2 Corinthians, Homily 26.4-5: J.-P. Migne, 34 Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca Prior 61 [Paris 1862] killed him. 580-581) stated that the Senate considered Alexander the thir- Though grants of neokoria have been associated teenth god, he certainly meant Alexander the Great, not Severus with Caracalla’s visits to eastern cities on the way Alexander, since he also mentioned his conquests and that his empire collapsed upon his death. The Saint was condemning pagan attitudes, not listing the Senate’s declarations of divi; he 31 J. Nollé 1998. also said that Hadrian’s beloved Antinoös was deified, which 32 Herodian 4.3.1-2; Cassius Dio ep. 78.5, probably prefer- the Senate never officially did. Adding one to the canonical able to Historia Augusta, Caracalla 5, where the scene is Raetia. Olympians implied that their number was under human, not 33 See ‘Ephesos,’ chapter 4. divine, control, a favorite theme of Christian authors: for an- 34 Cassius Dio ep. 78.3; Herodian 4.5; Historia Augusta, other ‘thirteenth god,’ Hadrian at Kyzikos, see Sokrates, Historia Caracalla 2-3. Ecclesiastica 3.23.59. 366 part ii – summary chapters for the period. Nonetheless, some trends are discern- with Perge and Side racing to see which could cram ible, especially through the coinage.37 The emperor in more neokoriai. Again, the action was seemingly was often portrayed as appointed by Jupiter or other of purely local importance. gods in the roles of patron, preserver, and compan- In retrospect, it becomes clear that an offer of cult ion, while his rule was foreordained by fate, omens, was one of the ways in which an emperor was rec- and the stars. Since few emperors received the ognized by subject cities. In the acceptance, modi- throne from their fathers, the dynastic principle of fication, or rejection of this honor, the emperor could deification became secondary, and the divi became clarify his own personality, policies, and relationship a college of forerunners whose aura bolstered the to the cities, the Senate, and Rome. Emperors like latest Augustus. Trajan Decius, for example, issued Augustus and Tiberius addressed themselves to coins for eleven of the divi, including Commodus; Roman audiences, while Septimius Severus and so far as is known, he left out Julius Caesar, Claudius, Valerian paid more attention to the cities directly. Lucius Verus, Pertinax, Caracalla, and all the Unfortunately, historians did not record all the cases women. Decius also attempted to restore the Em- in which a plain offer met a plain acceptance; this pire by declaring a universal supplicatio, though this routine was soon taken for granted, and can be act is best known from the resultant martyrdoms and traced in the steady rise in numbers of neokoriai. vituperations of the Christians.38 As regards the But just as the rulers of the third century sought to neokoroi, probably the most significant events of the ally themselves with their deified predecessors, they time up to Valerian were that Gordian III extended must also have welcomed the sign of recognition and the neokoria to Thessalonike, and Trajan Decius honor conferred by the offer of provincial temples jumped that city from being neokoros to four times to their cult. This honor would have been especially neokoros. This honor probably reflects the city’s valued by those whose descent from a previous strategic importance to the Empire’s northern front, emperor was merely a matter of rumor, or who had and expedience, not religious policy, on the part of no dynastic connection at all. In a similar fashion the emperors. Henry I of England and his son Henry II both Valerian, like Decius, issued a call for sacrifice that claimed a connection with their hallowed predeces- resulted in the persecution of Christians, though his sor Edward the Confessor not by lineage, but by son and co-ruler Gallienus apparently abated it after power of healing.40 When the emperors of Rome his father’s capture by the Sassanians.39 Gallienus accepted cult and granted the title ‘neokoros,’ they also seems to have identified himself with the traits put themselves in the line of all the legitimate rul- of various divinities on the Roman coinage. As is ers who had done so previously. discussed in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ the actions of Valerian and Gallienus in restoring neokoriai previously lost, and raising one city to bal- The Augusti ance another, were not meant to influence a Roman audience, but the cities of the East, where Valerian It is important, then, to define who was part of the was fighting. The grants were probably meant to imperial line, the Augusti (Greek Sebastoi). As has bolster the morale of cities under threat (and not just been mentioned, at the break in the Julio-Claudian those in the theater of war) with restorations of good dynasty, after the death of Nero, Galba had adopted things past. the names Caesar and Augustus, and all subsequent The promised ‘new age’ did not come on just yet, rulers did as well. Thus all the emperors, including however, and would not until Diocletian initiated the the reigning one, were Augusti; empresses, especially ceremonious Tetrarchy under the aegis of Jupiter those named Augustae, were included.41 We have and of Hercules. Aurelian and the emperors who noted that coins of Galatia issued under Galba il- followed him continued to make grants of multiple lustrate a temple ‘of the Augusti,’ which may mean neokoriai, as Trajan Decius had to Thessalonike. In that as early as that time the cult of subsequent this later period the strategic area was Pamphylia, emperors had been introduced into what was origi-

37 Turcan 1978. 40 Bloch 1973, 21-27. 38 Selinger 1994. 41 E. Meyer 1975; Clauss 1999, 523-525. For groups of 39 De Blois 1976, 148-185. statues of Augusti, Pekáry 1985, 92-96. chapter 42 – the roman powers 367 nally the temple ‘of the god Augustus and the god- neokoria ‘of the Augusti,’ and we do not even know dess Rome’ at Ankyra. Indeed the process may have which emperor was the original object of cult there. begun well before Galba, since a Galatian priest of Ephesos’ first neokoria was for its ‘common temple Augustus and Rome is recorded as having dedicated of the Augusti.’ Nikaia’s and Miletos’ inscriptions statues of ‘(Tiberius) Caesar and Julia Sebaste’ in ca. and the coins and inscriptions of Tralles call each 23 C.E., though these were not necessarily cult stat- of those cities ‘(once) neokoros of the Augusti.’ And ues within the temple. where cities like Pergamon had several provincial The Augusti worshipped in the eastern provinces temples, all neokoriai that were not of gods could were not confined to those who became divi at be lumped together as ‘of the Augusti.’ Rome. For example, Asia’s temple at Smyrna had Tiberius as its principal object of cult, and he is shown within it on coins as late as the time of Cara- The Senate calla, though he was never deified. The provincial temples were dedicated to the living emperor, and The Roman Senate traditionally received embassies, it is likely that as a new emperor took the old one’s a role that, though diminished, was not entirely place, his cult, and perhaps that of his consort, was eliminated under the Empire.42 Thus, even though introduced into the temple. There they would stay, communities tended to refer their petitions concern- unless their memories were condemned and their ing imperial cult to the emperor himself, the Sen- statues removed. The result was likely a gallery of ate became the site of hearings and the issuer of Augusti in each provincial temple. But subsequent decrees concerning provincial imperial temples, and references to Tiberius’ temple at Smyrna also prove later, the affirmer of rights to neokoria.43 This is that the original emperor worshipped was never ironic, considering that it was the senatorial sensi- quite lost in a crowd of Augusti. There would have tivity toward treating the emperor as a god that has been inscriptions and dedications to him, and his cult colored all subsequent accounts of imperial cult in statue undoubtedly held the most prominent place Rome. within the temple, especially if it was colossal. Per- The Senate, however, was not a monolith, but a gamon’s temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan was cele- gathering of men. For each Thrasea Paetus, stalwart brated on coins issued over a century after its in his pursuit of republican dignity, there was at least dedication, to flatter Trajan Decius; there are late one flattering Lucius Vitellius, and very likely but specific references to the temple of Hadrian at more.44 The honors voted to emperors by senators Kyzikos; and Ephesos’ temple of the Augusti was in some cases were more adulatory than those of- probably later known as the temple of Vespasian. fered by Greek cities or provinces. And an emperor A colossal statue of Titus was found in that declared who he was and what he wanted by what temple, and there were likely colossi of Vespasian he accepted, refused, and modified, just as he did and of Domitian as well, as the temple was com- with the offers of provinces and cities. The senators pleted in the latter’s reign. Hadrian gave explicit did not fail to heed his desires, as those desires had permission to the Pergamenes to have his statue direct implications for their careers as well. stand in the temple of his adoptive father Trajan. The first temples for provincial imperial cult were In the temple of Artemis at Sardis were at least six granted by Augustus while he was still in Asia, and colossi including Antoninus Pius, his wife Faustina, no consultation of the Senate was mentioned by and likely their two adopted sons with their consorts. Cassius Dio. But the second temple granted to Asia, The latter were probably introduced after their under Tiberius, closely connects the Senate with the succession rather than included among the original procedure of gaining a provincial imperial temple.45 cult statues during Pius’ reign; Lucius Verus, at least, Permission was granted by (or at least thanks were became Augustus unexpectedly, and got married offered to) both emperor and Senate. When the time well after his father’s death. Though the original objects of cult were not for- gotten, it became a matter of course that provincial 42 Talbert 1984, 411-425, esp. 417. imperial temples, and the neokoriai that resulted 43 Ibid., 420-423. 44 E.g. Cassius Dio ep. 62.15.1-4, 59.27.2-6. from them, could be called ‘of the Augusti.’ As early 45 Tacitus, Annals 4.15, 4.55-56; see above, and chapter 2, as Nerva, Beroia requested a ruling about its single ‘Smyrna.’ 368 part ii – summary chapters came to decide which city in Asia would receive the could be granted to honor a provincial temple, but temple, embassies of the various cities presented their probably had to be requested separately by the city cases before the Senate, with the emperor looking involved. The Senate also granted (and later with- on. The senators seem to have chosen by process drew) one to Nikomedia, for Commodus (below). of elimination, first of the cities that were not large As well as worshipping the Senate in its first pro- or rich enough, then of cities with prominent cults vincial temple, Smyrna mentioned that body’s role of other deities. Finally, in a deadlock between two in its second neokoria, though not perhaps as most cities of comparable grandeur and antiquity, senators would have wished. An inscription of Smyrna’s conspicuous and long-held devotion to Smyrna, in listing the gifts that Hadrian gave on Rome won the senators over, by a vote of four account of the orator Polemon, includes “a second hundred to seven. They then sent one of their mem- decree of the Senate, by which we became twice bers to Asia as commissioner to oversee the work of neokoros.” Though the Senate’s decree was appar- construction. ently what made the neokoria official, it is portrayed That senators were deliberating over the proper here as being entirely within the emperor’s gift. form of cult for Tiberius in the presence of Tiberius Senatorial decisions confirmed neokoria not only himself doubtless made them all the more careful in provinces with proconsular governors, such as in expressing opinions, though reports would have Asia. Though at the time of Hadrian Bithynia may gotten back to the emperor even had he not at- already have been governed by an imperial legate, tended. But the position of the Senate in these and the only inscription that calls Nikaia neokoros ac- subsequent proceedings was a peculiar one. The knowledges the Senate’s role. This inscription also emperor, in his modesty, could refuse or downplay couples decisions of the Senate with decisions of the his own cult, but the Senate never could. If the emperors concerning the city’s titles.47 The latter emperor was in favor of accepting cult, the Senate conforms with the famous letter of Antoninus Pius had to approve as well, or risk implying that the to Ephesos, in which Antoninus says that he had emperor was overreaching himself. And it was not decided what titles were proper to that city. the Senate’s role to say ‘remember that thou art Bithynia was certainly governed by an imperial mortal.’ When offered a decision, it devoted its at- legate under Commodus, when the chamberlain tention to seeing that the cult accepted (as at Saoteros was said to have used his influence to get Smyrna) was suitable to the emperor’s honor, prob- his city, Nikomedia, the Senate’s permission to hold ably as magnificent as precedent allowed. a contest and build a temple to Commodus (Cassius That the personified Senate should share the cult Dio 73.12.1-2). The Senate may also have taken the with Tiberius and his mother at Smyrna, as Rome initiative to rescind these grants at Saoteros’ fall, had with Augustus at Pergamon, does not seem though certainly not without Commodus’ (and his unnatural, since the Senate’s favorable decisions had new chamberlain’s) permission. first won Asia’s gratitude. Indeed Tiberius harped Cities begin to mention the Senate’s confirmation on this very fact in a later speech before the Senate of neokoria more frequently in their inscriptions of itself, mentioned above. But the cult partnership may the early third century.48 Perhaps the first city to take not have been without precedent, as Hadrianic coins it up as a formula was Ephesos, at a time when it of Nikomedia imply that the Senate and People of was undergoing great uncertainty regarding its Rome may have long been worshipped alongside neokoriai. The city cited the Senate’s approval in Augustus in Bithynia’s first provincial temple, estab- inscriptions set up in and after 211, when Ephesos lished in 29 B.C.E.46 was granted two neokoriai at once, one neokoria was The Senate also issued decrees concerning the diverted from Caracalla to Artemis, and then both status of contests associated with neokoriai. At Per- were endangered with the subsequent death of Geta. gamon, a senatus consultum on the festival for Zeus That this grueling process involved the Senate is Philios and Trajan was contained in the foundation clear, since Caracalla’s letter to Asia refers to ‘the dossier of inscriptions around the temple. As is dis- cussed in chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ such contests 47 L. Robert 1977b, 18. 48 This date for the majority of citations is not noted by Bowersock 1995, 85-98; for a critique, see SEG 45 (1995) no. 46 Not noted by Kienast 1985, 256-261. 2353. chapter 42 – the roman powers 369 leading men at Rome’—indeed, his modest diver- whether it had retained or lost its neokoria for sion of the neokoria for himself to Artemis may have Elagabalus, but affirmed that it was ‘many times been acted out partially for the Senate’s benefit, as neokoros of the Augusti according to decrees of the mentioned above. Another Ephesian inscription, sacred Senate.’ initially inscribed before Geta was killed, said that The last word comes from Pamphylia, whose cities Ephesos’ neokoria of Artemis and its three neokoriai declared their rival claims to increasing numbers of of the emperors were “by decrees of the sacred neokoriai at the end of the third century. Perge’s Senate and by imperial decision.” Later inscriptions acclamation under Tacitus lists all the city’s titles and have the formula of Senatorial approval modifying honors, including four neokoriai, and then proclaims ‘twice neokoros of the Augusti’ but not ‘neokoros of as a proof of the city’s veracity that ‘all the rights Artemis.’ Likely the neokoria for Artemis could stand are by decree of the Senate.’ The rival most likely outside the normal formula of Senatorial decree, as to have claimed that Perge was false in its titles was it was the result of the emperor’s diversion of the Side, and its inscription claiming six neokoriai is grant. Ephesos inscription 125, however, modifies found on a statue base of the personified Roman the entire group of neokoriai for Artemis and the Senate, whose role in confirming titulature was Augusti with mention of the Senate’s decrees. presumably here invoked. Smyrna, for whose first two neokoriai the Senate’s The Senate’s confirmation of provincial temples debate and approval have been amply documented, to the emperors, and thus the neokoroi, was simply made that approval a part of its titular for- longstanding. Though Augustus may have bypassed mula sometime after it became three times neokoros the Senate in allotting temples in Asia and Bithynia, under Caracalla, and used that formula down to the Tiberius let it take a greater role regarding the reign of Valerian and Gallienus. So did Sardis af- temple to his (and its own) cult at Smyrna. But he ter 211, though at that point its last neokoria was and his successors were privy to the Senate’s debates, for Antoninus Pius, and despite its subsequent gain and no senator could have forgotten that the em- and loss of a neokoria for Elagabalus. In the formula peror, object of the proposed cult, would note ev- used by all these cities, the words ‘according to ery item in their deliberations, and judge every decrees of the sacred (or most sacred) Senate’ are speaker and every vote. So it is not unexpected that placed directly after the word ‘neokoros.’ Tralles, the Senate’s role could be seen as a rubber stamp however, apparently attributed not just neokoria but of the emperor’s decision, even by far-off provincials: its titles in general (especially ‘shrine of Zeus Larasios’) thus Smyrna lists the second decree of the Senate, to decrees of the Senate. by which it became twice neokoros, among the gifts In the reign of Elagabalus, Laodikeia and Ephesos of Hadrian. Worse, under Commodus, the Senate’s went so far as to squeeze the Senate’s affirmation grant of a temple and festival to Nikomedia was seen onto their coinage. Some coins of Laodikeia read as due not even to the emperor, but to his cham- ‘temples, games, by decree of the Senate, worldwide’ berlain. and ‘the Laodikeians neokoroi of Commodus and The sudden growth of third-century references to Antoninus by decree of the Senate.’ The city’s the Senate’s role in confirming neokoria parallels a motive might have been a special senatorial decree growth in the number of cities that put the image for its (single) neokoria of Commodus and Caracalla; of the ‘sacred Senate’ on the obverse of some of their such an oddity may have been challenged by rivals. coins.49 This is unlikely to have been due to some At the same time Ephesos also declared the Senate’s generalized respect for the Senate (whose role in approval on its coins and at least one inscription; provincial administration continued to decrease), or its coin type 24 shows all four of the temples for for the number of easterners who had now advanced which it was neokoros, and proclaims: “these temples to senatorial rank. Perhaps, as Kienast believed, it of the Ephesians by decree of the Senate!” was part of imperial propaganda to ally honors to But the temples and neokoriai for Elagabalus were the Senate with honors to the emperor and his not shielded by the Senate’s approval from the con- house. But the wording of the inscriptions and coins demnation of his memory. In Severus Alexander’s seems to indicate that the Senate’s approval was reign, neokoriai of Elagabalus were withdrawn. But Sardis continued to use the formula even on an 49 Kienast 1985, 266-277; Talbert 1984, 95-97 also noted inscription of this very time: it could not yet state this, though he found no obvious explanation. 370 part ii – summary chapters important in putting the seal on titles like neokoria emperor’s health and safety by the soldiers and at a time when those titles were most in escalation provincials at the start of the Roman year, on the and often in question. The cities cited the Senate’s emperor’s birth or accession day, and on other spe- decrees when there was concern over their titles’ cial occasions. He also sacrificed and set up dedi- legality, as did Ephesos when its neokoriai for cations for the emperor at visits to the shrines in Caracalla and Geta were threatened. The formula cities of his province. Some governors showed ex- was also picked up by Smyrna, a city whose troubles tra zeal. For example, P. Cornelius Scipio, quaestor began later, when neokoriai for Caracalla may have pro praetore of Achaea in 2/3 C.E., not only spared been challenged in the reign of Macrinus. In con- no expense in his celebration of the Kaisareia but trast to these cities, Pergamon, the prime object of made a special sacrifice for Augustus’ (grand)son, Macrinus’ wrath, is not known to have named the Gaius Caesar, and ordered all in the cities he gov- Senate in proof of its titles, and no challenge of erned to wear wreaths and sacrifice too.53 Tralles’ titles is documented, though less is known Influence on the imperial cult has been attributed of it in general. Laodikeia would claim the Senate’s to P. Vedius Pollio, an equestrian friend of Augustus approval for its unusual neokoria for Commodus and whom he sent on a special mission, probably to Caracalla, while Sardis cited it even on the verge reform the finances of major temples in the East, ca. of losing its third neokoria for Elagabalus. At Perge, 27-25 B.C.E.54 Though Pollio is not known to have the Senate was invoked as the final guarantor that held any provincial office, regulations he made were the city’s titles were genuine. Considering the claims confirmed by Augustus. But his sole explicit connec- and counterclaims that rivalry could induce, the tion with the imperial cult was personal: he built a Senate’s authorization of titulature was probably the Caesareum in his home town Beneventum. His most important role that it played for provincial regulations were cited as precedents in an edict of cities in the third century. Paullus Fabius Persicus, proconsul of Asia under Claudius, who regulated sacred expenses at Ephesos (especially at the Artemision) and by extension in the Provincial Officials other cities of Asia. But Pollio was deferred to only in regard to certain expenditures: the amount to be The Roman authorities with whom the cities and paid back to someone who had bought a priesthood; koina had most direct contact were their provincial the payments due to victors in sacred contests; and governors. Governors probably had no official role the maximum amount to be paid for pentaeteric in the koinon; indeed, one of the concerns of the contests.55 None of these was specific to imperial cult. koinon was prosecution of corrupt governors, or Perhaps the most crucial document of a gov- conferral of honors on favored ones.50 But in a sys- ernor’s direct influence on imperial cult in his prov- tem where a governor’s responsibilities in his prov- ince is the edict of Paullus Fabius Maximus, ince were universal, with few checks on his actions, proconsul of Asia.56 Around the time that Augustus many are known to have taken a hand in koinon gave the Asians permission to found temples at affairs, including the imperial cult. For example, Pergamon and Ephesos, the koinon, meeting at when the unwilling Aelius Aristides was selected for Smyrna, declared its intention of awarding a crown the chief priesthood of Asia, an obliging governor to whomever could devise the greatest honor for the exempted him from service at that time, though emperor. This prize was not awarded until 9 B.C.E., other governors and legati would continue to try to when Maximus, the current governor, issued an make him take city offices.51 edict declaring that the start of the official year for The performance of certain religious honors for each city in Asia should be Augustus’ birthday. His the emperor was part of the governor’s own sphere of activity.52 He officiated at the vows taken for the 53 Documented on an inscription from Messene: Année Epigraphique 1967 no. 458; SEG 23 (1968) no. 206. 54 Scherrer 1990 collects the evidence, but would have Pollio 50 Deininger 1965, 40-41, 146-147, 150-151, 161-169. promoting the building of altars as Sebasteia/Augousteia in each 51 Aelius Aristides, Oration 50 (Sacred Tales 4).71-104. For city where he was commemorated, and would redate the the identity of the governor who exempted him, Swain 1996, Hellenistic altar of Artemis Ephesia to that purpose. 272-273. 55 IvE 17-19: 18c lines 8-11, 17 lines 46-48, 18d lines 2-4. 52 S. Price 1984b, 69-71; Eck 1997a, 203-217. 56 Laffi 1967; Bickerman 1980, 48-50. chapter 42 – the roman powers 371 tone is hortatory rather than imperative, and he Prusa (Letters 10.81, 82). Dio’s accusers implied trea- begins with a panegyric in praise of Augustus and son because the building included both a statue of the good fortune that brought him to the world. The Trajan (in the library) and the graves of Dio’s wife koinon’s decree awarding the crown to Maximus is and son, but Trajan, like a good princeps, rejected engraved after his edict, and like it begins with praise this charge. In this case, Pliny’s usual caution is yet for Augustus as savior and benefactor. Copies of more understandable, as the emperor had to be the these documents were to be set up in the sanctuary ultimate arbiter of what attitude subjects should take of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon and in Kaisarea with regard to his own image; the ruler himself could in judicial centers, and have in fact been found in be clement where a governor, for the sake of his own five separate cities. Maximus’ triumph was also to good standing vis-a-vis the emperor, would neces- be proclaimed at the Rhomaia Sebasta at Pergamon sarily be severe. and at Kaisarea festivals in each city. Here the gov- Thus provincial officials often interfered with (or, ernor, who was “sent from (Augustus’) right hand to put it more diplomatically, guided) the provincials’ and judgement,” showed the koinon how best to practice of the imperial cult; and they were often honor the emperor. The award of the crown was themselves guided from above. But there was almost doubtless helpful in pleasing the governor too, and no limit to what Roman officials could take (or get) the fact that the calendar for all magistracies in the as their business. Just as Pliny wrestled with the province was now regularized would not have come problem of Claudius’ shrine, he was also confronted amiss to him either. with moving a temple to Magna Mater and even the When Pliny the Younger governed the cities in graves of private persons (Letters 10.49, 50, 68, 69). Bithynia and Pontus, his main concern was regulat- Arrian, as governor of Cappadocia, wrote asking ing and restoring their finances. He wrote to Trajan Hadrian to send a better statue of himself for Tra- for instructions on diverse matters: the rights of cities pezous; but it is seldom noted that he also asked the and individuals, all sorts of building projects, the emperor to send better cult statues for the city’s proper numbers of soldiers to accompany officials, temple of Hermes as well, and specified the sizes.57 and even, like Vedius Pollio, on awards for the The regulation of imperial cult in the provinces was winners of sacred games (Letters 10.118, 119). He was not a special mission for provincial governors, any confronted with two cases involving the imperial cult. more than any other aspect of civic life. Nonethe- In the first, the question was whether a derelict house less, governors had the direct line to the emperor’s with a shrine to the emperor Claudius in it could attention, and their guidance, encouragement, and be rebuilt as a bath; the answer was, if the shrine decisions helped determine the path that provincial had actually been built, it was still sacred to worship would take. Claudius’ cult (Letters 10.70, 71). In the second, Pliny became embroiled in the quarrel over a public por- tico that the orator Dio Chrysostomos had built at 57 Arrian, Periplous 1.3-2.1. 372 part ii – summary chapters

Chapter 43. Conclusion

We have documented a title, and through it an insti- have been given for such a visit; and if such a visit tution, that developed and changed over time. This cannot be documented, it must have been planned approach contrasts with that of earlier authorities, but not carried out. If this study makes any contri- who amassed a range of phenomena across time in bution, it is a reemphasis on the diversity of cause, a search for the ‘true nature’ of neokoria. Thus the and change of situation, in the explication of a single long-drawn debate over whether ‘neokoros’ was a phenomenon, the granting of the title ‘neokoros.’ title of municipal or provincial nature can now be Roman administration up to the end of the third seen as an artifact of oversimplification. The con- century was not a unitary and rule-ridden bureau- cepts ‘municipal’ and ‘provincial’ do not now seem cracy, but operated under different laws and pre- so mutually exclusive, for although the koinon was cedents for each province, as well as being subject technically proprietor and administrator of its tem- to the changing priorities of individual emperors and ples within a province, the neokoroi, as temple officials. The koina of the various provinces were wardens, gradually absorbed the temples as aspects culturally distinct from one another, and under no of their own civic pride; and direct communication compulsion to act in similar ways. We should not between city and emperor could bypass the koinon. imagine them as walking in lockstep. When chronology and historical context are consid- In the eastern provinces’ worship of the living ered, we can see that neokoria evolved according to emperor, diversity and change were part of the the demands and desires of those most concerned process from the start. Once Augustus set the pre- with it: the cities, the koina, and the Roman authori- cedent of allowing one temple for a major city in ties, especially the emperors. one province, Bithynian cities apparently were con- Such gradual change in response to demands was tent with their temple to Rome and Augustus, while typical of Roman provincial administration in gen- Asian cities large and small were at odds over who eral. There was little attempt to impose overarching was to build a temple for Tiberius. That emperor rules or wholesale change, but instead a patchwork responded in his typical fashion, by making Au- of solutions to immediate and particular problems gustus’ actions the model for his own. The Senate that might also be applied to similar problems in contributed its ideas as well: once the preconditions other regions as required. The end product could of importance, antiquity and lack of other influen- be a radically different entity from the original form, tial cults were met, cities were judged on their loy- much as Valerian and Gallienus’ scattering of alty and devotion to Rome. neokoriai from Thessalonike to Ephesos to Aspendos Tiberius’ famous refusal of a cult on the model was different from Augustus’ original acceptance of of Asia’s to the province of Hispania Ulterior two temples to his cult in the great cities of Asia and (Tacitus, Annals 4.37-38) was not due to some con- Bithynia, before the title ‘neokoros’ was even thought viction that the cult of the living emperor should be of. confined to the Greeks of the East. Instead there was A recent theme in historical studies has been the a dual motivation: Tiberius’ own strict adherence search for root causes and unitary explanations for to Augustus’ pattern (the key to the persona he historical phenomena. Many city gates were built to presented in Rome), and a general reluctance to ap- welcome Hadrian; when we find such a gate in an ply the institutions of one province to others with- area Hadrian passed through, the assumption is that out demonstrated need. If we then ask why neokoria it must have been built for Hadrian. Titles and is indeed only found in the East, and only in cer- honorifics were often given for imperial visits, espe- tain provinces at that, a variety of factors may be cially in strategic areas; so if a title was given, it must considered. First, the nature of the cities and of the chapter 43 – conclusion 373 provincial organizations in East and West were Furthermore, coins of smaller cities were generally basically different. The cities of Asia were poleis, not provided by mints centered in larger and more town centers of tribal regions. They had long his- important cities, so the emulation of coin types and tories of basic internal autonomy and competition titles could have been fostered by that means as well. with one another, though their koinon bound them The effect is that of a stone thrown into a pond. together and allowed some corporate action. They Frequent issues featuring the title began under also had a history of making powerful men and rulers Antoninus Pius at Ephesos (newly twice neokoros), from outside the polis objects of worship within it. Kyzikos (newly neokoros) and Nikomedia. Under But it is no accident that rivalry immediately sur- Marcus Aurelius, Pergamon and Amaseia took it up. faced in the competition for Tiberius’ temple. One A slight setback occurred when Nikomedia lost its of the conditions that fostered the multiplication of neokoria for Commodus, but under the Severi the neokoroi, and neokoriai, in certain provinces (no- use of the title burgeoned. In Cilicia, Tarsos had tably Asia) was the koinon’s tendency to break up begun to apply the title more frequently under into its quarreling components. Commodus, so Anazarbos also began, probably as There can be little doubt that Asia was the birth- soon as it could, under Septimius Severus; so did place of ‘neokoros’ as a title. At least two cities, Kyzi- Kaissareia in Cappadocia. Perinthos apparently kos and Ephesos, were using it informally in the started using the title as soon as Severus granted it. mid-first century, and by the reign of Domitian it With Caracalla’s reign, Smyrna, which had confined had become official: Ephesos was neokoros by grace itself to issuing coins with temple-bearing divinities of the koinos (‘common,’ i.e. provincial) temple of the instead of stating its title openly, finally celebrated Augusti. Unfortunately we have no direct evidence its third neokoria by beginning to issue coinage that as to what happened in the interval to bring on this featured the title frequently. Philadelphia, Laodikeia, change. Perhaps it began with Ephesos’ request to Antandros, and Tralles may have minted coins pro- make official the title which the city was already claiming themselves neokoroi as soon as Caracalla using unofficially. However it was done, use of the gave or confirmed the title, though the latter two title spread by emulation, especially among the larg- were never frequent, and Elagabalus provoked the est cities; Pergamon and Smyrna, the only other same response from Hierapolis and Philippopolis cities in Asia known to have had provincial temples, (with Perinthos now claiming two), though Miletos began to use it on their inscriptions by the end of appears to have been a trifle jaded about its unfor- the first century C.E. tunate history as neokoros. Of course, all during this Neokoria then moved, or already had moved, to time cities that had begun to put ‘neokoros’ on their other provinces. Beroia staked its claim to be the only coins long since were gaining further neokoriai. The neokoros in Macedonia as early as the reign of post-Elagabalan slump reduced the number some- Nerva. The context is again one of intercity jealou- what, but by that time it was more typical to see sies, which may be why a title that was thus far only ‘neokoros’ on the coins of the neokoroi than not to used in Asia penetrated into Macedonia. Outside the see it. And finally, just before all civic coinage was confines of Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna, the to end for good, the Pamphylian cities entered the title appeared only occasionally on inscriptions and arena, Side to declare a new neokoria and Perge to coins. counter with proclamation of its old one. The more The activities of Trajan and of Hadrian focused widespread the use of neokoria, the more diverse the attention on neokoria and took it in a new direc- demand for it; the more it was granted, however, tion. Trajan allowed a duplication of provincial the less it meant.1 Cassius Dio, in relating how in temples, giving the great cities hope of becoming 15 B.C.E. it had taken a Senatorial decree to get twice neokoros. Hadrian scattered temples through- Paphos the title ‘Augusta,’ wrote that in his own (and out the provinces, with at least three in Asia alone. Severus Alexander’s) time the cities had only to make It was after the reign of Hadrian that the title be- out a list of whatever imperial names they liked.2 gan to be used more widely on inscriptions and This may have been an overstatement, but Dio’s coins. Coins, of course, could circulate at least some 1 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 31.109-110, on the cheapen- distance; citizens of neighboring cities might see the ing of honors granted too widely. titles on them and wish to make similar claims. 2 Cassius Dio 54.23.7-8. 374 part ii – summary chapters disillusion reflects the real proliferation, and conse- ing temples to their own cult; and the ‘Historical quent devaluation, of titles in his time. Analysis’ of chapter 38 traces the gradual process There is no evidence for the end of neokoria; at that led to elimination of pagan temples. It is also last sight at Side, it had been undergoing rapid difficult to imagine the cities, already under pres- escalation in the chaotic years at the end of the third sure from an imperial bureaucracy that was increas- century. The last mention of neokoria, on an inscrip- ingly and then almost exclusively Christian, seeking tion at Sardis, is more a sign that by the fifth cen- further neokoriai. Offering a temple to the emperor, tury the title had lost its meaning rather than that like pursuing an elite civic career, no longer gave it still retained any. A logical time to situate the the advantage it once did, but could indeed become cessation of grants of neokoria would be after the a real disadvantage. Perhaps those who were most reign of Constantine. It is difficult to imagine the aggressively pagan still thought of seeking neokoria Christian emperors doing much more than tolerat- for their cities. If so, they have left little sign. references 375

REFERENCES

COLLECTIONS OF COINS CITED BUT NOT YET PUB- Neapolis in Samaria, A.D. 244-53.’ American Numismatic LISHED IN CORPORA: Society Museum Notes 29 (1984): 61-97. IdA = C. Habicht. Die Inschriften des Asklepieions. Altertümer von Berlin: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen (with source collec- Pergamon 8.3. Berlin 1969. tion name). IG = J. Kirchner, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae 2-3. Inscriptiones Atticae Boston: Classical Department, Museum of Fine Arts. Euclidis anno posteriores. Berlin 1913. London: British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals IGBR = G. Mihailov, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. (subsequent to BMC). Sofia 1956-1961. New York: American Numismatic Society. IGRR = R. Cagnat et al. Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas Oxford: Heberden Coin Room, Ashmolean Museum. pertinentes. Paris 1906-1927. Paris: Cabinet des Médailles, Bibliothèque Nationale. IGUrbRom = L. Moretti. Inscriptiones Graecae urbis Romae. Rome Vienna: Münzkabinett, Kunsthistorisches Museum. 1968. Warsaw: Narodowe Museum. IvE = H. Wankel, ed. Inschriften von Ephesos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 11-17. Bonn 1979-1981. ABBREVIATIONS: IvL = T. Corsten. Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos 1. Inschriften Adana (with coin no.) = D. Cox. A Tarsus Coin Collection in the griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 49. Bonn 1997. Adana Museum. American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes IvM 6.1 = A. Rehm et al. Milet 6.1: Inschriften von Milet. Berlin and Monographs 92. New York 1941. 1997. AMNG = H. Gaebler. Die antike Münzen Nord-griechenlands 3.1. IvP = M. Fränkel, ed. Inschriften von Pergamon, Altertümer von Berlin 1906. Pergamon 8.2. Berlin 1895. ANRW = H. Temporini and W. Haase, eds. Aufstieg und IvPerge = S. ”ahin. Inschriften von Perge 1. Inschriften griechischer Niedergang der Römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Städte aus Kleinasien 54. Bonn 1999. Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Berlin 1972-. IvS = G. Petzl. Die Inschriften von Smyrna 2.1. Inschriften griechischer Arslan (with coin number) = M. Arslan. ‘The Roman Coin- Städte aus Kleinasien 24.1. Bonn 1987. age of Ancyra in Galatia.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and IvT = F. Poljakov. Die Inschriften von Tralleis und Nysa, 1. Inschriften P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 36.1. Bonn 1989. Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 111-156. Milan 1997. KP = K. Ziegler and W. Sontheimer, eds. Der Kleine Pauly: AUB (with catalogue number) = D. Baramki. The Coin Collec- Lexikon der Antike. Stuttgart 1964-1975. tion of the American University of Beirut Museum: Palestine and Köln = T. Corsten. Katalog der bithynischen Münzen der Sammlung Phoenicia. Beirut 1974. des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln 2. AvH = C. Humann, C. Cichorius, W. Judeich, and F. Winter. Opladen1996. Altertümer von Hierapolis. Berlin 1898. LeBas-Waddington = P. Le Bas and W. Waddington. Voyage AvP = F. Winter. Altertümer von Pergamon 7: Die Skulpturen, mit archéologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure. Paris 1847-1877. Ausnahme der Altarreliefs, 2. Berlin 1908. LIMC = Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. Zürich 1981- Aykay = Y. Aykay. “‘Hecht Definesinde” Perge âehir sikkeleri.’ 1997. Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri yÌllÌgÌ 13-14 (1967): 242-276. MAMA = Monumenta Asiae Minoris antiqua. Ayvagedigi hoard = F. Rebuffat. ‘Le trésor de Ayvagedigi.’ In MvS = D. Klose. Die Münzprägung von Smyrna in der römischen M. Amandry and G. Le Rider, eds., Trésors et circulation Kaiserzeit. Berlin 1987. monétaire en Anatolie antique, 73-118. Paris 1994. OGIS = W. Dittenberger, ed. Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae. BMC (followed by coin number of each city’s entry) = British Lipsiae 1903-1905. Museum, Department of Coins and Medals. Catalogue of PECS = R. Stillwell, ed. Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Greek Coins. Princeton 1976. BMCRE = British Museum, Department of Coins and Med- PIR = Prosopographia imperii Romani saec. I. II. III. 1st ed. Berlin als. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. 1897-1898. CIG = A. Boeckh, ed. Corpus inscriptionum Graecarum. Berlin 1825- PIR2 = Prosopographia imperii Romani saec. I. II. III. 2nd ed. Berlin 1877. 1933- . CIL = Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. RE = A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds. Real-Encyclopädie CT (cited by book, title and section) = C. Pharr. The Theodosian der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart 1894-. 2d ed. Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions. Princeton completed in 1980. 1952. RECAM = Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor. FdD = Fouilles de Delphes. RIC = H. Mattingly et al. The Roman Imperial Coinage. London FdXL = A. Balland. Fouilles de Xanthos 7. Inscriptions d’époque 1923- . impériale du Létoön. Paris 1981. Rosenberger (with catalogue number) = M. Rosenberger. City- FiE = Forschungen in Ephesos. Vienna 1906-. Coins of Palestine: The Rosenberger Israel Collection 3. Jerusa- Harl (with catalogue number) = K. Harl. ‘The Coinage of lem 1977. 376 references

RPC 1: A. Burnett, M. Amandry, P. Ripollès. Roman Provincial Mnemosyne 39: 282-304. Coinage 1. London/Paris 1992. Abbasoglu, H. 2001. ‘The founding of Perge and its develop- RPC 2: A. Burnett, M. Amandry, I. Carradice. Roman Provin- ment in the Hellenistic and Roman periods’ in D. Parrish, cial Coinage 2. London/Paris 1999. ed., Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, 173-188. Portsmouth Sardis = H. W. Bell. Sardis 11: Coins. Part 1: 1910-1914. Leiden RI. 1916. Adak, M. 1996. ‘Claudia Anassa —eine Wohltäterin aus Schede (with type letters) = D. Krencker and M. Schede. Der Patara.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 27: 127-142. Tempel in Ankara, 40-42. Berlin 1936. Adams, J. 1984. ‘The Maritime Cities of the Greco-Roman East SEG = Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum. Using the Title NAUARXIS. Evidence and False Leads.’ S-G (with coin numbers) = E. Schönert (-Geiss). Die Munzprägung The Ancient World 10: 111-126. von Perinthos. Berlin 1965. Akurgal, E. 1990. ‘Grundzüge der hermogeneischen Archi- SiA = J. Nollé. Side im Altertum 1-2. Inschriften griechischer Städte tektur.’ In W. Hoepfner and E.-L. Schwandner, eds., aus Kleinasien 43-44. Bonn 1993-2001. Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur, 123-127. Side Coins = S. Atlan. 1947-1967 Yillari Side Kazilari Sirasinda Mainz. Elde Edilen Sikkeler. Ankara 1976. Alföldi, G. 1972. ‘Der Sturz des Kaisers Geta und die antike SIG4 = W. Dittenberger. Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum. 4th ed. Geschichtsschreibung.’ In Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium Hildesheim 1960. 1970, 19-51. Bonn. S/M (with coin numbers) = E. Sydenham, rev. A. Malloy. Alzinger, W. 1970. ‘Nachträge: Ephesos.’ RE Supplement 12, Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia. New York 1978. 1588-1704. SNGANS = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum. The Collection of the Amandry, M., B. Remy, and B. Özcan. 1994. ‘La circulation American Numismatic Society. New York 1969-. monétaire dans le Pont à l’époque impériale à travers les SNGBraun = W. Leschhorn, ed. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum. collections numismatiques du Musée de Tokat.’ In M. Katalog der griechischen Münzen. Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum Amandry and G. Le Rider, eds. Trésors et circulation monétaire Braunschweig. Braunschweig 1998. en Anatolie antique, 119-130, pls. 27-34. Paris. (= Tokat with SNGCop = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum. The Royal Collection of Coins coin no.). and Medals. Danish National Museum. Copenhagen 1942-. Ameling, W. 1984. ‘Cassius Dio und Bithynien.’ Epigraphica SNGFitzw = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum 4. Fitzwilliam Museum. Anatolica 4: 123-138. Leake and General Collections. London 1940-. ———. 1985. Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium: Inschriften SNGLevante = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Switzerland. Levante- griechischer Stadte aus Kleinasien 27. Bonn. Cilicia. Berne 1986-. ———. 1994. ‘Prosopographia Heracleotica.’ In L. Jonnes, The SNGLewis = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum 6. Lewis Collection in Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica: Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Corpus Christi College. Cambridge 2. Greek Imperial Coins. Kleinasien 47: 115-168. Bonn. London 1972-. Anabolu, M. 1970. ‘Küçük Asya’da bulunan imparator tapÌna- SNGLeypold = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Österreich. Sammlung klarÌ.’ Anadolu SanatÌ AraâtÌrmalarÌ 2: 31-54. Leypold 1. Vienna 2000. Anastasiadis, V., and G. Souris. 1992. ‘Theophanes of Mytilene: SNGMil = N. Vismara, ed. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Italia 6:3. A New Inscription Relating to his Early Career.’ In Chiron Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche. Milan 2000. 22: 377-383. SNGMün = D. Klose, ed. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Deutschland: Anderson, G. 1993. The Second Sophistic. London. Staatliche Munzsammlung München 20.1. Ionia. Munich 1995. Andreae, B. 1990. ‘Der Asklepios des Phyromachos.’ In B. SNGParis = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum France. Bibliothèque Andreae, ed. Phyromachos-Probleme, 45-100. Mainz. nationale. Cabinet des médailles 2: Cilicie. 3: Pamphylie, Pisidie, ———. 1993. ‘Laurea coronatur.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Lycaonie, Galatie. 5: Mysie. Paris 1983-. Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom 100: 83-106. SNGPfPS = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Deutschland. Pfälzer Arslan, M. 1991. ‘The Coinage of Ancyra in the Roman Pe- Privatsammlungen. Munich 1993-2001. riod.’ In C. Lightfoot, ed., Recent Turkish Coin Hoards and SNGRighetti = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Schweiz 2. Katalog der Numismatic Studies, 3-42 and 333. Oxford. Sammlung Jean-Pierre Righetti im Bernischen Historischen Mu- ———. 1997. ‘The Roman Coinage of Ancyra in Galatia.’ In seum. Berne 1993. J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales SNGTüb = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Deutschland. Munzsammlung Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 111- der Universität Tübingen. Berlin 1981-. 156 . Milan. (= Arslan with number.) SNGvA = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Deutschland. Sammlung von Ashmole, B. 1956. ‘Cyriac of Ancona and the Temple of Aulock. Berlin 1957-. Hadrian at Cyzicus.’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld T (with coin numbers) = I. Touratsoglou. Die Münzstätte von Institutes 19: 179-191. Thessaloniki in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin 1988. Atlan, S. 1976. 1947-1967 Yillari Side Kazilari Sirasinda Elde Edilen TAM = Tituli Asiae Minoris. Sikkeler. Ankara. (= Side Coins.) Tokat (with coin no.) = M. Amandry, B. Remy, B. Özcan. ‘La Aurenhammer, M. 1997. ‘Das Porträt eines Kaiserpriesters.’ circulation monétaire dans le Pont à l’époque impériale In H. Thür, ed., ‘...und verschönerte die Stadt...’ Österreichisches à travers les collections numismatiques du Musée de Archäologisches Institut. Sonderschriften 27: 41-53. Vienna. Tokat.’ In M. Amandry and G. Le Rider, eds., Trésors et Aykay, Y. 1967. ‘“Hecht Definesinde” Perge âehir sikkeleri.’ circulation monétaire en Anatolie antique, 119-130, pls. 27-34. Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri yÌllÌgÌ 13-14: 242-276. (=Aykay.) Paris 1994. Babelon, E. 1898. Inventaire sommaire de la collection Waddington. Weber = L. Forrer. The Weber Collection. London 1922-1929. Paris. Ziegler Sammlungen (with coin no.) = R. Ziegler. Münzen Kilikiens Baharal, D. 1996. ‘The Emperor Marcus Opellius Macrinus aus kleineren deutschen Sammlungen. Munich 1988. and the gens Aurelia.’ In R. Katzoff, ed., Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, 415-432. Ramat-Gan. WORKS CITED: ———. 1999. ‘The Emperor Macrinus: Imperial Propaganda Aalders, G. 1986. ‘Cassius Dio and the Greek World.’ and the gens Aurelia.’ In E. dal Covolo and G. Rinaldi, eds., references 377

Gli Imperatori Severi: Storia Archeologia Religione, 47-65. Rome. Hadrian’s Panhellenic Program.’ Hesperia 32: 57-86. Balland, A. 1981. Fouilles de Xanthos 7: Inscriptions d’époque impériale Bennett, J. 1997. Trajan: Optimus Princeps. Bloomington. du Létoön. Paris. (= FdXL.) Bergemann, J. 1990. Römische Reiterstatuen. Mainz. Bammer, A. 1972. Die Architektur des jüngeren Artemision von Ephesos. Berghaus, P. 1978. ‘Erasionen auf Münzen von Pergamon.’ In Wiesbaden. S. ”ahin, E. Schwertheim, and J. Wagner, eds. Studien zur ———. 1972-75. ‘Architektur.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festchrift… F. K. Dörner 1: 158- Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 50: Beibl. 386-389. 162. Leiden. ———. 1978-1980. ‘Elemente flavisch-trajanischer Architek- Bergmann, M. 1998. Die Strahlen der Herrscher. Mainz. turfassaden aus Ephesos.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Bergquist, B. 1998. ‘Feasting of Worshippers or Temple and Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 52: 67-90. Sacrifice? The Case of Herakleion on Thasos.’ In R. ———. 1984. Das Heiligtum der Artemis von Ephesos. Graz. Hägg, ed., Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological ———. 1988. Ephesos: Stadt an Fluss und Meer. Graz. Evidence, 57-72. Stockholm. ——— and U. Muss. 1996. Das Artemision von Ephesos. Mainz. Bernhardt, R. 1971. Imperium und Eleutheria. Hamburg. Bar, M. 1985. ‘Les monnaies grecques de Césarée de Cappa- ———. 1982. ‘Immunität und Abgabenpflichtigkeit bei doce, Ier–IIIe s. ap. J.C., trouvées en Europe.’ Bulletin, römischen Kolonien und Munizipien in den Provinzen.’ Cercle d’Études Numismatiques 22 no. 3: 53-65. Historia 31: 343-352. Baramki, D. 1974. The Coin Collection of the American University Bertrand-Dagenbach, C. 1990. Alexandre Sévère et l’Histoire of Beirut Museum: Palestine and Phoenicia. Beirut. (= AUB with Auguste. Brussels. catalogue number.) Beurlier, E. 1877-1910. ‘Neocorus.’ In C. Daremberg and E. Barattolo, A. 1995. ‘The Temple of Hadrian-Zeus at Cyzicus.’ Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines 4.1: 55- Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung 59. Paris. Istanbul 45: 57-108. Bickerman, E. 1980. Chronology of the Ancient World. 2nd ed. ———. 1998. ‘Ciriaco de’ Pizzicolli ed il tempio di “Proser- London. pina” a Cizico: Per una nuova lettura della descrizione Bingöl, O. 1999. ‘Epiphanie an den Artemistempeln von dell’ Anconitano.’ In G. Paci and S. Sconocchia, eds., Ephesos und Magnesia am Mäander.’ In H. Friesinger Ciriaco d’Ancona e la cultura antiquaria dell’Umanismo, 103-140. and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen Reggio Emilia. in Ephesos, 233-240. Vienna. Barbieri, G. 1952. L’Albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino. Birley, A. 1988. The African Emperor Septimius Severus. 2nd ed. Rome. London. Barnes, T. 1969. ‘In Attali Gratiam.’ Historia 18: 383-384. ———. 1997. Hadrian: The Restless Emperor. London. ———. 1972. ‘Ultimus Antoninorum.’ In Bonner Historia-Au- Bittel, K. and A. Schneider. 1941. ‘Archäologische Funde aus gusta-Colloquium 1970, 53-74. Bonn. der Türkei 1940: E. Galatien.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 286- Barrett, A. 1989. Caligula: The Corruption of Power. London. 293. Bartels, J. and G. Petzl. 2000. ‘Caracallas Brief zur Neokorie Bittner, A. 1998. Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft in Herakleia Pontika. des lydischen Philadelpheia—Eine Revision.’ Epigraphica Asia Minor Studien 30. Bonn. Anatolica 32: 183-189. Bland, R. 1991. ‘The Last Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia.’ Bartman, E. 1999. Portraits of Livia. Cambridge. In R. Martini and N. Vismara, eds., Ermanno A. Arslan Bartoccini, R. 1931. ‘L’Arco quadrifronte dei Severi a Lepcis Studia Dicata 1: 213-252. Milan. (Leptis Magna).’ Africa Italiana 4: 32-152. Bleckmann, B. 1992. Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der Bastien, P. 1972. ‘Une nouvelle monnaie d’argent de Pescennius spätantiken und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung. Munich. Niger émise à Césarée de Cappadoce.’ Bulletin, Cercle Bloch, M. 1973. The Royal Touch, trans. J. Anderson. London. d'Études Numismatiques 9 no. 4: 69-71. Bloesch, H. 1965. ‘Caracalla in Aigeai.’ Congresso internazionale ———. 1992. Le buste monétaire des empereurs romains. Wetteren. di numismatica 1961. Atti 2: 307-312. Rome. Baydur, N. 1989. ‘Tarsus—Donuktaâ KazÌsÌ 1988.’ XI. KazÌ ———. 1989. Erinnerungen an Aigeai. Winterthur. SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 1: 161-177. Blum, G. 1914. ‘Numismatique d’Antinoös.’ Journal International ———. 1990a. ‘Ein römischer Tempel in Tarsos.’ Akten des d’Archéologie Numismatique 16: 33-70. XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie, Ber- Boatwright, M. 1987. Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton. lin 1988, 541-543. Mainz. ———. 1997. ‘Italica and Hadrian’s Urban Benefactions.’ In ———. 1990b. ‘Tarsus—Donuktaâ KazÌsÌ 1989.’ XII. KazÌ A. Caballos and P. León, eds., Italica MMCC, 115-135. SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 1: 377-390. Seville. ———. 1992. ‘Tarsus—Donuktaâ KazÌsÌ 1991.’ XIV. KazÌ ———. 2000. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire. SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 415-430. Princeton. Bean, G. 1965. Side Kitabeleri. Ankara. Bodnar, E. and C. Mitchell. 1976. Cyriacus of Ancona’s Journeys ———. 1966. Aegean Turkey. London. in the Propontis and the Northern Aegean 1444-1445. Philadel- ———. 1971. Turkey Beyond the Maeander. London. phia. ———. 1976a. ‘Akalissos.’ In R. Stillwell, ed., Princeton Ency- Boëthius, A. and J. Ward-Perkins. 1970. Etruscan and Roman clopedia of Classical Sites, 23. Princeton. Architecture. Harmondsworth. ———. 1976b. ‘Aspendos.’ In R. Stillwell, ed., Princeton Ency- Börker-Klähn, J. 1989. ‘Mons Argaius und “papana,” die clopedia of Classical Sites, 101-103. Princeton. “Berge”.’ In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor Behr, C. 1968. Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales. Amsterdam. of Tahsin Özgüç, 237-255. Ankara. Bejor, G. 1991. Hierapolis, Scavi e Richerche 3: Le statue. Rome. Boholm, A. 1996. ‘Political Ritual as Image-making: Medieval Bell, H. W. 1916. Sardis 11.1: Coins, 1910-1914. Leiden. Rome and the Charisma of Cola di Rienzo.’ In A. Bell, H. I. 1924. Jews and Christians in Egypt. London. Boholm, ed., Political Ritual, 158-192. Gothenburg. Belke, K. and N. Mersich. 1990. Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 7: Bol, R. 1984. Olympische Forschungen 15: Das Statuenprogramm des Phrygien und Pisidien. Vienna. Herodes-Atticus-Nymphäums. Berlin. Benjamin, A. 1963. ‘The Altars of Hadrian in Athens and Bonz, M. 1998. ‘Beneath the Gaze of the Gods: The Pergamon 378 references

Evidence for a Developing Theology of Empire.’ In H. 137-164. Ann Arbor. Koester, ed., Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods, 251-275. Har- Burnett, A., M. Amandry, and P. Ripollès. 1992. Roman Pro- risburg. vincial Coinage 1. London/Paris. (= RPC 1.) Borchhardt, J. and B. Borchhardt-Birbaumer. 1992. ‘Zum Kult ———, ———, and I. Carradice. 1999. Roman Provincial Coinage der Heroen, Herrscher und Kaiser in Lykien.’ Antike Welt 2. London/Paris. (= RPC 2.) 23 no. 2: 99-116. Burton, G. 1975. ‘Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration Bosch, C. 1935. Die kleinasiatischen Münzen der römischen Kaiserzeit. of Justice under the Empire.’ Journal of Roman Studies 65: 2.1.1. Einzeluntersuchungen: Bithynien. Stuttgart. 92-106. Bosch, E. 1967. Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ankara im Altertum. Butcher, K. 1988. Roman Provincial Coins. London. Ankara. ———. 1991. ‘Some Cilician Coins in the Hatay Museum.’ Bosworth, A. 1996. Alexander and the East. Oxford. In C. Lightfoot, ed., Recent Turkish Coin Hoards and Numis- Botusarova, L. 1972. ‘ÉArxiereÊw di' ˜plvn à Philippopole’ (in matic Studies, 181-200. Oxford. Bulgarian; French summary). Arkheologicheski Institut. ———. 1996. ‘Coinage and Currency in Syria and Palestine Bulgarska Akademiia na Naukite. Izvestiia 33: 159-164. to the Reign of Gallienus.’ In C. King and D. Wigg, eds., Boulanger, A. 1923. Aelius Aristide. Paris. Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World, 101-112. Ber- Bourget, E. 1929. Fouilles de Delphes 3.1. Paris. lin. Bowersock, G. 1967. ‘The proconsulate of Albus.’ Harvard Studies ——— and M. Ponting. 1997. ‘Silver Standards at Caesarea in Classical Philology 72: 289-294. in Cappadocia.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, ———. 1969. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford. eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung ———. 1973. ‘Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in Kleinasiens, 167-171. Milan. the Second Century A.D.’ In W. den Boer, ed., Le culte Butler, H. 1925. Sardis 2.1: The Temple of Artemis. Leiden. des souverains dans l’empire romain. Fondation Hardt. Entretiens Buttrey, T., A. Johnston, K. MacKenzie, and M. Bates. 1981. 19: 179-206. Geneva. Greek, Roman and Islamic Coins from Sardis. Sardis Monograph ———. 1975. ‘Herodian and Elagabalus.’ Yale Classical Stud- 7. Cambridge, MA. ies 24: 229-236. Cadoux, C. 1938. Ancient Smyrna. Oxford. ———. 1985. ‘Hadrian and Metropolis.’ In Bonner Historia- Cagnat, R. 1913. ‘Note sur deux inscriptions d’Algérie.’ Revue Augusta Colloquium 1982/83, 75-88. Bonn. des études anciennes 15: 38-46. ———. 1995. Martyrdom and Rome. Cambridge. Callu, J.-P. 1969. La politique monetaire des empereurs romains de Bowie, E. 1971. ‘The “Temple of Hadrian” at Ephesus.’ 238 à 311. Paris. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 8: 137-141. Cameron, A. 1993. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity. Bracke, H. 1993. ‘Pisidia in Hellenistic Times.’ In M. Waelkens, London. ed., Sagalassos 1: 15-35. Leuven. Campanile, M. 1993. ‘Il koinÒn di Bitinia. Beiyuniãrxai e Brandt, H. 1988. ‘Kulte in Aspendos.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen êrxontew toË koinoË t«n §n Beiyun¤& ÑEllÆnvn.’ Studi Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 38: 237-250. Classici e Orientali 43: 345-357. Pisa. Brocas-Deflassieux, L. 1999. Beroia, cité de Macédoine. Beroia. ———. 1994a. I sacerdoti del koinon d’Asia. Pisa. Broderson, K. 1992. Reiseführer zu den Sieben Weltwundern. Frank- ———. 1994b. ‘I sommi sacerdoti del koinòn d’Asia: Numero, furt. rango e criteri di elezione.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Broughton, T. 1938. ‘Roman Asia.’ In T. Frank, ed., An Eco- Epigraphik 100: 422-426. nomic Survey of Ancient Rome 4: 499-916. Baltimore. Carroll, K. 1982. The Parthenon Inscription. Durham, NC. Brunet, S. 1997. ‘The Date of the First Balbilleia at Ephesos.’ Cassius Dio Cocceianus. 1914-1927. Dio’s Roman History, ed. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 117: 137-138. and trans. E. Cary. Loeb Classical Library. London. Brunt, P. 1961. ‘Charges of Provincial Maladministration under Cavuoto, P. 1983. Macrino. Naples. the Early Principate.’ Historia 10: 189-227. Cerfaux, L., and J. Tondriau. 1957. Un concurrent de christianisme: ———. 1990. ‘The Romanization of the Local Ruling Classes Le culte des souverains dans la civilisation greco-romaine. Tournai. in the Roman Empire.’ In Roman Imperial Themes, 267-281. Chantraine, P. 1968-1980. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue Oxford. grecque. Paris. Buckler, W. 1923. ‘Labour Disputes in the Province of Asia.’ Chapouthier, F. 1938. ‘La coiffe d’Artemis dans Éphèse trois In Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, fois neocore.’ Revue des études anciennes 40: 125-132. 27-50. Manchester. Charlesworth, M. 1939. ‘The Refusal of Divine Honours.’ ———. 1935. ‘Auguste, Zeus Patroös.’ Revue de philologie 61: Papers of the British School at Rome 15: 1-10. 177-188. Chehab, M. 1977. Monnaies greco-romaines et phéniciennes du Musée ——— and D. Robinson. 1932. Sardis 7.1. The Greek and Latin national, Beyrouth, Liban. Paris. Inscriptions. Leiden. Christol, M. and T. Drew-Bear. 1995. ‘Q. Aurelius Polus Buechner, G. 1888. De neocoria. Giessen. Terentianus et Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus, pro- Bull, R. 1997. ‘Ras, Tell er-.’ In E. Myers, ed., Oxford Encyclo- consuls d’Asie.’ Anatolia Antiqua 3: 67-93. pedia of Archaeology in the Near East 4:407-409. New York. Chuvin, P. 1987. ‘Observations sur les reliefs du théatre de Bürchner. 1927. ‘Smyrna. 3’ in Paulys Real-encyclopädie der clas- Hiérapolis.’ Revue archéologique, 1987: 97-108. sischen Altertumswissenschaft, ser.2 vol. 5: 730-765. Stuttgart. Cichorius, C. 1889. ‘Inschriften aus Kleinasien.’ In Sitzungs- Burckhardt, J. 1998. The Greeks and Greek Civilization, trans. S. berichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Phi- Stern, ed. O. Murray. London. losophisch-historische Klasse no. 23: 365-378. Buresch, K. 1894. ‘Zur lydischen Epigraphik und Geographie.’ Çizmeli, Z., M. Amandry, and B. Remy. 1995. ‘Monnaies Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische pontiques d’époque romaine au musée d’Istanbul.’ Anatolia Abteilung 19: 102-132. Antiqua 3: 99-108. ———. 1898. Aus Lydien. Leipzig. Clauss, M. 1996. ‘Deus praesens. Der römische Kaiser als Gott.’ Burnett, A. 1999. ‘Buildings and Monuments on Roman Coins.’ Klio 78: 400-433. In G. Paul, ed., Roman Coins and Public Life Under the Empire, ———. 1999. Kaiser und Gott. Stuttgart. references 379

Clerc, M. 1885. ‘Inscription de Nysa.’ Bulletin de correspondance Epigraphik 51: 219-227. hellénique 9: 124-131. Delorme, J. 1960. Gymnasion. Paris. ———. 1886. ‘Inscriptions de Thyatire et des environs.’ Bul- de Luca, G. 1990. ‘Asklepios in Pergamon.’ In B. Andreae, ed., letin de correspondance hellénique 10: 398-423. Phyromachos-Probleme, 25-40. Mainz. Cohen, G. 1995. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, Des Gagniers, J., ed. 1969. Laodicée du Lycos: Le Nymphée. Cam- and Asia Minor. Berkeley. pagnes 1961-1963. Quebec. Colin, J. 1981. Cyriaque d’Ancone. Paris. Despinis, G. 1975. ÉAkrÒliya. Athens. Collas-Heddeland, E. 1995. ‘Le culte impérial dans la Deubner, O. 1937. ‘Zu den grossen Propyläen von Eleusis.’ compétition des titres sous le haut-empire.’ Revue des études Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische grecques 108: 410-429. Abteilung 62: 73-81. Contoleon, A.-E. 1902. ‘Inscriptions de la Grèce d’Europe.’ Devesne, A. 1982. La frise du temple d’Artemis à Magnesie du Revue des études grecques 15: 132-142. Meandre. Paris. Conze, A. et al. 1912-1913. Altertümer von Pergamon 1: Stadt und Devijver, H. 1993. ‘The Inscriptions of the Neon-Library of Landschaft. Part 2. Berlin. Roman Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, eds., Cook, J. 1973. The Troad. Oxford. Sagalassos 2: 107-123. Leuven. Cormack, J. 1940. ‘The Nerva Inscription in Beroia.’ Journal ——— and M. Waelkens. 1995. ‘Roman Inscriptions from the of Roman Studies 30: 50-52. Upper Agora at Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens and J. Corso, A. 1991. Prassitele: Fonti epigrafiche e letterarie, Vita e Op- Poblome, eds., Sagalassos 3: 115-125. Leuven. ere. Vol. 3 (Xenia 10.3). Rome. ——— and ———. 1997. ‘Roman Inscriptions from the Fifth Corsten, T. 1996. Katalog der bithynischen Münzen der Sammlung Campaign at Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln 2. Op- eds., Sagalassos 4: 293-314. Leuven. laden. Devreker, J. 1982. ‘Les Orientaux au Sénat romain d’Auguste ———. 1997. Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos 1. Inschriften à Trajan.’ Latomus 41: 492-516. griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 49. Bonn. (= IvL.) ——— and J. Strubbe. 1996. ‘Greek and Latin Inscriptions ———. 1999. ‘Die Amtszeit des Proconsul Asiae P. Petronius.’ from Pessinus.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 26: 53-66. Epigraphica Anatolica 31: 94. ———, H. Thoen and F. Vermeulen. 1995. ‘The Imperial ——— and U. Huttner. 1996. ‘Münzen aus Laodikeia am Sanctuary at Pessinus and its Predecessors: A Revision.’ Lykos (Phrygien).’ Epigraphica Anatolica 26: 43-51. Anatolia Antiqua 3: 125-144. Cox, D. 1941. A Tarsus Coin Collection in the Adana Museum. ——— and M. Waelkens. 1984. Les fouilles de la Rijksuniversiteit American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs te Gent a Pessinonte. Bruges. 92. New York. (= Adana with coin no.) Diakonoff, I. 1979. ‘Artemidi Anaeti anestesen.’ Bulletin antieke Croke, B. 1990. ‘Malalas, the Man and His Work.’ In E. beschaving: babesch 54: 139-188. Jeffreys, ed., Studies in John Malalas, 1-25. Sydney. di Filippo Balestrazzi, E. 1997. ‘Roma.’ In LIMC 8: 1048-1068. Cross, T. and G. Leiser. 2000. A Brief History of Ankara. Dittenberger, W. 1960. Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum. 4th ed. Vacaville, CA. Hildesheim. (= SIG4.) Crown, A. 1989. ‘The Byzantine and Moslem Period.’ In A. Dodgeon, M. and N. Lieu. 1994. The Roman Eastern Frontier and Crown, ed., The Samaritans, 55-81. Tübingen. the Persian Wars A.D. 226-363. London. Cuinet, V. 1891. La Turquie d’Asie: Geographie administrative 2. Dörner, F. 1941. Inschriften und Denkmäler aus Bithynien. Istanbuler Paris. Forschungen 14. Cumont, F. 1903. ‘La Galatie maritime de Ptolémée.’ Revue Donohue, A. 1988. Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture. At- des études grecques 16: 25-27. lanta. ——— and E. Cumont. 1906. Studia Pontica 2. Brussels. ———. 1997. ‘The Greek Images of the Gods.’ Hephaistos 15: Dagron, G. and D. Feissel. 1987. Inscriptions de Cilicie. Paris. 31-45. Daltrop, G., U. Hausman, and M. Wegner. 1966. Die Flavier. Dräger, M. 1993. Die Städte der Provinz Asia in der Flavierzeit. Berlin. Frankfurt. D’Andria, F. 2001. ‘Hierapolis of Phrygia: its evolution in ———. 2000. ‘Überlegungen zu den Reisen Hadrians durch Hellenistic and Roman times’ in D. Parrish, ed., Urban- Kleinasien.’ Klio 82: 208-216. ism in Western Asia Minor, 94-115. Portsmouth RI. Drake, H. 2000. Constantine and the Bishops. Baltimore. Danov, C. 1979. ‘Philippopolis, Serdica, Odessos. Zur Ge- Drew-Bear, T. 1974. ‘Representations of Temples on the Greek schichte und Kultur der bedeutendsten Städte Thrakiens Imperial Coinage.’ American Numismatic Society Museum Notes von Alexander d. Gr. bis Justinian.’ In ANRW 2.7.1: 241- 19: 27-63. 300. Duke, T. 1953. ‘The Festival Chronology of Laodicea ad De Bernardi Ferrero, D. 1993. ‘Hierapolis.’ In Arslantepe Lycum.’ In Studies Presented to D.M. Robinson 2: 851-857. Hierapolis Iasos Kyme: Scavi archeologici italiani in Turchia, 104- St. Louis. 187. Venice. Dumont, A. 1876. ‘Inscriptions et monuments figurés de la De Blois, L. 1976. The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus. Leiden. Thrace.’ Archives des missions scientifiques3 3: 117-200. ———. 1978/1979. ‘The Reign of the Emperor Philip the Dusanic, S. 1976. ‘The End of the Philippi.’ Chiron 6: 427-439. Arabian.’ Talanta 10-11: 11-43. Eck, W. 1970. Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian. Munich. ———. 1984. ‘The Third Century Crisis and the Greek Elite ———. 1972. ‘Die Laufbahn des L. Antonius Albus, Suffekt- in the Roman Empire.’ Historia 33: 358-377. konsul unter Hadrian.’ Epigraphische Studien. Sammelband, de Hoz, M. 1991. ‘Theos Hypsistos in Hierokaisareia.’ Epi- 17-23. Bonn. graphica Anatolica 18: 75-77. ———. 1980. ‘Die Präsenz senatorischer Familien in den Deininger, J. 1965. Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit. Städten des Imperium Romanum bis zum späten 3. Jahr- Munich. hundert.’ In W. Eck, H. Galsterer, and H. Wolff, eds., ———. 1983. ‘Zu einer neuen Hypothese über die Pontarchie Studien zur antiken Sozialgeschichte: Festschrift Friedrich Vittinghoff, im westpontischen Koinon.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und 283-322. Cologne. 380 references

———. 1982. ‘Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen ———. 1978. ‘Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kult- Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/39.’ Chiron 12: 281-362. statuen aus Anatolien und Syrien—Supplement.’ In S. ———. 1983. ‘Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen ”ahin, E. Schwertheim, and J. Wagner, eds. Studien zur Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/139.’ Chiron 13: 147-237. Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festchrift… F. K. Dörner 1: 324- ———. 1997a. Die Verwaltung des römischen Reiches in der hohen 358. Leiden. Kaiserzeit 2. Basel. ———. 1984a. ‘Artemis Ephesia.’ In LIMC 2.1: 755-763. ———. 1997b. ‘Zu kleinasiatischen Inschriften (Ephesos; ———. 1984b. ‘Artemis Leukophryene.’ In LIMC 2.1: 764- Museum Bursa).’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 117: 765. 107-116 . ———. 1984c. ‘Artemis Sardiane.’ In LIMC 2.1: 766-767. ———. 1999. ‘A. Iunius Rufinus, proconsul Asiae unter Marc ———. 1999. ‘Neues zum Kultbild der Artemis von Ephesos.’ Aurel, und seine Familie.’ In P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, In H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre öster- and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Dieter reichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 605-609. Vienna. Knibbe, 299-302. Vienna. Fontani, E. 1996. ‘I Vedii di Efeso nel II secolo d.C.’ Zeitschrift Eckhel, J. 1792-1839. Doctrina numorum veterum. 8 vols. Vienna. für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 110: 227-237. Edson, C. 1972. Inscriptiones Graecae 10: Epiri, Macedoniae, Fontenrose, J. 1988. Didyma. Apollo’s Oracle, Cult and Compan- Thraciae, Scythiae. Part 2.1. Berlin. ions. Berkeley. Ehrhardt, N. 1995. ‘Ktistai in den Argonautika des Apollonios Forrer, L. 1922-1929. The Weber Collection. London. (= Weber.) Rhodios.’ Asia Minor Studien 16: Studien zum antiken Kleinasien Foss, C. 1976. Byzantine and Turkish Sardis. Cambridge, MA. 3, 23-46. Bonn. ———. 1977a. ‘Bryonianus Lollianus of Side.’ Zeitschrift für Elliger, W. 1992. Ephesos—Geschichte einer antiken Weltstadt. Papyrologie und Epigraphik 26: 161-171. Stuttgart. ———. 1977b. ‘Late Antique and Byzantine Ankara.’ Engelmann, H. 1972. ‘Eine Prägung des ionischen Bundes.’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31: 29-87. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 9: 188-192. ———. 1979. Ephesus after Antiquity. Cambridge. ———. 1993. ‘Zum Kaiserkult in Ephesos.’ Zeitschrift für ———. 1986. ‘Appendix: Inscriptions Related to the Complex.’ Papyrologie und Epigraphik 97: 279-289. In F. Yegül, The Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Sardis, 169-172. ———. 1996. ‘Das Grab des Androklos und ein Olympieion.’ Cambridge, MA. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 112: 131-133. ———. 1990. History and Archaeology of Byzantine Asia Minor. ———. 1998. ‘Ephesiaca.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Aldershot. 121: 305-311. ———. 1996. Cities, Fortresses and Villages of Byzantine Asia Mi- ———. 1999. ‘Archäologie und Epigraphik in Ephesos.’ In H. nor. Aldershot. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Fränkel, M., ed. 1895. Inschriften von Pergamon. Altertümer von Forschungen in Ephesos, 157-160. Vienna. Pergamon 8.2. Berlin. (= IvP.) ———. 2000. ‘Asiarchs.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Franke, P. 1987. ‘Zu den Homonoia-Münzen Kleinasiens.’ In 132: 173-175. E. Olshausen, Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie ——— and D. Knibbe. 1989. Das Zollgesetz der Provinz Asia. des Altertums 1: 1980, 81-102. Bonn. Epigraphica Anatolica 14. ——— and M. Nollé. 1997. Die Homonoia-Münzen Kleinasiens 1. Erkelenz, D. 1999. ‘Cicero, Pro Flacco 55-59, Zur Finanzierung Saarbrücken. von Statthalterfesten in der Frühphase des Koinon von French, D. 1981. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. Fasc. Asia.’ Chiron 29: 43-57. 1. Oxford. Errington, R. 1987. ‘Yeå ÑR\mh und römischer Einfluss südlich ———. 1988. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. Fasc. des Mäanders im 2. Jh. v. Chr.’ Chiron 17: 97-118. 2: An Interim Catalogue of Milestones. Oxford. Ertüzün, R. 1964. KapÌdagÌ YarÌmadasÌ ve Çevresindeki Adalar. ———. 1992. ‘Roads in Pisidia.’ In E. Schwertheim, ed., Ankara. Forschungen in Pisidien, 167-175. Bonn. Evers, C. 1994. Les portraits d’Hadrien. Brussels. ———. 1996a. ‘Amasian Notes, 4. Cults and Divinities: The Fant, J. 1993. ‘Ideology, Gift and Trade: A Distribution Model Epigraphic Evidence.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 26: 87-98. for the Roman Imperial Marbles.’ In W. Harris, ed., The ———. 1996b. ‘Amasian Notes, 5. The Temenos of Zeus Inscribed Economy, 145-170. Ann Arbor. Stratios at Yassiçal.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 27: 75-92. Fayer, C. 1976. Il culto della dea Roma. Chieti. Frey, L. 1982. ‘Das Bildnis eines Kaiserpriesters aus Pom- Felten, F. 1980. ‘Römische Architektur in Pergamon.’ In J. peiopolis in Kilikien.’ Antike Welt 13 no. 3: 27-39. Dalfen, K. Forstner, M. Fussl, and W. Speyer, eds., Sym- Frey, M. 1989. Untersuchungen zur Religion und zur Religionspolitik micta Philologica Salisburgensia, 207-231. Rome. des Kaisers Elagabal. Stuttgart. Fischler, S. 1998. ‘Imperial Cult: Engendering the Cosmos.’ Freyberger, K. 1992. ‘Die Bauten und Bildwirke von Philip- In L. Foxhall and J. Salmon, eds., When Men Were Men, popolis.’ Damaszener Mitteilungen 6: 293-311. 165-183. London. Freyburger-Galland, M.-L. 1997. Aspects du vocabulaire politique Fishwick, D. 1987-1992. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. et institutionnel de Dion Cassius. Paris. Leiden. Friesen, S. 1993. Twice Neokoros. Leiden. ———. 1995. ‘The Temple of Divus Claudius at Camulodunum.’ ———. 1999a. ‘Asiarchs.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Britannia 26: 11-27. 126: 275-290 . ———. 1998. ‘Our First High Priest: A Gallic Knight at Ath- ———. 1999b. ‘Highpriests of Asia and Asiarchs: Farewell to ens.’ Epigraphica 60: 83-112. the Identification Theory.’ In P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, Fittschen, K. 1985. ‘Zur Datierung des Augustus-Roma- and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Dieter Tempels in Ankara.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 309-315. Knibbe, 303-307. Vienna. ——— and P. Zanker. 1983. Katalog der römischen Porträts in dem Friesinger, H., and F. Krinzinger, eds. 1999. 100 Jahre Capitolinischen Museen 3-4. Mainz. österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Vienna. Fleischer, R. 1973. Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen Frolova, N. 1983. Coinage of the Kingdom of Bosporus A.D. 242- aus Anatolien und Syrien. Leiden. 341/342. Oxford. references 381

Frova, A. 1976. ‘Philippopolis.’ In R. Stillwell, ed., Princeton Sardis.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton. Athenische Abteilung 76: 155-196. Gaebler, H. 1904. ‘Zur Münzkunde Makedoniens IV.’ Zeitschrift ———. 1976. Die Tempel der Griechen. 2nd ed. Munich. für Numismatik 24: 245-338. Guarducci, M. 1969-1975. Epigrafia Greca 2. Rome. ———. 1906. Die antike Münzen Nord-griechenlands 3.1. Berlin. Günther, W. 1985. ‘Inschriften von Didyma.’ Mitteilungen des (= AMNG with coin number.) Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 35: 181- ———. 1907. ‘Beroia.’ Nomisma 1: 23-28. 193. ———. 1929. ‘Das koinoboÊlion §leÊyeron in Tarsos und Güterbock, H. 1989. ‘The Temple of Augustus in the 1930s.’ Anazarbos.’ Zeitschrift für Numismatik 39: 313-331. In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin ———. 1935. Die antike Münzen Nord-Griechenlands 3.2. Berlin. Özgüç, 155-157. Ankara. Gagé, G. 1968. Basiléia. Paris. Guidoboni, E. with A. Comastri and G. Traina. 1994. Cata- ———. 1975. ‘Alexandre le Grand en Macédoine dans la Ière logue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the moitié du IIIe. siècle ap. J.-C.’ Historia 24: 1-16. Tenth Century. Rome. Gajdukevic, V. 1971. Das Bosporanische Reich. Berlin. Guinea Díaz, P. 1997. Nicea: Cuidad y territorio en la Bitinia Romana. Galsterer-Kröll, B. 1972. ‘Untersuchungen zu den Beinamen Huelva. der Städte des Imperium Romanum.’ Epigraphische Studien Gurval, R. 1995. Actium and Augustus. Ann Arbor. 9: 44-145. Habicht, C. 1959/1960. ‘Zwei neue Inschriften aus Pergamon.’ Garzetti, A. 1974. From Tiberius to the Antonines, trans. J. Fos- Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung ter. London. Istanbul 9/10: 109-127. Gascó, F. 1988. ‘Casio Dion y la rivalidad de las ciudades ———. 1969. Die Inschriften des Asklepieions, Altertümer von Pergamon griegas.’ In G. Pereira Menaut, ed., Actas, 1er Congreso 8.3. Berlin. (= IdA.) Peninsular de Historia Antigua 1: 135-145. Santiago de Com- ———. 1970. Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte. 2nd ed. postela. Munich. ———. 1989. ‘The Meetings Between Aelius Aristides and ———. 1973. ‘Die augusteische Zeit und das erste Jahrhundert Marcus Aurelius in Smyrna.’ American Journal of Philology nach Christi Geburt.’ In W. den Boer, ed., Le culte des 110: 471-478. souverains dans l’empire romain. Fondation Hardt. Entretiens 19: ———. 1990. Ciudades griegas en conflicto. Madrid. 39-88. Geneva. ———. 1992. ‘Septimio Severo en Anazarbo.’ Emerita 60: 235- ———. 1975. ‘New Evidence on the Roman Province of Asia.’ 239. Journal of Roman Studies 65: 64-91. Gates, M.-H. 1997. ‘Archaeology in Turkey.’ American Journal Haenchen, E. 1965. Die Apostelgeschichte. Göttingen. of Archaeology 101: 241-305. Hänlein (-Schäfer), H. 1981. ‘Zur Datierung der Augustus- Gauthier, P. 1989. Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes II. Geneva. tempels in Ankara.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 511-513. ——— and M. Hatzopoulos. 1993. La loi gymnasiarchique de ———. 1985. Veneratio Augusti. Rome. Beroia. Athens. Haensch, R. 1997. Capita Provinciarum. Mainz. Geertz, C. 1973. ‘Religion as a cultural system.’ In The Inter- Hahn, U. 1994. Die Frauen des römischen Kaiserhauses und ihre pretation of Cultures, 87-125. New York. Ehrungen. Saarbrücken. Geissen, A. 1992. ‘Die ältere Faustina auf alexandrinischen Halfmann, H. 1979. Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Im- Tetradrachmen.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 92: perium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jh. n. Chr. Göttingen. 177-178. ———. 1982. ‘Zwei syrische Verwandte des severischen Gerasimov, T. 1966. ‘Edna moneta na gr. Augusta Trajana s Kaiserhauses.’ Chiron 12: 217-235. neokorija ot Geta (209-212)’ (in Bulgarian; French sum- ———. 1986a. Itinera Principum. Stuttgart. mary). Arkheologicheski Institut. Bulgarska Akademiia na Naukite. ———. 1986b. ‘Zur Datierung und Deutung der Priesterliste Izvestiia 29: 217-219. am Augustus-Roma-Tempel in Ankara.’ Chiron 16: 35-42. Gill, D. and C. Gempf, eds. 1994. The Book of Acts in its Graeco- ———. 1990. ‘Hymnoden von Asia in Kyzikos.’ In E. Schwert- Roman Setting. Grand Rapids. heim, ed., Mysische Studien. Asia Minor Studien 1: 21-26. Giraud, D. 1989. ‘The Greater Propylaia at Eleusis, a Copy Bonn. of Mnesikles’ Propylaia.’ In S. Walker and A. Cameron, Hall, B. 1989. ‘From John Hyrcanus to Baba Rabbah.’ In A. eds., The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, 69-75. Crown, ed., The Samaritans, 32-54. Tübingen. London. Hamblenne, P. 1968. ‘La légende d’Oppien.’ L’Antiquité classique Gleason, M. 1995. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in 37: 589-619. Ancient Rome. Princeton. Hanell, K. 1935. ‘Neokoroi.’ In RE 16.2: 2422-2428. Gough, M. 1952. ‘Anazarbus.’ Anatolian Studies 2: 85-150. Hanfmann, G. 1983. Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Cam- Gounaropoulou, L. and M. Hatzopoulos, eds. 1998. EPI- bridge, MA. GRAFES KATV MAKEDONIAS, TEUXOS A': EPIGRAFES ——— and N. Ramage. 1978. Sculpture from Sardis: Sardis Re- BEROIAS. Athens. port 2. Cambridge, MA. Grant, M. 1950. ‘The Official Coinage of Tiberius in Galatia.’ Hanslik, R. 1965. ‘M. Ulpius Traianus 1a.’ In RE Supplement Numismatic Chronicle6 10: 43-48. 10: 1035-1102. Greenewalt, C., Jr. and M. Rautman. 2000. ‘The Sardis Cam- Hanson, J. 1959. Roman Theater-Temples. Princeton. paigns of 1996, 1997, and 1998.’ American Journal of Ar- Harl, K. 1984. ‘The Coinage of Neapolis in Samaria, A.D. 244- chaeology 104: 643-681. 53.’ American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 29: 61-97. (= Grégoire, H. 1909. ‘Rapport sur un voyage d’exploration dans Harl with catalogue number.) le Pont et en Cappadoce.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique ———. 1987. Civic Coins and Civic Politics. Los Angeles. 33: 3-147. Harper, R. 1970. ‘Podandus and the Via Tauri.’ Anatolian Studies Gros, P. 1996-2001. L’architecture romaine. 2 vols. Paris. 20: 149-153. Gross, M. 1940. Bildnisse Traians. Berlin. Harris, B. 1964. Bithynia under Trajan. Auckland. Gruben, G. 1961. ‘Beobachtungen zum Artemis-Tempel von Hartmann, F. 1982. Herrscherwechsel und Reichskrise. Frankfurt. 382 references

Hasebroeck, J. 1921. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Herz, P. 1990. ‘Die musische Agonistik und der Kunstbetrieb Septimius Severus. Heidelberg. der Kaiserzeit.’ In J. Blänsdorf, ed., Theater und Gesellschaft Hasluck, F. 1910. Cyzicus. Cambridge. im Imperium Romanum, 175-195. Tübingen. ———. 1913-1914. ‘The “Tomb of S. Polycarp” and the ———. 1992. ‘Asiarchen und Archiereiai.’ Tyche 7: 93-115. Topography of Ancient Smyrna.’ Annual of the British School ———. 1998. ‘Addenda Agonistica I.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 30: at Athens 20: 80-93. 133-136. Head, B. 1911. Historia Numorum. Oxford. Heubeck, A. 1968. ‘Da-mo-ko-ro.’ In Atti e memorie del 1.o Con- Heberdey, R., and E. Kalinka. 1896. ‘Bericht über zwei Reisen gresso internazionale di micenologia 2: 611-615. Rome. im südwestlichen Kleinasien.’ Denkschriften der Akademie der Hijmans, S. 1996. ‘The Sun Which Did Not Rise in the East: Wissenschaften, Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 45 I, 1- The Cult of Sol Invictus in the Light of Non-Literary 57. Evidence.’ Bulletin antieke beschaving: babesch 71: 115-150. Hecht, R. 1964. ‘Some Coins of Asia Minor in Boston.’ Nu- Hild, F. and H. Hellenkemper. 1986. Neue Forschungen in Kilikien. mismatic Chronicle7 4: 159-168. Vienna. ———. 1968. ‘Some Greek Imperial Coins in my Collection.’ ——— and ———. 1990. Tabula Imperii Byzantini 5: Kilikien Numismatic Chronicle7 8: 27-35. und Isaurien. Vienna. Heinze, T. 1995. ‘Ailios Aristeides. Festrede in Kyzikos Hill, G. 1923. ‘Some Coins of Southern Asia Minor.’ In W. anlässlich der Einweihung des Kaisertempels.’ In E. Buckler and W. Calder, eds., Anatolian Studies Presented to Winter, ed., Studien zum antiken Kleinasien 3. Asia Minor Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, 207-224. Manchester. Studien 16: 63-100. Bonn. Hirschfeld, G. 1888. ‘Inschriften aus dem Norden Kleinasiens Hepding, H. 1907. ‘Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1904-1905, II. besonders aus Bithynien und Paphlagonien.’ In Sitzungs- Die Inschriften.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen berichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 32: 241-377. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 22: 863-892. ———. 1910. ‘Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1908-1909, II. Die ———. 1893. The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Inschriften.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Museum 4.1. Oxford. Athenische Abteilung 35: 401-493. ———. 1894. ‘Antandros (1).’ In RE 1: 2346. Herkenrath, E. 1902. Der Fries des Artemisions von Magnesia. Berlin. Hobsbawm, E. 1983. ‘Introduction: Inventing Tradition.’ In Herrmann, P. 1975. ‘Ein Kaiserurkunde der Zeit Marc Aurels E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tra- aus Milet.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. dition, 1-14. Cambridge. Abteilung Istanbul 25: 149-166. Hoepfner, W. 1989. ‘Zu den grossen Altären von Magnesia ———. 1979. ‘Schiedsgericht zwischen Temnos und Klazo- und Pergamon.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 601-634. menai.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. ———. 1990a. ‘Bauten und Bedeutung des Hermogenes.’ In Abteilung Istanbul 29: 249-271. W. Hoepfner and E. Schwandner, Hermogenes und die ———. 1980. ‘Kaiserliche Garantie für private Stiftungen.’ In hochhellenistische Architektur, 1-34. Mainz. W. Eck, H. Galsterer, and H. Wolff, eds., Studien zur antiken ———. 1990b. ‘Von Alexandria über Pergamon nach Sozialgeschichte: Festschrift Friedrich Vittinghoff, 339-356. Co- Nikopolis. Städtebau und Stadtbilder hellenistischer Zeit.’ logne. In Akten des XIII. internationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäo- ———. 1986. ‘Die Weihinschrift der ersten römischen Bühne logie, Berlin 1988, 275-285. Mainz. in Milet.’ In W. Müller-Wiener, ed., Milet 1899-1980, 175- Holtzmann, B. 1984. ‘Asklepios.’ In LIMC 2.1: 863-897. 189. Tübingen. Hommel, P. 1954. Studien zu den römischen Figurengiebeln der ———. 1989a. ‘Ein Tempel für Caligula in Milet?’ Mitteilungen Kaiserzeit. Berlin. des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 39: Houston, G. 1972. ‘M. Plancius Varus and the Events of A.D. 191-196. 69-70.’ Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philologi- ———. 1989b. ‘Rom und die Asylie griechischer Heiligtümer.’ cal Association 103: 167-180. Chiron 19: 127-158. Howe, T. 1983. ‘The Temple of Artemis.’ Sardis Guides 6. ———. 1992. ‘Epigraphische Notizen 4-9.’ Epigraphica Anatolica ———. 1986. ‘The Artemis Temple at Sardis and the End of 20: 69-74. the Late Hellenistic Tradition of Temple Design.’ Ameri- ———. 1993a. ‘Epigraphische Forschungen in Lydien: Poly- can Institute of Archaeology Abstracts 11: 3. bios aus Sardeis.’ In G. Dobesch and G. Rehrenböck, eds., Hueber, F. 1997. ‘Zur städtebaulichen Entwicklung des Die epigraphische und altertumskundliche Erforschung Kleinasiens: hellenistisch-römischen Ephesos.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Hundert Jahre kleinasiatische Kommission der österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 47: 251-269. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 211-219. Vienna. Humann, C. 1904. Magnesia am Maeander. Berlin. ———. 1993b. ‘Inschriften von Sardeis.’ Chiron 23: 233-266. ———, C. Cichorius, W. Judeich, and F. Winter. 1898. ———. 1995. ‘Sardeis zur Zeit der iulisch-claudischen Kai- Altertümer von Hierapolis. Berlin. (= AvH.) ser.’ In E. Schwertheim, ed., Forschungen in Lydien. Asia Imhoof-Blumer, F. 1901-1902. Kleinasiatische Münzen. Vienna. Minor Studien 17: 21-36. Bonn. ———. 1911. ‘Aedicula als Kopfschmuck der Artemis ———. 1997. Milet 6.1.B: Inschriften von Milet, Nachträge. Ber- Ephesia.’ Nomisma 6:11-12. lin. Inan, J. 1993. ‘Neue Forschungen zum Sebasteion von Boubon ———. 1998. Milet 6.2: Inschriften von Milet 2. Berlin. und seinen Statuen.’ In J. Borchhardt and G. Dobesch, ——— with S. Greger. 1994. ‘Milet unter Augustus. C. Iulius eds., Akten des II. internationalen Lykien-Symposions 1: 213-239. Epikrates und die Anfänge des Kaiserkults.’ Mitteilungen Vienna. des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 44: ——— and E. (Alföldi-) Rosenbaum. 1966. Roman and Early 203-236. Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor. London. ——— with D. McCabe. 1986. ‘Die Weihinschrift der ersten ——— and ———. 1979. Römische und frühbyzantinische Porträt- römischen Bühne in Milet.’ In W. Müller-Wiener, ed., plastik aus der Türkei. Mainz. Milet 1899-1980 , 175-189. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäo- Ippel, A. 1912. ‘Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1910-1911, II. Die logischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul. Beiheft 31. Tübingen. Inschriften.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. references 383

Athenische Abteilung 37: 277-303. of Hadrian.’ Journal of Roman Archaeology 14: 651-654. Ireland, S. 2000. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Coins in the Museum Jonnes, L. 1994. The Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica: Inschriften at Amasya (Ancient Amaseia), Turkey. London. griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 47. Bonn. ——— with S. Atesogullari. 1996. ‘The Ancient Coins in Jost, M. 1994. ‘The Distribution of Sanctuaries in Civic Space Amasya Museum.’ In R. Ashton, ed., Studies in Ancient in Arkadia.’ In S. Alcock and R. Osborne, eds., Placing Coinage from Turkey, 115-137. London. the Gods, 217-230. Oxford. Isaac, B. 1992. The Limits of Empire. Rev. ed. Oxford. Judeich, W. 1898. ‘Inschriften.’ In C. Humann, C. Cichorius, IâÌk, F. 1990. ‘Patara 1989.’ XII. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 29- W. Judeich, and F. Winter, Altertümer von Hierapolis, 67- 55. 202. Berlin. ———. 1991. ‘Patara. Dünü bugünü ve gelecegi.’ Türk arkeoloji Jürging, A. 1991. ‘Unedierte Stadtmünzen der römischen dergisi 29: 35-69. Kaiserzeit.’ Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen ———. 2000. Patara: The History and Ruins of the Capital City of Gesellschaft 31: 41-50. Lycian League. Antalya. Kadar, Z. 1986. ‘L’importance religieuse et artistique du culte ——— and H. YÌlmaz. 1989. ‘Patara 1988.’ XI. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ d’Asklepios-Aesculapius sur les médailles de Caracalla à ToplantÌsÌ 2: 1-21. Pergamon.’ Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis Jacoby, F. 1950. Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Reprint. 22: 31-35. Leiden. Kalinka, E. 1926. ‘Altes und Neues aus Thrakien.’ Jahreshefte Jakobek, R., and A. Dinstl, eds. 1990. Götter, Heroen, Herrscher des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 23: Beibl. in Lykien. Vienna. 117-208. Jalabert, L., R. Mouterde, and C. Mondésert. 1959. Inscrip- Kampmann, U. 1996. Die Homonoia-Verbindungen der Stadt tions grecques et latines de la Syrie 5: Émésène (Bibliothèque Pergamon. Saarbrücken. archéologique et historique 66). Paris. ———. 1997. ‘Eine gemeinsame Emission der Städte Perga- Jameson, S. 1970. ‘Aspendos.’ In RE Suppl. 12: 99-109. mon und Ephesos für das Koinon der 13 ionischen ———. 1980. ‘The Lycian League: Some Problems in its Städte.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Inter- Administration.’ In ANRW 2.7.2: 832-855. nationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Klein- Jeffreys, E. 1990. ‘Chronological Structures in Malalas’ asiens, 83-91. Milan. Chronicle.’ In E. Jeffreys, ed.. Studies in John Malalas, 111- ———. 1998. ‘Homonoia Politics in Asia Minor: The Example 166. Sydney. of Pergamon.’ In H. Koester, ed., Pergamon: Citadel of the ———, M. Jeffreys, and R. Scott. 1986. The Chronicle of John Gods, 373-393. Harrisburg. Malalas. Melbourne. Kanatsoulis, D. 1956. ‘TÚ koinÚn t«n MakedÒnvn.’ MAKEDO- Jobst, W. 1980. ‘Zur Lokalisierung des Sebastion-Augusteum NIKA 3 (1953-55): 27-102. in Ephesos.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Karl, H. 1975. Numismatische Beiträge zum Festwesen der klein- Abteilung Istanbul 30: 241-260. asiatischen und nordgriechischen Städte im 2/3 Jahrhundert. Diss. Johnson, A., P. Coleman-Norton, and F. Bourne. 1961. An- Saarbrucken. cient Roman Statutes. Austin. Karwiese, S. 1982-1985. ‘Koressos—Ein fast vergessener Johnson, S. 1960. ‘Preliminary Epigraphic Report on the In- Stadtteil von Ephesos.’ In W. Alzinger and G. Neeb, Pro scriptions Found at Sardis in 1958.’ Bulletin of the Ameri- Arte Antiqua 2: 214-225. Vienna. can Schools of Oriental Research 158: 6-11. ———. 1985. ‘Das Beben unter Gallien und seine anhaltenden Johnston, A. 1982. ‘Caracalla or Elagabalus? A Case of Un- Folgen.’ In M. Kandler, S. Karwiese, and R. Pillinger, necessarily Mistaken Identity.’ American Numismatic Society Lebendige Altertumswissenschaft: Festgabe zur Vollendung des 70. Museum Notes 27: 97-147. Lebensjahres von Hermann Vetters, 126-131. Vienna. ———. 1983. ‘Caracalla’s Path: The Numismatic Evidence.’ ———. 1989. Erster vorläufiger Gesamtbericht über die Wiederauf- Historia 32: 58-76. nahme der archäologischen Untersuchung der Marienkirche in Ephe- ———. 1984. ‘Hierapolis Revisited.’ Numismatic Chronicle 144: sos. Vienna. 52-80. ———. 1990. ‘Keine Kaiserhochzeit in Ephesos.’ In B. Otto ———. 1989. ‘The Coinage of Smyrna.’ Journal of Roman Ar- and F. Ehrl, eds., Echo: Johannes B. Trentini, 171-178. chaeology 2:319-325. Innsbruck. Jones, A. 1973. The Later Roman Empire, 284-602. Reprint. ———. 1995a. ‘The Church of Mary and the Temple of Oxford. Hadrian Olympios.’ In H. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropo- ———. 1977. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2nd ed. lis of Asia, 311-319. Valley Forge. Oxford. ———. 1995b. Gross ist die Artemis von Ephesos. Vienna. Jones, B. 1992. The Emperor Domitian. London. ———. 1999. ‘Artemis Ephesia ‘Sebasteia’: Ein Entziffe- Jones, C. 1978. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Cambridge, rungsbeitrag.’ In P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür, MA. eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe, 61-75. ———. 1986. Culture and Society in Lucian. Cambridge, MA. Vienna. ———. 1993. ‘The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Kaster, R. 1983. ‘The Date of FD III 1.206.’ Zeitschrift für Ephesos.’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 113: 149-152. Papyrologie und Epigraphik 51: 131-132. ———. 1996. ‘The Panhellenion.’ Chiron 26: 29-56. Kaygusuz, I. 1984. ‘Perge: Unter Kaiser Tacitus Mittelpunkt ———. 1998. ‘Aelius Aristides and the Asklepieion.’ In H. der Welt.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 4: 1-4. Koester, ed., Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods, 63-76. Harris- Kearsley, R. 1986. ‘Asiarchs, Archiereis and the Archiereiai of burg. Asia.’ Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 27: 183-192. ———. 1999a. ‘A Decree of Thyatira in Lydia.’ Chiron 29: 1- ———. 1987a. ‘M. Ulpius Appuleius Eurykles of Aezani.’ 21. Antichthon 21: 49-56. ———. 1999b. ‘Old and New in the Inscriptions of Perge.’ ———. 1987b. ‘Some Asiarchs of Ephesus.’ In G. Horsley, ed., Epigraphica Anatolica 31: 8-17. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 4: 46-55. Sydney. ———. 2001. ‘Cities, Villages and Sanctuaries in the Reign ———. 1988a. ‘Asiarchs: Titulature and Function: A Reap- 384 references

praisal.’ Studii Clasice 26: 57-65. ———. 1942. Didyma 1. Die Baubeschreibung. 3 vols. Berlin. ———. 1988b. ‘A Leading Family of Cibyra and Some Knibbe, D. 1970. ‘Ephesos.’ In RE Suppl. 12: 248-297. Asiarchs of the First Century.’ Anatolian Studies 38: 43-51. ———. 1995a. ‘Die statuarische Wiederauferstehung des ———. 1990. ‘Asiarchs, Archiereis and Archiereiai of Asia: New Kaiserpriesters Ti. Claudius Piso Diophantus unter dem Evidence from Amorium in Phrygia.’ Epigraphica Anatolica christlichen Statthalter Fl. Anthemius Isidorus.’ In D. 16: 69-80. Knibbe and H. Thür, Via Sacra Ephesiaca II, 100-102. ———. 1994. ‘The Asiarchs.’ In D. Gill and C. Gempf, eds., Vienna. The Book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman Setting, 363-376. Grand ———. 1995b. ‘Die zweite Kaiserneokorie und der Wandel Rapids. des Erscheinungsbildes der Artemis Ephesia: Die Via ———. 1996. ‘The Asiarchs of Cibyra Again.’ Tyche 11: 129- Sacra in der Bildersprache ihres Polos?’ In D. Knibbe and 155. H. Thür, Via Sacra Ephesiaca II, 96-99. Vienna. ———. 1999. ‘Bilingual Inscriptions from Ephesos: The Statue ———. 1999. ‘Via Sacra Ephesiaca.’ In H. Friesinger and F. Bases from the Harbour Gymnasium.’ In H. Friesinger Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen Ephesos, 449-454. Vienna. in Ephesos, 147-155. Vienna. ——— and B. Iplikçioglu. 1981/82. ‘Neue Inschriften aus ———. 2001. Greeks and Romans in Imperial Asia: Inschriften Ephesos VIII.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 59. Bonn. Instituts in Wien 53: 87-150. Keil, B. 1897. ‘Kyzikenisches.’ Hermes 32: 497-508. ———, H. Engelmann and B. Iplikçioglu. 1989. ‘Neue Keil, J. 1908. ‘Zur Geschichte der Hymnoden in der Provinz Inschriften aus Ephesos XI.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Asia.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 59: Beibl. 162-238. Wien 11: 108-110. ———, ——— and ———. 1993. ‘Neue Inschriften aus ———. 1915. ‘Die dritte Neokorie von Ephesos.’ Numismatische Ephesos XII.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Zeitschrift 48: 125-130. Instituts in Wien 62: Beibl. 113-150. ———. 1919. ‘Die erste Kaiserneokorie von Ephesos.’ Knoepfler, D. 1993. ‘Le temple du Métroön de Sardes et ses Numismatische Zeitschrift 52: 115-120. inscriptions.’ Museum Helveticum 50: 26-43. ———. 1931/32. ‘XVI. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Aus- Koçhan, N. 1991. ‘Kyzikos 1989 KazÌsÌ HadrÌan TapÌnagÌ grabungen in Ephesos.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäo- Mimari Bezemeleri.’ Türk arkeoloji dergisi 29: 119-132. logischen Instituts in Wien 27: Beibl. 51-60. Koester, H. 1982. Introduction to the New Testament 2. Philadel- ———. 1956. ‘Ein ephesicher Anwalt des 3. Jahrhunderts phia. durchreist das Imperium Romanum.’ in Sitzungsberichte der ———. 1995. ‘Ephesos in Early Christian Literature.’ In H. Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, München. Philosophisch- Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis of Asia, 119-140. Valley historische Klasse no. 3: 3-10. Forge. Kennedy-Bailie, J. 1846. Fasciculus inscriptionum Graecarum potis- Kolb, F. and B. Kupke. 1992. Lykien. Mainz. simum 2. Dublin. Kolendo, J. 1992. ‘Les noms dynastiques de villes, Philippe Kern, O. 1900. Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mäander. Berlin. l’Arabe et Philippopolis de Thrace et d’Arabie.’ Index 20: Kettenhofen, E. 1982. Die römische-persischen Kriege des 3. Jahr- 51-55. hunderts n. Chr. Wiesbaden. Kolev, K. 1991. ‘Kopien griechischer Skulpturen auf Münzen Kienast, D. 1971. ‘Ein vernachlässigtes Zeugnis für die von Philippopolis.’ Klio 73: 510-525. Reichspolitik Trajans: Die zwiete tarsische Rede des Dion Kornemann. 1924. ‘koinÒn.’ In RE Suppl. 4: 914-941. von Prusa.’ Historia 20: 62-80. Kourouniotes, K. 1921-22. ‘ÉAnaskafa‹ §n NÊs_ tª §p‹ ———. 1985. ‘Der heilige Senat: Senatskult und “kaiserlicher” Maiãndrƒ.’ Archaiologikon Deltion 7: 1-88. Senat.’ Chiron 15: 253-282. Kraft, K. 1972. Das System der kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung in ———. 1995. ‘Zu den Homonoia-Vereinbarungen in der Kleinasien. Berlin. römischen Kaiserzeit.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Kranz, P. 1990. ‘Zeugnisse hadrianischer Religionspolitik im 109: 267-282. Osten.’ In C. Borker and M. Donderer, eds., Das antike ———. 1996. Römische Kaisertabelle. 2nd ed. Darmstadt. Rom und der Osten: Festschrift für Klaus Parlasca, 125-141. Kindler, A. 1980. ‘Was There a Detachment of the Third Erlangen. Legion Cyrenaica at Neapolis in A.D. 251-253?’ Israel Krautheimer, R. 1986. Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture. Numismatic Journal 4: 56-58. 4th ed. Harmondsworth. ———. 1982-1983. ‘The Status of Cities in the Syro-Pales- Kreeb, M. 1990. ‘Hermogenes—Quellen- und Datierungs- tinian Area as Reflected by their Coins.’ Israel Numismatic probleme.’ In W. Hoepfner and E.-L. Schwandner, eds., Journal 6-7: 79-87. Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur, 103-113. Kinney, D. 1997. ‘Spolia. Damnatio and Renovatio Memoriae.’ Mainz. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 42: 117-148. Kreikenbom, D. 1992. Griechische und römische Kolossalporträts. Kippenberg, H. 1971. Garizim und Synagoge. Berlin. Berlin. Klose, D. 1987. Die Münzprägung von Smyrna in der römischen Kaiser- Kremydi-Sicilianou, S. 1997. ‘Zeus—Coins.’ In LIMC 8: 362- zeit. Berlin. (= MvS.) 371. ———. 1996. ‘Münzprägung und städtische Identität: Smyrna Krencker, D. and M. Schede. 1936. Der Tempel in Ankara. Berlin. in der römischen Kaiserzeit.’ In W. Leschhorn, A.V. Kroll, J. 1997. ‘The Athenian Imperials: Results of Recent Miron, and A. Miron, eds., Hellas und der griechischen Osten, Study.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Inter- 53-63. Saarbrücken. nationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Klein- ———. 1997. ‘Münz- oder Gruselkabinett?’ In J. Nollé, B. asiens, 61-73. Milan. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur Kromann, A. 1989. ‘Marks of Value on Greek Imperials from kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 253-264. Milan. Side.’ In G. Le Rider, K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner, and U. ——— and G. Stumpf. 1996. Sport Spiele Sieg. Munich. Westermark, Kraay-Morkholm Essays, 149-158. Louvain. Knackfuss, H. 1924. Milet 1.7: Der Südmarkt. Berlin. Kruse, G. 1939. ‘Olympios. 55.’ In RE 18.1: 251-257. references 385

Kuhoff, W. 1979. Herrschertum und Reichskrise. Bochum. ed., Sociétés urbaines, sociétés rurales dans l’Asie Mineure et la Kunckel, H. 1974. Der römische Genius. Heidelberg. Syrie hellénistiques et romaines, 259-270. Strasbourg. Kunisz, A. 1986. ‘Le monnayage d’argent de Césarée de ———. 1999. Vespasian. London. Cappadoce sous les règnes de Trajan et d’Hadrien.’ In ———, S. Mitchell, and J. Potter. 1988. Monuments from the Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Numismatics, 201- Aezanitis Recorded by C.W.M. Cox, A. Cameron and J. Cullen. 206. London. MAMA 9. London. Kuttner, A. 1995. Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus. Levine, L. 1975. Caesarea Under Roman Rule. Leiden. Berkeley. Lewin, A. 1995. Assemblee popolari e lotta politica nelle città dell’impero Lämmer, M. 1967. Olympien und Hadrianeen im antiken Ephesos. Romano. Florence. Diss. Cologne. Lewis, R. 1991. ‘Sulla and Smyrna.’ Classical Quarterly 41: 126- Laffi, U. 1967. ‘Le iscrizioni relative all’introduzione nel 9 A.C. 129. del nuovo calendario della provincia d’Asia.’ Studi Clas- Leypold, F. 1983. ‘Unedierte Münzen aus Pamphylien.’ sici e Orientali 16: 5-98. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 23: ———. 1971. ‘I terreni del tempio di Zeus ad Aizanoi.’ Ath- 21-27, 38-43. enaeum 49: 3-53. ———. 1989. ‘Unedierte Provinzialprägungen aus Kilikien.’ Laminger-Pascher, G. 1974. ‘Kleine Nachträge zu kilikischen Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 29: Inschriften.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 15: 31- 85-91. 68. ———. 1991. ‘Unedierte Provinzialmünzen aus Kilikien.’ Lanckoronski, K. 1890-1892. Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 31: Vienna. 71-76. Langer, P. 1981. Power and Propaganda: Relations between Rome and ———. 1998. ‘Seltenere Provinzialbronzen aus Ephesus.’ Bithynia under the Empire, 27 B.C.-260 A.D. Diss. Univer- Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 38 sity of Virginia. no. 2: 32-34. Latyschev, B. 1890. Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Liampi, K. 1997. ‘Imperialforschung in Griechenland.’ In J. Euxini. St. Petersburg. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kol- Laubscher, H. 1967. ‘Zum Fries von Hadrianstempels in loquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 75-81. Kyzikos.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Milan. Abteilung Istanbul 17: 211-217. LiDonnici, L. 1992. ‘The Images of Artemis Ephesia and Lauritsen, F. 1979. ‘The Greek Imperial Coins of Pamphylia Greco-Roman Worship: A Reconsideration.’ Harvard and Evidence for the Monetary Crisis of the Third Cen- Theological Review 85: 389-415. tury A.D.’ In M. Powell Jr. and R. Sack, eds., Studies in Liebenam, W. 1900. Städteverwaltung im römischen Kaiserreiche. Honor of Tom B. Jones, 277-287. Kevelaer. Leipzig. Le Bas, P. and W. Waddington. 1847-1877. Voyage archéologique Liljenstolpe, P. 1996. ‘De ornamentis templi urbis: Reconstructing en Grece et en Asie Mineure. Paris. (= LeBas-Waddington.) the Main Order of the Temple of Venus and Rome.’ Le Glay, M. 1976. ‘Hadrien et l’Asklépieion de Pergame.’ Opuscula Romana 20: 47-67. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 100: 347-372. Lindner, R. 1994. Mythos und Identität. Stuttgart. Le Guen-Pollet, B. 1990. ‘Une inscription d’Héraclée du Pont L’Orange, H. 1947. Apotheosis. Oslo. de 130 ap. J.-C.?’ In Ikinci Tarih Boyunca Karadeniz Kongresi Lyttelton, M. 1974. Baroque Architecture in Classical Antiquity. Bildirileri, 668-680. Samsun. Ithaca, NY. Lehmann, C., and K. Holum. 2000. The Greek and Latin Inscrip- ———. 1987. ‘The Design and Planning of Temples and tions of Caesarea Maritima. Boston. Sanctuaries in Asia Minor in the Roman Imperial Period.’ Lehmann, P. 1973. ‘Cyriacus of Ancona’s Visit to Samothrace.’ In S. Macready and F. Thompson, eds., Roman Architec- In P. Lehmann and K. Lehmann, Samothracian Reflections, ture in the Greek World, 38-49. London. 45-50. Princeton. MacDonald, W. 1986. The Architecture of the Roman Empire, 2: Lehnen, J. 1997. Adventus Principis. Frankfurt. An Urban Appraisal. New Haven. Lendon, J. 1997. Empire of Honour. Oxford. MacMullen, R. 1959. ‘Roman Imperial Building in the Prov- LeRider, G. 1991. ‘Les trouvailles monétaires dans le temple inces.’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 64: 207-235. d’Artémis à Sardes.’ Revue numismatique 33: 71-88. ———. 1974. Roman Social Relations. New Haven. Leschhorn, W. 1992. ‘Die Anfänge der Provinz Galatia.’ Chiron ———. 1976. The Roman Government’s Response to Crisis, A.D. 235- 22: 315-336. 337. New Haven. ———. 1993. Antike Ären. Stuttgart. ———. 1985. ‘How to Revolt in the Roman Empire.’ Rivista ———. 1998. ‘Griechische Agone in Makedonien und storica dell’antichità 15: 67-76. Thrakien.’ In U. Peter, ed., Stephanos nomismatikos: Edith ———. 1986. ‘Frequency of Inscriptions in Roman Lydia.’ Schönert-Geiss, 399-415. Berlin. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 65: 237-238. Letta, C. 1994a. ‘Il dossier di Opramoas e la serie dei legati ———. 1990. Changes in the Roman Empire. Princeton. e degli archiereis di Licia.’ In B. Virgilio, ed., Aspetti e ———. 1997. Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth problemi dell’Ellenismo, 203-246. Pisa. Centuries. New Haven. ———. 1994b. ‘Il “naufragio” di Caracalla in Cassio Dione, Magen, I. 1993. ‘Mount Gerizim.’ In E. Stern, A. Lewinson- nell’ Historia Augusta e nei commentari degli Arvali.’ Gilboa, and J. Aviram, eds., New Encyclopedia of Archaeo- Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 103: 188-190. logical Excavations in the Holy Land 2: 484-492. Jerusalem. Levick, B. 1967. Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor. Oxford. Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor. Princeton. ———. 1969. ‘Caracalla’s Path.’ In Hommages à Marcel Renard Malavolta, M. 1976-1977. ‘Ludi III-V.’ In Dizionario epigrafico 2: 426-446. Brussels. di antichità Romane 4 fasc. 64-66 : 2025-2097. Rome. ———. 1982. ‘Domitian and the Provinces.’ Latomus 41: 50- Mansel, A. 1963. Die Ruinen von Side. Berlin. 73. ———. 1965. ‘Side.’ In RE Suppl. 10: 879-918. ———. 1987. ‘Aspects of Social Life at Aezani.’ In E. Frézouls, ———, E. Bosch, and J. Inan. 1951. 1947 senesi Side kazilarina 386 references

dair Önrapor. Ankara. Mihailov, G. 1956-1961. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. Marek, C. 1993a. ‘1992 ÇankÌrÌ ve Kastamonu’da AraâtÌr- Sofia. (= IGBR.) malar, Kaunos ve Patara KazÌlarÌnda Epigrafik AraâtÌr- Mikocki, T. 1995. Sub specie Deae: Les impératrices et princesses ma.’ XI. AraâtÌrma SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ, 85-104. Ankara. romaines assimilées à des déesses. Rome. ———. 1993b. Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Mileta, C. 1990. ‘Zur Vorgeschichte und Entstehung der Nord-Galatia. Tübingen. Gerichtsbezirke der Provinz Asia.’ Klio 72: 427-444. Mason, H. 1974. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions. Toronto. Millar, F. 1977. The Emperor in the Roman World. Ithaca, NY. Mastino, A. 1978/79. ‘L’ erasione del nome di Geta dalle iscri- ———. 1983. ‘Empire and City, Augustus to Julian: Obliga- zioni.’ In Annali della Facoltà di Littere e Filosofia della Uni- tions, Excuses and Status.’ Journal of Roman Studies 73: 76- versità di Cagliari 2: 47-81. Publ. 1981. 96. ———. 1981. Le titolature di Caracalla e Geta attraverso le iscrizioni. ———. 1987. ‘Introduction.’ In S. Macready and F. Thomp- Bologna. son, eds., Roman Architecture in the Greek World, ix-xv. Lon- McCann, A. 1968. The Portraits of Septimius Severus. Rome. don. McDonald, T., ed. 1996. The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences. ———. 1990. ‘The Roman Coloniae of the Near East: A Study Ann Arbor. of Cultural Relations.’ In H. Solin and M. Kajava, eds., Meckler, M. 1994. Caracalla and his Late-Antique Biographer. Diss. Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History, 7- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 58. Helsinki. Mellor, R. 1975. YEA RVMH. Göttingen. ———. 1993. The Roman Near East. Cambridge, MA. Mendel, G. 1909. ‘Catalogue des monuments grecs, romains Milne, J. 1947. ‘Some Greek Coins in Oxford.’ Numismatic et byzantins du Musée Impérial de Brousse.’ Bulletin de Chronicle6 7: 52-61. correspondance hellénique 33: 245-435. Miltner, F. 1958a. Ephesos, Stadt der Artemis und des Johannes. Meriç, R. 1985. ‘Rekonstruktionsversuch der Kolossalstatue des Vienna. Domitian in Ephesos.’ In W. Alzinger and G. Neeb, Pro ———. 1958b. ‘Die neuen Artemisstatuen aus Ephesos.’ Arte Antiqua 2: 239-241. Vienna. Anatolia 3: 21-34. Merkelbach, R. 1971. ‘M’. Acilius Glabrio in Hierapolis.’ Mingazzini, P. 1976. ‘La datazione della base di Pozzuoli.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 7: 43-44. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom ———. 1978. ‘Der Rangstreit der Städte Asiens und die Rede 83: 425-429. des Aelius Aristides über die Einheit.’ Zeitschrift für Papy- Mionnet, T. 1806-1808. Description des médailles antiques. Paris. rologie und Epigraphik 32: 287-296. Miranda, E. 1992-1993. ‘Testimonianze sui Kommodeia.’ Scienze ———. 1979. ‘Ephesische Parerga 25: Commodus als Bruder dell’Antichità 6-7: 69-88. des Septimius Severus.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epi- Mitchell, C. 1960. ‘Archaeology and Romance in Renaissance graphik 33: 189-191. Italy.’ In E. Jacobs, ed., Italian Renaissance Studies, 455-483. ———. 1985. ‘Eine Inschrift des Weltverbandes der diony- London. sischen Technitai (CIG 6829).’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Mitchell, S. 1977. ‘Inscriptions of Ancyra.’ Anatolian Studies 27: Epigraphik 58: 136-138. 63-103. ———. 1987. ‘Nikaia in der römischen Kaiserzeit.’ Rheinisch- ———. 1980. ‘Population and the Land in Roman Galatia.’ Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vorträge G 289, 12. In ANRW 2.7.2: 1053-1081. ——— and S. ”ahin. 1988. ‘Die publizierten Inschriften von ———. 1984. ‘The Greek City in the Roman World: The Case Perge.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 11: 97-170. of Pontus and Bithynia.’ In A. Kalogeropoulou, ed. ———, ——— and J. Stauber. 1997. ‘Kaiser Tacitus erhebt Praktikå toË H' DieynoËw Sunedr¤ou ÑEllenik}w ka‹ Perge zur Metropolis Pamphyliens und erlaubt einen Latinik}w Epigrafik}w 1: 120-133. Athens. Agon.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 29: 69-74. ———. 1986. ‘Galatia under Tiberius.’ Chiron 16: 17-33. Meshorer, Y. 1985. City-Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis in ———. 1987. ‘Imperial Building in the Eastern Roman Prov- the Roman Period. Jerusalem. inces.’ In S. Macready and F. Thompson, eds., Roman ———. 1989. ‘Three Interesting Cults at Neapolis in Samaria.’ Architecture in the Greek World, 18-25. London. In G. Le Rider, K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner, and U. ———. 1990. ‘Festivals, Games and Civic Life in Roman Asia Westermark, eds., Kraay–Morkholm Essays, 173-177. Minor.’ Journal of Roman Studies 80: 183-193. Louvain. ———. 1993. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. 2 vols. ———. 1993. ‘New Discoveries in the Coinage of the Cities Oxford. of Roman Palestine.’ In A. Biran and J. Aviram, eds., ———. 1999. ‘The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, 141-146. Jerusalem. Jews, and Christians.’ In P. Anthanassiadi and M. Frede, Metcalf, W. 1980. The Cistophori of Hadrian. American Numismatic eds., Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, 81-148. Oxford. Society Numismatic Studies 15. New York. ——— with D. French and J. Greenhaigh. 1982. Regional ———. 1996. The Silver Coinage of Cappadocia, Vespasian-Com- Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor, 2: The Ankara District. modus. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 166. New York. Oxford. (= RECAM 2.) ———. 1997. ‘Notes on the Coinage of Severan Caesarea.’ ——— with E. Owens and M. Waelkens. 1989. ‘Ariassos and In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Sagalassos 1988.’ Anatolian Studies 39: 63-77. Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 173- ——— and M. Waelkens. 1998. Pisidian Antioch. London. 181. Milan. Molthagen, J. 1991. ‘Die ersten Konflikte der Christen in der ———. 1999. ‘Coins as Primary Evidence.’ In G. Paul, ed., griechisch-römischen Welt.’ Historia 40: 42-76. Roman Coins and Public Life Under the Empire, 1-17. Ann Monceaux, P. 1885. De communi Asiae provinciae. Paris. Arbor. Mor, M. 1989a. ‘The Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean Meyer, E. 1975. ‘Augusti.’ Chiron 5: 393-402. Period.’ In A. Crown, ed., The Samaritans, 1-18. Tübingen. Meyer, H. 1991. Antinoös. Munich. ———. 1989b. ‘The Samaritans and the Bar Kokhbah Re- Michel, D. 1967. Alexander als Vorbild für Pompeius, Caesar und volt.’ In A. Crown, ed., The Samaritans, 19-31. Tübingen. Marcus Antonius. Brussels. Mordtmann, J. 1881. ‘Zur Epigraphik von Kyzikos.’ Mitteilungen references 387

des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 6: ———. 1990. ‘Side.’ Antike Welt 21.4: 244-265. 40-55. ———. 1992. ‘Zur Geschichte der Stadt Etenna in Pisidien.’ ———. 1889. ‘Nachträge zu Bd. XII S. 168 ff.’ Mitteilungen In E. Schwertheim, ed., Forschungen in Pisidien, 61-141. des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 14: Bonn. 314-317. ———. 1993. ‘Die feindlichen Schwestern—Betrachtungen zur Moretti, L. 1953. Iscrizione agonistiche greche. Rome. Rivalität der pamphylischen Städte.’ In G. Dobesch and ———. 1954. ‘KOINA ASIAS.’ Rivista di filologia classica n.s. 32: G. Rehrenböck, eds., Die epigraphische und altertumskundliche 276-289. Erforschung Kleinasiens: Hundert Jahre kleinasiatische Kommission ———. 1959. Review of Rehm 1958. Rivista di filologia e istru- der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 297-317. zione classica n.s. 37: 199-206. Vienna. ———. 1968. Inscriptiones Graecae urbis Romae. Rome. (= ———. 1993-2001. Side im Altertum 1 and 2: Inschriften griechischer IGUrbRom.) Städte aus Kleinasien 43, 44. Bonn. (= SiA.) ———. 1990. Tra epigrafia e storia. Rome. ———. 1995. ‘Colonia und Socia der Römer.’ In C. Schubert Moutsoupoulos, N. 1977. ‘Contribution à l’étude du plan de and K. Broderson, eds., Rom und der griechische Osten: Fest- ville de Thessalonique à l’époque romaine.’ In L’Archittetura schrift H. Schmitt, 350-359. Stuttgart. in Grecia: Atti del XVI Congresso di Storia dell’Architettura, 187- ———. 1997. ‘Zur neueren Forschungsgeschichte der kaiser- 263. Rome. zeitliche Stadtprägungen Kleinasiens.’ In J. Nollé, B. Müller, C. 1878-1885. Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum. Paris. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur Müller, H. 1992. ‘Phyromachos im pergamenischen Nike- kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 11-26. Milan. phorion?’ Chiron 22: 195-226. ———. 1998. ‘EÈtux«w to›w kur¤oiw—feliciter dominis!’ Chiron ———. 2000. ‘Der hellenistische Archiereus.’ Chiron 30: 519- 28: 323-354. 542. ——— and H. Zellner. 1995. ‘Von Anazarbos nach Mopsu- Münsterberg, R. 1985. Die Beamtennamen auf den greichischen hestia.’ Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 45: 39-49. Münzen. Reprint. Hildesheim. M. Nollé and J. Nollé. 1994. ‘Vom feinen Spiel stadtischer Mutafian, C. 1988. La Cilicie au carrefour des empires. Paris. Diplomatie.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 102: Nafissi, M. 1995. ‘Tiberius Claudius Attalos Andragathos e le 241-261. origini di Synnada.’ Ostraka 4: 119-136. Nony, D. 1971. ‘Le monnayage de Pescennius Niger à Césarée Naster, P. 1987. ‘Monnaies impériales de Pamphylie et de de Cappadoce.’ Latomus 30: 345-351. Pisidie sous Claude II le Gothique et Aurélien.’ In H. Oberleitner, W. 1999. ‘Das Partherdenkmal von Ephesos.’ In Huvelin, M. Christol, and G. Gautier, eds., Mélanges de H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österrei- numismatique offerts à P. Bastien, 131-143. Wetteren. chische Forschungen in Ephesos, 619-631. Vienna. Naumann, F. 1985. ‘Ulpii von Aizanoi.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Özgan, R. 1995. Die griechischen und römischen Skulpturen aus Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 35: 217-226. Tralleis. Asia Minor Studien 15. Bonn. Naumann, R. 1979. Der Zeustempel zu Aizanoi. Berlin. Özgür, E. 1993. ‘Aspendos örenyeri 1991 yÌlÌ kazÌ onarÌm ve ———. 1986. ‘Zeustempel und Kybeleheiligtum in Aizanoi.’ çevre düzenleme çaliâmalarÌ.’ In III. Müze Kurtarma KazÌlarÌ Anadolu Araâtirmalari 10: 503-509. Semineri, 251-261. Ankara. Naveh, J. 1998. ‘Scripts and Inscriptions in Ancient Samaria.’ Ohlemutz, E. 1940. Kulte und Heiligtümer der Götter in Pergamon. Israel Exploration Journal 48: 91-100. Würzburg. Nawotka, K. 1997. The Western Pontic Cities. Amsterdam. Oliver, J. 1970. Marcus Aurelius: Aspects of Civic and Cultural Policy Niemeyer, H. 1968. Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der in the East. Hesperia suppl. 13. Princeton. römischen Kaiser. Berlin. ———. 1978. ‘The Piety of Commodus and Caracalla.’ Greek, Nigdelis, P. 1995. ‘Oberpriester und Gymnasiarchen im Roman and Byzantine Studies 19: 375-385. Provinziallandtag Makedoniens: Eine neue Ehreninschrift ———. 1989. Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from aus Beroia.’ Klio 77: 170-183. Inscriptions and Papyri. Philadelphia. ———. 1996. ‘Geminii und Claudii: Die Geschichte zweier Olivier, J.-P. 1967. ‘Le damokoro: Un fonctionnaire mycénien.’ führender Familien von Thessaloniki in der späteren Minos 8: 118-122. With commentary by L. Palmer, 123- Kaiserzeit.’ In A. Rizakis, ed., Roman Onomastics in the Greek 124. East: Social and Political Aspects, 129-141. Athens. Olshausen, E. 1990. ‘Götter, Heroen, und ihre Kulte in Pontos.’ Nock, A. 1930a. ‘A Diis Electa: A Chapter in the Religious In ANRW 2.18.3: 1865-1906. History of the Third Century.’ Harvard Theological Review Outschar, U. 1999. ‘Zur Deutung des Hadrianstempels an der 23: 251-274. Kuretenstrasse.’ In H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., ———. 1930b. ‘SUNNAOS YEOS.’ Harvard Studies in Classical 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 443-448. Philology 41: 1-62. Vienna. Nohlen, K. 1984. ‘Planung und Planänderung am Bau zum Pace, B. 1916-1920. ‘La zona costiera da Adalia a Side.’ Gewinnen räumlicher Vorstellung im Bauverlauf des Annuario 3: 29-71. Traianeum in Pergamon.’ In Bauplanung und Bautheorie der Pantel, P. 1992. La cité au banquet. Rome. Antike, 238-249. Berlin. Paoletti, O. 1988. ‘Gorgones Romanae.’ In LIMC 4: 345-362. ———. 1985. ‘La conception d’un projet et son évolution: Papazoglou, F. 1979. ‘Quelques aspects de l’histoire de la L’example du Trajaneum de Pergame.’ In Le dessin province de Macédoine.’ In ANRW 2.7.1: 302-369. d’architecture dans les sociétés antiques: Actes du Colloque de ———. 1988. Les Villes de Macédoine a l’Époque Romaine. Paris. Strasbourg, 26-28 janvier 1984, 269-276. Leiden. Parke, H. 1985. The Oracles of Apollo. London. Nollé, J. 1986a. ‘Die Blütezeit der Stadt Side in der 2. Hälfte Peachin, M. 1990. Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. des 3. Jhdts. n. Chr.’ IV AraâtÌrma SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ, 269- 235-284. Amsterdam. 272. Ankara. ———. 1991. ‘Philip’s Progress.’ Historia 40: 331-342. ———. 1986b. ‘Pamphylische Studien.’ Chiron 16: 199-212. Pekáry, T. 1978. ‘Statuen in kleinasiatischen Inschriften.’ In ———. 1987. ‘Pamphylische Studien 6-10.’ Chiron 17: 235-265. S. ”ahin, E. Schwertheim, and J. Wagner, eds. Studien zur 388 references

Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festchrift… F. K. Dörner 2: 727- ———. 1987. ‘From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: The 744 . Leiden. Consecration of Roman Emperors.’ In D. Cannadine and ———. 1985. Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und S. Price, eds., Rituals of Royalty , 56-105. Cambridge. Gesellschaft. Berlin. ———. 1988. Review of D. Fishwick, Imperial Cult in the Latin Penn, R. 1994. Medicine on Ancient Greek and Roman Coins. Lon- West. Phoenix 42: 371-374. don. Prickartz, C. 1993. ‘La chute de Philippe l’Arabe.’ Les Études Pensabene, P. 1992. ‘Il tempio della Gens Septimia a Cuicul classiques 61: 51-64. (Gemila).’ In L’Africa Romana, Atti del IX convegno di stu- Prokesch von Osten, A. 1834. ‘Smyrna.’ Jahrbücher der Literatur dio...1991, 771-802. Sassari. 68: Anzeige-Blatt 55-86. Pera, R. 1984. Homonoia sulle monete da Augusto agli Antonini. ———. 1836. Denkwürdigkeiten und Erinnerungen aus dem Orient. Genoa. Stuttgart. Perrot, G. 1876a. ‘Inscriptions de Cyzique: Les fouilles de M. Pülz, S. 1989. Untersuchungen zur kaiserzeitlichen Bauornamentik von Carabella.’ Revue archéologique 32: 264-272. Didyma. Tübingen. ———. 1876b. ‘Note sur la Situation de Synnada.’ Revue archéo- Quass, F. 1993. Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen logique 31: 190-203. Ostens. Stuttgart. Petrusevki, M. 1965. ‘Aukewa damokoro.’ Ziva Antika 15: 12. Rabe, H. 1906. Scholia in Lucianum. Lipsiae. Petzl, G. 1987. Die Inschriften von Smyrna 2.1: Inschriften griechischer Radt, W. 1978. ‘Pergamon, Vorbericht 1977: Trajaneum.’ Stadte aus Kleinasien 23. Bonn. (= IvS.) Archäologischer Anzeiger, 426-433. Pflaum, H.-G. 1972. ‘La valeur de l’information historique de ———. 1982. ‘Pergamon 1981: Trajaneum.’ Archäologischer la vita Commodi à la lumière des personnages nommément Anzeiger, 522-561. cités par le biographe.’ In Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium ———. 1988. Pergamon, Geschichte und Bauten, Funde und Erfor- 1970, 199-247. Bonn. schung einer antiken Metropole. Cologne. Pharr, C. 1952. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian ———. 1993. ‘Pergamon.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 347-379. Constitutions. Princeton. ———. 1999. Pergamon, Geschichte und Bauten einer antiken Metro- Piatkowski, A. 1984. ‘Cassius Dio über den Kaiserkult.’ Klio pole. Darmstadt. 66: 599-604. ———. 2001. ‘The urban development of Pergamon’ in D. Pick, B. 1904. ‘Die tempeltragenden Gottheiten und die Parrish, ed., Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, 43-56. Ports- Darstellung der Neokorie auf den Münzen.’ Jahreshefte des mouth RI. Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 7: 1-41. Raeck, W. 1993. ‘Zeus Philios in Pergamon.’ Archäologischer ———. 1906. ‘Die Neokorien von Ephesos.’ In Corolla Numis- Anzeiger, 381-387. matica: numismatic essays in honour of Barclay V. Head, 234- ———. 1999. ‘Untersuchungen zur Vorgängerbebauung des 244. Oxford. Trajaneums von Pergamon I: Überblick. Obere ———. 1914. ‘Un monnaie du KOINON ARMENIAS.’ Revue des Hangstufe.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. études anciennes 16: 283-289. Abteilung Istanbul 49: 333-361. Pickard-Cambridge, A. 1988. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens. 2nd Ramsay, W. 1882. ‘Inscriptions of Cilicia, Cappadocia, and ed. revised. Oxford. Pontus.’ Journal of Philology 11: 142-160. Platner, S. and T. Ashby. 1929. A Topographical Dictionary of ———. 1883a. ‘Inscriptions de la Galatie et du Pont.’ Bulletin Ancient Rome. London. de correspondance hellénique 7: 15-28. Pleket, H. 1965. ‘An Aspect of the Imperial Cult: Imperial ———. 1883b. ‘Unedited Inscriptions of Asia Minor.’ Bulletin Mysteries.’ Harvard Theological Review 58: 331-347. de correspondance hellénique 7: 258-278, 297-328. ———. 1973. ‘Some Aspects of the History of the Athletic ———. 1895-1897. The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. Oxford. Guilds.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 10: 196-227. Ratté, C., T. Howe, and C. Foss. 1986. ‘An Early Imperial ———. 1976. ‘Olympic Benefactors.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie Pseudodipteral Temple at Sardis.’ American Journal of Ar- und Epigraphik 20: 1-6. chaeology 90: 45-68. ———. 1981. ‘A Free DHMOSIOS.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Rebuffat, F. 1994. ‘Le trésor de Ayvagedigi.’ In M. Amandry Epigraphik 42: 167-170. and G. Le Rider, eds., Trésors et circulation monétaire en Pohl, D. 2002. Kaiserzeitliche Tempel in Kleinasien under besonderer Anatolie antique, 73-118. Paris. (= Ayvagedigi hoard.) Berücksichtigung der hellenistischer Vorläufer. Asia Minor Studien Rehm, A. 1924. ‘Inschriften.’ In H. Knackfuss, Milet 1.7: Der 43. Bonn. Südmarkt, 281-360. Berlin. Pohlsander, H. 1982. ‘Did Decius Kill the Philippi?’ Historia ———. 1958. Didyma 2: Die Inschriften. Berlin. 31: 214-222. ——— et al. 1997. Milet 6.1: Inschriften von Milet. Berlin. (= IvM Poland, F. 1934. ‘Technitai.’ In RE 5A.2. Nachträge: 2473- 6.1.) 2558. Reinach, T. 1890. ‘Lettre à M. le commandeur J.B. de Rossi Poljakov, F. 1989. Die Inschriften von Tralleis und Nysa, 1. Inschriften au sujet du temple d’Hadrien à Cyzique.’ Bulletin de griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 36.1. Bonn. (= IvT.) correspondance hellénique 14: 517-545. Potter, D. 1990. Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Reinhold, M. 1988. From Republic to Principate. Atlanta. Empire. Oxford. Remy, B. 1986. L’évolution administrative de l’Anatolie aux trois Preger, T. 1889. De epigrammatis Graecis meletemata selecta. Diss. premiers siècles de notre ère. Lyons. Monaco. ———. 1989. Les Carrières sénatoriales dans les provinces romaines Price, M. and B. Trell. 1977. Coins and their Cities. London. d’Anatolie au Haut-Empire. Istanbul. Price, S. 1980. ‘Between Man and God.’ Journal of Roman Studies ———. 1990. ‘Trouvailles de monnaies romaines et byzantines 70: 28-43. dans les cités de Neocaesarea et de Sebastopolis du Pont.’ ———. 1984a. ‘Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of Epigraphica Anatolica 16: 81-90. the Roman Imperial Cult.’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 104: ———. 1991. ‘L’activité des fonctionnaires sénatoriaux dans 79-95. la province de Lycie-Pamphylie au Haut-Empire d’après ———. 1984b. Rituals and Power. Cambridge. les inscriptions.’ In De Anatolia Antiqua/Eski Anadolu 1: 151- references 389

182. Paris. La déesse de Hiérapolis Castabala (Cilicie), 17-99. Paris. ———, M. Amandry, and B. Özcan. 1995. ‘Un monnaie ———. 1967. ‘Sur des inscriptions d’Éphèse.’ Revue de philologie inédite de Neocaesarea.’ Anatolia Antiqua 3: 95-97. 41: 7-84. Reynolds, J. 1981. ‘New Evidence for the Imperial Cult in Julio- ———. 1968. ‘Les épigrammes satiriques de Lucillius sur les Claudian Aphrodisias.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und athlètes.’ In A. Dihle, ed., L’Epigramme Greque. Entretiens Epigraphik 43: 317-327. Hardt 14: 179-295. Geneva. ———. 1982. Aphrodisias and Rome. London. ———. 1969a. ‘Inscriptions d’Athènes et de la Grèce Centrale.’ ———. 1999. ‘Ephesus in the Inscriptions of Aphrodisias and Archaiologike Ephemeris, 1-58. Aphrodisians.’ In H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., ———. 1969b. ‘Les Inscriptions.’ In J. Des Gagniers, ed., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 133-137. Laodicée du Lycos: Le Nymphée. Campagnes 1961-1963, 247- Vienna. 389. Quebec. Rheidt, K. 1995. ‘Aizanoi.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 693-718. ———. 1969c. ‘Théophane de Mytilène a Constantinople.’ In Riccardi, L. 1996. Roman Imperial Portraiture in the Eastern Prov- Comptes rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions, 42-64. inces, A.D. 235-270. Diss. Boston University, Boston. ———. 1970. ‘Deux concours grecs à Rome.’ Comptes rendus Rich, J., ed. 1990. Cassius Dio. The Augustan Settlement. War- de l’Academie des Inscriptions, 6-27. minster. ———. 1971. Les gladiateurs dans l’orient grec. Amsterdam. Richter, F. 1884-1937. ‘Roma.’ In W. Roscher, Ausführliches ———. 1973. ‘De Cilicie à Messine et à Plymouth.’ Journal Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie 4: 130-164. des savants, 161-211. Leipzig. ———. 1975. ‘Nonnos et les monnaies d’Akmonia de Phrygie.’ Ridgway, B. 2000. Hellenistic Sculpture II: the Styles of ca. 200- Journal des savants, 153-192. 100 B.C. Madison WI. ———. 1976. ‘Monnaies grecques de l’époque imperiale.’ Revue Rigsby, K. 1996. Asylia. Berkeley. numismatique6 18: 25-56. Ritti, T. 1979. ‘Due iscrizioni di età augustea da Hierapolis.’ ———. 1977a. ‘Documents d’Asie Mineure.’ Bulletin de cor- Epigraphica 41: 183-187. respondance hellénique 101: 43-132. ———. 1983a. ‘Epigrafie dedicatorie imperiali di Hierapolis ———. 1977b. ‘La titulature de Nicée et de Nicomédie: la di Frigia.’ Rendiconti dell’Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 38: gloire et la haine.’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 81: 171-182. 1-39. ———. 1983b. ‘I pyxia della gerusia a Hierapolis di Frigia.’ ———. 1978a. ‘Documents d’Asie Mineure.’ Bulletin de cor- Rendiconti dell’Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 38: 221-230. respondance hellénique 102: 395-545. ———. 1985. Hierapolis, Scavi e Richerche 1: Fonti Letterarie ed ———. 1978b. ‘Monnaies et textes grecs I: Retour à Aigeai Epigrafiche. Rome. de Cilicie.’ Journal des savants, 145-150. ———. 1988. ‘Il sophista Antipatros di Hierapolis.’ Miscella- ———. 1980a. À travers l’Asie Mineure. Paris. nea Greca e Romana 13: 71-128. ———. 1980b. ‘Deux poètes grecs à l’époque imperiale.’ In ———. 1989-1990. ‘Hierapolis di Frigia: Santuari e dediche STHLH. TOMOS EIS MNHMHN NIKOLAOU KONTO- votive.’ Scienze dell’Antichità 3-4: 861-874. LEONTOS, 1-20. Athens. Robert, J. and L. Robert. 1948. Inscriptions grecques de Lydie. ———. 1981a. ‘Documents d’Asie mineure 18: Fleuves et Hellenica 6. Paris. cultes d’Aizanoi.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 105: ——— and ———. 1961. ‘Bulletin Épigraphique.’ Revue des 331-360. études grecques 74: 119-268. ———. 1981b. ‘Une épigramme satirique d’Automédon.’ Revue Robert, L. 1929. ‘Études d’épigraphie grecque.’ Revue de des études grecques 94: 338-361. philologie, de litterature et d’histoire anciennes 55: 122-158. ———. 1984. ‘Discours d’ouverture.’ In Praktika tou 8. Diethnous ———. 1930. ‘Pantomimen im griechischen Orient.’ Hermes Synedriou Hellenikes kai Latinikes Epigraphikes, 35-45. Athens. 65: 106-122. Rockwell, P. 1990. ‘Finish and Unfinish in the Carving of the ———. 1937. Études Anatoliennes. Paris. Sebasteion.’ In C. Roueché and K. Erim, eds., Aphrodisias ———. 1938. ‘Les Aelius Alcibiade de Nysa.’ In Études Papers, 100-118. Ann Arbor. épigraphiques et philologiques, 45-53. Paris. Roesch, P. 1984. ‘L’Amphiaraion d’Oropos.’ In Temples et sanc- ———. 1939. ‘Hellenica III: Inscriptions de Beroia.’ Revue de tuaires. Séminaire de recherche 1981-1983, 173-184. Lyons. philologie, de litterature et d’histoire anciennes 65: 12-132. Rogers, G. 1988. ‘The Crisis of the Third Century A.D.’ In ———. 1940. ‘La titulature de la ville de Sardes.’ Hellenica 1: Belleten 52.2: 1509-1526. 56-59. ———. 1991. The Sacred Identity of Ephesos. London. ———. 1943. ‘Voyages épigraphiques en Asie Mineure.’ Re- ———. 1999. ‘The Philosebastoi Kuretes of Ephesos.’ In P. vue de philologie 17: 170-201. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: ———. 1946. ‘Le dieu Fulvus a Thessalonique.’ Hellenica 2: Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe, 125-130. Vienna. 37-42. Roller, L. 1999. In Search of God the Mother. Berkeley. ———. 1949. ‘Le culte de Caligula à Milet et la province Rose, C. 1997a. Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture d’Asie.’ Hellenica 7: 206-238. in the Julio-Claudian Period. Cambridge. ———. 1960a. ‘Inscription agonistique d’Ancyre, concours ———. 1997b. ‘The Imperial Image in the Eastern Mediter- d’Ancyre.’ Hellenica 11-12: 350-368. ranean.’ In S. Alcock, ed., The Early Roman Empire in the ———. 1960b. ‘Monnaies et divinités d’Aspendos.’ Hellenica East, 108-120. Oxford. 11-12: 177-188. Rosenberger, M. 1977. City-Coins of Palestine (The Rosenberger Israel ———. 1960c. ‘Recherches épigraphiques.’ Revue des études Collection) 3. Jerusalem. (= Rosenberger, with catalogue anciennes 62: 278-361. number.) ———. 1961. ‘Voyage en Grèce et en Cilicie.’ Comptes Rendus, Rossner, M. 1974. ‘Asiarchen und Archiereis Asias.’ Studii Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 173-179. Clasice 16: 101-142. ———. 1964. ‘La déesse de Hiérapolis Castabala a l’époque Roueché, C. 1989a. Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity. London. gréco-romaine.’ In A. Dupont-Sommer and L. Robert, ———. 1989b. ‘Floreat Perge.’ In M. Mackenzie and C. 390 references

Roueché, eds., Images of Authority, 206-221. Cambridge. Schlüter, R. 1971. Bildnisse der Kaiserin Julia Domna. Diss. ———. 1993. Performers and Partisans at Aphrodisias. London. Münster. Rouvier, J. 1903. ‘Numismatique des villes de la Phénicie: Schlumberger, J. 1974. Die Epitome de Caesaribus. Munich. Tripolis.’ Journal international d’ archéologie numismatique 6: Schmaltz, B. 1995. ‘“Aspectus” und “effectus,” Hermogenes 17-46. und Vitruv.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Rügler, A. 1988. Die Columnae caelatae des jüngeren Artemisions von Abteilung Rom 102: 133-140. Ephesos. Tübingen. Schneider, R. 1986. Bunte Barbaren. Worms. Ruijgh, C. 1986. ‘Observations sur kor°sai, kor°v, myc. da- Schönert (-Geiss), E. 1965. Die Munzprägung von Perinthos. Ber- ko-ro dakÒrow, etc.’ In A. Etter, ed., O-o-pe-ro-si: Festschrift lin. (= S-G with coin numbers.) für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag, 376-392. Berlin. ———. 1989. ‘Die Münzprägung von Augusta Traiana.’ Rumscheid, J. 2000. Kranz und Krone. Tübingen. Altertum 35: 166-170. ”ahin, S. 1978. Bithynische Studien. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus ———. 1991. Griechisches Münzwerk. Die Münzprägung von Au- Kleinasien 7. Bonn. gusta Traiana und Traianopolis. Berlin. ———. 1979. Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik Schorndorfer, S. 1997. Öffentliche Bauten hadrianischer Zeit in (Nikaia). Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 9. Bonn. Kleinasien. Münster. ———. 1994. ‘Ein Vorbericht über den Stadiasmus Provinciae Schott, H. 1891. De septem orbis spectaculis quaestiones. Ansbach. Lyciae in Patara.’ Lykia 1: 130-137. Schowalter, D. 1998. ‘The Zeus Philios and Trajan Temple: ———. 1995. ‘Studien zu den Inschriften von Perge II.’ A Context for Imperial Honors.’ In H. Koester, ed., Epigraphica Anatolica 25: 1-24. Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods, 231-249. Harrisburg. ———. 1999. Inschriften von Perge 1. Inschriften griechischer Städte Schulte, C. 1994. Die Grammateis von Ephesos. Stuttgart. aus Kleinasien 54. Bonn. (= IvPerge). Schulten, A. 1906. ‘Zwei Erlasse des Kaisers Valens über die Salamon, M. 1971. ‘The Chronology of Gothic Incursions into Provinz Asia.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Asia Minor in the Third Century A.D.’ Eos 59: 109-139. Instituts in Wien 9: 40-70. Saller, R. 1982. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Cam- Schultz, H.-D. 1995. ‘Falschungen ephesischer Münzen.’ bridge. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 35 Salmeri, G. 2000. ‘Dio, Rome, and the Civic Life of Asia no. 1: 7-14. Minor.’ In S. Swain, ed. Dio Chrysostom: Politics, Letters, and ———. 1997. ‘Das Ende der städtischen Münzprägung von Philosophy, 53-92. Oxford. Ephesos und Samos.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Salmon, E. 1969. Roman Colonization Under the Republic. London. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Salzmann, D. 1985. ‘Cn. Pompeius Theophanes.’ In Mitteilungen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 231-252. Milan. des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom 95: 245- Schultz, S. 1975. Die Münzprägung von Magnesia am Mäander. 260. Berlin. (= S#.) Sartre, M. 1995. L’Asie mineure et l’Anatolie. Paris. Schulz, A. 1995. ‘Bonsignore Bonsignori in Kyzikos.’ In E. Savelkoul, A. 1988. ‘Un néocore de Zénoposéidon à Mylasa.’ Winter, ed., Studien zum antiken Kleinasien 3. Asia Minor L’Antiquité classique 57: 274-279. Studien 16: 113-125. Bonn. Savio, A. 1994-1995. ‘Intorno ai medaglioni talismanici di ——— and E. Winter. 1990. ‘Historisch-archäologische Tarso e di Aboukir.’ Rivista italiana di numismatica 96: 73- Untersuchungen zum Hadrianstempel von Kyzikos.’ In 103. E. Schwertheim, ed., Mysische Studien. Asia Minor Studien Sayar, M. 1991. ‘Equites singulares Augusti in neuen Inschriften 1: 33-82. Bonn. aus Anazarbos.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 17: 19-38. Schwabl, H. 1972. ‘Zeus I. Epiklesen.’ In RE 10A/R. 2: 253- ———. 1998. Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereglisi) und Umgebung. 376. Vienna. ———. 1978. ‘Zeus. Nachträge.’ In RE Suppl. 15: 1441-1488. ———. 2000. Die Inschriften von Anazarbos und Umgebung. Inschrif- Schwertheim, E. 1983. Die Inschriften von Kyzikos und Umbegung ten griechischer Stadte aus Kleinasien 56. Bonn. 2. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 26. Bonn. Scalamonti, F. 1996. Vita viri clarissimi et famosissimi Kyriaci Anco- ———. 1996. ‘Neue Inschriften aus Alexandria Troas, Antan- nitani, ed. C. Mitchell and E. Bodnar. Philadelphia. dros, Skepsis und Kebren.’ In E. Schwertheim and H. Schäfer, J., ed. 1981. Phaselis. Tübingen. Wiegartz, eds., Die Troas: Neue Forschungen zu Neandria und Schäfer, P. 1995. The History of the Jews in Antiquity. Luxembourg. Alexandria Troas 2. Asia Minor Studien 22: 99-124. Bonn. Scherrer, P. 1990. ‘Augustus, die Mission des Vedius Pollio und Sear, F. 1982. Roman Architecture. Ithaca, NY. die Artemis Ephesia.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäo- Selinger, R. 1994. Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Decius. Frank- logischen Instituts in Wien 60: 87-101. furt. ———. 1995a. ‘The City of Ephesos from the Roman Period Setton, K. 1941. Christian Attitude towards the Emperor in the Fourth to Late Antiquity.’ In H. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis Century. New York. of Asia, 1-25. Valley Forge. Seure, G. 1912. ‘Archéologie Thrace.’ Revue archéologique4 19: ———, ed. 1995b. Ephesos: Der neue Führer. Vienna 1995. 319-336. ———. 1997. ‘Anmerkungen zum städtischen und provinzialen Shelton, J. 1979. ‘Commodus’ Name in CPR 1.174.’ Zeitschrift Kaiserkult.’ In H. Thür, ed. ‘...und verschönerte die Stadt...’ für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 36: 103. Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Sonderschriften 27: 93- Sheppard, A. 1984-1986. ‘Homonoia in the Greek Cities of the 112. Vienna. Roman Empire.’ Ancient Society 15-18: 229-252. ———. 1999. ‘Am Olympieion vorbei...?’ In P. Scherrer, H. Smallwood, E. 1966. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva Taeuber, and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Trajan and Hadrian. Cambridge. Dieter Knibbe, 137-144. Vienna. Smith, R. 1987. ‘The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at ———. 2001. ‘The historical topography of Ephesos’ in D. Aphrodisias.’ Journal of Roman Studies 77: 88-138. Parrish, ed., Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, 57-93. Ports- ———. 1988. ‘Simulacra Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion mouth RI. at Aphrodisias.’ Journal of Roman Studies 78: 50-77. Schindler, F. 1972. Die Inschriften von Bubon (Nordlykien). Vienna. Southern, P. 1997. Domitian: Tragic Tyrant. London. references 391

———. 1998. Augustus. London. ———. 1984. Laterculi Praesidum 1. Arlöv. Spawforth, A. 1999. ‘The Panhellenion Again.’ Chiron 29: 339- Thür, H. 1995a. ‘Der ephesische Ktistes Androklos und (s)ein 352. Heroon am Embolos.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen ——— and S. Walker. 1985. ‘The World of the Panhellenion.’ Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 64: 63-103. Journal of Roman Studies 75: 78-104. ———. 1995b. ‘The Processional Way in Ephesos as a Place Sperti, L. 2000. ‘Ricognizione archeologica a Laodicea di of Cult and Burial.’ In H. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis Frigia: 1993-1998.’ In G. Traversari, ed. Laodicea di Frigia of Asia, 157-199. Valley Forge. 1. Rome. ———, ed. 1997. ‘...und verschönerte die Stadt...’ Österreichisches Steinby, E. 1993-2000. Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae. Rome. Archäologisches Institut. Sonderschriften 27. Vienna. Stemmer, K. 1978. Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Chronologie und ———. 1999. ‘“Via Sacra Ephesiaca”‘ In P. Scherrer, H. Ikonographie der Panzerstatuen. Berlin. Taeuber, and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Stenhouse, P. 1985. The Kitab al-Tarikh of Abu ’l-Fath. Sydney. Dieter Knibbe, 163-172. Vienna. Stewart, A. 1979. Attika. London. Tölle-Kastenbein, R. 1994. Das Olympieion in Athen. Cologne. Stichel, R. 1982. Die römische Kaiserstatue am Ausgang der Antike. Touratsoglou, I. (=Y.) 1970. ‘DÊo n°ai §pigrafika‹ martur¤ai Rome. per‹ toË KoinoË t«n MakedÒnvn.’ In B. Laourdas and Ch. Stiller, H. 1895. Das Trajaneum, Altertümer von Pergamon 5.2. Makaronas, eds., Ancient Macedonia, 280-290. Thessalonike. Berlin. ———. 1988. Die Münzstätte von Thessaloniki in der römischen Strocka, V. 1981. Das Markttor von Milet: 128. Winckelmanns- Kaiserzeit. Berlin. (= T with coin numbers.) programm der archäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 1-55. ———. 1996. ‘Miscellanea Thessalonicensia.’ In MnÆmh Martin ———. 1988. ‘Wechselwirkung der stadtrömischen und klein- Jessop Price, 177-187 (Greek), 188-194 (English translation). asiatischen Architektur unter Trajan und Hadrian.’ Athens. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Traversari, G., ed. 2000. Laodicea di Frigia 1. Rome. Istanbul 38: 291-307. Travlos, J. 1971. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens. New York. ———. 1989. ‘Zeus, Marnas und Klaseas.’ In N. Basgelen and Trebilco, P. 1994. ‘Asia.’ In D. Gill and C. Gempf, eds., The M. Lugal, eds., Festschrift für Jale Inan, 77-92. Istanbul. Book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman Setting, 291-362. Grand Strong, D. 1953. ‘Late Hadrianic Architectural Ornament in Rapids. Rome.’ Papers of the British School at Rome 21: 118-151. Trell, B. 1945. The Temple of Artemis at Ephesos. American Numis- ———. 1960. ‘Some Early Examples of the Composite Capi- matic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs 107. New York. tal.’ Journal of Roman Studies 50: 119-128. Trout, D. 1989. ‘Victoria Redux and the First Year of the Struve, V. 1965. Corpus inscriptionum regni Bosporani. Moscow/ Reign of Philip the Arab.’ Chiron 19: 221-233. Leningrad. Troxell, H. 1982. The Coinage of the Lycian League. New York. Stumpf, G. 1991. Numismatische Studien zur Chronologie der römischen Tsakyroglou, M. 1876, 1879. Tå Smurna
ka. Smyrna. Statthalter in Kleinasien. Saarbrücken. Tsontchev, D. 1938. Contributions à l’histoire antique de Philippopolis Sünskes Thompson, J. 1990. Aufstände und Protestakionen im Impe- (in Bulgarian; French summary). Sofia. rium Romanum. Bonn. Tuchelt, K. 1979. Frühe Denkmäler Roms in Kleinasien 1: Roma und Sutherland, C. 1970. The Cistophori of Augustus. London. Promagistrate. Tübingen. Swain, S. 1996. Hellenism and Empire. Oxford. ———. 1981. ‘Zum Problem, “Kaisareion-Sebasteion”.’ Mit- Swan, P. 1987. ‘Cassius Dio on Augustus: A Poverty of An- teilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul nalistic Sources?’ Phoenix 41: 272-291. 31: 167-186. Sydenham, E., rev. A. Malloy. 1978. Coinage of Caesarea in ———. 1992. Branchidai-Didyma. Mainz. Cappadocia. New York. (= S/M with coin numbers.) ——— and F. Preisshofen. 1985. ‘Zur Identitätsfrage des Syme, R. 1958. Tacitus. Oxford. “Augustus-Tempels” in Ankara.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, ———. 1980. ‘An eccentric patrician.’ Chiron 10: 427-448. 316-322. ———. 1983. ‘The Proconsuls of Asia under Antoninus Pius.’ Turcan, R. 1978. ‘Le culte impérial au IIIe siècle.’ In ANRW Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 51: 271. 16/2: 996-1084. Szubert, W. 1978. ‘On the Depictions of Sacred Architecture Usener, H. 1902. ‘Divus Alexander.’ Rheinisches Museum 57: 171- on Coins from Lower Moesia and Thrace.’ Archeologia 29: 173. 35-45. Vagalinski, L. 1994. ‘Données numismatiques pour des Taeger, F. 1960. Charisma: Studien zur Geschichte des antiken compétitions sportives en Thrace romaine’ (in Bulgarian; Herrscherkultes 2. Stuttgart. French summary). Arkheologieiia 36: 6-18. Sofia. Talbert, R. 1980. ‘Pliny the Younger as Governor of Bithynia- van den Hout, M. 1999. A Commentary on the Letters of M. Cornelius Pontus.’ Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 2: 412- Fronto. Leiden. 435. Brussels. Vandeput, L. 1993. ‘The Re-use of Hadrianic Architectural ———. 1984. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton. Taâliklioglu, Z. 1953. ‘Trakya’da M.S. III. asÌr baâlarÌndan Elements in Basilica E1 at Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens, kalma Grek kitabesi.’ Belleten Türk Tarih Kurumu 17: 483- ed., Sagalassos 1: 93-109. Leuven. 487. ———. 1995. ‘Dating by Means of Architectural Decoration: Tataki, A. 1988. Ancient Beroea: Prosopography and Society. Ath- Possibilities and Limits.’ In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, ens. eds., Sagalassos 3: 129-136. Leuven. Tekin, O. 1994. ‘Some Greek Imperial Coins found at Perge.’ ———. 1997. The Architectural Decoration in Roman Asia Minor. Anadolu AraâtÌrmalarÌ 13: 179-188. Sagalassos: A Case Study. Leuven. Thériault, G. 1996. Le culte d’Homonoia dans les cités grecques. Vann, R. 1989. The Unexcavated Buildings of Sardis. Oxford. Lyons-Québec. Varner, E. 1993. Damnatio memoriae and Roman Imperial Portrai- Thiersch, H. 1935. Artemis Ephesia. Göttingen. ture. Diss. Yale, New Haven. Thomasson, B. 1977. Laterculi Praesidum Moesia, Dacia, Thracia. Velkov, V. 1980. ‘Siedlungsleben im antiken Thrakien.’ Eirene Gothenburg. 17: 45-63. 392 references

Vermeule, C. 1981. ‘The Basis from Puteoli: Cities of Asia ———. 1989. ‘Hellenistic and Roman Influence in the Impe- Minor in Julio-Claudian Italy.’ In L. Casson and M. Price, rial Architecture of Asia Minor.’ In S. Walker and A. eds., Coins, Culture and History in the Ancient World, 85-101. Cameron, eds., The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, Detroit. 77-88. London. ———. 1983. Art of Antiquity 5.1. Cambridge, MA. ———. 1993. ‘Sagalassos: History and Archaeology.’ In M. ———. 1987. The Cult Images of Imperial Rome. Rome. Waelkens, ed., Sagalassos 1: 37-81. Leuven. Vetters, H. 1972-1975. ‘Domitianterrasse und Domitiangasse.’ ——— with S. Mitchell and E. Owens. 1990. ‘Sagalassos 1989.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien Anatolian Studies 40: 185-198. 50: Beibl. 323-330. ——— et al. 1997. ‘The 1994 and 1995 Excavation Seasons ———. 1986. ‘Ephesos: Vorläufiger Grabungsbericht für die at Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, eds., Jahre 1984 und 1985.’ Anzeiger Wien 123: 84-85. Sagalassos 4: 103-216. Leuven. Veyne, P. 1976. Le pain et le cirque. Paris. Walentowski, S. 1998. Kommentar zur Vita Antoninus Pius der ———. 1990. Bread and Circuses, trans. B. Pearce. London. Historia Augusta. Bonn. Vickers, M. 1970. ‘Towards Reconstruction of the Town Plan- Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1982. ‘Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen ning of Roman Thessalonike.’ In B. Laourdas and C. and King.’ Journal of Roman Studies 72: 32-48. Makaronas, eds., Ancient Macedonia 239-251. Thessalonike. Wallner, C. 1997. Soldatenkaiser und Sport. Frankfurt. ———. 1976. ‘Thessalonike.’ In R. Stillwell, ed., Princeton Walter, O. 1922-1924. ‘Antikenbericht aus Smyrna.’ Jahreshefte Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, 912. Princeton. des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 21/22: Vidman, L. 1970. Isis und Sarapis bei den Griechen und Römern. Beibl. 223-259. Berlin. Walters, J. 1995. ‘Egyptian Religions in Ephesos.’ In H. Vismara, N., ed. 2000. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Italia 6:3. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis of Asia, 281-309. Valley Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche. Milan. (= SNGMil.) Forge. Vittinghoff, F. 1936. Der Staatsfeind in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Wankel, H., ed. 1979-1981. Inschriften von Ephesos. Inschriften Berlin. griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 11-17. Bonn. (= IvE.) Voegtli, H. 1993. Die Fundmünzen aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon. Watson, Alan. 1985. Ed., Engl. trans. of T. Mommsen and P. Berlin. Krueger, eds., The Digest of Justinian 1. Philadelphia. Voigtländer, W. 1975. Der jüngste Apollontempel von Didyma. Watson, Alaric. 1999. Aurelian and the Third Century. London. Tübingen. Webb, P. 1996. Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture. Madison. Vollkommer, R. 1997. ‘Victoria.’ In LIMC 8: 237-269. Weber, G. 1899. ‘Die Wasserleitungen von Smyrna II.’ Jahrbuch von Aulock, H. 1963. ‘Die Münzprägung der kilikischen Stadt des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 14: 167-188. Mopsos.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 231-278. Weber, L. 1911. ‘Zur Münzprägung des phrygischen ———. 1968. ‘Kleinasiatische Münzstätten.’ Jahrbuch für Hierapolis.’ In XARITES Friedrich Leo, 466-490. Berlin. Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 18: 43-48. ———. 1912. ‘Die Homoniemünzen des phrygischen ———. 1974. Die Munzpragung des Gordian III und der Tranquillina Hierapolis.’ Journal international d’archéologie numismatique 14: in Lykien. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. 65-122. Abteilung Istanbul. Beiheft 11. Tübingen. Wegner, M. 1939. Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit. Berlin. ———. 1979. ‘Zur Münzprägung von Aizanoi.’ In R. ———. 1956. Hadrian, Plotina, Marciana, Matidia, Sabina. Ber- Naumann, Der Zeustempel zu Aizanoi, 82-87. Berlin. lin. von Fritze, H. 1908. ‘Asklepiosstatuen in Pergamon.’ Nomisma Weinreich, O. 1913. Lykische Zwölfgötter-Reliefs. Sitzungsberichte 2: 19-35. der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch- ———. 1910. Münzen von Pergamon. Abhandlungen der Deutschen historische Klasse. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Philologisch-historische Weinstock, S. 1971. Divus Julius. Oxford. Klasse. Anhang 1. Weiser, W. 1983. Katalog der Bithynischen Münzen der Sammlung von Gaertringen, H., ed. 1906. Inschriften von Priene. Berlin. des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln: Nikaia. von Heintze, H. 1982. ‘Annia Lucilla.’ In W. Alzinger, C. Opladen. Schwanzar, and G. Neeb, eds., Pro arte antiqua. Festschrift ———. 1988. ‘SC als Revers einer Münze der ersten Emis- für Hedwig Kenner, 170-183. Vienna. sion aus Neokaisareia in Galatia unter Traianus.’ Schweizer von Papen, F. 1908. ‘Die Spiele von Hierapolis.’ Zeitschrift für Münzblätter 38: 9-12. Numismatik 26: 161-182. ———. 1989. ‘Römische Stadtmünzen aus Bithynia et Pontus. von Prott, H. 1902. ‘Dionysos Kathegemon.’ Mitteilungen des Addenda und Corrigenda zum Recueil général.’ Schweizerische Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 27: 161- Numismatische Rundschau 68: 47-83. 188. ———. 1998. ‘Namen römischer Statthalter auf Münzen ——— and W. Kolbe. 1902. ‘Die 1900-1901 in Pergamon Kleinasiens.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 123: gefundenen Inschriften.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäo- 275-290. logischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 27: 44-151. Weiss, P. 1979. ‘Die Abkürzungen GB und GG auf den spät- Waddington, W. 1883. ‘Inscriptions de Tarse.’ Bulletin de kaiserzeitlichen Münzen von Tarsos und Anazarbos.’ correspondance hellénique 7: 281-292. Chiron 9: 545-552. ———, E. Babelon, and T. Reinach. 1976. Recueil général des ———. 1981. ‘Ein agonistisches Bema und die isopythischen monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure. Reprint. Hildesheim. Spiele von Side.’ Chiron 11: 315-346. Waelkens, M. 1986. ‘The Imperial Sanctuary at Pessinus.’ ———. 1982. ‘Ein Altar für Gordian III, die älteren Gordiane Epigraphica Anatolica 7: 37-73. und die Severer aus Aigeai (Kilikien).’ Chiron 12: 191-205. ———. 1987. ‘The Adoption of Roman Building Techniques ———. 1985. ‘Argaios/Erciyas Dagi—Heiliger Berg Kappa- in the Architecture of Asia Minor.’ In S. Macready and dokiens: Monumente und Ikonographie.’ Jahrbuch für F. Thompson, eds., Roman Architecture in the Greek World, Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 35: 21-48. 94-105. London. ———. 1991. ‘Auxe Perge.’ Chiron 21: 353-374. references 393

———. 1992. ‘Pisidien: Eine historische Landschaft im Licht ——— and V. Özkaya. 1993. ‘Kyzikos 1992 KazÌ Çaliâma- ihrer Münzprägung.’ In E. Schwertheim, ed., Forschungen larÌ.’ XV. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 1: 537-561. in Pisidien, 143-165. Bonn. ——— and V. Özkaya. 1994. ‘1993 Kyzikos KazÌsÌ ———. 1995. ‘Hadrian in Lydien.’ Chiron 25: 213-224. Etkinlikleri.’ XVI. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 107-130 . ———. 1997. ‘Kaiserzeitliche Städteprägung und klassische ——— and V. Özkaya. 1995. ‘1994 Kyzikos Arkeolojik KazÌsÌ.’ Altertumswissenschaften.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and XVII. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 311-335. P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen ——— and V. Özkaya. 1996. ‘Kyzikos 1995: Arkeolojik KazÌ Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 27-36. Milan. Etkinlikleri.’ XVIII. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 409-429. ———. 1998. ‘Festgesandtschaften, städtisches Prestige und Yegül, F. 1982. ‘A Study in Architectural Iconography: Homonoiaprägungen.’ Stadion 24: 59-70. Kaisersaal and the Imperial Cult.’ Art Bulletin 64: 7-31. Westermann, A. 1845. Biographoi. Braunschweig. ———. 1986. The Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Sardis. Cambridge, Westermark, U. 1991. ‘Bronze Coins of Pergamon.’ Quaderni MA. Ticinesi 20: 145-159. YÌldÌz, H. 1994. ‘Denizli-Laodikya antik kenti temizlik ve çevre White, L. 1995. ‘Urban Development and Social Change in düzenleme çaliâmalari.’ IV. Müze Kurtarma KazÌlarÌ Semineri, Imperial Ephesos.’ In H. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis 219-225. Ankara. of Asia, 27-79. Valley Forge. ——— and T. Corsten. 1997. ‘New Inscriptions from ———. 1998. ‘Counting the Costs of Nobility: The Social Laodikeia in the Archaeological Museum at Denizli/ Economy of Roman Pergamon.’ In H. Koester, ed., Turkey.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 28: 50-52. Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods, 331-371. Harrisburg. Zahrnt, M. 1979. ‘Zwei Zeugnisse für die Titel von Nikomedeia Whittaker, H. 1996. ‘Two Notes on Octavian and the Cult of und Kyzikos.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 36: Divus Iulius.’ Symbolae Osloenses 71: 87-99. 215-218 . Wilhelm, A. 1938. ‘Das Epithalamion in Lukianos’ SumpÒsion Zangenberg, J. 1994. SAMAREIA. Tübingen. µ Lap¤yai.’ Wiener Studien 56: 54-89. Zanker, P. 1983. Provinzielle Kaiserporträts. Abhandlungen, Bayerische Frühe griechische Kultbilder. Willemsen, F. 1939. Wurzburg. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, n.f. Willers, D. 1990. Hadrians panhellenisches Programm. Basel. 90. Munich. Williams, W. 1979. ‘Caracalla and the Authorship of Impe- Zaprjanov, N., and K. Kolev. 1971. ‘Asklepios dargestellt auf rial Edicts and Epistles.’ Latomus 38: 67-89. antiken Münzen von Philippopel.’ Folia Medica 13 fasc. 4: Winks, R. 1969. Clipeata imago. Bonn. 273-280. Winter, E. 1996. Staatliche Baupolitik und Baufürsorge in den römischen Provinzen des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. Asia Minor Studien 20. Ziebarth, E. 1902. ‘Cyriacus von Ankona in Pergamon.’ Bonn. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Wiplinger, G., and G. Wlach. 1996. Ephesos: 100 Jahre Abteilung 27: 445-446. österreichische Forschung. Vienna. Ziegenaus, O. 1981. Altertümer von Pergamon 11.3: das Asklepieion, Wörrle, M. 1988. Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. die Kultbauten aus römischer Zeit. Berlin. Munich. ——— and G. de Luca. 1968. Altertümer von Pergamon 11.1: Das ———. 1992. ‘Neue Inschriftenfunde aus Aizanoi I.’ Chiron 22: Asklepieion. Der südliche Temenosbezirk. Berlin. 337-376. ——— and ———. 1975. Altertümer von Pergamon 11.2: Das ———. 1995a. ‘Inschriftenfunde von der Hallenstrassen- Asklepieion. Der nordliche Temenosbezirk. Berlin. grabung in Aizanoi 1992.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 719-727. Ziegler, R. 1977. ‘Münzen Kilikiens als Zeugnis kaiserlicher ———. 1995b. ‘Neue Inschriftenfunde aus Aizanoi, II: Das Getriedespenden.’ Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte Problem der Ära von Aizanoi.’ Chiron 25: 63-81. 27: 29-67. Wolfram, H. 1979. Geschichte der Goten. Munich. ———. 1978. ‘Antiochia, Laodicea und Sidon in der Politik Woodward, A. 1911/1912. ‘Inscriptions from Beroea in der Severer.’ Chiron 8: 493-514. Macedonia.’ Annual of the British School at Athens 18: 133- ———. 1984. ‘Die “Historia Apollonii Regis Tyri” und der 165. Kaiserkult in Tarsos.’ Chiron 14: 219-234. ———. 1963. ‘The Neocorate at Aegeae and Anazarbus in ———. 1985. Städisches Prestige und kaiserliche Politik. Düsseldorf. Cilicia.’ Numismatic Chronicle7 3: 5-10. ———. 1988a. Münzen Kilikiens aus kleineren deutschen Sammlungen. Woolf, G. 1994. ‘Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Munich. (= Ziegler, Sammlungen, with coin no.) Identity and the Civilizing Process in the Roman East.’ ———. 1988b. ‘Thessalonike in der Politik des Traianus Decius Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40: 116-143. und der Tod des Philippus Arabs.’ In M. Wissemann, ed., ———. 1997. ‘The Roman Urbanization of the East.’ In S. Roma Renascens, 385-414. Frankfurt. Alcock, ed., The Early Roman Empire in the East, 1-14. ———. 1993a. ‘Ären kilikischer Städte und Politik des Oxford. Pompeius in Südostkleinasien.’ Tyche 8: 203-219. Wroth, W. 1882. ‘Asklepios and the Coins of Pergamon.’ ———. 1993b. Kaiser, Heer und städtisches Geld. Vienna. Numismatic Chronicle ser. 3, 2: 1-51. ———. 1994. ‘Aigeai, der Asklepioskult, das Kaiserhaus der Yalouris, N., and T. Visser-Choitz. 1990. ‘Helios.’ In LIMC Decier und das Christentum.’ Tyche 9: 187-212. 5: 1005-1034. ———. 1995a. ‘Ein numismatisches “Missing Link” aus Ana- YaylalÌ, A. 1976. Der Fries des Artemisions von Magnesia am Mäander. zarbos.’ Asia Minor Studien 16: Studien zum antiken Kleinasien Tübingen. 3: 175-181. Bonn. ———. 1990. ‘Kyzikos 1989 YÌlÌ ÇalÌâmalarÌ.’ XII. KazÌ ———. 1995b. ‘Zur Einrichtung des kilikischen Koinon.’ Asia SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 171-194. Minor Studien 16: Studien zum antiken Kleinasien 3: 183-186. ———, N. Koçhan and C. Baâaran. 1991. ‘Kyzikos 1990 Bonn. ÇalÌâmalarÌ.’ XIII. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 1: 205-225. ———. 1999. ‘Das Koinon der drei Eparchien Kiliken, ——— and V. Özkaya. 1992. ‘Kyzikos Arkeolojik KazÌ Isaurien und Lykaonien im späten 2. und frühen 3. Jahr- ÇaliâmalarÌ: 1991.’ XIV. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 223- hundert n. Chr.’ Asia Minor Studien 34: Studien zum antiken 245. Kleinasien 4: 137-153. Bonn. 394 references

Ziethen, G. 1994. Gesandte vor Kaiser und Senat. St. Katharinen. Zoroglu, L. 1995. A Guide to Tarsos. Ankara. Zimmermann, M. 1994. ‘Lukian zu drei kleinasiatischen Ora- Zschietzschmann, W. 1937. ‘Nachträge: Pergamon.’ In RE keln in Mallos, Patara und Pergamon.’ Lykia 1: 103-114. 19.1/37: 1235-1263. references 395

EMPERORS OF ROME AND MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES RELEVANT TO THIS WORK (Dates are regnal, or period of marriage within the reign; all are of the common era except where noted. For further details, see Kienast 1996; d = died.).

Augustus (27 B.C.E. – 14 C.E.) Severus Alexander (Caesar 221-222, Augustus 222-235) wife Livia (mother of Tiberius; 27 B.C.E. – 14 C.E.) grandmother Julia Maesa (d. 224), mother Julia Tiberius (14-37) Mamaea; wife Orbiana (225-227) mother Livia (named Julia after 14; d. 29) Maximinus (235-238) Gaius, nicknamed Caligula (37-41) son Maximus (Caesar 236-238); wife Paulina (d. 236) Claudius (41-54) Gordian I and son Gordian II (238) Nero (54-68) Pupienus and Balbinus (238) wives Octavia (53-62), Poppaea (62-65), Messalina (66- Gordian III (Caesar 238, Augustus 238-244) 68) wife Tranquillina (241-244) Galba (68-69) Philip the Arab (244-249) Otho (69) wife Otacilia (244-d. 248); son Philip the Younger Vitellius (69) (Caesar 244-247, Augustus 247-249) Vespasian (69-79) Trajan Decius (249-251) Titus (79-81) wife Herennia Etruscilla (249-251); sons Herennius daughter Julia (d. 89) Etruscus (Caesar 250-251, Augustus 251) and Hostil- Domitian (81-96) ian (Caesar 250-251; Augustus 251) wife Domitia (81-83, 83-96) Trebonianus Gallus (251-253) Nerva (96-98) son Volusian (Caesar 251; Augustus 251-253) Trajan (98-117) Aemilian (253) wife Plotina (98-117) wife Cornelia Supera (253) Hadrian (117-138) Valerian (253-260); co-ruler with his son: wife Sabina (117-d. 136/7); beloved Antinoös (d. 130); Gallienus (253-268) adopted son L. Aelius Caesar (136-d. 138) wife Salonina (253-268); sons Valerianus (Caesar 255- Antoninus Pius (138-161) d. 258) and Saloninus (Caesar 258-260, Augustus 260, wife Faustina the Elder (138-d. 140) d. 260) Marcus Aurelius (161-180) Claudius Gothicus (268-270) wife Faustina the Younger (161-d. 176); adoptive Quintillus (270) brother and co-ruler: Aurelian (270-275) Lucius Verus (161-169) wife Ulpia Severina (270-275) wife Lucilla (163-169, d. 181) Tacitus (275-276) Commodus (Caesar 166-177, Augustus 177-192) Florianus (276) wife Crispina (178-d. 192) Probus (276-282) Pertinax (192-193) Carus (282-283) Didius Julianus (193) Carinus (283-285); co-ruler with his brother: Septimius Severus (193-211) Numerianus (283-284) wife Julia Domna (193-211), sons Caracalla and Geta Diocletian (284-305) (below) First Tetrarchy: Diocletian and Maximian with Constan- Caracalla, nickname for Marcus Aurelius Antoninus tius I and Galerius (293-305) (Caesar 195/6-197; Augustus 197-217) Second Tetrarchy: Constantius I and Galerius with wife Plautilla (202-205); mother Julia Domna (d. 217); Severus and Maximinus Daia (305-306) brother and co-ruler: Third Tetrarchy: Galerius and Severus with Constantine Geta (Caesar 197-209; Augustus 209-211) and Maximinus Daia (306-307/8) Macrinus (217-218) Fourth Tetrarchy: Galerius and Licinius with Constan- son Diadumenian (Caesar 217, Augustus 218) tine and Maximinus Daia (308-311) Elagabalus (218-222), nickname for Marcus Aurelius Constantine (306-337) Antoninus wife Fausta (307-326) grandmother Julia Maesa, mother Julia Soaemias; Constantine II (337-340), Constans (337-350), and Con- wives Julia Paula (220), Aquilia Severa (220-221), stantius II (337-361) Annia Faustina (221) and Aquilia Severa again (221- 222)

This page intentionally left blank references 399

INDICES This page intentionally left blank references 401

INDEX OF LITERARY SOURCES

Abu ’l Fath L. Annaeus Cornutus Kitab al-Tarikh: 260, 262, 264-265 The Nature of the Gods 52: 5

Acts of the Apostles Anecdota Graeca, 2.9-11: 124 Codex Ambrosianus c.222: 88 n. 17 19.35: 6, 60-61, 116, 277, 328 Arrian Anabasis of Alexander 1.28: 266 n. 2 ‘Adler Chronicle’: 260 Periplous 1.3-2.1: 319, 371

Aelius Aristides Augustus Oration 2.376: 333 Res Gestae: 362 Oration 18: 48 Oration 19: 48 Aurelius Victor 13: 39 n. 4, 48, 312 Caesares Oration 20: 48 27.7-28: 299 Oration 21.11: 48 n. 78 28: 261 Oration 23: 285, 350, 354 28.10-11: 299 5: 354 29.2: 245, 300 12: 350-351 29.3-5: 300 34: 349, 350-351 31-33: 300 59, 62-64: 355 65-66: 351 Automedon 74: 354 Greek Anthology 11.324: 4 80: 352 Oration 24.13: 351 Bonsignore Bonsignori: 89 Oration 26.59-60: 332 Oration 27: 87-89, 90, 92 n. Cassius Dio 53, 94 n. 64, 315, 51.20.1-4: 18 317, 325 51.20.6-9: 17-21, 23 n. 49, 24, 22: 325-326 55, 59, 147, 151, 32: 332 163, 170, 234, 262, Oration 47/Sacred Tales 1 275-276, 281, 305, 11: 4 332, 335-336, 359, 29: 28 n. 90 361-362, 367 43-44, 58, 76: 4 51.22.2-3: 17 n. 3 Oration 48/Sacred Tales 2 52.30.3: 284 30, 35, 46-49, 52: 4 52.35.2: 334 Oration 49/Sacred Tales 3 52.35.4: 284, 352 14, 22-23: 4 52.37.9-10: 284, 352 Oration 50/Sacred Tales 4 53.2.3: 17 n. 3 46: 4 54.7.6: 86, 93 71-104: 370 54.23.7-8: 86, 93, 231, 352, 96-98: 348, 370 373-374 100-104: 347, 349, 370 57.17: 246 57.24.6: 86-87 Ammianus Marcellinus 59.4.4: 363 21.16.10: 203 59.26.5: 363 23.6.24: 36 n. 145 59.27.2-6: 367 31.5.17: 245, 300 402 index of literary sources

(Cassius Dio, cont.) 15.1.40: 304 59.28.1: 42, 55-57, 59, 277 15.4.1: 304 59.28.2: 363 16.10.3: 303 60.4.1, 5-6: 57 16.10.4: 303, 304 60.17.3: 253 16.10.7: 304 62.15.1-4: 367 16.10.8: 303 67.13.3-4: 363 16.10.10-13: 304 69.5.2-3: 281-282 16.10.15: 304 69.10.1: 283 16.10.16: 304 69.10.3: 44 n. 50, 45 16.10.18: 304 69.23.3: 364 16.10.19: 304 70.1-2: 268, 364 16.10.25: 304 70.4: 87-90, 103 72.32.3: 48 Codex Vaticanus Graecus 989: 88, 94, 325-326 73.1, 10.2: 153 n. 51 73.12.1-2: 153, 156, 364, 368 Cyriacus of Ancona: 6 n. 36, 80, 82, 89- 73.15.2-16.1: 364 94, 154, 241, 307, 74.2.1-3: 120 n. 9 309, 313, 325 75.7.1-8: 218 n. 47 75.8.3-4: 260, 287 Damaskios 75.14: 236, 260, 287 Life of Isidoros: 76.15.3: 165 see Photius, Bibliotheca 77.14: 287 78.3: 365 Deuteronomy 32.8: 264 n. 47 78.5: 72, 365 78.9.4-7: 157, 290 Dexippus 78.15.2-7: 30 n. 102 fr. 16a: 300 78.16.7-8: 30 n. 102, 133 n. 9 fr. 18: 245, 300 79.3.2: 239 79.4.6: 292 Digest of Justinian 79.9.2: 293 1.16.4.5: 59 n. 1, 289 79.12: 294 27.1.6.2: 355 79.17.2-19.4: 293 79.20.4: 35, 51, 56, 75, 292 Dio Chrysostomos: 79.22.3-4: 75, 293 79.30.2-80.3.2: 294 Oration 1.37-41: 23, 280 79.39.6-40.2: 135 Oration 3.86-132: 23, 280 79.40.2: 76, 294 Oration 12.75-76: 23, 280 80.1.2-2.1: 296 Oration 31.109-110: 373 n. 1 80.3.2: 76 Oration 33.51: 212, 228 n. 77, 230 80.3.1, 6.1, 7.3-4: 156 Oration 34 354 80.7.4: 35, 51, 56, 75, 292 7-15, 27, 47-48: 212, 228 n. 77, 80.12: 157 230, 350, 355 80.21.2-3: 295 Oration 35: 343 10: 347 Chronicon Paschale 14-17: 313, 343, 350 262: 48 n. 74 Oration 38: 152, 163, 354 475.10: 86, 93 n. 60 22-31: 352 603.19-604.13: 264 n. 45 26-38: 350 34-35: 286 n. 30, 350, 356 Cicero 36-38: 346, 355 Letters to his Brother Quintus Oration 40: 333, 354 1.1.26: 18 n. 11, 312, 361 10: 343 13-15: 333 Codex Theodosius 33: 343 12.1.112: 303 Oration 41: 354 15.1.3: 303 9: 332 15.1.36: 304 Orations 44, 45: 333 index of literary sources 403

Diodorus Siculus 6.4.1-3: 225 16.41.1: 252 6.7.10-9.8: 298 31.35: 32 n. 118 7.5.8, 7.9.11: 297

Epitome de Caesaribus Hesiod 32.4: 203 Works and Days 11-26: 351

Euripides Hesychius Ion:4 Lexicon: 4, 10

Eusebius Historia Augusta Chronica 209 c: 48 n. 74 Hadrian 24, 27: 268, 364 Hieronymi Chronicon 140 Helm: 260 n. 4, 264 Verus 8: 36 n. 145 History of the Church 4.13: 87 n. 9 Commodus Life of Constantine 3.56: 233 7.1: 119 8.9, 9.2: 364 Eutropius 18-20: 120 n. 9 9.2-3: 299 Severus 9.5-6, 9.7-8: 300 9.4-8: 260, 286-287 14.6: 261 Fronto 20.1-3, 23.5-7: 287 Letters to the Emperor Antoninus 1.2.4: 87 n. 10 Caracalla Letters to Marcus Caesar 1: 165, 239, 261, 287 2.5, 2.10: 46-47 n. 64 2-3: 365 3.9: 33 5: 72, 365 3.10.2: 33 Heliogabalus 3, 5: 294 Genesis 14.18: 264 n. 47 5.1: 156 6.8-9: 157 Gospel According to Matthew 13.12: 356 Alexander Severus 18: 365 Gordiani Greek Anthology 32.1-2: 145 n. 8 6.356: 5 Gallienus 4: 161 n. 82 9.22: 4 Thirty Tyrants 19: 203 n. 29 9.656: 88, 94, 325-326 11.324: 4 John of Antioch: 201

Hero(n)das John Chrysostomos: Mimiambi 4: 4 n. 14 On 2 Corinthians, Homily 26.4.5: 92 n. 48, 365 n. 36 Herodian: 296-298 3.2.7-9: 154, 164, 286, 355 Jordanes 3.3.3-5: 252, 286 On the Getae 16.18: 299 3.3.6-3.4.5: 218 n. 47 3.4.7: 260, 287 Josephus 3.6.9: 236, 260, 287 Jewish Antiquities 3.10.4, 3.13.3-6, 3.15.5-7: 287 8.61-106: 5 n. 35 4.1.5, 4.3.5-9: 287 11.321-325, 340-347: 260 4.3.1-2: 72, 365 12.257-264: 260, 264 4.5: 365 13.254-256: 260 4.8.3: 30 15.339: 207 n. 16 4.8.4-5: 133 16.162-165: 305 4.8.6: 289 18.85-89: 260 4.12.13: 292 Jewish War 5.3.5: 157, 294 1.414: 207 n. 16 5.5.2: 295 1.153: 5 n. 33 5.5.3-4: 156 3.4, 32, 307-315: 261 5.6.3-5: 157, 294 5.383, 389: 5 n. 34 6.1.1-7: 295 7.5.2: 282 404 index of literary sources

Kedrenos, Georgios: 88 n. 17 Punishments 74: 5 On the Special Laws Kosmas of Jerusalem: 94 n. 63 1.156, 2.120: 5 Questions and Answers Libanius on Genesis fr. 17: 5 Oration 18: 357 Oration 33.22-23: 357 Philostratos Life of Apollonios of Tyana Lucian 1.15: 189 n. 3 Apology 13: 359 2.8.5, 5.1.4, 6: 46 n. 56 Icaromenippus 24 (Scholion): 86-87, 93 6.34: 282 n. 33 Lives of the Sophists 2 Maccabees 6.2: 260, 264 1.7: 333 1.8.4: 43 n. 35, 355 Malalas, Johannes 1.21: 282 n. 31, 354 11.16: 87, 91, 94, 325-326 1.25.1-4: 43-46, 66, 313 15.18: 264 1.25.5-6: 44, 47 1.25.10: 46-47, 286, 333- Niketas of Herakleia: 88 334 1.25.11: 44 Novels of Majorian 4.1: 304 2.9.2: 47-48 2.23: 68 n. 78 Oppian 2.24: 135 Biography: ‘Vita A’: 220 2.25: 36 n. 146 On Fishing: 220 2.27: 36 n. 147 On Hunting: 220 Photius Orosius 7.20.4: 299 Bibliotheca 345 b: 264 n. 47

Palatine Anthology Pindar 9.428: 198 Pythian 2.2: 6 n. 36 9.656: 88, 94, 325-326 Pliny the Elder Panegyrics Natural History 7(6).22.3-4: 282 n. 32 35.93, 132: 4 36.22.98: 88 n. 17, 93-94 Pankrates Greek Anthology 6.356: 5 Pliny the Younger Letters Pausanias 8.24.3: 355 Description of Greece book 10: 312, 371 1.18.6: 318 23, 24, 37-40, 43, 44: 284 2.10.4: 5 49, 50, 68-71, 81, 82, 2.26.8: 32 118, 119: 371 7.2.8-9: 68, 326 10.12.5: 5 Plutarch On Isis and Osiris 351E: 4 Philip of Thessalonike Political Precepts: 331 Greek Anthology 9.22: 4 17: 331-332 21: 331 Philo 32: 354 Life of Moses 1.316-318, Roman Questions 2.72, 159, 174: 5 264D: 4 On Dreams 2.273: 5 267D: 4 On Flight and Finding Romulus 5.1: 4 90, 93, 94: 5 On Rewards and Polemius Sylvius 39-40: 245, 300 index of literary sources 405

Polybius 32.15.1-6: 32 n. 118 2.47: 100 n. 1, 104 n. 29 3.63: 29 n. 96 Procopius 3.66-69: 38, 168 Buildings 5.7.1-17: 264 nn. 45, 49 4.15: 38, 40, 362, 367 4.36: 86 ‘Res Gestae Divi Saporis’: 228 n. 78, 233 n. 4.37-38: 3, 18, 39-40, 168, 26 275, 277, 324, 345, 360, 362-363, 372 Seneca 4.55-56: 23 n. 48, 38-40, Apocolocyntosis 8.3: 363 55, 59, 62, 100 n. 1, 119 n. 1, 142, Sokrates 164, 276, 281, 355, Historia Ecclesiastica 362, 367 1.18.1: 303 5.2: 325 3.23.59: 92, 94, 325-326, 6.18: 360 365 n. 36 13.33: 212 14.27.1: 137 Sozomenos 15.74.3: 363 2.5.5: 233 n. 27 16.21: 212

Strabo Vitruvius 7.7.4, fr. 21: 192, 198 On Architecture 3.2.6, 7 pref. 12: 142 14.1.5: 56 1.23: 4 Xenophon 1.40: 143 Anabasis 5.3.6-7: 4 3.3: 253 Hellenica 3.2.19: 142 664-665: 350 Xiphilinos Suda: 4, 19 n. 19, 220 Epitome of Cassius Dio 70.4.1-2: 87, 89 Suetonius Augustus 52: 18, 147, 150, 275- Zonaras 276, 324, 362 Epitome historiarum Gaius (Caligula) 12.1: 89 21: 55-56 12.20-21: 300 22.3-4: 363 12.23: 203, 218, 250 Claudius 25.3: 253 Vespasian 23.2: 282 Zosimus Domitian 13.2: 279, 363 1.17-20, 23: 299 1.23.2-25.2: 300 Syncellus/Georgios Synkellos 1.24.2: 245, 300 Ecloga Chronographia 1.27.2: 300 465-466: 203, 218, 250 1.28.1: 300 716: 161 n. 82 1.29.2-3: 203 1.29-40: 300 Tacitus 1.31-35: 300 Annals 1.35: 161 1.10.6: 362 2.31: 268, 303 2.42: 246 This page intentionally left blank index of inscriptional corpora 407

INDEX OF INSCRIPTIONAL CORPORA

Using relevant item numbers; see ‘References’ for abbreviations.

Buckler and Robinson 1932 Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 18: 113-114, 304 61: 191, 197 n. 38 63: 114 63: 192 64: 114 66: 197 n. 38 67: 114 68: 194 69: 114 69: 192, 195, 197 70: 114 70: 196, 197 71: 197 CIG 108: 197 1720: 154, 161 109: 196, 197 2022: 241 117: 191-192, 197 2023: 242 481: 195, 197 2189: 35 483: 197 n. 38 3175: 47 n. 66 485: 197 3464: 114 509: 196, 197 3486: 35 3647: 113, 114 IdA 3663, 3665: 98 10: 22 n. 44, 29, 36 3771: 161 11: 22 n. 44, 29, 36 3841d, g: 118 20: 24, 36 3938, 3941: 124 23: 36 4189: 234-235 24: 36 4342 d3: 190 28: 36 30: 36 CIL 32: 36 3.6835-6837: 67 n. 68 34: 36 3.7068: 23 n. 54 35: 36 8.757, 10047: 297 37: 36 8.10236: 75 n. 116 38: 36 42: 36 FdXL 54: 36 11: 255 n. 31 63: 33 n. 122 18: 254 nn. 20, 24 157: 35 29: 253 n. 10 30: 254 n. 12 IG 50: 253 n. 11 22.3297: 62, 66, 80, 283 51: 254 n. 13 10.150: 204 67: 255 n. 31 162-165: 199-200, 204 69-70: 253 n. 11 167: 202, 204 71: 253 n. 8 168-169: 202 n. 25 78: 253 n. 11 177: 204 125-127: 254 n. 22 231: 204 12.2.243: 35 FiE 14.1063: 120 2.34: 62 3.72: 47 n. 71, 128 n. 19, 139 n. 32, 291, 297, 348 408 index of inscriptional corpora

IGBR 339: 36 3.1. 897: 245 360: 36 898: 245 362: 32 1373: 244-245 375: 36 385: 36 IGRR 426: 36 1. 130: 120 447: 35 147: 81 451: 34 719: 244-245 452: 36 786, 787: 241 453: 35 788: 242 454: 5 n. 31, 21 n. 39 797: 95, 98 459: 35 802: 195 n. 31, 238 n. 15 460: 22 n. 43 890: 259 475: 37 1471, 1472: 245 480: 36 3. 6: 161 567: 118 81: 257-259 572: 355 132: 234 n. 4 581: 118 209: 302 586: 47 n. 71 179: 174 700: 145-146 230: 171 821, 822: 349 237: 173-174 859, 863: 124 336: 266 n. 9 908: 36 342, 343, 348: 267 1239: 21 n. 34 350, 352, 353: 266 1254: 40 n. 21 473: 254 1293: 35 474: 254 nn. 20, 21 1431, 1436: 44 n. 46 482: 255 n. 31 1516: 114 487: 254 n. 25 1524: 40 n. 18 490: 254 n. 20 1528: 114 563: 254 n. 20 1608c, 1611b: 21 n. 37 656: 256 1619: 126-128 665: 107 n. 55 1687: 36 680: 254 n. 21 1688: 36 743, 747: 256 1689: 35 756, 757: 256 n. 5 762: 256 IGUrbRom 793: 176, 179 25: 107 n. 55 804: 189 n. 4 26: 81 879: 218 37: 120, 124 880: 215, 218 881: 218 IvE 1012: 218 17-19: 22 n. 42, 349, 370-371 1033: 244 21: 80 4.17: 47 n. 71 22: 24 n. 66, 80, 258-259, 305 138, 139: 93 n. 57 24: 6 n. 36 24B: 81 140: 90, 93 n. 61 27: 66, 79 145: 86 n. 3 36A-D: 79 146: 86 43: 357 153: 92 n. 49 212: 71-74, 82 154: 98 217: 352 155: 92 230: 63 157: 92 n. 49 232-242: 61 n. 23 160: 92 n. 51 233: 62, 79 161: 238 n. 15 236: 62, 79 162: 92 n. 51 237: 62, 79 331: 36 264: 79 336: 23 n. 54 266: 80 index of inscriptional corpora 409

(IvE, cont.) 710C: 61 267-271a: 68 n. 77 718, 721: 81 274: 66 n. 60 726: 80 278: 80 728: 80 279: 67, 80 730: 69, 80 280: 80 740: 73, 82 282D: 81 742: 67 284A: 83 793: 79 288(4)CD, (5): 81 802: 292, 293 n. 80 291: 75, 83 814: 67, 69 294: 81 834: 82 297: 73, 82 857: 79 300: 73, 83 858: 79 300A: 83 893: 82 304, 304A: 83 921: 67, 69 340: 80 985: 82 367: 81 986: 80 385: 79 1089C: 80 404, 410, 411, 413: 69 n. 87 1145: 66 n. 62 415, 416: 69 n. 87, 79 1238: 82 422: 79 1380B: 81 422-424, 424A: 69 n. 87 1489: 46 n. 64, 69 n. 90, 285 428: 67, 69 1489A: 46 n. 64, 69 n. 90, 285 429: 69, 80 1490: 46 n. 64, 69 n. 90, 285 430: 66, 69 n. 87, 80 1498: 61 n. 23 431: 69 n. 87, 80 1499, 1500: 79 432, 435: 69 n. 87 1503: 80 438: 69 n. 87, 80 1517, 1532: 82 441: 80 1541, 1543: 81 443: 69 n. 87 1551: 84 449: 63-64, 79 1555: 81 455: 69 n. 87 1563: 82 467: 83 1606: 82 473(3): 84 1810: 82 480: 80 1902(1-2): 82 492: 79 1904(2): 84 508: 79 1906(1-2), 1907(2): 82 509: 69 n. 87, 79 1907(1), 1908(2-3): 84 517: 79 1909(1, 3): 82 582: 80 1910(2): 83 611, 613A: 81 1913(1), 1915(1-2): 82 618: 69 1916: 84 625: 76, 78, 83 1918(3), 1921(1-3), 627: 81 1923(1): 82 642: 81 1924(3): 84 644: 82 1926(1), 1926(2): 82 645: 66 n. 58 2034: 62-63, 79 647: 73, 82 2037: 79 649: 82 2039: 80 658: 59 n. 3 2040: 83, 84 661: 81 2048: 61 n. 23 664B: 82 2049, 2050: 81 665, 672A: 81 2052: 82 683B: 82 2053-2056: 73, 83 686, 687, 689: 82 2066: 80 692, 696, 699A: 81 2069: 81 697B: 80 2906: 84 708: 82 2908, 2909, 2909A: 82 710B: 61 3001: 73, 82 410 index of inscriptional corpora

(IvE, cont.) 640: 53 3005, 3008: 79 641: 5 n. 28 3035: 80 644: 44 n. 41 3036, 3037: 81 646: 53 3038: 61 657: 53 3040: 349 659-661: 44 n. 41 3049, 3052: 81 665: 53 3060: 79 666: 53 3072: 47 n. 71, 128 n. 19, 139 n. 667: 53 32, 291, 297, 348 668: 44 n. 41 3080: 349 672: 47 n. 68, 53 3801: 349 673: 53 4109: 81 674: 53 4333: 80 680: 45 n. 54 4336: 78, 83 681b: 46 n. 61 4341: 81 696: 53 4342: 82 697: 43-45, 53 727: 40 n. 21 IvL 767: 53 10: 124, 355 772: 40 n. 21 45: 119, 124 814: 53 50, 135, 136: 124 815: 53

IvM IvT 6.1.A.258: 57 n. 20 16: 132 n. 10 6.1.A.259: 58 42: 131 52: 132 IvP 55: 131 269: 23 n. 54, 333 58, 59: 132 287: 32 74: 130-132 293: 32 81: 131-132 299: 32, 36 94: 132 300: 32 n. 111 324: 36 Jonnes 1994 374: 22 n. 41, 349 1: 258 n. 9 395: 36 2: 257-259 397: 36 4: 258 n. 9 438: 36 7: 257 n. 8 441: 36 461: 35 Le Bas-Waddington 520: 36 628: 113 523: 22 n. 43 875: 118 524: 37 988: 118 525: 34, 37, 349 1383: 190 1480: 215, 218 IvPerge 56: 176 MAMA 4.59: 145-146 IvS 573: 142 OGIS 591: 50 n. 97 332: 318 594: 44 n. 45 509: 47 n. 71 595: 44 n. 46 513: 34 596: 44 n. 47 578: 215, 218 603: 47 n. 68, 53-54 634: 53 ”ahin 1979 637: 53 29: 163-165 638: 53 30: 163, 165 639: 44 n. 47 30a: 165 index of inscriptional corpora 411

Sayar 1998 36.1093, 1094: 103, 114 10, 11: 241 36.1095, 1096: 114 12, 13: 242 40.1128: 92 37: 237 n. 8 44.1210: 255 40, 56: 241 44.1211: 255 n. 29 307: 241 45.2353: 114, 368 n. 48

Sayar 2000 SiA 3: 228 1.26: 185-186, 188 4: 223, 228 44: 181, 188 6: 228 2.112: 185-186, 188 11: 224, 228 158: 188 12, 13: 225, 228 18: 228 SIG4 798: 86 n. 3 SEG 799: 86, 98 2.735: 266, 269 820: 61 n. 24 2.736: 269 883: 126-128 4.563: 62 906A: 6 n. 36 4.638: 114 12.514: 223, 228 TAM 12.516: 228 2.2.420: 254 n. 21 12.517: 225, 228 2.2.428: 254 n. 26 14.482: 241 2.3.879: 256 17.315: 191-192, 197 2.3.1192, 1193: 256 n. 5 17.528: 128, 297 4.1.25: 161 23.206: 370 4.1.34: 154, 161 This page intentionally left blank index of inscriptional corpora 413

GENERAL INDEX

Achaea: 68 Anatolia: 266 Achaeus: 104 Anaxagoras (chief priest): 21 M. Acilius Aviola (proconsul): 60, 61 Anazarbos (Cilicia): 220-229 M. Acilius Glabrio (proconsul): 81 1st Neokoria (Septimius Severus): 220-222 Acrolithic statuary: 318-321 2nd Neokoria (sons of Severus): 222-226 Adramyteion (Mysia): 101 3rd Neokoria (Trajan Decius): 226-228 Adramytes: 102 Coins: 220-226, 228-9 Aebutius Flaccus: 92 n. 49 History: 220 Aelia Ammia (chief priestess): 82 Andriantes (statues): 168 T. Aelius Alkibiades: 80, 305 Androklos (founder of Ephesos): 68-69, 74 Aelius Aristides: 33, 45-48, 354 Q. Anicius Faustus: 293 L. Aelius Caesar: 69 Ankara (see Ankyra) Aelius Onesiphoros (strategos): 92, 94, 95 Ankyra (Galatia): 166-174 P. Aelius Paion (poet): 24 n. 66, 349 1st Neokoria (Augustus): 166-173 P. Aelius Pigres (Asiarch): 121-122 2nd Neokoria (Valerian and Gallienus): 173-174 Aemilian: 300 Coins: 168-174 Afranius Flavianus (proconsul): 80 Priesthood: 167-168 Agalma: 318 (and see statues, cult) Temple: 166-167 Agesilaos: 220 Antandros (Troad): 133-134 Agon Alexandreios (see festivals) 1st Neokoria (Caracalla): 133-134 Agonothetes: 21, 24, 43, 66, 69, 81, 82, 117, 127, 173, Coins: 133-134 175, 178 n. 32, 191, 192, 194, 196, 202, 221, 268, Antinoös: 212 284, 297, 313, 333, 334, 336, 337, 346 Antioch: 267 Agoranomos: 112, 130 Chief city of Pisidia: 267 Aigeai (Cilicia): 230-233 Colony of Rome: 267 Alternate names: 231 Antipater (sophist): 135 Coins: 230-233 C. Antius Aulus Iulius Quadratus (proconsul): 22, 333, History: 230 336, 360 Neokoria: 230-33 Antonea Severeia (see festivals) Aizanoi (Phrygia): 116-118 Antoneinoupolis (see Aigeai) Coins: 116-118 Antonina (festival): 121, 239 Inscriptions: 118 Antonines: 284-286 Neokoria of Zeus: 116-118 Antoninus (see Caracalla) Akalissos (Lycia): 256 Antoninus Pius: 46, 47, 53, 80, 81, 83, 103, 106, 213, 364 Aktia (festival): 136, 137, 173, 217, 238, 338 Olympios: 103 Alamanni: 296, 300 Cult: 364 Albiorix son of Ateporix: 168 Portrayals of: 106 L. Albius Pullaenus Pollio (proconsul): 79 L. Antonius Albus (proconsul): 80, 81 Alexandreia (festival): 249 M. Antonius Gordianus (Gordian I): 299 Alexandroupolis (see Aigeai) M. Antonius Gordianus (Gordian II): 299 Alkiphron (chief priest): 41 M. Antonius Polemon (orator): 43- 44, 46- 47, 53, 153, Alytarch: 221 258-259, 281, 326, 333, 355-356, 368 Amaseia (Pontus Galaticus): 210-211 M. Antonius Lepidus: 21 n. 37 Coins: 210-211 Apollo: 10, 137, 183, 187, 198, 243, 277 History: 210 Kendrisos: 243 Rivalry with Neokaisareia: 210 Pythios: 198 Amazons: 10, 42, 48, 50, 51 Sidetes: 183, 187 Amyntas (King of Galatia): 166, 266, 314 at Delphi: 137 414 general index

at Hierapolis: 137 Attalos III: 34 at Miletos/Didyma: 277 Athena (Patron of Side): 187 Apolloneios Gordianeios Antoneinios (see Pythia) Attis: 169 n. 29 Aqueducts: 46, 254 Augusta Traiana (Thrace): 238 n. 11, 243 n. 2 C. Aquilius Proculus (proconsul): 79 Augusteia (festival): 21 Archaeology: 11-12 Augusti: 2, 366-367 Archelaos II (King of Cappadocia): 246 Augustia Aktia (see Aktia) Archineokoros: 118 n. 25 Augustus: 3, 17-22, 275, 276, 361 Architecture: 9 C. Aulus Antius Iulius Quadratus: 24, 36, 280, 313, 333, Archon: 89, 92, 94, 110, 112, 126, 151, 152 n. 40, 346 360 Ardashir (Sassanid king): 158 Aurelian: 165, 177-9, 302-304, 366 Arethas (Bishop of Kaisareia): 86, 87 M. Aurelius Alexandros (strategos): 31 Ariarathes V (King of Cappadocia): 318 M. Aurelius Apollonides Ammianos Daphnos: 140 Aristenetos: 90 Aurelius Charidemos (strategos): 49 Aristokrates (chief priest): 69 M. Aurelius Perperos: 53 Armenia: 234, 235 Aurelius Fulvus (son of Marcus Aurelius?): 200, 202 Koinon center Nikopolis: 234, 235 T. Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus (proconsul: see Antoninus Armeniarch: 234 Pius) Arrius Antoninus (proconsul): 119 Aurelius Victor: 297 Artemas: 140 Avidius Cassius: 47, 48 n. 72 Artemis: 5, 6, 74, 142, 143 Aydin (see Tralles) Ephesia: 5, 6, 74 Leukophryene: 142-143 Baba Rabbah: 262 Artemiseia Vespasianeia (festival): 175 Balbinus: 58, 299 Asellius Aemilianus (proconsul): 236 Basileus: 257 Asia, Koinon of: 17-146 Beroe (Thrace): 196, 197, 201 Ionia: Beroia (Macedonia): 191-197, 279 Ephesos: 59-85 1st Neokoria (Nerva): 191, 192 Magnesia: 142-144 2nd Neokoria: 192-197 Miletos: 55-58 Elagabalus: 192-4 Smyrna: 38-54 Severus Alexander: 194-5 Lydia: Gordian III: 195-7 Philadelphia: 126-129 Coins: 191-7 Sardis: 100-115 Rival of Thessalonike: 279 Tralles: 130-132 Bithynia: 146-162, 163-165, 276 Mysia: Nikaia: 163-5 Kyzikos: 86-99 Nikomedia: 147-162 Pergamon: 17-37 Bithyniarch: 151, 152, 257 Phrygia: Bosporan kings: 259 n. 21 Aizanoi: 116-118 Brokers of Beneficence: 333-5 Hierapolis: 135-141 C. Antius Aulus Iulius Quadratus: 333 Laodikeia: 119-125 M. Antonius Polemon: 333, 334 Synnada: 145-146 Tiberius Claudius Piso Diophantos: 334 Troad: Saoteros: 334 Antandros: 133-134 Ulpius Apollonius Plautus: 334- 335 Asiarch: 21, 24, 40, 47 n. 71, 67, 73, 79, 81, 82, 92, 108, 109, 112, 121, 122, 127, 128, 284, 291, 334, 346-348 C. Ofellius Ferus: 318, 318 n. 29 C. Asinius Neikomachus Frugianus (agoranomos): 112 C. Vibius Salutaris: 68 Asklepieia Sotereia (festival): 173, 340 Ti. Caepio Hispo (proconsul): 36, 80 Asklepios: 10, 31 n. 105, 33, 50, 183, 187, 231 M. Caerelius Attalos (strategos): 30, 31, 34 Soter:33 Caesar (Deification): 18 Cult: 50, 231 Caesernius Statianus: 161 Neokoros (Side): 10, 183 Caligula (see Gaius) Aspendos (Pamphylia): 189, 190 P. Calvisius Ruso (proconsul): 79 1st Neokoria (Gallienus): 189, 190 Cappadocia: 205, 246-251 Coins: 189-190 Kaisareia: 246-251 Asylos/Asylum: 29, 142, 178, 230 Cappadociarch: 246 M. Atilius Bradua (proconsul): 45, 79 Caracalla: 30-35, 48-50, 70-73, 75, 81-83, 94, 95, 114, Attalos II: 25 127, 133, 165, 173, 287-292, 365 general index 415

3rd Neokoria (Pergamon): 30-5 P. Claudius Attalos: 119 3rd Neokoria (Smyrna): 48 Ti. Claudius Balbillus: 63 Asklepieia Sotereia: 173 Claudius Capito (archon): 127, 128 Campaign vs. Parthians: 133, 288 Ti. Claudius Cleon (chief priest): 140 Caracalla Arabicus: 81 M. Claudius Demetrios: 161 Coinage of Smyrna: 48, 49 Claudius Fronto: 108, 109 Coins of Pergamon: 289 Ti. Claudius Glyptos: 130, 131 Coins of Smyrna: 289 Claudius Gothicus: 98 Cult: 50 Ti. Claudius Kretarios (strategos): 49 Dedicatory inscription: 114 Ti. Claudius Magnus Charidemos: 67 Germanicus Maximus: 73, 83 Ti. Claudius Meidias (chief priest): 40 Hercules (refusal of name): 72 Claudius Nikomedes (strategos): 29 Kyzikos: 94, 95 P. Claudius Pankratides (grammateus): 130 Modesty and pietas: 72 Ti. Claudius Piso Diophantos (chief priest): 67, 152 n. Neokoria: 70, 288-92 40, 315, 316, 334 New Sun god: 71, 75, 127, 287, 365 Ti. Claudius Serenus: 82 Nikaia: 165 Ti. Claudius Sokrates (chief priest and agonothetes): 21 Plautilla: 94 Cleander (chamberlain of Commodus): 153 Statues: 73, 75, 83, 228 Client Kingdoms: 205, 207, 220 Carminius Vetus (proconsul): 79 Cocceius Alexandros: 168 Carthage: 83 M. Cocceius Nerva: 168 Cassius Dio: 7, 163, 332-333, 365 M. Cocceius Seleukos (chief priest): 168, 171 Celts: 166 Colonia Iulia Flavia Sergia Neapolis (see Neapolis) Chief Priest/ess: 4-5, 21, 24, 36, 40, 41, 47, 57, 59, 61 n. Colony: 235, 262, 263, 332 24, 65, 66, 67, 69, 76, 81, 82, 92, 100, 103, 117, 118, 1st Neokoros of: 235 127, 128, 139, 140, 151, 168, 170, 171, 173, 175, 178 Neapolis: 262, 263 n. 32, 191, 192, 194, 196, 197, 204, 231, 233, 253, Neokoros: 262, 263 258, 262, 267, 268, 284, 290, 291, 297, 305, 313, 332, Nikopolis: 263 334, 336, 341, 346, 353, 354, 357, 370 Thessalonike: 263 Christians: 232, 268, 269, 303 Colossi: 104-108, 317-321 Neokoriai: 303 At Cuicul: 108 Sagalassos: 268, 269 At Ephesos: 107 Churches in/on temples: 264, 267, 268 At Leptis Magna: 108 Apollo Klarios: 267 At Pergamon: 108 Neapolis: 264 At Sardis: 104-107 Sagalassos: 268 Commodiana (see Aigeai) Cicero: 312, 361- 362 Commodus: 34, 48, 81, 104, 106, 119, 120, 153, 213-217, Cilicia: 212-233 256 Aigeia: 230-233 Akalissos Neokoria: 256 Anazarbos: 220-229 Alternate names: 214 Tarsos: 212-219 Colossos: 104 Ciliciarch: 215, 221, 227 Condemnation of Memory: 119, 120, 215 Cistophoroi: 314, 321 Festival (Pergamon): 34 Cities: 41, 94, 331-342 Laodikeia: 119, 120 As Goddesses: 41, 94 Portrayals: 106 Brokers of beneficence: 333-335 Tarsos: 213-7 Comparison with koinon: 341-342 Withdrawal of Neokoria (Nikomedia): 153 Culture/Status: 331-333 Concord (homonoia): 238, 332, 351, 352, 354 Festivals: 334-341 Among cities: 332, 351, 354 Neokoroi: 331-342 Between Geta and Caracalla: 238 Structure: 331 Coinages: 20 n. 25, 32-33, 165, 190, 285, 286, 289, 290, Citizenship: 262, 263, 332 343, 354-355 Civil War: 297, 356 Condemnation of Memory: 57, 78, 97, 105 n. 45, 112, Claudius: 5, 253, 277 158, 194, 207, 209, 240, 244, 250, 256, 259, 263, 277, Decree: 5 278, 292, 293, 315, 320, 327, 329, 369 Lycia: 253 Commodus: 105 n. 45, 256 Neokoria: 277 Domitian: 278 Ti. Claudius Alexandros (strategos): 31 Gaius (Caligula): 57, 277 Ti. Claudius Aristion (chief priest): 66 Elagabalus: 78, 112, 158, 194, 240, 244, 327, 369 416 general index

Macrinus: 292, 293 Demeter: 10, 156, 160 Nero: 315 Demetria Antonina (festival): 157 Philip: 259, 263 Demiourgos: 213, 214, 216, 225, 231 n. 12 Severus Alexander: 97, 207, 209, 240 n. 25, 244, 250, Diadumenian: 228, 292 327, 329 Didyma 55, 56 Constantine: 174, 268, 303 Didymaion (Miletos): 56, 57, 277 Christianity: 303 Didymeia: 137, 142 Founding of temples: 268 Dio Chrysostomos: 332-333, 351, 354, 371 Constantius Chlorus: 145, 146, 266 Diocletian: 145, 266 Consul: 81, 187, 257 Diodotos (sophist): 36 Contests (see festivals) Dionysos: 187, 258 P. Cornelius Scipio (quaestor): 370 Kathegemon:32 L. Cossinius: 40 Diophantos (Ephesos): 69, 153 Cossutianus Capito: 212 Diospontus: 205 Crispina: 256 Dokimeion: 145 Crowns: 21 n. 29, 217, 231 n. 12 Domitian: 63, 147 n. 5, 176, 278, 363 Agonothetic: 213 n. 12 Condemnation of memory: 176, 278 On Coins: 217 Ephesos: 63, 278, 363 Prize crowns: 21 n. 29, 173 Perge: 176 Cult: 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 18, 32, 34, 39, 40, 44, 45, 56, 61 Donuktaâ (Tarsos temple): 214 n. 24, 69, 71, 104, 157, 163 n. 3, 171 n. 51, 241, 243, Cn. Dottius Plancianus (Asiarch): 67 n. 68 273, 275, 277, 279, 280, 291, 304, 311, 317-21, 321-8, Drusilla: 5, 21 n. 36 359-71 Dzendemtepe: 244 Artemis: 71 Caracalla & Geta (Perinthos): 241 Earthquakes: 48, 78 n. 127, 87 n. 8-10, 94 n. 64, 100, Civic: 69 102, 104, 137, 163-164, 267, 281, 312, 313, 315, 316, Deified Plotina: 44, 45 325, 326 Demeter (Ephesos): 61 n. 24 Ephesos: 78 n. 127 Imperial: 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 18, 39, 40, 273, 275, 291, Kyzikos: 87, 94 n. 64, 281 359-371 Nikaia: 281 Koinon (Gaius): 277 Sagalassos: 267 Koinon (Magna Mater): 171 n. 51 Sardis: 100, 102, 104 Partners: Smyrna: 48 Antoninus Pius & Artemis (Sardis): 311 Economy (weakening of koinon): 297 Attalos III & Asklepios Soter: 34 Eikon (vs. agalma): 318 Augustus & Roma: 32, 157 Elagabalus: 51, 76-78, 110-112, 138, 142, 156-158, 192- Caesar & Roma: 163 n. 3 194, 216, 217, 228, 239, 243, 244, 252, 294-6, 365 Caracalla & Dieties of Pergamon: 56, 157, 311 Anazarbos: 216, 217 Caracalla & Deities of Smyrna: 56, 157, 311 Condemnation of memory: 78, 112, 138, 142, 158, 194 Elagabalus & Apollo: 32, 57, 243, 311 Emesa: 365 Elagabalus & Demeter (Nikomedia): 157, 311 Ephesos: 76, 77 Elagabalus & Men (Hierapolis): 311 Neokoria: 51, 77, 156, 157, 192, 194, 252, 294-296 Gaius & Apollo (Didyma): 277, 311 Nikomedia: 156, 157 Severus Alexander & Asklepios (Aigeai): 32, 311 Perinthos: 239 Trajan & Zeus Philios: 32, 279, 280 Philippopolis: 243, 244 Statues: 317-321 Religion: 157, 294, 295 on coins: 321-324 Sardis: 110, 111 Theoi Sebastoi: 61 n. 24 Emperor, cult of (see cult, imperial) Zeus: 104 Emperors: 324-328 Curator: 81 Ephebes: 22, 66, 98 L. Cuspius Pactumeius Rufinus: 34 Ephesia (see festivals) Ephesos: 2, 5, 6, 47, 59-85, 277 Damianos (sophist): 68 n. 78 Coins: 60, 65, 68-71, 72, 74-78, 84, 85 Dedications 62, 69 Concord with Smyrna: 47 Deia (festival): 117, 120, 128 Neokoria: 60, 61, 66-79, 84, 85 Deia Haleia Philadelphia (festival): 129 Nurse City: 6 n. 36 Deia Kommodeia (see Kommodeia) St. Paul: 6 Dekios Oikoumenikos (see festivals) Temples: 2, 5, 63-66 Delphi: 161 Epinikia (see festivals) general index 417

Eprius Marcellus (proconsul): 61 Trocmi: 170 Erasures: 73, 176, 202, 288, 295, 296, 299, 320, 334, 335 Galatarchs: 170, 173, 346 By Christians: 176 Galba: 277 Elagabalus’ name: 295 Galerius Caesar: 266 Facades: 320 Gallienus: 78, 97, 189, 203, 301, 366 Geta’s name: 288 Neokoria: 78, 189, 203, 366 Inscriptions: 334, 335 Portraiture: 97 Monuments: 202 Wars: 301 Philip’s name: 299 C. Gallius Pulcher: 171 Titles: 296 Gannys: 156 Eregli (see Herakleia) Gerousiarch: 204 C. Erucius Clarus (proconsul): 81 Geta: 30, 70, 72, 82, 114, 247, 288 Ethnikon Kaisareion (festival): 255 3rd Neokoria (Ephesos): 70 Eurykles: 117, 118 Coins (Kaisareia): 247 Eusebeia (see Kaisareia) Erasure of name: 288 Eusebius: 220, 264 Inscription: 114 Eutropius: 729 Temple: 72 Gifts, Imperial: 282, 283 Q. Fabius Catullinus (consul): 257 Gladiatorial Shows: 171 Fabius Cilo: 236 Gordian III: 58, 78, 83, 182, 199, 234, 235, 240, 245, Paullus Fabius Maximus (proconsul): 370 298, 299 Paullus Fabius Persicus (proconsul): 22 n. 42, 41, 370 Beroia: 299 Faustina the Elder: 103, 104, 106 Festivals: 182 Faustina the Younger: 106 Neokoria: 298, 299 Favorinus: 43 n. 35 Nikopolis: 234, 235 Festivals (see also under individual names): 5, 20, 21, 23, 24, Perinthos: 240 34, 44, 58, 63, 68, 69, 73, 77, 81, 83, 86, 92, 93, 100, Thessalonike: 299 109, 111, 113, 117, 120, 121, 123, 124, 127-129, 131, Tranquillina: 199 136-139, 142 n. 1, 142, 145, 151, 154, 156, 157, 167, Goths: 98, 160, 161, 174, 196, 200, 296, 297, 299-302, 168, 171, 171 n. 51, 172, 173, 175, 178, 179, 181 n. 340 3, 182, 187, 189, 193-196, 198, 199, 201, 203, 208, Ankyra: 174 209, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 221, 223, 226, 227, 231 Invasions: 177, 178, 185, 197, 203, 356, 357 n. 15, 232, 237-239, 243, 244, 246-249, 254, 255, 257, Nikomedia: 98, 160, 161 267, 276, 279, 282, 283, 284, 313, 325, 326, 335-341, Governors (see Romans in government) 346, 356, 364, 370, 371 Grammateus: 6, 60, 61, 73, 79, 80, 92, 129-31, 143, 328, Five Metropoleis: 291 334, 349 Flavia Ammion (chief priestess): 65 n. 53 Gymnasiarch: 5, 21, 41 Flavia Neapolis: 260 Flavians: 277-279 Hadrian: 23, 27, 28, 36, 42-44, 53, 66, 74, 80, 81, 86-94, M. Flavius Aper (consul): 257 100, 116, 163, 164, 199 n. 13, 212, 254, 258, 281-284, T. Flavius Collega: 267 313, 314, 363, 364 Flavius Diadoumenos: 131 Aizanoi: 116 Flavius Leo: 113 Ephesos: 66, 74, 164 T. Flavius Narus (chief priest): 65 n. 53 Kyzikos: 93, 164 T. Flavius Neon (chief priest): 268 Neokoria: 42, 86-94, 212, 281-284 Flavius Trophimos (magistrate): 96 Nikaia: 163, 164 T. Flavius Varus: 65 n. 53 Olympios Panhellenios:80 Franks: 296 Pergamon: 27, 27 n. 85, 28 Q. Fulvius Gillo Bittius Proculus (proconsul): 79 Polemon: 43, 44 Fulvus (see Aurelius Fulvus) Smyrna: 44, 53, 164 Zeus Eleutherios:23 Gaius (Caligula): 42, 55, 59, 86, 277, 280, 363 Zeus Olympios: 23, 93 Didymeion (Miletos): 280 Hadriana (see Aigeai) Neokoria: 277 Hadrianeia (festival): 44, 68, 69, 81, 92, 93, 100, 145, 213, New Helios: 86 217, 221, 283, 325, 326, 336 Galatia: 166-74, 205, 266 Hadrianeion: 68, 68 n. 77 Ankyra: 166-74 Haleia (festival): 128 Tectosage: 166 Helladarch: 151, 346 Tolistobogii: 170, 171 Herakleia: 6, 257-259 418 general index

Coins: 257, 259 Kendreiseia Pythia (see Pythia) Herakles (Patron of Tarsos): 214 Koinon/koina: 2, 3, 6, 17, 291, 342-358 Herennius Etruscus: 300 Armenia: 234, 235 Hermogenes (architect): 64, 142 Asia: 17-146 Hermokratos (philosopher): 36 Bithynia: 147-165 Hermos River: 53 Cappadocia: 246-51 Herodian: 296-298 Cilicia: 212-233 Heroön (of Augustus): 86, 93 Galatia: 166-174 Hestiaios (archon): 89 Lycia: 253-256 Hierapolis: 83, 135-141 Macedonia: 191-204 Coins: 135-137, 139-141 Pamphylia: 175-190 Neokoria: 135-141 Phoenicia: 252 Ti. Hieronymos Sosander: 45 n. 52 Pontus: 205-211, 257 Hierophantes: 152, 170, 192 n. 15, 305, 346 Pisidia: 266-269 Hipparchos: 86 Syria Palestina: 260-265 Historia Augusta: 178 n. 30, 187 n. 37, 296-297 Thrace: 236-245 Hymnodoi: 22, 28, 35, 41, 44, 67, 92, 283, 305, 312, 313, Koina Asias (festival): 124, 138 348 Kommodeia (festival): 121, 154, 364 Hypaipa: 21 n. 37 Kore (Lydian): 109-112 Hypsistos: 264 n. 47 Korydalla: 256 Korykos: 220 Inscriptions: 11, 53, 86, 100, 112, 114, 118, 128, 165, Kos: 83 234, 258, 259, 263, 264, 268 Knidos: 83 Ionia: 38 Kyzikos (Mysia): 6, 86-99, 277 Isauria: 220, 221, 223 Coins: 89, 91, 94, 95-99 Iuliane (chief priestess): 41 Neokoria: 6, 86-99 P. Iulius Aemilius Aquila: 176, 179 C. Iulius Alexander Berenicianus (proconsul): 80 Laodikeia (Phrygia): 43, 119-125 Iulius Anthimos: 31, 34 Coins: 119-125 M. Iulius Aquila (chief priest): 82 Neokoria: 119-125 C. Iulius Asper: 293 Legatus: 169, 245, 300 L. Iulius Marinus Caecilius Simplex: 253 pro praetore Asiae: 81 Ti. Iulius Menogenes (neokoros): 57 Legions: 262 Iulius Pollio: 25 Letters (on coinage): 177-179 C. Iulius Severus: 147 n. 5 Libonianus (chief priest): 100 n. 5, 103 Decimus Iunius Quintianus (logistes): 83 Licinius: 174 A. Iunius Rufinus (proconsul): 81 P. Licinius Glyptos: 131 Ius Italicum: 234, 235 n. 6, 332 Linear B: 4 Izmit (see Nikomedia) Livia (see also Julia): 21 n. 36, 39, 40-41 Logistes: 83, 130 Jewish Revolt: 260 Lollianus Gentianus (proconsul): 45 Jordanes: 245 Lollius Pulcher: 171 Julia (see also Livia): 21 n. 36, 39, 40-41 Lucia Septimia Sebaste (see Sebaste) Julia Domna: 71, 72, 83, 95, 161, 294 Lucilius Capito (procurator): 38, 39 Julia Maesa: 294, 295 Lucilla: 106 Julia Mamaea: 138, 140, 225, 295 Lucius Baebius Honoratus (proconsul): 192 Julia Paula: 76, 77, 294 Lucius Verus: 36, 106, 114 Julianus: 126-128 L. Luscius Ocra (proconsul): 79 Julius Anthimos (strategos): 31 Lycaonia: 220, 221, 223 Julius Caesar: 29 Lycia (cities): 253-256, 266, 278 Jupiter Amicalis (see also Zeus Philios): 23 Akalissos: 256 Patara: 253-5 Kabeira (see Neokaisareia) Pisidia: 266 Kabeireia (see festivals) Lyciarch: 253, 346 Kaisareia (Cappadocia): 246-251, 254, 255 Lydia (cities): 100-15, 126-129, 130-132 Coins: 246-251, 254, 255 Philadelphia: 126-129 Neokoria: 246-51 Sardis: 100-115 Kaisareia (festival): 175, 189, 370, 371 Tralles: 130-132 Kallisthenes (historian): 359 general index 419

Ma (war goddess): 207 Neokoria/neokoros as title: passim Macedonia: 191-204 Definition: 1-5 Beroia: 191-197 Neokoros (magistrate): 57, 61 n. 24 Thessalonike: 198-204 Neopoioi: 56, 57, 277, 312, 349 Macedoniarch: 194-197, 346 Nero: 277, 363 Macedoniarchissa: 192, 346 Nerva: 192, 197, 253, 254, 279 Macrinus: 35, 51, 74, 75, 75 n. 111, 75 n. 114, 76, 83, Nikaia (Bithynia): 163-165 95, 128, 135, 136, 192, 224, 228, 252, 264, 292, 293, Coinage: 165 365 Neokoria: 163-165 Coinage: 75, 128, 192, 293 Nikaia (Lydia): 83 Condemnation of memory: 293 Nikomedia (Bithynia): 10, 147-162 Ephesos: 74-6 Coinage: 149, 150, 156, 157 Neokoria: 95, 224, 292, 293 Coins: 147-62 Withdrawal of titles: 365 Neokoria: 147-62 Magistrates (see also under individual offices and names): Temple: 147, 148, 276 96, 97 Nikopolis (Armenia): 234-235 Magnesia (Ionia): 142-4 L. Nonius Asprenas Torquatus (proconsul): 79 Coins: 143, 144 Numismatic Conventions: 20, 29, 33, 109, 119, 143, 149, Neokoria: 142-144 150, 155, 168-170, 195, 206, 215, 321, 330 Magnesian Gate, Ephesos: 68 Nysa: 258 Majorian: 304 Makrinoupolis (see Aigeai) Olympeion: 68, 69, 80 Marcius Xenokrates (basileus): 257, 258 Olympia: 53 Marcus Aurelius: 36, 47, 48, 81, 83, 104, 106, 126, 127, Olympia (festival): 58, 68, 92, 93, 326, 336 313, 364 Olympia Asklepeia (festival): 34 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (see Elagabalus) Olympos: 256 Mark Antony: 205 Oppian: 220 Maximian Augustus: 266 Opramoas: 255 Maximinus: 78, 298 C. Orphios Flavianus Philographos: 92 Maximinus Daia: 79 Otho: 277 Mazaka (see Kaisareia) Megala Pythia Panionia (festival): 58 n. 24 Pamphylia: 175-90, 253, 277, 278 Men (Moon God): 135, 136, 169, 184, 311, 327 Aspendos: 189, 190 L. Mestrius Florus (proconsul): 41, 61 n. 24, 63 Perge: 175-180, 277, 278 Meter Steunene: 116 Side: 181-188 Metropolis: 29, 145, 164 n. 13, 172, 178, 191, 198, 206, Pamphyliarch: 175, 278, 346 210, 212, 213, 223, 226-228, 234, 243-246, 252-254, Pamukkale (see Hierapolis) 263, 267, 279, 280, 283, 291, 344, 345, 348, 349, 353 Panegyriarch: 21, 348 Milestones: 173, 197, 225, 228, 241, 244, 245, 266, 269 Panegyric (Kyzikos): 87, 88, 92, 92 n. 53 Miletos (Ionia): 55-58, 277 Parthian War: 106, 108, 120, 121, 126, 127, 133, 135, Coins: 56-58 192, 220, 221, 223, 224, 225, 246, 249, 280, 284, 288, Neokoria: 57, 58 289, 338, 365 Temple: 55-7 Patara (Lycia): 253-255 Mithridates VI Eupator: 163, 205, 234, 345 Patron Deities: 182-185, 243 Modestinus: 355 Apollo Kendrisos (Philippopolis): 243 Monumentum Ancyranum: 166, 167 Apollo (Side): 182, 184 Mopsos: 232 Artemis (Perge): 185 Mt. Argaios: 247, 249 Athena (Side): 182-185 Mt. Gerizim: 260, 261 Cn. Pedanius Fuscus (proconsul): 79 Mt. Pagos: 46, 46 n. 61 M. Peducaeus Priscinus (proconsul): 80 Mysia: 17-37 Pergamon (Mysia): 17-37, 280, 289, 290 Coins: 19-22, 24-6, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 289, 290 Naevianus: 228 Neokoria: 17-35 Neapolis (Syria Palestina): 260-265 Perge (Pamphylia): 10, 175-181, 184, 185, 277, 278 Coins: 261, 263, 265 Coins: 175-179, 180-181, 184, 185 Neokoria: 261-265 Neokoria: 175-79 Neokaisareia (Pontus): 205-209, 280 Perintheia (see festivals) Coins: 206-9 Perinthos (Thrace): 10, 236-242 Neokoria: 206-209, 280 Coins: 236-242 420 general index

Neokoria: 236-241 Quaestor: 80, 370 Persian Wars: 194, 230, 232, 233, 262, 296 Persians: 174, 301 Rhapsode: 349 Personification: 2 nn. 4, 6, 6 Rhescuporis V (King of Bosporus): 259 Cities: 2 nn. 4, 6 Rhyndokos River: 98 the Demos: 6 Rivalry: Pescennius Niger: 154, 164, 215, 216, 218, 220, 224, 236, Aigeai & Tarsos: 230 239, 242 n. 37, 249, 252, 260, 286, 288, 297, 350, Beroia & Pella: 199 n. 13 355, 356 Beroia & Thessalonike: 192, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201- Pessinus: 170, 171 203, 227 Petronius (proconsul): 20, 39, 40 Caracalla & Geta: 289 Phaselis: 256 Ephesos & Pergamon: 281 Philadelphia (Lydia): 126-129 Ephesos, Smyrna & Pergamon: 46, 67, 74 Coins: 127-129 Favorinus & Polemon: 354, 355 Neokoria: 126-8 Laodikeia & Antioch: 260 Philip: 226, 257, 299 Laodikeia & Hierapolis: 123, 138 Philippopolis (Thrace): 10, 243-245 Miletos & Magnesia: 58, 142 Coins: 243-245 Neokaisareia & Amaseia: 206, 210 Neokoria: 243-245 Nikomedia & Nikaia: 147, 151, 152, 154, 163, 260, Philostratos: 48 n. 72 281, 286, 287 Phoenicia (Tripolis): 252 Perge & Side: 176-179, 181, 184, 185, 187 Phrygia: 135-141, 145 Perinthos & Byzantion: 236, 241, 260 Phyromachos (sculptor): 32 Perinthos & Philippopolis: 244 Pisidia: 170, 266-269 Philadelphia & Sardis: 127, 128 Antioch: 170 Sebaste & Neapolis: 260 Sagalassos: 266-269 Septimius Severus & Pescennius Niger: 355 M. Plancius Varus (senator): 175 Side, Aspendos & Perge: 181 Plautianus (praetorian prefect): 165 Side & Aspendos: 181, 189, 190 Plautilla: 30, 94 Tarsos & Anazarbos: 213, 216-218, 220-223, 226-228 M. Plautius Silvanus (proconsul): 20 Tyre & Berytos: 260 Plovdiv (see Philippopolis) Roman Administrators (see under individual names and Polemon (see M. Antonius Polemon) offices) Politics & Koinon: 350, 351 Romans in government over provinces: 359-371 Pom. Sextus (stephanephoros): 45 n. 51 Rome (goddess): 3, 38, 51, 275 Pompey: 205, 234 Rutilius Pudens Crispinus: 95, 244 Pontarch: 205, 346 Pontifex Maximus: 231 Sacrifices: 30 Pontus (cities): 205-11, 257-9, 280 Sagalassos (Pisidia): 266-9 Amaseia: 210, 211 Saint Paul: 6 Herakleia: 205-209 Salonina: 97, 173 Neokaisareia: 257-259 Saloninus: 197 C. Popillius Carus Pedo (proconsul): 81 Samaria: 260-265 Q. Popillius Python: 153, 191 Samaritan Uprising: 262 Power Brokers: 116 Sanctuary: 253, 255 Praetor: 38, 165 Saoteros (of Nikomedia, chamberlain of Commodus): 116, Praetorian Guard: 299 120, 153, 334, 337, 364, 368 Proconsul: 20, 22, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 53, 59-61, 63, 79- Sardis (Lydia): 100-144 81, 83, 119, 169, 192, 236, 244, 284, 289, 299, 312, Coins: 102, 109, 110, 112-115 332, 333, 355, 360, 370 Neokoria: 100-44 Proconsular legate: 167 Sassanians: 173, 181, 182, 296, 297, 299, 301, 302, 366 Procurator: 38, 39, 81 Scythians: 201 Provinces: 18, 19 Sebasta Rhomaia (festival): 5, 21 Prusias (King of Bithynia): 32 Sebasteion: 59, 108 Pupienus: 58, 299 Sebasteion (festival): 167, 168 Pylaimenes: 167, 168 Sebastoi: 2, 366-367 Pylos: 4 Sebastologos:57 Pythia (festival): 58, 83, 121, 136, 137, 173, 198, 199, 201, Sebastoneos:57 238, 243, 244, 338, 339, 340 Sebastophantes: 152, 170, 171, 173, 346, 348 Selge: 81 general index 421

Senate, Roman: 3, 18, 22, 23, 29, 39, 43, 44, 46, 49, 55, Apollo: 135, 136, 267, 268, 306 61, 72, 75, 77, 82, 83, 87, 110, 112, 114, 119, 123, Artemis: 74, 102-104, 133, 135, 308, 328, 329 131, 132, 153, 164, 168, 175, 178, 196, 246, 249, 276, Asklepios: 33-34 277, 280, 281, 291, 292, 299, 300, 342, 360, 361, 363, the Augusti: 61-65, 306 364, 365, 367-2 Augustus: 3, 56, 100 Septimius Severus: 81, 95, 106, 113, 114, 155, 158-159, Caesar: 147 164, 165, 215, 216, 220-226, 236, 241, 243, 246-249, Caracalla: 123 258, 261, 262, 286-288, 355, 356, 364, 365 Caracalla & Asklepios: 183 Severans: 127 Coin representations: 31, 32, 45, 160, 195, 196, 309, Severia (festival): 156, 216, 217, 218, 221, 237, 238, 249, 310, 311 338, 339, 356 Commodus: 123, 214, 215, 308 Severiana (see Aigeai) Demeter: 156 Severus Alexander: 58, 96, 111, 112, 138, 139, 194, 196, Demeter & Kore: 95, 95 n. 68 208, 215, 217, 218, 225, 228, 230, 232, 240, 244, 245, Didymaion: 56 249, 250, 295, 296, 365, 366 Elagabalus: 111, 240 Condemnation of memory: 138, 196, 232, 250 Elagabalus & Apollo: 183 Neokoria: 58, 96, 111, 112, 138, 139, 194, 208, 230, Gens Septimia Aurelia: 108 244, 245, 249, 250, 295, 296, 365, 366 Gordian III: 240 Shapur I (Sassanid king): 182, 203, 218, 228, 233, 250, Hadrian: 45, 68, 80, 86, 283, 304, 307 299, 300 Men (Moon-god): 135, 136, 184 Tarsos (sack of): 218 Nero: 62 Valerian (capture of): 203 Olympieion: 68 Shechem (Tell Balatah): 260 Persephone: 94 Side (Pamphylia): 10, 181-188 Rome: 50 Coins: 182-185, 188 Rome & Augustus: 3, 23, 25, 163, 166-173, 276, 306 Neokoria: 10, 181-188 Rome & Iulius Caesar: 163, 164 L. Silanus (proconsul): 38, 39 Severus Alexander: 240 Smyrna (Ionia): 38-54 Severus Alexander & Asklepios: 183 Coins: 39, 41, 47-54 Tiberius: 56, 100 Neokoria: 38-53 Tiberius, Julia & the Senate: 3, 41, 100 Temples: 38-53 Trajan & Zeus Philios: 3, 23-26, 28, 306 Stara Zagora (see Beroe) Tyche: 45 Statues: 5, 12, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 53, 64-67, 101, 103- Vespasian: 107, 108 108, 149, 150, 151, 168, 173, 174, 181, 186, 197, 199, Zeus: 116-118, 264, 328 200, 214, 228, 231, 241, 242, 256, 259, 315, 317-323, Zeus Akraios: 45, 46 353, 367 Zeus Asklepios: 33 Stephanephoros: 41 Zeus & Trajan: 3, 23-26, 28, 306 Strategos: 29-31, 34, 43, 49, 92, 108, 109, 112, 133 n. 3, Tetrarchy: 185, 186 290 n. 64 Theodosian Code: 303, 304 Suetonius: 56 Theodosius I: 64, 304 Synnada (Phrygia): 145-146 Theodosius II: 304 Synedrion: 199 Theologos: 24, 44, 66, 152 Synod of theatrical artists (technitai): 24 n. 66, 257-259 Thesmodos: 66 Syria Palestina (Neapolis): 260-265 Thessalonike (Macedonia): 10, 198-204 Syriarch: 357 Coins: 198-204 Neokoria: 10, 198-204 Tacitus (historian): 38-39 Thrace (cities): 236-245 Tacitus (emperor): 178-179 Perinthos: 236-242 Tarsos (Cilicia): 10, 212-219, 227 Philippopolis: 243-245 Coins: 212-219, 227 Thrasymedes: 32 Neokoria: 212-9 Three Eparchies: 213, 220, 221, 223, 227, 228, 250 Tarkondimotos II (King of Cilicia): 220 Tiberius: 3, 38, 39, 246, 276, 277, 362, 363 Tavium: 170 Q. Tineius Sacerdos (proconsul): 83 Technitai (see Synod of theatrical artists) Titulature: 34, 69, 138 n. 28, 171, 178, 186, 187, 199, Tell Balatah (see Shechem) 200, 202, 203, 214, 218, 224, 227, 231, 241, 250, 253, Tell er-Ras: 264 254, 255, 258, 268, 285, 289, 290, 301, 302, 343, 351- Temples 357 Antoninus Pius: 307 Titus: 65, 279, 363 Aphrodite Stratonikis: 46 n. 63 Traianeia Deiphileia (festival): 24 422 general index

Trajan: 22, 23, 25, 27, 36, 42, 279-281, 363 Valeriana Ammia (chief priestess): 194 Neokoria: 23, 279-281 Valerius Asiaticus Saturninus (proconsul): 79 Statues: 27, 36 Valerius Naso: 40 Trajan Decius: 199, 202, 226-228, 232, 263, 299, 300, Valerius Philoxenos: 192, 194 366 Vandals: 296, 304 Condemnation of memory: 202, 227 Vedii: 43-51, 69 Neokoria: 199, 226-228 P. Vedius Pollio: 370, 371 Tralles (Lydia): 81, 130-132 Cn. Vergilius Capito (chief priest): 57 Coins: 130-132 Vespasian: 2, 61, 191 n. 4, 213, 277, 278 Neokoria: 130-132 Vestal Virgins: 5 Tranquillina: 83 C. Vibius Salutaris (proconsul): 79 Trebonianus Gallus: 227, 299-300 Visigoths: 304 C. Trebonius Proculus Mettius Modestus: 254 Visits, Imperial: 282 Tripolis (Phoenicia): 252 Vitellius: 277 Tyche: 82 Vulnerability of Provinces: 181, 182

T. Ulpius Aelianus Papianus: 152 n. 40 Women as neokoroi: 5 Ulpius Apollonius Plautus: 73, 82, 334, 335 Wreaths: 112, 113 M. Ulpius Appuleius Eurykles (chief priest): 47 n. 71, 117, 118 Zeno: 264 M. Ulpius Appuleius Flavianus: 116, 117 Zenobia: 174 M. Ulpius Senecio Saturninus: 95, 96, 98 Zenon: 190 M. Ulpius Traianus (proconsul): 45 Zeus: 23 Laodikeus: 121 Valens: 203 Larasios: 130, 131 Valentinian: 304 Olympios: 264 Valerian: 78, 97, 181, 181-185, 232, 300-302, 314, 366 Polieus: 104 Neokoria: 78, 181-185, 301, 302 Zosimus: 297 Valerian & Gallienus: 159-161, 173, 174, 300-302 PLATES 1. Ankyra: Temple of Augustus and Rome. 2. Ephesos: Temple of the Augusti.

3. Miletos: Temple of Apollo at Didyma.

4. Pergamon: Temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan.

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

6. Pergamon: Round temple in Asklepieion. 7. Kyzikos: Temple of Hadrian.

8. Sagalassos: Temple of Antoninus Pius.

9. Sardis: Temple of Artemis.

10. Sardis: Pseudodipteros.

11. Tarsos: temple at Donukta×. 12. Neapolis: temple on Tell er-Ras.

13. Aizanoi: Temple of Zeus.

14. Ephesos: Temple of Artemis.

15. Magnesia: Temple of Artemis Leukophryene. 17. Ephesos: temenos, Temple of the Augusti. 16. Miletos: temenos, Temple of Apollo at Didyma .

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

19. Ephesos: temenos, Temple (of Hadrian?). 20. Sagalassos: temenos, Temple of Antoninus Pius.

21. Aizanoi: temenos, Temple of Zeus.

22. Magnesia: temenos, Temple of Artemis Leukophryene. 23. Pergamon: fragments of colossi of Trajan or Hadrian, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no. 281/282. Photo: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. 24. Pergamon: colossal head of Trajan, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no. 281. Photo: 25. Pergamon: colossal head of Hadrian, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no. 282. Photo: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. 26. Ephesos: colossal head of Titus, Izmir Arkeoloji Müzesi Inv. 670. Photo: Brian Rose. 27. Ephesos: reconstruction, colossus of Titus. Drawing: Robert Hagerty. 28. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, front with 29. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, headdress left side. headdress. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. 30. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, headdress left 31. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, headdress right side/ side/rear. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. rear. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. 32. Sardis: colossal head of Antoninus Pius, S61.27:15, front. Photo: copyright 33. Sardis: colossal head of Antoninus Pius, S61.27:15, left profile. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. 34. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no. 1936.3-10-1, front. 35. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no. 1936.3- Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. 10-1, front from below. Photo: Brian Rose. 36. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no. 1936.3-10-1, 37. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, back. Photo: copyright side view. Photo: Brian Rose. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. 38. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, front. Photo: copyright 39. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, left profile. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. 40. Sardis: colossal head of Lucius Verus, S96.008:110484, front. Photo: copyright 41. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 4038T. Photo: Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri. 42. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 4038T, front. 43. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 4038T, left Photo: Brian Rose. side. Photo: Brian Rose. 44. Sardis: fragment of colossal head of Faustina the Younger? S61.027:2. Photo: 45. Sardis: colossal fragment with diadem, S61.27:1. Photo: copyright copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. 46. Pergamon coin type 2 a) BMCRE 228. 47. Pergamon coin type 4 e) London 1979-1-1-1590.

48. Pergamon coin type 6 b) BMC 254. 49. Pergamon coin type 10 a) London 1894.7-6-38.

50. Pergamon coin type 13 d) BMC 266. 51. Pergamon coin type 14 a) BMC 262.

52. Pergamon coin type 17 a) BMC 267. 53. Pergamon coin type 18 a) London 1901.6-1-41. 54. Pergamon coin type 19 a) BMC 308.

55. Pergamon coin type 21 a) SNGParis 2209.

56. Pergamon coin type 22 b) New 57. Pergamon coin type 23 k) 58. Pergamon coin type 24 f) York, ANS 1944.100.43356. New York, ANS 1944.100.43357. Munich. 59. Smyrna coin type 1 a) Vienna 17731. 60. Smyrna coin type 2 a) BMC 110.

61. Smyrna coin type 7 a) BMC 403. 62. Smyrna coin type 11 f) BMC 389.

63. Smyrna coin type 12 a) Paris 2689. 64. Smyrna coin type 24 b) Paris 2779.

65. Miletos coin type 1 a) Paris 1912. 66. Ephesos coin type 1 a) London 1972.8-7-12. 67. Ephesos coin type 2 a) London 1973.5-1-4.

68. Ephesos coin type 5 a) Paris 684. 69. Ephesos coin type 7 d) London 1961.3-1-234.

70. Ephesos coin type 13 a) BMC 292. 71. Ephesos coin type 16 a) BMC 269.

72. Ephesos coin type 17 a) Vienna 32385. 73. Ephesos coin type 18 f) Berlin, Fox. 74. Ephesos coin type 21 a) Paris 899. 75. Ephesos coin type 23 a) BMC 305.

76. Ephesos coin type 24 a) BMC 306. 77. Ephesos coin type 26 a) Berlin, Fox.

78. Kyzikos coin type 1 b) London 1961.3-1-172. 79. Kyzikos coin type 2 a) London 1893.4-5-2.

80. Kyzikos coin type 4 a) Berlin 955/1904. 81. Kyzikos coin type 6 a) SNGParis 780. 82. Kyzikos coin type 8 a) London 1919.4-17-147. 83. Kyzikos coin type 10 a) Paris 498.

84. Kyzikos coin type 11 c) Vienna 16188. 85. Kyzikos coin type 13 a) Vienna 16137.

86. Kyzikos coin type 14 c) New York, ANS 1944.100.42792. 87. Kyzikos coin type 15 a) BMC 199.

88. Kyzikos coin type 16 c) Vienna 30574. 89. Sardis coin type 2 a) Paris 1248A.

90. Sardis coin type 5 b) Oxford, Ashmolean Museum. 91. Sardis coin type 6 a) BMC 171.

92. Sardis coin type 7 a) Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 93. Sardis coin type 8 a) Vienna 19587. 17.57.

94. Aizanoi coin type 2 a) Paris 241. 95. Laodikeia coin type 2 a) Paris 1611. 96. Laodikeia coin type 3 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer.

97. Laodikeia coin type 5 a) Paris 1617. 98. Laodikeia coin type 11 a) Berlin Löbbecke.

99. Laodikeia coin type 8 a) Berlin 664/1914. 100. Laodikeia coin type 9 a) Boston MFA 1971.45, ©2002 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 101. Philadelphia coin type 1 e) New York, ANS 102. Philadelphia coin type 2 a) BMC 94. 1971.279.56.

103. Tralles coin type 1 c) Paris 1698. 104. Antandros coin type 1 a) Athens, Numismatic Museum.

105. Hierapolis coin type 1 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. 106. Hierapolis coin type 2 a) Berlin, Löbbecke.

107. Hierapolis coin type 4 h) Berlin, Löbbecke. 108. Magnesia coin type 1 a) Vienna 34601. 109. Nikomedia coin type 2 y) London 1928.5-5-1. 110. Nikomedia coin type 3 b) BMCRE 1097.

111. Nikomedia coin type 4 a) BMC 9. 112. Nikomedia coin type 5 a) Vienna 39125

113. Nikomedia coin type 7 a) BMC 32 114. Nikomedia coin type 8 b) Paris 1342.

115. Nikomedia coin type 9 b) London 1920.1-11-2. 116. Nikomedia coin type 11 a) Berlin, Fox. 117. Nikomedia coin type 12 a) Paris 1347. 118. Nikomedia coin type 16 a) London 1961.3-1-123.

119. Nikomedia coin type 17 a) Berlin 5206 JF. 120. Nikomedia coin type 21 a) Berlin 703/1878.

121. Nikomedia coin type 22 a) Paris 1357. 122. Nikomedia coin type 24 a) Berlin, von Rauch.

123. Nikomedia coin type 26 a) Paris 1401. 124. Nikomedia coin type 27 b) New York, ANS 1944.100.42315. 125. Nikomedia coin type 28 c) Berlin, Bonnet. 126. Nikomedia coin type 29 a) Vienna 15815.

127. Nikomedia coin type 31 a) London 1970.9-9-46. 128. Nikomedia coin type 32 a) Paris 1418.

129. Nikomedia coin type 37 a) New York, ANS 71.279. 130. Nikomedia coin type 50 n) Vienna 34453.

131. Nikomedia coin type 51 a) Oxford, Ashmolean 132 Nikomedia coin type 56 a) London 1961.3-1-131. Museum 11-7-1938. 133. Nikaia coin type 1 a) New York, ANS 73.191. 134. Ankyra coin type 2 a) SNGParis 2407.

135. Ankyra coin type 3 a) London 1975.4-11-188. 136. Ankyra coin type 7 a) SNGParis 2484.

137. Ankyra coin type 8 a) SNGParis 2530. 138. Ankyra coin type 10 c) New York 58.44.14.

139. Perge coin type 1 b) Berlin 974/1901. 140. Perge coin type 2 e) SNGParis 554. 141. Perge coin type 3 k) Vienna 28792. 142. Perge coin type 5 a) SNGParis 617.

143. Side coin type 1 a) BMC 111. 144. Side coin type 5 a) London 1970.9-9-167.

145. Side coin type 8 a) London 1969.10-21-7. 146. Side coin type 10 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer.

147. Side coin type 11 b) New York, ANS 1944.100.50964. 148. Side coin type 13 b) SNGParis 882. 149. Aspendos coin type 1 a) London 1921.4-12-117. 150. Beroia coin type 1 b) Berlin, Fox.

151. Beroia coin type 2 e) Berlin 698/1929. 152. Beroia coin type 6 a) Paris 160.

153. Beroia coin type 7 b) Paris 161. 154. Beroia coin type 8 a) Berlin, Löbbecke.

155. Beroia coin type 10 a) Paris 164. 156. Beroia coin type 11 a) Paris 193. 157. Thessalonike coin type 4 a) London 1972.8-7-5. 158. Thessalonike coin type 8 b) Paris 1507.

159. Thessalonike coin type 9 a) Paris 1508. 160. Thessalonike coin type 10 a) Vienna 10084.

161. Neokaisareia coin type 1 a) Paris 1277. 162. Neokaisareia coin type 3 a) Berlin 7909.

163. Neokaisareia coin type 6 a) London 1973.1-12-2. 164. Neokaisareia coin type 11 b) Paris 1972.922. 165. Amaseia coin type 1 f, 166. Amaseia coin type 1 g, 167. Amaseia coin type 2 c) New York, ANS obv.) New York, ANS rev.) New York, ANS 1944.100.41218. 1944.100.41180. 1944.100.41179.

168. Tarsos coin type 1 a) BMC 159. 169. Tarsos coin type 3 b) BMC 138.

170. Tarsos coin type 5 a) SNGParis 1462. 171. Tarsos coin type 5 c) SNGParis 1463.

172. Tarsos coin type 8 a) SNGParis 1473. 173. Tarsos coin type 9 a) SNGParis 1514. 174. Tarsos coin type 12 a) London 1919.8-22-10. 175. Anazarbos coin type 1 a) London 1962.11-15-2.

176. Anazarbos coin type 2 a) London 1970-9-9-206. 177. Anazarbos coin type 8 b) London 1970.9-9-208.

178. Aigeai coin type 4 b) London 1962.11-15-1. 179. Aigeai coin type 6 a) London 1975.4-11-296.

180. Aigeai coin type 7 c) New York, ANS 1944.100.53037. 181. Perinthos coin type 1 a) BMC 33. 182. Perinthos coin type 4 f) Vienna 8892. 183. Perinthos coin type 10 a) BMC 41.

184. Perinthos coin type 11 a) Munich. 185. Perinthos coin type 12 d) New York, ANS 1967.152.225.

186. Perinthos coin type 16 a) Paris 1201. 187. Perinthos coin type 19 a) Paris 1191.

188. Perinthos coin type 21 a) Paris 1216. 189. Philippopolis coin type 1 a) Berlin, Dressel. 190. Philippopolis coin type 2 a) Vienna 32498. 191. Philippopolis coin type 3 a) Vienna 9047.

192. Philippopolis coin type 5 b) Paris 1355. 193. Kaisareia coin type 1 a) Berlin 709/1914.

194. Kaisareia coin type 2 b) Berlin, Löbbecke. 195. Kaisareia coin type 4 b) Paris 602.

196. Kaisareia coin type 7 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. 197. Neapolis coin type 1 a) BMC 138.