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
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
If this book is the body of my work on the neokoria,
the skeleton was my dissertation for the Ph.D. in clas-
sical archaeology, Neokoroi: Greek Cities of the Roman
East (Harvard 1980, unpublished). That contained
lists of coins and inscriptions as well as a brief chro-
nological analysis of each neokoros city, and still lives
a sort of samizdat afterlife, in copies made by schol-
ars for their own or their libraries’ use. Despite its
bulk, it never attempted to give a unified historical
picture of the origins, development or even the
meaning of the title, which is why I have chosen to
leave it on the shelves of the archive where it be-
longs. The book you now hold is very different, as
I hope anything would be if given the benefit of
twenty years of new finds, reinterpretations, and the
author’s more mature understanding of the subject.
From the beginning, my intention has been to
bring together the most diverse forms of evidence
and to give each form its proper weight and inter-
pretation. If my expertise has faltered, it is my own
responsibility, as my advisors have been irreproach-
able. They include the late George Hanfmann, my
principal advisor, as well as the late Emily Vermeule
and David Mitten at Harvard University. I also
received advice and support from the late Martin
Price both at the American Numismatic Society and
at the British Museum, from Holt Parker both at
home and abroad, from Kent Rigsby again and
again, and most of all from Brian Rose, sine quo non.
The late Bluma Trell of New York University pro-
vided the initial inspiration; her interest and enthu-
siasm never flagged while she lived, and I doubt that
they do even now. I have also benefited from the
conversation and correspondence of Simon Price,
Werner Eck, Kenneth Harl, Ann Johnston, Dietrich
Klose, Michael Peachin, Glen Bowersock, and
Thomas Howe, and from the gentle chiding of all
the press’ anonymous readers. I would like to thank
Michiel Klein-Swormink and Gera van Bedaf for
shepherding the book through the press, Shirley
Werner for wearing out her erudite eye in its copy-
editing, and Susan Stites for the indices.
xvii
Thanks to the generosity, patience and trust of
the following librarians, curators, and keepers of coin
collections, I have been allowed to call for the most
recondite books with wild abandon, and to exam-
ine and catalogue as many coins as I wished, though
I rivaled even the indomitable Professor Trell in my
demands for more trays. My deepest gratitude goes
to: Jean Susorney Wellington, Michael Braunlin, and
the entire staff of the Classics Library, University of
Cincinnati; William Metcalf, Frank Campbell, and
the late Nancy Waggoner of the American Numis-
matic Society, New York; Cornelius Vermeule and
Mary Comstock of the Museum of Fine Arts, Bos-
ton; the entire erudite and courteous staff of the
Department of Coins and Medals, the British Mu-
seum, London; the late Colin Kraay of the Heber-
den Coin room, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford;
Mmes. H. Nicolet and S. de Turckheim of the Cabi-
net des Medailles, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris; Dr.
G. Dembski of the Münzkabinett, Kunsthistorisches
Museum, Vienna; Mmes. A. Krzyzanowska and
Ewa Duszczyk of the Narodowe Museum, Warsaw;
and Drs. H. D. and S. Schultz of the Münzkabinett,
Staatliche Museen, Berlin. I am grateful to John
Wallrodt and Marcie Handler for help with com-
puting issues and to Maroun Kassab and Irina Ver-
khovskaya for producing the temple plans.
Thanks for illustrations are due to: Brian Rose;
Kenneth Sheedy; Sean O’Neill; the late Robert
Hagerty; Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen von
Berlin/Preussischer Kulturbesitz (courtesy Beate
Salje and Ilona Trabert); the Athens Numismatic
Museum (courtesy Eos Tsourti); the American Nu-
mismatic Society (courtesy Sebastian Heath and
Elena Stolyarik); the Archaeological Exploration of
Sardis/Harvard University (courtesy Elizabeth
Gombosi); Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris
(courtesy Michel Amandry); the Boston Museum of
Fine Arts (courtesy Lizabeth Dion); the British
Museum (courtesy Janet Larkin, Department of
Coins and Medals, and Keith Lowe, Department of
Greek and Roman Antiquities); the Heberden Coin
xviii acknowledgements
Room, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford University
(courtesy Roslyn Britton-Strong); Istanbul Arkeoloji
Müzeleri (courtesy Halil Özek); Kunsthistorisches
Museum, Wien (courtesy Gunther Dembski); Öster-
reichisches Archäologisches Institut (courtesy Gud-
run Wlach); Staatliche Münzsammlung, München
(courtesy Dietrich Klose); and Staatliche Museen von
Berlin/Preussischer Kulturbesitz (courtesy Ilona
Trabert, Antikensammlung, and Bernhard Weisser,
Münzkabinett).
I would also like to thank the American Numis-
matic Society, in whose summer seminar I started
this project; the United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa,
whose grant of the Mary Isabel Sibley Fellowship
originally enabled me to travel and study in the
European collections; and finally, the University of
Cincinnati Department of Classics and Louise Taft
Semple Fund, whose patience and generosity al-
lowed me to bring this project to completion.
acknowledgements xix
This page intentionally left blank
 introduction: methodology
INTRODUCTION: METHODOLOGY
i. General Introduction
This book tracks a singular phenomenon: that cit-
ies of Hellenic culture in some eastern provinces of
the Roman empire (map p. xix) called themselves
‘neokoroi,’ usually translated ‘temple wardens,’ to
signify that they possessed a provincial temple to the
cult of the Roman emperor. Though the phenom-
enon is confined only to a certain place and time,
a full pursuit of the circumstances and history of the
neokoroi can, I believe, illumine many misunder-
stood issues regarding the imperial cult in the larger
sense, as well as relations between the provincial
cities and their Roman rulers, and among the cities
themselves.
Any theoretical approach to such a study is
pulled in different directions by polarities of gen-
eralization and particularization. One may tend to
generalize because individuals of our species have
certain tendencies in common, and these tendencies
make human history repetitious. Moreover, the
current prestige of the hard sciences privileges the
search for general laws, as in physics, in the behav-
ior of human beings. On the other hand, each hu-
man is formed by particular circumstances of the
history that came before, and that human also con-
tributes to the formation of a particular present and
future. This study tends toward the particular,
making the canonical bows toward Clifford Geertz’
technique of ‘thick description,’ where close obser-
vation of certain institutions can illumine an entire
culture, and toward Marc Bloch and the annalistes,
who showed the importance of scales of inquiry,
and how such inquiry could be done despite the
lack of precise sources and the inability to interro-
gate living informants.1 This particular inquiry also
traces developments over time, from the end of the
1 For an excellent history of recent interactions between
theories of history and the social sciences, see McDonald 1996.
I have been guided by the examples of Geertz 1973; Bloch 1973;
and S. Price 1984b; the latter’s observations inform my work
everywhere.
1
first century B.C.E. to the end of the third century
C.E., a period for which sources exist but are var-
ied and intermittent. Writing about it, then, is like
surveying at night; there is a general darkness,
though occasional moonlight allows some under-
standing of the terrain, and once in a while a for-
tunate flash of lightning illuminates some crucial
detail fully.
The neokoroi were cities Greek in structure,
though not necessarily in genealogy, and neokoros
is a Greek title. The word originally designated an
official whose basic responsibility was the care,
upkeep or practical daily functioning of a sacred
building, and whose duties could include the con-
trol of entry, safekeeping of valuable items, and the
enactment of ritual or sacrifice; a more detailed dis-
cussion will follow below. In the first century C.E.
we begin to find this role attributed to entire peoples
or cities, and then more specifically to cities that
maintained a provincial temple to the Roman em-
peror. This book will examine the title neokoros as
it was applied to those cities, and what it meant to
them politically, socially, and in practical terms.
Understanding those cities’ governmental system
is vital to understanding how neokoria (the state or
institution of being neokoros) can be studied. Struc-
turally the cities were Greek poleis, and their in-
scriptions document independent decisions made by
a council (boule) and the body of adult male citi-
zens (demos, sometimes meeting as an ekklesia), plus
variously named magistrates.2 The actualities be-
hind this structure are more complex. Though le-
galities varied depending on the precise status of
each city, the power to decide foreign, and increas-
ingly internal, policy was vested in Roman hands,
ultimately in the emperor himself. More imme-
diately the provincial governor and various impe-
rial officials were on the spot making decisions,
adjudicating disputes, and seeing that taxes were
paid. In this they generally had the cooperation of
2 Lewin 1995.
2 introduction: methodology
each city’s own elite, who competed among them-
selves to take on offices and services, and often laid
out their personal fortunes, in order to be preemi-
nent among their fellow citizens, to stand in the es-
teem of the Romans, and to rise in power and
status, sometimes to the ranks of Roman authority
itself.3
A city’s relationships with other cities could be
conducted on good terms or in jealous rivalry, but
only within the narrow confines that Rome allowed
to each city’s nominal autonomy. Attempts to go
beyond those limits could be met by some reasser-
tion of control by the imperial government, and the
very presence of an overarching power beyond the
city and the province assured that one party or the
other in any dispute could appeal to that power,
further eroding any independence that the cities
tried to assert.
In discussing the neokoroi I have often found it
necessary to refer to these cities as if they were
people, who thought, weighed possibilities, and
even had emotions like jealousy and pride. This is
primarily an outgrowth of contemporary speeches
and histories that exhorted, blamed, or categorized
cities for such human traits; neokoros was after all
a person’s title applied to a city.4 But it also masks
a lack of specific knowledge of such matters as who
initiated the quest for an imperial temple and when,
whether there was debate on where to put it, down
to who decided what order the columns should be.
Generally, we know that the cities of the Roman
empire were run on the lines of urban oligarchies,
and that an elite often made decisions without much
consultation of the rest of the city’s male voting
population, still less of nonvoters. They felt little
need to inscribe their day-to-day accounts on stone
for public reference, so we know little of the details
of their operation, but much of magniloquent de-
crees and votes of thanks.
Provincial cities often banded together in an or-
ganization known in the East as a koinon.5 Though
the name translates as ‘league’ or ‘commonality,’ it
was not a subset of official imperial administration,
nor did its geographic lines have to correspond
exactly to the borders of a Roman province. Instead
a koinon was an organization of cities of similar
3
Quass 1993.
4 For anthropomorphic cities, Lendon 1997, 31, 73-89.
5 The basic work is still Deininger 1965.
ethnic background and interests within a region,
bound together by the practice of a particular cult.
Under the Empire the central cult of most koina
was that of a living human being, the emperor of
Rome. By the end of the first century C.E., some
(but not all) of the cities that had a temple for this
provincial imperial cult were called neokoroi. It is
worth noting that the very title denoted a caretaker,
not an ‘owner’ of a temple: ownership, at least in
the beginning, was in the hands of the koinon,
which assigned its chief priests to preside over the
temples in neokoroi cities, often an increasing num-
ber of temples as emperor succeeded emperor.
Koina also represented the cities in other aspects of
their relationship with Rome, e.g. embassies and
legal proceedings.
Simon Price’s seminal book, Rituals and Power,
altered the landscape of inquiry concerning the
worship of rulers in the Roman East. We have gone
beyond former attitudes: the Judeo-Christian con-
cern for what was believed rather than what was
done, and its accompanying disdain for flatterers
who would call a man a god; and beyond a simple
faith in Realpolitik, which can only ask who profits,
whether politically or economically. We have come
to a more anthropological approach, which seeks to
understand how the Hellenes handled their Roman
world. Price, however, chose to be cautious, to pri-
vilege the balancing act between seeing the emperor
as man or god in rituals private and public, great
and small.
But in this study, which is at the level of the
koinon and the province, we shall see less contra-
diction: the living emperor was addressed as a god,
sometimes second only to the chief and patron gods
of the cities in which he was worshipped. He had
his own temple, which was referred to as his. His
successors, perhaps his predecessors, and other
members of his family, often including his consort,
joined him in that temple; this was recognized by
calling it a temple of the Augusti, or of the Greek
equivalent, the Sebastoi. Thus the city where that
temple was established could be called neokoros of
the Augusti. Despite this fact, the individual em-
peror who was the prime object of cult was not for-
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
temple, (s)he was often a personification or a place-
holder, whose name could drop from common ref-
 introduction: methodology
erence, as the name of the goddess Rome slipped
away from mentions of the temples of Augustus at
Pergamon and Ankyra, and Tiberius and Trajan
could stand alone in depictions of their temples at
Smyrna and Pergamon, with no sign of their cult
partners Livia and the Senate or Zeus Philios. The
reverse is never true: the provincial temples initially
dedicated to Rome and Augustus are never called
simply temples of Rome.
Looking at the neokoroi is important in itself, but
doubly important in the light it sheds upon what
modern scholarship calls ‘the imperial cult.’ Under
that rubric have been lumped all aspects of the
worship of emperors, living and dead, in East and
West, by Romans and non-Romans of all sorts,
organized by province, by city, and down to indi-
viduals. Often the practice, and even the vocabu-
lary, of one of the above differs widely from that of
another. Despite a common thread of Hellenic
speech and culture, a Sebasteion built by decree of
the Athenians may well have been different, and
served different functions, from one built by Ephe-
sians, Alexandrians, Aphrodisians, or Palmyrenes.
Towns and individuals may have set up altars or
statues to the emperor without even bothering to
seek permission of a governor, much less the nod
of authorities at Rome.
In narrowing our focus to the neokoroi, however,
we study a less mixed phenomenon, composed of
events that are internally comparable, though sub-
ject to development over time. Honors proposed for
an emperor passed through the sieve of each koinon
and reached some sort of consensus among its cit-
ies small and large, rich and poor, cosmopolitan and
isolated. Even after this was achieved, the conduct
of the provincial imperial cult was too large in
scope, too important to the image of the Roman au-
thorities at which it was aimed, to pass unexamined
by them. What few sources we have emphasize
ceremonious deliberation by the Roman Senate and
careful consideration by the ultimate recipient, the
emperor. Thus applications for provincial imperial
temples, and subsequent neokoriai, were subject to
review on at least three levels: emanating from a
city that offered a home for the cult, they had to
also be acceptable to the other cities of the province
as grouped in their koinon, to the emperor, and to
the Senate. This is as close to a homogeneous group
of events as the modern term ‘imperial cult’ covers.
In fact, a study of the neokoroi can serve as a labo-
ratory to examine this dialogue among cities, koi-
3
non, Roman emperor, and Senate, and how they
arrived at results satisfactory to, or at least accepted
by, all.
As will be seen, there were mechanisms that
encouraged the establishment and the spread of
neokoria. Rivalries among cities in the same koinon
might make each one strive to be neokoros, or if
disappointed at first, to become the next one. At the
same time, province-to-province comparisons could
be made when provincial embassies met one an-
other. This was frequently the case at a succession,
for example, where ambassadors from all over the
Empire brought an initial tribute of crown gold and
declared their first honors to a new emperor. But it
was well into Tiberius’ reign that his acceptance of
Asia’s offer of a temple to his cult prompted the
province of Hispania Ulterior to offer him another
one. He refused, not necessarily because he was a
difficult man to please, though Tacitus portrays him
as such, but because he could make that refusal a
symbol of his modesty before the Senate.6 This re-
fusal would have then informed other aspirant prov-
inces how not to approach this particular emperor,
and the dialogue could go on.
Still, only certain koina of the Greek-speaking
East are known to have named their cities neoko-
roi.7 It is possible that this circle of organizations
was influenced by events in the koinon of Asia,
where the earliest uses of ‘neokoros’ as a city title
are known. In other areas, most notably mainland
Greece, no neokoroi have yet been found. But it is
vital to note that our pools of evidence only repre-
sent a fraction of what once existed, and may yet
be increased: a previously unknown inscription or
coin could add new names and historical circum-
stances to our knowledge of the neokoroi at any
time.
ii. The Word ‘Neokoros’
Before going further, it is essential to examine the
word ‘neokoros,’ both etymologically and in the
context in which it was adopted as a title for cities.
The 1888 thesis of Buechner assembled the ancient
sources, though it must be supplemented by recent
discoveries.8
6 Tacitus, Annals 4.37-38; Charlesworth 1939, discussed
below.
7 See also Lendon 1997, 160-172.
8 Buechner 1888, 2-21.
4 introduction: methodology
The first part of the compound comes from
‘naos,’ temple, specifically a built structure or house
for the god rather than a sacred but unroofed en-
closure.9 Though the most common spelling of
nevkÒrow comes from the Attic form of this part,
spelled with an omega, there are many alternative
spellings.
The ‘-koros’ is more problematic, and has been
the source of disagreement since the days of Byz-
antine lexicographers. Hesychius derived it from the
verb meaning ‘keep in order,’ specifically ‘sweep,’
while the Suda stated that it did not mean ‘sweep,’
but ‘maintain.’10 Buechner accepted the former,
citing Euripides’ Ion (one of whose tasks was to
sweep the temple of Apollo) as an example of a
neokoros. Euripides, however, never calls Ion
‘neokoros,’ but only xrusofÊlaj, a guard for gold,
and tam¤aw, a steward.11
More recent etymologies are closer to agreeing
with the Suda than with Hesychius. They find
‘-koros’ to mean ‘one who nourishes, maintains,’
from which the particular meaning ‘sweeper’ is a
secondary derivation.12 In addition, archaeological
finds indicate that ‘-koros’ appears in Greek as early
as the Mycenean period: linear B tablets mention a
‘da-ko-ro’ and a ‘da-mo-ko-ro’.13 Neither is a
sweeper; in fact, both appear to be high officials, the
latter possibly a governor of half the realm of Pylos.
Later historical and literary sources document a
great variety of offices that human neokoroi could
carry out, including both priestly duties and practi-
cal ones. Many neokoroi performed sacrifices, ac-
cepted them on behalf of the god, and received a
portion.14 A poem by Philip of Thessalonike (Nero-
nian period) has some neokoroi choosing a sac-
rificial animal for Artemis.15 Another poet, Auto-
medon (first century B.C.E.), derides a neokoros
who, after the sacrificial procession, carries off all
the sacrifice for himself, leaving nothing for the
9 Chantraine 1968-1980, 3:734 (naÒw).
10Hesychius, Lexicon s.vv. naokÒrow, neokÒrow, nevkÒrow,
also zãkorow; Suda s.vv. KÒrh, KÒrow, nevkÒrow, but also zãko-
row, nevkorÆsei.
11 Buechner 1888; Euripides, Ion lines 54-55; for his tasks,
102-183.
12 Chantraine 1968-1980, 2:565-566 ( kore- and kor°v).
13 Ruijgh 1986. Earlier theories: Heubeck 1968; Olivier
1967, with commentary by Palmer; Petrusevki 1965. I thank
Greg Nagy for the initial reference.
14 Savelkoul 1988; Hero(n)das, Mimiambi 4.
15 Greek Anthology 9.22.
god.16 Plutarch classed holiness and the work of
neokoria as ways of pleasing a god, though indi-
vidual neokoroi he mentions also did such things as
play dice with the god they served, fool a Sabine,
and whip slaves and Aetolians away from a sanctu-
ary.17
The second-century orator Aelius Aristides was
devoted to Asklepios, and frequented his sanctuary
at Pergamon not just in person, but in his dreams.
One should be careful, therefore, not to take the
visions and portents collected in the Sacred Tales as
literal reality—it is unlikely, for example, that any-
one actually put a ham hock in the temple of
Asklepios to practice sacred incubation.18 Still,
Aristides knew the two neokoroi of the Asklepieion
well, and he conveys a picture of some of their re-
sponsibilities.19 As well as helping Aristides and
other patients to carry out their therapy, they held
the keys to the temple itself, and were in charge of
crowns and other valuables that were dedicated to
Asklepios.
In many sanctuaries, neokoroi had responsibility
for money or valuables. At the Hellenistic Amphia-
reion at Oropos, the neokoros collected the pil-
grims’ fees, issued them tickets, listed their names
and cities on wooden tablets, saw to their purifica-
tion, and set up inventories of their offerings.20 In
394 B.C.E. Xenophon left a portion of the wealth
from sale of captives in the safekeeping of one
Megabyzos, neokoros of Artemis at Ephesos; later
Megabyzos came to Olympia and returned what
had been entrusted to him.21 As it happens, Mega-
byzos was the standard name given to the (eunuch)
chief priest of Artemis; a fourth-century base for a
statue of “Megabyzos son of Megabyzos, neokoros
of Artemis in Ephesos” has been found in Priene.22
It is possible that ‘neokoros’ was the title that the
chief priest used in his practical or financial func-
16 Greek Anthology 11.324.
17 Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 351E; Romulus 5.1; Roman
Questions 264D, 267D.
18 Aelius Aristides, Oration 47/Sacred Tales 1.43.
19 Oration 47/Sacred Tales 1.11, 44, 58, 76; Oration 48/Sa-
cred Tales 2.30, 35, 46-49, 52; Oration 49/Sacred Tales 3.14, 22-
23; Oration 50/Sacred Tales 4.46.
20 Roesch 1984.
21 Anabasis 5.3.6-7.
22 Elliger 1992, 126-127. Chief priest: Strabo 14.1.23.
Eunuch: Pliny, Natural History 35.93, 132; Roller 1999, 253.
Von Gaertringen 1906, no. 231, did not comment on whether
the Megabyzoi were eunuchs or how one could be son to an-
other.
 introduction: methodology
tions; but in any case, in Ephesos the office of
neokoros was responsible and respected.
Women also served as neokoroi, often for female
deities but sometimes for male. Pausanias, writing
in the second century C.E., noted that the office of
neokoros of Aphrodite at Sikyon was given to a
celibate woman, and elsewhere called the virgin
Herophile, the sibyl who prophesied to Hecuba at
Troy, the neokoros of Apollo Smintheus.23 Lucius
Annaeus Cornutus, writing in the first century C.E.,
categorized the role of the Vestal Virgins at Rome
as that of neokoroi.24 And just to show that virgin-
ity was not integral to a woman’s becoming
neokoros, in a poem by Pankrates (pre-first-century
B.C.E.), a neokoros of Artemis suggests to the god-
dess that her twin four-year-old daughters should
succeed her as neokoroi.25
It would take another monograph to chase down
the complete history of various nevkÒroi, naokÒroi,
and zãkoroi, all of different statuses, serving differ-
ent temples in different ways at different times,
across the Greek world. Our main purpose here,
however, is to discern how the word ‘neokoros’ was
transferred from humans and made to officially
designate a city which had a specific kind of temple,
a provincial temple for the cult of the emperor.26
We will now focus on neokoroi officials of around
the first century of the common era, the time when
‘neokoros’ was adopted as a title for cities.
Though there is little further evidence for a chief
priest also being neokoros for Artemis at Ephesos
in Roman times, the neokoria of Artemis Leuko-
phryene, chief goddess of Magnesia, was certainly a
high office; one neokoros, graced with many sono-
rous honorifics, served as chief ambassador for the
city and set up a statue of Drusilla, sister of the
emperor Gaius (Caligula).27 At Smyrna, one post-
Vespasianic neokoros of the patron goddesses
Nemeseis held pretty much all the highest city of-
fices as well.28 The Greco-Egyptian cult of Serapis
often had neokoroi, both at Alexandria and in other
cities.29 Though it was perhaps a humble office in
23 Description of Greece 2.10.4, 10.12.5.
24 The Nature of the Gods 52 l. 7.
25 Greek Anthology 6.356.
26 Careful readers will have already noted that I consider
the ban on split infinitives a Latinizing affectation, foreign to
English.
27 Kern 1900 no. 156.
28 IvS no. 641.
29 Vidman 1970, 53-60.
5
the Hellenistic period, by Roman times only persons
of high rank were neokoroi of the great Serapis at
Alexandria. Also in Egypt were the neokoroi of
temples of the god Augustus at Alexandria and at
Canopus; aspirants to this very honorable post were
chosen by lot, as the emperor Claudius had de-
creed.30
The neokoroi of the provincial imperial cult in
Asia were also quite eminent. Under Tiberius,
Pergamon’s neokoros of the goddess Rome and the
god Augustus was also (municipal) priest of Tiberius
and gymnasiarch for the Sebasta Rhomaia games,
which involved considerable expenditure.31 The
neokoros of the temple of Gaius at Miletos (q.v.),
before taking that office, had already been chief
priest of Asia, i.e., head of the koinon, twice. The
chief priest of the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos
(q.v.) in 89 C.E. was one of the city’s greatest bene-
factors, and stepped into the office of neokoros the
year after his chief priesthood.
Two Jewish authors transferred the term ‘neoko-
ros’ to the context of their own religion. Philo,
writing around the time of Gaius, used it specifically
for the tribe of Levi, especially in their functions as
priests (under supervision of the high priest), guard-
ians, gatekeepers, purifiers, and general caretakers
of the temple at Jerusalem.32 Josephus, who issued
the Greek version of his Jewish War ca. 75-79 C.E.,
called certain functionaries who were responsible
for the purification of the Jerusalem temple neoko-
roi.33 More importantly, in his account of his own
speech to the holdouts in the siege of Jerusalem, he
conferred the title on an entire people, referring to
all the Jews as neokoroi.34 At the times he referred
to, however, the Jews were either in exodus or in
exile and no temple yet stood, implying that the
Jews’ ward over their temple (which he indeed
called ‘naos’ elsewhere) was a spiritual one.35
The first known inscription to call a city, rather
than a person, neokoros is earlier than Josephus’
book, dating to 38 C.E. In it Kyzikos (q.v.) is de-
30 H. I. Bell 1924, no. 1912 line 60, esp. p. 35; Oliver 1989,
77-88 no. 19.
31 IGRR 4:454.
32 On the Special Laws 1.156, 2.120; On Flight and Finding 90,
93, 94; On Dreams 2.273; Life of Moses 1.316-318, 2.72, 159, 174
(where priests and Levites fight over proteia!), 276; On Rewards
and Punishments 74; and Questions and Answers on Genesis frag. 17.
33 Jewish War 1.153.
34 Ibid. 5.383, 5.389.
35 E.g. Jewish Antiquities 8.61-106 on Solomon’s temple.
6 introduction: methodology
scribed as “ancient and ancestral neokoros of the
family” of the “greatest and most manifest god
Gaius Caesar.” The use of the word is probably
metaphoric, implying that Kyzikos held a shrine to
a relative of Gaius, whether his great-grandfather
Augustus, his grandfather Agrippa, his sister Dru-
silla, or several of the above. That this early ex-
ample of a city as neokoros refers to the imperial
cult is significant, as the two would soon be closely
associated.
Saint Paul visited Ephesos (q.v.) around the years
52-54 C.E. According to Acts of the Apostles 19.35, a
riot was fomented against him, and the people
flocked to the theater shouting “Great is Artemis of
the Ephesians!” They were there addressed by the
city’s secretary, the grammateus, who is quoted
saying “Who does not know that Ephesos is
neokoros of the great goddess Artemis and of the
heaven-fallen [image]?” Here as in the Kyzikos
inscription, the term ‘neokoros’ is used as a meta-
phor. It expresses the city’s wardship of Artemis’
image and her temple, and acclaims it as a point of
civic pride. But only a short time after, in 65/66,
the word would appear on the city’s coins, and it is
possible that at this point it meant what it came to
mean later, that Ephesos possessed a koinon temple
for the cult of the emperor, in this case for Nero.
At that time, it would become, not just a metaphor,
but an official title vied for by cities and regulated
by the Senate and the emperor himself; and the
main subject of this study.
Equating a city or a people with a temple offi-
cial is not a far-fetched comparison. Greek cities
were often personified, usually as females; the title
metropolis exalts them as mothers, and a few were
even called nurses.36 A city could also be repre-
sented by its people, the Demos (personified as a
male); or simply by the collective body of its citizens,
as is normal on its coins. The term ‘neokoros’ was
not specific to female or male; it was often applied
to an official high in honor; and it was concerned
specifically with care for a temple. There may have
been other terms available to express a city’s being
a center of cult for its koinon, but for one reason or
another they were not chosen while ‘neokoros’ was.
36 L. Robert 1980a, 400-402, of Ionopolis. Other nurse
cities: Syracuse in the fifth century B.C.E., Pindar, Pythian 2.2;
Ephesos in 162-164 C.E., IvE 24; Miletos in 361-363 C.E.,
SIG4 906A, from Cyriacus of Ancona. Also see above, n. 4.
For example, calling the city ‘sacred’ or ‘shrine’
(hieron/a) would not only have involved long-winded
explanations (‘for the provincial cult of the Augus-
ti’?) but could have caused confusion with cities that
were already ‘sacred and inviolable.’37 The word
‘neokoros,’ by contrast, had the concept of ‘temple’
central to its meaning, and was thus precisely adapt-
able when a city received more than one koinon
temple: it became twice, three times, and even four
or six times, neokoros.
On the great majority of coins that will be dis-
cussed here, it is the group of (male) citizens who
are neokoroi. Most inscriptions, however, call the
(feminine) city, the polis, neokoros. A few inscrip-
tions of Ephesos (q.v.) specify the demos as neokoros
while the council or boule is ‘philosebastos,’ ‘friend
of the Augusti’; and in three out of the four inscrip-
tions that document neokoria at Hierapolis (q.v.),
the council is neokoros, while in the fourth the
people are so designated. At Side (q.v.), the council
of elders (gerousia) may once be neokoros, while on
coins that city’s patron gods also take the title.
Finally, in the exceptional case of an inscription
found at Herakleia (q.v.), it may be not the city it-
self but the synod of theatrical artists who are neo-
koroi.
iii. Forms of Evidence
1. Literary Evidence
Examination of the neokoroi cities has to draw upon
diverse forms of evidence, each of which must be
studied and interpreted in its own way. The rare
words on the subject written by ancient Roman and
Greek historians make up the narrative links among
all the other forms and come closest to explaining
neokoria. Where preserved, they are precious. On
the other hand, none is strictly contemporary and
all are liable to the flaws of written history in gen-
eral: authorial bias, scholarly misinterpretation, in-
completeness, and sheer silence on the very points
which modern scholars are agog to know. In fact,
historians’ accounts concerning neokoria are ex-
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
37 Rigsby 1996, 34-36.
 introduction: methodology
their effect in other provinces is not mentioned, and
once such honors became typical, historians appar-
ently felt no need to continue documenting them.
Thus in all but a few cases, we see the results with-
out hearing all of the dickering behind them; we
know some titles and temples, but have scant record
of the imperial letters, senatorial decisions, or de-
bates in the koinon that gave rise to them. Indeed,
we have no idea where the decision that cities with
provincial imperial temples could be honored as
‘neokoroi’ came from, though it probably occurred
in the late Neronian or Flavian period.
Since all our literary evidence is partial, we must
also guard against the tendency to make the few
facts that we receive from it loom larger in our
reasoning than the many factors that left less evi-
dence for their operation. For example, since our
historical sources tend towards a biographical ap-
proach to history, concentrating on the individual
emperors and their personalities, we may be led to
use some quirk of a particular emperor to explain
why certain cities became neokoroi in his reign and
others did not. The emperor’s inclinations may
have made neokoroi in some cases, but the evidence
in others is equivocal, and in any case it is danger-
ous to investigate no deeper than what little our his-
torical sources leave to us.
One of the most valuable sources, and an eye-
witness for certain crucial events of the late second
and early third century, is Cassius Dio. His histo-
ries are only partially extant, however, and must be
reconstructed from epitomes. I cite them according
to the Loeb edition, which is still the one most
readily available.38
2. Numismatic Evidence
Coins issued by the cities that were neokoroi have
exactly the opposite advantages and disadvantages
of literary evidence. They are not only contempo-
rary but by far the most abundant form of evidence.
Cities of Rome’s eastern provinces issued bronze
coinage not only for economic functions, but as a
symbol of autonomy and civic pride.39 The obverse
38 Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Dio’s Roman History, trans. E.
Cary (London 1914-1927).
39 In general, see Harl 1987; Butcher 1988. Iconography
of the obverse image: Bastien 1992; here my terminology dif-
fers from his only in using the term ‘diadem’ instead of
‘stephane’ for empresses’ crowns. Coinage in precious metal
was more directly controlled by the Roman central authority.
Though independently an important topic, the monetary func-
7
of such coins was generally devoted to a standard
bust of the current emperor or a member of his
family, while the reverse gave the city’s name and
titles (including neokoros), thus offering an exact
correlation between imperial chronology and civic
titulature. Since many cities issued coins often and
in abundance, they can be checked against each
other for confirmation of the title as well.
From the start, we should note that beyond the
standards for depiction of the emperor’s image and
the listing of his titles on the obverse, there seem to
have been no firm rules about what a city could
choose to put on its bronze coinage. Reverses could
boast the city’s name, titles, magistrates, and any
one of a wide range of images, including the city’s
chief gods; its founders and legends; its festivals; its
alliances; monuments, including temples, fountains,
harbors, mountains, or bridges; and honors toward
the emperors. Large-size and special issues were
frequent, especially from the late second to early
third century, and these were often showy coins,
produced with care and exactitude. Some illustrate
the temples by means of which a city became
neokoros, often in great detail.
Not every city had its own mint, but most prob-
ably contracted either with a centralized workshop
or with itinerant craftsmen. The same obverse dies
were sometimes used for different cities, and even
reverse dies, which had to be specially cut to include
the city’s name and titles, may have been made by
craftsmen who didn’t know what that city’s chief
gods or temples looked like.40 The reverses, of
course, were tailor made to include the name of the
city and some image of civic pride, but sometimes
these images were very specific, sometimes more
conventional.
Before we can examine in detail the coin evi-
dence from each of the neokoroi, it is essential to
discuss how coin types, especially architectural ones,
can be interpreted, and to what extent these small
depictions might represent an ancient reality. Some
scholars have trusted ancient numismatic images to
represent reality; others have not.41 Each side has
approached the debate from a preconceived posi-
tioning of coins issued by cities of the Roman provinces is not
directly relevant to this inquiry.
40 Kraft 1972, from which Brandt 1988; but see the com-
ments of L. Robert 1975, 188-192, and J. Nollé 1992, 78-97.
41 For: M. Price and Trell 1977, 19-33; Vermeule 1987,
9-22. Against: Drew-Bear 1974; J. Nollé 1997. For a thought-
ful analysis, Burnett 1999.
8 introduction: methodology
tion based on a limited number of cases: one found
certain monuments well represented by certain
detailed coins, and so decided that coin images are
trustworthy; the other found varying representations
that contradict certain monuments, and so rejected
coin images.
Certainly these images cannot be taken as liter-
ally as if they were photographs: all are minuscule,
with only those details that could be conveyed by a
die-cutter’s chisels and punches. Some craftsmen
may not have known or cared much about the
image, or may have been copying it from other
coins. Plainly there was some standardization of
images, especially prevalent on repetitive issues of
small-sized coins. On the other hand, even if a die-
cutter lacked knowledge and was not motivated by
patriotism, coining was certainly supervised by
members of the city’s elite class, who could supply
both. Their care is evident in many (though again,
not all) of the coins that were produced.
We can never tell whether those who ultimately
handled the coins (mainly the citizens whose name
adorned the reverse, but with some circulation
among neighboring cities, judging from site finds)
understood all the messages that the coinage tried
to convey, but certainly the coins were manufac-
tured as if they did. Otherwise there would have
been little point in coining anything but unchang-
ing types and legends. Given that the images on
coins did often change, the messages they carried,
like the legends, were designed to be readable and
recognizable. Therefore the coins must have con-
veyed some element of reality that made their types
recognizable; but that element did not have to be
visual exactitude, like a photograph’s. It could in-
stead be symbolic.
The way that cult images are portrayed best
shows the symbolic nature of coin types. When a
god or personification appears independently on a
coin, her/his attributes and gestures identify her/
him to the intended audience: the radiate Helios
raises his whip, while Dionysos spills his kantharos
toward an attendant panther. Thus many of the
coin images are rather static and repetitive; yet the
ancient audience seems to have had no trouble with
interpretation when the god picked up an unusual
attribute like a temple, or when she/he joined
hands with another city’s god or an emperor. The
images on coins are not photographic copies of
particular cult images, they are representations of
a god or a personification that can move and act.
Coin types can copy particular cult images, and this
imitation helps to make them recognizable. But they
can also hew to conventions dictated by the medium
of coinage itself: for example, the chief cult image
at the Artemision of Ephesos was for untold centu-
ries the famous Anatolian dressed image, but for
much of its coining history Ephesos portrayed
Artemis as a huntress instead, using the Hellenized
style typical of other contemporary coinage. And
after all, in a city containing many temples and
shrines, a god could be worshipped in many differ-
ent forms.
So by what rules can we recognize when an
image on a coin approaches the true reflection of a
statue or statues that once stood within a koinon
temple to a particular emperor, and when it does
not? First, the coin type should show the image(s)
standing within the temple; otherwise it is likely that
a representation of the active and living emperor,
not of his statue, is meant. Then, the more care
devoted to conveying the image, and the more de-
tails added that are not strictly conventional, the
more chance that the representation is based on
visual reality. Another good indication of visual lit-
eralness is when the same image, with its particu-
larities, continues to be conveyed on later coins and
in other emperors’ reigns. Large, carefully produced
and wider-circulating coin issues may show the
emperor in his temple beside his cult partner, while
smaller and more local issues show only the more
important one of the pair, the emperor: thus silver
coins of the province Asia show both Augustus and
Rome in their temple at Pergamon, while Perga-
mon’s bronze coins show Augustus alone. Coins
issued soon after the construction of a temple often
show it and its image with more exactitude than
later ones. For example, under Tiberius, Smyrna’s
coins show his image in his new koinon temple as a
veiled and togate priest; but under Caracalla, when
Smyrna wanted to show all three of its koinon
temples together, the image in the one labeled with
Tiberius’ name is in more conventional military
guise. It must be conceded that a disastrous earth-
quake had knocked down this particular temple in
the interim, and it is possible that the old togate im-
age had been lost and a new cuirassed one intro-
duced in its place. But it is also possible that on the
later coin, which offered very little space within the
temples for detailed representation, the military
image was used as shorthand for ‘an emperor.’
Again, the symbolic aspects of how coins repre-
 introduction: methodology
sent temples can obscure the purely visual informa-
tion that we wish to obtain. A god’s or emperor’s
image can appear in a shrine whose details change,
and we cannot tell whether the new depiction is
simply a symbol for ‘cult’ or ‘shrine’ or whether it
represents an actual temple with different details
emphasized on different issues. A four-column
shrine of Zeus, with either an arched or a flat lin-
tel, appears on coins of Aizanoi before the city’s
temple of Zeus was built, probably in Hadrian’s
reign. Is this a temporary shrine or shrines, or sim-
ply a symbol for the temple the god had not yet
received? Often coins show a temple’s lintel as
arched, or its number of columns reduced, in order
to show the cult figure(s) within more clearly. On
the other hand, at Aigeai the arched lintel of the
temple of Asklepios is shown so consistently that it
becomes a point of identification, appearing even
when the cult image is absent. In this case, we have
some reason to believe that the representation could
convey a recognizable visual feature of the temple,
either an actual arched lintel, a niche, or a balda-
chino.
The first of the two most important coin types for
this study arrays all the temples for which the city
was neokoros, sometimes accompanied by the city’s
patron god in or out of her/his own temple. Images
of emperors, probably representing cult statues, are
very often represented within these temples. When
two or more temples that made a city neokoros are
illustrated on coins, they are generally shown as
identical to one another. This need not indicate that
a city’s second temple had to be a copy of the first,
but is again symbolic: two temples of similar func-
tion are shown as similar in appearance.
The most wide-ranging work on architectural
coin types, by Price and Trell, appends exhaustive
catalogues of known examples.42 From these lists,
the cities that issued coins showing two or more
identical temples are: Abdera in Spain (two
temples), Perinthos (two), Beroia and its Macedo-
nian koinon (two), Thessalonike (four), Neokaisareia
(two), Nikaia (two), Nikomedia (two or three),
Kyzikos (two), Ephesos (two, three, or four), con-
cord between Ephesos and Magnesia (two, but with
each city’s Artemis within), Hierapolis (three),
Laodikeia (two or three), Pergamon (two or three),
Sardis (two, three, or four), Smyrna (two or three),
42
M. Price and Trell 1977, 241-287.
9
Tralles (two), Ankyra (two), Side (three), Anazarbos
(two), Tarsos (two), Damascus (two, carried by Vic-
tories); and Neapolis (two, with Mt. Gerizim). Fur-
ther such types may be expected to appear as more
coins are found and published: recent appearances
include a coin of Antipatris under Elagabalus, in-
cluding what appears to be two tetrastyle temples
facing one another (but this may represent the city’s
sacred spring between the two shrines); and several
issues of concord (between Ephesos and Alexandria,
and between Smyrna and Pergamon).43 Still, by
now it will have become obvious that twenty out of
the twenty-four cities mentioned, or all except
Abdera, Damascus, Antipatris, and Alexandria, are
known to have been neokoroi. Of course Price and
Trell realized this, not only pointing it out within
their text but identifying such temples as imperial
or ‘neokorate.’ In almost all cases the number of
temples matches the number of neokoriai, and
changes when it does.
The seeming exceptions are cases where the
shrine of a patron god is included among the
temples that conferred neokoria, all of them being
important sources of civic pride: so Ephesos some-
times adds the temple of Artemis, Sardis the temple
of Lydian Kore, and Tralles the temple of Zeus, but
none claim more than the proper number of
neokoriai. Side and Hierapolis, however, showed
two additional temples with the one for which they
were neokoroi, and Nikaia used a type of two
temples, probably imitated from its rival Niko-
media, after it had lost its sole neokoria. Laodikeia
was probably unique in being once neokoros but of
two emperors, Commodus and Caracalla, whose
separate temples were grouped with a third of a pa-
tron god. Kyzikos as twice neokoros sometimes
shows two peripteral temples, at other times only
one with its shrine of Demeter and Kore; but
Kyzikos presents many problems.
The other important type for this study is that
which shows a patron deity or city goddess holding
a temple, the personification of the city as neoko-
ros.44 The preeminent discussion of these types is
almost a century old but it still has application to-
day. Of the ten cities Pick named, eight were
neokoroi. The two that are not known to have been
43 Meshorer 1993, 142-144 no. 6; Franke and M. Nollé
1997, nos. 549-551, 2133-2144.
44 Pick 1904.
10 introduction: methodology
neokoroi are the koinon of Lesbos and Kolybrassos
in Cilicia.
Some of the temple-bearer types show an attempt
to make the god hold as many temples as the city
had neokoriai; Nikomedia went so far as to put one
on its goddess’ head after both her hands were full.
Smyrna’s Amazon, however, always held only one.
The majority of temple bearers are generic city
goddesses, as at Perinthos, Philippopolis, Nikome-
dia, Side, Aigeai, Tarsos, and Ankyra. But often a
patron deity stands for the city, as Demeter does for
Nikomedia, or Athena for Side and for Ankyra. In
a few cases we see the emperor for whose cult the
neokoria was granted holding his own temple, as
Septimius Severus does at Perinthos, while Cara-
calla hands a second temple over an altar to the city
goddess of Kyzikos, who already holds the first. At
Philippopolis, Elagabalus and Apollo Kendrisos hold
the temple they shared between them. Side, which
also used a type of three temples while calling itself
only neokoros, again went beyond its exact titu-
lature with a type showing the city goddess holding
two temples.
There is also a verbal equivalent to the deity who
holds a temple: the coin’s legend simply calls the
deity, not the citizens, neokoros. The city goddesses
Thessalonike, Perge, and Side are so named, while
at Side the gods Apollo and Asklepios are also
neokoroi.
It must be remembered, however, that no mat-
ter how close the correlation between cities known
to have been neokoroi and those that used either
multiple-temple or temple-bearer reverses for their
coins, it is not exact. There do not appear to have
been many rules about what a city could put on its
coinage, and it was common for reverse types to be
imitated. Also, only rarely do coins like the special
issues of Pergamon or Smyrna proclaim the city
three times neokoros and label the three temples
with the names of the emperors they honored. The
overwhelming majority of coin types are generalized
and schematic, their legends laconic sets of titles.
Unlike historical accounts, they give no indication
of why or how neokoria was awarded. Some, with-
out imperial portraits, can be difficult to date; on
others the title drops off and we cannot always tell
whether it was because it was taken away from the
city, or only not mentioned on the coin, perhaps su-
perseded by some other honor.
Other limitations must be considered when using
coin evidence. The greatest is the accident of pres-
ervation: though coins must have been issued in
their hundreds of thousands, only a small propor-
tion of them escaped being melted down and
reminted. Of those, only a small proportion have
survived to be found, and of those, only a smaller
proportion have made their way into museums or
publications. Museum collections contain choice
specimens acquired over many years, but sometimes
omit humbler examples that could provide crucial
information. The collections of small and local
museums are rarely published, while those of indi-
viduals are difficult to locate and authenticate. The
abundant coins found in excavations are often in
poor condition and illegible, or have not yet been
published; and many sites are unexcavated. Since
we have such a minuscule fraction of the possible
information, the publication of even one new coin
can overturn an hypothesized chronology.
Problems also lurk in the older publications of
ancient coins. Though scholars such as Eckhel and
Mionnet (see below) made the first great strides in
collecting, analyzing, and publishing the coins of
Rome’s eastern provinces, misreadings of legends
and misinterpretations of types published without
illustration were frequent. In addition, coins with
recut legends and even outright forgeries occasion-
ally went unrecognized. In order to avoid incorpo-
rating such errors, I have kept mainly to coins in
public collections that I could examine directly, in
clear photographs, or in casts of both obverse and
reverse, for in case of a doubtful reading only such
coins can easily be checked. The increasing num-
ber of published corpora of various cities’ coins, and
of volumes in the Sylloge nummorum Graecorum series,
has helped immeasurably. On the other hand, with
some few exceptions I have avoided using coins
from unpublished private collections and auction
catalogues. Beside the obvious ethical consider-
ations, I prefer to rely upon coins that have been
examined critically by disinterested scholars, and
preferably by more than one. Where I have made
exceptions to these guidelines (notably in chapter
11, Antandros, and chapter 32, Tripolis), I have
hedged the cities with question marks, and have in-
cluded them at all mainly to make scholars aware
that there is a possibility of neokoria that still needs
to be proved or disproved. No doubt I have missed
many interesting examples, but I hope that I have
missed compromising my conclusions as well. Also
omitted are examples where the word ‘neokoros’ is
obscure or restored. My aim has been to be correct,
 introduction: methodology
not universally inclusive: one misprint, misreading,
or recut coin can introduce a falsehood, whereas a
gap in the story can be noted and filled in by later
scholarship.
My method of citing coins was chosen as the
most appropriate and expeditious for the purposes
of this study, and is not meant to be a full numis-
matic publication. All coins that mention the title
‘neokoros’ are listed at the end of their city’s chap-
ter. Coins with a reverse type that I find relevant
to the neokoria (generally involving a temple or
temples, an image of the emperor, or reference to
festivals in his honor; almost always with the word
‘neokoros,’ but occasionally not) are cited in the
body of the text as ‘coin type 1,’ et cetera. They are
grouped according to general congruence of ob-
verse and reverse types, not according to die iden-
tity or denomination; variations are listed in the
description in parentheses. It should be noted that
coin types mentioned in the body of the text are
listed again, but not picked out specifically, in the
lists of coins at the end of each chapter, but only if
they mention the title ‘neokoros’ in their legends.
3. Epigraphic Evidence
Though monumental inscriptions on stone usually
contain more words than do the legends on coins,
they may or may not say more about the neokoria.
Some inscriptions, especially imperial letters, are
invaluable for giving precise and contemporary
accounts of grants of neokoria, but the overwhelm-
ing majority of inscriptions that call a city neokoros
simply include it as one of a list of titles, as their
main purpose was to honor someone for benevo-
lence, not to document neokoria. If we are fortu-
nate, the inscription can be dated by the name of
an emperor, a governor, or some person otherwise
known, but that is not always the case.
Inscriptions offer a great proportion of the evi-
dence on the neokoroi cities, but even that evidence
is only part of the story. Some cities appear to have
set up more inscriptions than others. Of those that
were set up, honorifics far outnumber records of
civic deliberations or finances; much more is known
of the elite than of commoners, more of city than
of village or countryside. Also, most of the evidence
available to us comes from the major cities, those
with longer records of excavations and more com-
plete publications; this is likely why Ephesos tends
to predominate.
The accidents of preservation also apply: stones
11
can break, leaving only fragments difficult to inter-
pret, or be built into walls, or burnt up for lime.
Correct restoration of the lost parts of inscriptions
is a task that requires the combined talents of a
cryptographer and a computer memory. The late
Louis Robert had these talents in abundance, and
fortunately the neokoria was among his innumer-
able interests.45 For the most part I have trod in his
footsteps and in those of other experts, only occa-
sionally straying off on my own.
At the end of each city chapter, I collect a list of
all inscriptions that call that city neokoros, consecu-
tively numbered and in rough chronological order
where independently datable. If not datable, they
are listed after datable inscriptions with which they
share the number of neokoriai; and fragments fol-
low more complete examples. Except where noted,
they come from the city under discussion. This
study is neither an epigraphic nor a numismatic
catalogue; it cites only published inscriptions (with
a single exception),46 and does not quote them
unless they are discussed in the text. The original
publication should always be consulted in case of
questions. Unlike my organization of coin types,
which are numbered consecutively as each is cited
within a chapter, and then also gathered together
at chapter’s end, all inscriptions that call a city
neokoros are both listed in chronological order and
consecutively numbered at the end of each chapter.
This means that the chapter’s text may refer to
inscription 2, inscription 7, and then inscription 4,
as the sense demands; the reader may then refer to
the list at the end of the chapter for more informa-
tion.
4. Archaeological Evidence
As we have seen, the Greek word for ‘temple’ is
inherent in the word ‘neokoros.’ It was in the na-
ture of both Greek and Roman religion to provide
most gods with a house, and each cult with a par-
ticular place and paraphernalia for its rituals. Inso-
far as any of these survived to manifest itself in the
archaeological record, they provide valuable evi-
dence on the realia of the cults for which cities be-
came neokoroi. In fact a good deal of archaeological
material has survived and can be analyzed.
45 See the reference list for particular works.
46 The exception is Sardis inscription 6; my thanks to
Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr., Director of the Sardis expedi-
tion, for permission to refer to it.
12 introduction: methodology
Perhaps most important are the temples them-
selves, as their size, placement, materials, and deco-
ration can indicate what role the cult for which a
city was made neokoros was meant to play within
the city’s structure, for the other members of the
koinon, and for others who might participate in its
festivals or visit its site. Then there are the other
possible architectural features of a sanctuary, such
as altars, porticoes, and other subsidiary structures.
It should be noted that, unfortunately, the less pre-
possessing the structure, the less chance that it has
been studied and published. Thus the bulk of the
evidence consists of standard Greco-Roman temples
and their parts, with little other evidence (e.g. pos-
sible headquarters for chief priests, neokoroi, or
hymnodoi; gardens or groves; pits for the remains
of sacrifices) yet available.
One problem is how to identify a temple as one
that made its city neokoros. The ideal way of rec-
ognizing such a structure would be the discovery of
an inscription on it that calls it a provincial temple,
mentions its designation for a particular emperor or
emperors, and names the city neokoros. Unfortu-
nately this happy situation is rare to nonexistent.
Many kinds of structures bore dedications to the
emperor(s), but only a few of those structures were
temples, and of those even fewer can be proved to
be the temples that made their city neokoros. Iden-
tification of such precincts is generally based on a
concordance of literary, numismatic, epigraphic and
archaeological evidence.
In theory, one way of confirming the identifica-
tion would be by finding the remains of imperial
cult statues set up in the temple. Their style, date,
and mode of representation could also provide valu-
able insight into how the emperor was to be pre-
sented in provincial imperial cult. But thousands of
imperial statues, singly or in groups, standing,
seated, or equestrian, in varying dress or lack of it,
stood in cities all over the empire; very few of them
can be allied with neokoria. It was a common prac-
tice to set up portrait statues (eikones) of emperors
and their families in both sacred and non-sacred
spaces without any connotation of worship. Thus
imperial statues and statue bases found around a
neokoros city or even in a temple precinct do not
necessarily indicate that the temple made the city
neokoros. Furthermore, some of the true cult stat-
ues (agalmata) may have been made of metal, ivory,
or other precious and/or perishable materials, and
thus have not survived. We shall see three cases,
however, where remains of imperial statues of co-
lossal size, therefore more likely to be agalmata,
have been found within or close to a temple in a city
that is known to have been neokoros at or around
the time when the statues were made. All had cer-
tain parts sculpted in stone, and it is these parts that
survive.
iv. How to Use This Book
Part I, the core of the book, consists of thirty-seven
chapters, one for each city for which neokoria is
documented. In some cases documentation is as
small as one coin or a few words added to an in-
scription, but so long as the coin is real and the
superscription ancient, that city can be confirmed
as neokoros. Early authors included many cities
among the neokoroi that are not discussed here,
mostly due to misreadings, forgeries, or recut leg-
ends of coins.47 In each case I have searched and
found either that the earlier evidence had been dis-
proved or that no evidence can be found to confirm
the attribution. The most accessible list of neokoroi
cities is still that in Pauly-Wissowa.48 Since its pub-
lication in 1935, evidence for Akmonia and Julio-
polis as neokoroi has been disproved.49 On the
other hand, new evidence has been found for Saga-
lassos, Antandros, Miletos, Nikaia, Aspendos, Pata-
ra, and Akalissos, and this will be presented in the
chapters on those cities.
Some new data on the neokoroi can lead to new
interpretations of larger historical issues. For ex-
ample, chapter 33 on Patara removes a person (but
not a name) from the fasti of Lycia; chapters 4 and
1, on Ephesos and Pergamon respectively, contrib-
ute evidence for the troubled reign of Macrinus;
there is even a small modification to the observa-
tions of Louis Robert in chapter 4 (though normally
I find that disagreeing with Robert is a sure sign
that a scholar is wrong). In addition, the examina-
tion of the architecture of temples of the neokoroi
finds little evidence of the aediculated ‘marble style’
previously held to be associated with the imperial
cult.
47 Eckhel 1792-1839, vol. 4, 288-306, lists the misreadings
of Vaillant 1700; Mionnet 1806-1808, 105.
48 Hanell 1935.
49 L. Robert 1975, 168 n. 73; French 1981, 45-46; recut-
ting of a coin of Hierapolis to read Juliopolis.
 introduction: methodology
This study’s structure aims to be both chronologi-
cal and geographic. The thirty-seven city chapters
are organized by koinon, listed according to which
koinon received its provincial imperial temple first.
Asia leads the list, though in fact Asia and Bithynia
both got theirs in 29 B.C.E. Within each koinon
chapter, cities appear chronologically, according to
the date they received the first temple that would
make them neokoroi. This organization seemed to
tell a clearer story for the development of neokoria
than, for example, an alphabetic order within eth-
nic/geographic region, judicial district, or minting
circle. For each city, any neokoriai after the first are
discussed within the same chapter, so a full histori-
cal analysis is provided at the end of the book to
unify the picture across all the neokoroi cities. As
the data for each neokoros city are fully docu-
mented in the footnotes to that city’s chapter, the
summary chapters of Part II (including the histori-
cal analysis) do not repeat them.
Once the city chapters have laid out the facts,
summary chapters allow a more synthetic analysis
of a number of themes in Part II. Chapter 38, ‘His-
torical Analysis,’ is a chronological examination of
the development of the provincial imperial cult
among the neokoroi, and the way each emperor
treated the cult and the title. ‘The Temples,’ chap-
ter 39, covers the actual buildings whose possession
made their cities neokoroi, their equipment, staff,
and placement in the urban fabric. Chapter 40,
‘The Cities,’ expands on the neokoroi cities them-
selves, their relationships and rivalries, their elites
and benefactors, the coins they minted and the fes-
tivals they celebrated in connection with the
neokoria. Then follows an examination of the
koinon and the officials associated with its temples
in ‘The Koina and Their Officials,’ chapter 41; fi-
nally, chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ gives the
view from Rome, including the roles of the Senate,
of provincial governors, and that taken by emper-
ors whose worship made cities neokoroi.
This organization was devised so that the book
could be easily consulted in a number of different
ways. Those who are interested only in one neoko-
ros city can go directly to its chapter and find all
they need. Those with broader regional interests
may browse the chapters within one koinon. For a
picture of the chronology, or for one particular
13
emperor’s actions regarding the neokoroi, ‘Histori-
cal Analysis,’ chapter 38 in the Summary section,
and chapter 42 on ‘Roman Powers,’ would be
places to start, while any questions raised there
regarding individual cases can be chased back into
the relevant city chapters. The summaries of Part
II also collect the data for those interested in par-
ticular topics. For example, an overview of the cult
statues found in temples of the neokoroi is available
in the ‘Temples’ chapter, 39, while contests cel-
ebrated by the neokoroi are considered in the sum-
mary chapter 40 on ‘The Cities.’
This structure is necessarily, indeed deliberately,
repetitive. It is designed to allow the reader to see
the same evidence in several different contexts, and
to trace the interrelations among cities as well as
between city and koinon, koinon and emperor,
emperor and Senate, Senate and city.
A synoptic chart shows which cities became
neokoros, how many times, and when, and another
gives a list of emperors’ names, regnal dates, and
the names of members of their families who are
mentioned in this study. A good place for the reader
to start would be by consulting the chart of neoko-
roi; after that, individual interests should lead each
one on.
Terminology sometimes has to shift uncomfort-
ably between the demands of English and of Greek.
Where Greek spelling varies, I have transliterated
original documents without change (as in the names
of festivals). City names are Greek, though larger
geographical areas have retained their more famil-
iar Latinate spelling. I have abjured the anglicized
‘neokorate’ as inaccurate, referring instead to
temples that conferred neokoria, or to koinon
temples, i.e. temples instituted by the koinon. Ab-
breviations are given at the head of the bibliogra-
phy; otherwise, footnotes refer to books by author
and date, except where they are editions of ancient
authors. Fonts were chosen to conform fairly closely
to (though they could not exactly duplicate) those
of the primary evidence—thus the lunate sigmas
typical of coins of the period. Where translations of
literary works and inscriptions have been made and
are not otherwise noted, they are mine.
My sincerest thanks to my readers and editors;
any errors that may have escaped them are my own.
This page intentionally left blank
 introduction: methodology 15

PART I: CITY-BY-CITY SECTION

This page intentionally left blank
 chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia
SECTION I. KOINON OF ASIA
Chapter 1. Pergamon in Mysia: Koinon of Asia
The early history of the neokoria at Pergamon is the
early history of the provincial imperial cult in Asia.1
Though the title itself was not used for Pergamon
until the end of the first century, the first of the three
temples that would ultimately make Pergamon
neokoros was the temple of Rome and Augustus.
First Neokoria: Augustus
The fullest account is Cassius Dio’s chronicle of the
winter of 29 B.C.E., when the victor of Actium, later
to be known as Augustus, permitted the consecra-
tion of sacred precincts in the provinces of Asia and
of Bithynia:
Ka›sar d¢ §n toÊtƒ tã te êlla §xrhmãtize, ka‹ tem°nh tª
te ÑR\m_ ka‹ t“ patr‹ t“ Ka¤sari, ¥rva aÈtÚn ÉIoÊlion
Ùnomãsaw, ¶n te ÉEf°sƒ ka‹ §n Nika¤& gen°syai §f}ken:
a´tai går tÒte a| pÒleiw ¶n te tª ÉAs¤& ka‹ §n tª Biyun¤&
proetet¤mhnto. ka‹ toÊtouw m¢n to›w ÑRvma¤oiw to›w parÉ
aÈto›w §poikoËsi timçn pros°taje: to›w d¢ dØ j°noiw,
ÜEllhnãw sfaw §pikal°saw, •aut“ tina, to›w m¢n ÉAsiano›w
§n Pergãmƒ to›w d¢ Biyuno›w §n Nikomhde¤&, temen¤sai
§p°trece. ka‹ toËtÉ §ke›yen érjãmenon ka‹ §pÉ êllvn
aÈtokratÒrvn oÈ mÒnon §n to›w ÑEllhniko›w ¶ynesin, éllå
ka‹ §n to›w êlloiw ˜sa t«n ÑRvma¤vn ékoÊei, §g°neto. §n gãr
toi t“ êstei aÈt“ tª te êll_ ÉItal¤& oÈk ¶stin ˜stiw t«n
ka‹ §fÉ ~posonoËn lÒgou tinÚw éj¤vn §tÒlmhse toËto
poi}sai: metallãjasi m°ntoi kéntaËya to›w Ùry«w
aÈtarxÆsasin êllai te ¸sÒyeoi tima‹ d¤dontai ka‹ dØ ka‹
{r“a poie›tai. TaËta m¢n §n t“ xeim«ni §g°neto, ka‹ ¶labon
ka‹ o| Pergamhno‹ tÚn ég«na tÚn |erÚn »nomasm°non §p‹ tª
toË naoË aÈtoË timª poie›n.
In the meantime Caesar, besides taking care of affairs
generally, gave permission that there be established
sacred areas to Rome and his father Caesar, whom
he named the hero Julius, in Ephesos and in Nikaia;
for these were at that time the preeminent cities in Asia
and in Bithynia respectively. He commanded that the
Romans resident there honor those divinities, but he
1 S. Price 1984b, 56, 67, 133, 137-138, 156-157, 178, 182,
187, 252-253.
17
permitted the foreigners, whom he called Hellenes, to
consecrate precincts to himself, the Asians’ in
Pergamon and the Bithynians’ in Nikomedia. From
that beginning, the latter practice has been carried on
under other emperors, not only in the Greek provinces
but in the others as well, insofar as they obey the Ro-
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
have ruled justly. These events happened in the win-
ter, and the Pergamenes got permission to hold the
contest known as ‘sacred’ in honor of his temple.
Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9.
Dio, like most historians of his time, was not a great
investigator of archives or inscriptions, but used
earlier historical works as his sources.2 This passage,
however, seems to be quoting from an actual docu-
ment, or at least using the same terminology as such
a document, at certain specific points. For example,
Augustus “named [his father] the hero Julius”
(Ùnomãsaw) or “the foreigners, whom [Augustus]
called Hellenes” (§pikal°saw) (italics mine). Some of
this terminology is unusual in Greek but would fall
naturally into Latin: the usual term for what Dio
translated ‘hero’ (¥rva) is ‘divus,’ while Dio’s ‘for-
eigners’ (j°noiw), or non-Romans, is likely to have
been his translation from the Latin term ‘peregrini.’3
It is also worth noting that ¶ynow, his word for
‘provincia,’ was not the term in general use at the
time of the events he described, but only after the
second century.4 In other words, it is likely that Dio
was taking his account directly from a Latin source.
Moreover, this section follows one that has been
2
Reinhold 1988, 6-9; Rich 1990, 4-11.
3 Dio named the temple of Divus Julius in the Forum “the
heroön of Julius” (51.22.2-3) and the praetor peregrinus the jenikÒw
(53.2.3); Freyburger-Galland 1997, 159 and 215-226 on Dio’s
language in general.
4 Mason 1974, 13, 70, 124-125, 136. Mason (16) comments
on Dio’s tendency to translate from the Latin quite literally.
18 part i – section i. koinon of asia
categorized as an ‘urban “cluster”’ probably taken
from a detailed annalistic historian, and perhaps ul-
timately based on the acta senatus.5 It is certainly pos-
sible that the report of the favorable response to the
Hellenes came from the same source, or at least one
just as detailed. The response is not repeated with-
out changes; Dio was a historian, not an epitomator.
He managed to sneak in a comment in praise of his
home city, Nikaia, and the interpretation of the
influence of Augustus’ ruling on the later develop-
ment of imperial cult is all his.6 But the rest of the
account may represent Augustus’ response to the
embassies of Asia and Bithynia closely, though it is
also possible that, as elsewhere, Dio has taken an en-
actment by a magistrate or by the Senate and put
it into the mouth of the man whom he saw as actu-
ally wielding the power.7
As Dio portrays its history here, provincial impe-
rial cult originated not in a command from above,
but in a petition from two provinces that volunteered
it; and specifically from the provincial organizations,
the koina, that were to make this cult their main
concern.8 The evidence for the involvement of the
koina is twofold. First, they were the only represen-
tative bodies known to have dealt with the imperial
cult throughout each province.9 That the new cults
were to be province-wide is clear from Dio’s state-
ment about “the foreigners, whom [Augustus] called
Hellenes.” This designation does not comprehend
all Hellenes everywhere, as only Asia and Bithynia
are under discussion, and Dio carefully distinguishes
the Asians from the Bithynians, referring to arrange-
ments for four separate cities in two provinces. It is
most likely, then, that petitions came from, and
responses were given to, the koinon of the Hellenes
of Asia and the koinon of the Hellenes of Bithynia
(the latter of which will be dealt with in chapter 15,
‘Nikomedia’).10 As will be discussed in chapter 38,
‘Historical Analysis,’ it is probable that the koinon
of Asia in fact asked for the privilege of building a
5 51.20.1-4; Swan 1987, 272-291.
6 Reinhold 1988, 154; Piatkowski 1984 is a rather broad-
brushed treatment.
7 Swan 1987, 279.
8 Ameling 1984, 124; Ziethen 1994, 54, 92-93, 221-222,
treated this embassy as if it came from the city alone, ignor-
ing the koinon’s role.
9 Deininger 1965, 16-19.
10 Habicht 1973, 55-56. For the formulae used to refer to
the koinon see L. Robert 1967, 47.
temple to the ruler himself, as it had for a long line
of rulers and even magistrates before.11
Augustus’ answer to those petitions, however, gave
pious primacy to the cult of his deified father, to be
practiced in Ephesos. Dio’s assessment that this city
was preeminent in Asia is likely his own, but there
was good reason for choosing Ephesos: it was the
seat of the governor, and a port likely to have many
Romans in residence to practice the cult of Rome
and Caesar.12 Pergamon, however, had been the
center of the province’s Hellenistic administration,
and was a logical center for the koinon of the Hel-
lenes to choose for the location of its cult of Augus-
tus. The Hellenes were not turned away from the
worship of the deified Caesar, but were allowed the
worship of the living ruler as their main focus. For
Dio, writing from the viewpoint of a Roman sena-
tor of elite Hellenized background in the third cen-
tury C.E., a line of demarcation was intended to
separate the Roman, who worshipped the deified
dead, from the non-Roman, who could also worship
the living ruler, though that line was in actuality
rather blurred.13 Dio made no distinctions between
eastern and western provincial practice: any prov-
ince subject to the Romans could so honor the
current emperor.
Yet Dio did not mention a crucial detail.
Suetonius wrote of Augustus’ modesty in accepting
honors: “Though he knew it was the custom to vote
temples even to proconsuls, in not one province did
he accept one unless it was in the name of Rome
as well as in his.”14 In Dio’s account, the goddess
Rome is the cult partner of Julius Caesar, not of
Augustus; yet the evidence of coins, inscriptions, and
other historians tells us that she was present in
Augustus’ cult as well. Perhaps the addition of Rome
was an afterthought to the original decision of 29
B.C.E. In some later cases the name of Rome
dropped out when Augustus’ cult was mentioned.15
Or perhaps Dio himself omitted her because her
presence would have obscured the point he made
11 See, for example, Cicero, Letters to his brother Quintus 1.1.26:
the cities of Asia voted money for a “temple and monument”
to Cicero and his brother.
12 Haensch 1997, 286, 298-321.
13 Whittaker 1996, 93-99, held that the presence of the
goddess Rome in both cults assisted in blurring the line. See
also Clauss 1996; Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 17-18.
14 Suetonius, Augustus 52; see also Tacitus, Annals 4.37.3:
“Since the deified Augustus did not forbid that a temple to
himself and to the city of Rome be built at Pergamon...”
15 Fayer 1976, 108 n. 4.
 chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia
at the end of this passage, that Augustus’ was the
model for subsequent imperial cult; as Dio must have
known, later emperors did not consider themselves
obliged to honor the goddess Rome in the temples
that were dedicated to them.
Though Dio at first speaks only of ‘sacred areas,’
he specifies that the Pergamenes got a sacred con-
test “in honor of [Augustus’] temple.” The site of
the temple at Pergamon has not yet been identified,
but there is a good deal of evidence for its develop-
ment. According to an inscription of Mytilene, it was
under construction by 27 B.C.E., when it was being
built ‘by Asia,’ that is, by the province as a whole,
represented by the koinon.16 Presumably it was
standing by 19 B.C.E., which is the date of the ear-
liest silver cistophori of Asia (here type 1a) that show
its full facade.
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: IMP IX TR PO V (IV, a)
Head of Augustus, r. Rev: COM ASIAE; six-col-
umn Corinthian temple on stepped podium,
ROM ET AVGVST on the entablature. a) SNGvA
6560 b) BMCRE 705 c) BMCRE 70617 (series
dated 19-18 B.C.E.).
From at least 9 B.C.E. onward, the temple of Rome
and Augustus served as a collecting place for docu-
ments of importance to the koinon, and the docu-
ments themselves specify how and where they are
to be set up in this chief shrine of the province.18 It
is likely that the temple’s central role in both the
province and the city was reflected in its grandeur
and artistry, of which these coins must be a pale
reflection. Telephos, a Pergamene scholar who wrote
a guidebook to the city and a history of its kings,
also produced a work in two books on the Sebasteion
in Pergamon.19
Later Asian silver cistophori show the same
temple, but with the number of columns reduced to
two. This numismatic simplification permitted the
cult statues, or at least a pair of statues closely as-
sociated with the temple, to be shown within.20
16 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 166-168 no. A26.
17 RIC 1:61 no. 15; Sutherland 1970, 102-104 group VII;
RPC 1:378-379 nos. 2217, 2219.
18 Fayer 1976, 110-111 n. 8.
19 Suda, s.v. TÆlefow; Jacoby 1950, no. 505.
20 Misunderstanding of this numismatic abbreviation led
Mellor 1975, 141-142, to reject the use of coin evidence as a
whole, specifically for the existence of the provincial temple
at Nikomedia (q.v.). He was followed in this by Tuchelt 1981,
who reduced both provincial temples to altar courts thereby.
For the rebuttal, see Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 13-14, and above.
19
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: TI CLAVD CAES AVG
Head of Claudius, l. Rev: COM ASI; Two-col-
umn temple on stepped podium, ROM ET AVG
on entablature; within, female at r. crowns
cuirassed male at l. 1) BMCRE 228 (= RPC 1:379
no. 2221, minted at Ephesos; illus. pl. 18 fig. 46).21
As the entablature again bears the names of the two
divinities, the long-gowned female figure on the right
who holds a cornucopia in her left hand should be
Rome, in her nonmartial aspect of a city goddess.22
Though her headdress is not clear, a later relief from
the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias shows Agrippina the
Younger with the same attributes and costume and
her son Nero in the place of Augustus, and on that
relief Agrippina wears a diadem.23 Rome, however,
raises her right hand and the crown toward Augus-
tus, whereas the later relief shows the act of crown-
ing accomplished, with the mother’s hand resting on
her son’s head. In the original Pergamon group
Augustus is in military dress and holds a long sceptre
in his right hand; in the best examples, one can see
the paludamentum wrapped around his hips, in the
style of the Primaporta statue, and the extreme
contrapposto, with weight supported on the right foot,
that makes him appear to propel himself away from
Rome while still looking back at her.24 The temple
depicted is that at Pergamon, even when the coins
were minted in other cities of the province; that is,
Pergamon’s temple, as the first provincial temple to
be established, served as a symbol of the koinon of
Asia.
Shortly after the first silver cistophori were issued,
but still during the reign of Augustus, the temple of
Rome and Augustus also appeared on humbler
bronze coins issued by the city of Pergamon:
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: %EBA%TON Laureate head
of Augustus, r. Rev: XARINO% GRAMMATEUVN
Six-column temple. a) BMC 237 b) BMC 238 c)
SNGCop 464 (RPC 1 no. 2358, dated between 10
and 2 B.C.E.).
21 The same reverse image, with few variants, appears on
cistophori of Vespasian (BMCRE 449), Domitian (BMCRE 254
bis), Nerva (BMCRE 79) and Trajan (BMCRE 711); each is
described as the reigning emperor, but the unchanging image
and legend in the entablature show that it is still Augustus
within the provincial temple at Pergamon. For the Flavians,
see RPC 2:132-134, esp. nos. 859, 875.
22 Di Filippo Balestrazzi 1997, no. 193.
23 Rose 1997a, 164-169 cat. no. 105; figs. 207, 208.
24 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 81-82.
20 part i – section i. koinon of asia

COIN TYPE 4. Obv: PERGAMHNVN KAI 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: %EBA%TOI EPI PE-
a similar figure (the People of Sardis).25
TRVNIOU TO q Draped bust of Julia r. and laur-
Rev: %EBA%TON KEFALIVN GRAMMATEUVN
eate head of Tiberius l., turned toward one
Two-column temple, cuirassed emperor with
another. Rev: YEON %EBA%TON PERGAMHNOI
sceptre within. a) BMC 360 b) BMC 361 c) BMC
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: KLAUDION KAI%ARA
by a male in short chiton.26 Rev: %EBA%TON
%EBA%TON Head of Claudius r. Rev: %EBA%-
DHMOFVN Four-column temple, cuirassed em-
TON PERGAMHNOI Four-column temple,
peror with sceptre within. a) BMC 242 b) BMC
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: AGRIPPINAN %EBA%THN
Due to the smaller size of the coins, the number of
NERVNA %EBA%TON Draped bust of Agrippina
columns is usually reduced and the figure of Rome
r. and head of Nero l., turned toward one another.
is omitted. The omission of the cult partner who
Rev: YEON %EBA%TON PERGAMHNOI Four-col-
symbolized Augustus’ modesty probably would not
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
as Rhomaia Sebasta, appears in inscriptions from about
20 B.C.E. to the early second century, though after
Augustus’ death it could have been called simply the
Koina of Asia (an extended title which included pro-
vincial contests held in other cities beside Pergamon),
or more specifically the Koina of Asia Augusteia.29 If
the great tax document from Ephesos has been
correctly restored to refer to this festival, Augustus
confirmed its tax-free status for a thirty day period,
both for Pergamon and its harbor of entry Elaia.30
Dio did not discuss the personnel of the proposed
temples, so information on them must be gathered
from other sources. In Asia, the highest official of
the imperial temple, and probably of the koinon as
a whole, was the chief priest. In Augustan times he
bore the title of the single provincial temple in
Pergamon, ‘chief priest of the goddess Rome and of
the emperor Caesar Augustus [with various titles
added], son of the god [Julius].’31 The longer Aug-
ustan title dropped out of use when temples to other
emperors at other cities were added to the provin-
cial imperial cult; these too would have chief priests,
though the chief priest of the temple of Rome and
Augustus at Pergamon probably maintained his
primacy.32
There has been some controversy over these later
titles associated with the chief priesthood of the
provincial temple(s) and headship of the province.
Rossner held that ‘chief priest of Asia’ and ‘Asiarch’
were alternate ways of expressing the priestly and
official duties of the heads of the koinon, and that
the wife of the chief priest or Asiarch could receive
the title of chief priestess of Asia.33 All these titles
could be modified by the addition of the place where
the provincial temple(s) were located. For example,
an inscription dated to around 100 C.E. refers to
one Tiberius Claudius Sokrates as “chief priest of
Asia of the temple in Pergamon.”34 Kearsley rejected
29 Magie 1950, 448, 1295-1297 n. 57 (the latest document
is that concerning the games for Trajan and Zeus Philios, see
below); Moretti 1954, 282; Deininger 1965, 54-55; and L. Rob-
ert 1968, 267 on the oakleaf crown awarded to the victors.
Fayer 1976, 113-118 and 123-125 disagreed with the identifi-
cation of Koina with Rhomaia Sebasta, and Magie 1950, 1296 be-
lieved that Augusteia was a civic festival, but now see Wörrle
1992, 351, 359.
30 Engelmann and Knibbe 1989, 125-129 sec. 57, perhaps
dating from the celebration of 8 or 12 C.E.
31 Fayer 1976, 112-113.
32 Campanile 1994b contains the most recent bibliography.
33 Rossner 1974. For further discussion, see chapter 41 on
the koina and their officials, below.
34 IGRR 4:1239, from Thyateira.
21
the identity of chief priests and Asiarchs, opining that
‘Asiarch’ was a municipal office, and that the ap-
pearance of chief priestesses in inscriptions means
that women could fulfill all the functions of, that is,
substitute for, chief priests.35 Kearsley’s work has
been criticized by Campanile, Wörrle, Herz, and
Engelmann, most of whom have emphasized the
enduring value of Rossner’s conclusions.36 Herz
described the office of the chief priestess as worship
of the Augustae, a role which usually the wife, but
in her absence any female relation, of a chief priest/
Asiarch could fulfill; but this claim has not been
proven. The chief priest could also give (or perhaps
had to give) provincial contests: thus Anaxagoras,
of the time of Claudius, was “[chief priest] of Asia
and agonothetes for life of the goddess Rome and
the god Augustus Caesar.”37
There was also a neokoros of Rome and Augustus
at Pergamon, presumably an official caretaker serv-
ing under direction of the chief priest, documented
as late as the second century.38 The position was not
a humble one, however: under Tiberius, the neo-
koros was also (municipal) priest of Tiberius and
gymnasiarch for the Sebasta Rhomaia games, positions
that involved considerable expenditure.39
A citizen of Thyateira later served as “panegyr-
iarch of the temples in the most illustrious metro-
polis of the Pergamenes,” presumably for presiding
over a festival for the koinon temples at a time af-
ter they became plural, after Trajan (below); it is not
certain how early this office would have been insti-
tuted.40 By the mid-third century, the city of Phila-
delphia (q.v.) requested that it be released from its
contribution to the metropoleis for the expenses of
the chief priesthood and panegyriarchy. This shows
that the panegyris was held in the metropoleis of the
province, and like the chief-priesthood, was funded
35 Kearsley’s articles include bibliography and new citations:
Kearsley 1986, 1987a and b, 1988a and b, 1990, 1994, and
1996. Also separating the two offices: Friesen 1999a and b.
36 Campanile 1994a, 19-25; Wörrle 1992, 368-370; Herz
1992; Engelmann 2000. Herz 1992 held, however, that the first
chief priestess of Asia was only appointed after Drusilla the sister
of Gaius was made diva in Rome in 38 C.E.; this seems un-
likely, as Livia was already a cult partner in the provincial
temple at Smyrna (q.v.) from 26 C.E.
37 IGRR 4:1608c, from Hypaipa, 41 C.E. Also see IGRR
4:1611b, C. Julius Pardalas, also at Hypaipa, and Buckler and
Robinson 1932, no. 8.10, M. Antonius Lepidus; both of the
time of Augustus.
38 Fayer 1976, 125.
39 IGRR 4:454.
40 Clerc 1886, 416 no. 25.
22 part i – section i. koinon of asia
by the koinon (see summary chapter 41, ‘The
Koina,’ in Part II).
Attached to the provincial temple at Pergamon
was a choir of up to forty men who were “hymnodoi
of the god Augustus and the goddess Rome.” They
had come together for the first time to sing the empe-
ror’s praises voluntarily and without pay. This so
impressed Augustus that he made the choir perma-
nent and hereditary, to be supported by a levy on
the entire province. One of their chief duties was
to sing at provincial celebrations of the birthday of
Augustus and those of subsequent emperors, and
they maintained their own private cult of the em-
perors in the hymnodeion.41 In Claudius’ time it was
decreed that hymnodoi should come from among
the ephebes of the Asian cities, but the choir at
Pergamon was exempted42 and hymnodoi of the god
Augustus continue to be mentioned well into the
second century C.E.43
Pergamon adopted the title ‘neokoros’ by around
100, perhaps ten or more years after it had been
incorporated into the titulature of Ephesos.44 Inscrip-
tions 1-4 simply call the Pergamenes neokoroi, while
6-10, of the first fifteen years of the second century,
add ‘first’ to the city’s titles. A particularly interest-
ing bronze coin type, perhaps datable to Trajan’s
time and thus contemporary with these inscrip-
tions,45 may in fact be one of the first to use the title
‘neokoros’ for the city:
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AU KAI%ARA %EBA%TON
Radiate head of Augustus, r. Rev: PERGAMHNVN
NEV (or K%V) Four-column Corinthian temple
on stepped podium, disc in pediment; within,
cuirassed emperor with sceptre and phiale. a) Lon-
don 1894.7-6-38 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 49) b) Warsaw
59700 b) New York, Newell.
41 The main document is an altar dedicated to Hadrian
Olympios that lists the names of about 35 hymnodoi with their
officers, celebrations, and fees: IvP 260-270, no. 374; Fayer
1976, 125-127; S. Price 1980, 30 n. 15.
42 Halfmann 1990. For the Pergamene exemption, see the
edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus, dated to 44 C.E., IvE 17-19.
43 IvP no. 523 (= IGRR 4:460) (Antonine, mentioning a
priest of the goddess Faustina).
44 IdA 158-161. Dräger 1993, 113 dangerously assumed, and
119 stated as a fact, that Pergamon called itself neokoros of
the emperors by the time of Domitian or before, but no such
document has yet been found; see also 176-180. His treatment
of titulature, 107-121, though a worthy effort, was flawed by
such false assumptions throughout.
45 RPC 1:400 no. 2357.
The radiate bust, brassy fabric, and broad letter
forms of this coin indicate that it is post-Augustan.
Unfortunately the abbreviation for ‘neo(koros)’ is not
clear on any of the coins, but the placement of the
die-cutter’s drill holes should indicate that the in-
itial letter was indeed N; and the alternative makes
no sense.46 If it could be confirmed by a clearer
example, this would be the only coin to show
Pergamon as simply neokoros.
Other coins likely from Trajan’s time also glori-
fied Augustus and his temple:
COIN TYPE 11. Obv: PERGAMHNOI %EBA%-
TON Laureate head of Augustus, r. Rev: AU-
TOKRATORA KAI%ARA Four-column temple,
cuirassed emperor with sceptre within; monogram
in exergue. a) SNGCop 462 b) Berlin, von Rauch
c) Berlin, Löbbecke (RPC 1:400 no. 2355).
COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AUTOKRATORA %EBA-
%TON KAI%ARA Laureate head of Augustus, r.
Rev: %EBA%TON PERGAMHNOI Four-column
temple, cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a)
BMC 236, misdescribed (RPC 1:400 no. 2356).
The latest known inscription to use the single neo-
koria, without enumeration, is Pergamon inscription
10, which is dated by the proconsulship of C. Antius
Aulus Julius Quadratus to ca. 109/110.47 Quadra-
tus, a Pergamene who had risen to the highest rank
among the Roman senatorial aristocracy, did not
forget his home city. He would soon take on the
expenses of a festival founded in honor of Perga-
mon’s second provincial temple.
Second Neokoria: Trajan
Pergamon, site of the first provincial imperial temple
in Asia, inaugurated a new era in the provincial
imperial cult in the reign of Trajan: it was the first
city to receive a second provincial imperial temple.
The event was unprecedented, though not unlooked-
for. Augustus had allowed one such temple in one
city per province. Later Pergamon, along with ten
other cities of Asia, petitioned the Senate for per-
mission to build a new temple of Tiberius. The city’s
46 Personal communication of the late M. Price concern-
ing the London example.
47 Eck 1970, 171; Eck 1997b, no. 1; Halfmann 1979, 112-
115; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 95; Stumpf 1991, 267-269;
Weiser 1998, 289.
 chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia
chief inducement, its possession of the temple to
Rome and Augustus, backfired: the Senate consid-
ered that temple to be honor enough.48 The same
restriction prevented Pergamon from gaining an-
other neokoria under Gaius: Augustus was held to
have ‘preempted’ (prokateilÆfasi) Pergamon.49
Thus when the city was granted a second imperial
temple by Trajan, it set a precedent that would be
followed eagerly throughout Asia: the precedent of
multiple neokoriai. The title ‘neokoros’ was in fact
the only one among many (e.g. ‘metropolis,’ ‘most
illustrious,’ ‘first of the province,’ ‘greatest,’ ‘most
beautiful’) that could be multiplied for the same city
(i.e. a city could be twice neokoros but not twice
metropolis), an aspect which added to its attractive-
ness in the century to come.
The second provincial temple was dedicated to
Zeus Philios and Trajan. This aspect of Zeus, un-
documented at Pergamon previously, was probably
brought in to share the cult with Trajan much as
the goddess Rome had been brought in to share cult
with Augustus.50 Zeus was a natural choice as chief
of the gods, who grants rule to kings. The cult name
Philios (in Latin, Jupiter Amicalis), focuses on the god’s
patronage over the bond of friendship, particularly
in the sense of alliance: for example, in the Hellen-
istic period, Zeus Philios had joined the personifica-
tions of Concord and Rome in presiding over loyalty
oaths among Asian cities and between them and
Rome.51 The god may also have been particularly
appropriate to Trajan, as Dio Chrysostomos both
named him in his first oration on kingship, and dwelt
on friendship’s benefits to kings in his third oration,
both perhaps delivered before the emperor himself.52
Indeed, on coins issued to commemorate the con-
cord between Thyateira in Lydia and Pergamon,
perhaps at the time of the grant of the provincial
temple, an ordinary laureate obverse portrait of
Trajan as Germanicus and Dacicus is also titled
‘Philios Zeus.’53 Though this assimilation may have
48
Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56; chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’
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.
52 Oration 1.37-41 (echoed in the Olympian oration, 12.75-
76), Oration 3.86-132. A perceptive view of Dio’s possible pre-
sentations is Swain 1996, 187-206; also C. Jones 1978, 117.
Bonz 1998, 260-267 instead saw an overwhelming ideology
emanating from Rome.
53 BMC 145; Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 166; Kampmann
1996, 78-79, 126 no. 154, with discussion of an unpublished
23
overstepped the usual boundary drawn between the
god and the emperor (who, as will be seen, were rep-
resented by distinct images on Pergamene coins),
it presages the later identification of Hadrian with
Zeus Olympios and Eleutherios throughout the Greek
world.
The new cult at Pergamon seems to have been
consistently compared with and modeled on that of
Rome and Augustus in the same city, as is shown
by coins and by the inscriptions that document its
sacred contests. These inscriptions were found in the
area of the temple itself, and probably formed part
of its foundation documentation.54 They consist of
various letters, orders, and a decree of the Senate
concerning the status of and arrangements for the
new festival. Judging from Trajan’s titulature
(Optimus but not yet Parthicus), they date between
August 114 and February 116.55 The grant of the
festival was probably contingent upon and second-
ary to the grant of the provincial temple, just as it
had been in 29 B.C.E.56
The first part of the dossier is a letter, probably
from the proconsul of Asia. The recipient has been
restored as the council and people of Pergamon, a
restoration which seems appropriate when compared
with the events of 29 B.C.E.; though the koinon
made the petition for a provincial temple, the right
to celebrate a festival in its honor was given to the
Pergamenes. The letter refers to the ‘second’ festi-
val as having the status of sacred, just as the festi-
val for Rome and Augustus was. Next is the Latin
decree of the Senate, really an affirmative answer
to a petition of the Pergamenes. It declares that the
contest in honor of Jupiter Amicalis and Trajan
(named in that order) should be eiselastic, that is,
that winners should receive the honor of a trium-
phal entry into their own cities. Also, the new con-
test was to have the same status as that for Rome
and Augustus (also named in that order). The next
section, a summary of the emperor’s directions,
repeats this statement and calls the contest pen-
taeteric. The final text, Trajan’s letter to the Per-
statue base of the People of the twice-neokoroi Pergamenes
dedicated by Thyateira; also Pera 1984, 38-40.
54 IvP no. 269 (IGRR 4:336; CIL 3:7068). Note that these
particular documents refer only to contests, not to temples; this
is made unnecessarily problematic by Schowalter 1998, 238-
239.
55 Kienast 1996, 122-124.
56 Cassius Dio 51.20.9; Hanslik 1965, 1094-1100.
24 part i – section i. koinon of asia
gamenes, is very fragmentary, but mainly concerns
the success of the petition.57
Despite the fact that the koinon is not mentioned,
was this festival on a provincial scale? The term
‘sacred’ and constant references to the precedent set
by the festival for Rome and Augustus indicate that
it was.58 After all, as Dio documented, permission
to celebrate the festival honoring Pergamon’s first
provincial temple had also been granted to the
Pergamenes, not to the koinon. That the temple of
Zeus Philios and Trajan was provincial is shown by
a change in the titulature of the chief priests of Asia
after its establishment: the chief priest (or chief priest-
ess, or Asiarch) of the temple in Pergamon becomes
that of the temples in Pergamon.59 The only new note
is the endowment: expenses for the new contest were
to be paid by C. Aulus Antius Julius Quadratus, the
emperor’s ‘most illustrious friend.’ This funding is
not necessarily inconsistent with provincial status;
there is no evidence at all about who endowed the
earlier festival for the temple of Rome and Augustus.
There is no reason why even provincial festivals
should not have been paid for by some wealthy
benefactor, if any could be found.60 Quadratus
therefore became agonothetes of the provincial
Traianeia Deiphileia, and his son later held the office
of chief priest of temples, almost certainly the two
provincial ones, in Pergamon:61
INSCRIPTION 11. Habicht, IdA no. 20. The city
honors the son of Quadratus. [{ boulØ ka‹ ~
d{mow t}w mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ d‹w
ne]vk[Òrou pr]\thw [Perg]amhn«n pÒlevw
§t¤mhse ÉA. [ÉI]oÊlion Kouadrçton érxiera-
teÊsanta filote¤mvw ka‹ éj¤vw na«n t«n §n
Pergãmƒ. . .
Habicht, and then Halfmann, doubted that this
priesthood was provincial because this inscription
was not a decree of the koinon and because the
temples are not specifically called provincial.62 In-
deed, it was rare, but not unknown, for a member
57 See Oliver 1989, 141-143, also 146-147, other (fragmen-
tary) letters from Trajan to the Pergamenes. For imperial
constitutiones on the endowment of games, Herrmann 1980, 347.
58 Despite Ziegler 1985, 65.
59 Rossner 1974, 112, 124, 125, 129, 131 (chief priest); 131
(chief priestess); 117 (Asiarch); 118 (chief priest who is elsewhere
known as Asiarch); and 121, 127 (chief priest and chief priest-
ess in the temples in first and twice neokoros Pergamon).
60 For such benefactions in general see Pleket 1976.
61 For the son and the provincial status, see H. Müller 2000,
519-520 n. 6.
62 Halfmann 1979, 34.
of a senatorial family, son of a former consul, to
become a provincial chief priest.63 On the other
hand, there must have been very few, if any, other
chief priesthoods that, like the one cited in inscrip-
tion 11, included in their duties the supervision of
more than one temple; and nothing forbids a pro-
vincial chief priest from being honored by his own
city. Quadratus the father, as a citizen and bene-
factor of the city of Pergamon, may have used his
influence in the province (as its recent proconsul) and
in Rome (as friend to the emperor) to obtain the pro-
vincial temple and/or the sacred contest for his
city.64 The latter, at least, we know he paid for. It
would have been a proper reward for his benefac-
tion to both city and province that his son, as chief
priest of the province, should preside over the
temples in Pergamon, including the one his father
had been instrumental in attaining.
Newly discovered inscriptions from Aizanoi com-
memorate three chief priests and a chief priestess of
temples in Pergamon, and show two of the chief
priests’ agonothetic crowns decorated with nine or
ten (chesspiece-like) imperial busts.65 In addition, a
theologos of the temples in Pergamon is known from
the Antonine period.66
The temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan does not
appear on provincial silver as the temple of Rome
and Augustus had, but this is because such coinage
wasn’t minted at the time. The temple does, how-
ever, appear on bronze coins of the city of Perga-
mon, where a whole series was devoted to both the
new and the old provincial temples.
COIN TYPE 13. Obv: FILIO% ZEU% AUT
TRAIANO(%, d) (%EB, abc) PER(GAMH, d) Four-
column Corinthian temple on high Roman po-
dium, steps up the front, within it seated Zeus with
phiale and sceptre and laureate, cuirassed em-
peror with sceptre. Rev: YEA RVMH KAI YEV
%EBA%TV Four-column Corinthian temple on
63 Campanile 1994a, 168-169; the close connection between
high-ranking provincials and the imperial cult is emphasized
by Quass 1993, 149-151, while the provincial benefactions and
magistracies of the senatorial class are discussed by Eck 1980,
291.
64 Halfmann 1979, 112-115 no. 17. White 1998, 346-356
on Quadratus (though fraught with mistranslations through-
out).
65 Wörrle 1992, 349-368, 376; Rumscheid 2000, 12-14,
113-114 cat. 1.
66 P. Aelius Paion, poet and rhapsode of the god Hadrian:
IvE 22, decree of the technitai of Dionysos; L. Robert 1980b,
16-17; Roueché 1993, 144-145.
 chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia
stepped podium, cuirassed emperor with sceptre
crowned by Rome with wreath and cornucopia
within. a) BMC 263 b) BMC 264 c) BMC 265 d)
BMC 266 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 50).
COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT [TRAI]ANO% %EB
GERM DAKI Laureate draped bust of Trajan r.
Rev: FILIO% ZEU% TRAIANO% PERGAMHNVN
Four-column Corinthian temple on high Roman
podium, steps up the front, within it seated Zeus
with phiale and sceptre and laureate, cuirassed
emperor with sceptre. a) BMC 262 (illus. pl. 18
fig. 51).
COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AUT TRAIANO% %EBA-
%T Laureate head of Trajan r. Rev: FILIO% ZEU%
PERGA Seated Zeus with phiale and sceptre. a)
BMC 259.
COIN TYPE 16. Obv: AUT TRAIANO% %EB(A,
d) Laureate head of Trajan r. Rev. ZEU% FILIO%
Head of Zeus r. a) BMC 260 b) BMC 261 c) SNGvA
1394 d) SNGvA 1395.
COIN TYPE 17. Obv: AUGOU%TO% PERGA
Four-column temple, capricorn in pediment, cui-
rassed emperor with sceptre within. Rev: %TR I
PVLLIVNO% TRAIANO% Four-column temple,
cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a) BMC
267 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 52) b) SNGvA 1393 c) SNGCop
478 d) SNGRighetti 761.
Coin type 13, like the foundation documents from
the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan, draws the
comparison between the city’s first provincial temple,
that of Rome and Augustus, and the second, of Zeus
Philios and Trajan: one on the obverse, the other,
so familiar from the cistophori, on the reverse. Type
17, of smaller module, portrays the two temples in
a similar way, but due to the reduced size both
divine cult partners, Rome and Zeus Philios, are
eliminated, indicating in each temple only what the
Pergamenes thought to be essential: the emperors,
Augustus and Trajan. This type also assimilates the
two temples to one another except for Augustus’
zodiac sign in the pediment of his temple; one can-
not tell whether this detail reflects an actual feature
of the temple or an iconographic marker to iden-
tify it more plainly. Coin type 17 may in fact be of
later date than the others, as a magistrate named
Julius Pollio is known to have served under Septimius
67 Münsterberg 1985, 70.
25
Severus.67 On the other hand, types 13 and 14,
issued under Trajan, differentiate the two temples
with an interesting detail: the square shapes that
flank the steps up the high podium of the temple of
Trajan are lacking on the representation of the
Greek-style temple of Augustus. This detail can be
borne out from the actual remains: the square shapes
represent the parastades, wings that flank the stairs
of the podium that still supports the temple of Zeus
Philios and Trajan at Pergamon.
The temple, sometimes called the Trajaneum, was
set in a broad plaza on one of the highest points of
the Pergamene acropolis, above the great Hellenis-
tic theater. It was originally excavated and published
in the late nineteenth century; a project for resto-
ration and further research lasted from 1974 to
1996.68 Excavations in the substructure of the temple
terrace have revealed small rooms or workshops of
Hellenistic date, perhaps outbuildings of the palaces
of the Attalid kings. No signs of an earlier temple
were found, so the cult of Zeus Philios and Trajan
was likely new to the site.69 Two Hellenistic monu-
ments, one with an inscription of Attalos II (159-138
B.C.E.), were probably displaced by this or other
Roman construction, but were reinstalled at the back
of the temenos on either side of the temple.
The temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan stood in
the midst of a broad plaza (70 x 65 m.), eventually
with a portico on either side and a hall with an
elevated colonnade at its back; its basis was an enor-
mous vaulted terrace facing south-southwest over the
city (illus. pl. 4 fig. 18). It can be said to have domi-
nated, or perhaps crowned, the city of Pergamon,
and the orientation of its axis may have even de-
termined the lines of the city’s contemporary street
grid.70 The temple itself (illus. pl. 1 fig. 4) was a large
(32 x 20 m.), tall (18 m. high) and richly decorated
Corinthian hexastyle with ten columns on its long
side.71 It was set up on a Roman-style podium, un-
reachable except from the front, where the marble-
68 Stiller 1895; Radt 1988, 239-250; yearly reports in
Archäologischer Anzeiger, most recently, Radt 1993, 374-379, and
Radt 1999, 209-220, 301-305, 350-351.
69 Radt 1978, 431; Hoepfner 1990b, 279-281, against K.
Siegler’s theory of a Doric temple of Zeus; Raeck 1999, 337.
Zschietzschmann 1937, 1259-1260, had first posited an ear-
lier cult. Of course, the great altar of Zeus was not far away.
70 On the expansion and regularization of the plaza and
addition of the side colonnades, see Nohlen 1984, 238-249. On
the city plan, Radt 2001, esp. 49, 53.
71 Stiller 1895.
26 part i – section i. koinon of asia
clad podium swept out on either side to flank a flight
of steps; it is this feature that gives the facade its
particular appearance on the coins. Only a few
marble orthostats remain of the altar that stood
before it. The temple’s high podium, its axial set-
ting in an (eventually) colonnaded plaza, and the
vaulted substructure of its terrace have all been noted
as characteristic of imperial Roman architecture.72
It has even been suggested that the Pergamene ar-
chitect of this temple was also responsible for the
temple of Venus and Rome, though mainly on the
basis of sculptural decoration, not layout.73 The one
may be called a Roman-style temple in a Greek city,
the other a Greek temple in the heart of Rome.
There were also Asian precedents, however. Helle-
nistic temples in Asia Minor, such as the temple of
Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia, had been placed
on the axis of an enframing colonnaded courtyard
far earlier than any Roman example, and even the
podium temple may have had native Pergamene
antecedents.74
The architectural decoration of the temple was
suitably imposing, if a trifle bland. Consoles in the
frieze combined the acanthus motif of the columns
with a rising Ionic-style volute. Between the consoles
were gorgoneia, combining a traditional apotropaic
function with some overtones of imperial imagery:
they had been featured in the friezes of the temples
of the Deified Julius Caesar and of the Deified
Vespasian in Rome, and a gorgoneion was becom-
ing a standard feature on the breastplate or shield
of imperial images.75 No pedimental sculpture was
found, but perhaps there was a (metal?) shield in the
gable(s), as the coins indicate. Rooftop akroteria con-
sisted of interlaced acanthus shoots with a Victory
standing on a globe in the center; the imagery of
imperial victory is obvious, especially when emper-
ors on coins and as statues often held such Victory
statuettes.76
Coin types 13-15 concentrate on this new temple
and its cult images. On them, Trajan’s contrapposto,
standing with one knee bent, is not unlike that of
72
Lyttelton 1987, 39 posited that it was modeled on the
temple of Mars Ultor in the forum of Augustus at Rome; Gros
1996-2001, 1.182 stressed the Roman elements, though he was
incorrect about it also being a Hadrianeion (see below).
73 Strong 1953, 131-142; Felten 1980, 223-225; Boatwright
1987, 127-128; Strocka 1988, 297-299; Liljenstolpe 1996.
74 Waelkens 1989, 84-85.
75 Paoletti 1988, nos. 29, 31, 44; Bastien 1992, 2:341-367.
76 Vollkommer 1997, nos. 267, 56-58, 362-370.
Augustus on the earlier cistophori. Though this por-
trayal has been interpreted as Trajan “respectfully
approaching” the seated figure of Zeus, he is in fact
standing still, as the long spear or scepter that he
leans on shows.77 The contrapposto posture was stan-
dard in male standing sculptures since Polykleitos.
The enthroned Zeus is as much a standard icono-
graphic type as the armored emperor; the two fig-
ures do not interact as had the earlier statue group,
in which Rome crowned Augustus. It is as if they
inhabited different planes of status: the emperor is
not costumed as an Olympian, but simply as em-
peror, and the god does not respond to his presence.
Among the ruins of the temple’s cella in the vaults
of the terrace below were found the marble frag-
ments, not of two, but of three colossal acrolithic cult
statues: Zeus Philios, Trajan, and his successor
Hadrian.78 It has been postulated that the statue of
Hadrian, who was often identified with Zeus Olym-
pios, replaced the statue of Zeus Philios that previously
shared the temple with Trajan, or even replaced
Trajan himself, but both hypotheses are unlikely.
The proof is the following coin issued in the reign
of Trajan Decius (249-251):
COIN TYPE 18. Obv: AUT K G ME% KUI TRAI-
ANO% DEKIO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust of
Trajan Decius r. Rev: EPI % KOMF GLUKVNO%
PERGAMHNVN PRVTVN G NEVKORVN Four-
column temple on high Roman podium, steps up
the front; within, seated Zeus with sceptre and
cuirassed emperor. a) London 1901.6-1-41 (illus.
pl. 18 fig. 53).
On it appears the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan,
its architecture and cult statues just as they had been
in the time of Trajan himself. That no legend was
needed to identify it more explicitly indicates that
the temple and its inhabitants were readily recog-
nizable to the Pergamenes, and therefore that the
cult of Zeus Philios and Trajan was still active well
over a century after it was founded. The temple’s
appearance at just this time is an obvious bit of flat-
tery to the current emperor, based on the city’s long-
standing cult of his namesake; it is therefore unlikely
that either the statue of Trajan or the statue of Zeus
(still seated) was replaced with a standing, cuirassed
Hadrian.
77 S. Price 1980, 42.
78 Raeck 1993.
 chapter
There had been some doubt about the existence
of, and even the room available for, a seated cult
statue of Zeus Philios until parts of its face, torso and
throne were found.79 Their measurements indicate
that the Zeus was on the same scale as the Trajan
and the Hadrian, about two and a half times life size.
The two imperial statues, however, stood in exactly
the same pose as one another, contrapposto with the
weight on the left leg, the right arm raised (to hold
a spear?), the lowered left hand holding an eagle-
headed sceptre.80 The pose reflects an exact mirror
image of the Trajan on the coins, but the reversal
may be explained if the die-cutter sculpted the dies
in the image he saw; coins struck from such dies
would come out in mirror-reverse. From the scale
of the fragments, the standing statues may have been
about 4.8 m. tall. The legs show attachment surfaces
for a wooden core in the acrolithic technique, and
the surviving bits of marble also include hands, one
with a ring marked S, a sword, the head of an eagle
sceptre or hilt, and elaborately decorated high boots
(illus. pl. 6 fig. 23). Many of the coin types that il-
lustrate Trajan’s statue beside Zeus Philios show the
emperor wearing just such high boots.
The statues’ exact arrangement remains uncer-
tain. The limited area of the cella (only 8.5 m. wide)
was only designed for two colossi, and at least origi-
nally, Zeus and Trajan perhaps stood side by side
in the temple, in a position similar to that portrayed
on the coins. There may even have been a dividing
wall down the cella between them, which would ex-
plain why the two do not interact much with each
other.81
A fragmentary inscription, not yet published, may
explain how the colossal statue of Hadrian fit in.82
The inscription seems to be the fragment of a let-
ter from Hadrian to the Pergamenes, dated to the
last years of his reign, ca. 135-138. The Pergamenes
had apparently asked for permission to build a new
imperial temple to Hadrian himself, and though he
denied them this request, he allowed his own like-
ness (‘eikon’) to be set up in the temple of his fa-
ther. This is presumably how the colossal Hadrian
came to stand in the temple, though it must have
been a tight squeeze in that cella, especially if there
79 Raeck 1993, figs. 4 and 5.
80 Radt 1988, 239-242.
81 Radt 1988, 247.
82 Raeck 1993, 387; Schorndorfer 1997, 55 n. 212; Radt
1999, 212, 350; to be published by H. Müller, Munich.
83 Pekáry 1985, 118-119; though in this case, of course, it
would have taken a ladder to do it.
1 – pergamon in mysia 27
was a cross wall. Pedestals for each standing emperor
have been estimated at 2.5 to 3 m. wide, while that
of the enthroned Zeus would have naturally been
yet larger. Possibly a new pedestal had to be made
to accommodate the pair of emperors, though the
side-by-side arrangement of two figures standing in
exactly the same pose does not seem particularly
felicitous. Interestingly, though Hadrian had granted
permission only for a portrait and not specifically a
cult statue or agalma, the new statue copied the cult
statue of Trajan in all its features, and was presum-
ably meant to receive similar respect.
The two marble imperial heads are well pre-
served. Unlike the cult statue of Trajan on the coins,
neither wears a laurel wreath; it could have been
added in metal, though there are no cuttings in the
stone to show it, or even in actual foliage, as impe-
rial statues were often ceremonially crowned.83
Zanker found both portraits to be of an unusual style
for Asia Minor, and postulated that they came from
a western atelier, but Evers believed that both were
local.84 The treatment of Trajan (illus. pl. 7 fig. 24)
is very different from, for example, that of the ear-
lier colossus of Titus at Ephesos (see chapter 4,
‘Ephesos’). Where the latter was almost exaggerat-
edly baroque, the former is more restrained and clas-
sicizing. Still, there is a distinct emphasis on the
slightly windblown fringe of hair, the linear treat-
ment of the eyes, and the slightly parted lips. Though
the Trajan and the Hadrian are all but identical in
pose, even turning their heads to the right at ap-
proximately the same angle, there are distinct dif-
ferences in style between the two. Hadrian’s portrait
(illus. pl. 7 fig. 25) offers more scope for a baroque
treatment, with drilled curls in hair and beard; even
the eyebrows are ruffled. Where the sculptor of the
Trajan concentrated on broad, smooth planes, that
of the Hadrian was more concerned with dramatic
effect, breaking up the planes of the face with hol-
lows and wrinkles. The stylistic disparity tends to
indicate that the two were not carved at the same
time: the head of Trajan fits with the date of the
foundation inscriptions, 114-116, but that of Hadrian
takes after a prototype dated in 128.85 Therefore the
84 Zanker 1983, 18 n. 41; Evers 1994, 89.
85 Trajan: Berlin, AvP no. 281: Gross 1940, 61-62, 93 no.
26, of the ‘decennalia type’ after 108 C.E.; Hadrian: Berlin,
AvP no. 282: Wegner 1956, 20, 23-24, 39, 59-61, 94; Evers
1994, 257-259, type of ‘Imperatori 32,’ connected with
Hadrian’s becoming pater patriae and Olympios.
28 part i – section i. koinon of asia
statue of Hadrian is likely to represent the eikon
granted after 135, perhaps ordered from the same
studio that sculpted the original cult statue.86
At first, the complex dedicated to Zeus Philios and
Trajan consisted only of the temple and the hall
backing it on the north; the broad terrace was con-
fined at east and west by plain precinct walls. Some
time later, however, porticos were built on the east
and west sides of the precinct. Like those of the
earlier north hall, their columns had Pergamene-style
capitals with leaves, but the level of the side porti-
coes was lower than that at the back; it is uncertain
how the roofing was resolved. Nonetheless, the com-
plex now resembled the forum temples of Rome,
except for the fact that it was completely open to
the south. There, from the ends of the side porti-
coes, two buildings jutted winglike. Exploration of
the one on the west has revealed a large vaulted hall
that may have been used for cultic gatherings, some
(third century) podia and wall paintings, and a con-
nection with one of the vaults of the terrace sub-
structure. The underground setting has suggested
imperial mysteries, but none have yet been docu-
mented for this temple, though they were practiced
by the college of hymnodoi of Rome and Augustus.87
Other (cultic?) buildings were attached to either end
of the north hall: on its west end, behind the west
portico, was another large hall; and a row of small
rooms extended from its east end further east, per-
haps serving as depots, workshops, or rooms for cult
functionaries.
The addition of east and west porticoes has been
attributed to a visit from Hadrian, either in 124 or
in 129.88 The date of construction is not certain,
however, but is based on the assumption that only
the presence of Hadrian would have prompted such
a change in his father’s temple, with the added
possibility that the expansion’s entire purpose was
the addition of Hadrian’s cult to Trajan’s. Whether
Hadrian visited Pergamon in 124, 129, or at any
point, is in fact not confirmed by any document.89
Also, no modification was made to the temple itself;
only the precinct was elaborated.
It is more likely that either the porticoes and their
attachments were intended in the original plan, but
86 Evers 1994, 90.
87
Radt 1999, 219-220, 351.
88 Nohlen 1985; Radt 1999, 212, 218-219.
89
Halfmann 1986a, 191, 199.
construction was delayed; or that they were con-
nected with the letter of Hadrian referred to above.
It is dangerous to guess the real import of this docu-
ment before its full publication, but from the snippets
that have been cited, we know that the Pergamenes
had asked for permission to build a temple of
Hadrian, and Hadrian had refused. This was quite
late in his reign, after he had permitted temples of
Asia to be built in Kyzikos, Smyrna, and Ephesos;
had Pergamon asked for that privilege as well, the
granting of which would have made it the only city
yet to be three times neokoros? Possibly, or the re-
quest may have simply been for a municipal temple;
the refusal was apparently addressed to the Perga-
menes, not to the koinon of Asia.
In any case, Hadrian did allow the Pergamenes
to put his portrait in the temple to his father. That
portrait was made as similar to the previous cult
image of Trajan as was possible, though the temple
itself was not changed or expanded. It could be that
the Pergamenes chose this moment to aggrandize
the temple precinct with new porticoes, one or all
of which could have been named in honor of
Hadrian. Aelius Aristides recounts a dream about
a Hadrianeion that may have been in Pergamon, but
it was situated in a place where bathing was pos-
sible, as this was not.90 In any case, the apsed end
of the east portico of the temenos would have been
suitable for an imperial statue, and in fact a replica
of a cuirassed torso found in the western annex of
the precinct has been set there today.91 The sash and
griffins on its cuirass are more typical of one of the
later Antonine emperors than of Hadrian, as whom
it is sometimes identified, and it is likely that images
of later emperors were added and honored within
the complex.92 In any case, once all the documents
from the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan are fully
published, we shall see whether the elaboration of
the precinct could date after Hadrian’s letter of 135-
138.
The formula ‘first, neokoroi Pergamenes’ was
merely changed to ‘first and twice neokoroi Perga-
menes’ on inscriptions dated just after the grant:
these include inscription 12, which like the docu-
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:
S. Price 1984b, 134, 260 no. 59; Boatwright 2000, 24 n. 30.
91 Radt 1982; a base and dedication by Quadratus are also
mentioned. Radt 1999, 218-219.
92 Niemeyer 1968, 49-50.
 chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 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: M AURH KOMODO% KAI-
Augusti’ seems to be a late variation in the formula,
%AR Draped cuirassed bust of Commodus r.,
as the one datable inscription with this phrase is
beardless. Rev: EPI NIKOMHDOU% B NEVKO-
Severan (inscriptions 24, 33, 34). The phrase also
RVN PERGAMHNVN Two six-column temples on
makes it clear that both Pergamene neokoriai were
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
êsulow (or |erå)95 toË Svt}row ÉAsklhpioË; the
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
97 Münsterberg 1985, 70.
the original grant was late in the Attalid dynasty but was
98 Von Fritze 1910, 77-78.
abrogated after the Mithridatic massacre of 88 B.C.E.
30 part i – section i. koinon of asia
figure looks imperial, but other cities’ later issues,
though perhaps modeled after this type, place non-
imperial personages on the column between the
temples: issues of Nikomedia (q.v.) from 209-211
show Demeter on the column, and a similar one of
the koinon of Macedonia (Beroia, q.v.) may show
Alexander the Great. The figure on the Pergamene
column may be Marcus Aurelius, but the identifi-
cation cannot be assured.
During Commodus’ sole rule Pergamon issued
coins that celebrated imperial victories with the
sacrifice of a bull (type 20). That type helps to ex-
plain a later issue that has been much misunder-
stood: type 21, the sacrifice of a bull before an
imperial statue.
COIN TYPE 20. Obv: AUTO KAI M AURH
[KO]MO[DO%] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Commodus r., mature. Rev: E[PI] %TR M AI
GLU[KVNIANOU] PERGAMHNV[N B] NEVKO-
RVN Cuirassed emperor with sceptre crowns tro-
phy, a captive at its foot, on low pedestal; below,
sacrifice of a bull. a) SNGParis 2166.
COIN TYPE 21. Obv: AUT KAI L %EP %EOU-
HRO% PER IOU DOMNA %EBA%TH Laureate
draped cuirassed bust of Septimius Severus r. and
draped bust of Julia Domna l. Rev: EPI %TRA
KLAUDIANOU TERPANDROU; PERGAMHNVN B
NEOKORVN Cuirassed emperor, beardless, with
sceptre and phiale on high pedestal; below, sac-
rifice of a bull. a) SNGParis 2209 (illus. pl. 19 fig.
55) b) SNGParis 2208 c) Berlin, Fox d) Berlin,
Löbbecke e) New York, Newell.
Von Fritze believed that a sacrifice to the emperor
could not be held outside of ‘neokorate cult.’ There-
fore he had to identify the beardless emperor as
either Augustus or Trajan, the two emperors with
koinon temples in Pergamon.99 But sacrifice to and
for emperors did exist at private and municipal as
well as provincial levels.100 Type 20 also shows a
sacrifice on a special occasion, in this case an im-
perial victory symbolized by Commodus crowning
a trophy. Type 21 is less specific, but a hypothesis
regarding the identification of its images can be
worked out from the following observations. Despite
the fact that the obverse shows a fully bearded
Septimius Severus with his wife Julia Domna, the
99 Von Fritze 1910, 77 pl. 8.15.
100 S. Price 1980 and 1984b, 207-233.
image on the reverse is clearly beardless. The same
strategos who issued this type also minted a joint
issue for Severus’ sons Caracalla (as Augustus) and
Geta (as Caesar), thus after 197 and before 209,
when Geta became Augustus.101 A beardless em-
peror could not be Septimius Severus, and a single
figure is more likely to be the senior than the jun-
ior of his two sons. The sacrifice may have been on
some such occasion as Caracalla’s elevation to the
title of Augustus after autumn 197, his assumption
of the toga virilis in 201, or his marriage to Plautilla
in April 202. The sacrifice did not have any direct
association with the cults that made Pergamon twice
neokoros.
Third Neokoria: Caracalla
Pergamon was still only twice neokoros by 209, as
coins of Geta as Augustus show. The occasion and
reasons for Pergamon’s receiving its third neokoria
from Caracalla are fairly well documented. Herodian
stated that Pergamon was the first city that Caracalla
visited in Asia, even before Ilion, though the epito-
mes of Dio imply the reverse.102 His motive appears
to have been to get treatment at the famous shrine
of the healing god Asklepios. The visit was probably
at the end of 213, before Caracalla went on to win-
ter quarters in Nikomedia; a base dated to 214 was
found with its twice-lifesize, veiled portrait of the em-
peror in the Asklepieion.103
As Pergamon’s coins are distinguished by the
names of yearly strategoi, they are fairly easy to
group, though more difficult to date.104 The names
of three strategoi appear on coins registering Perga-
mon’s third neokoria under Caracalla. The major-
ity of the coins are of medallic size, suitable for
celebratory issues. The coins of M. Caerelius Attalos,
however, make the most of the new neokoria, with
types showing the three imperial temples and with
types of the emperor both in military and in civil-
ian dress presiding at sacrifices before Pergamene
temples, especially those of Asklepios (both the stand-
101 BMC 315, e.g.; Kienast 1996, 162-167.
102 Herodian 4.8.3; Cassius Dio ep. 78.16.7-8, also 78.15.2-
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
1966, 84-85 no. 60.
104 Münsterberg 1985, 70-71.
 chapter
ing and a seated image, see below) and his compan-
ion deities.105 The coins of Julius Anthimos, on the
other hand, show Caracalla only in military dress
and emphasize his triumph; where the emperor hails
the city goddess of Pergamon, there is no architec-
tural setting.106 Thus the coins of Attalos are likely
to be earlier and to refer to the visit of 213, while
those of Anthimos were probably minted later, when
the Parthian campaign was in full swing. Only one
coin of the third strategos, M. Aurelius Alexandros,
is yet known to mention neokoria; it is difficult to
place him precisely, but he should not be confused
with Tiberius Claudius Alexandros, who was a later
strategos, under Elagabalus.
COIN TYPE 22. Obv: AUT (KRAT K MARKO%
AUR, ac; KAI M AUR %EOUHR, b) ANTVNEINO%
Laureate cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: EPI
%TR M KAIREL ATTALOU PERGAMHNVN
PRVTVN G NEVKORVN Three temples on
stepped podia, each with wreath at apex; outer
two six-column, each with cuirassed emperor on
pedestal with sceptre within, in one pediment
AUG, in the other TR(A, c); center temple four-
column, seated male holding snake and staff
within, in pediment AN. a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer
b) New York ANS 1944.100.43356 (illus. pl. 19
fig. 56) c) SNGvA 7513.
COIN TYPE 23. Obv: AUT KRAT K MARKO%
AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate cuirassed bust of
Caracalla r. Rev: EPI %TR M KAIREL ATTALOU
PERGAMHNVN PRVTVN G NEVKORVN Three
Corinthian temples on stepped podia; lower two
four-column (six-column, ij), turned toward each
other, a dotted circle in each pediment; higher,
center one four-column, AN in pediment, seated
draped male holding snake and staff within. a)
BMC 327 b) Oxford 36.10 c) SNGParis 2227 d)
SNGParis 2229 e) SNGParis 2228 f) SNGCop 500
g) SNGvA 1411 h) SNGvA 1412 i) Berlin, Löbbecke
j) Berlin, Löbbecke k) New York, ANS 1944.100.
43357 (illus. pl. 19 fig. 57).
105 For an artistic analysis of the group of issues celebrat-
ing the emperor’s worship of Asklepios, see Kadar 1986. For
a socio-political slant, see Harl 1987, 53-54. For the protocol
of imperial visits, Lehnen 1997, 77-84, 182 n. 558, more on
literary than visual evidence, and on the latter tending more
to the late antique at Rome than the provinces.
106 E.g. BMC 319, SNGCop 499. Metcalf 1999, 14 took the
opposite view of the two magistrates’ chronology, but did not
consider all the relevant types.
1 – pergamon in mysia 31
For the purposes of this study the most important
of M. Caerelius Attalos’ issues are the multiple-
temple types. The three temples for which Pergamon
was neokoros are shown as architecturally similar,
but are identified by minute letters in their pediments
as the temples of Aug(ustus), Tra(jan), and An(to-
ninus), i.e. Caracalla. Thus they confirm what has
been assumed up to this point, that Pergamon be-
came neokoros for the temples of (Rome and) Augus-
tus and (Zeus Philios and) Trajan. Yet the temples
of those two show normal imperial images, while the
central temple displays a seated, bearded male fig-
ure with his left arm holding up a staff, and a snake
curled in his lap. That this is not an alternate im-
age for Caracalla is shown by coin types on which
the togate emperor presides at a sacrifice before the
same temple to the same seated god:
COIN TYPE 24. Obv: AUT KRAT K M(ARKO%,
abdefgh) AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate cuirassed
bust of Caracalla r. Rev. EPI %TR M KAIREL
ATTALOU PERGAMHNVN PRVTVN G NEVKO-
RVN Togate emperor with phiale and scroll turns
toward four-column Corinthian temple (above,
abcdef; in three-quarter view, gh); in pediment
(disc, a; dot, g; AN, f); seated within, a draped
male with snake and staff; youth sacrifices bull be-
fore the temple. a) SNGParis 2246 b) SNGParis
2245 c) SNGParis 2247 d) Berlin, Löbbecke e) New
York, Holzer f) Munich107 (illus. pl. 19 fig. 58) g)
BMC 324 h) SNGParis 2230.
That an emperor should be portrayed sacrificing to
himself as divinity makes no sense. Yet coins and
inscriptions (below) insist that Pergamon was three
times neokoros of the Augusti, and on several coins
the initial letters of Caracalla’s name fill the temple’s
pediment. A similar case of temple-sharing would
soon occur at Smyrna (q.v.), where the cult of Cara-
calla was apparently moved into the ancient temple
of the goddess Rome, and Smyrna too became three
times neokoros of the Augusti. Thus it is likely that
Caracalla shared a temple at Pergamon with another
god, and it is that cult partner to whom he sacri-
fices.108 This concept may seem odd, but there
would be other occurrences: on contemporary coins
of Smyrna, the goddess Rome carries in her arms
the temple that she shared with Caracalla; and later,
107 Von Fritze 1910, pl. 8.7.
108 Despite Nock 1930b, 24-25, who did not take all the
coin types into account.
32 part i – section i. koinon of asia
Philippopolis’ coins would show Elagabalus sacrific-
ing before the temple of his own cult partner Apollo,
while on Aigeai’s coins, Severus Alexander, holding
Asklepian attributes, would sacrifice to Asklepios in
the temple they shared (qq.v.).
Cult partners, of course, were the rule rather than
the exception at Pergamon. Augustus had as cult
partner the goddess Rome, and Trajan had Zeus
Philios; it was only proper that Caracalla also share
his temple. The question is, with whom?
One trail, but a false one, led to Dionysos Kath-
egemon.109 This untenable hypothesis was based on
the fact that his Ionic temple on the terrace at the
foot of the Pergamene theater was reconstructed in
the third century, and that on its entablature the fol-
lowing dedication could be restored:
INSCRIPTION 35. IvP 299 (IGRR 4:362; cf. AvP
1.2 no. 229110). Inscription of the epistyle of the
Ionic temple of Dionysos Kathegemon on the the-
ater terrace of Pergamon. Restored from nail
holes left by the original bronze letters. AÈtokrã-
tori Ka¤s[ari M. AÈr. ÉAntvne¤n]vi Sebas[t«i
{ Pergamhn«n t]«n tr‹w nevkÒ[r]vn mhtrÒpoliw.
The slightly awkward syntax of this phrase could
perhaps be improved by changing it to [{ t«n
Pergamhn]«n tr‹w nevkÒ[r]vn mhtrÒpoliw. This is
the earliest inscription of the Pergamenes as three
times neokoroi yet known. The restoration to Cara-
calla was based on the fact that he had granted
Pergamon its third neokoria, and it was assumed that
a new inscription on the temple’s epistyle meant the
presence of a new cult partner in the temple. The
original god was mentioned in another, fragmentary
inscription, likely from a naiskos within the temple
itself; von Prott identified him as Dionysos, probably
rightly.111 A dedication to an emperor, however, was
an honor inscribed on many types of buildings, not
a necessary sign that the imperial cult was practiced
within. Emperor’s names were added to the archi-
traves of temples as famous as the Parthenon and
the Temple of Athena at Priene.112 Among non-
sacred buildings at Pergamon itself, the entry to a
bath complex was dedicated to an emperor, and an
109Von Prott 1902; Ohlemutz 1940, 103-117.
110Conze et al. 1912-1913, 284-285.
111 IvP 300; von Prott 1902, 180-188.
112 Von Gaertringen 1906, no. 157; Carroll 1982, 59-63,
though Nero’s name is in the accusative, not the dative, in the
latter.
exedra to Hadrian.113 The topic of imperial dedi-
cations will be dealt with in examining the so-called
temple of Hadrian at Ephesos (q.v.). But in the case
of Pergamon, the coins that show the third temple
for which neokoria was given without the other two
and in the most detail depict it as Corinthian, not
Ionic like the temple on the theater terrace.114
Von Fritze recognized the seated god as Asklepios,
though he still wanted to place him in the temple
on the theater terrace.115 Asklepios had been por-
trayed as enthroned with a snake before him on
coins of Pergamon from the Hellenistic period.116
The original cult image of the god at Pergamon may
have been based on the famous chryselephantine
statue by Thrasymedes at Epidauros, the ultimate
source of the Pergamene cult (Pausanias 2.26.8). But
though both were enthroned, contemporary coins
depict them somewhat differently: the Pergamene
god has no dog under his chair; feeds his serpent
with a phiale rather than holding his right hand over
its head; the snake faces toward the god, not away;
and the god’s staff is held behind his lowered left
arm, not as an upright prop for a raised arm.117
Recent debate has raged over whether this is a rep-
resentation of the famous statue by Phyromachos
that King Prusias of Bithynia stole in 156 B.C.E.;
where in Pergamon he stole it from; and whether it
was ever returned.118 These considerations have little
import for the question before us, however, as the
seated image of Asklepios that appeared in Cara-
calla’s temple on Pergamene coins was rather dif-
ferent from the earlier Hellenistic coin image.
Starting in Antonine times, the seated god has his
left arm raised, leaning on his staff, as in the Epi-
dauran image; a marble figurine in the same pose
and also probably Antonine was found in the Asklep-
ieion itself.119 There are three variants as well: ei-
ther the snake curls in front of the god,120 twines
113 IvP nos. 287, 293.
114 Even S. Price 1984b, 253 no. 23, seemed to conflate the
two; bibliography of the dispute there.
115 Von Fritze 1908, 28-35; 1910, 50-51.
116 Wroth 1882, 14-16, 20.
117 The Pergamene coin: BMC 73; Penn 1994, 18-19, 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.
118 Polybius 32.15.1-6; Diodorus Siculus 31.35; Andreae
1990, 75-77; H. Müller 1992; Andreae 1993, 96-105; Ridgway
2000, 234.
119 De Luca 1990, 26-28 pl. 14.
120 Von Fritze 1910, pl. 5.17 and von Fritze 1908, pl. 3.20
(Antoninus Pius); on a concord coin, the god holds an image
 chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia
round his staff,121 or, in the case of the minuscule
representations on coin types 22-24, moves up into
the god’s lap. It is difficult to tell whether these
variants represent different cult images, the same cult
image as affected by lack of space on the coins, or
simply different ways of depicting Asklepios himself.
In fact, the seated god’s appearances on post-
Antonine coins are far outnumbered by those of a
standing Asklepios, who stands as the city’s symbol
on its concord coinages, as will be seen.
Can the enthroned image, or its temple, be iden-
tified? Its combination of the attributes of Zeus and
Asklepios brings to mind the Pergamene god Zeus
Asklepios, whose temple was mentioned by Aelius
Aristides and whose name is preserved in a Perga-
mene inscription.122 The temple of Zeus Asklepios
has been identified as an important building in the
sanctuary of Asklepios just outside the city, a build-
ing that took the Pantheon in Rome as its model
(illus. pl. 1 fig. 6).123 Its stepped porch is four-col-
umn and Corinthian like the coins, and leads into
a broader and higher pronaos, also gabled; their
standard temple format mediates between the viewer
and the rotunda which was unprecedented for a
temple at that time and in that place. Within the
almost 24 m. diameter hall, originally decorated with
variegated marble revetment, there is a 2 x 2 m.
plinth for a cult statue in a 9.15 m. tall niche oppo-
site the entry. Another marble base ca. 1 x 2 m. was
found near the center of the rotunda, but this was
probably reused, not in its original position.
The temple of the seated god is portrayed on the
coins as a standard temple, however, and though the
suppression of a rotunda behind a columnar facade
may be due to numismatic abbreviation, coins that
show the temple in three-quarter view also make it
seem a detached peripteron. As yet no sign of im-
perial cult has been found in the round temple in
the Asklepieion.
Kranz claimed that the cult statue of the round
temple was a standing image, which he identified
as the Asklepios of Phyromachos; if this were cor-
rect, the round temple with the standing image
of Artemis Ephesia instead of the phiale, von Fritze 1910, pl.
9.20 and SNGCop 517 (Commodus).
121 SNGFitzw 4231, von Fritze 1910, pl. 5.15 and 1908, pl.
3.19 (Commodus).
122 IdA 11-14, 102-103 no. 63.
123 Ziegenaus 1981, 30-75; Radt 1988, 260-261; Radt 1999,
230-232; Gros 1996-2001, 1:182-183. For the construction
technique, a combination of a Roman brick dome on a more
traditional ashlar drum, see Waelkens 1987, 95.
33
would be distinct from the temple of the seated god
which Caracalla shared, and which gained Perga-
mon its third neokoria.124 The standing image, as
mentioned above, was more popular on Pergamon’s
coins of the imperial period, where Asklepios served
as the city’s patron god.125 It was also picked up on
the coins of many other cities, not only due to the
authority of the Pergamene sanctuary, but to the ten-
dency of the minting centers to standardize iconog-
raphy from one city to another.126 Putting aside the
question of Phyromachos, however, Kranz’s thesis
is thrown into doubt by coins of Commodus and
Caracalla that show the temple of the standing
Asklepios as Corinthian and six-column, while the
rotunda’s facade had only four columns.127 In fact,
no temple in the Asklepieion has yet been shown to
have six columns.128 And though Müller would like
to eliminate the current attribution of several temples
in Pergamon to Asklepios, there may have been at
least one such temple outside the Asklepieion, at least
by Antonine times.129 The young Marcus Aurelius
made a metaphoric trip to the arx of Pergamon to
entreat Asklepios for his teacher Fronto’s good
health; though the journey may have been imagi-
nary, that need not make a temple on the heights
imaginary too.130
If the rotunda was not the temple of the seated
Asklepios and Caracalla, there is yet one more
known temple to Asklepios: the one on the rocky
scarp in the Asklepieion known as the Felsbarre. This
was likely the main temple of the Asklepieion from
the third century B.C.E. down into Roman times.
Its god was known as Asklepios Soter, and is gen-
erally identified with the standing image.131 The
124 Kranz 1990, 130-141.
125 Holtzmann 1984, 866-867; Kampmann 1996, 8-11.
126 Kraft 1972; Kranz 1990 overlooked this point, which
led him to overplay Hadrian’s imposition of a cultic program
on the Asian cities. For further critique, see Kampmann 1996,
10-11 and Schorndorfer 1997, 51-52; 153-155 on the Hadrianic
Asklepieion.
127 Commodus: BMC 295; Caracalla: von Fritze 1910, pl.
8.9.
128 Ziegenaus and de Luca 1968, 72-73 (Roman temple of
“Bauphase 15”); see below for temples on the Felsbarre.
129 H. Müller 1992, 214-215; though perhaps correct that
neither Ionic ‘temple R’ nor its Doric predecessor were nec-
essarily temples to Asklepios.
130 Fronto, Letters to Marcus Caesar 3.9; 3.10.2, ed. M. van
den Hout (Leipzig 1988); C. Haines, ed. Marcus Cornelius Fronto
(Cambridge MA 1982) 1:50-51; M. van den Hout 1999, 115-
118.
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
partnership: during the reign of Attalos III (138-133
B.C.E.) a five-ell high cuirassed agalma of the king,
standing on a trophy, was installed “in the temple
of Asklepios Soter, to be a synnaos to the god.”132 The
temple itself, however, is neither six-column (like that
of the standing Asklepios) nor Corinthian (like both
temples on Caracallan coins); it is another small
Ionic temple, tetrastyle prostyle with no peripteron—
not very different from the one on the theater ter-
race, in fact.133 Its stylobate was 13.08 x 6.54 m.
measured outside the columns, and its cella was ca.
5.7 x 4.8 m. within. If the agalma of Attalos III is
any guide, at least one and likely two statues of he-
roic size, ca. 2.64 m. tall not counting the base, were
once crammed inside the cella, which also featured
a rock-cut shaft in its center.
On the Pergamene triple-temple coins, even when
the center temple is identified by the letters in its
pediment and no emperor stands before it to sacri-
fice, the image within remains that of the divine cult
partner rather than that of the emperor. This con-
sistency, of course, would have helped make the
temple recognizable to those who handled the coins.
It is also likely that what made the god’s image
recognizable was that his cult was already well
known, and that Caracalla’s cult had been moved
into an already existing temple; the emperor’s cult
would also be situated in an established temple at
Smyrna (q.v.). But if the coin images are to be
trusted, archaeological research has not yet found
that particular temple at Pergamon.
The coins of Julius Anthimos, as mentioned
above, were probably minted later than those of M.
Caerelius Attalos, and they concentrate on the fes-
tival Olympia.134 No direct connection between this
festival and the grant of the third neokoria can be
established, however. The Olympia at Pergamon may
reach back to the time of L. Cuspius Pactumeius
Rufinus: friend of Aelius Aristides and builder of the
temple of Zeus Asklepios, he was also Pergamon’s
priest of Zeus Olympios, the deity whose cult flour-
ished under the patronage of Hadrian.135 The coins
of Anthimos likely only refer to a long-established
festival at Pergamon, the Olympia Asklepeia, which
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.
135 Halfmann 1979, 154 no. 66; Habicht 1969, 9-11.
back in the reign of Commodus became the Olym-
pia Asklepeia Komodeia. Thus the festival long predated
the neokoria that Caracalla granted to Pergamon.136
It may have had something to do with the emperor’s
cult partner, but that question is complicated by
problems in identifying that god among the various
aspects of Asklepios available at Pergamon, as dis-
cussed above.
The latest known inscription calling Pergamon
neokoros, inscription 36, probably dates soon after
Caracalla’s visit, as the priestess it honors is recorded
as having been greeted three times by ‘the god
Antoninus’ (not necessarily deified in the Roman
sense, i.e. dead, at the time of the inscription):137
INSCRIPTION 36. IvP 525 (IGRR 4:451; OGIS
513). The city honors a citizen. t}w pr\thw mh-
tropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ tr‹w nevkÒrou t«n
Seb(ast«n) Perg(a)mhn«n pÒlevw . . .
A coin issued under the strategos Anthimos uses all
its space to expand these titles to their utmost, as
“the first of Asia and first metropolis and first three-
times-neokoros-of-the-Augusti city of the Perga-
menes”:
COIN TYPE 25. Obv: AUT KRAT K MARKO%
AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate cuirassed bust of
Caracalla r. Rev: [EPI %TR] IOUL ANYIMOU
Wreath, within which H PRVTH TH[% A]%IA%
KAI MH[TRO]POLI% PRV[TH KAI] TRI%
NEVKORO% PRVTH TVN %EBA%TVN PERGA-
MHNVN POLI%. a) BMC 318.
This coin makes it quite clear that Pergamon was
claiming more than simple primacy among the cities
of Asia. ‘First metropolis’ and ‘first three times
neokoros of the Augusti’ may indicate claims of
chronological as well as qualitative primacy: the
former based on Pergamon’s possession of the first
provincial imperial temple to Rome and Augustus,
the latter on having obtained a third neokoria be-
fore any other city. Some artful wording was nec-
essary here, as Ephesos (q.v.) became three times
neokoros before Pergamon did, but that city’s title
had been diverted to honor Artemis, not the em-
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
136 L. Robert 1930, 106-108; Moretti 1953, 197-198.
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
the brother of the honoree of inscription 7; same
titulature as inscriptions 6, 7.
9. IvP no. 438 [IGRR 4:375]. The city honors C.
Antius Aulus Julius Quadratus in reign of Trajan.
Same titulature as inscriptions 6-8.
10. IvP no. 441 [IGRR 4:385]. The city honors
Quadratus as proconsul of Asia in ca. 109/10; see in-
scription 9. Titulature the same as in inscriptions
6-9.
Twice neokoros:
11. IdA no. 20. Pergamon honors the son of Quadra-
tus. Enumeration restored. See discussion above.
12. IvP no. 395 [IGRR 4:331]. Statue base of Trajan,
dated by his titulature to 114-116. The Pergamenes
are first and twice neokoros.
13. Ippel 1912, 301 no. 26 [IGRR 4:1688]. Honor-
ific dated by the proconsulship of Ti. Caepio Hispo
to 117/118 or 118/119.144 The city has the same
titulature as in inscription 12.
14. IvP no. 520 [IGRR 4:452]. The city honors a ci-
tizen; titulature the same as in inscriptions 12 and 13.
15. IvP no. 397 [IGRR 4:339]. Statue base of
Hadrian, dated by his fourth consulate to 120; the
city’s titulature is the same as on inscriptions 12-14.
16. IdA no. 38. The council and people of the me-
tropolis of Asia and first twice neokoros city of the
Pergamenes honor a citizen; Hadrianic.
17. IdA no. 37. The city honors a citizen; titulature
the same as on inscription 16. Hadrianic.
18. IdA no. 23. The city honors a citizen; titulature
the same as on inscriptions 16 and 17. Time of
Antoninus Pius.
19. IdA no. 10. Statue base of Marcus Aurelius, ca.
162. See discussion above.
20. IdA no. 11. Statue base of Lucius Verus, ca. 162.
See discussion above.
21. IvP no. 324 [IGRR 4:360]. Introduction to an
oracle on averting a plague, perhaps that brought
back from the East by Lucius Verus’ troops.145
Titulature same as that of inscriptions 16-18.
22. Habicht 1959/1960, 126-127 no. 2. Statue base,
dated between 147-150 and the end of the century.
Titulature same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21.
23. IdA no. 28. Statue base of Marcus Aurelius’ ab
epistulis, dated by the imperial titles to 173-175; the
city’s titulature is the same as that of inscriptions 16-
18, 21 and 22.
144 Magie 1950, 1583; Syme 1958, 2:665.
145 Historia Augusta, Verus 8; Ammianus Marcellinus 23.6.24.
24. IdA no. 24. The city honors a quaestor pro
praetore of the time of Septimius Severus. Titulature
the same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-23.
25. IdA no. 34. The city honors the philosopher
Hermokrates, dated to Severan times.146 Titulature
the same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-24.
26. IdA no. 35. The city honors the Cappadocian
sophist Diodotos, dated to the end of the second or
beginning of the third century.147 Titulature the
same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-25.
27. Heberdey and Kalinka 1896, 3 no. 8 [IGRR
4:908]. From Kibyra. The koinon honors a chief
priest and priestess of Asia of the temples in first and
twice neokoros Pergamon. Undated.
28. Ippel 1912, 299-301 no. 25 [IGRR 4:1687].
Dedication by the daughter of the proconsul Qua-
dratus of inscriptions 9-10 (sister of the Quadratus
of inscription 11) to her mother. Titulature the same
as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-26; not securely
dated, though assigned by White to 120-128.148
29. Ziebarth 1902, 445-446 [IGRR 4:426]. An hon-
orific restored from the Latin of Cyriacus of Ancona;
titulature similar to that of inscriptions 16-18, 21-
26, and 28. Dated to the middle or the end of the
second century.
30. IdA no. 32. The city honors a Pisidian philoso-
pher; titulature the same as that of inscriptions 16-
18, 21-26 and 28. Undated.
31. IdA no. 30. The city honors a benefactor who
was chief priest of Asia of the temples in Pergamon.
Titulature the same as that of inscriptions 16-18, 21-
26, 28 and 30. Undated.
32. IdA no. 42. The council honors a citizen; the
city’s titulature the same as that of inscriptions 16-
18, 21-26, 28, 30 and 31. Undated.
33. IdA no. 54. The council of the metropolis of Asia
and first twice neokoros of the Augusti city of the
Pergamenes dedicates the statue of a citizen. Un-
dated.
34. Von Prott and Kolbe 1902, 9697 no. 89 [IGRR
4:480]. Fragment; titulature similar to that of inscrip-
tion 33. Undated.
Three times neokoros:
35. IvP no. 299. Epistyle of the Ionic temple of Dio-
nysos Kathegemon on the theater terrace of Pergamon.
See discussion above.
146 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.25.
147 Ibid. 2.27.
148 White 1998, 354, 364.
 chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia
36. IvP no. 525. Honorific for a priestess who had
been greeted by Caracalla. See discussion above.
Not included among these inscriptions is:
IvP no. 524 [IGRR 4:475]. The restoration ...érxie-
r°v]w ÉAs¤aw ka[‹ t}w pr\thw mhtropÒle]vw ka‹
nev[kÒrou tÚ g' patr¤dow] is extremely odd. It is
more likely to form part of the cursus of the husband
of the priestess honored, thus [érxier°v]w ÉAs¤aw
ka[‹ ..........érxier°]vw ka‹ nev[kÒrou toË.........]
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros?:
Trajanic?: London, New York, Warsaw (see above, coin
type 10).
Twice neokoros:
Marcus Aurelius: BMC 285, 286, 288, 289; SNGCop 486;
SNGvA 1404, 1405; SNGParis 2123-2135; Berlin (5
exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.),
Oxford, Vienna.
Lucius Verus: BMC 291-294; SNGvA 7506; SNGParis
2143-2148; Berlin (7 exx.), London, New York (2
exx.).
Commodus Caesar: BMC 295, 305, 308; SNGvA 1406,
7507; SNGParis 2149-2151, 2155; Berlin (6 exx.),
Boston, London, New York (3 exx.), Warsaw.
Commodus Augustus: BMC 304, 307; SNGvA 1408, 7508;
SNGParis 2165, 2166, 2168-2170; Berlin (4 exx.),
New York, Vienna (2 exx.).
Septimius Severus: BMC 309, 311-313; SNGCop 495;
SNGvA 7509-7511; SNGLewis 1345; SNGParis 2189,
2191, 2193-2202, 2205; Berlin (15 exx.), Boston (2
exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford
(3 exx.), Vienna (7 exx.).
Septimius Severus and Julia Domna: BMC 314, 315;
SNGCop 497; SNGParis 2208-2211; Berlin (6 exx.),
Boston, London, New York (4 exx.).
Septimius Severus and Caracalla: BMC 316; SNGParis
2212; Berlin.
Julia Domna: SNGCop 498; SNGParis 2213; Oxford,
Vienna.
Caracalla: SNGParis 2217, 2219, 2221, 2268 (the last
misattributed).
Caracalla and Geta Caesar: BMC 328-330; SNGCop 501;
SNGvA 1415, 1416, 7515; SNGParis 2253; Berlin (2
exx.), New York, Vienna.
37
Geta Caesar: SNGParis 2254, 2255.
Geta Augustus: SNGParis 2256, 2257; Berlin (2 exx.), Lon-
don, Vienna.
Three times neokoros:
Caracalla: BMC 318-327; SNGCop 499, 500; SNGvA 1411-
1414, 7513, 7514; SNGParis 2218, 2223-2225, 2227-
2234, 2236-2252; Berlin (19 exx.), Boston (6 exx.),
London (2 exx.), New York (10 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.),
Vienna, Warsaw (2 exx.).
Julia Domna: BMC 317; SNGParis 2214-2216; Berlin (4
exx.), London, Oxford.
Elagabalus: BMC 331, 332; SNGParis 2258, 2259, 2261;
Berlin (5 exx.), Vienna.
Julia Maesa: Berlin, Oxford.
Severus Alexander: BMC 333-335; SNGCop 502-504;
SNGvA 1417, 1418, 7516; SNGParis 2263-2267; Ber-
lin (5 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford,
Vienna.
Julia Mamaea: BMC 337; SNGCop 505, 506; Berlin (4
exx.), New York, Vienna (2 exx.).
Maximinus: SNGCop 508; SNGvA 7517; SNGParis 2270-
2272; Berlin (2 exx.).
Maximus Caesar: BMC 340; Berlin.
Maximinus or Maximus (obverse erased149): BMC 338,
339; SNGCop 507, 508; SNGvA 7517; SNGParis 2273;
Berlin (3 exx.), London, Oxford.
Gordian III: BMC 341, 342; SNGCop 509; SNGParis 2274-
2276; Berlin (4 exx.), London, Vienna.
Trajan Decius: BMC 343; SNGvA 1418-1420; SNGParis
2283, 2284; Berlin, London (3 exx.), New York,
Vienna (2 exx.).
Etruscilla: SNGParis 2287; Berlin, New York.
Herennius Etruscus: SNGvA 1421; SNGParis 2288, 2290,
2291; Berlin, Boston, New York (2 exx.), Oxford,
Vienna.
Valerian: BMC 345; SNGCop 511; SNGvA 1422, 7518;
SNGParis 2292, 2293; Berlin, New York.
Gallienus: BMC 346-348; SNGCop 512, 513; SNGLewis
1346; SNGParis 2294-2299; Berlin (5 exx.), Oxford,
Vienna.
Salonina: BMC 349; SNGCop 514; SNGRighetti 764;
SNGParis 2304, 2305; Berlin (4 exx.), New York,
Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.).
Saloninus Caesar: SNGParis 2306, 2307 (misattributed);
Berlin, Boston, Vienna.
Non-imperial obverse: BMC 235; SNGCop 460; SNGParis
1963 (incorrect); Berlin, New York.
149 Berghaus 1978.
38 part i – section i. koinon of asia
Chapter 2. Smyrna in Ionia: Koinon of Asia
First neokoria: Tiberius
Less than a decade after the death of Augustus, the
Greeks of Asia again petitioned to build a temple
to a reigning emperor, this one to Tiberius. In 22
C.E. the Asians had successfully prosecuted C.
Silanus for his depredations as proconsul, and the
next year they also won their case against Lucilius
Capito, a procurator of imperial holdings in Asia
who had usurped the powers of a praetor. In return
for these favorable judgements, “the cities of Asia
decreed a temple to Tiberius, his mother, and the
Senate. Permission to build was granted, and Nero
[the young son of Germanicus] gave thanks to the
Senate and to his grandfather [the emperor] on that
account.”1
Tacitus, to whom we owe the description of these
events, stated specifically that the cities of Asia took
the initiative in offering the temple. Both prosecu-
tions had been carried on by the province as a
whole; indeed, the most persuasive advocates of all
Asia stood against Silanus. Therefore it can be as-
sumed that both the court cases and the vote of
thanks were the products of the provincial organi-
zation of Asia, the koinon.2 In this the precedent set
by the foundation of the temple of Rome and Augus-
tus at Pergamon (q.v.) was followed, as this act too
had been the result of a province’s petition, not an
imperial ukase. But this time Bithynia, which had
previously been coupled with Asia in requesting a
temple to Augustus, took no part. Bithynia had no
interest in the prosecutions of Silanus and Capito
which were the reasons for offering the temple, but
it also indicates a point at which the two provinces
began to diverge. The koinon of Bithynia apparently
remained content with its one provincial imperial
1 Tacitus, Annals 3.66-69; the quotation from 4.15. Dräger
1993, 98 incorrectly allied this establishment of a new provin-
cial cult with aid given to Asian cities damaged by the earth-
quake of 17 C.E.
2 Brunt 1961, 206-220, 224-225; Deininger 1965, 56-57.
temple at Nikomedia for the entire first century,
whereas Asia may have dedicated new provincial
temples for subsequent rulers, perhaps even for each
emperor.
In regard to the earlier award, no author informs
us how Pergamon had been chosen for the honor,
but Tacitus is quite explicit about the contest for the
temple of Tiberius in 26, three years after the origi-
nal grant:
Caesar, to divert gossip, often attended the Senate,
and for quite a few days he heard the ambassadors
of Asia disputing about in which city the temple should
be built. Eleven cities competed, equal in ambition
but differing in resources. With little variety they all
recalled their antiquity and their zeal for the Roman
people through the wars with Perseus, Aristonikos,
and the other kings. But the people of Hypaipa,
Tralles, Laodikeia, and Magnesia were passed over
as not up to it; even the Ilians, though they boasted
Troy as the mother of the city of Rome, were strong
only in the splendor of their antiquity. There was
some hesitation over the Halikarnassians, who
claimed that their home had never been shaken by
earthquake in twelve hundred years, and that the
foundations of the temple would be in living rock.
The Pergamenes (and they were using this itself as
an argument) were judged to have been honored
enough by the temple to Augustus there; the Ephe-
sians and Milesians were seen as having totally de-
voted their cities to the worship of Artemis in the
former case, Apollo in the latter. So the decision lay
between the Sardians and the Smyrnaeans.
Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56.
Tacitus reported the ensuing debate in detail, but
to sum it up, the Sardians fell back on the two ar-
guments of antiquity and loyalty to Rome, while also
tracing a genealogical connection between the
Lydians and the Etruscans. Smyrna too related its
ancient origins, but relied chiefly on its ties to Rome,
which rested on cult, not genealogy, and were both
more recent and more tangible than the hazy le-
gends offered by the Sardians. Smyrna, its envoys
claimed, had been the first to erect a temple to the
goddess Rome, in 195 B.C.E., “when Roman power,
 chapter
though great, was not yet at its height; for Carthage
still stood and there were mighty kings in Asia.”
Carthage in 195 was not much of a threat, nor, as
it turned out, were the kings of Asia; and Smyrna
had built its temple to Rome not through admira-
tion or altruism, but more as a reward for Roman
assistance against Antiochos III.3 Yet to mention
Carthage and kings before the Roman Senate was
to recall for it some of its proudest moments. It was
this that appealed to the Senate more than all the
contrived genealogies. Add a rather melodramatic
episode, when the Smyrnaeans stripped the clothes
from their backs to send to Rome’s suffering legions,
and the Senate (by a vote of four hundred to seven)
decided for Smyrna.4
In Tacitus’ account, the ambassadors of eleven
individual cities, not of the koinon as a whole, were
pitted against one another and retailed their claims,
not in a meeting of the koinon, but directly before
the Senate and the emperor.5 Why the Greeks of
Asia, who apparently had themselves presented
Pergamon as the site for Augustus’ temple, should
abdicate choice at this point is a puzzle that needs
to be explained. Possibly the koinon had been dead-
locked. Its two greatest cities, Ephesos and Per-
gamon, had both received important cult centers in
the grant of 29 B.C.E. The next candidate may not
have been so obvious. It is noticeable that after the
emperor’s and Senate’s acceptance of the temple,
three years intervened before the site for it was
debated in the Senate. The koinon may have cho-
sen to let the Senate make the decision in order to
break a deadlock, or to avoid lasting resentment
among the cities that were not chosen.
Once Smyrna was finally selected, the Senate
appointed a special commissioner to the proconsul
of Asia to take charge of the new temple. This is
likely to have been a supervisory position, and does
not necessarily mean that Rome was undertaking
any of the costs of the foundation. In any case, soon
after the decision of 26 C.E. the temple was com-
3 Mellor 1975, 14-16; Fayer 1976, 11; Errington 1987, 100-
102.
4 Lewis 1991. The vote count is given by Aelius Aristides,
Oration 19.13; Aristides’ portrayal differs from Tacitus’ in that
‘the rest of Asia’ got only seven votes, while Smyrna got four
hundred, but the address was written in extreme haste (see
below). Talbert 1984, 149, 284 defended the accuracy of this
count.
5 Ziethen 1994, 97-98, 229 did not note this oddity.
2 – smyrna in ionia 39
plete enough to appear in detail on coins of Petro-
nius, whose proconsulship lasted the six years be-
tween 29/30 and 34/35 C.E.6
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: %EBA%TH %UNKLHTO%
(or %UNKLHTOU) ZMURNAIVN IERVNUMO%
Draped youthful male bust of the Senate r. and
diademed draped bust of Livia l., turned toward
each other. Rev: EPI PETRVNIOU %EBA%TO%
TIBERIO% Four-column Corinthian temple, disc
in pediment; within it the emperor, togate, head
veiled, holding simpulum. a) MvS 212-214 no. 26
(59 exx.; here Vienna 17731 is illus. pl. 20 fig.
59).7
The three objects of cult are identified explicitly,
Sebaste (Julia Augusta, i.e. Tiberius’ mother Livia) and
the youthful Senate on the obverse, Tiberius Sebastos
in his temple on the reverse. By no coincidence,
Pergamon issued a very similar-looking series of
coins (Pergamon type 6) under the same proconsul.
They answered Smyrna’s pride in its new temple
with pride in its Pergamene precedent, the temple
of Rome and Augustus.8 Even the small Phrygian
city of Tiberiopolis honored its namesake by emu-
lating the Smyrnaean coin type almost exactly,
though it is uncertain whether the coin of Tiberio-
polis represents the temple and cult statues in
Smyrna or copies of them in Tiberiopolis itself.9
That the personified Senate should share the cult
with Tiberius, as Rome had with Augustus, does not
seem unnatural, since the Senate’s decision had
brought Silanus and Capito to punishment. Indeed
Tiberius harped on this very fact in a speech of the
year 25 reported in Tacitus, Annals 4.37. A delega-
tion from the province of Hispania Ulterior had
asked permission to build a shrine to Tiberius and
his mother, using the temple granted to Asia as a
precedent. Refusing it gave Tiberius an opportunity
to state his opposition to any extension of divine
honors for himself beyond the limits set out by
Augustus. “Since the deified Augustus did not for-
bid that a temple to himself and to the city of Rome
be built at Pergamon, I who view as law all of his
6 Corsten 1999.
7 MvS (= Klose 1987); see also Burnett, Amandry, and
Ripollès 1992 (= RPC 1), no. 2469.
8 Klose 1996, 53-63, esp. 58.
9 BMC 1, pl. 49 no. 6; Kienast 1985, 258-261. On the ob-
verse, Livia and the Senate are called ‘twins,’ perhaps a refer-
ence to Artemis and Apollo, although their images resemble
those at Smyrna, not the gods.
40 part i – section i. koinon of asia
deeds and words have followed his example all the
more readily because reverence for the Senate was
joined with my own cult.”10 The image of the Sen-
ate shown on contemporary coins of Smyrna is a
draped bust of a beardless youth wearing a fillet
around his head; a similar image, minus the fillet,
would frequently appear on coins of Smyrna and of
her neighbors down to the later third century.11
The third partner of the cult at Smyrna, however,
was no abstract personification but the mother of the
emperor, and there was no Augustan precedent for
this. Yet if Tacitus’ account in Annals 4.15 is correct,
the Asians specifically included her in their proposal
for a temple in 23, as they did the Senate. Tacitus
made much of Tiberius’ alleged discord with Livia,
based upon his standard refusal of special honors
voted to her (Annals 1.14, 3.64, 5.2).12 This refusal
in fact differs very little from his standard refusal of
honors voted to himself, which Tacitus also inter-
preted to Tiberius’ detriment. Livia was not only the
emperor’s mother, but the widow and priestess of
the deified Augustus, sole Augusta, member of the
gens Julia, and the true dynastic link between the
dead emperor and the reigning one, and many forms
of divine honor were extended to her.13 Her image
at Smyrna wears the diadem of a goddess for the
first time yet known.14 Perhaps she had used her
influence in the Asians’ behalf, and they were grate-
ful; or perhaps it was simply dangerous and undip-
lomatic to overlook her. Even the embassy from
Hispania Ulterior was careful not to do so, though
the Senate never appeared as an object of cult in
that request.
Tiberius’ image at Smyrna did not take after the
precedent of Augustus’ cuirassed portrait in Perga-
mon. On contemporary coins, Tiberius appears in
full toga and with his head veiled, and where the
coins are clear, the ladle-shaped simpulum in his
right hand can be seen. Thus Tiberius took the role
of Roman pontifex maximus; the selection of this
aspect may have been directed by Valerius Naso,
whom the Senate had placed as commissioner in
charge of the Smyrnaean temple.15 The better-pre-
10
See Charlesworth 1939.
11
MvS 23.
12 On Tiberius’ ambivalent attitude toward such honors,
especially those in Rome itself, Bartman 1999, 108-112.
13 Mikocki 1995, 151-170 nos. 1-132; Hahn 1994, 34-105.
14 Rose 1997a, 23, 60, 180-181.
15 As implied by Rose 1997a, 181.
served coins show the temple itself as Corinthian,
but no trace of it has yet been found at Smyrna.
As early as the second year of Petronius’ procon-
sulship, the name of a (chief?) priest of Tiberius
Caesar Sebastos, Julia Sebaste, and the Senate ap-
peared in a letter from the proconsul to the gerousia
of Ephesos.16 Though the editors believed that the
man in question, L. Cossinius or Coussinius, was a
civic priest in the Ephesian gerousia rather than at
the temple in Smyrna, the fact that Petronius called
him his friend hints that he could have been a holder
of provincial office; and after all, Ephesians had no
provincial temple of their own to serve as yet.17 Civic
bodies probably did honor the current emperor and
the Senate in their ceremonies, but the specificity
of this priest’s three cult objects should indicate that
he served either the temple in Smyrna, or at the very
least an Ephesian cult modeled on it.
Later documents cite a chief priest of Asia spe-
cifically assigned to the provincial temple in Smyrna,
as distinct from the chief priest of Asia whose respon-
sibility was the temple of Rome and Augustus at Per-
gamon (q.v.).18 Thus Asia became the one province
yet known to have more than one chief priest serv-
ing at the same time.19 The documents do not tell
us precisely how this double priesthood functioned
within the meetings and activities of the koinon, but
it is likely that the chief priest at Pergamon retained
seniority.20
At least two chief priestesses are specified as hav-
ing served at Smyrna.21 These were often female re-
lations of a chief priest or Asiarch, though their
standing and functions are still disputed. Herz held
that they presided over the cult of the Augustae, and
that the first chief priestess of Asia was only ap-
pointed after Drusilla, the sister of Gaius, became
the first woman officially deified in Rome in 38
C.E.22 This is a trifle Romanocentric, however: as
16 Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1993, no. II.9; also
corrected by Scherrer 1997, 97.
17 Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1993, 142-143 for
the name.
18 Tiberius Claudius Meidias, after Claudius: IGRR 4.1524,
from Sardis.
19 Deininger 1965, 37-41; Campanile 1994b.
20 For discussion and more recent literature on chief priests,
chief priestesses, and Asiarchs, see Pergamon chapter, above,
and the summary on the officials of the koina, chapter 41 in
Part II.
21 Both after the time of Hadrian when Smyrna had more
than one temple: IGRR 4.1254, from Thyateira, Ulpia Marcella;
and Petzl 1987 (= IvS), 727 and 772, Aurelia Melite.
22 Herz 1992, 103-105.
 chapter
we have seen, Julia was a full cult partner with Tibe-
rius and the Senate in Smyrna’s provincial temple
from at least 26 C.E. onward. An inscription dat-
ing to the reign of Gaius cites one Juliane, wife of
Alkiphron the chief priest of Asia, as the first woman
to become chief priestess of Asia;23 but the inscrip-
tion also praises Juliane for holding a number of
other priesthoods and offices (stephanephoria and
gymnasiarchy at Magnesia, both more likely to have
been taken during her widowhood), and it is not
impossible that the couple’s chief priesthood of Asia
had occurred a decade or so before. Also, there is
some evidence against pairing the gender of the
priest with that of imperial cult objects: statues of
women wearing agonothetic crowns, one identified
by inscription as a chief priestess of the Augusti (not
Augustae), show them with both male and female
imperial busts on them, just like the crowns of male
agonothetai.24
Hymnodoi to sing the emperor’s praises were
already a feature of the cult of Rome and Augustus
at Pergamon (q.v.). Another such organization of
hymnodoi may also have been instituted for the
temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate at Smyrna.
In the edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus, proconsul of
Asia under Claudius, the duties of hymnodoi were
supposed to devolve onto the ephebes, thus saving
the cities money; the sole exceptions made were for
the hymnodoi of Augustus at Pergamon and, in frag-
mentary lines, for those of Julia Augusta, whom
Claudius had recently deified.25 The edict may be
referring to hymnodoi of Julia at Smyrna, even
though the other objects of cult at this temple,
Tiberius and the Senate, are not mentioned; neither
does the edict mention Rome, the cult partner of
Augustus, even though later documents at Pergamon
(q.v.) confirm that its choir continued to be called
‘hymnodoi of the god Augustus and the goddess
Rome.’ The emphasis on Julia’s deification may
reflect the proconsul’s Roman attitudes, not the cult
practiced by the Asians; Tiberius himself had not
been deified. But the fragmentary state of this part
of the inscription means that nothing is certain.
Although the temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the
Senate was later to be included among those that
gave the city the title ‘neokoros,’ Smyrna did not use
that title until late in the first century, perhaps as
23 Kern 1900, no. 158.
24 Rumscheid 2000, 31-32, 37-38; see ‘Koina’ chapter 41.
25 IvE 17-19; on hymnodoi Halfmann 1990, 21-26.
2 – smyrna in ionia 41
early as the reign of Domitian (inscriptions 1-3,
below). The title does not appear on coins earlier
than the reign of Caracalla, perhaps because most
of the space in Smyrna’s coin legends was generally
devoted to magistrates’ names. Smyrna was, how-
ever, the first city known to issue a coin type that
specifically refers to that honor: it shows the temple-
bearing city god who represents the city itself as
neokoros. This image, extensively studied by Pick
in 1904, first appears on coins issued ca. 87/88,
under the Domitianic proconsul L. Mestrius Flo-
rus.26
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: DOMITIANO% KAI%AR
%EBA%TO% GERMANIKO% Laureate head of
Domitian r. Rev: EPI L ME%TRIOU FLVROU
ANYUPATOU ZMUR Amazon Smyrna seated,
holding small temple and double axe. a) BMC 110
(illus. pl. 20 fig. 60) b) Berlin 640/1878 c) SNGvA
7998 d) MvS 238-239 nos. 4-9 (4 other exx.). (RPC
2 no. 1018).27
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: DOMITIANV KAI%ARI
%EBA%TV ZMURNAIOI THN A%IAN Veiled
draped bust of Asia l., with sheaves. Rev: EPI L
ME%TRIOU FLVROU ANYUPATOU Amazon
Smyrna seated, holding small temple and double
axe. a) Berlin, Fox (MvS 145 no. 74; RPC 2 no.
1020).
The city god is in this case the eponymous Amazon
founder of Smyrna. In her role as patron and city
symbol, she appears from this time to the end of
Smyrnaean coinage, carrying her double axe, pelta-
shield, as well as a number of attributes (including
small images of other patron gods) as necessary.
Klose doubted whether she was in fact the city as
neokoros, mainly because she first appears on coins
of Domitian’s time rather than that of Tiberius, and
because she continues to carry one temple rather
than the eventual three that made Smyrna three
times neokoros.28 But this simplification may have
been the result of an artistic problem: as the Ama-
zon had to carry or wear a number of attributes to
be recognizable (axe and shield in her left hand,
mural crown on her head, prow beneath her foot),
she barely had room to carry one temple, much less
an eventual three. The fact that the coin image
26 Pick 1904, 2 nos. 1-2. For Florus, Stumpf 1991, 228-230,
with his year of office dated no later than 89/90.
27 Burnett, Amandry, and Carradice 1999 (= RPC 2).
28 MvS 27-28.
42 part i – section i. koinon of asia
appears some time after the grant of a provincial
temple does not necessarily indicate that the two
were not connected; after all, the title ‘neokoros’ also
postdates the building of the temple to Tiberius, and
coincidentally also first appears during the reign of
Domitian (here inscription 2). Klose posited that the
temple Smyrna carried was closely associated with
her, but he could not suggest a particular temple,
nor what, other than the possession of neokoria, the
depiction of a city god carrying a temple might
mean. If the tiny temple were meant to be seen as
specific, it would be difficult to identify; if it were
the city goddess’, for example, why would she be
shown carrying it rather than presiding within it? On
the other hand, in the symbolic shorthand of coins,
a city god holding an (unidentified) temple denotes
quite clearly the concept of city as neokoros, temple
warden. Eight other neokoroi cities used the temple
bearer to illustrate their status, while only two not
known as neokoroi used it as well.29
It was Pick’s assumption that the temple-bearing
Amazon, and indeed all coin types, must have been
minted to refer to some specific event or celebra-
tion. Thus he identified the small temple in the
Amazon’s hand with a large Ionic octastyle temple
(on a type so large and detailed that one can see its
Roman-style podium flanked by parastades and
decorated with statues) that also happens to appear
on coins of Domitian.30 According to Pick, since
both coin types (so far as we know) first appeared
at this time, they must have both commemorated
the building of the same temple, and when the
temple-bearing Amazon type was repeated over the
years, the reason for the repetition must have been
to celebrate festivals in honor of that temple. This
no longer jibes with what we know of the episodic
nature of provincial minting, and the civic pride that
was conveyed by its repeating symbols.31 If we agree
with Pick’s thesis that the temple bearer represents
the city as neokoros, then the Amazon Smyrna must
hold the provincial temple that made the city
neokoros, which at the time of Domitian was only
that of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate. Yet the afore-
mentioned coins of the proconsul Petronius show
that temple as of Corinthian order, a representation
29 See the discussion of the coin type in ‘Introduction:
Methodology’ part iii.2.
30 Price and Trell 1977, 32 fig. 326; MvS 38-39, 144-145
nos. 71-73.
31 RPC 1:16-17, 43-44.
that cannot be reconciled with the Ionic octastyle
temple on its Roman podium. Therefore the coin
types under Domitian probably refer to two distinct
temples.32
The Amazon Smyrna with her temple became
one of the stock characters of Smyrnaean coinage,
commemorating Smyrna’s neokoros status rather
than some festival or ceremony. This symbolism per-
haps also explains why she never holds more than
one temple, though Smyrna became more than once
neokoros; the type became standardized, and was
reproduced as an emblem of the city without much
change thereafter.
Once the temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the Sen-
ate had been built, Smyrna’s candidacy for further
temples was impeded: according to Cassius Dio,
when the emperor Gaius was looking for a site for
his own cult in Asia, Smyrna was judged to have
been set apart for Tiberius, just as Ephesos was for
Artemis and Pergamon for Augustus.33 Trajan ap-
pears to have been the first emperor to bypass the
tradition (first established in the contest for Tiberius’
temple) of allowing only one provincial imperial
temple per city: to the Pergamenes, disappointed by
Tiberius, Trajan granted permission for a temple to
himself (with Zeus Philios). This precedent operated
on the Smyrnaeans’ behalf soon after, when Hadrian
allowed them to build a new provincial temple
despite the fact that they already possessed one.
Second Neokoria: Hadrian
With this grant to Smyrna, Hadrian added a fur-
ther extension to the conditions under which neo-
koria was given: he was the first emperor known to
allow the title and temple to more than one city in
a single provincial organization: to Kyzikos, then
Smyrna, and later to Ephesos, all in the koinon of
Asia.
The emperor’s favorable attitude toward Greek
culture, his interest in the cities, and his presence
in the province were all factors in his grants of
neokoria. In the course of his travels he must have
heard the best speakers of Asia, the famed orators
of the ‘second sophistic’; at a time when the skill or
32 See the discussion of architectural coin types in the In-
troduction (‘Methodology’), above.
33 Cassius Dio 59.28.1; see chapter 3, ‘Miletos.’
 chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia
even the behavior of a speaker could determine
whether or not a petition was granted, orators’ tal-
ents in persuasion often proved invaluable to their
home cities.34 In the case of Smyrna, the orator who
persuaded Hadrian was one of the most renowned
of his time, M. Antonius Polemon.
Born in Phrygian Laodikeia, Polemon came to
Smyrna’s famous schools of rhetoric as a youth, and
as he rose in his profession he used his considerable
talents for the benefit of his adopted home.35 One
of those talents was pleading causes before the rulers
of the Empire:
He was of great value to the city in going on em-
bassies to the emperors and defending the commu-
nity. For example, Hadrian, who had previously
favored the Ephesians, he converted to the Smyr-
naeans’ side to such an extent that in one day
[Hadrian] poured out ten million [drachmai] on
Smyrna, from which the grain market was built, as
well as the most magnificent gymnasium in Asia and
a temple that can be seen from afar, the one on the
akra that seems to oppose Mimas.
Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.2 (531)
The gymnasium that Philostratos mentions was in-
deed important. Smyrna inscription 4 preserves part
of a list of public and private contributors and the
gifts they gave to build and adorn this gymnasium
complex, and perhaps other buildings as well. Its
magnificence is indicated by some of the gifts men-
tioned: a basilica with bronze doors, a columned
anointing room with a gilt roof, a porticoed palm
court with gardens and a temple of Tyche, and a
sun room. Toward the end of this catalogue comes
the following passage:
INSCRIPTION 4. IvS 697. ka‹ ˜sa §petÊxomen
parå toË kur¤ou Ka¤sarow ÑAdrianoË diå
ÉAntvn¤ou Pol°mvnow: deÊteron dÒgma sunklÆ-
tou, kay'
d‹w nevkÒroi gegÒnamen, ég«na |erÒn,
ét°leian, yeolÒgouw, ÍmnƒdoÊw, muriãdaw •katÚn
pentÆkonta, ke¤onaw e¸w tÚ éleiptÆrion Sunna-
d¤ouw [o]b', NoumedikoÁw k', porfure¤taw '
. . . and as many things as we gained from the lord
Caesar Hadrian on account of Antonius Polemon:
34 Bowersock 1969, 43-58, 120-123; Millar 1977, 234, 384-
385, 392, 434-435.
35 Gleason 1995, 21-29. Polemon’s fierce rivalry with Favo-
rinus (Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.8.4 [490]) parallels
Smyrna’s rivalry with Ephesos (see below), and draws out the
agonistic character of professional as well as intercity relation-
ships.
43
a second decree of the Senate, by which we became
twice neokoroi; a sacred contest; immunity; theologoi;
hymnodoi; one-and-a-half million [drachmai]; columns
for the anointing room: seventy-two(?) Synnadan,
twenty Numidian, six porphyry.
Here the emperor’s gift of columns for the gymna-
sium itself follows the list of his more important gifts
to the city as a whole, notably those associated with
the city’s new status of twice neokoros.36 The inscrip-
tion also confirms that the Roman Senate contin-
ued to play an essential role in granting neokoria,
as it had in allotting Tiberius’ temple to Smyrna: it
was the (second) decree of the Senate that made
Smyrna twice neokoros. This decree, however, is
portrayed by the inscription as totally within the
emperor’s power to grant, just like such material gifts
as money and columns.
Though the gymnasium inscription and Philo-
stratos’ account differ as to the amount of money
Hadrian gave, they are at one in attributing the
imperial favors to the good offices of Polemon. The
gifts were Hadrian’s but the credit was also Pole-
mon’s, as he was the one who had won the emperor’s
favor and had made the request. Thus Polemon can
be seen as the intermediary or ‘broker of benefi-
cence’ between Hadrian and Smyrna.37 On the one
side, the emperor honored his talents, indulged his
requests, and even took him on as a favored travel-
ing companion.38 On the other, Smyrna’s rewards
to Polemon were commensurate with the glory he
reflected on the city and the gifts he obtained for it
from the emperor. He was made agonothetes of the
festival he was responsible for obtaining (a privilege
that was passed down to his descendants), and was
allowed to go aboard the city’s sacred trireme.39 His
appointment as Smyrna’s strategos, mentioned on
36 On columns as specifically imperial gifts, see Fant 1993,
156; for the question of whether aleipterion refers to an anoint-
ing room or the entire gymnasium, Herrmann 1993b, 234-235
nn. 5, 7.
37 See chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ in Part II. Also Saller 1982,
63, 74-75; although Saller discusses only the brokerage posi-
tion of Romans, the Smyrnaeans plainly also perceived
Polemon as their source of successful access to Hadrian. See
Anderson 1993, 24-28 on cities and sophists, a slightly jaun-
diced view, especially 26 on Philostratos’ picture of Polemon
and Smyrna: “...he practically owns the place.”
38 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.4 (532-533); Half-
mann 1986a, 109, 200-202; Birley 1997, 159-161, 170. Weiss
1995 defends the Arabic translation of Polemon’s work on
physiognomy as a source on his travels with Hadrian. Polemon
is also mentioned in a letter of Hadrian to the Pergamenes
dated ca. 132 C.E.: Oliver 1989, 150-154 no. 59.
39 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.1, 3 (530-531, 532).
44 part i – section i. koinon of asia
Smyrnaean coins commemorating Hadrian’s be-
loved Antinoös, was probably later, ca. 134/135
C.E.40
The gymnasium inscription mentions the contest,
‘sacred’ in status, directly after the neokoria; the
festival did not follow automatically from the neo-
koria, but was stated as a separate grant in honor
of it. It is noteworthy that while the neokoria was
the result of a decision of the Senate, the festival is
included among the emperor’s direct gifts. It was
known as the Hadrianeia or Hadrianeia Olympia, and
should be distinguished from another Olympia festi-
val in Smyrna.41 As at Kyzikos (q.v.), the qualifica-
tion Olympia cannot be taken to imply that Hadrian
was identified as or shared the temple with Zeus
Olympios; both temples were founded before
Hadrian’s identification with that god, though as also
at Kyzikos, the festival may well have been estab-
lished subsequently.42 Polemon apparently took full
advantage of his position as agonothetes of the fes-
tival, and anecdotes describe him throwing inept
actors out of the competition.43
In the gymnasium inscription, after mention of the
festival and immunity from taxes (probably in con-
nection with the festival),44 theologoi and hymnodoi
are listed. These associations performed encomia
and hymns of praise to a divinity, in this case likely
the emperor. The hymnodoi of Julia Augusta, per-
haps those of the temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the
Senate, have already been mentioned. The new
hymnodoi of Smyrna are also mentioned in a letter
dated to 124 and directed to imperial agents in
Smyrna by a Roman official, perhaps the procon-
sul or the emperor himself.45 The first lines, unfor-
tunately fragmentary, refer to one neokoros, possibly
a number of theologoi, and twenty-four hymnodoi.
Keil took the first to refer to the city’s new title, but
the enumeration of one neokoros and twenty-four
hymnodoi indicates that this neokoros is another
official attached to the new temple. Subsequent
inscriptions refer to ‘hymnodoi of the god Hadrian’
40
MvS 68-69.
41
MvS 16; IvS 644, 659-661, 668; Moretti 1953, 225;
Malavolta 1976-1977, 2063-2064.
42 Contra Schorndorfer 1997, 53-37, 79, 173-175, who al-
lowed the erroneous attribution at Kyzikos (q.v.) to outweigh
the ancient evidence.
43 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.5, 11 (534-535, 541-
542).
44 IvS 697 (2.1:196).
45 IvS 594; J. Keil 1908; Halfmann 1986a, 200.
at Smyrna,46 and also a neokoros of the Augusti.47
Thus the letter to imperial legates confirms the
gymnasium inscription 4, documents the staff of the
new temple of Hadrian, and assures that the cult was
founded in or before 124.
Halfmann has redated Hadrian’s visit to Smyrna
and Polemon’s eloquence to 124, based on the date
of the above-mentioned letter.48 Such a visit would
suit Philostratos’ description of that one great day
when Polemon persuaded Hadrian to spend ‘ten
million’ on Smyrna.49 Philostratos’ figure, inciden-
tally, is either an indefinite superlative (‘an enormous
amount’) or an exaggeration of the one-and-a-half
million mentioned in the gymnasium inscription.
The possibility that the latter figure may have in-
cluded only the money spent on the gymnasium is
remote because the figure is listed after grants made
to the whole city, rather than to the gymnasium
alone. By comparison, the total of private cash dona-
tions to the gymnasium was over 190,000 drachmai.
Philostratos also makes it appear that Hadrian’s
grant paid for the building of the temple; though this
would not be atypical of Hadrian’s generosity, one
would prefer independent confirmation, as the en-
tire province would normally be expected to con-
tribute toward building a koinon temple.
If Hadrian’s gifts were given in 124, the establish-
ment of Smyrna’s provincial cult and temple of
Hadrian then antedated his association with Zeus
Olympios (after 128/129); the same was so at Kyzikos.
The initial dedication was to Hadrian, not to Zeus.
This is borne out by the inscriptions, which hence-
forth call Smyrna ‘twice neokoros of the Augusti,’
the references to ‘hymnodoi of the god Hadrian’
mentioned above, and Smyrna’s coin types 7 and 8
(below), issued under Caracalla, which specifically
identify the temple of Hadrian among the three for
which Smyrna was neokoros, and show his cuirassed
figure as the cult image within it. A recent attempt
to associate this temple with one built by Hadrian
for the cult of the deified Plotina conflicts with all
this evidence.50 The wife of Trajan does not appear
46 IvS 595, 697 = IGRR 4:1436, 1431.
47 IvS 596, 639; MvS 71 assigned the latter’s office to the
Caracallan temple of the third neokoria, but the inscription
does not specify, and he could easily have served as neokoros
in the second temple (or in all the imperial temples?) instead.
48 Halfmann 1986a, 200.
49 Winter 1996, 65, 85-86, 327-328 no. 44; IvS 697
(2.1:196). MvS 21 n. 120 is incorrect.
50 Cassius Dio ep. 69.10.3; Dräger 2000, 214-215.
 chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia
in the temple’s coin images, nor is she ever men-
tioned in association with the provincial temple at
Smyrna or its institutions. Most tellingly, the pas-
sage epitomized from Cassius Dio upon which this
theory is based praises Hadrian for his piety toward
his adoptive mother: but the temple in Smyrna is
not a good example of that piety, as it was likely built
(at least officially) by the koinon of Asia, and the
emperor himself was the preeminent object of wor-
ship in it.
Klose assumed that a six-column Ionic temple
with a disc in its pediment that appeared on coins
of Hadrian at Smyrna represented the contempo-
rary provincial temple.51 The problem is that an
identical six-column Ionic temple with a disc in its
pediment had appeared on a series of coins that
Klose dated to just after the reign of Nero.52 Both
issues show the temple on a Greek-style stepped
podium, distinguishing them from the previously
mentioned Ionic octastyle temple on a Roman-style
podium that appears on coins under Domitian (see
above). Though the Hadrianic coins are larger and
better struck than the post-Neronian, they may both
represent the same temple, which therefore cannot
be confirmed as the temple that made Smyrna twice
neokoros. The Caracallan triple-temple coins are
also of little help in picturing the temple of Hadrian:
like the coins of other cities, these show all the
temples for which the city became neokoros as iden-
tical, and preserve no individual architectural fea-
tures.
Philostratos is our only other source for the ap-
pearance or placement of the temple to Hadrian at
Smyrna. In his list of the buildings erected out of
Hadrian’s grant he called it “a temple that can be
seen from afar, the one on the akra that seems to
oppose Mimas.” From his reference to an akra (which
can mean either a height or a cape on the seacoast)
some scholars have conflated this new temple with
another temple documented at Smyrna, that of Zeus
Akraios (‘on the heights’).53 But the temple of Zeus
Akraios was already in existence before Hadrian made
his grant: the god himself had been named on
Smyrna’s coinage as early as Vespasian, and in 79/
51 Klose 1996, 58; MvS 68, 247 nos. 1-13 (15 exx.); the
stephanephoros’ name is Pom. Sextus.
52 MvS 67, 132-134 nos. 19-61 (61 exx.); the magistrate is
Tiberius Hieronymos Sosander.
53 Cadoux 1938, 202, 248, 254 n. 4; Magie 1950, 584, 615,
1445 n. 46, 1474 n. 15; S. Price 1984b, 258; Boatwright 2000,
157-162.
45
80, the year of M. Ulpius Trajanus’ proconsulship
of Asia, an aqueduct was built leading up to his
temple.54 Philostratos does not mention the rebuild-
ing of an older temple, or Zeus Akraios; Polemon’s
influence won Smyrna neokoria, and more likely a
new temple to Hadrian on another akra.
The new temple has also been identified with a
“thank-offering temple” mentioned in the gymna-
sium inscription.55 This terminology recalls Aelius
Aristides’ reference to the Hadrianic temple at
Kyzikos (q.v.), but there are some differences. Look-
ing at lines 16-20 of inscription 4 itself, the passage
in question runs:
KlaudianÚw prÊtaniw xrus\sein tÚn ˆrofon
toË éleipthr¤ou t}w gerous¤aw ka‹ OI e¸w tÚn
xaristÆrion ne ke¤ona sÁn speirokefãlƒ.
Claudianus the prytanis [promised] to gild the roof
of the anointing room of the gerousia, plus [an
amount] towards the column with its base and capital
for the thank-offering ‘temple’ (neo).
Other than this one column, there is no other men-
tion of donations of columns or indeed of anything
else to such a temple. Another peculiarity is that
earlier in the same inscription (line 14) the accusa-
tive for ‘temple’ is spelled naÒn, not given its Attic
variant, as it supposedly is here. This oddity has not
been explained; is a nu missing, and could the text
refer to a thank-offering of the youths (ne«n), not a
temple? Beyond these considerations, however, it
should be remembered that all the other private
structural donations listed in the inscription, includ-
ing a temple of Tyche, seem to be parts of the gym-
nasium complex. A donation to a separate temple
seems out of place. Although there is no hard evi-
dence to prove that a ‘thank-offering temple’ did not
exist or was not the temple of Hadrian at Smyrna,
these considerations make it more likely that the
structure, whatever it was, was in the gymnasium.
What can be known, then, about the temple that
made Smyrna twice neokoros? Following Philo-
stratos’ account, it was built out of Hadrian’s dona-
tion. It was on an akra, which could be either a height
or a cape by the sea; Smyrna offers a plenitude of
both.56 It could be seen from afar; this implies great
54 Father of the emperor: Thomasson 1984, 216-217 no.
71; MvS 26-27; IvS 680; Dräger 1993, 87-89.
55 H. Jüthner, Breslauer philologische Abhandlungen 8.1 (1898)
27.
56 Though C. Jones 2001 believed that the word used here
46 part i – section i. koinon of asia
size and/or prominent position. A height would be
suitable, and so would a position by the sea where
ships could spy it from far off. Aelius Aristides por-
trayed a similar topographical placement for the
temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos (q.v.). The Smyrnaean
temple “seemed to oppose Mimas.” That was the
ancient name for the mountainous heights of Kara
Burun, the headland that closes off Smyrna’s gulf
on the west.57 Just about anything in Smyrna would
be ‘opposite’ Mimas in the broader sense, but the
verb can imply a challenge as well. That challenge
was likely to be in size, though again prominent
position, especially position close to the gulf, would
add emphasis.
Remains of an appropriate temple were found on
DeÅirmen-tepe, a height (though by no means
mountainous) which is also directly over the gulf, and
so may be called an akra and visible from afar; it is
in the western part of the city, that closest to Mimas,
and has been identified by many as the site of the
older temple of Zeus Akraios.58 There in 1824-25
Graf Anton Prokesch von Osten observed the foun-
dations of a large east-facing temple with ten
Corinthian columns on its short side and perhaps
twenty-three on its flank, of dimensions comparable
to those of the Olympieion in Athens, which he
dated to the Hadrianic or Antonine period.59 But
the building’s marble superstructure was rapidly
being plundered for building stone; about a century
later, Walter found only a fragment of a fluted col-
umn drum.60 A building on such a scale would not
only have been suitable for what we know of pro-
vincial temples of Hadrian (e.g. Kyzikos and perhaps
Ephesos) but may well have been said to “challenge
Mimas.”
We must sound a note of caution, however. The
modern city of Izmir covers most traces of this and
of the other temples of ancient Smyrna. No sign
identifies this east-facing temple as the temple of
Hadrian except its size and order, comparable with
such temples as Kyzikos’. And if the identity of the
denoted a height, not a promontory, Philostratos in fact used
êkra in either sense, with its basic meaning being ‘extremity’
(up or out). Height: Philostratos, Life of Apollonios of Tyana 2.8.5
(the mountain Nysa); promontory: Life of Apollonios of Tyana
5.1.4, 6 (the pillars of Hercules and the cape of Libya, Abinna).
57 Bean 1966, 41; map, 23.
58 Tsakyroglou 1876, 1879, 1.87, 2.70; Cadoux 1938, 17,
248; Bürchner 1927, 750-756; Schorndorfer 1997, 173-175.
59 Prokesch von Osten 1834, Anzeige-Blatt 55-86, esp. 62-
63; Prokesch von Osten 1836, 1.522.
60 Walter 1922-1924, Beibl. 232.
akra depends on proximity to the temple of Zeus
Akraios, the site of that temple is also uncertain; an
inscription concerning repairs to its aqueduct was
found on Mt. Pagos, the akropolis of Smyrna, not
on DeÅirmen-tepe.61 Therefore the second koinon
temple of Smyrna cannot be proved to have been
found.
Polemon continued to act on behalf of Smyrna
to the end of his life, and indeed died before he could
complete a mission to defend “the temples and their
rights” before the emperor Antoninus Pius. When
substitute advocates botched the job, the emperor
himself inquired whether Polemon had left a speech,
and then delayed the hearing until it could be
fetched. Upon hearing it, he decided for Smyrna.
“Thus Smyrna came away having won first place,
and they declared that Polemon had come back to
life to help them.”62 The contest on behalf of the
temples probably refers to the ones that made the
city twice neokoros, in which Polemon had a spe-
cial interest.63 As the decrees of the Senate men-
tioned previously should have made their status
unchallengeable, Polemon’s defense may have been
necessitated by some question of relationships (in-
volving precedence, finance, proper titulature, or any
of a number of factors) among rival neokoroi cities
in the koinon.
Probably shortly before this incident, Ephesos had
complained that Smyrna had not given that city its
precise titulature in a decree about a joint sacrifice,
and that Pergamon had similarly offended; the quar-
rel went all the way to Antoninus Pius, who had
already decreed the proper titles for Ephesos. The
emperor decided that Pergamon was not at fault and
Smyrna’s slight was accidental, but cautioned
Ephesos and Smyrna in future to give each other
their correct titles.64 It was probably at this point that
61 IvS 681b; an aqueduct did lead from Kara-Bunar to the
west end of Mt. Pagos: Hasluck 1913-1914, 92; Cadoux 1938,
177, 248, 254. G. Weber 1899, 167-174, identified the Zeus
Akraios aqueduct as the one originating at Ak-Bunar, despite
the fact that it considerably predates the first century C.E., be-
cause he had already decided that the temple of Zeus was on
the “Mühlenhügel,” or DeÅirmen-tepe.
62 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.10 (539-540).
63 Perhaps more likely than a challenge to the right of asy-
lum, which centered on one temple, that of Aphrodite Stratonikis,
rather than several; Rigsby 1996, 95-105, esp. 96.
64 See chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis.’ The emperor’s letter
is dated in his third consulship, 140-144 C.E.: IvE 1489, 1489a,
1490; Oliver 1989, 293-295. Polemon was still alive in 143,
when Marcus Aurelius heard him declaim: Fronto, Letters to
Marcus Caesar 2.5; 2.10 ed. M. van den Hout (Leipzig 1988);
 chapter
Ephesos issued a series of coins celebrating its con-
cord with the other two cities.65 Polemon’s subse-
quent (posthumous) mission to defend Smyrna’s
temples and their rights indicates that the emperor’s
letter did not bring the bickering to an end, and that
perhaps Ephesos, by questioning the status of
Smyrna’s temples, was retaliating for the offence.
Much has been made of these quarrels in Anto-
ninus Pius’ reign, and rightly so; but in order to
understand them, it is necessary to get all the de-
tails correct. Cadoux was the first to conflate Pole-
mon’s posthumous embassy with Antoninus Pius’
decision, and make one result from the other.66 As
will be noted, however, in the former Smyrna won,
but in the latter Ephesos did. Merkelbach then took
Philostratos’ tå prote›a literally to refer to Smyrna’s
winning the right to walk first in the festival proces-
sion of the koinon.67 It is more likely, however, that
Philostratos was referring only to victory in the court
case, as translated above. The title ‘first’ does not
become common in Smyrnaean inscriptions until the
time of Caracalla, and indeed does not appear until
late in the time of the second neokoria, the early
third century, as on inscriptions 8, 7, and probably
6, below.68 Note the simplicity of an actual inscrip-
tion under Antoninus Pius: inscription 5 only calls
Smyrna ‘the [twice] neokoros city of the Smyr-
naeans.’
Dräger and Kampmann, though differing on
chronology, both followed Cadoux in connecting the
two accounts, and Merkelbach in concentrating on
the title ‘first’ and scanting other details.69 Kamp-
mann’s account is somewhat preferable, though she
attributed the concord coinage mentioned above to
Antoninus Pius’ initial regulation of Ephesos’ titles;
C. Haines, ed. Marcus Cornelius Fronto (Cambridge MA 1982)
1:116-119; van den Hout 1999, 77-80. Collas-Heddeland 1995
is unfortunately vitiated by mistranslations and misunderstand-
ings; see Année Epigraphique 1995 no. 1476. Perhaps the same
joint sacrifice appears on coins of Ephesos under Antoninus
Pius: Hecht 1968, 28 no. 1.
65 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 1:38-39 nos. 305-316; Kamp-
mann 1996, 29-34, 108-109.
66 Cadoux 1938, 262-264. A similar error in his account
of CIG 3175 as connected with the cult in the provincial temple;
the neokoros of Zeus in line 3 of that inscription is in fact an
official of Zeus’ temple.
67 Merkelbach 1978, 290.
68 Petzl (IvS 603, 672) occasionally restores the title earlier,
but almost all unrestored examples date from the time of the
third neokoria.
69 Dräger 1993, 115; Kampmann 1996, 29-34; Kampmann
1998, 377-379.
2 – smyrna in ionia 47
this assumes that he regulated the titles of all three
cities, Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna, not just
Ephesos’, which is all the inscription states. Also, she
did not emphasize what stands out in this particu-
lar concord coinage: that unlike many others, it was
only minted by one party, Ephesos; neither Smyrna
nor Pergamon reciprocated, so far as is known. To
be slightly cynical, ‘concord’ in this case may rep-
resent not an equal accord but what the Ephesians
saw as a victory. Such a victory was given to them
by Antoninus Pius’ letter: it would make the other
two cities give Ephesos its full and correct titles. The
Ephesians liked the emperor’s decision so much that
they inscribed the letter publicly at least twice. No
copies have yet been found at Pergamon or Smyrna.
On the other hand, in Philostratos’ account,
Smyrna won its case. Neither Merkelbach, Dräger,
nor Kampmann noticed that Polemon’s mission was
originally on behalf of the temples and their rights,
and so is more likely to have concerned neokoria
than the title ‘first.’ That victory must be set in the
context that Philostratos gave it. Rather than sim-
ply favoring Polemon, as Hadrian had, Antoninus
Pius had good reason to resent him: once, when
Antoninus was proconsul of Asia, Polemon had had
him thrown out of his house. The emperor’s deci-
sion in favor of Smyrna was not only a tribute to
Polemon’s peerless (posthumous) oratory, but to
Antoninus’ own civility as a ruler.70
After the time of Hadrian, when Smyrna had
received its second neokoria and second provincial
temple, the titulature of the chief priests of Asia (and
the Asiarchs) reflected the increase: these officials
were in charge of the (plural) temples in Smyrna.71
No chief priestesses specifically of (plural) temples
in Smyrna have yet been clearly documented.
After Polemon’s death, one of the most important
orators to make Smyrna his home and his cause was
Aelius Aristides. When Marcus Aurelius visited the
city, probably in 176 during his tour of the East after
the revolt of Avidius Cassius, he went out of his way
70 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.5-6 (533-535).
71 For the discussion of the nature of Asiarchs and chief
priests of Asia, see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ and chapter 41 on
the koina. A chief priest of Asia of the temples in Smyrna, after
Hadrian: IGRR 4:586, from Aizanoi; an Asiarch of the temples
in Smyrna, after Caracalla: IGRR 4:17, from Eresos; also FiE
3:72, dating an Asiarchy to the end of the second century; and
the abundant dossier on M. Ulpius Appuleius Eurykles, desig-
nated chief priest of the temples at Smyrna for the second time
under Commodus, and also named Asiarch: OGIS 509, from
Aphrodisias, and Wörrle 1992, 352 and 358.
48 part i – section i. koinon of asia
to send for Aristides, who had at first held back.72
The emperor treated him indulgently, however, and
he eventually acquitted himself well. According to
Philostratos’ account of these events, destiny was
preparing ahead for Smyrna to be rebuilt through
Aristides’ talents, and he could rightfully be called
the founder of the city.73 For soon after, when Com-
modus had been raised to share the title of Augustus
with his father, Smyrna was rocked by a disastrous
earthquake.74 As soon as the news came to Aristides
on his estate, he dashed off a monody on the city’s
fall, and then wrote to the two emperors the next
day to ask for their aid.75 Marcus Aurelius shed tears
over Aristides’ letter and promised to rebuild the city;
Cassius Dio confirms that he sent both money and
a senatorial commissioner for the purpose.76
Aristides’ letter is rather vague about the scenes
of devastation at Smyrna: so many temples, so many
gymnasiums, the streets, the agora, the harbor. He
is particular to note, however, that the temple that
Smyrna had obtained when it was preferred (at a
vote of four hundred to seven) to all the other cities
of Asia had now sunk beneath the ground; though
that temple might be recovered with Asia’s help, only
the emperors had the resources to rebuild the en-
tire city.77 This distinction helps to point out that
the temple in question was provincial, and the ref-
erence to the vote identifies it as that of Tiberius,
Julia, and the Senate.
It and the city did not remain in ruins for long,
however. Aristides’ subsequent Oration 20 hailed the
emperors as the new founders of Smyrna, and
praised all the cities of Asia for offering aid to the
refugees. Within a short time (before Marcus’ death
in 180 C.E.), Aristides could write without blushing
that before the earthquake Smyrna had been supe-
rior to the other cities, but now it was superior even
72
Gascó 1989 postulated that this was because Aristides
had supported Avidius Cassius, though the point in Philostratos’
account seems to be Aristides’ scholarly modesty.
73 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.9.2 (582-583).
74 Commodus became Augustus in mid-177 C.E., at least
before June 17: Kienast 1996, 147-150. Behr 1968, 112 n. 68,
however, preferred to date the earthquake shortly after Janu-
ary 177. Eusebius, Chronica 209c dated it to 179, and said that
due to it ten year’s tribute was remitted; while the Chronicon
Paschale 262 dated it to 178. See Guidoboni with Comastri and
Traina 1994, 237-238 no. 117.
75 The Monody for Smyrna is Oration 18, the letter to the
emperors Oration 19.
76 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.9.2 (582-583); Cassius
Dio 72.32.3.
77 Aelius Aristides, Oration 19.13.
to itself.78 No further mention was made of the
koinon temple that had been given such prominence
by Aristides’ earlier letter, but it was probably among
the first of the city’s shrines to be reconstructed.
Third Neokoria: Caracalla
Although Smyrna had possessed a provincial impe-
rial temple since the reign of Tiberius and two since
that of Hadrian, the word ‘neokoros’ did not appear
on its coinage until its third neokoria, under
Caracalla.79 In the interim there had been occasional
appearances of the temple-bearing Amazon who had
symbolized the city as neokoros since the time of
Domitian:
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU KRA MAR AU
[ANTV]NEINO% Laureate head of Marcus Aure-
lius r. Rev: %TRA KL PROKLOU %OFI%TOU
%MUR Amazon Smyrna in long dress, seated,
holding small temple and double axe.80 a) SNGCop
1369 b) Paris 2573 c) MvS 258 nos. 15-17 (2 other
exx.).
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: L AUR KOMODO% KAI%AR
Head of Commodus as Caesar r., youthful. Rev:
%TR PO AI ARIZHLOU %MURNAIVN Seated
Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, double
axe and shield.81 a) Paris 2620 b) MvS 266 no. 6
(Athens).
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AU K L %EP %EOUHRO%
Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius
Severus r. Rev: EP(I, b) %T(R, b) K ROUFINOU
%OF %MURNAIVN Amazon Smyrna holding
small temple, double axe and shield is crowned
by Victory with palm. a) Vienna 35984 b) MvS
268-269 no. 7 (Boston).
Smyrna’s inscriptions call the city twice neokoros
until 201/202 (inscription 7, below), and coins of
Geta as Augustus, issued sometime between 209 and
his death at the end of 211 C.E., do not yet claim
the third neokoria.82 So Smyrna was one of three
78 Aelius Aristides, Oration 21.11.
79 Two seeming exceptions are in fact falsifications. Paris
2540 and Vienna 11789, coins with obverse portraits of
Antoninus Pius, have been recut to read that Smyrna was
neokoros (Paris, two temples on the reverse) or twice neokoros
(Vienna, three temples, a reworked coin of Ephesos).
80 Pick 1904, 2 no. 3.
81 Pick 1904, 3 no. 4.
82 MvS 294-295, nos. 18-22; Kienast 1996, 166-167.
 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: %EBA%TH IOU DOMNA
NEVKORVN TVN %EB(A, abcdefg) EPI (%TRA,
Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: YEA%
abcdefg) (AUR XARIDHMOU, abcdfgh;85 KL
RVMH%; %MURNAIVN G NEVKO Seated goddess
KRHTARIOU, e86) Three four-column Corinthian
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 TI or AD in its pediment; within the center
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
INO% (M AU ANTVNEINO%, b) Laureate draped
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
%EBA%TVN Three four-column Corinthian
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
83MvS 22-23, 70-71; contested by Johnston 1989, 320-321.
84Halfmann 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
practiced in it. Something similar might have hap-
pened at Pergamon (q.v.): the cult of Caracalla was
moved into an extant temple, probably that of
Asklepios. On the Pergamene coins, however, the
small letters in the pediment of the temple in ques-
tion read “An(toninus).” This indicates the presence
of the cult of Caracalla, though the cult statue re-
mains that of the original occupant. On Smyrna’s
coins we find no mention of the emperor at all. Yet
if Smyrna were neokoros of the goddess Rome, one
would expect the fact to be stated explicitly, and it
never is. Ephesos, for example, called itself either
‘three times neokoros’ or ‘twice and of Artemis’
during the sole reign of Caracalla, but never ‘three
times neokoros of the Augusti,’ as Smyrna did.
Moreover, a new temple-bearer type appears
under Caracalla and persists in the same way that
the Amazon Smyrna had: here again is the goddess
Rome.
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AU K M AU ANTVNE-
INO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla
r., bearded. Rev: G NEVKORVN EPI KRHTARIOU
%MURN Seated goddess Rome holding small
temple and spear.90 a) BMC 410 b) BMC 411 c)
Paris 2682.
COIN TYPE 11. Obv: %EBA%TH IOU DOMNA
Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: (G NEVKO-
RVN EPI KRHTARIOU %MURN, a-e;91 %MU-
RNAIVN EPI XARIDHMOU G NEVK %EB, f-h;92 G
NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN %MURNAIVN i-
k;93 PRV A%IA% G NEVKORVN %MUR, l-w).94
Seated goddess Rome holding small temple and
spear. a) Oxford 13.73 b) Oxford 11.07 c) Paris
2654 d) Paris 2655 e) Paris 2655A f) BMC 389
(illus. pl. 20 fig. 62) g) Paris 2673 h) Berlin,
Imhoof-Blumer i) Oxford 19.11 j) Oxford 14.48
k) Paris 2660 l) BMC 390 m) BMC 391 n) BMC
392 o) London 1895.6-6-36 p) Boston 63.2600 q)
Paris 2657 r) Paris 2658 s) Paris 2659 t) Vienna
17824 u) Berlin, Löbbecke v) Berlin, Löbbecke w)
Berlin 548/1874.
90 MvS 287-288 nos. 22-23 (these exx.).
91 MvS 279 nos. 36-38 (3 further exx.).
92 MvS 278 no. 34 (2 further exx.).
93 MvS 281 no. 49 (these exx.).
94 MvS 281 nos. 45-48 (10 further exx.).
Clearly the type refers to the third neokoria, and
again indicates that Smyrna could not have gained
a third neokoria simply for the cult of Rome. If it
had, why would Rome have been shown carrying
her own temple instead of standing within it as the
object of cult? Instead she is shown as the custodian
of cult, like the city’s namesake, the Amazon Smyr-
na; in fact, the coin types of these two temple bear-
ers later would run parallel with one another, and
would easily have been compared.
The peculiar logic of depicting Rome carrying the
temple she shared with the emperor is much like that
of the contemporary coinage at Pergamon (q.v.),
where the emperor was shown sacrificing to the deity
with whom he shared a temple. The coinage of Side
can also be compared: there several of the city’s
patron gods appear as neokoroi, though whether
they shared cult with emperor(s) in their own temples
is uncertain. Though Nock called the concept
“thinkable, but no more,” others have accepted that
the cult of Caracalla was moved into the old temple
of Rome at Smyrna.95 There were time-honored
precedents: Augustus shared a temple with Rome
at Pergamon and in other provinces, Tiberius shared
one with his mother and the Senate in Smyrna it-
self. These others, however, had been new founda-
tions. Under Caracalla the ‘new’ neokoria was
conferred for an old temple at Smyrna, as it was also
at Ephesos (for the temple of Artemis) and at Perga-
mon (for a temple of Asklepios).
Under Caracalla Smyrna, like Pergamon, called
itself ‘three times neokoros of the Augusti.’ The
goddess Rome is certainly not to be considered one
of the Augusti, especially at Smyrna, where the cult
of Rome remained independent and unallied to any
imperial name up to the third century.96 Nor can it
be assumed that the cult of Augustus simply was
moved in with the cult of Rome when Republic
became Empire; though a Smyrnaean inscription
mentions a priest of Rome and Augustus, this is no
local document but a decree of the koinon of Asia,
and the cult to which it refers is the provincial one
at Pergamon.97 In fact, Smyrna was only neokoros
of Rome to the same degree that it was neokoros
of the Senate and of Julia: these were the cult part-
95 Nock 1930b, 28; Pick 1904, 21-23; J. Keil 1915, 130 n.
1.
96
Moretti 1953, 237; Fayer 1976, 17-18.
97
IvS 591; Richter 1884-1937, 138, 157-159; Buckler 1935,
181 no. 9.
 chapter
ners in the temples that made it neokoros, but the
major cults (once Caracalla was installed in Rome’s
temple) were all for emperors. Thus Smyrna could
call itself three times neokoros of the Augusti.
So far as is known, Smyrna minted no coins
during the reign of Caracalla’s successor Macrinus.
This lack may have been a simple accident of tim-
ing; the coinage minted under Caracalla was abun-
dant, and Macrinus’ reign was short. But it may have
been due to trouble between the cities and the
emperor. According to Cassius Dio, Macrinus took
away some grants made by Caracalla to the
Pergamenes, who then insulted him; so he publicly
stripped them of honors.98 The emperor later sent
Dio himself to keep order in both Pergamon and
Smyrna. From this sequence of events, we may
suppose that Smyrna was implicated in the disor-
der, and perhaps in the dishonor as well. Smyrna,
Pergamon, and several other cities that were
neokoroi for Caracalla had a break in coins and
inscriptions mentioning neokoria under Macrinus
(see chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis’). Even Ephesos
(q.v.), which may have won its case for primacy in
Asia before that emperor, may have lost its neokoria
of Artemis at that time. But outside of Cassius Dio’s
special appointment, there are no data yet known
regarding Smyrna’s position under Macrinus, and
under his successor Elagabalus the coins with the title
‘three times neokoros’ simply resume.
Like the earlier reverse of the Amazon Smyrna
holding a temple, the coin types of the goddess
Rome holding a temple and of the three temples of
Smyrna, three times neokoros, soon became a part
of Smyrna’s numismatic repertoire. They all contin-
ued to appear down to the last gasp of Smyrnaean
coinage, in the reign of Gallienus.
COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AU K M AU ANTVNE-
INO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Ela-
gabalus r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN
PRVTVN A%IA% EPI %TR (AIL APOLLVNIOU,
abc; G KL DIOGENOU%, def) Three temples, cen-
ter one four-column, Rome seated within; side
two two-column.99 a) Paris 2689 (illus. pl. 20 fig.
63) b) Paris 2716 c) SNGvA 2224 d) Berlin, Imhoof-
Blumer e) Berlin 824-1877 f) New York, Newell.
98 Cassius Dio 79.20.4, 80.7.4.
99 MvS 295 nos. 1-2 (1 further ex.).
2 – smyrna in ionia 51
COIN TYPE 13. Obv: IOUL MAI%A %EBA%TH
Diademed draped bust of Julia Maesa r. Rev:
%MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN EPI % KL DIO-
GENOU% Amazon Smyrna holding small temple,
double axe and shield.100 a) Paris 2718.
COIN TYPE 14. Obv: IOUL MAI%A %EBA%TH
Diademed draped bust of Julia Maesa r. Rev:
%MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN
Seated goddess Rome holding small temple and
spear.101 a) Oxford 14.27 b) Paris 2719.
COIN TYPE 15. Obv: A K M AUR %EU ALEJ-
ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G
NEVKORVN PRVTVN A%IA% EPI %TR ANTI-
OXOU Three temples, side two turned toward
center.102 a) Paris 2725 (badly worn).
COIN TYPE 16. Obv: IOU MAMEA %EBA%TH
Diademed draped bust of Julia Mamaea r. Rev:
%MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN (EPI % G K DIO-
GENOU%, c; EP %TR ANTIOXOU, abdefg) Amazon
Smyrna holding small temple, double axe and
shield.103 a) BMC 435 b) BMC 436 c) Oxford
13.31 d) Oxford 12.45 e) Paris 2730 f) Paris 2731
g) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer.
COIN TYPE 17. Obv: IOU MAMEA %EBA%TH
Diademed draped bust of Julia Mamaea r. Rev:
%MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN EP %TR ANTIOXOU
Seated goddess Rome holding small temple and
spear.104 a) BMC 434 b) Oxford 11.63 c) Paris
2728 d) Paris 2729 e) SNGCop 1394 f) Vienna
32712 g) Berlin, von Knobelsdorff h) New York,
Petrie.
COIN TYPE 18. Obv: A K G I OUH MAJI-
MEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Maximinus r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN
EP % M AU POPLIOU PRO Amazon Smyrna
holding small temple, double axe and shield.105
a) Vienna 17858.
COIN TYPE 19. Obv: obliterated, Maximinus or
Maximus. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN
100 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.
104 MvS 300-301 no. 4 (5 further exx.); Pick 1904, 4 no. 10.
105 MvS 303-304 no. 3 (2 further exx.); Pick 1904, 4 no. 17.
52 part i – section i. koinon of asia
PRVTVN A%IA% EP % M AUR POPLIOU Three
temples, side two two-column, turned toward cen-
ter, center one four-column, goddess Rome seated
within.106 a) Paris 2737.
COIN TYPE 20. Obv: AU KAI M ANT GORDI-
ANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian
III r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN PRVTVN
A%IA% EP (%T ROUFINOU %OFI, ab; %TR MENE-
KLEOU%, cd) Three temples, side two turned
toward center, center one four-column, goddess
Rome seated within.107 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer
b) Paris 2741 c) Paris 2742 d) SNGvA 2228.
COIN TYPE 21. Obv: FOURIA TRANKUL-
LEINA %EB Diademed draped bust of Tran-
quillina r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN %TR
ROUFINOU %OFI Amazon Smyrna holding small
temple, double axe and shield.108 a) BMC 446 b)
BMC 447 c) Oxford 11.46 d) Oxford 15.13 e)
Oxford 9.81 f) Paris 2761 g) Vienna 17872 h)
Berlin 1291/1878 i) Berlin, Löbbecke j) Ber-
lin, Imhoof-Blumer k) New York 51.38 l) SNGvA
8009.
COIN TYPE 22. Obv: %MURNAIVN PRVTVN
A%IA% Veiled draped female (Asia) with sheaves
and cornucopia (dated to time of Philip) Rev:
%MURNAIVN G NEV E % AF EPIKTHTOU Ama-
zon Smyrna holding small temple, double axe and
shield.109 a) Boston 67.877 b) Paris 2767 c) SNGvA
2195 d) Berlin, Fox.
COIN TYPE 23. Obv: A K PO LIKI OUALER-
IANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Vale-
rian r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN EP %
FILHTOU IPPIKOU Three temples, side two two-
column turned toward center, center one four-
column, figure within.110 a) BMC 455 b) Paris
2772 c) SNGvA 2233.
COIN TYPE 24. Obv: AUT K P LIK GALLI-
HNO% Laureate draped bust of Gallienus r. Rev:
%MURNAIVN G NEVK EP(I %, eg ) %EJ%TOU
Three four-column Corinthian temples on podia,
each with wreath on apex; an emperor in each
106 MvS 303 no. 1 (1 further ex.) For obliteration of the ob-
verse due to condemnation of the memories of Maximinus and
Maximus, see MvS 119.
107 MvS 306-307 nos. 2, 11-13 (5 further exx.).
108 MvS 310 nos. 1-3 (2 further exx.); Pick 1904, 5 no. 19.
109 MvS 194 no. 1 (1 further ex.); Pick 1904, 5 no. 20.
110 MvS 314 no. 1 (1 further ex.).
side temple, seated goddess Rome in the center
one.111 a) Oxford 8.15 b) Paris 2779 (illus. pl. 20
fig. 64) c) Paris 2779A d) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer
e) Berlin 10728 f) New York, Newell g) BMC 470.
COIN TYPE 25. Obv: AUT K P(O, ab) LIK(IN,
ab) GALLIHNO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust
of Gallienus r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEV(K,
bdeijklmqtux) EPI (%, bcdeinoqtux) (M AUR,
bcdefghnpuvx) %EJ%TOU Seated goddess Rome
holding small temple and spear.112 a) Boston
63.1109 b) BMC 467 c) BMC 468 d) BMC 469 e)
London 1920.4-5-5 f) Oxford 7.89 g) Oxford 6.29
h) Oxford 12.35 i) Oxford 6.05 j) Oxford 5.65 k)
Paris 2796 l) Paris 2797 m) Paris 2798 n) Paris
2799 o) Paris 2800 p) SNGCop 1406 q) SNGCop
1407 r) SNGCop 1408 s) SNGvA 2236 t) SNGvA
8011 u) Vienna 17877 v) Vienna 17878 w) Vienna
17879 x) Vienna 28467 y) Warsaw 58631 z)
Berlin, Löbbecke, and others.
COIN TYPE 26. Obv: AUT K P(O, abcefqtuz)
LIK(IN, qsuz ) GALLIHNO% Laureate draped
cuirassed bust of Gallienus r. Rev: %MUR(NAIVN,
befqruyz) G NEVK(O, bcefghijklmnopqstuwxz) EP
(% not in u) M AUR %EJ%TOU Amazon Smyrna
holding small temple, double axe and shield.113
a) Boston 67.884 b) BMC 459 c) BMC 460 d) BMC
461 e) BMC 462 f) Oxford 5.74 g) Oxford 5.05
h) Oxford 6.11 i) Oxford 5.88 j) Oxford 5.57 k)
Oxford 5.37 l) Oxford 7.99 m) Paris 2780 n) Paris
2781 o) Paris 2782 p) Paris 2783 q) Paris 2784 r)
Paris 2785 s) SNGCop 1409 t) SNGCop 1410 u)
SNGCop 1411 v) SNGvA 2235 w) Vienna 34946 x)
Vienna 27788 y) Vienna 34483 z) Berlin, Imhoof-
Blumer, and others.
COIN TYPE 27. Obv: KOR %ALVNEINA %E
(Diademed, cd) draped bust of Salonina r. Rev:
%MURNAIVN G NEV EP (%, cd) %EJ%TOU Seated
goddess Rome holding small temple and spear.114
a) Oxford 6.94 b) Paris 2608 c) Berlin 5180 d) Ber-
lin, Imhoof-Blumer.
COIN TYPE 28. Obv: KOR %ALVNEINA %E
Diademed draped bust of Salonina r. Rev: %MUR-
111 MvS 316 nos. 3-4 (3 further exx.).
112 MvS 322-324 nos. 51-59 (17 further exx.); Pick 1904, 4
no. 11.
113 MvS 320-322 nos. 36-50 (16 further exx.); Pick 1904, 6
no. 21.
114 MvS 326 no. 7 (1 further ex., 1 missing); Pick 1904, 4
no. 12.
 chapter
(NAIVN, acdefijkm) G NEV(K, befghikl) EP (%,
abcfghjlm) (M, abdefghikl) (A, ei or AUR abdfghkl)
%EJ%TOU Amazon Smyrna holding small temple,
double axe and shield.115 a) BMC 475 b) BMC 476
c) Oxford 6.19 d) Oxford 6.27 e) Oxford 6.92 f)
Oxford 5.47 g) Paris 2807 h) Paris 2808 i) SNGvA
2239 j) Vienna 31994 k) Vienna 36690 l) Berlin,
Löbbecke m) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer.
In the mid-third century the Amazon Smyrna even
took her small temple with her when she served as
symbol of the city on concord coins:
COIN TYPE 29. Obv: AU KAI M ANT GORDI-
ANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian
III r. Rev: A%IA %MURNA OMONOIA EP %
PVLLIANOU Asia with sceptre and phiale and the
Amazon Smyrna with small temple, double axe
and shield, an altar between them.116 a) Paris
2739 b) Vienna 17865 c) London 1893.6-4-56.
This may serve as a final illustration of Smyrna’s
long-standing pride in its status as neokoros.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
1. IvS 657. Statue base from Olympia, dated after
41 C.E. but before second neokoria. The neokoros
people honor an athlete and fellow citizen.
2. IvS 634. [The ...] neokoros people honor M.
Atilius Bradua; set up by M. Aurelius Perperos.
Beurlier 1877-1910, 58 posited that the (plural?)
number of neokoriai was missing from the stone, and
a first line with the article should indeed be restored;
but PIR2A 1303 attributed the inscription to M.
Atilius Postumus Bradua, proconsul of Asia under
Domitian, in 94/95 according to Eck, and a Domi-
tianic date for Perperos may be confirmed.117 So the
city was simply neokoros.
3. IvS 696. List of contributors toward harbor con-
struction. Undated.
Twice neokoros:
4. IvS 697. The ‘gymnasium inscription’ document-
ing the second neokoria and Hadrian’s gifts on ac-
count of Polemon. See discussion in text above.
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.
2 – smyrna in ionia 53
5. IvS 767. Dedication to the river Hermos and to
Antoninus Pius. Enumeration restored.
6. IvS 672. Fragment, from Haci Köy. Dated only
by neokoria.
7. IvS 815. Milestone from Hacilar, on the Smyrna-
Sardis road, set up under the proconsul Lollianus
Gentianus, whose term is dated to 201/202.118
Smyrna is “most illustrious, first of cities of Asia and
twice neokoros of the Augusti.”
8. IvS 814. Milestone from west of Pinarbaâi, on the
Smyrna-Sardis road. Similar to inscription 7 and of
same date.
Three times neokoros:
9. IvS 637. Statue base of an Asiarch, dated to the
first half of the third century. Enumeration of the
neokoria restored, but titulature is same as that of
inscription 10, below.
10. IvS 667. Statue base of an athlete honored by
Valerian and Gallienus; Smyrna is “first of Asia in
beauty and greatness, most illustrious, metropolis,
three times neokoros by the decrees of the most
sacred Senate and jewel of Ionia.”
11. IvS 640. Statue base of a chief priestess. Undated;
titulature same as that of inscriptions 9 and 10.
12. IvS 665. Statue base of an athlete. Undated;
titulature same as that of inscriptions 9-11.
13. IvS 666. Probably a statue base of an athlete.
Undated; titulature same as that of inscriptions 9-
12.
14. IvS 674. Fragment, undated, probably with
titulature same as that of inscriptions 9-13.
15. IvS 638. Statue base of an Asiarch. Enumera-
tion restored; titulature similar to that of inscriptions
9-13 but “three times neokoros of the Augusti and
jewel of Ionia by decrees of the most sacred Sen-
ate.”
16. IvS 673. Statue base, undated. Smyrna is “most
illustrious and metropolis and three times neokoros
of the Augusti by decrees of the most sacred Sen-
ate.”
17. IvS 646. Fragment, undated. Petzl restored
titulature similar to that of inscriptions 9-13, but the
first line is much longer than the rest; titulature simi-
lar to that of inscription 16 is more likely.
18. IvS 603. Imperial letter? Fragmentary, undated,
though previously attributed to Hadrianic times due
to the word ‘to Olympian’ (Zeus or Hadrian?).
Enumeration missing; restored on the model of in-
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-
ent and the syntax a bit strained.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Three times neokoros:
Caracalla: BMC 403-417; SNGCop 1389; SNGvA 2220,
2221, 8005; Berlin (6 exx.), New York, Oxford (7
exx.), Paris (9 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw.
Caracalla and Julia Domna: Oxford.
Julia Domna: BMC 389-394; SNGCop 1385; SNGvA 2219;
Berlin (9 exx.), Boston, London, New York (2 exx.),
Oxford (8 exx.), Paris (13 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.).
Elagabalus: SNGvA 2224; Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Paris
(2 exx.).
Julia Maesa: Oxford, Paris (2 exx.).
Severus Alexander: BMC 428-433; SNGvA 2225, 2226;
Berlin (5 exx.), Boston, London, New York (3 exx.),
Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.).
Julia Mamaea: BMC 434-439; SNGCop 1394-1396;
SNGLewis 1399; SNGRighetti 912; Berlin (4 exx.),
Boston (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (8 exx.),
Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.).
Non-imperial obverse, time of Severus Alexander: BMC
244; SNGvA 2195; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (3
exx.), Vienna.
Maximinus: Paris, Vienna.
Maximinus and Maximus Caesar: BMC 441; SNGCop
1397; SNGLewis 1400; Berlin (2 exx.), New York,
Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Maximus Caesar: London, Oxford.
Gordian III: BMC 442, 444, 445; SNGCop 1399, 1400;
SNGvA 2227-2230; SNGLewis 1402; Berlin (9 exx.),
Boston, London (3 exx.), New York, Oxford (13
exx.), Paris (9 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw.
Tranquillina: BMC 446-451; SNGCop 1401-1403; SNGvA
8010; SNGLewis 1403; SNGRighetti 913, 914; Berlin
(9 exx.), London, New York (3 exx.), Oxford (12
exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw.
Non-imperial obverse, time of Gordian III: BMC 239,
240; SNGCop 1314-1318; SNGvA 7991; SNGLewis
1405; Berlin (8 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (2
exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford (12 exx.), Paris (15
exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw.
Philip BMC 452; SNGvA 2231.
Otacilia: BMC 453; SNGCop 1404; SNGvA 2232; Berlin
(3 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.),
Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Non-imperial obverse, time of Philip: BMC 247; SNGCop
1325; SNGvA 2195; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston, New York
(2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (2
exx.).
Valerian: BMC 454-456; SNGvA 2233; Oxford, Paris (3
exx.).
Gallienus: BMC 458-469, 471-474; SNGCop 1405-1416;
SNGvA 2234-2238, 8011, 8012; SNGLewis 1409,
1410; SNGRighetti 915, 916; Berlin (22 exx.), Boston
(4 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (10 exx.), Ox-
ford (25 exx.), Paris (29 exx.), Vienna (17 exx.),
Warsaw.
Salonina: BMC 475-478; SNGCop 1417-1419; SNGvA
2239-2241; Berlin (5 exx.), London, New York,
Oxford (8 exx.), Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Valerianus: Boston, New York, Oxford, Paris (2 exx.).
Non-imperial obverse, time of the joint rule of Valerian
and Gallienus: BMC 246; SNGCop 1326; SNGvA 2196;
Berlin, New York, Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2
exx.).
Non-imperial obverse, not dated: BMC 227-231, 233-237;
SNGCop 1321-1324; SNGvA 2190-2192, 7990;
SNGTüb 3754, 3755 (Philadelphia, concord issue);
Berlin (15 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York
(8 exx.), Oxford (22 exx.), Paris (21 exx.), Vienna (9
exx.), Warsaw (6 exx.).
 chapter
Chapter 3. Miletos in Ionia: Koinon of Asia
First Provincial Temple: Gaius
The precedents of Augustus and Tiberius combined
with his own inclinations to assure that Gaius Cae-
sar, better known as Caligula, was worshipped in a
provincial temple in Asia. The fullest account is that
of Cassius Dio, though it exists only as a paraphrase
from later compilations (ep. 59.28.1): “Gaius ordered
that a precinct be set aside for his worship in Miletos
in the province Asia, giving as his reason that
Artemis had preempted Ephesos, Augustus Perga-
mon, and Tiberius Smyrna; but the truth was that
he wanted to appropriate for himself the large and
very beautiful temple that the Milesians were build-
ing for Apollo.” This is the first of a series of anec-
dotes all having to do with Gaius’ temple building
and temple altering for the sake of his favorite cult,
his own. They are grouped with events of the year
40, and may have simply been placed at this point
to serve as variations on a megalomaniac theme.
Other documents, however, have indicated that in
the beginning of his reign at least, Gaius followed
an Augustan/Tiberian tradition of modesty even in
accepting honorific statues, and a date late in his
reign is not inconsistent with the inscriptional evi-
dence (below).1 The terminology that Dio used in
this instance differs sharply from his previous treat-
ment of the events of 29 B.C.E., where Augustus
“gave permission” to the Greeks of Asia to build a
temple at Pergamon (q.v.); here Gaius “commands,”
but one cannot place too much faith in the word-
ing of a passage that is only known in epitome.
The large but still incomplete temple that Gaius
is said to have coveted must have been the monu-
mental temple of Apollo at Didyma. Ironically, it had
previously taken Miletos out of the running for a
provincial temple eventually given to Smyrna. Taci-
tus (Annals 4.55) listed the reasons for the Senate’s
1 Oliver 1989, 69-77 no. 18: Gaius requested a decrease
in the number of statues set up in his honor, allowing only the
ones at the major Panhellenic sanctuaries.
3 – miletos in ionia 55
ruling out several Asian cities that wanted to build
the temple to Tiberius: “The Pergamenes (and they
were using this itself as an argument) were judged
to have been honored enough by the temple to
Augustus there; the Ephesians and Milesians were
seen as having totally devoted their cities to the
worship of Artemis in the former case, Apollo in the
latter.” Gaius’ reasoning, as (para)phrased by the epi-
tomator of Dio, seems to have followed the Senate’s
in Tacitus: a city could be ‘preempted’ by another
major cult from getting a provincial imperial temple,
at least in this period.
Suetonius, in his life of Gaius (21), confirms that
the emperor indeed took an interest in the Didy-
maion at Miletos: he included its completion in a
list of semi-impossible projects that Gaius intended
to undertake.2 But Suetonius listed this among his
actions as head of state; though extravagant, it was
not considered outrageous, and Suetonius made no
mention of changing the cult.
Inscriptions confirm that provincial officials and
workers gathered at Didyma in the reign of Gaius.
A base for a statue of the emperor himself, dated
to 40/41, was found near the southwest corner of
the temple at Didyma.3 The dedicants were a group
of neopoioi, officials responsible for construction or
physical upkeep of a temple, in this case, the temple
of Gaius Caesar “in Miletos.” Robert first pointed
out that they represented each city center of thir-
teen judicial districts, and thus the whole of the
province Asia.4 He also indicated that the temple’s
being ‘in Miletos’ did not necessarily rule out the
Didymaion, as it was also within the territory and
under the administration of that city.5 Less securely
dated, but perhaps from the same time, is an inscrip-
2 Pülz 1989, 8-9 n. 25 had doubts about the probability of
this list.
3 Rehm 1958, no. 148.
4 L. Robert 1949.
5 Note also that the Didymaion had won the titles ‘sacred’
and ‘asylos’ for the city of Miletos itself in the third century
B.C.E.: Rigsby 1996, 172-178.
56 part i – section i. koinon of asia
tion that mentions the craftsmen of Asia working on
the temple at Didyma.6 But why would provincial
craftsmen be working on Miletos’ Didymaion if it
were not a provincial temple? And why would pro-
vincial officials in charge of building a temple to
Gaius dedicate a statue to him in the sacred area
of a different temple? On the current balance of
evidence, it seems that Dio was right, and that the
koinon temple to Gaius was going to be the Didy-
maion.
Some historians have downplayed Dio’s account
as error, prejudice, or scandal-mongering.7 But
neither Suetonius nor the inscriptions contradict
him. Though his attempts to deify himself in Rome
could be interpreted as sheer madness, Gaius’ move
into the Didymaion, at least as a cult partner to
Apollo, would probably not have been considered
so outrageous by the Asians, who had the precedent
of provincial temples to Augustus and Tiberius.8
Certainly Dio was familiar with such new cults in
old temples for an emperor he knew well (and also
disliked): Caracalla’s cult was moved into the temple
of Rome at Smyrna and into that of Asklepios at
Pergamon, and Dio served as administrator of both
those cities shortly afterward.9
The neopoioi inscription documents how the build-
ing of one temple, now made provincial and impe-
rial, was organized by the koinon. Each city that was
the seat of a judicial district of the province sent a
representative neopoios, presumably to oversee the
collection and disbursement of funds as well as
temple construction.10 We know less of the crafts-
men of Asia, but they too may have been organized
and sent as representatives of their cities or judicial
districts.11 Thus all parts of the provincial koinon
were represented at, and responsible for, the build-
ing of this (and by extension other) provincial im-
perial temples.12 If the emperor took any part in the
6 Rehm 1958, no. 107. The connection is given new em-
phasis by Herrmann 1989a.
7 Parke 1985, 71-72; Fontenrose 1988, 21-22, 169.
8 Herrmann 1989a, 195 suggested the synnaos relationship.
Barrett 1989, 143-144 judged it “by no means implausible” that
Gaius meant to take the Didymaion for himself alone, com-
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.
9 Cassius Dio 79.20.4, 80.7.4.
10 Habicht 1975, 90-91.
11 Herrmann 1992, 69-70 believed that the craftsmen were
paid by the province as well.
12 The doubts of Magie 1950, 1366-1367 as to the provin-
cial status of this temple seem unfounded.
organization or funding of the project, as Suetonius
implied, it is not evident from the other documents,
but his building projects elsewhere were numerous
and this is not inconsistent with them.13
If the Didymaion served as the third provincial
imperial temple in Asia, it is the first whose ruins
we can identify (illus. pl. 1 fig. 3, pl. 4 fig. 16). And
if the temples of Augustus at Pergamon and of
Tiberius at Smyrna were anything like it, they must
have been on a truly magnificent scale, which was
what had attracted Gaius to Didyma in the first
place. The Didymaion was a colossal Ionic dipteros,
facing east, with ten columns on the short side and
twenty-one on the long; its stylobate, at 51.13 x
109.34 m., was almost as large as that of the Arte-
mision at Ephesos.14 Strabo (14.1.5) thought it the
largest of all temples, and that its lack of a roof was
due to its great size. It had been under construction
since at least the beginning of the third century
B.C.E. Its layout was unusual, and was perhaps
dictated by the requirements of the oracle of Apollo
which issued from it.15 What seemed to be a stan-
dard, though grandiose, approach through a twelve-
column pronaos (three rows of four columns each)
was stymied by a huge door with a threshold too
high (1.5 m.) to enter; one could just look into a
double-(Corinthian)-columned room accessible only
from the other side. Instead, access to the interior
was indirect, down one of two stone-lined tunnels.
One followed them out into an enormous hypaethral
court that dwarfed the small building sunk into its
middle; this may have been a naiskos for Apollo’s
statue, though the presence of a well indicates that
it may have served the oracle. The decorative
scheme was predictably Apolline, with a frieze along
the inner wall of griffins, winged lions, and lyres,
more griffins and bulls’ heads on the column capi-
tals, as well as busts of Zeus and of Apollo, and
gorgoneia on the exterior frieze.
Archaeological evidence is not decisive on the
temple’s state of construction during the reign of
Gaius. Coins of Miletos show a hexastyle temple at
this and at other periods, but are not specific enough
to identify the Didymaion or any particular struc-
13 Barrett 1989, 192-212; Herrmann 1992, 70 believed that
the emperor played a financial role.
14 Knackfuss 1942; Voigtländer 1975; Gruben 1976, 359-
375; Tuchelt 1992, with current bibliography.
15 Parke 1985, 210-219; Fontenrose 1988, 78-85. Tuchelt
1992, 12-13 was more pessimistic about reconstructing the
rituals from the remains.
 chapter
ture.16 Work on the huge project may have been
taken up again at around this time, but the details
of construction and ornament cannot be dated spe-
cifically.17 We do not know whether any changes
were intended in order to accommodate Gaius’ cult,
and in any case the shortness of his reign hints that
not much was accomplished; he was assassinated in
January 41.18
The chief priest on the neopoioi inscription, Gnaeus
Vergilius Capito, had already served as chief priest
of Asia twice before serving this, his third term, as
chief priest of the temple of Gaius Caesar in Miletos.
He was obviously a powerful figure in his city and
province, and came from a Milesian family to whom
the imperial cult was important.19 The neokoros of
the temple, Tiberius Julius Menogenes, was eminent
as well, having already been chief priest twice.20 The
chief neopoios also held the offices of sebastoneos, oth-
erwise unknown, and sebastologos, for delivering prose
eulogies of the emperor. Thus some of the person-
nel of the third provincial imperial temple in Asia
have been laid out for us.
The death of Gaius and the obliteration of all
reminders of him must have put an end to the es-
tablishment of his cult and the building of his temple
(qua koinon temple, though of course the Didymaion
would go on).21 As Gaius’ death and dishonor came
before ‘neokoros’ became a title for cities with koinon
temples, Miletos never became neokoros for his
temple.
First Neokoria
It is possible that Miletos tried to retain the honor
it had received from Gaius by diverting the worship
intended for him to some other emperor, whether
current (Claudius) or previous (Augustus or Tibe-
rius). No evidence for this has been found, however,
and an attempt to dedicate the temple to a previ-
ous emperor would have contradicted the policy of
16 E.g., BMC 143 and SNGCop 1007, with obverses of Gaius.
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
official of perhaps the second century, but the cult served is
restored ‘of the Augusti.’
21 Cassius Dio 60.4.1, 5-6. On the nature of his condem-
nation, see Barrett 1989, 177-180 and Varner 1993, 14-77.
Riccardi 1996, 209 n. 270, and passim on neokoria, was de-
pendent on outdated information.
3 – miletos in ionia 57
one temple per emperor that the koinon of Asia had
established thus far: Augustus’ provincial temple was
in Pergamon, Tiberius’ in Smyrna. We have no
evidence on whether or where Asia built a temple
to Claudius. There is, however, one later inscription
of Miletos as neokoros:
INSCRIPTION 1. Rehm 1958, 164. Decree hon-
oring an athlete. [MeilÆtou t}w] |e[rvtãthw
mhtrop]Òlevw t[}w ÉIvn¤aw k(a‹)] nevkÒro[u t«]n
Sebast«n k(a‹) toË [t]}w ÉAttik}w eÈgene¤a[w
é]ji\matow. . .
Rehm dated the decree to the early third century.
It is not impossible that enumeration is missing
before ‘neokoros,’ but the space is tight and a single
neokoria is consistent with the evidence of later coins
(below). As for the terminology, ‘neokoros of the
Augusti’ assures us that Miletos did not achieve its
title for the cult of its patron god Apollo at the Didy-
maion. Moretti assumed that ‘neokoros of the
Augusti’ and ‘of the rank of Attic nobility’ should
be combined into one phrase, but Robert corrected
him; they are independent titles.22 Price attributed
this first neokoria to a temple of Augustus, but that
was a municipal, not a provincial, temple.23 In fact,
the field is wide open, being limited only to emper-
ors from Claudius to Septimius Severus whose names
were not subsequently wiped from the records.
Second Neokoria: Elagabalus
Miletos declared itself twice neokoros of the Augusti
on coins with portraits of Elagabalus, his mother
Julia Soaemias, his grandmother Julia Maesa, and
his successor, Severus Alexander, adopted and made
Caesar in 221.
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: [AUT K M] AUR ANTV-
NEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Elagabalus r. Rev: EPI ARX MINNIVNO%;
MILH%IVN DI% NEVKORVN TVN %EB Two two-
column temples on high podia, a disc in each
pediment, turned toward each other; within each
22 Moretti 1959, 202-203; J. and L. Robert 1961, 266-267
no. 582.
23 S. Price 1984b, 257. See Herrmann with Greger 1994,
225-226, on the municipal priest of Augustus, and 230 on the
temple of Augustus, previously incorrectly located north of the
council house. On the latter, Herrmann with McCabe 1986,
180.
58 part i – section i. koinon of asia
a male figure with sceptre. a) Paris 1912 (illus. pl.
20 fig. 65).
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: IOU %OAIMIA% %EBA%TH
Diademed draped bust of Julia Soaemias r. Rev:
MILH%IVN B NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN Two
prize crowns, one labeled OLUMPIA, the other
PUYIA, on an agonistic table. a) Paris 1921.
This is the first time that the title appeared on
Milesian coins, so we can assume that the city was
proud of its achievement of a second neokoria, and
wished to draw attention to it. Again, ‘twice neokoros
of the Augusti’ assures us that neither of the two
neokoriai was for Apollo Didymaios or any other
divinity. The two imperial temples on type 1 are
abbreviated to become two-column structures iden-
tical to each other in every detail, including the
imperial cult statues. Echoing that type is type 2 for
two festivals, Olympia and Pythia. These may have
been festivals for the temples which made the city
neokoros, but if they are, the type gives little infor-
mation beyond the fact that one was modeled on
the Olympic, the other on the Delphic, festival.24
Withdrawn: Severus Alexander
Miletos had never made much of being neokoros
before the time of Elagabalus. It presumably re-
turned to that state just after his death and the
condemnation of his memory which wiped out many
cities’ neokoriai, Miletos’ included.25 No known
Milesian coins mention neokoria during the reign
of Severus Alexander. But this was exactly the pe-
riod when Magnesia, Miletos’ neighbor and a rival
sanctuary, first boasted that it was neokoros of its
patron goddess, Artemis Leukophryene.26 This vaunt
24For a female neokoros of Artemis Pythie, and Megala Pythia
Panionia games at Miletos, see Günther 1985, 185-188, 186 n.
28.
25 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417.
must have offended the Milesians, perhaps intention-
ally.
We are assured that the initial neokoria at least
remained valid, however, by coins issued during the
two or three months in 238 C.E. when Balbinus and
Pupienus ruled as joint emperors with the young
Gordian III Caesar. They again proclaim Miletos
simply neokoros.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
1. Rehm 1958, 164. Decree honoring an athlete,
dated to the early third century. See text above.
Note: Herrmann 1997, 205 restores a fragment (g)
to Rehm 1924 (= IvM 6.1.A 1997) no. 259; the frag-
ment ends . . . ]nƒ tØn |er[ . . ./ . . . ]v nevk[or- . . ./
. . . ]LOS[ . . .; according to Herrmann, “schwer
verständlich.”
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Twice neokoros:
Elagabalus: Paris.
Julia Soaemias: Paris.
Julia Maesa: Sardis 106.
Severus Alexander Caesar: SNGMün 784; Berlin.
Neokoros:
Balbinus: BMC 164; SNGCop 1021; Berlin (3 exx.), Lon-
don, Paris, Vienna, Warsaw.
Pupienus: Berlin, London, Paris (2 exx.).
Balbinus, Pupienus, Gordian III Caesar: London, Paris.
26 The rivalry was long-standing: Rigsby 1996, 175. In the
late third century B.C.E., Miletos had sought and obtained
rights of asylum, and then a quinquennial Panhellenic festi-
val. The Magnesians copied them and sought the same privi-
leges soon after, with indifferent success. There was then a
border conflict between them, now dated to the late 180s
B.C.E.: Herrmann 1997, 182-184.
 chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia
Chapter 4. Ephesos in Ionia: Koinon of Asia
One of the largest, wealthiest, and most prominent
cities in the province of Asia was Ephesos. Its im-
portance was recognized by a third-century impe-
rial decree according to which each new proconsul
was required to make Ephesos his first landfall in
the province.1 Yet Ephesos was not the first city to
receive an imperial temple for the Hellenes in its
province; that honor went to Pergamon (q.v.). On
the other hand, it was one of the first cities to call
itself neokoros.
In 29 B.C.E., at the same time that he allowed a
provincial temple for his own cult at Pergamon,
Augustus permitted that there be a sacred precinct
for Rome and the hero Julius Caesar in Ephesos,
which Cassius Dio called the chief city of Asia.2 The
best evidence that Ephesos’ shrine to Rome and the
deified Julius was not a provincial imperial temple
would come when cities began to acquire the title
‘neokoros’ for such temples. Under Domitian, when
Ephesos called itself neokoros, it had a single iden-
tifiable provincial imperial temple, that ‘of the
Augusti,’ not of Rome and Caesar; and its chief
priest did not begin to be called ‘chief priest of the
[plural] temples in Ephesos’ until the temple of
Hadrian, for which Ephesos became twice neokoros,
was built.
Dio stated that Augustus designated Ephesos’
sanctuary to Rome and the hero Julius for the use
of resident Romans. That there was already an orga-
nized body of them is proved by an inscription of
36 B.C.E. set up by the conventus of Roman citizens
doing business in Ephesos.3 Though Ephesos had
1 Ulpian, Digest 1.16.4.5, by Caracalla: Alan Watson 1985,
32; Millar 1987, xi.
2 Cassius Dio 51.20.6-7; see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon.’ Wein-
stock 1971, 401-404, constructed an earlier history for this cult
at Ephesos: already in 41 B.C.E. Antony had carried a letter
from the Senate to sacred delegates in Asia regarding it. The
letter, however, does not mention Ephesos as the cult place at
all, nor can Weinstock’s identification of its priesthood and the
flaminate of Caesar with the chief priesthood of the province
Asia be correct. See Whittaker 1996, 93-99.
3 IvE 658, supplemented by Knibbe, Engelmann, and
Iplikçioglu 1989, 235-236; see also Scherrer 2001, 85.
59
rivals as the foremost city in the province, it was the
primary seat of the governor, and also a significant
port.4 Pergamon, however, was the center of the
province’s pre-Roman administration, and thus also
for the koinon of the Hellenes, which was permit-
ted to worship Augustus himself. Despite Dio’s state-
ment that Ephesos was the foremost city of the
province at that time, the chief temple and center
of provincial cult in Asia was to be in Pergamon,
not in Ephesos.
The location of Ephesos’ sanctuary for Rome and
the hero Julius, as well as that of a Sebasteion built
by the city and documented on local inscriptions,
are problems that are not entirely settled. A consen-
sus of opinion has located both imperial shrines in
the ‘state agora’ of the city, a monumental square
including the prytaneion and bouleuterion, devel-
oped in the first century B.C.E. Whether the shrine
of Rome and the hero Julius can be identified as the
structure previously known as the ‘state altar’ (re-
stored as two diminutive four-column prostyle
temples on the same podium), or as the six-by-ten
column temple in the center of the state agora (first
identified as a temple of Isis, then of Dionysos/Mark
Antony, and then as the Sebasteion), is uncertain.5
There appears to have been a Sebasteion connected
with the great temple of Artemis outside the city as
well.6
Ephesos was among the eleven cities of Asia that
competed to build a koinon temple to Tiberius, but
was passed over as being too wholly occupied by the
cult of Artemis.7 This reason was used again to rule
out a temple to Gaius.8 Yet in a province eager to
establish a temple to each of its rulers, such a promi-
4 Haensch 1997, 286, 298-321.
5 Thus far no decisive evidence for either identification has
been adduced. Alzinger 1970, 1648-1649; Jobst 1980; Scherrer
1995a, 4-5; Walters 1995, 293-295; Scherrer 1997, 93-100;
Scherrer 2001, 69-71. Both monuments have the same build-
ing technique: Waelkens 1987, 96.
6 Engelmann 1993.
7 Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56; chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’
8 Cassius Dio 59.28.1; chapter 3, ‘Miletos.’
60 part i – section i. koinon of asia
nent city, seat of the Roman governors, center of a
world-famous cult and of a judicial district, should
not have had to wait for long; the only question is,
how long?
An inscription of Kyzikos (q.v.) had used the term
‘neokoros’ in connection with the city’s imperial cult
as early as the reign of Gaius, but another early
literary citation associated it with Ephesos’ temple
of Artemis. Saint Paul visited Ephesos around the
years 52-54; at that time a local silversmith who
made his business out of selling silver images of the
temple of Artemis roused the citizens against him,
so that a riot erupted. According to the account in
the Acts of the Apostles, when the people flocked to the
theater shouting “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”
they were quieted by the city’s secretary, the gram-
mateus, who is quoted saying “Who does not know
that Ephesos is neokoros of the great goddess
Artemis and of the heaven-fallen [image]?”9 Most
studies of Acts have indicated that, though the ac-
count is not that of an eyewitness, it is a fairly reli-
able representation of the events of Paul’s mission
and his visit to Ephesos; the text itself may have been
prepared twenty-five years or more after the event.10
The term ‘neokoros’ was not cited here as part of
the city’s official titulature; the grammateus used it
as a metaphor, to illustrate the city’s relationship to
Artemis’ temple and image. As a detail, however,
it places the episode precisely in the late Claudian/
early Neronian period.11 For very soon after, the title
‘neokoros’ was to be become part of official civic
titulature in Asia, identified exclusively with the
provincial imperial cult, not the possession of the
temple of Artemis.
9 Acts of the Apostles 19.35; on the office, Schulte 1994.
Images seen as primitive were often classed as ‘heaven-fallen’:
Willemsen 1939, 18-35, esp. 28-32 on Artemis; see chapter 9,
‘Philadelphia.’ LiDonnici 1992, 395-396, incautiously deni-
grated both the Acts citation and the evidence for Artemis’
headdress (below).
10 Haenchen 1965, 60, 77, 672; Molthagen 1991, 65-71,
dates the text ca. 90 C.E.; also see Gill and Gempf 1994, ix-
xiii; and Trebilco 1994.
11 White 1995, 37 doubted a Neronian date for the events
in Acts despite the appearance of ‘neokoros’ on later Neronian
coins, and supported a date closer to the turn of the second
century; yet the grammateus’ use of the term ‘neokoros of
Artemis’ as if it were well known would not have been per-
mitted in the early second century, as by that time Ephesos
was officially neokoros of the Augusti, and only of the Augusti.
Indeed, the title would not have been appropriate again until
Ephesos did become neokoros of Artemis, at the beginning of
the third, not the second, century; see below. The same ap-
plies to Koester’s own doubts about the episode’s timing and
historicity: Koester 1982, 310; idem 1995, 130-131.
First Neokoria: Nero
The first appearance ever on a coin of the title ‘neo-
koros’ occurred at Ephesos.
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: NERVN KAI%AR Laureate
head of Nero r. (l., e) Rev: AOUIOLA ANYUPATV
(AIXMOKLH%, acefgh) EF(E, af) NEVKORVN
(NEOKORVN, a) Four-column Ionic? temple in
three-quarter view on three-step podium. a) Lon-
don 1972.8-7-12 (illus. pl. 21 fig. 66) b) Oxford
10.12 c) Paris 626 d) Vienna 31480 e) Berlin,
Löbbecke f) Berlin, Bernhard-Imhoof 1928 g)
Berlin h) SNGvA 7863.12
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: NERVN KAI%AR Laureate
head of Nero r. Rev: EFE%IVN NEOKORVN
Six-column Ionic? temple on three-step podium,
disc in pediment, Victories as akroteria; to either
side, a bee. a) London 1973.5-1-4 (illus. pl. 21 fig.
67).13
Type 1 is dated by the name of the proconsul M’.
Acilius Aviola; as his name appears on coins with
portraits of both the Empress Poppaea and her
successor Messalina his proconsulship of Asia must
have been in 65/66.14 Type 1 is also one of the
earliest coin types to show a temple in three-quar-
ter view, and probably represents the same temple
shown in facade on type 2, which was likely issued
at around the same time. But whose temple was it?
Though the better examples make it appear Ionic
like the Artemision, Price and Trell thought it was
Corinthian; also, Victory-akroteria do not appear on
coin images of the temple of Artemis.15 The bees on
type 2 do not help, as they are the symbols of the
city itself on much of Ephesian coinage. One shows
up on another coin of this Neronian series, and ac-
companies a bust of the goddess Rome; this draped
and mural-crowned city goddess is also shown hold-
ing a statuette of the Artemis of Ephesos.16 All these
types show a close connection between Ephesos and
the personification of Rome, who after all had shared
cult with the hero Julius in the temenos for resident
Romans established in the city in 29 B.C.E. But why
12 RPC 1:438 no. 2627 (example e) and 2626 (all but e).
13 RPC 1:438 no. 2628.
14 Stumpf 1991, 178-181; Thomasson 1984, 214-215 no.
59.
15 Pace Karwiese 1999, fig. 9, who did not distinguish be-
tween these akroteria and (unwinged?) figures in the pediment;
M. Price and Trell 1977, 262 no. 380; Trell 1945.
16 RPC 1:438 nos. 2629, 2632.
 chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia
would so old a cult suddenly be celebrated on coins
of 65/66 C.E.? And is it only a coincidence that the
Ephesian kouretes, an association dedicated to the cult
and rituals of Artemis Ephesia, add the title
philosebastoi, ‘Augustus-loving,’ to their lists of
members just at this period?17
It has long been thought that Ephesos was declar-
ing itself to be neokoros of Artemis on the Aviola
coins, just as the grammateus declared the city
neokoros of Artemis in Acts.18 But it is just possible
that instead Ephesos was calling itself neokoros for
a provincial temple that it had been seeking since
the reign of Tiberius, and which it may have finally
won in the reign of Nero.19 If that was so, it was a
particularly unfortunate time for the establishment
of such a temple. Some two years later, in June 68,
Nero was declared a public enemy by the Senate and
killed himself, after which his name, not to mention
his cult, was condemned.20
Rededication: Vespasian or Later
If Ephesos had been granted permission to build a
temple to Nero, petitions to change the object of cult
to a subsequent emperor may have been similarly
unfortunate. Within the infamous year 69, Galba,
Otho, and Vitellius each attempted to serve as head
of state, and each was displaced in turn. Vespasian
finally succeeded in holding power and passing it on
to his sons, but it is uncertain how long it would have
taken for the pleas of an Asian city and its koinon
regarding a lost provincial temple for a dishonored
emperor to be presented or to be heeded.
Though Vespasian’s advent was apparently greet-
ed with enthusiasm in Asia, local disputes may have
been serious enough to necessitate lengthening the
term of the proconsul Eprius Marcellus.21 There was
some Flavian reorganization of the province, and
expenditure, some imperial and some local, was
made on the road system, earthquake repair, pub-
lic works in the cities, and the celebration of fes-
17 Rogers 1999.
18 J. Keil 1919.
19 RPC 1:433.
20 Kienast 1996, 96-98; Varner 1993, 78-187; and Rose
1997b, 112-113. Individual cities could be haphazard in their
approach to the condemnation, especially in early cases such
as Nero’s.
21 Thomasson 1984, 215 no. 65.
61
tivals.22 It is remotely possible that a petition for a
koinon temple in a city that had once established a
koinon temple for Nero would not be among the
cases heard by Vespasian with favor, or that there
was some other reason for delay. But on the whole,
Asia was apparently prosperous during the reigns of
Vespasian and Titus, and could have begun (or
continued?) building a provincial imperial temple if
permission for one were granted.
Only later, however, under the emperor Domi-
tian, did a group of cities of the koinon of Asia make
dedications for “the common [koinos, implying pro-
vincial status] temple of Asia of the Augusti [Sebastoi]
in Ephesos.”23 Though the dedications were to the
current emperor, the temple was not called a temple
of Domitian, but of the Augusti.24 This could mean
that the cult in this provincial temple included the
current rulers (Domitian with his consort Domitia),
all three emperors of the Flavian dynasty, or all their
honored imperial predecessors, each without ruling
out the presence of the others. The latter group was
not necessarily limited to those recognized as divi at
Rome: for example, Tiberius, though never deified,
continued as an object of the Asian provincial cult
in Smyrna’s temple at least into the third century,
and his mother Livia, as Julia Sebaste, shared that
temple well before Claudius deified her.25 Later
inscriptions, datable to the early third century,
record a temple of the god Vespasian, probably
referring to the main object of worship at the pro-
vincial temple of the Augusti at Ephesos.26
On the inscriptions that celebrated the founda-
tion, and probably stood around this temple, ten
22 Dräger 1993, 39-54, 66-70, 77-89, though several of his
assumptions are highly questionable; see below.
23 J. Keil 1919; IvE 232-242, 1498, 2048.
24 E. Meyer 1975; pace S. Price 1984b, 58, 254-257. Al-
though one inscription cities a “chief priest and neokoros of
Domitian Caesar and Domitia Sebaste and their house and the
Senate,” it is likely that this was a local office, held in his home
town of Tmolos. Note also SIG4 820, an inscription copied by
Cyriacus of Ancona, which joined the cult of the theoi Sebastoi
with the ancient cult of Demeter at Ephesos in the
proconsulship of L. Mestrius Florus (ca. 88/89, around the time
of the dedication of the temple of the Augusti).
25 Pace Scherrer 1997, 100-106, all too dependent on Dräger
1993; see ‘Smyrna,’ chapter 2.
26 IvE 710 B and C, 3038; Friesen 1993, 37 n. 27 was un-
necessarily perturbed over the fact that the provincial status
of the temple was not explicitly mentioned in these inscriptions,
and postulated a municipal temple of Vespasian. But see be-
low, where Ephesos’ own second provincial temple, which made
it twice neokoros, is called simply ‘the temple of the god
Hadrian’ (contra Friesen 1993, 34).
62 part i – section i. koinon of asia
cities adhered to a ‘short formula’ of dedication,
which may have been modeled on a motion in the
koinon council.27 The two free cities, Aphrodisias
and Stratonikeia, expanded on that formula, empha-
sizing that they were not bound by the koinon’s
actions, but joined in the dedication as a voluntary
act.28 Only the free cities and Philadelphia in Lydia,
which used a formula of its own in setting up a statue
of the demos of Ephesos, called the city of Ephesos
neokoros (inscriptions 2, 3, and 4, below). The free
cities emphasized their own status in their inscrip-
tions, while Philadelphia, a less important city,
played up its relationship with neokoros Ephesos.
Friesen believed that these inscriptions tended to
“minimize the significance of the cult for Ephesus,
while emphasizing the role of the other cities of the
province.” But it is not that the inscriptions mini-
mize the significance of the cult; they only play up
their own cities’ importance. Naturally so, as these
were not inscriptions of Ephesos, even if they stood
within that city; their function was to document the
donors’ piety in contributing toward, or celebrating
the dedication of, the common temple of the prov-
ince. A parallel example is Ephesos’ own dedication
to Hadrian at the Olympieion at Athens (inscription
37, below): its magniloquence celebrated Ephesos’
titles, not Athens’. At the temple of the Augusti at
Ephesos, neokoros was not a denigrating term, as
Friesen implied. It only stated the terms under which
the current dedications were being made: Ephesos
held the new provincial temple which was being
celebrated.
When was the temple of the Augusti decreed?
First of all, the coins issued by Ephesos under Aviola
(65/66) make it possible that the title ‘neokoros’ had
already come to Ephesos for a provincial imperial
temple in the reign of Nero, and that the ‘temple
of the Augusti’ had been at some stage the temple
of Nero (its image shown, but presumably as a pro-
jection, not yet built) for which the city had called
itself neokoros on coins two decades before the time
of Domitian, when the temple was completed. The
delay would have been long, as noted above; but the
period comprehended the disruption of an empire,
the fall of one dynasty, and the foundation of an-
other.
27 Friesen 1993, 29-49. They include Aizanoi (twice), Kere-
tapa, Klazomenai, Silandos, Teos, Kyme, Tmolos, Hyrkanis,
Synaos, and an unknown city.
28 Reynolds 1982, 109, 167-168; Reynolds 1999, 135.
The first inscription to call the city neokoros is
of uncertain date: though it may come from the
Neronian period of the Aviola coins, it may on the
other hand show that Ephesos was neokoros of the
Augusti by late 85 to 86 C.E.
INSCRIPTION 1. IvE 2034 (FiE 2:34; SEG
4:563). Building inscription of the skene of the
theater. { neo[kÒ]row [t«n Sebast«n ÉEfes]¤vn
pÒ[liw]. . .
The dedication is to an emperor who was
Germanicus at the time of his eleventh imperial
acclamation, and whose name was later obliterated.
This could have been either Nero or Domitian. If
Nero, the date would fall between late summer 66
and 67, just after the issue of Ephesian coins with
the title ‘neokoros’ under Aviola, and providing
further indication that the title ‘neokoros’ was offi-
cial (and likely for the Augusti) at that time. If
Domitian, the inscription dates between October/
November 85 and March/April 86 C.E., two years
before the dedications began to be set up for the
temple of the Augusti at Ephesos.29 Either is pos-
sible, as both occur around a time when the neokoria
was otherwise documented.
Keil believed that since there was only one pro-
vincial temple in Ephesos, the reading of inscription
1 should be restored as ‘neokoros of the Augustus,’
but this would be unparalleled. Certainly the temple
itself is called that of the Augusti, not of the
Augustus, as noted above. In any case, additional
evidence is needed before the date of inscription 1
can be decided.
Dräger, taking the date of inscription 1 as Domi-
tianic and using as his model Tacitus’ description
of how Smyrna (q.v.) received its provincial temple
under Tiberius, spun a scenario that had the koinon
voting a provincial temple to Domitian (and Zeus
Olympios) in 83, to celebrate Domitian’s German
victory, complete with a debate on where to build
it held in summer 84.30 The result is more in the
nature of historical fiction than history, based as it
29 Kienast 1996, 96-98, 115-118. Heberdey’s FiE publica-
tion opted for Nero, but the Domitianic date suited J. Keil 1919,
116 n. 5, and was also adopted in IvE. The similar skene at
Miletos proved to be Neronian, however: Herrmann 1986, 183,
on the Ephesian question; and Herrmann 1998, no. 928.
30 Dräger 1993, 122-135, 181-182. The usefulness of Drä-
ger’s work was also vitiated by his tendency to refer to any pro-
vincial imperial cult as “Neokoriekult” even in cases where the
title ‘neokoros’ never appeared (e.g. Lycia in the first century,
246-249; see chapter 33, ‘Patara’).
 chapter
is on coincidences, and filled in with imagination.
As for IvE 230, which was postulated to concern the
grant of the neokoria by Domitian, the inscription
is much too fragmentary to be certain about its
subject; neither the temple nor the title is mentioned.
When, and for whom, was the temple of the
Augusti at Ephesos finally built? J. Keil, who first
gathered and analyzed the evidence, noted that after
Domitian’s death, his name was obliterated from the
dedications of the cities and that of ‘the god
Vespasian’ written in. He believed that not only the
inscriptions but the temple itself underwent the
process of rededication, and that it had originally
been built for the worship of Domitian. Magie, on
the other hand, attributed the original temple to an
emperor earlier than Domitian, but this hypothesis
was based on an early date, 83/84 C.E., for the first
proconsul of Asia, L. Mestrius Florus, under whom
the cities set up their dedications.31 In fact, Eck has
dated Florus’ proconsulship five years later, to 88/
89.32 The city dedications, set up under three dif-
ferent proconsuls perhaps from 88 to 91, certainly
indicate that the temple was completed and dedi-
cated in the reign of Domitian. Friesen dated the
completion of the temple to exactly 90 C.E., based
on the absence of the temple’s neokoros official on
all but two dedications dated to the proconsulate of
L. Luscius Ocr(e)a.33 As two of the rest of the inscrip-
tions are incomplete and four feature a prominent
erasure, one cannot place too much dependence on
this assumption from silence.
It is still possible that the temple had been granted
earlier, under Vespasian, or even under Nero.
Though the long delay in building would still have
to be explained, there is a parallel for it: the festi-
val in the name of Ti. Claudius Balbillus, established
by permission of Vespasian, was also not celebrated
until Domitian’s time.34 The year 88/89 (or 85/86,
if inscription 1 proves to be for Domitian) is only
the point by which the neokoria and the temple of
the Augusti must have been granted. Dedicated
between 88 and 91, its point of absolute completion
may have been yet later: its decorated altar and the
31 Magie 1950, 1432-1434 n. 18.
32 Eck 1970, 85, 139; Eck 1982, 315. Thomasson 1984, 217-
218 no. 75, assigned it only to a year of Domitian’s reign before
90.
33 Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 77 (85-91 C.E.); Friesen 1993,
45-49.
34 Brunet 1997 dates it to 85 or 86 C.E.
4 – ephesos in ionia 63
architectural facade of its terrace were not added
until the mid-second century (see below).
It has already been noted that the official desig-
nation of the temple even at its final dedication
under Domitian was ‘the temple of the Augusti.’
Previous provincial temples had not used this para-
phrase: even in the lifetimes of the emperors in
question, the temple at Pergamon was called that
of Rome and Augustus, that at Smyrna of Tiberius,
Julia, and the Senate, that at Miletos of Gaius Cae-
sar. Why was the Ephesian temple not called ‘the
temple of Domitian’? Possibly because there had
been a delay in its construction, and its original ob-
ject of cult was not the current emperor. If Ephe-
sos was originally granted a provincial temple for
Nero, lost it due to the condemnation of his memory,
had it regranted under Vespasian (who was remem-
bered into the third century as the chief object of
cult of this temple), but didn’t complete it until af-
ter that emperor’s death and the death of his im-
mediate successor, then ‘temple of the Augusti’ might
have been the best compromise as the title for a
building with such a varied history. Vespasian’s place
as the temple’s chief object of cult in the third cen-
tury has already been noted; Domitian, emperor
when the temple was completed, would surely have
been included; and Titus’ portrait head is what later
identified the temple (below). The empress Domitia
may have had her place as well, but no sign of the
cult of any emperor previous to Vespasian has been
found.35
The koinon temple of the Augusti at Ephesos has
been identified as an east-facing octastyle structure
set axially on a monumental 50 x 100 m. vaulted
terrace (illus. pl. 4 fig. 17).36 Though not extraor-
dinary in size, its position and its artificial height
made it a major building project; it took over resi-
dential areas and made them civic space, part of and
dominating the state agora to its east.37 Inscription
35 Scherrer 1997, 103-106 reasoned across provincial lines
to produce an official cult of the divi Augusti (including Augustus
and Claudius as well as Vespasian, Titus, and some empresses)
under Domitian, but his chief source, the imperial statues in
the Metroön at Olympia, only represent one particular case
of dedications made over time, probably by Elis; see the re-
evaluation by Rose 1997a, 147-149, who noted that no dedi-
cations to Claudius of Flavian date survive in the eastern
Mediterranean region.
36 Still often called the ‘Temple of Domitian’: J. Keil 1931/
32, 54; Boëthius and Ward-Perkins 1970, 392; Lyttelton 1987,
44; Scherrer 1995b, 94. On the building technique, Waelkens
1987, 96.
37 Vetters 1972-1975; Scherrer 2001, 74.
64 part i – section i. koinon of asia
9, of the mid-90s C.E., mentions the “new magni-
tude of the Augustan works,” perhaps referring to
the temple and its terrace, and suggests that reno-
vation of the older monuments (perhaps those of the
state agora below) would be fitting.38 Access to the
temple was by climbing monumental stairways to its
terrace at the north and southeast. Only the foun-
dations remain to show the temple’s plan (illus. pl.
1 fig. 2): an eight-by-thirteen column peristasis,
pseudodipteral, with a four-column (prostyle) cella
and no opisthodomos, set six steps up on a stylobate
of ca. 24 x 34 m. It follows the typical plan of Ionic
temples as canonized by the Greek architect Hermo-
genes in all respects, except for the omission of the
opisthodomos and the corresponding loss of two
columns on the long side. Scanty fragments of the
superstructure left on the site do not permit recon-
struction, nor can the order be established, except
as non-Doric. It is likely, however, that parts of the
temple were reused in the time of Theodosius I to
rebuild the ‘tetragonos agora’ to the northwest.
These may include Corinthian capitals decorated
with eagles and dolphins.39 An altar with reliefs of
weapons and sacrifices stood on a columned and
stepped platform east of the temple and on its axis.
Both it and the figural decoration of caryatid bar-
barians (at first misidentified as the gods Attis and
Isis) along the north side of the temple terrace may
date significantly later than the building itself, per-
haps to the mid-second century.40 These facts ob-
viate Friesen’s theory of the terrace representing the
gods supporting the emperors, and substitute a more
earthly and martial metaphor of imperial triumph.41
The keystone for the identification of this temple
was the discovery of marble pieces of colossal stat-
ues, including one head, in the vaulted substructures
of its terrace (illus. pl. 8 fig. 26). The head was at
first supposed to be Domitian’s, but Daltrop, in his
reexamination of Flavian iconography, identified it
as a portrait of Domitian’s elder brother Titus, who
reigned briefly after their father Vespasian.42 This
38 Winter 1996, 80, 325 no. 40. Other projects may have
been included among the ‘Augustan works.’
39 Scherrer 1995b, 19-20, 22.
40 Bammer 1978-1980, 81-88; Schneider 1986, 125-128;
Bammer 1988, 153-156.
41 Friesen 1993, 68-75.
42 Daltrop, Hausman, and Wegner 1966, 26, 86, 100, pl.
15b; Rose 1997b. H. von Heintze, in Gymnasium 76 (1969) 372
criticized the identification but not convincingly. Surprisingly,
it is still sometimes called Domitian, even by Meriç 1985; he
apparently led S. Price astray, above n. 24; also Rogers 1991,
head and the left forearm found with it were the
best-preserved parts of the colossal statues that stood
in the provincial temple at Ephesos. Pieces of a pair
of legs and an open-handed right arm were also
found built into late walls.43 The find of a third
colossal hand proves that the statue of Titus did not
stand alone, and makes it at least possible that not
all the parts so far found came from the same statue.
The position of the knees shows that one statue
did stand, and one raised its left arm to hold a spear
or long sceptre (illus. pl. 8 fig. 27).44 The standing
statue must have been stupendous if only for its size
(the Titus head alone is 1.18 m. high). Judging by
the treatment of the base of Titus’ neck, the statue
was acrolithic, with the flesh represented by white
marble; the marble legs accommodated a wooden
armature that held the statue together. No part of
a torso has been found, and it is likely that it was
made of perishable wood, which could then be
painted, gilt, or bronze-covered (for the acrolithic
technique, see summary chapter 39 on temples and
statues in Part II). At least one statue’s costume was
probably a cuirass, indicating an emperor in trium-
phant military mode. About four times life size, the
Titus statue may have stood 7 m. tall, and together
with a companion statue of Vespasian and, until his
death, one of Domitian, would have filled the ca.
7.5 x 13 m. interior of the cella.45 Since one (cui-
rassed?) statue raised a sceptre in his left hand, it is
possible that another mirrored his gesture on the
right; these two were likely Titus and (at first)
Domitian, with Vespasian placed between them,
though the father’s guise is unknown. Strocka recon-
structed the post-Domitianic group as a cuirassed
Titus, lacking the shield that Meriç restored on the
incorrect side, with Vespasian in the pose of a stand-
ing Zeus, and speculated that the sculptors came
from Aphrodisias.46 Scherrer proposed an overly
speculative reconstruction of five statues (Augustus,
Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian) on 2 x
14. Varner 1993, 226-227, led by Price, argued unconvincingly
for Domitian, and apparently believed that cult statues would
be allowed to stand in an imperial cult temple in a Christian
empire until the triumph of Islam.
43 Meriç 1985, where the third hand is plate 23.13, not
23.16 as labeled.
44 Kreikenbom 1992, 103, 213-215, still led on a Domitianic
tangent by the legacy of J. Keil 1919. The restoration of Rose
1997b, fig. 5 is illustrated here (R. Hagerty, artist), based on
Meriç 1985, pl. 24.
45 Miltner 1958a, 38-40.
46 Strocka 1989, 85-87, 92 n. 58.
 chapter 4 – 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
DOMITIANO% KAI%AR %EBA% GERMANIKO%
wall of the cella (or a niche) as a means of accom-
AUTOKRAT Laureate head of Domitian r. Rev:
modating the statue’s great weight.48 So though
EFE%ION B NEOKORVN Four-column temple,
Bammer’s open placement should probably be ruled
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
husband’s reign (she became Augusta in 81); pos-
sibly Julia, daughter of Titus, was as well (Augusta
since 79, she was deified at her death in 89).55 It
should be noted, though, that no real trace of such
honors to any Augusta has been found here, and that
later statues of female agonothetai at Ephesos itself
and elsewhere show both male and female Augusti
on their crowns.56
The temple’s officials included a neokoros at least
from 90 C.E.57 There were also fourteen thesmodoi
of the provincial temple of the Augusti in Ephesos,
and perhaps nine or more theologoi under the di-
rection of the chief priest of that temple.58
The first chief priest of the provincial temple at
Ephesos yet known was Tiberius Claudius Aristion,
who served in that office in 89 C.E. and became the
temple’s neokoros in the very next year. He has now
been daringly identified with a skeleton whose sar-
cophagus was reburied to include a marble portrait
head with a diadem of imperial busts.59 Though the
skeleton and the portrait may well be the same man,
no evidence explicitly identifies either one as Arist-
ion, whom the scholars settled on because he was
the most eminent of the city’s benefactors of the late
first/early second century, the date of the sarcopha-
gus and of the portrait. But the site of the find was
beside the monument which Thür and her col-
leagues wished to identify as the ‘heroön of Andro-
klos,’ so they opined that the sarcophagus could not
have come from that monument, but from one near
the nymphaeum of Trajan which Aristion donated;
why the Ephesians of late antiquity would have
dragged the great stone sarcophagus so far up the
Embolos to bury it is never adequately explained.
Inscriptions 1-34 use the simple title ‘neokoros’
to describe the city or its people; coins issued un-
55Kienast 1996, 114, 118-119.
56The Ephesos examples are Severan: Rumscheid 2000,
122-123 nos. 17-18. See also chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’
57 Friesen 1993, 45-49; Campanile 1994a, no. 12.
58 IvE 27 (inscription 17, below) lines 457-458, 532-535
(thesmodoi), 258-265 (theologoi). Rogers 1991, 46-54 noted the
integration of these officials of the imperial cult temple into
processions and lotteries honoring Artemis primarily and the
emperors as well. IvE 645, a third century dedication to
Artemis, mentions a synedrion of hymnodoi, theologoi and
thesmodoi. Hymnodoi at Ephesos are usually those of Artemis,
though there are some nonspecific citations, and as the latter
inscription shows, functionaries of the imperial cult and of the
city’s chief goddess seem to have been closely associated; see
Rogers 1991, 55-56.
59 Thür 1997; Rumscheid 2000, 120-121 cat. no. 13.
der Trajan also mention it, generally in abbrevia-
tion (NEV). It is unfortunate that all the inscriptions
that call Ephesos neokoros of the Augusti are frag-
mentary (nos. 1, 2, 11, 32). The unadorned title
appears well into the reign of Hadrian, who would
give the city a second provincial imperial temple,
thus making it (for the first time) twice neokoros.
Second Neokoria: Hadrian
When Hadrian granted a second neokoria to
Ephesos, he had already allowed the Smyrnaeans to
add a temple for his own cult to their previous pro-
vincial temple; earlier still, Trajan had done the same
for Pergamon. Great cities were no longer to be
considered occupied by one cult to the exclusion of
others, and the same emperor could allow a single
province to build more than one temple in his honor.
In the case of Hadrian and Asia, three separate
provincial cults are known to have been established,
in Kyzikos, Smyrna, and Ephesos.
In his account of Hadrian’s gift to Smyrna (q.v.),
Philostratos wrote that “Hadrian, who had previ-
ously favored the Ephesians, [the orator Polemon]
converted to the Smyrnaeans’ side.” Since the
emperor’s grant of a second neokoria to Ephesos was
later than that to Smyrna, however, likely Philo-
stratos was overinterpreting Hadrian’s favor as a
choice. In fact, Hadrian never seems to have
frowned on the Ephesians, and for his benefactions
was hailed as ‘founder’ even before he made the city
twice neokoros.60 The date of that grant can be
established from the inscriptions: no. 31, the last to
call Ephesos simply neokoros, dates to 130/131,
whereas the first to call it twice neokoros has been
dated to 132:61
INSCRIPTION 37. IG II2 3297, from Athens.
Statue base of Hadrian from the Olympieion. {
mhtrÒpoliw [pr\th ka‹ meg¤sth] t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹
d‹w n[evkÒrow ÉEfes¤v]n pÒliw. . .
Hadrian visited Ephesos on at least two and prob-
ably more of his journeys through the East. In 124
he listened as the ephebes sang his praises in the
theater;62 and perhaps it was on his way back from
60 Gifts to Artemis, grants of grain shipments, rebuilding
the harbor and restoring the river Kaystros: IvE 274; Winter
1996, 71, 143-144.
61 Magie 1950, 1480 n. 30.
62 IvE 1145.
 chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia
his last trip in 131 that he called in at Ephesos and
awarded that city its second provincial imperial
temple.63 But the grant need not have been con-
nected with any particular visit. Since the time of
Trajan, the Ephesians had seen their rivals Perga-
mon and Smyrna become twice neokoroi, whereas
they only held that honor once. Moreover, Hadrian
had already shown himself willing to allow more
than one provincial temple for his own cult in Asia.
It is likely that the Ephesians did not cease to lobby
until they won the second neokoria that brought
them back onto the same level with the other lead-
ing cities in their koinon, Pergamon and Smyrna.
The moving spirit behind the second neokoria was
Tiberius Claudius Piso Diophantos. A statue base
from Ephesos records his accomplishments: “. . .
[Tiberius Cl]audius Piso Diophantos, who was chief
priest of the two temples in Ephesos, under whom
the temple of the god Hadrian was consecrated, who
first asked for (it) from the god Hadrian and obtained
(it).”64 Thus the request for the temple was presented
by Diophantos, probably acting as advocate for the
city and/or koinon. We know little else of Dio-
phantos; if his request won approval from Hadrian,
who was a connoisseur of orators, he must have been
an accomplished speaker. His memory may have
lasted long in the city’s annals, if not in ours, since
a bronze statue of him was perhaps re-erected in
Ephesos as late as 405-410 C.E.65 In any case, the
koinon likely rewarded him for his talents by pro-
viding that he be chief priest (of Asia) when the
temple of Hadrian was consecrated, making him the
first chief priest of two provincial temples in Ephesos.
Of course, there must have been some delay until
the temple itself was built. This is shown by the
following inscription:
INSCRIPTION 39. IvE 279. Base of a statue of
the empress Sabina. { filos°bastow [ÉEf]es¤vn
boulØ ka‹ ~ nev[kÒ]row d‹w d}mow . . .
Dated to 134/135 by the proconsulship of Antoninus
Pius, it was set up by Tiberius Claudius Magnus
Charidemos, probably the last chief priest of Asia
63 Halfmann 1986a, 194, 199-201, 204, 208; Lehnen 1997,
86-87, 90, 257, 260, 265; Schorndorfer 1997, 28 n. 44, an
unpublished inscription possibly from the first trip.
64 IvE 428, where the language is characterized as “hoch
stilisiert.” See Campanile 1994a, no. 77.
65 Both Knibbe 1995a, 100-102 and Scherrer 1999, 139
misinterpreted the reference to Hadrian yeÒw as being posthu-
mous, thus after 138; but see S. Price 1984a.
67
of the temple (singular) in Ephesos, while the same
inscription called the city twice neokoros.66 Though
the title was official, the new temple was not yet
standing by 134/135. Another document of this
temple is an inscription honoring a chief priestess
of Asia of the temples in Ephesos.67 There it is called
simply ‘the temple of Lord Hadrian Caesar.’ As both
temples were now standing, the inscription must
postdate the previous one of 134/135, but the
uninflated titulature for Hadrian should place it
before his death in 138. Thus the completion of
Hadrian’s temple and the chief priesthood of Dio-
phantos can be dated after 134/135 and before 138.
After the temple of Hadrian was completed, many
inscriptions referred to the chief priest, chief priest-
ess, or Asiarch of the temples (plural) at Ephesos.68
Occasionally the inscriptions detail exactly how
many temples the official had in his or her charge.69
Inscriptions also document hymnodoi ‘of the god
Hadrian’s temple’ in Ephesos.70
The temple itself has been identified as the cen-
ter of a monumental complex in the northern dis-
trict of Ephesos (illus. pl. 4 fig. 19); though no actual
proof beyond size and a Hadrianic date of construc-
tion has been offered, its identification as the temple
that made the city twice neokoros is not unreason-
able.71 The new complex was part of a mid-impe-
rial expansion of the city to the west and north, built
on landfill near, or perhaps in, the former harbor.
It consisted of a huge colonnaded temenos, ca. 225
66 Eck 1970, 210; Campanile 1994a, no. 70.
67 IvE 814; Rossner 1974, 101-142, esp. 139.
68 Rossner 1974, 115, 117, 119, 126, 128, 129, 135, 137,
139; for additional citations, see Kearsley 1988a. Also note the
error in citation by Rossner 1974, 127: CIL 3 (not CIG) 6835-
6837, from the Roman colony Antioch in Pisidia, document
Cn. Dottius Plancianus as ASIAR(CH) TEMPL at Ephesos,
which should be restored TEMPL(orum), as there were plural
temples making Ephesos neokoros in the time of Marcus
Aurelius. This is also of interest as recording a citizen of a
Roman colony who took a high position in a koinon of a dif-
ferent province.
69 Rossner 1974, 124 (two temples, time of Hadrian), 129
(Asiarch of twice neokoros Ephesos), less likely 133 (perhaps
twice chief priest rather than of two temples) and 140 (three
times Asiarch rather than of three temples). There is also a chief
priestess “of the greatest temples in Ephesos” honored by the
koinon: see Kearsley 1990 and Wörrle 1992, 368-370; below,
inscription no. 91.
70 IvE 921, also 742. On hymnodoi in general, see Halfmann
1990.
71 Karwiese 1982-1985 has incorrect architectural details
and measurements; corrected by Vetters 1986; Karwiese 1995a
and 1995b, 102-103; Scherrer 1995 b, 186; Schorndorfer 1997,
168-170 (incorrect measurements); Hueber 1997, 259-261.
68 part i – section i. koinon of asia
x 350 m. including all the stoas, although only the
stoa on the south has been fully explored. In the
center of the temenos was a south-facing temple
whose foundations show it to have had a peristasis
of approximately 33 x 60 m. and a cella 9 m. wide
whose door wall is still undetermined (illus. pl. 1 fig.
5). A battered capital shows the temple to have been
of Corinthian order. No reliable restoration of the
peristasis has yet been published; though at first
Karwiese postulated a dipteral temple with an outer
ring of twelve by twenty-one columns and an inter-
nal one of eight by seventeen (for a total of 104
columns), he later called it pseudodipteral with a
total of seventy-four columns; the latest city plans
of Ephesos make it pseudodipteral with nine(!) col-
umns on the front and fifteen on the sides.72 As the
peristasis is only slightly larger than that of the
temple of Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia, the
temple is unlikely to have been any greater than
decastyle.73 The south stoa of the plaza, as yet the
only one explored, has been dated in its first phase
only to the mid-second century, with a second phase
around 200 C.E.; a connection with an eastern
colonnade has been found, but further work is
needed to clarify the entire complex’s building his-
tory and the placement of its temple, plaza, and
colonnades.74 It has been suggested that the ‘Par-
thian monument,’ an Antonine relief frieze, once
stood in this complex, perhaps forming part of its
altar.75 In the years of crisis after the third century,
its north and west temenos walls were used as for-
tifications.
The excavators have chosen to call this temple
complex ‘the Olympieion,’ on the same policy of
premature (mis)naming that gave us the ‘temple of
Domitian’ and the little ‘temple of Hadrian’ (below),
and that has continued to bedevil the Ephesos pub-
lications.76 Despite the fact that at Ephesos (as ev-
erywhere in the Greek-speaking world) Hadrian was
often assimilated to Zeus Olympios, there is no nec-
essary connection between Ephesos’ temple of Had-
72
Pl. 1 in Friesinger and Krinzinger 1999.
73
My reconstruction is illustrated on pl. 1 fig. 5. The old
reconstruction was republished in Wiplinger and Wlach 1996,
114-115.
74 Karwiese 1989, 10-15, 42-43; the hoped-for conclusions
have apparently affected the termini.
75 Hueber 1997, 260-261, 264. For the monument, see
Oberleitner 1999.
76 S. Price 1984b, 256; Karwiese opera citata; Scherrer 1995b,
94, 120, 186; Scherrer 1999; Scherrer 2001, 78.
rian and a complex known as the Olympieion at
Ephesos.77
Pausanias (7.2.8-9), in his great aside on the
Ionians that leads into his guide to Achaea, men-
tioned that the tomb of Androklos, founder of
Ephesos, was still visible at the city, beside the road
from the shrine of Artemis past the Olympieion to
the Magnesian gate. Pausanias’ road was the same
as the route of the procession endowed by C. Vibius
Salutaris in 104 C.E., which went from the Arte-
mision around the east side of PanayÌrdaÅ to enter
the city at the Magnesian gate.78 Attempts to iden-
tify the tomb of Androklos as a U-shaped monument
in the ‘triodos’ of the city have ignored Pausanias’
association of it with the road from the Artemision
to the Magnesian gate, whose position is not in
doubt.79 Both tomb and Olympieion would have
been outside the city, far from the great temple
currently identified as that of Hadrian.80 What form
the Ephesian Olympieion took is as yet impossible
to tell.
Zeus Olympios had appeared and been named on
coins of Ephesos since the reign of Domitian.81 Also,
though a contest known as Olympia was celebrated
in Ephesos under Domitian, this was probably a
revival of an earlier festival; the evidence does not
associate it with either the provincial temple of the
Augusti or with Domitian personally.82 The prob-
lems in interpreting festivals known as (great)
Hadrianeia and Olympia at Ephesos are not entirely
resolved, but it is clear that the two were to be dis-
tinguished from each other; the Olympia in fact far
77 C. Jones 1993. The term ‘Hadrianeion’ is not docu-
mented at Ephesos, as Jones admitted, but his analysis still holds
despite the carping of Thür 1995a, 77-80 and Scherrer 1999.
For the Ephesian dedications to Hadrian with Zeus Olympios
in his titulature, see IvE 267-271a; Knibbe and Iplikçioglu
1981/82, 135 no. 143; Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu
1989, 163-166 no. 2; elsewhere, Benjamin 1963; Spawforth and
Walker 1985; Willers 1990, 48-60.
78 Rogers 1991, 80-126; the later foundation of the sophist
Damianos (Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.23) monumental-
ized and covered the already existing road: Knibbe 1999.
Earlier levels of this road date back at least to the beginning
of the first century C.E.: Thür 1999, 168.
79 Thür 1995b; her version of Pausanias’ road not only goes
through the city in the longest possible way, but makes sev-
eral turns to do so. Scherrer 1999 reinterpreted Pausanias’ text
instead, but was no more convincing.
80 Engelmann 1996.
81 RPC 2:167 no. 1073.
82 Engelmann 1998, 305-308 has finally cleared away the
false association between the cult of Zeus Olympios, the Olym-
pia, and honors to Domitian at Ephesos.
 chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia
predated Hadrian.83 In any case, one cannot depend
upon the names of festivals to give dependable in-
formation on the object of worship in a temple; any
‘Olympieion of Hadrian’ is a purely modern agglom-
eration for what the Ephesians called ‘the temple of
Lord Hadrian Caesar’ (IvE 814) or ‘the temple of
the god Hadrian’ (IvE 428, 921).
Though often assumed to have begun at Had-
rian’s first visit, and dated to 123 or 124, the Hadria-
neia contest must have started later: one Aristokrates
son of Hierokles was chief priest of Asia of the
temples in Ephesos and agonothetes of the second
pentaeteria of Hadrianeia in the reign of Antoninus
Pius.84 This would place the festival’s first celebra-
tion four years before, perhaps at the time of the
provincial temple’s completion or consecration by
Diophantos. Later a member of the Vedii family
served as hereditary agonothetes for life of the great
Hadrianeia festival (inscription 51, below).85
The confusion that has resulted from erroneously
naming a small though decorative streetside shrine
in Ephesos ‘the Temple of Hadrian’ has begun to
dissipate, though the name unfortunately has con-
tinued in use.86 The name was given because of the
building’s dedication to [Artemis], Hadrian, and the
neokoros people of Ephesos (inscription 26); that
Artemis was the first dedicatee was largely ignored.
Dedicatory inscriptions using similar formulae, to the
patron god, the current emperor, and the city itself,
were common at Ephesos and elsewhere, on build-
ings and parts of buildings, sacred and profane, large
and small.87 Such formulae cannot be taken to in-
dicate which cult specifically was practiced within
83 See summary chapter 40, below. Lämmer 1967 was not
as rigorous an examination as one might wish; see above, n.
82.
84 IvE 618; Campanile 1994a, 110-111 no. 111. Bowie 1971,
139 n. 9; J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques 85 (1972)
455.
85 IvE 730; Fontani 1996, 231.
86 IvE 429; Price 1984b, 149-150, 255-256; Scherrer 1995b,
120. Schorndorfer 1997, 162-165 named it as such, though she
also cited the evidence for its dedication to other city cults,
specifically that of Artemis. Fontani 1996, 229 still considered
it a temple of Hadrian.
87 To Artemis, emperor(s) and Ephesos: IvE 404, a basilica;
IvE 430, revetment of a stoa; IvE 431 and 438, gymnasia; IvE
424 and 424A, a nymphaeum; IvE 509, a statuary group. To
Artemis and emperor(s): IvE 411, the stadium; IvE 413, a
nymphaeum; IvE 414, a fountain; IvE 415 and 416, waterworks;
IvE 422, a propylon; IvE 435, a reservoir; IvE 443, workshops.
To emperor(s): IvE 423, a stoa(?); IvE 410, the ‘Sockelbau’; IvE
432, a sundial; IvE 455, a latrine.
69
this particular shrine, though the presence of a head
of the mural-crowned city goddess on the keystone
of the arched facade should indicate a civic cult or
cults.88
The coinage of this period, though sparse, bears
out other evidence on the second neokoria of
Ephesos. All catalogued types that call Ephesos twice
neokoros name Hadrian Olympios, thus dating after
128/129; the second neokoria also appears on a joint
issue of Hadrian and his short-lived heir, L. Aelius
Caesar, probably in 136-137 C.E.89 Most important
is one of the earliest multiple-temple types, a type
that showed both imperial temples (portrayed as
identical) and thus served as a symbol of neokoria:
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: ADRI[ANO%] KAI%AR
OLUMPIO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Hadrian r. Rev: [EFE%IVN] DI% [NE]VKORVN
Two two-column temples turned toward one an-
other, an emperor within each. a) Paris 684 (worn)
(illus. pl. 21 fig. 68).
The titulature of the period of the second neokoria
soon became a type of formula. Some inscriptions
continued to attribute the title ‘neokoros’ to the
people (nos. 38, 39, perhaps 76, 82, 85), just as was
most common when the city was simply neokoros.
Beyond that the city uses the titulature ‘first and
greatest metropolis of Asia and twice neokoros of the
Augusti city of the Ephesians’ with few exceptions.
Inscriptions 40, 77, and 84 included philosebastos,
‘Augustus-loving,’ an epithet usually used for the
council, in this formula.
That Ephesos’ precise titles were regulated by the
emperor is shown by a letter from Antoninus Pius
to the Ephesians. They had complained that Smyrna
and Pergamon had not given Ephesos the correct
titulature, one in a decree about a joint sacrifice, the
other in a letter. Antoninus Pius, who stated that he
had already decreed the proper titles for Ephesos,
decided that Pergamon was not at fault and
Smyrna’s slight was accidental, but cautioned both
Ephesos and Smyrna to be more punctilious in fu-
ture.90 It was probably to honor the emperor’s deci-
88 Outschar 1999 would have it a heroön to the founder
Androklos as identified with Hadrian’s beloved Antinoös, but
this raises more problems than it solves.
89 Kienast 1996, 131-132.
90 IvE 1489, 1489a, 1490; Oliver 1989, 293-295 no. 135
a-b. See also chapter 2, ‘Smyrna,’ and chapter 38, ‘Historical
Analysis.’ Collas-Heddeland 1995, 422 unfortunately mistrans-
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
its concord with the other two cities.91 Smyrna soon
after had to send an embassy to Antoninus to de-
fend ‘the temples and their rights,’ probably the
status of the temples which made the city twice
neokoros; this dispute over temples and rights im-
plies that the emperor’s letter and the concord coin-
age did not bring the bickering to an end, and that
perhaps Ephesos, by questioning some privilege of
Smyrna’s, was retaliating for the offense.
The use of the two imperial temples as a coin type
carried on throughout the period of Ephesos’ sec-
ond neokoria, but after their independent appear-
ance under Hadrian they were generally shown
flanking the temple of Artemis or the goddess her-
self. Ephesos always saw the goddess as its primary
patron, but never claimed more than its proper
number of neokoriai.92
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: T AILIO% KAI%AR AN-
TVNEINO% Laureate draped bust of Antoninus
Pius r. Rev: EFE%IVN DI% NEVKORVN Two two-
column temples, each with emperor within,
turned toward one another; between them,
Artemis Ephesia. a) BMC 235 b) Vienna 17173 c)
Berlin, von Knobelsdorff.
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: T AILIO% KAI%AR AN-
TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust (head,
b) of Antoninus Pius r. Rev: EFE%IVN DI%
NEVKORVN Three temples on podia, side two
two-column, each with emperor within, turned
toward one another; the center one four-column,
Artemis Ephesia within. a) Paris 711 b) New York,
Newell c) Oxford 29.55 d) London 1961.3-1-234
(illus. pl. 21 fig. 69).
COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU[T] KAI PO %[EPT]
GETA% Laureate head of Geta Augustus r., ma-
ture. Rev: B NEOKO[RVN] EFE%IVN Two two-
column temples on high podia, an emperor within
each, Artemis Ephesia between them. a) Berlin,
Löbbecke.
1995 no. 1476) and misunderstood the nature of Ephesos’
neokoria of Artemis.
91 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 38-39 nos. 305-316;
Kampmann 1996, 29-34, 108-109; Kampmann 1998, 377-379.
92 Karwiese 1995b, 105-106 saw such types as an illegal at-
tempt to claim a third neokoria under Antoninus Pius. His ac-
count (85-125) contains several inaccuracies and exaggerations
of the Ephesian obsession with neokoria.
The three temples were even illustrated without
mention of neokoria, but with the simple legend ‘first
of Asia.’
COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AU KAI L %EP %EOUHRO%
PER Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius
Severus r. Rev: EFE%IVN PRVTVN A%IA% Three
temples on podia, two side ones turned toward
one another, emperor in each; center one four-
column, Artemis Ephesia within. a) Paris 798 b)
Vienna 33914 c) BMC 261 d) Berlin, Imhoof-
Blumer.
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AU KAI MAR AU AN-
TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Caracalla r., youthful. Rev: EFE%IVN PRVTVN
A%IA% Three temples on podia, two side ones
two-column, turned toward one another, an
emperor in each; center one four-column, Artemis
Ephesia within. a) Paris 824 b) Berlin, Imhoof-
Blumer.
The plainness of the legend is unusual, and its com-
bination with the three-temple reverse type may
indicate that Ephesos considered its temples to
Artemis and to the emperors to be part of its claim
to primacy. Triple-temple coin types such as these
inspired imitation in cities that were to become three
times neokoros later.
Third Neokoria: Geta; Neokoria of Artemis: Caracalla
Septimius Severus died in 211, leaving his sons
Caracalla and Geta as co-rulers; by the end of the
year Geta too was dead, killed by his brother. In this
context the question of Ephesos’ third neokoria
arises. It is a complex one, made yet more complex
by changes in coin legends, misreadings of those
legends by early authorities, and blind dependence
on those misreadings by later scholars.
Fortunately Ephesos’ coinage under the Severans
is both abundant and well preserved. Those of Geta
as Augustus show the change from a boyish portrait
(while his father still lived) to a more mature like-
ness, lightly bearded and with a close resemblance
to his brother Caracalla, like type 8 above, with the
title ‘twice neokoros.’ Then one of his coins declares
Ephesos three times neokoros:
COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT KAI PO %EP GETA%
%EB Laureate undraped bust of Geta Augustus
 chapter
r., mature. Rev: TRI% NEVKORVN EFE%IVN
Artemis subduing deer. a) formerly Gotha,
Munich.
There is now no way of directly examining the
coin, however.93 More certain is a reverse legend
known for several issues, claiming that Ephesos
is ‘three times neokoros and of Artemis’:
COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AU K M AUR AN-
TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Caracalla r., youthful. Rev: EFE%IVN TRI%
NEVKORVN KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% Two emper-
ors on horseback ride toward and salute Artemis
Ephesia. a) Berlin, Löbbecke b) SNGvA 7871.
COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AU(T, abcef) K(AI%, ace)
M AUR ANTVNEINO% KAI P(O, adef) %EP
GETA%; NEOI HLIOI Laureate draped busts of
Caracalla and Geta turned toward one another.
Rev: EFE%IVN TRI% NEVKORVN KAI TH%
ARTEMIDO% Two emperors on horseback ride
toward and salute Artemis Ephesia. a) BMC 292
(illus. pl. 21 fig. 70) b) Paris 848 c) SNGCop 436
d) SNGvA 1904 e) Berlin, Fox f) Berlin, Löbbecke.
COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT K PO %E GETA%
Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Geta Augustus
r., slight beard. Rev: EFE%IVN TRI% NEVKORVN
KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% City goddess leads bull to-
ward Artemis Ephesia. a) London 1961.3-1-243 b)
Berlin, Löbbecke.
COIN TYPE 15. Obv: IOULIA %EBA%TH
Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: EFE%IVN
TRI% NEVKORVN KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% City
goddess leads bull toward Artemis Ephesia. a) Lon-
don 1894.11-4-1 b) Paris 820 c) Berlin, Löbbecke.
That these coins were minted with obverses of
Caracalla, Geta, the two together as ‘new sun gods,’
and their mother Julia Domna indicates that they
are firmly dated to the period of joint rule. Finally,
one lone coin of Caracalla proclaims the aftermath:
though it still uses the outmoded reverse of the two
horsemen and Artemis, the legend has been changed
to ‘twice neokoros and of Artemis’:
93 The photos are in Kraft 1972, 121 pl. 11.10; Dr. Dietrich
Klose stated that, judging from the photograph, the coin did
not appear doubtful to him (personal communication, 15 Oct.
2002).
4 – ephesos in ionia 71
COIN TYPE 16. Obv: AU K M AUR ANTVN-
EINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla
r., slight beard. Rev: EFE%IVN DI% NEVKORVN
KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% Two emperors on horse-
back ride toward and salute Artemis Ephesia. a)
BMC 269 (illus. pl. 21 fig. 71).
Thereafter issues of Caracalla and of Julia Domna
simply call Ephesos ‘three times neokoros,’ though
some of these may in fact be contemporary with the
coin of type 11, if that should be found to be gen-
uine.
This bleak numismatic narrative can be illumined
by a document of inestimable importance found at
Ephesos, here inscription 124. As Robert’s meticu-
lous analysis has shown, it is part of an epigraphic
dossier of documents on the same subject, in this case
imperial letters concerning privileges for the cult of
Artemis, collected and inscribed in a public place.
Inscription 124 is preceded by part of a letter from
Julia Domna to the Ephesians, in which she made
reference to some favor that they had (presumably)
asked of her “dearest son.” This may have been the
neokoria, as the next letter in the dossier runs on
that topic:
INSCRIPTION 124. IvE 212 (L. Robert 1967, 44-57 no.
6). Imperial letter. ÑO kÊriow ÉAntvn[e]›now tª [ÉAs¤&:]
épedejãmhn [t]}w gn\mhw Ímçw mey' w pros[n°mein . . . tª]
lamprotãt_ t«n ÉEfes¤vn pÒlei: kr¤sei går tØn t[eimØn
kayÆkei] prosn°mein: diÒper éji\sasin Íme›n ka‹
sunapo[dejam°noiw to›w ÑR\]mhw {goum°noiw tØn Íp¢r
ÉEfes¤vn a‡thsin ¶dvka k[a‹ sun_´ne]sa tr‹w e‰nai
nevkÒrouw tØn pÒlin: tØn d¢ §p\num[on §mautoË] nevko-
r¤an katå tØn §mØn a¸d« énat¤yhmi tª §narges-
tãt_ ye“ …w mØ §j §moË karpoËsyai tØn teimØn éll' §k
t}w kata[log}w t}w yeoË?. . .]
Lord Antoninus to Asia: I have seen with favor your
proposition to grant (the neokoria) to the illustrious city
of Ephesos; by (my) decision, it is suitable to grant the
honor. Wherefore to your petitions and with the approval
of the leading men at Rome, I have granted your claim
on behalf of the Ephesians and have consented that the
city should be three times neokoroi (sic). Due to modesty,
however, I refer the neokoria in my name to the most
manifest goddess, so that they may enjoy the honor not
from me, but out of regard for the goddess...
So many crucial points are made by this document
that it is difficult to know where to begin. First, the
addressee: it is not the Ephesians but the koinon of
Asia. This confirms that the neokoria was still a
provincial honor even after two centuries and a rapid
multiplication of neokoroi cities. The koinon is said
to have petitioned on behalf of the Ephesians,
though the letter gives no hint of how (and in what
72 part i – section i. koinon of asia
atmosphere) the koinon decided which city should
receive the honor.
Secondly, the Roman Senate is mentioned, not
directly but as “the leading men at Rome.” They
are part of the triad (koinon, Senate, and emperor)
that had to approve before neokoria could be
awarded. The emperor, however, could modify their
decision. Caracalla transferred the grant of neokoria
from his own cult to that of another god without any
mention of senatorial consent. Later Ephesian in-
scriptions sometimes make special mention of an
imperial decision in addition to the Senate’s decree,
or seem to exclude the neokoria of Artemis from
those in the Senate’s domain (nos. 126 and 134,
below).
When we attempt to reconcile Caracalla’s letter
with the numismatic evidence, however, we hit a
snag. The inscription is worded as if it dated from
the period of Caracalla’s sole rule, after Geta’s death
at the end of 211.94 The fact that it was preceded
by a letter from Julia Domna, who is known to have
handled Caracalla’s correspondence while he was on
his eastern campaign, seemed to suit that period.95
Even Robert assumed that this was so, although he
also observed from the abbreviation of titulature and
omission of flowery greetings that the letter as in-
scribed was not the letter as sent.96 Yet the coins
show that both the third imperial neokoria and that
for Artemis had already been granted during the
joint rule of Caracalla and Geta. Robert’s picture
of a single neokoria designated for both emperors
and then diverted to Artemis by a miffed Caracalla
cannot be made to conform with that fact.
The lack of trustworthy historical sources for this
period makes it difficult to guess what events could
have led to such a complex situation. Cassius Dio
exists only in epitome, Herodian is inexact and over-
rhetorical, the Historia Augusta is curt and confused,
though fortunately its life of Caracalla comes before
its plunge into historical fiction.97 On one thing they
all agree: Caracalla and Geta hated one another. In
addition to his expansive description of their pro-
posed partition of the Empire, Herodian stated that
the opinions of all those of any standing in Rome
were divided between them, and each emperor
94Kienast 1996, 162-167.
95Williams 1979, 86-87; the fulsome language of the let-
ter fits with other edicts of Caracalla.
96 L. Robert 1967, 45-46, 50 n. 5.
97 Meckler 1994; Alföldi 1972.
campaigned for himself and against his brother.98
Thus when the koinon first brought its petition for
(probably a single) neokoria for Ephesos to Rome,
it may at first have dealt with Julia Domna, as the
new emperors had not yet returned from Britain.
Once they did, however, the koinon’s representa-
tives probably had to face two emperors who
couldn’t share a palace, much less a temple, and a
Senate factionalized between the two. Although the
sources are hostile to the surviving brother, two
include accounts of Caracalla’s refusal to be called
by the name of Hercules or that of any other god.99
While each puts the event in a different time and
context, the statement itself was probably meant to
ingratiate Caracalla with some powerful group, such
as the soldiers, the Senate, or the people of Rome.
Certainly what can be discerned of Caracalla’s own
propaganda put a distinct emphasis on his pietas.100
Adding this to the evidence of the Ephesian coins,
we may conclude that Geta accepted the offer of a
temple to his own cult, and that his action sent
Caracalla into a display of politic modesty of a sort
little seen since Julio-Claudian times.101 According
to inscription 124, Caracalla refused divine honors
for himself, transferring them instead to the glory
of Artemis. Such a show of high principles and old
Roman virtue seems designed to excite the approval
of the Senate, before which this little drama might
even have been enacted; inscription 124 itself refers
to ‘the leading men at Rome.’ By contrast, Geta’s
acceptance of honors that were by now only the
usual fare for emperors could have been exagger-
ated to imply tyrannical tendencies.
What the koinon had likely proposed as one
neokoria had thus been transformed into two: one
for the imperial cult due to Geta, and one for
Artemis due to Caracalla. In a spirit of jubilation,
Ephesos minted the coins that called its imperial
benefactors ‘new sun gods.’ Coins once issued are
hard to recall; thousands can be melted down, but
the survival of even one can tell the entire story.
Inscriptions are another thing. The dedication of the
east hall of the agora at Ephesos was carved in that
98 Herodian 4.3.1-2 (according to Alföldi 1972, 30-33 over-
dramatized, especially in the supposed plan to divide the Em-
pire).
99 Cassius Dio ep. 78.5 (protecting Cilo after trying to as-
sassinate him), and Historia Augusta, Caracalla 5 (on campaign
in Raetia). Also see Cerfaux and Tondriau 1957, 369.
100 Oliver 1978.
101 Charlesworth 1939.
 chapter
time of celebration, and Geta’s name and the titles
‘three times neokoros of the Augusti’ and ‘neokoros
of Artemis’ were likely prominent. That prominence
became an embarrassment after Geta’s murder, and
the inscription had to be erased and recarved.
Unfortunately the enumeration of the neokoriai must
be restored, but the words ‘according to the decrees
of the most sacred Senate’ (first version) and ‘of
Artemis’ (second version) assure that it was there.
INSCRIPTION 125. IvE 3001 (second version).
[t“ nevkÒrƒ dÆmƒ t}w pr\thw pas«n ka‹]
meg¤st[hw] ka‹ §ndoj[otãthw mhtropÒlevw t}w
ÉAs¤aw ka‹ nevkÒrou t}w ÉArt°]midow ka[‹ d‹w
nevkÒrou t«n Sebast«n katå tå dÒgmata t}w
|ervtãthw sunklÆtou ÉEfes¤vn pÒlevw]. . .
What happened there can be paralleled with what
befell the base of a statue of Ulpius Apollonios
Plautus, grammateus of the council, advocate of
Ephesos, and designated Asiarch.102 Its original in-
scription trumpeted the city as neokoros of the most
sacred Artemis and three times neokoros of the
Augusti by decrees of the Senate and by imperial
decision; perhaps Plautus had even earned his
Asiarchy by pleading Ephesos’ case for neokoria suc-
cessfully. How could he foresee the fall of Geta, of
one neokoria, and perhaps his Asiarchy with it? His
inscription was erased, but so lightly that the proud
titles could still be read beneath the chisel’s scratches:
INSCRIPTION 126. IvE 740. [{] boulØ t}w
pr\thw pas«n ka‹ meg¤sthw ka‹ §ndojotãthw
mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ nevkÒrou t}w
|ervtãthw ÉArt°midow ka‹ tr‹w nevkÒrou t«n
Sebast«n katå tå dÒgmata t}w |erçw sunklÆtou
ka‹ tØn ye¤an kr¤sin ÉEfes¤vn pÒlevw...
That Ephesos’ neokoria itself underwent a similar
eclipse is borne out by inscription 127:
INSCRIPTION 127. IvE 647. Dedication to Ti.
Claudius Serenus (PIR2 C.1017). t}w pr\thw
pas«n ka‹ meg¤sthw ka‹ §ndojotãthw ka‹
mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ nevkÒrou t}w
_ÉArt°midow ka‹ tr‹w nevkÒrou t«n Sebast«n´
...
Only the words ‘Artemis and three times neokoros
of the Augusti’ are erased, while the rest of the in-
scription (including ‘neokoros of,’ the last words
before the erasure) was allowed to stand. Inscription
102 Campanile 1994a, 141-142 no. 167.
4 – ephesos in ionia 73
128, a statue base of Caracalla datable by his
titulature (Parthicus Maximus and Britannicus
Maximus but not yet Germanicus Maximus), gives
an assured point in time for this period of eclipse
of both the neokoria for Geta and that of Artemis:
INSCRIPTION 128. IvE 297. t}w pr\thw ka‹
meg¤sthw mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ d‹w
nevkÒrou ÉEfes¤vn pÒlevw . . .
It was inscribed sometime between February 212
and October 213, but on it Ephesos is simply twice
neokoros again, as if the neokoriai for Geta and for
Artemis had never existed.
Another statue base, datable by Caracalla’s hav-
ing become Germanicus Maximus after October
213, shows how the problem was settled:
INSCRIPTION 133. IvE 300. t}w pr\thw ka‹
meg¤sthw mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ tr‹w
nevkÒrou pr\thw, d‹w m¢n t[«]n Sebast[«]n,
ëpa[j] d¢ t}w ÉArt°midow, { filos°bastow
ÉEfes¤vn boulØ ka‹ ~ nevkÒrow dÆmow . . .
The neokoria of Artemis was reconfirmed, and when
added to the two previous imperial neokoriai, made
up a total of three, so the inscription states explic-
itly: “First three times neokoros, two of the Augusti
and uniquely of Artemis.” More compressed ver-
sions, as with the coin legends, simply say ‘three
times neokoros’ without further specification. Among
this latter group is a series of bases from statues of
cities (inscriptions 130-132, including Carthage,
Knidos, and Nikaia in Lydia; also Kos, IvE 2055,
the neokoria only restored), the occasion for whose
dedication may have been an empire-wide festival
to celebrate the return of the third neokoria, but may
equally have been some other (likely agonistic) oc-
casion. One of the group includes the words “city
of the Ephesians, three times neokoros by the de-
cree from the authorities”:
INSCRIPTION 131. IvE 2054. Statue of Knidos.
{ pr\th ka‹ meg¤sth mht[rÒ]poliw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹
tr‹w nevk[Ò]row ÉEfes¤vn pÒliw katå tÚ
kÊ[rv]yen cÆfisma. . .
This phrase may allude, albeit vaguely, to whatever
special permission the Ephesians had to obtain to
reactivate their third neokoria.
The case of Ephesos’ third neokoria shows per-
fectly how the evidence of coins, inscriptions, and
historical references can be combined to produce a
complete picture, where dependence on only one of
74 part i – section i. koinon of asia
them could have led to inconsistency. Keil offered
a model for this procedure in his 1915 article on this
topic, and further documents have confirmed it.
Ephesos in fact received a third and a fourth neo-
koria in 211, the one for Geta and the other for
Artemis. The third fell with Geta, while that of
Artemis was eventually allowed to stand, and to be
counted in for a total of three. Thus the inscription
of Caracalla’s letter, no. 124, is both an informative
and a misleading document. Inscribed well after the
event, it did not alter the truth so much as tell a
partial truth. Geta had become a non-person; if there
had been any mention of him, or even if he had
written the letter along with his brother, any hint
of it would have been excised from the later dos-
sier.103 The Ephesians would have been happy to
avoid explicit reference to a time when they had
climbed to a peak and then fallen from it. Caracalla
was subsequently to give third neokoriai, both im-
perial, to Pergamon and Smyrna, taking the lead
among neokoroi away from Ephesos and leaving the
three cities again locked in competition.
The cult of Artemis had finally gotten its neokoria
for Ephesos, so it seems worthwhile to examine it
here. The temple of Artemis at Ephesos appears on
many lists of wonders of the ancient world. As it
stood in Roman times, which is how I reconstruct
it in the illustration (pl. 3 fig. 14), it was an enor-
mous Ionic octastyle, dipteral, with twenty-one col-
umns along its length and nine columns across its
back; the space within the peristasis measured 50.48
x 107.11 m., the stepped platform that it sat upon
63.36 x 128.20 m. The front resembled a forest of
columns with sculptured bases and drums.104 In its
main pediment it had three openings, the center one
larger than the side two, and figural sculpture as
well.105 To the west was a U-shaped and colonnaded
altar court, as this temple, like others to the god-
desses of Asia Minor, faced west rather than east.
Even the cult statue (in some versions) may have
referred to the temples that made Ephesos neokoros.
The ‘heaven-fallen’ image of Artemis of Ephesos
echoed the indigenous tradition of Asia Minor with
its monolithic stance, elaborate costume, and hieratic
103
Mastino 1978/79.
104
Bammer 1972 and 1984; Rügler 1988; Scherrer 1995b,
46-59; Bammer and Muss 1996, 45-61 and 65-70.
105 Trell 1945; M. Price and Trell 1977, 126-132; Bingöl
1999. Karwiese 1999 would identify two figures with raised
arms in the pediment as two Victories, though wings are not
apparent.
pose.106 The goddess is well known both from
Ephesian coins and from large-scale statues of Ro-
man date, and it is particularly interesting from the
point of view of this study that she often appears with
miniature temples set on top of her tall crown, as if
she were another type of ‘temple bearer.’ Chapou-
thier even suggested that the templed headdress re-
presented the city’s status as neokoros, with the
number of temples varying to suit the number of
temples for which Ephesos was neokoros.107 This
particular hypothesis can be disproved from various
representations whose dates are known; for example,
the (probably Trajanic) ‘great Artemis’ found in
Ephesos bears five temples, while the Ephesians were
never known to be five times neokoroi (illus. pl. 9-
10 figs. 28-31).108 Moreover, Fleischer plausibly iden-
tified a young hunter on the reused frieze from the
so-called temple of Hadrian as Androklos founder
of Ephesos, and he too bears a (three-column!)
temple on his head.
Examination of the various temple-crowned im-
ages shows that where there is room for detail the
order of the temple(s) is Ionic, with at most four
columns on the facade.109 The temples are gener-
ally assimilated to one another, just as they are on
multiple-temple coins, but the central one is por-
trayed as dominant. On the ‘great Artemis’ the
central temples are shown with discs in their pedi-
ments, and the towered city walls appear in the
back.110 Though the temples are never more than
generic, their Ionic order recalls the Artemision it-
self. The towers indicate that the crown is meant to
represent the entire city of Ephesos, with its temples,
including the provincial temples of the emperors and
that of Artemis herself (though the latter was actu-
ally outside the city walls), as its main ornaments.
Artemis wears Ephesos as a crown, in the same way
that a city goddess wore a mural crown.
During the reign of Caracalla’s successor Macri-
106 Thiersch 1935; Fleischer 1973, 1978, 1984a, and 1999.
For the recent find of belts and amber objects (‘breasts’?) in
the Artemision see Bammer and Muss 1996, 71-78.
107 Imhoof-Blumer 1911; Chapouthier 1938. This idea has
been resurrected by Knibbe 1995b, referring only to ‘the great
Artemis’ from the prytaneion, with several misinterpretations,
and without response to Fleischer’s objections.
108 Fleischer 1973, 54-58, cat. no. E45.
109 Thiersch 1935, nos. 19, 26, 32, 34, 42, 44, 45, and coins
on pl. 49 nos. 12, 15; pl. 51 nos. 4, 6; Fleischer 1973, cat. nos.
E17, E31, E43, E45, E49, E63, E85, E88, E92, E93, E96a and
coin on pl. 56a.
110 Miltner 1958b, pls. 5, 6.
 chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia
nus, Ephesos preferred other titles (such as ‘first of
Asia’) to neokoros for coin legends. There is one
possible exception, but it is worn and appears re-
worked:
COIN TYPE 17 (RECUT?). Obv: [AU] K M
OPEL MAKRINO% Laureate draped bust of
Macrinus r. (legend tooled?) Rev: EF[E%]I[VN]
. . . [%]EBA . NEVK[OR]VN Four-column temple
in which togate emperor, sacrifice of bull at al-
tar below. a) Vienna 32385 (worn) (illus. pl. 21
fig. 72).
The reverse type is similar to that of a coin that does
not mention neokoros in its legend, but illustrates
the annual vows taken on behalf of the emperor.111
Another Ephesian coin puts Macrinus’ name on the
reverse as well as his portrait on the obverse, along
with the figure and name of the goddess Justice.112
These coin types and the insistence on the title ‘first
of Asia’ may tie in with an inscription in honor of
an Ephesian advocate who went before Macrinus to
defend Ephesos’ “primacy and the rest of the rights”
and won his case.113
Why did Ephesos stop boasting on its coins of its
status as three times neokoros? Winning the right,
perhaps temporarily the sole right, to be ‘first’ was
one reason, but another may have been a question
about the neokoria itself. Asia fell into ferment on
the death of its benefactor Caracalla, a state that the
new emperor Macrinus tried unsuccessfully to con-
trol.114 Pergamon, perhaps deprived of previous
privileges, heaped insults upon him and was dishon-
ored further; that city and Smyrna were assigned to
the special charge of the historian Cassius Dio by
the emperor himself.115 Not only these cities were
affected, however. Of eight cities in Asia that had
become neokoros for Caracalla, six (seven if Ephesos’
111 BMC 293; Price 1984b, 214-215, 256-257, fig. 3a. For
a fantastical explanation of type 17, with the invention of a
‘neokorate’ temple for Macrinus somewhere in the precinct of
the temple of Hadrian, and the basilical stoa south of it as the
third ‘neokorate temple,’ see Karwiese 1995a, 314-315.
112 Leypold 1995, 32-34 no. 6; also note no. 7, another ‘first
of Asia’ type.
113 IvE 802; J. Keil 1956; with the caution of Deininger
1965, 50 n. 4. See also Ziethen 1994, 145.
114 Cassius Dio ep. 79.22.3-4. Macrinus’ problem in choos-
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
Analysis.’
75
coin type 17 is falsified) issued no coinage that men-
tioned the neokoria whatsoever in the reign of
Macrinus: Pergamon, Smyrna, Laodikeia, Philadel-
phia, Tralles, and Antandros (the latter two inter-
mittent anyway); some, like Pergamon and Smyrna,
issued no coinage at all. Kyzikos, perhaps the only
neokoros for Caracalla beside these, changed its titu-
lature from ‘twice’ to simply ‘neokoros.’ All this in-
dicates that some question was thrown on the
neokoriai granted by Caracalla after his death. This
instability is further indicated by another Ephesian
inscription:
INSCRIPTION 135. Knibbe, Engelmann, and
Iplikçioglu 1989, Beibl. 166-167 no. 3. Statue base
of Caracalla as Armeniacus and new Helios.
Originally erected by the council t}w pr\thw ka‹
meg¤sthw m`[htro]pÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ _[tr]´‹w
[nevkÒ]r_ou pr\thw, d‹w m¢]n`´ t«n Se`[bast«n],
_ëpaj d¢ t}w ÉArt°mid]o`w´ ÉEf[es¤vn] pÒlevw,
later changed to (d)‹w [nevkÒ]r_ou[ m¢]n`´ t«n
Se`[bast«n] _ o`w`´ ÉEf[es¤vn] pÒlevw . . .
Though the title was never officially granted, ‘Arme-
niacus’ did appear on an inscription of Caracalla
after 215; the Ephesians had hailed both him and
his brother as new sun gods during their joint reign,
as does this inscription.116 Moreover, inscription 136,
another Ephesian document, used very similar titles,
both imperial and civic, and was similarly erased.
The original titulature of inscription 136, ‘first three
times neokoros [i.e. twice of the Augusti and alone
of Artemis]’ is correct for 215. Though the editors
attributed the erasure to rivalry on the part of neigh-
bors and could go little farther, it must be seen in
the context of the unstable situation, not only in
Ephesos, but in many of her sister cities, during the
reign of Macrinus.
It is known that under Macrinus the Senate nul-
lified certain of Caracalla’s acts.117 The removal of
the title ‘neokoros of Artemis’ granted by Caracalla
to Ephesos can be accounted for by such an event.
Pergamon’s, and perhaps Smyrna’s, disgrace may
have helped make Ephesos uncontestedly first of
Asia; but the city may have still been forced yet again
to drop the neokoria that Caracalla had granted, at
least until the death of Macrinus and the subsequent
condemnation of his memory.
116 Mastino 1981, 50-57; CIL 8:10236 (dated).
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: AUT K M AUR ANTV-
COIN TYPE 18. Obv: AUT K M AUR AN-
NEINO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
TVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust
Elagabalus r. Rev: EFE%IVN D NEVKOR H
of Elagabalus r. Rev: EFE%IVN MONVN A
PRVTH PA%VN KAI MEGI% Four two-column
PA%VN TETRAKI NEVKORVN Laureate, togate
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
PA%VN TETRAKI NEVKORVN Four two-column
Types, like 19, that show the emperor crowned by
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.
TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
COIN TYPE 23. Obv: AUT K M AUR AN-
Elagabalus r. Rev: EFE%IVN MONVN A PA%VN
TVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust
D NEVKORVN Victory with wreath and palm
of Elagabalus r. Rev: PRVTVN A%IA% D NEVK
crowns togate emperor who holds phiale over
EFE%IVN Four temples, lower two two-column
altar. a) Vienna 34451.119
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-
ANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander r. Rev: TETRAKI% NEVKO-
RVN EFE%IVN Togate emperor seated on curule
chair hands scroll to city goddess who holds statue
of Artemis Ephesia. a) Berlin, Fox (illus. pl. 22 fig.
77).
COIN TYPE 27. Obv: AUT K M AUR ALEJ-
ANDRO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander r. Rev: EFE%IVN MONVN
PRVTVN NEVK Victory writes on shield hung on
palm tree. a) Vienna 17248.
The outcome, however, was not good. Elagabalus’
memory was condemned and temples to his cult
were no longer viable.125 Where once neokoros had
been by far the most common title on Ephesian
coins, on the later coins of Severus Alexander any
mention of neokoria once again lapsed (as in the
reign of Macrinus) in favor of titles like ‘first of Asia.’
Coins issued after his reign confirm that Ephesos had
become three times neokoros, but where cities like
Nikomedia and Sardis (qq.v.) still issued coins with
the title ‘neokoros’ (its enumeration decreased) dur-
ing Severus Alexander’s reign, Ephesos and Beroia
seem to have chosen to avoid mentioning the title
at all, at least for a time. The only exception is type
27, which recalls the happier past with its claim that
the Ephesians are ‘alone first neokoroi’; this is one
of the only coin types from which Ephesos omitted
its full enumeration of neokoriai. This lack of speci-
ficity is comparable to that of an inscription at Sardis
(q.v.) that called the city ‘many times neokoros’
without specifying how many. At Ephesos, inscrip-
tion 137, which as mentioned above had been joy-
ously re-engraved to add the fourth neokoria, now
had the word ‘four times’ erased.
The enumeration of neokoriai returned to
Ephesian coins in the time of Severus Alexander’s
successor Maximinus. Then it would be a sober
‘three times neokoros,’ with other legends, especially
ones referring to Artemis, just as common. The
multiple-temple types no longer appeared. The in-
scriptions, unlike the coins, make the distinction
between the neokoria for Artemis and that for the
Augusti instead of adding the three together. Typi-
cal of a datable group from the reign of Gordian III
(nos. 138-141) is the following:
125 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417.
INSCRIPTION 141. IvE 4336. Base of statue of
Gordian III. { pr\th ka‹ meg¤sth mhtrÒpoliw t}w
ÉAs¤aw ka‹ nevkÒrow t}w ÉArt°midow ka‹ d‹w
nevkÒrow t«n Sebast«n ÉEfes¤vn pÒliw. . .
Fourth Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus
Like other cities that had lost a neokoria, however,
in the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus Ephesos
came back to the number of neokoriai that it had
had under Elagabalus. The date of the grant does
not conflict with that at Nikomedia (q.v.). Coins of
both Gallienus’ sons Valerianus and Saloninus were
issued over the transition between Ephesos’ third and
fourth neokoriai. On all but one where no title is
given, Valerianus is named Caesar. Thus the re-
granting of Ephesos’ fourth neokoria must have
dated between the year 255, when he received that
title, and 258, when he died.126 It is notable that
Ephesos was also issuing coins with the portrait of
his young brother Saloninus at the same time.
Saloninus has no title, as was proper; he did not
become Caesar until after his brother’s death. Both
boys generally appear in armor and with laurel
crowns, though Valerianus appears bareheaded on
one type where his title is Caesar.
Unlike Nikomedia’s, Ephesos’ coin types do not
reflect any special jubilation at the return of the
fourth neokoria. The reverses continue to concen-
trate on the gods, especially on the city’s patron
Artemis in her various manifestations. Coinage that
cited the neokoria, in fact all coinage, was soon to
cease, whether due to inflation, war, or both. In 261/
262 a Gothic force took ship, crossed the Hellespont,
and invaded the province of Asia. One of their chief
goals was Ephesos, where they pillaged and burned
the great temple of Artemis for which the city was
neokoros; the grim signs of burning elsewhere in the
city may also have been their doing.127 Ephesos was
to recover and continue, but its coinage ceased,
perhaps ca. 263/264.128 The title ‘neokoros’ would
not appear in its documents any more. Still, as late
126
Kienast 1996, 220-221.
127 Jordanes 107-109; Salamon 1971, 124-125. The argu-
ments of Karwiese 1985, for an earthquake in 262 (documented
only by the Historia Augusta) causing the destruction, are based
on two sections of one residential building and a statistical anal-
ysis of too few coins; the destruction layers elsewhere are not
closely datable. See Foss 1979, 190-191.
128 H.-D. Schultz 1997.
 chapter
as the time of Maximinus Daia (305-313 C.E.), it
was still considered an honor to have Asiarchs of the
temples in Ephesos as one’s forebears.129
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
1. IvE 2034. Architrave of theater skene, dated either
66-67 or 85-86 C.E. See text above.
2. IvE 233. Dedication at the koinon temple of the
Augusti, to the god Vespasian, over erased name of
Domitian, by city of Aphrodisias under M. Fulvius
Gillo, proconsul likely in 89/90.130
3. IvE 237. Similar to no. 2, dedicated by Stra-
tonikeia under L. Luscius Ocr(e)a, proconsul likely
in 90/91.131
4. IvE 236. The city of Philadelphia honors Ephesos,
probably on same occasion as that of inscriptions 2
and 3.
5. IvE 508 plus errata l. 5. Dedication to an emperor,
under P. Calvisius Ruso, proconsul likely in 92/
93.132
6. IvE 415 plus addendum. Dedication of fountain
to Domitian, dated by titulature to 92 C.E.
7. IvE 416. Similar to inscription 6 above.
8. IvE 3008. Building inscription to Domitian, un-
der M. Ateilius Postumus Bradua, proconsul perhaps
94/95.133
9. IvE 449. Decree of the city on the renewal of
imperial building projects, which IvE suggested re-
ferred to the provincial temple of the Augusti. In-
scribed under the same grammateus as no. 8.
10. IvE 793. Honorific inscription, same grammateus
as nos. 8 and 9.
11. IvE 3005. Dedication to Domitian (name erased)
on agora gate.
12. IvE 264. Statue base? of Nerva dedicated by
Carminius Vetus, proconsul 96/97.134
13. IvE 1499. Base of statue of the Senate dedicated
129 Rossner 1974, 141, inscription of the Sempronii Aruncii,
from Panamara.
130 Eck 1970, 85-86; Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 76 (84-90
C.E.).
131 Eck 1970, 85, 141; Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 77 (85-
91 C.E.).
132 Eck 1970, 84-85, 143; Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 79;
Stumpf 1991, 230-232.
133 Eck 1970, 86, 145; Thomasson 1984, 219 no. 81
(Domitianic, after 84 C.E.).
134 Eck 1970, 84, 148; also Thomasson 1984, 219-220 no.
86 (if no. 85, Peregrinus, is spurious).
4 – ephesos in ionia 79
by Cn. Pedanius Fuscus, proconsul 99/100.135
14. IvE 2037. Dedication to Artemis Ephesia, Trajan,
and the city, dated by imperial titulature to 102-112.
15. IvE 509. Bilingual dedication of a statue group
to Artemis Ephesia, Trajan, and the city, under C.
Aquilius Proculus, proconsul 103/104.136 This is the
only example of the Latin transliteration of neokoros
outside of the coins of Neapolis (q.v.).
16. IvE 517. Bilingual dedication of a statue group,
similar to nos. 15, 18 and 22; dated by imperial
titulature late in or after 102.137
17. IvE 27. Decree of the foundation of C. Vibius
Salutaris, under C. Aquilius Proculus, proconsul
103/104.138
18. IvE 858. Bilingual dedication of a statue group,
similar to nos. 15, 16 and 22, under L. Albius Pullae-
nus Pollio, proconsul ca. 104/105.139
19. IvE1385. Decree dated by the name of the
prytanis to ca. 105.
20. IvE 3060. The city honors a citizen of Salamis
in Cyprus for piety to the goddess; dated by letter
forms to ca. 106.
21. IvE 36 A-D. Dedication of benefits performed
by the honoree of no. 17, under L. Nonius Asprenas
Torquatus, proconsul ca. 107/108.140
22. IvE 857. Bilingual dedication of a statue group,
similar to nos. 15, 16, 18, under Valerius Asiaticus
Saturninus, proconsul ca. 108/109.141
23. IvE 422 plus errata. Dedication of a propylon
to Artemis Ephesia, Trajan, and the city, dated by
imperial titulature between August 114 and Febru-
ary 116.
24. IvE 1500. Statue base of Trajan, under Q. Ful-
vius Gillo Bittius Proculus, proconsul 115/116.142
25. IvE 492. Dedication by a priestess of Artemis to
Artemis (restored) and [tª p]r\t_ t«n [Sebast«n
nev]k[Òr]ƒ ÉEfe[s¤vn pÒlei]. The proconsul’s name
is Fulvius, probably Q. Fulvius Gillo Bittius Proculus
as in no. 24; the Asiarch is probably also the same
as the one mentioned in no. 24. The position of
135 Eck 1970, 154-155; Thomasson 1984, 220 no. 87 (98-
102 C.E.).
136 Eck 1970, 161; Thomasson 1984, 220-221 no. 90;
Stumpf 1991, 263-264; Weiser 1998, 281. On these bilingual
dedications, Kearsley 1999 and 2001, 155.
137 Eck 1997b, no. 4.
138 Rogers 1991.
139 Eck 1970, 163; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 91 (105 C.E.).
140 Eck 1970, 168; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 93 (107 C.E.).
141 Eck 1970, 170; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 94 (108 C.E.).
142 Eck 1970, 180; Stumpf 1991, 275-276; Thomasson 1984,
223 no. 104.
80 part i – section i. koinon of asia
the words ‘of the Augusti’ is unusual; see inscription
1.
26. IvE 429. Dedication of the shrine erroneously
known as the temple of Hadrian, to Artemis (re-
stored), Hadrian, and the neokoros people, under
Servius Innocens, proconsul ca. 117/118.143
27. IvE 4333. Statue base of Hadrian, under Ti.
Caepio Hispo, proconsul ca. 118/119 if Servius
Innocens is dated to 117/118.144
28. IvE 266. Statue base of Hadrian dated by his
titulature and the proconsulate of M. Peducaeus
Priscinus to 124.145 Forms a pair with no. 29.
29. IvE 280. Statue base of Sabina, forming a pair
with no. 28.
30. IvE 441 plus addendum. Statue base of Sabina,
under L. Hedius Rufus Avitus Lollianus, proconsul
128/129.146
31. IvE 430. Dedication of a stoa to Artemis,
Hadrian (as Zeus Olympios) and the people, under
Afranius Flavianus, proconsul 130/131.147
32. IvE 340. Fragment, undated.
33. IvE 480. Fragment of building inscription?
Undated.
34. IvE 582. Inscription on a marble slab, perhaps
an acclamation of Ephesos as neokoros. Undated.
Twice neokoros:
35. IvE 986. The city honors the daughter of the
builder of the shrine of no. 26 for her own building
projects.
36. IvE 1089 C. Decrees of an athletic synod; an
Olympic winner ca. 129 is mentioned on another
fragment (B).
37. IG II2 3297. From Athens; Ephesos’ dedication
of a statue of Hadrian as Olympios Panhellenios in the
Olympieion, ca. 132.
38. IvE 278. From copy by Cyriacus of Ancona;
statue base of Sabina, under C. Julius Alexander
Berenicianus, proconsul 132/133.148
39. IvE 279. Statue base of Sabina, under T. Aurelius
Fulvus Antoninus (Antoninus Pius), proconsul ca.
134/135.149 See text above.
143Wörrle Archäologischer Anzeiger 88 (1973) 470-477;
Thomasson 1984, 223 no. 107 (117-119 C.E.).
144 Eck 1970, 185 n. 300, 186 n. 309; Thomasson 1984,
223 no. 106 (118 C.E.).
145 Eck 1970, 197; Thomasson 1984, 224 no. 113 (124/125
C.E.); Weiser 1998, 283.
146 Eck 1970, 202; Thomasson 1984, 225 no. 116.
147 Bowie 1971, 139 n. 8; Thomasson 1984, 225 no. 118.
148 PIR2 J.141; Thomasson 1984, 226 no. 120.
149 Eck 1970, 210; Thomasson 1984, 226 no. 121 (133-137
C.E.).
40. IvE 21. Resolution for a holiday on Antoninus
Pius’ birthday, probably from early in his reign, ca.
138.
41. IvE 1503. Dedication of altar to Artemis, Anto-
ninus Pius, and the city.
42. IvE 22 [partial publication of Clerc 1885; cor-
rected by A. Wilhelm, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 24 (1929) 191-194].
From Nysa: the technitai of Dionysos, gathered for
the Great Epheseia “in the greatest and first, metropo-
lis of Asia, and twice neokoros of the Augusti city
of Ephesos,” honor the citizen of Nysa T. Aelius
Alkibiades, ca. 141 C.E. or shortly after.150 Lines
74-75 (not in IvE) announce a different decree, t}w
|erçw ÑAdrian}w ÉAntvne¤n[hw] yumelik}w peri-
p[o]listik}w megãl[hw] ne[vkÒrou?] §p‹ ÑR\mhw
sunÒdou.151 For the synod of the technitai at Rome
as perhaps neokoros, see chapter 35, ‘Herakleia.’
43. IvE 3035. The city honors a quaestor; set up by
a member of the Vedii family, probably in Antonine
times; also Antonine by letter forms.152
44. IvE 697 B. Honorific set up by a member of the
Vedii.
45. IvE 2039. Building inscription for theater con-
struction; the grammateus is one of the Vedii, dated
ca. 140-144.
46. IvE 438 plus addendum. Dedication of the gym-
nasium of Vedius to Artemis, Antoninus Pius, and
the city, under L. Antonius Albus, proconsul, whose
office has been dated from as early as 146/147 to
as late as 160/161.153
47. IvE 431. Dedication on epistyle of the palaestra
of the gymnasium of Vedius.
48. IvE 728. Statue base of the builder of the gym-
nasium of Vedius. Dated after visits of Lucius Verus
to Ephesos in 162 and 163.154
49. IvE 2066. The city honors a member of the Vedii
family; letter forms of the late second century.
50. IvE 726. The city honors a member of the Vedii
family.
51. IvE 730. The city honors a member of the Vedii
150 For the person and the date, L. Robert 1938.
151 Restored by Kourouniotis 1921-22, 83-85 fig. 67.
152 For the Vedii in these and the following inscriptions,
see Fontani 1996 and Engelmann 1999.
153 Early: PIR 2 A.810, Eck 1972; ca. 146-148 C.E.:
Thomasson 1984, 227 no. 128; ca. 147-149 C.E.: Halfmann
1970, 148 no. 58; 148/149 C.E.: Fontani 1996, 228. Late:
Bowersock 1967; J. and L. Robert, Bulletin Epigraphique 1968
no. 171.
154 Halfmann 1986a, 210-211; Fontani 1996, 228, 234.
 chapter
family as agonothetes for life and hereditarily of the
great Hadrianeia festival.
52. IvE 661. The city honors a citizen; dated ca. 140-
150.
53. IvE 642. Statue base of a chief priest of Asia of
the temples in Ephesos; probably dated before the
proconsulate of L. Antonius Albus (see above no. 46).
54. IvE 611. Statue base of M’. Acilius Glabrio,
consul in 152 and then legatus Asiae and curator
rei publicae of Ephesos.155
55. IGUrbRom 26 [IGRR 1.147]. Dedication of a
building for Ephesian shipowners and merchants in
Rome, to Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius
Caesar, dated January 18, 154.
56. IvE 2049. Statue base of Antoninus Pius and
members of his family, dated 146-161.
57. IvE 2050. Six statue bases of Antoninus Pius,
each dedicated by a different Ephesian tribe. The
grammateus is the same one who was in charge of
setting up inscription 56.
58. IvE 282D. Statue base of Antoninus Pius, simi-
lar to no. 57.
59. IvE 1541. The city honors a quaestor pro
praetore; dated to the reign of Antoninus Pius.
60. IvE 288 (4) C and D. Statue base of Hadrian son
of Marcus Aurelius (born 152, died before 166).156
61. IvE 288 (5). Base of the family of Marcus
Aurelius, including the Hadrian of no. 60.
62. IvE 4341. The city honors a legatus Asiae and
curator of the city; dated to the 160s, in the reign
of Marcus Aurelius.
63. IvE 696. The city honors a legatus pro praetore
Asiae and curator of the city, dated before 167; set
up by the same two men who set up no. 62.
64. IvE 24 B. Part of a dossier containing an edict
of the proconsul C. Popillius Carus Pedo, probably
in 162/163.157
65. IvE 1543. The city honors a legatus pro praetore
Asiae, before 163. Except for the city’s titulature, this
inscription is wholly in Latin.
66. IvE 672 A. The city honors a sophist and bene-
factor, ca. 166.
67. IvE 665. The city honors Pomponia Triaria,
daughter of A. Junius Rufinus, proconsul of Asia,
and wife of C. Erucius Clarus, consul in 170.158
155 Merkelbach 1971; Syme 1980, 446-448.
156 Kienast 1996, 140.
157 Hanslik, ‘Popillius. 37’ in RE 22 (1953) 67 (162/163 or
163/164); Thomasson 1984, 229-230 no. 146; Stumpf 1991,
299-300.
4 – ephesos in ionia 81
68. IvE 3037. The city honors a legatus pro praetore
Asiae, probably before 175-180.
69. IvE 692. Base of statue of a “twice Asiarch of
Asia of the temples in Ephesos,” his career dated
154-174 (IvE 1105 A, 1130).
70. IvE 699 A. The city honors a local official; dated
around the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
71. IvE 718. The city honors a quaestor pro praetore
Asiae; except for the city’s titulature, this inscription
is wholly in Latin. Dated by letter forms to the mid-
second century.
72. IvE 2069. The city honors a chief priest of Asia
of the temples in Ephesos; dated around the mid-
second century.
73. IvE 3036. The city of Selge honors an Ephesian,
the son of the chief priest of Asia honored in no. 72,
who was proconsul of Pamphylia and Lycia; dated
after 178.
74. IvE 1555. Fragment of honorific; mid-second
century.
75. IvE 721. The city honors a chief priest of Asia
of the temples in Ephesos; dated between 170 and
184/185.
76. IvE 1380 B. Dedication to an emperor who was
Germanicus (Marcus Aurelius or Commodus).
77. IvE 613 A. The city honors a citizen. Dated to
the reign of Commodus.
78. IvE 627. The city honors an equestrian official
honored by Commodus (name erased).
79. IvE 367. The city honors an Asiarch of the
temples in Ephesos; dated after the second half of
the second century.
80. IvE 3049. The city honors a citizen of Tralles,
father of a curator of Ephesos. Dated around the end
of the second/beginning of the third century.
81. IvE 3052. The city honors a procurator vicesimae
hereditatum. Dated by letter forms to the end of the
second/beginning of the third century.
82. IvE 4109. Statue base of Septimius Severus and
his family, dated 198-210.
83. IvE 294. Base of Septimius Severus (name
restored) as ‘new Helios,’ dated by the editors to 210-
211; but the titulature could also be that of Cara-
calla, who was occasionally given the titles Arabicus
and Adiabenicus after 211. The inscription would
thus date before he became Germanicus in 213, like
inscription 128 below.159 Thus the enumeration of
158 Eck 1999 dates the inscription to the time of Avidius
Cassius’ revolt in Syria.
159 Mastino 1981, 50-57.
82 part i – section i. koinon of asia
neokoria could be [d]‹w nevkÒrou t«[n Sebast«n
ÉEfes¤]vn pÒlevw.
84. IvE 1238. Base of statue of Tyche given by
Pisidian Antioch; the city secretary is son of the chief
priest of Asia of no. 72.
85. IvE 2052. A statue of the People set up by the
council. Undated.
86. IvE 644. The city honors a citizen. Undated.
87. IvE 687. The city honors a citizen; here neokoros
modifies ‘the Ephesians,’ not ‘the people’ or ‘the
city.’ Undated.
88. IvE 664 B. The city honors a chief priest of Asia
of the temples in Ephesos. Undated.
89. IvE 985. The city honors a priestess of Artemis.
Undated.
90. IvE 686. The city honors M. Julius Aquila, chief
priest of Asia of the temples in Ephesos. See the
following.
91. IvE 689. The city honors the mother of Aquila,
chief priest of Asia of no. 90. Her name now restored
from a new inscription from Amorion as Aelia
Ammia, “chief priestess of the greatest temples in
Ephesos” by Kearsley 1990. See above, n. 69. Al-
most certainly paired with inscription 90, above.160
Despite Kearsley’s arguments to the contrary, this
indicates that Aelia Ammia served as chief priest-
ess when her son was Asiarch (as expressed on the
new inscription), presumably because he was unmar-
ried, widowed, or simply wished to give his mother
this great honor. Kearsley’s geneaology would date
this to around 190 C.E.
92. IvE 1606. The city honors a winner of contests.
Undated.
93. IvE 4342. The city honors a citizen. Undated.
94. IvE 649. The city honors a citizen. Undated.
95. IvE 1517. Fragment, undated.
96. IvE 1563. Fragment, undated.
97. IvE 1532. Fragment, undated.
98. IvE 2909 A. Fragment, undated.
99. IvE 1902 (1). Fragment, undated.
100. IvE 1906 (1). Top of base, undated.
101. IvE 1909 (3). Fragment, undated.
102. IvE 1913. Fragment, undated.
103. IvE 1915 (1). Top of base, undated.
104. IvE 1921 (1). Corner of base, undated.
105. IvE 1923 (1). Fragment, undated.
106. IvE 1926 (1). Fragment, undated.
160 See Wörrle 1992, 368-370, restoring sun[ierasa]m°nhn
t“ u|“ in lines 11-12.
107. IvE 1926 (2). Fragment, undated.
108. IvE 2909. Top of base, undated.
Probably twice neokoros:
109. IvE 708. Statue base of a local official. Undated.
110. IvE 683 B. [Riemann, Bulletin de correspondance
hellénique 1 (1877) 290 no. 77, from Cyriacus of Anco-
na, CIG 3004]. The people honor a citizen; though
the title is restored as only ‘neokoros,’ the formula
is that typical of the second neokoria.
111. IvE 893. The city honors a citizen. Undated.
112. IvE 1907 (2). Top of base, undated.
113. IvE 2908. Fragment, undated.
114. IvE 1921 (3). Fragment of a base, undated.
115. IvE 1921 (2). Upper corner of a base, undated.
116. IvE 1915 (2). Fragment, undated.
117. IvE 1909 (1). Fragment of base, undated.
118. IvE 1906 (2). Top of a base, undated.
119. IvE 2908. Fragment, undated.
120. Knibbe and Iplikçioglu 1981/82, 90 no. 6. Half
of a torus capital, reused; undated.
121. IvE 1918 (3). Top of statue base, undated.
122. IvE 1902 (2). Fragment of statue base, undated.
123. IvE 1810. Fragment, undated.
Three times neokoros and following:
124. IvE 212. Letter of Caracalla granting neokoria
of Artemis, for a total of three. See text above.
125. IvE 3001. Inscription of east hall of agora,
inscribed 211, recarved 212 or after. Probably
changed from ‘neokoros of Artemis and three times
neokoros of the Augusti’ to ‘neokoros of Artemis and
twice neokoros of the Augusti,’ though the enumera-
tion is restored. See text above.
126. IvE 740. Inscription of Ulpius Apollonius
Plautus, designated Asiarch, who is also mentioned
in inscription 133, below. Ephesos is neokoros of
Artemis and three times neokoros of the Augusti.
Dated to 211, subsequently all erased. See text
above.
127. IvE 647. Dedication to Ti. Claudius Serenus.
Ephesos is neokoros of Artemis and three times
neokoros of the Augusti. Dated to 211, subsequently
erased. See text above.
128. IvE 297. Base of Caracalla, dated between
February 212 and October 213. Ephesos is only
twice neokoros of the Augusti. See text above.
129. IvE 834 plus addenda. Unfortunately fragmen-
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
Senate is characteristic of the period after the grant
by Caracalla and Geta, while the count of only two
 chapter
imperial neokoriai allies it to no. 128; though it
might also date to the reign of Macrinus.
130. IvE 2053. Base of a statue of the city of
Carthage, one of a group including nos. 131, 132,
and IvE 2055 (the latter a base of a statue of Kos
on which the neokoria is only restored). Ephesos is
here three times neokoros, so the occasion may have
been a festival to celebrate the restoration of the
neokoria for Artemis, which is being counted in.
Carthage’s participation was likely in return for
Ephesos’ at the inauguration of the Pythia at
Carthage.161 The dedicator here later became city
secretary and set up statues of Caracalla and Julia
Domna after October 213 (no. 133, below).
131. IvE 2054. Statue of Knidos. See text and in-
scriptions 130, 132.
132. IvE 2056. Base of a statue of Nikaia in Lydia,
one of a group of city statues; see above inscriptions
130, 131. Ephesos is three times neokoros.
133. IvE 300. Base of Caracalla and Julia Domna,
dated after October 213. Ephesos is three times
neokoros, twice of the Augusti, once of Artemis. See
text above. One of the board who voted and set up
the statue is Ulpius Apollonius Plautus, the desig-
nated Asiarch of inscription 126, above.
134. IvE 2040. Building inscription of theater aw-
ning. Ephesos is twice neokoros of the Augusti by
decrees of the sacred Senate and neokoros of
Artemis, i.e. a total of three; by the wording, the
Senate’s decrees seem to pertain only to the
neokoriai of the Augusti. The construction was partly
financed from funds found by the proconsul Q.
Tineius Sacerdos, whose office has been dated ca.
206-208 by the inscription of the skene at Hiera-
polis.162 As that surely predates Caracalla’s grant of
the neokoria for Artemis (inscription 124), however,
it is clear that this inscription dates after Sacerdos’
proconsulship; the fund-gathering and reconstruc-
tion of the awning probably took some time. The
titulature should postdate the reappearance of the
third neokoria for Artemis in 213, as shown by in-
scription 133.
135. Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1989,
Beibl. 165-168 no. 3. Statue of Caracalla, dated after
215. The city is originally three times neokoros, twice
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).
4 – ephesos in ionia 83
for the Augusti and once for Artemis; later erased
and changed to twice neokoros of the Augusti only.
See text above.
Enumeration uncertain:
136. IvE 291. Statue base of an emperor who was
Germanicus Maximus and Armeniacus, probably
Caracalla. Remains of the words ‘twice’ and ‘of the
Augusti’ are still on the stone but are interspersed
with erasures. The editors attribute this to Christians
obliterating the name of Artemis, but it is more likely
the result of the changes in neokoriai that occurred
in the reign of Macrinus, as in inscription 135.
Four times neokoros:
137. IvE 625. Base recarved from ‘three times’ to
‘four times neokoros,’ enumeration later erased
completely. See text above.
Three times neokoros:
138. IvE 304. Base of a statue of Gordian III, un-
der Decimus Junius Quintianus, logistes ca. 243/
244, at the end of Gordian’s reign.163 Ephesos is
neokoros of the most holy Artemis and twice
neokoros of the Augusti.
139. IvE 304 A. Base of a statue of Tranquillina wife
of Gordian III, with the same formula of neokoriai
and set up under the same logistes as no. 138.
140. IvE 467. Architrave inscription, one fragment
of which may mention the logistes of nos. 138 and
139, and whose formula of neokoriai can be restored
in the same way.
141. IvE 4336. Statue base of Gordian III. See text
above.
Probably three times neokoros (two of the
Augusti, one of Artemis):
142. IvE 300 A. Statue base? in fragments. Formula
similar to that of inscription 133.
143. IvE 284 A. Fragmentary dedication to an
emperor named Ant[oninus?] and to the city: tª
pr\[t_ ka‹ meg¤st_] mhtrop[Òlei t}w ÉAs¤aw] ka‹
nev[kÒrƒ...] The editors restore nev[kÒrƒ t«n
Sebast«n ÉEfes¤vn pÒlei] and postulate Antoninus
Pius or Marcus Aurelius, but Ephesos was twice
neokoros on inscriptions of their reigns. More likely
is a restoration on the lines of no. 138; the emperor
would then be Gordian III, his name Ant[onius].
144. IvE 1910 (2). Fragmentary, undated; the city
is neokoros of Artemis, first, greatest, metropolis of
Asia, and twice neokoros of the Augusti.
163 PIR2 J.803.
84 part i – section i. koinon of asia
145. IvE 1916. Upper right corner of statue base,
undated. My restoration: [k]a‹ nev[kÒrou? t}w ÉAr-
t°mid]ow ka‹ d[‹w nevkÒrou? t«n Seba]st[«n].
146. IvE 1904 (2). Fragment of base, undated. Could
be restored as ‘three times’ or perhaps ‘four times
neokoros.’
147. IvE 1908 (3). Fragment, undated. Could be
restored as twice (or three times) neokoros of the
Augusti and of Artemis.
148. IvE 473 (3). Fragment of archivolt, undated.
Ephesos is twice or three times neokoros.
Uncertain and restored:
149. IvE 2906. Fragment of Hellenistic ashlar block.
From the context, it may refer to a neokoros offi-
cial rather than the city’s titulature.
150. IvE 1907 (1). Fragment, undated.
151. IvE 2040. Fragment, undated.
152. IvE 1908 (2). Fragment, undated.
153. IvE 1551. Fragment, undated.
154. IvE 1924 (3). Fragment, undated.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Nero: SNGvA 7863; Berlin (3 exx.), London (2 exx.),
Oxford, Paris, Vienna.
Trajan: BMC 223; SNGvA 1884; Berlin (2 exx.), New
York, Oxford.
Twice neokoros:
Hadrian: BMC 227, 228; SNGMün 127; Berlin, New York,
Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Hadrian and Aelius Verus: Paris.
Antoninus Pius: BMC 233-236; SNGCop 397; SNGvA 1888;
SNGMün 132, 133; Berlin (7 exx.), London (2 exx.),
New York (2 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (7 exx.),
Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw.
Marcus Aurelius Caesar: BMC 242; Berlin (2 exx.),
Oxford, Paris (2 exx.).164
Marcus Aurelius Augustus: BMC 243; SNGCop 400;
SNGvA 1890, 1891; SNGMün 141-145; SNGLewis
1448; Berlin (10 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.),
Oxford (4 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (9 exx.),
Warsaw.
Faustina the Younger: BMC 235; SNGCop 402; Berlin (4
exx.), Oxford, Paris, Vienna (2 exx.).
Lucius Verus: BMC 247; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris.
Commodus Caesar: BMC 254; Berlin, Boston, New York,
Paris.
Commodus Augustus: BMC 255; SNGCop 409; Berlin (2
exx.), London, New York, Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (2
exx.).
164 One issue celebrating concord between Ephesos TR NEO
and Hierapolis is presumably an engraver’s error: Franke and
M. Nollé 1997, 41 nos. 323-325.
Septimius Severus: BMC 259, 260; SNGCop 411; SNGvA
1893, 7869; SNGMün 152-155; SNGRighetti 853;
Berlin (7 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York (3 exx.),
Oxford (10 exx.), Paris (12 exx.), Vienna (7 exx.).
Julia Domna: BMC 263, 265; SNGCop 415, 416; SNGvA
1895; SNGMün 158; SNGLewis 1449; Berlin (2 exx.),
Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.).
Caracalla: BMC 271-275; SNGCop 419-423; SNGvA 1896-
1898; SNGMün 160, 161, 163, 164; Berlin (9 exx.),
London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (7 exx.), Paris
(6 exx.), Vienna (10 exx.).
Geta Caesar: SNGCop 425; SNGvA 7874; SNGMün 168;
Oxford, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Geta Augustus: BMC 281, 282; SNGCop 431; SNGvA 1902,
1903, 7877; SNGMün 173; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston,
London, New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (5 exx.),
Vienna (4 exx.).
Three times neokoros:
Geta Augustus: Gotha (genuine?).
Three times neokoros and of Artemis:
Julia Domna: Berlin, London, Paris.
Caracalla: SNGvA 7871; Berlin.
Caracalla and Geta: BMC 292; SNGCop 436; SNGvA 1904;
Berlin (2 exx.), Paris.
Geta Augustus: Berlin, London.
Twice neokoros and of Artemis:
Caracalla: BMC 269.
Three times neokoros:
Julia Domna: BMC 266, 267; SNGCop 417; Berlin (4 exx.),
New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna
(5 exx.).
Caracalla: BMC 276-279, Adramyttium 24, 25; SNGvA
1899, 1900, 7872, 7873; SNGMün 162, 165, 166;
SNGLewis 1450; SNGParis Adramytium 59; Berlin (17
exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (6 exx.), Oxford
(6 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (13 exx.), War-
saw.
Uncertain:
Macrinus: Vienna (falsified?).
Four times neokoros:
Elagabalus: BMC 300, 302-305, 307; SNGCop 442-448165;
SNGvA 1905, 1906; SNGMün 184; SNGRighetti 854;
Berlin (21 exx.), London (7 exx.), New York (4
exx.), Oxford (8 exx.), Paris (19 exx.), Vienna (13
exx.).166
Julia Paula: BMC 308; SNGCop 453, 454; SNGvA 1907;
SNGRighetti 856; Berlin (4 exx.), London, Oxford (2
exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Annia Faustina: BMC 309; SNGvA 1908; SNGMün 187 (fal-
165 SNGCop 444 and several Berlin examples have been
identified as late 17th century casts from genuine ancient coins;
for the purposes of this study, the use of such casts is less
problematic than the use of recut coins, as the legends and types
are true copies of ancient coins, not inventions. See H.-D.
Schultz 1995.
166 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 114 no. 1116, a concord
coin of Laodikeia with Ephesos three times neokoros under
Elagabalus, is presumably retouched on the reverse as well as
on the obverse, and should be considered falsified.
 chapter
sified);167 Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris (4 exx.),
Vienna.
Julia Soaemias: New York, Paris (2 exx.).
Julia Maesa: BMC 310; Paris (3 exx.).
Severus Alexander Caesar: BMC 312; SNGMün 189;
Berlin (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna.
Severus Alexander Augustus: BMC 311, 314, 318, Kibyra
94; SNGCop 460-462; SNGvA 7880; SNGMün 190,
193, 196; SNGLewis 1453; SNGRighetti 857; Berlin (4
exx.), London, New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (8
exx.), Vienna (5 exx.).
Julia Mamaea: BMC 328; Berlin.
Neokoros:
Severus Alexander Augustus: Vienna.
Three times neokoros:
Maximinus: BMC 329, 330; SNGCop 472, 473; SNGvA
1912; SNGMün 208, 209; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston,
London (3 exx.), New York, Oxford (4 exx.), Paris
(8 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.).
Maximus Caesar: SNGMün 212; London, Paris.
Gordian III: BMC 331; SNGvA 1913; SNGMün 213-215;
SNGLewis 1454; SNGRighetti 860; Berlin (2 exx.), New
York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.).
Philip: Berlin.
Otacilia: BMC 342, 343; SNGCop 486; Berlin, New York
(2 exx.), Oxford, Paris, Vienna.
Philip Caesar: SNGCop 488, 489; SNGvA 1914; SNGMün
224; New York, Oxford, Paris, Vienna (2 exx.).
Trajan Decius: SNGvA 1916; Berlin, London, Oxford,
Paris (2 exx.), Vienna.
Valerian: BMC 350-358; SNGCop 496-500; SNGvA 1921-
1923; SNGMün 234-238, 240, 241, 243; SNGLewis
167Another coin in Munich noted as false by Klose 1997,
258, 261 no. 6.
4 – ephesos in ionia 85
1457; SNGRighetti 861-863; Berlin (23 exx.), Boston
(2 exx.), London (8 exx.), New York (12 exx.), Ox-
ford (12 exx.), Paris (19 exx.), Vienna (12 exx.),
Warsaw.
Gallienus: BMC 370-376; SNGCop 510-512; SNGvA 1928-
1930, 7887; SNGMün 249-254, 263; SNGLewis 1459;
Berlin (20 exx.), Boston, London (5 exx.), New York
(3 exx.), Oxford (10 exx.), Paris (12 exx.), Vienna (7
exx.).
Salonina: BMC 390-394;168 SNGCop 532-534; SNGvA
1933, 1934; SNGMün 266-268, 270; SNGLewis 1461;
Berlin (6 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York (4 exx.),
Oxford (7 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.),
Warsaw (2 exx.).
Valerianus: SNGMün 276; SNGLewis 1463; Berlin, New
York, Oxford, Paris (2 exx.).
Saloninus: SNGCop 541; Berlin, London, Paris.
Four times neokoros:
Valerian: BMC 359?, 360-363; SNGCop 501-503; SNGvA
1924, 1925; Berlin (4 exx.), London, New York (2
exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.).
Gallienus: BMC 377-384; SNGCop 513-521; SNGvA 1931,
7888, 7889; SNGMün 257-260; SNGRighetti 864, 867,
868; Berlin (12 exx.), London (6 exx.), New York (6
exx.), Oxford (9 exx.), Paris (13 exx.), Vienna (10
exx.).169
Salonina: BMC 395; SNGCop 535, 536; SNGMün 275;
SNGRighetti 869; Berlin (4 exx.), New York (3 exx.),
Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Valerianus: SNGCop 538; Berlin, Vienna.
Saloninus: Paris.
168 BMC 392 is a cast of an ancient coin. See H.-D. Schultz
1995, no. 6.
169 Includes several casts of ancient coins, e.g. BMC 380,
384; SNGCop 521; SNGRighetti 867. See H.-D. Schultz 1995,
nos. 3-5.
86 part i – section i. koinon of asia
Chapter 5. Kyzikos in Mysia: Koinon of Asia
Kyzikos had a checkered relationship with the
emperors and their cult. According to Tacitus, in 25
C.E. the emperor Tiberius deprived it of its status
as a free city for, among other serious charges,
neglecting the cult of the deified Augustus. Cassius
Dio amplified this account: the Kyzikenes did not
complete the heroön to Augustus that they had
begun to build.1 The heroön was likely a munici-
pal shrine, as Asia’s koinon temple to Augustus was
of course the one in Pergamon (q.v.).
Some years later, Kyzikos produced the first in-
scription yet known to call a city neokoros:
INSCRIPTION 1. Dittenberger 1960, SIG4 799
(IGRR 4:146). Decree honoring Antonia Try-
phaena, dated to 38 C.E. meg¤stƒ ka‹ [§pifa-
nes(tã)tƒ ye“ _Ga¤ƒ´ Ka¤sari érxa¤an ka‹
progonikØn toË g°nouw aÈtoË nevkÒron §pa-
naktvm°nh pÒlin. . .
The phrasing is unique, not formulaic; this is a
metaphor, comparing the city to the neokoros offi-
cial of a shrine, and does not yet represent an offi-
cial title. The Kyzikenes call their city “ancient and
ancestral neokoros of the family” of the “greatest and
most manifest god Gaius Caesar” (Caligula, whose
name was erased after his death and the condem-
nation of his memory), much as an Ephesian (q.v.)
could call his home “neokoros of the great goddess
Artemis and of the heaven-fallen [image].” One may
wonder whether Kyzikos called itself neokoros here
due to the now completed heroön of Augustus,
Gaius’ great-grandfather, or whether the city had a
shrine honoring his grandfather Agrippa, who held
imperium in the East in 15 B.C. when Kyzikos’
status as a free city was restored, and who is men-
tioned in line 7 of this inscription.2 The city also cel-
ebrated a festival in honor of Drusilla, Gaius’ sister,
under the titles of ‘goddess, new Aphrodite,’ in 37
during her lifetime, when Gaius himself, called ‘new
1 Tacitus, Annals 4.36; Cassius Dio 57.24.6.
2 Cassius Dio 54.7.6, 23.7.
Helios,’ was serving an honorific term as hipparchos,
the city’s chief magistrate.3 Whatever the exact
object(s) of cult to which the title alludes, this is the
first use of ‘neokoros’ to describe a city’s association
with the imperial cult, and indicates the conditions
under which it would later become a recognized title.
First Neokoria: Hadrian
In 123 C.E., according to the Chronicon Paschale,
Hadrian visited Kyzikos, where he founded a temple
and paved a marketplace with marble.4 Though
unremarkable at first sight, this reference provides
an origin for a project as elusive to trace as it is
important, the construction of a provincial temple
to Hadrian that was to gain the title ‘neokoros’ for
Kyzikos. The evidence for this temple is scattered
through a number of late and obscure sources, and
its very object of cult has been doubted, while the
remains of the temple itself only recently began to
be revealed.5
Though the Chronicon Paschale mentioned nothing
of a temple beyond Hadrian’s foundation of one, a
scholion to Lucian’s Icaromenippus 24 stated that the
Olympieion in Athens stayed uncompleted for over
three hundred years due to lack of money, like the
temple in Kyzikos, and that neither of them would
have been finished had not Hadrian taken up the
work with public (i.e. imperial) funds.6 This infor-
mation may derive from Arethas, the tenth-century
bishop of Kaisareia in Cappadocia; presumably the
temple at Kyzikos is introduced as a comparison
3 IGRR 4:145 (= SIG 4 798).
4 Chronicon Paschale 475.10 (Dindorf); Halfmann 1986a, 191,
199 (preferring a date of 124); Lehnen 1997, 87; Birley 1997,
162, 164 (inferring that the temple of Hadrian was originally
a temple of Zeus begun by the kings of Pergamon).
5 Excavations directed by Prof. A. YaylalÌ, with many new
finds, especially of architectural fragments. See YaylalÌ 1990;
Koçhan 1991; YaylalÌ, Koçhan, and Baâaran 1991; and YaylalÌ
and Özkaya 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996.
6 Rabe 1906, 107 sec. 20, ll. 16-22. On the funds, see
Winter 1996, 90, 101.
 chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia
because its story was well known to him or to the
scholiast. But how far is the comparison to go? The
figure of three hundred years seems to refer to the
Athenian Olympieion, and probably represents the
interval between the start of its construction on
Peisistratid foundations in 174 B.C.E. and its final
dedication by Hadrian in 131/132.7 If we apply a
similar lapse to the temple in Kyzikos, it too would
have been founded in the second century B.C.E.,
but the excavation has produced no sign of so early
an origin. In fact, unlike Athens’ Olympieion, whose
construction seems substantially Hellenistic, the
foundations of the Kyzikos temple are completely
Roman, with vaulted substructures of cement and
agglomerate. The scholiast, then, may be referring
to some period of incompletion of a temple at
Kyzikos, though not necessarily of three hundred
years. He may even be conflating Cassius Dio’s
reference to the heroön to Augustus still incomplete
in 25 with the later temple founded by Hadrian. The
words of the scholiast make no doubt, however, of
the role of Hadrian and his money in both Athens
and Kyzikos.
The sixth-century author Johannes Malalas con-
nected Hadrian’s foundation with aid given to
Kyzikos after a disastrous earthquake. He called it
“a very large temple, one of the wonders.”8 The folly
of building such a large monument in a proven
earthquake zone would soon become apparent.
During the reign of Antoninus Pius another earth-
quake shook Kyzikos and threw down what was,
according to Cassius Dio, “the largest and most
beautiful of all temples.”9 Both accounts stress the
7 Travlos 1971, 402-411; Willers 1990; Tölle-Kastenbein
1994; C. Jones 1996, 33.
8 Johannes Malalas 11.16; ed. Dindorf (Bonn 1831) 279;
E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, and Scott 1986, 147-148. This earth-
quake, on the night of November 10, probably in 120, has been
associated with different seismic events of Hadrian’s reign, no-
tably an earthquake in Nikomedia and Aoria dated to 128, by
Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 233-234 no. 112.
On earthquakes and chronology in Malalas, see E. Jeffreys
1990, 155-160, 166.
9 Cassius Dio ep. 70.4.1-2; other cities were also affected.
Barattolo 1995, 60-62 n. 15, attempted to move this section
of Dio from the reign of Antoninus to that of Marcus Aurelius,
but the argument is special pleading, largely incoherent. B. Keil
1897 dated the earthquake too early, between 150 and 155 C.E.
See Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 236-237 no.
116, where the date is no more exact than the mid-second
century, and two seismic events (this at Kyzikos, and another
at Ephesos and Nikomedia) that may have been diverse are
again associated. But there were many earthquakes in the area
during this period, and it is likely that the same cities were
repeatedly shaken: Eusebius, History of the Church 4.13.
87
huge size of the temple, though Dio’s epitomator
Xiphilinos is not specific about its identification. The
earthquake should date only shortly before Pius’
death in March 161, because his successor Marcus
Aurelius gave a speech before the Senate and asked
for aid to be sent to the stricken Kyzikenes, prob-
ably in August of that same year.10
In 166 or 167 the orator Aelius Aristides deliv-
ered a panegyric in Kyzikos that included the temple
there as one of its main themes.11 A proper occa-
sion for such a speech might have been the dedica-
tion of the temple, but Hasluck, disturbed by the
forty-year gap between inception and panegyric,
preferred to call it the anniversary of the dedication,
which he placed in 139, the date suggested by
Boeckh for the first celebration of Hadrianeia Olym-
pia at Kyzikos.12 Yet such a delay from inception to
completion does recall the scholiast on Lucian,
though forty years cannot compare with the three
centuries of the Olympieion at Athens. It is then
likely that Aristides’ speech did commemorate the
dedication of the temple of Hadrian; it had been
begun ca. 123 or 124, had probably still been un-
finished when it had been thrown down by an earth-
quake late in Antoninus Pius’ reign, and was finally
dedicated (but was it finished?) in 166 or 167.
It is unfortunate for us that Aristides’ oration is
not more specific about the temple’s history and even
about its object of worship, but a flowery panegy-
ric did not need to mention such commonplace facts,
well known to both orator and audience. When
Aristides speaks of the temple (sections 16-21), it is
in such hyperbolic and metaphorical terms that he
cannot be taken literally.13 The temple competes
with mountains; it is so great a landmark that navi-
gators sailing to Kyzikos will no longer need bea-
con fires to guide them. Each of its blocks is as big
as a temple, the temple itself as big as a sanctuary
precinct, and the sanctuary precinct as big as a city.
It is difficult to say whether there is more marble
in the temple than had been left over in its quarry
on Prokonnesos.
10 Fronto, Letters to the Emperor Antoninus 1.2.4; ed. M. van
den Hout 86-91. Van den Hout 1999, 231 on 89.3 dates the
letter to October 161; Behr 1968, 92-93 n. 1b. Winter 1996,
102-103 put the earthquake in 160 and the speech in 162.
11 Oration 27 (Keil, 125-138); P. Aelius Aristides, The Com-
plete Works, tr. C. Behr (Leiden 1981) 2:98-106, with commen-
tary 379-382; Heinze 1995; Swain 1996, 285-288. See also
Bowersock 1973, 195-196.
12 Hasluck 1910, 187-188; CIG 3674.
13 Boulanger 1923, 342-346, esp. 344 n. 1.
88 part i – section i. koinon of asia
The orator then began his transition to the next
essential part of his speech, praise of the rulers:
§pegrãcasye m¢n går tÚn êriston t«n e¸w §ke›non
tÚn xrÒnon basil°vn: ¥kei d¢ Ím›n tÚ ¶rgon prÚw
t°low §n to›sde to›w kairo›w, o„ tå kal«n aÔ
kãllista e¸lÆxasin ka‹ Íp¢r œn dikaiÒtat' ín xari-
stÆrion tosoËton •sthkÚw e‡h to›w yeo›w, §peidÆper
oÈ =ñdion [hâ n] me›zon §jeure›n.
You [Kyzikenes] have had written [on the temple]
the name of the best of rulers up to that time. But
the work has come to completion in these times,
which have brought about the best of good things
and on account of which so great a thank-offering
to the gods would have been most rightly set up,
since it should not be easy to find a better one.
(section 22)
Presumably ‘the name of the best of rulers up to that
time’ was that of Hadrian written on the temple,
though even this would not assure that he was the
object of cult and not simply the donor. Aristides
also refers to the temple as if it were “a thank-
offering to the gods,” which has made some think
that this was the explanation for the temple’s foun-
dation.14 Aristides expresses a possibility, however,
not a fact: saying that the temple would make a fine
thank-offering for the fortunes of present times says
nothing about why it was originally built. In fact,
Aristides never mentions the cult for which the
temple was built in any but the most allusive (and
to us, elusive) manner; he saves specificity for present
times and present rulers, as when he compares
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus to Asklepios and
Serapis.
The speech does make clear, however, that the
current celebration was in honor of a great work,
i.e. the temple, which had been started in a previ-
ous emperor’s reign.15 The size and scope of the
project were probably reason enough for delay, even
if no earthquake had intervened; in section 21 of the
speech Aristides notes that the temple’s construction
had even necessitated the invention of new engineer-
ing devices and means of transport. But Aristides
never states that his oration was to celebrate the
completion of the temple, as is often assumed. An
anonymous list of thirty things most beautiful and
worth seeing, probably amassed from previous lists
14 Pace S. Price 1984b, 153; following him, Swain 1996, 285.
See also C. Jones 1986, 84 n. 28.
15 This fact is passed over by Barattolo 1995.
and dated to the twelfth or thirteenth century, lists
the temple eighteenth, as “the [temple] of Hadrian
in Kyzikos, unfinished.”16
If it was never finished, it was no wonder. Almost
every author who mentioned the temple at Kyzikos
harped on its prodigious size. Aristides dredged up
hyperbole after hyperbole for it. Like Johannes
Malalas, an anonymous poet during the reign of
Anastasius (491-513 C.E.) classed it among the
wonders of the world, though in this epigram it is
specified as coming after the Roman Capitolium and
Pergamon’s grove of Rufinus and before the pyra-
mids, the colossus of Rhodes, and the lighthouse at
Alexandria:
mhd¢ tanupleÊroisin érhrÒta, KÊzike, p°troiw,
ÑAdrianoË basil}ow émemf°a nhÚn ée¤seiw.
Nor will you sing, Kyzikos, the blameless temple
of King Hadrian, close-joined with enormous stones.
Greek Anthology 9.656
Also in the opinion of Niketas of Herakleia, an elev-
enth-century author, Hadrian’s sanctuary in Kyzikos
was the seventh of the wonders.17
Cassius Dio (70.4.1-2) seems to sum it all up,
writing that “in general, the details were more to be
16 Codex Vaticanus graecus 989, last page, 110, bound into a
collection of works ascribed to Xenophon: B. Keil 1897, 503
n. 1; Corso 1991, 158-163 (giving the date). Barattolo 1995,
73 amended the Greek ét°[le]stow for no reason but his own
argument, not explaining why the temple of Hadrian should
be referred to as ‘fulfilled,’ t°lestow. Barattolo (71) also mis-
interpreted Aristides, who never said that the work came to
an end “thanks to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus,” but only
in their time; see also 73, where he imagined that they would
have naturally put their portrait busts on the temple with
Hadrian’s. For those emperors’ actual attitude toward honors
to their forebears, Pekáry 1985, 38.
17 Niketas, in Philonis Byzantini Libellus de septem orbis specta-
culis... aliorum scriptorum veterum de iisdem septem spectaculis testimo-
nia, fragmenta Callinici Sophistae et Adriani Tyrii adque indicem
graecitatis adiecit Jo. Conradus Orellius (Lipsiae 1816) 144. See
Broderson 1992, 129. Schott 1891, 30, postulated that the
temple substituted for earlier lists’ citation of the Artemision
at Ephesos, though in order to support his belief in a Helle-
nistic dating for this reorganization, he had to state that the
“temple at Kyzikos” cited in the wonder lists of Georgios
Kedrenos (chart no. IX) and in the two lists in Anecdota
Graeca, Codex Ambrosianus c. 222 (chart no. XIIa and b) differs
from the explicitly cited “temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos” of the
lists given by Niketas and Codex Vaticanus graecus 989. He chose
instead the shrine cited by Pliny Natural History 36.22.98, which
holds a marble statue of Apollo crowning an ivory Zeus, and
then stated that this was later rebuilt by Hadrian. See below
n. 63, and Broderson 1992, 66, 68, 84, 96, 106 (again explic-
itly naming the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos), 122 (see be-
low), 130 (Kedrenos), 132, 136, 140 (Cyriacus’ translation of
Niketas), 140, 142, 144.
 chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia
wondered at than praised.” His further statement
that each column was a single block is scarcely to
be believed, especially as he gave their proportions
as four orguiai (about 24 feet) thick, though that pre-
sumably represents their circumference, and fifty
cubits (about 75 feet) in height, a measurement that
has been found by modern scholars to be not far off
the mark.18 Dio’s epitomators Xiphilinos and Zona-
ras agreed on the figures, though Zonaras com-
mented parenthetically, “if these things should not
appear incredible to anyone.”19
An octastyle Corinthian temple with the legend
‘neokoros’ begins to appear on coins of Kyzikos late
in the reign of Antoninus Pius; the archon’s name,
Hestiaios, also appears on the first coins of Anto-
ninus’ successors, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius
Verus.20
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI ADRI ANTVNEI-
NO% (%EB cgi) (Laureate, ahi) head (draped bust,
dgh) of Antoninus Pius r. Rev: (EPI E%TIAIOU
ARXONTO%, ai; AR E%TIAIOU, b) KUZI(KHNVN,
cdfgh) NEVKORVN Eight-column Corinthian
temple on podium (disc in pediment, adghi) a)
London 1895.6-6-14 b) London 1961.3-1-172
(illus. pl. 22 fig. 78) c) BMC 218 d) Oxford e)
SNGParis 659 f) SNGParis 662 g) SNGvA 1260 h)
Vienna 16147 i) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer.
Even if the temple was not yet finished by the time
of issue of these coins, it still had risen far enough
to be portrayed in some detail. It would continue
to be a theme of Kyzikos’ coins so long as the city
issued them.
Though Aelius Aristides’ speech is not a model
of lucid description, it too offers some hints as to the
temple’s structure and placement. In section 20, he
compares it to a three-story house or a trireme in
being threefold, with passages that followed a cir-
cuit from subterranean vaults to the customary
shrine and then to hanging walks, presumably up-
per galleries. Indeed, underground vaults in the
foundations of the temple have long been acces-
sible.21 In addition, Aristides’ comment that mari-
ners would no longer need beacons but could use
the temple to guide them is quite apposite: the
temple stood in the western part of the city, facing
18 Schulz and Winter 1990, 81.
19 Zonaras 12.1.
20 Münsterberg 1985, 66.
21 Ertüzün 1964, 124-142.
89
east and turning its south flank towards one of Kyzi-
kos’ harbors, probably the Chytos.22
In the fifteenth century the main use of the temple
at Kyzikos was as a stone quarry for building in
nearby Bursa. It was in this condition that the trav-
eler and antiquarian Cyriacus of Ancona saw it in
1431, with thirty-one of its columns still standing.23
He attempted to convince the governor of the pro-
vince that the depredations should be stopped, but
when he returned in 1444 two more columns had
disappeared. In view of this, Cyriacus described,
measured, and sketched what remained of the
temple. His judgment was good. Bonsignore Bon-
signori, who traveled in the area in 1498, saw only
twenty-six columns, which he noted (against the
testimony of Dio) as being not monolithic, but made
in ten parts; by then, the drums were being used to
make cannonballs, and large pieces of marble hid
what remained of the floor.24 By the nineteenth
century the structure had been plundered down to
the platform. So Cyriacus’ careful account, preserved
in several copies, provides information about the
temple’s original state that would otherwise be un-
obtainable.25
Though not at his best at history or epigraphy,
Barattolo has made a significant contribution to-
wards reconstructing the temple that Cyriacus saw.26
He used the podium structure, still extant though
overgrown on the site, to confirm that the temple
was octastyle and contained long galleries under-
ground, conforming to Aristides’ description. Cyria-
cus measured the stylobate to be 110 cubits by 40
cubits (165 x 360 feet), and originally with sixty-two
columns in all, though only twenty-nine were stand-
ing when he described them. Barattolo accounted
for the impossibility of reconciling all of Cyriacus’
observations with any coherent modern reconstruc-
tion of an ancient temple by positing that the col-
onnades of the back and both sides of the temple
had been so thoroughly robbed that Cyriacus did
not recognize that they had been there. Thus Barat-
tolo made one restoration of the original temple as
a monumental octastyle structure with seventeen
22
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.
24 Schulz 1995.
25 Ashmole 1956; P. Lehmann 1973.
26 Barattolo 1995, 77-108; preferable to Schulz and Win-
ter 1990, 33-82.
90 part i – section i. koinon of asia
columns along the flanks, dipteral, with an extra row
of eight in both front and back, and both pronaos
and opisthodomos distyle in antis. It is to be hoped
that the new excavations led by YaylalÌ (who restores
the temple with eight by fifteen columns, as here
illus. pl. 2 fig. 7) will clear up the matter.27
The cella can be restored with more certainty,
with two rows of five vine-wreathed columns down
its center, and half-columns to match along the walls;
drawings copied from Cyriacus’ originals show the
cella’s interior wall topped with a continuous frieze,
and fragments that conform to such a frieze (pro-
cessions of Dionysiac and marine deities) are in
Istanbul.28 An upper gallery resting on the cella’s
interior columns would have given the temple the
third, upper level of Aristides’ three-decked meta-
phor, and was so restored by Barattolo. Other draw-
ings seem to indicate an arcaded forecourt in front
of the temple, and this may in fact have been part
of a large rectangular walled courtyard that adjoined
the temple’s north flank.29 One might have expected
such a monumental temple to stand in the center
of its own courtyard; but archaeologists have not yet
defined or dated the ‘agora’ north of the temple. A
manuscript of Cyriacus also illustrates one of the
temple’s elaborate Corinthian capitals adorned with
gorgon’s heads.30 Fragments of capitals and columns
suitable in scale and material to such a building have
been identified, and Barattolo estimated the peris-
tasis columns to have been 72.5 feet high, right
between Cassius Dio’s and Cyriacus’ measurements
of 75 and 70 feet respectively.31 A fragment of what
was probably the exterior continuous frieze shows
eastern barbarians fleeing on horseback, and more
recent finds include a figure of a Roman soldier.32
Both theme and style are suitable to a date in the
160s, around the time of Lucius Verus’ Parthian
campaigns.33 Also suggestive are fragments of the
27See above, n. 5.
28Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fols. 133v–
136r; Barattolo 1995, pls. 35-39 and 31.3-4.
29 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fols. 132v–
133r; Barattolo 1995, pls. 32-33; Lyttelton 1974, 261-263.
30 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fol. 136v;
Florence, Laurentian Library, Ms. Ashburnensis 1174 fol. 122v;
P. Lehmann 1973, 48-49 figs. 30A and B. For the gorgoneion
as a decorative element on the temple of Zeus Philios and
Trajan, see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon.’
31 Barattolo 1995, 96.
32 Laubscher 1967; YaylalÌ 1990, 174 fig. 6.
33 Pace Barattolo 1995, 104-105, more special pleading for
a Hadrianic date while ignoring the iconographic difficulties
this presents for interpreting the frieze’s comparandum, the
eastern frieze, which may represent an emperor’s
apotheosis.34 The apotheosis of Hadrian would be
a very suitable subject for the entrance to his temple,
especially as he had already died and been deified
at Rome by the time that the frieze was finally
sculpted.
From over a large and magnificent door, perhaps
that leading into the cella itself, Cyriacus copied the
following metrical inscription:35
ÉEk dap°dou m' w[ryvsen ˜lhw ÉAs¤aw [. . .]
éfyon¤_ xeir«n d›ow ÉArist(°)netow.
At the end of the first line, Reinach restored [dapã-
n_sin], and this was generally accepted: “from level
earth, with [wealth] of all Asia (and) no lack of
hands, godlike Aristenetos erected me.”36 Wilhelm
pointed out, however, that the two datives and no
connectives made the restoration untenable, and
offered [parexoÊshw] instead: “from level earth, with
no lack of hands of all Asia [offering], godlike
Aristenetos erected me.”37 The genitive is still awk-
ward, and so far no version offered has been quite
satisfactory. Herrmann, however, compared this
inscription with that found at Didyma concerning
the craftsmen of Asia working on the temple for
Gaius at Miletos (q.v.), and agreed with Wilhelm that
the emphasis of the Kyzikos inscription should fall
on the workers, not the wealth, of Asia.38 So this
inscription cannot be used to document who (be-
sides, of course, Hadrian) paid for the erection of a
provincial temple, though likely craftsmen from all
the province worked on it.39 Still, this does at least
confirm that the temple that Cyriacus studied was
produced by the koinon of Asia.
‘Parthian monument’ at Ephesos (for which Oberleitner 1999
gives the most cogent arguments for a date after 166, and likely
after 169). In any case, as Laubscher 1967 pointed out, the
Kyzikos frieze’s combats with generic easterners might be
suitable for the times of either Trajan or Verus, not for the
“grand programme” of Hadrian.
34 Gates 1997, 294.
35 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fol. 133v;
Barattolo 1995, pl. 34. Colin 1981, 555 preferred to interpret
this (and almost all the epigrams given by Cyriacus) as copied
from a Byzantine anthology; arguing for the authenticity of the
inscription, Barattolo 1998, 109-110.
36 Reinach 1890; IGRR 4:140.
37 Wilhelm 1938, 56. Preger 1889 offered [ m°ga yaËma ];
this would remove the centrality of the assistance of the koinon
of Asia, and should be rejected in view of Herrmann’s com-
ments, below.
38 Herrmann 1992, 69-70; 1989a.
39 Pace Schulz and Winter 1990, 37.
 chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia
There has been some controversy over the pedi-
mental sculpture of the temple at Kyzikos. The
earliest sources for it are the contemporary and later
coins, which often show a large disc in the center
of the pediment:
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU KAI L AURHLIO%
OUHRO% Draped cuirassed bust of Lucius Verus
r. Rev: EPI KL E%TIAIOU NEVKOROU (sic)
KUZIKHNVN Eight-column Corinthian temple on
podium, disc in pediment. a) London 1893.4-5-
2 (illus. pl. 22 fig. 79).
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU KAI M AU(RH, abd)
KOMMODO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Commodus r., bearded. Rev: KUZIKHN(VN, cd)
NEVKOR(VN, a) Eight-column Corinthian tem-
ple on podium, disc in pediment. a) BMC 241 b)
SNGParis 748 c) SNGCop 122 d) SNGvA 1274.
Such a disc may be merely a numismatic conven-
tion for pedimental decoration, but it could reflect
reality. Johannes Malalas observed that Hadrian “set
up a marble portrait, a large bust of himself, there
in the roof of the temple, on which he wrote ‘of the
god Hadrian,’ as it is still.”40 It is not impossible that
Malalas himself saw it there.41
Cyriacus of Ancona also described (probably)
pedimental sculpture in the temple at Kyzikos at his
first visit as “different very splendid statues of the
gods in the front,” but again later in his visit of 1444:
“But those splendid and very beautiful marble stat-
ues of the gods in its noble and wonderful facade
are preserved unhurt, with the best Jove himself as
their guardian and with the protection of their lofty
height, and they remain untouched in almost their
original glory.”42 Simon Price took the phrase about
Jove to refer to a specific statue of Zeus in the pedi-
ment, to support his contention that this was not a
temple of Hadrian but of Zeus (see below). A closer
look at other parts of Cyriacus’ journals, however,
reveals that in his enthusiastic antiquarianism he was
accustomed to refer to the Christian God as ‘Jove,’
with such phrases as ‘with the auspicious power of
40 Johannes Malalas 11.16 (ed. Dindorf, Bonn 1831, 279).
The translation of E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, and Scott 1986, 147-
148 is not sufficiently precise. On the word stÆlh meaning ‘por-
trait,’ used both of statues and other forms, see Stichel 1982,
23-25; for the dative used for ‘portrait of’ see Tuchelt 1981,
170-171 n. 17.
41 Croke 1990, 6.
42 Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 28 ll. 248-251.
91
Jove best and greatest and of the kind blessed Vir-
gin and of the most holy John the Evangelist,’ or ‘the
birthday of incarnate Jove,’ meaning Christmas.43
Thus Cyriacus was not describing a statue of Zeus,
but saying that the statues in the pediment were
protected by God’s power and their great height,
which made them unreachable to stone plunderers.
This sentiment conforms with both Cyriacus’ sense
of mission as a preserver of the past and his tendency
to conflate his Christianity with a romanticized view
of the ancient world.44
Can the disc of the coins, the bust of Malalas’ text,
and the statues of the gods of Cyriacus’ description
be reconciled? Perhaps, if a leaf of the Destailleur
manuscript of Cyriacus can be trusted.45 It shows
the facade of an octastyle Corinthian temple, rather
sketchily copied. In the right side of the pediment
is a reclining male figure with hand outstretched
toward a squiggle in the corner, and in the pedi-
ment’s center is a shieldlike disc. On that is a de-
piction of something the copyist probably did not
understand and therefore had difficulty conveying:
an abbreviated figure on a pedestal, its left arm(?)
raised or with something protruding from behind its
back, and squiggles to either side. The great disc,
which fills the pediment’s center from base to apex,
is a detail confirmed by the coins, and the object in
its center, though distorted, may have been the bust
of Hadrian mentioned by Malalas. Such a shield
portrait is well known in Roman art, and the clos-
est architectural parallel is offered by the bust of
Marcus Aurelius set in a shield in the pediment of
the greater propylaea at Eleusis.46 There are no
additional statues in that pediment, but of course the
propylaea was much smaller than the temple at
Kyzikos, which would have offered enough room
and to spare for both a shield portrait and statues.
Unfortunately Cyriacus gave no explicit descrip-
tion of statuary in or around the temple. Miscella-
neous fragments of colossal statues have been found
43 Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 57 ll. 1069-1071, 1051;
similar examples pp. 32, 37, 50, 58. Cyriacus himself defended
this practice in a letter of March 15, 1423: Scalamonti 1996,
app. 1, 166-180.
44 C. Mitchell 1960. For a disapproving view of this ten-
dency, Colin 1981, 281-288.
45 Ashmole 1956, pl. 35c. But also note the doubts of
Barattolo 1995, 88 n. 206; the drawing shows an octastyle
facade, and Barattolo believed that Cyriacus thought the build-
ing to be hexastyle, even stating (p. 92) that Cyriacus described
it so, which he did not explicitly do.
46 Hommel 1954, 110; Winks 1969; Deubner 1937, pls. 39-
42; Giraud 1989.
92 part i – section i. koinon of asia
on the site: a hand holding a sceptre, 30 cm. from
wrist to end of thumb; part of a female head with
an eye 75 cm. long (originally described as 7.075 m.
long!); and a phallus 29 cm. in circumference. These,
though they seem to suit a temple of large size, have
not been proven to be from the temple of Hadrian,
much less to have been its cult images.47 The church
historian Sokrates wrote that Hadrian was wor-
shipped in Kyzikos as ‘the thirteenth god,’ but out-
side of preserving the fact that Hadrian was indeed
an object of cult at Kyzikos (and not identified with
Zeus, who would of course be the first of the canoni-
cal twelve gods), this statement is too vague to base
any iconographic reconstruction upon it.48
Once the cult was established, and perhaps even
before the temple was completely finished, a chief
priest of Asia of the temple in Kyzikos was brought
to office, making Kyzikos one of the five known cities
to have chief priests, chief priestesses, or Asiarchs
of specific temples.49 One of the earliest may have
been Gaius Orfius Flavianus Philographos:
INSCRIPTION 2. Mordtmann 1881, 42-43 no.
1 (IGRR 4:155). Heading of a prytany list.
érxier°vw d¢ t}w ÉAs¤aw naoË §n Kuz¤kƒ G.
ÉOrf¤ou FlaouianoË Filogrãfou ka‹ érxiere¤aw
OÈib¤aw P\llhw, grammat°vw d¢ t}w nevkÒrou
boul[}w] P. A¸l¤ou PrÒklou ÑEl°nou. . .
The city’s new title ‘neokoros’ is here applied to the
council in particular; the same is true for inscriptions
3 and 4 below, which are similar prytany lists. The
names include only one Aelius and no Aurelii, so
the list has been provisionally placed in Hadrianic
times.
Another inscription found near Kyzikos records
three (presumable) Kyzikenes as hymnodoi ‘of
Asia.’50 This office recalls the hymnodoi of the
temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon, as well
as those at Smyrna and Ephesos (qq.v.). There is no
explicit documentation that a choir of hymnodoi was
established at Kyzikos after, or due to, the construc-
47Perrot 1876a; Mendel 1909, 275 no. 32 (cat. no. 256).
48Sokrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 3.23.59, ed. G. Hansen (Ber-
lin 1995) 224; polemical, like most Christian references to dei-
fication. For another thirteenth god (Alexander the Great) see
John Chrysostomos on 2 Corinthians, Homily 26.4-5; J.-P. Migne,
Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca Prior 61 (Paris 1862) 580-
581.
49 For other chief priests of Asia of the temple in Kyzikos,
see IGRR 4:153 and 157 (Aebutius Flaccus, and nameless).
Rossner 1974, 112, 134, 139.
50 Halfmann 1990; SEG 40 (1990) 1128.
tion of the temple of Hadrian. The date of the in-
scription is uncertain, but the slight prevalence of
names of Aurelii and the presence of a strategos
Aelius Onesiphoros, perhaps identical with an ar-
chon under Caracalla, makes it likely to have been
early third century, a time when Halfmann has
posited a reorganization of the hymnodoi of Asia as
a unified body, covering all the neokoroi of the
koinon.
In addition to temple and title, a festival was
granted, which was called either Hadrianeia Olympia,
Hadrianeia, Olympia, or once Hadrianeia Olympia Koinon
Asias.51 Its inception, if correctly dated to 135 C.E.,
postdates the grant of the temple by at least eleven
years, and predates Aristides’ panegyric by about
thirty. As in the case of Pergamon’s temple to Rome
and Augustus (q.v.), a petition and grant of a festi-
val of sacred status could accompany, but was not
a necessary result of, the building of a provincial
imperial temple; cities without provincial temples
that celebrated festivals named for emperors are too
numerous to mention.52 Therefore the old assump-
tion that the date of initiation of a festival must be
that of the dedication of the temple associated with
it should not be resumed.53 Even if a temple’s roof
were not on, its columns could still be garlanded,
and sacrifices take place at its altar; the contests took
place in the theater, odeion, stadium, or gymnasium,
not in the temple.54
Olympios was an epithet associated with Hadrian,
so the name Hadrianeia Olympia cannot be taken to
indicate that Hadrian shared his temple at Kyzikos
with another deity, Zeus Olympios. Though this fes-
tival may have been associated with the temple and
granted with it, its subsequent history is not neces-
sarily tied to the temple’s, and names of festivals were
often ephemeral.55 Olympia could also mean only that
51 Moretti 1953, 266; Malavolta 1976-1977, 2056-2057. The
date of inception hinges on IGRR 4:162, a document of the
eleventh Olympiad. Based on IGRR 4:160, Moretti 1954, 283
n. 3 and 286 n. 1, held that the koinon Asias was founded in
139, and was a separate festival from the Hadrianeia Olympia.
52 Moretti 1953, passim. For a general view, see Ziegler 1985,
9-12 and 62-64 on provincial contests.
53 This is one of the flaws in the reasoning of Barattolo 1995;
though not of Schulz and Winter 1990, 41 n. 80, 50 n. 158;
Schulz nonetheless conflates the temple’s hieromenia and panegyris,
celebrated by Aristides’ oration, and the Olympic contest (agones)
at Kyzikos, 54-55; on the distinction see L. Robert 1969a, 54.
54 S. Price 1984b, 101-132, esp. 108-111.
55 L. Robert 1969a, 49-58; J. and L. Robert 1948, 43-48,
72-79; Herrmann 1975.
 chapter
the festival was isolympic, modeled on that of the
famous sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia, Greece. But
it is likely that the name was applied well after 123
or 124, when the temple (and probably the festival)
was first granted. Some years later, Hadrian had
work restarted on the Olympieion in Athens, and
when that was complete, subsidized the building of
a Panhellenion in the same city.56 These cult names,
originally of Zeus, came into the emperor’s titulature,
becoming standard after 128. It is not unexpected
that at Kyzikos, as in many cities throughout the
East, there were dedications to Hadrian Olympios as
savior and founder of the city.57 So either the Hadria-
neia festival was of the Olympic type, or the name
became attached to the festival as an epithet of
Hadrian. Note that in the case of Pergamon (q.v.),
where Trajan did share cult with Zeus (Philios), the
festival was not called Traianeia Phileia, but Traianeia
Diphileia, with Zeus named explicitly.58
Simon Price, however, contended that the temple
in Kyzikos was not dedicated to Hadrian at all, but
to another god, probably Zeus Olympios; Schulz and
Winter took him up enthusiastically; and subsequent
scholars have followed along.59 Price’s arguments
went back to Nock’s basic belief that where emper-
ors shared cult with gods, the emperors were sub-
ordinated; and in many cases, especially where an
emperor was introduced into a pre-existing cult, this
was true. In this case, however, the individual ar-
guments are not well based, and would necessitate
a preceding course of events that is far more improb-
able than an initial dedication to Hadrian alone.
Hadrian granted a temple to Kyzikos about a year
before his visit to Athens in 124/125, when he took
the uncompleted Athenian Olympieion under his
aegis.60 It is mainly the latter act that gave him his
close association with Zeus Olympios. Are we to
believe that an earlier premonition told Hadrian to
56 C. Jones 1996, 33.
57 IGRR 4:138, 139. For similar dedications from elsewhere
in Mysia, see E. Schwertheim 1983, no. 27 a-d.
58 Magie 1950, 594-595, 1451 n. 7.
59 S. Price 1984b, 153-154, 251-252; Schulz and Winter
1990, passim; Birley 1997, 162, 164; Boatwright 1997, 126-130.
Barattolo 1995 seems to accept it judging from his title, but
not necessarily his text, where Price is not mentioned. The error
has penetrated so far that Schorndorfer 1997, 53-37, 79, 146-
153, has postulated from it undocumented cults of Zeus at the
temples to Hadrian at Ephesos and Smyrna as well. Boatwright
2000, 157-162 makes similar assumptions for Smyrna.
60 This is true whether one accepts the Chronicon Paschale’s
date of 123 for the visit to Kyzikos (above, n. 4), or moves it,
as does Halfmann 1986a, 191, 199 to 124.
5 – kyzikos in mysia 93
endow a new temple to Zeus Olympios at Kyzikos as
well? Or we could take the words of the scholiast
to Lucian more literally and posit a pre-existing (for
three hundred years?) cult at Kyzikos. It is even
tempting to associate that unfinished temple that
Hadrian took over with the unfinished heroön
mentioned by Cassius Dio (but would that, likely a
municipal shrine, have been so gigantic in scale?).
Outside the scholion, there is no direct evidence for
a standing temple or cult taken over by Hadrian at
Kyzikos. Again, the only positive evidence for a cult
associated with Hadrian’s at Kyzikos is the name of
the festival Hadrianeia Olympia, which again brings us
back to Zeus Olympios. It seems too great a coinci-
dence for Kyzikos to have had a large and incom-
plete temple of Zeus Olympios for Hadrian to see and
take up as a project even before his fateful visit to
Athens.61 There are indeed intermittent occurrences
of this cult in Asia Minor, but most of them origi-
nate with Hadrian himself and his identification with
that deity.62 The name of the festival Olympia, which
sometimes only indicates that the contest was mod-
eled on that of Olympia, has been discussed above.
One must also ask what effect a cult of Zeus would
have had on Kyzikos’ neokoria. Price never ques-
tioned that Kyzikos first became neokoros for this
temple. Yet neither on its inscriptions nor on its coins
did Kyzikos call itself neokoros of Zeus, as Aezani
would (q.v.). The coinage left the reason for neokoria
unspecified, both at this point and later, when an-
other (imperial) neokoria was added. Ephesos (q.v.),
when it became officially neokoros for Artemis, of-
ten distinguished this honor from its imperial
neokoriai, though not invariably.
Price preferred what he believed was the testi-
mony of Cyriacus to that of several (admittedly late)
sources calling it a temple of Hadrian. But as we
have seen, Cyriacus never identified a statue of ‘Jove’
in the pediment at Kyzikos. If Cyriacus did hint that
the temple he described at Kyzikos could have been
dedicated to Zeus, it was a guess based on an an-
cient reference (Pliny the Elder’s Natural History
36.22.98) to a statue of Zeus crowned by Apollo that
stood in an unnamed shrine at Kyzikos; but Pliny
wrote of this statue a half century before Hadrian
61 The attempt of Schulz and Winter 1990, 37 n. 46, to
introduce the name of Zeus into the Aristenetos inscription was
scotched by Herrmann 1992, 70.
62 Kruse 1939; Schwabl 1972, 342-344; idem 1978, 1466-
1468.
94 part i – section i. koinon of asia
even visited Kyzikos to found the temple.63 And
Cyriacus was only guessing: on his later visit, he
implied that the temple was a different Kyzikene
shrine, that of Persephone, known from other an-
cient references.64 The fact is that Cyriacus had no
idea to whom this giant temple was dedicated.
The ancient sources, however, that identify the
temple by anything but its size (the fragment from
the Codex Vaticanus, which groups it with monuments
no later than Antonine; the poem in the Palatine
Anthology; and Johannes Malalas) all call it the temple
of Hadrian; and the church historian Sokrates af-
firmed that Hadrian was worshipped at Kyzikos. As
Price noted, the cult had probably ended and the
cult statues been despoiled by the sixth century, but
we cannot assume that the Kyzikenes of that date
had completely forgotten the object of a cult that
was probably practised into the fourth, if not the
fifth, century in the largest temple in their city. One
would have to suppose late antiquity a dark age
indeed, of the sort interposed between Cyriacus of
Ancona and the ruins he was trying to interpret, to
imagine that the Kyzikenes of that period had to
read the dedication inscription on the temple to
puzzle out what it was.
In fact, the survival of the identity of Hadrian’s
temple down to the wonder lists of the sixth century
and beyond indicates that the emperor to whom a
cult was dedicated was not necessarily subsumed into
a cult of ‘the Augusti’ or of a god who shared the
temple, but could stand independently to the end
of the cult and beyond.
Second Neokoria: Caracalla
Though no inscription remains to record the honor,
the coins indicate that Kyzikos became twice
63 Scalamonti 1996, 61-62; Barattolo 1995, 77 also correctly
observed the chronological difficulty, 72 n. 122 and 108; Colin
1981, 480 on Cyriacus’ knowledge and use of Pliny. Pliny’s
citation is indeed in a list of wonders, but it focuses on the
golden tube or thread inset into the temple’s stones, not the
temple itself. Nonetheless, it is likely that this citation led to
much confusion for later wonder compilers. Kosmas of Jerusa-
lem, in the eighth century, added it to his rather garbled list
as a temple formerly of Apollo, now dedicated to the Virgin:
above, n. 17 and Broderson 1992, 122.
64 Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 28; B. Keil 1897 misiden-
tified Dio’s very large temple destroyed by earthquake as the
temple of Persephone; see P. Aelius Aristides, The Complete
Works, trans. C. Behr (Leiden 1981) 2:379, 393.
neokoros under Caracalla. The city had already
been honored with the emperor’s names in his
father’s reign, as recorded on coins of his short-lived
marriage to Plautilla (202-205).65 Coins of Kyzikos
twice neokoros were issued later, during his sole rule;
Caracalla’s portrait is mature, while his mother’s title
is regularly transliterated as Augusta, rather than
translated to Sebaste as on earlier coins of the city.
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT KAI M AURHLI
ANTVNINO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust
of Caracalla, r. Rev: ARX AIL ONH%IFOR AUR
ANTVNEINIA KUZIKH DI% NEOKORVN Laureate
cuirassed Caracalla hands small temple to the city
goddess, who holds another six-column temple;
between them, an altar. a) Berlin 955/1904 (illus.
pl. 22 fig. 80).
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT K M AURH AN-
TVNINO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of Cara-
calla, r., with spear, bearded. Rev: ARX AIL
ONH%IFOROU AUR ANTVNEINIA KUZIKHNVN
B NEOKORVN Two eight-column temples on
podia, a disc in each pediment. a) SNGvA 7378.
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT KAI M AURH AN-
TVNINO% Laureate head of Caracalla, r. Rev:
AUR ANTVNEINIANVN KUZIKHNVN DI% NEO-
KORVN ARX AIL ONH%IFOROU Two eight-col-
umn temples turned toward one another, a dot
in each pediment. a) SNGParis 780 (illus. pl. 22
fig. 81) b) SNGParis 781.
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: [AUT K] M AURHLI AN-
TVNIN[O%...] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Caracalla, r. Rev: AUR ANT[VN]EI[NIANVN
KU]ZIKHNVN DI% NEOKORVN Nine-column
temple on podium, and round shrine of Deme-
ter and Kore, the latter flanked by snake-entwined
torches. a) Berlin 955/1904.
Coins of the archon Aelius Onesiphoros make the
most of the (probably recent) second neokoria. On
type 4 the actual grant is metaphorically portrayed
when the emperor hands a second temple to the
mural-crowned city goddess, who already holds one.
Caracalla was also shown sacrificing among military
standards and saluting one of Kyzikos’ chief gods,
Hades/Serapis.66 These types allude to the empe-
ror’s presence in the area in 214-215 on his way to
65 Johnston 1983, 64 n. 9.
66 SNGvA 1277, 7379; SNGParis 776-779.
 chapter
the Parthian front; they do not necessarily indicate
that Caracalla visited the city, but only that he gave
honors to it and to its god.67 Coins of Onesiphoros’
archonship also show the two temples together, the
new one portrayed as the twin of the eight-column
temple of Hadrian. This does not mean that it was
the same size as the temple of Hadrian, or even
necessarily built within Onesiphoros’ term of office;
it is never shown in any detail. The only coin that
may portray it without its predecessor (type 7) shows
it carelessly as nine-column beside the round shrine
of Kyzikos’ patron goddesses Demeter and Kore.68
The temple is not identified, however, and could well
be the temple of Hadrian instead.
Multiple temple types usually show the temples
for which the city was neokoros, but type 7 con-
tradicts types 5 and 6 by showing the round shrine
instead of a second peripteral temple. Was the im-
perial cult moved into the round shrine? It is pos-
sible, as Caracalla also granted neokoria to many
cities in Asia, such as Pergamon and Smyrna, where
the imperial cult was moved into the temple of
another god. Less likely is that Kyzikos was given
its second neokoria for the cult of Demeter and
Kore, as no inscription states that Kyzikos’ neokoria
was for any but the imperial cult. Either the inter-
pretation of the coin type should be less strict, and
it shows Hadrian’s temple and the round shrine
simply as sources of civic pride to Kyzikos; or the
round shrine was made the temporary home to the
imperial cult until another temple could be built.
In any case, the fact that two temples are gener-
ally shown on coins celebrating Kyzikos’ second
neokoria should indicate that the new imperial cult
was at least housed in a different temple from that
of Hadrian. The current excavators of the temple,
however, attribute any third-century elements found
in its area to Caracalla’s introduction of the provin-
cial imperial cult for Septimius Severus and Julia
Domna into the temple of Hadrian itself.69 This
contradicts the evidence of the coins’ chronology as
well as iconography. Though some late architectural
elements may have been due to repairs to the
temple, many miscellaneous pieces of sculpture
67 Halfmann 1986a, 228.
68 For Kore as patron, L. Robert 1978a, 460-477; for the
Demeter-Kore shrine, see M. Price and Trell 1977, 109-115,
figs. 198-202. Barattolo 1995, 65-67 interprets the peripteral
temple as that of Hadrian.
69 YaylalÌ and Özkaya 1993, 542-543; 1994, 109-112; and
1995, 315.
5 – kyzikos in mysia 95
found at the temple’s east side came from lime kilns,
may represent collection from other areas, and
should not be used to recreate the temple’s history
or sculptural program.
Withdrawn? Macrinus
Unfortunately, the honor of Kyzikos’ second neo-
koria was not to last long, nor to leave enough evi-
dence for us to be sure of its nature. After the death
of Caracalla, Kyzikos seems to have lost its second
neokoria: on coins from the reigns of Macrinus and
Elagabalus the city is only neokoros, with no enu-
meration mentioned. Though other cities of Asia,
including Pergamon, Smyrna, and probably Ephe-
sos, also appear to have lost neokoriai granted by
Caracalla (see ‘Historical Analysis,’ chapter 38), they
would all have their titles restored by the time of
Elagabalus. Kyzikos, however, was unique in not
regaining its lost second neokoria on coins of
Elagabalus. And it would (to its misfortune) be
unique in gaining and losing the same honor yet
again, this time for Severus Alexander.
Coins of Kyzikos issued in Severus Alexander’s
early years, those with military reverses proper to
the time of his eastern campaign of 231, and coins
with the portrait of Julia Mamaea still proclaim
Kyzikos only neokoros. This is also true of a lost
inscription which honored a governor of Thrace in
that reign.
INSCRIPTION 6. Sayar 1998, no. 21 (IGRR
1:797). From Perinthos, copied by Cyriacus of
Ancona. Statue base for M. Ulpius Senecio
Saturninus, governor of Thrace under Severus
Alexander, benefactor of Kyzikos and patron of
the concord between it and Perinthos. {
lamprotãth mhtrÒpoliw t}w ÉAs¤aw nevkÒrow
Kuzikhn«n pÒliw. . .
Senecio is known to have been legatus Augusti pro
praetore of Thrace under Severus Alexander.70 His
term is not firmly dated, except that it cannot in-
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-
ernorship should not be dated to the very end of
Severus Alexander’s reign, when the coins would call
70 Thomasson 1984, 172-173 no. 52.
71 Sayar 1998, 203-204.
96 part i – section i. koinon of asia
Kyzikos twice neokoros (below). As for inscription
7 (below), a papyrus from Egypt, it is precisely dated
to 230 C.E. but is unfortunately indecisive about the
number of Kyzikos’ neokoriai.
An eight-column Corinthian temple, probably the
temple of Hadrian, was still used as a reverse type
on coins that proclaimed the city neokoros during
Severus Alexander’s reign.
COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU [KAI M AUR %EU]HRO%
ALEJANDRO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus
Alexander r., mature, with shield. Rev: EPI %TR
MENELAOU K[UZIK]H[NVN] NEOKORVN Eight-
column Corinthian temple on podium, disc in
pediment. a) London 1919.4-17-147 (illus. pl. 23
fig. 82).
COIN TYPE 9. Obv: M AUR %EOUHR ALEJ-
ANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander r. Rev: KUZIKHNVN NEO-
KORVN Agonistic table, upon it two prize crowns,
over one a radiate bust of Severus Alexander, over
the other a bust of Julia Mamaea. a) SNGvA 1281.
Second Neokoria: Severus Alexander
Coins that again name Kyzikos twice neokoros were
minted when imperial contests were being cele-
brated, as the reverse of type 9 is all but identical
with type 10, which now boasts the second neokoria.
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: M AUR %EUH ALEJ-
ANDRO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus
Alexander l., r. hand raised. Rev: KUZIKHNVN
DI% NEVKORVN Agonistic table, upon it two prize
crowns, over one a bust of Severus Alexander,
over the other a bust of Julia Mamaea. a) SNGParis
821 (illus. pl. 23 fig. 83).
Thus the city’s brief pretensions to reclaiming its
second title probably fall in the emperor’s last years,
as his portrait is fully mature, after his Eastern tri-
umph in 233, as seen above, and perhaps only
shortly before his death in a military revolt on the
German front in 235.72
The evidence seems to retrace the previous va-
cillation to twice neokoros under Caracalla. But
again, the enumeration here cannot be explained as
72 Halfmann 1986a, 231-232.
appearing only where space allowed. Under Severus
Alexander, coins of Kyzikos neokoros go up to 38
mm. in diameter, offering plenty of room for the
brief enumeration, were it warranted. On the other
hand, coins as small as 21 mm. across can still fit in
the word ‘twice.’ One magistrate’s name, Flavius
Trophimos, appears on a coin of the city twice
neokoros (BMC 264), not on those of the simple
neokoria. There is also a tendency for coins of the
second neokoria to change their spelling of the title,
from that more common at Kyzikos (with an omi-
cron) to the spelling standard elsewhere (with an
omega).73
Withdrawn? Maximinus
And again, Kyzikene history appears to have re-
peated itself: just as with Caracalla, the title ‘twice
neokoros’ changed to a simple ‘neokoros’ after Seve-
rus Alexander’s death.
COIN TYPE 11. Obv: G IOU OUHRO% MAJI-
MO% KAI Draped cuirassed bust of Maximus Cae-
sar r. Rev: KUZIKHNVN NEOKORV Eight-column
temple on podium (disc in pediment, c). a) Lon-
don 1919.4-17-151 b) Oxford c) Vienna 16188
(illus. pl. 23 fig. 84).
One might suspect that the title granted by Severus
Alexander was negated by his successor, Maximinus,
or simply that the condemnation of Severus
Alexander’s memory was here given its full effect.74
But this is true of none other of the neokoroi. It is
difficult to tell the exact events from the coinage, as
only nine neokoroi (Nikomedia, Kyzikos, Pergamon,
Ephesos, Magnesia, Smyrna, Sardis, Anazarbos and
Tarsos) minted during Maximinus’ brief reign. None
shows diminished neokoria except Kyzikos, but of
course, only Kyzikos and Magnesia had been
granted neokoria by Severus Alexander. Of these
two, Magnesia’s honor was for Artemis and so was
unlikely to be affected by a condemnation of the
emperor’s memory, though its neokoria might have
been threatened by a condemnation of his acts; but
the latter can be ruled out, as Magnesia’s honors
were untouched.
73 SNGCop 133, a coin of the second neokoria, appears to
have been mistranscribed with an omicron in the catalogue.
74 Kienast 1996, 177-179; pace Varner 1993, 418-422, who
believed that the condemnation was unofficial.
 chapter
What of later developments? Three other cities
can be added that had been made neokoroi by
Severus Alexander. Although they minted no coins
that cited neokoria under Maximinus, they began
to do so again soon after his reign, Aigeai as early
as 238, Kaisareia by 240, and Neokaisareia by 241/
242. All three included their neokoriai for Severus
Alexander in the count; so only Kyzikos did not.
Therefore Kyzikos’ problem must have been unique
to itself, and cannot be explained by a condemna-
tion of Severus Alexander’s memory.
If Kyzikos were using ‘neokoros’ and ‘twice
neokoros’ indiscriminately, as Kaisareia in Cappa-
docia may have done (q.v.), we might expect a scat-
tering of coins with the twice-neokoros title
throughout the reigns of emperors after Caracalla.
Instead, we find unanimity: Kyzikos is twice neo-
koros on late coins of Caracalla, on late coins of
Severus Alexander, and nowhere else until ca. 258-
260 C.E. Was Kyzikos then behaving like Perinthos
(q.v.), which continued to call itself just neokoros
even after it had received a second neokoria? Not
likely; though Perinthos used its title without enu-
meration, its coin types still showed two temples. But
so far as is known, Kyzikos’ types showing two
temples are confined to coins on which the title is
given as twice neokoros. Perhaps more importantly,
cities that did not count out all their neokoriai on
their coins were the only neokoroi in their koina,
unrivaled, when they did so. Kaisareia never had a
serious rival in Cappadocia; and when Perinthos
gained a Thracian rival, neokoros Philippopolis, it
immediately began to call itself twice neokoros, as
it properly could. Kyzikos, on the other hand, had
any number of neokoroi in the koinon of Asia to
envy and emulate. We should assume that it claimed
as many neokoriai as it could.
Why was Kyzikos unique in its ephemeral second
neokoria? No explanation offers itself from the writ-
ten records. Of course, the city had a long history
of promising more to the imperial cult than it could
fulfill. It had once been deprived of its freedom
because it had failed to complete its promised heroön
to Augustus. It certainly took a very long time to
dedicate its temple of Hadrian, and when it did the
temple may not have (ever?) been complete. As for
the temple for which Kyzikos became twice neoko-
ros, it appeared only briefly on coins, and then as a
twin to the temple of Hadrian. Was a new imperial
temple promised under Caracalla, but never built?
5 – kyzikos in mysia 97
Did the project get any further under Severus
Alexander? Without more evidence, the question
must remain unresolved.
Second Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus
Like several other cities, Kyzikos regained its lost
neokoria under the joint rule of Valerian and
Gallienus. The restoration probably took place later
here than at Nikomedia or Ephesos (qq.v.). Coins
of Valerianus the younger as Caesar call Kyzikos
only neokoros, while only a few coins of his grand-
father Valerian proclaims the city twice neokoros.
This evidence indicates a date of restoration after
early 258, when the young Caesar died, and before
the summer of 260, when the emperor was captured
by the Persians.75
COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AU K LIKI OUAL[ER]I-
ANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Valerian,
r. Rev: %TR AUR %V%TRATOU KUZ B NEVK Two
snakes wound around torches drop fruit onto
altar. a) SNGvA 7386.
Though coins with Gallienus’ portrait proclaiming
Kyzikos twice neokoros are common, those of his
wife Salonina only document the simple neokoria,
though she was the only other member of the im-
perial family to be coined for after 260.76 Of mu-
nicipal officials, the second neokoria appears during
the magistracies of Sostratos and of Apollonides, as
coins with these names give either the simple title
‘neokoros’ or ‘twice neokoros.’ The other magis-
trates who subsequently issued coins with the title
twice neokoros under Gallienus (with and without
imperial portraits) were Cl. Basileus, Ae. Paulus and
Loc. Severus.77
COIN TYPE 13. Obv: KORH %VTEIAR (sic)
Draped bust of Kore Soteira, r. Rev: %TRA LOK
%EBH[ROU] KUZIKHNVN DI% NEKO (sic) Eight-
column temple, disc in pediment, and round
shrine of Demeter and Kore. a) Vienna 16137
(illus. pl. 23 fig. 85).
COIN TYPE 14. Obv: KUZIKO% Head of the
hero Kyzikos, r. Rev: (%, a) LOK %EBHROU KU-
75 Kienast 1996, 214-216, 220-221.
76 Ibid., 222-223.
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
Demeter and Kore and eight-column temple, disc
in pediment. a) London 1975.4-11-104 b) Berlin,
Imhoof-Blumer c) New York, Newell (illus. pl. 23
fig. 86).
COIN TYPE 15. Obv: KUZIKO% Head of the
hero Kyzikos, r. Rev: KUZIKHNVN B NEVKO-
RVN Two six-column? temples turned toward
each other, dot in each pediment. a) BMC 199
(illus. pl. 23 fig. 87) b) SNGParis 548 (incorrect).
This last return of the second neokoria prompted
types similar to some issued under Caracalla, when
Kyzikos first became twice neokoros. Type 15, like
earlier types 5 and 6, shows the second temple as
an exact copy of the great temple of Hadrian, though
here the number of columns is abbreviated from
eight. Types like 13 and 14, coupling a peripteral
temple with the shrine of Demeter and Kore, re-
semble coin type 7. Again, this does not necessarily
mean that the round shrine was a temple for which
the city was neokoros, as such types may simply show
the city’s chief monuments. If so, the peripteral
shrine on types 13 and 14 is more likely to be the
temple of Hadrian than the second imperial cult
temple. But if the ‘new’ imperial cult was moved into
the shrine of Demeter and Kore, perhaps just until
its own temple could be built, the double-peripteral-
temple types like 15 would be purely metaphoric.
There is not enough evidence to decide, and it is
unlikely that a new temple was built at this time.
Despite its bad luck with imperial temples,
Kyzikos came through the trials of the third century
better than many other cities of its stature. A Gothic
attack, probably in 258, had been forestalled by a
flood of the Rhyndakos river, causing the Goths to
double back and burn Nikomedia and Nikaia in-
stead.78 Later, in 267/268, the Goths sent a raid-
ing fleet into the Propontis, but Kyzikos held out
against them.79 The city continued to mint coins that
mentioned its neokoria down to the time of Claudius
Gothicus (268-270), later than most of its neighbors.
COIN TYPE 16. Obv: AUT K M AUR KLAUDIO%
%EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Claudius
Gothicus, r. Rev: %TRA %EPT PONTIKOU
KUZIKHNVN B NEVKORVN Eight-column
temple, disc in pediment. a) SNGParis 893 b)
78 Zosimus 1.35.
79 Salamon 1971, 114.
SNGParis 894 c) Vienna 30574 (illus. pl. 23 fig.
88).
Kyzikos remarkably remained twice neokoros, and
the single temple on the coins, probably still the
provincial temple of Hadrian, was a symbol of civic
pride to the end of the city’s coinage.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
1. Dittenberger 1960, SIG4 799. Reign of Gaius; title
probably metaphoric, not official. See text above.
2. Mordtmann 1881, 42-43 no. 1. Prytany list, pos-
sibly Hadrianic. See text above.
3. Mordtmann 1881, 43-47 no. 2. Heading of
prytany list similar to inscription 2 and dated shortly
after it.
4. CIG 3663. Prytany list similar in type and date
to inscriptions 2 and 3.
5. CIG 3665 (= IGRR 4:154). Ephebe list dated af-
ter the beginning of the third century.
6. Sayar 1998, no. 21 (= IGRR 1:797). From
Perinthos, copied by Cyriacus of Ancona. Statue
base for M. Ulpius Senecio Saturninus, governor of
Thrace under Severus Alexander, benefactor of
Kyzikos and patron of the concord between it and
Perinthos. See text above.
7. Zahrnt 1979, 217-218. Fragment of Egyptian
papyrus dated to 230 C.E.; unfortunately the area
where one could expect the enumeration of neokoria
is obscure.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Antoninus Pius: BMC 215, 216, 218, 220; SNGCop 106,
107; SNGvA 1260, 1261; SNGParis 654-662, 664-666;
Berlin (9 exx.), London (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.),
Vienna (2 exx.).
Marcus Aurelius Caesar: BMC 222; SNGvA 1264;
SNGRighetti 697; SNGParis 682-686; Berlin, Vienna,
Warsaw.
Marcus Aurelius Augustus: SNGCop 110, 112; SNGvA
1265; SNGParis 687-690, 695, 697, 699, 700; Berlin
(6 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York
(2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.).
Faustina the Younger: BMC 225-227; SNGCop 113-115;
SNGvA 7373; SNGParis 702-713; Berlin (7 exx.),
London (4 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.),
Vienna (5 exx.).
Lucius Verus: BMC 228, 229; SNGParis 715, 716; Berlin
 chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia
(2 exx.), Boston, London, New York (2 exx.).
Commodus Caesar: BMC 230, 231; SNGvA 1266-1268;
SNGRighetti 698; SNGParis 724-729, 731-733; Berlin
(5 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York,
Oxford (3 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.).
Commodus Augustus: BMC 235-241, 245, 246; SNGCop
119-123; SNGvA 1270, 1271, 1273, 1274, 7375;
SNGLewis 1312; SNGRighetti 699; SNGParis 734, 737,
740-742, 745-759; Berlin (19 exx.), Boston, London
(11 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Vienna
(6 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.).
Septimius Severus: BMC 248; SNGCop 124; SNGRighetti
700, 701; SNGParis 760-772; Berlin (7 exx.), London
(4 exx.), New York (4 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna,
Warsaw (2 exx.).
Julia Domna: BMC 249; SNGRighetti 702; Berlin (2 exx.),
Warsaw.
Caracalla: SNGRighetti 703; SNGBraun 962; SNGParis 774,
783?; London.
Plautilla: BMC 256; SNGCop 127; SNGParis 789; Berlin,
London, New York.
Twice neokoros:
Julia Domna: SNGCop 125; SNGParis 773; London, Ox-
ford.
Caracalla: BMC 225; SNGCop 126; SNGvA1277, 1278,
7378, 7379; SNGParis 776-782, 784-788; Berlin (7
exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York, Oxford
(2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Neokoros:
Macrinus: BMC 259, 260; SNGCop 129; SNGvA 1279;
SNGParis 791-793; Berlin (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.),
Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.).
Diadumenian Caesar: BMC 261; SNGParis 794, 795, 797;
Berlin, London (2 exx.), New York, Oxford (4 exx.),
Vienna.
Elagabalus: BMC 250-252, 254; SNGCop 130; SNGvA
1276, 1280, 7380; SNGRighetti 704; SNGBraun 961;
SNGParis 798-810; Berlin (8 exx.), New York (5 exx.),
Oxford (5 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.).
Julia Maesa: Berlin.
Severus Alexander: BMC 262, 263; SNGCop 131, 132;
SNGvA 1281; SNGParis 812-820, 822, 823, 825; Berlin
(7 exx.), London (9 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford
(2 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.).
Julia Mamaea: BMC 265; SNGCop 134; SNGvA 7381;
SNGParis 826; Berlin (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.),
Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Twice neokoros:
Severus Alexander: BMC 264; SNGCop 133; SNGParis 821,
99
824; London, Oxford (2 exx.).
Neokoros:
Maximinus: BMC 266, 267; SNGvA 7382; SNGParis 828,
829; Berlin (3 exx.).
Maximus Caesar: BMC 268; SNGvA 1282; SNGParis 830,
832, 833; Berlin (2 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York,
Oxford, Vienna (3 exx.).
Gordian III: BMC 269-271; SNGvA 1283-1285, 7383,
7384; SNGParis 834-852; Berlin (14 exx.), Boston (2
exx.), London (7 exx.), New York (8 exx.), Oxford
(3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw.
Tranquillina: BMC 272; SNGCop 135, 136; SNGvA 7385;
Berlin.
Philip: BMC 274; SNGParis 853, 854; London, New York.
Otacilia: Berlin.
Philip the Younger, Caesar: SNGParis 855, 856; Berlin
(2 exx.), New York, Oxford, Vienna, Warsaw.
Valerian: SNGCop 137; SNGvA 1286, 7387; SNGParis 857,
858, 862, 863; London, New York (3 exx.), Vienna.
Gallienus: BMC 275; SNGvA 1287; SNGParis 865, 868,
871-875, 879-882, 885; Berlin (12 exx.), London (4
exx.), New York, Oxford, Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw
(2 exx.).
Salonina: BMC 285-288; SNGCop 142, 143; SNGParis 890-
892; Berlin (7 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York,
Oxford (3 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.).
Valerianus Caesar: Berlin.
Twice neokoros:
Valerian: SNGvA 7386; SNGParis 860, 861.
Gallienus: BMC 276-284; SNGCop 139-141; SNGvA 7388;
SNGParis 866, 867, 870, 876-878, 883, 884, 886-889;
Berlin (21 exx.), London (8 exx.), New York (10 exx.),
Oxford (8 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw.
Claudius Gothicus: BMC 289; SNGParis 893, 894; Vienna
(2 exx.)
Non-imperial obverse, neokoros:
BMC 175-177, 180-184, 202-205, 292; SNGCop 87, 88,
91, 96, 99; SNGvA 1246, 1247, 1249, 1256, 7360,
7361, 7367; SNGLewis 1314; SNGRighetti 693, 695;
SNGParis 525-548, 549, 556, 560-568, 570-578, 583,
586-587, 589, 590, 599, 600, 608, 610; Berlin (39
exx.), London (9 exx.), New York (13 exx.), Oxford
(9 exx.), Vienna (9 exx.), Warsaw (6 exx.).
Non-imperial obverse, twice neokoros:
BMC 198-201, 206-209; SNGCop 92, 93, 95-97, 102;
SNGvA 1248, 1250, 1251; SNGRighetti 694; SNGParis
605, 607, 609, 611, 612-614, 616-619; Berlin (12
exx.), London (5 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford
(9 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw.
100 part i – section i. koinon of asia
Chapter 6. Sardis in Lydia: Koinon of Asia
Sardis was among the most ancient and eminent
cities in the province of Asia. Despite the ravages
of an earthquake not ten years before, in 26 C.E. it
had been one of two finalists in the contest to build
the provincial temple of Tiberius, his mother, and
the Senate.1 Along with rich countryside, wide rivers,
and good climate, the Sardian ambassadors boasted
of their kinship with the Etruscans and a long alli-
ance with Rome. Though Sardis lost that contest to
Smyrna, its qualities did not allow it to go unre-
cognized for long. We shall see that definitely by the
time of Lucius Verus, and very likely due to his
adoptive father Antoninus Pius, Sardis became
neokoros for the second time. This means that at
some time after the city’s unsuccessful try in the reign
of Tiberius and before its second success for
Antoninus Pius, Sardis built a provincial temple for
which it first received the title ‘neokoros.’
First Neokoria
Unfortunately no known documents, inscriptions or
coins attest Sardis’ first koinon temple. A process of
elimination may reveal the emperors to whom it
might have been dedicated, however. We may as-
sume (or at least, there is no evidence to the con-
trary) that the policy of one temple per emperor per
province continued up to Hadrian. Augustus, Tibe-
rius, and Gaius may be ruled out, as their provin-
cial temples were elsewhere; Claudius is possible,
Nero less so, as Ephesos may have been the chosen
neokoros for his cult (q.v.).2 Galba, Otho, and
Vitellius are highly unlikely due to the shortness and
the hectic nature of their reigns: there is not likely
1 Tacitus, Annals 2.47, 4.55-56; see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ On
the earthquake, see n. 29 below.
2 There were, however, municipal temples to Augustus and
to Tiberius in Sardis: Herrmann 1995. A coin of Nero that
seemed to declare Sardis twice neokoros (SNGLeypold 1214) does
not in fact exist: the reverse is that of a coin of Julia Domna,
SNGLeypold 1220.
to have been enough time to get a vote through the
koinon and send out an embassy before the emperor
to be honored had fallen. Vespasian, Titus, or Domi-
tian could possibly be available, though again sub-
ject to the prior demands of the temple of the
Augusti at Ephesos. Nerva is possible, but Trajan’s
temple was in Pergamon.
Hadrian granted several temples to Asia, however,
and Sardis’ may have been yet another. One inscrip-
tion from Sardis mentions a Hadrianeion, possibly
in association with Sardis’ participation in the
Hadrianic Panhellenion in Athens; and a Hadrianeia
festival is also known, but there is no evidence as
to whether either the building or the festival was of
provincial status, or local to Sardis.3 A coin with the
portrait of Antinoös that purported to show Sardis
as neokoros provides no proof, as it has been found
to be a recut or retooled coin of Delphi.4 In any case,
Sardis is one of the five cities known to have had a
chief priest of Asia to preside over its provincial
imperial temples.5 All four of the other cities (Perga-
mon, Smyrna, Ephesos, and Kyzikos) had received
at least one provincial temple by the time of
Hadrian. Therefore it is likely that Sardis did as well.
There is one further piece of evidence, great but
enigmatic: part of a large temple found on the north-
ern slopes of the Sardian acropolis (illus. pl. 2 fig.
10).6 Two seasons of limited excavation revealed
only the eastern corner of the structure. It probably
faced southeast, on the same orientation as the still
unexcavated theater and stadium of the city, to its
east.7 The temple was pseudodipteral Ionic or
3 Herrmann 1993a, 213, 217-218; Buckler and Robinson
1932, nos. 13, 14.
4 In Naples; Blum 1914, 51 Sardes no. 3; A. Johnston, in
Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 11 n. 36. John-
ston’s corpus of Sardis’ coins is forthcoming.
5 Campanile 1994a, 25-27; Rossner 1974, 119 (a chief priest
of temples in Sardis, of the time of Elagabalus), 132 (Libonia-
nus, below), and 140 (a chief priestess, of the third century).
6 Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986.
7 Vann 1989, 47-55, 100.
 chapter
Corinthian (no column capitals were found), prob-
ably octastyle with prostyle porch, and perhaps 20
x 32 m., on a scale about the same as that of the
temple of Zeus at Aizanoi (q.v.).
Unfortunately no further excavations were done,
and none of the probes included layers beneath the
foundations, so the structure can only be dated on
stylistic grounds. From the building technique of
mortared rubble in the foundations, the temple has
been plausibly dated after the time of Augustus.8 The
style of the small amount of architectural ornament
found is suitable to a first century date, but one can-
not be precise without more extensive comparanda
from Sardis itself; though Howe leaned toward a
period in the second or third quarter of the first
century (based on comparisons from Ephesos and
Ankyra), his less precise but more assured date was
‘Augustus to Hadrian.’
The temple’s basic structure was finished: its
column bases were elaborately decorated, the one
partial column that has been found was fluted, and
the stylobate was used long enough to have had
graffiti carved on it. Fragments of monumental
bronze sculpture (including the paw of a lion), some
of it gilt, were found in the excavations, hinting at
rich decor or dedications. But many fragments of the
superstructure and decorative details from the top
of the temple were left roughly claw-chiseled, not
polished down to their final finish.
Among these fragments is one that gives rise to
the probability that this temple was provincial. It is
a section of the left-hand raking cornice, including
a half-finished egg-and-tongue molding and the
surface of one of the pediments. 9 Though it has
clamp-cuttings with lead and iron in them, indicat-
ing that it was put into place on the temple, its face
was only claw-chiseled; a broken-off extrusion likely
attached to pedimental relief sculpture, though it is
impossible to say what sort. Most importantly, to the
left of the extrusion was the word ADRAMU/THON,
in letters 8 cm. high, deeply cut and carefully shaped
but again only claw-chiseled and without serifs. The
word is a version of the name ÉAdramÊteion, Adra-
myteion, a city in Mysia which was, like Sardis, the
8 Waelkens 1987, 96-97 noted that Sardis had a local tra-
dition of mortared rubble walls, and so more readily adopted
that Roman technique, especially after the earthquake of 17
C.E. and the massive rebuilding of the city under Roman super-
vision.
9 Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986, 54-55, 63-65, pl. 3 fig. 3.
6 – sardis in lydia 101
center for a judicial district of the province Asia.10
About the only way to account for this block is
that a personification of the city of Adramyteion was
depicted, or was intended to be depicted, in the
temple’s pediment, and about the only way to ac-
count for that is to suppose that this was a koinon
temple, whose sculptural decoration included patron
deities, heroes, or personifications representing major
cities of the province. The close association between
the thirteen centers of judicial districts in Asia and
the construction of a provincial imperial temple has
already been shown by the inscription of neopoioi for
Gaius’ temple in Miletos (q.v.). In the case of this
temple at Sardis, that association may have been
immortalized in its pedimental sculpture.
It is difficult, however, to find a precise parallel.
There are certainly precedents for the appearance
of unlabeled personifications of cities that partici-
pated in a certain cult (e.g. the frieze of the temple
of Hecate at Lagina), or of named cities (the Puteoli
base of cities restored by Tiberius) or of named
peoples on a building associated with the imperial
cult (the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias).11 There are city
goddesses in pediments, but not identified by label;
inscriptions in pediments tend to be votive or grave
inscriptions.12 The letters on the Sardian pediment
block are too large and long to be a builder’s inscrip-
tion, like the one matching a personification to its
base at Aphrodisias.13 In any case, the placement
of cornice blocks would have been architecturally
more self-evident than that of the Aphrodisias re-
liefs. As ‘Adramyteon’ is nominative but neuter, what
sort of personification could it have been? On the
Puteoli base, some personifications of cities with
masculine-form names are masculine (Tmolos,
Temnos), though Ephesos is represented by one of
its founding Amazons; all the rest are female.
Adramyteion could have been represented by the
normal city goddess, or perhaps by Adramys/
10 SEG 36 (1986) 1103; Habicht 1975, 70. See below, chap-
ter 11, ‘Antandros.’
11 Kuttner 1995, 69-93 with these and many other ex-
amples; though on 249 n. 52 she went beyond the evidence
regarding the Sardis pseudodipteros, which she called a
Sebasteion, restoring “at the corners enthroned figures facing
and framing the center” on its pediment. Lagina: Webb 1996,
108-120. Puteoli base: CIL 10.1624; Mingazzini 1976 (who
attempted to move its date from 30 to 81-90 C.E. mainly based
on style); Vermeule 1981. Aphrodisias: Reynolds 1981, 323-
327; Smith 1988.
12 Hommel 1954, 52, 105-106.
13 Smith 1988, 61.
102 part i – section i. koinon of asia
Adramytes, its eponymous founder.
Whatever its date and decor may have been, the
temple at Sardis did not have long to flourish. A
layer of dark grey ash lying directly on top of its
podium and similar destruction layers to the north
produced bronze coins of Hadrian, Faustina the
Elder thea (‘goddess’), and Marcus Aurelius Caesar,
some of the latter in mint condition.14 As Sardian
coins that titled Faustina Sebaste, ‘Augusta,’ are ear-
lier than those that title her thea, the coin finds should
probably be placed after her death in 141 C.E.15
Thus the temple had to have been destroyed some-
time after 140-150 C.E. It appears to have been
intentionally dismantled after an accidental collapse,
its parts being broken down and burnt for lime right
on the podium. After that, the site was abandoned
to later Roman waterworks, conceding to the slope’s
natural drainage.
Foss identified the pseudodipteros as the first
provincial imperial temple of Sardis.16 Though that
may well be correct, it is by no means the only al-
ternative, as we shall see. Foss, probably influenced
by the bounds of Howe’s preferred limits (second to
third quarters of the first century) for the ornamen-
tal style of the temple, limited the object of cult to
emperors up to Vespasian. If we disregard that limi-
tation in favor of Howe’s more extended but surer
dating, we end with Nerva and Hadrian, as we have
seen. Foss inclined toward Vespasian due to a se-
ries of coins with tetrastyle temple reverse issued at
Sardis during his reign, but there is nothing on these
to indicate that this is even an imperial temple.17
Foss also guessed that since this was the first pro-
vincial temple, after its destruction the cult moved
elsewhere while resources concentrated on the
temple that gained the city its second neokoria, i.e.
that of Artemis (below); or even that the first pro-
vincial imperial cult moved in with the second, which
would have stuffed the precinct that still belonged
to Artemis with three temples’ worth of cults. Hav-
ing two provincial imperial cults housed in the same
temple would have made rather a mockery of the
14 The identification of coin C81.82 in Ratté, Howe, and
Foss 1986, 48 n. 7 is in error: this is a coin of Sardis with por-
trait of Faustina the Elder, not the Younger, of the type SNGvA
3154, BMC 139.
15 Dated coins of Alexandria show the change very clearly:
Geissen 1992. In other cases, the term theos/thea is often used
for the living ruler: S. Price 1984a.
16 Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986, 63-68.
17 BMC 67-70; SNGvA 3148; Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie,
and Bates 1981, Greek nos. 246, 247, 251-255.
term ‘twice neokoros,’ though, especially at this early
period.
There is another problem with Foss’ chronology.
The roughed-out state of the pediment and frag-
ments of the decoration indicate that the temple still
lacked only some few final touches, mainly on the
upper levels of the building, before it was finished.
These were moldings, surfaces, and inscriptions,
basic tasks of journeymen carvers, not master sculp-
tors, and though placed high, they were important
and in full view.18 If this were a temple to Vespasian,
it would have stood for seventy or eighty years in
this state, its inscriptions blurry, its moldings rough,
when only a minimum of work could have brought
it to completion. But if the pseudodipteros was only
built a short time (perhaps a decade or two) before
its destruction, the architectural sculptors of Sardis
would not be as dilatory as it previously seemed,
though they might stand out as being quite conser-
vative in their style. If the preponderance of the
evidence should tip the scales toward Sardian con-
servatism, the pseudodipteros might represent yet
another provincial temple of Hadrian; if toward a
building project left long unperfected, then possibly
a cult for Claudius, for whom no Asian temple has
yet been found. Any decision must await further
evidence.
There is yet another (though more remote) pos-
sibility for the pseudodipteros. As we shall see,
Sardis’ second provincial imperial cult, for Antoninus
Pius, was moved into the old temple of Artemis. This
is the first known instance in which a provincial im-
perial cult was set up in a previously existing struc-
ture rather than a new one. Such a measure cannot
necessarily be explained by lack of funds: Sardis, like
most of the cities of Asia that would have contrib-
uted to a provincial temple, was prosperous in
Antonine times.19 It may be accounted for, however,
if a new temple just on the point of completion had
been demolished by an earthquake and/or landslide.
When this happened at Kyzikos the temple was
rebuilt on the same spot. The pseudodipteros at
Sardis, however, was abandoned, perhaps because
the site had become too uncertain to build upon. It
is just possible, then, that the pseudodipteros was
built as Sardis’ second provincial temple, not its first,
18 See Rockwell 1990. Though the ‘Sebasteion’ sculpture
stood with many roughed-out details, its inscriptions were care-
fully finished.
19 Hanfmann 1983, 145.
 chapter
early in the reign of Antoninus Pius, but was de-
stroyed by some natural disaster only about a de-
cade later. The mid-second century was a bad time
for earthquakes in Asia Minor, and according to
Cassius Dio 70.4, many cities were shaken in
Antoninus’ reign.20 Faced with the daunting neces-
sity of starting from scratch, a decision may have
been made to move the provincial imperial cult into
an older temple instead. The tumbled remains of the
new temple could be reused elsewhere or burned for
lime on the spot; the destruction layers of the
pseudodipteros are indeed the result of such a lime-
burning process. Again, this would explain why the
pseudodipteros’ upper architectural ornament was
only preliminarily roughed out, never finished,
though it would make the architectural sculptors of
Sardis even more stylistically conservative than they
had appeared before.
Second Neokoria: Antoninus Pius
We reach more certainty once Sardis became twice
neokoros for a cult of Antoninus Pius. An inscrip-
tion records that a certain L. Julius Libonianus was
chief priest of Asia ‘of the Sardian temples in Lydia,’
i.e. at a time when Sardis had more than one such
temple; this same Libonianus served as strategos in
the reign of Trajan, and his career cannot have
lasted much more than twenty-five or thirty years.21
A hint at significant honors granted to Sardis early
in Antoninus Pius’ reign is a dedication to that
emperor which, though dated after his death in 161
(by the term ‘hero’), gives his titulature as it was in
139 at the start of his rule.22 Yet another dedica-
tion names him Olympios, a continuation of the epi-
thet best known for his adoptive father Hadrian.23
This may date the inscription soon after Hadrian’s
death and Antoninus’ succession, and may also hint
at his divine role at Sardis (below). Certainly Sardis
was twice neokoros, and probably had been for some
time, by the reign of Antoninus’ sons and succes-
sors, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. The rather
simple declaration ‘twice neokoros’ on a statue base
20 Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 236-237 no.
116, probably referring to several separate incidents.
21 Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 47; Hanfmann 1983,
144; Campanile 1994a, 101-102 no. 99.
22 Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 58.
23 Sardis inventory no. IN 70.4; Hanfmann and Ramage
1978, no. 161.
6 – sardis in lydia 103
of Lucius Verus perhaps dates to his return from his
eastern campaign in 166:
INSCRIPTION 1. S. Johnson 1960, 10 no. 4
(Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 178 no. 276; Foss
1986, 169-170 no. 2; SEG 36 [1986] 1093).24 {
b' nevkÒrow Sardian«n pÒliw...
This means that one cannot attribute Sardis’ second
neokoria to Septimius Severus, as has recently been
done.25
As is mentioned above, it is just possible that the
provincial cult of Antoninus Pius was originally
centered in the pseudodipteros at Sardis but had to
be moved when that temple was destroyed sometime
after 140-150. Whether or not that was so, the cult
ended up in a temple that was and is one of Sardis’
landmarks: the temple of Artemis, where in 1882
George Dennis, the British Consul at Smyrna, found
among the ruins the head of a colossal statue of
Faustina the Elder, Antoninus’ wife. In later and
more formal excavations at the temple, H. Butler
found a companion piece, the lower part of the
colossal head of Antoninus himself.26 More recent
excavations have shown the temple to have been well
populated with colossal sculpture, and pieces of at
least six statues in all (three male, three female) have
been found.
The history of the temple of Artemis before the
arrival of the imperial cult is controversial, as are
the adaptations that were to accommodate that cult
thereafter.27 Designed as a huge (45.51 m. x 97.94
m.) eight-by-twenty-column Ionic structure, aspir-
ing toward the lines of the great temples at Ephesos
or Didyma, it was probably begun in the third cen-
tury B.C.E. Like other temples to Artemis, at
Ephesos and Magnesia, it opened to the west. The
earliest design may have been for a dipteral temple,
with two rows of columns ranged around the cella,
but if so, the plan was changed before the founda-
tions for the colonnade could be built. Instead, it was
24 See J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques 75 (1962)
200 no. 290; Herrmann 1993b, 251.
25 Herz 1998, 134 n. 3.
26 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, nos. 79 and 251, the latter
now in the British Museum.
27 F. Yegül is to publish an analysis of the temple; see
Greenewalt and Rautman 2000, 673-675; also Howe 1983 and
1986. Early description: Butler 1925. For Hanfmann’s views
vs. those of Gruben 1961: Hanfmann 1983, 119-121 (by W.
Mierse). Hoepfner 1990a, 3-7 proposed moving columns for
a prostyle east porch, but this has been disproved by the cur-
rent excavations.
104 part i – section i. koinon of asia
to be treated as a pseudodipteros, with an interior
aisle instead of a double colonnade.
Some time after the long, west-facing cella was
completed, it was lengthened, divided in half by a
cross wall, and a door was opened through its east-
ern wall into the opisthodomos (illus. pl. 2 fig. 9).
This produced two back-to-back cellas, one facing
west, the other east. The original statue base, with
two hoards of third-century B.C.E. coins still wedged
into the stones of its foundation, now lay in the
eastward-facing cella, while a new base of similar size
was constructed for the shortened western cella.28
Ironically, the alteration was aided by the fact that
the building had been shattered by the disastrous
earthquake of 17 C.E., and reconstruction was pro-
ceeding slowly, if at all.29 New excavations indicate
that many of the columns on the flanks of the temple
were never erected.30
Hanfmann held that the division of the cella was
done at the end of the third century B.C.E. for the
introduction of a cult of Zeus. He based this on an
inscription that refers to the precinct of Artemis and
Zeus Polieus, and on a colossal bearded head in
whose battered features he discerned a likeness to
the Seleucid pretender Achaeus, who held Sardis
from 220 to 214 B.C.E.31 Thus the male god would
have a proper east-facing cella, while Artemis held
the west-facing one as before. Howe saw the divided
cella as a Roman innovation, however. He discerned
no mid-Hellenistic architectural phase, but held that
the cella was only divided in the second century C.E.
to accommodate the provincial imperial cult. Lime-
mortared rubble typical of the Roman period was
indeed found under the new door to the eastern
cella, in the new west statue base, and reinforcing
the dividing wall between the two cellas, as well as
in the foundations of the outer colonnade. Greene-
walt has noted that the back-to-back cellas recall the
temple of Venus and Rome in Rome, in whose
design Hadrian was said to have played a decisive
role, but which may have only been completed as
late as the reign of Antoninus Pius.32
28 On the hoards, LeRider 1991.
29 Tacitus, Annals 2.47; Hanfmann 1983, 141-142; Guido-
boni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 180-185 no. 79.
30 Greenewalt and Rautman 2000, 673-675.
31 Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 8, of 2 B.C.E.; Hanf-
mann and Ramage 1978, no. 102.
32 C. Greenewalt, Jr., personal communication of April 3,
2001; I am most grateful for his help and information regard-
ing these and other Sardian matters. For the temple in Rome,
As has already been mentioned, Faustina the
Elder’s colossal presence in the temple of Artemis
is assured, and Antoninus Pius’ head has been plau-
sibly identified. R. Smith has now reidentified a long-
known colossal head, which Hanfmann thought was
Zeus in the guise of the Seleucid pretender Achaeus
(above), as Antoninus’ son and successor Marcus
Aurelius, and part of another colossal head found
at the temple as Marcus Aurelius’ son Commodus.33
In addition, parts of two female colossi beside the
elder Faustina have been found. All colossi were
acrolithic, with some parts executed in materials
other than stone, probably erected on a wooden
framework.34
Fragments from the statue of Antoninus Pius
indicate that he (or another of the male colossi) was
about four times life size, nude, and seated.35 His
head, turned strongly to his left, was diademed with
a plain fillet, and he likely held a sceptre or spear
in his left hand (illus. pl. 11 figs. 32, 33, pl. 17 fig.
45). The pose and attributes are those of Zeus, which
recalls the fact already mentioned, that Antoninus
was called by the epithet Olympios at Sardis. The por-
trait was carved with a lavish use of the running drill
to produce rich baroque contrasts of light and dark
in the curls of the moustache and beard. As on the
colossal portrait of Titus from Ephesos (q.v.), the
mouth is slightly open, conveying the ideal of an
inspired ruler; that and the turn of head produced
a dynamic effect.36 The head of Antoninus does not
fit into any known type, but shares features of both
early (Croce Greca 595) and late portraits (Vatican,
Sala dei Busti 284) of the emperor.37 One notable
idiosyncracy is the fan-shaped tuft of hair isolated
between lower lip and line of beard.
The mien of Faustina the Elder is more com-
posed, as was usual for a lady and an empress (illus.
pl. 12 figs. 34, 35). Her head is turned slightly to
her right, her lips just barely parted. But where other
portraits show Faustina’s eyes as unremarkably al-
Boatwright 1987, 119-133; Gros 1996-2001, 1:179-180, cites
earlier examples of such cellas.
33 Greenewalt and Rautman 2000, 675-676.
34 For the acrolithic technique, see chapter 39 of part II
on temples and cult statues.
35 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, nos. 79-87, esp. 79, 81,
82 and 87. The description of no. 79 seems in error, as the
illustrations show that the neck and head turn to the viewer’s
right, not the figure’s.
36 Zanker 1983, 21-22 saw these traits as typical to Asia
Minor, with roots in Hellenistic ruler portraits.
37 Wegner 1939, 15-25, 125-153.
 chapter
mond shaped, the colossus’ eyes are exaggerated and
deepset, with intense shadows under the brows, a
sculptural effect designed to dramatize the statue’s
gaze, so far above the viewer in the darkened cella.
Seen face-to-face, the eyes seem preternaturally wide
and blank. The hair is carved into loose, rippling
waves, once again with copious use of the drill. Like
all acrolithic heads, this one was hollowed out to
reduce the weight, with dowel holes left for attach-
ing other parts (illus. pl. 13 no. 36). Perhaps the back
of the head was covered with a veil of painted, gilt,
or metal-sheathed wood. The veil is not only char-
acteristic of Faustina’s posthumous coinage, but as
an attribute of Hera would make her the perfect
pairing for her husband posed as Zeus.38 Her statue’s
prototype and date are slightly more secure than
those of the Antoninus. Despite the peculiarities and
distortion engendered by her colossal size and her
function as a deity, the Faustina has been closely
allied to a type (Imperatori 36) classified by Wegner
as standard in Rome around 138-139.39 She stood
between three and three-and-a-half times lifesize,
thus on a slightly smaller scale than the Antoninus
Pius. This may have been a way of denoting her
position as subsidiary to the emperor’s; on the other
hand, if they were posed as a pair and he was seated
and she standing, her smaller scale would have made
the difference in their heights less obvious.
Smith’s confirmation that the colossal head once
identified as Zeus was actually Marcus Aurelius adds
to the consistency of an Antonine family group (illus.
pl. 14 figs. 38, 39). Hanfmann dated the work to
Hellenistic times because of the preponderance of
chisel-work over drillwork in its sculptural treatment,
but it is possible that the showier and higher-relief
passages of drillwork in the moustache and beard
have been battered off; the head is badly damaged,
and looks as if it was defaced by deliberate hammer-
ing.40 From what is preserved, the mouth was open
and breathing, shadowed by a wide, full moustache.
The beard started just below the gently rounded but
narrow cheekbones, and there is a sensuous contrast
between the skin’s high polish and the feathered
opacity of the edging locks of beard. Three isolated
locks come down in a triangle from the lower lip.
The beard itself was full and wide, rounded at its
38 Mikocki 1995, 62. For possible models, see chapter 39
of part II on temples and cult statues.
39 Wegner 1939, pls. 10, 13B; pls. 4, 6B; 26-32, 153-166.
40 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, no. 102.
6 – sardis in lydia 105
meeting with the neck. As with the Antoninus, the
head was about four times life size, and turned to
its left. The back of the head preserves several of the
dowel holes that keyed the great weight of the head
into the armature of the acrolithic statue (illus. pl.
13 fig. 37). Other fragments, including more pieces
of a head and a hand curved as if to hold a sceptre,
have been tentatively assigned to this statue.41
But a problem comes with Smith’s identification
of a new fragment as Marcus Aurelius’ son and
successor Commodus. The implication would be that
he (and likely his wife, Crispina) were added as a
third generation of colossi, to stand with his father
and (adoptive) grandfather. Commodus, however,
was murdered at the end of 192 C.E., and his
memory condemned.42 Though his name was reha-
bilitated and Septimius Severus deified him as his
brother in 195, one wonders what would have hap-
pened to his colossal statue in the intervening time.
It is possible that it simply stood there, waiting for
a decision to be made; or discredited portraits could
be stored up in ‘recycling centers’ to be recarved,
meaning that this one could have been rescued from
such a marble yard and reinstalled after Commodus’
consecration.43 As for Crispina, she had been ac-
cused of adultery, exiled to Capri, and then killed
in 192; her memory was condemned, with no re-
habilitation.
The new fragment consists of the lower part of a
bearded face and powerful neck (illus. pl. 15 fig. 40).
The acrolithic treatment is the same as that of the
other male heads, as is the scale, though the regu-
larity of the neckline hints that this statue was
clothed, probably cuirassed. The mouth is open, with
the teeth visible. The moustache is sketchy and light,
only gently overshadowing the upper lip, which is
noticeably fleshy and full. The beard grows in ba-
roque twisted locks from just below the cheekbones,
with strong accents of drillwork among curls that are
lightly windswept to the figure’s left. The chin is
marked by two swirling double-ended locks. The line
of the mouth and the outgrowth of the beard from
between the corners of the lips and down to the chin
forms a rectangle, in the center of which is an iso-
lated tuft of three locks of hair, which flare out from
under the lower lip.
41 Ibid., nos. 103-105.
42 Kienast 1996, 147-151.
43 Kinney 1997, 134-135; Varner 1993, 295-341 on the
condemnations of Commodus and Crispina elsewhere.
106 part i – section i. koinon of asia
This idiosyncratic portrait does not correspond
exactly with any one portrait type of any Antonine
or Severan emperor. Still, the colossus of Antoninus
Pius shows that idiosyncratic likenesses conforming
to no exact type should be no surprise here. The
physiognomy is quite dissimilar to Marcus Aurelius’
mature portraits, in which an abundant moustache
(like that of his reidentified Sardian colossus) always
covers the upper lip.44 The same is true for Septimius
Severus, though the locks of the beard and the
squareness of the patch of skin below the mouth
recall several of his portraits.45 Commodus’ lips are
thinner than those of the fragment in question, es-
pecially the upper one, and his moustache is more
luxuriant.
The likeliest subject for the new Sardis colossus
is Lucius Verus. His portraits show the individual
traits of full lips, a wispy moustache, and a full
curling beard that often falls into separate locks,
sometimes with an isolated tuft of hair above it. The
patch of skin between lower lip and beard on most
of Verus’ portraits, however, is not generally so
rectangular as on the Sardis fragment, but more
ovoid. Still, a portrait head from Athens (National
Museum 3740) is closely comparable to the Sardis
head.46 But the best argument for this being Lucius
Verus is that the absence of a portrait of him in a
group that included his co-emperor and adoptive
brother Marcus Aurelius would be almost inexpli-
cable, especially at the time of the Parthian war,
when he himself often visited the province Asia.
Two further colossal acrolithic heads of females
were found at the Artemis temple. One has been
variously identified as Artemis, as Faustina the
Younger (wife of Marcus Aurelius), or as Lucilla (wife
of Lucius Verus).47 The front of this head (illus. pls.
15-16 figs. 41-43) is well preserved except for a bro-
ken-off nose, and its baroque drilled style is entirely
consistent with the Antonine date of the other co-
lossi, though it is slightly smaller in scale (the head
is .80 m. tall, where the elder Faustina’s head is .91
m. from chin to crown). The woman’s face is broad
and square, with the plump cheeks of youth. As on
the colossus of Faustina the Elder, the eyes are
unnaturally wide, but here the brows are arched
44 Wegner 1939, 33-47, 166-210 (Marcus Aurelius), 66-73,
252-274 (Commodus).
45 McCann 1968; perhaps the portrait closest to the Sardis
representation is Dresden Kunstsammlung (Albertinus) 393.
46 Wegner 1939, pl. 45; 56-65, 226-249.
47 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, no. 252.
until they are almost semicircular. The mouth is
small and open, and probably had cupid’s-bow lips.
Unfortunately the back of the head does not survive,
and with it went the details of hairstyle that are such
indicators for the Antonine empresses. Still, what is
left shows a simple central parting that breaks into
wind-tossed waves, seemingly blown to her left.
Though it is possible that this head represents a
goddess rather than a human, the clean separation
of the face indicates that it was an acrolith, prob-
ably attached to a veiled head in another material;
such a depiction would be very unusual for the
Artemis suggested by Hanfmann, though it would
suit a Hera, a Demeter, or an empress as one of the
goddesses, as it did Faustina the Elder (above). It is
more likely to be a portrait of a young girl with not
very individualized features. The head resembles
neither Faustina the Younger nor Crispina, both of
whom had thinner, more oval faces; Faustina’s hair
generally fell in crisp scallops to frame her face, while
Crispina’s browline was more ogival.48 The resem-
blance is closest to Lucilla, daughter of Marcus
Aurelius and Faustina the Younger, who married her
father’s co-emperor and adopted brother Lucius
Verus when she was still in her early teens. A life-
sized portrait in Izmir is closest to the Sardis head:
it shows a similar broad flat face with full cheeks,
though the eyes are more almond shaped and the
style flatter and less sculptural.49 The Sardis head’s
drilled and wind-tossed hair, its wider eyes, empha-
sized by deepened lids, and its parted lips are prob-
ably due to its colossal size and its aim of portraying
an apotheosized ruler.
The main group of Lucilla’s portraits probably
dates between the time of her marriage to Lucius
Verus, ca. 163 or 164, and the time of his death in
early 169; when paired with him, she is sometimes
shown wearing a diadem, or with a veil, as Ceres.
But Lucilla was implicated in a plot against her
brother Commodus shortly after his accession, prob-
ably in 181. She was exiled to Capri and killed, and
there are signs that some of her portraits underwent
defacement, although no true condemnation of her
memory is documented.50
48 Wegner 1939, 48-55, 210-225 (Faustina the Younger),
74-78, 274-276 (Crispina).
49 Von Heintze 1982, no. 5. See also Wegner 1939, pls. 47,
64; 74-78, 249-252 (Dresden and coin portraits, of same sub-
group); and Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 24-25 no. 24 pl. 33
(Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo inv. 2766).
50 Pace Varner 1993, 317-319, 322; Kienast 1996, 145-146.
 chapter
As for the other female head, there is little left of
it but a fragment of a wide-arched eye, nose, and
cheek, consistent in style with all the others (illus.
pl. 17 fig. 44).51 If one of the colossi was Marcus
Aurelius, this may have been his empress, Faustina
the Younger.
It is likely, then, that the colossi from the temple
of Artemis at Sardis represented Antonine rulers and
their consorts. The emperor Antoninus Pius and his
wife, Faustina the Elder, were almost certainly
present. Antoninus’ adoptive son and successor Mar-
cus Aurelius, and his wife, Antoninus’ and Faustina’s
daughter Faustina the Younger, were likely present.
The third imperial couple were probably Lucius
Verus and his wife Lucilla, as Marcus Aurelius raised
Verus to be his full partner and co-ruler. Though
none of the statues is strictly datable, it is most likely
that Antoninus and Faustina the Elder were the
original cult pair. Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the
Younger were added at a time when he was fully
mature and well bearded, either as designated suc-
cessor or after succeeding Pius. A joint succession
was unexpected, so Lucius Verus could have only
been introduced after Pius’ death, and Lucilla after
their marriage. Each of the male heads has an iso-
lated tuft of hair under the lip which, though dif-
fering in form, may be a grace note typical of an
eastern, perhaps Sardian, sculptural workshop.
Though no scientific testing has yet been done, all
the colossal marbles are consistent with the prod-
ucts of local quarries.
It is not certain how these statues were arranged.
They show slight differences in scale, with males
largest, the senior female (Faustina the Elder) slightly
smaller, and junior females (e.g., the portrait here
identified as Lucilla) smaller still. Though it is most
likely that they stood as pairs of consorts, it is not
impossible that the males took one area of the
temple, perhaps the eastern half, while the females
stood with Artemis in the west.
No matter how large the temple, six colossal stat-
ues would be difficult to place. The cella was 18.35
m. wide, and in its divided form, each side had a
statue base of approximately six m. square wedged
between its central columns. This base could have
supported one colossus, or a pair if one were stand-
ing; the senior pair, Antoninus Pius and the elder
51 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, no. 88.
6 – sardis in lydia 107
Faustina, may have stood in the east-facing cella.52
It is extremely unlikely, however, that any imperial
image displaced Artemis from the western cella.
Sardian Artemis’ sanctuary had received the coveted
title asylos, confirmed by Julius Caesar himself
shortly before his death.53 The city would not have
forgone this honor to rededicate the temple entirely.
Still, imperial colossi could have been placed else-
where than on the cella bases. The head attributed
here to Lucius Verus shows marks of water that
flowed down its neck when it still stood upright, in-
dicating that it may have stood in a semi-exposed
area, perhaps in one of the temple’s porches; in fact,
it was found in a late Roman pit in the eastern
porch. Hanfmann noted that the colossi had vary-
ing fates: Faustina and Antoninus Pius apparently
stayed in the temple until their wooden parts fell to
pieces, while the head here identified as Marcus
Aurelius was badly battered, and a piece of it ended
up built into a church foundation.54 It is certainly
possible that one or more of the heads could have
been exposed to the elements in this period of dere-
liction.
Statue groups of the Antonine family were not
uncommon.55 Also, more is becoming known about
the grouping of freestanding imperial statues, espe-
cially in Sebasteia and Kaisareia.56 But the Sardis
group is a special case. All are colossi, and all are
in or around a temple whose purpose was the pro-
vincial imperial cult; and if the identifications pro-
posed above are correct, all the individuals portrayed
were reigning emperors and their consorts. Other
Antonine groups often include children as well as
rulers, while municipal temples might have been
more idiosyncratic than provincial ones.
The comparanda are discussed more fully in part
II, in the summary chapter 39 on temples and stat-
ues, but a few may be mentioned here. Strongest
among the parallel cases are those of the other neo-
koroi. At Ephesos, Titus’ colossal statue stood in a
52 For such a composition, see the relief of the Severan arch
at Leptis Magna (below, n. 57).
53 Herrmann 1989b, 127-158; Rigsby 1996, 433-437.
54 Hanfmann 1983, 193.
55 For several examples, Bol 1984, 31-45, 88-89. Also
Moretti 1968 (IGUrbRom) fasc. 1 no. 25, a Delphian dedica-
tion at Rome. An inscribed base from Patara in Lycia (IGRR
3:665) places Marcus Aurelius in the center, with his wife
Faustina on the left (at his right hand) and Lucius Verus on
the right.
56 Pekáry 1985, 92-96, 104-106; Inan 1993; Rose 1997a,
147-149 with bibliography.
108 part i – section i. koinon of asia
temple of (probably) Vespasian, while at Pergamon,
Hadrian’s colossus stood near or with the temple’s
original inhabitants, Zeus Philios and Trajan. Among
municipal imperial temples, acrolithic statues of
Augustus and Rome held the dual cellae of their
temple in Leptis Magna, while Tiberius and Livia
were enthroned elsewhere, perhaps in the porch. At
the temple of the Gens Septimia Aurelia at Cuicul, the
cella was probably held by the emperor under whom
it was dedicated, Severus Alexander, perhaps accom-
panied by his mother Julia Mamaea; acrolithic stat-
ues of his forebears, Septimius Severus and Julia
Domna, could have stood in the great niches at the
back of the precinct. The tiny Sebasteion at Boubon
showed that Septimius Severus could be imported
into an Antonine family group, which becomes an
important precedent if the Sardis colossus here iden-
tified as Lucius Verus should prove to be Septimius
Severus instead.
Another trend at Boubon was to place an empress
at her husband’s right hand. If that was true at
Sardis, however, the pairs of consorts would be
portrayed as looking away from one another, which
is not what Julia Domna and Septimius Severus do
on the Severan arch at Leptis Magna.57 Posed as
Juno and Jupiter of the Capitoline triad, she stands
gesturing toward him, while his throne is canted
toward her. A Fortuna figure and a peacock were
added on Julia’s side to echo the standing Minerva
and owl beyond Severus, thus bracketing and em-
phasizing the imperial couple rather than the triad.
The pattern of seated male/standing female was not
unusual: enthroned statues of Marcus Aurelius and
Lucius Verus were found with a diademed statue of
Faustina the Younger and a veiled statue of Lucilla
in the theater at Bulla Regia.58
Unfortunately, there is too little evidence to tell
how the Sardis colossi were arranged around the
temple of Artemis. Perhaps the most logical arrange-
ment is based on pairs of consorts. Antoninus Pius
and Faustina the Elder, as the senior pair, would
have taken the main statue base in the eastern cella,
he enthroned, she standing, possibly at his left hand
(on the right), and were probably installed during
his reign and lifetime. The statues of his successors
and their consorts would have been added later,
57Bartoccini 1931, 83-85 fig. 48.
58Von Heintze 1982, 171 no. 9; similar dynastic groups
came from the theater in Leptis Magna and the temple at
Sabratha, 174.
perhaps as a group rather than piecemeal; the ear-
liest possible date for this addition would be 163 or
164 C.E., after the marriage of Lucius Verus and
Lucilla. This took place not so far away, at Ephesos,
and the ceremonies connected with the wedding and
the emperor’s progress among the cities of western
Asia Minor toward his Parthian war may have been
the impetus behind the addition of the new colossi.59
But where they stood is uncertain, as no other ped-
estals have been found. If placed one by one, the
four statues could have been set among the columns
on either side of the eastern cella, before their en-
throned parents. If they stood as two pairs of con-
sorts, they would have fit better in the eastern porch,
in the open space on either side of the entry stairs.
In either case, it is likely that they remained, despite
the opprobrium into which Lucilla fell, until pagan-
ism was replaced by Christianity at Sardis.
Though Foss has stated that the new, imperial
incarnation of the Artemis temple is “evidently”
recognizable on coins, the case is slightly more com-
plex.60 The coins in question, issued by Claudius
Fronto as Asiarch and strategos, show on the obverse
Faustina the Elder thea and on the reverse a hexastyle
temple with a standing male figure (in a short cos-
tume and holding a sceptre) inside. The clearest
examples, however, show that the hexastyle temple
is of the Corinthian order, while the temple of
Artemis at Sardis was Ionic.61 So if the coin type
represents any provincial imperial cult temple in
Sardis, it should be the first one, not be that of
Antoninus Pius and Artemis. Following this chain
of remote possibilities, if the pseudodipteros were the
first provincial imperial temple of Sardis, a coin
commemorating it would be found in the debris of
its destruction. The coincidence would be pleasantly
ironic, though the multitude of other possibilities
make its likelihood remote.
Moreover, the figure in the temple, unlike
Antoninus Pius, is beardless, and may in fact depict
some god who was generally represented in a short
tunic. That costume, which has been taken to repre-
59
Lehnen 1997, 260; Halfmann 1986a, 210-212. Karwiese
1990 seems to be based on an argument from silence and a
series of misreadings.
60 In Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986, 66 n. 98; also Johnston
in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 12 no. 289;
S. Price 1984b, 260.
61 BMC 139; SNGvA 3154; Sardis C81.82 (found in the
destruction layer of the pseudodipteros, above); Paris (Babelon
1898, 5254).
 chapter
sent an emperor’s military costume, is probably
different from that of the imperial image from Sardis’
temple of Artemis, where, as has been discussed,
Antoninus was probably enthroned and caparisoned
as Zeus. On the other hand, numismatic convention
often showed the emperor in cuirass, because he was
more recognizable that way. Could the figure in the
temple be the (clean-shaven) emperor for whom
Sardis was first neokoros?
A more distinct possibility is that the coins show
a temple of Dionysos, whose origins were thought
to be Lydian, and whose cult is well documented at
Sardis.62 A similar temple, little clearer except for
a tall leaflike attribute (a thyrsos?) in the central
figure’s right hand, appears on a coin of the koinon
of thirteen Ionian cities, of which Sardis was not a
member.63 This type was issued by the same man
who issued the Sardis coins, the Asiarch Claudius
Fronto, but here he gave his title as chief priest of
the Ionian koinon, whereas on the Sardis coin he
stood in the office of strategos of that city. Though
he used the title ‘Asiarch’ on both issues, this does
not necessarily mean that he issued these coins in
that capacity, or that the office had anything to do
with the subject of the coins’ reverses.64 But the cult
of the wine god was a major theme of the series of
Ionian coins underwritten by Fronto.65 On balance
of evidence, then, the temple portrayed on Fronto’s
issues at Sardis is more likely to be that of Dionysos
than that of Antoninus Pius and Artemis.
So far as is known, the temples that made Sardis
twice neokoros only appear on the multiple-temple
coins so dear to neokoroi cities. Sardis began to issue
such types about as soon as it began to include ‘twice
62 Hanfmann 1983, 93-94, 118, 133, 155 with particular
note of the coins of Fronto showing Hermes and Dionysos. The
temple is tentatively identified as Dionysos’ by M. Price and
Trell 1977, fig. 380, though their catalogue (268 n. 486) con-
tinued to call it an imperial temple.
63 SNGvA 7814.
64 Campanile 1994a, 80 no. 67.
65 Engelmann 1972, not a very acute analysis; 188 n. 4 states
that the dies of SNGvA 3154 (the Sardis coin) and SNGvA 7814
(the Ionian league coin) are “almost identical,” a meaningless
term even if direct comparison between the photographs did
not show great differences in legends and proportions between
both pairs of dies, though the reverses may show the same
temple. Engelmann is followed by Lindner 1994, 144-149, and
by Kampmann 1997, who would attribute the connection
between Sardis and the Ionian cities to a simultaneous celebra-
tion of the koinon games of Asia for the dedication of Sardis’
second provincial temple and a festival for the thirteen Ionian
cities, specifically between 141 and 145 C.E. See also Kamp-
mann 1998, 379-380.
6 – sardis in lydia 109
neokoros’ on its coins, early in the reign of Septimius
Severus (when Albinus was still Caesar, perhaps 193-
195).66 The type remained popular throughout the
Severan period.
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI% L %EPTIMI
%EOUHRO% PERTINAJ Laureate draped cui-
rassed bust of Septimius Severus r. Rev: EPI G I
KRI%POU ARX %ARDIANVN DI% NEVKORVN
Two six-column temples, a disc in each pediment,
turned toward one another; a leafy wreath over
one, a plain one over the other. a) SNGvA 3155
b) Paris 1248 c) Ireland 2000, no. 1714.
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU KAI L %EPTI %EOU-
HRO% PER Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Septimius Severus r. Rev: EPI %TR[A K]OR
OUETTHNIANOU A%IARX D %ARDIANVN DI%
NEVKORVN MHTROPOLEV% A%IA% Two six-
column temples, a disc in each pediment, turned
toward one another; a leafy wreath over one, a
plain one over the other. a) Paris 1248A (illus. pl.
24 fig. 89).
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: L %EPTI GETA% K[...]
Draped cuirassed bust of Geta as Caesar r., boy-
ish. Rev: EP %TRA KOR OUETTHNIANOU [...]
%ARDIANVN DI% NEVKORVN MHTROPOLEV%
A%IA% Two six-column temples turned toward
one another, a wreath over each. a) SNGvA 3162.
As usual, the buildings are assimilated to each other
to convey the concept ‘temples for which the city is
neokoros,’ though architecturally they may have
looked quite different and been far separated from
each other. The only distinction is in the (agonis-
tic?) wreaths, one smooth, one leafy, that are shown
over the temples. This may indicate that contests in
honor of the two temples were of different types: for
example, a wreath of laurel might symbolize a
Pythian festival, one of olive an Olympian.
Also associated with the two provincial imperial
temples is the enigmatic draped figure of a goddess,
the Lydian Kore.67 She is not there as an object of
koinon cult but as Sardis’ patron deity. Artemis Ephe-
sia had appeared in the same way on coins of
Ephesos (q.v.) as early as the reign of Antoninus Pius.
66 Kienast 1996, 160-161.
67 Identified by a scene of Kore’s abduction by Hades on
a statue of Lydian Kore in Padua: Fleischer 1999, 606; for other
evidence, idem 1973, 187-201; 1984c.
110 part i – section i. koinon of asia
At Sardis, Kore was shown between the two temples,
either alone or in her temple.
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: IOULIA %EBA%TH Draped
bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: EPI G I KRI%POU AR
%ARDIANVN DI% NEVKORVN Two six-column
temples, a leafy wreath over one, a plain one over
the other, turned toward one another; between
them Lydian Kore. a) Paris 1251 b) Vienna
19580.
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR %E AN-
TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Caracalla r. Rev: EPI AN ROUFOU ARX(ON, d)
A TO G %ARDIANVN DI% (B, cde) NEVKORVN
Three temples, side ones six-column with emperor
within each (four-column in three-quarter view,
no figure, cde; a wreath over each, abe), center
one four-column with arched entablature, Lydian
Kore within. a) H. W. Bell 1916, 300 b) Oxford
(illus. pl. 24 fig. 90) c) Paris 1268 d) Paris 1269
e) SNGCop 532.
These coins, and coin type 6, below, provide evi-
dence against the theory that the Lydian Kore was
identical to Artemis, and thus was worshipped in the
temple of Artemis at Sardis.68 As the temple of
Artemis was also the second temple of Sardis for the
provincial imperial cult, that of Antoninus Pius, it
must be one of the two ordinary imperial temples
shown on the coin. Yet the temple of Kore is shown
as distinct from it. Nor is it likely that the temple of
Kore and the imperial temple represent two ‘aspects’
of the same temple. In other cases where an emperor
moved into a god’s temple, for example Caracalla
at Pergamon and at Smyrna, or Elagabalus at
Nikomedia, only a single temple is shown, never two.
The fact that Kore stood as patron and symbol of
the city on some of its coins does not necessarily
mean that she and Artemis were one and the same.
Unlike Ephesos with its Artemis, Sardian loyalty
seems to have swayed among a number of divine
patrons. For example, when Hellenistic kings had
wished to inscribe their letters in the preeminent
temples of Asia Minor, they chose the Metroön
(probably the temple of Kybele) at Sardis, not the
Artemis temple.69 And when the city chose a patron
divinity to represent it on concord coins, Zeus Lydios
occasionally took Kore’s place in that role.70
68 Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates
1981, 7-10, ultimately an argument from silence; see Hanfmann
1983, 129-135.
69 Gauthier 1989, 54-58; Knoepfler 1993; Roller 1999, 196.
In the joint reign of Caracalla and Geta, Septi-
mius Severus’ successors, Sardis began to use more
magniloquent titulature, including mention of the
Senate’s role in according neokoria and the fact that
Sardis was twice neokoros of the Augusti. These
details are documented by the building inscription
of the ‘marble court,’ the magnificent central room
of the bath/gymnasium complex at Sardis:
INSCRIPTION 2. Foss 1986, 170 no. 3 (Herr-
mann 1993b, 233-248 no. 1). { mhtrÒpoliw t}w
ÉAs¤aw [k]a‹ d‹w nevkÒrow t«n Sebast«n katå tå
dÒgmata t}w |erçw sugklÆtou f¤lh ka‹ sÊmmaxow
[ÑRvma¤vn] ka‹ o¸ke›a t«n kur¤vn {m«n
aÈtok[ratÒr]vn Sardian«n pÒ[l]iw. . .
Other major cities, such as Ephesos and Smyrna
(qq.v.), also began to proclaim that their neokoriai
were according to decisions of the Senate at this
time.71 It is possible that this practice started after
Ephesos obtained two neokoriai at once, a deed
previously unprecedented; the Senate’s decrees seem
to be cited to affirm that the titles are official. Sardis,
however, did not gain any new neokoriai at this time.
Third neokoria: Elagabalus
Sardis had already been issuing coins for Elagabalus
for some time before it became three times neokoros.
The coins issued under the archon Claudianus still
call the city twice neokoros, while those of
Hermophilos include the third neokoria for the cult
of the emperor. Coins of Hermophilos issued for
Severus Alexander as Caesar would date his office,
and the grant of the third neokoria, to include June
221 or shortly thereafter.72 Sardis issued medallion-
sized bronze coins to celebrate its new honor:
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV-
NEINO% %E Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Elagabalus r. Rev: %ARDIANVN TRI% NEVKO-
RVN EP ERMOFILOU AR A TO B Four temples;
below, two six-column temples turned toward one
another; above, one six-column temple with
emperor within and a four-column temple with
arched entablature, Lydian Kore within. a) BMC
171 (illus. pl. 24 fig. 91).
70 BMC 214; Pera 1984, 67unverified; her results are viti-
ated by an unwary use of old catalogues. For a subtle investi-
gation on the pecking order of deities, see M. Nollé and J. Nollé
1994, 248-249.
71 See chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ in Part II.
72 Kienast 1996, 177-179.
 chapter
This type again includes the temple of Kore with
the temples for which the city was neokoros, just as
type 5 had. The latter had been similar to the more
impressive types of cities like Pergamon and Smyrna
that were three times neokoros, though the legend
never claimed more than the proper two for Sardis.
This tendency simply continued on type 6 under
Elagabalus: though Sardis was only three times neo-
koros, with the addition of the temple of Kore its
multiple-temple reverses resembled contemporary
issues of four-times neokoros Ephesos (q.v.).
Some doubt has been expressed as to whether this
or any temple to Elagabalus was ever built.73
Though Johnston never made the logic behind her
skepticism explicit, her reasoning appears to be that
there were simply too many temples to Elagabalus
crammed into too short a reign; therefore his cult
must have been moved into other temples, likely
including that of Kore at Sardis. It is true that at
Nikomedia and at Philippopolis there is coin evi-
dence that the emperor’s cult was moved into the
temple of the city’s chief deity. But for Sardis as for
Ephesos, Miletos, and Hierapolis (qq.v.), the coins
are our only form of evidence and we cannot disre-
gard what they say. The coins of Sardis show a third
imperial temple for Elagabalus, separate from the
temple of Kore. They give no indication that the
emperor shared his temple with any other deity.
That no such temple has yet been found is insignifi-
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
of Elagabalus’ reign: that may have affected whether
temples to him were completed, but it should not
affect whether or not they were begun. Any city that
became neokoros for Elagabalus presumably trusted
that his would be a long and honorable rule, per-
haps to be followed by legitimate successors, and that
the Severan dynasty would continue. The fact that
the historical sources preserved to us are unani-
mously hostile and portray Elagabalus as a sex-
crazed religious maniac should not lead us to
imagine that he could be slighted with impunity by
73 Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates
1981, 9-10, 12; Johnston 1984, 58. If her theory that the temple
of Kore was the temple of Artemis were also correct, the temple
of Artemis would have then housed two provincial imperial
cults, that of Antoninus Pius and his house, and that of
Elagabalus. This makes the temple as crowded as did Foss’
theory that the first provincial imperial cult moved into the
temple of Artemis, above.
6 – sardis in lydia 111
the people he ruled. So far as this study has found,
the title ‘neokoros’ had historically implied the ex-
istence of a temple, and where these have been
found, they have not been small shrines but large,
independent peripteral structures. This is what the
coins show for Elagabalus as well, and that is what
we should believe unless there is some positive evi-
dence against it.
Sardis coin type 6 illustrates the temple to
Elagabalus as six-column, a shield in its pediment.
The imperial statue shown within is very small but
appears to be the usual cuirassed figure, with left arm
raised, perhaps propped on a sceptre or spear.
Contemporary coins under Hermophilos show a
parade of agonistic types, often with four prize
crowns, recalling type 6 with four temples.74 Only
three of the temples made the city neokoros, how-
ever, and none of the ‘worldwide’ contests on the
coins can be tied to any specific emperor. The Koina
was indeed a provincial imperial festival, but had
already been celebrated at Sardis since the first
century.75 A festival called Elagabalia at first looks
promising, but is in fact named after Elagabalus the
sun god of Emesa, not the emperor properly known
as Antoninus.76 The nickname ‘Elagabalus’ would
not have been publicly used for the emperor at any
time before his death. Though a festival for his god
might well have been allied with one for the em-
peror, there is no evidence for or against it.
Withdrawn: Severus Alexander
Sardis does not appear to have issued coins for
Severus Alexander’s sole rule that still claim the city’s
third neokoria. That there was a period of indeci-
sion about the status of the neokoria for Elagabalus,
however, is shown by Sardis inscription 7:
INSCRIPTION 7. Herrmann 1993b, 248-266
no. 2 (Sardis inventory no. IN 82.16). [t}w
prvtÒxyonow ka‹ |erçw] t«n [ye«n ka‹ mhtro-
pÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤a]w ka‹ L[ud¤aw èpãshw ka‹
74 Karl 1975, 76-79, 134-135; Johnston in Buttrey, John-
ston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 12-14.
75 Moretti 1954, the earliest document Neronian; also note
Année Epigraphique 1993 no. 1527, which mentions the Severeia
koina Asias in Sardis, a festival that could not have originated
from any of Sardis’ provincial imperial temples, though they
may have been involved in its celebration.
76 L. Robert 1976, 53-54; apparently unknown to Johnston
1984, 58.
112 part i – section i. koinon of asia
pr\thw ÑEllã]dow ka‹ pollãkiw [nevkÒrou t«]n
Sebast«n katå tå [dÒgma]ta t}w |erçw sug-
klÆtou f¤lhw ka‹ summãxou ÑRvma¤vn ka‹ o¸ke¤aw
toË SebastoË t}w lamprotãthw Sardian«n
pÒlevw.
This is a statue base of an agoranomos, C. Asin(n)ius
Neikomachos Frugianus.77 His grandfather as strate-
gos had donated toward celebrations for a visit of
Marcus Aurelius and Commodus; this can be dated
to their eastern tour from late 175 to 176 C.E., and
conforms with a date around the time of Severus
Alexander for this inscription (below).78 The city’s
full titulature is given, but includes ‘many times neo-
koros of the Augusti by the decrees of the sacred
Senate.’ This wording is unique. The neokoroi were
generally meticulous about including the number of
times that they had been given the honor, both on
inscriptions and on coins. The reason must be ei-
ther that the correct title was still in adjudication,
or that the Sardians did not wish to admit openly
that due to the condemnation of Elagabalus’
memory they, like many other cities, had lost a
neokoria.79 The former is more likely, as the coins
issued under Severus Alexander return with no sign
of hesitation to the title ‘twice neokoros’ and the type
of the temple of Kore between the two imperial
temples:
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: [...] AUR %E ALEJANDRO%
Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus
Alexander r. Rev: EPI [...]A[...] %ARDIANVN DI%
NEVKORVN Three temples, each with wreath at
peak; side two six-column, an emperor in each;
center one four-column with arched entablature,
Lydian Kore within. a) Oxford 17.57 (illus. pl. 24
fig. 92).
COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT K M AUR %E ALEJ-
ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander r. Rev: EPI ARX G A%IN
NEIKOMAXOU FROUG %ARDIANVN B NEVKO-
RVN Lydian Kore and Demeter. a) Vienna 19587
(illus. pl. 24 fig. 93).
The coinage also confirms the chronology of inscrip-
tion 7, as after C. Asinnius Neikomachos Frugianus’
term as agoranomos he became archon of the city,
77 Herrmann 1993b, 248-266 provided a full discussion of
the family.
78 Halfmann 1986a, 212-216.
79 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417.
his name appearing on coins of Severus Alexander
with the legend ‘twice neokoros’ (e.g. type 8).80
Despite the loss of its third neokoria for Elaga-
balus, Sardis continued to feature its neokoria
prominently on its coins. Under Maximinus a repre-
sentation similar to type 4 was revived:
COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT K G IOU OUH MAJI-
MEINO% %EB Laureate draped bust of Maximinus
r. Rev: EPI %EP MENE%TRATIANOU [ARX A?]
%ARDIANVN (D[I%], a; B, b) NEVKORVN Two
four-column temples, over each a wreath, em-
peror? in each; between them, Lydian Kore on
pedestal. a) Paris 1300 b) Vienna 32632.
A gap occurs in the recording of neokoria on Sardis’
coinage with imperial portraits from after the reign
of Philip into that of Valerian; the bulk of the coins
were issued with non-imperial obverses. This ex-
plains why so few coins with portraits of Valerian
or Gallienus proclaim Sardis only twice neokoros.
That would soon change, however, when Sardis
joined the many cities that had lost neokoriai for
Elagabalus but regained the honor under Valerian.
Third Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus
Types 10 and 11 assure us that Sardis became three
times neokoros once more during the magistracy of
the magniloquent Dom(itius) Rufus, Asiarch, son of
a twice-Asiarch, the most powerful first archon, who
served during the joint reign of Valerian and Gal-
lienus, and whose coins appeared with both titles,
twice and three times neokoros.81
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K P LIK GALLI-
HNO% AU Radiate draped cuirassed bust of
Gallienus r. Rev: EPI DOM ROUFOU A%IARX K
UIOU B A%IARX K KRATI%T AR A %ARDIANVN
B NEVKORVN Three prize crowns on agonistic
table. a) SNGvA 8262.
COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT K P LIK GAL-
LIHNO% %E Radiate draped cuirassed bust of
Gallienus r. Rev: EPI DOM ROUFOU A%IARX K
UIOU B A%IARX K KRAT ARX A %ARDIANVN G
NEVKORVN Three prize crowns on agonistic
80 Münsterberg 1985, 148-149; Neikomachos’ grandfather
is likely the Neikomachos named on coins of Marcus Aurelius.
81 For the magistrate, Herrmann 1993b, 257 n. 84.
 chapter
table. a) Paris 1332 b) Vienna 33649 c) Berlin,
Imhoof-Blumer.
It is noteworthy that festival types 10 and 11 both
feature three prize crowns, though type 10 only
counts two neokoriai. This indicates once more that
since coincidences between number of times
neokoros and the number of contests in other cities
may be coincidental, a direct connection between
neokoria and festivals should not be assumed with-
out direct evidence.
Sardis can boast the last known document that
called a city neokoros, up to one hundred fifty years
later than the latest ones otherwise, at Side, Synnada,
and Sagalassos (qq.v.). The massive changes that
took place in that interval can be found in any his-
tory of late antiquity.82 The Empire and its emper-
ors became Christian; the provinces were subdivided
and administered by a complex hierarchy of impe-
rial officials; the cities, though they clung to the
names of their old institutions, gradually lost admin-
istrative, financial, and ultimately legal autonomy to
the central government. Independent civic coinage
became a memory, and even the carving of civic
inscriptions dwindled away. Though Christianity
had a deep effect, there was still some continuity in
culture, in education, in the manner of life; yet the
motives and the rationale behind all of these had
changed. A notable product of that change is Sardis
inscription 12.
INSCRIPTION 12. Buckler and Robinson 1932,
no. 18 (Le Bas-Waddington 628; CIG 3647). [t}w]
lam(protãthw) Sard(ian«n) mhtropÒlevw (line 2)
. . . §n tª lam(protãt_) ka‹ d‹w neokÒrvn
Sard(ian«n) mhtrop(Òlei). . . (lines 4-5)
This inscription records an agreement and oath from
a hereditary corporation of builders and artisans to
the defensor of Sardis, an imperial overseer who, as
defender of the common people, took many civic
functions out of the hands of the city’s elite. Whether
owing to strikes or to contractual disputes, some
builders had apparently undertaken projects and
then abandoned or even obstructed work on them.
The inscription lays out a system of contingencies
and terms by which this problem could be solved.83
The document is dated April 27, 459 C.E. and is
sworn to “by the holy and life-giving Trinity and by
82 A. Jones 1973 and MacMullen 1976 are still classic.
83 Foss 1976, 19-20, 110-113 no. 14.
6 – sardis in lydia 113
the safety and victory of the lord of the inhabited
world Flavius Leo, eternal Augustus and emperor,”
yet it is placed “in the most illustrious and twice
neokoros metropolis of the Sardians.”
Some who have dealt with this inscription have
assumed that the continuation of the title ‘neokoros’
meant the continuation of the imperial cult even in
a Christian empire.84 One detail that stands in the
way of this interpretation, however, is the fact that
the city is only twice neokoros. What happened to
the third neokoria re-granted by Valerian and
Gallienus? The evidence is scanty, but the cases of
Perge and Side tend to indicate that the neokoriai
they granted were not withdrawn, but even added
to, in later years. Then why is that last known
neokoria of Sardis not counted in this inscription?
To answer, we must ask how those who composed
and engraved this inscription could have found out
how many times Sardis was neokoros. If ‘neokoros’
were an important title in common use or a source
of civic pride, we might expect it to be common
knowledge that the correct number was three, or
possibly more, but no less. The fact that the num-
ber is given as two argues not for continuity but for
discontinuity of the imperial cult. Those who set up
the inscription had forgotten exactly how many times
neokoros Sardis was, and perhaps even what the title
meant.
This failure of memory contrasts with the long-
held memory of the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos
(q.v.). But that building, surely the city’s largest, had
been magnificent enough to be classed as a wonder
of the world, and may have stood substantially in-
tact to the eleventh century and beyond. Any temple
that made Sardis three times neokoros, even if be-
gun under Elagabalus, may have only been built in
the mid-third century, when unsettled political and
economic conditions made any construction beyond
defensive walls haphazard, if not impossible.85 If it
was ever finished, it does not seem to have impressed
itself on the minds of the Sardians.
How, then, did inscription 12 come up with the
title ‘twice neokoros’? The answer lies on the stone
itself. The agreement of the builders and artisans,
for example, is inscribed on an old statue base of
Septimius Severus. Such relics of the earlier empire
were everywhere in the city, available for perusal and
often reuse. The majority of them, however, named
84 Buckler 1923, 36-48; see Hanfmann 1983, 193.
85 S. Mitchell 1993, 2.238.
114 part i – section i. koinon of asia
Sardis twice neokoros, a title that the city held for
over a century at the time of its highest prosperity.
Inscriptions of the third neokoria would naturally be
rarer: that title was correct only from perhaps 220
or 221 to 222 during the reign of Elagabalus, and
by the time it was reinstated in the joint reign of
Valerian and Gallienus, probably just before 260,
few inscriptions were being set up. It is no accident
that of Sardis’ eight inscriptions citing neokoria
(where enumeration is preserved, and other than this
last one), only one records the city as three times
neokoros.86
In fact the source of the titulature may have been
right above the builders’ noses. Members of their
corporation must have been involved in the various
renovations and building projects of the bath/gym-
nasium complex at Sardis from the late fourth
through the fifth century. Perhaps the most exten-
sive of these renovations was commemorated in a
long inscription, dated in the middle to late fifth
century, around the podium of the ‘marble court.’87
And just above, on the entablature, ran the great
dedication inscription from the joint reign of Cara-
calla and Geta, cited above, calling Sardis ‘metro-
polis of Asia and twice neokoros of the Augusti.’
Despite its best efforts, Sardis appears to have
been fated to go down the centuries as only twice
neokoros. But thanks to that error, we can recog-
nize that the last known document of the neokoria
commemorates not the survival of the imperial cult,
but an attempt to recapture the glories of the past.
By the mid-fifth century, the title ‘neokoros’ was a
dead letter.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Twice neokoros:
1. S. Johnson 1960, 10 no. 4 (Hanfmann and
Ramage 1978, 178 no. 276; Foss 1986, 169-170 no.
2; SEG 36 [1986] 1093). Dedication to Lucius Verus,
probably ca. 166. See text above.
2. Foss 1986, 170 no. 3 (SEG 36 [1986] 1094;
Herrmann 1993b, 233-248 no. 1). Inscription of
‘marble court,’ dated to 211 by dedication to
Caracalla and Geta, the latter’s name erased. See
text above.
86
Sardis inventory no. IN 76.4, unpublished: Herrmann
1993b, 252 n. 63.
87 Foss 1976, 40, 113-114 nos. 15, 16; Hanfmann 1983, 160;
Foss 1986, 171-172 no. 8.
3. Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 178-179 no. 277
(Foss 1986, 170-171 no. 4; SEG 36 [1986] 1095).
Statue base of children of Kore, dated to 211 by
dedication to Caracalla and Geta, the latter’s name
erased.
4. L. Robert 1967, 48 n. 6 (Foss 1986, 171 no. 5;
SEG 36 [1986] 1096). Statue base of Caracalla, prob-
ably dated to his sole rule (212-217), as the epithet
‘relative of the lord emperor’ is singular not plural;
the two neokoriai of the Augusti are by decrees of
the Senate.
5. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 63 (Cichorius
1889, 371-373 no. 3; IGRR 4:1528; corrections by
L. Robert 1940, 56-59). Sardis is twice neokoros of
the Augusti by decrees of the Senate. Similar in form
to inscription 4 except for added titles ‘sacred’ and
‘first of Hellas.’ The more grandiose formulae are
peculiar to Caracalla’s reign, but Bowersock 1995,
85-98 tried to redate inscription 5 to Lucius Verus’
time. For a rebuttal, see SEG 45 (1995) no. 2353.
6. Sardis inventory no. IN 74.7, unpublished.
Titulature similar to no. 5; again, the neokoriai are
by decrees of the Senate.
Many times neokoros:
7. Herrmann 1993b, 248-266 no. 2 (Sardis inven-
tory no. IN 82.16). Probably dated to Severus
Alexander’s reign, 222-235 C.E. See text above.
Neokoria of indefinite number:
8. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 64 (CIG 3464;
SEG 4:638; IGRR 4:1516; corrections by L. Robert
1929, 138 n. 2). Fragment of honorific. Titulature
other than neokoria similar to that of inscription 7;
Herrmann 1993b, 240-241, time of Severus
Alexander–Gordian III?
9. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 70. Fragment;
neokoria by decrees of the Senate. Titulature other
than neokoria similar to that of inscription 7;
Herrmann 1993b, 240-241, time of Severus Alex-
ander–Gordian III?
10. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 67. Fragment.
11. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 69. Fragment.
Twice neokoros:
12. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 18. From the
reign of Leo, dated 459 C.E. See text above.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Twice neokoros:
Albinus Caesar: BMC 146; Berlin, London, Vienna.
Septimius Severus: SNGvA 3155; SNGRighetti 1087; Ber-
lin, Paris (4 exx.).
 chapter
Julia Domna: BMC 147-157; SNGCop 529, 530; SNGvA
3156, 3157, 8256; SNGTüb 3815-3816; H. W. Bell
1916, 299; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKen-
zie, and Bates 1981, 53-54 nos. 293-296; Berlin (9
exx.), Boston (2 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford (3
exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (8 exx.).
Geta Caesar: BMC 168; SNGvA 3162; Berlin, Paris.
Caracalla: BMC 158, 162-167, 214; SNGCop 531-534;
SNGvA 3159-3161; SNGTüb 3818-3821; SNGLewis
1511; SNGRighetti 1088, 1089; H. W. Bell 1916, 300;
Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and
Bates 1981, 54 nos 297-299; Berlin (10 exx.), Bos-
ton (3 exx.), London, New York, Oxford (2 exx.),
Paris (16 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.).
Macrinus: Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie,
and Bates 1981, 54 no. 300; Berlin, Boston, Paris.
Diadumenian: BMC 169.
Elagabalus88 (C. Sal. Claudianus archon for the second
time): BMC 159-161; SNGvA 8257; Johnston in
Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 55
nos. 301-304; Berlin (8 exx.), Boston, New York (2
exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.).
Three times neokoros:
Elagabalus (S. Ulp. Hermophilos first archon for the
second time): BMC 170-172; SNGvA 8295; SNGTüb
3822; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie,
and Bates 1981, 55-56 nos. 305-306; Berlin, Boston
(2 exx.), London (2 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (3
exx.).
Julia Soaemias: BMC 173.
Julia Maesa: BMC 174; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston,
MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 56 no. 307; Berlin (3
exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna.
Severus Alexander Caesar: Oxford, Vienna.
Twice neokoros:
Severus Alexander (archons Damianos, C. Asin.
Neikomachos Frug.): BMC 175-179; SNGTüb 3823;
Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and
Bates 1981, 56 nos. 308, 309; Berlin; Oxford; Paris
(2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.).
88 Elagabalus is often misidentified as Caracalla on these
coins.
6 – sardis in lydia 115
Julia Mamaea: SNGvA 8260; SNGRighetti 1090; Paris (5
exx.), Vienna (3 exx.).
Maximinus: BMC 180; H. W. Bell 1916, 302; Berlin (2
exx.), Paris, Vienna (2 exx.).
Maximus Caesar: BMC 181; Paris (2 exx.), Vienna.
Gordian III: BMC 182, 184-191; SNGCop 535-538; SNGvA
3163, 8261; SNGTüb 3824, 3825; H. W. Bell 1916,
303, 304; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie,
and Bates 1981, 56 nos. 310, 311; Berlin (12 exx.),
Boston (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.),
Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.).
Tranquillina: BMC 192-195; SNGRighetti 1091; H. W. Bell
1916, 305; Berlin (4 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (2
exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Non-imperial obverses, time of Gordian III: BMC 89;
Berlin (2 exx.), Paris (2 exx.).
Philip I: BMC 196-199; SNGCop 539; Berlin (4 exx),
Boston (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris
(3 exx.).
Otacilia: BMC 200, 201; Paris (3 exx.), Vienna.
Philip II Caesar: BMC 202-205; SNGCop 540-542;
Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and
Bates 1981, 57 nos. 312, 313; Berlin (5 exx.), New
York, Oxford (6 exx.), Paris (9 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.).
Philip II Augustus: New York.
Non-imperial obverses, time of Philip: London, Paris.
Gallienus (Dom. Rufus, Asiarch): SNGvA 8262.
Non-imperial obverses, twice neokoros: BMC 83, 84, 90-
92, 94-96; SNGCop 511-513; SNGvA 3141; SNGLewis
1512; SNGRighetti 1081; H. W. Bell 1916, 275, 276,
278; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and
Bates 1981, 47-48 nos. 260, 261, 264-266; Berlin (12
exx.), Boston, London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford
(7 exx.), Paris (18 exx.), Vienna (8 exx.).
Three times neokoros:
Valerian (Dom. Rufus, Asiarch): BMC 206, 207; SNGvA
3164; SNGTüb 3826; Berlin, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna.
Gallienus: Berlin (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna.
Salonina: BMC 208-211; SNGCop 543, 544; SNGvA 3165;
Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and
Bates 1981, 57 no. 314; Berlin (4 exx.), New York,
Oxford, Paris, Vienna.
Non-imperial obverses, three times neokoros: Berlin (2
exx.).
116 part i – section i. koinon of asia
Chapter 7. AIZANOI IN
Neokoria of Zeus: Commodus
Coins and inscriptions of Aizanoi agree in proclaim-
ing the city to be neokoros of Zeus, though both do
so only rarely. Starting from the reign of Commo-
dus, the documents make this the first official neoko-
ria for a deity yet known; though in Acts of the Apos-
tles 19.35 a magistrate of Ephesos had earlier hailed
his city as neokoros of Artemis (q.v.), that was not
yet an official title. Aizanoi is so far the only city
known to have been neokoros of Zeus.
Two coin types mention neokoria in their legends,
both showing the mature, bearded portrait of
Commodus likely to date from Saoteros’ fall in 182
(see ‘Nikomedia,’ chapter 15) to the end of Com-
modus’ reign, in 192.
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU KAI M AURH KOMO-
DO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Commo-
dus r., bearded. Rev: AIZANEITVN NEVKORVN
TOU DIO% Seated mother goddess with tympanum
holds the infant Zeus, a lion at her feet; three
Korybantes around her.1 a) Boston 1973.606.
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU KAI M AURH KOMO-
DO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Commodus r.,
bearded. Rev: AIZANEITVN NEVKORVN TOU
DIO% Zeus with sceptre and eagle.2 a) Paris 241
(illus. pl. 24 fig. 94).
The imagery of these types refers to the cult of Zeus
as practiced in Aizanoi: his birth to the mother
goddess, Meter Steuene, in the grotto Steunos south
of the city;3 his adult manifestation; and on another
coin his open-air cult place: a high column on which
an eagle perches, flanked by an altar and a tree.4
Zeus’ cult was important enough to win asylos sta-
tus as well as the neokoria for Aizanoi.5
1 Von Aulock 1968, 48 pl. 3.9.
2 Babelon 1898, no. 5581.
3 Roller 1999, 189, 336-341.
4 L. Robert 1981a, 352-353; J. and L. Robert, Revue des études
grecques (1982) 406 n. 399.
5 Rigsby 1996, 447-448; see inscriptions 1 and 2, below.
PHRYGIA: KOINON OF ASIA
The temple of Zeus, which still stands in great part
today, apparently formed the centerpiece of a whole
new urban plan for Aizanoi.6 The date of this plan
can be postulated from the remains of the temple’s
foundation documents, preserved on its north
pronaos wall. The income from cleruchic land, al-
lotted to Zeus by decisions of kings of Pergamon and
Bithynia, had lapsed, and a reorganization was
undertaken under Hadrian; the emperor himself
wrote letters concerning it, and they were proudly
inscribed on the walls of the new temple.7 New
boundary stones had been laid out in 127/128 C.E.,
and the return of income no doubt paid for the new
temple of Zeus and prompted the city’s reorganiza-
tion and renewal.8 This fostering of Hellenic civic
life is typical of Hadrian, and it is probably no co-
incidence that the cult of Zeus at Aizanoi got this
boost at the same time as that of Zeus Olympios at
Athens. Later, a prominent citizen and descendant
of a family deeply involved in the temple’s building
would represent Aizanoi in Hadrian’s Panhellenion
in Athens.9
The blocks of the pronaos’ southern and door
walls are missing, and would likely have been as
carefully inscribed as its north wall was.10 Names
that probably stood among the missing documents
can now be restored from inscriptions found else-
where in the city.11 Surely M. Ulpius Appuleius
Flavianus and his family were among them, as a
letter from Antoninus Pius honoring his grandson
Eurykles was among the preserved documents on the
north outer wall of the pronaos.12 A prominent citi-
6 R. Naumann 1979; Rheidt 1995, 715; Gros 1996-2001,
1.183.
7 Smallwood 1966, 165-166 no. 454; Laffi 1971.
8 Levick 1987; Levick, S. Mitchell and Potter 1988, xxiii-
xxix; Winter 1996, 89-90.
9 C. Jones 1996, 35-36, 41.
10 R. Naumann 1979, 34-36.
11 F. Naumann 1985; Wörrle 1992.
12 Oliver 1989, 321-322 no. 155.
 chapter 7 –
zen of Aizanoi, Appuleius Flavianus undertook
embassies to Rome, likely concerning the cleruchic
land income. He also held the koinon position of
chief priest of Asia for the temples at Pergamon (the
plural showing that his post was held after 114-116
C.E. when Pergamon was made twice neokoros). He
passed his civic interests down to his son: M. Ulpius
Appuleianus Flavianus was priest of Zeus for life and
agonothetes (and likely founder) of the first-ever Deia
contest held in Aizanoi in Zeus’ honor. In the next
generation, Eurykles became his city’s representa-
tive to the Panhellenion in Athens, and this honor
stands among the foundation documents of the
temple at Aizanoi, giving Naumann his closing date
for the building of the temple. The grandfather’s
advocacy for the temple and the father’s role in
starting the Deia festival help to explain the son’s
prominent place in the temple documentation. It is
also possible that either the grandfather or the fa-
ther of Eurykles may have helped to get other hon-
ors for his city and temple at the same time, perhaps
even the title ‘neokoros’ itself. One cannot date the
careers exactly; the grandfather reached the provin-
cial summit of chief priesthood of Asia sometime
after 114, and his grandson’s activities stretch from
Antoninus Pius’ reign to Commodus’. One would
imagine that the new title, and perhaps the Deia
festival, followed the confirmation of land rights and
the building of the new temple under Hadrian; but
absolute certainty is not yet possible.
According to Naumann’s analysis of the docu-
ments inscribed on its cella wall, the temple of Zeus
was built between 126 and 157, in the reigns of
Hadrian and Antoninus Pius.13 Strocka’s wide-rang-
ing studies of Hadrianic architecture in Asia Minor,
however, categorize the temple’s architecture and
details as too all-of-a-piece to have been produced
over such a stretch of time. He agreed with Nau-
mann in associating its origins with a confirmation
of land rights for the cult of Zeus and the mother
goddess after 125/126; but he preferred to date the
start of work in 128 or 129, and the finish within
only a few years.14 Presumably, then, there was space
left on the cella’s walls for subsequent inscriptions
to be carved.
The temple of Zeus at Aizanoi (illus. pl. 3 fig. 13)
was an impressive Ionic pseudodipteral structure
13 R. Naumann 1979, 36, 65-75.
14 Strocka 1981, 29-30 and n. 83.
AIZANOI IN PHRYGIA 117
with eight columns on the facades and fifteen along
the sides.15 Its stylobate was approximately 21.5 x
36.5 m. It stood on a high podium, broached only
by an eastern staircase; atop the podium, and pre-
sumably giving access to the temple on all sides, was
a seven-stepped krepis, unfortunately omitted from
this plan. The temple stood in its own colonnaded
court (130.5 x 112 m., illus. pl. 5 fig. 21), and was
approached from an enclosed courtyard or agora 95
m. square, whose entry aligned with the temple
court’s original entry stairway (later a propylon), the
altar, and the east door into the cella itself.
The cella, with four composite columns set be-
fore its porch, faced east and was dedicated to Zeus.
The west-facing opisthodomos had two more com-
posite columns in antis, and contained two doors that
led via stairs to the roof, or down to an underground
vault that was likely the domain of the mother god-
dess.16 No remains of cult statues or hints at their
arrangement have been found.17
That Zeus had had some sort of shrine even
before the completion of this temple is shown by
coins from the time of Domitian that portray Zeus
in a four-column Ionic temple.18 These coins indi-
cate the temple’s lintel as either flat or arched to
show the cult image within; the arched facade also
appears on coins of Hadrian.19 In the reign of Anto-
ninus Pius an eight-column facade with a disc in-
stead of a cult statue within it appears, possibly
celebrating the completion of the new temple. Af-
ter Marcus Aurelius’ accession, however, the type
reverts back to Zeus in his four-column arched
shrine. It may be that the four-column structure rep-
resents an aediculum rather than the full-scale
temple; more likely, it is shorthand for a temple, and
the arch is a convention that allows the cult statue
to be displayed more prominently.20
15 R. Naumann 1979, passim.
16 R. Naumann 1986 defended these identifications.
17 R. Naumann 1986, however, placed a small statue of
Kybele (i.e., the mother goddess) centrally in the underground
vault; reports of an aediculum in the cella are the result of a
misinterpretation of the opisthodomos wall (R. Naumann 1979,
18).
18 R. Naumann 1979, 63-64 would consider restoring an
earlier temple west of the Doric courtyard which abuts and
enters the new temple’s courtyard at the southeast corner; this
suite would have provided a model for the new temple and the
agora that approaches it.
19 Von Aulock 1979, nos. 43, 44, 49, 53, 54, 57, 59.
20 Drew-Bear 1974; M. Price and Trell 1977, 19-33.
118 part i – section i. koinon of asia
Neither of the two known coin types that use
‘neokoros’ in their legends explicitly refers to this
temple, nor do they appear to celebrate a new grant
of neokoria. It is therefore possible that the title was
given earlier, perhaps when the Hadrianic temple
was completed. That it was retained after Commo-
dus’ death is shown by the two inscriptions, one
certainly and the other probably of Severan date,
which call Aizanoi neokoros of Zeus.
INSCRIPTION 1. Le Bas-Waddington 988 (CIG
3841d; IGRR 4:567). Base of statue of Caracal-
la dated to 198-210. { bou[l]Ø ka‹ ~ nevkÒr[ow]
t[oË D]iÚw |erÚw ka‹ [êsul]ow [A]¸[zaneit«n]
d}mow. . .
INSCRIPTION 2. Le Bas-Waddington 875 (CIG
3841g; IGRR 4:581). Fragment of a seat from the
temple area, Severan letter forms. [t}w |erçw ka‹]
ésÊlou ka‹ [nevkÒro]u toË DiÚw [A¸zanei]t«n
pÒlevw [{ filos°ba]stow boulØ [ka‹ ~ lam-
prÒta]tow d}mow. . .
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
need for official approval? The latter has been as-
sumed, but there is in fact no explicit evidence that
any city could use the title ‘neokoros’ as a result of
its own decision, and there is some indirect evidence
that it could not.21
Only three cities—Aizanoi, Ephesos, and Mag-
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
Ephesos (q.v.), which in one literary source had been
called neokoros of Artemis as early as the middle of
the first century, did not use the title for its god once
‘neokoros’ became an official title connected with
the koinon temples of emperors. Only later would
Ephesos become officially neokoros of Artemis, and
then it would only be by permission of the emperor
Caracalla himself. Thus it is probable that Aizanoi
too would have needed imperial approval to call
itself neokoros of Zeus.
There is no evidence that the koinon of Asia
counted Aizanoi’s temple of Zeus among its provin-
21 Magie 1950, 637.
cial temples, even though that temple had gained
its city the title of ‘neokoros.’ This is despite the fact
that some dedications pair honors to the emperors
with those to Zeus.22 The distinction between cities
that were neokoroi for the emperors and those that
were neokoroi for gods also meant that the former’s
temples (at least, in the five metropoleis of Pergamon,
Smyrna, Ephesos, Kyzikos, and Sardis)23 were ad-
ministered by officials of the koinon, while the latter’s
probably continued to be run by their own priest-
hoods. Though Appuleius Flavianus and Eurykles
both held chief priesthoods of Asia, neither held that
office in their own city, as could most likely have
been arranged if Aizanoi had had a koinon temple.24
To sum up, neokoria for a god appears to have
been an honor that was only to be assumed by per-
mission of the authorities, but was metaphorical in
value. The city that received it was assured that even
if it lacked a provincial imperial temple, its own
patron god’s temple was as renowned as any of the
provincial temples and that its status was to be com-
pared to that of the other neokoroi.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros of Zeus:
1. Le Bas-Waddington 988 (CIG 3841d; IGRR
4:567). Base of Caracalla. See text above.
2. Le Bas-Waddington 875 (CIG 3841g; IGRR 4:581).
Severan? See text above.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros of Zeus:
Commodus: Boston, Paris.25
22 Wörrle 1995b, 68-76. Fischler 1998, 166 n. 8 misinter-
preted a priestly official neokoros as the title of the city.
23 See chapter 41, ‘The Koina,’ in Part II.
24 Campanile 1994a, nos. 110 and 110a.
25 There has been some confusion due to coins of Aizanoi
that mention the title ‘archineokoros,’ but this an individual’s,
not the city’s, title: see Münsterberg 1985, 156. Both archineo-
koroi and neokoroi for the temple of Zeus are well known at
Aizanoi. For the prominent status of these officials, see Levick
1987, 262, 267; Wörrle 1995a, no. 4; idem 1995b, 71-72.
 chapter 8 – laodikeia in phrygia
Chapter 8. Laodikeia in Phrygia: Koinon of Asia
In 26 C.E., during the competition among eleven
cities for the second koinon temple in Asia, the
Roman Senate eliminated Laodikeia (among others)
as unequal to the honor.1 Laodikeia may have been
a judicial center and a faithful ally, but the temple
of Tiberius, his mother, and the Senate went to one
of the greatest cities of the province, Smyrna.2 Only
by the late second century did Laodikeia at last
achieve the title of ‘neokoros.’
Many of Laodikeia’s monuments (theaters, an
amphitheatral stadium, bath/gymnasium complexes)
are still only lightly covered with earth, permitting
a fairly accurate appraisal of the ruins from the sur-
face.3 Where excavation has taken place, results have
been rewarding, as for example in the discovery of
an unusual nymphaeum.4 Recent surveys have even
revealed what may have been the site of a ceremony
held by the emperor Caracalla himself (below).
First Neokoria: Commodus/Caracalla
Regarding the establishment of the neokoria, how-
ever, one of Laodikeia’s most important documents
has already come to light:
INSCRIPTION 1. Corsten 1997 (= IvL) no. 45;
L. Robert 1969b, 281-289 no. 5. Fragment of
statue base. Original inscription: [{ _ne]okÒrow´
La[odik°vn pÒ]liw. . . Engraved over erasure:
[fi]los°bastow
This inscription was masterfully explicated by Louis
Robert, who noticed that though it referred to Lao-
dikeia as ‘Augustus-loving,’ that title was engraved
over an erasure, from the traces of which Robert
read the title ‘neokoros.’ As the inscription also
1 Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56; see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’
2 Mileta 1990, 440-442.
3 Bean 1971, 247-257; YÌldÌz 1994; Traversari 2000 (with
color aerial photos).
4 Des Gagniers 1969; for a critique, Sperti 2000, 40.
119
preserves the name ‘Commodus’ or ‘Commodan,’
Robert reasoned that Commodus must have made
Laodikeia neokoros, but that the title was withdrawn
after his death and the (short-lived) condemnation
of his memory.5
Barnes suggested that, since Commodus made
Nikomedia (q.v.) neokoros due to the influence of
his chamberlain Saoteros, Laodikeia probably got
the honor for the same reason, via Saoteros’ succes-
sor Cleander.6 The Historia Augusta, Commodus 7.1,
records that one of Cleander’s last actions was to
have Arrius Antoninus condemned on false charges
as a favor to one Attalos, whom Antoninus, as pro-
consul of Asia, had judged against. Barnes identi-
fied this Attalos as P. Claudius Attalos, the son of
the orator Polemon of Smyrna (q.v.). Like his father,
he was a sophist and a citizen of both Smyrna and
the smaller Laodikeia. Did he get the neokoria for
Laodikeia as his father had for Smyrna? The influ-
ence in this case, however, would be indirect (Attalos
influenced Cleander, who influenced Commodus),
where for Nikomedia it was direct (Saoteros got
Commodus to make his own home city, not some-
one else’s, neokoros). We must also wonder why, if
Attalos’ influence at court was so great, Arrius Anto-
ninus dared to pass an unfavorable judgment on
him. Did this seasoned official willingly martyr him-
self for the sake of his principles?7 Though not
impossible, the case for Attalos’ obtaining the neoko-
ria for Laodikeia (as well as revenge against Anto-
ninus for himself) is tenuous, but would date the
grant to 185-189, the time of Cleander’s greatest
influence.
But there is an important piece of evidence that
suggests that the honor was granted very early in
Commodus’ reign, not later. Laodikeia often issued
coins that celebrated its concord with other Asian
5 L. Robert 1969b, 281-289; detail pl. 112. See also S. Price
1984b, 264-265.
6 Barnes 1969.
7 Pflaum 1972, 212-216, 246-247.
120 part i – section i. koinon of asia
cities, but on only one occasion did it mint for a
Bithynian city: coins with obverses of Commodus as
Lucius, thus dated before October 180, and of
Crispina, whom he married in 178, show that the
two cities shared some important connection at this
time.8 It is most likely that both became neokoros
for Commodus early in his reign, and Laodikeia
issued the coins commemorating this bond. Niko-
media’s neokoria was so strongly tainted by associa-
tion with Saoteros that it was withdrawn during
Commodus’ own lifetime, after 182. It is doubtful
that Laodikeia would choose to issue coins for the
embarrassed city after that point. Laodikeia’s, how-
ever, may have been associated with the emperor,
not with his satellites. Its loss and eventual restora-
tion might reflect what happened to Commodus.
On the last day of the year 192, Commodus was
assassinated by a palace plot. The next day, January
1, 193, he was declared a public enemy, his statues
torn down and mutilated, his name erased from all
public and private records.9 This act meant that
Laodikeia’s temple of Commodus, as well as the part
of the Deia Kommodeia festival that celebrated his cult
along with that of Zeus, were officially wiped out.10
As enforcement was spotty, especially far from
Rome, one cannot tell how far the Laodikeians went
in expunging their cult of Commodus.
Tarsos (q.v.) seems to have regained its neokoria
for Commodus as soon as the reign of Septimius
Severus, who claimed Commodus as his brother and
thus rehabilitated his memory.11 Laodikeia’s docu-
ments, however, only show the return of the Deia
Kommodeia festival under Severus.12 Its neokoria
would not return to sight until the sole rule of that
emperor’s son, Caracalla. Titulature that is almost
certainly that of Caracalla on Laodikeia’s inscrip-
tion 2 shows that the neokoria had returned while
8 Kienast 1996, 147-150; Franke and Nollé 1997, 107, 117
nos. 1152-1158; Weiss 1998, 64.
9 Cassius Dio ep. 74.2.1-3; Historia Augusta, Commodus 18-
20; Varner 1993, 295-317.
10 L. Robert 1969b, 283-284. Karl 1975, 80-81 suggested
that the contest’s name meant that Commodus became a cult
partner in Zeus’ temple, but this is unnecessary: such festival
names are agglutinative. See Miranda 1992-1993, 75-76.
11 Merkelbach 1979.
12 On coins: Berlin; Paris (2 exx., one of them Babelon 1898,
no. 6295). S. Mitchell 1993, 1:221: “Commodeia at Laodi-
cea...were renamed Severeia,” overinterpreted Robert in imply-
ing that the name of Commodus was lost. For the survival of
he was still three times imperator, between October
213 and an unknown month of 214; his fourth (un-
official) acclamation would come with his campaign
against the Parthians.13
INSCRIPTION 2. Moretti 1968, IGUrbRom 37
(IG 14:1063; IGRR 1:130). Statue base, from
Rome. [{] Laodik°vn t«n prÚw t“ LÊkƒ
ne[vkÒrvn] pÒliw . . .
The restoration of neokoria to Laodikeia thus an-
tedates the Parthian campaign, though it has often
been connected with Caracalla’s presence on the
eastern front.14
Later Laodikeia celebrated the renewal of its
neokoria, among other things, with a special issue
of coins labeled ‘year 88’ or ‘the eighty-eighth,’ with
obverse portraits of Caracalla and his mother Julia
Domna; reverse types show temples within the city:
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV-
NEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO
PH Three temples on high podia; side two two-
column and turned toward the center, in one a
female or togate figure, in the other a male with
sceptre; the center temple four-column, male fig-
ure with sceptre within. a) SNGvA 3858.
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV-
NEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN T PH
Six-column temple with arched entablature and
pagoda-like roof, togate emperor with phiale
within. a) Paris 1611 (illus. pl. 25 fig. 95).
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEI-
NO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla
r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO PH Six-
column Ionic temple with arcuated lintel,
cuirassed emperor with sceptre and phiale on
pedestal within. a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer (illus.
pl. 25 fig. 96).15
If type 3 is not a reworked version of type 2, the
deliberate distinctions between the imperial images
within the temples should indicate that two separate
Kommodeia (coupled with Antoneina, with Deia, and with other
festivals), see below.
13 Kienast 1996, 162-165.
14 Levick 1969, 433-434 no. 43; Johnston 1983, 70 no. 43.
15 Imhoof-Blumer 1901-1902, 273 no. 49; there are several
unusual features of its module and types which led Bernhard
 chapter 8 – laodikeia in phrygia
emperors are intended. Type 1 shows three temples,
and if coins like Ephesos’ inspired this type, the side
temples should be those of the emperors (unfortu-
nately faint, but the figure in the left temple is per-
haps togate, while the right one does appear to be
cuirassed). The center temple, like Ephesos’ of Arte-
mis, may be that of Laodikeia’s patron god, Zeus
Laodikeus, though all that can be seen of the central
figure is that it is male and holds a spear or sceptre,
while Zeus Laodikeus generally carries an eagle as
well. A possible alternative is offered by coins issued
at the same time that emphasized festivals rather
than temples.
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU [K M] AU ANTVNEI-
NO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla
r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO PH Three
prize crowns, center one labeled ANTVNIA, right
one [KO]M[ODIA], left one obscure; all on ago-
nistic table, its edge labeled [. . .]EIA, three
amphorae below. a) Vienna 34019.
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR AN-
TVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust
of Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO
PH Prize crown with palms, labeled ANTVNHNA,
and two purses on agonistic table, its edge labeled
A%KLHPEIA, amphora with palms and the word
PUYIA below. a) Paris 1617 (illus. pl. 25 fig.
97).
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR AN-
TVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust
of Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO
PH Prize crown with palms, labeled ANTVN, (and
two purses, bc) on agonistic table, its edge labeled
KOMODEIA (KOMODO%, c), hydria with palms
below. a) BMC 230 b) Paris 1616 c) Vienna 34278.
Type 4 shows three prize crowns just as type 1
showed three temples, but unfortunately only the
center one is legible, and it proclaims the Antonia or
Antoneina festival for Caracalla. Types 5 and 6 both
show the Antoneina prize crown alone, but the name
of the Komodeia festival for Commodus is added to
the table upon which the crown sits on type 6,
whereas type 5 has Asklepieia/Pythia instead. Thus
Asklepios, whose festival was being celebrated on the
same coins of ‘eighty-eight’ as those for Caracalla
and Commodus, may be the figure in the center
temple.
121
‘Eighty-eight’ on these issues has been interpreted
as the year 88, indicating a Laodikeian era that prob-
ably started with a documented visit by Hadrian in
129 C.E.16 If so, the eighty-eighth Laodikeian year
would be mid-August 215 to mid-August 216. It is
not impossible that the celebration was connected
with Caracalla’s passage through Asia Minor on his
way to the Parthian War. But it should be noted that
the coin types of ‘eighty-eight’ refer more to the city’s
temples and festivals than they do to the imperial
presence. Instead, undated issues in the name of the
Asiarch P. (or L.) Aelius Pigres (minted with obverse
heads of Julia Domna, of Caracalla, and of the
‘People of Laodikeia neokoroi,’ in this case a rec-
ognizable portrait of Caracalla) are the ones whose
reverse types indicate Caracalla’s presence and ac-
tivities in the area.
Coins of Pigres show Caracalla in a chariot, but
instead of commonplace horses he is drawn by li-
ons or centaurs; sometimes he rides a horse over a
fallen enemy.17 These are generic representations for
a triumphant emperor, but other Laodikeian issues
of Pigres are more specific and hint at a possible visit
by the emperor to Laodikeia itself, which after all
seems to have been the site of a temple to his cult
that made the city neokoros.
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR ANTV-
NEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Caracalla r. Rev: EPI L AIL PIGRHTO% A%IAR
LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Veiled, togate emperor
stands between Zeus Laodikeus and Asklepios. a)
London 1970.9-9-125.
COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR ANTV-
NEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Caracalla r. Rev: EP[I AIL PIG]RHTO% A%IAR
LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Emperor, togate with
phiale over tripod, presides at sacrifice before
eight-column Ionic temple with three openings in
the pediment; at his side two city goddesses hold-
ing statues; to the left, attendants (accompanied
by aulos-player) slaughter a bull before a military
Weisser of the Berlin Münzkabinett to suspect it of being false
or recut. My thanks to Dr. Weisser for his communication in
this matter (letter of 19 Dec. 2002).
16 Leschhorn 1993, 382-385; despite the doubts of L. Robert
1969b, 263. Duke 1953, no. 11, misdated the era to 124 and
was justifiably blasted by J. and L. Robert in Bulletin Épigraphique
1954, no. 231, but inexplicably followed by Johnston 1983, 70
122 part i – section i. koinon of asia
standard.18 a) Berlin 664/1914 (illus. pl. 25 fig.
99).
COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR AN-
TVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust
of Caracalla r. Rev: L AIL PIGRH% A%IARXH%
G ANEYHKEN LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN In a
two-column temple within a rectangular precinct
(seen from above), the emperor holds a wreath to-
ward citizens who advance from either side.19 a)
Boston 1971.45 (illus. pl. 25 fig. 100) b) BMC 227
c) Oxford d) Paris 1689 e) Paris 1690 f) Paris 1695
g) Berlin h) Berlin 5182.
Type 7 shows Caracalla greeted by Zeus Laodikeus
and Asklepios, perhaps signifying a welcome to the
city, while type 8 shows him presiding at a sacrifice
before a temple that resembles that of Artemis at
Ephesos or of Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia; two
city goddesses flank the emperor, but they are not
specifically identifiable. Type 9 represents a bird’s
eye view of a ceremony taking place in a forum-like
precinct whose sides are lined with an honor guard
of soldiers. On the steps of the two-column temple
at the far end stands the emperor, in military dress.
Five citizens in Greek himatia advance to salute him
and over the head of the foremost one, shown as
bearded on example h, he holds a wreath. Not only
is this representation unique, but this is the only
reverse type that specifies that Pigres, Asiarch for the
third time, ‘dedicated’ it. It may be that the citizen
being crowned is Pigres himself, that he wished his
honor to be commemorated, and that the ‘forum’
pictured was in Laodikeia.
The survey team that worked at Laodikeia from
1993 to 1999 located remains that resembled, at least
superficially, this ‘forum.’20 It consists of a large
colonnaded temenos set on a major street near the
city’s eastern gate. On a low podium at its back
(north) wall was a monumental building, probably
a temple, with spiral-fluted columns set on square
bases. No excavations were carried out and no
measurements given, but from the plans, the temple
appears to have been about 20 m. on its long side,
the temenos perhaps 30 x 65 m. The layout thus
no. 43; though she, like the Roberts, corrected his addition.
For Hadrian’s visit, see Halfmann 1986a, 193, 204.
17 Lions: BMC 225, Berlin 604/1913; centaurs: Paris 1688;
on horseback: Paris 1604.
18 M. Price and Trell 1977, 129 fig. 226, incorrectly as six
column.
19 Ibid. fig. 23.
resembles that pictured on coin type 9. The model
for the design was likely the imperial fora of Rome,
and the use of spiral columns indicates a date after
the mid-second century. But until full excavations
are done, it remains uncertain whether this complex
was extant at the time of Caracalla. It is even more
uncertain whether this temple is one of those that
made Laodikeia neokoros, as Sperti hypothesized.
Though the legend on the ‘forum’ coin includes that
title, so do most of the other coins of the city at that
time. The type, however, celebrates the emperor’s
presence and his honors to various men, likely in-
cluding Pigres. Whether Caracalla stood on the steps
of his own (or Commodus’) temple on a visit to
Laodikeia cannot be assured.
It is possible, then, that coin types 7-9 refer to an
imperial visit to Laodikeia.21 On the other hand,
type 7 might represent a metaphor for the welcome
that was sent by all the cities to the emperor on his
route, whether he visited them or not; type 8 could
refer to a sacrifice at Ephesos or Magnesia, not Lao-
dikeia; and the scene on type 9 may have been
enacted elsewhere. Two thin and enigmatic figures
that stand in the center of the columned facade of
the ‘forum’ may possibly be the twin Nemeseis of
Smyrna, which would set the ceremony in that city.22
And in the two outer spaces of the facade, figures
seem to be raising their arms to snakelike ribbons
that hang from the columns, a detail that is hard to
place in any particular location. In any case, Pigres’
issues are not explicitly dated to the year of the
‘eighty-eight’; Caracalla may have visited Laodikeia,
but if so, the date remains uncertain.
The nature and objects of cult of the neokoria
declared on Laodikeian coins of the time of Cara-
scalla are clarified by an extraordinary series of coins
minted subsequently under Elagabalus.
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K M AU ANTVN-
EINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Elagabalus r., beardless. Rev: KOMODOU KE
AN[TV]NEINOU LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN DOG-
MA[TI] %UN[KL]HTOU Emperor crowned by
eagle, between two captives; he holds statue of
Zeus Laodikeus. a) Paris 1693.
20 Sperti 2000, 91-92 (building 12), pls. 8, 18, 22. Plate 18
shows the temple actually projecting out of the temenos, but
plan 22 shows its back wall as coterminous with that of the
temenos.
 chapter
COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT K M AU ANTV-
NEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Elagabalus r. Rev: KOMODOU KE ANTVNEINOU
LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Two four-column
temples turned toward each other. a) Berlin,
Löbbecke (illus. pl. 25 fig. 98) b) Berlin 622/03.
COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AUT K M AUR AN-
TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Elagabalus r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN
DOGMATI %UNKLHTOU Two two-column tem-
ples on high podia turned toward each other, a
figure in each. a) BMC 242 b) Paris 1615.
COIN TYPE 13. Obv: IERO% DHMO% LAO-
DIKEVN Laureate draped bust of the People of
Laodikeia r. Rev: NAOI AGVNE%; DOGMATI
%UNKLHTOU; OIKOUMENIKOI; LAODIKEVN
NEVKORVN Four prize crowns on agonistic table,
amphora below. a) SNGvA 8414.
Type 10 declares “Laodikeia neokoros of Commo-
dus and Antoninus by decree of the Senate.” Type
11 shows and identifies the two imperial temples,
each with a wreath, perhaps symbolizing a festival,
above it, and type 12 reiterates the Senate’s decree.
In fact, most of Laodikeia’s coins proclaim the city
neokoros by decree of the Senate at this time. Type
13 states “temples, contests, by decree of the Sen-
ate, worldwide, of the neokoroi Laodikeians” and
illustrates a table with four prize crowns.23
The reason for this insistence on the Senate’s
decree on coins of the time of Elagabalus is un-
known.24 Sardis, Smyrna, and Ephesos had often
referred to themselves as neokoroi by the Senate’s
decrees on inscriptions from about the time of the
joint reign of Caracalla and Geta. Under Elagabalus,
Ephesos also issued a coin which mentioned “these
(four) temples of the Ephesians by decree of the
Senate.” Perhaps there was some wide-ranging in-
vestigation into the cities’ proper titulature or hon-
ors after the reign of Macrinus; Laodikeia is not
known to have issued any coinage that specified it
as neokoros during that troubled time. Or perhaps
there had been a challenge to the legitimacy of
21 Lehnen 1997, 77-84, 182, 353, more on literary than
visual evidence, and on the latter tending more to the late
antique Roman than to the high empire in the provinces.
22 Halfmann 1986a, 228-229.
23 Karl 1975, 65 held the noun ‘temples’ ( NAOI) equiva-
lent to the adjective ‘sacred’ (IEROI) but gave no reason or
precedent for it. I take it to be simply a case of asyndeton, not
8 – laodikeia in phrygia 123
Laodikeia’s neokoria and the status of its contests in
particular. Though types 11 and 12 show only two
temples, type 13 specifies four festivals (unfortunately
unnamed) as ‘worldwide’ and allies them with the
(two?) temples under the rubric of the Senate’s de-
cree. Perhaps it is only that the Senate had finally
confirmed Laodikeia’s unusual dual neokoria and the
status of the allied two imperial contests of the four
‘worldwide’ ones it boasted. Whatever the details,
these coin types add valuable evidence that as late
as the third century, the Senate played a vital role
in confirming the status of cities, including their
neokoriai.
The question could be asked, how many times was
Laodikeia truly neokoros? On none of its coins or
inscriptions does any enumeration appear before the
title. The coins show the existence of two separate
temples, one for Commodus and the other for
Caracalla, but type 1 adds a third, unidentified
temple and type 13 refers to four festivals. It is just
remotely possible that Laodikeia was in fact twice
neokoros, once for Commodus (a title perhaps re-
stored in the reign of Septimius Severus, as Tarsos’
was), then again for Caracalla. It seems odd, how-
ever, that a city in Asia, that hotbed of neokoroi,
with a rival neokoros like Hierapolis not far away,
should be so particular to claim that it was neokoros
by Senatorial decree but fail to specify that it held
that honor twice over. More likely Laodikeia was
only once neokoros but gained the title for unifying
a former cult of Commodus with that of his post-
humously adopted nephew Caracalla during the
reign of the latter. No other city is known to have
been once neokoros for two different imperial
temples.
Laodikeia continued to commemorate its two
imperial temples, its festivals, and its title ‘neokoros’
on coins down to the reign of Philip.25
COIN TYPE 14. Obv: M IOUL FILIPPO%
KAI%AR Draped cuirassed bust of Philip Caesar
r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Two two-col-
umn temples on high podia, an emperor in each,
turned toward one another. a) Berlin, Imhoof-
Blumer b) SNGvA 3864.
A different Laodikeian coin type of Philip mentions
a ‘renewal,’ probably referring to a renewal of ties
uncommon in coin legends where much information must be
crammed onto a small surface.
124 part i – section i. koinon of asia
of kinship with the other cities of Phrygia and of
Caria (see below).26
Just after the time of Philip, probably ca. 250
C.E., Laodikeia’s region of Phrygia was detached
from the province Asia and joined with Caria to
become the independent province of Phrygia and
Caria.27 Laodikeia, then, was separated from the
province for which it held its imperial temples and
neokoria, and may have lost its primacy in the area
to Aphrodisias.28 It is uncertain what, if anything,
was done to regularize the situation. A fragment of
a letter from an emperor or governor found at Lao-
dikeia may refer to the rivalries of this time.29
Did the new province equip itself with a koinon?
Some coins of Apamea mention a koinon of Phrygia,
but they extend back as early as the reign of Nero,
and do not seem to extend the koinon’s sphere
beyond Apamea itself.30 Another early text that
distinguishes Phrygia from Asia is Acts of the Apostles
2.9-11, where a passage mentions Jews from “Cap-
padocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia.”
Though the text is not exactly dated, it surely re-
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
attempted to date the new province of Phrygia and
Caria’s existence as far back as the time of Caracalla,
despite the fact that Laodikeia then still celebrated
the Koina Asias and called itself ‘metropolis of Asia’
(inscription 4). The coin type (BMC 228) he used as
evidence, however, only showed the city’s goddess
between personifications of Phrygia and Caria, in
whose borderlands Laodikeia indeed stood, just as
a similar coin type of the time (BMC 229) presented
the same goddess between personifications of the
city’s rivers, the Lykos and Kapros. The formation
of the province should remain dated to the 250’s,
as above. Unfortunately, we have no documents of
any koinon of Phrygia and/or Caria (outside of the
Apamean one) organized after the new province, nor
do we know how Laodikeia held its status of neo-
24 Talbert 1984, 95-97; see chapter 42, ‘The Roman
Powers,’ in Part II.
25 Deia Kommodeia and Koina Asias under Philip: SNGCop 606
(mistranscribed); SNGvA 8422.
26 Hecht 1968, 30 no. 9 (pl. 4.8, sic): reverse of the city
goddess between Phrygia and Caria. For renewal of kinship
ties between cities, see L. Robert 1977a, 119-129. For a mis-
interpretation of ‘renewal’ and this coin type, see below, n. 30.
27 Roueché 1989a, 1-4; S. Mitchell 1993, 2:158.
koros after the change. It is likely that it did, how-
ever, as even Synnada (q.v.), up in the central
Phrygian highlands, could call itself twice neokoros
at the end of the third century.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
1. IvL 45. Inscription of time of Commodus, with
‘neokoros’ erased. See text above.
2. IGUrbRom 37. Statue base from Rome, dated
October 213–214. See text above.
3. IvL 50 (= CIG 3938, IGRR 4:863). Statue base,
dated by neokoria after Caracalla.
4. IvL 135 (= L. Robert 1969b, 288; IGRR 4:859).
Fragment including the titulature ‘the emperor-lov-
ing neokoros metropolis of Asia, Laodikeia,’ dated
by neokoria after Caracalla.
5. IvL 136 (= CIG 3941). Fragment dated by
neokoria, though it may refer to neokoroi officials
(as in IvL 53).
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Caracalla: BMC 225-236; SNGCop 589-591; SNGvA 3856-
3862, 8418, 8419; SNGRighetti 1200, 1201; Berlin (25
exx.), Boston (8 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York
(2 exx.), Oxford (7 exx.), Paris (25 exx.), Vienna (6
exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.).32
Julia Domna: BMC 213-218, 221; SNGCop 583-586;
SNGvA 3851-3854, 8417; SNGLewis 1608; SNGRighetti
1197; Berlin (13 exx.), London, New York (3 exx.),
Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.).
Non-imperial obverses, time of Caracalla: Berlin (2 exx.),
Oxford.
Elagabalus:33 BMC 228-245; SNGCop 595-597; Berlin (9
exx.), London, New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (7
exx.), Vienna (5 exx.).
Annia Faustina: BMC 246; SNGCop 598; SNGvA 3863;
SNGRighetti 1202; Berlin, Paris, Vienna.
Julia Maesa: BMC 247-250; SNGCop 599; SNGvA 8420;
SNGLewis 1609; Berlin (7 exx.), London, New York
(2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (3
exx.).
Severus Alexander Caesar: BMC 251-253; SNGCop 600,
28 For a criticism of Roueché’s argument, Haensch 1997,
297 n. 199.
29 IvL 10.
 chapter 8 – laodikeia in phrygia
601; Berlin (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.),
Vienna, Warsaw.34
Non-imperial obverses, time of Elagabalus: SNGvA 8414;
Berlin, Paris.
Philip: New York, Paris, private collection (Hecht).35
30 Dräger 1993, 70-77.
31 Trebilco 1994, 302.
32 Warsaw exx.: Corsten and Huttner 1996, nos. 29, 30.
33 See also Corsten and Huttner 1996, no. 31 (private
collection).
34 Warsaw ex. incorrectly assigned to dates of sole reign by
Corsten and Huttner 1996, no. 32.
35 See above, n. 26. Also Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 229
nos. 2370-2371, for an issue of Tripolis under Philip, celebrating
concord with neokoros Laodikeia.
125
Otacilia: BMC 254-258; SNGCop 602-605; SNGvA 3866;
Berlin (12 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford
(3 exx.), Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.).
Philip the Younger: BMC 259-261; SNGCop 606-609;
SNGvA 3864, 3865, 8421, 8422; SNGLewis 1611;
Berlin (13 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (6 exx.),
Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw.
Non-imperial obverses: BMC 126-132; SNGCop 540, 541;
SNGvA 3832; SNGLewis 1610; SNGRighetti 1195;
Berlin (10 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris
(6 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
126 part i – section i. koinon of asia
Chapter 9. PHILADELPHIA
First Neokoria: Caracalla
In the case of Philadelphia, one document gives us
more information on its neokoria than we have for
cities with hundreds of coins and inscriptions. Phila-
delphia inscription 1 gives the text of a letter from
the emperor Caracalla to a man named Aurelius,
whose cognomen, now established as beginning with
an M, has been erased:
INSCRIPTION 1. Bartels and Petzl 2000
(Buresch 1898, 15-26 no. 13; IGRR 4:1619; SIG4
883). Stele in the form of a distyle Ionic temple
with rounded pediment, on its entablature: ÉAntv-
ne›now se kt¤zei. Between the columns: AÈto-
krãtvr Ka›sar Mçrkow AÈrÆliow ÉAntvne›now
EÈsebØw SebastÚw ParyikÚw m°gistow, Bretta-
nikÚw m°gistow, GermanikÚw m°gistow AÈrhl¤ƒ
_ . . . ´vi t“ timivtãtƒ xa¤rein: e¸ ka‹ mhde‹w
a|re› lÒgow tÚn Filadelf°a ÉIoulianÚn épÚ t«n
Sardian«n e¸w tØn t}w patr¤dow metaye›nai
filoteim¤an, éll' ˜mvw sØn xãrin {d°vw toËto
poi«, di' ˜n ka‹ tØn nevkor¤an aÈtØn to›w F[il]a-
delfeËs[in d°]dvka: ¶rrvso M_ . . . ´e, timi\tat°
moi ka‹ f¤ltate. ÉAnegn\syh §n t“ yeãtrƒ ¶touw
sme', mhnÚw ÉApella¤ou e' é(piÒntow).
The letter concerns one Julianus, presumably a cli-
ent or relative of Aurelius M., who was to be allowed
to perform a liturgy (likely provincial) in his home
city of Philadelphia and not in Sardis (the closest city
that had a provincial imperial temple).1 This bit of
business, though doubtless of importance to Julianus,
is not what caused the letter to be read out in the
city’s theater and then inscribed on a 2 m. high
temple-shaped stele with the declaration “Antoninus
1 Oliver 1989, no. 263. The cognomen was supposed by
Buresch and all who followed him to be (another) Julianus: A.
Johnson, Coleman-Norton, and Bourne 1961, no. 279. Guar-
ducci 1969-1975, 119-120 even believed that the addressee and
the liturgist were the same. The misinterpretation of this in-
scription by White 1998, 343-344 was egregious.
IN LYDIA: KOINON OF ASIA
founds you” on the epistyle. The important phrase
comes at the end of the emperor’s letter: “I do this
gladly for your sake, on account of whom I have
given even the neokoria itself to the Philadelphians.”2
This phrase may explain why the letter was carved
on a stele shaped like the new temple that Caracalla
had founded with his grant.3 It is also possible that
the epistyle inscription represents an acclamation
that was shouted in the theater, or even that the
emperor was honored as kt¤sthw (presumably of the
city) for granting the neokoria.4 It is unlikely, how-
ever, that Caracalla actually contributed toward the
temple’s construction.5 The imperial grant of neo-
koria was enough.
Aurelius M., whom Caracalla addressed as “most
honored and beloved by me,” but whose name was
later erased, is otherwise unknown. As for Julianus,
that name frequently appears for magistrates on the
coins of Philadelphia, including those of Geta Cae-
sar (before 209) and later under Elagabalus and
Severus Alexander.6 This profusion of Juliani pro-
hibits us from identifying any of the archons named
on coins as the reluctant liturgist. We can be cer-
tain only that the neokoria was granted by Novem-
ber 18 or 19, 214 C.E., when the letter to Aurelius
M. was read in the theater.7 At that time, Caracalla
was in Asia Minor for his Parthian campaign.8 No
2 Williams 1979, 87-88 found the fulsome language and
emphasis on personal benefaction typical of Caracalla’s style.
3 Most authorities on this inscription have interpreted the
second person (rather than first person) singular pronoun to
mean the temple or the neokoria. See S. Price 1984b, 69 n.
61, 259.
4 Bartels and Petzl 2000, 185; S. Mitchell 1987, 20-21.
5 Winter 1996, 71, 335 no. 55; contra Guarducci 1969-1975,
119-120.
6 Münsterberg 1985, 145.
7 Bartels and Petzl 2000, 188; Philadelphia used the cal-
endar of the Province Asia, which began the year on Augustus’
birthday. Note, however, that in Syria the Aktian era began
in October 32/31, and the month Apellaios fell early in the
year, thus still in 213: Jalabert, Mouterde, and Mondésert 1959,
no. 2085, with a conjunction between Aktian and Seleucid eras.
8 Levick 1969, 432 no. 30; Johnston 1983, 68, though John-
 chapter
visit to the city is specifically mentioned, however,
so we have no evidence of any particular motive for
granting a neokoria to Philadelphia outside of the
personal influence of Aurelius M.
It is suggestive, however, that Aurelius’ petition
to let a (koinon?) liturgy be fulfilled at Philadelphia
rather than its grander neighbor Sardis was part of
the same package as a request for the neokoria for
his city. The petition implies that Julianus would
need a temple in order to fulfill his liturgy, and that
Caracalla’s grant of neokoria would result in the
foundation of a koinon temple which he could serve
in Philadelphia. Julianus’ office is then unlikely to
have been agonothetes, since a provincial temple was
not necessary to a city that held a provincial con-
test; Philadelphia itself had already been the site of
the Koina of Asia as early as the mid-second century.9
Could the office have been a chief priesthood or
Asiarchy? Chief priests or Asiarchs are only speci-
fied as having served in the temple(s) of five cities,
later called the five metropoleis (below); if the other
neokoroi cities had koinon officials to serve their
temples, we do not know their statuses or names.
Inscription 1 also draws attention to the city’s
ambition, or rather, the ambition of the citizens for
their city. Philadelphia was to be raised in rank,
made equal to the other neokoroi, or at least to the
cities that had one neokoria. In 214, these would
have been Kyzikos, Aizanoi (for Zeus), and perhaps
Miletos and Laodikeia, all once neokoroi; while
Pergamon, Sardis, and Smyrna were twice neokoroi,
and Ephesos alone, though its titles waxed and
waned, may have been three times neokoros. As will
be seen below, the Philadelphians wished their city
to rank among the highest as well as wanting their
provincial benefactions exercised in their own city,
not a neighboring one.
Coins of Claudius Capito as archon are the first
to show the new temple for which Caracalla made
Philadelphia neokoros.
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT K M AUR %E AN-
TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Caracalla r., bearded. Rev: EPI KL KAPITVNO%
ARX A FL FILADELFEVN NEVKORVN Four-
column temple with arch in entablature, emperor
with radiate crown and sceptre within. a) BMC
ston 1982, 114, had previously misdated the grant to 212. See
Halfmann 1986a, 229.
9 Moretti 1954.
9 – philadelphia in lydia 127
86 b) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer c) Berlin 28425 d)
Berlin 5292 e) New York 71.279 (illus. pl. 26 fig.
101) f) SNGvA 3081.
The figure that stands within and identifies this
temple is distinctive to Philadelphia: he wears a short
tunic, perhaps a cuirass, a cloak, military boots, and
a radiate crown; he holds a short sceptre, shouldered
rather than raised. The catalogues identify him as
Helios, but though that god does appear frequently
on Philadelphian coins he is generally shown naked
and running, with rays in halo-fashion emanating
from around his head.10 The figure in this temple
clearly wears a separate crown with parallel spikes
attached, as Caracalla does on the antoniniani of his
reign, and though it is too small to be a real por-
trait, its blunt features and stocky body hint at
Caracalla rather than the idealized Hellenic Helios.
All the Severans had frequently been associated with
solar imagery; Caracalla (both with and without
Geta) was hailed as ‘new Helios’ at Ephesos.11 At
Philadelphia, Caracalla also appears as triumphator
in a frontal chariot like that of the sun god.12 It seems
likely, then, that Caracalla was assimilated to Helios
(at least, in some attributes) in his temple at Phila-
delphia.
The same temple continues to appear on coins
of Severus Alexander, during the archonships of
various Juliani:
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EUHR
ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander r. Rev: EPI ARX A TIB IOUL
IOULIANOU FL FILADELFEVN NEVKORVN
Four-column (Ionic, a) temple with arched enta-
blature, within it emperor with attributes of
Helios. a) BMC 94 (illus. pl. 26 fig. 102) b) Paris
1019.
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EUHR
ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander r. Rev: EPI IOUL ARI%TON
IOULIANOU ARX FL FILADELFEVN NEVKO-
RVN Four-column temple with arched entabla-
10 BMC 86; cf. BMC 73 (pl. 22:10) or SNGvA 3085. Yalouris
and Visser-Choitz 1990, 1030 do not even distinguish between
the naked Helios (no. 367) and the clothed emperor/Helios (no.
368). The only other sun god shown in military dress, that of
Palmyra, has a rayed halo, not a radiate crown.
11 Bergmann 1998, 267-274, 277-281. On emperors in gen-
eral assimilated to Helios, Hijmans 1996, 147-149.
12 Harl 1987, 46-47; for the coin of Capito found at Sardis,
see list below.
128 part i – section i. koinon of asia

ture, within it emperor with attributes of Helios. 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
2. “Funde” in Mitteilungen des Deutschen archäologischen
Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 20 (1895) 231-244, esp.
243-244 (from G. Sarantides, N°a SmÊrnh June 2,
1895). The council and the “most illustrious and
neokoros people” vote honors to a grammateus of
the great sacred Deia Haleia Philadelpheia.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Caracalla: BMC 86, 87; SNGvA 3081; Buttrey, Johnston,
MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 41 no. 178; Berlin (4
exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris.
Julia Domna: BMC 79-82, 84; SNGTüb 3757; SNGRighetti
1063; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston, London, New York,
Paris (4 exx.).
Elagabalus: BMC 92; Berlin.
Julia Maesa: BMC 93; London.
Severus Alexander: BMC 94-102; SNGvA 3083, 3084,
8241; SNGTüb 3760, 3761; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston
(3 exx.), New York, Oxford, Paris (8 exx.).
Julia Mamaea: SNGCop 386; Berlin (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris.
Gordian III: BMC 103, 119, 120; SNGCop 387, 393; Berlin
(4 exx.), New York, Paris (5 exx.).
129
Philip: BMC 104, 105; SNGCop 388-390; SNGvA 8242;
New York, Paris (5 exx.).
Otacilia: Paris.
Philip Caesar: BMC 106, 107; Berlin (2 exx.), Paris.
Trajan Decius: SNGvA 3085; Berlin, Paris (2 exx.);
SNGRighetti 1065.20
Etruscilla: BMC 111; SNGvA 3086; SNGRighetti 1064;
London, Paris.
Herennius Etruscus: BMC 108-110; SNGCop 391; Berlin
(2 exx.).
Hostilian: Berlin.
Non-imperial obverses: BMC 37-47, 49, 50, 113-118;
SNGCop 355-361, 365-368, 392; SNGvA 3064-3070;
SNGTüb 3752-3755; SNGRighetti 1054, 1055;
SNGBraun 1124-1126; Berlin (33 exx.), Boston, New
York (11 exx.), Oxford (21 exx.), Paris (24 exx.),
Vienna (14 exx.).
20 Franke and Nollé 1997, 175 nos. 1729-1731, listing the
type as Tyche of Philadelphia and possibly the Dioskouroi
before a temple; it in fact represents Iphigeneia holding the
Taurian Artemis (Anaitis, the point of contact between Ephesos
and Philadelphia), with Orestes and Pylades approaching her
temple. Both images were ‘heaven fallen’ (Artemis Ephesia: Acts
19.35; Artemis of the Taurians: Euripides, Iphigeneia among the
Taurians ll. 87-88, 977-978, 1384-1385). I will publish an analy-
sis in a forthcoming article, to be entitled ‘Iphigeneia in Phila-
delphia.’
130 part i – section i. koinon of asia
Chapter 10. TRALLES IN
The documents for Tralles as neokoros are few,
scattered, and difficult to pin down. Its ruins were
used as a stone quarry, a lime kiln, and a statue
mine, and as the city is now buried beneath the
present-day provincial capital of Aydin, any remains
of the temple that made it neokoros or sculpture
associated with it are unlikely to be found.1
First neokoria: Caracalla
Some of the first coins to declare Tralles neokoros
seem to appear with a portrait of the mature Cara-
calla, datable to his sole rule, on the obverse.
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU(T, c) KAI M AUR AN-
TVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust
r., (youthful, a; bearded, c). Rev: EPI GR PO KL
PAGKRATIDOU TRALLIANVN NEVKORVN TVN
%EBA%TVN Two six-column temples, each with
disc in pediment, on long podium; within one,
seated Zeus Larasios, within the other, emperor
with sceptre and globe. a) Boston 63.2586 b) Paris
1697 c) Paris 1698 (illus. pl. 26 fig. 103) d) Paris
1699 e) New York, Newell f) SNGvA 3290.
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNE-
INO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust r., bearded.
Rev: EPI GR EUELPI%TOU TRALLIANVN
NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN Asklepios, a snake
untwining from his staff. a) London 1926.1-
6-2.
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU K M AUR ANTVNE-
INO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust r., bearded.
Rev: TRALLIANVN NEVKORVN TVN %EB Fe-
male (Artemis?) with laurel branch. a) Paris 1702
b) SNGCop 696.
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: [A K M AUR] ANTVNE-
INO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust r., mature.
1 Magie 1950, 129-130, 991-992; Bean 1971, 208-211; S.
Price 1984b, 260-261; Özgan 1995, 4-11.
LYDIA: KOINON OF ASIA
Rev: [TRALLIANVN NEV]KORVN TVN [%EB]
Tyche with rudder and cornucopia, wheel at feet.
a) Vienna 19684.
The identification of the broad-headed, mature and
bearded portrait as Caracalla is not without its prob-
lems. The most important reverse type, no. 1, seems
to illustrate the city’s title of ‘neokoros’ by showing
its six-column imperial temple, a cuirassed statue
within, next to the six-column temple of Tralles’
chief god, Zeus Larasios. Issued under the gramma-
teus P. Claudius Pankratides, the obverse portraits
vary from bearded and mature to a more youthful
image. Though the latter can be interpreted as
Elagabalus, that the same grammateus’ name on the
same coin type should overlap those two reigns at
a distance of over a year seems unlikely.2
The confirmation of Caracalla is crucial because
the title neokoros is known to appear afterwards on
Tralles’ coins only during the reigns of Elagabalus
and Severus Alexander. If no coins of Caracalla had
been found (or if it could be proved that Caracalla’s
portrait was being reused for his putative son), it
would have appeared that the title was granted by
Elagabalus and then withdrawn under Severus
Alexander, as would be the case for Beroia, Niko-
media, Ephesos, Miletos, Sardis, and Hierapolis.3
Inscriptions would normally be used to clarify the
situation, but unfortunately in Tralles’ case the in-
scriptions have generally been dated from the
neokoria and provide little independent evidence.
One may make the attempt to identify the honor-
ees of the inscriptions with magistrates on the city’s
coins, but the repetition of cognomina down the
generations makes any conclusion less than certain.
For example, inscription 1 honors an agoranomos and
logistes, Tiberius Claudius Glyptos.
2 Johnston 1983, 69 no. 3 apparently accepted the identi-
fication as Caracalla, though in her previous article, Johnston
1982, 116, she implied that the youthful variant must be
Elagabalus.
3 See chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ for Elagabalus’
neokoroi.
 chapter 10 – 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
approval would confirm the legality of their titles and
set the seal on the emperor’s grant.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros of the Augusti:
1. IvT 74. See text above.
2. IvT 81. See text above.
3. IvT 52. Inscription of “the most illustrious me-
tropolis of Asia and neokoros of the Augusti
Caesarea Tralles” honoring a proconsul. Dated un-
der Caracalla (by neokoria?).
10 See chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers.’ Talbert 1984, 95-
97; also note IvT 16, an inscription for a priest of the god Senate,
found between Tralles and Magnesia.
4. IvT 94. Fragment, probably same formula as no.
3. Dated to third century, by neokoria.
5. IvT 58. Fragment of honorific to a consular, same
formula as no. 3. Dated under Caracalla (by neo-
koria?).
6. IvT 59. Fragment mentioning an Antonine (em-
peror?), probably same formula as no. 3. Dated to
third century, by neokoria.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Caracalla: SNGCop 696; SNGvA 3290; Berlin, London,
New York, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna.
Elagabalus: SNGvA 3291; Berlin, Boston, Paris (2 exx.),
Vienna (2 exx.).
Severus Alexander: BMC 161; SNGTüb 3878; Paris,
Vienna.
Julia Mamaea: BMC 164, 165; SNGvA 3292, 3293.
 chapter 11 – ANTANDROS IN THE TROAD
Chapter 11. ANTANDROS IN THE
Antandros was a small city in the southern Troad,
facing onto the gulf of Adramyteion, its back to Mt.
Ida. Its origins seem to have been so ancient that
no one could agree on who its founders were.1
Though its ruins have been noted as “a city of some
importance,” it has never been excavated.2 It was
best known as the administrator of a local shrine of
Artemis; there are few other facts to color its insig-
nificance. Its far more important neighbor, Adramy-
teion, was the center for the judicial district, but was
never neokoros, so far as is known.3
First Neokoria: Caracalla
Thus the discovery of a single coin of Caracalla
declaring Antandros neokoros comes as a complete
surprise.4 Cities like Laodikeia and Philadelphia at
least had pretensions toward being of importance
within their koinon; so far as we know, Antandros
had none.
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: [AUT?] KAI M AUR
AN[TVNINO%] Radiate head of Caracalla r.,
bearded. Rev: ANTANDREVN NEVKORVN
Bearded god with sceptre (Asklepios, Zeus, or
Serapis). a) Athens, Numismatic Museum (illus.
pl. 26 fig. 104).
Though the coin does not appear to have been recut
or in any way falsified, it has some odd features that
do not jibe with the (admittedly scanty) corpus of
1 Hirschfeld 1894, 2346.
2 Cook 1973, 267-271.
3 Habicht 1975, 70; see above chapter 6, ‘Sardis.’ SNGParis
(Mysie) xxxvii and Adramyteion 67, on which B NE has been
taken to attribute a second neokoria to Adramyteion, repre-
sents the name of the strategos, Aur. Gaius B NEOU:
Münsterberg 1985, 262.
4 Formerly in the Evelpides collection. Thanks to Alan
Walker, for the initial information and casts; to Eos Tsourti,
of the Athens Numismatic Museum; and to Kenneth Sheedy,
who recently re-examined the coin and provided the illustra-
tion.
133
TROAD: KOINON OF ASIA
imperial coins from Antandros. First, the reverse type
looks like the Asklepios common on other Antan-
drian coins, but lacks his serpent-entwined staff.5
Second, though the coin’s spelling of ANTANDREVN
is known on coins up to the time of Antoninus Pius,6
later coins of Commodus, Septimius Severus, of
Caracalla himself, and of the time of Elagabalus
generally spell the city’s name ANTANDRIVN.7 All
these features might be explicable if there were more
Antandrian coins known with which to compare
them, but there are not. Thus there remain ques-
tions about the sole document for neokoria.
Only extraordinary circumstances could explain
Antandros as neokoros, and the most extraordinary
circumstance available is the emperor’s presence in
the area. At the end of the year 213, Caracalla
crossed the Hellespont to Asia to begin his campaign
against the Parthians.8 Among his first stops was
Ilion, and there he imitated Alexander by paying
special honor to the tomb of Achilles.9 Herodian
even states that he gave one of his favorite freed-
men a funeral like Patroklos’, by some accounts
having poisoned him for that purpose.
Though Antandros is not far from Ilion, it is not
recorded as one of Caracalla’s stops. Still, the his-
torians’ accounts of his eastern travels and Parthian
campaign are extremely sketchy. Some demonstra-
tion of devotion to the emperor (or to Alexander),
or some whim of Caracalla’s, could have made the
Antandrians neokoroi. But the title should still be
5 Asklepios reverses: BMC 13 and Berlin (Kraft 1972, pl.
89 no. 22a) (Commodus); BMC 14 and Paris (Kraft 1972, pl.
65 no. 16b) (Septimius Severus); SNGCop 221 and Paris
(Septimius Severus), SNGCop 223 (Julia Paula, first wife of
Elagabalus). See Schwertheim 1996, 104 for a discussion of the
cult of Asklepios in the Troad, and 109-110 for a decree from
Antandros.
6 BMC 11 (Marcus Aurelius Caesar).
7 All in n. 4 above, plus SNGCop 222 (Caracalla).
8 Halfmann 1986a, 223-230; Letta 1994b documents the
emperor’s arrival in winter quarters at Nikomedia on 1 Janu-
ary 214.
9 Cassius Dio ep. 78.16.7; Herodian 4.8.4-5.
134 part i – section i. koinon of asia

confirmed by further coins and inscriptions; one COINS CITING NEOKORIA:

unique coin is not a firm foundation for anything
but vague speculation. Neokoros:
Caracalla: Athens, Numismatic Museum (formerly Evel-
pides collection).
No inscriptions of Antandros as neokoros are yet
known.
 chapter 12
Chapter 12. HIERAPOLIS
The city of Hierapolis is well described by its Turkish
name Pamukkale, ‘Cotton Fortress.’ Set high on a
terrace formed by cascades of white travertine from
its own mineral springs, its strategic position guards
both the plain where the Lykos joins the Maeander
River and the passage from Phrygia across the
mountains into Lydia.1
First Neokoria: Elagabalus
There was some initial thought that Caracalla vis-
ited Hierapolis and made it neokoros in honor of
his late teacher, the sophist Antipater, whose home
it was.2 In his final days, however, Antipater’s ac-
tions had not been calculated to please Caracalla:
he wrote the emperor a lament on the death of Geta,
then starved himself to death.3 It seems more likely
that Hierapolis’ neokoria was for the homonymous
successor and putative son of Caracalla, Elagabalus.4
The city issued an unusually lavish series of coins
to celebrate becoming neokoros. The series includes
coins for Elagabalus’ second wife Aquilia Severa, a
Vestal Virgin whom he may have married, divorced,
and then remarried all in the space of a year, 221;
for Annia Faustina, married in the interval between
his marriages to Aquilia Severa; and for Severus
Alexander as Caesar (late 221-early 222).5 These
coins date late in Elagabalus’ reign, after he had
settled in Rome.
It is then curious that Hierapolis also issued coins
that seem to allude to the emperor’s presence in the
city. He sacrifices before a temple of Apollo, is
greeted and crowned by the city goddess, or sacri-
fices at the same altar with her; another type shows
the emperor riding over an eastern enemy, which
1D’Andria 2001; De Bernardi Ferrero 1993; Ritti 1985;
Humann, Cichorius, Judeich, and Winter 1898 (= AvH).
2 Cichorius, in AvH 26.
3 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.24; Ritti 1988.
4 Johnston 1984; von Papen 1908, 178-181.
– hierapolis in phrygia 135
IN PHRYGIA: KOINON OF ASIA
would logically suit a date early in the reign, when
he was making his way west from the area of the
Parthian War and his contest with Macrinus for the
Empire.6 In Johnston’s view, all the coins for
Elagabalus and his family were issued around 221,
so the types that appear to be earlier would be retro-
spective, referring back to the time when the em-
peror was in the East.
Though the coin types seem to imply that Ela-
gabalus visited Hierapolis and sacrificed at the
temple of Apollo (and perhaps at that of the moon
god Men, below), this implication contradicts Cassius
Dio, who implied that he passed from Syria to Bithy-
nia by the direct route, via Cappadocia.7 We may
perhaps be able to believe that Elagabalus sacrificed
at the temple of Artemis at Ephesos (q.v.); it was,
after all, one of the seven wonders of the world, and
he might even have journeyed from his winter quar-
ters in Nikomedia to see it. But it is extremely doubt-
ful that he would have turned so far aside from his
route to visit Hierapolis. It is most likely, then, that
Hierapolis’ coin types are allegorical, referring to
benefits and honors to the city that were conferred
from a distance. Certainly Hierapolis was named
neokoros on no form of evidence that need be dated
earlier than 221.
On their coin reverses, some cities added their
patron god’s temple to the temple(s) that made them
neokoroi, resulting in a more impressive picture.
Hierapolis went even further, placing its single im-
perial temple between two others.
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: [AUT K M AUR AN]TVNEI-
NO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r.,
beardless. Rev: IERAPOLEITVN NEVKORVN;
AIYUP (PUYIA retrograde); [ AKTIA] Three
temples on podia, the outer two turned toward
5 Kienast 1996, 172-175, 177-179; Barnes 1972, 74.
6 Johnston 1984, 64-65 nos. 5, 9-11, 4.
7 Cassius Dio 79.39.6-40.2; Halfmann 1986a, 230-231; pace
Johnston 1984, 60.
136 part i – section i. koinon of asia
the center, the center one four-column, an arch
in the pediment; within, emperor in military dress
with sceptre, r. arm outstretched; above, two
wreaths. a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer8 (illus. pl. 26
fig. 105).
The result resembles triple-temple coins that had
recently been issued by such eminent cities as
Ephesos, Pergamon, Sardis, and Smyrna (qq.v.); the
latter was still using this type. The side temples have
no identifying figure within, but the fact that two
wreaths float before their rooftrees may signify that
they are the temples for which Hierapolis celebrated
sacred festivals (below). The central temple has no
wreath, but is distinguished by a cuirassed figure
standing within, and should represent the imperial
temple for which Hierapolis became neokoros. A
similar figure appears within a lone temple on types
2 and 3:
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M AU ANTV-
N[EIN]V% %B (sic) Laureate draped cuirassed bust
of Elagabalus r., beardless but mature. Rev:
IERAPOLEITVN NEVKORVN Six-column temple
on three-step podium, in pediment a facing bust
with crescent at shoulders; within, emperor in
military dress holds phiale over altar. a) Berlin,
Löbbecke9 (illus. pl. 26 fig. 106).
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU K M AUR ANTVNEI-
NO% %E Laureate cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r.,
beardless, youthful. Rev: [IERAP]OLEITVN
NEVKORVN Two-column temple in three-quar-
ter view, disc in pediment; within, emperor in
military dress with sceptre holds phiale over al-
tar. a) Paris 1335.10
Here the additional space allowed the die-cutter to
indicate a detail omitted on the triple-temple type:
the emperor is shown offering sacrifice. A similar
image was seen on coins of Ephesos under Macrinus,
showing the annual vows for the emperor’s health,
but there Macrinus was costumed as a togate priest,
not in military dress; the vows were for him, not to
him.11 Elagabalus wears the same priestly dress when
he sacrifices before Apollo’s temple on Hierapolis’
coins (above). But that a figure pours a libation does
not rule out its being a deity; Zeus, for example, was
8 Johnston 1984, 65 no. 8; Ritti 1985, 79 misdated it to
the time of Caracalla.
9 Johnston 1984, 64 no. 6.
10 Ibid., no. 7.
frequently shown on coins of this period holding out
a phiale.12 It is possible, then, that the sacrificing
emperor in military dress who stands within a
temple, as on types 1-3, represents the object of cult.
If the three coin types represent the same temple,
it appears to have featured some architectural oddi-
ties. Type 1 shows it with a solid architrave across
the facade as well as an arch, perhaps decorative,
within the pediment. Type 2, whose temple has six
(Ionic or Corinthian) columns, the maximum num-
ber known, also indicates pedimental decoration: a
facing bust (of the moon god Men?) with a crescent
behind its shoulders. A shieldlike feature is also noted
on type 3, but is abbreviated to a simple disc. It is
remotely possible that type 2 represents the emperor
sacrificing to Men as he did to Apollo on other coins,
but those show him before, not in, the temple. It
is more likely that the god Men was associated
with the temple, perhaps as a deity who shared the
emperor’s cult. It is even possible that the cult of
Elagabalus was moved into a previously existing
temple of a god, as was the case at Nikomedia and
Philippopolis, but that possibility is difficult to affirm
solely from a pedimental decoration on a coin im-
age.
The two temples that flank the imperial temple
on type 1 contain no images, but the word Pythia is
written (in reverse) over the left-hand one, and from
contemporary agonistic types Aktia may be restored
over the other.13 Two wreaths, probably symboliz-
ing the festivals, float between the apices of the three
temples. It is noteworthy that the numbers of festi-
vals and of temples do not match in this instance;
what von Papen saw as a prize crown above the
center temple is only the temple’s akroterion.14
Though we have seen several instances of festivals
linked to temples that made their city neokoros, it
was plainly not a necessity that each such temple
have a festival, and in this case both festivals were
probably associated with the flanking temples, pre-
dating the new imperial temple that conferred
neokoria in the center.15
11 S. Price 1984b, 264 no. 86 (though he makes little of this),
and 214-215 pl. 3a on the Ephesos coin.
12 Kremydi-Sicilianou 1997, 371 and nos. 445, 458-460,
516-521.
13 Johnston 1984, 70-71 nos. 39-42.
14 Von Papen 1908, 161.
15 Pace Chuvin 1987, 101-102, conflating the Aktia and Pythia
into the festival on the Chrysorhoas; the piling up of previously
existing festivals to celebrate a new neokoria is not implausible,
but not provable either.
 chapter 12
There have been several attempts to identify the
two side temples of type 1 by their associated festi-
vals.16 Von Papen interpreted the Aktia (illegible on
the coin itself, but presumably for the right-hand
temple) as a “neokorate” contest, since Aktia were
based on the festival for Augustus’ victory at Actium.
But the festival may predate the neokoria: an Au-
gustan inscription of Hierapolis perhaps refers to the
same Aktia under the term ég«new toË SebastoË.17
Weber more plausibly associated the Aktia and the
right-hand temple with another temple labeled ‘to
the family of the Augusti’ on coins of the time of
Claudius.18 This six-columned Ionic structure was
in all probability damaged in the earthquake that
devastated Hierapolis and several other Phrygian
cities in the year 60.19 Its subsequent history is
uncertain. But beside the question of its continued
existence, Weber’s further theory that this temple
was the source of Hierapolis’ neokoria is ruled out
by several considerations. First, it has never been
identified as a provincial but only a municipal im-
perial temple; if every city that possessed such a
structure could have claimed to be neokoros, there
would be closer to three hundred neokoroi than
thirty. Second, Hierapolis would apparently lose its
neokoria after Elagabalus’ death, a fact that ties the
title explicitly to that emperor’s cult; though the coins
do not document them specifically until the reign
of Elagabalus, the Aktia continued to be proclaimed
on coins of the time of Philip when the neokoria did
not.20
Johnston associated the festival Pythia and the left-
hand temple on type 1 with the cult of Apollo.21 The
Pythia, unlike the Aktia, had appeared on Hierapolis’
coins under Septimius Severus, well before the title
‘neokoros’ appeared.22 Those coins do celebrate
Apollo as the chief god of Hierapolis; his head also
appears on the obverse of many coins of the city and
16 Bibliography in Johnston 1984, 56, 59; Ritti 1985, 83-
84.
17 Ritti 1979, no. 2; Pleket 1981; Ritti 1983a, 172 no. 1;
and on Anathema, 1989-1990, 870-872 no. 2.
18 RPC 1:481 no. 2973, where the obverse head is identi-
fied as Apollo.
19 Tacitus, Annals 14.27.1; Magie 1950, 564, 1421; Ritti
1985, 23-28; Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 194-
195.
20 Karl 1975, 8-12, 120 n. 1 misattributed coins of
Elagabalus to Caracalla and misinterpreted the alpha in A
PUYIA to refer to Aktia. See n. 22 below.
21 Johnston 1984, 57-60; also see Ritti 1985, 78-84.
22 SNGvA 8381, 8382; the prize crown reads A PUYIA, ‘first’
either in rank or in order of celebration. See n. 20 above.
– hierapolis in phrygia 137
he stands as the city’s patron and symbol on ‘con-
cord’ coinage where that festival, the Pythia, also
represents the city. Thus the inclusion of his temple
in a multiple-temple coin type stands within the
established tradition of cities like Tralles, Nikomedia,
and Sardis (qq.v).
Less likely is Johnston’s contention that the cult
of Elagabalus was installed in Apollo’s temple, since
coin type 1 shows the imperial temple as distinct
from the other two. The lower part of a colossal
cuirassed imperial statue was indeed found in the
area of the temple of Apollo, but it has been dated
too early, to the second century C.E., and was not
in situ anyway, but reused as later building mate-
rial.23
Johnston went still further in using its cult of
Apollo to explain why Hierapolis of all places be-
came neokoros. Robert opined that Elagabalus had
awarded neokoriai to Sardis, Ephesos, and Niko-
media because he had wed his Emesene baetyl to
Kore, Artemis, and Demeter in those cities.24
Johnston then reasoned that the emperor may have
also identified his sun god with the Apollos wor-
shipped not only in Hierapolis, but in Perinthos,
Philippopolis, and Miletos. Unfortunately, Johnston
did not deal with Elagabalus’ other neokoriai, for
Beroia (Macedonia) and perhaps Tripolis (Phoeni-
cia); neither had a notable cult of Apollo. But her
presumption that all festivals named Pythia were for
the cult of Apollo is not tenable. In fact, Pythia of-
ten meant isopythian, a festival of the sort celebrated
for Apollo at Delphi, but not necessarily for the cult
of Apollo.25 At Perinthos, for example, the Pythia
appear to have been also Philadelphia, a contest as-
sociated with the second imperial temple, not with
Apollo. If the coinage is any guide, Apollo’s cult was
not very important at Perinthos; the city’s founder
was Herakles, its eponym the hero Perinthos, and
its symbol on ‘concord’ coinages a city goddess. At
Miletos, whose patron god was indeed Apollo, his
festival was the Didymeia, not the Pythia, as Johnston
admitted; a Pythian festival at Miletos (q.v.) may
have been associated with one of the imperial
temples. In all, twenty-three cities recorded Pythia
on their coins at some time, but only a few were
notable for cults of Apollo, and fewer still became
neokoroi for Elagabalus.
23 Bejor 1991, 53-54 no. 24.
24 L. Robert 1967, 58 n. 8.
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
The city did not forget its claim to neokoria when
it again began to mint. It issued a series of coins that
illustrated its close ties with the greatest neokoroi of
the province Asia. The coins were minted with
obverses of Philip, his wife Otacilia, their son Philip,
and with personifications of the Senate or of Apollo.
The reverse types proclaim ‘concord’ with a neo-
koros city: the partner can be Pergamon, Smyrna,
Ephesos, Sardis, or Kyzikos.29 The concord is illus-
trated by types of the cities’ patron divinities, where
Hierapolis, represented by Apollo, joins hands with
the Pergamene Asklepios, the Ephesian Artemis, or
the Sardian ‘Kore’; or by two city goddesses clasp-
ing hands; or even by the clasped hands alone. The
concord coinage also refers to festivals: Hierapolis’
Pythia is paired with Ephesos’ Ephesia, Sardis’ Chrys-
anthina, or an unnamed contest at Smyrna.30
The nature of the list is interesting in itself: Hiera-
polis celebrated its concord only with the most
prominent cities of Asia, each one neokoros. But
except for Kyzikos (q.v.), which was merely neokoros
on contemporary coins, all were multiple neokoroi:
Pergamon, Ephesos, and Smyrna each had three,
while Sardis had two, though Hierapolis specified
no enumeration for the neokoriai on these coins.
There were at least five and possibly six other cit-
ies in the koinon of Asia with one neokoria apiece
under Philip: Miletos, Philadelphia, Laodikeia, per-
haps Antandros, Aizanoi (for Zeus), and Magnesia
(for Artemis); but so far as is known, Hierapolis did
not boast of her concord with this ‘second rank.’ Nor
does the choice have much to do with the Koina
festival, as many cities outside the ones mentioned
celebrated Koina.31 In fact, Hierapolis’ partners in
these concord coinages were the ‘five metropoleis,’
the five known cities in which chief priests of Asia
are documented as presiding over the temples that
made them neokoroi.32
Given this element of social climbing in Hiera-
polis’ choice of partners, another facet of this coin-
age becomes clear: the wording of the legends
appears deliberately to obscure the possibility that
29 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 67-91; L. Weber 1912. Weber
attributed the concord issues to commercial connections.
30 Pera 1984, 70-77, though she dealt with earlier coins,
attributed the concord issues to such festivals, as von Papen
had before.
31 Moretti 1954.
32 Mentioned on a later Ephesian inscription of ca. 270
C.E.: FiE 3:72 (= IvE 3072), ll. 23-27. See ‘The Koina,’ chap-
ter 41 in Part II.
– hierapolis in phrygia 139
in every case it was the other city, but not neces-
sarily Hierapolis, that was neokoros; thus Johnston
hypothesized that Hierapolis was not in fact
neokoros at this time. It was this wording that had
led Weber into thinking that Hierapolis’ neokoria
had been granted by Caracalla, since the title seemed
to persist after Elagabalus’ death.33 But as Johnston
noted, the title ‘neokoros’ never appears on Hiera-
polis’ own, non-concord, coins under Philip, so she
reasoned that the city was not entitled to it.34 On
the other hand, Hierapolis had issued similar con-
cord coins even when it was surely neokoros, under
Elagabalus, and on those it had again been the other
city (in this case Ephesos, specified as four times
neokoros) to which the title was attributed.35 Thus
Kampmann denied Johnston’s hypothesis, stating
that the neokoria lost after Elagabalus’ death was
simply regranted early in Philip’s reign, before his
son was made Augustus.36 There is no other case
where a lost neokoria for Elagabalus was regranted
under Philip, however; there are three where it was
regranted in the joint reign of Valerian and
Gallienus. The only other neokoria that can be plau-
sibly associated with Philip was that of Neapolis,
close to his homeland; and he had no discernible
reason to honor Hierapolis.
It is dangerous to read too much into such ab-
breviated and disparate documents. From the
present evidence it may be that the coins of Hiera-
polis were designed to make the city appear to be
both neokoros and the equal of the metropoleis of
its koinon, when in fact it was not. The argument
is ultimately based on silence, i.e. the lack of dat-
able contemporary documents that call Hierapolis
neokoros with no possibility of misinterpretation; the
appearance of even one such document could con-
tradict it. Still, it is possible that rank and titles were
important enough that Hierapolis could stretch the
truth for their sake.
At this time or just after, it is possible that Phrygia
was detached from the province Asia, and along with
Caria became an independent province; Hierapolis,
of course, would have become part of the new prov-
ince, as did its neighbor Laodikeia (q.v.).37 Hiera-
33 L. Weber 1911, 466-468.
34 Johnston 1984, 53.
35 Johnston 1984, 64 no. 3; Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 70
nos. 656-658.
36 Kampmann 1996, 86-91; 1998, 389-390.
37 Roueché 1989a, 1-4; S. Mitchell 1993, 2:158.
140 part i – section i. koinon of asia
polis, then, would have been separated from the
province for which it had once held its imperial
temple and neokoria. Though there are some early
references to a koinon of Phrygia, they are limited
to the city of Apamea and do not refer to this pro-
vincial reorganization.38 Thus it is very surprising
that Hierapolis would continue to celebrate its ties
to Asia in subsequent reigns, with further concord
coinages allying it to the old province’s greatest
neokoroi cities.
First Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus?
Possibly Hierapolis, like Nikomedia, Ephesos, and
Sardis (qq.v.), regained a neokoria that it had lost
after the death of Elagabalus during the joint reign
of Valerian and Gallienus. As under Philip, all of
Hierapolis’ coinage citing the title ‘neokoros,’
whether with or without portraits of Valerian or Gal-
lienus, proclaims the alliance between Hierapolis and
a great neokoros city of Asia.39 No coins of alliance
with Pergamon or Kyzikos are found any more;
Hierapolis seems to have given its attention only to
its nearer eminent neighbors, Ephesos, Smyrna, and
Sardis. None of these was in the province of Phrygia
and Caria. Otherwise, Hierapolis’ concord coinage
under Valerian and Gallienus is exactly parallel with
that under Philip, with one important exception:
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: IERAPOLEITVN NEV-
K(ORVN, efgh; NEOKORVN, d) Victory with
wreath and palm. Rev: K EFE%IVN OMONUA
Laureate veiled bust of the goddess of Concord
r.40 a) London 1921.5-20-67 b) Oxford 6.17g c)
Oxford 4.88g d) Paris 1006(5) e) Vienna 19870
f) Berlin g) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer h) Berlin,
Löbbecke (illus. pl. 26 fig. 107).
Here ‘of the neokoroi Hierapolitans’ is isolated on
the obverse, while the legend continues ‘and Ephe-
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
others of their coins.41 One coin issue is an uncer-
38 Pace Dräger 1993, 70-77.
39
A possible exception, SNGBraun 1811, is too obscure even
to attribute firmly to Hierapolis. Non-imperial obverses with-
out mention of concord are not incontrovertibly dated.
40 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 77 nos. 755-764, with Con-
cord identified as the Council and placed on the obverse.
41 Johnston 1984, 53-54.
tain basis for asserting or for denying the neokoria
of Hierapolis. The city may have been only stretch-
ing the same point it made under Philip by isolat-
ing the title with its own name instead of that of its
ally. If the claim were unjust we would expect to find
it protested and redressed, but as Hierapolis’ coin-
age comes to an end after this series we cannot see
any outcome. If type 4 makes a legitimate claim,
Hierapolis may join Nikomedia, Ephesos, and Sardis
in having lost its neokoria for Elagabalus and re-
gained the title under Valerian and Gallienus. It is
not impossible, however, that the title had been
restored to Hierapolis earlier, under Philip, as
Beroia’s was under Gordian III; or even that it had
never been lost at all.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
1. Ritti 1983a, 181 no. 2. Statue base of Julia
Mamaea; see text above.
2. Ritti 1983b, 221-230, Hierapolis museum inv. no.
664. Statue base; the neokoros council and the most
illustrious people and the most revered gerousia
honor Melitine Artemas, with terms of her bequest.
Very elaborate lettering, with many ligatures, of the
first part of the third century.
3. Judeich 1898, (AvH) no. 34. The neokoros people
honor M. Aurelius Apollonides Ammianos Daphnos.
Undated.
4. Judeich 1898, (AvH) no. 234. Tomb inscription
of a chief priest Ti. Claudius Cleon with a bequest
to the neokoros council. Undated.
Inscriptions on ivory objects that were supposed
to mention neokoros Hierapolis have been found to
be forgeries copied from coins: J. and L. Robert, Bul-
letin Épigraphique (1969) 556 a, 60.
Also note a neokoros official: Ritti 1983a, 180.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Elagabalus: BMC 139, 140, 142-144; SNGCop 461; SNGvA
3658, 8383, 8384; Berlin (16 exx.), Boston (3 exx.),
London (2 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.),
Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). Concord with
Ephesos, four times neokoros: Paris.42
42 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 70 nos. 656-658.
 chapter 12 – hierapolis in phrygia 141

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

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

imperial neokoria as Ephesos did. This possibility
seems unlikely, however, as no coin types appear to
celebrate what would have been an important ad-
dition of honors to any Asian city; indeed, this is the
only coin known to document it. It is more likely
that B NE refers to the magistrate, not to the city:
Tychikos is not only grammateus for the second
time, he is n°(ow), ‘the young(er),’ as distinguished
from a predecessor of the same name.15
Munich, New York, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna, War-
saw.16
Julia Mamaea: BMC 73; SNGCop 886; SNGMün 638;
Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.),
Private collection (Hecht).17
Maximinus: Berlin, Vienna.18
Maximus Caesar: Berlin (2 exx.), London.19
Gordian III: Glasgow, Vienna.20
Non-imperial obverse: SNGCop 858; Berlin (2 exx.),
Vienna.21

There are no inscriptions of Magnesia as neokoros

yet known.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA:

Neokoros of Artemis:
Severus Alexander: SNGvA 7923; Berlin, London,
16 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
Chapter 14. Synnada in Phrygia: Koinon of Asia (?)
Set in the remote plateau of central Phrygia, Synna-
da was a city of respectable size and antiquity, a
member of the Panhellenion that traced its origins
back to both Athenian and Spartan heroes.1 It was
also a judicial district center of Asia, and a trans-
shipment point for the famous marble quarries of
Dokimeion, thirty miles to its northeast.2 Synnada
may have been removed from its former province,
however, at the formation of a new province, Phry-
gia and Caria, ca. 250 C.E.3
First and Second Neokoria: by 293-305
Only one inscription is known that calls the city “il-
lustrious metropolis and twice neokoros of the
Augusti”:
INSCRIPTION 1. MAMA 4.59 (IGRR 4:700).
Statue base of Constantius Chlorus as Caesar,
thus dated 293-305. { lamprå t«n Sunnad°vn mh-
trÒpoliw ka‹ d‹w nevkÒrow t«n Seb(ast«n)...
Perrot believed that Synnada was given two neo-
koriai at once during a reorganization of the pro-
vinces by Diocletian (284-305).4 The titles were
supposed to suit Synnada’s new position as metropo-
lis of Phrygia Secundus (later Salutaris). But recent
studies have allowed more precision on the admin-
istrative changes that affected this area. It is likely
that only Phrygia and Caria split off from one an-
other ca. 301-305, and the chief city of the prov-
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
1 Nafissi 1995.
2 Mileta 1990; S. Mitchell 1993, 1:64-65, 121, 159; Sartre
1995, 198-201.
3 Roueché 1989a, 1-4; S. Mitchell 1993, 2:158.
4 Perrot 1876b, 195-197 no. 1.
5 Belke and Mersich 1990, 77-78, 393-395.
– synnada in phrygia 145
itself divided into two provinces, the second of which
was headed by Synnada. Moreover, the terms me-
tropolis, first, or neokoros could be used in contem-
porary documents for cities (e.g. Sagalassos) that did
not head provinces.6
There is no evidence for the procedure of whole-
sale granting of neokoriai to new metropoleis of
provinces as envisioned by Perrot, at Synnada or in
any other case; in fact, no neokoria thus far can be
definitely dated to the Tetrarchic period, though
Side (q.v.) remains a possibility. In addition, it is as
yet impossible to say what koinon Synnada was affi-
liated with when its neokoriai were granted. The
only known koinon of Phrygia appears to have been
exclusively associated with the city of Apamea.7
The two neokoriai of Synnada may well antedate
the inscription that records them, and could have
been given separately at any time. The city issued
agonistic coin types under Gordian III, but its pos-
session of a Hadrianeia festival has now been doubted,
and in any case, the names of festivals, even if as-
sociated with emperors, are of little use in determin-
ing neokoria (see summary chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’
in Part II).8 It is more important to note that Syn-
nada (with Sagalassos) offers one of the latest docu-
ments of neokoria and proves that the title was at
least still used during the Tetrarchy. The case of Syn-
nada then shows that a city could still value the title
‘neokoros,’ even at a time when the provincial or-
ganization from which it presumably derived the title
was in a state of flux.
6 Bowersock 1985; 1995, 85-98; Haensch 1997, 24-26, 251-
254.
7 Pace Dräger 1993, 70-77.
8 Wallner 1997, 88-89, though he also drew a fanciful con-
nection between Synnada and the Gordiani based on Historia
Augusta, Gordiani 32.1-2: the columns on one side of their villa’s
peristyle were of Synnadan marble.
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
SECTION II. KOINON OF BITHYNIA
Chapter 15. Nikomedia: Koinon of Bithynia
First Neokoria: Augustus
Though the origin of Nikomedia’s neokoria ante-
dates the actual use of the title by more than a
century, it can be traced back to 29 B.C.E. At that
time the man soon to be named Augustus acceded
to petitions from the Hellenes of Asia and Bithynia
and allowed the establishment of precincts for the
imperial cult in those two provinces.1 According to
Cassius Dio 51.20.6-7 (a passage already examined
in detail in chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ q.v.), the honors
for Bithynia were assigned as follows. Nikaia, which
the patriotic Dio called “foremost in honor at that
time,” received a precinct to Rome and the hero
Julius Caesar, which was designated for use of the
Romans resident in the province.2 It was Nikomedia,
however, that received what was probably the
greater prize: permission to build a temple to the
living Caesar, not the deified one, for the use of the
provincial Hellenes. Dio’s account omits one detail,
which Suetonius (Augustus 52) fortunately supplies:
Augustus only permitted temples to himself if the cult
of the goddess Rome accompanied his own.
Cassius Dio’s passage ranked Nikaia above Niko-
media, and there was a long-running rivalry between
the two cities for titles and honors. Nikomedia, as
chief residence of the Bithynian kings and center of
pre-Roman administration, logically became me-
tropolis of the koinon of Bithynia and seat of the
provincial cult of Augustus and Rome. No document
reveals whether it or Nikaia was the primary seat
of the governor.3 Nikaia was inland, whereas Niko-
media was a major port of the province; but Augus-
1 Ameling 1984, though he assumed undocumented pro-
vincial games, 124; S. Price 1984b, 185, 266, and later 67;
Ziethen 1994, 92-93, 257 treated this embassy as if it came
from the city of Nikomedia alone, ignoring the koinon’s role
(and that of the city of Nikaia as well).
2 Whittaker 1996, 93-99.
3 Haensch 1997, 282-290.
15 – nikomedia 147
tus gave Nikaia the temple to Rome and the dei-
fied Caesar, which implies at least some Roman resi-
dents to worship there. In contrast, in Asia, which
received the same cults at the same time as Bithynia
did, the cult of Caesar was assigned to Ephesos as
foremost in the province (and seat of the governor,
but also a major port), whereas Pergamon, center
of Hellenistic rule, became the center of the koinon
and received the temple where the provincials wor-
shipped Augustus.
Evidence for the temple at Nikomedia is fairly
scanty.4 It first appears as a reverse type on silver
cistophori and bronzes minted under Hadrian after
128, as evidenced by the emperor’s title of P(ater)
P(atriae) on the cistophori.5 This late date should be
considered merely a point by which the temple
actually existed, and as such it cannot indicate how
long before the coins appeared that the temple was
actually built.
Bithynia did not issue any silver cistophori before
the reign of Hadrian, and the early bronze coinage
of the province and of the city of Nikomedia very
rarely shows any type of architecture except for altars
(generally that of Zeus). Before Hadrian, provincial
bronzes had given more space to the Roman gov-
ernor’s name than the name of the province; indeed,
the latter was often omitted entirely. Occasionally
a city goddess or patron god stood over the simple
legend BIYUNIA .6 Under Hadrian, however, the
situation was reversed: the governor’s name dropped
off, while the name of the koinon of Bithynia held
pride of place on the reverse. It is at just this point
that the first provincial silver coinage begins; the
4Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 164-166 no. A25.
5Metcalf 1980, 137-143, esp. 139-140, where he dates the
silver issue to the time of C. Julius Severus’ special mission to
Bithynia, probably in 136. Metcalf’s argument against any pre-
Hadrianic koinon is not persuasive; see the evidence for offi-
cials under Domitian, below, not to mention Cassius Dio
51.20.6-7.
6 RPC 2:96-99.
148 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia
temple of Rome and Augustus makes its first appear-
ance on reverses of both metals. The provincial
temple, however, was in any case a suitable theme
for a new provincial coinage, and need not indicate
that the temple was built or even restored at that
time.7
Reconstructing the form of the temple of Rome
and Augustus presents certain problems, although
these are not insurmountable. Misuse or misunder-
standing of the numismatic evidence has led to sev-
eral points of confusion regarding the temple at
Nikomedia, and unquestioning acceptance by a
chain of scholars has perpetuated them.
The initial error was that of Mattingly, who iden-
tified the octastyle temple that appears on the cisto-
phori of Bithynia as Ionic.8 Luckily, the illustrations
that accompany this description show that the col-
umns are either Corinthian or composite: though
abbreviated, the capitals consist of three dots sup-
ported by rising volutes, and this is inconsistent with
the two dots and plain band of Ionic capitals as they
usually appear on coins. The dots indicate the deco-
ration of the capital, and the confusion arises when
a die-cutter has chosen to use two dots instead of
three or one. If such coins were viewed in isolation,
the temple might indeed look Ionic, but when the
whole series is consulted, that possibility is ruled out.
Dependence on Mattingly’s description, however,
led Mellor into writing that the temple in Nikomedia
is portrayed as “sometimes Corinthian, sometimes
Ionic,” and that the coins should not be trusted in
any case, since they sometimes show the temple as
distyle and as such the “columns clearly could not
support the roof.”9 Mellor’s lack of familiarity with
numismatic conventions led to greater errors by
Tuchelt. Adopting Mellor as his authority, he was
able to dismiss the evidence of the coins entirely, so
that it could not obstruct his thesis that the precinct
of Augustus at Nikomedia (and that at Pergamon as
well) consisted of an altar alone, and not necessar-
ily a temple at all.10 So Mattingly’s initial slip has
been magnified until the nature of numismatic evi-
7 Metcalf 1980, 139; rebutted by Hänlein-Schäfer 1985,
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
iiib.
10 Tuchelt 1981, 185 n. 105. For a rebuttal, see Hänlein-
Schäfer 1985, 13, 165.
dence itself is in doubt, while a look at the coins
themselves, combined with a knowledge of their
conventions and their limitations, could have solved
the problem.
In fact, both the silver and the bronze coinage of
Bithynia give a fairly consistent, or at least recon-
cilable, picture of the temple at Nikomedia.
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: IMP CAES TRA HADRI-
ANO AVG PP Laureate (head, b; draped [cuiras-
sed, a]) bust of Hadrian r. Rev: (SPR, a; SPQR,
c) COM BIT Eight-column temple, ROM (SP ab)
AVG in entablature, disc (dot, b) in pediment. a)
BMCRE 1098 b) BMCRE 1099 c) BMCRE 1100.
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT KAI% TRAI ADRIANO%
%EB(A, fi) Laureate (radiate, nopw; bare, v) head
of Hadrian r. Rev: KOINON BEIYUNIA% Eight-
column temple; in pediment (male figure sacri-
ficing, abhst; wolf and twins, cdku; star, pq; disc,
efglmn); (Victories as akroteria, py). a) BMC 12
b) BMC 13 c) BMC 14 d) BMC 15 e) BMC 16 f)
BMC 17 g) BMC 18 h) BMC 19 i) BMC 20 j) BMC
21 k) BMC 22 l) BMC 23 m) BMC 24 n) BMC 25
o) BMC 26 p) BMC 27 q) SNGvA 288 r) SNGvA
289 s) SNGvA 290 t) SNGvA 6916 u) SNGvA 6917
v) SNGCop 324 w) SNGCop 325 x) SNGCop 326 y)
London 1928.5-5-1 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 109).
It was first reconstructed by Bosch, in his monumen-
tal unfinished work on the coinage of Asia Minor,
as an eight-column Corinthian structure on a step-
ped podium.11 The possibility that it had compos-
ite capitals, Ionic volutes set in a Corinthian-style
capital, cannot be ruled out.12
Though the temple is generally known as that of
Rome and Augustus, the coins indicate that there
were additional objects of cult within. On the
cistophori, the temple is identified by the words on
its entablature: ROM S P AVG at its fullest, presum-
ably ROM(ae) S(enatui) P(opulo) AVG(usto).13 On some
issues this legend is shortened to ROM(ae) AVG(usto),
and these issues have a full S(enatui) P(opulo)q(ue)
R(omano) in the fields. There are also coins that men-
tion the Senate and People both on the entablature
of the temple and in the fields, as S(enatui) P(opulo)
11 C. Bosch 1935, 190-196.
12 Strong 1960 dated this innovation as early as the 30s
B.C.E.; Gros 1996-2001, 2:499-503.
13 C. Bosch 1935, 194.
 chapter
R(omano).14 Thus the cult included Rome, Augustus,
the Senate, and the People. The legend serves to
identify the temple on the coin, and it need not imply
a Latin inscription on the entablature of the actual
temple.15 Bronze coins with Greek legends lack this
form of identification, probably because the Greek
equivalent would have had to be either an awkward
transliteration or an unwieldy translation, the two
equally incomprehensible unless spelled out more
fully. Instead, the bronzes simply refer to the koinon
of Bithynia, whose chief temple, and whose coinage,
this was.
The cistophori generally show the pediment
empty, or with a disc, dot, or disc between two dots
within. This summary sort of filling ornament is
probably only numismatic shorthand for ‘pedimental
decoration.’ The bronzes, however, make up in the
pediment for what they lack on the entablature. In
addition to the shorthand forms found on the
cistophori, different bronzes may show a star, the
Roman wolf and twins, or a male figure in short
costume, a sceptre in his left hand, sacrificing with
a phiale at an altar.16 These more unusual figures
serve to identify the temple in the lack of a legend
on the entablature; they may have actually stood in
the pediment. The wolf and twins, sign of the ori-
gins of Rome, mark a temple to Roman state divini-
ties, and the sacrificing figure may be a variant of
the Roman Genius who appears as a reverse type
on other, probably Bithynian, cistophori of the same
period, though there he holds a cornucopia in his
left hand rather than a sceptre.17 On the other hand,
the figure may represent an emperor in military dress
(see below). Another unusual feature that appears
on certain coins of both the silver and the bronze
series is the presence of side akroteria of Victories
erecting trophies; these likely refer to Augustus’
victory at Actium.18
Reconciling the various depictions of cult statues
14 Metcalf 1980, 134, types B12, B13; the catalogue wrongly
omits the S P from the entablature, as the plates indicate.
15 Metcalf 1980, 137-139.
16 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 69-71.
17 Metcalf 1980, 141-142. Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 165
doubted the identification of the pediment figure as a Genius,
due to the sceptre; but both sceptre and sacrificial phiale are
characteristic of the Genius type, though they are rarely com-
bined. See Kunckel 1974, 14-17, esp. pl. 2.5 (type M III 13,
an as of Antoninus Pius, 160-161 C.E.)
18 Silver: Metcalf 1980, 132-133, type B7, pl. 30 no. 25.
Bronze: coin type 2p and 2y, above.
15 – nikomedia 149
within the temple at Nikomedia is more difficult.19
There are several different images, only one of which
is common to both the silver cistophori and the
provincial bronzes. That figure is a male, a mantle
or himation draped across him and gathered over
the left elbow, leaning on a staff or sceptre with his
right hand and with a little Victory, who raises her
wreath toward him, in his left.20
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: IMP CAES TRA HADRI-
ANO AVG PP (Laureate, b) head of Hadrian r.
Rev: COM BIT Four-column temple, ROM SP
AVG in entablature, dot in pediment; within, em-
peror in mantle (cuirassed? b), with sceptre and
Victory. a) BMCRE 1096 b) BMCRE 1097 (illus.
pl. 27 fig. 110) c) SNGCop 322.
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT KAI% TRAI ADRIANO%
%EB Laureate head of Hadrian r. Rev: KOINON
BEIYUNIA% Eight-column temple, disc in pedi-
ment; within, emperor in mantle, with sceptre and
Victory. a) BMC 9 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 111).
The iconography is that of a heroized emperor,
based on classical prototypes.21 Yet a figure in the
same stance and with the same attributes, but in
military dress, appears on some of the cistophori.22
Despite the change in dress, the legend on the temple
does not vary; ROM S P AVG on the silver. No
bronze coin, however, shows the figure in military
dress.
The cistophori occasionally show a single com-
panion to the male figure:
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: IMP CAES TRA
HADRIANO AVG PP Laureate bust of Hadrian
r. Rev: COM BIT Four-column temple, ROM
SP AVG on entablature, disc in pediment; within,
helmeted female in long dress at r. crowns
cuirassed emperor with Victory and sceptre at l.
a) Vienna 39125 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 112).23
19
Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 83-84.
20
Bronze: type 4a, above. Silver: Metcalf 1980, 132, type
B5, described as togate; the chest is clearly bare, and the drap-
ery has a diagonal hem, not the curve characteristic of a toga.
Compare the togate Hadrian on reverses from Metcalf’s Asian
Mint C, 86-87, type 92.
21 Niemeyer 1968, 55-59, “Hüftmantel” type; note the
review by Fittschen in Bonner Jahrbuch 170 (1970) 541-552, esp.
545.
22 Metcalf 1980, 132-133, types B6, B7; here coin type 3b.
23 Metcalf 1980, 133-134, types B9-B10.
150 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia
Whether draped or cuirassed, he is joined by a
helmeted female who stands at the right and
raises a wreath toward his head; in her lowered left
hand is a long curved object, perhaps a cornucopia,
though it may be a palm branch or a naval aphlas-
ton. The bronzes, however, are unique in adding a
third figure to the group, another female at the left
whose only attribute is a sceptre held in the right
hand:
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT KAI% TRAI ADRIANO%
%EB (Radiate, b) head of Hadrian r. Rev:
KOINON BEIYUNIA% Two-column temple, sac-
rificing male in pediment; within, armed female
in long dress at r. crowns emperor in mantle with
Victory and sceptre in center, female with sceptre
at l. a) BMC 10 b) BMC 11.
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: %ABEINA %EBA%TH Dia-
demed draped bust of Sabina r. Rev: KOINON
BEIYUNIA% Two-column temple, sacrificing
male in pediment; within, helmeted female in long
dress at r. crowns emperor in mantle with Vic-
tory and sceptre in center, female with sceptre at
l. a) BMC 32 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 113) b) SNGCop
329.24
A cistophorus that depicts the helmeted female with
two males has been reported, but is unconfirmed.25
And finally, a little-noticed example shows a male
figure in a short costume, perhaps a cuirass, but this
time standing left, holding a round object, probably
a phiale, in his right hand and the spear/sceptre in
his left; this sacrificial posture recalls that of the
sceptred figure (emperor? Genius?) often shown in
the pediment.26
From their depiction within the temple, we can
have little doubt that these figures are either its
objects of cult or images strongly enough associated
with the temple to identify it. Is there any way of
reconciling them with each other, or must we con-
clude that the die-cutters misinterpreted their mod-
els, or that the numismatic evidence should be
disregarded?
Within the limits of their small scale, depictions
of cult statues on coins have been found to be basi-
24 Note a retouched coin of this type: Klose 1997, 257, 261
no. 4.
25 Metcalf 1980, 134, type B11.
26
Metcalf 1980, 133, type B8, where he is identified as the
emperor in military dress holding a wreath; but a wreath is
usually held high, in the act of crowning. Phialai, however, are
generally held in this position.
cally reliable, though subject to abbreviation.27 In
the case of Nikomedia, a die-cutter’s misinterpreta-
tion of a figure copied from earlier coins is unlikely,
especially in the silver issue, which was unusual,
carefully produced, and may have lasted only a year.
So let us assume that all the following features were
based on reality: 1) a half-draped male with Victory
and spear/sceptre, 2) a male identical with number
1 but in cuirass, 3) a helmeted female with cornu-
copia crowning 1 or 2, 4) a female with sceptre, and
5) a male in short outfit with phiale and sceptre.
Number 3 is not difficult to interpret: the goddess
Rome is generally a helmeted female, the cornuco-
pia indicates her role as a city goddess, and we know
from the literary evidence that she shared cult with
Augustus.28 Rome was also portrayed crowning
Augustus in their cult statues at Pergamon (q.v.).
Number 5 is only difficult insofar as he appears both
in the temple and within its pediment; he has been
identified as a Genius, and may in fact be the Ge-
nius of the Roman people, whose presence within
the cult was hinted by the legends on the entabla-
ture and in the fields of the cistophori.29
Numbers 1 and 2 are identical except for their
dress, and both are crowned by Rome. They are
clearly meant to be an emperor, or emperors. Were
there were two (or more) different male statues, or
one in different outfits? If it were the latter, and if
the coinages of silver and bronze were meant to
reach different audiences, one might guess that the
military iconography, unique to the silver, was for
the wider, or more official, or more Roman audi-
ence, while the other, like the temple at Nikomedia
itself, was for the Hellenes. This was probably not
the case, however. The two coinages both show the
half-draped male, though only the silver shows the
military figure. Though the silver has Latin legends
and the bronze Greek, they were both issued by the
same authority and may have even been produced
by the same die-cutters, as shown by the fact that
the spelling of Latin words on the cistophori tends
to become a trifle Hellenized.30 The bronze seems
27 Vermeule 1987, 9-22 on interpretation of numismatic evi-
dence.
28 Suetonius, Augustus 52, cited above. The Nikomedia
image is not mentioned by di Filippo Balestrazzi 1997.
29 In the pediment: above, types 2abhst, 6 and 7. In the
temple: see above, n. 26.
30 Metcalf 1980, 138, on Greek die-cutters; though stylis-
tically he ruled out any connection, 152.
 chapter
to have been designed as complementary to the
silver, circulating as a fractional currency and reach-
ing the same audience. If one rules out a mere die-
cutter’s mistake (and with such persistent and
contemporaneous types, one probably can), one
comes to the conclusion that there were two differ-
ent male statues: one, an emperor heroized or de-
ified, the other an emperor in the role of imperator.
It has been suggested that one figure is Augustus,
the other Hadrian, though there has been little
agreement on which is which.31 The heroized statue
type, however, has been found to be limited to the
Julio-Claudian period, and would be more appro-
priate to the deified Augustus.32 The other emperor,
whose statue is also crowned by a reduplicated
Rome, is presumably Hadrian, who certainly visited
Nikomedia and may have wintered there more than
once; on other coins, he is hailed as the restorer of
both the city specifically and the province as a
whole.33 Thus the temple established for one em-
peror truly became a temple of the Augusti by the
addition of statues of subsequent rulers: a colossal
statue of Hadrian, again in military dress, echoed
the colossus of his adoptive father in the temple of
Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon, and Antoninus
Pius may have been surrounded by his successors
at Sardis (qq.v.).
The last statue, number 4, holds no attributes
beyond her sceptre. Bosch identified her as the
Senate.34 Personifications of the Senate, however,
are generally (though not exclusively) male.35 Per-
haps the sceptred figure represents the Senate, or
perhaps the goddess of the province Bithynia, but
such goddesses usually hold cornucopiae. There is
not enough evidence to come to a conclusion.
The ancient city of Nikomedia lies under the
modern city of Izmit, and except for limited exca-
vation beneath derelict or destroyed buildings, there
is little chance of unearthing the remains of its first
provincial imperial shrine. Still, it may be assumed
31 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 84 saw the military type as
Augustus, the heroized type as Hadrian, and the mysterious
female standing at the left as Sabina, though the long sceptre
should indicate a goddess rather than an empress. Mikocki
1995, 197 nos. 327-328, agreed, but misidentified the goddess
Rome as Victory.
32 Niemeyer 1968, 55-61, cat. nos. 71-81.
33 Halfmann 1986a, 188-210, esp. 190, 191, 199. On
Hadrian’s building at Nikomedia, Schorndorfer 1997, 143-145.
34 C. Bosch 1935, 195.
35 Kienast 1985, 253, 266-267; Harl 1987, 74-75, pl. 30.9-
11.
15 – nikomedia 151
to have been impressive. Dio writes of the two grants
in Asia and Bithynia as if they occurred simulta-
neously, and it is likely that the temples that resulted
from them also had parallel histories. At the least,
the koinon of Bithynia would not want to be out-
done by the koinon of Asia in showing its loyalty to
the new ruler. Any lack of zeal (or expense) could
come to the notice of the emperor, whose resultant
displeasure might outweigh his initial gratification
at the petition for cult.
On the other hand, there were certain differences
even from the beginning: Pergamon asked for and
received a contest with sacred status in honor of its
temple, and Dio’s passage mentions no such request
from Bithynia or Nikomedia. As a native of the
province, Dio must have known whether or not the
Bithynians requested or received a contest; and
despite his pride in his home city Nikaia, his atti-
tude was too Roman and senatorial for him to sup-
press mention of Nikomedia’s festival because of
rivalry between the two.36 He certainly mentions the
festival the Nikomedians would later be granted for
Commodus (below and n. 60). Not just because of
Dio’s silence, but based on other evidence that is
assembled in chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ we cannot
assume that a festival with sacred status invariably
accompanied the grant of a koinon temple.
Another difference is that the Asian koinon seems
to have built further temples for subsequent emper-
ors: there was a specific reason for that to Tiberius
(see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna’), and then Caligula appears
to have commandeered a temple at Miletus (q.v.).
But there is no record of a second provincial temple
for Bithynia until Hadrian (see chapter 16, ‘Nikaia,’
below).
There is no evidence for the personnel of Bithy-
nia’s provincial organization or temple until the time
of Domitian, after which we hear of both Bithy-
niarchs and archons of the koinon of the Hellenes
in Bithynia.37 The title of chief priest of Bithynia is
not attested, but as the wife of the Bithyniarch was
often called the chief priestess, we can assume that
he fulfilled the priestly function as well. Several
Bithyniarchs were also named as Helladarchs, but
the exact boundaries of these offices are unclear.38
36
Aalders 1986; Ameling 1984, 133-134.
37
Campanile 1993; Deininger 1965, 60-64. For a compari-
son with the officials in other provinces, see summary chapter
41, ‘The Koina.’
38 Ameling 1985, 31, 55; nos. 7, 47. There was also a
Hellenarch, no. 46.
152 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia
There is no record of hymnodoi for the temple
at Nikomedia like the ones at Pergamon, but there
are references to a sebastophant and a hierophant
of the mysteries of the koinon temple of Bithynia.39
The hierophant’s title is the same as that of the
initiating priest at Eleusis: he demonstrated sacred
things in a mystery cult, and a sebastophant did the
same with respect to the cult of Augustus or the
Augusti. Presumably the function of these officials
was to teach the rituals and show images of the
emperor(s) during the rites; several Bithyniarchs filled
these offices as well.40 Due to the association of the
hierophant with the koinon temple of Bithynia,
Langer believed that the office of hierophant was
identical to that of the chief priesthood in other
provinces.41 There is nothing in the documents to
indicate this, however; in Asia, for example, officials
other than the chief priest were also associated with
the koinon temples, so it is more likely that the
Bithyniarch acted as chief priest as well. An epitaph
of a theologos was found at Nikomedia, but it is
uncertain whether that office was attached to the
imperial cult or to some other one.42
Dio Chrysostomos took the Nikomedians to task
for their rivalry with their neighbor Nikaia over titles
and primacy in the koinon.43 Though it is likely that
Nikomedia became neokoros (by grace of its provin-
cial temple of Rome and Augustus) as soon as that
title was officially sanctioned, it may not have used
it until its rival began to flaunt the title as well. In
Asia, ‘neokoros’ had appeared on Ephesian coins as
early as Nero’s reign, but the title only began to be
popular on inscriptions of Ephesos, Pergamon, and
Smyrna from the later first century on. In Bithynia,
Nikaia called itself neokoros on an inscription from
39 L. Robert 1960c, 321-322 n. 3; Pleket 1965.
40 Campanile 1993, 348-350 (Tiberius Claudius Piso, Titus
Ulpius Aelianus Papianus). The former is named êrxonta t[}w]
patr¤dow ka‹ t}w §parxe¤[aw] (ll. 5-6) and Beiyun[i]ãrxhn (l. 10)
in one inscription, Ameling 1985, 47. This led Campanile 1993,
346 to conclude that the archonship of the koinon and the
Bithyniarchate were separate and distinct. But the reference
to the archonship of the eparchy is in fact rather vague (as
Ameling observed), and does not name the office “archon of
the koinon of the Hellenes in Bithynia” explicitly, as other
inscriptions (Campanile 1993, 350-351) do.
41 Langer 1981, 30, 95-105; at 41 n. 69 she corrected Magie
1950, 451, 1301, who identified the two offices of sebastophant
and hierophant as one.
42 Dörner 1941, 93-94 no. 97; L. Robert 1943, 184-185.
43 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38, ‘To the Nikomedians, on
Concord with the Nikaians.’ See Swain 1996, 219-225; C. Jones
1978, 83-89.
Hadrian’s reign. No such inscriptions are yet known
from Nikomedia, but ‘neokoros’ began to appear on
its coins under Antoninus Pius. The reverse types
of these coins make no overt reference to the title,
probably because it had been in existence for some
time. The same is true for coins of the reign of Mar-
cus Aurelius, including those of his son Commodus
as Caesar and successor. It is only during Com-
modus’ sole rule that the coins show drastic changes,
as well as a reawakening of interest, in Nikomedia’s
neokoria.
Second Neokoria: Commodus
The first coins of Commodus’ reign at Nikomedia
show a youthful, beardless portrait, though more
mature than his boyish looks as Caesar; they date
from his sole rule, specifically after October 180, as
his name has already changed from Lucius to
Marcus.44 Coins with this early portrait type all
proclaim Nikomedia twice neokoros, pushing the
title metropolis off the coin and illustrating the honor
with a number of new celebratory reverse types. The
city’s patron goddess Demeter appears with the two
temples, or the city goddess holds them, or they
simply appear above a ship representing Niko-
media’s great harbor:
COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT K M AUR KOMMODO%
ANTVNINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Commodus r., beardless. Rev: DI% NEVKORVN
NIKOMHDEVN Demeter between two eight-col-
umn temples. a) BMC 25 b) Paris 1342 (illus. pl.
27 fig. 114).
COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT K M AUR KOMMODO%
ANTVNINO% Laureate head (draped cuirassed
bust, b) of Commodus r., beardless. Rev:
NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Seated city god-
dess holds two eight-column temples (one of them
seven-column, b).45 a) SNGvA 7106 b) London
1920.1-11-2 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 115).
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K M AUR KOMMO-
DO% ANTVNINO% Laureate head (draped
cuirassed bust, af) of Commodus r., beardless.
Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eight-
column (Corinthian, b) temples, below them a
44 Kienast 1996, 147-150.
45 Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.1.
 chapter
galley. a) BMC 34 b) London 1961.3-1-121 c)
Paris 1354 d) Vienna 15790 e) Berlin 8639 f)
Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer g) Berlin, Löbbecke.
COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AU K M AUR KOMMODO%
ANTVNINO% Laureate (radiate, b) head of
Commodus r., beardless. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN
(NIKOMHDEIA%, sic b ) DI% NEVKORVN Eight-
column temple with outsloping entablature. a)
Berlin, Fox (illus. pl. 27 fig. 116) b) Paris 1353.
Withdrawn: Commodus
Yet within a very short time, as soon as Com-
modus’ coin portrait changed to a more mature,
bearded type, the second neokoria was gone and
Nikomedia’s title switched back to a mere neo-
koros.46 That this is not an accidental omission of
the correct number is shown by a coin type in which
the city goddess holds only one temple instead of the
previous two:
COIN TYPE 12. Obv: A K M AU KO ANTVNIN
Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Commodus r.,
bearded. Rev: MHTRO NEVKOR NIKOMHD
Seated city goddess holds six-column temple and
sceptre.47 a) Paris 1347 (illus. pl. 28 fig. 117).
COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AU K M AU KO ANTVNIN
Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Commodus r.,
bearded. Rev: MHT(RO, b) NEV(KOR, c; -KO, b)
NIKOMH Eight-column temple with disc (dot, a)
in pediment. a) BMC 33 b) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer
c) Berlin, Löbbecke.
Fortunately a passage of Cassius Dio has been pre-
served to let us know what happened. While discuss-
ing Commodus’ various disreputable favorites, he
mentions Saoteros of Nikomedia, who had been the
emperor’s chamberlain from 180 to 182, before the
advent of Cleander.48 “That one [Saoteros] had
46 The sheer brevity of Nikomedia’s possession of the sec-
ond neokoria was not understood by Weiser 1989, 72; he
believed that coins showing the bearded Commodus with
Nikomedia merely neokoros were dated before the grant of the
second title, not after its loss. He based his rejection of
Nikomedia’s loss of the second neokoria on his exposure of one
coin of Pescennius Niger as a recut version of a coin of
Commodus (see n. 54 below), but did not take into account
the titulature nor the portrait types of Commodus in as much
detail as was necessary.
47 Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.2.
48 Pflaum 1972, 203, 209, 238, 243.
15 – nikomedia 153
been most powerful as well, and due to this the
Nikomedians obtained from the Senate the right to
hold a contest and to build a temple of Com-
modus.”49 The procedure as Dio portrays it (and,
as a member of the Senate under Commodus, he
was in a position to know) was that the Nikomedians
overtly asked the Senate for both temple and festi-
val, but their success could be wholly attributed to
the position and behind-the-scenes influence of their
native son. This explanation is not only Dio’s opin-
ion, but is confirmed by the coins: if Nikomedia had
had more to recommend its case than a cham-
berlain’s influence, perhaps it could have kept its
second neokoria. But the city’s honors were evidently
seen simply as due to Saoteros, and so were lost with
his eventual fall from favor, and death.
This is not the only case of one man being cred-
ited with obtaining or perpetuating the neokoria for
his city.50 There was Polemon in Smyrna and Dio-
phantos in Ephesos, and perhaps Python in Beroia.
Yet all of these presumably triumphed by speaking
well, presenting arguments rather than pulling
strings. Saoteros, however, is the only man credited
with both gaining and losing the neokoria for his city.
In fact, Nikomedia’s is the only case where the honor
was permanently revoked during the lifetime of the
emperor whose cult was to be celebrated. Most
withdrawn neokoriai known are due to the death and
condemnation of the emperor, not the petitioner.
Perhaps a more strong-minded emperor could have
dissociated a perfectly plausible temple and festival
in his own honor from any machinations of Saoteros.
But Commodus was portrayed by historical sources
as passive in state affairs, putty in the hands of one
chamberlain until he passed to the next.51 If it was
not an indignant Senate that cancelled Nikomedia’s
honors as usurped (while imputing no blame to the
emperor, of course), probably Saoteros’ successor
Cleander would have seen to it.
The Nikomedians may or may not have had a
chance to build their temple of Commodus. The
depiction of this structure on most coins is summary
at best, where it is shown with, and is an echo of,
the other temple that made Nikomedia neokoros,
that of Rome and Augustus. Type 11 is the only one
49 Cassius Dio 73.12.2: ka¤toi ka‹ §ke›now m°giston
±dunÆyh, ka‹ diå toËto ka‹ o| Nikomhde›w ka‹ ég«na êgein ka‹
nevÅ n toË KommÒdou poiÆsasyai parå t}w boul}w ¶labon.
50 See chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ in Part II.
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
explicitly identified; in this type, it has one unusual
detail, an outsloping entablature. If it was built (and
later events indicate that it probably was), it may
have simply been demoted from provincial to mu-
nicipal status, remaining a temple to the imperial
cult.52 As for the festival, there is no sign that it was
ever celebrated. Instead Nikomedia’s chief rival
Nikaia was awarded a Kommodeia festival, which it
celebrated in a burst of coinage designed to rub salt
into the Nikomedians’ wounds.53 The Nikomedians’
coinage reverted to the terse expression of its titles,
of which ‘metropolis’ slipped back into first place.
Nikomedia inscription 1 should date from around
this time:
INSCRIPTION 1. CIG 1720 (FdD 3.6.143; TAM
4.1.34). Delphi; from a copy by Cyriacus of
Ancona. Decree of Nikomedia for a prizewinning
flautist and citizen of Nikomedia (among other
cities): { mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ pr\th Beiyun¤aw PÒntou
ÑAdrianØ neokÒrow NeikomÆdeia |erå ka‹ êsulow
f¤lh ka‹ sÊmmaxow [ê]n[v]yen t“ dÆmƒ t“
ÑRvma¤vn.
The inscription can be dated by the honoree’s vic-
tory in the Kommodeia (in Smyrna), but Nikomedia’s
title is merely ‘neokoros.’
Second Neokoria: Septimius Severus
A fortunate choice soon returned the second neo-
koria to Nikomedia. In the confusion following
Commodus’ death, the city had at first supported
the eastern claimant to the Empire, Pescennius
Niger, though a Nikomedian coin that purported to
represent him turned out to be a falsified coin of
Commodus.54 But Nikomedia turned to Septimius
Severus’ side after Niger’s first serious reverses in
battle at Kyzikos.55 As will be seen, Nikomedia’s rival
Nikaia (q.v.) held its loyalty to Niger, more through
hatred for Nikomedia than for any other reason.
Once Severus conquered, he meted out matching
punishment and rewards to the two rivals. Nikaia
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,
71-72 no. 37.
55 Herodian 3.2.7-9.
was forced to give up all pretensions to being ‘me-
tropolis’ and ‘first’ of the province as well as losing
her neokoria. Nikomedia was rewarded with all that
Nikaia had lost, with uncontested right to be ‘first’
and ‘metropolis,’ and as it was already neokoros for
the venerable temple of Rome and Augustus, with
a second neokoria for Septimius Severus. The honor
was granted within the first few years of Severus’
reign, as it appeared on coins of Caracalla as Cae-
sar, a title he held from 195 or 196 to 197.56 Thus
the embarrassment that had been caused by Niko-
media’s loss of its second neokoria under Commodus
was swept away in the latest triumph over Nikaia,
and the joy is evident on a coin whose legend takes
up its entire reverse: “with Severus as ruler the world
is fortunate, the happy Nikomedians twice neo-
koroi.”57
Reverse types of a single temple under the Seve-
ran family were presumably meant to represent the
second provincial imperial temple. Like the title
‘twice neokoros,’ depictions of the second temple
appear early, under Caracalla as Caesar, but at this
time the temple is only sketchily indicated:
COIN TYPE 14. Obv: M AURH ANTVNINO%
KAI%AR Head of Caracalla Caesar r., boyish.
Rev: NEIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Eight-
column temple, dot in its pediment. a) BMC 51.
Later, when Caracalla’s brother Geta had become
Augustus (209-211), Nikomedia issued a large bronze
that omitted all but the two end columns in order
to show the temple’s objects of cult in detail:
COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AUT K P %EP GETA[%
AUGOU] Laureate head of Geta Augustus, mature,
r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two-
column Corinthian temple with outsloping enta-
blature, within it three cuirassed imperial figures,
each with sceptre; at apex, double capricorn,
Victories in bigae as side akroteria, eagle? between
two griffins? in pediment. a) Köln 62.58
The three figures within are undoubtedly Septimius
Severus and his sons, all holding sceptres or spears
high in their left hands, and all in military dress. The
coin provides unparalleled details, such as the double
capricorn at the temple’s apex, the Victories driving
56 Kienast 1996, 162-165; Weiser 1983, 132-133.
57 Paris 1368; J. Nollé 1998, 345-347.
58 Corsten 1996 = Köln, with coin number.
 chapter
chariots as side akroteria, and further elements of
sculpture in the pediment. Several of these elements,
such as the capricorns and Victories, may have been
intended to echo the earlier temple of Rome and
Augustus.
Other, less detailed, coins agree that the temple
was Corinthian, at least eight-columned, and with
an entablature that sloped out as it went up, form-
ing an overhang:
COIN TYPE 16. Obv: L %EPTIMI GETA%
KAI%(AR, c) Draped cuirassed bust of Geta Cae-
sar r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN
Eight-column (Corinthian, a) temple with out-
sloping entablature on three-step podium (in pe-
diment, two figures holding a shield, a; star, be).
a) London 1961.3-1-123 (illus. pl. 28 fig. 118) b)
London 1975.4-11-81 c) SNGCop 573 d) SNGvA
776 e) New York, Newell.
COIN TYPE 17. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRON
PER %(E, a) Laureate head of Septimius Severus
r. Rev: NEIKOMH DI% NEVK Eight-column
temple with outsloping entablature on four-step
podium, in the pediment a figure with sceptre. a)
Berlin 5206 JF (illus. pl. 28 fig. 119) b) New York
55.59.
COIN TYPE 18. Obv: AU(T, ab ) (K, ceghijl-
mnpqrs) L %EP(TI, abc) %EUHRO% (P, abcfhp;
PE gmn) (%, fhp; %E, d) Radiate (laureate, iloqrs)
head (cuirassed bust, fhjklns) of Septimius Severus
r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Eight-
column temple with outsloping entablature on
three-step podium. a) BMC 40 b) BMC 41 c) Paris
1361 d) Paris 1362 e) Paris 1363 f) Paris 1364 g)
Paris 1365 h) SNGvA 767 i) SNGvA 768 j) Vienna
15793 k) Vienna 15794 l) Vienna 15795 m) Ber-
lin, Löbbecke n) Berlin, Löbbecke o) Berlin 8160
JF p) New York, Newell q) New York, Newell r)
New York, Newell s) Köln 58.
COIN TYPE 19. Obv: IOULIA DOMNA %E(BA,
acg) Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev:
NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Eight-column
temple with outsloping entablature on three-step
podium. a) London 1970.9-9-45 b) London 1910.
6-11-11 c) Paris 1373 d) Paris 1374 e) Vienna
15796 f) Warsaw 58652 g) New York, Holzer.
15 – nikomedia 155
COIN TYPE 20. Obv: (AUTOK, b) M AUR
ANTVNEINO% AUGO(U%TO%, bcd) Laureate
(radiate, d) draped cuirassed bust (head, c) of Ca-
racalla r. (youthful, b; mature, acd) Rev: NIKO-
MHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Eight-column temple
on podium (cross in pediment, d). a) Paris 1396
b) Paris 1397 c) SNGvA 774 d) Berlin, Fox.
These single-temple types are reminiscent of the
abortive second temple for Commodus, an octastyle
which had a similar overhanging entablature (type
11, above). Probably, then, the temple originally
dedicated to Commodus recovered its provincial
status and was rededicated to the cult of Septimius
Severus (with his sons); Commodus himself, reha-
bilitated as the ‘brother’ of Severus, may have been
moved into a secondary role, though Nikomedia had
little reason to be grateful to him.
The coins do not agree, however, on the temple’s
pedimental sculpture; type 15 may show an eagle
between griffins, type 16 two Victories(?) holding
either a shield between them or a simple star, while
types 17 and perhaps 20 show what is meant to be
a figure, perhaps with a sceptre. Of course, there is
more room for sculpture on a real pediment than a
numismatic one, and some of these depictions may
reflect some aspect of reality; but it is possible that
some were merely numismatic shorthand for ‘pedi-
mental sculpture.’
The rest of the Severan twice-neokoros coinage
also echoes the short-lived issues for the second
neokoria under Commodus: the two temples are
shown above a galley (type 21), flanking the city’s
patron goddess Demeter (type 22), or in the hands
of the seated city goddess, the personification of
Nikomedia twice neokoros (type 23):
COIN TYPE 21. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO%
[P %] Radiate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev:
NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eight-col-
umn temples, a galley below. a) Berlin 703/1878
(illus. pl. 28 fig. 120).
COIN TYPE 22. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO%
P % Radiate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev:
NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Demeter be-
tween two eight-column temples. a) Paris 1357
(illus. pl. 28 fig. 121).
COIN TYPE 23. Obv: IOULIA AUGOU%TA
Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: 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
1370.
The coins also celebrate ‘great Severeia,’ a contest
presumably in honor of the emperor and the new
temple:
COIN TYPE 24. Obv: AU K L %EPTI %EUHRO%
P Radiate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev:
NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN; %EUHRIA
MEGALA Two prize crowns with palms on ago-
nistic table. a) Berlin, von Rauch (illus. pl. 28 fig.
122).
But even the abject Nikaians were eventually allowed
to celebrate Severeia of their own.60
Celebration of the now-secure double neokoria
never quite abated, and further coin types were soon
introduced to express it. The city’s patron Demeter,
previously shown standing between the two temples
(type 8, now type 22), now also takes the role of the
city goddess and holds the two temples, or is shown
on a high column between them:
COIN TYPE 25. Obv: ANTVNINO% (ANTVNEI-
NO%, b) AUGOU%TO% Laureate head (draped
cuirassed bust, b) of Caracalla r. Rev: NIKO-
MHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Seated Demeter hold-
ing two eight-column temples.61 a) Paris 1381 b)
Vienna 15808.
COIN TYPE 26. Obv: AUT K P %EP GETA%
AUGOU Laureate head of Geta Augustus r. Rev:
NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two six-column
temples turned toward each other, between them
a figure of Demeter atop a tall column. a) Paris
1401 (illus. pl. 28 fig. 123) b) New York, Ne-
well.
This last type was probably inspired by coins of
Pergamon under Marcus Aurelius (q.v.) that had
shown that city’s two provincial imperial temples on
either side of a tall column with a male figure atop
it. As at Pergamon, the Nikomedian coin cannot be
59 Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.3.
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
made for both festival and temple; the one did not necessarily
follow from the other. See chapter 40, ‘The Cities.’
61 Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.4.
taken to represent exact topographic reality, though
a columnar monument to Demeter is by no means
impossible at Nikomedia.
Third Neokoria: Elagabalus
Nikomedia obtained a third neokoria soon afterward
by a grant from Elagabalus. Of all the neokoroi
made by that emperor, Nikomedia is the only one
to have a well-documented relationship with him,
as he wintered there in the first months of his reign.62
Cassius Dio’s account is the most circumstantial, as
he was in the area at the time, though it is also quite
prejudiced against the emperor. There was a revolt
in the fleet nearby, at Kyzikos, during that winter.
Gannys, who had commanded Elagabalus’ troops
and had even been treated as a possible co-ruler, was
murdered at Nikomedia, allegedly by the emperor’s
own hand, since none of the soldiers had the cour-
age to begin the attack. This is the first and last we
hear of Elagabalus’ martial prowess; Herodian states
that he spent most of his time in Nikomedia more
peacefully, wearing the outrageous eastern vestments
of his priesthood and enacting the rituals of his god,
while the Historia Augusta only records a winter of
debauchery.63
The coins of Nikomedia proclaim that city three
times neokoros as early as 220 C.E., the year of
Elagabalus’ marriage to the first of his wives, Julia
Paula (type 27).64 It is not unexpected that the
emperor should promptly reward his host city with
honors and titles. The coin reverses make it clear,
however, that the temple of the third neokoria,
shown between schematic representations of the
temple of Rome and Augustus and that of Septimius
Severus, was in fact the city’s temple of Demeter,
as the goddess herself often stands within it.
COIN TYPE 27. Obv: IOULIA KOR PAULA AUG
Draped bust of Julia Paula r. Rev: TRI%
NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN Three temples, the
center one facing, the others four-column and
turned toward it. a) BMC 56 b) New York,
1944.100.42315 (illus. pl. 28 fig. 124).
62 Cassius Dio, ep. 80.3.1, 6.1, 7.3-4; Bowersock 1975;
Halfmann 1986a, 231; Lehnen 1997, 143.
63 Herodian 5.5.3-4; Historia Augusta, Heliogabalus 5.1.
64 Kienast 1996, 172-174.
 chapter
COIN TYPE 28. Obv: M AURH ANTVNEINO%
(ANTVNINO%, c) AUG(OU, bc) Laureate draped
cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: TRI% NEV-
KORVN NIKOMHDEVN; (DHMHTRIA, ac) Three
temples, center one six-column, facing (Demeter
within, bc), the others (six-column, ac; four-col-
umn, b) turned toward it. a) Paris 1406 b) Vienna
15817 c) Berlin, Bonnet (illus. pl. 29 fig. 125).
COIN TYPE 29. Obv: M AURH ANTVNEINO%
AUGOU Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elaga-
balus r. Rev: TRI% NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN;
ANTVNIA; DH[MHTRI]A written across prize
crown with palms. a) Vienna 15815 (illus. pl. 29
fig. 126).
COIN TYPE 30. Obv: M AURH ANTVNINO%
AUGOUTO% (sic) Laureate draped cuirassed bust
of Elagabalus r. Rev: TRI% NEVKORVN NIKO-
MHDEVN; PU[YI]A Three prize crowns with
palms. a) Vienna 15816.
Demeter was Nikomedia’s patron and had already
appeared in connection with the twice-neoko-
ros city’s two temples. On the coin types discussed
above, however, she is more than just the city’s re-
presentative and chief goddess: she stands within her
temple, which appears and is counted for the first
time towards the number of Nikomedia’s neokoriai.
Yet Nikomedia never called itself ‘neokoros of De-
meter,’ and as we shall see, the third neokoria would
lapse after Elagabalus’ death, just as would be ex-
pected if it were for the emperor; a neokoria for the
goddess would probably not have been affected by
the fall of the emperor who had granted it.
The most likely explanation is that Elagabalus had
become cult partner in an extant temple in the neo-
koros city. There was good precedent for cult sharing
in Nikomedia, where Augustus’ temple also included
the goddess Rome and other personification(s) of the
Roman state. The cult of Caracalla had recently
joined resident divinities in older temples at Per-
gamon and at Smyrna (qq.v.). There, however,
Caracalla had loaded the province with imperial
temples; whereas this temple is the only one known
for Elagabalus in Bithynia. But we may note that
Elagabalus probably also shared an older temple in
Philippopolis in Thrace (q.v.), another city at which
he stopped on his way to Rome, and which he made
neokoros. Again, the temple chosen was that of the
city’s patron deity, in that case Apollo’s.
15 – nikomedia 157
One possible reason for the temple sharing is
economic. Some years before, Nikomedia had borne
Caracalla’s winter visit, and Caracalla was notori-
ous for his high expectations of cities granted the
honor of entertaining him; then the city had to
entertain Elagabalus at similar length, and no doubt
at similar expense.65 There would have been little
to spare in the city’s budget for building a new
temple. One may also wonder whether the other
cities in the koinon, among them a still hostile
Nikaia, would have been generous in funding a third
provincial temple in Nikomedia when no other city
in the Bithynian koinon had one.
Parallel to the economic motive is a religious one.
Of all that is said about Elagabalus, the sources are
unanimous in accenting his religious fervor toward
the black stone that represented his god.66 All also
refer to his plans to wed the god to prominent god-
desses, such as Urania (Dea Caelestis) of Carthage,
or even the Palladium, sacred image of Athena,
when he finally arrived in Rome. Louis Robert
suggested that he had been doing the same all along
his route from Antioch.67 This may well have been,
and if so would add another reason to honor these
particular cities. But again, despite the confusion in
modern nomenclature, we must hold to the fact that
Nikomedia was neokoros not of the Emesene baetyl
but of the emperor. If the emperor did marry his
god to Demeter, it was he, not his god, who moved
in with her.
The Nikomedian coins that proclaim the third
neokoria also record contests: one is the Demetria,
whose fuller title is the Demetria Antonia or Antonia
Demetria (types 28, 29). This was a festival for the
‘new’ temple’s cult partners, and the use of the
emperor’s proper name confirms that the cult is the
emperor’s, not the Emesene god’s.68 Type 30 com-
memorates three festivals, only one of which, the
Pythia, is mentioned. Though the number of contests
and neokoriai is the same, there is not enough in-
formation to affirm that these are specifically the
three temples’ festivals.
65
Cassius Dio 78.9.5-7; Millar 1977, 31-36; Lehnen 1997,
88, 93-95, 182; Ameling 1984, 137-138.
66 Herodian 5.3.5, confirmed by coins: M. Price and Trell
1977, 167-170.
67 Cassius Dio 80.12; Herodian 5.6.3-5; Historia Augusta,
Heliogabalus 6.8-9; L. Robert 1964, 79-82; 1967, 57-58 n. 8.
68 L. Robert 1976, 53-54. S. Mitchell 1993, 1:220-221 is
in error in this regard.
158 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia
Withdrawn: Severus Alexander
Nikomedia continued to issue similar coins under
Severus Alexander; perhaps one quarter of his
known types still boast the third neokoria, while the
rest go down to twice neokoros. This shows that the
condemnation of Elagabalus’ memory eventually
had its effect, nullifying neokoriai granted for that
emperor’s cult.69 All the coins issued for Julia Ma-
maea that claim neokoria only mention two.
COIN TYPE 31. Obv: M AURH %EUH ALEJ-
ANDRO% AU Radiate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander r., boyish. Rev: TRI%
NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN Three temples, two
below four-column, turned toward one another,
the one above six-column, facing, Demeter within.
a) London 1970.9-9-46 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 127).
COIN TYPE 32. Obv: M AUR %EUH ALEJ-
ANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI%
NEVKORVN City goddess holding two six-column
temples.70 a) Paris 1418 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 128) b)
SNGCop 574.
The number of temples shown in the coin types
echoes the enumeration of the title; though single
temple types continue to appear, the building on
those coins is not specifically identified. It is diffi-
cult to date the turning point from three back to two,
but only the coins that call Nikomedia twice
neokoros include martial types such as the emperor
on horseback brandishing a spear, or military stan-
dards:
COIN TYPE 33. Obv: M AUR %EUH ALEJ-
ANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI%
NEVKORVN Cuirassed emperor rides horse r. a)
Paris 1419.
COIN TYPE 34. Obv: IOULIA MAMAIA AUG
Diademed draped bust of Julia Mamaea r. Rev:
NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Cuirassed em-
peror with spear rides horse r. a) London 1970.9-
9-48 b) SNGvA 786.
Severus Alexander is not known to have fought a
war until 231, when he traveled from Rome to the
69 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417.
70 Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.5.
East to face Ardashir, king of the new Sassanid
Persian empire.71 Thus so far as is known, the loss
of Nikomedia’s third neokoria probably antedates
the war, or at least the coinage issued in prepara-
tion for that war.72 There appears to have been little
shame attached to the loss, if the subsequent coin
types are to be trusted as indicators: ‘neokoros’ re-
mained the most popular title on coins, and types
of the two temples, in many variations, were com-
mon. Even the Severan type 26, showing Demeter
on a tall column between the two temples, was
brought back (below, type 45), either to recall
Demeter’s role in the lost third neokoria, or simply
because it was an effective design.
COIN TYPE 35. Obv: G IOU OUH MAJIMEINO%
AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Maximinus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKO-
RVN City goddess holding two temples.73 a) Paris
1429 b) Vienna 33827 c) Köln 74.
COIN TYPE 36. Obv: [G IO]U OUH MAJI-
MEINO% [AUG] Laureate draped cuirassed bust
of Maximinus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI%
N[EVKOR]VN Seated city goddess holding two
temples, one six-, one seven-column. a) Köln 75.
COIN TYPE 37. Obv: G IOU OUH MAJIMO% K
Draped bust of Maximus Caesar r. Rev:
NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Demeter hold-
ing two temples, one six-, one seven-column. a)
New York 71.279 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 129).
COIN TYPE 38. Obv: G IOU OUH MAJIMO%
K(AI%, a) Draped bust of Maximus Caesar r. Rev:
DI% NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN Two six-column
temples turned toward each other. a) SNGvA 798
b) SNGvA 799.
COIN TYPE 39. Obv: G IOU OUH MAJIMO% K
Draped cuirassed bust of Maximus Caesar r. Rev:
NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eight-col-
umn temples, below them a galley. a) London
1901.6-1-32 b) Paris 1439.
COIN TYPE 40. Obv: AUTOK K M KLVD POU-
PIHNO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Pupienus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN
Seated city goddess holding two six-column
temples. a) SNGvA 807 b) SNGvA 808.
71 Halfmann 1986a, 231-232.
72 Ziegler 1993b, 71-82.
73 Pick 1904, 8 no. 3.6.
 chapter
COIN TYPE 41. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% (KA,
bc; AU, a) (Radiate, a) draped cuirassed bust of
Gordian III r. Rev: DI% NEVKORVN NIKO-
MHDEVN City goddess holding two temples
stands opposite seated goddess Rome.74 a) Lon-
don 1970.9-9-49 b) SNGvA 810 c) Berlin 8404 JF.
COIN TYPE 42. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% AUG
Radiate cuirassed bust of Gordian III r. Rev:
NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORV City goddess hold-
ing two temples, one five-, the other six-column.
a) Oxford 1953 b) SNGvA 815 c) Köln 99 d) Köln
100.
COIN TYPE 43. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% AUG
Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III r.
Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Seated city
goddess holding two six-column temples. a) SNGvA
814.
COIN TYPE 44. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% AUG
Laureate (radiate, d) draped cuirassed bust of
Gordian III r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKO-
RV Two six-column temples. a) Vienna 15846 b)
Köln 110 c) Köln 111 d) Köln 112.
COIN TYPE 45. Obv: M IOULIO% FILIPPO%
AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Philip r.
Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eight-
column temples, disc in each pediment, a tall
column between them (Demeter on it?). a) Köln
121 (worn).
COIN TYPE 46. Obv: M IOULIO% FILIPPO%
AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Philip r.
Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eight-
column temples, disc in each pediment. a) SNGvA
834 b) New York 71.279 c) Köln 122.
COIN TYPE 47. Obv: M OTAKILAIA %EUHRA
AU Draped bust of Otacilia r. Rev: NIKO-
MHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN City goddess holding
two six-column temples. a) Köln 131 a) Köln
132.
COIN TYPE 48. Obv: AU KA TRAIAN DEKIO%
AU %E Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Trajan
Decius r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN;
G City goddess holding two six-column temples.
a) Köln 155.
74 Pick 1904, 8 no. 3.7.
15 – nikomedia 159
COIN TYPE 49. Obv: AU KA TRAIAN DEKIO%
AU %E Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Trajan
Decius r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN;
G City goddess seated on rock holding two six-col-
umn temples.75 a) Köln 15476 b) Köln 153.
Third Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus
Nonetheless the return of the third neokoria must
have been welcome. Judging from the following
types, it was granted by Valerian and Gallienus
when Gallienus’ son Valerianus was associated with
them as Caesar, from 255 to the boy’s death in
258.77 In celebration of the third neokoria, coin types
veered from glorifying the emperors’ martial prow-
ess (as they did during the second neokoria) to fo-
cusing on the city and its renewed honor.
COIN TYPE 50. Obv: AUT OUALERIANO%
GALLHNO% OUALERIANO% (KAI%A, dnq; KAI%,
low; K, cj) (%EBBB, bcdefghijlmoqrsw) Laureate
(radiate, dloqrw) draped cuirassed busts of Vale-
rian and Gallienus turned toward one another;
below, (laureate, l) draped cuirassed bust of
Valerianus, r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKO-
RVN (NEKORVN, ow) Three temples, lower two
six-column (four, enpsv; two, ak) turned toward
one another, center one six-column (two, ak),
Demeter within; a snake-entwined altar in their
midst. a) Boston 62.315 b) London 1961.3-1-128
c) BMC 68 d) BMC 69 e) BMC 70 f) Oxford Christ
Church 827 g) Paris 1466 h) Paris 1467 i) Paris
1468 j) SNGCop 582 k) SNGvA 859 l) SNGvA 860
m) Vienna 15851 n) Vienna 34453 (illus. pl. 29
fig. 130) o) Vienna 15852 p) Berlin 316/1922 q)
Berlin, Löbbecke r) Berlin, von Rauch s) New
York, Newell t) New York 42.148 u) SNGvA 7141
v) SNGTüb 2146 w) SNGTüb 2147.
COIN TYPE 51. Obv: PO LIK OUALERIANO%
AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Valerian
r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% NEVKORVN Three
temples, center one six-column, Demeter on its
apex, side two four-column and turned toward
75
Pick 1904, 8 no. 3.8.
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
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
to crown Demeter. a) Oxford 11-7-1938 (illus. pl.
29 fig. 131) b) New York 71.279 c) SNGvA 7139
d) Köln 180.78
COIN TYPE 52. Obv: PO LI EGN GALLHNO%
AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus
r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% NEVKORVN Three
temples, center one six-column, Demeter on its
apex, side two turned toward one another, Vic-
tories on their apices reaching out to crown
Demeter. a) London 1975.4-11-86 b) SNGvA 7148
c) Köln 199 d) Köln 200 e) Köln 201 f) Köln 202.
COIN TYPE 53. Obv: PO LIK EGN GALLHNO%
AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus
r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% NEVKORVN Three
temples, two below turned toward one another,
center one eight-column, Demeter within. a)
SNGvA 7147.
COIN TYPE 54. Obv: AUT OUALERIANO% GAL-
LHNO% %EBB Radiate draped cuirassed busts of
Valerian and Gallienus turned toward one an-
other. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% NEVKORVN
Three temples, center one six-column, a figure
within, side two turned toward one another; be-
low, a galley. a) London 1970.9-9-51 b) Paris 1465
c) SNGvA 858 d) Warsaw 58660 e) Berlin, von
Rauch f) New York, Newell.
The third temple for which Nikomedia was neokoros
was again that of the city’s patron Demeter, again
probably for reasons of expense as much as for rea-
sons of cult. The three temples are grouped together
but hers, the ‘newest,’ is paramount, always above
or between the other two. The goddess identifies her
temple by standing within (types 50, 53) or on its
peak, where she is crowned by Victories that perch
on the other two temples (types 51, 52). These re-
call the fact that Victories did feature as akroteria
on coin images of both imperial temples, though in
different poses. One novelty on these coin types is
a snake-entwined altar that occasionally appears in
the temples’ midst (type 50).79 The altar is most likely
that of Demeter’s temple, at which sacrifices and
78 Corsten 1996, no. 180, but central figure misidentified
as emperor.
79 Weiser 1983, 368 pl. 34 fig. 9-10, a coin from a Ger-
man private collection, also seems to depict a bow to the right
of the altar.
ceremonies for the imperial cult as well as for
Demeter herself would now take place. Bosch, how-
ever, took the numismatic grouping of all the temples
that made the city neokoros to represent topographi-
cal reality. He conflated these coins with the ear-
lier type 26, which shows a column bearing a statue
of Demeter between the two imperial temples.80 The
resulting design, huge temples on three sides facing
into a square forum which contains a central col-
umn and the round altar, has no precedent in
Roman imperial architectural tradition. Coins that
group the temples that made a city neokoros are not
meant to convey topographical reality but only the
city’s pride in its neokoriai. More solid evidence for
Nikomedia’s third neokoria and temple to Demeter
may be the 1897 description of a large, six-columned
building found by the expedition of Pogodin and
Wulff; nearby was a dedication to Demeter on a
fragment of column.81 But column fragments are
movable, and a dedication to Demeter would not
be out of place anywhere in Nikomedia.
The coin type of a patron goddess holding two
temples had been popular at Nikomedia since its
(unfortunate) second neokoria from Commodus. The
addition of a temple for the third neokoria, however,
created a problem for a goddess with only two hands.
This was solved by putting the third temple on her
head:
COIN TYPE 55. Obv: PO LIK OUALERIANO%
AU Radiate cuirassed bust of Valerian l. with
spear and shield. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI%
NEVKORVN Seated city goddess with a six-col-
umn temple in each hand and one on her head.
a) SNGvA 7138.
COIN TYPE 56. Obv: PO LI EGN GALLHNO%
AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus
r. (youthful, cde) Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI%
NEVKORVN Seated city goddess with a six-col-
umn temple in each hand and one on her head.
a) London 1961.3-1-131 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 132) b)
Berlin 90/1933 c) SNGvA 7145 d) SNGvA 7146 e)
Köln 196 f) Köln 197 g) Köln 198.
Nikomedia’s coinage came to an end soon after its
third neokoria had been granted, as did almost all
civic coinage. The city was one of the prime targets
of the Goths on their march through Bithynia, prob-
80 C. Bosch 1935, 214-218.
81 Ibid., 218 nn. 48, 49.
 chapter
ably in 258.82 Though the Nikomedians fled before
the attack, the Goths found plenty of loot in the city,
and on their return journey they burned both it and
its old rival Nikaia. The city persevered even after,
but we hear no more of its neokoria.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
1. CIG 1720. Agonistic inscription from Delphi, reign
of Commodus. See text above.
Twice neokoros:
2. CIG 3771 (IGRR 3:6; TAM 4.1.25). Altar for Julia
Domna, erected after 197 under Septimius Severus,
as there are plural Augusti and her title is simply
‘mother of the armies.’ That date was accepted for
the careers of the officials mentioned, M. Claudius
Demetrios (PIR2 C 846; Thomasson 1984, 250 no.
49) and Caesernius Statianus (PIR2 C 179). TAM
wrongly dated the altar to the Empress’ stay in the
city in 214/215; but that was during Caracalla’s sole
rule and the mention of ‘Augusti’ would not have
been tolerated.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Antoninus Pius: BMC 15, 17; SNGCop 552, 555; SNGvA
749, 751; SNGRighetti 659; Berlin (2 exx.), London,
Oxford (2 exx.), Paris, Vienna, Warsaw.
Marcus Aurelius: BMC 19, 20; SNGCop 557; SNGvA 754-
757, 759, 760, 7104; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston, Lon-
don (3 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Paris (11 exx.),
Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw.
Faustina the Younger: BMC 22, 26-28, 31, 35, 37;
SNGCop 560, 566, 567; SNGvA 762-765, 7105; Ber-
lin (10 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (3 exx.), New
York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (16 exx.), Vienna (5
exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.).
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus: SNGCop 561; Berlin,
New York, Paris, Vienna (2 exx.).
Lucius Verus: BMC 24; Paris (2 exx.); Weiser 1989, 61
no. 22.
Commodus Caesar: BMC 26-28, 31, 35, 37; SNGCop 565-
567; SNGvA 765.
Twice neokoros:
Commodus: BMC 25, 34; SNGvA 7106; Berlin (4 exx.),
London (2 ex.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (1 ex.)
Neokoros:
82
Zosimus 1.35; Syncellus 716; Historia Augusta, Gallienus 4
(misplaced). See Salamon 1971, 121-123.
15 – nikomedia 161
Commodus: BMC 29, 30, 33, 36; SNGCop 568; SNGvA
766, 7103, 7107; Berlin (9 exx.), Boston, London (1
ex.), New York (3 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (4
exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.).
Twice neokoros:
Septimius Severus: BMC 38-43; SNGCop 569; SNGvA 767-
769; Köln 58; Berlin (8 exx.), London, New York (5
exx.), Oxford, Paris (12 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.),
Warsaw.
Julia Domna: SNGvA 770, 771; Köln 59; Berlin (4 exx.),
Boston, London (2 exx.), New York, Paris (6 exx.),
Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw.
Caracalla Caesar: BMC 51, 53.
Caracalla Augustus: BMC 44-50, 52; SNGCop 571; SNGvA
772-775, 7108-7110; Köln 60, 61; Berlin (11 exx.),
Boston, London, New York (4 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.),
Paris (24 exx.), Vienna (14 exx.), Warsaw.
Plautilla: SNGCop 572; Berlin, London, New York, Paris,
Vienna.
Geta Caesar: BMC 54; SNGCop 573; SNGvA 776; Berlin
(2 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York, Paris, Vienna.
Geta Augustus: Köln 62; Berlin, New York, Paris.
Macrinus: BMC 55; SNGvA 777, 7111; Berlin, London
(2 exx.), Oxford, Paris, Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw.
Diadumenian: Vienna (2 exx.).
Three times neokoros:
Elagabalus: SNGvA 778; Berlin (3 exx.), London, Oxford,
Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.).
Julia Paula: BMC 56; New York.
Severus Alexander: SNGCop 578; SNGvA 779, 780; Köln
64, 65; Ireland 2000, no. 1639; Berlin (4 exx.),
London (3 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (9 exx.).
Twice neokoros:
Severus Alexander: BMC 57-59; SNGCop 574-577; SNGvA
781-785, 7113, 7114; Köln 66-68; Berlin (14 exx.),
London (6 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris
(14 exx.), Vienna (15 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.).
Julia Mamaea: SNGvA 786, 787; Berlin, Boston, London,
Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw.
Maximinus: BMC 60; SNGvA 788-796; SNGRighetti 661;
Köln 69-78; Berlin (4 exx.), London (2 exx.), New
York (3 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), War-
saw (3 exx.).
Maximus Caesar: BMC 61, 62; SNGvA 797-805, 7115,
7116; SNGRighetti 662, 663; Köln 79-87; Berlin (2
exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.),
Oxford, Paris (6 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw.
Balbinus: SNGvA 7117; London.
Pupienus: SNGvA 806-809; Berlin, Paris.
Gordian III: BMC 63; SNGvA 810-826, 7118-7121;
SNGRighetti 664; Köln 88-113; Berlin (7 exx.), Boston
(3 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (4 exx.), Ox-
ford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw.
Tranquillina: BMC 64; SNGvA 827, 828, 7122; Köln 114,
115; Berlin, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna.
Philip: SNGvA 829-834, 7123; Köln 116-123; Berlin, New
York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris.
Otacilia: SNGCop 580; SNGvA 846, 847, 7124; Köln 127-
135; New York, Oxford, Paris.
Philip II Caesar: SNGCop 579; SNGvA 835-845, 7125;
162 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia
SNGRighetti 665; Köln 136-146; Berlin (2 exx.), Bos-
ton, London (3 exx.), New York (6 exx.), Paris (2
exx.), Vienna.
Philip II Augustus?: Köln 124, 125.83
Trajan Decius: BMC 65; SNGvA 848-852, 7126-7130;
SNGRighetti 666; Köln 147-159; Berlin (3 exx.), Lon-
don, New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (6 exx.),
Vienna.
Etruscilla: SNGvA 853, 854; Köln 160, 161; Berlin.
Herennius Etruscus: Köln 162; Berlin.
Hostilian: SNGvA 7131; Köln 163.
Trebonianus Gallus: SNGvA 855, 856, 7132-7134;
SNGRighetti 667-669; Köln 164-172;84 Berlin (3 exx.),
London, New York (4 exx.), Paris (4 exx.).
83 Weiser 1983, 335 pl. 25 figs. 3-4. Despite Weiser’s 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.
Volusian: BMC 66; Berlin.
Valerian: BMC 67; SNGvA 7135-7137; Köln 173-179;
Boston, New York.
Gallienus: SNGvA 7142-7144; Köln 185-193; Berlin (3
exx.), London, New York, Paris (2 exx.).
Three times neokoros:
Valerian: SNGvA 7138-7140; Köln 180-183; Berlin, New York
(2 exx.), Oxford, Paris.
Valerian, Gallienus, Valerianus Caesar: BMC 68-72; SNGCop
582; SNGvA 859, 860, 7141; SNGLewis 1233; SNGRighetti
670; Köln 184; Berlin (5 exx.), London, New York (4 exx.),
Oxford, Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.).
Valerian and Gallienus: SNGvA 858; Berlin, London, New York,
Paris, Warsaw.
Gallienus: SNGvA 7145-7149; Köln 194-209;85 Berlin (2 exx.),
London (3 exx.), Paris (2 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw.
Salonina: BMC 73; SNGvA 861-866, 7150; Berlin (2 exx.), New
York, Paris (4 exx), Vienna, Warsaw.
85 Weiser 1983, 358 pl. 31 figs. 9-10, 361 pl. 32 figs. 7-8.
 chapter
Chapter 16. Nikaia: Koinon of Bithynia
Nikaia is perhaps best known as Nikomedia’s rival
for primacy of Bithynia. Nikaia’s star rose for a while
when Nikomedia’s sank after the Mithridatic wars,
but though Nikaia had older and more mythic ori-
gins, Nikomedia had more vital advantages, most
important of which was its harbor.1 Nikomedia, as
center of pre-Roman administration, became the
koinon center, but there is no document that assures
which city was the primary seat of the governor.2
Although Nikaia had the disadvantage of being
inland and lacking a port, Cassius Dio, a native of
the city, ranked it above Nikomedia, at least in
writing of events in 29 B.C.E. At that time, Augus-
tus gave Nikaia the privilege of building a temple
to Rome and the hero Julius (Caesar), which was to
be for the use of Romans resident in the province,
indicating that there were some.3 In Asia, which
received the same cults at the same time that
Bithynia did, Ephesos received the cult of Rome and
Caesar, whereas Pergamon became the center of the
koinon’s cult and received the temple where the
provincials were to worship the living emperor
Augustus. Ephesos, like Nikaia, was classed by Dio
as foremost in its province, but was also the assured
seat of the governor and a major port; Pergamon,
like Nikomedia, had been the center of Hellenistic
rule.
First Neokoria: Hadrian
In the early second century Dio Chrysostomos be-
rated the Nikomedians for quarreling with the Ni-
kaians over empty honors, such as who would walk
first in provincial processions, and whether one or
the other should have exclusive title to be ‘metro-
1 Guinea Díaz 1997, 323-335.
2 Haensch 1997, 282-290.
3 Cassius Dio 51.20.6-7, a passage examined in fuller de-
tail in chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ and chapter 15, ‘Nikomedia.’ For
cults of Rome and Caesar, see Whittaker 1996, 93-99.
16 – nikaia 163
polis’ or ‘first’ of the province.4 Around 120 C.E.
both cities suffered a devastating earthquake, after
which many of their civic structures had to be re-
built.5 Hadrian appears to have visited the area on
his tour of 123-124, perhaps soon after passing
through Armenia Minor (see Nikopolis); he assist-
ed both Nikaia and Nikomedia.6 Nikomedia added
the epithet ‘Hadrianic’ to its titulature to express its
gratitude (see Nikomedia inscription 1); it probably
had already received the title ‘neokoros’ from its
long-standing temple of Rome and Augustus, though
the title itself is not documented there until the time
of Antoninus Pius. But until recently it was not
known whether Nikaia was able to do anything sim-
ilar. Then when late walling around the city’s east-
ern gate (the Lefke Kapi) was cleared away, a long-
known dedication to Hadrian on both sides of its
architrave was revealed to have once proclaimed
Nikaia as neokoros of the Augusti:
INSCRIPTION 1. ”ahin 1979, no. 29 (also re-
stored on no. 30, other side of gate, and no. 30a,
on northern gate, Istanbul Kapi) (= ”ahin 1978,
1.5). AÈtokrãtori Ka¤sari yeoË TraianoË Par-
yikoË u|“ yeoË NeroÊa u|vn“ Traian“ ÑAd[ria]-
n“ Sebast“ dhmarxik}w §jous¤aw { eÈsebestãth
_nev[kÒ]row [t«]n Sebast«n´ épÚ DionÊsou [ka‹
ÑHrakl°]ouw _[pr]\[t]h [Bi]yun[¤a]w ka‹ PÒntou
{ mh[tr]Ò[p]oliw d¢ ka[tå tå kr¤mata] t«[n
aÈ]to[kr]a[t]Òr[vn ka‹] t}w |erçw s[u]nklÆtou´
”ahin attributed the newly discovered neokoria to
Nikaia’s temple to Rome and the deified Julius Cae-
sar, established, like Nikomedia’s temple to (Rome
and) Augustus, in 29 B.C.E.7 But the parallel evi-
4 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38, ‘To the Nikomedians, on
Concord with the Nikaians.’ See Swain 1996, 219-225; C. Jones
1978, 83-89.
5 Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 233-234 no.
112, though this conflates several earthquakes in the area in
the 120s C.E.
6 Halfmann 1986a, 190-191, 198-199; Birley 1997, 157.
7 ”ahin 1978, 22-25, followed by Merkelbach 1987.
164 part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia
dence of Ephesos (q.v.), which got a temple to the
same cults at the same time as Nikaia, but only fi-
nally became neokoros for a later (Flavian) temple
of the Augusti, rules it out. As noted above, the
temples for Rome and the hero Julius were desig-
nated by Augustus as being for resident Romans, and
so had no status within the koina of the provinces
which housed them. True provincial imperial
temples were maintained by the koina, like those for
Rome and Augustus at Pergamon and Nikomedia
administered by the koina of Asia and Bithynia re-
spectively, and it was only these that later gained
Pergamon and Nikomedia the title ‘neokoroi.’ Nikaia
at that time had no such koinon temple.8
We have no record of Bithynia requesting or
receiving permission for further koinon temples or
cult from 29 B.C.E. up to the reign of Hadrian.
Where Asia had had at least five imperial temples
in various cities, Bithynia seems to have had only
the one at Nikomedia. Nikaia had given pentaeteric
Koina from the reign of Nero on, but this does not
necessarily imply the presence of a provincial tem-
ple.9 The absence of the word ‘neokoros’ on Nikaia’s
earlier, Flavian gate inscriptions only hints that the
title had not been awarded by the time of its engrav-
ing; but any mention of the title as early as the
Flavian period was rare.10
Hadrian came to earthquake-stricken Nikaia and
gave it new civic structures: colonnaded streets, an
agora, and city walls.11 In honor of his assistance and
his visit, the Flavian gates of the city were rededi-
cated to him. In view of these other benefactions,
it is possible that he made Nikaia neokoros as well.
This would have brought Nikaia onto a par with
neokoros Nikomedia, an action that would have
been most welcome to the Nikaians and not incon-
sistent with what had been done in Asia. It would
also have been consistent with what Hadrian was
about to do: grant the neokoria to Kyzikos (also a
victim of earthquake), Smyrna, and Ephesos, all in
the same province of Asia. Still, no corroborative
evidence for Hadrian doing anything similar in
Bithynia has been found on inscriptions or on coins
8 Guinea Díaz 1997, 225-228.
9 Deininger 1965, 61. Note Karl 1975, 24-26, with sev-
eral errors (e.g. Nikomedia, not Nikaia, received the first temple
of Rome and Augustus).
10 ”ahin 1979, nos. 25-28; J. and L. Robert in Revue des études
grecques 92 (1979) 511 n. 541; S. Price 1984b, 76-77, also 266.
11 Schorndorfer 1997, 141-143; Winter 1996, 90-91, 101.
(indeed no Nikaian issues are known from this pe-
riod).12
Inscription 1 specifies that Nikaia held such titles
as ‘neokoros of the Augusti,’ ‘first of Bithynia and
Pontus,’ and ‘metropolis, according to judgments of
the emperors and of the Roman Senate.’13 The use
of the term ‘neokoros of the Augusti’ confirms ear-
lier evidence from Ephesos, Beroia, and elsewhere
that provincial temples were built to honor the cult
of plural emperors, not just that of their grantor
specifically (see the summary chapter 42, ‘The
Roman Powers,’ in Part II).
The mention of the Senate’s part in judgments
regarding the status of the city confirms the earlier
account in Tacitus’ Annals 4.55-56, where Tiberius
sat in the Senate and let it debate which city in Asia
(eventually Smyrna, q.v.) should house his temple.
By the reign of Hadrian, imperial legates rather than
senatorial proconsuls sometimes had primary con-
trol of Bithynia, but this seems to have made no
difference to the Senate’s role in confirming Nikaia’s
titles.14 The ‘judgments’ cited may imply that Nikaia
had to put up several fights for some or all of these
titles, with its most likely opponent being Nikomedia.
But the state of the inscriptions today also shows that
Nikomedia eventually did triumph: many of Nikaia’s
titles have been erased, and it is possible to figure
out when.
Withdrawn: Septimius Severus
In the contest for the Empire between Septimius
Severus and Pescennius Niger in 193-194, Niko-
media soon turned toward the former, while Nikaia
held onto its loyalty to Niger partially out of pure
hatred for Nikomedia.15 When Niger finally lost,
Nikaia suffered the consequences: it was stripped of
all its official titulature, and the erasure of those
formerly proud titles stood on the city gate as a
12 Weiser 1983, 200.
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
multiplication of metropoleis (among them both Nikaia and
Nikomedia) in the eastern provinces under Hadrian, Bowersock
1985.
14 Remy 1986, 64-65, 76-77.
15 Herodian 3.2.7-9, overdramatic as usual; basic to study
of this and all such rivalries is L. Robert 1977b, esp. 22-25;
also see Birley 1988, 110.
 chapter
painful reminder. Only those names that referred to
the city’s religious status or patron deities were al-
lowed to stand. Severus also matched Nikaia’s pun-
ishment with rewards to its rival: Nikomedia was
given all that Nikaia had lost, the uncontested right
to be ‘first’ and ‘metropolis,’ and, as it was already
neokoros for the venerable temple of Rome and
Augustus, a second neokoria for a temple of Sep-
timius Severus.
Nikaia was not allowed to languish in complete
disfavor for long, however. Cassius Dio 76.15.3
records that Severus himself, along with his prae-
torian prefect Plautianus, spent time in the city,
probably in 202 on the way back from their east-
ern campaign.16 There, an inscription honoring
Plautianus’ daughter (and Severus’ daughter-in-law)
Plautilla during her brief and ill-fated marriage to
Caracalla in 202-205 calls Nikaia “most illustrious
and greatest, friend and ally, faithful to the Roman
people and ancestral relative to the house of the
emperors, Aurelian Antoninian, most pious city of
the Nikaians.”17 Of course, there is no sign of the
previous and most desired titles ‘first,’ ‘metropolis,’
or ‘neokoros’; Nikomedia still maintained its primacy
there. But the rest sounds magniloquent enough.
That Nikaia became ‘Aurelian Antoninian’ hints that
the city was restored to favor on Caracalla’s peti-
tion; in several cases Severus allowed his former
anger to abate at such pleas of his successor-
designate, who thus won the gratitude of the city in
question.18 Nikaia also celebrated Severeia Philadelphia
in honor of Severus and both his sons, probably
around 204.19 The city may have continued to re-
call its earlier and ill-fated political decision, how-
ever: Nikaia later issued coins celebrating its concord
with Byzantion, another city that had been stalwart
for Niger and suffered for it.20
Though there is no further evidence for Nikaia
as neokoros, it is doubtful that the Nikaians forgot
their lost neokoria: as late as the reign of Philip (244-
16 Halfmann 1986a, 218.
17 ”ahin 1979, no. 59; L. Robert 1977b, 25-26; Birley 1988,
142.
18 Historia Augusta, Caracalla 1; L. Robert 1977b, 27-28 n.
134.
19 Weiser 1983, 122, 223.
20 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 20-22 nos. 125-139, 140-148
nos. 1352-1451; Sheppard 1984-1986, 234, 237; the concord
had nothing to do with fishing rights: Weiser 1983, 47-48. Weiss
1998, 64-65, noted the alliance, but missed the connection with
Niger.
16 – nikaia 165
249) they issued coins that showed the reverse type
most frequently used by neokoroi cities, that of two
or more temples:
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: MARKIA OTAK(I, bc)
%EOUHRA AUG Diademed draped bust of Otacilia
Severa r. Rev: NIKAI[E]VN Two four-column
temples turned toward one another. a) New York
73.191 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 133) b) Cologne21 c) Co-
logne.
The objects of cult of the temples are unspecified,
but this was true of many of the types issued by
neokoroi as well. With so many coins of the Greek
provinces still scattered or unpublished, it is difficult
to be sure, but this type seems to be one of the only
multiple-temple coin types issued by a non-neokoros
city.22 On the other hand, the two temples were also
sometimes depicted on coins celebrating the concord
between two cities, each of which had a famous
shrine.23 Still, it is possible that the Nikaians were
imitating contemporary coin types of their rival
Nikomedia which celebrated its two provincial
temples.24 Nonetheless, the legend carefully limits
itself to the words ‘of the Nikaians,’ with no trace
of a claim to the title ‘neokoros.’
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
1. ”ahin 1979, no. 29 (also restored on no. 30, other
side of gate, and no. 30a, on northern gate, Istanbul
Kapi) (= ”ahin 1978, 1.5). Under Hadrian, erased
under Septimius Severus. Also note correction by
Bowersock 1985, 86 nn. 38-39.
No coins of Nikaia as neokoros are yet known.25
21Exx. b and c: Weiser 1983, nos. 108-109.
22M. Price and Trell 1977, 257 no. 291 and indices; see
‘Introduction: Methodology,’ above.
23 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 57 no. 549 (Ephesos and
Alexandria), 128 no. 1270 (Magnesia and Ephesos), 210 nos.
2133-2144 (Smyrna and Pergamon). Incidentally, the only non-
neokoros city involved was Alexandria in Egypt, though Mag-
nesia issued its double-temple concord coin under Caracalla
but only became neokoros later, under Severus Alexander.
24 See chapter 15, ‘Nikomedia,’ coin type 37; Weiser 1983,
245, and 75 for another occasion on which Nikaian types
imitated those of Nikomedia.
25 For recut/falsified coins with the title, see ”ahin 1978,
22 n. 52, 23 n. 53.
166 part i – section iii. koinon of galatia
SECTION III. KOINON OF GALATIA
Chapter 17. Ankyra: Koinon of Galatia
First Neokoria: Augustus
The earliest and most famous surviving provincial
temple to the imperial cult is the temple at Ankyra
(modern Ankara) in the province of Galatia.1 It is
best known for the monumentum Ancyranum, the
great inscription of Augustus’ accomplishments,
engraved in Latin on the interior walls of the pronaos
and translated into Greek on the exterior wall of the
cella of the temple. But despite the years of study
devoted to this inscription there are questions about
the temple itself that have not been resolved, ques-
tions that have some bearing on the neokoria.
The first problem is that though we know that
Ankyra was neokoros, all of the evidence for it is late;
it held the title twice by the joint reign of Valerian
and Gallienus (253-260). Moreover there is no state-
ment of the cults to which the city owed those hon-
ors. One must then look back over the history of
Ankyra to discover what event(s) could have obtained
neokoria for this chief city of Galatia, and it is al-
most unimaginable that the establishment of the first
and greatest imperial temple of the province, that
of Augustus and Rome, should not be one. This is
not to say that every provincial imperial temple in
every province resulted in the neokoria for its home
city, but that since Ankyra is known to have been
neokoros, it was most likely given that title for the
temple of Augustus and Rome.
Galatia had became a Roman province after the
death of its king, Amyntas, in 25 B.C.E. Ankyra was
a natural choice as seat of the governor: already the
fortress of the Tectosage Galatians, its strategic
position controlled the most important part of the
somewhat heterogeneous province.2 It is likely (but
not certain) that Galatia received all the appurte-
1 S. Price 1984b, 109, 152 n. 47, 167-168, 177 n. 31, 208
n. 7, 229 n. 105, 267-268.
2 Haensch 1997, 277-281; S. Mitchell 1993, 1:54-55, 61-
69, 86-89; Remy 1986, 21-27; Magie 1950, 455, 459.
nances of an Eastern province soon after its incor-
poration. These would have included a koinon and
a cult of Augustus and Rome, and both were cen-
tered in Ankyra, which thus became metropolis as
well.3 Despite Greek, Roman, Phrygian, and other
populations that made up the province, the elite class
was Celtic, and in its earliest documents the koinon
was ‘of the Galatians,’ not of the Hellenes of the
province, as in, for example, Asia and Bithynia.4 The
suggestion that Galatia looked to the West rather
than the East for the basis of its imperial cult, and
was inspired in this by the fact that the Gauls had
set up an altar of Rome and Augustus in Lugdunum
in 12 B.C.E. is, however, unconvincing.5 The insti-
tutions of the koinon of the Galatians were basically
like, and probably inspired by, those of neighbors
in Asia Minor, where Asia and Bithynia had had
their provincial temples to Rome and Augustus since
29 B.C.E. The temple at Ankyra is of thoroughly
eastern and Hellenizing form. A Celtic emphasis on
feasting, as well as Roman blood games, were no
doubt added onto these traditions.
The temple at Ankyra is one of the few and likely
the earliest of the temples built for the provincial
imperial cult that can be archaeologically examined
(illus. pl. 1 fig. 1). A thorough architectural analysis
of the remains of the temple was published by
Krencker and Schede in 1936.6 Through excavation
they were able to prove that the relatively well-
preserved cella, opening to the southwest, had been
surrounded by a pseudodipteral peristasis of eight
columns on the short sides and fifteen on the long
sides. The peristasis was 23.6 x 42.42 m. measured
along the centers of the columns, and probably stood
on an eight-stepped base measuring 36 x 54.82 m.
3 Cross and Leiser 2000, 70-79; Deininger 1965, 20-21.
4 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:109-111; idem 1980.
5 Fayer 1976, 131-132.
6 Krencker and Schede 1936; see also Gros 1996-2001,
1:161, 163.
 chapter
The pronaos had four columns prostyle, the opis-
thodomos two columns in antis.
The only architectural features that hinted at the
order of the temple were the anta capitals. Though
badly preserved, the remains of a figure of Victory
hovering over acanthus leaves were recognizable,
and seem more suitable to the Corinthian than the
Ionic order. This order was apparently confirmed
when later excavations turned up four battered
Corinthian capitals which matched the height of the
anta capitals.7 The architectural ornament in gen-
eral is particularly fine and elaborate, and follows
Hellenistic models so closely that Schede dated it in
the second century B.C.E. despite the chronologi-
cal disparity between this and the Roman imperial
inscriptions on the walls. A continuous frieze of flow-
ering acanthus shoots, interspersed with an occa-
sional Victory, scrolls along the outer cella walls. The
Victories are of classicizing style, but their position
among the foliage recalls the archaized Victories
whose legs turn into acanthus scrolls on the temple
of the Deified Julius Caesar in the Forum at Rome.8
More flowered scrolls adorn the great door into the
cella, and the sacred nature of its interior is empha-
sized by a frieze of hanging garlands. The sculptural
theme of the whole might be characterized as ‘vic-
tory and fruitfulness.’
The inscription most useful for establishing the
chronology of the temple is that on the left (west)
anta of the pronaos.9 The inscription preserves a list
of priests of the Galatians for ‘the god Augustus and
the goddess Rome.’ They are listed in the order in
which they held office, and the name of the procon-
sular legate of the province heads a group that held
the priesthood during his tenure. A summary of each
priest’s benefactions, such as public banquets, gladi-
atorial games, and provision of oil for the baths,
generally follows his name, but the list is not a cata-
logue of gifts; one priest (line 39) apparently gave
nothing at all. The engraving was the work of sev-
eral different hands, and it is likely that each priest’s
name was inscribed as he left office.
7 Bittel and A. Schneider 1941. For a reminiscence at some
distance, see Güterbock 1989; his observation that at one point
a foundation course for the peristasis did not bond with that
for the pronaos columns is only a constructional detail, and
cannot be taken as proof that the peristasis long postdates the
pronaos.
8 Vollkommer 1997, no. 269.
9 E. Bosch 1967, 35-49 no. 51.
17 – ankyra 167
Both Halfmann and Mitchell have dated the first
priesthood originally listed on the temple’s anta to
19/20 C.E.10 Halfmann, however, pointed out that
the name of the imperial legate to Galatia, a con-
stant element in the rest of the inscription, is lack-
ing over the entry for the first priest. It is therefore
possible that the anta inscription is simply a continu-
ation of a priest list begun elsewhere, and that the
Augustan refinements of the temple’s decoration
confirm its pre-Tiberian date. Krencker and Schede
had noted that the antae upon which the monu-
mentum Ancyranum was engraved were originally
not intended for that purpose, but had had to be
smoothed down to receive the inscription: one block
in the topmost course of the area to be inscribed was
left with drafted edges instead of being smoothed
flat.11 It is likely, then, that 19/20 C.E. is only a
point after which the provincial priesthood of
Augustus and Rome must have existed.
The anta inscription also records a seeming para-
dox. A very important man, Pylaimenes, son of
Amyntas the last king of Galatia, served as priest in
19 or 20 C.E., and among his donations are re-
corded “the places where the Sebasteion is, and
where the festival takes place, and the racecourse”
(lines 27-29). Hänlein supposed that the temple of
Augustus and Rome itself was the Sebasteion, and that
Pylaimenes had given its site before he had served
as priest, leaving time for the building to be built.12
Tuchelt threw doubt on the identification: Sebasteia,
in his view, were simpler structures built on a simi-
lar pattern throughout the provinces, and this
peripteral temple did not suit that pattern, so it must
have been dedicated to Kybele.13 Mitchell, Half-
mann, and Hänlein(-Schäfer) have all pointed out
the errors in this thesis.14 On the other hand, Hän-
lein’s reconstruction was based on several assump-
tions, all of which should be made explicit, as any
of them may be questioned: that the priesthood was
founded at the point at which the extant list of priests
begins; that the list begins when the temple was
founded; and that the word Sebasteion refers to the
temple upon which the list is inscribed. Halfmann
doubted all these assumptions.
10 Halfmann 1986b; S. Mitchell 1986; 1993, 1:103-105, 107-
112.
11 Krencker and Schede 1936, 22, 51; also Fittschen 1985.
12 Hänlein 1981.
13 Tuchelt 1981; Tuchelt and Preisshofen 1985.
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
completion of the temple at Ankyra. Mitchell dated
the organization of Galatia as a province, from
which its era began, to 22-20 B.C.E.; Halfmann to
23-22; Leschhorn to 25/24.15 Whichever is correct,
between that point and 19-20 C.E. the temple of
Augustus and Rome was proposed, agreed upon,
planned, built, and dedicated. Though authorities
have made various assumptions about what equip-
ment must have existed for the cult to have taken
place, even such an essential as an altar was not
donated until 37 or 38 C.E.; as the list records the
sacrifice of a hekatomb well before this (by Albiorix
son of Ateporix, who also donated statues of ‘Cae-
sar and Julia Sebaste’ in ca. 23 C.E.), a temporary
or simple altar must have been used until a donor
gave a more grandiose permanent one. As for the
statues of Tiberius and his mother, Bosch had as-
sumed that they were cult statues and that as such
they should have been set up in the temple as soon
as possible after Tiberius’ accession; but the Greek
word used for them (andriantes) only means ordinary
statues, which could have stood anywhere in the
sanctuary or even in the city itself.16 On the other
hand, if Albiorix’ term has been correctly dated, it
fell in the same year that the koinon of Asia was
granted permission to build a temple to Tiberius, his
mother, and the Senate; the influence of this action
may have traveled east to Galatia as it did west to
Spain.17
To return to Pylaimenes’ gifts: Hänlein believed
that “the places where the Sebasteion is, and where
the festival takes place, and the racecourse” were all
interconnected, and found precedent for this ar-
rangement in another provincial temple to Augustus
at Tarraco.18 Thus she thought that the temple at
Ankyra (which she identified with the Sebasteion) was
the high point of a grandiose complex, with the
racecourse at its foot. Given that the identification
of temple and Sebasteion is not certain, this hypothesis
cannot be confirmed, though it is certainly not
impossible; the existence of modern Ankara makes
it difficult to test by excavation.
15 Leschhorn 1993, 398-414; 1992. Stumpf 1991, 125-131
inclined towards Halfmann’s estimate.
16 E. Bosch 1967, 43.
17 Tacitus, Annals 3.66-69; 4.37 on Hispania Ulterior’s re-
quest (denied by the emperor) to build a temple to Tiberius
and his mother. See chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’
18 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 39-40, 185-190, 289-290; accepted
by Gros 1996-2001, 1:229-231.
Yet another inscription decorates and documents
the temple at Ankyra. Now largely eroded, it was
chiseled onto the right (south) anta of the pronaos,
and so corresponds with the list of priests of the
Galatians discussed above. Here, however, the list
begins “Those who in their terms of chief priesthood
promised works for the contributions,” and the first
and only name preserved is that of Cocceius Seleu-
kos, chief priest of Augustus.19 As the Roman name
Cocceius was probably obtained with Roman citi-
zenship during the reign of M. Cocceius Nerva, this
list should not date before 96; one Cocceius Alex-
andros, perhaps a relative of Seleukos, was active in
Ankyra at the time of Antoninus Pius.20 In any case,
it is noteworthy that the former ‘priests of the
Galatians’ have apparently become chief priests, and
that, unless her name stood in a rather small area
of damaged letters, the cult of the goddess Rome has
fallen away, leaving only Augustus. The ‘works’ that
were promised appear to have involved construction,
so it seems that some building was still going on in
the precinct into the second century.
Schede believed that he knew exactly what those
works were and that he could date them precisely.
This was due to his interpretation of coins issued by
the koinon of the Galatians and by Ankyra.21 Early
imperial coins that showed a facade of four (Ionic)
columns were taken to be the tetrastyle pronaos of
the temple of Augustus, but its peristasis was not
supposed to have been built until the time of Marcus
Aurelius, when an eight-column facade first ap-
peared on the coins. Schede had to admit that the
foundations for these columns were contemporary
with those of the pronaos, but believed that noth-
ing had been put on them for the three centuries of
building history that he postulated. On the other
hand, coins of Vespasian, Nerva, and Trajan that
showed a six-column temple were considered to
represent another building entirely.
That numismatic convention frequently abbrevi-
ates the number of columns on a peripteral struc-
ture is now well known, and has already been
discussed in the introduction (‘Methodology’). So it
will be worthwhile to reevaluate the relevant coins
with temple reverses here. This has become simpler
19 E. Bosch 1967, 118-120 no. 102; S. Mitchell 1993, 1:112,
116.
20 Krencker and Schede 1936, 57-59.
21Krencker and Schede 1936, 40-42 (coins henceforward
‘Schede’ with his type letters).
 chapter
since Arslan’s studies of Ankyra’s Roman-period
coinage have appeared.22
First, it should be pointed out that the temples
shown on coins of one city may be associated with
various cults, not necessarily with a single cult. For
example, prominent on the coins of the koinon of
the Galatians was the moon god Men, whose cult
had been important in the area since the time of the
Phrygians.23 Sometimes the god’s head is on the
obverse, more frequently his figure is on the re-
verse.24 In one case, the emperor may have been
assimilated to the god: coins of Galba with his name
on both obverse and reverse show a reverse figure
of Men, and though portrait features are not discern-
ible, it is possible that Galba was honored as the new
Men.25 Also, certain koinon coins issued early in the
reign of Trajan under T. Pomponius Bassus, the
legatus of Galatia and Cappadocia (98-100 C.E.),
show reverses of a temple of Men either with the
god himself within or with his symbol, the crescent,
in the pediment; on some examples the temple’s
central facade is shown as arched.26 But there is no
reason to identify this temple, or the cult of Men,
with the temple and cult of Augustus and Rome in
Ankyra.27 After all, Lycia’s provincial festival hon-
ored Rome and Leto, and there was a provincial
priest for the ancestral Apollo, but we need not
assume that either of those cults shared a temple with
the emperor(s).28 Furthermore, the portrait of
Macedonia’s hero Alexander the Great was the most
frequent obverse of the koinon coinage issued by
Beroia (q.v.), but this did not mean that the hero’s
cult shared a temple with the long-standing provin-
cial imperial cult.
On the other hand, an imperial temple may be
explicitly identified on other koinon coins of type 1,
below. Minted without imperial portrait but datable
by comparison with type 2, of Galba, its obverse
22 Arslan 1997 (coins henceforward ‘Arslan’ with coin
number). The major part of the corpus is from the Anatolian
Civilizations Museum in Ankara. This latest publication incor-
porates several earlier studies of the same material, including
Arslan 1991.
23 S. Mitchell 1993, 2:24-25, 186, with a list of shrines.
24 Obverse: Arslan nos. 12-14. Reverse: Arslan nos. 19, 20,
27-29, 44-46, add. 1.
25 Arslan nos. 10-11.
26 Schede types F, G, H; Arslan nos. 30, 31; SNGvA 6123,
6124; SNGParis 2424-2426; BMC 8. For T. Pomponius Bassus,
see Stumpf 1991, 239-258.
27 As does Arslan 1991, following Anabolu 1970, 33-35.
28 See ‘Patara,’ chapter 33, below; Deininger 1965, 77.
17 – ankyra 169
again shows the moon god Men, but its reverse
explicitly identifies a temple of the emperors:
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: KOINON GALATVN
Phrygian-capped bust of Men, crescent at shoul-
ders, l.29 Rev: %EBA%TVN Six-column temple,
disc in pediment (no pediment, b).30 a) SNGvA
6113 b) SNGParis 2388 d) SNGParis 2389 e) An-
kara (Arslan 12) f) Ankara (Arslan 13) g) Ankara
(Arslan 14).
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: GALBA% %EBA%TO% Bust
of Galba, l. Rev: [%E]BA%TVN Six-column
temple, disc in pediment.31 a) SNGParis 2407 (illus.
pl. 30 fig. 134) b) New York.
The reverse of these types likely represents the
temple in Ankyra, the most prominent imperial
temple and center for the koinon. If so, it should be
noted that the temple is labeled not ‘of the god
Augustus and the goddess Rome,’ as the priests of
the temple were, nor ‘of Augustus,’ as the chief
priests were, but ‘of the Augusti,’ with emperors after
Augustus included in the cult.
Other depictions of a temple are less identifiable,
only showing a circle or dot in the pediment. The
koinon continued to mint until the reign of Trajan,
and among its reverse types were a four-column,
perhaps Ionic, temple (under Nero)32 and a six-col-
umn temple (under Trajan).33 Ankyra began to mint
its own coins from the reign of Vespasian, and they
showed a similar six-column temple.34 Under Nerva,
however, a variant appeared on the city’s coinage:
sometimes an eagle spreads its wings below the shield
in the pediment of the six-column (Corinthian)
temple.35 The eagle, which Schede held to symbol-
29Occasionally misidentified as Attis, but the crescent is
decisive.
30 RPC 1:543-549, esp. no. 3567. Note that the redating of
the left anta inscription of the temple at Ankyra (in order to
solve an iconographic problem in the coins of the proconsul
Basila) has not been thought through sufficiently.
31 RPC 1, no. 3566.
32 SNGParis 2398, 2399; Arslan nos. 2-4; Schede type A;
RPC 1 no. 3563.
33 SNGParis 2427-2432 (the last five-column); Arslan nos.
32-37; Schede type I/J. For similar coins issued with only the
name of the governor, not that of the koinon, Grant 1950, 44
nos. 4-6, issued under (T. Helvius) Basila, after 35 C.E., all with
reverse of a six-column temple. For Basila, see n. 30 above;
Stumpf 1991, 128-131; and Weiser 1998, 275-277.
34 Arslan nos. 15-18, Schede type B, SNGvA 6130, SNGParis
2436.
35 No eagle: Arslan nos. 25, 26, Schede type C. With eagle:
Arslan nos. 24, 26a, Schede types D and E, SNGParis 2441-
2443.
170 part i – section iii. koinon of galatia
ize Zeus, would be just as appropriate for a tem-
ple to the Roman imperial cult, and especially to
Augustus, who was often assimilated to Jupiter.36 An
eagle also appears in the pediments of likely impe-
rial-cult temples in Tarsos and in Kaisareia in
Cappadocia (qq.v.).37 A disc in the pediment can
sometimes be an abbreviation for some sort of pedi-
mental sculpture, but as it continued to appear even
when that sculpture (the eagle) was present, it too
may represent reality, perhaps a shield or portrait
shield. And that reality may well be the original form
of the temple of Augustus and Rome at Ankyra.
In the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius
Verus, Ankyra’s coins still showed the familiar fa-
cade with disc in pediment, but occasionally with
eight columns instead of six.38 The eight columns
became standard on coins of Caracalla and of
Geta.39 Schede used his type N, an issue of Cara-
calla, to prove that the peristasis of the temple of
Augustus was Ionic, as each column capital on this
coin consists of two dots; he did not observe, how-
ever, that the bases also consist of two dots, and that
all the decoration of gables, friezes, and podium is
indicated by lines of dots. The dots are shorthand
for ‘decoration’ and cannot be taken to define the
order of the temple. None of these coin types is
inconsistent with any other, and all may represent
an eight column Corinthian temple, a shield and an
eagle depicted in its pediment, with elaborate deco-
ration on gables, friezes, and perhaps even on the
steps of the podium. And again, these features do
not conflict with the possible reconstructed form of
the temple in Ankyra.
It appears that the priests of the god Augustus and
the goddess Rome of the Galatians later became
36 Kuttner 1995, 65-68, even in his lifetime; though Rose
1997a, 75 observed that the extant statues were Tiberian or
later. Note the domestic eagle under Augustus’ chair on the
Gemma Augustea in Vienna (Kuttner 1995, pl. 16).
37 M. Price and Trell 1977, figs. 378 and 379 explicitly
compared the temples in Ankyra and Kaisareia, though the
Ankyra reverse is incorrectly identified as a coin of Nero rather
than Nerva.
38 Six columns: Arslan no. 62 (Lucius Verus); eight columns:
SNGvA 6142 and SNGParis 2460 (Verus) and Schede type K
(Marcus Aurelius).
39 Geta: Arslan no. 112; BMC 38; SNGvA 6181, 6186;
SNGParis 2527. Caracalla: Arslan nos. 93-95, 96 (worn, mis-
described); BMC 32; SNGvA 6158, 6163 (octastyle in three-
quarter view), 6173; SNGRighetti 1744; SNGParis 2484,
2487-2489; Schede L, M, N; Hexastyle? but in three-quarter
view: SNGParis 2481, Arslan no. 97. Also their mother Julia
Domna: SNGParis 2474, 2478 (the latter octastyle in three-
quarter view).
chief priests of Augustus, as has been seen. Later
inscriptions also document Galatarchs; in fact, ap-
parently some officials were chief priests, some were
Galatarchs, and some were both.40 There were also
sebastophantai, as was the case in Bithynia. In
Ankyra their office was limited to the cult of Augus-
tus, as it was specifically distinguished from the
position of ‘hierophant of the theoi sebastoi’ for the
other Augusti. A woman could be sebastophantes,
and the job included certain revenues which were
customarily used to underwrite a gift of oil to the
city baths and gymnasia. One sebastophantes, how-
ever, boasted of spending these funds on a munici-
pal building project and supplying money for the oil
out of his own pocket.41
Mitchell claimed that there were other provincial
temples of the Galatians beside that at Ankara,
namely at Pessinus and perhaps at Pisidian An-
tioch.42 The latter, at least, is highly unlikely. First
of all, Antioch was not one of the centers of the three
Galatian tribes, and thus of their koinon: these were
Ankyra for the Tectosages, Pessinus for the Tolisto-
bogii, and Tavium for the Trocmi. Secondly, An-
tioch was a Roman colony founded from an actual
settlement of legionary veterans, and there is no
document of a colony having a temple to the living
emperor, or being part of the provincial cult struc-
ture, as early as Augustus’ lifetime. In fact, if Cassius
Dio 51.20.6-9 is correct, a gulf was intended between
the imperial cult to be practiced by Romans and by
provincials: the one group was to worship the dei-
fied Julius Caesar and the goddess Rome, the other
Augustus himself. The design and inspiration for the
Antioch sanctuary is all western, the inscriptions all
Latin; it was completed during Augustus’ lifetime,
by 2/1 B.C.E., and though the excavators preferred
to assign it to the cult of Augustus himself, it is more
likely to have been for the cult of deified Caesar and
Rome.43 It was only by the end of the second cen-
tury that the line between Roman colony and pro-
vincial city began to be blurred, and in the third
century that perhaps first Nikopolis, later Thessa-
lonike and Neapolis, were both colonies and neo-
koroi.44
40 S. Mitchell 1977, 73-75 no. 7.
41 E. Bosch 1967, nos. 98, 105-106, 139.
42 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:103-107. The doubts expressed by
S. Price 1984b, 268-270 still seem justified.
43 S. Mitchell and Waelkens 1998, 113-173.
44 J. Nollé 1995.
 chapter
Pessinus, as tribal center of the Tolistobogii
Galatians, is a thornier problem. Mitchell took as
his proof of the presence of a koinon temple IGRR
3:230, which honors one (Tiberius Claudius) Heras.
He was a priest for life of the great Mother of the
gods at Pessinus and Meidaeion and (priest) of the
emperors six times, chief priest of the koinon of
Augustan Galatians and agonothetes, and also
sebastophantes of the temple in Pessinus. The prob-
lem is that the clearly provincial offices, the chief
priesthood and headship of the festival, are not
explicitly connected to a temple in Pessinus. That
an imperial cult was practiced in Pessinus is ensured
by the post of sebastophantes (which may have been
for Augustus, as at Ankyra, or for the Augusti in
general), as well as implied by a priesthood of the
emperors held six times, but neither is explicitly ‘of
the Galatians’ in this inscription, where local and
provincial offices appear in no clear order.45
Another difficulty with Mitchell’s interpretation
is that he identified all coins with a hexastyle temple
on the reverse as the hexastyle temple found at Pes-
sinus, despite the fact that some of these coins were
not issued in the name of the city but with that of
the governor or of the koinon. Thus the building
portrayed on them could be the provincial imperial
temple at Ankyra, even if some of the coins were
minted at Pessinus. Mitchell did not take numismatic
abbreviation into his consideration, though neither
did Grant, whom he took as his authority.46 As has
been seen, it is perfectly possible for the octastyle
temple at Ankyra to have been represented as
hexastyle, though again, care should be taken where
a temple type is not explicit: there were certainly at
least two temples represented on the Galatians’
koinon coinage, that of Men and that of the Augusti,
and there may have been others less clearly identi-
fied; a six column temple appears on civic coins of
Pessinus from the time of Claudius down to the Seve-
rans.47
45 The inscription was misinterpreted by Devreker in
Devreker and Waelkens 1984, 20; 221 no. 10.3.17 also gives
conflicting dates, late first century and late second century. S.
Mitchell 1993, 1:116 corrected the error: Heras could not have
been six times chief priest of the koinon, but only of a civic
cult, though he himself misrepeated the office as “six times high
priest of the emperors”—the unmentioned office should refer
to the last office mentioned, i.e., priest.
46 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:104 n. 30; Grant 1950, 46 n. 27.
47 Devreker and Waelkens 1984, 175 and nos. 13 (Claudius),
61-62 (Marcus Aurelius), 107 (Septimius Severus), 110-111
(Julia Domna), 176 (Geta Caesar), 205 (Geta Augustus), and
161-162 (Caracalla).
17 – ankyra 171
Certainly citizens of Pessinus became high offi-
cials of the koinon. Two of the priests whose names
appeared on the left anta of the temple at Ankyra,
Lollius and Q. Gallius Pulcher, were likely from Pes-
sinus; one gave a feast, festival, and a cult statue
(agalma), the other a hekatomb sacrifice, at their
home city. M. Cocceius Seleukos, the chief priest
whose name is on the right anta, was also from Pes-
sinus, where an inscription honoring him and his
parents, who were themselves chief priest and (twice)
chief priestess of the koinon, has been found.48 But
these names of provincial officials were not carved
on the temple at Pessinus, but on the antae of the
Ankyra temple; nor is any priest or chief priest of
the Galatians ever specified as being ‘of the temple
at Ankyra’ or ‘of the temple at Pessinus,’ as they
often were in Asia. Koina contests were probably held
at Pessinus, as at Tavium, but again, such festivals
could be celebrated in towns where there was no
provincial temple.49
In addition, the temple that has been excavated
at Pessinus has only been identified with the impe-
rial cult by indirect means: no dedicatory inscrip-
tions or imperial statues were found there, and a
Sebasteion (itself not a term exclusively denoting a
provincial temple, as seen above) is mentioned in the
city only in the second century.50 Though the exca-
vators have interpreted a western-style theatral area
built into the temple’s steps as a viewing area for
gladiatorial shows, this feature has not been docu-
mented at other imperial temples, and was not an
ideal venue for gladiators anyway, as it backed onto
one side of a colonnaded plaza.51 Firmer proof is
48Devreker and Strubbe 1996, 53-55 no. 1.
49Deininger 1965, 68; for Asia, Moretti 1954.
50 Waelkens 1986, 67-73; Devreker, Thoen, and Vermeulen
1995.
51 For the subterranean structures and built seating neces-
sary for gladiatorial shows in the Roman Forum, see Gros 1996-
2001, 1.318-320. Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 51-63 found that early
provincial temples in the East were all of Greek type; munici-
pal temples could imitate Roman buildings, but their form was
most often rostral, like the temple of Julius Caesar in the Roman
forum, which is rather the reverse of a cavea temple. Hanson
1959, 54-55, 93-96 found some (municipal) imperial cult
temples associated with theaters, but the temples themselves
were in open fora, not above the cavea, as the one at Pessinus
is. Hanson’s citation (66) of Syrian shrines with caveae over-
looking courtyards, however, does resemble the situation at
Pessinus. The Pessinus cavea would have suited ludi scaenici, but
these were fitting either for the cult of Magna Mater (as trans-
planted to Rome) or for the imperial cult: the provincial priests
of the Ankyra temple list often gave plays, though not specifi-
cally at Pessinus.
172 part i – section iii. koinon of galatia
needed before the temple in Pessinus can be called
either provincial or for the imperial cult.
It is more likely that Ankyra’s status as metropo-
lis and sole site of a provincial temple of the Ga-
latians was unrivaled, at least for a time. Perhaps that
is why it did not even bother to use the title ‘neo-
koros’ until its second neokoria, under Valerian and
Gallienus. Yet as we have seen, coin types that prob-
ably represent its first provincial temple, that of
Augustus and Rome, had appeared intermittently
since the time of Galba; it was most likely this temple
that eventually gave Ankyra the title ‘neokoros.’
Under Caracalla Ankyra issued a series of coins
that showed the prototypical symbol of the city as
neokoros, the patron god holding a temple.
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: ANTVNINO% AUGOU%TO%
Laureate head of Caracalla r. Rev: A%KLHPEIA
%VTHREIA I%OPUYIA ANKURA% City goddess
seated on a rock labeled MHTRO, she holds an
eight-column temple and a prize crown.52 a)
London 1975.4-11-188 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 135) b)
SNGParis 2507 (worn, raised edges).
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: ANTVNEINO% AUG-
OU%TO% Laureate head of Caracalla r. Rev:
MHTROPOLEV% ANKURA% City goddess holding
four-column temple and sceptre, an anchor in the
field.53 a) Berlin, Löbbecke.
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: ANTVNEINO% AUG-
OU%TO% Laureate head of Caracalla r., bearded.
Rev: MHTROPOLEV% ANKURA% Seated city
goddess holding four-column temple leans against
anchor. a) SNGvA 6169.
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: ANTVNEINO% AUG-
OU%TO% Laureate head of Caracalla r. Rev:
MHTROPOLEV% ANKURA% Seated Athena in
aegis holding four-column temple and sceptre. a)
Berlin 279/1911.
The anchor in types 4 and 5 is the punning symbol
for Ankyra, while the prize crown of type 3 is for
the ‘great Asklepeia Sotereia Antoneineia,’ an isopythian
festival founded during Caracalla’s reign, and cel-
ebrated in a more abbreviated fashion on contem-
porary coins, with types of up to two prize crowns.54
52
Pick 1904, 10 no. 5.2.
53 Ibid., 9 no. 5.1.
54 L. Robert 1960a. The coins generally abbreviate to
Asklepeia Sotereia Isopythia: e.g. Arslan no. 98; BMC 22-24, 28;
The assumed equivalency between number of
prize crowns and number of neokoriai has led some
to declare (without proof) that Ankyra was twice neo-
koros since the reign of Caracalla.55 It is certainly
possible that Caracalla granted a second provincial
temple and neokoria to Ankyra, but the actual title
only appears on coins issued about forty years later.
One inscription of the first celebration of the Askle-
pieia Sotereia festival gives it the name of Caracalla
himself, as if celebrating the imperial cult; but on
other inscriptions (even as early as the festival’s
second celebration) and on all the coins Antoneineia
drops out; Robert called the addition of the impe-
rial name “banale et de pur forme.”56
The coin types above simply hint at Ankyra’s
neokoria, but one obverse type implies a more di-
rect connection between Caracalla and a temple,
which appears on his shield as well as on the coin’s
reverse.
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: ANTVNEINO% AUG-
OU%TO% Laureate draped bust of Caracalla l,
holding spear and shield, on which an eight-col-
umn temple is depicted, a Victory before its al-
tar. Rev: (MHTROPOLEV%, a) ANKURA% Eight-
column temple (anchor in exergue, b). a) SNGParis
2484 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 136) b) SNGvA 6174.
It should be noted, however, that the eight-column
temple reverse had been used on Ankyran coins
since the second century, and was very popular
before Caracalla’s sole rule.
Another coin, unfortunately very worn, shows two
temples, and has been attributed to Caracalla’s
successor Macrinus:
COIN TYPE 8. Obv: . . .OPA . . K . . O . . Radi-
ate head of Macrinus? r., obscure. Rev: MHTROP
B . . . RA . . . Two two-column Ionic? temples on
the same podium, thymiaterion in each, at least
one in three-quarter view; obscure. a) SNGParis
2530 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 137).
This would seem to indicate that Ankyra was twice
neokoros in the reign after Caracalla’s. It is more
likely, however, that this is a worn example similar
SNGvA 6164-6166; SNGParis 2492, 2496, 2500, 2501, 2504,
2513, 2514.
55 Karl 1975, 11; also 86, misattributing to Ankyra a third
neokoria under Valerian when the coins themselves specify only
two (below).
56 L. Robert 1960a, 362; S. Mitchell 1977, 75-77 no. 8.
 chapter
to coin type 10, below, and should be reattributed
to the reign of Gallienus.
It is nonetheless possible that Caracalla made
Ankyra twice neokoros during his sole rule, perhaps
in connection with his eastern campaign. If so, the
name of the sacred festival he gave the city may
indicate that the honor was associated with Askle-
pios; perhaps the imperial cult shared a previously
existing temple, as it did at such cities as Pergamon
(also with Asklepios) and Smyrna (with the goddess
Rome). Certainly an important Galatian official
made three embassies to the emperor: Titus Flavius
Gaianus, chief priest of the koinon, Galatarch and
sebastophantes, was not only twice agonothetes of
the koinon festival of the Galatians but twice of the
great Asklepeia Isopythia, and some of his embassies
may have had to do with that festival.57 But no ex-
plicit evidence for temple or neokoria is yet known,
and if Caracalla did make Ankyra twice neokoros,
it could be the only city outside Asia that he hon-
ored in that fashion.
Second Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus
Troops for the emperor Valerian’s campaign against
the Sassanian Persians likely passed through Ankyra,
as milestones record the roadwork carried out in
Galatia for the occasion.58 Though the emperor’s
personal contact with Ankyra is not documented, the
importance of the East as a theater of war (in Vale-
rian’s case, a disastrous one) led to increased atten-
tion to the great cities of those provinces. Certainly
a great many neokoriai were granted under Vale-
rian and Gallienus, and presumably by the former,
since he was in the area. It is possible that Ankyra
only became twice neokoros at this time.
Contemporary agonistic types show either one or
three prize crowns, and mention Aktia, Pythia, and
Mystikos festivals.59 The Pythia is almost certainly the
Asklepieia Sotereia, while inscriptions record an
Augousteia Aktia; though it would be tempting to as-
cribe this festival to the temple of Augustus and
57 L. Robert 1960a, 360-361. Gaianus was honored by each
of Ankyra’s twelve tribes, so there are many copies of his
honorifics: S. Mitchell 1977, 73-75 no. 7.
58 Foss 1977b, 31-33, reprinted as Ch. 6 in Foss 1990, took
the roadwork as evidence for Valerian’s presence in Ankyra,
but it more likely indicates movements of troops than those of
emperors. See Halfmann 1986a, 236-237.
59 SNGvA 6299, obverse of Salonina.
17 – ankyra 173
Rome, most citations of Augousteia contests in fact
date to the reign of Valerian and Gallienus.60 The
number of neokoriai and of prize crowns (= festi-
vals) do not correspond, so Ankyra may serve as a
warning against those who would assume equiva-
lency between them. Though Ankyra was likely neo-
koros for the temple of Augustus and Rome, the cult
for which it got the second honor must remain
uncertain. The Asklepieia Sotereia, though founded
under Caracalla, may have honored the god rather
than the emperor; Augousteia Aktia could have been
granted as late as the time of Valerian; and the Mysti-
kos is documented as early as Hadrian.61 None of
the three prize crowns assuredly represents a festi-
val for a temple that made Ankyra neokoros.62
Ankyra’s coins abbreviated its title from ‘twice
neokoros’ to a bare BN, but its two inscriptions, the
first firmly dated by its reference to the empress
Salonina, wife of Gallienus, confirm the interpreta-
tion:
INSCRIPTION 1. S. Mitchell with French and
Greenhaigh 1982 (RECAM 2) no. 403 (IGRR
3:237). From Aspona, 65 miles from Ankyra.
Statue base of Salonina (her name and Gallienus’
erased), reused as a milestone under Constantine
and Licinius. { mhtr(Òpoliw) t}w Galat¤aw b'
nevk(Òrow) ÖAnkura. . .
On coins issued by Ankyra under Gallienus, the die-
cutting of the reverses becomes clumsy, but the type
of a single (still unidentified) temple reappears.
COIN TYPE 9. Obv: (G, b) POUB LIK GAL-
LIHNO% AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of
Gallienus r. Rev: MHTROP B N ANKURA% Four-
column temple. a) Ankara (Arslan 137) b) Ankara
(Arslan 138).
The temple has only four columns now, and those
so ineptly conveyed that their bulbous tops appear
Ionic. In addition, there is a coin type that shows
two identical temple-like structures confronting one
another:
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: POUB LIK GALLIHNO%
AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus
r. Rev: MHTROP B N ANKURA% Two two-column
temples without rooflines indicated, on one po-
60 L. Robert 1960a, 367; Karl 1975, 25-26.
61 E. Bosch 1967, no. 128.
62 Karl 1975, 86.
174 part i – section iii. koinon of galatia
dium, a thymiaterion in each. a) BMC 45 b)
SNGFitzw 5395 c) New York 58.44.14 (illus. pl.
30 fig. 138) d) Ankara (Arslan 139) (worn).
This is the usual composition for conveying temples
for which the city is twice neokoros, but there are
unusual features on coin type 10 (shared by type 8,
above). The buildings in question show no roof-line,
their side walls are of masonry rather than colum-
nar, and they contain incense altars instead of cult
statues. These facts led Price and Trell to call them
“gates to altar courts” as well as temples.63 It would
be foolhardy to put too much emphasis on the ex-
actitude of the type, as the design is very sketchy,
the die-cutting inept, and the details left out may
have merely been suppressed or abbreviated. More-
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
neokoros was not as magnificent as the first had
been. If so, it is intriguing that the great eight-col-
umn temple of Augustus and Rome should be as-
similated to its humbler new counterpart.
Though not directly attacked by the Persians,
Ankyra and its province experienced Gothic incur-
sions, fell into the hands of Zenobia of Palmyra, and
then were retaken by the emperor Aurelian in 271.64
63 M. Price and Trell 1977, 213 fig. 449, 270 no. 525.
64 Foss 1977b and 1990 ch. 6; the sources are usefully
collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 85-95.
The city suffered much, and nothing further is heard
of Ankyra as twice neokoros.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Twice neokoros:
1. S. Mitchell, with D. French and J. Greenhaigh
1982 (= RECAM 2) no. 403 (IGRR 3:237). From
Aspona, 65 miles from Ankyra. Statue base of
Salonina, reused as a milestone under Constantine
and Licinius. See text above.
2. Ramsay 1883a, 16-17 no. 3 (IGRR 3:179). Both
Ramsay and E. Bosch 1967, 348-350 nos. 287, 288
dated this to the period of Valerian by the reference
to the second neokoria.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Twice neokoros:
Valerian: BMC 39-41; SNGCop 120; SNGvA 6188-6191;
SNGRighetti 1747, 1748; SNGParis 2535-2544; An-
kara/Arslan 117, 118, 122, 123; Private Collection/
Arslan 115, 121; Berlin (7 exx.), London, New York
(3 exx.), Oxford (6 exx.), Vienna.
Gallienus: BMC 42-45; SNGCop 121; SNGvA 6192-6194,
6196-6198; SNGRighetti 1749; SNGParis 2545-2554;
Ankara/Arslan 126, 128-131, 133, 135-141, 143;
Berlin (8 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.),
Vienna (2 exx.).
Salonina: BMC 46, 47; SNGvA 6199-6201; SNGParis 2555,
2556; Ankara/Arslan 144, 146, 147, 152, 153; Pri-
vate Collection/Arslan 145, 150, 151; Berlin, New
York (3 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw.
 chapter
SECTION IV. CITIES OF PAMPHYLIA
Chapter 18. Perge: (Association of) Cities of Pamphylia
First Neokoria: Vespasian
One of the latest inscriptions to mention the title
‘neokoros’ nonetheless gives valuable information on
the early relationship between the organization of
the province Pamphylia and imperial cult. Inscrip-
tion 2 of Perge, which dates to the reign of Tacitus,
states that the city was neokoros ‘from Vespasian.’
INSCRIPTION 2. Kaygusuz 1984 (Merkelbach
and ”ahin 1988, 115-116 no. 22). Acclamation
of the city. Lines 5-6: [aÔje P°rgh {] épÚ
OÈes[pasianoË n]evkÒrow... Line 14: aÔje P°rgh
d' nevkÒrow... Lines 25-26: pãnt[a] tå d¤kaia
[d]Ògmati sunklÆtou...
The reason for Vespasian’s granting neokoria to
Perge is uncertain. An eminent Pergaian, the Ro-
man senator M. Plancius Varus, has been restored
as active in Vespasian’s support in 69-70, and a likely
ambassador to the new emperor on his city’s behalf.1
Beyond this hypothetical personal connection, the
closest known association that Vespasian had with
Perge was his reorganization of its province Pam-
phylia, which he detached from Galatia and annexed
to Lycia.2 Lycia, however, had a long-standing
koinon of its own. Pamphylia formed an indepen-
dent provincial organization, known from a few
inscriptions as ‘the cities in Pamphylia,’ and directed
by Pamphyliarchs.3 Cooperation does not seem to
have been natural to the Pamphylian cities, and in
no document yet found do they call their organiza-
tion a koinon.4
Pamphylia had first been annexed by Rome in
the late Republic.5 Since then it had been shuffled
1 Houston 1972, 177-178 n. 45; Levick 1999, 144 elevated
the possible Pergaian embassy to a seeming certainty.
2 ”ahin 1995, 1.
3 Magie 1950, 576, 1440 n. 28; Deininger 1965, 27, 81-
82.
4 J. Nollé 1993.
5 Remy 1986, 21, 35, 40-46, 50, 62-63, to be modified by
J. Nollé 1993, 308-310; ”ahin 1994.
18 – perge 175
from one larger province to another. Apparently in
the reorganization by Vespasian an attempt was
made to give Pamphylia some features of neighbor-
ing provinces. A vital part of this could have been
the establishment of a temple of the imperial cult,
and the title ‘neokoros’ to accompany it.6
Though Perge became neokoros ‘from Vespasian,’
he is not specified as the object of cult, but it is the
most likely scenario. It is more remotely possible that
the Pamphylian provincial temple was to Augustus
and Rome; there were pentaeteric Kaisareia, but these
were likely also founded under the Flavians (see
below).7 Perge’s probable position as chief city of its
provincial organization is indicated by silver cisto-
phori minted under Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian;
they show Perge’s famous shrine of Diana/Artemis
Pergaia.8 Though no document makes it incontrovert-
ible, Perge has been judged to have the best claim
to having been the seat of the governor of Lycia/
Pamphylia.9
How much trust can be placed in inscription 2?
It is two centuries later than the grant of neokoria
to which it refers; but most of its claims that can be
checked show a kernel (or more) of truth. Other
inscriptions refer to Perge’s festival the Artemeiseia
Vespasianeia; indeed, three inscriptions not yet pub-
lished mention the (probably provincial) ‘chief priest
of the Augusti and agonothetes of the great pentae-
teric Kaisareia and agonothetes of the Artemeiseia
Vespasianeia.’10 Though inscription 2 records a jubi-
lant acclamation of Perge, surely by its citizens, it
nonetheless seems to expect and take measures
against dissent by referring to the decree of the
Senate that made its honors official. The dissent
6 J. Nollé 1993–2001 (= SiA) 1:303 n. 14; Magie 1950, 285,
301, 418, 530, 576.
7 Kaygusuz 1984.
8 Magie 1950, 623, 1485-1486 n. 50.
9 Haensch 1997, 290-297; though the honor has been as-
signed to many different places, 290 n. 162.
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,
which has also been proposed as the provincial
center of Pamphylia by its patriotic excavators.11
The inscription may imply that the Pergaians had
the advantage of the only neokoria from Vespasian,
as there is no evidence to indicate the creation of
two neokoroi in the same province for the same
emperor before the time of Hadrian.
An arch erected in Perge by two brothers, Deme-
trios and Apollonios, honored all three Flavian
emperors, but especially the current ruler Domi-
tian.12 The central inscription for him on the arch’s
east side was carefully erased after his death in 96
C.E., and a part of the city’s titulature, restored as
‘sacred, neokoros,’ also disappeared from the west
side. Dräger postulated that this meant that Perge
was originally neokoros for Domitian, and lost that
honor with the condemnation of his memory.13
”ahin, however, observed that the erasure on the
west side is lighter than that on the east, and may
have been done subsequently, much as the name of
Artemis was occasionally erased by Pergaian Chris-
tians; and that Ephesos didn’t lose its neokoria af-
ter Domitian’s death, so why should Perge?14 Here
we may point out that the case of Ephesos (q.v.) is
not comparable: that city did not become neokoros
for Domitian, but for a temple of the Augusti, and
the honor, probably granted earlier by Vespasian,
was thus not endangered by the condemnation of
Domitian’s memory. The erasure on the west side
of the Pergaian arch was plainly not done by Chris-
tians, as they allowed the name of Artemis to stand
right next to it. But the entire argument is moot, as
it is unsure whether the word ‘neokoros’ was what
was erased: the block on which it stood is completely
missing; only possible remains of a final omega and
iota (for the dative) stand on the next block; the space
left seems rather small for the restoration; and so far
as is known, neokoros is not used on other Pergaian
inscriptions of this early a date.
That Perge was called neokoros by the mid-sec-
ond century may be shown by inscription 1, if
Magie’s date of 141/142 for the provincial gover-
11 Mansel 1963, 10.
12 ”ahin 1999 (= IvPerge) no. 56; ”ahin 1995, 4-10 no. 3,
with bibliography.
13 Dräger 1993, 251-255.
14 ”ahin 1995, 10 and n. 11, which mentions two unpub-
lished inscriptions of neokoros Perge; and IvPerge 79-80 esp. n.
25.
norship of P. Julius Aemilius Aquila is correct.15
INSCRIPTION 1. Lanckoronski 1890-1892,
1.167 no. 34 (IGRR 3:793; Merkelbach and ”ahin
1988, 126 no. 46). [{ ] boulØ ka‹ ~ d}mow t}w
|erçw ka‹ lamprçw ka‹ §ndÒjou ka‹ nevkÒrou
Perga¤vn pÒlevw. . .
The coins of Perge and Side show no overt signs
of a quarrel over titles in the early part of the third
century; their reverse legends read simply ‘of the
Pergaians’ or ‘of the Sidetans,’ though Perge some-
times refers to its asylia of Artemis, and Side to its
festivals.16 During the reign of Gordian III they even
issued coins celebrating their concord, perhaps due
to their participation in joint sacrifices at festivals.17
Perge apparently left neokoros off its coins until the
joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus, including the
period when Gallienus’ son Valerianus was Caesar
(255-258). At that time both Perge and Side began
to boast of being neokoros on their coins.18 Both also
used the letter alpha, probably a claim to the status
of ‘first.’ Though it is uncertain who started the
rivalry, it is possible that Perge, which had long been
neokoros, had no reason to vaunt its title on coins
until Side, perhaps a recent neokoros, began to.
Perge did not use multiple-temple or temple-
bearing deity reverses, as Side did. A two-column
Ionic temple of the city goddess does appear, with
an alpha, probably the mark of Perge’s claim to first
rank, in the pediment.19 The city goddess also per-
sonifies the city as neokoros, as is shown by the
reverse legend of coin type 1:
15 Magie 1950, 1599. The argument of PIR2I 118 that his
consulship must be near Valerian’s reign because the neokoria
only appears on coins that late should not be considered bind-
ing, though followed by Thomasson 1984, 1:285.69; inscrip-
tion 2 shows that the title was granted early, and its appearance
on coins very much later is not unusual in the context of other
neokoroi elsewhere.
16 J. Nollé 1993, 310-313 extends the enmity back as far
as the organization of the province, though virtually all the evi-
dence yet known for it dates after the middle of the third
century.
17 Weiss 1998, 60-63; Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 1:167-
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
Valerian (BMC 70, SNGParis 547, Aykay 74), Gallienus (Aykay
174; New York, Newell), Salonina (SNGvA 4750, SNGParis 608),
Valerianus the Younger (SNGvA 4751, SNGParis 609), and
Saloninus (SNGParis 615). The alpha also appears in the pedi-
ment of the temple of Artemis Pergaia on contemporary coins,
but their legends do not refer to neokoria, which is why I do
not interpret alpha to mean ‘first to be neokoros.’
 chapter
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU K P L GALLIHNON %
KOR %ALVNEINAN Radiate draped bust of
Gallienus l. and diademed draped bust of Salo-
nina r., I between them. Rev: PERGH NEVKO-
RO% Seated city goddess holds branch (prize
crown? b) a) SNGParis 602 b) Berlin 974/1901
(illus. pl. 30 fig. 139).20
The two cities’ rivalry is made explicit by a pair of
(un)complementary reverse types on coins with
obverses of Gallienus featuring an iota (a mark of
value which Nollé dates after 260, meaning that the
issues were about contemporaneous).21
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT KAI PO AI GAL-
LIHNO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Gallienus r., I to r. Rev: PERGAIVN NEVKORVN
Artemis with bow and quiver crowned by Athena
with wreath and spear. a) Boston 66.819 b) Bos-
ton 63.843 c) BMC 80 d) SNGParis 553 e) SNGParis
554 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 140) f) Vienna 18815 g)
Vienna 34039 h) Berlin, Bernhard-Imhoof i) New
York 68.244.
SIDE COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AUT(O, abd) KAI
POU LI EGN GALLIHNO% %E(BA, bcf) Radiate
draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r., I to r. Rev:
%IDHTVN NEVKORVN Seated Athena with phiale
(or an A, b) and palm crowned by Artemis with
wreath and bow. a) BMC 101 b) SNGParis 882
(illus. pl. 31 fig. 148) c) Berlin, Löbbecke d) SNGvA
4850 e) Boston 62.1259 f) SNGPfPS 4.855.
Perge issued type 2, representing its own Artemis (in
Hellenic style as huntress, rather than in the
moundlike shape shown in her temple on other
coins) being crowned by the Athena of Side; many
of its other contemporary coins also include the title
or symbol for ‘first.’ At the same time, Side issued
its type 13, which shows the reverse situation, a regal
Athena crowned by Artemis. So each city issued
coins that showed its own goddess as victor and the
other city’s goddess in a subordinate position ac-
knowledging that victory.
Few cities of the East issued their own coinage or
even erected honorific inscriptions after Gallienus’
reign; Perge and Side did.22 In fact, Pamphylia may
20 A similar reverse but with ‘Perge’ in the dative (?), ob-
verse of Valerianus the younger: Aykay 312.
21 J. Nollé 1987, 261.
22 Naster 1987; Lauritsen 1979, though needing update with
regard to denominations: e.g. Kromann 1989; J. Nollé 1990,
245-249.
18 – perge 177
have flourished in the latter years of the third cen-
tury, though perhaps only in contrast to its less for-
tunate neighbors.23 From the few documents of the
Pamphylian cities, we can trace their continuing
competition for neokoria, a competition that may
have also gone on in the areas for which we have
less evidence.
Fourth Neokoria: Aurelian
In 269 Side defended itself against a Gothic raid,
and it is likely that other Pamphylian cities, perhaps
including Perge, had been threatened as well.24
Aurelian may have honored the cities who had
managed to fight off the raiders; on coins with his
portrait Side boasted that it was three times
neokoros, while Perge’s coins also add an element,
though its meaning is not as clearcut. It is the letter
delta, and though it may mean ‘four,’ it does not
appear directly before the word neokoros but some-
where else on the coins’ reverses; yet it never ap-
pears where neokoros is not.
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K L(OU, abdhj) DOM(I,
abdh; DO, c) AURHLIANO% (%EB, efgijkl-
mnpqrstuvwx) Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Aurelian r., I in field. Rev: PERGAIVN NEVKO-
RVN Two-column temple, D in pediment, Artemis
Pergaia within. a) BMC 100 b) BMC 101 c) Lon-
don 1938.12-4-3 d) Oxford 8.77 e) SNGParis 616
f) SNGParis 619 g) SNGParis 620 h) SNGParis 621
i) SNGCop 366 j) SNGCop 367 k) Vienna 28792
(illus. pl. 31 fig. 141) l) Vienna 1298a m) Vienna
1298b n) Vienna 1299 o) Warsaw 102350 p) Ber-
lin, Imhoof-Blumer q) Berlin, Löbbecke r) SNGvA
4758 s) SNGPfPS 4.451 t) SNGPfPS 4.452 u)
SNGPfPS 4.453 v) SNGPfPS 4.454 w) SNGPfPS
4.455 x) SNGPfPS 4.456 y) Brussels.25
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT LOU DOMI AURH-
LIANO %EB Radiate draped bust of Aurelian r.,
I in field. Rev: PERGAIVN NEVKORVN; D Radi-
ate Artemis with torch and bow. a) London
1920.5-16-86.
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT K L DOM AURH-
LIANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Au-
23S. Mitchell 1993, 1:216, 238.
24Alaric Watson 1999, 46.
25 Naster 1987, 137 no. 7, though he takes the delta as the
stylization of an eagle.
178 part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia
relian r., I in field. Rev: PERGAIVN NEVKORVN
Seated Zeus holding sceptre and D. a) SNGParis
617 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 142) b) SNGParis 618 c) Brus-
sels.26
The delta stands independently, much as the letter
alpha standing for ‘first’ had, and often in the same
position on the coins. Was Perge four times neokoros
or had the city become ‘fourth’ rather than ‘first’?
The former is more likely: within a few years of the
coins’ issue Perge would call itself four times neoko-
ros more openly.
The evidence is again Perge’s inscription 2 (above),
which has already documented Perge’s first neo-
koria. It records an acclamation made under (less
likely, after) the emperor Tacitus, who in 275/276
fought off one of a series of Gothic invasions of Asia
Minor.27 The acclamation praises Perge for a num-
ber of reasons, including its status as asylos28 and first
of the judicial centers, its sacred vexillum, its silver
coinage, and its treasury of the emperor. Perge is
“where consulars seek honors and serve as ago-
nothetai . . . summit of Pamphylia . . . not false with
respect to anything at all; all the rights are by de-
cree of the Senate.” Listed among these rights are
‘neokoros from Vespasian’ (already discussed), and
eight lines further down, ‘four times neokoros’; the
delta of enumeration is written larger than the other
letters. Nonetheless, if Perge had already become
four times neokoros in the time of Aurelian, Tacitus
did not augment the city’s neokoriai at all. This is
probably why coins of Tacitus pass by neokoria and
concentrate on other honors he gave to the city: he
made it ‘metropolis of Pamphylia’ and granted it a
festival.29 These honors may also have stood on
inscription 2, which has a gap after the emperor’s
name is mentioned in the second line. Also of in-
terest is that the inscription specified that all the city’s
rights (including the neokoria) were ‘by decree of the
Senate,’ a late example of this proviso which had
been used by several Asian cities earlier in the third
century (see chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ in the
summary chapters in Part II). The phrase was prob-
26 Naster 1987, 138 no. 8; here he takes the delta as either
a mark of value or as enumeration of the neokoriai.
27 Kaygusuz 1984. See also Roueché 1989b; Weiss 1991;
and Merkelbach, ”ahin, and Stauber 1997. The translation in
Abbasoglu 2001 is a trifle awkward.
28 Rigsby 1996, 449-452; C. Jones 1999b, 13-17.
29 Documented, e.g. by BMC 103, SNGvA 4759, SNGParis
622-623, SNGPfPS 4:457-458.
ably meant either to avert any challenge to some of
the more far-fetched of Perge’s titles, or to contrast
the solid basis of Perge’s claims against the (implied)
shoddiness of a rival’s, probably Side’s.30
The pillar on which inscription 2 stood has now
been joined by a similar one; its inscription uses
poetic meter and speaks in the voice of the city it-
self, but its date is the same and the theme is again
Perge’s titulature and status.31 Like the acclamation,
it cites former honors: earlier emperors called Perge
‘head of Pamphylia,’ ‘summit of cities,’ ‘praecipua’
(Latin transliterated into Greek), and Caracalla is
specifically named as granting it the titles ‘friend and
ally’ (of Rome). But it is ‘Zeus Tacitus’ who made
the city metropolis, ‘like Ephesos of Asia’; and in the
last lines, “all the Pamphylians sacrifice with vota at
my side; and now also the chief priests are of the
god Tacitus.” The latter line may sound odd in
English, but other documents show that there were
already chief priests of the emperors, likely provin-
cial ones, in Perge before Tacitus’ reign.32 It is
unlikely that the epigram refers to municipal chief
priests, since they are spoken of in the plural, and
having more than one chief priest makes no sense
for a single municipal temple; the mention of all the
Pamphylians in the previous line also indicates a
provincial imperial cult. Tacitus gave Perge no
additional temple or neokoria for his own cult, but
the standing chief priests now added the cult of
Tacitus to their worship, and Perge stood unchal-
lenged (at least for a while) as the center of that
provincial cult.
Did Tacitus visit Perge, or was he stationed there?
He was certainly in Cilicia for his campaign against
the invading Goths.33 Coins that show the emperor
greeting the city goddess of Perge or handing her
30 Not due to Tacitus’ being chosen by the Senate, as
Merkelbach, ”ahin, and Stauber 1997, 73 would have it; this
is another figment of the Historia Augusta. See Alaric Watson
1999, 106-107, 109-112; Kienast 1996, 250-251.
31 Merkelbach, ”ahin, and Stauber 1997, 73-74.
32 ”ahin 1995, 17-18 noted the similarity between offices
held by an Attaleian (“chief priest of the three pentaeteric games
and agonothetes of the pentaeteric games”) and a Pergaian
(“chief priest three times and agonothetes of three Augustan
games”) in the early second century C.E. Though he calls these
men municipal officials, he allies them with “Neokoriekult,”
and though Pamphylia must be considered an unusual case,
these chief priesthoods are possibly provincial. He also cites
three unpublished inscriptions that mention “chief priest of the
Augusti and agonothetes of the great pentaeteric Kaisareia games
and agonothetes of the Artemeiseia Vespasianeia games”.
33 Alaric Watson 1999, 107; Halfmann 1986a, 240.
 chapter 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 [d‹]w. But in Ramsay’s
the crown of inscription 2; or other inscriptions may
publication, from a copy by Sir C. Wilson, a stigma
yet be found. Until then, Tacitus’ visit to Perge must
(), not a sigma (w), immediately preceded ‘neokoros,’
remain a hypothesis.
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
34 Merkelbach and ”ahin 1988, 116; Merkelbach, ”ahin,
Vespasian. See text above.
and Stauber 1997, 69-70.
Six? times neokoros:
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
from Attaleia. ÑH |e[r]å [êsulow or ka‹ lam(prå)]
ka[‹] ¶ndoj[ow] w (or ?) nevkÒrow Perga¤vn pÒl[iw]
See text above.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Valerian: BMC 70; Istanbul Aykay 7439; SNGPfPS 4.415;
Berlin, London, New York, Oxford, Paris, Vienna.
Gallienus: BMC 73, 75, 79-81; SNGCop 358; SNGvA 4723,
4724, 4727, 4729, 4734, 4735, 8522-8524; Istanbul
Aykay 83, 152, 155, 174, 225; SNGParis 553-555,
567, 578, 580, 581; SNGRighetti 1289; SNGPfPS 4.421,
422, 431, 432, 436, 437; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston (3
exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford,
Vienna (6 exx.).40
39 Aykay 1967 (= Aykay); only illustrated coins cited here.
40 Tekin 1994, no. 18, a coin citing neokoria with reverse
of Serapis, but not illustrated.
Gallienus and Salonina: Berlin.
Salonina: BMC 86, 90, 95; SNGCop 362; SNGvA 4740,
4745, 4746, 4750, 8529; Istanbul Aykay 286;
SNGParis 586, 588, 594, 595, 599, 602, 605, 608;
Berlin (4 exx.), Boston (6 exx.), London, New York
(2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.).
Valerianus Caesar: BMC 98; SNGvA 4751; Istanbul Aykay
312; SNGParis 609, 610; SNGRighetti 1293; Berlin (3
exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (2 exx.), Vienna.
Saloninus: BMC 99, 99A; SNGvA 4753, 4755-4757;
Istanbul Aykay 327; SNGParis 612-615; SNGPfPS
4.442; Berlin (3 exx.), Boston, London (3 exx.), New
York, Vienna.
Four (times?) neokoros:
Aurelian: BMC 100, 101; SNGCop 366, 367; SNGvA 4758;
SNGParis 616-621; SNGPfPS 4.450-456; Berlin (2
exx.), London (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (6 exx.), Vienna
(4 exx.), Warsaw.
 chapter
Chapter 19. Side: (Association of) Cities of Pamphylia
Side’s relationship to its Pamphylian neighbors was
often troubled.1 Though in the Hellenistic period its
chief enemy was Aspendos (q.v.), with which it
shared a border, by later Roman times the rivalry
was between Side and Perge (q.v.) for primacy in
the province. No document states explicitly which
one was seat of the governor of Lycia and Pam-
phylia; current scholarly opinion has tilted toward
Perge, while Side was probably a judicial district
center.2 The two seem to have had an amicable
interval during the reign of Gordian III, when each
issued coins celebrating its concord with the other.3
First Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus
Perge, neokoros since Vespasian, was probably the
only Pamphylian city to hold that title until the mid-
third century, but did not refer to that fact on its
earlier coinage. Then during the joint reign of
Valerian and Gallienus, as early as the period when
Gallienus’ son Valerianus was named as Caesar
(255-258), both Perge and Side began to proclaim
themselves neokoros on coins, and to use the letter
alpha to proclaim themselves ‘first.’
Side apparently also called itself neokoros on a
fragmentary but datable inscription:
INSCRIPTION 1. SiA 1 no. 44 (Bean 1965, no.
183). Statue base of Gallienus as twice consul, thus
255-256. [{ f¤lh] sÊmm[axow pi]stØ ÑRvma¤vn`
[S¤dh m]ust‹[w] ka‹ n`[evkoroËsa t“ patr]–ƒ
y[e“] kt[¤s]t_ ÉApÒll[vni ka]‹ nevkoroË[s]a
[ye“ ÉAyhnò . . .]
In his SiA publication, Nollé restored the inscription
to claim that in 255, Side was not once, but twice
1 J. Nollé 1993; J. Nollé 1993-2001 (= SiA) 1:88-94.
2 Haensch 1997, 290-297.
3 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 167-170, 191-193 (though not
documented for the reign of Philip, as the chart on 167 im-
plies). For the possibility that the cities participated in joint
sacrifices at sacred festival(s), Weiss 1998, 60-63.
19 – side 181
neokoros, once for Apollo and once for Athena (see
below). The syntax, however, is very unusual, fea-
turing two participles with dative formed on com-
parison with inscription 4 (below), which is itself
incomplete and restored at this point. In addition,
the sole basis for the restoration of n[eokoria] to
Apollo is a doubtful letter, lambda- or alpha-shaped
rather than like a nu. Nollé has replaced Bean’s res-
toration ‘asylos for the ancestral god (and) founder
Apollo’ with the neokoria, based on a suggestion of
the Roberts.4 One reason is that Perge’s inscription
3 (q.v.), an ‘acclamation’ from the time of Tacitus,
calls Perge { mÒnh êsulow. Nollé concluded from this
that Side could not have used the title asylos until
after the time of Tacitus.5 His conclusion disregards
the fact that both Side and Sillyon in Pamphylia had
actually used the title ‘asylos’ on coins under
Aurelian (270-275), and that Rigsby found no diffi-
culty in seeing Perge’s boast as magniloquent rather
than legalistic and dating the asylia of both Perge
and Side to the Hellenistic era.6 In any case, the
coins mentioned above call Athena, not Apollo,
asylos. But no matter if we cannot accurately restore
inscription 1; a questionable restoration that contra-
dicts other evidence is worse than no restoration at
all, and the contemporary coins only state that Side
was neokoros at this time. If the city could have
claimed the honor twice to its rival Perge’s once, why
did it never declare it explicitly?
The reason for Side’s new prominence and
titulature, as for that of other cities of this province,
is not far to seek. Rome’s ongoing defense against
the Sassanian Persian empire required the presence
of armies, and sometimes of the emperor himself,
in the East.7 Syria had been the usual base for
4 J. and L. Robert, in Revue des études grecques (1982) 417-
422 no. 450.
5 SiA 1:316; but cf. 1:90. The argument in vol. 1 was made
difficult to follow by manifold references to parts of SiA that
had not yet appeared.
6 Rigsby 1996, 449-455; Nollé replied in SiA 2:650-651.
7 J. Nollé 1987, 254-264.
182 part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia
Roman armies fighting eastern wars, but that prov-
ince was vulnerable to land attack; it and its chief
city Antioch were overrun by the Persians under
Shapur in 252-253.8 The neighboring province of
Cilicia was similarly vulnerable, and was also in-
vaded in Shapur’s subsequent campaign of 260.9
Pamphylia, on the other hand, was guarded by an
arc of mountains which made access difficult from
anywhere but the sea. Of the cities that occupied
that narrow crescent of land, Side had two strate-
gic advantages. Whereas Perge and Aspendos were
sited farther inland, Side was on the coast, more
directly accessible to the Roman fleet; and though
Attaleia too controlled a harbor, Side’s was the
easternmost on the Pamphylian coast, closer to the
theater of war.
Certainly Side received honors beside the title
‘neokoros’: at least one festival’s status was an im-
perial gift (dorea), though it is unlikely that the fes-
tival was connected with the grant of neokoria.10
Side’s ‘sacred’ and ‘worldwide’ festivals were the
Mystikos—whose origins are uncertain but likely pre-
Hadrianic—and the Pythia, short for Apolloneios
Gordianeios Antoneinios isopythios ekecheirios iselastikos,
founded well before any known claim of neokoria,
in the reign of Gordian III.11
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI PO LI GAL-
LIHNO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Gallienus r. Rev: %IDHTVN NEVKORVN Apollo
and emperor clasp right hands. a) BMC 111 (illus.
pl. 31 fig. 143).
Side’s coin type 1 implies some contact between the
city and its ruler. On it an emperor in military dress,
probably Gallienus’ father Valerian, joins hands with
one of Side’s patron gods, Apollo. This gesture may
refer to anything from an imperial visit to concord
in its vaguest sense, or even to a grant of some
privilege, which may include the neokoria. Side had
a tendency to use its patron gods on coins as stand-
ins for the city itself. This numismatic practice was
usual in other cities as well, especially on alliance
coinage, but Side extended the metaphor visually
and verbally. It may even be that the many gods Side
8 The sources are usefully collected in Dodgeon and Lieu
1994, 50-56.
9 J. Nollé 1986a.
10 SNGvA 4856; Karl 1975, 41-42. On whether such games
were actually financed by the emperor, see Wörrle 1988, 177
n. 134.
11 Weiss 1981; SiA 2:438-439, 442-451.
called neokoroi gave the city its pretext for its later
multiple neokoriai (below).
In addition to the standard form of coinage
minted in the name of the citizens as neokoroi, Side
issued types of the city goddess (often with pome-
granates, the punning symbol for Side) as neokoros.12
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT KAI PO LI(K, ab)
GALLIHNO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Gallienus r., IA to r. Rev: %IDH NEVKORO%
Seated city goddess with pomegranates. a) Lon-
don 1925.1-5-85 b) SNGParis 676 c) Paris 695 d)
SNGCop 428 e) Warsaw 57951 f) Berlin, Imhoof-
Blumer g) SNGPfPS 4.830 h) SNGPfPS 4.831.
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: KORNHLIA %ALVNINA
%EB(A, dgj) Diademed draped bust of Salonina
r. (IA to r., g; IB, efi) Rev: %IDH MU%TI%
NEVKORO% Veiled, mural-crowned, draped bust
of city goddess r.13 a) BMC 126 b) SNGParis 930
c) SNGParis 931 d) SNGCop 431 e) SNGRighetti 1312
f) Vienna 34870 g) Berlin, Löbbecke h) Berlin,
Imhoof-Blumer i) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer j)
SNGPfPS 4.869.
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: POU LIK KOR OUALERIA-
NON KAI %EB Draped cuirassed bust of
Valerianus the Younger r. (IA to r., b) Rev: %IDH
NEVKORO% Veiled, mural-crowned, draped bust
of city goddess r. a) Berlin, Löbbecke b) Side Coins
143.14
The same concept was expressed when the city
goddess was shown holding a temple, a standard
pictorialization of the concept of a city as neokoros:
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT KAI PO LI GAL-
LIHNO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Gallienus r., IB to r. Rev: %IDHTVN NEVKORVN
City goddess holding small temple and prow?, be-
hind her an army standard.15 a) London 1970.9-
9-167 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 144) b) SNGParis 912 c)
Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer d) SNGvA 4845.
Side even used its Olympian gods to represent the
city as neokoros. Athena, the city’s chief patron, also
occasionally held a temple among her other at-
tributes:16
12 SiA 1:121, 123 n. 425.
13 On the goddess as mystis, J. Nollé 1986b, 204-206.
14 Atlan 1976 (= Side Coins).
15 Pick 1904, 12 no. 10.1.
16 SiA 1:106-112.
 chapter
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: KORNHLIA %ALVNINA
%E(BA, acg) Diademed draped bust of Salonina
r., IA to r. (eagle below, bdef) Rev: %IDHTVN
NEVKORVN Athena holding small temple and
spear.17 a) BMC 120 b) BMC 121 c) SNGParis 940
d) SNGParis 937 e) Vienna 18858 f) SNGvA 4852
g) SNGPfPS 4.867.
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: KAI %EB POU LIK KOR
OUALE[RIANON] Laureate draped cuirassed bust
of Valerianus the Younger r., eagle below. Rev:
[%I]DHTVN NEVKORVN Athena holding small
temple and spear. a) Boston 63.857.
The Sidetan Apollo not only joined hands with the
emperor (type 1) but was named neokoros just as the
city goddess had been:18
COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT KAI PO LI GALLIHNO
%EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus
r. (IA to r., c) (eagle below, a) Rev: APOLLVNO%
%IDHTOU NEVKOROU Apollo with laurel wreath
and staff. a) London 1969.10-21-7 (illus. pl. 31 fig.
145) b) Warsaw 89218/166807 c) Berlin, Imhoof-
Blumer.
COIN TYPE 9. Obv: POU LIK KOR OUALER-
IANON KAI %EB Draped cuirassed bust of
Valerianus the Younger r., IA to r. Rev: APOLL-
VNO% %IDHTOU NEVKOROU Apollo with laurel
wreath and staff. a) Oxford 15.21 b) SNGParis 948
c) Berlin 12/1882.
The types that show Apollo as neokoros have pro-
voked more than their share of controversy.19
Babelon and Six believed that the emperor was to
be identified with Apollo, though that identification
would make the emperor/Apollo neokoros of him-
self. Nock believed that Apollo was being portrayed
as a neokoros official because the funds of his temple
helped defray the cost of the imperial cult; Nollé
further explained that the god’s name was in the
genitive because his temple treasury also paid for that
issue of coins.20 None of these theories takes full
account of Side’s habit of using its chief gods to
represent the city; here, it may have only stretched
its metaphor further than other cities did. Like
17 Pick 1904, 12 no. 10.2.
18 SiA 1:112-115.
19 Nock 1930b, 36-37. Robert was atypically pessimistic
about finding any explanation: J. and L. Robert, Revue des études
grecques (1982) 417-422 no. 450.
20 J. Nollé 1990, 249 no. 36.
19 – side 183
Athena and like the city goddess, Sidetan Apollo
could represent the city, and if the city had the title,
then Apollo could also be called neokoros.
Pick thought that the imperial cult was housed in
Apollo’s temple, making the emperor(s) cult part-
ner(s) of the god, and this hypothesis may turn out
to be correct, despite the fact that contemporary
coins show the Sidetan Apollo standing alone in his
temple, not with a companion.21 On another type
issued before 260, Apollo actually sacrifices before
a temple with an arched lintel; unfortunately its
portal is empty.22 This representation reminds us,
however, of several cases where emperors were
shown on coins sacrificing before the temples that
they shared with other gods: Caracalla to Asklepios
at Pergamon, Elagabalus to Apollo at Philippopolis,
Severus Alexander to Asklepios at Aigeai (qq.v.). It
is just possible that Apollo of Side was shown sac-
rificing to the emperor(s) in the temple he shared
with them, the temple that made Side (and, meta-
phorically, Apollo) neokoros.
Later, under Aurelian, Asklepios too may have
served as neokoros, though the only known example
is unclear at a crucial point:23
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K L DOM AURHL-
IANO% %EB Radiate draped cuirassed bust of
Aurelian, IA to r. Rev: A%KLHPIV NEVKOR[V](?)
%IDHTVN Asklepios with snake-entwined staff. a)
Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer (illus. pl. 31 fig. 146).
On type 10 it is possible that the adjective ‘neokoros’
does not modify Asklepios, but the Sidetans; one
would then wonder why the enumeration is lacking,
as Side is three times neokoros on other coins issued
under Aurelian (below).
Side was not strict in its use of multiple-temple
reverse types either; under Gallienus it minted types
that had generally been used by cities that were three
times or twice neokoros.
COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT KAI PO LI GAL-
LIHNO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Gallienus r., IA to r. Rev: NEVKORVN %IDHTVN
Three temples; lower two four-column, turned to-
21 SNGPfPS 4:808 (Gallienus), SNGParis 934, SNGPfPS 4:873
(Salonina); though the god can look much like an emperor in
military costume, his short cloak is distinctive.
22 With obverse of Valerian: SNGParis 874; Leypold 1983,
40 no. 25.
23 SiA 1:115-116.
184 part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia
ward one another; center one four-column (two-
column, a), A in pediment, horseman raises right
hand within.24 a) SNGParis 915 b) New York
1944.100.50964 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 147) c) SNGvA
4840 d) SNGvA 4841.
COIN TYPE 12. Obv: KORNHLIA %ALVNINA
%EB Diademed draped bust of Salonina r. Rev:
%IDHTVN NEVKORVN Seated city goddess hold-
ing two six-column temples. a) Boston 66.30925
b) Private collection.26
Type 11 looks like a claim of three neokoriai, as the
title is carefully included in the midst of the temples
and accentuated by a ground line. But it is more
likely that the type was adopted wholesale from
Smyrna, which was still issuing triple-temple coins,
or from one of the other three-times neokoroi, as a
symbol of the status neokoros. If so, probably the
center temple, with the letter alpha standing for ‘first’
in its pediment, would be the temple for which Side
was neokoros. Within is an equestrian figure, a statue
type well suited to an emperor though less suitable
as a cult statue; perhaps the monument stood else-
where within the temple precinct but the die-cutter
transposed it to make the temple more recogniz-
able.27 On some examples a male figure can be seen
standing to the right of the horseman, so there may
have been other figures in the group. As for the other
two temples, no cult statues identify them, but they
may represent the shrines of Side’s chief gods Apollo
and Athena. These have been identified as two late
second-century C.E. Corinthian temples lying side
by side next to the harbor.28 Only an odd semicir-
cular temple of the moon god Men, not usually
equestrian, was found near these two; but then
multiple-temple coin types cannot be taken to rep-
resent topographical reality. Side’s coin type 11 may
fit the precedent set at other cities, such as Tralles
and Sardis, of allying temple(s) for which the city was
neokoros with temple(s) of patron god(s), resulting
in a more impressive coin type.
24 M. Price and Trell 1977, fig. 453 identified it as the
temple of Apollo and two imperial temples, minted under
Trebonianus Gallus (sic). See also J. Nollé 1990, 252 no. 59.
25 Hecht 1964, 163 no. 13 pl. 11.
26 J. Nollé 1990, 252 no. 58.
27 Bergemann 1990, 14-19 on status and placement; 113
notes an equestrian statue found at Side, though there is no
necessary association with this coin type.
28 Mansel 1965; Gros 1996-2001, 1:189-190.
It is less easy to explain the pretensions of coin
type 12. Instead of holding the single (imperial?)
temple as she does on type 5, here the city goddess
of Side holds two miniature temples. Since Side
seems to have imitated multiple-temple types of
other cities, it may have picked this one up from
elsewhere as well—again, Smyrna was still issuing
types of goddesses holding temples. The mark of
value on type 11 and the epsilon countermark on
both examples of type 12 probably date their origi-
nal issue before 260.29 Thus the many coins issued
after them continued to proclaim the city simply
neokoros. J. Nollé (see below) held that Side was in
fact twice neokoros when coin type 12 was issued,
and three times neokoros for coin type 11, but the
city did not choose to express that enumeration on
the coins. Yet the two types were close to contem-
poraneous; and Side’s rivalry with Perge was then
hot enough that it would likely claim all the
neokoriai it could. So the balance of the evidence
tilts toward Side’s being once neokoros, but having
its coin types pretend at more.
Side’s declaration of neokoria appears to have
provoked a reaction from its neighbor and rival
Perge. Though Perge had been neokoros since the
time of Vespasian, it had never used the title on its
coins so far as we know. As soon as it had a rival in
for the title, however, Perge also began to give
neokoros pride of place on its coinage for Valerian,
Gallienus, Salonina, Valerianus Caesar and Salo-
ninus.
As noted above in chapter 18, ‘Perge,’ the two
cities’ rivalry is made explicit by a pair of comple-
mentary reverse types on coins with obverses of
Gallienus, both probably dated after 260:30
COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AUT(O, abd) KAI POU LI
EGN GALLIHNO% %E(BA, bcf) Radiate draped
cuirassed bust of Gallienus r., I to r. Rev:
%IDHTVN NEVKORVN Seated Athena with phiale
(or an A, b) and palm crowned by Artemis with
wreath and bow. a) BMC 101 b) SNGParis 882
(illus. pl. 31 fig. 148) c) Berlin, Löbbecke d) SNGvA
4850 e) Boston 62.1259 f) SNGPfPS 4.855.
PERGE COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT KAI PO AI
GALLIHNO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust
of Gallienus r., I to r. Rev: PERGAIVN
29 J. Nollé 1990, 245-249.
30 J. Nollé 1987, 261.
 chapter
NEVKORVN Artemis with bow and quiver
crowned by Athena with wreath and spear. a)
Boston 66.819 b) Boston 63.843 c) BMC 80 d)
SNGParis 553 e) SNGParis 554 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 140)
f) Vienna 18815 g) Vienna 34039 h) Berlin,
Bernhard-Imhoof i) New York 68.244.
Side issued type 13, which shows its patron Athena
enthroned in a magisterial chair, holding the palm
of victory and, on one example, an alpha signifying
‘first’; behind her stands Artemis, chief goddess of
Perge, holding out a wreath with which to crown
her. But Perge counterclaimed with its type 2, rep-
resenting the reverse situation; many of its other
contemporary coins also include the title or symbol
for ‘first.’ Each city thereby stated its possession of
the same titles of ‘first’ and ‘neokoros,’ while also
portraying its rival’s goddess as subordinate to its
own.
Third Neokoria: Aurelian
As has been mentioned in the discussion of Perge,
the Pamphylian cities were exceptional in continu-
ing to issue civic coins after Gallienus’ reign. From
their evidence and that of the cities’ inscriptions, the
continuing competition for neokoria between Perge
and Side can be followed to a period later than at
other cities. A little over a decade after Side had first
claimed its neokoria, the city’s coin legends began
to boast that it was ‘three times neokoros.’ The
emperor at the time was Aurelian (270-275), who
spent a large proportion of his reign fighting the
Palmyrenes and recovering Rome’s eastern prov-
inces. Once again it may have been Side’s strategic
position at this time of emergency that made it
worthy of such abundant honors, or it may have
been its brave resistance to a Gothic siege ca. 269.31
COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT K L DOM AURHLI-
ANO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Aurelian
r., IA to r. Rev: %IDHTVN G NEVKORVN Apollo
with laurel wreath and staff. a) SNGParis 950 (in-
correct) b) Berlin 393/1887 c) Berlin, Bernhard-
Imhoof d) SNGvA 4864 e) Side Coins 146.
COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AUT K L DOM AURH-
LIANO% %EB Radiate draped cuirassed bust of
31 Salamon 1971, 137; SiA 1:95, 167-168; Foss 1996, Ch.
4, 25-28; Alaric Watson 1999, 46.
19 – side 185
Aurelian r., IA to r. Rev: %IDHTVN G NEVKO-
RVN Hekate or Demeter with torch and snake.
a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer b) Berlin, Bernhard-
Imhoof.
On coins with portraits of the same emperor, Perge
added the letter delta, whose significance has been
discussed in that chapter (18). Perge was certainly
four times neokoros within five years of when Side
declared itself three times neokoros. Again it seems
that the two cities were in competition, this time in
sheer numbers of neokoriai. In neither city are the
objects of these cults mentioned. It may even be
possible that the cities played off one emperor against
another in requesting these honors. But the fact that
Perge seems to have jumped to four times neokoros
while Side became three times neokoros under the
same emperor may show that Aurelian granted the
favors but tried to balance honors between the two
cities, with Perge allowed to hold a slim advantage.
Sixth Neokoria: after 275
The latest evidence yet known, however, may have
given the advantage to Side. It eventually attained
the unprecedented title of six times neokoros, plac-
ing it well beyond the last-known status of even such
cities as Ephesos and Thessalonike. Some time af-
ter Aurelian, when the last coins of Side listed three
neokoriai, Side’s inscription 4 clearly proclaimed the
city as six times neokoros, while inscription 3, though
damaged, could indicate either the same or another
number, perhaps four or five as Welles suggested,32
or ‘many times’ as in Sardis inscription 7 (q.v.); there
is plenty of room on the stone. It is even (remotely)
possible that inscription 3 postdates inscription 4,
and that it once referred to the city as seven or more
times neokoros.
INSCRIPTION 3. SiA 2 no. 112 (Mansel, E.
Bosch, and Inan 1951, no. 2). Inscribed sculptured
column set up by the gerousia of the Tetrapolitai.
t}[w mhtro]pÒlevw S¤d[hw ßja]kiw nevk[Òrou]
The date of inscription 3 has been debated. Foss
favored a date after 286 in the Tetrarchic period for
32 C. Welles, review of Mansel, E. Bosch, and Inan 1951
in American Journal of Archaeology 57 (1953) 300-302; J. and L.
Robert, Bulletin Épigraphique 1951, 194 no. 219.
186 part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia
both inscriptions 3 and 4 (below), though this was
primarily based on the number of neokoriai; also,
he excluded the “troubled years which preceded”
the Tetrarchy, though those are the very years in
which Side and Perge had climbed from simple
neokoroi to three and four times neokoroi.33 Nollé
favored a date after Probus, who, he held, made Side
metropolis, which is also why SiA restored the enu-
meration as precisely six times neokoros (granted,
according to Nollé, by Tacitus; see discussion be-
low). Without further information, however, we can
be no more precise about the date of inscription 3
than ‘from ca. 275 to the early fourth century.’34
INSCRIPTION 4. SiA 1 no. 26 (Mansel, E.
Bosch, and Inan 1951, no. 67; SEG 6:731). { la-
mpr[otãth] boulØ ka‹ ~ eÈstayØ`[w d}]mow ka‹
{ semnotãt[h ka‹ f]ilos°bastow ka‹ kr[at¤sth
t]}w lamprotãthw k[a‹ §ndÒj]ou •jãkiw
nevkÒ[rou Sidht]«n pÒlevw |erå ka[‹ megãlh
ge]rous¤a nevkoroË[sa ÉAyhnò tª ye]“ ésÊlƒ
ka‹ nev[koroËsa ye]“ DionÊsƒ t“ §n t“ |e`[r“]
aÈt}w deipnisthr¤ƒ.
The syntax of Side’s inscription no. 4 is distinctly
odd in every published restoration, especially in this
last part, when the number of letters to be crammed
in makes each line longer than it should be, though
little sense is thereby obtained. Restoring participles
based on the verb nevkor°v allowed the various
editors to deal with the fact that a genitive (of the
city) is followed by nominatives (modifying ‘gerousia’)
and then what appears to be another genitive of
nevkÒrow. None have explained why the longer
participle, unprecedented in any unrestored inscrip-
tion discussed in this book, should have been cho-
sen by those who set up this particular base, when
the simple adjectival noun nevkÒrow is what the
editors perceive them to have meant, and what they
have translated.
In order to have a basis for any solid reasoning,
we should strip this inscription of all but the most
obvious restorations. The result is a base for a statue
of the personified Roman Senate. The monument
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
also stated in my unpublished dissertation, Neokoroi: Greek Cit-
ies of the Roman East (Harvard University 1980) 467; the date
attributed to me by S. Price 1984b, 272 was the result of a
miscommunication.
probably had little to do with the supposed senato-
rial basis of the emperor Tacitus’ rule, but with a
function more crucial to the eastern cities: the Sen-
ate confirmed titulature, and such a confirmation
was either now achieved or fervently hoped for by
Side.35 The statue was set up beside other ‘divine’
monuments of an individual emperor; note that a
single Augustus is mentioned, not Augusti or
Caesares, which would make a date after 286, when
Diocletian began to take colleagues, appear less
likely. The dedicators of the statue are “the most
illustrious council and the steadfast people and the
most powerful and emperor-loving and strong, sa-
cred. . . council of elders of the most illustrious and
famed six-times neokoros city of the Sidetans.” From
that point, all that can be recognized is intermittent
words: “of neokoros (genitive). . . to the asylos (da-
tive, perhaps a reference to Athena), new (dative, or
neokoros again). . . to (the god?) Dionysos (dative),
the one in its (sacred?) dining-room.” None of this
disconnected terminology fits the usual formula else-
where, of a city being neokoros either of emperors
or of deities, where the object of cult is genitive. Side
had previously used odd terminology on its coins,
such as type 10 (“to Asklepios neokoros?, of the
Sidetans”), but the use of the dative for the object
of cult of the neokoria, as inscription 3 is currently
interpreted, appears clearly on none of these coins
or inscriptions (inscription 1 cannot serve as a pre-
cedent, since it has itself been restored based on
inscription 4). Dionysos, whose name appears toward
the end of inscription 4, was worshipped in Side,
though if his only shrine was in the gerousia’s din-
ing room, we must wonder how such a minor cult
could have won a separate neokoria (if so restored)
for Side.36 And since Side was six times neokoros
at the time of inscription 4, we may also wonder why
only two objects of cult, (perhaps) Athena and
Dionysos, are mentioned here. It seems more likely
that the last line refers to the location where the
statue of the Senate was to be set up. As for repeated
use of the title neokoros in oblique cases which do
not modify the city’s name, it is possible that, as on
the coins mentioned above, inscription 4 referred to
the city’s patron gods as neokoroi.
35 Pace SiA 1:289; see Kienast 1996, 250-251; Alaric Watson
1999, 106-107, 109-112.
36 SiA 1:116-117. SiA 2 nos. 153 and 154 are inscriptions
of a sacred dining room of the gerousia, dated to before 212
C.E.
 chapter
Having laid out the evidence, we must now turn
to the interpretations of J. Nollé. Based on the pre-
sumption that Side’s rank and titulature went hand-
in-hand with Perge’s, and with some disregard for
the actual words of the ancient coins and inscrip-
tions, he has constructed out of possibilities and
surmises what can only be called a historical fic-
tion.37 He would have Side, like Perge, first made
neokoros under Vespasian (for which no document
exists) and given a pentaeteric festival as a matter
of course. His restoration of inscription 1, judged
above to be highly uncertain, was coupled with coin
type 12 to propose that Valerian and Gallienus made
Side twice neokoros before 256. The three temples
of coin type 11 were then taken to prove that Side
was three times neokoros before the defeat of Vale-
rian in 260. All the while the coin legends of this
very rivalrous city give no hint of enumeration be-
fore the title ‘neokoros.’ Then, in the reign of
Aurelian, when the Sidetans finally put the enumera-
tion for three times neokoros on their coin legends,
Nollé believed that Aurelian actually granted them
a fourth neokoria, again based on no document but
because Perge’s coins claimed four neokoriai at that
time. According to him, Tacitus was the specific
emperor who granted Side an additional two
neokoriai, again due to rivalry: Tacitus had to make
up for Perge’s becoming metropolis. But though the
total of six Sidetan neokoriai is assured by inscrip-
tion 4 and perhaps others, none of these honors can
be specifically dated to Tacitus’ reign. Again, Nollé
chose Probus as the emperor who granted metropolis
status to Side soon after Perge received it, though
no document points at him specifically. Some of
these hypotheses are contradicted by the data, and
none are proved by them. This drive towards over-
exactitude based on supposition is not the wisest
approach to ancient evidence, which is always
lacunose and open to surprising new finds.
Let us sum up rather more soberly. Side declared
itself to be neokoros under Valerian and Gallienus,
sometime before the end of Gallienus’ second con-
sulship in December 256. Then on coins of Aurelian
it claimed to be three times neokoros. After that, but
likely before 286, it was six times neokoros. It is
certainly possible that a single emperor granted Side
more than one neokoria at a time, as Trajan Decius
had to Thessalonike (q.v.).
37 SiA 1:85, 88-94, 122-125. He also defended the histori-
cal stylings of the Historia Augusta: SiA 1:288 n. 28.
19 – side 187
Side never clearly claimed to be neokoros of any
god, yet the city’s gods played a larger than usual
role in the neokoria. Among them was the city
goddess, who as at other cities personified the
neokoros city and carried the temple(s) on coinage.
Athena, the city’s chief patron, was not called
neokoros but like the city goddess carried a temple,
and her name has been restored near the title in
inscriptions 1 and 4. Apollo Sidetes took the name
‘neokoros’ on coins and may have shared his temple
with the imperial cult for which the city first became
neokoros, though a restoration of neokoria near his
name in inscription 1 is very uncertain. Asklepios
was possibly named as neokoros on one coin issue,
and Dionysos’ name has been tenuously associated
with the title in inscription 4. We should note, how-
ever, that at the time that the city goddess, Athena,
and Apollo were portrayed as neokoroi on coins
under Valerian and Gallienus, Side only claimed to
be neokoros, not twice or three times neokoros.
These coin types, then, cannot indicate that Side was
neokoros for any of these gods at that time, but only
that the gods personified the city. If, as is just pos-
sible, coin types 8 and 9 indicate that Apollo was
neokoros because the imperial cult was moved into
his temple, the corollary is that the cult could not
have moved into the temple of Athena or the temple
of the city goddess as well.
By the time of Aurelian, Asklepios may have
provided another temple for the three neokoriai of
Side (coin type 10); and by the time of inscription
4, ca. 275-286 C.E., Athena’s and (less likely) Diony-
sos’ shrines may have been added, making up four
at most of the six temples for which Side claimed
neokoros status. Certainly allotting the title for pre-
viously existing temples would have saved the cost
of building new ones, especially when manpower and
material were scarce, and what there was was de-
voted to the armies and self-defense.38 We may also
wonder whether the city was simply making up its
own titles, but firm evidence for or against any of
these hypotheses has yet to be found.
Side, at six, may still have the highest number of
neokoriai we know; but for most other cities, the
documents end with Gallienus, when Side was still
only an unremarkable neokoros. The few cities that
provide later evidence of the title’s continuing sta-
tus include Perinthos, still twice neokoros under
Aurelian; Synnada, twice neokoros around 293-305,
in the Tetrarchic period; Sagalassos, still twice
38 J. Nollé 1990, 255; SiA 1:130.
188 part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia
neokoros under Constantine and his sons (333-337);
and Sardis, twice neokoros as an anachronism in 459
C.E.
And then there is Side’s rival Perge. In the reign
of Aurelian, Perge had still been one neokoria ahead
of Side, at four to Side’s three. Perge was last seen
as four times neokoros in the reign of Tacitus, and
the fervor with which Perge hailed that emperor,
who had made it metropolis, may indicate that he
didn’t allow any advantage over Perge to Side. And
now a revision of Perge’s inscription 4 may tell us
whether Perge too became six times neokoros, some-
time after Tacitus’ reign. If so, it is possible that
Perge held its advantage over Side until both Chris-
tian cities dropped all mention of neokoria and its
implication of imperial cult from their titulature.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
1. SiA 1 no. 44 (Bean 1965, no. 183). See text above.
2. SiA 2 no. 158 (Bean 1965, no. 97). Fragmentary
inscription referring to the gerousia as neokoros of
a god, gods, or of something divine? Letter forms
of later third century.
At least four times neokoros:
3. SiA 2 no. 112 (Mansel, E. Bosch, and Inan 1951,
no. 2). Likely dated after 275 C.E.; see text above.
Six times neokoros:
4. SiA 1 no. 26 (Mansel, E. Bosch, and Inan 1951,
no. 18). Likely dated 275-286 C.E.; see text above.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Valerian: Side Coins 115; SNGvA 4835, 4836; SNGParis 874;
SNGPfPS 4.791-793, 795-796, 798; Berlin (4 exx.),
London (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.).
Gallienus: Side Coins 118, 120, 123-125, 127, 129-131,
133; BMC 108-116, 117a, 118-119a; SNGCop 425-
428; SNGvA 4840-4845, 4847-4850, 8545-8548;
SNGParis 881-913, 915-925; SNGRighetti 1309, 1310;
SNGPfPS 4.804-836, 838-847, 849-858; Ireland 2000,
no. 1725; Berlin (29 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London
(11 exx.), New York (12 exx.), Oxford (11 exx.),
Vienna (14 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.).
Salonina: Side Coins 135-139, 141; BMC 120-123a, 124-
126; SNGCop 429-433; SNGvA 4852, 4854, 4856-
4863, 8550, 8551; SNGParis 930, 931, 933-942;
SNGRighetti 1311, 1312; SNGPfPS 4.860-880; Berlin
(13 exx.), Boston (4 exx.), London (7 exx.), New York
(9 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Vienna (11 exx.), Warsaw
(3 exx.).
Valerianus the Younger: Side Coins 143, 144; BMC 127,
128; SNGCop 434, 435; SNGParis 943-948; SNGRighetti
1313; SNGPfPS 4.881-888; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston,
London (2 exx.), Oxford, Vienna (2 exx.).
Three times neokoros:
Aurelian: Side Coins 146; SNGvA 4864; SNGParis 950 (in-
correct); SNGPfPS 4.891; Berlin (5 exx.).
 chapter
Chapter 20. Aspendos: (Association of) Cities of Pamphylia
First Neokoria: Gallienus
Three cities in Pamphylia are known to have been
neokoroi: Perge, Side (qq.v.), and about equidistant
between them, Aspendos. Aspendos had from early
on shared a border with, and been hostile to, Side.1
But at the time in question, the mid-third century
C.E., the chief rivalry was between Perge and Side,
and Aspendos took sides with its old enemy, even
issuing coins of concord with Side.2 Aspendos,
judged as third among the cities of Pamphylia, may
have been only a judicial district center.3 Its great
pentaeteric Kaisareoi contest probably antedated the
neokoria, and the only other known festival it cel-
ebrated was of the lower-ranked type with monetary
prizes.4 Only a single reverse coin type, issued with
obverses of Gallienus and his wife Salonina, indicates
that Aspendos was also neokoros.5
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI PO L GAL-
LIHNO[% %E] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Gallienus r., I to r. Rev: A%PENDIVN NEVKO-
RVN Temple-shaped plaque on which the title is
engraved. a) London 1921.4-12-117 (Weber 7326)6
(illus. pl. 32 fig. 149).
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: KORNHLIA %ALVNINA
Diademed draped bust of Salonina r., I to r. Rev:
A%PENDIVN NEVKORVN Temple-shaped plaque
on which the title is engraved. a) SNGParis
218.
Types 1 and 2 date the honor to the reign of Gal-
lienus (253-268), likely after 260, as no coins of
Valerian, his father and co-ruler to that time, have
yet been found to cite the title ‘neokoros.’ The mark
of value on the obverse is also suitable to that time,
1 7 J. Nollé 1990, 245-249.
J. Nollé 1993.
2 8 SNGParis 221, Valerianus the Younger; a similar seated
Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 15; J. Nollé 1990, 261-262.
3 Philostratos, Life of Apollonios 1.15; Haensch 1997, 294.
4 IGRR 3:804; Karl 1975, 57-58; Wallner 1997, 154-155.
5 S. Price 1984b, 271.
6 Forrer 1922-1929, 3.2 pl. 262.
20 – aspendos 189
and the same mark appears on coins of Side and
other Pamphylian cities.7 From such slim evidence,
however, it cannot be assured that Aspendos actu-
ally became neokoros later than Side, which does
announce the title on coins with the portrait of Va-
lerian; a single such coin from Aspendos could prove
the titles contemporaneous.
Aspendos’ reverse type is a temple-shaped plaque,
suitable to, but not informative about, an announce-
ment of neokoria. That it represents a plaque and
not a temple is shown by the thin outline that sur-
rounds it, outside the columns. Contemporary coins
that announce ‘Marcus (Antoninus) founded the
temple’ portray a four-column temple with an eagle
in the pediment and Victories as side akroteria, but
the half-draped male figure enthroned within is as
likely to be Zeus as it is to be an emperor in Zeus’
guise.8 On the other hand, the document that es-
tablished Philadelphia in Asia as neokoros, its in-
scription 1, was inscribed on a temple-shaped plaque
and began with “Antoninus founds you,” likely re-
ferring to Caracalla making Philadelphia neokoros.
If the plaque and the temple on coins of Aspendos
refer to the same building, it could mean that an em-
peror was enthroned like Zeus in the temple for
which the city was neokoros; and that the temple
had been founded, like Perge’s, well before the city
claimed neokoria on coins. If this is so, the founder
could have been Marcus Aurelius, as the SNGParis
suggested, or perhaps Caracalla. The latter granted
many neokoriai, but primarily in Asia; the former
is not known to have granted any.
It is possible that the concord coinage between
Aspendos and Side shows a voting bloc in the pro-
vincial organization at this time: Side and its smaller
neighbors allied against Perge to get neokoria and
Zeus (with eagle and seated or standing Hera) appears on coins
of, e.g., Maximinus, Maximus (SNGPfPS 4.99, BMC 91), Trajan
Decius (SNGParis 198), and Valerianus the Younger (SNGvA
4607). See L. Robert 1960b.
190 part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia
other benefits for themselves. But as well as issuing
concord coinage with Aspendos and Attaleia, Side
issued it with cities outside Pamphylia, such as Myra,
Sagalassos, Alexandria in Egypt, and Delphi.9 In
fact, so little is known about the association of Pam-
phylian cities that it may be better not to hypo-
thesize.
Though Aspendos offers a plethora of remains in
excellent condition, it has not been excavated in any
organized manner.10 It may be that future finds will
offer more evidence for the city as neokoros. But
some confusion has already arisen over whether
Aspendos was given that title well earlier than the
coins mentioned above. The confusion arose when
Brandt dredged up one of several restorations from
an old copy of one of the inscriptions from Aspendos’
theater.11 The theater probably dates to the second
century C.E., and its builder, Zenon son of Theo-
doros, was honored prominently on the building for
his works and benefactions.12
The variant Brandt approved was edited by Franz
as CIG 4342 d3 (vol. 3 p. 1162); its line 7 is given
as
~]te nevkÒrow [{ pÒliw §g°neto { Sidht«]n . . .
from which the city of the Sidetans became neoko-
ros . . .
Brandt, though not citing the original source, went
back to Kennedy-Bailie’s old restoration at least for
the name of the city:13
{ te nevkÒrow pÒliw t«n ÉAspend°vn §t¤mhsen. . .
To give Brandt his due, there is better reason to
restore the name of the Aspendians than that of the
Sidetans, as the theater is in the city, and the city
9 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 190-196.
10 Jameson 1970; Bean 1976b; Özgür 1993.
11
Brandt 1988, 248-250.
12 CIG 4342d, with addenda.
13 Kennedy-Bailie 1846, 208-209 no. 210b l. 6.
was, after all, neokoros on coins. That the coins date
perhaps a century later did not concern him, nor
should it concern us too much, as Perge also didn’t
name itself neokoros on coins until long after it
received the title. What is of paramount concern,
however, is that the inscription as restored above
makes no sense, since it lists Zenon’s benefactions
(money, gardens, or some other work), in Franz’s
edition attributes the grant of neokoria to them, and
then jumps back to Zenon’s good qualities. But
Zenon was no Hadrian, nor a Polemon of Smyrna
(on whose inscription 4 Franz modeled his restora-
tion; and Smyrna inscription 4, it should be noted,
attributes the grant of the neokoria not to private
gifts, but to a decree of the Senate). In fact, the errors
in these imaginative restorations were long since
pointed out by Waddington, who printed the origi-
nal copy of Ross de Bladensburg from which both
Kennedy-Bailie and Franz produced their versions.
It reads
IITEIIENVKOGRO........NI
Waddington’s comments are valuable: “J’ai repro-
duit la copie de Ross, la seule qui Bailie ait connue,
pour montrer ce qu’il en a fait, et comment il a
induit Franz et LeBas en erreur. Sauf les trois
premières lignes, on ne peut restituer l’inscrip-
tion...”14 Until further evidence is found, we should
follow his advice.
No inscription of Aspendos as neokoros has yet been
found.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Gallienus: London.
Salonina: SNGParis 218.
14 Le Bas–Waddington, pt. 5 no. 1383 l. 6.
 chapter
SECTION V. KOINON OF MACEDONIA
Chapter 21. Beroia: Koinon of Macedonia
Beroia was the seat and center of the koinon of
Macedonia. When it gained that position, and even
when the koinon was organized, is not entirely
clear.1 Beroia may have had a moral advantage
among cities of the province in having been the first
city to give itself up to the Romans in 168 B.C.E.,
but Thessalonike was the second, and both acted
within the space of two days.2 In any case, by the
time of Nerva, Beroia had achieved exclusive rights
as metropolis of the koinon and neokoros of the
provincial cult of the Augusti. In fact, Beroia and
the koinon were so strongly identified with one
another that they could share both the title
‘neokoros’ and the coinage on which it appears.
Generally, all the cities discussed in this work
issued coins whose obverses showed the reigning
emperor, while the reverses trumpeted themes of
civic pride in the name of the citizens (genitive case).
Beroia, however, minted coins in the name of the
koinon of Macedonia. In fact, there are only six (late)
types on which the name of the city is mentioned
along with that of the koinon; the former is in the
genitive, the latter nominative/accusative where
completely expressed. On all other issues the name
of the koinon appears alone. Yet it is certain that
Beroia was the mint for these coins, not only because
it was the seat of the koinon, but because reverse
types of the city show a close, almost an exact, cor-
respondence in style and subject with those of the
koinon. Indeed, certain reverse dies of the city coin-
age were altered to serve for the provincial coinage.3
But most remarkable is the fact that the title
1 Nigdelis 1995, with comments by M. Hatzopoulos in
‘Bulletin Epigraphique—Macedoine’ in Revue des études grecques
109 (1996) no. 247; Deininger 1965, 91-96; Kanatsoulis 1956.
2 Livy 44.45.1-5.
3 Gaebler 1904, 292; pace Riccardi 1996, 21-24, 27-28.
Though extensive sharing of obverse dies was documented by
Kraft 1972, the sharing of reverses is far less common. The
forthcoming work of K. Liampi on Beroia and the koinon mint
will likely clarify the situation: Liampi 1997, 81.
21 – beroia 191
‘neokoros,’ which properly described the city of
Beroia, was extended, at least on the coins, to in-
clude all the Macedonians of the koinon.
First Neokoria: Nerva
The reign of Nerva offers the first evidence for neo-
koria in the province of Macedonia.4 Inscription 1
of Beroia is a decree in honor of Quintus Popillius
Python, chief priest of the Augusti for the koinon of
Macedonia, agonothetes of the provincial festival,
and citizen of Beroia, for his many services.5 One
of these was an embassy to Nerva on behalf of
Beroia, requesting that the city be “the only one to
have the neokoria of the Augusti and the rank of
metropolis”:
INSCRIPTION 1. Gounaropoulou and Hatzo-
poulos 1998 no. 117. tÚn diå b¤ou érxier} t«n
Sebast«n ka‹ égvnoy°thn toË koinoË M[a]ke-
dÒnvn K. Pop¤llion PÊyvna, p[r]esbeÊsanta
Íp¢r t}w patr¤dow Bero¤aw §p‹ yeÚn N°rouan Íp¢r
toË mÒnhn aÈtØn ¶xein tØn nevkor¤an t«n
Sebast«n ka‹ tÚ t}w mhtropÒlevw éj¤vma ka‹
§pitÊxonta. . .
Python probably undertook his mission in connec-
tion with his office as chief priest of the provincial
imperial cult at Beroia, and was successful.6 The
point of the mission was not to petition for new
honors, however, but to request that titles which
Beroia already possessed be kept exclusive to it; on
4A dedication perhaps to Vespasian, Gounaropoulou and
Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 61, cannot be considered as evidence;
the title ‘neokoros’ is completely restored, and is unprecedented
that early.
5 Tataki 1988, 259-261 no. 1114.
6 Ziethen 1994, 33-34, 253-254, useful on Python’s social
position but too definite in attributing the neokoria to Titus
and Domitian and in claiming that theos=divus; see Tataki 1988,
447-448.
192 part i – section v. koinon of macedonia

another inscription, perhaps commemorating the 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.
8 S. Price 1984a. Beroia and the emperor Elagabalus except for his
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
grant of the second neokoria. Assuming that Ela-
gabalus took the direct route across Thrace toward
Moesia on his triumphal way to Rome, passing near
Beroia would have meant a considerable detour
south, all the way into the center of the province.17
None of the coinage minted for Beroia or the koinon
of the Macedonians shows a portrait of any of
Elagabalus’ wives, so the grant cannot be dated to
any particular point in his reign. It is possible that
the koinon and/or the Beroians sent a deputation
north to greet the emperor on his route, and that it
was at that time that he made them twice neokoros.
As has already been mentioned, Beroia was uni-
que in minting its coinage in the name of the koinon
of which it was the metropolis. Only a few coins
mention the city’s name at all. The coins that cite
the title ‘twice neokoros’ are also difficult to date:
most of them have obverses of Alexander the Great,
while only a few have more datable portraits of the
emperor. These issues were analyzed by Gaebler in
his volumes on the coins of Macedonia, but certain
considerations must be taken into account if his
chronology is to be accepted.18 The first and most
obvious is that this chronology was partly based on
changes in number of neokoriai, and therefore it
would be circular reasoning to use it as evidence for
the changes themselves. Still, Gaebler’s conclusions
are substantiated by the study of over 550 die com-
binations for the coinage citing neokoria alone. In
addition, the Alexander-obverse coins can be dated
from the correspondence of their reverses to coins
of the imperial series.
The Beroians, again in the name of the koinon,
celebrated their second neokoria by issuing coins
with obverses both of Alexander the Great and of
Elagabalus. Two new reverse types also began, and
were subsequently associated with the title ‘twice
neokoros’: one shows two temples, the prototypical
reverse type illustrating what made a city neokoros;
the other, two prize crowns representing festivals
which were perhaps associated with the temples.
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: ALEJANDROU Head of
Alexander r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN B
NEV(K ab) Two five-column (seven-column, cde)
temples facing. a) Paris 187 b) Berlin, Dannen-
berg c) Paris 269 d) Vienna 16117 e) Berlin 698/
1929 (illus. pl. 32 fig. 151).
17 Halfmann 1986a, 230-231.
18 Gaebler 1906, 3.1 (=AMNG with coin number).
21 – beroia 193
The renderings are schematic, the two temples as-
similated to and indistinguishable from one another.
One variant shows a tall column between the
temples:
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: ALEJANDROU Head of
Alexander r. Rev: KOINON MKEDONVN (sic) B
NEV Two four-column temples, between them a
column on which a cuirassed statue stands r. with
spear and parazonium. a) Athens (AMNG 466).
A recent study attempted to use this type to illus-
trate a ‘sanctuary of the Augusti’ where both impe-
rial temples and monuments were grouped.19 But
coin type 3 is similar to types that had appeared at
Pergamon and Nikomedia (qq.v.), and is not any
more likely than they to represent topographical
reality. In the case of Nikomedia, the patron god-
dess Demeter is shown on or off a column among
the temples for which the city was neokoros. In
Macedonia the figure atop the column also appears
as an independent coin type: an armored male with
spear and parazonium standing in contrapposto, his
head twisted to one side. This idiosyncratic position
of the head led Gaebler to identify the figure as
Alexander the Great, though Brocas-Deflassieux saw
the tiny figure on the column as “certainly an em-
peror.” Even if Gaebler was correct, the image need
not mean that Alexander was specifically associated
with the imperial cult; as Demeter represented the
Nikomedians, so Alexander represented the Mace-
donians of Beroia and their pride in their ethnic
heritage. In the third century his name was indeed
associated with the provincial festival (below). In any
case, Brocas-Deflassieux used finds of various dedi-
cations to emperors, plus parts of Doric columns of
unspecified magnitude, to locate an imperial sanc-
tuary in the south of the city, at a position along one
of Beroia’s main streets. Though one of Beroia’s two
imperial temples may indeed have stood in that area,
the hypothesis still needs more solid facts to prove
it.
An agonistic table with two prize crowns served
as the reverse for coins with and without portraits
of Elagabalus during his reign.
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU KE MAR AUR AN-
TVNO% (sic) Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Elagabalus, r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN B
19 Brocas-Deflassieux 1999, 78-82. The sanctuary is located
at ‘3’ on fig. 45, though this, like most plans in the book, lacks
both scale and orientation.
194 part i – section v. koinon of macedonia
NEVKO Two prize crowns with palms on agonistic
table. a) Munich (AMNG 303).
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: ALEJANDRO(U bcd, % a)
Head of Alexander r. Rev: KOINON MAKE-
DONVN B NEV(KOR, ad; NEVKO, c ) Two prize
crowns with palms on agonistic table. a) London
1940-10-1-24 b) Berlin, Prokesch-Osten c) Ber-
lin, Imhoof-Blumer d) Berlin 696/1929.
Unlike later coins, however, none of these types
specifically names the festivals they were meant to
celebrate, and it cannot be absolutely confirmed that
the festivals were instituted in honor of the temples
that made the city twice neokoros.20
Withdrawn: Severus Alexander
Beroia’s neokoria for Elagabalus did not far outlast
his death and the condemnation of his memory.21
Of the city’s sparse koinon issues with imperial
portraits, one type of Severus Alexander still includes
the second neokoria:
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AU K M A %E ALEJ-
ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander r., youthful. Rev: KOINON
MAKEDONVN B NE Athena seated l. a) Paris 160
(illus. pl. 32 fig. 152).
The rest go back to the simple title ‘neokoros,’ in-
cluding:
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: M AURHL %E ALEJ-
ANDRO% Laureate draped bust of Severus
Alexander, r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN
NEV(KO, b) Emperor on horseback led r. by Vic-
tory. a) London 1892.6-11-16 b) Paris 161 (illus.
pl. 32 fig. 153).
This reverse refers to Severus Alexander’s military
operations, which began ca. 231.22 It is noteworthy
that an inscription dated to 229 does not mention
Beroia as neokoros.23 The inscription records
Valerius Philoxenos, Macedoniarch, chief priest of
the Augustus (i.e. Severus Alexander, whose name
was later erased), and agonothetes of the koinon
20 Leschhorn 1998, 400-405, overconfident about iden-
tifications.
21 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417.
22 Halfmann 1986a, 231-232.
23 Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 68; Tourat-
soglou 1970, inscription A.
festival of the Macedonians, the agon Alexandreios; his
wife, Valeriane Ammia, was chief priestess of the
Augusta (Julia Mamaea, whose name was also
erased), and together they put on three days of hunts
and gladiatorial combats in Beroia. One may won-
der, though one must not argue from this silence,
whether Beroia’s second neokoria was in doubt or
lost by 229; certainly, like other cities that were
neokoroi for Elagabalus, it seems to have lost that
status by the outbreak of the Persian war in 231.24
Gaebler’s die study may indeed show an example
of deliberate silence: the coins minted under Severus
Alexander with ‘twice neokoros’ and those with a
simple ‘neokoros’ were apparently separated by a
small series that suppressed the title ‘neokoros’ al-
together.25 He dated this series to exactly 231 on the
basis of coins without neokoria that nonetheless
shared this type:
COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU K MAR %E ALEJ-
ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Seve-
rus Alexander r., light-bearded. Rev: KOINON
MAKEDONVN NEV Emperor on horseback rides
r. a) Berlin, Löbbecke (illus. pl. 32 fig. 154).
From the reverse of the emperor on horseback,
Gaebler assumed that Severus Alexander paid a
personal visit to Beroia on his way to the Persian
war. This cannot be confirmed; as has been noted,
Beroia had issued similar types for Diadumenian,
who is unlikely to have visited the city; and the scene
is little different from that of type 7, where the perso-
nification of Victory makes it more clearly meta-
phorical. But one fact does emerge: since some of
the ‘twice neokoros’ and ‘neokoros’ coins were struck
from the same obverse die, any interval of coinage
without the title must have been brief.26 We might
say that the lapse reflects either a period of doubt
as to the proper title, or of embarrassment on the
city’s part that the glory of being twice neokoros had
just been halved.
Soon after the simple ‘neokoros’ was restored to
the koinon’s coins, a few types celebrated a pact of
concord with Thessalonike. The rival city is not
explicitly named; indeed, the legends simply read
‘koinon of the Macedonians; concord.’ But the re-
verse type clearly shows a city or provincial goddess
confronting the eponymous Victory of Thessa-
24 See chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis’, below.
25 AMNG 11-18, nos. 322-340; this no. 313.
26 AMNG nos. 306, 307 (twice) with 308 (single).
 chapter
lonike.27 These coins imply that some understand-
ing was reached either between Thessalonike and
Beroia or between Thessalonike and the rest of the
koinon (which may have come to much the same
thing). But the understanding was not over the right
to neokoria, as Gaebler thought. Beroia had only
reverted to the simple title to which it had had
exclusivity since the reign of Nerva, while Thessa-
lonike still did not call itself neokoros. Of course,
concord coins were issued between notorious rivals,
and orators like Dio Chrysostomos and Aelius
Aristides addressed speeches on concord to those
who most lacked it.28 And Thessalonike was soon
to have what Beroia had previously kept to itself
alone.
Second Neokoria: Gordian III
Since the reign of Nerva, when Python had won the
primacy of Macedonia for Beroia, that city had
remained the only neokoros of the province. It could
proclaim its neokoria on coins of the koinon with-
out even including the city’s own name in the leg-
end. But during the reign of Gordian III, Beroia
finally had to admit its rival to the status whose
exclusivity it had defended: Thessalonike issued coins
with the title ‘neokoros.’ Beroia, however, managed
to retain primacy by regaining the second neokoria
from the same emperor. Beroia then added a new
element to some of its legends: the name of the city
itself, on coins with both imperial and Alexander
obverses.
COIN TYPE 9. Obv: ALEJANDROU Head of
Alexander r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN DI%
NEVKO BEROIEV Two four-column temples
turned towards one another. a) London 1913.6-
21-12 b) Berlin, Prokesch-Osten.29
This and other types with the city’s name served to
emphasize the distinction between Thessalonike,
27 Gaebler 1904, 334-338 reverse types IIIc, IVc, Vc, pl.
7.18-20; followed, with some errors, by Sheppard 1984-1986,
235-236, and by Nigdelis 1996, 139-140. Franke 1987, 100-
101 identified the goddess making the pact with Victory as
‘Boule.’ The goddesses of the three reverse types are in fact not
closely identifiable, except for the polos hat; they are shown
standing or seated, with sceptre or with cornucopia, and car-
rying a statuette of a god too small to be identified.
28 See chapter 41, ‘The Koina,’ in the summary chapters
in Part II.
29 Gaebler 1935, 48 no.4, pl. 11 no. 27.
21 – beroia 195
newly neokoros, and Beroia, still head of the koinon
and now (for the second time) twice neokoros. The
coins that name Beroia are in all other ways simi-
lar to those that name the koinon alone; they share
some obverse dies, and one reverse was reworked
to add the city’s name.30 Both include celebratory
types that show the two temples for which the city
was neokoros looking much the same way they had
during the previous, short-lived second neokoria for
Elagabalus, though more often in three-quarter view,
as on types 9 and 10.
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K MAR ANT GOR-
DIA[NO%] Radiate draped cuirassed bust of
Gordian III, r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN B
NEVKOR[VN] Two temples on high podia turned
towards one another; a prize crown between
them. a) Paris 164 (illus. pl. 32 fig. 155).
Inscription 2, below, shows that the second neokoria
must have been granted by 239 C.E. In the next
year, inscription 4 shows that the Macedoniarch
Lucius Septimius Insteianus Alexandros, chief priest
(of Augustus or the Augusti?) and agonothetes of the
Macedonian koinon festival, along with his wife, the
chief priestess Aelia Alexandra, gave three days of
celebrations, including hunts and gladiatorial com-
bats. The festival, again the Alexandreios, is specified
as being sacred, eiselastic (i.e. winners would be
carried in triumph into their city) and isaktian or
possibly isolympian; other inscriptions refer to Alex-
andreia Olympia in Beroia.31 Alexandria are mentioned
on Macedonian coins with agonistic reverse types
under Gordian III, and Olympia both on coins of
Gordian III and those of Philip dated to 275 of the
Actian era, or 243/244 C.E.32 But it must be noted
that the Alexandreios contest cannot be associated with
Beroia’s second neokoria, as mention of the festival
was first made in 229 under Severus Alexander,
probably just when the second neokoria was with-
drawn.
Associating neokoriai with festivals is chancy in
any case, as festival names are notoriously aggluti-
native and fluid, and agonistic coin types are prone
to abbreviation. Leschhorn, reasoning only from
30Gaebler 1904, 292; 1907.
31E.g. IGRR 1:802, from Perinthos; J. and L. Robert,
Bulletin épigraphique (1971) 454-455 no. 400. On the other hand,
the provincial games Python gave were isaktian; see inscrip-
tion 1.
32 Leschhorn 1998, with an unfortunate mistranscription,
402.
196 part i – section v. koinon of macedonia
maximum number of prize crowns on Beroia’s coin
reverses, not from actual types, believed that the two
prize crowns represented provincial festivals (sepa-
rate Alexandreia and Olympia) and that each had to
be associated with the imperial temples of Beroia;
so the Alexandreia must have been for an emperor
associated with Alexander the Great, likely Severus
Alexander, despite the fact that under his rule
Beroia’s second neokoria was withdrawn, and his
and his mother’s names later suffered condemnation
in the city.33 It is more likely that the Macedonian
provincial festival celebrated Alexander the Great,
not the emperor(s), primarily; on that same inscrip-
tion where the ‘Alexander’ of the emperor’s name
was erased, the festival’s name ‘Alexandreios’ remained
unharmed.
Leschhorn also tried to ally a gold medallion from
Aboukir in Egypt, supposedly dated to 275, with the
Beroian Olympia of that year, from an old sugges-
tion of Dressel’s; but the medallion shows a female
portrait and the legend OLUM PIADO% (= ‘Olym-
pia 274’?), while the coins give the (Aktian era) year
of celebration as EO% (=275).34 The medallion can-
not have been a prize for a pentaeteric festival which
the coins celebrated a year later. In any case, new
finds make it more likely that the Aboukir medal-
lion simply says ‘of Olympias,’ identifying the por-
trait on it as the mother of Alexander the Great, who
(with his family) is the most frequent subject of such
medallions.35
Coin types at this period frequently combine
imagery of temples with that of festivals. But there
is no easy equivalency of temples and crowns: coin
type 10, above, shows two temples and one prize
crown, while 11, below, shows a single temple and
two crowns.
COIN TYPE 11. Obv. ALEJANDROU Diademed
draped cuirassed bust of Alexander r. (head in
lionskin, b) Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN B NE
(DI% NEVKOR, b) Four-column temple on podium
at l., two prize crowns on agonistic table at r. a)
Paris 193 (illus. pl. 32 fig. 156) b) Berlin, Prokesch-
Osten.
Certainly Macedonia celebrated a provincial festi-
val at least since the time of Python, since he and
chief priests and Macedoniarchs after him also
33 Touratsoglou 1970, inscription A; Varner 1993, 418-422.
34 Leschhorn 1998, 402-403; also Gagé 1975, 4-5.
35 Savio 1994-1995.
served as its agonothetai. But what that festival was
called over time, and whether a new festival was
added for each temple that made Beroia neokoros,
cannot yet be proved.
One could postulate that Beroia put the title ‘twice
neokoros’ on its coins because it counted all the
neokoriai within the koinon; since Thessalonike was
a member of the koinon,36 its new neokoria could
be included. But this cannot explain Beroia’s ear-
lier second neokoria for Elagabalus, nor the fact that
Beroia chose this moment to put its name on the
koinon coins that it had long issued, as if to distin-
guish itself from Thessalonike. Also, it does not fit
the picture of city rivalry that has been documented
so often in this study (especially below in chapter 41)
and elsewhere. It is more likely that Beroia was able
to win back its second neokoria by complaining to
the emperor and/or the Senate that Thessalonike,
with its first, was encroaching on Beroia’s primacy
in the province. This insistence on the pecking or-
der was not to be long preserved: Thessalonike was
situated at a strategic point for the armies that would
have to face the Goths; Beroia was inland and less
strategic, though not out of harm’s way. Beroia
ceased to issue coinage in its own name or in the
koinon’s after Philip.
It is at just this point that an unfortunate confu-
sion makes Beroia seem to leap out of obscurity and
back into the spotlight. In trying to explain why
Thessalonike became four times neokoros under
Trajan Decius, Ziegler unfortunately confused
Beroia in Macedonia with Beroe in Thrace (Augusta
Traiana, the modern Stara Zagora), a city that was
prominent in the battles between the Roman forces
and the Goths in the mid-third century.37 Due to
this geographical error, he believed that Beroia had
been on the side of Philip because he died there, and
that Philip’s enemy and successor Trajan Decius
would naturally have punished it and rewarded its
rival Thessalonike (though each of these suppositions
is highly questionable in itself). Yet as inscriptions
5, 6, and 7 show, Beroia was not dishonored at that
time, but retained its status of twice neokoros well
into the mid-third century.
36 Deininger 1965, 92, 195; but see Edson 1972, 23 no. 38.
37 See ‘Thessalonike,’ chapter 22; Ziegler 1988b, 395-401,
with full bibliography; restated in Ziegler 1994, 202. He had
earlier discounted Beroia as the site of Philip’s death: Ziegler
1985, 104 n. 236.
 chapter
Thessalonike would eventually go back down to
twice neokoros, equal with Beroia, and shortly af-
terward up again to three times neokoros. This in-
crease may reflect the situation within the province:
Thessalonike, a vital harbor and the scene of usur-
pations and Gothic invasions, was probably more
important to Gallienus than the inland metropolis
Beroia. If the cities continued their contest afterward,
however, there is no evidence to show it.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:38
1. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 117
(SEG 17 [1960] 315; L. Robert 1939, 131-132;
Tataki 1988, 259-261 no. 1114): Neokoria confirmed
by Nerva. See text above.
Twice neokoros:
2. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 481.
Milestone, dated by the second tribunician power
of Gordian III to 239 C.E.
3. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 485.
Milestone similar to inscription 2, and tentatively
dated to the same year.
4. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 69
(Touratsoglou 1970, 285 inscr. B; Tataki 1988, 270-
271 no. 1170). Announcement of celebrations
funded by a Macedoniarch and chief priest (of the
Augusti?) under Gordian III, dated 240 C.E. See
reference above.
5. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 109
(Contoleon 1902, 141-142, date mistranscribed; A.
Woodward 1911/1912, 148 no. 6; Tataki 1988, 123
no. 270). Honorific, dated after 249/250 by the
provincial era.
6. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 509
(L. Robert 1939, 128-129 no. 1; Tataki 1988, 129
no. 300, 464-465). Honorific altar, dated 250/251
by the Aktian era.
7. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 70,
where it is misidentified as an honor to the emperor
38 Not included here are Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos
1998 nos. 61, 66, and 483, where the word ‘neokoros’ is un-
certain, largely restored.
21 – beroia 197
Valerian, dated 253-256 C.E.; in fact, the metropolis
and twice neokoros Beroia honors Saloninus Cae-
sar, his grandson; thus it dates 258-260 C.E.39
8. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 108
(A. Woodward 1911/1912, 148-149 no. 7; Tataki
1988, 134 no. 329). Undated statue base, letter forms
of the mid-third century.
9. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 71.
Letter forms of third century.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Diadumenian: SNGLewis 1233; Berlin (2 exx.), Paris,
London.
Twice neokoros:
Elagabalus: Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Paris.
Severus Alexander: Paris.
Neokoros:
Severus Alexander: Berlin (4 exx.), London, Paris (2 exx.).
Twice neokoros:
Gordian III: BMC 158, SNGCop 1350, Berlin, Paris (2
exx.).
Philip (year 275 = 243/244 C.E.): Paris.
Alexander obverse, neokoros: BMC 99, 100, 102-104,
107, 113, 114, 117-119, 120, 125, 142; SNGCop
1358-1365; SNGRighetti 392; Berlin (50 exx.), Boston,
London (6 exx.), New York (6 exx.), Oxford (8 exx.),
Paris (18 exx.), Vienna (11 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.).
Alexander obverse, twice neokoros: BMC 101, 105, 106,
108-110, 121-124, 126-136, 140, 144; SNGCop 1351-
1353, 1355, 1356, 1366-1374, 1376-1378, 1380;
SNGLewis 1234-1235; SNGRighetti 393; Berlin (117
exx.), Boston, London (26 exx.), New York (17 exx.),
Oxford (15 exx.), Paris (67 exx.), Vienna (36 exx.),
Warsaw (13 exx.).
Alexander obverse, twice neokoros, with name Beroia:
BMC 1; Berlin (3 exx.), London.
Alexander obverse, twice neokoros (year 275 = 243/244
C.E.): BMC 111, 112, 137; SNGCop 1379; SNGLewis
1235; Berlin (17 exx.), Boston, New York (4 exx.),
Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw.
Alexander obverse, twice neokoros (year 275 = 243/244
C.E.), with name Beroia: SNGCop 134; Berlin, Lon-
don, New York, Paris.
39 Keinast 1996, 221-222.
198 part i – section v. koinon of macedonia
Chapter 22. Thessalonike: Koinon of Macedonia
With all the advantages of its splendid harbor and
strategic location on the via Egnatia, Thessalonike
had likely been the seat of Roman governors since
Macedonia became a province in 146 B.C.E.1 In 42
B.C.E., after the victory of the second triumvirate
at Philippi, it was awarded the status of free city. The
metropolis and seat of the koinon of the Macedo-
nians, however, was Beroia (q.v.). Strabo called
Thessalonike the metropolis of Macedonia, less likely
as an official title than a reflection of the city’s size
and status; a native poet called it “mother of all
Macedonia.”2 Calling Thessalonike ‘metropolis’ may
have been common enough for Thessalonike to
challenge Beroia for that title and that of ‘neokoros
of the Augusti.’3 Beroia, however, defended its ex-
clusive rights before the emperor Nerva, and Beroia
won.
It is likely, then, that Thessalonike looked on the
honors of Beroia with rather a jaundiced eye, and
perhaps even welcomed the occasion when Beroia
lost its neokoria for Elagabalus. It was probably after
this misfortune that Beroia and Thessalonike de-
clared a state of concord, with koinon coins show-
ing the koinon’s goddess sacrificing along with
Thessalonike’s eponymous Victory (see Beroia,
above).
First Neokoria: Gordian III
It is not until the reign of Gordian III that an ex-
ceptionally large and varied issue of coins first de-
clares Thessalonike neokoros, and celebrates the title
with the following types:
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT K M R ANTV GORDI-
ANO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian
III, r. Rev: YE%%ALONIKEVN NEV PUYIA Four-
1 Papazoglou 1979, 356, 361; Touratsoglou 1988 (= T with
coin numbers) 5-19, esp. 6-7 n. 10; Haensch 1997, 104-112.
2 Strabo 7.7.4 and fr. 21 E; Palatine Anthology 9.428.
3 Papazoglou 1979, 361; 1988, 144, 189-212.
column temple in three-quarter view on high
podium, star to r., snake? to l., prize crown with
palm above. a) SNGCop 435 (T 346).4
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU(T, abc) K M (R, c)
ANT(V, abd, NIO%, b, NO% c) GORDIANO% Lau-
reate draped (cuirassed, b) bust of Gordian III,
r. Rev: YE%%ALONIKEVN NEVK(ORVN, abd)
PUYIA Four-column temple in three-quarter view
l. a) London 1920.8-5-1684 (T 352) b) Paris 1459
(T 342) c) Berlin, Löbbecke (T 345) d) Berlin
21326 (T 351).
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K M ANTV GORDIA-
NO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust (laureate
head, c) of Gordian III, r. Rev: YE%%A-
LO(NIKEVN, abcd; -NEIKEVN, efgh) NEV-
KOR(VN, abcd; NEVK, g; NEVKORV, e)
Four-column temple in three-quarter view r. (l.,
cd) on high (low, gh) podium. a) BMC 120 (T 377)
b) Boston 63.2964 (T 347) c) London 1968.6-4-
13 (T 360) d) Paris 1460 (T 350) e) Paris 1461
(T 374) f) Paris 1462 (T 370) g) Berlin, Dressel
(T 365) h) Berlin, Löbbecke (T 368).
Except for type 3 above, the name of the festival
Pythia appears on almost all types of Gordian III’s
reign, occasionally coupled with other festival names
(Kabeiria, Epinikia, or K(ai)sareia), but alone on types
of the temple.5 On type 1 the temple’s attributes of
a prize crown, a star, and the word Pythia may in-
dicate that the Pythia was a sacred festival for the
temple that made Thessalonike neokoros. On the
other hand, no mention is made of the emperors,
and an inscription commemorating the fourth cel-
ebration of the festival is dedicated to Apollo Pythios
himself.6 The editor of that inscription also posited
4 Pace Touratsoglou 1988, who interpreted this and other
tetrastyle temples as two-column, presumably seeing the facade
as the inner view of the far side of the peripteron.
5 Touratsoglou 1988, 70-71 n. 148; Leschhorn 1998, 406-
408.
6 Edson 1972, no. 38.
 chapter 22
that at the foundation of the Pythia, Thessalonike
withdrew from the koinon of Macedonia, as no
inscriptions of Macedoniarchs or other provincial
officials at Thessalonike have yet been found to
postdate that point. On the other hand, the earliest
record of a Macedoniarch from Thessalonike dates
to 219 C.E.; there has even been some discussion
as to whether a free city like Thessalonike could be
a member of the koinon.7 But the inscriptions of
Macedoniarchs from Thessalonike indicate that it
was, and one cannot argue much of a case from the
absence of such inscriptions either beforehand or
after. In a parallel case in the province Asia, free
cities and their citizens could participate in koinon
activities, they were simply not constrained to do so.8
It may be that Beroia, jealous of its privileges, was
generally able to control the koinon assembly
(synedrion) and keep Thessalonike in a subordinate
condition within that context.
In his exhaustive study of the mint of Thessalo-
nike, Touratsoglou saw the exceptional honors of a
new pentaeteric festival and a grant of neokoros
status as grouped around the time of the wedding
of Gordian III and Tranquillina, with the first Pythia
taking place in August 241.9 He explained the
emperor’s choice of Thessalonike for such honors
as due to Gordian’s philhellenism, but that alone
would not fully explain why Thessalonike was singled
out from hundreds of Greek cities. On the other
hand, it seems to be no accident that under the same
emperor both Thessalonike, perhaps the most stra-
tegic city of its province, and Beroia, less strategic
but still head of the provincial koinon, each received
a new neokoria and a new festival. Even if Thessa-
lonike left the koinon at this time (and there is no
evidence on whether it did), there may have been
some reasoning that the two cities should keep the
same status relationship as before. Beroia had al-
ready become twice neokoros by the year 240;
Thessalonike’s increase in honors may also have
dated to around that time. In any case, whether his
motive for the honor was philhellenism or something
else, Gordian III or his advisers seem to have taken
careful account of the pecking order within the
province.
7 Papazoglou 1988, 207-208; contra, Deininger 1965, 92,
195. For ‘freedom’ in the strict sense, see Bernhardt 1971, 233.
8 See ‘Ephesos,’ chapter 4, on the dedications at the Flavian
temple of the Augusti.
9 Touratsoglou 1988, 67-72.
– thessalonike 199
As ancient Thessalonike is hidden beneath the
thriving modern city, it would be difficult to find and
authenticate the temple that made the city neokoros;
it is only sketchily illustrated on the coins. Some
imperial portrait statues have been found in the area
of an archaic Ionic temple, but such honorifics could
be set up at any temple or in most public spaces,
and do not necessarily identify the temple as one
dedicated to the imperial cult.10
Fourth Neokoria: Trajan Decius
Though Thessalonike continued to call itself
neokoros in later coin legends, the types tended to
repeat those minted under Gordian III, and to con-
centrate on the Pythian festival. Then suddenly coins
showing Trajan Decius and his son Herennius
Etruscus (as Caesar, thus before June 9, 251 C.E.)
declare Thessalonike to be metropolis, colony, and
four times neokoros.11 This leap in titulature is
unprecedented for this time, though Side and per-
haps Perge may have accomplished a similar jump
later; and Nikopolis in Armenia Minor and Neapolis
in Syria Palaestina (qq.v.) also combined colony
status with neokoria.12 As for the title of ‘metropo-
lis,’ it had previously been applied only to Beroia
within the province, as confirmed by the emperor
Nerva; now Macedonia, like Asia and other eastern
provinces, had more than one metropolis.13 But ‘four
times neokoros’ went well beyond Beroia’s two
neokoriai and made Thessalonike the foremost
neokoros city known of its time. Only Ephesos (q.v.)
had yet become four times neokoros, an honor that
had died with Elagabalus.
A fascinating series of inscriptions documents
Thessalonike’s jump in status. A series of statue bases
honors the youths who were priests and agonothetai
10 Pace Vickers 1970, 247-250; idem 1976; Touratsoglou
1988, 9-10 nn. 29-33. Much of the exploration has concen-
trated on the later palatial center of Galerius’ time: Moutsou-
poulos 1977.
11 Kienast 1996, 204-207.
12 Ziegler 1988b, 390, 405 n. 35 posited that Thessalonike
received ius Italicum, and concomitant freedom from certain
taxes, along with its status as colony. On the combination of
freedom with colonial status, see Touratsoglou 1996.
13 Hadrian was active in this regard: Bowersock 1985; but
see ‘Patara,’ chapter 33, below. Bowersock (78-79) suggested
Pella rather than Thessalonike as Beroia’s rival, and repeated
this suggestion in 1995, 89. But Pella, though a Roman colony,
was far less strategic than Thessalonike in this period. See
Nigdelis 1996, 139-140 n. 47.
200 part i – section v. koinon of macedonia
of the ‘god Aurelius Fulvus,’ most likely a son of
Marcus Aurelius who died at a tender age.14 The
bases are carefully dated and for the most part fol-
low the same format, so a sudden change stands out.
Thus when the city, which on the bases dated from
219 to 240 C.E. called itself simply ‘the fatherland,’
thereafter names itself ‘metropolis and colony and
four times neokoros’ as well, we can assume that
Thessalonike’s citizens were showing off new titles
of which they were proud.
INSCRIPTION 1. Edson 1972, no. 162 (dated
246/247) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 10). [{ Yessa-
lonei]ka¤vn mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ kolvne¤a ka‹ D'
nevkÒrow { patr¤w ...
INSCRIPTION 2. Edson 1972, no. 163 (dated
248-250) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 11). t}w
lamprçw Yessalonika¤vn mhtropÒlevw ka‹
kolvne¤aw ka‹ (t)etrãkiw nevkÒrou ...
INSCRIPTION 3. Edson 1972, no. 164 (dated
249/250) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 12). { Yessa-
lonika¤vn mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ kolvn¤a ka‹ D'
nevkÒrow { patr¤w ...
INSCRIPTION 4. Edson 1972, no. 165 (dated
250/251) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 13). { Yessa-
lonika¤vn mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ kolvne[¤]a ka‹
tet[r]ãk[i]w nev[kÒ]row { patr¤w ...
One notes a chronological distinction: the coins of
the fourth neokoria date exclusively from the reign
of Trajan Decius, yet inscription 1 dates as early as
246/247, about two years before his accession. Did
three neokoriai granted by Philip endure through
the reign of Decius? A simpler explanation is that
the inscriptions commemorate the year in which the
priesthood was served, and may have been set up
at the end of that year or even after, depending on
how long it took to vote the honor, allot the money,
and carve the base and the statue.
The explanation for Thessalonike’s sudden dec-
laration of this plethora of titles is probably tied to
events in the Balkans.15 Gothic armies were rampag-
ing through the provinces north of Macedonia.
Priscus, the governor of Macedonia, who was also
the imperial legate to Thrace, was trapped there in
Philippopolis by the Gothic invaders and eventually
declared himself emperor. Under the circumstances,
14 L. Robert 1946; Edson 1972, nos. 153-170.
15 Touratsoglou 1988, 18 n. 85
Thessalonike’s choice of ruler became crucial. Be-
sides being the center of Roman administration for
all Macedonia, the city was both the hub of road
systems to the west and north and a strong harbor,
and thus crucial for transport of troops and supplies
when roads across the war-torn provinces of Dacia,
Moesia, and Thrace were impassable. If Thessalo-
nike wavered, if it declared itself for Priscus for
example, this lifeline would break apart. Thessalo-
nike’s new titles may be seen as rewards for hoped-
for loyalty, bonds to Trajan Decius as emperor, and
a recognition of the city’s strategic importance at a
time of emergency. They may also reflect the fact
that the emperor was in the Balkan area, accessible
and even eager to do favors for important cities, so
long as they didn’t divert resources from the war
effort.16
The coins both celebrate and illustrate Thessalo-
nike’s four neokoriai: most reverse types emphasize
the four temples that gave the city its title, or four
prize crowns, presumably one for each temple:
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUTO KAI% KUIN TRAI-
AN`O`%` D`E`K`I`O`%` Radiate draped cuirassed bust of
Trajan Decius, r. Rev: YE%%ALONIKH [KOL
MHTR?] D NEVKORO% Four four-column temples,
two above two, turned towards one another, an-
other D above them. a) London 1972.8-7-5 (illus.
pl. 33 fig. 157) (T 5).
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: KAI KUIN EREN ME[%I
ETROU%KILL]ON DEKION Draped cuirassed bust
of Herennius Etruscus Caesar, r. Rev:
YE%%A[LONIKH KOL M]HTR D NEVKORO% Four
four-column temples, two above two, turned to-
wards one another. a) Berlin, Löbbecke (T 11).
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUTO KAI% KUIN TRAI-
ANO% DEKIO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust of
Trajan Decius, r. Rev: YE%%ALONIKH KO(LV,
a) MH(TROP, a) D NEVK(ORO%, b) Four prize
crowns with palms, two above two.17 a) BMC 140
(T 2) b) Berlin, Fox 188 (T 3).
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: KAI KUIN EREN ME%I
ETROU%KILLON DEKION Draped bust of
Herennius Etruscus Caesar, r. Rev: YE%%A-
LONIKH KOL MHT D NEVKORO% Kabeiros with
hammer and rhyton standing l., four prize crowns
16Halfmann 1986a, 235-236.
17A similar reverse for Decius’ wife Herennia Etruscilla,
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 Peachin 1991, 340 n. 63 also confused Beroe in Thrace
masked a gradual acquisition of neokoriai under the
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
or fulfilled. After his death that action, seen at some
distance and in the perspective of other cities’ sta-
tus, may have looked less wise. Thessalonike was not,
however, to be driven back to being merely neo-
koros, the title it claimed up to the time of Philip.
Instead it probably was allowed to keep one neokoria
(for Trajan Decius? or for whom?) and only lost the
superfluous two. That still gave it equal standing with
Beroia, at least when that city’s neokoriai were last
documented in 250/251. This fluctuation in the
neokoriai of Thessalonike shows how titulature could
still serve as a barometer of status among cities. A
city would grasp at an opportunity for more neoko-
riai, but other cities kept a jealous eye on the pro-
cess, thus controlling its expansion. Yet this was at
a time when funds for building temples and hold-
ing festivals must have ranged from rare to nonex-
istent. Even if such tangible benefits were in doubt,
the title ‘neokoros,’ especially in multiples, must still
have been both desired and envied.
Third Neokoria: Gallienus
Part of Thessalonike’s loss would soon be made up.
Some few coins of Gallienus and Salonina proclaim
the city three times neokoros. They are dated to
Gallienus’ sole reign, after Valerian’s capture by
Shapur I in 260.27 Coin types are similar to those
already in use for the second neokoria:
COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT K POPL LIK EG
GALLHNO% Radiate draped bust of Gallienus, r.
Rev: YE%%ALONIKH MHT(R, c) KOL (KOL MHT,
b) B NE City goddess with cornucopia and statu-
ette of Kabeiros. a) London 1975.4-11-1 b) Paris
1507 (T 60) (illus. pl. 33 fig. 158) c) Warsaw 57019
(T 59).
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
Radiate draped bust of Gallienus, r. Rev: YE%%A-
LONIKH MH [K]O G NE City goddess with cor-
nucopia and statuette of Victory, D in field. a)
Paris 1508 (T 27) (illus. pl. 33 fig. 159) b) Oxford
(T 3).
27 Touratsoglou 1988, 81; Kienast 1996, 214-216.
22 – thessalonike 203
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: ...GALLHNO% AUG Ra-
diate draped bust of Gallienus, r. Rev: YE%%A-
LON[IKH M]H K G NE Three prize crowns with
palms, one above the others. a) Vienna 10084 (T
4) (illus. pl. 33 fig. 160).
Only type 10 is new; its three prize crowns, as for-
merly under Trajan Decius, match the number of
neokoriai and thus may celebrate contests associated
with them, though this is probable rather than as-
sured.
The reign of Valerian and Gallienus was more
often a time of restoring neokoriai to cities than of
taking them away; perhaps the city’s shock at be-
ing stripped of two neokoriai was being moderated
by the restoration of one. But as it happens, Thessa-
lonike was the center of much activity in the mid-
third century. Perhaps the most likely occasion for
returning the third neokoria was to reward the city
for holding off a Gothic invasion ca. 254.28 The
Goths had reached Thessalonike after ravaging
southern Thrace, and there was fear that they would
proceed south into Greece, as is evident from the
fact that the Athenians and Peloponnesians suddenly
began to rebuild their old walls. The Goths sur-
rounded Thessalonike, but its citizens held out and
fought back with courage. They broke the siege and
the attackers seem to have turned back for home.
Thus Thessalonike could be said to have saved
Greece. Certainly such an achievement would merit
a third neokoria, and would also explain why the
city goddess of Thessalonike now carried an image
of Victory. On the other hand, Macedonia, and
specifically Thessalonike as the headquarters of its
governors, was likely the scene of the revolt of Valens
‘Thessalonicus’ against Gallienus, which lasted un-
til 261.29 A third neokoria may have been the city’s
reward for returning to its loyalty to Gallienus.
28 Zosimus 1.29.2-3; Joannes Zonaras Epitome historiarum ed.
M. Pinder (Bonn 1841-1897) vol. 30 593 (12.23); Georgios
Synkellos, Ecloga Chronographia, ed. A. Mosshammer (Leipzig
1984) 465-466, anno mundi 5748. Some of the descriptions
duplicate an earlier incursion under Trebonianus Gallus:
Bleckmann 1992, 183-189; but also Potter 1990, 310-314.
29 Ammianus Marcellinus 21.16.10, Epitome de Caesaribus
32.4; also the Historia Augusta, Thirty Tyrants 19, which called
him proconsul of Achaia. Barbieri 1952, 311-312 no. 1735;
Schlumberger 1974, 150-151; Thomasson 1984, 196 no. 52;
Kienast 1996, 227.
204 part i – section v. koinon of macedonia
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Four times neokoros:
1. Edson 1972, no. 162 (dated 246/247) (L. Robert
1946, 40 no. 10). See text above.
2. Edson 1972, no. 163 (dated 248-250) (L. Robert
1946, 40 no. 11). See text above.
3. Edson 1972, no. 164 (dated 249/250) (L. Robert
1946, 40 no. 12). See text above.
4. Edson 1972, no. 165 (dated 250/251) (L. Robert
1946, 40 no. 13). See text above.
5. Edson 1972, no. 150. Honors Tiberius Claudius
Magnus, a praefectus classis. Dated by neokoria.
6. Edson 1972, no. 177. Honors Flavia Claudia
Silvane, a chief priestess and gerousiarch.
7. Edson 1972, no. 231. Fragment of inscription
from a pavement.
Twice neokoros:
8. Edson 1972, no. 167 (dated 253/254) (L. Robert
1946, 40 no. 15). See text above.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Gordian III: BMC 118-122, 124, 126-131; SNGCop 429,
430, 432, 434-438; SNGRighetti 376; Berlin (26 exx.),
Boston (3 exx.), London (9 exx.), New York (5 exx.),
Oxford, Paris (23 exx.), Vienna (11 exx.), Warsaw
(2 exx.). (T 104-112, 129-133, 143-153, 155-203,
218-319, 321-359, 362-425).
Tranquillina: BMC 132; SNGCop 439; Berlin, London,
New York. (T 426-439).
Philip: BMC 135-137; Berlin (6 exx.), London, New York
(4 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (5
exx.), Warsaw. (T 1-38, 42-53, 57-101).
Otacilia: BMC 138; Berlin; Paris. (T 107, 109-112, 114-
122).
Philip Caesar: BMC 139; Berlin, London, Oxford, Paris,
Vienna. (T 124-149).
Four times neokoros:
Trajan Decius: BMC 140; Berlin, London, Paris. (T 1-3,
5).
Herennius Etruscus: Berlin, London, Paris. (T 7-9, 11).
Twice neokoros:
Valerian: SNGCop 441; Berlin (2 exx.), London, New York
(4 exx.), Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.) (T
1-13, 16-30).
Gallienus: BMC 441; SNGCop 443, 444; Athens, Alpha
Credit Bank (2 exx.);30 Berlin (4 exx.), London (3
exx.), New York, Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.),
Warsaw. (T 31-64, 66-72).
Salonina: BMC 142, 143; Berlin (4 exx.), New York (4
exx.), Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Warsaw. (T 73-106).
Valerianus: (T 107-109).
Non-imperial obverse: SNGCop 394; Boston, Paris. (T
emission VI group Q, emission X group B, and emis-
sion XI, all in joint rule of Valerian and Gallienus).
Three times neokoros:
Gallienus: Paris, Vienna. (T 1-4).
Salonina: Paris. (T 5).
30 Touratsoglou 1996, 177-178 nos. 2, 3.
 chapter 23
SECTION VI. KOINON OF PONTUS
Chapter 23. Neokaisareia: Koinon of Pontus (Polemoniacus)
In order to understand the situation of the neoko-
roi of Pontus, it is necessary to examine the full his-
tory of the area and its organization. These are topics
that are still uncertain, and further study may alter
the conclusions. Nonetheless, the fact that the ter-
ritory of Pontus was early divided among various
client-kings and Roman provinces affected the koi-
na within it and the cities that were members of
those koina.
Pompey annexed the territory of Pontus after his
victory over Mithradates VI Eupator.1 Among its
cities were Amaseia, the old capital of the kings of
Pontus; and Kabeira, later to be renamed Neokai-
sareia, a fortress commanding the Lykos river val-
ley and former residence of Mithradates himself.2
Subsequently Mark Antony took a large portion of
the Pontic territory that included Kabeira/Neokai-
sareia and assigned it to a client-king, Polemon, and
his heirs; this area later became known as ‘Pontus
Polemoniacus.’ Amaseia, however, was in the region
which was transferred to the Roman province of
Galatia (and so later called ‘Pontus Galaticus’) in 3/
2 B.C., from which ‘liberation’ it dated its new era.
In 64 C.E., when the last client-king, Polemon II,
‘retired,’ Pontus Polemoniacus also came into a
Roman province, and Neokaisareia began its new
era.3 From the fact that Neokaisareia seems to have
gained the status of metropolis itself, rather than
coming under Amaseia as metropolis, it is likely that
Pontus Polemoniacus was placed under the admin-
istration of the governor of Cappadocia, not
Galatia.4 Later, under Vespasian, these two prov-
inces were united under the same governorship, and
Pontus Galaticus (including Amaseia) and the inland
of Pontus Polemoniacus (including Neokaisareia)
1 Marek 1993b, with earlier bibliography.
2 Magie 1950, 180-181, 369-371.
3 Leschhorn 1993, 130-143, 471-474.
4 Marek 1993b, 62 n. 421, contradicting Remy 1986, 43
and S. Mitchell 1993, 2:153.
– neokaisareia 205
were merged into the same province.5 When the
huge province of Galatia/Cappadocia was divided
later in the reign of Trajan, both parts of Pontus
went with Cappadocia; eventually, under Severus
Alexander, they were split off from Cappadocia to
form a Pontic province of their own.6 But as late as
the early fourth century, Pontus Polemoniacus could
be distinguished and divided from the other Pontus,
now called Diospontus.
There is ample evidence that the Pontic cities
associated themselves into koina, but the question
is, how many? Until recently, the dominant theory
was that there was one grand koinon of Pontus,
which overlapped provincial lines and may have
followed the borders of Pompey’s original annex-
ation.7 On the other hand, strong arguments have
existed for several distinct koina of Pontus, and these
have now been remarshaled by Marek.8 Unfortu-
nately, most of the evidence, both inscriptional and
numismatic, postdates the era at which Pontus
Galaticus and Pontus Polemoniacus were united.
In favor of the unitary theory, it is true that none
of the inscriptions or coins, found outside both
Pontus Polemoniacus and Galaticus as far as
Herakleia in the Pontic part of the province Bithynia,
makes any distinction or subdivision: all name
Pontarchs, or chief priests of Pontus, or the koinon
of (the cities in) Pontus. On the other hand, the same
situation prevails in an area very far distant: there
were Pontarchs at the other end of the Black Sea,
with a koinon of Pontus centered on Tomis.9 We
5 Marek 1993b, 79-81; Remy 1986, 51-61 on Vespasian’s
unification, and 67, 71 on a document still using the names
Pontus Galaticus and Pontus Polemonianus, which Marek
placed in the late first century and Remy in 114 C.E. S.
Mitchell 1993, 2:155 explained the controversy.
6 Remy 1986, 101-104, 106-108.
7 Deininger 1965, 64-66.
8 Marek 1993b, 73-82.
9 Nawotka 1997, 216-236; though at one point Tomis is
specified as the “metropolis of left (eÈ\numow) Pontus.”
206 part i – section vi. koinon of pontus
cannot realistically imagine that too as part of some
monstrous ‘superkoinon’ of Pontus.
Marek, however, chose a very weak keystone for
his argument for several separate koina: a coin of
Neokaisareia issued under Septimius Severus. Its
reverse shows the city goddess of Neokaisareia as the
central figure in a group of five other similar god-
desses. The legend, which has been often misread
or misinterpreted, is KOIN PON NEO-KAI MHTRO,
that is, ‘Neokaisareia, metropolis of the koinon of
Pontus.’10 From the number of city goddesses, Marek
deduced that the koinon of which Neokaisareia was
the metropolis could have had only six cities; and,
since the coin was issued when Pontus Galaticus and
Pontus Polemoniacus had already been united, he
had to go through intense efforts to rule out cities
generally found therein. But the principles of numis-
matic interpretation should caution us: in a small
space, numbers of figures, like columns on a temple
front, may be abbreviated. If there were as many
as fifteen cities in the Pontic koinon, how would you
show them all on a coin only a few centimeters in
diameter? The coin, therefore, only indicates that
there were at least six cities in the koinon to which
Neokaisareia belonged, but does not rule out that
there were more.
On the whole, the evidence seems to favor a basic
principle: a single koinon would generally not over-
step the boundary of a Roman province, and the
cities in it would not be responsible, some to one
governor, others to another.11 If this were so, what
would result if, as in the divided Pontus, two sepa-
rate koina had been allowed to develop, one for
Galaticus, the other for Polemoniacus, which then
were made to reunite when the two territories
merged in the same province? The answer is what
we know did in fact happen: two cities of Pontus,
Amaseia and Neokaisareia, each claimed to be
metropolis well before the proliferation of metro-
poleis within a single province became common.12
10 Best seen (though also misread): BMC 2, pl. V.9. Marek
1993b, 74 and 76, cited the same coin legend two different
ways, the former a serious misreading taken from an earlier
authority and including the word ‘neokoros.’
11 F. Cumont 1903; Haensch 1997, 288 overlooked this
problem when he compared one koinon overlapping provin-
cial boundaries to one financial administrator doing the same:
whereas a single financial administrator could interact with each
governor independently regarding affairs in his province, a
koinon making unified decisions while overseen by two or three
governors is extremely rare (only the concilium Galliarum).
12 Bowersock 1985.
Presumably if their koina had remained separate
they would have specified each (even with an ab-
breviation) on their coins, but both claim identical
honors: metropolis and first of Pontus. Neokaisareia,
however, seems to have become the chief center of
the (unified) koinon, and minted coins for it.
First Neokoria: Trajan
Neokaisareia may have been the first of the two
Pontic metropoleis to declare itself neokoros on a
coin.
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: [AUT KAI%] NER [TRAI-
ANO% %EB...] Laureate head of Trajan, r. Rev:
NEOKAI%ARIA NEVKORVN Legend in double
laurel wreath. a) Paris 1277 (illus. pl. 33 fig. 161).
The coin is so far unique. Though worn, the por-
trait is recognizably Trajan, his titulature arranged
in a similar manner to that on other contemporary
coins of Neokaisareia.13 Most of the reverse design
is given over to this grammatically odd declaration
of neokoria, at a time when no other city but Ephe-
sos had yet begun to proclaim itself neokoros on
coins. On the other hand, other cities outside Asia
had begun to stake claims to neokoria, as Beroia did
under Nerva, though the title is documented through
inscriptions rather than coins. It may be that the
Trajanic coin commemorates Neokaisareia’s estab-
lishment as koinon center of the reorganized Pontus,
as documents of this koinon first began to appear
during the reign of Trajan.14 Though Amaseia ri-
valed Neokaisareia in claiming to be metropolis of
Pontus, Neokaisareia was probably as yet the only
neokoros city in the provincial organization; this
would explain the boast of coin type 1, and Ama-
seia’s failure to retort (so far as is known) in any but
the most indirect and allusive manner.
There has been some debate over what emperor’s
cult could have been established in the temple that
first made Neokaisareia neokoros. A temple of Rome
and Augustus was posited as the simplest solution.15
Of course, Pontus Polemoniacus, including Neokai-
13 Weiser 1988. The earliest issues of Neokaisareia yet
known are those issued by the legatus of Galatia/Cappadocia,
(Quintus Orfitasius) Aufidius Umber, dated to 100/101 C.E.
Stumpf 1991, 280-282; Remy, Amandry, and Özcan 1995.
14 Deininger 1965, 64-66; idem 1983.
15 F. Cumont and E. Cumont 1906, 268.
 chapter 23
sareia, did not belong to any Roman province, but
was part of a client kingdom until 64; on the other
hand, nothing rules out a temple to Rome and
Augustus in a client kingdom.16 If the legend of coin
type 1 is true, anyone after Trajan is excluded.17 Of
emperors whose monuments did not suffer condem-
nation, that leaves Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, or Tra-
jan himself.
Both Neokaisareia and Amaseia began to use the
title ‘neokoros’ regularly on their coins at the same
date, 161/162 C.E. (year 98 of the era of Neokai-
sareia).
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUTO K OUHRO% %EBA-
%TO% Laureate head of Lucius Verus, r. Rev: ADR
NEOK NEVKO PR(O, d) PON ET qH The
Dioskouroi with spears, stars over their heads (an
altar between them, bcde). a) SNGvA 97 b) Ox-
ford 25.9.1929 c) Berlin, Löbbecke d) Berlin,
Imhoof-Blumer e) Berlin 550/187.
By that year Neokaisareia also issued coins with a
four-column temple on the reverse for the koinon
of Pontus.18 This same temple, and occasionally the
title ‘neokoros’ as well, appears most frequently on
civic coins of Septimius Severus and his sons, but
the representations are so varied and so strange that
it may be hard to reconcile one with another, or any
with a particular cult.19
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO%
Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius
Severus r. Rev: KOI PON NEOKAI% NEV MHT ET
RMB (year 142 = 205/206 C.E.) Four-column
temple with double doors open, disc in pediment.
a) Berlin 7909 (illus. pl. 33 fig. 162).
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: P %EP GE[TA% KAI%]
Draped bust of Geta Caesar r., boyish. Rev: KOI
[PON] NEOKAI% NEVK [MH] ET RMB Four-col-
umn temple, dot in pediment. a) Oxford,
Godwyn.
The temple in question generally appears with the
dotted capitals that indicate Corinthian columns,
though where the die-cutter used only two dots the
16 Perhaps the best documented is that in Herod the Great’s
foundation of Caesarea on the harbor Sebastos: Josephus, Jewish
War 1.414 and Jewish Antiquities 15.339.
17 M. Price and Trell 1977, 94-98 for Septimius Severus.
18 SNGvA 6992.
19 M. Price and Trell 1977, 95-97 figs. 165, 166, 168-174
for the representations on coins that do not cite neokoria. See
also S. Price 1984b, 150-151, 181, 267.
– neokaisareia 207
result looks Ionic. It is most often four-column, al-
though one example shows five columns, probably
in error. The masonry of the cella is usually depicted
in the side intercolumniations and above the deco-
rated doors in the center intercolumniation. Occa-
sionally these doors stand slightly open. On one coin
two radiate busts seem to be imposed on the doors
above two ‘door knocker’ shaped objects, while on
another a single radiate bust hovers over a flaming
altar in the central intercolumniation. A single, non-
radiate bust appears over a ‘door knocker’ that floats
in the air without benefit of doors; the same ‘door
knocker’ is set on a sort of armature with the bust
above it, like a legionary standard, in a gabled niche
within the temple. Again, three busts float in the
spaces between the column capitals, or like the ra-
diate busts, two hang on shields on the double doors,
while in the intercolumniations two male statues
stand in contrapposto on tall pedestals. A single statue
in a similar pose and on a similar pedestal but hold-
ing a sceptre also appears in the central intercolum-
niation.
Though all these may well represent one temple,
no evidence declares what that one temple was. Ols-
hausen saw a resemblance between the male stat-
ues and the Dioscuri, but did not collect all the
varying representations.20 Price and Trell identified
the building as the gate to a sanctuary of Ma, the
war goddess whose best-known Pontic shrine was at
a different city, Komana.21 The reasoning behind
the identification of the structure as a gate instead
of a temple is that sometimes a lighted altar appears
within, and since sacrifices were properly made in
front of the temple and not within it, Price and Trell
reasoned that this must be the gate to an altar court.
Unfortunately, they were rebutted by their own fig-
ure 179, which shows lighted altars in the same
position within two temples. These should not be
gates because they are shown in three-quarter view
as independent rectangular structures with gabled
tile roofs. We should perhaps see the type as sym-
bolic, abbreviating, and compressing: the altar sym-
bolizes the cult within the temple, or is moved from
before it to within it due to lack of space.
If the Neokaisareia temple is that of a deity, it was
a deity so syncretistic as to be unidentifiable from
the available evidence. On the other hand, none of
20Olshausen 1990, 1879.
21M. Price and Trell 1977, 95-97. On Ma, Olshausen 1990,
1886-1887.
208 part i – section vi. koinon of pontus
the coin types explicitly conflicts with representations
of the imperial cult, and some may hint at it. Mul-
tiple cult statues may represent the successive em-
perors, while imperial busts on military standards
and on honorific shields are well known.22
Second Neokoria: Severus Alexander
The dated coins of Neokaisareia show that the city
became twice neokoros by 226/227 C.E. Thus
Neokaisareia was one of three cities that apparently
became neokoros for the cult of Severus Alexander.
The reign of that emperor is better known for the
withdrawal of all the neokoriai for Elagabalus (see
Historical Analysis, chapter 38, below). His rare
grants of the title seem to have been mainly in prov-
inces where no such awkward withdrawals had to
be made, and Pontus is among these.
The grant was the occasion for issuing celebratory
types showing the two temples for which the city was
neokoros, and associating them with one or two
festivals, symbolized by prize crowns.
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: A K M [AUR] %EOU ALEJ-
ANDRO% Laureate draped bust of Severus
Alexander, r. Rev: [PR]O P[ON NEOKAI]%A
MHTROPO DI% NEVKOR ET RJG (year 163 =
226/227 C.E.); IEROU Two four-column temples,
a dot in each pediment; above each a prize crown
with palm.23 a) Berlin 58/1874.
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AU K M AUR %EO ALEJ-
A[NDRO%] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander, r. Rev: NEOKAI MHTR DI%
NEVKOR ET RJG Two two-column temples
turned toward one another, a round altar within
each, a prize crown with palms above. a) London
1973.1-12-2 (illus. pl. 33 fig. 163).
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: A(U, b) K(AI, b) M AU(R,
b) %EOU ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cui-
rassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: NEOKAI
MHTR DI% NEVKO ET RJG Two four-column
temples, disc in each pediment. a) Warsaw 84269
b) Berlin, Löbbecke.
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
in the transcription.
COIN TYPE 8. Obv: obscure, worn. Laureate
draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r.
Rev: [. . . ] MHTROPO DI% NEVKO ET RJG Two
six-column temples, dot in each pediment, in
three-quarter view facing each other; stairs lead-
ing up to each. a) Tokat 7.1.2, from Erbaa.24
COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AU K M AU %E ALEJ-
ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander, r. Rev: MHTR NEOKE%ARIA%
DI% NEVKOR ET ROA (year 171 = 234/235 C.E.)
Two four-column temples, a dot in each pedi-
ment; between them an amphora with palms,
above, a prize crown with palms. a) Paris 417 b)
Berlin, Löbbecke.
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AU K M AU %E ALEJ-
ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander, r. Rev: MH NEOKE%A DI%
NEVKO ET ROA Two four-column temples, a
prize crown with palms above. a) Paris 416 b)
Boston 69.1084.
COIN TYPE 11. Obv: A(U, b) K M AU(R, b)
%E(OU, b) ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped
cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev:
NEOKAI(%A, a) MHT(R, ab) DI% NEVK(O, bd) ET
ROA Two four-column (Corinthian, b) temples, a
dot in each pediment. a) London 1973.1-4-4 b)
Paris 1972.922 (illus. pl. 33 fig. 164) c) Paris 1290
d) Vienna 14145 e) Berlin, Löbbecke.
The two temples for which Neokaisareia was neo-
koros are shown as identical, as usual for multiple-
temple coin types. The columns are clearly Corinth-
ian on some examples, but again appear Ionic when
shown with only two dots for capitals. One type
shows a single temple in an unusual three-quarter
view:
COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AU K M AU %E ALEJ-
ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander, r. Rev: KOI PO NEO-
KE%ARIA% MH ET ROA Six-column temple in
three-quarter view. a) SNGRighetti 570 b) Ireland
2000, no. 1342.
This may be one of the temples of the Pontic koinon
for which Neokaisareia was neokoros, but it should
be noted that the title ‘neokoros’ is not in the
24 Amandry, Remy, and Özcan 1994 (= Tokat with coin
no.), 125, pl. 33.
 chapter 23
legend, though it appeared in the same year as coins
of the second neokoria.
There are also several agonistic types that men-
tion the Pontic koinon or its contests, and type 5 uses
the term ‘sacred’ in the genitive singular, even
though the type seems to refer to two festivals;
perhaps the sigma is missing from IEROU(%)
(AGVNA%).25 Unfortunately, the same word is very
worn on the following type, but it floats between two
prize crowns:
COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AU K M AUR %EO ALEJ-
ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander, r. Rev: KOI PO NEOKE%A
MHTROPO DI% NEVKORV ET RJG; IE[ROU%?]
Table with two prize crowns on it, each with
palm. a) Tokat 5.1.30, mistranscribed (from Zela)
b) Ireland 2000, no. 1344.
The fact that ‘twice neokoros’ is wedged beneath this
agonistic table, plus the frequent appearance of prize
crown(s) floating over the two temples, indicates that
each temple for which Neokaisareia was neokoros
had an associated festival, though those festivals
remain unnamed. The multiple-temple and agonistic
types were issued in two series eight years apart, in
226/227 and 234/235. They may have been minted
to celebrate the occurrance of pentaeteric contests
(one type of 234/235 mentions isaktios), but the gap
between mintings may have been normal.26
Neokaisareia minted no coins with the title
‘neokoros’ under Severus Alexander’s successor
Maximinus. Thus we cannot tell whether the sec-
ond neokoria was withdrawn due to the short-lived
condemnation of Alexander’s memory between 235
and 238.27 Certainly the city continued to be entitled
‘twice neokoros’ on coins of Gordian III, Valerian,
and Gallienus. There is even a revival of the double-
temple reverse type with obverses of Gordian’s wife
Tranquillina, and a yet later one for the emperor
Valerian:
25 Karl 1975, 61; the suggestion for restoration is thanks
to an anonymous reader.
26 Klose and Stumpf 1996, 112 no. 206.
27 Kienast 1996, 177-179; Varner 1993, 418-422 believed
that the condemnation was unofficial.
– neokaisareia 209
COIN TYPE 14. Obv: %AB TRANKULINA %EB
Draped bust of Tranquillina, r. Rev: KOIN PON
MH NEOKE%ARIA% ET ROH (year 178 = 241/242
C.E.) Two four-column temples, dot in each
pediment. a) Tokat 8.1.18, from Neokaisareia
(Niksar).
COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AU K PO LIK OUALER-
IANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Vale-
rian, r. Rev: MH NEOKE%ARIA% ET RqB (year 192
= 255/256 C.E.) Two four-column temples on a
single ground line, dot in each pediment; a prize
crown above, between their roofs. a) Coll. F. L.
Kovacs.28
One must note, however, that the title ‘neokoros’
does not appear on either of these.
One agonistic type of these later years refers to
Aktia, which may conceivably represent a festival for
one of the two temples that made Neokaisareia
neokoros. But this cannot be certain, as the Aktia
appear well after the second neokoria.29
There are no inscriptions yet known that call Neo-
kaisareia neokoros.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Trajan: Paris.
Lucius Verus: SNGvA 97; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford.
Commodus: SNGvA 98, 6758; Berlin.
Septimius Severus: Berlin.
Geta Caesar: SNGTüb 2070; Oxford.
Twice neokoros:
Severus Alexander: Tokat 5.1.28, 5.1.30, 7.1.2, 8.1.14; Ire-
land 2000, nos, 1341, 1343, 1344; Berlin (7 exx.),
Boston (3 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.),
Oxford, Paris (5 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (2 exx.).
Gordian III: SNGvA 111, 6761; Paris.
Valerian: BMC 16; Istanbul;30 Paris.
Gallienus: Ireland 2000, no. 1380; Paris (2 exx.).
28 Klose and Stumpf 1996, 113 no. 210.
29 Karl 1975, 8-12 and n. 15; but Neokaisareia did not date
its coins by the Aktian era, as he stated. See also Jürging 1991,
44-47, assuming nonetheless a connection between Aktia and
neokoria.
30 Çizmeli, Amandry, and Remy 1995, 107 no. 34.
210 part i – section vi. koinon of pontus
Chapter 24. Amaseia: Koinon of Pontus (Galaticus)
The situation of Amaseia, ancient capital of the
Pontic kings, with respect to the rest of Pontus has
already been discussed in chapter 23, ‘Neokaisareia,’
above.1 Amaseia had been one of the chief cities of
Pontus Galaticus and thus belonged to a Roman
province since 3/2 B.C.E. It is likely that at first it
and its rival for Pontic primacy, Neokaisareia, were
under the administration of different provincial
governors, Amaseia under the governor of Galatia,
and Neokaisareia under that of Cappadocia.2 Later,
under Vespasian, Galatia and Cappadocia were
united under the same governorship, and Pontus
Galaticus (including Amaseia) and the inland of
Pontus Polemoniacus (including Neokaisareia) were
merged into one province.3 Both cities called them-
selves metropolis and first of Pontus.
When Neokaisareia issued its first coin claiming
the title ‘neokoros,’ under Trajan, Amaseia minted
coins with no mention of neokoria but with an
unidentified temple on the reverse.4 Set on a high
podium with parastades flanking the steps, its design
is much like that of the slightly later temple of Zeus
Philios and Trajan at Pergamon (q.v.). Though pre-
cise in architectural details (four fluted Ionic? col-
umns on high bases) and in date (115 of the
Amaseian era, or 112/113 C.E.),5 the type does not
specify the object of cult within the temple. If the
image represented is an imperial temple, use of the
type may have been a subtle way for Amaseia to
assert its status as a holder of a temple of the impe-
rial cult against neokoros Neokaisareia, though that
1 In general, the picture presented here is that given by
Marek 1993b (with earlier bibliography); to this add Haensch
1997, 281-290, with Amaseia as possible seat of the governor
of the unified Pontus in the third century.
2 See chapter 23, ‘Neokaisareia,’ n. 4.
3 See chapter 23, ‘Neokaisareia,’ n. 5.
4 SNGRighetti 538, 539; SNGvA 18; Ireland 2000, nos. 103,
106; M. Price and Trell 1977, 93 fig. 164; though the latter
named it the temple of Zeus Stratios, no evidence is given for
or against this identification. See also S. Price 1984b, 267. For
the temenos of Zeus Stratios, centered on a high altar, see
Olshausen 1990, 1901-1903; French 1996a, 91-92; idem 1996b.
5 Leschhorn 1993, 115-124, 466-469.
hypothesis cannot be proved without further evi-
dence.
First Neokoria: Marcus Aurelius
It is more significant that with the exception of the
anomalous early issue of Neokaisareia under Trajan,
both cities’ coinages began regularly to trumpet the
title ‘neokoros’ (along with ‘metropolis and first of
Pontus’) at the same date, 161/162 C.E. (year 164
of the era of Amaseia, 98 of that of Neokaisareia).
Amaseia was also proud of its epithet ‘Hadrianic’:
it preceded the city’s name on virtually all of its post-
Hadrianic coinage, and in the Severan period epi-
thets from the reigning emperor’s name were added
as well.
The neokoria of Amaseia comes before the title
metropolis on its first coins of Marcus Aurelius and
Lucius Verus, but slips down after it on all sub-
sequent issues. This initial emphasis on neokoria may
have been the sign of a recent official grant of the
title, or a way of drawing attention to its first appear-
ance on the coins. Certainly the reverse types show
no sign of a temple, as they had under Trajan, but
are instead purely imperial, referring to the rulers
and the concord between them:
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI% M AUR AN-
TVNINV(%, a ; ANTVNINO, d) %EB Laureate
draped cuirassed bust of Marcus Aurelius r. Rev:
ADR AMA% NEVK K MHT K PRV P(ON, cd;
PONT efg) (K, c); ET RJD (year 164 = 161/162
C.E.). Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, both
togate, join right hands. a) SNGvA 24 b)
SNGRighetti 543, year obscure c) Paris 94 d)
Warsaw 58633 e) Berlin, Löbbecke f) New York
1944.100.41180 (obv.=illus. pl. 34 fig. 165) g) New
York, 1944.100. 41179 (rev.=illus. pl. 34 fig. 166)
h) Tokat 5.1.3, year obscure.6
6 Amandry, Remy, and Özcan 1994 (= Tokat with coin no.),
123 pl. 29.
 chapter
Also of interest are later coins, dated to 225/226
C.E., that show a general view of the city. Though
either a tetrastyle or hexastyle temple facade was
shown on the lower central slopes of the fortress,
there is no way of identifying such a summary sketch
as any particular temple, much less an imperial one.7
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K %EOUHRO% ALEJ-
ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander r. Rev: ADR %EU ALEJ
AMA%IA% MHT NE PR P(ON, c) ET %KH (year
228 = 225/226 C.E.). View of the city of Amaseia;
five towers to the left, five to the right; two temples
and rocky landscape between. a) SNGvA 44 b)
Berlin 1025/1893 c) New York, 1944.100.41218
(illus. pl. 34 fig. 167) d) Ireland 2000, no. 232.
Amaseia continued to use ‘neokoros’ among its
titles on coins down to the time of Severus
Alexander, but no inscriptions that mention the city
as neokoros are yet known.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA :
Neokoros:
Marcus Aurelius: BMC 3; SNGvA 22, 24, 6700; SNGRighetti
542, 543; Tokat 5.1.3; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston (2 exx.),
London, New York (3 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Warsaw
(3 exx.).
7 M. Price and Trell 1977, 91-93, figs. 159, 162.
24 – amaseia 211
Lucius Verus: BMC 5; SNGvA 23, 25; SNGRighetti 544;
Ireland 2000, no. 144; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston (2 exx.),
London, Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Commodus: SNGCop 107; SNGvA 27, 6701, 6702;
SNGRighetti 545-547; Ireland 2000, nos. 171, 172,
182; Berlin (8 exx.), Boston, London (4 exx.), New
York (4 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (14 exx.), Vienna
(3 exx.).8
Septimius Severus: BMC 6-16; SNGCop 108-110; SNGvA
28-30, 6703; SNGRighetti 548, 549; Ireland 2000, nos.
192, 199; Berlin (18 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London
(4 exx.), New York (7 exx.), Oxford (3 exx), Paris
(20 exx.), Vienna (7 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.).
Julia Domna: SNGCop 111; SNGvA 31; Ireland 2000, no.
204; Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris (3 exx.), Vienna.
Geta Caesar: BMC 36, 37; Ireland 2000, no. 230; Ber-
lin, London (2 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Paris (2 exx.),
Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw.
Caracalla: BMC 17-32, 34, 35; SNGCop 112-117; SNGvA
32-40, 6704-6709; SNGRighetti 550, 551; Ireland
2000, nos. 209-214, 219, 221; Berlin (33 exx.), Bos-
ton (2 exx.), London (5 exx.), New York (25 exx.),
Oxford (10 exx.), Paris (46 exx.), Vienna (11 exx.),
Warsaw (6 exx.).
Severus Alexander: BMC 39, 40; SNGCop 119; SNGvA 41-
44, 6710-6712; SNGRighetti 552-554; Ireland 2000,
nos. 231-235, 238, 240, 246, 257; Berlin (9 exx.),
Boston (3 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (7 exx.),
Paris (21 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw (5 exx.).
8 A possible addition to this group was found in a tomb at
Özükavak: Remy 1990, 86 no. 16, but the title was misspelled
(NRVKOR) and no photograph was published.
212 part i – section vii. koinon of
SECTION VII. KOINON OF CILICIA
ChaptER 25. TARSOS: KOINON
The earliest appearance of the title ‘neokoros’ in the
province of Cilicia was on coins of the city of Tarsos.
Level Cilicia, on whose plain Tarsos stood, had been
a Roman possession since the late Republic and part
of the unified province of Cilicia since the reign of
Vespasian; Tarsos, besides being a free and invio-
late city, was likely the seat of the governor.1 It was
also headquarters of the koinon of Cilicia, whose
representatives pursued the prosecution of Cossu-
tianus Capito in 57 C.E.2 Dio Chrysostomos ad-
dressed several orations to the Tarsians, noting that
though their city had been metropolis from the start,
it was not getting along with the smaller Cilician
cities; they resented its dominance, the fact that they
had to go there to sacrifice, and that Tarsos had
pursued several prosecutions of Roman officials on
its own hook.3
First Neokoria: Hadrian or before
Tarsos’ first known use of ‘neokoros’ is on coins with
obverses of Antinoös as hero, issued sometime af-
ter his death in Egypt in 130. Antinoös’ depiction
with the Egyptian hem-hem crown is probably based
on dated Alexandrian coins that were first issued
after October 134.4
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: ANTINOO% HRV% Ivy-
crowned head of Antinoös l. Rev: ADRIA TAR%OU
MHTROPO NEOKOROU NEV IAKXV Four-
1 Haensch 1997, 267-272; Rigsby 1996, 475; Ziegler 1993a;
Remy 1986, 61-62; Bernhardt 1971, 190, 228.
2 Tacitus, Annals 13.33, 16.21; though a date as early as
Augustus may not be proved, this does indicate the koinon’s
existence by 57. The arguments of Ziegler 1995b for no inde-
pendent koinon before Hadrian are ultimately based on silence
regarding Ciliciarchs and independent koinon festivals.
3 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 33.51; 34.7-15, 27, 47-48;
Swain 1996, 187-206; C. Jones 1978, 76; preferable to the in-
terpretation of Kienast 1971. On the rivalry with Anazarbos
(and also Aigeai), Ziegler 1993b, 126-128.
4 H. Meyer 1991, 137-140, 149-151.
CILICIA
OF CILICIA
column Corinthian temple, disc in pediment,
outer aisles grilled and garlanded; within, volute
krater on pedestal. a) BMC 159 (illus. pl. 34 fig.
168).
The appearance of the word ‘neokoros’ on this
particular coinage does not indicate that Tarsos
became neokoros for the cult of Antinoös, however.5
In fact the only reason for this novel use of the title
may have been the large size and unusually spacious
design of this special issue of coins. Tarsos gener-
ally preferred its title ‘metropolis,’ which precedes
‘neokoros’ on coins with Antinoös’ portrait. Judg-
ing from the types, veneration for Antinoös at Tarsos
was both eclectic and syncretistic. He received the
epithets and attributes of both Dionysos and Apollo
and was probably also assimilated to the local river
god Kydnos. The temple for which the neokoria was
granted, however, was not the one that appears on
type 1, which is probably a heroön of Antinoös as
Dionysos/Osiris.
A more likely candidate for the temple that made
Tarsos neokoros appears on coins issued from the
time of Hadrian to that of the young Commodus.
A few examples follow:
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT KAI YE TRA PAR UI
YE NER UI TRAIA ADRIANO% %E; P P Laureate
draped cuirassed bust of Hadrian l. Rev:
ADRIANVN TAR%EVN MHTROPOLEV%; KOI-
NO% KILIKIA% written across architrave of ten-
column temple, wreath in pediment. a) In trade.6
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: TAR%OU MHTROPOLE
Veiled mural-crowned draped bust of city god-
5 Despite H. Meyer 1991, 150 and Ziegler 1985, 67 n. 2;
later corrected in Ziegler 1995b, 184-185 n. 10. See also S.
Price 1984b, 274.
6 Ziegler 1995b, 185 pl. 23.4, a silver tetradrachm. The
author does not state whether he himself examined the coin,
so its genuineness must be taken as provisional. On silver coins
of Tarsos under Hadrian, Ziegler 1993b, 94-95.
 CHAPTER 25
dess r. Rev: KOINO% KILIKIA% written across
architrave of ten-column temple, eagle in pedi-
ment. a) SNGCop 351 b) BMC 138 (illus. pl. 34 fig.
169) c) SNGParis 1435 d) SNGParis 1436 e) Ziegler
Sammlungen 674.7
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT(O, a) (KAI, b; K, c) (TI,
bc) AI(LIO%, a) (KAI%AR, a; ADRI, bc)
ANTVNINO% %EB (EU PP, bc) Laureate draped
bust of Antoninus Pius r. Rev: ADRIANVN
TAR%EVN MHTROPOLEV%; KOINO% KILIKIA%,
the latter in architrave of ten-column temple,
wreath (or eagle, ad) in pediment. a) SNGvA 5989
b) SNGParis 1444 c) SNGParis 1445 d) SNGParis
1446 e) SNGLevante 1014 a) SNGvA 5989
Coin type 2, if genuine, dates after Hadrian took the
title p(ater) p(atriae), though that title occasionally
appears on other coins before it became official in
128.8 The temple is identified by the words (~)
koinÚw (naÒw) Kilik¤aw, ‘common (temple) of Cilicia’
written on its entablature. This was certainly a
temple for the provincial (imperial) cult, situated in
the chief city of the province, Tarsos.
Whether Tarsos’ koinon temple and resultant
neokoria were actually due to Hadrian, or only first
appear on coins of his reign, can be debated back
and forth. The province was established under
Vespasian, so it seems unlikely that it had no com-
mon temple until as late as 128; on the other hand,
by the time of Hadrian’s successor Antoninus Pius,
Cilicia’s provincial arrangements had been changed,
and it was joined with Isauria and Lycaonia to form
the ‘three eparchies.’9 Tarsos’ neokoria and a pro-
vincial temple both first appear on coins under
Hadrian, and Hadrianeia Olympia are documented
later; but Tarsos had long been metropolis of Cilicia,
and many non-neokoroi (including Anazarbos,
Tarsos’ rival in Cilicia) celebrated Hadrianeia.
Hadrian did visit Tarsos at the beginning of his
reign, though a substantive visit that could include
a reorganization of the koinon on his later sea jour-
ney from Egypt is more questionable.10 On full
consideration of all these facts, it is possible that
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
eparchies’ as a single province from Antoninus Pius, then a
break, then again from Septimius Severus).
10 Birley 1997, 259-260; Halfmann 1986a, 190, 194.
– TARSOS 213
Cilicia’s first koinon temple was built at Tarsos for
the cult of Hadrian, which made the city neokoros
at that time, but the suggestion cannot be taken as
definitely proved.11
Second Neokoria: Commodus
It was assuredly under Commodus that Tarsos be-
came twice neokoros. The coins make it clear by not
only proclaiming the title but by showing the new
temple, either alone or with its predecessor:
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: (AUT KAI, acd) (M, cd) (L
AIL, befg) AURH KOMODO% %E(B, f) Laureate
draped cuirassed (wearing crown and garments
of demiourgos, c) bust of Commodus r., (unbeard-
ed and youthful, a; bearded and mature, b-g).
Rev: TAR%OU MHTROPOLEV%; DI% NEVKO-
ROU; KOMODEIO% Ten-column temple (eagle in
pediment, ac). a) SNGParis 1462 (illus. pl. 34 fig.
170) b) BMC 169 c) SNGParis 1463 (illus. pl. 34
fig. 171) d) SNGParis 1464 e) SNGCop 362 f) SNGvA
5995 g) Boston 63.939.
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT KAI% AUR KOMODO%
%EB Bust of Commodus r. wearing crown and
garments of demiourgos. Rev: ADRIAN
KOMODIANH% TAR%OU MHTROPOLEV% DI%
NEVKOROU; KOINOI KILIKIA% written across the
entablatures of two ten-column temples, a wreath
above them. a) BMC 168 b) SNGvA 5996 c) Ber-
lin, Fox.
On the former issue the new temple is identified by
the legend ‘Commodian’ on its entablature. An eagle
sometimes appears in the pediment, a justaposition
that recalls the earlier provincial temple. Both it and
the temple to Commodus are identified on type 6
as ‘common (temples) of Cilicia,’ and above them
hangs a wreath, which either symbolizes the new
festival in honor of this temple, called ‘isolympic
worldwide Kommodeios,’12 or the crown of the Tarsian
magistrate, the demiourgos, which Commodus wears
on the obverse of types 5c, 6 and others. Several
emperors were made (honorary) demiourgoi of
11 Despite Ziegler 1993b, 22-23; 1995b; and 1985, 21, 67-
68.
12 CIG 4472; Miranda 1992-1993, 84-85; Karl 1975, 80-
81.
214 part i – section vii. koinon of
Tarsos and are shown in the distinctive official dress
on the coins.13
The date of Tarsos’ neokoria for Commodus can
be isolated using the emperor’s portrait and
titulature. One coin that shows his new temple, type
5 example a, shows him unbearded and youthful;
it does not specify his praenomen, but the portrait
probably dates shortly after his succession in 180,
when he also granted neokoria to Nikomedia (q.v.).14
Dated coins of Tarsos’ neighbor Anazarbos show
Commodus as bearded by 183/184 C.E.15 Un-
fortunately type 5a is obscure where the neokoria
should be mentioned; on the other hand, its illus-
tration of the new temple should be decisive. Un-
less coin 5a inexplicably revived a very out-of-date
portrait type of the emperor, Tarsos seems to have
become twice neokoros before ca. 183/184.
Later coins of the second neokoria, with bearded
portraits, name the emperor first Marcus Aurelius
Commodus, and later Lucius Aelius Aurelius
Commodus, a change back to an earlier name that
he affected after 18 August 191.16 The coins with
his portrait in the dress of demiourgos either show
the former name or do not specify. Therefore
Commodus’ grant of the neokoria to Tarsos and
his demiourgeia both assuredly date before August
191. It is likely that the neokoria came first, the
demiourgeia afterward. The delay would have al-
lowed the temple to be started and arrangements for
the celebratory festival, the isolympic worldwide
Kommodeios, to be made.17
The reason for Commodus’ special favor is not
clear. So far as is known, at this time Tarsos was
chief city of its koinon and sole neokoros of its prov-
ince. A second neokoria put it on the level of the
greatest cities of Asia, such as Pergamon, Ephesos,
Smyrna, and Sardis. It is certainly possible that
Commodus’ chief point of interest in Tarsos was its
patron god Herakles, with whom the emperor iden-
tified strongly later in his reign.18 But the neokoria
13 Ziegler 1977, 36-38 summarizing Cilician neokoroi;
1993b, 119 n. 312 on the timing of Commodus’ term as
demiourgos (though not precise on the neokoria, see below).
14 Kienast 1996, 147-150; after October 180, Commodus’
name changed from Lucius to Marcus.
15 SNGParis 2041; SNGLevante 1401.
16 Shelton 1979, 103; see above, n. 14.
17 Ziegler 1985, 22, 68-71 and 1993b, 104 was unaware of
type 5a and so dated the neokoria late in the 180s and asso-
ciated it with the cult of Herakles.
18 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:221.
CILICIA
was more likely granted earlier than has previously
been realized, as mentioned above. As early as ca.
180-182, Commodus made Nikomedia twice
neokoros at the behest of one of his courtiers, but
the title was soon withdrawn when that courtier fell.
It is difficult to tell what influence made Commodus
turn toward Tarsos in the same way, and probably
only a short time after.
The decastyle temple of Commodus at Tarsos
may have been found at the site known as Donuktaâ
(illus. pl. 2 fig. 11).19 This is east of and probably
outside the ancient city; the remains of one of the
few other civic buildings yet found at Tarsos, the
theater on Gözlü Kule, are about one km. away.20
Though largely robbed out, the remains of cement/
conglomerate foundations can restore the outlines
of a temple large enough to have had ten columns
along the facade (which is 49.60 m. long) and twenty-
one along the flank (105.30 m.). Set on a podium
11.57 m. high, it faced northeast, and was ap-
proached from the front by a steep staircase; vaulted
corridors led from the pronaos to the lower cella.
Fragments of white marble architectural decora-
tion show the order as Corinthian, with a column
height of ca. 20 m.; a ca. 9 x 13 m. foundation
block at the back of a cella ca. 73 m. long may have
served as a base for cult statues. Nothing specifical-
ly identifies this as an imperial temple, or as that of
Commodus rather than the decastyle on coins of
Antoninus Pius, but in the excavator’s opinion the
drilled style of the architectural ornament argues for
a date toward the end rather than the middle of the
second century.21 In the late Roman period, a cir-
cular altar or monument was added to the center
of the stairs in the front, a design which recalls the
temple of the deified Julius Caesar in the Forum in
Rome; in this case, however, the function of the
addition is unknown. A piece of white marble co-
lossal statuary, apparently of Roman workmanship,
was found on the site, but consists only of a thumb
and forefinger.22
Tarsos continued to celebrate its twice-neokoros
status with double-temple coin types, temple-bear-
ing divinities, and illustrations of the crown, stud-
19 Baydur 1990a. Among Baydur’s yearly (up to 1993)
reports, the most important are Baydur 1989 and 1990b.
20 Zoroglu 1995, 39, 68-70.
21 Ziegler and Weiss preferred a Hadrianic date, based on
Zeigler’s beliefs concerning the foundation of the koinon: Weiss
1997, 33.
22 Baydur 1992, 415-416; Cuinet 1891, 45-46.
 CHAPTER 25
ded with imperial portrait busts, that the head of the
koinon of Cilicia wore when he presided over its
festivals.23
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: ADRIANH KOMODIANH
TAR%O% H MHTROPOLI% Seated city goddess,
river god Kydnos at feet. Rev: KOINO% KILIKIA%
TAR%OU DI% NEVKOROU Agonothetic crown
with eight portrait heads. a) SNGParis 1470 b) Ber-
lin, Prokesch-Osten c) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer.
COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT KAI% L %EPT %EU-
HRO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Septimius Severus r. Rev: TAR%OU MHTRO TVN
G EPARXEIVN; KOINOI KILIKIA% Two six?-col-
umn temples turned toward each other. a)
SNGParis 1473 (incorrect) (illus. pl. 34 fig. 172) b)
SNGLevante 1022.
In spite of the fact that many of these reverse types
seem to celebrate the second neokoria, until recently
it appeared that after Commodus the title itself had
slipped off the city’s coinage. In its place came a
series of single-letter abbreviations of longer titles.
These could be explicated by comparison with the
inscriptions, where the titles were written out in full:
INSCRIPTION 1. Le Bas-Waddington 1480
(IGRR 3:880; OGIS 578; Laminger-Pascher 1974,
32 no. 1, after revision by Wilhelm in 1891). Dedi-
cation to Severus Alexander. ÉAlejandrianØ
[Seouhria]nØ ÉAntvneinianØ [ÑAdrianØ] Tãrsow
{ pr\th k[a‹ meg¤sth] ka‹ kall¤sth m[htrÒpoliw]
t«n g' §parxei«n [Kilik¤aw] ÉIsaur¤aw Lukaon¤aw
proka]yezom°nh ka‹ b' nevkÒr[ow] mÒnh teteimh-
m°nh dhm[i]ourg¤aiw te ka‹ Kilikiarx¤ [aiw] §par-
xik«n ka‹ §leuy°rƒ k[oi]noboul¤ƒ ka‹ •t°raiw
ple[¤]staiw ka‹ meg¤staiw ka‹ §jair°toiw dvre-
a¤w. . .
For example, ‘first and greatest and most beautiful’
in Tarsos inscription 1 boiled down to AMK. Less
easily interpreted were the letters G and B, which
began to appear on the coins just as ‘twice neokoros’
disappeared, in the reign of Septimius Severus.
These enigmatic symbols were not abbreviations for
names but numbers, ‘three’ and ‘two.’24 Amplified
to their full significance, they stand for ‘(set before
23 Rumscheid 2000, 24-31, 133-138, cat. nos. 36-56.
24 Weiss 1979; J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques
(1982) 424 no. 460. See chapter 26, ‘Anazarbos,’ below, for a
similar situation.
– TARSOS 215
the) three (eparchies of Cilicia Isauria and Lykaonia),
two (times neokoros),’ formulae which occur on the
inscription. Thus the second neokoria was being
cited on the coins, though in so abbreviated a form
as to be incomprehensible up to recent times.
An example of the use of these abbreviations is
on a sculpture that gives us a precious glimpse of a
Ciliciarch in full dress.25 Found at Pompeiopolis on
the coast west of Tarsos, he is dressed in tunic and
himation and holds a scroll. His tall modius-crown
has a wreath at its base adorned with five imperial
busts, all male, and five letters, which left to right
read GMAKB; but if one reads from the center and
most important letter, alternating left to right there-
after, one gets the familiar AMKGB, ‘first, greatest
and most beautiful, set before the three eparchies,
twice neokoros.’ From this titulature, the sculpture
has been convincingly dated to the time of Tarsos’
second neokoria, with the two Victories and the
letters attached to the crown also paralleled on the
city’s coins in the mid-third century; a strong stylis-
tic support is offered by a portrait of Trajan Decius
(249-251 C.E.) in Rome.26 Anazarbos, which also
held some of these titles, is farther off from the
findspot; its coins refer less often to the koinon and
the Ciliciarch’s crown, which the Tarsians may have
tried to keep from them; and only used the titles
‘first, greatest, and most beautiful’ intermittently at
the time to which the statue probably dates.27 Tarsos
constantly boasted those titles, and it is important
to note how things that should be specific to one city
have found their way onto the adornment of a pro-
vincial official; with its titles on the Ciliciarch’s
crown, Tarsos shows its continued domination of the
koinon.
Despite Commodus’ eventual downfall and an
initial condemnation of his memory, Tarsos retained
its second neokoria, probably due to the favor of
Septimius Severus, who won a great victory over his
rival for empire Pescennius Niger in Cilicia in 194.
As a newcomer to the throne, Severus needed the
distinction and sense of continuity that descent from
an imperial family could convey. Thus he called
25 Recognized by L. Robert 1961, 178; Rumscheid 2000,
131-132 cat. no. 34.
26 Frey 1982; Weiss 1997, 29.
27 See ‘Anazarbos,’ chapter 26, esp. coin type 7; that city
was ‘first, greatest, and most beautiful’ in and briefly after the
reigns of Elagabalus and Trebonianus Gallus. Ziegler 1999,
149-151; pace Rumscheid 2000, 131-132 cat no. 34.
216 part i – section vii. koinon of
himself the brother of Commodus, rehabilitating the
memory of an emperor who had been execrated for
two years, and installing him among the honorable
and deified dead.28 Since no documents exist that
show Tarsos going back to a single neokoria in the
interval of Commodus’ dishonor, we cannot tell
exactly how long it may have lasted, but certainly
portraits on Tarsos’ coins show that the city was
twice neokoros shortly after the youthful Caracalla
was made Augustus in 197, which is also close to
the time that Anazarbos received its first neokoria.29
Ziegler has suggested that Tarsos was initially on
the side of Pescennius Niger, while its rival Ana-
zarbos gained the advantage by declaring for
Septimius Severus early.30 But though Anazarbos
indeed garnered some new titles, Severus did not
mete out the punishment to Tarsos that was his usual
treatment for partisans of Niger. The same author
has posited that, as at Laodikeia (q.v.), a member
of the Severan family shared cult with Commodus
at Tarsos.31 Though this is not impossible, it can-
not be proved from Ziegler’s evidence, which was
the names of the festivals that Tarsos chose to cel-
ebrate. Though the Kommodeios ceased to be men-
tioned as often on coins, and Severeia appeared, such
festivals were common to many cities that were never
neokoroi, and cannot be taken to indicate the ob-
ject of cult in a neokoros city’s temple (see chapter
40, ‘The Cities,’ in the summary, Part II).
Caracalla during his sole rule favored Tarsos as
his father had, granting it his name as an epithet, a
silver coinage, grain from Egypt, and perhaps some
honor to one of its temples, before which he is shown
sacrificing on coin type 9.32 Like Commodus, he
took the office of demiourgos, but he may have
actually been in the city, or at least in the area.33
Tarsian coins of his time (and later, under Gordian
III) celebrated the two koinon temples, either held
by the city goddess as neokoros (coin types 10 and
12), or as the setting for the meetings of the koinon
council at Tarsos (coin type 11).
28 Merkelbach 1979. Lendon 1997, 172 n. 332 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.
31 Ziegler 1985, 22, 28, 75-77; after him S. Mitchell 1993,
1:221.
32 Ziegler 1984 attempted to associate the hero of an an-
cient novel with Caracalla in particular.
33 Halfmann 1986a, 223-230; Ziegler 1985, 81-84.
CILICIA
COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV-
NEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Caracalla r. Rev: [...ANTV]NIANH% %EUHR ADRI
TAR%OU A M K G B Togate emperor with phiale
and lituus before temple in three-quarter view;
below it, male figure raises axe over bull. a)
SNGParis 1514 (retouched) (illus. pl. 34 fig. 173).
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR %EOU-
HRO% ANTVNEINO% P P (Laureate draped
cuirassed, a-c; in crown and dress of demiourgos,
d) bust of Caracalla r. Rev: ANTVNIANH%
%EUHR ADR(IANH%, a-c) TAR%OU A M K G B
Seated city goddess holding two ten-column
temples.34 a) London 1925.10-1-6 b) Berlin c)
Adana 19035 d) SNGLevante 1059.
COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR %EOU-
HRO% ANTVNEINO% (%EB, bd) P P Laureate
head of Caracalla r. Rev: ADRI %EOUHRI
ANTONEINOU(POL, ad) TAR%OU (MHTRO, bcd)
KOINOBOULION G B Goddess (Koinoboulion)36
with cornucopia and phiale between two six-col-
umn (four-column, b) temples (in three-quarter
view and surmounted by eagles, d). a) SNGParis
1492 b) Berlin, Löbbecke c) BMC 190 d)
SNGLevante 1036 e) Boston 61.1063.
COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AUT K M ANT GORDI-
ANO% %EB P P Radiate draped bust of Gordian
III r. with spear and shield. Rev: TAR%OU MH-
TROPOLEV% A M K G B Seated city goddess
holding two temples, one five-column and one
four-column37 (both seven-column, g; one eight
and one six? h). a) London 1919.8-22-10 (illus. pl.
35 fig. 174) b) Vienna 38659 c) Berlin, Löbbecke
d) New York, Newell e) New York, Tarsus 1975
f) SNGLevante 1143 g) SNGLevante 1144 h)
SNGRighetti 1684.
In the reign of Elagabalus, Anazarbos began to
use to use titles like ‘first, greatest, and most beau-
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
34 Pick 1904, 10 no. 6.2.
35 Cox 1941 (=Adana with coin no.).
36 Ziegler 1985, 85 n. 126; a personification of the Meet-
ing of the Provincial Assembly, despite Gaebler 1929.
37 Pick 1904, 10 no. 6.2. See also Butcher 1991, 186 no.
66.
 CHAPTER 25
Elagabalus to early in the reign of Severus
Alexander, however, and it is possible that they were
withdrawn by the new emperor, possibly by petition
of the Tarsians. Anazarbos then pulled ahead to
become three times neokoros in the reign of Trajan
Decius. This may have galled Tarsos, but it was not
due to any action on that city’s part that we know
of, nor does it seem to have been intended to dis-
honor Tarsos, which kept its full titulature.38 Tarsos
continued to declare itself (abbreviatedly) twice
neokoros into the early reign of Valerian and
Gallienus.
Third Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus
Later coins of Valerian, Gallienus, and Gallienus’
wife Salonina, however, changed the enumeration
from GB to GG, meaning that Tarsos had finally
become three times neokoros. The change may have
been due to Valerian himself, as there is good evi-
dence for his presence in the East, and even in
Cilicia.39 But though coins of Anazarbos better
document his advent, it was Tarsos he honored with
a third neokoria.
COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AU KAI POU LI OUA-
LERIANO% %E P P Radiate draped cuirassed bust
of Valerian r. Rev: TAR%OU MHTROPOLEV% A
M K G G; %EUHRIA OLUM; ADRIANIA
EKI(XIRIAI, b) AUGOU%(TI, b) AKTI(A, b) Three
prize crowns (one labeled AK[TI]A, a) on agonis-
tic table. a) SNGvA 6077 (misread) b) SNGLevante
1185 with corrigendum c) Ziegler Sammlungen 829
d) Ziegler Sammlungen 830 (obscure) e) SNGRighetti
1714 f) Anamur, Ayvagedigi hoard no. 16540 g)
Anamur, Ayvadegi hoard 166.
Tarsos’ issues concentrated on festivals rather than
temples at this time. Type 13 shows three prize
crowns for the contests Severeia Olympia, Hadrianeia
Ekecheiria, and Augustia Aktia.41 The names of the
contests are minuscule, and there may be an element
of wishful thinking in trying to see them on the coins,
especially when they are placed on the prize crowns
themselves.
38 Despite Ziegler 1985, 85-87, 104-105, ultimately based
on silence.
39 Halfmann 1986a, 236-237; Ziegler 1985, 114-119.
40 Rebuffat 1994, 101.
41 Ziegler 1985, 25, 29-30, 118, especially on the Ekecheiria,
usually associated with the Olympic truce.
– TARSOS 217
Though all these contests honor emperors, they
do not necessarily coincide with the neokoriai of
Tarsos. ‘Neokoros’ first appeared on coins under
Hadrian, though the title may have antedated the
coins. The second neokoria was for Commodus,
whose cult was presumably restored by Septimius
Severus. The third neokoria was likely for Valerian,
and perhaps for Gallienus as well. Ziegler, however,
was struck by the fact that there is a coincidence on
some coins of Valerian and Gallienus between num-
ber of neokoriai (three) and number of prize crowns
(three). This led him to assume that Tarsos definitely
became neokoros under Hadrian (Hadrianeia); that
its second neokoria for Commodus was subsumed
under the name of Septimius Severus, and that the
name of the same second “neokorate” festival
changed from ‘isolympic worldwide Commodan’ to
‘Severan Olympia’ to ‘isolympic Antoninian’ and
back to ‘Severan’ again; and that the third festival
was known simply as ‘Augustan’ rather than being
named after Valerian or Gallienus (the great major-
ity of citations of Augustia do occur on coins issued
under Valerian and Gallienus).42 The first and third
are in fact possible, or at least not contradicted by
other evidence. The second, however, is both
overcomplex and contradicted.
To deal with the coincidence of prize crowns and
neokoriai: only one of the agonistic coin types issued
when Tarsos was twice neokoros shows two crowns;
the rest show one.43 True, three-crown types were
issued after the grant of the third neokoria, for fes-
tivals including the imperial names Severus,
Hadrian, and Augustus.44 But in the same period,
coins of Anazarbos proclaim that city three times
neokoros but show up to five prize crowns; Sardis
(q.v.) issues types showing three prize crowns both
before and after it is made three times neokoros; and
innumerable cities mint coins with types of prize
crowns without any of them being neokoros.45 There
is no necessary dependence of prize crowns from
neokoriai.
As to Septimius Severus’ usurpation of the cult
established for Commodus, it is known that Tarsos’
‘isolympic worldwide Kommodeion’ festival was in fact
42 Ziegler 1985, 26-31; Karl 1975, 24-28, 106.
43 One crown: Ziegler 1985, types A4, 5, 7-11, 17-19, 25;
two crowns: type A12.
44 Ziegler 1985, types A20-23.
45 Ziegler 1985, types B47, B49; see chapter 40, ‘The Cit-
ies,’ in Part II.
218 part i – section vii. koinon of
celebrated after Commodus’ death; an inscription
honoring a boxer from Laodikeia in Syria, dated to
221 C.E., states that he won at this festival as a
youth, probably during Caracalla’s sole rule.46 The
Severeia festival mentioned on coins of Severus him-
self, and presumably on those later, could be one
of two known at Tarsos: the Severeia Olympia Epinikia,
associated with the victory of Severus’ forces over
Pescennius Niger’s at the borders of Cilicia, and
celebrated at ‘the Quadrigae’ not only by Tarsos,
but by Anazarbos and perhaps by Antioch in Syria
as well;47 or the Severeios Antoneinianos, a worldwide
contest honoring Severus and Caracalla, mentioned
on an inscription of Tarsos itself.48 Neither of these
associates it necessarily with a neokoria for Tarsos.
It would be best to await clearer evidence before
affirming a direct rather than a coincidental asso-
ciation of neokoriai and festivals at Tarsos.
Ziegler has dated the grant of the third neokoria
to precisely 255/256.49 He based his argument partly
on Valerian’s passage through the city on his return
to Rome, though Halfmann doubted that Valerian
made any such return.50 But the same period saw
grants of neokoriai to as many as ten cities, few of
which could have been personally visited by either
Valerian or Gallienus. Coins of Tarsos offer no types
or titulature that can be precisely dated. Thus
Tarsos’ third neokoria can only be dated with cer-
tainty within the range 253-260, before Valerian was
captured by the Persians and coinage with his por-
trait ceased.51
The third neokoria brought Tarsos back into line
with its rival Anazarbos, which had been made three
times neokoros by 249/250. The only other Cilician
neokoros, Aigeai, was still issuing coins with the
simple title, and was not on the level of rivalry
reached by the other two. Tarsos, however, was soon
to suffer: after King Shapur captured Valerian,
Persian forces pushed their way deep into the Ro-
46 IGRR 3:1012.
47
Herodian 3.3.6-3.4.5 gives details of a crucial battle at
a mountain pass, though not explicitly the Cilician gates north
of Tarsos; Cassius Dio 75.7.1-8 goes directly to Issos. Both are
“at the borders of Cilicia,” where the victory took place; see
Harper 1970; Mutafian 1988, 241-242; J. Nollé 1998, 330-331.
For a possible identification of Quadrigae/Kodrigai as
Qatragas near Issos, see Hild and Hellenkemper 1986, 96-97,
108-111; Hild and Hellenkemper 1990, 1:389-390.
48 IGRR 3:881.
49 Ziegler 1985, 116-117.
50 Halfmann 1986a, 236-237.
51 De Blois 1976, 25.
CILICIA
man provinces, and Tarsos is named among the
great cities that they sacked.52
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Twice neokoros:
1. Le Bas-Waddington 1480. Dedication to Severus
Alexander. See text above.
2. Waddington 1883, 281 no. 1 (IGRR 3:879). De-
dication to Severus Alexander similar to no. 1, but
enumeration restored.
3. Dagron and Feissel 1987, 74-75 no. 30. Another
dedication to Severus Alexander. This time the city’s
imperial names are in descending order by date, and
the epithet ‘sacred’ follows ‘twice neokoros.’
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Antinoös: BMC 158, 159; SNGCop 360; SNGLevante 1004;
SNGParis 1415-1422; Berlin (4 exx.), New York (2
exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Twice neokoros:
Commodus: Adana 185; BMC 168-170; SNGCop 362;
SNGvA 5995-5997; SNGParis 1463-1468; SNGLevante
1019, supplement 1.260; Ziegler Sammlungen 684,
685; SNGPfPS 6.1349, 1350; Berlin (3 exx.), Boston,
London, Oxford (2 exx.).
Non-imperial obverse, time of Commodus: SNGParis
1470; Berlin (2 exx.).
Twice (neokoros):
Septimius Severus: Adana 187; BMC 172-174; SNGvA
5999, 6000; SNGParis 1474-1478; SNGLevante 1024-
1029, supplement 1.261; Ziegler Sammlungen 687-689;
SNGPfPS 6.1351; Berlin, London (2 exx.), New York.
Julia Domna: SNGvA 6002-6004; SNGParis 1479-1481.
Caracalla: Adana 189-191; BMC 182, 183, 185-191, 193-
201, 206 (the last misattributed to Elagabalus);
SNGCop 367, 370; SNGvA 6006, 6008-6015, 6017-
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,
1052, 1054, 1057-1066, 1068, 1069, supplement
1.262-264, 266-269; SNGLewis 1738, 1739; Ziegler
Sammlungen 690-692, 695-697, 700, 703-717;
SNGRighetti 1661-1663; SNGPfPS 6.1353, 1355, 1356,
52 Joannes Zonaras Epitome historiarum ed. M. Pinder (Bonn
1841-1897) vol. 30 594 (12.23); Georgios Synkellos, Ecloga
Chronographia, ed. A. Mosshammer (Leipzig 1984) 465-466, anno
mundi 5748. The sources, including the ‘res gestae divi Saporis,’
are usefully collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 57-65.
 CHAPTER 25
1358-1360, 1362-1365, 1367, 1368, 1370, 1371;
Berlin (2 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), Paris.
Plautilla: BMC 202; SNGParis 1545; SNGLevante 1071.
Geta Caesar: BMC 203; SNGParis 1546; SNGLevante 1072.
Macrinus: Adana 193; BMC 204-205; SNGCop 371; SNGvA
6020; SNGParis 1552-1554; SNGLevante supplement
1.272, 273; Ziegler Sammlungen 719, 720.
Elagabalus: BMC 207; SNGCop 366, 369, 373; SNGvA
6023-6025; SNGParis 1557, 1558, 1560-1568;
SNGLevante 1078-1080, supplement 1.274; Ziegler
Sammlungen 722-733; SNGPfPS 6.1374-1378.
Julia Paula: SNGParis 1571, 1572; SNGLevante 1086;
Ziegler Sammlungen 736; SNGRighetti 1666.
Julia Maesa: SNGPfPS 6.1379.
Severus Alexander: Adana 197; SNGvA 6027, 6028;
SNGParis 1573-1576, 1579, 1581-1583; SNGLevante
1087, 1088, 1090, supplement 1.275, 276; Ziegler
Sammlungen 737; SNGPfPS 6.1380; London, Paris.
Julia Mamaea: SNGParis 1584.
Maximinus: Adana 198, 199; SNGCop 375-379; SNGvA
6029-6032; SNGParis 1585, 1586, 1588-1606, 1608-
1614; SNGLevante 1092-1104, supplement 1.277, 278;
SNGLewis 1747-1749; Ziegler Sammlungen 738-744;
SNGRighetti 1667-1672; SNGPfPS 6.1381-1384;
Vienna.
Maximus Caesar: BMC 237; SNGvA 8716; SNGParis 1616-
1620; SNGLevante 1106-1109; Ziegler Sammlungen 745;
SNGRighetti 1673, 1674.
Balbinus: SNGCop 380; SNGvA 6033, 6034; SNGParis 1621-
1630; SNGLevante 1110, 1111, supplement 1.280;
Ziegler Sammlungen 746; SNGRighetti 1675-1677;
SNGPfPS 6.1385.
Pupienus: Adana 200; SNGvA 6035; SNGParis 1631-1639;
SNGLevante 1112-1116; Ziegler Sammlungen 747-749;
SNGRighetti 1678, 1679; SNGPfPS 6.1386-1390.
Balbinus, Pupienus, Gordian III Caesar: SNGLevante 1117;
Ziegler Sammlungen 750.
Gordian III: Adana 201-206; SNGCop 381-389, 391; SNGvA
6036-6043, 6045-6055; SNGParis 1640-1673, 1675-
1711, 1713-1723; SNGLevante 1118-1147, supplement
1.281-288; SNGLewis 1751, 1752; Ziegler Sammlungen
751-777, 779, 781-787; SNGRighetti 1680-1696;
SNGPfPS 6.1391-1411, 1413-1416; Berlin, London,
New York (2 exx.), Vienna.
Tranquillina: SNGCop 393; SNGvA 6056, 6057; SNGParis
1724-1728; SNGLevante 1148, 1149, supplement
1.289; Ziegler Sammlungen 788-792; SNGRighetti 1697;
SNGPfPS 6.1417-1423.
– TARSOS 219
Philip:53 Adana 207-209; SNGCop 394, 395; SNGvA 6058-
6060, 6062, 6063; SNGParis 1729-1743; SNGLevante
1150-1154; Ziegler Sammlungen 794-798, 799 (iden-
tified as Philip II); SNGRighetti 1698-1701; SNGPfPS
6.1424-1428.
Otacilia: Adana 211; SNGCop 396; SNGvA 6064; SNGParis
1744-1753; SNGLevante 1155; Ziegler Sammlungen 800-
802; SNGRighetti 1702, 1703; SNGPfPS 6.1429-1433.
Trajan Decius: Adana 213, 216; SNGCop 397-402; SNGvA
6065, 6066; SNGParis 1754-1773; SNGLevante 1156-
1165, supplement 1.290, 292; SNGLewis 1753;
Ziegler Sammlungen 803-811, 813; SNGRighetti 1704,
1705; SNGPfPS 6.1434, 1435, 1437-1442, 1444,
1445.
Etruscilla: SNGCop 403; SNGvA 6067-6071; SNGParis
1774-1780; SNGLevante 1166-1172, supplement
1.293; Ziegler Sammlungen 814, 815; SNGPfPS 6.1447-
1456; Ireland 2000, no. 1747.
Herennius Etruscus: SNGParis 1781.
Hostilian: SNGParis 1782, 1783.
Trebonianus Gallus: SNGCop 404, 405; SNGvA 6072-6075;
SNGParis 1784-1792; SNGLevante 1173-1177, supple-
ment 1.294; Ziegler Sammlungen 816, 817; SNGRighetti
1707, 1708; SNGPfPS 6.1457.
Volusian: SNGParis 1794 (misidentified), 1795, 1796;
SNGLevante 1178.
Valerian: SNGCop 406; SNGvA 6076; SNGParis 1797-1813;
SNGLevante 1179-1184; SNGLewis 1754; Ziegler
Sammlungen 820-828; SNGRighetti 1709-1713; SNGPfPS
6.1459-1465; Ireland 2000, no. 1748.
Gallienus: SNGCop 409; SNGParis 1826, 1827; SNGLevante
1194; SNGPfPS 6.1466-1470.
Three (times neokoros):
Valerian: Adana 217; SNGCop 407, 408; SNGvA 6077,
6078; SNGParis 1814-1825; SNGLevante 1185-1187,
1190-1193; Ziegler Sammlungen 829-832; SNGRighetti
1714-1716; SNGPfPS 6.1471-1474; Berlin.
Gallienus: SNGCop 410; SNGvA 6079, 6080; SNGParis
1828-1832; SNGLevante 1195, 1197, supplement
1.295; Ziegler Sammlungen 833, 834; SNGPfPS 6.1475,
1476.
Salonina: Adana 218; SNGCop 411; SNGvA 6082; SNGParis
1833-1837; SNGLevante 1198-1200; Ziegler Samm-
lungen 835, 836; SNGPfPS 6.1477.
53 Similarity in portrait and titulature make distinguishing
between Philip and his son of the same name as Augustus dif-
ficult, especially when the coins are worn. Kienast 1996, 198-
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-
ern Cilicia that Pompey allotted to client kings; in
19 B.C.E. its ruler, Tarkondimotos II, named it
‘Kaisareia at Anazarbos’ in honor of Augustus, and
the city began a new era.1 Its part of Level Cilicia
came under direct Roman control in 17 C.E., the
whole was joined with Cilicia Tracheia by Vespasian
around 72 C.E., and that Cilician province was then
joined with Isauria and Lycaonia to form the ‘three
eparchies’ in the time of Hadrian or Antoninus Pius.
The seat of the governor and of the Cilician koinon
was Tarsos (q.v.), a city with which Anazarbos would
spar for primacy in the province.
First Neokoria: Septimius Severus
Anazarbos began to proclaim itself neokoros in the
reign of Septimius Severus.2 The title, as in other
cases, may have been the result of the emperor’s
presence in the East, perhaps in the aftermath of his
campaign against Pescennius Niger, or more likely
in his subsequent wars against the Parthians.
Several scholars have used an anecdote about a
poet, Oppian, to prove that Anazarbos was a stop
on Severus’ travels.3 But the biography from which
the anecdote comes is contradicted by other sources.
‘Vita A’ of Oppian records that Septimius Severus
visited Anazarbos, home of the poet and his father
Agesilaos: though it was Agesilaos’ duty as a public
figure in his city to greet the emperor, as a philoso-
pher he refrained, so Severus banished him to an
island.4 Other biographies, including the Suda, lo-
cate the poet’s hometown in Korykos in Cilicia
1 Sartre 1995, 133, 135, 168-169, 216; Ziegler 1993b, 22-
24, 68; Mutafian 1988, 195-211. On the royal family, see
Dagron and Feissel 1987, 67-71.
2 S. Price 1984b, 272.
3 As does Ziegler 1985, 73-79; Gascó 1992, 235-239;
Lehnen 1997, 240; see Halfmann 1986a, 216-223.
4 Westermann 1845, 63-68. On the duty of citizens, espe-
cially those of high rank, to attend at imperial visits, see Lehnen
1997, 231-243, 259-262.
rather than Anazarbos, though that claim is not
dependable, as it derives from a reference within the
poem itself.5 But more importantly, internal evidence
indicates that the only one of the poems ascribed to
Oppian that is datable to the Severan period, On
Hunting, was not written by a Cilician at all, but by
a Syrian from Apamea, who dedicated it to
Caracalla. Though the author of the other, On Fish-
ing, was indeed Cilician, and may even have been
from Anazarbos, references in the poem to an
emperor Antoninus and his mature son (likely
Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, as Eusebius set
this Oppian’s visit to Rome in 172 C.E.) should date
the Cilician poet’s work well before the advent of
Septimius Severus. If that emperor exiled anyone’s
father, it was that of the later Oppian, so from Apa-
mea, not Anazarbos.6
Where the literary evidence is illusory, the coins
offer a more secure contemporary document for
what is likely to be the grant of the neokoria, and is
at the very least the first known appearance of the
title at Anazarbos:
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: [GETA]% K; AU K M AN-
TVNINO%; AU K L %E %EOUHRO% Togate figures
of Geta, Septimius Severus, and Caracalla seated
on curule chairs l. Rev: %EU [ANTV] KAI%AR
ANA[ZARBV] PRO N[EV]KOROU; ALUTARXIA%;
ET ZI% (year 217 = 198/199 C.E.) Festival crown
with nine busts. a) London 1962.11-15-27 (illus.
pl. 35 fig. 175) b) Ziegler Sammlungen 1029 (ob-
scure).8
The obverse shows Septimius Severus and his two
sons seated in Roman magisterial chairs, while the
5 A. Mair, Oppian Colluthus and Tryphiodorus (Cambridge MA
1928) xiii-xxiii.
6 Hamblenne 1968.
7 Woodward 1963, 7 no. 2. Also see Ziegler 1985, 38 type
B21; Ziegler 1993b, no. 281.
8 Ziegler 1988a (=Ziegler Sammlungen). Ziegler’s interpre-
tation of the titulature (1993b, 262 no. 281; 1985, 33 type B8)
has been questioned by J. Nollé and Zellner 1995.
 chapter
reverse dates the coin to a time when Severus and
his family were in the East for his second campaign
against the Parthians, when Caracalla had recently
been declared Augustus and Geta Caesar.9 The
legend refers to the position of alytarch, or senior
steward, at a celebration of an Olympic festival,
which the emperor may have held honorifically or
even in person.10 This is likely the Severeia Olympia
Epinikia at Quadrigae, also celebrated by Tarsos,
perhaps as the koinon festival of Cilicia.11 The
reverse’s pictorial type is the crown, studded with
nine portrait busts, generally used by an agonothetes
when presiding at the festival he gave, and here
presumably worn by the alytarch. A similar crown,
but with the letters of Anazarbos’ titles interspersed
among the busts, is labeled ‘of the Ciliciarchy’ on
later coins of Severus (below, coin type 7). Worn by
the head of the koinon when presiding over its fes-
tival, such a crown, labeled “common (koinos) of
Cilicia,” and therefore provincial, had previously
been represented on Tarsos’ coins after Commodus
made that city twice neokoros (Tarsos, coin type 7).
Here, Anazarbos may have put the crown on its
coins as a way of alluding to its celebration of the
(new?) festival and its title neokoros, i.e. its claim to
honors previously unique to Tarsos.12 It should be
noted, however, that Tarsos also put such a crown
on its coins early in the reign of Septimius Severus,
around the time of Anazarbos’ coin type 1 and its
alytarch’s crown. Coupled with an obverse of the
young Caracalla, Tarsos’ coin legend around its
crown is no longer ‘koinos of Cilicia’ but ‘koinos of the
three eparchies,’ not just Cilicia but Isauria and
Lycaonia as well.13 Tarsos was apparently keeping
one step ahead of Anazarbos.
It is possible that the neokoria was celebrated on
this issue because the honor had just been granted
by Severus, though there are earlier references to
imperial cult at Anazarbos.14 One inscription ad-
dressed Domitian as ‘Dionysos Kallikarpos’ and re-
corded a priest of the god Titus Caesar Augustus.
The dedicators, both priests of the goddess Rome,
also promised an (unspecified) temple to the city,
probably one for the imperial cult but certainly
9 Ziegler 1995a.
10 Rumscheid 2000, 25-26, 114 no. 3; Ziegler 1985, 77-78;
Karl 1975, 98.
11 See chapter 25, “Tarsos,” above.
12 Ziegler 1985, 59-60.
13 Rumscheid 2000, 133 cat. nos. 36, 38.
14 S. Price 1984b, 170-171; Ziegler 1985, 143-146.
26 – anazarbos 221
municipal rather than provincial. Also, Anazarbos
celebrated a sacred Hadrianeia festival, though such
festivals were not invariably of provincial status nor
due to neokoriai; most of the evidence for the
Hadrianeia dates from the third century.15
A large structure similar to the ‘common (temple)
of Cilicia’ that was shown on coins of Tarsos (types
2-4) had appeared on Anazarbos’ coins as early as
160/161 C.E., well before Anazarbos proclaimed
itself neokoros:
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K T AIL ADR ANTV-
NINO% %EB EU P P Laureate bust of Antoninus
Pius r. Rev: KAI%AREVN TVN PRO% TV ANA-
ZARBV ETOU YOR (year 179 = 160/161 C.E.)
Ten-column temple, star or sun in its pediment.
a) London 1970-9-9-206 (illus. pl. 35 fig. 176).
The temple appears on many coins with obverses
of Antoninus Pius and his family.16 The Anazarban
temple’s star/sun does not specify the object of cult;
later, under Commodus, its image changes slightly,
with only a dot in the pediment but more emphasis
on flowery akroteria and antefixes.17 The Tarsian
coins, on the other hand, show a ten-column temple
labeled ‘common,’ i.e. provincial, with either a
wreath or an eagle in its pediment; and later, un-
der Commodus, two such temples. Though the simi-
larity of Anazarbos coin type 2 to types 2-4 of Tarsos
makes it just possible that both represent the same
koinon temple, the two cities’ rivalry makes it more
likely that Anazarbos showed its own decastyle
temple on its coins, and all we can say about that
temple is that its scale was comparable with that of
the provincial temple(s) at Tarsos. The Anazarban
coins do not mention the koinon, so whether
Anazarbos had a provincial cult temple (or even a
neokoria) in the Antonine period cannot be shown
from these coin types. It is more likely that they
reflect Anazarbos’ envy of Tarsos’ provincial
temple(s).
Though the city of Anazarbos is largely un-
excavated, remains that would suit a monumental
Corinthian temple, its columns 1.25 m. in diameter
at the base of the shaft and perhaps 12 m. high, were
15 Ziegler 1985, 32-33, 67-68.
16 Ziegler 1993b, nos. 147 (Antoninus Pius), 148-149, 197-
200 (Marcus Aurelius), 150, 201-203 (Lucius Verus), 151
(Faustina the younger), 181-196 (Aurelius and Verus).
17 Ziegler 1993b, nos. 261-272, year 202 = 183/184 C.E.
222 part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia
found reused in a wall in the northern part of the
city.18 Foundations for nine columns running north/
south found nearby could represent one short side
of a decastyle temple facing east or west. This may
be the temple of the coins, but it cannot be proved
that its remains are those of a temple to the impe-
rial cult. Worn blocks from the frieze only showed
garlands adorned with female heads and held by
erotes, an iconography as yet unprecedented in other
temples that conferred neokoria.
An image more likely to be that of the temple that
made Anazarbos neokoros, if only due to the tim-
ing of its first appearance close to that of the neo-
koria, is the following:
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K L %EP %EUHRO%
PERT %EB Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus r.
Rev: %EUH ANTV[. . .]N ANAZARBEVN NEO-
KORON; ET HI% (year 218 = 199/200 C.E.) Four-
column Ionic temple, star in its pediment. a)
SNGLevante supplement 327.19
Reference to a cult of Septimius Severus himself
occurs on Anazarbos’ later coinage: a pair of ele-
phants draws a small temple on a cart, and above
are the words ‘of the god Severus.’
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV-
NEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Elagabalus r. Rev: YEOU %EUHROU; A M K;
ANAZARBOU Two elephants draw a four-column
temple on a cart r. (l., b) a) SNGLevante 142220
b) SNGLevante 1421.21
A similar scene was used on coins of Elagabalus’
mother Julia Maesa and later for his successor
Severus Alexander.22 It probably represents the
procession by which Severus’ statue was brought into
a festival in honor of his temple, an image of which
is on the cart.23 So though the neokoria is not
mentioned on these coins, it is likely that they refer
to a festival associated with the first neokoria.
18 Gough 1952, 106-108.
19
Ziegler 1993b, no. 288 shows more clearly what appears
to be a star (not an eagle as in SNGLevante) in the pediment.
Another coin that shows a four-column temple, Ziegler 1993b,
no. 280, is dated a year earlier, but judging from the 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.
23 On imperial images at festivals, Roueché 1993, 145-147.
We know the Cilician koinon to have been a fairly
contentious place, with Tarsos attempting to hold
its primacy against all comers. That city’s coins had
boasted a second neokoria and two provincial tem-
ples since Commodus’ reign. If Anazarbos had also
been neokoros at that time, would it not have ad-
vertized that fact? It seems likely, then, that
Septimius Severus granted Anazarbos the title of
neokoros for a newly-built temple to his cult.
One must wonder, however, to what extent the
neokoria of Anazarbos equaled the status of Tarsos’,
especially with respect to the koinon. Anazarbos’
coins rarely refer to the koinon, only occasionally
to its meetings and the Ciliciarch’s crown (type 7);
its temples are never labeled ‘common’ or ‘of Cilicia.’
Tarsos’ coins, on the other hand, dwell on those
themes often.24 It is likely that Tarsos retained
enough control in the koinon so that it remained the
organization’s focus. It is possible that Anazarbos’
temple(s) and Ciliciarchs stood in second place to
those of Tarsos.
Second Neokoria: Son(s) of Septimius Severus
Both the last document that calls Anazarbos simply
neokoros, and perhaps the first to call the city twice
neokoros, include portraits of Plautilla, Caracalla’s
short-lived wife:
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: [F]OU PLAUTILLA %E
Draped bust of Plautilla r. Rev: ANAZARBEVN
NEVKO(RVN, a-c) ET AK% (year 221 = 202/203
C.E.) Prize crown (on it, OLUMPIA, d). a) Ber-
lin, Fox b) SNGLevante 1411 c) Ziegler Sammlungen
1030 d) SNGPfPS 6.156.
If it has been correctly interpreted, the following coin
may be the first document of Anazarbos’ second
neokoria, though it was issued in same year as coin
type 5:
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT K M AU ANT[V-
NEIN]O% %E [. . .]LA [. . .?] Laureate draped bust
of Caracalla r., draped veiled bust of Plautilla l.
Rev: ANAZ[. . .] NEVKORVN E AK% Two temples,
both four-column. a) SNGLevante supplement 328.
24Ziegler 1985, 58-66; idem 1993b, 113-114; idem 1999,
149-151.
 chapter
There are several oddities about this unique coin:
the year is given, as well as the full title ‘neokoros’
proper to the period before the second neokoria was
granted, but the image shows two temples rather
than one. In fact, both obverse and reverse images
very closely resemble those of coin type 9 (below)
of Elagabalus and Julia Paula. Ziegler took the type
as neokoros Anazarbos’ challenge to twice-neokoros
Tarsos.25 But within two years, Anazarbos was to
become twice neokoros officially, and it seems odd
that the city should issue this coin type prematurely,
while its claim to the title, if any, was still on shaky
ground. As the coin is very worn, it is even possible
that the enumeration for ‘twice’ has worn away.
In any case, it is certain that by 204/205 Ana-
zarbos had became twice neokoros, probably for the
cult of Septimius Severus’ son(s). The coin types of
this period, just shortly after type 7, might not seem
to celebrate the neokoria, but they do, in a drasti-
cally abbreviated way:
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: AUT K L %EP %EOUHRO%
PERT Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus r. Rev:
%EUHRIANH% ANAZARBOU MHTROPOLEV%;
KILIKARXIA%; ET GK% (year 223 = 204/205
C.E.) Festival crown of Ciliciarch with thirteen
heads and letters B G. a) SNGParis 2046 b) Bos-
ton.26
As with Tarsos from Septimius Severus on, here the
letters G and B are in fact numbers, signifying that
Anazarbos was ‘(set before the) three (eparchies of
Cilicia, Isauria, and Lykaonia)’ and ‘two (times
neokoros).’27 These titles are spelled out more fully
in inscription 1, a statue base of Caracalla:
INSCRIPTION 1. Sayar 2000, no. 4 (Gough
1952, 85-150 no. 2; SEG 12:514). Set up by hiera-
phoroi. t}w [kt]htik}w ÉAnaza[rbhn]}w mhtropÒ-
levw [t]«n tri«n §parxei«n Kilik¤aw [ÉI]saur¤aw
Lukaon¤aw prokayezom°nhw [k]a‹ d‹w nevkÒrou...
Dated within Caracalla’s tenth tribunician power
(December 10, 206–December 10, 207), the inscrip-
tion makes the not infrequent mistake of naming him
25 Ziegler 1993b, 112-113 no. 300.
26 Rumscheid 2000, 115 no. 4; Ziegler 1993b, no. 306;
Vermeule 1983, 21 pl. 36.
27 Weiss 1979; J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques
(1982) 424 no. 460.
26 – anazarbos 223
pontifex maximus, a title he would only assume after
his father’s death in 211.28
These abbreviations now show that Anazarbos
was twice neokoros from at least 204/205 (or per-
haps even late in 202/203) to 249/250.29 If the first
neokoria was for the cult of Septimius Severus, the
second was probably for both his sons. Again, Pe-
rinthos is a precedent, and though the names of
festivals cannot be held as deterministic, Ziegler
detected on Anazarban coins one letter’s worth of
evidence for a festival called Philadelpheia, after the
‘brotherly love’ between Caracalla and Geta.30 Since
Anazarbos retained its second neokoria after Geta’s
death, presumably the temple was rededicated solely
to Caracalla at that time. If Caracalla had later
avoided or failed to honor Anazarbos, this cult that
he had shared with the brother he later killed could
have been the reason why.31 But in fact the city may
have been honored late in his reign with Roman
triumphal monuments for a Parthian victory, which
continued to be celebrated under his successors.32
Scholars have dwelt on the fact that in the third
century Anazarbos seems to imitate its more emi-
nent neighbor Tarsos with such titles as ‘metropo-
lis,’ ‘first, greatest, and most beautiful’ and ‘set before
the three eparchies Cilicia, Lycaonia, and Isauria.’33
But Anazarbos was careful not to claim titles that
the city had no right to or could not defend, and
this restraint is shown in its treatment of the neokoria
on its coins. Tarsos had been neokoros since at least
the reign of Hadrian, and was already twice neo-
koros when Anazarbos began to proclaim itself
simply neokoros. If Anazarbos had merely been par-
roting Tarsos’ titulature it would have called itself
twice neokoros on coins even before 204/205. There
was surely a rivalry for titles between the two cit-
ies, but that meant that each would aim to outdo
the other, not that one would copy the other’s titles
and lay itself open to accusations of falsehood.
Septimius Severus may have granted Anazarbos
the title neokoros in 198/199, and certainly allowed
the city another temple and title for the cult of one
28 Mastino 1981, 42 n. 107, 104.
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.
30 Ziegler 1985, 34-35; idem 1993b, no. 303.
31 Ziegler 1993b, 114 n. 290.
32 Sayar 2000, 24 n. 73.
33 Gough 1952; Ziegler 1999. Also see Ziegler 1977, 36-
38 on the neokoria.
224 part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia
or more likely both of his sons about seven years
afterwards. If so, he seems to have done the same
thing in Perinthos (q.v.). But there is no documented
reason why Septimius Severus should have favored
Anazarbos in particular. Ziegler has assumed that
it was due to Anazarbos having supported Severus
in his contest for the empire against Pescennius
Niger.34 This was indeed true of Perinthos, but
Severus’ tendency at that time was to exalt his al-
lied city while abasing its rival, as Byzantion was
made tributary to Perinthos. In this case, though
Anazarbos was indeed exalted, Tarsos is not known
to have been abased, and retained its full titulature
even in Severus’ early years as emperor.
It may simply be that Anazarbos became impor-
tant during Severus’ Parthian wars, when it was a
crucial hub on the road system.35 Bilingual grave-
stones show that the city was probably the winter
quarters for the imperial cavalry guard, the equites
singulares Augusti, in the early third century.36 What-
ever the origin or intention, the effect of Septimius
Severus’ grant(s) was to bring Anazarbos closer to
Tarsos’ level in the provincial hierarchy. After
Tarsos issued coins that showed its city goddesses
enthroned among and crowned by the goddesses of
the three eparchies, Anazarbos issued a coin show-
ing its city goddess in the same position; this was in
just the same year that it began to proclaim itself
twice neokoros, and the letters loom large below the
goddess Anazarbos herself.37
Anazarbos was one of the few neokoroi to issue
coins (and inscription 2, below) with the title dur-
ing the reign of Macrinus.38 In his reign and after-
ward, the reverse type of the two temples for which
Anazarbos was neokoros recurs fairly frequently.
COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT K M OP %EU
MAKREINO% %EB Laureate head of Macrinus r.
Rev: (ANAZ, ac) END(OJ, bc) MHT RVM TROP
KEK (ANAZ, b) G B (ET EL%, a) Two temples, one
four-column, the other eight-column.39 a)
SNGLevante 1416 b) London 1970.9-9-208 (illus.
pl. 35 fig. 177) c) SNGPfPS 6.158.
COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT K M A ANTVNINO%
%E I PAULA %E Laureate draped bust of Ela-
34 Ziegler 1985, 79; idem 1993b, 23, 127; idem 1995a, 179.
35 Ziegler 1995a, 176-179.
36 Sayar 1991.
37 J. Nollé and Zellner 1995, 42-43.
38 On the titulature, Ziegler 1993b, 114-115.
39 Ibid., nos. 324, 325.
gabalus r, draped veiled bust of Julia Paula l. Rev:
ANAZARBOU MHTROPOL; A M K; G B Two
temples, one six-column, the other four-column.40
a) SNGLevante supplement 336 b) SNGPfPS 6.168.
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: IOULIA MAI%A %EB
Diademed draped bust of Julia Maesa r. Rev:
ANAZARBOU MHTROPOL G B Two temples, one
four-column, the other six-column.41 a) SNGLevante
supplement 339.
COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT K M A % ALEJ-
ANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Se-
verus Alexander r. Rev: ANAZAR ENDOJ
MHTROPO ET HM% (year 248 = 229/230); B G
Two four-column temples turned toward one an-
other.42 a) SNGFitzw 5227 b) SNGLevante 1461.
Types 8, 9 and 10 are unusual in showing the two
temples together but dissimilar, unlike types 6 and
11 which assimilate them in the way that is usual
elsewhere. The former are therefore valuable in
indicating that one of the temples was on a smaller
scale than the other. That one is never shown with
more than four columns hints back at coin type 3,
possibly a temple for Septimius Severus; the larger
temple could therefore be that for his son(s), and
where not assimilated to the first is shown with a
maximum of eight columns (type 8).
Two temples are also shown on coins issued under
Elagabalus whose reverse types give a view of the
acropolis of Anazarbos.
COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV-
NEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Elagabalus r. Rev: ANAZARBO% MHTROPOLI%;
A M K Two temples in three-quarter view, B G
between them, on a rocky hill with stairs.43 a)
SNGLevante 1419.
These may or may not be the temples for which the
city was neokoros, but they appear dissimilar to the
representations of the Anazarban acropolis presided
over by the bust of Zeus on coins of Claudius and
of Trajan.44 Ziegler would conflate the two, posit-
ing that at least one older temple (that of Zeus, and
perhaps that of the goddess Rome as well) on the
40Ibid., no. 378.
41Ibid., no. 376.
42 Ibid., no. 541, 542.
43 Ibid., no. 445; also no. 451, same reverse die, for Julia
Maesa.
44 Ibid., nos. 37-43, 97.
 chapter
hill was counted toward the city’s neokoriai because
the imperial cult was moved into an extant temple
of a god.45 This is possible, not proven; the two
temples that made Anazarbos neokoros may have
stood on the acropolis, but if so, the coins only in-
dicate that they were there by the time of Elagabalus.
Other coins of Elagabalus show a single four-column
temple in three-quarter view with steps, but though
the steps are reminiscent of those leading up to the
acropolis, the building’s location and cult remain
unspecified.46 Though the Anazarban hill has been
much built upon, it may possibly have held more
than two shrines; none of the representations of
it are precise enough to identify the objects of cult
within the temples.
Elagabalus may have passed through this area of
Cilicia on his way to Rome in 218, and though
Anazarbos had received honors and titles from
Macrinus, it nonetheless celebrated a festival in
honor of his defeat at the new emperor’s hands.47
Afterwards Elagabalus held the office of demiourgos,
and is shown in that costume on Anazarban coins
of 221/222 C.E., though he was in Rome at the
time.48 The procession in honor of his ‘grandfather’
Septimius Severus, commemorated on coins of his
reign, has already been noted (coin type 4). A re-
cently published inscription documents the city’s
titles under Elagabalus:
INSCRIPTION 3. Sayar 2000, no. 12. Milestone,
from Akdam Höyük. Septimian}w Seouhrian}w
ÉAntvneinian}w Kaisare¤aw t}w prÚw t“ ÉAna-
zãrbƒ t}w §ndÒjou mhtropÒlevw t«n tri«n
§parxei«n Kilik¤aw ÉIsaur¤aw Lukaon¤aw pro-
kayezom°nhw ka‹ d‹w nevkÒr[ou] ka‹ ÑRvmaÛko›w
tropa¤oiw kekosmhm°nhw, teteimhm°nhw ka‹ koi-
noboul¤ƒ
Sometime after this inscription, Elagabalus may have
allowed Anazarbos to call itself ‘first, greatest, and
most beautiful,’ just as its neighbor and rival Tarsos
did at that time.49 The abbreviated expression for
these titles (A M K) on coins with his portrait issued
at Anazarbos can be explicated by reference to in-
45
Ziegler 1985, 89 n. 150.
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;
SNGParis 2072, 2073.
49 Ziegler 1985, 36, 87-89, though adventus types cannot
prove the emperor’s visit to Anazarbos in particular.
26 – anazarbos 225
scriptions carved shortly after his reign, under his
successor Severus Alexander:50
INSCRIPTION 4. Sayar 2000, no. 13 (Gough
1952, no. 25; SEG 12:517). Milestone from be-
tween Anazarbos and Tozlu, dedicated to Severus
Alexander and Julia Mamaea (names erased).
ÉAnazãrbou t}w a' k(all¤sthw) [m(eg¤sthw) ka‹
§ndÒ]jou mhtropÒlevw t«n g' §p[ar]xei«n pro-
kayezom°nhw ka‹ d‹[w] nevkÒrou ka‹ ÑRvmaÛko›w
tropa¤oiw kekosmhm°nhw, teteimhm°nhw ple¤staiw
ka‹ meg¤staiw ka‹ §jair°toiw dvrea›w ka‹
§leuy°rƒ koinoboul¤ƒ
This inscription must date early in the reign of
Severus Alexander, for on coins of 229/230 and
thereafter the titles ‘first, greatest, and most beauti-
ful’ do not appear; advantage: Tarsos.51 It is ad-
mittedly an argument from silence, but there are
many Anazarban coins to consult, and the formula
A M K would not have been difficult to fit onto them;
it was nearly omnipresent on Tarsian coins of the
time. Thus it is possible that these titles, probably
allowed by Elagabalus, were removed much as the
neokoriai granted by Elagabalus were, and at around
the same time, by the new emperor (and likely due
to Tarsos’ protests).
Later, at the outbreak of Severus Alexander’s
Parthian War, Anazarbos issued coins that showed
the emperor sacrificing before a temple:
COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AUT KA MA AU %EOU
ALEJANDRO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Seve-
rus Alexander r. Rev: ANAZARBOU MHTRO-
POLEV% ET YM%; G B (year 249 = 230/231).
Radiate cuirassed emperor, bull at feet, holds
phiale over altar before temple in three-quarter
view; from its apex, a Victory crowns him.52 a)
SNGLevante supplement 344.
Though Severus Alexander traveled from Rome to
Antioch in 231, the location of the sacrifice shown
on the coin is not specified, and cannot be taken to
mean that the emperor visited Anazarbos.53 In any
case, the coin was issued so early in the campaign
that it may only represent the sacrifices Severus
Alexander made upon leaving Rome (Herodian
6.4.1-3).
50 L. Robert 1977b, 37 n. 177.
51 Ziegler 1993b, 119-121.
52 Ziegler 1993b, no. 628a; no. 628 is similar.
53 Halfmann 1986a, 231-232.
226 part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia
During the reign of Severus Alexander and shortly
afterward, a single, frontal temple became a popu-
lar reverse type, perhaps even the sign of a denomi-
nation, on coins of Anazarbos.54 The depictions are
generally hasty, often show a dot, rarely a star or
the letters G B, in the pediment, and sometimes
elaborate the acroteria at the expense of the pedi-
ment itself. The number of columns on these temple
reverses varies greatly: four,55 five,56 seven,57 eight,58
nine,59 ten,60 and eleven.61 They may represent the
ten-column temple that had been appearing on Ana-
zarban coins since Antoninus Pius (type 2 above),
but they are anything but specific.
Under Philip, even the enumeration of the neo-
koria slips off the coins of Anazarbos—the only title
on the city’s coins is that of metropolis, occasion-
ally with mention that the city boasted a free
koinoboulion.62
Third Neokoria: Trajan Decius
But soon Anazarbos became the first city in Cilicia
to be three times neokoros, outpacing its rival Tarsos
by a few years. The first coins known to claim this
honor are dated to 249/250 C.E. One type shows
the three temples and spells the title out in full:
COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT K KUI TRAIAN
DEKIO% %E Radiate cuirassed bust of Trajan
Decius r. Rev: ANAZARBOU ENDOJ MHTROPO
G; KAI G NEVKOROU; ET HJ% (year 268 = 249/
250 C.E.). Three temples, the topmost seven-
column, the lower two four-column with masonry
sides in three-quarter view, on high podia.63 a)
SNGLevante supplement 354.
54 Ziegler 1993b, 34.
55 Ibid., no. 580: Severus Alexander.
56 Ibid., no. 557: Julia Mamaea.
57 Ibid., nos. 475, 484, 485, 556-568, 575, 576: Severus
Alexander; nos. 510, 561, 562, 565: Julia Mamaea; no. 644:
Maximus Caesar.
58 Ibid., nos. 569-571, 577, 581: Severus Alexander; nos.
552-555, 558-560: Julia Mamaea.
59 Ibid., nos. 572-574, 578, 579, 582: Severus Alexander;
nos. 511, 517, 551, 556, 563: Julia Mamaea.
60 Ibid., no. 496: Severus Alexander; nos. 512-514, 564:
Julia Mamaea; no. 645: Maximus Caesar.
61 Ibid., no. 515: Julia Mamaea.
62 Ibid., 329-332, nos. 723-741; for koinoboulion types un-
der Caracalla, nos. 308-322; under Trebonianus Gallus nos.
789-790 (specified as free, as it also had been on inscription
4, early in Severus Alexander’s reign).
63 Ibid., no. 753; no. 752 also shows three temples.
Another type’s obverse echoes that of coin type 1,
the proclamation of the first neokoria, in showing
the reigning emperor and his two sons on curule
chairs:64
COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AUT KA TRAI DEKKIO%;
ETR ME% DEKION; ME KUINTO% Togate figures
of Herennius Etruscus, Trajan Decius, and
Hostilian seated on curule chairs. Rev: ANA-
ZARBOU ENDOJ MHTROPO G G ET YJ% (year
269 = 250/251 C.E.). City goddess with axe
before bull.65 a) SNGParis 2122 b) SNGLevante 1497
c) SNGLevante 1498.
Other types make no obvious fuss over the new
neokoria, but only change the enumeration of the
title from ‘two’ to ‘three.’ Instead, the coins issued
in the year 268, and especially those of 269 (249–
251) concentrate on the city’s festivals.
COIN TYPE 16. Obv: AUT K KUI TRA DEKKIO%
%EB Radiate head of Trajan Decius r.
Rev: ANAZ ENDOJ ET HJ% (year 268 = 249/
250); OIKOUMENIKO%; G G Prize crown labeled
DEKIO%.66 a) SNGLevante 1495 b) SNGPfPS 6.239
c) SNGPfPS 6.240
COIN TYPE 17. Obv: ME%%ION KOUINTON
KAI%ARA Cuirassed bust of Hostilian Caesar r.
Rev: ANAZ ENDOJ ET HJ% (year 268 = 249/
250); OIKOUMENIKO%; G G Prize crown labeled
DEKIO%.67 a) SNGLevante 1502 b) Ziegler Samm-
lungen 1133 c) SNGParis 2125 d) SNGPfPS 6.241
e) SNGPfPS 6.242.
COIN TYPE 18. Obv: ERENNIAN ETROU%-
KILLAN %EB Diademed draped bust of Herennia
Etruscilla, crescent at shoulders. Rev: ANA-
ZARBOU ENDOJ MHTROP; G G; ET YJ% (year 269
= 250/251). Seated city goddess of Anazarbos, the
river god Pyramos at her feet, saluted with two
wreaths and a prize crown by three other city
goddesses (the three eparchies).68 a) SNGCop
53.
64 Also note SNGParis 2164 and SNGPfPS 6.297, which use
a similar type as a reverse for a coin of Valerian (with
Gallienus).
65 Ziegler 1993b, no. 773.
66 Ibid., no. 744.
67 Ibid., no. 745.
68 Ibid., no. 770.
 chapter
It is likely that a festival in honor of the neokoria
for Trajan Decius, the Dekios oikoumenikos, may be
referred to on the prize crown of the earlier coin
types 16 and 17, issued for Decius and his younger
son Hostilian.69 Other types dated 249-251 C.E.
show five prize crowns in total, and thus go beyond
mere celebration of the new Decian festival.70 Type
18 illustrates what Anazarbos perceived as its posi-
tion in the province, enthroned before the three
eparchies. Anazarbos’ neokoria, its festival, and thus
its triumph over Tarsos probably were rooted either
in the city’s strategic importance or support for
Trajan Decius during a time of turbulence in the
East.71 But of the specifics we know little or noth-
ing.
In June 251, however, Trajan Decius was killed,
and though he was initially deified, his name was
later erased from the monuments, probably under
his successor Trebonianus Gallus.72 Yet Anazarbos’
third neokoria survived the condemnation of Decius’
memory; indeed, under Trebonianus Gallus Anazar-
bos boasted yet another festival, as the coins show
six prize crowns, and once again called itself ‘first,
greatest, and most beautiful.’73 The reason for the
continuation of the third neokoria is unknown, and
Ziegler’s guess that it was for the cult of Dionysos
rather than that of the emperors has little to stand
behind it.74 But by this time it may be that neokoros
(and any temple that could be built for it in this time
of trouble) was considered just one more title rather
than being so closely associated with the emperor
who granted it. For example, Thessalonike in Mace-
donia (q.v.) was given three additional neokoriai by
Trajan Decius, but did not lose them all after his
death, retaining one and falling into line with its
provincial rival, Beroia, at two neokoriai each. In a
similar way Anazarbos and Tarsos still jousted for
position: almost as a reply to Anazarbos’ boast on
69 BMC (Cilicia) p. cv; Karl 1975, 34; Ziegler 1993b, 124.
70 Ziegler 1993b, nos. 751, 771, 772.
71 Ziegler 1985, 99-108 (and after him S. Mitchell 1993,
1:224; Lendon 1997, 172), though an eastern journey for Decius
is based solely on a misunderstood coin of Caesarea Maritima;
see Halfmann 1986a, 235-236.
72 Kienast 1996, 204-210; Ziegler 1994, 188-197; Peachin
1990, 32-35, 239-265; Ziegler 1988b, 391-392. The condem-
nation was documented but not understood by Varner 1993,
487-488.
73 Ziegler 1985, 41, 50, 108-113 and idem 1993b, 125,
again connecting the honor with the emperor(s)’ “projected”
Eastern journey, without showing why Anazarbos specifically
merited imperial attention.
74 Ziegler 1985, 49; idem 1993b, 124-125.
26 – anazarbos 227
type 18, Tarsos issued coins under Trebonianus
Gallus that showed its own city goddess enthroned
and crowned by the three eparchies as Anazarbos’
had been; the difference is that for Tarsos, one of
the crowns is that of the Ciliciarch.75 Though both
cities were metropoleis and Anazarbos had one neo-
koria more, Tarsos was probably still claiming pri-
macy as seat of the leader of the koinon.
The abbreviation for ‘three times neokoros’ con-
tinued to appear on Anazarbos’ coinage down to the
reign of Valerian and Gallienus, when the evidence
comes to an end; the last year for which coinage was
issued was 272 (253/254 C.E.).
One final question is whether Anazarbos’ attain-
ment of three neokoriai (as well as its frequent
emissions of coinage) was due to the increased pres-
ence of emperors and their armies in the area, as
Ziegler wished to interpret it.76 The answer is par-
tially yes, as strategic places in the Empire were more
likely to receive rewards, such as titles, to encour-
age their loyalty. But Ziegler’s argument can become
circular: Anazarbos was rewarded, therefore
Anazarbos must have been strategic (or have cho-
sen the right side); Trajan Decius granted the city
a neokoria, therefore Trajan Decius must have vis-
ited; and if the sources indicate that he did not, then
he must have planned to.
As well as examining Cilicia, an area that was
near the Romans’ eastern theater of war, we should
compare it with Asia, more remote from direct troop
movements. For example, Antoninus Pius made one
of Asia’s cities neokoros, despite the fact that he
never left Italy while he was emperor. Later,
Caracalla gave eight neokoriai in Asia alone, though
few of them can be placed on his route to the East;
Elagabalus granted four, though his path from
Emesa to Rome may have bypassed Asia completely;
Severus Alexander one or two, one of them for the
cult of Artemis, and again, connected neither with
imperial visits nor with troop movements. There was
then a twenty-year interim, until Valerian granted
at least three neokoriai in Asia, all to cities that had
lost one previously, with no apparent consideration
of their strategic value in the Eastern wars he was
fighting.
Certainly both troop movements and imperial vis-
its could be factors in proliferating honors and coin-
75 Rumscheid 2000, 138 no. 56 (Volusian); Ziegler 1985,
26, 60-61.
76 Ziegler 1993b, 145-146, 150-151, 159-160.
228 part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia
age, but they were not the only factors, as Ziegler
himself admitted. More importantly, Anazarbos
always had an eye on Tarsos, and vice versa, in their
mutual competition for status and honors. Eventu-
ally the junior city became the equal, for a time in
terms of neokoria and of sacred festivals even the
superior, of its eminent neighbor. This may have
been due to strategic position or direct imperial
favor, but it is also possible that a rival to Tarsos
was deliberately fostered by the smaller cities of the
koinon.77 We can only hope for further evidence to
see whether either or both applied.
Anazarbos’ later history is unclear. Like Tarsos,
Aigeai, and the rest of the province, it is likely to
have suffered in Shapur of Persia’s third campaign,
in which he captured the emperor Valerian and
made deep incursions into the eastern provinces.78
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Twice neokoros:
1. Sayar 2000, no. 4 (Gough 1952, 85-150 no. 2;
SEG 12:514). Statue base of Caracalla, December
206–December 207 C.E.; see text above.
2. Sayar 2000, no. 11 (Gough 1952, no. 16; SEG
12:516). From Akdam. Milestone dedicated to
Macrinus and Diadumenian (names erased), dated
before December 31, 217.
3. Sayar 2000, no. 12. Milestone, from Akdam,
inscribed under Elagabalus. See text above.
4. Sayar 2000, no. 13 (Gough 1952, no. 25). In-
scribed under Severus Alexander; see text above.
5. Sayar 2000, no. 6 (Dagron and Feissel 1987, 161-
163 no. 101). Dedication to Severus Alexander by
the council and people of the Alexandrian Septimian
Severan Antoninian Kaisareans at Anazarbos, glo-
rious metropolis, set before the three eparchies
Cilicia, Isauria, and Lycaonia and twice neokoros.
6. Sayar 2000, no. 18 (Ramsay 1882, 157 no. 18;
IGRR 3:898). Milestone, from a mile south of Ana-
zarbos. Undated.
7. Bourget 1929, no. 206 (Kaster 1983; Sayar 2000,
14-15 no. 3). From Delphi. Epigram of Naevianus,
77 For early evidence of anti-Tarsos feeling among other
cities in the koinon, see Dio Chrysostomos, Orations 33.51 and
34.7-15, 27, 47-48; Ziegler 1993b, 126-128.
78 The sources, including the ‘res gestae divi Saporis,’ are
usefully collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 57-65.
poet and scholar. Dated by the period of the sec-
ond neokoria.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Septimius Severus (earliest year possibly 217 = 198/199
C.E.): 79 SNGLevante 1406, supplement 1.327;
SNGPfPS 6.153; London, New York (Ziegler 1993b,
nos. 280?, 282, 284-286, 288-289, 291-292).
Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta Caesar (earliest
year, 217 = 198/199 C.E.): London (Ziegler 1993b,
no. 281); Ziegler Sammlungen 1029 (obscure).
Julia Domna (earliest year, 218 = 199/200 C.E.): Pri-
vate collection (Ziegler 1993b, no. 293).
Caracalla: SNGPfPS 6.154-155; London (Ziegler 1993b,
no. 291).80
Plautilla (latest year, 221 = 202/203): SNGLevante 1411,
1412; Ziegler Sammlungen 1030-1033; SNGParis 2052;
SNGPfPS 6.156; Berlin, London (Ziegler 1993b, no.
294-299).
Geta Caesar (earliest year 218 = 199/200): Berlin (Ziegler
1993b, no. 283) ; SNGPfPS 6.152.
Twice (neokoros):
Caracalla and Plautilla? (year 221 = 202/203; see text
above): SNGLevante supplement 1.328 (Ziegler 1993b,
no. 300).
Septimius Severus (earliest year 223 = 204/205 C.E.):
SNGLevante 1407; SNGParis 2046 (Ziegler 1993b, nos.
301-302, 306).
Julia Domna (earliest year 223 = 204/205 C.E.): Bos-
ton (Ziegler 1993b, no. 305).
Geta Caesar (earliest year 223 = 204/205 C.E.):
SNGLevante 1413; Ziegler Sammlungen 1033a (Ziegler
1993b, nos. 303-304).
Caracalla (earliest year, 223 = 204/205 C.E.): BMC 15;
SNGCop 43; SNGLevante 1409, 1410; Ziegler
Sammlungen 1034; SNGParis 2047-2051; SNGPfPS
6.157 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 307-322).
Macrinus: SNGLevante 1414-1416; Ziegler Sammlungen
1035-1037; SNGParis 2053, 2054; SNGPfPS 6.158,
160-163; London (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 324-327, 341-
347).
Diadumenian Caesar: BMC 16; SNGCop 44; SNGvA 5483;
SNGLevante 1417, 1418; Ziegler Sammlungen 1038,
1039, 1042-1045; SNGParis 2055-2059; SNGRighetti
1501; SNGPfPS 6.159 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 323, 328-
340).
Elagabalus: BMC 17, 19, 20; SNGCop 45; SNGvA 5484-
5488; SNGLevante 1419, 1420, 1423, 1426-1436,
supplement 1.330, 334, 335; Ziegler Sammlungen
1049-1060; SNGParis 2062, 2064, 2066, 2068-2073;
79 Ziegler 1993b, no. 280, with earliest date, appears re-
worked; the earliest year for the others is 218 = 199/200 C.E.
80 Previously identified as Elagabalus by Hill 1923, 222-223
no. 17, through a misreading of HIC (218 = 199/200 C.E.)
as MC (240 = 221/222 C.E.).
 chapter
SNGRighetti 1502; SNGPfPS 6.164, 165, 170-175, 177,
(Ziegler 1993b, nos. 348-350, 355, 356, 358-363,
365-373, 391, 395-411, 417, 420, 422, 424-426, 431,
433, 434, 436, 441-445, 461-471).
Elagabalus and Julia Paula: BMC 22; SNGLevante 1437,
1438, supplement 1.336; SNGPfPS 6.167, 168
(Ziegler 1993b, nos. 377-379).
Julia Paula: BMC 23, 24; SNGLevante 1439-1442, supple-
ment 1.337, 338; Ziegler Sammlungen 1065, 1067-
1069; SNGParis 2074-2077; SNGPfPS 6.169, 180, 181
(Ziegler 1993b, nos. 380-384, 386-390, 392, 393,
437-440).
Julia Maesa: SNGLevante 1443, supplement 1.339, 340,
342, 343; Ziegler Sammlungen 1061, 1063; SNGParis
2078, 2079; SNGPfPS 6.146, 183 (Ziegler 1993b, nos.
351-354, 375, 376, 455-459).
Julia Soaemias: Ziegler Sammlungen 1064 (Ziegler 1993b,
no. 374).
Severus Alexander: Adana 78, 79; BMC 26-29; SNGCop
46, 47; SNGFitzw 5227, 5228; SNGvA 5489-5498;
SNGLevante 1446-1466, 1469-1472, supplement
1.344-346; Ziegler Sammlungen 1070-1096; SNGParis
2081-2096; SNGRighetti 1503, 1504; SNGPfPS 6.184-
186, 188-191, 196-202, 206-216 (Ziegler 1993b, nos.
472-475, 478-480, 482-494, 498-507, 518, 519, 521-
529, 531-549, 566, 567, 569, 570, 572, 573, 575-
581, 583, 585-622, 624-640, 642, 643).
Julia Mamaea: BMC 30; SNGvA 5499; SNGLevante 1473-
1475, 1477-1479; Ziegler Sammlungen 1099, 1100,
1102; SNGParis 2097, 2098; SNGPfPS 6.187, 193,
195, 203-205 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 481, 497, 508-510,
512-515, 517, 552, 554-557, 559-563).
Maximinus: SNGvA 5500 (misread); SNGLevante 1480,
supplement 1.348; SNGParis 2099 (Ziegler 1993b,
nos. 653-656, 661-665).
Maximinus and Maximus: SNGLevante supplement 1.350
(Ziegler 1993b, no. 652).
Paulina: SNGLevante 1482 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 649-651).
Maximus Caesar: Adana 80; SNGLevante 1483, supplement
1.351; SNGParis 2102, 2104; SNGRighetti 1505;
SNGPfPS 6.218, 219 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 646-648,
659, 669, 670, 672-674); Ireland 2000, no. 1737.
Gordian III (latest year, 262 = 243/244): BMC 31, 32;
SNGCop 49, 50; SNGvA 8668 (= SNGLevante 1486);
SNGLevante 1487, 1488, supplement 1.352; Ziegler
Sammlungen 1104, 1108, 1109, 1114-1116, 1119;
SNGParis 2105-2108; SNGRighetti 1506, 1507;
SNGPfPS 6.221, 223-225, 230-233 (Ziegler 1993b,
nos. 683, 688, 697-705, 716, 718, 720, 721).
26 – anazarbos 229
Tranquillina: SNGvA 5503; SNGLevante 1489, 1490;
Ziegler Sammlungen 1120; SNGParis 2109, 2111;
SNGRighetti 1508; SNGPfPS 6.227-229 (Ziegler 1993b,
nos. 706-708, 710-715, 722).81
Three times (neokoros):
Trajan Decius (earliest year: 268 = 249/250 C.E.): BMC
35; SNGLevante 1494-1496, supplement 1.354;
SNGPfPS 6.239, 240, 243, 251 (Ziegler 1993b, nos.
744, 748, 752, 753, 759, 771, 772).
Trajan Decius, Herennius Etruscus, Hostilian: SNGLevante
1497, 1498; SNGParis 2122 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 751,
773).
Herennia Etruscilla: BMC 36; SNGCop 52, 53; SNGvA
5505; SNGLevante 1499, supplement 1.355; Ziegler
Sammlungen 1140; SNGParis 2120, 2121; SNGRighetti
1511; SNGPfPS 6.246-250 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 758,
760-770).
Herennius Etruscus (earliest year: 268 = 249/50 C.E.):
SNGCop 54; SNGLevante 1500, 1501, supplement
1.356; Ziegler Sammlungen 1131, 1132; SNGParis
2123, 2124 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 743, 749, 756, 757).
Hostilian (earliest year: 268 = 249/250 C.E.): SNGLevante
1502, 1503; Ziegler Sammlungen 1133; SNGParis 2125,
2126; SNGPfPS 6.241, 242 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 745-
747).
Trebonianus Gallus: SNGLevante 1504-1506, supplement
1.357; Ziegler Sammlungen 1141; SNGParis 2128-2130;
SNGRighetti 1512; SNGPfPS 6.261-263 (Ziegler 1993b,
nos. 780, 781, 789-791).
Volusian: BMC 37, 38; SNGvA 5506; SNGLevante 1507-
1512, supplement 1.358-360; Ziegler Sammlungen
1142-1157; SNGParis 2131-2139; SNGRighetti 1513;
SNGPfPS 6.252-260, 264, 265 (Ziegler 1993b, nos.
774-779, 782-788, 792-797, 799-802).82
Valerian: Adana 81; BMC 40-45; SNGCop 56-61; SNGFitzw
5231; SNGvA 5508-5515; SNGLevante 1513, 1515,
1516, 1518-1522, 1524-1528, supplement 1.361;
SNGLewis 1728; Ziegler Sammlungen 1164-1183, 1185-
1213; SNGParis 2140-2163; SNGRighetti 1514-1516;
SNGPfPS 6.267-289, 292-305 (Ziegler 1993b, nos.
803, 804, 807-819, 825-827, 829-831, 833-840).
Gallienus: SNGvA 5516; Ziegler Sammlungen 1214-1220;
SNGParis 2165, 2166; SNGPfPS 6.290, 291 (Ziegler
1993b, nos. 820-824).
81 See also Leypold 1991, 72 no. 1.
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
Aigeai, an important harbor and intermittently a free
city with the right of asylum, became the last of the
three known neokoroi in Cilicia.1 Both its eminent
predecessors, Tarsos and Anazarbos (qq.v.), were
already twice neokoros. There was an old rivalry
between Tarsos and the people of Aigeai, who felt
oppressed by the power of the larger city.2 Aigeai
certainly would have declared itself neokoros as soon
as possible, just as it claimed as many other titles,
including imperial names, as it could.3 Since the title
does not appear on coins until the reign of Severus
Alexander, it is likely that it was given by him; its
earliest date is 277 of the city’s era, or 230/231 C.E.4
The emperor was in the East in 231 for his con-
frontation with the Persians. Due to its strategic port,
Aigeai was of great importance to the Roman cam-
paign.5 Though an imperial visit to Aigeai or its
vicinity is not verbally documented, several coin
types allude to Severus Alexander’s presence, or at
least interest, in the city.6
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT K ALEJANDRON ARX
ME OIK A%KLH Laureate draped cuirassed bust
of Severus Alexander r., mature; snake-entwined
staff to r. Rev: ALEJANDROUPOLI% ADRIANVN
AIGAIVN; ZO% (year 277 = 230/231 C.E.) Lau-
reate, cuirassed emperor rides horse r., raises r.
hand. a) SNGLevante 1772 b) SNGParis 2365.
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M A %EO ARX [ME?]
ALEJANDRON Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander r., mature; snake-entwined
1
Bernhardt 1971, 162-163, 191; Rigsby 1996, 460-462. See
also S. Price 1984b, 272.
2 Dio Chrysostomos, Orations 33.51, 34.10, 34.14, 34.47-48.
3 L. Robert 1978b; idem 1973.
4 Ziegler 1985, 93-94; Woodward 1963, 7. Of course this
assumption can only be based on coins known to date. For the
era beginning in 47/46 B.C.E., see Bloesch 1989, 11-22.
5 Ziegler 1993b, 81-82, 128-129.
6 Weiss 1982, 198-203; accepted by Halfmann 1986a, 115.
staff to r. Rev: [MAK YE?] EUG P[I%?]
NEVKOROU AIGAIVN; ZO% (year 277 = 230/231
C.E.) Laureate (cuirassed?) emperor with snake-
entwined eagle sceptre, bull at feet, holds phiale
over altar before a four-column temple in three-
quarter view with arch in entablature, Asklepios
within. a) SNGLevante 1771.
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: [AUT KAI] ALEJANDRON
ARX M[E OI]K K? A%KLH Laureate draped
cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r., snake-
entwined staff to r. Rev: [MAK EUG] PI% YE
ALEJ[ . . . ] NEVKOR[ . . . ] AIGAIVN [ . . .] Lau-
reate, cuirassed emperor with snake-entwined
eagle sceptre holds phiale over altar before
Asklepios at l.; at r., mural-crowned city goddess
crowns emperor. a) Ziegler Sammlungen 1394.7
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT KAI ALEJANDRON
ARX ME OIK K A%KLH Laureate draped cui-
srassed bust of Severus Alexander r., snake-
entwined staff to r. Rev: MA(K, b) EU(G, b) PI%
YEOF(I, a) (ENDOJVN, b) NEVKOROU AIGAIVN;
HO% (year 278 = 231/232 C.E.) City goddess
seated on altar, a goat (punning symbol of the city)
at her feet, holding four-column temple with arch
in entablature in three-quarter view. a) SNGLevante
1775 b) London 1962.11-15-1 (illus. pl. 35 fig.
178).8
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EU ALEJ-
ANDRO% Laureate head of Severus Alexander r.,
snake-entwined staff to r. Rev: MAK EUG PI% YE
NEVKOROU; HO% (year 278 = 231/232 C.E.);
AIGAIVN Four-column temple with arch in enta-
blature in three-quarter view, Asklepios within.
a) SNGLevante 1774.
Had type 1, showing the emperor’s arrival for his
military campaign, stood alone, there would be little
evidence for Severus Alexander’s direct connection
7 Ziegler 1988a (= Ziegler Sammlungen).
8 Woodward 1963, 5 no. 1 pl. 1.4.
 chapter
with Aigeai. But type 2 shows not some generalized
scene but the emperor sacrificing before the temple
of Asklepios at Aigeai. This temple, which other
coins show with as many as eight (Corinthian?) col-
umns and/or an eagle in its pediment, is here iden-
tified by Asklepios’ cult statue and by an arch in the
facade, a recurrent feature that may represent ei-
ther an arched entry or a niche that stood over the
statue.9 Since it recurs even in the most minuscule
representations, such as on the temple held by the
city goddess in type 4, it should reflect reality, as it
was probably included to make the temple identifi-
able to those who handled the coins. Type 5’s larger
format shows the details of temple and image more
clearly. Type 3 is similar to 2, though the god here
stands independent of the temple and the emperor
himself is crowned by the city. Type 4 shows the
temple, again with arched facade, held by the city
goddess, a visual symbol of neokoria. The city’s other
titles, ‘Macedonian,’ ‘noble,’ ‘faithful,’ ‘god-loving,’
‘of good repute’ (also ‘mistress of ships’ on type 7
below) are abbreviated;10 the title ‘neokoros,’ how-
ever, is carefully spelled out, though it too would be
abbreviated on later coins. Again, this shows that the
coins were probably issued shortly after the title was
granted.
On type 1 the city also called itself ‘Alexan-
droupolis’ after Severus Alexander, but as it had
earlier called itself ‘Makrinoupolis,’ before that
‘Antoneinoupolis,’ and before that ‘Severiana,’
‘Commodiana,’ and ‘Hadriana,’ this is not an indi-
cator of extraordinary imperial favor. Cassius Dio,
in relating how in 15 B.C.E. it had taken a Senato-
rial decree to get Paphos the title ‘Augusta,’ wrote
that in his own (and Severus Alexander’s) time, the
cities had only to make out a list of whatever im-
perial names they liked.11 This may be an over-
statement, but Dio’s disillusion reflects a real
proliferation, and consequent devaluation, of such
eponyms.
The obverses of types 1-4 reveal a complication,
however. The emperor is portrayed in normal guise,
wearing military costume.12 But at the same time a
snake-entwined staff, symbol of Asklepios, hovers
9 Bloesch 1989, 34-41. For an earlier eight-columned ex-
ample with straight lintel, under Macrinus, see SNGPfPS 6.65.
10 Cohen 1995, 355-357; on ‘mistress of ships,’ Adams 1984,
corrected by Ziegler 1993b, 129 n. 364.
11 Cassius Dio 54.23.7-8.
12 The catalogues and Ziegler 1994, 200-201 n. 71, inter-
preted the emperor’s serrate-edged wreath as the diadem of a
27 – aigeai 231
before him; the same staff had appeared at the shoul-
der of Asklepios himself on the obverse of a rare
silver alloy issue of Aigeai under Caracalla.13 The
reverses of types 2 and 3 also show the emperor
holding an eagle-topped sceptre entwined by a
snake, a combination of imperial and divine at-
tributes that had appeared on coins of Aigeai just
the year before.14 The obverse legends of types 1-
4 honor Severus Alexander (in the accusative case)
with titles that have now been interpreted as ‘greatest
chief priest of the world and of Asklepios.’15 A well-
minted, unworn example such as the obverse of type
3(a) shows the sloppily formed letters typical of
Aigeaian coins more clearly than usual, especially
the crucial double kappa. So it is likely that Aigeai
made Severus Alexander, already pontifex maximus
at Rome, its chief priest of Asklepios, and perhaps
was made neokoros in return. Also, it should be clear
that if the snake-entwined staff on the obverse of
these coins means an identification with Asklepios,
the emperor Valerian was so assimilated too, as the
same symbols appear on his coins later (type 7,
below).
The coins leave little doubt that Aigeai was neo-
koros for the temple of Asklepios. We cannot assume
from this that the title was for the god and not for
the emperor, however.16 No document yet known
specifies that Aigeai was neokoros of Asklepios, while
at the same time Magnesia (q.v.) issued no coin with
the word neokoros without ‘of Artemis.’ Though on
type 2 the emperor sacrifices before the temple in
question, Pergamene coins (q.v.) had shown Cara-
calla sacrificing to his cult partner in the temple they
shared, at a time when Pergamon was three times
priest, but this is more than the worn depictions can bear out.
Rumscheid 2000, in her exhaustive catalogue of agonothetic
crowns, did not include it. The depiction somewhat resembles
the headdress of the demiourgos on coins of Tarsos and
Anazarbos (qq.v.), and Aigeai had such a magistrate, at least
in the Hellenistic period (Cohen 1995, 355, 357 n. 7). But Bastien
1992, 2:421-424, did not note any depictions of emperors as
demiourgoi at Aigeai.
13 SNGLevante 1740; pace Bloesch 1965, pl. 23.1, on the
identification of Asklepios and emperor; though the god has a
lowering brow, I do not see any other resemblance to Caracalla,
not even via Alexander the Great.
14 SNGLevante 1765. For the eagle sceptre, Bastien 1992,
2:421-424.
15 Weiss 1982, 200, 202; but Bloesch 1989, 34-35 n. 37
disagreed, preferring “founder of the eiselastic worldwide (com-
mon?) Asklepieia (festival).” Weiss’ hypothesis is preferable, but
the question is by no means settled.
16 S. Price 1984b, 272 no. 143.
232 part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia
neokoros of the Augusti, not of any god; and Elaga-
balus had been shown in the same way before his
temple and Apollo’s at Philippopolis (q.v.). On types
2 and 3, Severus Alexander holds the snake-
entwined eagle sceptre, the attributes of Asklepios
and imperial triumph combined; that and the snake
staff of Asklepios on the obverses of coin types 1-5
assimilate the emperor to the god. It is thus likely
that Severus Alexander became Asklepios’ cult part-
ner, as well as his priest, in the temple at Aigeai.
Aigeai minted no coins with the title ‘neokoros’
under Severus Alexander’s successor Maximinus, so
it is impossible to say whether its neokoria was
endangered by a condemnation of Alexander’s me-
mory after his death.17 In any case, the problem was
obviated after Alexander’s consecration in 238; in-
deed, he is among the deified emperors commemo-
rated on an altar to Gordian III and his family at
Aigeai.18 Doubtless the deified Severus Alexander
continued to be specially honored in the city he had
made neokoros.
Thereafter a steady scatter of coins over the years
kept calling Aigeai neokoros, with an occasional
reappearance of a type that alludes to the title:
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: MAR IOU FILIPPON EPI
KE% Laureate (radiate, c) draped cuirassed bust
of Philip Caesar r., beardless. Rev: EU PI YE MA
AIGEVN NE; Bq% (year 292 = 245/246 C.E.)
Seated city goddess, a goat at her feet, holds a
small temple in three-quarter view with arch in
entablature, a figure within, eagle at apex.19 a)
London 1975.4-11-296 (illus. pl. 35 fig. 179) b)
SNGParis 2375 (ascribed to Philip Senior) c)
SNGCop 39 d) Berlin 694/1914 e) Ziegler Samm-
lungen 1398.
Coins showing the portraits of Trajan Decius and
his family indicate that under him (but not after)
Aigeai was allowed to call itself ‘Asklepioupolis,’
while coin reverses of the goddess Hygieia were given
the features of the Empress Herennia Etruscilla.
Ziegler believed that these coin types and legends
emanated from a religious policy of the emperor
himself, to honor Asklepios in opposition to the new
Savior whose partisans, the Christians, he was per-
17 Kienast 1996, 177-179; pace Varner 1993, 418-422, who
believed that the condemnation was unofficial.
18 Weiss 1982; for the order and date of inscriptions on the
altar, see Dagron and Feissel 1987, 124.
19 Pick 1904, 12 no. 9.1.
secuting.20 But Decius otherwise showed no extraor-
dinary attention to Asklepios; the god did not ap-
pear on his Roman coinage, nor did the emperor
honor Asklepios’ other, more famous shrines at Per-
gamon, Epidauros, or Kos.21 It is more likely that
Aigeai itself either requested the title ‘Asklepioupolis,’
specifically, or was granted it instead of an eponym
from the current emperor’s name, an honor it had
often taken before but which in this case had been
awarded to its inland neighbor Mopsos instead.22
This is reminiscent of Caracalla’s diversion of the
neokoria for Ephesos (q.v.) from his own name to
that of the city’s patron goddess, Artemis.
Like Severus Alexander, the emperor Valerian
appears to have had some contact with Aigeai. As
with Severus Alexander, it is possible that he visit-
ed the city in person: he journeyed to the eastern
front for his own Persian war in 254, within the
following coin type’s year of issue. Coins of Ana-
zarbos also hint at an imperial visit in the same year,
and by January 255 the emperor was already sta-
tioned just across the Gulf of Issos, in Antioch.23
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: AU K POU LIKI OUA-
LERIANO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust
of Valerian r., snake-entwined staff to r. Rev:
AIGAIVN NEV NAUARXIDO%; T (year 300 = 253/
254 C.E.) Laureate togate emperor with snake-
entwined staff holds phiale over altar before two-
column temple with arched entablature in
three-quarter view. a) BMC 39 b) Vienna c) New
York 1944.100.53037 (illus. pl. 35 fig. 180) d)
SNGLevante 1801.24
Type 7 is a distinct echo of type 2, and though togate
rather than in military attire, Valerian is represented
with some of the same attributes that Severus
Alexander had had. He also allowed a sacred and
worldwide festival in Asklepios’ honor, the first
known at Aigeai (and so not a direct result of the
neokoria, which had been granted almost twenty-
five years earlier).25 It is then possible that he, who
like Severus Alexander came to the East to fight the
Persians, was also named chief priest of Asklepios
20 Ziegler 1994.
21 Selinger 1994, 22-28.
22 Von Aulock 1963, nos. 77-78.
23 Halfmann 1986a, 236-238.
24 Weiss 1982, n. 31 pl. 5 fig. 7.
25 Despite Ziegler 1985, 51, 94, 115; idem 1994, 201.
 chapter
and/or received cult in the temple of Asklepios for
which Aigeai was neokoros.
The war turned out badly for both Valerian and
Aigeai, however; the Sassanid king Shapur boasted
of having captured the one, probably in 260 C.E.,
and conquered the other soon after.26 No later docu-
ments of the neokoria are known. The city’s pride,
its temple of Asklepios, seems to have survived the
sack, only to be destroyed later, at the behest of the
Christian emperor Constantine.27
No inscriptions of Aigeai as neokoros are yet known.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Severus Alexander: BMC 37; SNGLevante 1771, 1774,
1775; Ziegler Sammlungen 1394; SNGParis 2357, 2369;
London.
Julia Mamaea: SNGLevante 1778; Ziegler Sammlungen 1397;
SNGParis 2371; Berlin, Paris.
Balbinus: SNGLevante 1779; Paris.
Pupienus: SNGParis 2373; Berlin.
Balbinus, Pupienus, Gordian III: SNGLevante supplement
1.411; SNGParis 2374.28
Gordian III: London.
Tranquillina: Berlin.
26 The ‘res gestae divi Saporis,’ ll. 27-29, lists the Cilician
cities conquered; Bleckmann 1992, 118-119. The sources are
collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 57-65.
27 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.56; Sozomenos 2.5.5.
28 Weiss 1982, 196 n. 17.
27 – aigeai 233
Philip: SNGRighetti 1487; Berlin.
Philip, Otacilia, Philip Caesar: SNGLevante 1780; SNGParis
2376; Berlin.
Otacilia: SNGLevante supplement 1.414; Ziegler Sammlungen
1399; New York.
Philip Caesar:29 SNGCop 39; SNGLevante 1781, 1782;
Ziegler Sammlungen 1398; Berlin, London, Paris.
Trajan Decius: SNGPfPS 6.73
Herennia Etruscilla: BMC 38.
Herennius Etruscus: Private collection, Hecht.30
Hostilian: SNGLevante 1785; Ziegler Sammlungen 1401;
Berlin.31
Volusian: SNGLevante 1786.
Aemilian: SNGLevante 1787-1789; SNGParis 2379, 2380;
SNGRighetti 1488; London (2 exx.), New York,
Vienna.
Cornelia Supera: SNGLevante 1790-1792; Vienna (2 exx.).
Valerian: BMC 39, 40, 42; SNGCop 40; SNGvA 5460;
SNGLevante 1793-1801, supplement 1.416, 417;
Ziegler Sammlungen 1402, 1405; SNGParis 2381-2387;
SNGPfPS 6.74-77; Berlin (3 exx.), New York (4 exx.),
Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw.32
Gallienus:33 BMC 43; SNGvA 5461; SNGLevante supple-
ment 1.418; SNGParis 2389, 2390; SNGPfPS 6.79-80;
Ziegler Sammlungen 1406, 1407; Berlin.
Salonina: SNGLevante 1804; Ziegler Sammlungen 1408;
Berlin (2 exx.).
29 See Ziegler 1994, 197 on his titles EPI(fan°staton)
KE%(ara).
30 Hecht 1968, 34 no. 21; Ziegler 1994, 194.
31 See Ziegler 1994, 188-199.
32 Weiss 1982, n. 31 pl. 5.7. See also Butcher 1991, 195
no. 259.
33 See also Butcher 1991, 195 no. 260.
234 part i – section viii. koinon of armenia
SECTION VIII. KOINON OF ARMENIA
Chapter 28. Nikopolis: Koinon of Armenia (Minor)
Nikopolis was founded by Pompey in the Pontic
territory of Armenia Minor. Its name commemorat-
ed his victory over Mithridates VI of Pontus in 66
B.C.E., and there he settled the soldiers wounded
in his campaigns.1
Armenia Minor passed through the hands of
various client kings before it was annexed to the
Roman empire ca. 71/72 C.E., from which ‘libe-
ration’ Nikopolis dated its new era.2 The territory
probably was under the command of the governor
of Cappadocia, but Armenia Minor had a koinon
of its own with an Armeniarch at the head of it.3
Nikopolis had few rivals for primacy in its koinon,
as it was one of the few urban centers in the area.
The inscription that mentions the first Armeniarch
(who was also first of the Hellenes) was found there,
and the occasional issues of coinage in the name of
the koinon are identical in many respects to the rare
coins of Nikopolis.4 Thus it seems that Nikopolis was
neokoros due to its position as metropolis and head
of the koinon, much as Beroia was for Macedonia
(q.v.). Nothing is known of temples built in the city,
however.
First Neokoria: by time of Hadrian or after
Inscription 1, though obscure at a critical point, is
probably a document of Nikopolis’ first neokoria.
INSCRIPTION 1. CIG 4189. ÑAdrian}w Niko-
pÒ(l)evw t}w [-?- ne]vkÒ(r)ou ka[‹ mh]tro-
pÒle[vw]. . .
The title ‘Hadrianic’ appears on the city’s coins
under Hadrian himself, and other documents
1Marek 1993b, 37-39, 48-53.
2Leschhorn 1993, 144-149, 475; S. Mitchell 1993, 1:118;
Remy 1986, 30, 53.
3 Deininger 1965, 32, 82 n. 10.
4 IGRR 3:132; Pick 1914.
indicate that the emperor may have visited Nikopolis
or at least the area in 123-124 or 129-131.5 This may
have been the occasion for a grant of neokoria, but
it is possible that the title was awarded earlier, when
the territory was absorbed among the Roman prov-
inces.
Second Neokoria: by time of Gordian III
Only one inscription documents the fact that Niko-
polis became twice neokoros by the time of Gord-
ian III.
INSCRIPTION 2. Grégoire 1909, 35 no. 13. {
mhtrÒ[poliw] ka‹ d‹w [n]ev[kÒrow] Nikopolit«n
[¸t]a[l]ikØ kolvn¤[a]. . .
The inscription is dated by the name ‘Gordiana’
given to the Legion XIII Gemina Pia. The city of
Nikopolis holds the titles of metropolis, twice neoko-
ros, ‘Italian’ colony (with ius italicum).
By the time of this inscription, in the third cen-
tury, there was no contradiction in a city’s being both
a colony and the center of a provincial imperial cult.
That distinction had seemed basic to Augustus’ foun-
dation of cults in Asia and Bithynia, as discussed by
Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9 (see ‘Pergamon,’ chapter 1):
Romans were to worship the deified dead, Hellenes
the living ruler, and only the latter temples later
conferred neokoria.
On the other hand, the number of provincials
who became Roman citizens burgeoned over time,
and they continued to participate in koinon activi-
ties and cults, until Caracalla finally granted Roman
citizenship to most of the peoples of the Empire. As
for colony status, though it earlier had important im-
5 F. and E. Cumont 1906, 307; Magie 1950, 622, 1484, opted
for the later trip, as repairs were made to the main road in
129, but Halfmann 1986a, 188-210, esp. 198, held that Hadrian
returned from Egypt by sea in 131, leaving only 123/124 for
his trip along the eastern border up to Trapezos.
 chapter
plications as to the kind of taxes colonists paid, the
distinction between Roman and non-Roman munic-
ipalities became increasingly blurry, especially after
Septimius Severus’ wholesale grants of colonial sta-
tus; the title colonia no longer implied any change in
the composition of the city’s population.6
Nikopolis’ status as a colony rested on a firmer
basis than sheer honorific, as its original settlement
was by Pompey’s wounded soldiers. But it is the first
example of a neokoros Roman colony yet known.
6 Bernhardt 1982; Levick 1967, 1-6, 184-192, on other
colonies with ius italicum, 84 n. 7; J. Nollé 1995.
28 – nikopolis 235
Neapolis in Syria Palaestina and Thessalonike in
Macedonia (qq.v.) would soon follow.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
1. CIG 4189. Fragmentary, Hadrianic or after. See
text above.
Twice neokoros:
2. Grégoire 1909, 35 no. 13. From Gumuâden,
southeast of Nikopolis. Dated to the time of Gord-
ian III or thereafter. See text above.
No coins of Nikopolis citing neokoria are yet known.
236 part i – section ix. koinon of thrace
SECTION IX. KOINON OF THRACE
Chapter 29. Perinthos: Koinon of Thrace
When the emperor Septimius Severus confronted a
challenger for the Empire, Pescennius Niger, his
greatest obstacle lay at the Hellespont. Asellius
Aemilianus, proconsul of Asia and one of Niger’s
ablest generals, had already seized Byzantion and
therefore held the key to the Black Sea as well as a
bridgehead into Europe.1 Niger’s forces advanced
on nearby Perinthos, seat of the governor of Thrace,
which was held for Severus by Fabius Cilo.2 Niger’s
army was at first successful, but had to retreat back
into Asia at the arrival of Severus’ main forces. The
emperor himself soon arrived on the scene and took
up headquarters at Perinthos while his generals
besieged Byzantion and drove Niger and his armies
back through Asia and Bithynia.
The eastern cities had to choose which contestant
they would support. Perinthos, of course, stood be-
hind its imperial occupier. Byzantion held firm for
Niger for over two years, through an increasingly
hopeless siege. When Severus finally triumphed, he
alloted rewards and punishments among the vari-
ous cities as he saw fit. The punishment for Byzan-
tion’s crimes of revolt and stubborn defiance was
particularly severe. All the soldiers and magistrates
were put to death, the walls were demolished, and
citizens’ property was confiscated. In addition,
Severus turned his enemy’s loss into its rival’s gain:
he deprived Byzantion of its freedom and civic sta-
tus, made it tributary, and handed it and its terri-
tory over to the Perinthians, who treated it none too
well.3 As a bonus, Severus gave Perinthos the right
to build a temple to his own cult and thereby to call
itself neokoros, the first neokoros city known in
Thrace.
1 Birley 1988, 102, 105, 108-120; Halfmann 1986a, 216-
223.
2 Sayar 1998, 74-75, 115-116; Haensch 1997, 329-332.
3 Cassius Dio 75.14; Herodian 3.6.9; Sayar 1998, 116-118,
158-159.
First Neokoria: Septimius Severus
One of the earliest issues of Perinthos celebrating
the neokoria is coin type 1, which honors Septimius
Severus’ second visit to the city in 196, following the
capture of Byzantion.
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P
Laureate head (draped cuirassed bust, b) of
Severus, r. Rev: EPIDHMIA (EPIMHDIA, sic d)
B %EUHROU PERINYIVN NEVKORVN Eight-
column temple, below it a galley rowing l. in
whose bow the emperor raises his right hand; in
the stern, two military standards. a) BMC 33 (illus.
pl. 35 fig. 181) b) Vienna 8891 c) Berlin, Löb-
becke d) New York 1923.17.17 (S-G 461, 463,
464).4
Though this coin shows that Perinthos must have
become neokoros by the time of Severus’ second visit
in 196, scholars have postulated that the honor was
granted and the temple begun during the emperor’s
previous stay, in winter 193/194, while the issues
of 196 celebrate the temple’s completion and its
dedication by the emperor, which made the neokoria
official.5 Though this chronology is certainly possible,
it does not necessarily follow from the situation.
In 194 Byzantion and Perinthos were both under
siege, the one by hostile, the other by friendly forces.
Occupation by legions, even allied ones, was a har-
rowing and expensive predicament. The presence
of the emperor himself was an additional honor and
an additional expense.6 As the campaign headquar-
ters for the emperor and his armies, Perinthos must
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
4Schönert-(Geiss) 1965 (= S-G with coin numbers).
5Hasebroeck 1921, 86-87; Schönert-(Geiss) 1965, 45;
Halfmann 1986a, 216, 219.
6 Lehnen 1997, 42, 93-95; Ziegler 1993b, 138-140.
 chapter
could have devoted any time, personnel, or even
draught animals to constructing a large (at least
octastyle) temple in the midst of a war. After the war
was won and Byzantion capitulated, however,
Severus rewarded his partisans the Perinthians with
Byzantion and all its lands. Ziegler suggested that
such grants of enemy land were Severus’ way of
making up for years of drain on his allied cities’
economies.7 This may have finally allowed Perinthos
to begin building a temple for the cult of Septimius
Severus to fulfill its new title ‘neokoros.’ The coin
types that may be dated to 196 only show a sche-
matic octastyle temple, and could just as well cel-
ebrate the inception of building as its completion.
The first (and thereafter frequent) appearance of
the eight-column temple on the early issues that
feature the title ‘neokoros’ tends to indicate that it
represents that temple for which the city was neo-
koros. In addition, coin types show Septimius
Severus himself holding a temple, as if in presenta-
tion, or the city goddess holding it, symbol of the
city as neokoros.
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU K L %EPTI %EUHROE
(sic) PE Laureate head of Severus, r. Rev:
PERINYIVN NEVKORVN Laureate, cuirassed
Severus standing l., with spear and small six-col-
umn temple. a) S-G 479 (2 exx.).
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P
Laureate head of Severus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN
NEVKORVN City goddess standing l. with cornu-
copia and small eight-column temple held over
altar. a) S-G 474 (2 exx.).
Though intermittent excavations have been un-
dertaken around Perinthos, no sure sign of a temple
that could have made the city neokoros has yet been
found.8 Large-size coins with reverse type of the
temple alone, such as type 4, show a Corinthian
octastyle with figural sculpture in the pediment;
smaller coins give more summary representations.
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO%
P(E, a) Laureate head (draped cuirassed bust,
cegi) of Severus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN NEVKORVN
(NEOKORVN, beh) Eight-column Corinthian
temple, disc (figures, f) in pediment, on three-step
7 Ziegler 1978.
8 Sayar 1998, 53-55; for an inscription of a building dedi-
cated to Hadrian and Sabina and containing multiple cult
statues, 219-220 no. 37.
29 – perinthos 237
podium. a) London 1920.11-11-4 b) Oxford,
Godwyn c) Paris 1118 d) Paris 1119 e) SNGCop
741 f) Vienna 8892 (illus. pl. 36 fig. 182) g) Ber-
lin, Imhoof-Blumer h) Berlin, Knöbelsdorff i)
Berlin, Löbbecke (S-G 462, 466-473, 488-491).
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P
Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus,
r. Rev: PERINYIVN NEVKOR Eight-column
temple on three-step podium. a) SNGCop 742 b)
Paris 1120 c) Vienna 8894 d) New York, Newell
e) Berlin, Löbbecke f) Berlin, Imhoof. (S-G 514,
515).
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: L %EPTI GETA% KAI-
%AR Draped cuirassed bust of Geta Caesar, r.
Rev: PERINYIVN NEOKORVN (NEVKORVN,
d) Six-column (eight-column, d) temple on
three-step podium. a) Paris 1186 b) Berlin,
Löbbecke c) SNGFitzw 1755 d) Cambridge,
McClean (S-G 634, 635).
Schönert-Geiss believed that the festival known
as Severeia antedated the neokoria granted to Perin-
thos.9 The name Severeia Perintheia appears on a coin
type (S-G 458) which does not mention the neokoria,
and though this silence does not assure a date prior
to the grant, the almost invariable reference to
neokoria on coins afterwards makes it likely. At first
associated with Perintheia (presumably a festival for
an eponymous hero Perinthos), the Severeia, with the
qualification ‘first,’ appears alone on coins with, and
without (S-G 457), the title ‘neokoros’:
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: [AU] K L %EPTI %EUH-
[RO%] Laureate head of Severus, r. Rev: %EBH-
REIA PRVTA PERINYIVN NEVK[ORVN] Prize
crown with palm and trumpet on agonistic table.
a) BMC 32 (S-G 476).
Second Neokoria?: Sons of Septimius Severus
Later in his reign, probably around autumn 209,
Severus made his younger son, Geta, Augustus; his
elder son Caracalla had been Augustus since 197.10
It was around the time that Geta’s status was raised
that Perinthos began to show two temples instead
9 Schönert-(Geiss) 1965, 46; followed by Leschhorn 1998,
410-412; Karl 1975, 108-109, 127.
10 Kienast 1996, 162-167; Birley 1988, 186-187.
238 part i – section ix. koinon of thrace
of the previous single temple on its coins.11 In ad-
dition, the legends proclaim a new festival, the
Philadelpheia or festival of brotherly love, named in
honor of the supposed concord between Caracalla
and Geta, who are shown joining hands:
COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU(T, abde) K(RA, abe; KAI
d) P %EP GETA% %EB Radiate draped
bust of Geta as Augustus, r. Rev: FILADEL-
FEIA PERINYIVN NEVKORVN The two young
emperors, togate, join r. hands. a) BMC
49 b) BMC 50 c) Paris 1179 d) Paris 1180 e)
Paris 1181 (S-G 640, 641).
The city goddess who earlier held one temple now
holds two:
COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P
Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus, r. Rev:
FILADELFEIA PERINYIVN NEVKORVN;
AKTIA; PUYIA City goddess with two temples
(one in l. on top of cornucopia, cd)12 a) Berlin,
Rauch b) Berlin, Imhoof c) Paris 1131 d)
Munich (S-G 516, 517).
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EOUH(R,
abcdfg; %EUHR, e) ANTVNINO% AUG Laureate
cuirassed bust of Caracalla, r. Rev: PERINYIVN
NEVKORVN City goddess with two six-column
temples, altar to l.13 a) BMC 41 (illus. pl. 36 fig.
183) b) Paris 1160 c) Paris 1161 d) Paris 1162 e)
Paris 1163 f) Berlin, Imhoof g) Vienna 8910 h)
Oxford (S-G 594-598).
COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT KRA P %EP GETA%
%EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Geta, r.,
bearded. Rev: PERINYIVN NEOKORVN City
goddess with cornucopia and one small eight-
column temple, a second in field r.14 a) Munich;
scratches over the second temple (illus. pl. 36 fig.
184) (S-G 653).
The two temples are portrayed on coins as being
exactly alike. Prize crowns, symbolizing their festi-
11 For a misattribution of neokoria to another city in Thrace,
Augusta Traiana, at just this time, see Gerasimov 1966; cor-
rected by Schönert-Geiss 1991, 43 n. 6, 132 no. 495. One
example of the coin in question was damaged, and resembled
an emperor handing a temple to a city goddess; other examples
from the same reverse die make it clear that they merely join
right hands.
12 Pick 1904, 8 nos. 4.1, 4.2.
13 Ibid., 9 no. 4.4.
14 Ibid., 8 no. 4.3.
vals, float above them, and one is qualified as Aktia,
the other Pythia.
COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO%
P Laureate (draped, a) cuirassed bust of Seve-
rus, r. Rev: FILADELFEIA PERINYIVN NEVKO-
RV(N, abcd); AKTIA; PUYIA Two four-
column temples on podia, turned toward one an-
other, above each a prize crown with palm. a)
Boston 63.1241 b) Paris 1132 c) Paris 1133 d) New
York, Newell (illus. pl. 36 fig. 185) e) Berlin,
Löbbecke (S-G 518, 519).
COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EOUHR
ANTVNINO% AUG Laureate (draped, fj) cuirassed
bust of Caracalla r. (with spear, abcdefghi) Rev:
PERINYIVN NEVKORVN; AKTIA; PUYIA (LKTI
MUYIL, sic m) Two eight-column (six-column, g)
temples on podia, turned toward one another,
above each a prize crown with palm. a) BMC 42
b) BMC 43 c) Paris 1165 d) Paris 1166 e) Paris
1167 f) Paris 1168 g) New York 47.56 h) Berlin,
Pfau i) Berlin 455/1915 j) Berlin, Fox k) Berlin,
Löbbecke l) Vienna 8919 m) SNGCop 746 n)
SNGMil 538 (S-G 599-601, 614-618).
COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT P %EP GETA% %
Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Geta, r. Rev:
FILADELFEIA PERINYIVN NEVKORVN;
AKTIA; PUYIA Two four-column temples on high
podia, turned toward one another, above each a
prize crown. a) Paris 1189 (S-G 668).
The celebration appears to have been composed of
two (perhaps pre-existing) contests: the Aktia, mod-
eled on the festival that Augustus fostered to com-
memorate his victory at Actium; and the Pythia, on
the pattern of the festival at Apollo’s sanctuary in
Delphi.15 The Severeia that was celebrated earlier in
Perinthos may be represented here simply by its
generic name, Aktia, whereas the Pythia, which is
mentioned more often, is probably the new festival
Philadelpheia; in one case (S-G 505) a type of a single
prize crown is labeled Philadelpheia Pythia. Of all these
agonistic and double-temple coin types, only one or
two can be securely dated before 209 or 210, when
Geta still had the title Caesar; for example:
15 Moretti 1953, no. 75, dated to second half of the second
century C.E.; also IGRR 1:802, 4:161.
 chapter
COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AU(T, cd) K M AU
ANTVNEINO% KAI P %EP GETA% KAI(%AR, abe)
Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. and
draped cuirassed bust of Geta Caesar l. Rev:
FILADELFEIA PERINYIVN NEVKORVN;
AKTIA; PUYIA Two prize crowns and palm on
an agonistic table, five apples and an amphora
beneath. a) Boston 62.367 b) BMC 46 c) Paris
1176 d) Paris 1177 e) Berlin, Löbbecke (S-G 627-
630).
The majority of types fall after he became Augustus,
thus the series probably began a little before Sep-
tember/October 209 (or possibly autumn 210).16 It
is notable that inscriptions (nos. 1-4 and possibly 5
below) that name Perinthos neokoros probably all
date previous to this; there is no document besides
the coins that securely dates between 209 and 249
(the latter date for inscription 6, below).
As the new festival was for Caracalla and Geta,
whom their father intended to share the Empire,
presumably they shared the temple at Perinthos also.
It was a significant honor for a city to become
neokoros not just for Septimius Severus but for his
sons, all within a period of just over a decade, and
it shows that Perinthos’ ties to the Severan dynasty
were particularly close. The only other city that may
have been made twice neokoros in this way was
Anazarbos in Cilicia (q.v.).
One may wonder about the reason for such an
enhancement so soon after the original honor, how-
ever. As early as 202, on his way back from his
eastern campaigns, Severus began to abate his en-
mity towards the cities that had supported Niger
almost a decade before. He and his family visited
Nikaia (q.v.) at that time, and even Byzantion was
restored to its civic status.17 The latter city then
received permission to take the imperial name
Antonina, implying that Caracalla was the one who
interceded for his father’s forgiveness: in the Historia
Augusta, Caracalla 1, he often took that role. But
Byzantion’s restoration removed it from the grasp
of Perinthos. It may have been to make up for this
that Perinthos was so soon given yet another impe-
rial temple, this time for the sons of the emperor who
granted the first one.
Adjustments were undoubtedly made after Sep-
timius Severus’ death: Caracalla soon eliminated his
brother ruler, and no doubt the cult in Perinthos’
16 Kienast 1996, 166-167; also see Birley 1988, 218.
17 Birley 1988, 142-143; Halfmann 1986a, 218, 221.
29 – perinthos 239
second temple became his alone. The (ironic) festi-
val name Philadelpheia of course disappeared from the
coins after Geta’s death. It should be noted, how-
ever, that throughout this period Perinthos’ coins
only call the city neokoros, without enumerating how
many times it held the honor. This is probably
because it had no rivals in the province, no other
neokoroi, so there was no need to specify.18 As we
shall see, when a rival arose, Perinthos immediately
began to claim its honors in full.
In spring 219 Caracalla’s putative son, the new
emperor Elagabalus, set out from Nikomedia for
Rome. The sources affirm that he traveled via
Thrace, and directly on his route lay Perinthos.19
The city commemorated his passage with coins that
show him radiate-crowned, at sacrifice, among
military standards, or in a triumphal chariot, and
all name Perinthos twice neokoros. An issue for his
first wife Julia Paula (whose short-lived marriage may
have been confined to the year 220)20 confirms the
early date by which Perinthos began to use the full
enumeration:
COIN TYPE 16. Obv: IOUL KORNH PAULA
%EB AUT KAI%AR ANTVNEINO% AUG Draped
bust of Julia Paula r. and laureate draped bust of
Elagabalus l. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% NEVKORVN
Julia and togate Elagabalus join right hands.21 a)
Paris 1201 (illus. pl. 36 fig. 186) b) Paris 1202
There are also types of the two temples, either alone
or held by the city goddess as neokoros. But similar
types showing two temples had already been minted
at Perinthos since the last years of Septimius Severus’
reign. The new types echo the old, even down to
the mention of Aktia and Pythia (formerly with
Philadelpheia) contests.
COIN TYPE 17. Obv: AUT K M AURH
ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Elagabalus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% NEVKORVN;
AKTIA; PUYIA Two eight-column temples turned
toward one another, above each a prize crown
with palm. a) S-G 714 (1 ex.).
COIN TYPE 18. Obv: AUT K M AURHLI
ANTVNEINO% %E Laureate draped cuirassed bust
of Elagabalus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI%
18
Though this was doubted by Ziegler 1993b, 113.
19
Cassius Dio 79.3.2; Halfmann 1986a, 230-231.
20 Kienast 1996, 173-174.
21 It should be noted that this type did not appear in the
corpus of Schönert-(Geiss) 1965.
240 part i – section ix. koinon of thrace

NEVKORVN Two temples turned toward one
another. a) SNGMil 540 (S-G 684, 685).
COIN TYPE 19. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV-
NINO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of Elagabalus
l. with aegis. Rev: PERINYI[VN DI%] NEVKORVN
City goddess with one small temple, a second on
top of her cornucopia.22 a) Paris 1191 (illus. pl.
36 fig. 187).
COIN TYPE 20. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EUH
ANTVNEINO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of
Elagabalus r. with aegis. Rev: PERINYIVN DI%
NEVKORVN Seated city goddess with two
temples.23 a) Vienna 8929 (S-G 719).
The extraordinary circumstance is that Perinthos’
title ‘twice neokoros,’ which first appeared under
Elagabalus, outlasted the condemnation of that
emperor’s memory. All the cities that became
neokoroi for the cult of Elagabalus would lose that
honor under his successor, Severus Alexander, and
probably at a time before Alexander went East to
war (see ‘Historical Analysis,’ chapter 38). Perinthos,
however, remains twice neokoros on all known coins
of Severus Alexander, a particularly extensive series
which includes types that show the emperor on
horseback, crowned by Victory, and sailing on a
galley with Egyptian gods, probably referring to
those eastern campaigns of 231-233.24 The persis-
tence of a neokoria of Elagabalus for ten years af-
ter that emperor’s murder and the condemnation of
his memory seems inexplicable. Indeed, the title
would persist on subsequent coinage even after
Severus Alexander’s own death.
Schönert-Geiss, in her exhaustive study of the
coinage of Perinthos, explained this persistence by
positing an unlikely sequence of events: that twice
neokoros Perinthos’ temple to Elagabalus was reded-
icated upon his death to Severus Alexander, and that
upon his death it was again rededicated, this time
to Gordian III.25 This hypothesis overlooks the fact
22 Pick 1904, 9 no. 4.5. Again, this type did not appear in
the corpus of Schönert-(Geiss) 1965.
23 Pick 1904, 9 no. 4.6.
24 S-G 740, 782, 786, 787, 790; Halfmann 1986a, 231-232;
the possibility of an Egyptian visit is bourne out by the Perinthian
coin type.
25 Schönert-Geiss 1965, 22, 46; the first accepted by Sayar
1998, 76, 81, but without mention of the condemnation of
Severus Alexander.
that other cities, including Nikomedia, Philippopo-
lis, Beroia, Ephesos, Miletos, Sardis, Hierapolis, and
perhaps Tripolis, would all lose their neokoriai for
Elagabalus with no opportunity for rededication. Of
those, only Beroia would regain its second neoko-
ria as early as 240, under Gordian III; Nikomedia,
Ephesos, and Sardis would not regain their titles until
the reign of Valerian. Why would Perinthos alone
have received the privilege of such repetitive reded-
ications when all these other cities did not?
Robert suggested an alternate theory: that the loss
of the second neokoria caused Perinthos such em-
barrassment that it ceased to issue any coinage
whatever until the title was restored.26 It is true that
no Perinthian coin is known for the reign of Severus
Alexander’s successor Maximinus. Yet this could
have been due to a number of factors, the most likely
a short lapse between mintings. Robert’s theory also
does not account for the fact that of all the cities
whose number of neokoriai increased under
Elagabalus, only Perinthos used martial coin types
of Severus Alexander with that number still undi-
minished. This should indicate that Perinthos was
still twice neokoros in the 230s, and that its second
neokoria, though datable to Elagabalus’ reign, was
not due to that emperor’s cult.
It seems more likely that, though the second
neokoria appeared under Elagabalus, it was not for
a cult of Elagabalus, and that the similarity of the
new double-temple, twice-neokoros issues to the
old double-temple, single-neokoros issues under
Septimius Severus was not an accident. Even the
Aktia and Pythia remained; they would continue
under Severus Alexander, Gordian III, and down
to the end of Perinthian coinage at the time of
Gallienus:
COIN TYPE 21. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EU
AL[EJAN]DRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust
of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI%
NEVKORVN Two six-column temples turned to-
ward each other. a) Paris 121627 (illus. pl. 36 fig.
188).
COIN TYPE 22. Obv: AU K M AUR %EU
ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus Alexander, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI%
26 L. Robert 1976, 53 n. 28.
27 This type did not appear in the corpus of Schönert-(Geiss)
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
ALEJANDRO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of
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
was part of a group set up during his father’s or
brother’s lifetime.33
Twice neokoros:
6. Sayar 1998, no. 12 (Le Bas-Waddington 1664;
CIG 2023; Dumont 1876, 155 no. 74d; IGRR 1:788).
Statue base of Trajan Decius.
7. Sayar 1998, no. 13 (Kalinka 1926, 133 no. 29).
Statue base of Ulpia Severina, wife of Aurelian, as
Augusta, thus 274-275.34 Aurelian’s martial activi-
ties meant that he was frequently in the area of
Perinthos and Byzantion; he was in fact killed on
the road between the two in 275.35
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:36
Neokoros (types that record one neokoria but show
two temples, two prize crowns, or the Philadelpheia
are separately indicated below):
Septimius Severus: BMC 27, 29, 30, 32, 33; SNGCop 740-
742; SNGRighetti 297; SNGMil 533; Berlin (8 exx.),
London (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.),
Paris (9 exx.), Vienna (8 exx.) (S-G 459-493, 505-
515).
Julia Domna: BMC 34-36; Berlin, Paris (4 exx.), Warsaw
(S-G 530-545).
Caracalla Caesar: BMC 37; New York (2 exx.), Paris,
Vienna (3 exx.) (S-G 546-552).
Caracalla Augustus: BMC 38-41, 44; SNGCop 748, 750;
SNGFitzw 1753, 1754; SNGRighetti 299, 300; SNGMil
536, 537; Berlin ( 6 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York
(6 exx.), Paris (24 exx.), Vienna (8 exx.) (S-G 553-
576, 582-585, 587, 589-594, 602-613, 619-626).
Geta Caesar: SNGFitzw 1755, 1756; SNGMil 535; Berlin
(2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (3 exx.) (S-G 631, 633-638).
Geta Augustus: BMC 47, 48; SNGCop 752; Berlin (2 exx.),
Boston, Paris, Vienna (S-G 642-645, 651-652, 654-
660).
Non-imperial obverse: Berlin, Paris (2 exx.) (S-G 203-
206).
Neokoros with types for second neokoria (two
temples, two prize crowns, Philadelpheia):
33 Mastino 1981, 86-87.
34 Kienast 1996, 233.
35 Sayar 1998, 119-123; Halfmann 1986a, 239-240.
36 The basic reference for all Perinthian coins is Schönert-
Geiss 1965 (= S-G with coin numbers).
Septimius Severus: BMC 31; SNGMil 534; Berlin (10 exx.),
Boston, London, New York (2 exx.), Paris (8 exx.),
Vienna (2 exx.) (S-G 494-504, 516-527).
Caracalla Augustus: BMC 42, 43; SNGCop 746, 747;
SNGMil 538; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (11 exx.),
Vienna (3 exx.) (S-G 577-581, 586, 588, 595-601,
614-618).
Caracalla Augustus and Geta Caesar: BMC 46; Berlin,
Boston, Paris (2 exx.). (S-G 627-630).
Geta Augustus: BMC 49, 51, 52; SNGCop 751; Berlin (5
exx.), Boston, Munich (2 exx.) Paris (6 exx.), Vienna
(2 exx.) (S-G 639-641, 646-650, 653, 661-668).
Twice neokoros:
Elagabalus: BMC 53-57; SNGCop 753; SNGRighetti 301;
SNGMil 539, 540; Berlin (8 exx.), Boston, London
(2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Paris (12 exx.), Vienna
(8 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.) (S-G 669-726).
Elagabalus and Julia Paula: Paris (2 exx.).
Julia Paula: London, New York, Oxford, Paris (S-G 727).
Julia Maesa: London, New York, Oxford, Paris (S-G 728-
732).
Severus Alexander: BMC 58-61; SNGCop 754-756;
SNGFitzw 1757; SNGMil 541; Berlin (17 exx.), Bos-
ton (4 exx.), London, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (25 exx.),
Vienna (9 exx.), Warsaw (S-G 733-790).
Julia Mamaea: SNGCop 757; Berlin, London, New York,
Paris (S-G 791-797).
Gordian III: BMC 1, 62-71, 62a; SNGCop 758-761;
SNGFitzw 1758; SNGMil 542-546; Berlin (15 exx.),
Boston (2 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York (5 exx.),
Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (26 exx.), Vienna (17 exx.),
Warsaw (4 exx.) (S-G 798-862).37
Tranquillina: BMC 72-74; SNGCop 762, 763; SNGMil 547,
548; Berlin (4 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Paris
(7 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw (S-G 863-895).
Gallienus: BMC 75; SNGFitzw 1759; Berlin, Boston,
London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.),
Vienna (S-G 896-903, 905-913).
Non-imperial obverse: BMC 10-12; SNGCop 730, 731;
Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.) (S-G 207-221, dated
to time of Severus Alexander).
37 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 172-174 nos. 1718-1725, list
issues of Perinthos twice neokoros under Gordian III celebrat-
ing concord with the following cities: Ephesos, Kyzikos,
Nikomedia, and Smyrna; see S-G 914-917. Weiss 1998, 64-
65, saw Perinthos as celebrating its connection with other
neokoroi, but its minting for Nikomedia may also recall the
closer connection between the two when both stood for Septimius
Severus, against Byzantion and Nikaia (q.v.) for Pescennius
Niger; the latter two also minted concord coins for each other.
 chapter 30 – philippopolis 243

Chapter 30. Philippopolis: Koinon of Thrace

First Neokoria: Elagabalus 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: AUT K M AUR ANTV-
Syria across Thrace and Moesia to Rome lay the
NEINO% Laureate draped bust of Elagabalus, l.
city of Philippopolis.1 Though it was the center of
with spear and shield. Rev: MHTROPOLEV%
the koinon of Thrace, it had apparently not yet
FILIPPOPOLEV% NEVKOROU Six-column
become neokoros.2 Perinthos, seat of the Roman
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
NEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Asklepios at Aigeai (qq.v.).9
Elagabalus, l. Rev: MHTROPOLEV% FILIPPO-
The table, prize crown, and apples on these coins
POLEV% NEVKOROU Apollo and the laureate,
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: KENDREI%EIA
Elagabalus stands opposite Apollo Kendrisos, patron
PUYIA EN FILIPPOPOLI NEVKORV Eight-col-
god of Philippopolis.7 Together they hold a temple
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
the festival was associated with the god only.10 A
Pythian festival had been celebrated at Philippopolis
before Elagabalus, and Pythia and Kentreseia (sic)
continued well into the mid-third century.11 That
Philippopolis was neokoros for the emperor and not
for the god, however, will be shown by the title’s
disappearance shortly after Elagabalus’ death.
The hilltop sanctuary of Apollo Kendrisos has been
identified as Dzendemtepe in the modern Bulgar-
ian city of Plovdiv; some votives and rooftiles have
been found, but a Christian basilica took the temple’s
presumed place on the summit.12 A coin of Caracalla
shows a panoramic view of the temple and its ac-
companying temenos, with altar, statues, and per-
haps a propylon, atop the wooded hill.13 As noted
above, large-module coin types show the temple as
Corinthian, at least eight-column, with the shield-
and-spear motif in the pediment; smaller types are
more summary:
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: IOUL KORN PAULA %EB
Diademed draped bust of Julia Paula, r. Rev:
MHTROPOLEV% FILIPPOPOLEV% NEVKOROU
Eight-column temple, disc in pediment. a) BMC
52 b) Paris 1355 (illus. pl. 37 fig. 192).
The city goddess herself is also shown at this time
holding the small temple, personifying the city as
neokoros.14
The later fortunes of neokoros Philippopolis are
hard to relate, as the city stopped minting coins soon
after these issues. Four inscriptions refer to the city
as neokoros; all date to the reign of Elagabalus’
cousin and successor Severus Alexander, but with
Alexander’s name erased due to the condemnation
of his memory after his death in 235. Inscriptions
1-3 are all milestones set up when Rutilius Pudens
Crispinus was governing the province; no. 1 is the
most complete, but all give the same formula:
INSCRIPTION 1. IGBR 3.1.1373 (= IGRR
1:719). { lamprotãth t}w Yrak«n §parxe¤aw
mhtrÒpoliw FilippÒpoliw nevkÒrow...
As Rutilius later accompanied Severus Alexander on
his eastern campaign and was with him at Palmyra,
10 Karl 1975, 75.
11 Leschhorn 1998, 412-413; Vagalinski 1994.
12 Frova 1976; Tsontchev 1938, 25-28, 147-148.
13 Kolev 1991, 513 no. 1.
14 Pick 1904, 10 no. 7.1.
he must have served as imperial legatus to Thrace
no later than 232 C.E.15
Withdrawn: Severus Alexander
No subsequent inscription calls Philippopolis
neokoros, and it is likely that, like many other cit-
ies, Philippopolis lost the title due to the condem-
nation of Elagabalus’ memory in the early years of
Severus Alexander’s reign.16 Though ultimately an
argument from silence, it is the one alternative that
explains Philippopolis’ frequent proclamation of the
title for only that particular decade, but never be-
fore and never after, and also jibes with the evidence
of rivalry from Perinthos (q.v.). Coins of the larger
city may have subsumed two neokoriai under the
simple title ‘neokoros’ until Elagabalus gave
Philippopolis the title; after that, Perinthos’ title was
always ‘twice neokoros,’ even after Philippopolis’
neokoria was lost.
The events at Philippopolis show a noteworthy
aspect of Roman administration. Though Thrace
had been a Roman province since 45/46 C.E., with
a koinon documented since the time of Antoninus
Pius, the metropolis of that koinon may not have
become neokoros until 219 C.E. Even then, if Ela-
gabalus had chosen a more roundabout route to
Rome, it is possible that Philippopolis never would
have become neokoros. In that case Perinthos, the
seat of the Roman governor, would have remained
the only neokoros in the province. Contrast the
province Macedonia: it too separated the functions
of metropolis of the koinon (Beroia) from those of
the center of Roman government (Thessalonike). But
Beroia not only became neokoros first, it claimed
exclusivity for that title from the time of Nerva up
to Gordian III. Was there a difference in this prac-
tice between the koina of provinces whose governors
were chosen by the emperor (Thrace, its center
neokoros only late) and proconsular ones (Mace-
donia, its center neokoros early)? Yet Perge (q.v.) in
the imperial province of Pamphylia had been
neokoros ‘from Vespasian.’
The point is that the situation varies from prov-
ince to province and koinon to koinon. The posi-
15 IGRR 3:1033; Thomasson 1984, 172 no. 51; Barbieri 1952,
227-228 no. 1147.
16 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417.
 chapter 30
tion and title of neokoros was not conferred from
above, but had to be requested from below. It was
not automatically accorded to Philippopolis simply
because it was the metropolis of its koinon. Indeed,
the temple for which Philippopolis finally became
neokoros was not even a temple to the imperial cult,
but that of the city’s chief god. This makes it pos-
sible that despite the presence of Thracarchs and
koinon festivals, Philippopolis had no provincial
imperial temple as such even up to the third cen-
tury; such temples were not handed out automati-
cally to furnish every new koinon.
Jordanes stated that Philippopolis was founded by
the emperor Philip, but he plainly confused the
Thracian city with the one of the same name in
Arabia, that emperor’s place of origin.17 Though
Kolendo proposed that the city in Thrace was re-
founded at that time instead, it would not need
rebuilding until a few years later, under Trajan
Decius, when Gothic armies invaded Thrace and
besieged Philippopolis.18 Priscus, governor of Mace-
donia and imperial legate to Thrace, was trapped
in the city and had to declare himself emperor and
make a pact with the invaders.19 Despite that, the
Goths destroyed Philippopolis and killed Trajan
Decius in battle at Abrittus. The new emperor
Trebonianus Gallus then allowed them to withdraw,
17
Kolendo 1992.
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
1990, 280-281.
– philippopolis 245
carrying off the wealth, and many of the citizens,
of Philippopolis.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
1. Mihailov 1956-1961 (= IGBR) 3.1.1373 (= IGRR
1:719). Milestone from Tugugerum, twelve miles
from Philippopolis, erected before 232, under
Severus Alexander. See text above. Similar to nos.
2 and 3.
2. IGBR 3.1.897 (= IGRR 1:1471). Milestone simi-
lar to nos. 1 and 3.
3. IGBR 3.1.898 (= IGRR 1:1472). Milestone simi-
lar to nos. 1 and 2.
4. Botusarova 1972, 161-164 no. 2. Dedication to
Severus Alexander by a Thracarch.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Elagabalus: BMC 43, 44, 46-51, 47a, 55 and Lydia vol-
ume, Philadelphia 92 (misattributed); SNGCop 784,
786; SNGRighetti 306, 307; SNGMil 569, 570 (both
misidentified as Caracalla), 573, 574; Berlin (25 exx.),
London (7 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.),
Paris (19 exx.), Plovdiv (4 exx.),20 Vienna (9 exx.).
Julia Paula: BMC 52; Berlin, Paris, Vienna.
20 Zaprjanov and Kolev 1971, 278-279 nos. 1.5, 1.6, 3.9,
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
province, Kaisareia, under its former names Mazaka
and Eusebeia, had been the capital of the kings of
Cappadocia. In 17 C.E. its last king, Archelaos II,
who had been called to Rome to stand trial before
the Senate, died, and his realm became a Roman
province.1 Kaisareia may have continued to func-
tion as the seat of government for the province and
as the koinon center also, though little is known of
the latter beyond the existence of a Cappadocarch
at its head and a Koina festival as early as 25 C.E.2
Kaisareia’s bronze coins claim the title metropolis
during the reign of Commodus and thereafter.3
From the time of the province’s absorption un-
der Tiberius, Kaisareia served as an official Roman
mint for the eastern provinces.4 As such it issued
silver coins of a distinctly Roman style, early on with
Latin legends, though later with Greek, and often
dated by the emperor’s regnal year. Its high points
of production can be associated with heightened
activities on the eastern front, especially the Parthian
conflicts.5 The city also issued its own municipal
coinage in bronze with Greek legends, but this was
only intended for local circulation.
First Neokoria: Septimius Severus
Kaisareia first appears as neokoros on coins of
Septimius Severus and his family.6 By this time both
silver and bronze coinages were being issued with
1 Tacitus, Annals 2.42; Cassius Dio 57.17. S. Mitchell 1993,
1:63, 97-98; Remy 1986, 30-33.
2 Haensch 1997, 272-276; Deininger 1965, 82; Moretti 1953,
164 no. 62.
3 Sydenham rev. Malloy 1978 (= S/M with coin numbers)
145 nos. 345a and 346a, attributed to Marcus Aurelius, are
reported from old sources and should be reexamined.
4 Sydenham rev. Malloy 1978, 2-16, 139-140.
5 Kunisz 1986; Bar 1985.
6 S. Price 1984b, 269.
Greek legends and the name of the city on the re-
verse, so Kaisareia is the only city yet known to have
issued coins with the title ‘neokoros’ in (alloyed) silver
as well as bronze.7 This fact is not relevant to the
current study, however, and the metals of the coins
will not be distinguished here, especially since in-
creased alloying during this period, coupled with
conditions of the coins’ production and decay, makes
accurate distinction between the metals by sight
alone difficult.
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU K L %EP %EOUHRO
Laureate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev:
MHTROP KAI%ARI; ET ID; NEVKOROU the latter
in central intercolumniation of two-column
Corinthian temple, star in pediment (year 14 =
205/206 C.E.). a) Berlin 709/1914 (illus. pl. 37
fig. 193).
The earliest coins of Septimius Severus that show
the title ‘neokoros,’ like type 1, date to the fourteenth
year of his rule, or from the end of 205 to the end
of 206 C.E.8 Sydenham’s monograph on coins of
Kaisareia may seem to contradict this fact, as it cites
coins of Julia Domna and Caracalla that include
the title and dates them to the second and fourth
year of Severus’ reign, or as early as 193/194.9 The
source of confusion becomes clear when it is noted
that Sydenham’s type 480 (BMC 271), dated to 193/
194, gives Caracalla the title Augustus, which he did
not receive until autumn 197 at the earliest.10 In fact,
Sydenham assumed that all regnal dates on these
coins had to be Septimius Severus’, with the result
that he dated no coins of either Caracalla or Julia
7 Butcher and Ponting 1997; Metcalf 1997. The separa-
tion of silver and bronze minting in earlier phases, noted by
Metcalf 1996, 149-151, would not necessarily apply to this later
period, but the question needs to be investigated.
8 Metcalf 1997, 177-178.
9 S/M 457, 480; also note Malloy’s misassignment of no.
396a, a coin of year 16, to year 12.
10 Kienast 1996, 162-165.
 chapter
Domna after 213, when Caracalla ruled alone. In
fact these coins were minted in the second and fourth
year of Caracalla’s own rule, after his father’s death,
which would explain his titulature and the maturi-
ty of his portrait as well as the use of the title ‘neoko-
ros.’11
The problems of Kaisareia’s chronology are not
entirely solved by looking at the Cappadocian cal-
endar, which probably had its new year on Decem-
ber 12.12 Severus’ first year, then, only lasted from
his elevation to Augustus on April 9, 193 to Decem-
ber 12 of that year, but there are Kaisareian coins
for him in what would have been his twentieth year,
and for Julia Domna in the twenty-first, though he
died in the nineteenth.13 Was the delay in commu-
nications between Britain, where he died, and
Cappadocia that great? And/or did Kaisareia mint
its new issues well in advance of the appropriate
year?
There are also coins of Geta’s third year; yet from
his father’s death to his own was less than one year,
with the Cappadocian new year’s occurrence shortly
before his death giving a count of two years at
most.14 It is likely that there was some overlap be-
tween reign counts, that is, that coins for Julia
Domna continued to be issued with her husband’s
regnal year even after his death; and that an inde-
pendent count for new coins of both Caracalla and
Geta harked back to origin points before their
father’s death. If Geta’s count started in 209, when
he was made Augustus, coins of Geta’s year three
would date to 211, the year of his death; it was also
the fourteenth year (according to Kaisareia’s count)
of his co-ruler Caracalla, and some coins of Julia
Domna show both dates simultaneously.15 On the
other hand, it is plain that some coins of Caracalla
were dated not from the time he was made Augustus,
but from the time that his brother was; thus
Sydenham’s coin type 480, mentioned above, is
unlikely to be Caracalla’s year 2 as Augustus (199/
200 C.E.) since the obverse of Caracalla is recog-
nizably his fully mature portrait, and the neokoria
it boasts would then be placed well earlier than it
appears on any other coins.16 It is likely that as a
11 Metcalf 1997, 174; this is more likely than the hypoth-
esis of Ziegler 1985, 35 n. 84, who would simply add an un-
seen iota (= 10) to each anomalous coin.
12 Bland 1991, 214-215.
13 Julia Domna, SNGCop 267.
14 Kienast 1996, 156-168.
15 Metcalf 1997, 179-181.
16 This is calculated by counting back from the previously
31 – kaisareia 247
celebration of the ‘brotherly love’ of the two men
who were supposed to share the empire, the regnal
clock was reset for Caracalla once he and his brother
were both Augusti; then, after his brother was killed,
the mint went back to Caracalla’s own regnal dates,
as if Geta had never existed, and issued coins at least
up to Caracalla’s year 20 (217/218), though he died
in the East on April 8, 217, in Kaisareia’s year 19.
It may appear that the problems in Kaisareia’s
chronology have thus all been worked out: delays
in recognizing the deaths of emperors, Caracalla’s
dual regnal years, Julia Domna’s count from the
reign of her husband and both of her sons. But the
following coin type does not fit this pattern:
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: A K M AURH ANTVNEINO
Laureate head of Caracalla r., beardless. Rev:
KAI%AREVN TVN PRO% TV ARGAIV NEVKOR
ET IG (year 13 = 210/211? 204/205?) within
pearled border.17 a) Paris 600 b) Berlin, Löbbecke
(illus. pl. 37 fig. 194).
If dated by Caracalla’s own regnal years, the beard-
less portrait on the obverse is far more youthful than
other, mature portraits from that year; but if cal-
culated by Septimius Severus’ regnal years, it do-
cuments the neokoria a year earlier than any of
Severus’ own coins.
In deciding whether coins of Caracalla as
Augustus used his father’s regnal year count, it is
useful to look at agonistic types: the same year(s) that
saw the first use of ‘neokoros’ on Kaisareian coins
also were first to prominently feature festivals. Coins
of the Severan family show Mt. Argaios, the genius,
site, and symbol of Kaisareia, between two prize
crowns, and name contests as Severeios, Philadelphios,
koinos of Cappadocia, and ‘sacred.’18 Thus the fes-
tival or series of festivals included contests in honor
of Severus himself, the supposed fraternal devotion
between Caracalla and Geta, and the long-standing
provincial festival of Cappadocia, and it is very likely
that at least one of these was connected with the
grant of neokoria. Like the issues with the title
‘neokoros,’ where dates are clear the agonistic issues
mentioned coins of Julia Domna that equate Geta’s year 3 with
Caracalla’s 14; it equates Caracalla’s year 1 with Severus’ year
seven, which is as much as a year later than Caracalla’s actual
elevation; see Kienast 1996, 162-165.
17 S/M 483.
18 Weiss 1998, 63; Karl 1975, 78, 126, 132. Also note Année
Epigraphique 1993 no. 1528, which mentions a festival Antonea
Severeia in Cappadocia.
248 part i – section x. koinon of cappadocia
with obverses of Septimius Severus are dated to the
year 14.19 Issues of Julia Domna, however, appear
for both years 13 and 14,20 and there is an issue of
Geta Caesar for year 13.21 Thus when similar issues
for Caracalla, youthful and beardless, are dated to
the years 13 and 14,22 it seems more likely that the
whole family is using Severus’ regnal years and that
the festivals fell during the years 204/205-205/206
rather than moving Caracalla’s issues alone to cre-
ate a repeat of the Severeios and Philadelphios in 210/
211-211/212.
It is plain that for this complicated chronology to
be fully understood, all of the Kaisareian coinage,
both silver and bronze, needs to be restudied in
terms of metrology, die linkage, and portraiture.
The Corinthian shrine on coin type 1 surely rep-
resents the temple for which Kaisareia was neokoros,
as that title is wedged into its central intercolumnia-
tion. More elaborate variants of the same temple are
shown on types 3 and 4 (the title appears on the
lowest step of the latter).
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: [...%]EPTI %EOUHRO%
Laureate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev: MHTR
[...] KAI%A NEVK Six-column temple with bro-
ken pediment (eagle? within), on tall podium,
staircase at front. a) Private collection, Foss.23
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU KAI M AURH ANTV-
NINO% Laureate head of Caracalla r. Rev:
MHTROP KAI%ARI(A, b); NEVKOR; ET ID (year
14 = 211/212). Six-column temple on three-step
podium, eagle in pediment, columns garlanded.
a) Paris 59124 b) Paris 602 (illus. pl. 37 fig. 195)
c) London 1974.4-6-1.
Both are hexastyle structures with an eagle shown
in the pediment, but the former (unfortunately a very
worn example) gives more particular details. Its
temple appears to be set on a high podium and
approached by a central staircase, much like the
temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon (q.v.).
19 S/M 435a (= SNGvA 6461). SNGvA 6454, dated to year
2, shows a beta in high relief after a blank space, so is perhaps
recut; its obverse die is the same as that of S/M 436, the date
of which is worn away; I have not seen a coin in New York,
S/M 436.1, also dated to year 2.
20 S/M 458 (year 13), 464a (year 14).
21 S/M 501b (= SNGvA 6491).
22 S/M 491a (=SNGvA 6485), 491-494 (year 13), 495 (year
14).
23 My thanks to Clive Foss for showing me this coin.
24 M. Price and Trell 1977, fig. 378.
Though the entablature of the facade is continuous,
the pediment appears broken (though at that point
the relief is quite faint) and the two central columns
seem either thinner or farther away than the other
four.
Whether types 1, 3, and 4 represent the same
structure or not, the sudden appearance of temples,
imperial and provincial contests of sacred status, and
the title ‘neokoros’ on Kaisareian coins of 205/206
(possibly even 204/205) raises the question, was this
a new neokoria? The thought of a province like
Cappadocia going without a provincial temple and
neokoria for so long seemed impossible to Buech-
ner.25 He posited that, like Ankyra (q.v.) in Galatia,
Kaisareia had had a provincial imperial cult temple
since the foundation of the province, but did not see
fit to publicize it on the coins until many years later.
It is dangerous to assume conditions in one prov-
ince using evidence from another, however. And
there is a counterexample to Ankyra: Philippopolis
in Thrace (q.v.), though metropolis of its koinon,
apparently only got its first neokoria in the third
century, and then housed it in its temple of Apollo,
rather than an independent provincial temple to the
emperors. Certainly there must have already been
some accommodation for the practice of the provin-
cial imperial cult at Kaisareia, but we have no way
of knowing what it was. Kaisareia’s temple may have
been old or new, and it is possible that the title
‘neokoros’ was newly granted. This is certainly the
title’s first appearance in Cappadocia, for though
Nikopolis in Armenia Minor (q.v.) may have been
part of the same province administratively, it was
part of a different koinon.26
An inscription from Ankyra documented an ath-
lete who won at a contest celebrated for Commodus
at Kaisareia; from this, Mitchell hypothesized that
Kaisareia’s neokoria was for Commodus.27 Though
this is again just possible, like Buechner’s restora-
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
two (Laodikeia and Tarsos) are known to have been
neokoros for that emperor’s cult. Moreover, at
Miletos, the right to celebrate the long-standing Didy-
meia with the name of Commodus added was actu-
25 Buechner 1888, 96.
26 Remy 1986, 30, 53; Deininger 1965, 32, 82 n. 10.
27 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:218, 221.
 chapter
ally requested from the Senate in the lifetime of
Marcus Aurelius, and had nothing to do with a
neokoria for Commodus.28
Though there was likely some earlier provincial
imperial cult at Kaisareia, the coincidence of title,
temple, and Severeia Philadelphia Koina from the year(s)
204?-206 on indicates that Kaisareia was probably
neokoros for Septimius Severus, with honors for his
sons, now designated Augustus and Caesar, included
within the cult.29 The emperor fought two Parthian
wars, and he and his family spent a good deal of time
in the East. Road construction projects that he had
instituted in Cappadocia continued after his eastern
wars, lasting to 208 and later; he obviously recog-
nized the importance of the region.30 Severus is at
least known to have visited Tyana in the southern
part of Cappadocia, probably on his way back to
Rome for his decennalia in 202.31 A coin type of
Kaisareia that shows three figures (perhaps Severus,
Caracalla, and Geta) saluting the god of Mt. Argaios
on the holy mountain itself may not prove an ac-
tual imperial visit to Kaisareia, but implies honors
granted to the city and its deity, perhaps from
nearby.32
There was no bond of early alliance between
Severus and Kaisareia: as mentioned above, the
imperial mint had issued coins for his rival, Pescen-
nius Niger.33 The longer his reign remained unchal-
lenged, however, the more Severus seemed willing
to forgive and give benefits even to cities that had
earlier been hostile to his cause: for example, Nikaia
(q.v.) received an imperial visit and a Severeia Phila-
delphia festival. Kaisareia’s eventual loyalty (perhaps
accompanied by a tribute of crown gold for impe-
rial victory), or its gratitude for favors or forgiveness,
is expressed by a coin also dated precisely to Severus’
year thirteen: its legend is the (missspelled) acclama-
tion EIS EVNA TOUS KURIOUS, “the emperors for-
28 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:220; Miranda 1992-1993; Karl 1975,
80-81.
29 Ziegler 1985, 35, concentrating only on the Philadelphia
aspect of the festival, would attribute the cult solely to Caracalla
and Geta.
30 Magie 1950, 676-677, 1545-1546.
31 Halfmann 1986a, 216-223; Cassius Dio 76 (75).15.4.
32 Weiss 1985, 33-34 nos. 26, 46-47, pl. 12. Metcalf 1997,
178 postulated that the type means that Severus, Caracalla,
and Geta’s cult (for which the city was neokoros) moved into
the temple of the god on Argaios; but the type in question shows
no temple, and Metcalf was reasoning solely from the silver,
without the more various bronze types of temples and games.
33 Bastien 1972; Nony 1971.
31 – kaisareia 249
ever!”34 Embassies to the Senate for confirmation,
administrative details, or even construction of a
temple if one did not already exist, could explain the
delay in appearance of the title neokoros, (and fes-
tivals possibly allied with it) until 204 or 205, but
Kaisareia as neokoros is most likely to have begun
with the interaction between Severus’ presence and
interest in the province during his eastern wars, and
Kaisareia’s reciprocal expressions of loyalty and good
feeling.
Second Neokoria: Severus Alexander
Kaisareia apparently demonstrated its close ties to
another Severan, Severus Alexander, even before the
city documented its second neokoria on coins.
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AU K %EOUH ALEJAND
Laureate cuirassed (with aegis) bust of Severus
Alexander r. with sceptre. Rev: MHTROPO KAI-
%ARIA% NEVKOR ET G (year 3 = 223/224 C.E.)
Togate emperor holding Mt. Argaios and sceptre
rides in quadriga. a) BMC 30235 b) Oxford 23.35
c) Berlin, Löbbecke.
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: [AU K %]EOUHRO%
ALEJANDRO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed
bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: MHTROPOLE
KAI%ARIA% NEVKOROU ET Z; ALEJAN (year 7
= 227/228 C.E.) Mount Argaios flanked by coni-
cal simulacra. a) BMC 326.36
Coin type 5 does not necessarily indicate an other-
wise unknown and inexplicable imperial visit to
Cappadocia in that year; Mt. Argaios can appear
almost anywhere on Kaisareia’s coinage.37 On type
6 either the city or a festival (more likely the former)
has acquired the name Alexandreia after the emperor.
Type 7 proclaims the new title ‘twice neokoros’:
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: AU K %EOU ALEJAN Ra-
diate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander
r. Rev: A M K G PON K AR MHTROP KAI%ARIA
DI% NE ET (E, ab; ̣, c) (year 5 = 225/226 C.E.,
year 6 = 226/227 C.E.) in plain border.38 a)
34
J. Nollé 1998, 342.
35
S/M 546, incorrect transcription.
36 S/M 579.
37 Weiss 1985; Börker-Klähn 1989, 242-255 would have
avoided many errors had she seen Weiss’ work.
38 S/M 597 from year 9, 230 C.E.
250 part i – section x. koinon of cappadocia
Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer (illus. pl. 37 fig. 196) b)
Berlin 1623/1892 c) Warsaw 55017.
Type 7 celebrates Kaisareia’s entire titulature, and
though it uses only a plain border and no pictorial
type, there is still not enough room to spell it out
totally. So Kaisareia used an acronym similar to that
used by Cilician cities like Tarsos and Anazarbos
(qq.v.) at the same time, to call itself A' (pr\th)
M(eg¤sth) K(all¤sth t«n) G' (§parxei«n) PÒn(tou)
K(appadok¤aw) ÉAr(men¤aw) mhtrÒp(oliw) Kaisar¤a
d‹w ne(vkÒrow): “first, greatest, most beautiful of the
three eparchies Pontus, Cappadocia, Armenia;
metropolis Kaisareia twice neokoros.”
Kaisareia’s second neokoria presents a chronologi-
cal problem, however. Though the title is only
known to have been declared on type 7, that type
was issued in the fifth, sixth, and ninth years of
Severus Alexander’s reign. But other issues of his
sixth, seventh, and eighth regnal years give some
version of ‘neokoros’ with no indication of ‘twice.’
If the second neokoria was given in 226, why were
coins that call the city only neokoros minted from
227 to 229?
As mentioned previously, the design of type 7
indicates a special effort made to include all the city’s
titles. The other coins abbreviate less and spell the
individual words out more fully in the limited space
available. These coins most likely omitted the enu-
meration ‘twice’ although the city was entitled to use
it. If so, for how long had that been happening? Had
the city been twice neokoros since Septimius Severus,
for example, as Perinthos was? And why omit what
could be expressed with a single letter?
We can document this titular vacillation at Kai-
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
cities and intense rivalry over titles and privileges,
the cities were more likely consistently to proclaim
the maximum number of neokoriai to which they
were entitled.39 Cappadocia was not an urbanized
province like Asia; Kaisareia was not just its chief
city but almost its only major city.40 In the absence
of rivals, it could afford to be casual in expressing
its titulature without enumeration. So the answer
must be that we cannot be certain whether Kaisa-
39 Nonetheless, see ‘Introduction: Methodology,’ n. 26.
40 Magie 1950, 200-201.
reia’s second neokoria was granted earlier, only that
it was granted by the time of Severus Alexander’s
reign.
As Kaisareia did not issue coins using the title
‘neokoros’ under Maximinus, we cannot tell whether
its second neokoria was endangered by the short-
lived condemnation of Severus Alexander’s memo-
ry.41 Afterwards, in any case, Kaisareia named itself
twice neokoros more consistently, though abbre-
viatedly (B N or B NE), on coins of the time of Gor-
dian III down to 244; these were the last issues of
the Kaisareia mint.42 Two coins that are document-
ed as giving the title without enumeration may
simply indicate that Kaisareia reverted once or twice
to its old habit.43
Kaisareia’s later history was unfortunate. When
the Sassanian king Shapur captured the emperor
Valerian in 260, Persian forces pushed their way
deep into the Roman provinces, including Cappa-
docia; Kaisareia is named among the great cities that
they sacked.44
No inscriptions of Kaisareia as neokoros are yet
known.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Septimius Severus, year 14: SNGvA 6464; SNGRighetti
1786; Berlin (2 exx.), Oxford, Vienna.
Year 15: SNGvA 6468;45 Berlin (2 exx.), Paris.
Year 16:46 Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna,
Warsaw.
Year 17: BMC 229; SNGvA 6469; Berlin (3 exx.), Paris
(4 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (2 exx.).
41 Kienast 1996, 177-179; Varner 1993, 418-422 believed
that the condemnation was unofficial.
42 Bland 1991, 217 n. 14 incorrectly stated that Gordian
granted the second neokoria.
43 S/M 605 and 613a; as they could not be directly inspected,
they are not included in the lists of coins citing neokoria, be-
low.
44 Joannes Zonaras, Epitome historiarum ed. M. Pinder (Bonn
1841-1897) vol. 30 594 (12.23); Georgios Synkellos, Ecloga
Chronographia, ed. A. Mosshammer (Leipzig 1984) 465-466, anno
mundi 5748; Potter 1990, 274-276. The sources are collected
in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 57-65; also 51, allegedly an inva-
sion of Kaisareia along with Tyana and Antioch as early as
253.
45 Malloy, in Sydenham rev. Malloy 1978, no. 401c, mis-
dated.
46 S/M 396a, 401a.
 chapter
Year 18: BMC 230, 231; SNGCop 260; Ireland 2000, no.
1902 (date mistranscribed); Berlin (5 exx.), Oxford,
Paris (2 exx.), Vienna.
Year 19: BMC 232; Berlin.
Unknown year: Private collection, Foss.
Septimius Severus and Caracalla, year 15: BMC 237;
Berlin.
Julia Domna, Severus’ year 14: BMC 253, 254; Berlin,
London, Paris (2 exx.).
Year 15: SNGCop 265; Berlin (2 exx.), London.
Year 16: BMC 255; SNGvA 6478; Berlin (2 exx.), Vienna.
Year 17: SNGCop 266; Berlin, London, Paris, Warsaw.
Year 18: SNGvA 6479; Berlin (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.).
Year 19: BMC 257; SNGCop 268; Berlin, New York, Paris.
Caracalla’s year 4(?): BMC 259.
Caracalla: Severus’ year 13?:47 Berlin, Paris.
Severus’? year 14: SNGCop 270, 273; Ireland 2000, no.
1902; Berlin (8 exx.), London, New York, Oxford,
Paris (2 exx.).
Caracalla’s year 8 (= Severus’ year 14?): Boston.
Caracalla and Geta’s year 2: London, Paris (2 exx.).
Year 4?: Boston.
Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 15: Berlin (2 exx.), Paris,
Warsaw.
Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 16: SNGCop 271; Berlin
(2 exx.), London, Paris, Warsaw.
Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 17: Ireland 2000, no. 1914;
Berlin (4 exx.), London, Paris (4 exx.), Warsaw (3
exx.).
Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 18: Berlin (3 exx.).
Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 19: Berlin (2 exx.), Vienna.
Year obscure: Ireland 2000, nos. 1910, 1911.
Geta Caesar: Severus’ year 14: Paris.
Year 16: Berlin, Paris.
Year 17: Berlin (2 exx.).
Geta Augustus: Severus’ year 18: Berlin, Paris, Vienna.
Severus’ year 19: Berlin (2 exx.), Paris.
Caracalla and Geta’s year 3: Adana 228;48 BMC 277, 278;
SNGCop 276; SNGvA 6494; Berlin, Paris.
Macrinus, year 2: BMC 281; SNGvA 6496; Berlin (2 exx.),
Paris, Warsaw.
Macrinus and Diadumenian Caesar, year 2: BMC 282-
284; SNGvA 6498; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston (2 exx.),
Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Diadumenian Caesar, Macrinus’ year 2: Berlin.
Elagabalus, year 2: BMC 289; BMC 27149; SNGvA 6499;
SNGRighetti 1795; Berlin (9 exx.), London, Oxford
47 S/M 483.
48 Cox 1941, 228.
49 Catalogued as Caracalla; Weiss 1985, 34 identified this
as a reworked coin of Elagabalus.
31 – kaisareia 251
(4 exx.), Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw (3
exx.).
Year 3: SNGCop 284; SNGvA 6502; Berlin, Warsaw.
Year 4: SNGvA 6505.
Uncertain year: Ireland 2000, nos. 1926, 1927.
Julia Maesa, Elagabalus’ year 2: BMC 295; SNGRighetti
1796; Berlin (4 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Warsaw.
Severus Alexander, year 1: SNGvA 6509; Berlin, Paris (3
exx.).
Year 3: BMC 302, 307; SNGCop 288; SNGvA 6511; Ber-
lin (6 exx.), London, Oxford, Paris, Warsaw.
Year 4: Berlin.
Year 6: Oxford, Paris, Warsaw.
Year 7: BMC 326.
Year 8: Berlin, Paris.
Unknown year: Paris.
Twice neokoros:
Severus Alexander, year 5: Berlin (2 exx.).
Year 6: Warsaw.
Year 9: S/M 597.
Gordian III, year 3: BMC 340; SNGCop 303; SNGvA 6523;
Berlin (9 exx.), London, Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (2
exx.).50
Year 4: BMC 341-344; Adana 231; SNGCop 304-306, 308;
SNGvA 6524, 6526-6530; SNGRighetti 1804-1806;
Ireland 2000, no. 1942; Berlin (35 exx.), Boston,
London (4 exx.), New York, Oxford (5 exx.), Paris
(13 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.), Warsaw (18 exx.).51
Year 5: Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna,
Warsaw (2 exx.).52
Year 6: SNGCop 310; SNGLewis 1724; Berlin (3 exx.),
London, Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (3
exx.).53
Year 7: BMC 346-349; SNGCop 311; SNGvA 6531;
SNGLewis 1725; Berlin (9 exx.), New York (6 exx.),
Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (11
exx.).54
Year unknown: SNGvA 6525; Berlin (6 exx.), London,
Paris, Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw.
Tranquillina, Gordian’s year 4: SNGvA 6532; Berlin,
London, New York, Paris (2 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.).55
Year 6: SNGCop 312; SNGRighetti 1807, 1808; Berlin,
Boston, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna.56
Year 7: BMC 350; SNGCop 313; SNGvA 6534; Berlin (3
exx.), Boston, New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3
exx.), Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw.57
Year unknown: Warsaw.
50
Bland 1991, 232-235 nos. 1-18, 244 no. 72.
51
Ibid., 235-241 nos. 19-57, 245 nos. 73-75, 77.
52 Ibid., 242-243 nos. 61-68.
53 Ibid., 246-247 nos. 85, 88, 89.
54 Ibid., 247 nos. 91, 92.
55 Ibid., 241-242 nos. 58-60, 245 nos. 76, 78. Also coins of
year 5 and year 4 or 5, 243-244 nos. 69-71.
56 Ibid., 247 no. 87.
57 Ibid., 247-248 nos. 90, 93, 94.
252 part i – section xi. koinon of phoenicia
SECTION XI. KOINON OF PHOENICIA
Chapter 32. Tripolis: Koinon of Phoenicia
First Neokoria: Elagabalus?
Tripolis is the only city in Phoenicia yet known to
have been called neokoros. The evidence, moreover,
is scanty: a single coin from a private collection,
unillustrated, in an old publication.1 An identical
coin was described earlier by Mionnet, and there is
always a chance that another example will surface.2
But there is also the possibility of misreading where
the coin itself could not be checked.
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU K M AU ANTVNINO%
Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus
r. Rev: TRIPOLIT NAUARX NEVK ALF Ship
sailing l. a) Private collection (Dr. P. Schroeder,
Beirut).
The coin is dated to 219 C.E. (531 of the Seleucid
era) and claims the titles nauarchis (‘mistress of
ships’) as well as neok(oros). The former, at least, is
well known on coins of Tripolis, which was one of
the major harbors of the Phoenician coast.3
Tripolis had at one time been the seat of the
common council of Phoenicians, but not since the
fourth century B.C.E.4 When Septimius Severus split
Phoenicia off as a province separate from the rest
of Syria, he favored Tyre, which had been so firm-
ly on his side early in his reign that it had been
burned by Pescennius Niger’s troops for its partisan-
ship.5 Tyre was made a colony and issued coins for
the koinon of Phoenicia which showed a large sev-
en-(!) or eight-columned temple, probably for the
provincial imperial cult.6
1 Rouvier 1903, 43 no. 1754.
2 Mionnet 1806-1808, 5:406 no. 454.
3 Adams 1984. Note that though this title appears on coins
only intermittently, Tripolis had claimed it since the earlier
second century: see the honorific inscription from the Athe-
nian Akropolis, IG II/III2 4210, after 128/129 C.E.
4 Diodorus Siculus 16.41.1.
5 Herodian 3.3.3-5.
6 Millar 1990, 31-32, 34-37; Kindler 1982-1983; Deininger
1965, 88. Coins showing the temple, Greek inscriptions, Melqart
Under Elagabalus, however, Tyre may have fallen
under a cloud. The titles ‘metropolis’ and ‘colony’
disappear from its coins, which read simply ‘of the
Tyrians,’ though still in the Latin proper to a col-
ony.7 At the same time Elagabalus gave these titles
to nearby Sidon.8 Tyre apparently had shown itself
in favor of Macrinus, for whom it issued coins. Did
Elagabalus do what Septimius Severus had done
before him by not only abasing the cities that op-
posed him, but elevating their rivals in their stead?
This would depend on an argument from silence,
and would also be an atypical action for that em-
peror, who is better known for granting titles than
for withdrawing them; the Tyrians may instead have
altered their coinage by their own choice. It is still
barely possible that Tripolis was made neokoros as
part of the process of abasing Tyre, or simply be-
cause Elagabalus favored it. Of the Phoenician cit-
ies it is one of the closest to his home city Emesa,
which was also named metropolis at this time.
As the evidence for Tripolis as neokoros for El-
agabalus is based on only one unexamined coin, we
cannot draw conclusions from the cessation of the
evidence. If Tripolis was indeed given the neokoria
by Elagabalus, like all the other cities that received
the title from Elagabalus, it lost it after his death.
No inscriptions of Tripolis as neokoros are yet
known.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Elagabalus: Private collection (see above).
obverse: BMC 361-366; Latin, under Caracalla: BMC 376; Latin,
under Macrinus: BMC 381, Chehab 1977, 59 no. 1595.
7 Head 1911, 801.
8 Millar 1993, 285-295; 1990, 50-51.
 chapter 33 – patara: koinon/ethnos of lycia
SECTION XII. KOINON/ETHNOS OF LYCIA
Chapter 33. Patara: Koinon/Ethnos of Lycia
Though initially a league of free cities, Lycia was
annexed by Claudius in 43 C.E. because of inter-
nal strife and the deaths of Roman citizens.1 It was
previously thought that under Claudius, and after
a short interval again by 74 C.E., the territory was
administered jointly with Pamphylia, which was
detached from Galatia for that purpose.2 The dis-
covery that at the foundation of the province the
roads were measured from Patara has led some to
see Lycia as possibly a distinct province at the time
of Claudius, with Patara likely the seat of its gover-
nor.3 Lycia and Pamphylia each had its own sepa-
rate koinon association, but this was not uncommon,
and does not rule out their being administered within
a single province.
The structure of the Lycian koinon (also known
as the ethnos of the Lycians) differed from those of
other imperial koina discussed in this work.4 For one
thing, it had functioned as a strong and independent
association as early as the Hellenistic era. Also,
despite the internal strife that led Claudius to an-
nex Lycia, the individual cities appear to have
formed more institutional bonds among themselves
than other koina of Anatolia and its environs did.
The koinon had lawcourts and an assembly as well
as a council, and prominent men could hold citizen-
ship of their home city plus that of another Lycian
city, several cities, or even all of them.5 The cities
voted in and contributed to their koinon differen-
tially, in proportion to their size; the largest cities
had three votes, the mid-size two, and the smallest
one.6 Koinon meetings were held wherever the
1 Suetonius, Claudius 25.3; Cassius Dio 60.17.3.
2 Balland 1981 (= FdXL), 1-8; Remy 1986, 34-35; Kolb and
Kupke 1992, 25-27.
3 ”ahin 1994; Haensch 1997, 290, 293-297.
4 Deininger 1965, 8-9, 69-81; Jameson 1980; Troxell 1982,
1-13.
5 FdXL 177-180.
6 In 190 C.E. the koinon voted (and Commodus approved)
that Bubon should get three votes rather than two, in view of
253
delegates chose. There was an eponymous chief
priest of the Augusti, who may or may not have been
different from the Lyciarch; if so, the same person
was often chief priest in one year and Lyciarch in
the next.7 Occasionally a chief priestess is mentioned
as well.8 But in no known case were these officials
called ‘chief priest (or chief priestess or Lyciarch) of
temples’ in Lycia or in any city therein.
First and Second Neokoria: by third century?
By the mid-second century C.E. at least thirty-six
cities were members of the Lycian koinon, with
several calling themselves metropolis. Strabo, follow-
ing Artemidoros of Ephesos, recorded that there
were six leading cities that cast three votes in the
koinon.9 This pre-Roman situation likely corre-
sponds with the group of later metropoleis, among
them Xanthos, which presided over the koinon’s
sanctuary at the nearby Letoön; Patara, site of the
oracle of Apollo and of the koinon archive; Myra,
Telmessos, and Tlos. Limyra may be added to make
up six.10 The earliest known appearance of the title
metropolis at Lycia, an addition to Xanthos’ titula-
ture on a base of Nerva, inclined Balland to attribute
a systematization of Lycia’s provincial imperial cult
to the time of that emperor, and specifically to the
governor of Lycia/Pamphylia from 96 to 99, L.
Iulius Marinus Caecilius Simplex.11 The timing
that city’s success in suppressing bandits: Schindler 1972, no.
2.
7 FdXL 8-10.
8 Adak 1996, 134 and n. 13; FdXL 235-239 no. 71.
9 Strabo 14.3.3.
10 FdXL 53-55 no. 29, 176-177.
11 FdXL 132-136 no. 50, recording that the governor
(re)organized a yearly panegyris, probably that allied with meet-
ings of the koinon (but see also 231-235 nos. 69-70, 246-250
no. 78). FdXL no. 50 dates early in the reign of Trajan, how-
ever, so the author’s specification of Nerva’s reign for the
governor’s action is no more firmly founded.
254 part i – section xii. koinon/ethnos of lycia
recalls Nerva’s confirmion of Beroia as the sole
neokoros of Macedonia (q.v.), but that does not
necessarily imply that Nerva undertook some grand
trans-provincial reorganization. Balland’s argument
that Xanthos’ titulature on this base could only have
been augmented in Nerva’s reign is not watertight;
Akalissos (q.v.) apparently had ‘neokoros’ added to
an inscription at some distance of time. In any case,
Xanthos was certainly metropolis by 102 C.E.12
Known documents for the other cities are later, but
this does not eliminate the possibility that Xanthos
was not the only city to become metropolis around
the turn of the first and second centuries C.E.
Patara declared itself metropolis of the Lycian
ethnos on a triple arch that bore busts or small sta-
tues of Mettius Modestus, governor of Lycia and
Pamphylia, and his family. This is the governor of
99-102 C.E., C. Trebonius Proculus Mettius Modes-
tus.13 Bowersock tried to redate this monument to
the time of Hadrian, since he believed that Hadri-
an was the first to allow metropolis status to more
than one city per province.14 That situation may
have been true for Syria, but a blanket case should
not be applied to other provinces, least of all to
atypical Lycia. Moreover, Bowersock’s hypothesis
requires that a different Mettius Modestus, not other-
wise documented, was governor of the same prov-
ince very shortly after the first one, ca. 130 C.E.15
Though gates to welcome Hadrian were built else-
where in the East, most notably in nearby Phaselis
for a visit ca. 131, there is no overt indication that
the triple arch in Patara acclaimed that imperial
visitor.16 In fact, the triple arch is not a gate built
to honor an emperor, but the end of an aqueduct;
and subsequent excavations have found an inscrip-
tion honoring Trajan, not Hadrian, nearby.17 The
prominence of the busts/statuettes that punctuated
both sides of the monument emphasized the primary
12 FdXL 55-56 no. 30.
13 PIR2 M 568; Remy 1989, 291-293 no. 238; idem 1991,
174 nos. 112-113; FdXL 136-140 no. 51.
14 Bowersock 1985, 82-86.
15 Following Bowersock, Eck 1983, 169-171 n. 415;
Thomasson 1984, 280 no. 25; Wörrle 1988, 43; Letta 1994a,
229. C. Jones 1999a, 4-5 found further evidence for the origi-
nal Modestus, rather than a later one, in the later Hadrianic
period, though he did not dispute Bowersock.
16 J. Schäfer 1981, 88-89, 141, 151-154; Halfmann 1986a,
130-131, 194, 208 (accepting Bowersock).
17 Excavations led by F. IâÌk since 1988: for the arch in
particular, see IâÌk and YÌlmaz 1989, 7-8; IâÌk 1990, 33-35;
1991, 40; 2000, 81-82.
importance of the governor for the dedication.18
Thus it is likely that the Trajanic governor Mettius
Modestus was responsible for the construction or
extension of an aqueduct to Patara, and he and his
family (father, mother, uncle of the same name, and
perhaps other relatives) were honored for it by the
koinon and by Patara, which was already named
metropolis by 102 C.E. Later, as proconsul of Asia
in 119/120, Modestus would undertake similar
benefactions for an Asian city, Thyateira, which
would honor him with an inscription on the Athe-
nian akropolis.19
The Lycians had established a cult of the city of
Rome in the Hellenistic period, and when Gaius
Caesar, Augustus’ grandson and heir, died at Li-
myra, a magnificent cenotaph was built there for
him.20 Tiberius and perhaps Germanicus and
Drusus were worshipped by the Lycian koinon be-
fore it became a Roman province.21 There was also
a koinon cult of the ancestral god Apollo (IGRR
3:473), and a panegyris in Patara associated his cult
with that of the emperor.22 Festivals specified as pro-
vincial were the Rhomaia Letoa at Xanthos,23 possi-
bly an isopythian contest dedicated to Rome and
Augustus,24 and possibly the great isolympic Vespa-
sianeia, though there is no evidence for a Lycian
neokoria for Domitian, subsequently devoted to
Vespasian, which Dräger restored from the name of
the latter festival.25 Koinon festivals were also cel-
ebrated in Myra, Limyra, and Telmessos, and there
was even a great Kasseia festival for a governor of
the province.26
Aside from league issues, the only emperor un-
der whom each Lycian city struck its own coinage
was Gordian III, so it is not unexpected that ‘neoko-
ros’ has not been noted on the few Pataran coins
18 Pekáry 1978, 740, and 1985, 93.
19 C. Jones 1999a, 4-5.
20 Fayer 1976, 12, 37-40, 133-134, 171; IGRR 3:474, 490,
563; FdXL 37-40 no. 18; R. Jakobek and Dinstl 1990, 33-34,
85-92, 96; J. Borchhardt and B. Borchhardt-Birbaumer 1992,
108-110.
21 IGRR 3:474, 680; TAM 2.2.420; Haensch 1997, 296 n.
197.
22 FdXL 191 nos. 125-127.
23 Fayer 1976, 40; Wörrle 1988, 238-239.
24 FdXL 37-39 no. 18.
25 IGRR 3:487; Dräger 1993, 246-249, whose use of the
term ‘Neokoriekult’ for all types of provincial imperial cult begs
the question.
26 TAM 2.2.428; Remy 1991, 176; Wörrle 1988, 238-239.
 chapter
known.27 The sole evidence for Patara as neokoros
is the following inscription:
INSCRIPTION 1. Marek 1993a, 97-98 no. 5
(SEG 44 [1994] no. 1210). Statue base of a promi-
nent citizen. Patar°vn { lamprå ka‹ ¶ndojow
pÒliw, { mhtrÒpoliw, { érxiprof}tiw ka‹ d‹w
nevkÒrow toË Luk¤vn ¶ynouw...
Though Marek placed the inscription in the first to
second centuries C.E., Bresson dated it in the third
century.28 The latter is perhaps preferable, as the
third century was a time when neokoriai proliferat-
ed elsewhere, but it cannot be assured without fur-
ther data. On other inscriptions, Patara was gener-
ally content to call itself simply polis and metropolis
of the Lycian ethnos.29
On inscription 1, the three provincial titles are
grouped: as well as being metropolis, Patara is ‘chief
prophet’ and ‘twice neokoros’ of the Lycian ethnos.
Regarding ‘chief prophet,’ the Lycian philanthropist
Opramoas gave twenty thousand denarii to the
Patarans “for Apollo, the god of their ancestors,
whose oracle after a long silence has once more
begun its prophecy” in time for the panegyris over
which Opramoas presided, in or shortly after 139
C.E.30
From the evidence available, there is no way of
knowing for what emperors or deities Patara was
twice neokoros. One possibility is Apollo, though the
inscription does not specify the name of the deity;
the sanctuary of Apollo Patroos at Patara was a koi-
non sanctuary, and the god’s festival, as has been
seen, was celebrated for the emperor as well. The
same applied to the sanctuary of Leto at Xanthos,
27 Von Aulock 1974.
28 A. Bresson, L’Année épigraphique (1994) no. 1729.
29 E.g. Marek 1993a, 98 no. 6 (= SEG 44 [1994] no. 1211).
30 FdXL 191-192; Parke 1985, 185-193; Zimmermann 1994,
109-111. For Opramoas, see Letta 1994a, with bibliography.
33 – patara 255
which also held the ethnikon Kaisareion.31 Here again
the Lycian koinon shows itself different from the
other koina which organized themselves around
worship of the emperor; it kept its sanctuaries to
ancestral Lycian gods, and brought the imperial cult
into association with them. On the other hand, other
cities that were neokoroi of gods—Aizanoi, Ephe-
sos, and Magnesia, all in Asia—generally made that
fact clear on their inscriptions and coins. We sim-
ply cannot say what the situation was in Lycia with-
out further information.
Incidentally, if Patara was twice neokoros, it is
probable that Xanthos, as administrator of provin-
cial cult at the Letoön, and other major cities were
as well.32 Documents attesting this status may yet be
found. But it is possible that the interconnected and
less rivalrous structure of the Lycian koinon made
the individual cities less likely to boast of their var-
ied titles, and that that is why so few such documents
have appeared.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Twice neokoros:
1. Marek 1993a, 97-98 no. 5 (SEG 44 [1994] no.
1210; A. Bresson, L’Année épigraphique [1994] no.
1729). Statue base of a citizen, not securely dated.
See text above.
No coins of Patara as neokoros are yet known.
31 FdXL 25-28 no. 11, 185-191 no. 67, 270-272; S. Price
1984b, 263. That Claudius donated a hall in the north stoa of
the Letoön, and that later a statue of Matidia stood therein,
does not make it the ethnikon Kaisareion that Opramoas spent
thirty thousand denarii on; nor is Balland’s alternate sugges-
tion (FdXL 60 n. 130) that the Kaisareion was the nymphaeum
that featured a statue of Hadrian erected in 131 (Letta 1994a,
220-221, 242) more satisfactory. IGRR 3:482 refers to a temple
of Caesar (and its peribolos) at Xanthos, though not specified
as provincial or at the Letoön: Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 197.
32 FdXL 237-238.
256 part i – section xii. koinon/ethnos of lycia
Chapter 34. Akalissos: Koinon/Ethnos of Lycia
Akalissos, whose site has been described as “some-
what inaccessible,” was not among Lycia’s major
cities, though it headed a small local sympolity.1
Until an inscription naming Patara neokoros ap-
peared (q.v.), Akalissos was the sole neokoros city
known in Lycia, and even the relationship between
the title and the provincial imperial cult was
doubted.2 Finds of further inscriptions may show that
despite their comparative reticence in flaunting titles,
Lycian cities of the late second and third centuries
could boast of neokoriai as much as Asian cities
could.
First Neokoria: after Commodus
Akalissos, like most other cities of Lycia, is only
known to have issued its own coins under Gordian
III; the title ‘neokoros’ has not been noted on the
few examples known.3 The sole evidence for Akalis-
sos as neokoros is the following:
1. TAM 2.3.879 (IGRR 3:656). Statue base of
Commodus, final two words of different letter
forms and ligatures, probably added in the third
century. [ÉAkaliss°vn { boul]Ø ka‹ ~ d}mow t}w
nevkÒrou.
The emperor’s name was erased from this stone after
his death and the (short-lived) condemnation of his
memory, 193-195 C.E.4 Also missing is the name of
the city whose council and people dedicated the
statue, though the restoration is reasonable: the base
was found in Akalissos itself. Dedications with similar
wording (without additions or loss of the city’s name)
were found at Korydalla (IGRR 3:743) and Olympos
(IGRR 3:747). On some occasions, the city did not
even need to state its name, as it was obvious by the
1 Bean 1976a.
2 Broughton 1938, 742-743; FdXL 237.
3 Von Aulock 1974.
4 Kienast 1996, 147-150.
dedication’s placement whose council and people
were in question (IGRR 3:762, for Phaselis).5
The base’s top surface had holes for the feet of
two statues, and Keil posited that Crispina was origi-
nally to stand with her husband Commodus. But
there is no mention of her on what is preserved of
the stone, and it is also possible that the second fig-
ure was either a personification of the city itself or
of some other deity who crowned or interacted with
Commodus. The last and crucial two words, ‘of the
neokoros’ (city), were inscribed in letter forms con-
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
to earlier inscriptions.
It is not known for whose cult, or when, Akalissos
was made neokoros. But with the discovery of Patara
as twice neokoros, Akalissos fits more comfortably
into the pattern of a city of middle rank that was
first made neokoros in the third century, after its
superiors had achieved that honor at least twice. A
parallel in Asia might be Philadelphia, Tralles, or
Hierapolis.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
1. TAM 2.3.879 (IGRR 3:656). Statue base of
Commodus, with the title added later, probably in
the third century. See text above.
No coins of Akalissos as neokoros are yet known.
5 In one case where the cities of Akalissos and Korydalla
set up dedications in Phaselis, it was for a special occasion, a
visit of Hadrian, for which many smaller and more remote cities
must have sent representatives and set up altars: TAM 2.3.1192-
1193 (= IGRR 3:756-757); FdXL 70-71; Halfmann 1986a, 130-
131, 194, 208.
 chapter 35 – herakleia: koinon of the cities of pontus
SECTION XIII. KOINON OF THE CITIES
OF (WEST-CENTRAL) PONTUS
Chapter 35. Herakleia: Koinon of the Cities
of (West-Central) Pontus
With a Note on the Synod of Theatrical Artists
The ancient city of Herakleia (modern Eregli) on the
Black Sea’s southern shore was a foundation of
Megara and retained until Roman times its
motherland’s Doric dialect on coins and inscrip-
tions.1 It became a free ally of Rome early in the
second century B.C.E., and a temple of the goddess
Rome is shown later on its imperial coins that boast
the title ‘neokoros.’
First Neokoria: Philip
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: M IOULIO% FILIPPO%
AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Philip r.
Rev: HRAKLHA% NEVKORVN A T POLIVN; YEA
RVMA Six-column temple with arched entabla-
ture, the goddess Rome enthroned within.2 a)
London 1970.9-9-32.
This coin should not be taken to mean that
Herakleia was neokoros for its temple of Rome; the
wording of the legend shows that ‘goddess Rome’
is in the exergue to identify the temple, not to modify
‘neokoros’; the legend therefore reads “of Herakleia,
first of the neokoroi cities.”3
Administratively, Herakleia was included in the
province of Bithynia-Pontus, but it belonged to a
koinon of Pontic cities within that province rather
than to the koinon of Bithynia dominated by
Nikomedia; occasionally, however, the same person
served as Bithyniarch and Pontarch.4 Though Hera-
1 Jonnes 1994, 1, 7, 51-54; Ameling 1994, 118-119. For the
earlier history and literature, Bittner 1998, 1-6. On the liter-
ary sources, Ehrhardt 1995, 35-41, 46. Still useful is Magie 1950,
307-310, 967 n. 89, 1191-1192 n. 23, 1194 n. 31.
2 M. Price and Trell 1977, fig. 7; Fayer 1976, 178.
3 Pace S. Price 1984b, 266.
4 Marek 1993b, 34-36, 73, 75, 77 and n. 534, 78-81; Remy
1986, 19-21.
257
kleia is so far the only neokoros known within its
koinon, others may yet appear, as the presence of
Pontarchs is attested elsewhere, notably in Amastris,
which also claimed the title of metropolis and was
probably also a seat of the koinon.5 The city cel-
ebrated an isaktian festival called the Hadrianeon
Herakleion, but Hadrian allowed many such festivals
in all sorts of cities, so the existence of this festival
does not indicate that Herakleia was necessarily
neokoros for Hadrian.6
In any case, Herakleia only began to proclaim
itself neokoros with regularity on coins in the reign
of Philip and thereafter. Additional evidence is given
by inscriptions, but their testimony regarding
neokoria is difficult to interpret, and their use of the
term ‘neokoros’ may not refer to Herakleia at all.
Synod of Theatrical Artists Neokoros?
Inscription 1 was a statue base erected in 130 C.E.,
in the consulate of Q. Fabius Catullinus and M.
Flavius Aper.7 On the other side was a decree of the
synod of theatrical artists (technitai) sent to the home
city of one Marcius Xenokrates; another inscription
from Herakleia identifies Marcius Xenokrates as a
physician, and it was probably for his professional
services that the theatrical artists honored him.8
Thus, though the name of the city is not spelled out
on inscription 1, the fact that the stone was found
at Herakleia, that a Marcius Xenokrates is known
there, and that the eponymous magistrate basileus
mentioned has also been found in other inscriptions
at Herakleia, safely indicate its previously doubted
5 Deininger 1965, 61-62, 64-66.
6 Moretti 1953, 235-237 no. 80.
7 PIR2 F 25, 208.
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
hurriedly before being broken up for use in construc-
tion, so its likely misreadings cannot be checked.
INSCRIPTION 1. Jonnes 1994, 4-6 no. 2 (IGRR
3:81). ¶dojen tª |erò {m«n ÑAdrianª ANT.EI
peri[poli]stikª [y]u[m]e[l]ikª megãl_ nevkÒrƒ
§p‹ ÑR\mh{w} sunÒdƒ . . .
If this reading is correct, the synod of theatrical
artists at Rome calls itself neokoros. But is it cor-
rect? There are several stubborn mistranscriptions
in the text as reported, some of which have not been
satisfactorily interpreted. For example, Mordtmann
restored the epithet ‘Antonine’ after ‘Hadrianic,’ but
there is not enough room for all the letters, and an
abbreviation of the later epithet seems odd when the
earlier one was spelled out in full.10 The same ap-
plies to Le Guen-Pollet’s restoration of the epithet
as naming Antinoös, Hadrian’s beloved, who died
in 130.11 The latter was an attempt to solve another
problem, that of the consular date of the inscription
on the other side of the stone; if the Xenokrates
inscription is contemporary with it, both antedate
any Antonine emperor by at least eight years.
This is the only occasion that a body outside the
structure of a city calls itself neokoros. Elsewhere the
title is occasionally attributed to the council, more
often to the people or to the city as a whole. Is this
application of the title a unique occurrence, or is it
an artifact of the hurried copying of the inscription?
A study of other inscriptions of the synod of the-
atrical artists may shed some light. The association
of theatrical artists, whose patron god was Dionysos,
extended throughout the Greco-Roman world, with
members traveling from city to city to participate in
various festivals.12 As early as the third century
B.C.E. their association could make decrees and
receive ambassadors, much as a city would.13 Later
they corresponded with, and sent embassies to, the
emperors as cities did, though their main concern
seems to have been preservation of their members’
9 Jonnes 1994, nos. 1 and 4, where both magistrates were
women.
10 Mordtmann 1889, 316.
11 Le Guen-Pollet 1990. There was a dedication to Antinoös
(assimilated to Hermes) set up by the Hadrianic synod at Rome:
IGUrbRom 1:124-125.
12 Roueché 1993, 50-57, 223-237; Pickard-Cambridge 1988,
279-321; Poland 1934, 2517-2519.
13 Rigsby 1996, 245-247.
rights of immunity from taxation and liturgies.14
They also associated worship of the emperor(s) with
that of their patron, Dionysos; for instance, during
the reign of Septimius Severus, an inscription was
set up by their chief priest of Dionysos Kathegemon,
who was also the chief priest of Caracalla as ‘new
Dionysos.’15
A long, informative inscription from Nysa prob-
ably dates to ca. 141 C.E. and gives the best details
of the organization and its titulature just after the
time of Herakleia inscription 1: its lines 74-75 an-
nounce a decree t}w |erçw ÑAdrian}w ÉAntvne¤n[hw]
yumelik}w perip[o]listik}w megãl[hw] ne[vkÒrou?]
§p‹ ÑR\mhw sunÒdou.16 With some small changes
(yumelik}w and perip[o]listik}w reversed, ‘Anto-
nine’ spelled out in full), it echoes Herakleia inscrip-
tion 1, which is perhaps why Kourouniotes restored
neokorou here from a mere nu and the upper part of
an epsilon at the end of a line. The synod of the
association had as its headquarters a |erÚn §p‹
ÑR\mhw t°menow, which is presumably the sacred
space that may have made the synod neokoros. Also
mentioned in the same inscription is a particular
reverence on the part of the artists at Rome for the
god Hadrian, on whose birthday there was an an-
nual distribution. Hadrian may have granted the
artists their temenos in Rome, as he also granted
headquarters in Rome to the worldwide association
of athletes;17 if the synod of theatrical artists was
neokoros at all, it was more than likely neokoros for
a temenos to Hadrian at Rome.
Le Guen-Pollet believed that the Xenokrates of
inscription 1 himself obtained the neokoria from
Hadrian; but the modesty of the honors decreed to
him there, perhaps statue(s) erected in his home city,
does not accord with so great a benefaction.18 About
a decade later, the honoree of the Nysa decree got
statues in all the temples of the emperors in Asia
because he paid for celebrations and donated some
books and land to the technitai; how much greater
should the honors have been for one who, like Pole-
14 Millar 1977, 458-462.
15 Merkelbach 1985.
16 The inscription also refers to the neokoria of Ephesos,
and is cited above as Ephesos inscription 42. Clerc 1885; title
‘neokoros’ restored by Kourouniotes 1921-22, 83-85, fig. 67.
17 Pleket 1973, 210-211, 225-226.
18 Le Guen-Pollet 1990, 676-678; with several misunder-
standings. The Nysa decree mentions a chief priesthood, but
it is not specified as ‘of the Augusti.’
 chapter
mon of Smyrna, obtained a neokoria for his orga-
nization.
We may hesitate before declaring the synod of
theatrical artists indubitably neokoros, however.
Hirschfeld, the original editor, did not believe that
the word ‘neokoros’ featured in inscription 1 at all:
he restored the crucial line as [y]u[m]e[l]ikª megãl_
[épÚ o¸]ko[um°n]h[w?] sunÒdƒ.19 If true, his restora-
tion would throw doubt on the restoration of
neokoros from a letter and a half in the Nysa inscrip-
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
of the title ‘neokoros.’20
There is another inscription that associates Hera-
kleia with neokoria, but again, the epithet appears
to be misapplied.
INSCRIPTION 2. Struve 1965 no. 59 (Latyschev
1890, 2 no. 44; IGRR 1:890 [incorrect]). ... ?
ÉIoÊl]iow Telese›no[w ÑHrak]l[e\]thw toË PÒn-
[tou k]a‹ nevkÒrou...
This text was inscribed on a statue base from
Kertsch (Pantikapeion) dated to 547 of the Bosporan
era (250 C.E.); on it, this citizen of Herakleia calls
Rhescuporis (V), king of Bosporus, his benefactor.21
But if the restoration is correct, neokoros modifies
not Herakleia, but the territory of Pontus! Perhaps
the mistake may be attributed to the confusion of
the stonemason; though citizens of other cities fre-
quently honored the Bosporan kings with dedications
at Pantikapeion, the formulation of this inscription,
with the individual’s name, citizenship, and addi-
tional title, is rather unusual.
If the neokoria mentioned on inscription 2 was
actually Herakleia’s, as seems likely, it confirms what
the city’s intermittent coinage could not: that the title
survived the death of Philip and the occasional
19 Hirschfeld 1893, 11 n. 1 (on no. 794).
20 YÌldÌz and Corsten 1997, 50-51.
21 For the difficult chronology of the Bosporan kings, see
Frolova 1983, 1-4 and Gajdukevic 1971, 358, 460-461. For the
citizen Teleseinos, see Ameling 1994, 162.
35 – herakleia 259
condemnation of his memory.22 Neapolis in Samaria
(q.v.) also declared itself neokoros first on coins under
Philip, and there too the title seems to have survived
his death. But little else is known of the precise object
and origin of the cult that made Herakleia neokoros.
As to whether the synod of Dionysiac artists was
truly neokoros, more and better-preserved evidence
is desirable. In any case, the coins assure us that the
city Herakleia was neokoros from the reign of Philip
on.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
1. Jonnes 1994, 4-6 no. 2 (IGRR 3:81). Honors to a
Herakleian, with the synod of Dionysiac artists as
neokoros. See text above.
2. Struve 1965 no. 59 (Latyschev 1890, 2 no. 44;
IGRR 1:890 [incorrect]). From Kertsch (Pantika-
peion). Herakleia (actually Pontus!) as neokoros in
250 C.E. See text above.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Philip: SNGvA 6964; Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris.
Otacilia: SNGvA 446, 447.
Philip Caesar: SNGvA 444, 445, 6965; Boston.
Gallienus: BMC 59; SNGvA 448-460, 6966, 6967; Amasra
7123; Berlin (9 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York, Ox-
ford, Paris (5 exx.).
Salonina: BMC 60; SNGvA 462, 6968; Berlin (5 exx.),
Boston, Paris (2 exx.), Warsaw.
Valerianus Caesar: Paris.
Saloninus: SNGvA 463, 464; Cologne24; Boston.
Macrianus: SNGvA 465.25
Non-imperial obverse: New York.
22Kienast 1996, 198-199; Varner 1993, 484-487.
23Ireland with Atesogullari 1996.
24 Corsten 1996, no. 32.
25 Kienast 1996, 224-225. Herakleia was one of the few
cities to mint for this contender for the Empire, 260-261 C.E.
260 part i – section xiv. syria palaestina
SECTION XIV. SYRIA PALAESTINA
Chapter 36. Neapolis: in Samaria, Syria Palaestina
Neapolis is the only neokoros yet known in Syria
Palaestina, an area not known to have had a koinon.1
Yet the city did possess a famous shrine. The moun-
tain above Neapolis, Mt. Gerizim, had been sacred
to the Samaritans before the city itself was founded.2
Shechem (now identified as Tell Balatah) was the
name of the city at the mountain’s foot in 332
B.C.E., when, according to Josephus, Alexander the
Great allowed Sanballat and his fellow Samaritans
to build a temple atop Gerizim to rival the temple
in Jerusalem.3 Josephus is hardly an unbiased ob-
server; as a Jew of priestly family, he despised the
Samaritans for being apostates, who in times of
Seleucid hostility to Jewish worship claimed that
their nameless sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim was not
the temple of the Greatest God (as worshipped by
the Jews), but of Zeus Hellenios, or in one variant
Zeus Xenios.4 When the Jewish priest-king John
Hyrcanus captured Shechem and Mt. Gerizim af-
ter 129 B.C.E., he destroyed the temple that had
dared to imitate that in Jerusalem.5
Despite the destruction of their temple, rebellious
Samaritans made Mt. Gerizim their refuge and
stronghold both before and during the first Jewish
Revolt.6 This is perhaps why as early as 72 C.E.,
after the Jerusalem temple had itself been destroyed
and the revolt all but extinguished, Vespasian
founded a city, Flavia Neapolis, formed on the Greek
1 Haensch 1997, 237.
2 Kippenberg 1971.
3 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 11.321-325, 340-347; for a
critique of the source, P. Schäfer 1995, 2-5. See Mor 1989a
for a persuasive interpretation of the politics involved.
4 Letter to Antiochus IV Epiphanes: Josephus, Jewish An-
tiquities 12.257-264 (167/166 B.C.E.). Xenios: 2 Maccabees 6.2.
Note the interpretation of Eusebius, Hieronymi Chronicon (R. Helm,
ed., Eusebius Werke 7 [Berlin 1956] 140), that in 167 B.C.E.,
acceding to the request of the Samaritans themselves, Antiochus
built a temple to ‘Jupiter Peregrinus’ on the peak of Mt. Gerizim.
5 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 13.254-256.
6 Josephus, Jewish War 3.4, 32, 307-315; Jewish Antiquities
18.85-89.
model, west of the old site of Shechem.7 The new
name has been passed down to the current day as
Nablus.
The second Jewish Revolt broke out in the reign
of Hadrian, and his name is also associated with cult
on Mt. Gerizim. The sources are Samaritan, the
Kitab al-Tarikh of Abu ’l-Fath and the ‘Adler Chron-
icle.’ Both treat the emperor as rather a folktale
figure who visits the temple in Jerusalem (destroyed
fifty years before), argues with the High Priest, and
burns the city.8 Here Hadrian is at first beneficent
to the Samaritans, and builds a great temple for
them, the ‘Safis’ or ‘temple of Sospes,’ on which he
hangs the copper doors from the temple in Jerusa-
lem.9 The temple is on Gerizim, or on the moun-
tain next to it (perhaps Tell er-Ras?) according to
the Kitab; but it is later burned, and the doors sto-
len, to the great anger of Hadrian.
In 193-194 C.E. Neapolis chose to support Pes-
cennius Niger as emperor rather than Septimius Se-
verus. When Severus came to power he revoked the
city’s rights, according to the Historia Augusta.10 It is
likely that he was not satisfied with that penalty
alone, however, but intensified Neapolis’ punishment
by exalting its neighbor and probable rival, the city
of Sebaste. Such was his policy with many other
pairs of rivals: Perinthos (q.v.) profited at the fall of
Byzantion, Nikomedia triumphed over Nikaia
(qq.v.), Tyre over Berytos, and Laodikeia in Syria
over Antioch.11 In this case, Sebaste received either
7 Millar 1993, 368-369.
8 Zangenberg 1994, 219 sec. 5.4.6; Mor 1989b, 25-29;
Stenhouse 1985, 156-162. On Hadrian’s visit to Judaea, and
on Talmudic stories regarding him, Birley 1997, 231-234. Bull
1997, 408 has conflated this account concerning Hadrian with
Marinus of Neapolis and Zeus Hypsistos, discussed below.
9 ‘Safis’ may transliterate to Sospes, ‘safe;’ Sospes or Sispes
may also be an obscure aspect of Jupiter, as his consort Juno
was worshipped as Sospita in Italy; but the connection is fairly
tenuous.
10 Historia Augusta, Severus 9.5.
11 Cassius Dio 75.8.3-4 and 75.14.1-4; Herodian 3.4.7 and
3.6.9; Historia Augusta, Severus 9.4-8. See Ziegler 1978, who ob-
 chapter
all or a part of Neapolis’ territory; even into late
antiquity, Sebaste held the land of Akrabattene, even
though it was cut off from Sebaste’s contiguous ter-
ritory by Neapolis itself.12
Some years afterward, however, Septimius Seve-
rus is said to have revoked the punishment he had
inflicted on ‘the Palestinians’ for supporting Niger,
a statement that almost certainly refers to the citi-
zens of Neapolis in particular.13 Again, this resembles
the emperor’s actions toward Nikaia, where he prob-
ably allowed Caracalla to gain public approval by
‘winning him over’ to the cause of a former enemy
city.14 As a compensation for its loss of Neapolis’
territory (with the possible exception of Akrabattene),
Sebaste likely received the status of a Roman colony,
under the name Lucia Septimia Sebaste, after 201/
202.15 This pattern of punishment and reward, re-
conciliation and compensation, is peculiar to
Septimius Severus, and is discussed in chapter 38,
‘Historical Analysis,’ in Part II.
First Neokoria: Philip
Coins with the portraits of the emperor Philip and
his family proclaim Neapolis both neokoros and
colony. Of the two honors, the coloniate is named
more often. Neapolis celebrated its new status by
using Latin instead of Greek for its coin legends,
becoming ‘colonia Iulia Flavia Sergia Neapolis’; the
Julian name came from Philip, the Flavian from
Vespasian the original founder, and the Sergian
possibly from the colony’s tribal affiliation.16 The
reverses of Neapolis’ coins celebrated Roman colo-
nial symbols: the Forum statue of Marsyas, the wolf
and twins, and the foundation ritual (a togate fig-
served that at first, the enemy city’s territory (Antioch) was given
to its rival (Laodikeia in Syria) to help restore losses suffered
in war; when later (ca. 198) Antioch was restored to civic sta-
tus, Laodikeia was compensated by becoming a colony. It would
be dangerous to extrapolate from the particular timing in this
case to other rival cities in other provinces, but it does seem to
apply to Neapolis and Sebaste. Also see Sünskes Thompson
1990, 137-155.
12 A. Jones 1977, 276-279.
13 Historia Augusta, Severus 14.6.
14 Historia Augusta, Caracalla 1.
15 Isaac 1992, 359-360; note SNGANS 1080, a coin of Julia
Domna for that year: the obverse has the Latin legends of the
subsequent colonial coinage, but the reverse is still in Greek,
with no colonial title.
16 Harl 1984 (= Harl, with catalogue number) nos. 27 (in-
correct for SNGANS 1019), 54; Galsterer-Kröll 1972, 84, 140.
36 – neapolis 261
ure plowing with yoked ox and cow).17 The only
temple shown is that on one of the peaks of Mt.
Gerizim, and as Mt. Gerizim appears on many coin
types of Neapolis, and had since the time of
Antoninus Pius, there is no telling whether this was
the temple for which Neapolis was made neokoros;
the question will be dealt with below.18
The holy mountain also appears in the back-
ground of several reverse types showing the impe-
rial family, as if illustrating an imperial visit. Again,
Gerizim is there not to set the locale, but because
it is almost omnipresent on Neapolis’ coins (as Mt.
Argaios was on those of Kaisareia, q.v.). These re-
verses can range from standard type scenes of im-
perial victory,19 adventus,20 or of Philip and his son
sacrificing,21 to unusual scenes such as that show-
ing three figures (probably Philip, his wife Otacilia,
and their son Philip) advancing in a chariot:
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: M OT SEVERAE AVG
M C Draped diademed bust of Otacilia on cres-
cent r. Rev: NEAPOLI NEOCORO; COL Fac-
ing quadriga with three figures (two males, a
female at the right), all raising their right hands
and holding scepters in the left; above, Mt.
Gerizim.22 a) BMC 138 (illus. pl. 37 fig. 197).
There is no record of the imperial family having
come to Neapolis, and coins showing imperial pro-
cessions or arrivals do not necessarily indicate that
the emperor visited the city in question.23 On the
other hand, this emperor came from the neighbor-
ing province Arabia, on the other side of the Jor-
dan, and may have been in the vicinity for the
naming of Philippopolis, likely his birthplace, in his
honor.24 His presence is implied by Aurelius Vic-
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
known to have taken the sea route west, and the
harbors most convenient to Philippopolis could be
17 Harl 10, 12, 18, 19, 24-26, 32, 35, 36, 40-42, 47, 48, 51,
52, 55, 66, 75, 75a, 76, 78-80, 94, 95, 98, 99.
18 Meshorer 1993, 141-142; M. Price and Trell 1977, 173-
175.
19 Harl 62.
20 Harl 63, 64, 93.
21 Harl 5, 30, 31, 56, 65.
22 Harl 57; the same reverse with an obverse of the younger
Philip is Harl 77.
23 Halfmann 1986a, 234-235; Peachin 1991 was overopti-
mistic.
24 Freyberger 1992; Kienast 1996, 198-201.
25 Aurelius Victor, Caesares 28.
262 part i – section xiv. syria palaestina
reached either by crossing Syria Palaestina itself (via
Bostra to Caesarea Maritima or Akko/Ptolemais) or
through Syria and Phoenicia (via Damascus to Tyre
or Berytus).26 A recent re-analysis of sources for
Philip’s first year has shown that he did not neces-
sarily reach Rome as early as late July 244, as had
previously been thought.27 On the other hand, the
coins of Neapolis as colony and neokoros were
apparently issued later in Philip’s reign, when his son
had already been named as Augustus in summer
247; the coins’ reverses may refer to the previous
imperial presence in the area, or may simply be
celebrating Philip’s triumph in Rome in that year.28
In favor of the notion that Philip directed some
attention toward Syria Palaestina, if not proof of his
passage through it, the Kitab al-Tarikh records a
Samaritan uprising that set Syria Palaestina in an
uproar around the time of a Persian war (either
Caracalla’s or Alexander Severus’); the Samaritan
reformer and military leader Baba Rabbah took
advantage of the situation to build up a Samaritan
army and hold back taxes to the Roman state.29
Though the account is highly anachronistic, Gordian
III is also said to have acted against the Samaritans,
and Baba Rabbah was later enticed to ‘Constanti-
nople’ and held in custody by ‘Philip’ himself.30 Cer-
tainly Philip’s personal attention to some Samaritan
unrest after his Persian settlement is not out of the
question. The Hellenized city of Neapolis, though
not directly on either of the routes from Philippo-
polis, may have appeared as a bulwark of loyalty in
Samaria, and its reward could have included hon-
ors like the coloniate and the neokoria. On the other
hand, Philip granted many privileges in the area,
especially in Arabia: Philippopolis and Damascus
were also made colonies, and Bostra, already a
colony, was made metropolis of Arabia. In the end,
the specific reasons for Neapolis’ honors, including
the neokoria, remain uncertain.
The status of colony, granted to non-Roman and
non-Latin towns since the reign of Claudius, had
been given with increasing frequency from the sec-
ond century, especially under Septimius Severus,
who often gave colonial status as a reward without
implying any change in the composition of the city’s
26 Peachin 1991 preferred Bostra, but then led Philip along
an unnecessarily circuitous land route.
27 Trout 1989.
28 Kienast 1996, 198-201.
29 Stenhouse 1985, 186-205; Crown 1989, 54-56, 62.
30 Hall 1989, 52-54.
population.31 As a known trouble spot, Syria Palae-
stina and its surroundings already had some actual
military colonies, such as Berytus (founded in 15
B.C.E.), Akko/Ptolemais (since Claudius), Caesar-
ea (since Vespasian) and Aelia Capitolina (Hadrian’s
refoundation of Jerusalem).32 As mentioned above,
it is likely that Septimius Severus granted colonial
status to Sebaste in order to exalt it when he dis-
honored Neapolis; he also made colonies of Tyre in
Phoenicia and Heliopolis in Coelesyria, probably
from a similar animus against Berytus. Later, coins
issued under Elagabalus named the city Tiberias a
colony, as were Sidon and Arka-Caesarea in Phoe-
nicia, and Petra in Arabia.33 Bostra, chief city of
Arabia, got that title under Severus Alexander, and
as already mentioned, Philip exalted it further with
the title metropolis, as well as making colonies of
Neapolis, Damascus, and Philippopolis. Gerasa,
Askelon, and Gaza were also made colonies some-
time in the third century.
The only evidence for a military presence in
Neapolis is later than Philip, when coin types issued
under Trebonianus Gallus indicate that two legions,
the X Fretensis (stationed in Jerusalem) and the III
Cyrenaica (stationed at Bostra), had probably de-
tached some troops to the city.34
Was there a conflict between Roman colonial
status and the emperor worship that is implied by
the title ‘neokoros’? If we return to the origins of the
provincial imperial cult, as portrayed by Cassius Dio
51.20.7-8, Augustus had meant for a gulf to be fixed
between the xenoi (= peregrini), who were to wor-
ship the living emperor, and Romans, who only
worshipped the deified dead. Yet even in the early
empire, the eminent provincials who became chief
priests of their koinon were also Roman citizens.35
Septimius Severus’ wholesale grants of colonial sta-
tus, not to mention Caracalla’s grant of Roman
citizenship to most of the peoples of the Empire,
further blurred an already fuzzy distinction. Neapolis
31 J. Nollé 1995; Salmon 1969, 154-157. On the economic
implications of colonial status, Bernhardt 1982. The following
discussion will focus on colonies in the area around Syria
Palaestina, Arabia, and Phoenicia, without discussing those
further off in Syria or Mesopotamia.
32 Millar 1990, 53; Kindler 1982-1983; A. Jones 1977, 276-
288.
33 Meshorer 1985, 12 (incorrect re. Akko), 20, 34-35, 44,
49-51 (incorrect re. neokoros), 60-61, 70, 88, 106.
34 Kindler 1980, 56-58.
35 Quass 1993, 149-151; Deininger 1965, 151-153; pace
White 1998.
 chapter
had a precedent as neokoros and colony, the city of
Nikopolis in Armenia Minor, and would be followed
by Thessalonike in Macedonia (qq.v.).
There is also the question of what relationship the
neokoros city could have to provincial imperial cult
in this case, as there is no record of a koinon of
Samaria or of Syria Palaestina—the nearest were
those of Syria, centered on Antioch, and Phoenicia,
centered on Tyre.36 Nonetheless the chief city of
Syria Palaestina, Caesarea Maritima, already a
colony, was named metropolis under Severus Alex-
ander; this may imply a leadership position among
other cities of the province, though it may also have
been purely honorific.37 One city, Antipatris, in a
short-lived coinage for Elagabalus, minted what
appears to be a twice-neokoros coin type, of two
tetrastyle temples facing one another; but this im-
age may only be intended to represent the city’s
sacred spring between the two shrines.38
Not only do we know nothing about how these
cities related to one another, we cannot even be cer-
tain for what sort of temple Neapolis was neokoros.
The coin legends never state whether it is neokoros
of the emperors or of a deity. The latter was gener-
ally specified, as at Aizanoi and Magnesia (qq.v.).
On Ephesos’ coins the neokoria for Artemis was gen-
erally counted in with the others during this period,
but Ephesos was a special case, neokoros both of
emperors and of Artemis, and counted the three
together on coins where space to specify was lim-
ited.
Once it was made a colony, Neapolis celebrated
its additional Romanness by using the Latin lan-
guage on its coins, but transliterated its Greek title
(neocorus) instead of translating it to something like
aedituus. The grammatical form was also left as
Greek, with two terminations, and no attempt at a
Latinized form (*neocora?) to agree with colonia. There
are parallels from such cities as Tyre, Sidon, and
Laodikeia in Syria, whose coinage as early as the
Severan period, as well as under Philip, used Ro-
man letters to call each city metropolis as well as
colonia.39 The reverse is also true, and many a third
century colony called itself KOLVNIA on coins and/
or inscriptions. In fact, Neapolis’ coins would go back
to Greek legends and titles within only a few years,
36 Haensch 1997, 254-261; Deininger 1965, 87-88.
37 Lehmann and Holum 2000, 1, 45-47, 84-86.
38 Meshorer 1985, 54 no. 150.
39 Millar 1990, 32, 35, 50.
36 – neapolis 263
but the return probably reflects misfortune for the
city.
Harl’s detailed study showed that in all likelihood
Neapolis lost its colonial status under Trajan Decius;
the reason was less likely the city’s loyalty to its
benefactor Philip than a resulting lack of respect for
his successor Decius.40 Though some of Philip’s in-
scriptions were erased after his death, no official
condemnation of his memory or his acts has been
documented.41 Herakleia (q.v.) also declared itself
neokoros on coins first under Philip, and there too
the title seems to have survived his death. Neapolis
apparently coined nothing in Decius’ reign; subse-
quently, coins issued under Trebonianus Gallus use
Greek legends and occasionally the title ‘neokoros,’
but never ‘colonia.’42 It was only later in Gallus’
reign that a renewal of Latin-legend coinage boasted
the return of colonial status to Neapolis. The sig-
nificance of these facts should not be missed: appar-
ently Neapolis was allowed to retain its neokoria
even when the title colonia had been stripped from
it; it is less likely that both were removed but that
the neokoria was returned first. Perhaps the city’s
sins were minor enough so that the removal of only
its greatest honor was considered sufficient. Or
perhaps Neapolis was not neokoros for the imperial
cult, specifically for that of Philip, but for a temple
whose cult remained even after Philip’s would have
fallen into abeyance. And the shrine for which Nea-
polis was most famous was on Mt. Gerizim.
Archaeological excavations conducted by I.
Magen in Neapolis from 1979 to 1988 and on Mt.
Gerizim from 1983 to 1990 have uncovered several
new facts.43 On the higher ridge of the mountain,
Magen found a Hellenistic city about 100 acres in
area, which flourished from ca. 200 B.C.E. to the
time of John Hyrcanus; the latest coins date to ca.
111 B.C.E. Above, at the very summit of Gerizim,
was a sacred precinct of about five acres, where
dedications on sections of wall (in Aramaic) and
priestly inscriptions (in Hebrew, using both the ‘Jew-
ish’ script and the palaeo-Hebrew that later became
40
41
Harl 67-73.
Varner 1993, 484-487.
42 Harl 103, a unique coin of Hostilian, could have been
issued after his father Trajan Decius’ death, as he was adopted
and made Augustus by Trebonianus Gallus in June 251, and
survived about a month longer; Kienast 1996, 207-208. If this
is true, it is a good indication that Neapolis’ Greek coinage
was indeed issued early in Gallus’ reign.
43 Magen 1993 (with bibliography).
264 part i – section xiv. syria palaestina
‘Samaritan’) were found.44 The summit sanctuary’s
identification as the place sacred to the Samaritans
is strengthened by the fact that a fortified octago-
nal church was later built on top of it. This is prob-
ably the church of Mary Mother of God, which the
emperor Zeno built on the site of the Samaritan
‘synagogue’ to punish them for their uprising against
the Christians in Neapolis.45
Below the summit and the Hellenistic city is Tell
er-Ras, an artifically raised mound ca. 80 x 120 m.
and 10 m. high that directly overlooks Neapolis from
the north slope of Gerizim. The four-column temple
atop it sits on a prominence to the left of the sum-
mit as viewed from the city, and was reached by a
long staircase that started at a monumental propylon
at the mountain’s foot, just as Neapolis’ coins illus-
trate.46 The temple’s original date is problematic.
Bull used the Samaritan chronicles to attribute it to
Hadrian, and believed that it was set on top of San-
ballat’s temple. Magen noted that what Bull identi-
fied as an earlier temple was in fact the monumental
substructure that retained the earth for the temple
temenos (a walled plaza ca. 44 x 64 m., actually an
irregular oblong with its long axis running north-
south), but dated its construction to Antoninus Pius’
reign based on its first appearance on the city’s coins.
Both temple and plaza were apparently enlarged to
the north sometime in the third century, but the
extension probably collapsed sometime after the
reign of Julian the Apostate (360-363 C.E.).
Set in the center of a stone-paved plaza, the
temple (illus. pl. 3 fig. 12) was apparently tetrastyle
prostyle, its exterior facing of limestone, and had
attached columns on its exterior walls (pseudoperi-
pteral). It was about 14 x 21 m., stood on a three-
stepped krepis, but was apparently approached by
a frontal staircase of at least eleven steps. Its facade
columns were Corinthian, possibly with shafts of red
Aswan granite. The interior was arranged as a pro-
naos and naos, and at least part of its floor was paved
with marble.
From inscriptions on a limestone column fragment
and on a copper ex voto from a well, the temple was
44 Naveh 1998, 93-94.
45 Johannes Malalas, Chronicle 15.8; Procopius, Buildings
5.7.1-17; Chronicon Paschale 603.19-604.13; Zangenberg 1994,
275-278, 316-318.
46 The account is that of Bull 1997, on his earlier excava-
tion, modified by that of Magen 1993. Neither is without its
problems, however, and full and final publication is still needed
dedicated to Zeus Olympios, an aspect of the god
especially popular in the Hellenic world from the
time of Hadrian on, and one with whom that em-
peror himself was identified after 128 C.E. The
name recalls other eponyms of Zeus probably asso-
ciated with the shrine on the higher summit of
Gerizim, and noted above: Hellenios according to
Josephus and Xenios in Maccabees (probably trans-
lated to ‘Jupiter Peregrinus’ by Eusebius). Also, a
fifth-century-C.E. neoplatonist from Neapolis, Ma-
rinus, referred to a most sacred shrine of Zeus Hyp-
sistos on Gerizim, where “Abraham the ancestor of
the Hebrews was consecrated.”47 This may refer to
a Samaritan tradition that Abraham led Isaac to
sacrifice on Gerizim; the scene may actually have
been illustrated on a coin of Neapolis.48 It is all very
syncretistic, but it seems that a ‘most high’ god al-
ways found some place on Gerizim; when the sum-
mit was made empty or difficult to approach, a more
conventional substitute was erected below. The latter
was the chief sanctuary of Hellenized Neapolis; but
the Samaritans apparently never lost their dedica-
tion to the summit sanctuary, as they continued to
try to take it back even after Zeno built his church
on top of it.49
Through comparisons with the coins’ portrayals
of Mt. Gerizim, it seems sure that the Tell er-Ras
temple of Zeus Olympios was a chief temple of Nea-
polis. Its date may have been Hadrianic, as Ha-
drian’s propagation of that cult carried it throughout
the Greek world.50 This date would not conflict with
the temple’s first appearance on coins under
Hadrian’s successor Antoninus Pius. It may even
have been dedicated to Hadrian as well as Zeus
Olympios, though there is no direct evidence for this.
Though the reading of the Samaritan chronicles
regarding Hadrian is unclear, at least the Kitab al-
for both. For the image of the temple on coins, see above, n.
18.
47 Damaskios’ life of Isidoros, no. 242 preserved in Photius,
Bibliotheca, ed. I. Bekker (Berlin 1824) 345b ll. 18-28; Marinus,
however, is berated by the author for being a Hellenizer.
Zangenberg 1994, 178. Hypsistos is an epithet for Yahweh in
the Septuagint (e.g. Genesis 14.18, Deuteronomy 32.8), though
it was also applied to Zeus and other non-Jewish gods: de Hoz
1991. See S. Mitchell 1999, esp. 93-94 (a theatral place of
prayer outside Neapolis).
48 Meshorer 1989, 175-177, no. 3; also pointing out the
syncretism between Zeus and Yahweh (El Elyon).
49 Procopius, Buildings 5.7.1-17.
50 See discussions in chapters 2, ‘Smyrna’; 4, ‘Ephesos’; and
5, ‘Kyzikos.’
 chapter
Tarikh of Abu ’l-Fath places the ‘Safis’ he built on
the mountain next to Gerizim, which may be Tell
er-Ras; but what connection ‘Safis’ had to Zeus
Olympios is uncertain. Finally, whether this was also
the temple that made Neapolis neokoros cannot be
assured.
No inscriptions of Neapolis as neokoros have yet
been found.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
Neokoros:
Philip: BMC 123 (Harl 21) 51; SNGBraun 1473; Rosen-
berger 82, 8352 (Harl 21, 19); London (Harl 11);
Vienna (Harl 20); Berlin.
51 Harl 1984 (= Harl with catalogue number). Individual
examples on which the word for neokoros is completely ob-
scure (e.g. BMC 120, 122) will not be listed here.
52 Rosenberger 1977 (= Rosenberger with catalogue num-
ber).
36 – neapolis 265
Philip and Philip the Younger Augustus: BMC 130-134
(Harl 38, 37, 42, 44, 45); SNGANS 1020, 1021 (Harl
38, 44); Rosenberger 88, 91, 92 (Harl 45, 40, 44);
Oxford (Harl 46);53 Paris (3 exx., Harl 35, 37, 45);
Berlin.
Otacilia: BMC 138 (Harl 57); SNGANS 1023 (Harl 59);
Jerusalem, Franciscan Biblical School;54 Israel Mu-
seum (Rosenberger 96, Harl 60);55 Paris (Harl 60);
Berlin (2 exx.).
Philip the Younger Augustus: AUB 5056 (Harl 61); Rosen-
berger 74 (misattributed), 100, 105, 108 (Harl 74,
62, 76, 75a); London (Harl 76); Paris (3 exx., Harl
77-79); Berlin.
Trebonianus Gallus: BMC 153, 154 (Harl 112, 111);
SNGANS 1036; Rosenberger 111, 128 (misattributed)
(Harl 119, 111) Paris (2 exx., Harl 112, 118); Ber-
lin.
Volusian: BMC 164 (Harl 141); AUB 56 (misattributed),
61 (Harl 137); Rosenberger 127 (Harl 137); Paris (2
exx., Harl 137); Oxford.
53 Milne 1947, 60-61; Meshorer 1989, 176-177 no. 3.
54 Meshorer 1985, 52 no. 146.
55 Meshorer 1989, 175-176 no. 2.
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
mountainous region of Anatolia, separated from the
sea by the Pamphylian plain.1 The Pisidians were
best known as warriors, and the Sagalassians as the
most warlike of the Pisidians, at least in the time of
Alexander the Great, who had some difficulty in
subduing the city.2
The relations between the various Pisidian cities
do not appear to have been close, though there were
occasional alliances as well as enmities, and perhaps
even a small koinon in the Milyas area, between
Pisidia and Lycia.3 No koinon of Pisidia is document-
ed, though the existence of one has been posited.4
Sagalassos did call itself ‘first of Pisidia’ from at least
the time of Commodus, but that boast does not
necessarily indicate that the city was the center of
a koinon, or that other cities in Pisidia agreed with
the claim.5
Our understanding of the Roman administration
of Pisidia is made more difficult because the area
was moved from the aegis of one governor to that
of another.6 Originally included in the Galatian
realm of King Amyntas, it passed to Rome at his
death in 25 B.C.E., and became part of the prov-
ince Galatia. Galatia (including Pisidia) and Cappa-
docia occasionally merged to form one great prov-
ince, in Nero’s and again in Vespasian’s time. In the
later Flavian period, however, Pisidia may have been
ceded for a brief time to the province Asia before it
went back to Galatia and finally passed into Lycia-
Pamphylia by ca. 144-147 C.E.7 How this instabil-
1
French 1992; Waelkens 1993.
2 Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander 1.28.
3 Bracke 1993, 19, 23.
4 Deininger 1965, 68-69; Kornemann 1924, 932.
5 IGRR 3:350, 352, 353; Devijver and Waelkens 1995, 115-
116 no. 1; Haensch 1997, 279 n. 90.
6 Remy 1986, 21-22, 25, 39-40, 51-65, 73, 82-85.
7 Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 295. The new datum is an
inscription to a governor of Asia in 86 C.E.; note, however,
that Pisidia was under a legatus of Cappadocia-Galatia in 82
and of Galatia in 113/114: Remy 1986, 64, 67. It is now
ity affected the development of a koinon among the
cities of Pisidia is uncertain (see below). Certainly
the only evidence for a Pisidian city being neoko-
ros is extremely late, from the end of the third or
beginning of the fourth century C.E.
First and Second Neokoria: by 293-305
An inscription of the first Tetrarchy calls Saga-
lassos “sacred, illustrious and honored twice neoko-
ros city, first of Pisidia, friend and ally of the Ro-
mans”:
INSCRIPTION 1. Pace 1916-1920, 38-39 no. 21
(SEG 2 [1924] no. 735). To Diocletian and
Maximian as Augusti and to Constantius Chlorus
and Galerius as Caesares, thus dated 293-305.8
{ |erå k¢ lamprå k¢ ¶ndojow b' nevkÒro[w]
Sagalass°vn pÒliw pr\(th) t}w Pisid¤aw f¤lh
k¢ sÊmmaxow [ÑRv]m°vn
Several milestones also reinforce the fact that Sa-
galassos was twice neokoros under Diocletian. There
are other milestones, however, from as late as Clau-
dius Gothicus and even under the first Tetrarchy,
that do not mention ‘neokoros’ among the city’s
titles.9 Nor does the city’s coinage, which goes down
to the reign of Claudius Gothicus, cite it.10 One
should not argue from silence, though, and it is
certainly possible that Sagalassos was (twice) neoko-
ros before the end of the third century, but saw no
need to proclaim it explicitly, especially if it had no
close rivals for the title.
Sagalassos’ chief importance in the third century
was likely as a source of grain supplies for the Ro-
man armies in the East; its coins often show a small
uncertain which province the governor Proculus (named on the
temple of Apollo Klarios) governed, and when.
8 Kienast 1996, 264.
9 French 1988, 113 no. 299, 105 no. 275; IGRR 3:336.
10 Weiss 1992, 159; also 155, stating that no Pisidian city
was neokoros.
 chapter
wheat ear, once under the joined hands of the
Romans and Sagalassians (under Claudius Gothi-
cus).11 The city had been proud of its title ‘friend
and ally of the Romans’ perhaps as early as the time
of Antoninus Pius.12 But despite all this and long
being ‘first of Pisidia,’ after the empire-wide provin-
cial reorganization that occurred between 308 and
311, Pisidia’s chief city was the Roman colony
Antioch, not Sagalassos.13 And though later inscrip-
tions honoring Constantius II (dated from 346 to
361) accord Sagalassos the title metropolis, in the
lists of bishoprics, Sagalassos still falls behind An-
tioch and Philomelion.14
If Pisidia only developed a koinon structure late,
it is possible that a pair of local temples at Sagalassos
were then adapted for koinon cult.15 Scholars have
indeed associated two Sagalassian temples with the
cult of Roman emperors. In neither case, however,
can the theory that they were koinon temples, or that
the neokoria was bestowed for them, be proved.
The first is the temple of Apollo Klarios.16 It is
prominently placed on a hill buttressed with terrace
walls, overlooking the west side of the city’s (lower)
agora, from which an axial propylon, Doric with-
out and Ionic within, led into the temenos. Anoth-
er propylon entered the precinct from the northwest.
The excavators have depended mainly upon stylis-
tic analysis of the architecture to date its phases, the
first of which may have been Augustan. This early
temple may have been destroyed in an earthquake,
and the second phase, currently dated in the early
second century, had six by eleven Ionic columns.
The dedication on the architrave, discussed below,
records the names of the chief donors: Titus Flavius
Collega and various members of his family gave the
peripteron, the revetment of the (interior) walls, and
other features of the temple, which he apparently
dedicated during his own chief priesthood. The
temple itself was later completely dismantled and the
11 Weiss 1992, 159-163; BMC 59; SNGvA 5208-5209, the
latter’s reverse type surmounted by a wreath and what may be
a bow (symbols of the Klareia? See below).
12 IGRR 3:348 (much restored), 350-353; Devijver and
Waelkens 1995, 115-116 no. 1.
13 Waelkens 1993, 47.
14 Devijver and Waelkens 1995, 116-117 nos. 2-3; Belke and
Mersich 1990, 368-369.
15 Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 312.
16 S. Mitchell, Owens, and Waelkens 1989, 70-73; Waelkens,
S. Mitchell, and Owens 1990, 185-190; Waelkens 1993, 46;
Vandeput 1997, 50-57, 198-202.
37 – sagalassos 267
spolia used for a Christian basilical church on the
same site, perhaps as early as the fifth century.
Though the excavators occasionally state that the
temple was ‘re-dedicated to the cult of the imperial
family,’ the inscription on the architrave clearly
reads: “To Apollo Klarios and to the gods Augusti
and to the fatherland...”17 The formula is exactly
comparable to that on the small streetside shrine at
Ephesos (q.v.), which was long misnamed ‘the temple
of Hadrian’ despite its actual dedication to Artemis,
Hadrian, and the neokoros people of Ephesos; its
actual object of cult is still uncertain. Also, many
secular buildings had similar formulae of dedication,
both at Ephesos and elsewhere. Another architrave
found at Sagalassos switches the order of imperial
and divine dedicatees, reading “to the gods Augusti
and (gods) of the fatherland and to the people.”18
The purpose of the inscription of the temple at
Sagalassos is not to name all the cults practiced
therein, but is simply a formula of dedication, as it
is in Ephesos and elsewhere. The decoration around
the temple, including metopes of bows and arrows
and of wreaths in the Doric frieze of the propyla, is
well suited to a temple of Apollo. The festival Klareia
is mentioned in local inscriptions from the mid-first
to third century C.E., and it is never coupled with
any imperial name.19
A better case for dedication to the imperial cult
may be made for a temple in the southern extreme
of Sagalassos. Again, the identification is based on
an inscription from the architrave, but this is to the
emperor Antoninus Pius and his house, with no
mention of another dedicatee preserved.20 The
temple was built up on a large terrace, where it could
be seen by all who entered the gates. It was set
axially in a broad temenos, 82.40 x 60.40 m., with
porticoes on all four sides, entered from the west via
a propylon, possibly with composite capitals (illus.
pl. 5 fig. 20). The temple itself is on a similar scale
to that of Apollo Klarios, with six by eleven columns,
17 Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 295. Lanckoronski 1890-
1892, 2 no. 200 (= IGRR 3:342).
18 Lanckoronski 1890-1892, 2 no. 205; found in the area
of W, not of E, though IGRR 3:343 attributed it and 342 to
the same monument.
19 Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 308-310; also note Devijver
and Waelkens 1995, 119 no. 7. Other contests are the Rhodoneia
and the Vareia (both named for private founders: Lanckoronski
1890-1892, 2 nos. 193 and 195) and the Kallipianeios Neikatoreios.
20 Lanckoronski 1890-1892, 2 no. 188 (= IGRR 3:348).
Waelkens, Mitchell, and Owens 1990, 190-193; Waelkens 1993,
46; Vandeput 1997, 64-82, 203-207.
268 part i – section xv. pisidia
but is Corinthian, not Ionic, and faces west, not east
(illus. pl. 2 fig. 8). Its pronaos, with two columns in
antis, is almost as deep as its cella, at 8 m. and 9.3
m. respectively.
This temple’s rich but delicate architectural dec-
oration, featuring acanthus scrolls and palmettes with
lotus, has led some of its excavators to date it in the
Hadrianic period, despite the dedication to Antoni-
nus Pius; they justify this date by positing a long
building period, which necessarily implies that the
temple was at first to be dedicated to Hadrian.21 But
it is extremely unlikely that Antoninus, who was said
to have been given the name Pius for his punctili-
ousness in honoring his adoptive father, would have
allowed a temple originally for Hadrian to be reded-
icated to his own cult.22 It certainly did not happen
at Kyzikos (q.v.), where despite a delay of over for-
ty years the temple was still dedicated to the orig-
inal object of cult, Hadrian. The schema of stylistic
development that Vandeput has generated can only
offer a relative chronology; indeed, its sole dose of
absolute chronology comes from the same kind of
inscriptional evidence that he here overrides. It is
more likely, then, that the temple to Antoninus Pius
was requested from, and granted by, Antoninus Pius,
and that one Sagalassian stonecarving workshop
continued to use a ‘Hadrianic’ style for a longer time
than usual.23 In any case, the temple began to be
dismantled in late antiquity, and parts of its frieze
were reused in another basilical church to the west
of the city in the fifth or early sixth century C.E.24
Sagalassos’ first chief priest of the Augusti, Titus
Flavius Neon, probably was the first in his family
to receive Roman citizenship, in the Flavian peri-
od.25 He was also agonothetes for life, though the
name of the contest is not mentioned; and one of
his descendants, Titus Flavius Severianus, was per-
petual agonothetes, likely by endowment, as well.
Neon’s office does imply an imperial cult temple in
the Flavian period, before the temple of Apollo
Klarios was reconstructed in the early second century.
Nothing dictates that his chief priesthood was pro-
vincial rather than municipal. But it is just possible
21 Vandeput 1997, 75-77.
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.
23 Vandeput 1995, 131.
24 Vandeput 1993, 93.
25 Devijver 1993, 2.3, 3.3.
that an impetus for new developments in the pro-
vincial imperial cult in the late Flavian period could
have been a brief incorporation of Pisidia into the
province of Asia, with its well developed koinon
focused on worship of the living emperor.
A recent find from the lower agora of Sagalassos
offers the latest known example of the title ‘neoko-
ros’ in current use. The only securely dated later
appearance was at Sardis (q.v.), and that was an
anachronism, probably imitated from earlier inscrip-
tions. The Sagalassian inscription is on a reeded
column reused for a dedication to Constantine as
Augustus and to Constantine II, Constantius II, and
Constans as Caesares, thus dated between 25 De-
cember 333 and Constantine’s death in May 337
C.E.26 The inscription was slightly altered between
340 and 350 when Constantius II and Constans were
the sole remaining Augusti. The dedication to the
rulers is in Latin. The city’s titulature follows in
Greek, and though its first line was erased and re-
cut, it was apparently not substantially changed.
INSCRIPTION 4. Devijver and Waelkens 1997,
310-313 no. 6. Original dedication to Constantine
and his three sons, 333-337 C.E; slightly altered
under Constantius II and Constans, 340-350 C.E.
First version: _{ |erå ka‹ lamprå´ ka‹ ¶ndojow
b' nevk[Ò]row Sagalass°vn pÒ[liw] pr\th t}w
Pisid¤a[w] f¤lh ka‹ sÊmma[x]ow ÑRvma¤vn
It is noteworthy that the title ‘twice neokoros,’ proud
mark of the city’s worship of the emperors, was still
being used at Sagalassos while the Empire was ruled
by Christian emperors. Yet Constantine does not
seem to have taken direct action against pagan tem-
ples; indeed, if Zosimus can be trusted, he founded
two in Constantinople itself, one of the Mother of
the Gods, the other of the city goddess Rome.27 But
even if the emperor did not generally support pa-
gan shrines, he did believe in his own divine mis-
sion, and it is unlikely that he would have chosen
the imperial cult as a target for disgrace.28
Whatever Constantine’s stance, the evidence for
Sagalassos as neokoros, indeed for almost all the
neokoroi, ends after this point. At least one of the
temples for which the city may have been neokoros,
26 Kienast 1996, 298-303, 310-317.
27 Zosimus, New History 2.31; the pagan Zosimus was no
friend to Constantine.
28 MacMullen 1990, 107-116.
 chapter
that of Antoninus Pius, was dismantled about a
century after inscription 4 was reengraved. Sagalas-
sos appears to have had a vocal, and active, Chris-
tian community early on; a recently found dedication
to the “pure goddesses who heed prayer” was first
scratched with the rebuttal: “one God!” and then
torn down to be reused as paving over a gutter.29
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
Twice neokoros:
1. Pace 1916-1920, 38-39 no. 21. Dated 293-305
C.E., like inscriptions 2 and 3. See text above.
2. French 1988, 104 no. 273. Milestone originally
29 Waelkens et al. 1997, 147, fig. 67; see also 162.
37 – sagalassos 269
inscribed under the first Tetrarchy, same time as
inscriptions 1 and 3; reinscribed in Constantinian
times.
3. French 1988, 101 no. 264. Enumeration restored.
Milestone originally inscribed under the first Tet-
rarchy (like inscriptions 1 and 2), reinscribed twice
subsequently, once in 333-335 and again in 340-350
C.E.
4. Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 310-313 no. 6. See
text above. First version of 333-337 C.E., parts re-
cut 340-350.
Uncertain, fragment:
5. Pace 1916-1920, 39 no. 22 (SEG 2 [1924] no.
736). No enumeration preserved.
No coins of Sagalassos that cite the title ‘neokoros’
are yet known.
This page intentionally left blank
 chapter 35 – herakleia 271

PART II. SUMMARY CHAPTERS

This page intentionally left blank
 chapter
INTRODUCTION
The following chapters summarize the material that
has been presented in the chapters on each neoko-
ros city. Those who need a general and chronolog-
ically arranged picture of the development of the
provincial imperial cult among all the neokoroi,
instead of in one particular city or koinon, may begin
here. This arrangement involves some repetition of
material, but it allows the reader to get a broader
picture of certain themes. Full discussion and cita-
tion of sources is not given here, however, but in
each individual city chapter.
Chapter 38 presents the historical development
of koinon cult from 29 B.C.E., through the rise of
35 – herakleia 273
the title ‘neokoros’ in the later first century, to the
last use of the title ‘neokoros’ in the fifth century C.E.
Chapter 39 examines what we know of the temples
themselves and of the images within them; it also
discusses the coins issued by the neokoroi and how
to interpret the evidence they offer. Chapter 40
focuses on the neokoroi cities and their operations,
while 41 widens that focus to the koina to which
those cities belonged. Finally, chapter 42 looks at the
Roman side of the equation, the actions and atti-
tudes of the emperors, the governors, and the Sen-
ate toward the koina, the neokoroi, and their tem-
ples.
This page intentionally left blank
 chapter 38
Chapter 38. Historical Analysis: the Development of Neokoria
Augustus
The koinon cult of the emperors started with the first
emperor, Augustus, and thus antedated the use of
‘neokoros’ as an official title for a city by about a
century.1 These earlier foundations will be found to
have counted when the title became current and
when total neokoriai were reckoned up, however.
The few historical accounts regarding the origins of
koinon cults also offer crucial information that other
sources on later periods pass over in silence.
Chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ has already provided an
analysis of Cassius Dio’s account of events of 29
B.C.E., which was probably taken fairly literally from
an official Roman document. The passage shows
how the victor of Actium, later to be named
Augustus, handled requests to establish the imperial
cult in the provinces of Asia and Bithynia.
In the meantime Caesar, besides taking care of af-
fairs generally, gave permission that there be estab-
lished sacred areas to Rome and his father Caesar,
whom he named the hero Julius, in Ephesos and in
Nikaia; for these were at that time the preeminent
cities in Asia and in Bithynia respectively. He com-
manded that the Romans resident there honor those
divinities, but he permitted the foreigners, whom he
called Hellenes, to consecrate precincts to himself,
the Asians’ in Pergamon and the Bithynians’ in
Nikomedia. From that beginning, the latter practice
has been carried on under other emperors, not only
in the Greek provinces but in the others as well,
insofar as they obey the Romans. For in the capital
itself and the rest of Italy none of the emperors, no
matter how worthy of fame, has dared to do this;
still, even there they give divine honors and build
shrines as well to dead emperors who have ruled justly.
These events happened in the winter, and the
Pergamenes got permission to hold the contest known
as ‘sacred’ in honor of his temple.
Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9
1 Up-to-date bibliography is in Southern 1998.
– historical analysis 275
The emperor, who was still in Asia at the time, was
not making these decisions out of thin air, but likely
in response to petitions from the two provinces in-
volved, specifically from the provincial organizations,
the koina, that were to make the provincial impe-
rial cult their main concern. Augustus was proba-
bly being offered cult in line with a long tradition
of ruler worship by Greek cities and organizations,
stretching through the Hellenistic period and includ-
ing honors to Roman magistrates as well.2 But it is
likely that he introduced modifications as he thought
proper, modifications that would have played well
before the Roman audience that was then his prime
concern. These modifications will be examined more
closely in chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers.’
Those whom Augustus called Hellenes, i.e. the
koina of the Hellenes of Asia and of Bithynia, were
to be allowed to worship Augustus himself, the
Asians at Pergamon and the Bithynians at Niko-
media. Dio then appends his interpretation of the
event: as a senator who could survey the history of
two subsequent centuries, he saw a line of demar-
cation separating, not East from West, but Roman
Italy, where people worshipped only the deified
dead, from the non-Roman Empire, where people
could worship a living ruler. Dio did not mention
the fact that the goddess Rome shared cult not just
in Caesar’s temple but in Augustus’ as well.3 Per-
haps Dio omitted to name her because her presence
would have obscured his point that Augustus’ was
the model for subsequent imperial cult; as Dio knew,
later emperors did not consider themselves obliged
to honor Rome in the temples dedicated to them.
Or it may be that the personification of Rome was
introduced into cults of Augustus sometime after he
accepted these two temples.
Though Dio named Ephesos and his own city of
Nikaia as preeminent in their provinces, the honor
of being among the first neokoroi was to escape
2 The most comprehensive treatment is still Habicht 1970.
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
designated for Romans, and did not serve as head-
quarters of the provincial imperial cult as the temples
to Rome and Augustus would.
Even the petitions of Pergamon and Nikomedia,
both submitted and granted at the same level and
by the same emperor, seem to have undergone sig-
nificant differences in treatment. For one, Dio
mentions that the Pergamenes received permission
to hold a sacred contest in honor of Augustus’
temple. This request appears to have been an ad-
dendum, perhaps made by the city of Pergamon
itself, to the larger petitions made by the two koina.
Dio’s wording makes it clear that the festival was
supplementary and established in honor of the
temple, not an invariable result of its foundation. We
must remember that a sacred contest was not the
inevitable concomitant of a temple’s foundation
when we turn to later periods, when such festivals
would proliferate.
The crucial passage of Cassius Dio, and Sueto-
nius’ observation that Augustus only allowed his cult
to be practiced along with that of the goddess Rome,
show how he ‘reinvented’ the tradition of ruler cult
as already practiced by the Hellenes, and made it
accommodate his own purposes.4 Moreover, thanks
to Augustus’ unrivaled authority and status, which
his successor Tiberius would guard closely, this new
tradition of granting to a koinon a single temple to
the emperor and cult partner(s) continued to be
honored (with certain exceptions, and chiefly in Asia)
over a century later.
As neither the temple at Pergamon nor that at
Nikomedia has survived, only the temple of Augustus
and Rome at Ankyra is left to represent the temples
of Augustus that would eventually gain the title
‘neokoros’ for their cities. The temple dates some-
time between Galatia’s absorption as a Roman prov-
ince in 25 B.C.E. and the point at which the list of
priests of the province was inscribed on its left anta,
19/20 C.E. Further evidence for the temple’s func-
tion as an archive for the province is showed by the
inscription of Augustus’ accomplishments, the res
gestae, on its walls; the temple at Pergamon is known
from epigraphic references to have fulfilled a simi-
lar function. A fuller discussion of the architectural
4 Hobsbawm 1983. For figures like Augustus as bricoleurs in
Levi-Strauss’ sense, manipulators of extant traditions, see Boholm
1996, 190-191.
program of the temple at Ankyra will follow in
chapter 39, ‘The Temples,’ below.
Tiberius
In 23 C.E., the Hellenes of Asia petitioned to build
a second temple to a reigning emperor, Augustus’
successor Tiberius. The immediate motive was a
series of Senatorial judgements favorable to the
province, and as a consequence the Senate was to
be honored along with the emperor. Also included
in the honor was the emperor’s mother, the widow
of Augustus, Livia (now known as Julia). It should
be noted that Bithynia, which had previously acted
in concert with Asia in requesting a temple to
Augustus, took no part in the Tiberian petition. This
was because Bithynia had no interest in the success-
ful prosecutions of Asian governors which supplied
the immediate motive for offering the temple. But
the Asians’ petition also indicates a point at which
the two provinces began to diverge. Bithynia offers
little evidence, but its koinon may have been con-
tent with its one temple, that of Rome and Augustus
at Nikomedia, for the entire first century, whereas
the koinon of Asia may have made some attempt to
build a new provincial temple for each emperor.
The temple would eventually be built in Smyrna,
but not without a debate before the Roman Senate
among the eleven cities that wanted it.5 Two aspects
of this debate are especially noteworthy. The first
is that instead of presenting an agreed-upon petition,
as they likely did in offering a cult for Augustus at
Pergamon in 29 B.C.E., the cities of Asia may have
been deadlocked over which of them was to have
the temple of Tiberius. Rivalry over the temples and
their rights was only to increase over the coming
centuries. The second aspect is that the Senate elimi-
nated certain cities from competition, some because
they weren’t of a status suitable to this high honor,
others because they were already devoted to one
particular and important cult. Among the latter were
Ephesos (devoted to Artemis), Miletos (to Apollo),
and Pergamon, which had been ‘honored enough’
by its temple to (Rome and) Augustus. Thus in the
early days of the Empire the Senate equated a
koinon temple with some of the greatest sanctuar-
ies of the province, and judged it proper that a city
have no more than one koinon temple.
5 Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56.
 chapter
Tiberius himself frowned on extending the impe-
rial cult beyond the limits set by Augustus, which
he interpreted rather strictly. In 25, a delegation
from the province of Hispania Ulterior asked per-
mission to build a shrine to Tiberius and his mother,
using the temple he had granted to Asia as a prece-
dent. This gave Tiberius an opportunity to state his
opposition to divine honors for himself: he had only
granted the temple to the Asians because Augustus
had set the precedent of granting a temple to his own
cult and Rome’s at Pergamon, but he (Tiberius) had
been the more ready to follow that precedent be-
cause the cult of the Senate had been linked with
his own.6 According to Tacitus, this speech, deliv-
ered before the Senate itself, was attributed by many
to the worst motives, though some saw it in the way
that Tiberius probably intended, as an act of (osten-
tatious) modesty. Tiberius was making a show of his
refusal to go beyond the hallowed example of
Augustus before a Roman audience.
Gaius
In contrast, Gaius, better known as Caligula, appar-
ently chose the site of his own temple in Asia rather
than leaving the choice to either the koinon or the
Senate. Cassius Dio 59.28.1 states that Gaius “or-
dered that a precinct be set aside for his worship in
Miletos in the province Asia.” In this passage, just
as in Tacitus’ discussion of Tiberius’ temple, certain
cities were excluded from consideration because they
were ‘preempted’ by other gods (again, Artemis held
Ephesos), including emperors (Augustus held Per-
gamon, Tiberius held Smyrna). Miletos itself had
previously been cast out of the running for the
temple to Tiberius because it was considered already
to be dedicated to Apollo; but that fact would not
be an obstruction to Gaius’ command, because the
koinon cult of Gaius was to be established in Apollo’s
own temple, the Didymaion.
In choosing a particular city and temple for his
cult, and the latter not only already consecrated to
a god but one of the biggest buildings in the Greek
world, Gaius went well beyond the example hal-
lowed by his great-grandfather Augustus in several
ways. That was not unusual for this emperor, whom
the historians portray as eager to establish his own
6 Tacitus, Annals 4.37-38; Charlesworth 1939.
38 – historical analysis 277
cult in all corners of the Empire.7 There is no record
of whether Gaius was to share his temple with a god
or personification, though it is possible that Apollo
was accommodated at his side. As the Didymaion
was to become a koinon temple, a board of neopoioi
was established representing each judicial district of
Asia, and work commenced on the building’s new
incarnation. But it was to be short lived: the empe-
ror’s murder and the condemnation of his memory
meant that the Didymaion, no longer a koinon tem-
ple, was soon returned to Apollo.
From Claudius to Vitellius
Of the provincial imperial cults in the East, little
specific information survives from the reigns of
Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, or Vitellius. More
generally, however, the second half of the first cen-
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.
As early as Gaius’ reign, Kyzikos was the first city
known to use ‘neokoros’ to describe itself on an
inscription, and that was for possession of a shrine
dedicated to a member of the emperor’s family. Two
further instances of the term occur in Ephesos. In
Acts of the Apostles 19.35, during the riot of the sil-
versmiths in the theater at Ephesos, the city’s sec-
retary is said to have asked, “Who does not know
that Ephesos is neokoros of the great goddess
Artemis and of the heaven-fallen [image]?” Though
this episode was likely set in writing a quarter cen-
tury after it occurred, the terminology does fit the
period of Paul’s visit to Ephesos in the early 50s.
Then, in Nero’s reign, Ephesos became the first city
to call itself neokoros on a coin. These coins, dated
to 65/66 C.E., might represent the first use of
‘neokoros’ as a title for a city with a koinon temple.
If so, Ephesos’ novel honor was to be plagued with
uncertainty, as Nero, the likely object of cult, died
in disgrace only a few years after the coins appeared.
The Flavians: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian
Apparently it was the last, successful emperor of the
year 69, Vespasian, who gave Perge in Pamphylia
7 Barrett 1989, 140-153.
278 part ii – summary chapters
its first provincial imperial temple; at least, the city
claimed to be ‘neokoros from Vespasian’ two cen-
turies later. The closest sure connection that Ves-
pasian had with Perge was his reorganization of
Pamphylia, which he annexed to Lycia. Lycia had
a long-standing koinon of its own. Pamphylia, on the
other hand, formed an independent provincial or-
ganization, known from a few inscriptions as ‘the
cities in Pamphylia,’ and directed by Pamphyliarchs.
Perhaps in the reorganization by Vespasian, some
attempt was made to regularize Pamphylia in the
model of neighboring provinces. An important part
of this reorganization could have been establishing
a temple of the imperial cult, and the title ‘neoko-
ros’ would either have been a recent innovation to
signify possession of such a temple, or could later
have become attached to it. But these possibilities
are in fact extremely uncertain, and it is dangerous
to generalize from province to province.
Possibly as early as 85/86, but at least by 88/89,
in the reign of Vespasian’s son Domitian, Ephesos
had a koinon temple of the Augusti and was named
neokoros on inscriptions as it had been on coins
earlier. This is the time by which neokoros seems
to have become a title that was solely applicable to
possessors of koinon temples, not just a metaphor
for the possession of any important temple. It is
unfortunate that the documents only show the re-
sult, not the process.
That process can no longer be attributed with-
out question to Domitian. For one thing, it is be-
coming clearer that Ephesos may have already been
neokoros for Nero, and the petition for reinstatement
of a koinon temple for Ephesos could have been
initiated as early as the time of Vespasian. The fact
that the inscriptions around the temple were set up
to honor Domitian may mean only that the project
took a long time to complete. A construction period
of over twenty years is about twice as long as those
likely for some of the temple’s predecessors, e.g. the
temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon or the
temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate at Smyrna;
on the other hand, the third koinon temple of Asia,
the Didymaion as rededicated to Gaius, was never
completed. Of course Ephesos’ temple of the Au-
gusti, despite its massive vaulted platform, was no
Didymaion. But as the time between the first appear-
ance of ‘neokoros’ on coins of 65/66 and the hon-
orifics around the temple in 88/89 may have
included much negotiation in the koinon and sev-
eral different embassies to Rome (not to mention the
interruptions caused by civil war and the deaths of
rulers), such a lapse of time is not impossible to
imagine.
As founder of a new dynasty distinct from that
of the Julio-Claudians, Vespasian thoroughly reor-
ganized several provinces; in the process, he may
have instituted the imperial cult, as we have already
seen in the case of Perge in Pamphylia.8 He had
made no objection to early rumors about his divine
powers or imperial destiny, so long as they aided his
progress toward imperial rule. Once that was accom-
plished, it was probably in his interest to strengthen
his position by using the Augustan example of ac-
ceptance of his own worship by the Hellenes of the
provinces, the same kind of ‘routinization of cha-
risma’ that Bloch saw in the appropriation of royal
healing outside dynastic or familial bounds.9 It was
crucial to the founders of new dynasties to install
themselves firmly in an already dominant tradition.
Therefore it is rather odd that several scholars
have attributed wide-ranging reforms of the ‘impe-
rial cult’ (in all its aspects and across several prov-
inces) not to Vespasian, but to Domitian, his younger
son and second successor.10 After Domitian’s death
his image and name were erased from many (though
by no means all) monuments; and some scholars
have assumed from this condemnation that when
ancient texts attribute the initiation or modification
of a cult to Vespasian or Nerva, they are covering
up an initial attribution to Domitian. This is a faulty
assumption, however: though the name of Domitian
was often erased or passed over, there are no ac-
counts of his acts being attributed to any other
emperor.11 Specifically, the long history of misinter-
pretation of the remains of the first temple to make
Ephesos neokoros (with the statue of Titus found
there miscalled Domitian; its temple of the Augusti
miscalled the temple of Domitian; and the city it-
self misnamed twice neokoros from falsified coins of
Domitian’s time) has clouded the issue and made
Domitian’s name loom larger than it perhaps should.
Historians and litterateurs who wrote on Domitian
emphasized his autocratic tendencies, his famous
8 Levick 1999, 134-151, 165-169 modified the picture pre-
sented by Garzetti 1974, 250-253. For Vespasian’s reorgani-
zation of the provincial imperial cult in various provinces of
the West, Fishwick 1998, 107-112.
9 Bloch 1973, 21-27.
10 Dräger 1993, 238-256; Scherrer 1997.
11 Vittinghoff 1936, 19-20, 30, 98.
 chapter 38
wish to be called ‘lord and god,’ and his hatred for
his brother and predecessor Titus.12 Of course, it is
important to recognize that almost all the sources
that survive were hostile to Domitian, and thus prone
to interpret his actions for the worse.13 Domitian’s
‘autocracy’ has been re-interpreted as an increase
in efficiency and centralization of administration,
tending toward direct imperial control, in a num-
ber of spheres.14 But his interests seem to have been
more focused on correction of specific cases than on
the wide-ranging reorganization of some provinces,
as Vespasian’s had been. Indeed, Domitian’s admin-
istration appears to have been rather legalistic and
precise, except in the case of his edict against vine-
growing in Italy and the provinces, which was soon
rescinded anyway. Moreover, frequent dedications
to Domitian do not mean that the projects were
funded by or even known to him.15
In general, emperors made very few blanket de-
cisions that were to be applicable to all provinces.
Though the emperor always stood at its center,
administration of the provinces was not a homoge-
neous and overarching organization, but was
handled according to varying laws and traditions in
each province, by a scanty bureaucracy that changed
frequently and had considerable power of decision.16
The emperor’s role in most cases was responsive
rather than proactive, and always subject to what
information he received by personal contact or by
letter.17 Though the formation of a koinon and the
practice of the imperial cult could be encouraged
by the emperors, these actions were not enforced by
empire-wide decree.18 Instead, cult honors were
generally offered to, and perhaps then modified by,
an emperor himself.19 The exception was Gaius, but
even Domitian was no Gaius. In sum, it is very
unlikely that the exact form of provincial cult estab-
lished in diverse provinces like Asia, Macedonia,
Pamphylia, or Achaea were on the same pattern, or
originated out of the expressed desires of Domitian.
As for Domitian’s reputed hatred for Titus, such
an emotion in a person long dead is unlikely ever
12 Suetonius, Domitian 13.2.
13 Southern 1997, 34-59.
14 Garzetti 1974, 265-268.
15 Levick 1982; Devreker 1982, 510; pace 513, the start of
a coinage does not necessarily indicate a new grant of civic status.
B. Jones 1992, 109-112 accepted Devreker uncritically.
16 Eck 1997a, 107-145, 167-185.
17 Millar 1977, 379, 392; the latter on the edict on vines.
18 Deininger 1965, 35.
19 S. Price 1984b, 65-77.
– historical analysis 279
to be proved or disproved. But it is important to rec-
ognize that Titus’ eventual deification and the con-
struction of his long-delayed triumphal arch in the
Roman Forum indicate that Domitian did give his
brother prominent posthumous honors. Thus when
evaluating the colossal statue of Titus found at
Ephesos, we cannot use alleged personal hatred to
rule out the possibility that the statue was carved and
set up by the Ephesians and the province of Asia
under Domitian.
That the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos was
completed during Domitian’s reign is indubitable.
Ephesos then began to call itself neokoros for that
koinon temple, and inscriptions of Smyrna name that
city neokoros at this time as well. Smyrna also be-
came the first to show its city goddess as neokoros,
holding a small model of its temple of Tiberius, Julia,
and the Senate, on coins of Domitian’s reign.
Nerva
During his brief reign, the emperor Nerva agreed
to a petition by Beroia for the right to keep the titles
‘metropolis’ and ‘neokoros’ strictly to itself within the
province Macedonia. This implies that the title
‘neokoros’ was not only already current, but that
there was a rival for it in that province, probably
Thessalonike.
It was also under Nerva that a Lycian city was
first called metropolis, though the title ‘neokoros’
would appear in that province (perhaps first at
Patara) only at a subsequent time.
Trajan
So far as is known, Trajan only allowed one pro-
vincial temple to his cult to the koinon of Asia. He
followed Augustus’ example not only in this way, but
in sharing his temple with a cult partner (in this case
Zeus Philios), in allowing a contest in honor of the
temple to be established, and in giving that contest
the same status and privileges that the games for
Rome and Augustus had. But in granting this temple
to Pergamon, the same city that Augustus himself
had so honored, Trajan set a new and important
precedent. The historians’ accounts agree that in
previous competitions for provincial temples, cities
could be ruled out if they already had one other
major shrine; thus Pergamon itself was held to have
280 part ii – summary chapters
acquired enough honor through its temple to (Rome
and) Augustus to be ruled out of consideration first
for a temple to Tiberius, and then for one to Gaius.
Trajan, however, allowed Pergamon a second
koinon temple, and thus it became the first city
known to be twice neokoros, as its inscriptions
quickly proclaimed.
Trajan’s action certainly appears to have broken
the ice, and thereafter many of the larger and more
important cities of Asia would strive to attain mul-
tiple neokoriai. Pergamon’s achievement of a sec-
ond neokoria must have opened the floodgates to
similar demands from the other neokoroi, like Smyr-
na and Ephesos, as well as from cities that had not
yet become neokoroi. One can imagine the acri-
monious discussion in meetings of the koinon, with
the argument centering round the question of
whether the largest cities should hold a virtual mon-
opoly on neokoria, or whether the title should be
allowed to descend to the next lower rank. How the
cities were represented within the koinon of Asia is
uncertain, though it is likely that the larger and more
important cities cast more votes than the smaller
ones.20 In the case of the temple to Tiberius, Julia,
and the Senate, even smaller cities (Hypaipa, Tralles,
Laodikeia, Magnesia, and Ilion) had competed for
the honor, but when the decision was left to the
Roman Senate, it chose Smyrna, one of the great-
est cities, reflecting the magnitude of the honor to
be conferred upon it. The largest cities must have
been quick to agree with this criterion, but that can-
not have stopped the smaller ones from advancing
their claims. In their favor was the previously men-
tioned tendency toward exclusivity which had fa-
vored cities that were not already ‘occupied’ by other
cults. Thus the Senate had passed over Pergamon,
Ephesos, and Miletos to choose Smyrna for the tem-
ple to Tiberius, and later the emperor Gaius passed
over Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna, appropriat-
ing Miletos’ Didymaion for his own cult. Had this
tendency continued it would have led to neokoriai
for progressively smaller or less important cities as
the larger ones became ‘occupied.’ But whether by
preference of Rome, machinations of the larger
cities, or both, this movement downward was
checked, at least temporarily. First there were the
provincial imperial temples built in cities with famous
local cults, such as Gaius’ takeover of Miletos’ temple
20 See chapter 41, ‘The Koina,’ below.
of Apollo, and the establishment of the temple of the
Augusti at Ephesos despite that city’s famous temple
to Artemis. But the definitive step was Trajan’s grant
of a second provincial temple to Pergamon. It en-
sured that no city could be disqualified by having a
previous koinon temple when it came to choosing
the site of a new koinon temple.
A unique coin of Trajan may indicate that Neo-
kaisareia was the first neokoros known in a koinon
of Pontus. Trajan had some role in reorganizing
Pontus, as late in his reign the province Galatia/
Cappadocia was broken up, and both Pontus Pole-
moniacus (with Neokaisareia as its metropolis) and
Pontus Galaticus (with Amaseia at its head) went
with Cappadocia. Documents of a unified koinon of
Pontus first appear at this time, and it is possible that
its headquarters were established at Neokaisareia,
which also was allowed to call itself neokoros.
It is difficult to isolate any overriding policy prac-
ticed by Trajan as regards the provincial imperial
cult, except an emulation of Augustus.21 The choice
of Zeus Philios in particular as a cult partner may
have been appropriate to Trajan’s own propaganda:
Dio Chrysostomos named that aspect of the deity
in his first oration on kingship, and praised friend-
ship’s benefits to kings in his third oration, both
perhaps delivered before the emperor himself.22
Trajan’s allowing a new provincial temple to his cult
in Asia could be connected with his presence in the
East for war with Parthia (114-117), and a reorga-
nization of the Pontic provinces may have been the
occasion for Neokaisareia’s first use of the title
‘neokoros.’ The question remains: why choose
Pergamon, which was already once neokoros, over
the many cities that had no koinon temple at all?
No special connection or specific visit of Trajan to
Pergamon is known. Was Pergamon’s good fortune
due to the influence of the Pergamene C. Antius
Aulus Julius Quadratus, Trajan’s ‘most illustrious
friend’? Or how otherwise did the Pergamenes con-
vince Trajan to overstep the precedent of allowing
only one temple per city per province?
21 Bennett 1997, 208-209, a trifle harsh on Trajan’s pro-
paganda (“the Roman people had been the victim of a well-
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-
pian oration, 12.75-76), Oration 3.86-132.
 chapter 38
Perhaps a narrow interpretation of that precedent
is incorrect. When Cassius Dio discussed Augustus’
original grant of precincts for Rome and the hero
Julius in 29 B.C.E., he stated as reasons for choos-
ing Ephesos and Nikaia that “these cities were fore-
most in Asia and in Bithynia at that time.” This
could have been Augustus’ own expressed motive,
or Dio’s rationalization of it; Pergamon and Niko-
media were rivals to Ephesos and Nikaia, not poor
second choices, and their ultimate destiny was to
become yet greater by their possession of Augustus’
own cult. In any case, Dio expresses Augustus’ choice
as based on positive attributes rather than negative
ones. Tacitus’ presentation of the Senatorial debate
over Tiberius’ temple shows a reversed approach.
Faced with eleven candidates, the Senate went
through a process of elimination, either by reason
of insignificance or for being already devoted to a
particular deity (Ephesos to Artemis, Miletos to
Apollo). Though not specifically in the latter group,
Pergamon was held to have been honored enough
by the temple of (Rome and) Augustus. According
to the epitome of Dio, when Gaius made his choice
of Miletos, sanctuaries of gods and emperors were
disqualified in the same category: Artemis pre-
empted Ephesos, Augustus Pergamon, and Tiberius
Smyrna.
How far this process of elimination could go was
the problem. Pergamon, Smyrna, and Ephesos are
known to have been furnished with koinon temples
by Trajan’s time. Sardis, a finalist for Tiberius’ tem-
ple, may have had one as well: its first neokoria
cannot yet be firmly dated. Were provincial impe-
rial temples to go to progressively more insignificant
cities? The answer must have been ‘yes’ on the
smaller cities’ part, ‘no’ for the larger cities. The de-
ciding factor was probably the emperor’s preference
(or, more likely, what the koinon interpreted his
preference to be). Rather than descend to putting
provincial temples in cities whose age was greater
than their population, the honor was for a time
preserved for the largest and wealthiest.
In fact, Trajan’s allowing a second koinon temple
at Pergamon could be interpreted as following
Augustus’ precedent in several ways: in making a
positive choice for preeminence, in sharing his cult
with another deity, in giving the festival associated
with the temple all the rights and privileges of that
celebrated for Rome and Augustus, and in placing
the temple in the same city in which Augustus had
placed his.
– historical analysis 281
Hadrian
If cities that were already neokoroi were no longer
to be ruled out for further honors, there was prob-
ably a clamor among the greatest cities of Asia to
build a temple for Trajan’s successor, Hadrian. They
were to succeed and to accomplish more than they
perhaps at first intended, for Hadrian not only
granted second neokoriai, but allowed the Asians to
build more than one temple to his cult within the
same province. Hadrian thus let go of a prime as-
pect of the previous tradition; and there is no evi-
dence that he shared his temples with cult partners
either.
It is difficult to discern the exact chronology of
Hadrian’s benefactions, simply because he passed
through the East so often and gave so much. Per-
haps his earliest grants of neokoria were to Kyzikos
and to Nikaia, both affected by earthquake, in 123/
124. Smyrna was also made neokoros in 124, by the
good offices of the orator Polemon. Ephesos and
perhaps Tarsos became neokoroi later in Hadrian’s
reign, Ephesos sometime between 130 and 132,
Tarsos on coins honoring the dead Antinoös, prob-
ably by the mid-130s. It is also possible that
Hadrian’s attention toward the reorganized sanctu-
ary of Zeus at Aizanoi led to that city’s becoming
neokoros of Zeus, though the honor is only docu-
mented later, in the reign of Commodus. Neokoria
for Nikopolis in Armenia Minor is only tentatively
Hadrianic, and the title on an inscription of the
synod of Dionysiac artists at Herakleia in the koinon
of Pontos in Bithynia is dated to 130, but questions
cloud its interpretation.
It may be that Pergamon’s having two koinon
temples increased the demand for that honor among
the greater cities of Asia, which could be one rea-
son why Hadrian extended the honor to more than
one city in that province. The emperor’s own policy
of fostering cities provided another.23 As Cassius Dio
stated (69.5.2-3), “he assisted the cities, both allied
and subject, most generously. For he had even seen
many of them, more than any other emperor, and
he aided almost all: giving a water supply to some,
harbors to others; and grain, and public works, and
money, and other kinds of presents to others.”
Dio’s statement brings up another point: Hadrian
likely allowed more neokoriai because Hadrian was
23 Boatwright 2000.
282 part ii – summary chapters
on the spot, on his famous travels throughout the
Empire. These travels, indeed, may have been part
of a cogent policy of fostering civic life in the prov-
inces, as implied by Dio.24 Not only was access to
him easier, but the provincials’ enthusiastic recep-
tion would have made it more likely for him to grant
them privileges in return. The reciprocal bond be-
tween petitioning city and generous emperor was
strengthened by the immediacy of the action and by
the emperor’s presence as if in epiphany. Indeed the
effect was a proliferation of all scales of imperial cult,
not only provincial but municipal and personal, as
is shown by the hundreds of small altars dedicated
to Hadrian, perhaps for household sacrifices along
his processional route.25
The presence of the emperor, in itself a source
of prestige, also opened the possibility of increased
access to him for requests, and perhaps the oppor-
tunity to bypass provincial officials and go straight
to the top.26 Gifts, honors, titles, altars, or statues
do not necessarily mean that the emperor visited a
city in person, however. Embassies from over a wide
area followed along his route or went to meet him
on his way. For example, the Termessians sent three
ambassadors from north Lycia to call upon Hadrian
during his visit to Ephesos in 124, where he gave
them permission for the foundation of a festival.27
The emperor was in fact followed on his travels
by petitioners from all across the Empire. Logically
this should mean that the only real advantage for
local residents (apart from the remote chance of
catching the emperor’s attention while his mules
were being shod)28 was the ease of approach: one
didn’t have to send an expensive embassy halfway
around the world, but just stand at the roadside and
wait. Yet it seems that requests from cities and resi-
dents from the area through which the emperor
traveled were either more frequent or more fre-
quently granted. ‘More frequent’ would be the re-
sult of ease of access and the ability to make small
and self-seeking petitions as well as great, important
ones. ‘More frequently granted’ cannot be even
remotely quantified, as we do not know how many
requests were made in the first place. But it is no-
24 Halfmann 1986a, 40-44, 110-142. On the connection
between Hadrian’s travels and his gifts of buildings, Schorndorfer
1997, 22-30.
25 Price 1984b, 112, 216.
26 Millar 1977, 36-38.
27 Wörrle 1988.
28 Suetonius, Vespasian 23.2.
table that the failure of an emperor to grant a re-
quest made on the spot by residents of the area is
extremely rare, perhaps unique in the literature. In
70 Titus refused to expel the Jews or cancel their
civic privileges at the petition of the citizens of
Antioch.29 In this case, the negative decision was
probably the result of Titus’ unwillingness to allow
his presence to be the cause of distress to anyone
in the city as much as the palpable injustice of the
request. Visits of emperors (or emperors’ sons) to
their dominions were supposed to be scenes of re-
joicing, not of despair.
An imperial visit was thus an exercise in reciproc-
ity: the emperor conferred the honor of his presence
(a recognized benefit) while the citizens housed, fed,
and entertained him, his entourage, and if they were
really unlucky, his army.30 If the imperial tourist
cared to linger, the options widened to include elabo-
rate rituals and sacrifices, tours of notable monu-
ments, oratorical displays, gladiatorial combats,
hunts, and festivals, generally put on at the expense
of wealthy local citizens. Certainly such demonstra-
tions of loyalty would have put any ruler into a mood
to grant favors.
In addition, part of the ideal of imperial liberal-
ity was to give great gifts after accepting small ones:
in this the emperor was the ultimate patron, the
world his client. Even ambassadors—at least the
successful ones—could expect gifts from the emperor
as a matter of course.31 In the same way, cities that
received the emperor could also anticipate his gen-
erosity. As late as 310 an orator from Autun, urg-
ing Constantine to visit that city, visualized him
granting gifts (or shows) and privileges, repairing
temples and public places, and generally bringing
the city back up to its former glory.32 Of course the
extent of the gifts could vary depending on the
emperor’s generosity, the lavishness or enthusiasm
of his welcome, the nature of the privileges re-
quested, and the persuasiveness of the advocate.
Titus, who refused the Antiochenes’ petition against
the Jews, is also portrayed as being badgered by
Apollonius of Tyana into granting privileges asked
by the Tarsians.33
Among the gifts an emperor could give to cities
were privileges/titles, new public buildings/repair
29 Josephus, Jewish War 7.5.2.
30 Millar 1977, 28-40.
31 E.g. Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.21.
32 Panegyrics 7(6).22.3-4.
33 Philostratos, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 6.34.
 chapter 38
of old ones, and contests/festivals. A grant of neo-
koria of the emperors necessarily involved the former
two, and could include the latter as well. The title
‘neokoros’ had its attractions on both sides: it reified
a reciprocal bond between city and emperor, gave
the city higher standing among its peers, and if the
emperor so chose, could involve no further expense
on his part. Moreover, after Trajan granted a sec-
ond koinon temple to Pergamon, ‘neokoros’ became
open to multiplication in a way that titles such as
‘first,’ ‘metropolis,’ and ‘greatest’ could never be: if
a city’s rivals became neokoroi, that city could strive
to be twice neokoros.
As for expenses, the koinon of Asia bore at least
some of the burden for building Hadrian’s temple
at Kyzikos, and Hadrian himself was notably gen-
erous. At Smyrna he gave money that may have
been for the temple as well as other projects. He also
funded festivals at many of the cities he visited, which
could have included those established for the new
neokoroi.34 Kyzikos, Smyrna, Ephesos, and Tarsos,
along with many other cities that were not neokoroi
for Hadrian, celebrated Hadrianeia and/or Hadrianeia
Olympia in his honor.
The connection between Hadrian’s visits to Asia
Minor and a proliferation of neokoriai, especially in
the province Asia where the demand was likely
greatest, thus seems clear. Cities of the eastern prov-
inces were also drawn into Hadrian’s later plans
centered in Athens: indeed, one of the first inscrip-
tions known to call Ephesos twice neokoros was its
statue base of the emperor in Athens’ temple of Zeus
Olympios, whose precinct Hadrian had completed in
131/132. These dedications, perhaps known to the
Athenians as apoikoi poleis, ‘colony cities,’ could have
been associated with the Panhellenic council, also
fostered by Hadrian.35
Unfortunately, these later events have led to some
syncretism in recent scholarship: an assumption that
Hadrian was worshipped only with, or as, Zeus Olym-
pios, in every temple throughout the East; a tendency
to call all Hadrianeia festivals Olympia, and vice versa,
without direct proof; and a concentration on the
Athenian program of his later reign, making his
34 Cassius Dio 69.10.1: “He established both theaters and
contests while traveling about the cities.”
35 Ephesos inscription 37; Willers 1990, 52; C. Jones 1996;
Birley 1997, 266; Boatwright 2000, 147-153. Spawforth 1999,
on the other hand, believed in a very limited membership for
the panhellenic council.
– historical analysis 283
benefactions an outgrowth of that, rather than see-
ing his panhellenism as an aspect of his efforts
to foster cities.36 On the contrary, in none of the
temples that made their cities neokoroi was Hadrian
explicitly worshipped with Zeus or as Zeus. The
temples at Kyzikos and Smyrna were granted ca.
123-124, well before Hadrian took on the comple-
tion of the Athenian Olympieion or was hailed as
Zeus, Olympios, or Panhellenios: in 125 the emperor
was still thinking of making Delphoi’s Amphiktyony
the panhellenic council.37 Indeed, the temple built
at Kyzikos was called in all pre-Renaissance sources
the ‘temple of the god Hadrian,’ while Smyrna had
‘hymnodoi of the god Hadrian,’ not of Zeus and
Hadrian. Even Ephesos, which did receive its neo-
koria from the emperor after 128, when he had
begun to be called Olympios, only called its temple
‘the temple of the god Hadrian’ or ‘temple of the
lord Hadrian Caesar.’ As for occurrences of Hadria-
neia Olympia, names of festivals are often ephemeral,
and this one may only indicate isolympic status. As
chapter 40 on the cities and their festivals shows,
these contests cannot be taken to indicate the ob-
jects of cult in the temples of the neokoroi.
Several of the temples of the neokoroi for Hadrian
appear to have been large, with eight or more col-
umns on their facades. More explicit comparisons
will follow in chapter 39, ‘The Temples.’ Here let
us observe that the temple at Kyzikos is known from
both archaeology and historical sources as being of
huge size and prominent placement, visible from far
across the sea. In fact it may have resembled
Ephesos’ Artemision not only in being numbered
among the wonders of the world, but in being
dipteral. Though the ruins of Hadrian’s temple at
Smyrna have not yet been located, ancient descrip-
tions noted the same features of great size, promi-
nent placement, and visibility from afar. What has
been identified as the temple of Hadrian at Ephesos
also has a large foundation and was set in an enor-
mous temenos, while the first koinon temple at
Tarsos in Cilicia, whether Hadrianic or before, was
at least decastyle. So many massive and expensive
dedications would be more of an argument for the
provinces’ great devotion to Hadrian than for the
emperor’s own modesty.38
36 Schorndorfer 1997, 53-57, 72-82; Boatwright 2000, 160.
37 Spawforth 1999, 341-342; Birley 1997, 186-187, 218-220;
Willers 1990, 99-100.
38 Schorndorfer 1997, 60-62.
284 part ii – summary chapters
There is a corollary to Hadrian’s generosity to-
ward the cities, however. In granting so many tem-
ples directly to cities he favored, whether because
of the eloquence of an orator, as earthquake relief,
or for any other reason, he probably began an in-
sidious process of looking to the city rather than the
koinon in granting neokoria. Certainly Asia became
almost overloaded with huge koinon temples. Now
there were five cities over whose temples the koinon’s
chief priests, priestesses, and Asiarchs would preside:
Pergamon, Smyrna, Ephesos, Sardis, and Kyzikos
(the latter Hadrian’s grant). But after Hadrian, the
Asian koinon apparently stopped assigning its chief
priests to temples in new neokoroi (see below). This
too would add to the creeping ‘municipalization’ of
what had previously been a title tied to provincial
imperial cult.
The Antonines
The period of Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius,
Lucius Verus, and Commodus at first seems to have
been a breathing space in the history of the neokoria.
Even Commodus, who delighted in comparing him-
self to Hercules, is only known to have made one
city per koinon neokoros: Nikomedia for Bithynia
(and that was soon withdrawn), Tarsos for Cilicia,
and Laodikeia for Asia. The neokoria of Zeus at
Aizanoi in Asia may stand outside the count, as it
was established for the cult of a deity rather than
that of the emperor, and takes Commodus’ reign
only as the point by which it had been given. After
the profusion offered by Hadrian, the Antonine
neokoriai seem scanty.
Though this is partly due to a lack of evidence,
it may also indicate a move towards containing
certain koinon cults, notably Asia’s, within more
reasonable bounds. The trouble and expense im-
posed on a province by more and more imperial
temples, each with its chief priest, its functionaries
and administrators, its possible festivals and definite
upkeep, must have been considerable. Certainly in
these prosperous times there were wealthy men (and
women) available who would pay for the privilege
of being provincial chief priests, chief priestesses, and
agonothetai, but were there enough to go around?39
This would have been of concern not only to the
provincials (among many of whom eagerness for the
39 Millar 1983.
honors outweighed consideration of their expense),
but to careful emperors and their administrators,
who were familiar with the problems of cities that
overreached their resources.40
Another reason for fewer grants of neokoria may
have been imperial interests and preferences.
Antoninus Pius was familiar with the eastern prov-
inces and Asia in particular, whose proconsul he had
been only a few years before his accession. After it,
however, he refrained from both travel and war.41
His care for the well-being of the provinces was
scrupulous, and he certainly ruled on the titulature
of at least one Asian city, and likely more (see be-
low); but we know of only one city, Sardis, that was
neokoros for his cult. Though Marcus Aurelius’ reign
included a Parthian war and a Syrian revolt, his
eastern travels do not seem to have resulted in any
neokoriai. Perhaps his philosophic convictions dis-
couraged any types of cult beyond the most time
honored. Such speculation is, however, unverifiable;
neither in his Meditations nor in his letters did Marcus
Aurelius express thoughts about the imperial cult
specifically.42 Lucius Verus fought his Parthian war,
followed Marcus Aurelius’ decisions in administra-
tion, and died young. As for Commodus, his inter-
ests (chariot races, hunting, and gladiatorial combat)
seem to have centered on Rome, leaving provincial
affairs (including the neokoria of Nikomedia) to his
favorite-of-the-moment. His identification with
Hercules may have promoted the interests of Tarsos,
which was the cult center of a deity syncretized with
that hero. He certainly allowed his name to festi-
vals for Herakles at Thebes and at Tyre, but also
to contests honoring Asklepios at Pergamon,
Dionysos at Thebes, Apollo at Didyma, Zeus at Lao-
dikeia, Hadrian at Ephesos and Smyrna, and even
Artemis at Ephesos (again, see chapter 40, ‘The
Cities’). Many of these must have been in response
to requests from the cities for an imperial imprima-
tur on their festivals, not from Commodus’ individual
preferences.
40 Cassius Dio 52.30.3, 52.35.4, 52.37.9-10 (written from
a third-century ideal); Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.23, 24, 37-
40, 43, 44 (a unique and invaluable dossier, though earlier than
the period in question and written under special circumstances);
also see Liebenam 1900, 133-134.
41 Most of the sources for Antoninus’ life are collected by
Walentowski 1998. The arguments of Ziegler 1993b, 97-103
for an eastern trip in the 150s are unconvincing. See also Syme
1983.
42 Bowersock 1973, 186; Oliver 1970, no. 4 IV.
 chapter 38
Under the Antonines more and more neokoroi
began to proclaim their honors on more and more
coin issues.43 Though ‘neokoros’ had been an offi-
cial title at least since the reign of Domitian and
likely before, only four cities (Ephesos and probably
Pergamon in Asia, Neokaisareia in Pontus, and
Tarsos in Cilicia) are known to have put that title
on their coins up to the reign of Hadrian. Even those
were extraordinary issues, with the majority of coins
not mentioning the neokoria. Then under Antoninus
Pius the cities of Nikomedia and Kyzikos, both
neokoroi on the Propontis (though the former in the
province of Bithynia and the latter in Asia), began
to announce that status on a significant proportion
of their coin issues, though ‘neokoros’ was not a new
title for them. At the same time Ephesos began to
proclaim itself twice neokoros on its coins more
regularly. By the time of Marcus Aurelius, Amaseia
in Pontus had joined in, with its first issues as neo-
koros appearing in significant numbers, while
Neokaisareia in Pontus met Amaseia’s issues in the
same year with more frequent issues of its own. Also,
Pergamon began to boast the title more consistently,
and on datable issues. This trend would increase as
time went on, until for cities like Perinthos, Niko-
media, Kyzikos, Ephesos, Sardis, Smyrna, and later
Perge and Side, coinage that did not mention neo-
koria would be the exception to the rule.
It is unlikely that any decision from above forced
these cities’ proclamations of neokoria. The bronze
coins of the eastern cities were technically autono-
mous, issued under the authority of the city itself,
not the Roman government. The obverses, of course,
showed the emperor’s official portrait and titulature,
and could be shared among a group of cities.44 The
fact that several cities were producing their coins by
means of the same minters indicates one way (aside
from some intercity circulation) in which city offi-
cials could be made aware of what other cities were
putting on their coins. But the reverses proclaimed
the city’s name, its proudest titles, its chief gods and
temples; and though similar to other cities’ in style
and composition, they were customized to be unique
to each city. The coins, in fact, were a city’s means
of demonstrating its pride and patriotism.45
43 The following estimates, of course, are simply from coins
known to the author and reflect accidents of preservation,
collection, and publication rather than actual numbers of coins
originally issued.
44 Kraft 1972.
45 Harl 1987.
– historical analysis 285
Previous discussion has focused on the forces that
continued, modified, limited, or expanded neokoria
in Rome’s eastern provinces. The question of why
more and more cities chose to include ‘neokoros’ in
their coin legends is related to the topic of expan-
sion: the more the title was boasted of, the more
cities wished to boast of it. We have seen how Trajan
made Pergamon in Asia the first twice neokoros, and
how Hadrian’s presence was connected with more
cities in Asia obtaining neokoriai, while the honor
was also granted in other provinces. Though actual
expansion seems to have slowed in Antonine times,
the cities’ interest in the title did not, as their coin
legends show. Once a city had established its asso-
ciation with the Roman emperor through neokoria,
why did it choose to proclaim that fact more and
more widely, and why did it do so on inscriptions
and coins that few Roman officials, much less the
emperor himself, were likely to see? The answer
must lie in a factor that is expanded upon in chap-
ter 40: city rivalry, which had its main outlet in
disputes over titulature.
Antoninus Pius himself had to smooth over a com-
plaint from the Ephesians that the Pergamenes and
Smyrnaians had omitted Ephesos’ full and proper
titulature (as decided by Antoninus himself) in a
letter and a decree about a common sacrifice.46 The
Pergamenes were judged not guilty, while the em-
peror explained Smyrna’s omission as a chance lapse
and urged the parties to be more punctilious in
future. The Ephesians were clearly pleased at the
result, since they set up at least two copies of the
emperor’s reply. It was probably to celebrate this
imperial reconciliation that Ephesos issued coins
claiming ‘concord’ among the three cities: the re-
verse shows Ephesos’ Artemis in the place of honor,
the center, flanked by Pergamon’s patron Asklepios
and a Nemesis of Smyrna.47 But even with emper-
ors and orators like Aelius Aristides (Oration 23)
urging them toward it, the only long-lasting concord
the Ephesians were to achieve with their rivals was
this word on the back of a coin. Probably shortly
after Antoninus’ letter to the Ephesians, Polemon the
sophist had to go on an embassy to that emperor
to defend Smyrna’s temples and their rights, i.e.,
46 IvE 1489, 1489A, 1490; Oliver 1989, 293-295 no. 135
a-b; L. Robert 1977b, 21-22. The documents are dated to 140-
144, and perhaps this sacrifice itself was shown on coins of
Ephesos under Antoninus Pius: Hecht 1968, 28 no. 1.
47 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 1:38-39 nos. 305-316;
Kampmann 1996, 29-34 (but see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna’).
286 part ii – summary chapters
probably its two neokoriai, one of which he himself
had garnered from Hadrian. Though Polemon died
before he could complete his mission, Antoninus was
persuaded by a reading of the speech he had com-
posed, and Smyrna “came away having won first
place.”48 Such missions are also well known from
inscriptions, such as honorifics given to ambassadors
who won their cases, or edicts of emperors laying
out their decisions.49
The possession and number of neokoriai was a
potent cause for dispute. As has been mentioned,
‘neokoros’ had a unique advantage over other titles.
A city could be called ‘first,’ but if its rivals in the
province then also won that title, as they often did,
it could not become ‘more first.’ The same disad-
vantage operated for ‘metropolis,’ for superlatives
like ‘greatest’ and ‘most beautiful,’ and for imperial
eponyms like ‘Augustan,’ ‘Hadrianic,’ or ‘Com-
modan.’ After the time of Trajan, however, the title
‘neokoros’ could be multiplied. If a neokoros city’s
rival also became neokoros, the first city could re-
establish its preeminence by becoming twice
neokoros. Then its rival could campaign for the same
honor, promoting a gradual but effective inflation
in number of neokoriai.
Inflation and devaluation, however, are two sides
of the same coin. Under Augustus and Tiberius, only
the first rank of cities were seriously considered as
sites for provincial imperial temples. As discussed
above, the inevitable passage of time and emperors
filled up the first rank with neokoriai, so some re-
ceived the honor a second time. That meant that
to be simply neokoros was no longer a symbol of the
highest status among cities. The first rank now strove
to be twice neokoros, and if the rivalry among them
was fierce (as it certainly was in Asia), less eminent
cities could likely extract concessions as the price of
their support in the koinon council.50 The neokoria,
now less exclusive an honor, could have been among
those concessions.
48
Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.10 (539-540).
49 L. Robert 1969b, 286-288.
50 As in the Bithynian koinon; Dio Chrysostom, Oration 38.34-
35, urging cooperation between Nikomedia and Nikaia: “By
joining forces you will dominate all the cities; and the gover-
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
with each other. . . the result is, while you [two] fight over first
place, chances are that those whom you’re lobbying have first
place.”
Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta
At the death of Commodus, the Empire was fum-
bled from the hands of various contenders until it
reached Septimius Severus, who held it tenacious-
ly. The prize was not uncontested, however, and one
of his first tasks was to crush a rival, Pescennius
Niger, governor of Syria. When Severus went East,
it was not only to do battle with that counterclaim-
ant to the Empire but to enforce and consolidate his
rule in provinces that were essentially enemy terri-
tory.51 It was not a minor task, and he gave the scene
of the contest, which stretched from Perinthos in
Thrace to Antioch in Syria, his closest attention. The
cities of this area had been little troubled by civil
war since Augustus’ victory founded the Empire. In
the year 69 it had been Vespasian, the candidate
who came from a command in the East, who had
triumphed, and his progress west toward Rome had
been peaceful. Now the cities generally supported
the eastern candidate again, but this time they ended
up with a war on their doorstep and were forced to
take sides in earnest. Perinthos, Septimius Severus’
headquarters in Thrace, was just down the Propontis
from Byzantion, a bastion for Niger, which held firm
through a siege of over two years.52 In Bithynia,
Nikomedia changed sides as soon as news of Niger’s
first serious defeat came out. While that city sent
ambassadors welcoming Severus’ army, its neighbor
Nikaia chose to do the contrary and receive Niger’s
forces, not through any abstract feeling of loyalty but
through sheer hatred for its rival Nikomedia.53 Sim-
ilarly Tyre in Phoenicia turned to Severus through
rivalry with Berytos, Sebaste and Neapolis in Sama-
ria probably did the same, and even in Niger’s own
province of Syria, Laodikeia broke away from him
because of its hatred for the seat of the governors,
Antioch.54 When Niger was able he punished the
turncoats, but his time was not long. He and his
armies were defeated at Issos early in 194, and he
was killed while fleeing from Antioch.
The victor was left to mete out rewards and
punishments as he wished. Some of his decisions
were fundamentally practical: in need of funds to pay
his soldiers, he exacted from both cities and indi-
viduals four times whatever amount they had (vol-
51 Sünskes Thompson 1990, 137-155.
52 Birley 1988, 108-120.
53 Herodian 3.2.7-9; L. Robert 1977b, 22-25.
54 Herodian 3.3.3-5; Historia Augusta, Severus 9.5.
 chapter 38
untarily or not) given to Niger. But he also used the
rivalries that had driven the cities into opposite
camps both to reward his partisans and punish his
opponents.55
Antioch, which had offered resistance after Issos,
was captured and deprived of civic status. Its privi-
leges, plus the ius Italicum, were given to its rival Lao-
dikeia, which had supported Severus. As Byzantion’s
crimes of revolt and defiance were of similar mag-
nitude and still more prolonged than Antioch’s, its
punishment upon capitulation was of the same type,
though much more severe. All soldiers and magis-
trates were put to death, the city’s walls were torn
down, and citizens’ property was confiscated. Here
again, Severus turned an opposition city’s loss into
its rival’s gain: he deprived Byzantion of its freedom
and civic status, made it tributary, and handed it and
its territory over to his own allies the Perinthians.
In addition, Perinthos was given the right to build
a temple to Severus and to call itself neokoros, the
first neokoros city known in Thrace. The Bithynian
rivals Nikaia and Nikomedia got the same treatment:
Nikaia, Niger’s ally, was stripped of its titles, losing
the right to be called metropolis, first, or neokoros;
Nikomedia gained these titles uncontestedly, and as
it was already neokoros for its temple of Rome and
Augustus, gained an additional, second neokoria for
the cult of Severus himself. It is possible that some-
thing similar, though without the involvement of
neokoria, happened to another of Niger’s allies,
Neapolis, which lost its civic rights, and at least some
of its territory, to its neighbor Sebaste.
Thus Septimius Severus used neokoria, like other
titles, privileges, and possessions, as part of the re-
ward for his partisans, while its removal was a pow-
erful symbol of the defeat of his opponents. For the
cities, the reward or the punishment was twofold:
as rivalry had been part of the reasoning behind the
choosing of sides in the first place, a Severan city
could gain double triumph in seeing, and sometimes
in profiting by, its rival’s abasement.
Around 197 Septimius Severus elevated his son
Antoninus, better known by his nickname Caracalla,
to the rank of Augustus, while his younger son Geta
55 Cassius Dio 75.8.3-4 and 75.14.1-4; Herodian 3.4.7 and
3.6.9; Historia Augusta, Severus 9.4-8. J. Nollé 1998, 347-351;
Ziegler 1978 took the practical view that Severus reduced hostile
cities to chattel in order to bolster the drained economies of
his allies, their rivals; this does not account for cases where the
emperor seems to have stripped the city of rank but not of land
or goods, as in the case of Nikaia.
– historical analysis 287
received the title of Caesar. It was after this time that
Severus began to abate his hostility toward the cit-
ies he had punished. He visited Nikaia; Antioch was
rehabilitated, and in 202 C.E. he and Caracalla
entered their joint consulate there; Neapolis was
likely also forgiven. Some of this must have been in
view of assuring a favorable reception for his suc-
cessor, whose role in healing wounds and pleading
the cause of former enemies was played up for that
purpose.56
Additional favors were granted to friends as well:
Perinthos likely, and Anazarbos definitely by or
before 204/205, received second neokoriai from
Septimius Severus, the same emperor who had
granted their first. For each, the second honor was
probably for the joint cult of the ‘loving brothers’
Caracalla and Geta. In many cases, Severus seems
to have given additional titles or privileges to his
staunch allies to make up for the fact that he was
forgiving and restoring their rivals, his former en-
emies. So where he had previously treated pairs of
rivals with joint punishment and reward, now he
turned to reconciliation with one city, compensation
for the other.
When Geta reached the age of twenty in 209, he
too was made Augustus. Caracalla and he were
perhaps too close in age for Severus to preserve a
strict primogeniture, as Vespasian had for Titus and
Domitian. In addition, Marcus Aurelius, who had
chosen to share the empire with his younger adopted
brother Lucius Verus, had since provided a model
for the joint rule of imperial colleagues. The liter-
ary sources make much of Severus’ plans and anxi-
eties for his sons, most of them probably apocryphal,
but the fact remains that on his death in 211 he left
them co-Augusti, to share the rule in some fashion.57
As it turned out, the joint rule of natural broth-
ers did not work half so well as that of adoptive ones.
Enemies even before their father’s death, Caracal-
la and Geta became yet more estranged afterward.
They divided up the imperial household and were
even said to be planning to divide up the Empire.58
The story of their probable rivalry over the neoko-
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
56 Historia Augusta, Caracalla 1.
57 Herodian 3.10.4, 3.13.3-6, 3.15.5-7; Cassius Dio ep. 77.14;
Historia Augusta, Severus 20.1-3, 23.5-7.
58 Herodian 4.1.5, 4.3.5-9.
288 part ii – summary chapters
cult to that of Artemis. Ephesos’ delight at thus
getting two neokoriai where it had only sought one
was shortlived. Geta was killed, probably before the
end of 211, leaving Caracalla sole emperor.59 Ge-
ta’s name and honors were then erased all over the
empire, an action from which Ephesos’ neokoria
suffered, as will be seen.
The years of rule by Septimius Severus and the
year of his sons’ joint rule thus saw further expan-
sion of neokoriai. More cities began to use the title
on their coinage, many from the moment of a new
grant (Perinthos and perhaps Anazarbos and Kai-
sareia, under Septimius Severus). Perinthos is almost
invariably neokoros on its coins, though it did not
need to give its likely title of twice neokoros in full
until it gained a rival for neokoria in its own prov-
ince (below). Many cities use the title on coins more
frequently than they omit it, and are prompt to
reflect an increase (e.g. Pergamon, Ephesos, Smyr-
na, perhaps Philadelphia). Intermittent or infrequent
uses, like those at Antandros or Tralles, are rare.
For Septimius Severus, there is particularly good
evidence for two factors already noted as promot-
ing neokoria: the imperial presence and city rival-
ry. In fact, the grants he made in the wake of the
war with Pescennius Niger combine the two. On the
one hand, the contest over the eastern provinces only
emphasized their importance to the emperor, who
had to be on the spot to direct the war. His pres-
ence itself within the city was an honor, assuming
he won; if not, a danger. At the successful conclu-
sion of his visit, he could make the honor of associ-
ation with him permanent by grants of neokoria,
with not only a title but all the reciprocity of wor-
ship offered and received assured for the future. On
the other hand, we have already seen how Septimius
Severus used the rivalry between cities not only to
bind his allies to him but to punish his enemies in
the same action, and how he used neokoria as one
of his tools. Indeed, Severus seems to have been very
direct in his choice of cities as neokoroi. Thrace and
Bithynia were crucial in the war against Niger, and
we have already discussed the two neokoroi, Per-
inthos and Nikomedia, there. Both the later neokoroi
were farther east, in the area affected by his second
Parthian War. Anazarbos may have been made
neokoros during the actual campaign; Kaisareia’s
59 Halfmann 1982, 229-230 n. 49.
announcement came later, but is notable as the first
known neokoros in Cappadocia, just as Perinthos
had been the first in Thrace. In all, Severus may
have made four cities neokoroi, one in Thrace, one
in Bithynia, one in Cilicia, and one in Cappadocia.
Asia, the province with the most neokoriai thus far,
is not known to have received any from Septimius
Severus, though an inscription first calls Miletos
neokoros at about this time.
As has been seen, many cities that Severus had
honored with neokoriai seem to have been further
honored. Perinthos and Anazarbos apparently be-
came twice neokoros for the sons after being neoko-
ros for the father. Ephesos’ fortunes suffered from
the discord between Caracalla and Geta as co-em-
perors. Its proposal to become three times neokoros
of the emperors was at first accepted, but then
Caracalla diverted his part in it to the cult of Arte-
mis, leaving Geta to appear hubristic merely for
accepting koinon cult. The happy Ephesians were
thus preparing to take an unprecedented fourth
neokoria when Geta was killed, and even their
neokoria for Artemis fell under the cloud of impe-
rial displeasure. It was eventually restored, but it is
possible that by that time Caracalla had already
begun to make Ephesos’ rivals Pergamon and Smyr-
na rise to equal its status.
Caracalla
During his sole rule, Caracalla’s actions with regard
to making neokoroi could be called the opposite of
his father’s. Of the neokoriai he may have granted,
with the exception of a possible neokoria of Ankyra,
every one was in the province Asia, which Severus
had eschewed completely. What is more, where his
father had initially made only one city per province
neokoros, Caracalla seems to have made as many
as eight in Asia: Ephesos, Pergamon, Smyrna, Phila-
delphia, Tralles, Laodikeia, and possibly Kyzikos
and Antandros. What can explain this change in
policy?
As Caracalla spent his latter years in the East
fighting a Parthian war, it is natural to attempt to
tie in the neokoroi with his presence there, and even
to trace his path by connecting the dots between
cities where he granted honors or was honored.60
60 Levick 1969, 426-446.
 chapter 38
There are certain problems with this procedure,
however. First, the evidence used and the honors
given would have to be datable to the period of the
Parthian War.61 Of the neokoroi in Asia, at least two
(Ephesos and Laodikeia) likely antedate Caracalla’s
journey to that province. Second, there should be
good independent evidence that Caracalla was in
fact in the city, or at least in the area. Such evidence
is scarce, and of the remaining six Asian neokoroi
only Pergamon is known to have received an impe-
rial visit.62
Any assumption that equates an honor such as the
neokoria granted to a city with the actual presence
of the emperor within that city is not sufficiently
nuanced. Caracalla spent the entire winter at
Nikomedia, yet the city that was neokoros for his
father did not change its titulature for the son.
Certainly the emperor’s presence within an area
made it more likely that the cities would receive
benefits. But the emperor did not have to be in the
city itself to give it gifts or to make it neokoros, as
we have already noted.63
Beyond his activities at Ilion and Pergamon, all
we know of Caracalla’s journey in Asia is Herodian’s
bare statement that “he traveled through the rest of
Asia and Bithynia and the rest of the provinces,
making necessary administrative decisions.”64
Kyzikos, Smyrna, Philadelphia, and Tralles need not
have been on his route to have won privileges from
him. The one case where one is tempted to use
Caracalla’s presence as an explanation for neokoria
is Antandros, which seems to have had little else to
recommend it.65
Imperial visits, however, are not the sole factor
in the proliferation of neokoriai. The rivalry among
the cities of Asia that Antoninus Pius had had to
mediate had not gone away. The Digest preserves a
rescript of Caracalla to the koinon of Asia on this
topic.66 Apparently the largest cities were quarrel-
ing over which of them should have the honor of
first receiving the proconsul on his entry into the
province of Asia. The koinon was unable to settle
61 Johnston 1983.
62 Halfmann 1986a, 223-230.
63 Millar 1977, 38-39.
64 Herodian 4.8.6.
65 L. Robert 1967, 57-58 n. 8 used the same reasoning for
Juliopolis before its neokoria was discovered to be based on a
false coin (see ‘Introduction: Methodology,’ and Revue des études
grecques 95 [1982] 323 no. 12).
66 Digest 1.16.4.5.
– historical analysis 289
the contest, and so referred it to Caracalla, who
decided for Ephesos. The proconsul’s landing point
is unlikely to have been the only bone of contention.
In Asia, the chief contenders for primacy, and to
become first three times neokoros, were Ephesos,
Pergamon, and Smyrna. Their rivalry probably
meant that almost any question could lead to a three-
way deadlock in the koinon. The problem of the pro-
consul’s landing was sent to the emperor. It is likely
that he had to deal with the would-be neokoroi as well.
By the end of Caracalla’s reign all three of the
top contestants had been put on a level as regards
neokoria. Ephesos, of course, had already almost
flown as high as four times neokoros, but was in fact
held to three; its involvement in the rivalry between
Caracalla and Geta probably did not earn it the
survivor’s love, but at least it retained its neokoria
for Artemis. Afterwards Ephesian coin legends sim-
ply call the city three times neokoros. Pergamon and
Smyrna, however, issued coins under Caracalla
whose legends and types read like challenges to one
another. Both issued types that showed their three
imperial temples, each carefully identified with let-
ters in the pediment; Pergamon was ‘first three times
neokoros,’ while Smyrna was ‘first (of Asia) three
times neokoros of the Augusti’ (Pergamon types 22
and 23, Smyrna types 7 and 8). They even issued
coins whose reverses were devoted entirely to titles
that seem like challenges across the centuries:
Pergamon: Obv: AUT KRAT K MARKO% AUR
ANTVNEINO% Laureate cuirassed bust of
Caracalla r. Rev: [EPI %TR] IOUL ANYIMOU H
PRVTH TH[% A]%IA% KAI MH[TRO]POLI%
PRV[TH KAI] TRI% NEVKORO% PRVTH TVN
%EBA%TVN PERGAMHNVN POLI% Wreath. a)
BMC 318 (‘Pergamon,’ chapter 1, coin type 25).
Smyrna: Obv: A K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laure-
ate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev:
%MURNAIVN PRVTVN A%IA% G NEVKORVN
TVN %EBA%TVN KALLEI KAI MEGEYI EPI
%TRATH TIBERIOU KL KRHTARIOU Wreath. a)
BMC 405 b) BMC 406 c) Berlin 619/1914.
If Smyrna was to be ‘first of Asia three times neo-
koros of the emperors, (first) in beauty and great-
ness,’ Pergamon could claim that it was ‘first of Asia
and first metropolis and first three times neokoros
of the emperors.’ It may also be significant that after
this time Smyrna issued a coin to commemorate the
‘concord’ between the two cities, and its reverse was
290 part ii – summary chapters
the multiple-temple type that usually symbolized
neokoria for a city.67 It may be that the two tem-
ples in this case represent the temples of Caracalla
in both cities, though both reused extant buildings
for that cult (Smyrna the temple of Rome, Perga-
mon the temple of Asklepios).
Smyrna: Obv: AU K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Lau-
reate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla, r. Rev:
%MURNAIVN PERGAMHNVN OMONOIA EP %TR
GEMINOU Two four-column temples turned to-
ward one another. a) BMC 509 b) BMC 510 c)
Paris 2814 d) Paris 2694 e) Vienna 30395 f) SNGvA
2248 (= MvS 339-340 nos. 3, 4).
In fact, none of the new three-times-neokoroi seems
to have built a new temple, as Ephesos’ third temple
was the Artemision. The early third century should
have been fairly prosperous for the cities of Asia,
with the province relatively peaceful and money and
donors not lacking. On the other hand, the presence
of the imperial armies was a drain on private and
public resources, especially those of cities that the
emperor honored with his presence, and Caracalla
certainly did not consider expense when it came to
his army or his expeditions.68 Perhaps the koinon
was also unwilling—or unable—to extend itself to
building three new provincial temples in cities that
already had two each.
Before Caracalla, Asia’s neokoroi had been Ephe-
sos, Pergamon, Smyrna, Sardis (all twice); among the
single honors were Kyzikos, Miletos, Aizanoi (of
Zeus), and Laodikeia (which fell into abeyance af-
ter Commodus). All except the latter two were ar-
guably within the first rank, and Laodikeia had been
trying for a provincial imperial temple since the time
of Tiberius. With the reign of Caracalla, however,
the granting of neokoriai definitively stepped down
past the first rank of cities, and possibly even past
the second: Laodikeia became unquestionably
neokoros, uniquely for two emperors. Tralles, which
had also tried for the temple of Tiberius, became
neokoros as well. Philadelphia’s citizen Aurelius may
have pulled strings to get the honor from Caracalla;
and we have already discussed the problematic case
of Antandros. As has been noted, inflation in num-
bers of neokoriai meant depreciation in the honor
67 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 210 nos. 2133-2144; Kamp-
mann 1996, 44, 121 nos. 136, 137. Klose 1987 (= MvS), 70-71
placed the strategos Geminus after Kretarios.
68 Cassius Dio 78.9.4-7.
of neokoria. Also, deadlock among the most pow-
erful cities meant that crucial decisions depended on
the votes of the other koinon members, hence lesser
cities could extract favors (possibly including support
for their own neokoriai) as the price of their coop-
eration.
It is more likely, then, that the proliferation of
neokoriai in Asia during the reign of Caracalla was
not so much a result of Caracalla’s own needs or
policy as of city rivalry. The emperor’s role was not
to distribute neokoria as a reward to whatever city
he visited, but simply to accede to petitions, which
were only made more difficult to refuse when he
himself visited the area. Probably more of these
petitions were for the title ‘neokoros’ than had been
the case before.
The most crucial question arising from this is
whether or not ‘neokoros’ was still a provincial title.69
In order to answer it, we must clarify our ideas on
what ‘provincial’ means. All authorities, I believe,
would agree that the koinon temples established by
permission of Augustus and his successors later made
the cities that owned them neokoroi. They were
administered by the koinon and presided over by its
chief priest. Perhaps by the time of Nero, or at lat-
est that of Domitian, the cities that possessed them
received the name neokoroi.
Then the title began to proliferate. The temple
that made Pergamon twice neokoros, that of Zeus
Philios and Trajan, was designed to be the equal of
that of Rome and Augustus, right down to the pres-
ence of a cult partner and the provincial standing
of its games. The duplication of temples in one city,
therefore, did not alter the fact that thus far all
koinon temples made their cities neokoroi, and that
all neokoriai so far were for koinon temples. The
only adaptation needed was that the koinon’s lead-
ers become chief priests of the temples at Pergamon,
and then at Smyrna, Ephesos, etc. The same per-
sonnel could be in charge of several koinon temples
in the city.
Hadrian soon expanded the honor, so that more
than one city in a province could become neokoros
for the cult of the same emperor. Also, his grants
appear to have been due to his direct contact with
the city, rather than negotiated by the koinon. Yet
69 The old debate between municipal (ranging from Mon-
ceaux 1885 to Deininger 1965, 143 n. 5, with bibliography)
and provincial (Robert 1967, 46-50) has, I hope, closed, with
opinions generally on the latter’s side.
 chapter 38
he still kept to the great cities, in Asia Kyzikos,
Ephesos, and Smyrna, two of which already were
neokoroi. It would take little adaptation to fit these
cities into the standing procedure of provincial
imperial cult: another temple, another chief priest
of Asia for Kyzikos, perhaps more festivals in the
calendar.
What makes the term ‘provincial’ seem out of
place for the neokoroi really occurs in Asia during
the reign of Caracalla: many cities well beyond the
first rank of eminence begin to claim the title. We
have no record of chief priests, chief priestesses, or
Asiarchs for the temples that made Laodikeia, Phila-
delphia, or Tralles, much less Antandros, neokoroi.
Indeed, the only cities for which we have documents
of koinon officials for their temples are Pergamon,
Smyrna, Ephesos, Kyzikos, and Sardis.70 It is likely
that these are ‘the five metropoleis’ in which a chief
priest could serve, as mentioned in an inscription of
later third-century Ephesos.71 The connection of
offices to koinon temples in these cities is clear, in
that Asiarchs and chief priests and priestesses of Asia
were occasionally designated ‘of the temple(s)’ in one
of the five cities; when a new provincial temple was
added to that city, the enumeration of the inscrip-
tion reflected it. In looking into their chronology,
we see that the first three cities possessed the ear-
liest koinon temples in Asia: Pergamon from Augus-
tus, Smyrna from Tiberius, and Ephesos from at
latest the time of Domitian. The first imperial temple
of Sardis is not yet datable, and that of Kyzikos was
probably the great temple of Hadrian. So the five
metropoleis in which the chief koinon officials served
were also likely the first five possessors of provincial
imperial temples, and later became neokoroi for
those and for any additional temples. Cities that
received their first neokoria afterwards (as, for ex-
ample, Laodikeia under Commodus), however, may
not have had provincial chief priests assigned. So the
college seems to have been limited to the five some-
time after Hadrian (who gave Kyzikos’ first temple)
and before Commodus.
By the time of Caracalla, ‘neokoros,’ previously
a title signifying possession of such a temple, spread
beyond those five. We do not have the documents
to prove precisely what the status of these new
70 Rossner 1974, 109-111.
71 FiE 3:72 (= IvE 3072), lines 23-27, dated ca. 270. On
multiple metropoleis within a province, see Bowersock 1985.
For further details, see chapter 41 in Part II, on the koina and
their officials.
– historical analysis 291
neokoroi was, or what officials served them. It may
be that as neokoria proliferated, it lost some of the
features of provinciality, or at least, the features that
would have made its functions within the koinon
impracticable. At a time when the wealthy were
becoming more hesitant to take on the mammoth
expenditure of provincial chief priesthood, it would
have been difficult to suggest that there be ten or
more chief priests of Asia instead of five, or that three
new koinon temples be built all at once. We have
no evidence of what arrangements the koinon of Asia
may have made to accommodate these changes.
Still, there were certain basic and established
functions of the koinon that still tied it to the neo-
koria. The chief ceremonial function of the koinon
was the imperial cult; that cult was carried on in the
temples of the neokoroi. The koinon represented its
member cities on embassies; embassies were often
necessary for obtaining the neokoria or certifying it
before the Senate. We have extensive proof that the
koinon did take part in the grant and administra-
tion of temples that made their cities neokoroi in the
first and early second centuries. Even Caracalla
wrote to the koinon of Asia, not to Ephesos, to make
Ephesos neokoros of Artemis. It is likely, then, that
despite the fact that neokoria resulted from the
emperor’s personal favor to a city (say, Philadelphia),
or even a citizen (Aurelius M...), custom and pre-
cedent probably insured that there still be a formal
petition from the koinon, agreement from the em-
peror, and approval by the Roman Senate. In fact,
it is just at this period that several cities’ inscriptions,
and then coins, begin to emphasize that they are
neokoroi by decree of the Senate.
What we are seeing in the proliferation of neo-
koriai in the third century is a cheapening of the title,
not a change in its basic nature. This was a time
when Asia had five metropoleis and almost as many
‘first cities’ (none second or third, Magnesia nota-
bly seventh); yet out of the fabled five hundred
cities, only fourteen that we know of ever called
themselves neokoroi. If any city could claim the title
for a local shrine, why did so few?
Perhaps the neokoria did mean less when Cara-
calla, and after him Elagabalus, granted it so indis-
criminately. Often the cult of the emperors was
moved into extant temples, perhaps to avoid the
ruinous cost of building new ones. But these con-
siderations did not alter the basic machinery by
which neokoria was bestowed. To acquire it still
required the good will of the emperor, the permis-
292 part ii – summary chapters
sion of the Senate, and the backing, perhaps even
the aid or the administration, of the koinon. In this
sense, little had changed.
Macrinus
In 217, in the midst of his campaign in Mesopo-
tamia, Caracalla was assassinated and his praetorian
prefect, M. Opellius Macrinus, succeeded him.72
Macrinus was only to rule a little over a year, after
which his memory was condemned. Therefore docu-
ments dating to his reign are proportionately
scarce.73 Though over fifty eastern cities issued coins
with his portrait (or that of his son Diadumenian),
there are at least as many cities for which no such
coins have been found. This lack need not be a sign
of disaffection, as many cities only minted intermit-
tently; perhaps their intervals of coinage simply did
not fall within Macrinus’ short reign. But it adds to
the difficulty of tracing the history of the neokoroi;
almost any argument would be either from silence
or from very little evidence.
With that caveat stated, we may note that of six-
teen cities that had claimed to be neokoroi on ear-
lier coins, only six proclaim themselves neokoroi on
coins of Macrinus or Diadumenian: Nikomedia,
Kyzikos, Sardis, Anazarbos (which also put its title
on one of the rare surviving dedications to Macri-
nus), Tarsos, and Kaisareia. One city, Beroia, neoko-
ros since the time of Nerva, begins to place that title
on coinage with imperial portrait obverses. Five
whose coins had often claimed neokoria, however,
now cease to boast it: Amaseia, Ephesos (except for
one, probably recut, coin), Pergamon, Smyrna,
Philadelphia, and Laodikeia; Perinthos and Smyrna,
both stalwart declarers of neokoria, and whose cor-
pora of coins have been published, probably issued
no coins under Macrinus at all. For five more cities
we have found none, but their coins only claimed
neokoria intermittently anyway: Neokaisareia,
Antandros, Aizanoi, Tralles, and Ankyra (the latter
probably neokoros since Augustus, but not claim-
ing the title until the time of Valerian).
Though all his brief reign was spent in the East,
Macrinus is not known to have created any neokoroi.
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
provinces.
Indeed, his relationship with at least one and prob-
ably more of the cities of Asia appears to have been
stormy. Cassius Dio records that the Pergamenes,
having been deprived of privileges they had received
from Caracalla, insulted Macrinus in some blatant
fashion and for it were publicly dishonored by him.
Dio would have known the facts well, as Macrinus
put him in charge of Pergamon and Smyrna.74 It is
noteworthy that, aside from being especially hon-
ored by Caracalla’s visit, Pergamon had become
neokoros for his cult. Removal of that third neokoria
may have prompted the Pergamenes’ insults; or, if
the removal was not part of Macrinus’ original ac-
tion, their behavior may have prompted him to
abrogate it and probably the rest of their titles.
In Asia alone, of the eight cities that had become
neokoroi for Caracalla, only Sardis now issued coins
with its claim for neokoria unchanged. Six issued no
coinage asserting that title: Ephesos (previously
‘neokoros’ on almost all its coins, now replacing that
title with ‘first of Asia’), Pergamon, Smyrna (no coins
issued at all), Laodikeia, Philadelphia, Tralles, and
Antandros (the latter two only occasional anyway).
The eighth city, Kyzikos, went from being ‘twice
neokoros’ to simply ‘neokoros’ on coins of Macrinus,
though unlike the other cities’ this second neokoria
was not restored even after Macrinus’ death.
Ephesos’ emphasis on being ‘first of Asia’ ties in
with an inscription in honor of an Ephesian advo-
cate who went before Macrinus to defend ‘primacy
and the rest of the rights’ of the city, and won his
case.75 If Ephesos and Pergamon and perhaps Smyr-
na were once again bickering over titles, and Ma-
crinus ruled that Ephesos was to have more exclusive
right to the term ‘first’ than had been practiced
under Caracalla (when all three cities were ‘first’),
that decision might have been the occasion for the
disappointed Pergamenes’ conspicuous insults, fol-
lowed by Macrinus’ punishment. On the other hand,
as Keil pointed out, one of Ephesos’ chief claims to
primacy was that it was three times neokoros. De-
spite the fact that Ephesos had technically been the
first to hold that honor, during its lapse after the
death of Geta, Pergamon had won its third neokoria,
and under Caracalla, Pergamene coins proclaim that
city ‘first three times neokoros’ or, more fully, ‘first
of Asia and first metropolis and first-three-times-
74 Cassius Dio ep. 79.20.4, 80.7.4; Habicht 1969, 18-19.
75 IvE 802; J. Keil 1956.
 chapter
neokoros-of-the-emperors city of the Pergamenes.’
It seems that Ephesos and Pergamon could not only
fight about who was first, but about who was first
to be neokoros. But under Macrinus apparently all
the neokoroi were threatened, and it may be that
they were not acting in rivalry, but were united in
defending their ‘rights’ against the emperor’s (pos-
sible) cancellation of neokoriai granted by Caracalla.
It was perhaps at this time that mention of even
Ephesos’ neokoria for Artemis, also granted by
Caracalla, was erased from its inscriptions.
The latter case indicates that the cities did not lose
their neokoriai due to a condemnation of the
memory of Caracalla, which would not have threat-
ened the honor for Artemis. What remains of Cassius
Dio’s history, which appears to have quoted Ma-
crinus’ actual letters to the Senate, states that no
decree against Caracalla was ever passed, and that
even Macrinus did not call him either ‘deified’ or a
‘public enemy,’ but only ‘Emperor.’76 This did not
stop informal vilifications in the Senate and the
destruction of certain statues in Rome, some of gold
and silver, others representing Caracalla and his hero
Alexander, which were allegedly thrown down at
Macrinus’ instigation.77 The attitude Dio attributed
to Macrinus was that he did not dare to condemn
Caracalla for fear of offending the soldiers, but would
have welcomed that action on the part of the Sen-
ate and people of Rome. This attitude, however, is
not the same as formal condemnation of memory.
In the course of discussing extraordinary expen-
ditures by the treasury and by some communities
at Caracalla’s command, the epitomes of Dio men-
tion that Caracalla’s enactments were abolished.78
This probably means only those concerned with the
extraordinary expenditures, but the neokoria could
certainly have involved extraordinary expenditures
by the cities, especially when eight had been con-
ferred in the same koinon. One of the major themes
of Macrinus’ short reign was reducing public expen-
diture, though his approval of work on such prac-
ticalities as the road network is documented by
milestones throughout the Empire.79 Of course, at
least three of the temples for which Caracalla made
cities neokoroi were already standing: Ephesos’ for
76 Cassius Dio ep. 79.9.2, 79.17.2-79.19.4.
77 Varner 1993, 397-399.
78 Cassius Dio ep. 79.18.5.
79 Cavuoto 1983, 34-49.
38 – historical analysis 293
Artemis, Pergamon’s for Asklepios, and Smyrna’s for
Rome. But that still left four or possibly five temples
for Asia and its cities to build, at Philadelphia,
Laodikeia, Kyzikos, Tralles, and perhaps even An-
tandros.
Caracalla only granted neokoriai in Asia, but
during his father’s reign two cities in other provinces
had been made twice neokoros, probably for a joint
cult of Caracalla and Geta, and later likely for
Caracalla alone. Do they show the same pattern as
the Asian cities that were neokoroi? Anazarbos in
Cilicia actually minted coinage under Macrinus, and
it kept the title ‘twice (neokoros)’ that it had had since
204/205. Perinthos in Thrace is more doubtful; it
did not yet declare its full number of neokoriai on
its coins, and in any case minted none under
Macrinus. Still, there is no sign that the other prov-
inces were in danger of losing neokoriai for Caracalla
as Asia seems to have been. But perhaps this was
because these honors were in fact granted in the
reign of Septimius Severus, well before Caracalla’s
sole rule.
The evidence is building that the Asian cities that
were made neokoroi by Caracalla lost that honor
under Macrinus. Ephesos apparently won its case
for being ‘first,’ but may have lost its third neokoria
even though that was for the temple of Artemis.
Kyzikos went from twice neokoros to simply neo-
koros, though again, Kyzikos may be a special case.
Smyrna and Pergamon were in a state of unrest, and
Pergamon went so far as to sling insults at the empe-
ror; whether this was a cause or a result of the loss
of neokoria is uncertain. The discontent of these
major cities may have been shared by the province
as a whole: Macrinus brought C. Julius Asper out
of exile because it was thought that he could restore
order in Asia, though he soon sent him back, replac-
ing him with Q. Anicius Faustus, whose term there
was extended.80
In any case, the problem soon came to a conclu-
sion: all the cities but Kyzikos once again minted
coins with undiminished titles after Macrinus’ death
and the condemnation of his memory.
80 Cassius Dio ep. 79.22.3-4; Thomasson 1984, 234 nos. 180,
181. J. Keil 1956 associated the advocate’s latest mission with
the unrest in Asia, but attributed that mission to his advocacy
for the koinon; it is more likely to have been for Ephesos. Note
the caution of Deininger 1965, 50 n. 4.
294 part ii – summary chapters
Elagabalus and Severus Alexander
Macrinus had been overthrown by his own armies’
rebellion in favor of a fourteen-year-old cousin (and
putative son) of Caracalla. The new emperor adopt-
ed the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus after his
supposed father, but is better known as Elagabalus,
which is properly the name of the god whom he
worshipped.81 It is natural that he would have re-
stored any neokoriai granted by Caracalla if they
were imperiled by the usurper Macrinus.
Elagabalus’ chief contact with the eastern prov-
inces was at the start of his reign. He was discov-
ered at his home city, Emesa in Syria, by the soldiers
stationed nearby. His grandmother Julia Maesa,
sister of the former empress Julia Domna, issued the
gossip and the gold that persuaded them to declare
him emperor. After his troops’ victory over Macri-
nus, he spent some months in Antioch before pro-
ceeding via Cilicia and Cappadocia to Bithynia. He
spent the winter of 218/219 in Nikomedia, then
journeyed on to Rome through Thrace, Moesia, and
Pannonia. He never returned to the East.82
Elagabalus appears to have granted about as
many neokoriai as Caracalla had. There was a
possible neokoria for Tripolis, the first known in
Phoenicia; one in Bithynia (Nikomedia), one in
Thrace (Philippopolis), one in Macedonia (Beroia),
and four in Asia (Ephesos, Miletos, Sardis, and
Hierapolis). Why did he choose these cities, or what
did they do to be chosen?
At least two neokoriai, and possibly three, are
likely to date from Elagabalus’ earliest days of rule,
his journey from the East to Rome.83 Tripolis was
the port closest to his home city, Emesa, where he
was first declared emperor, though there is no data
in the sources to show why it should have been sin-
gled out as neokoros. Nikomedia served as Elaga-
balus’ winter quarters in 218/219, and Philippopo-
lis was directly on his route across Thrace and
Moesia to Rome. All these cities, and Ephesos, is-
sued coins declaring their new neokoriai for Elaga-
balus early: Tripolis its unique coin type with the
title, dated to 219, the others for Elagabalus’ first
81 Barnes 1972, 53, 60.
82 Herodian 5.3-5; Cassius Dio ep. 79.30.2-80.3.1-2; Historia
Augusta, Heliogabalus 3, 5; Halfmann 1986a, 230-231; L. Rob-
ert 1964, 79-82, 99.
83 L. Robert 1964.
wife Julia Paula, indicating that the grant predated
news of her divorce in 220.84
If we accept Dio’s account of Elagabalus’ gloat-
ing over Macrinus’ dead body (ep. 79.40.2), however,
his route to Bithynia was directly through Cappa-
docia, avoiding the province of Asia completely.
Though the cities off his route may have sent em-
bassies to meet him, there is no proof that he ever
visited them, not even Ephesos.
Three of the off-route cities declared themselves
neokoroi later in Elagabalus’ reign. Hierapolis as
neokoros issued coins for Aquilia Severa and Annia
Faustina, each of whom was empress in 221, and
Miletos and Sardis for Severus Alexander as Cae-
sar, in 221-222.85 Of this later group, Sardis issued
its initial coins for Elagabalus with the same count
of neokoriai it had had in previous reigns, indicat-
ing that this honor did not date as early as his jour-
ney from the East. Not much is known of the timing
of Beroia’s neokoria, and it lies off his route.
In Nikomedia and Philippopolis the new cult of
the emperor was moved into previously existing
temples, in each case that of the city’s chief deity,
Demeter and Apollo Kendrisos respectively. But no
data from Beroia, Ephesos, Sardis, Miletos, or
Hierapolis indicate that the emperor shared his
temple with any other deity.
The sources (mainly the tatters of Cassius Dio,
Herodian, and, for what it’s worth, the Historia
Augusta) make almost as much of Elagabalus’ religious
interests as of his sexual ones. Recent attempts to
explain the parcel of scandals that these sources have
left us have concentrated on seeking religious expla-
nations where earlier scholars sought sexual or psy-
chological ones: Elagabalus is no longer a pampered
mama’s boy or misunderstood transsexual, but an
Emesene priest carrying out a considered policy of
importing various Syrian/Aramaic/Phoenician gods
and religious practices into Rome.86 In this line,
Johnston has also sought religious motives for the
various grants of neokoria made by Elagabalus,
especially that for Hierapolis.87 The sources make
much of the emperor’s tendency to marry his baetyl
god to various goddesses, or at least to Carthage’s
Urania/Dea Caelestis;88 but there is no clear evidence
84 Kienast 1996, 173-174.
85 Ibid., 174-175, 177-179.
86 M. Frey 1989.
87 Johnston 1984.
88 Cassius Dio 79.12; Herodian 5.6.3-4. M. Frey 1989, 52-
54 doubted Herodian’s account of a marriage to the Palladium
 chapter 38
for such sacred marriage among the new neokoroi.
Only Herodian (5.5.2) notes religious excesses in
Elagabalus’ early reign; elsewhere, he and his men-
tors are portrayed as behaving discreetly until he was
well settled and well received in Rome.
It must be emphasized that despite what the lit-
erature might lead us to expect, Elagabalus’ grants
of neokoria were not much out of line with what
Caracalla had given before. Indeed, Elagabalus
appears to have been more moderate, at least where
the province Asia was concerned: there are only four
new neokoriai there as compared to Caracalla’s
possible eight, and all except Ephesos were likely
granted in or after 221. Previously, Elagabalus had
granted one per province, very likely to cities to
which he had some cause to be gracious during his
time in the East: Tripolis for Syria; Nikomedia, his
host city in Bithynia; Philippopolis on his route
through Thrace; and off his route, Ephesos for Asia
and Beroia for Macedonia. The total, admittedly for
a short reign, comes to eight. There is no proof of
Elagabalus preferring cities with cults of the sun god,
nor of him marrying his baetyl to Demeter at
Nikomedia, to Artemis at Ephesos, or to Lydian
Kore at Sardis.
In June 221 Elagabalus adopted his younger
cousin Severus Alexander, designating him Caesar
and successor.89 Though this act may have been
intended to bolster his own waning popularity, it
only offered his opponents a younger, more attrac-
tive alternative. He tried to revoke the adoption and
even to murder Alexander, but in March of the next
year he and his mother were killed in a revolt of the
Praetorian guard. His body was dragged through the
city, then thrown into the Tiber River.
Severus Alexander was only thirteen years old
when he succeeded his cousin. The power lay in the
hands of his (and Elagabalus’) grandmother, Julia
Maesa, and of his mother, Julia Mamaea. Though
the new rule was thus closely linked with the old,
that association was played down. Elagabalus’ name
was erased from inscriptions, his religious policies
were reversed, and his favorites were killed, expelled,
on the grounds that it does not fit with the Syrian triad men-
tioned on an altar found at Cordoba, Spain (bibliography 52
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.
89 Barnes 1972, 72.
– historical analysis 295
or demoted.90 The many neokoriai granted for his
cult were thus in jeopardy.
Of the eight cities concerned, three had their sole
neokoria for Elagabalus (Tripolis?, Philippopolis, and
Hierapolis), while the other five (Nikomedia, Beroia,
Ephesos, Miletos, and Sardis) were more than once
neokoros. Sometime after Elagabalus’ death the first
three ceased to call themselves neokoros, while the
other five all gave up one neokoria from the enu-
meration of their titles.
In considering the single neokoroi, as well as those
like Beroia and Miletos which go from two to the
simple title, we face a methodological problem. If
they dropped the enumeration, or even dropped all
mention, of neokoria from their coins and inscrip-
tions, it might have been by choice because other
titles or honors became more important to them. No
edict stated that each city had to declare all its titles
all the time. Tripolis’ claim to be neokoros is based
on a single coin, so it does not take much to end
the evidence. The case is plainer for the multiple
neokoroi: these cities continued to claim their title
minus one, a clear indication that neokoriai for Ela-
gabalus were indeed being blotted off the record.
Nikomedia and Sardis, which went down from three
to two neokoriai, and Ephesos, which went from four
to three, show this diminution incontrovertibly. We
can extend this to the single- and twice-neokoroi
cities that no longer declare the title after Elagabalus’
death: no doubt their neokoriai were withdrawn as
well.
Collating the evidence from the eight cities, we
find that after a lapse of time (anything from a few
months to a few years, considering that most cities
minted irregularly) all the neokoriai for Elagabalus
seem to have been withdrawn. The timing of the
withdrawal is curious, as our sources, such as they
are, give no hint of an explanation for the delay in
the cities’ reduction of their claims. Nikomedia,
Beroia, Ephesos, and Philippopolis continued to
claim their neokoriai for Elagabalus on coins well
after they had been informed of Severus Alexander’s
succession and, presumably, the mode of Elagabalus’
death. Did they assume that Severus Alexander
would continue to honor the memory of his cousin?
If so, their memories were short. Though they might
not have remembered Claudius’ renunciation of his
nephew Gaius, Caracalla’s behavior toward his
90Herodian 6.1.1-7; Cassius Dio ep. 80. 21.2-3; Kienast 1996,
172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417.
296 part ii – summary chapters
brother Geta should have been fresh in their minds.
Was the new regime at first more inclined toward
dynastic solidarity than our sources make it appear?
Or did all the neokoroi attempt to save their titles
by rededicating their temples to the new emperor?
The coins of Ephesos hint that embassies were sent
to Rome, and an inscription from Sardis indicates
a period when it may have been uncertain which
way the decision would go. It is possible that all the
endangered neokoroi and their koina, representing
at least five provinces, sent embassies, as all would
be affected by the answer. It is likely that the pro-
cedure was long, especially if the petitions of the
neokoroi for Elagabalus became mixed up with those
of new applicants. The koina that had neokoroi for
Elagabalus would probably have defended their case,
holding that these cities had priority to neokoria. If
so, there would have been no new applicants from
the provinces of Macedonia, Thrace, Bithynia, Asia,
or Phoenicia. New neokoriai were granted to pre-
viously uninvolved cities in previously uninvolved
provinces starting from 225/226 (below). The pro-
cess of disappointing the former neokoroi for
Elagabalus may have taken even longer; it was over
by the time of the Persian War, nine years after Ela-
gabalus’ death.
Why has such a proceeding left no record? Sim-
ply stated, because the Emperor’s answer was no.
Cities did not build monuments or carve inscriptions
honoring their ambassadors for an unsuccessful
mission. No one would record for all posterity to
read a flat refusal, even from an emperor. No city
won, so no city commemorated the process. Indeed,
the only record resides in the erasure of titles from
previous inscriptions. As for the historians, Herodian
preferred more dramatic material, Cassius Dio was
preoccupied and in poor health,91 and the Historia
Augusta for this and all subsequent reigns is a farrago
of spicy gossip, with facts few and far between.
Record of the emperor’s decision was doubtless kept
in the imperial archives, but it has not survived.92
Severus Alexander granted neokoriai as well as
taking them away. There is evidence for three cit-
ies gaining a neokoria during his reign: Neokaisareia
in Pontus, Kaisareia in Cappadocia, and Aigeai in
Cilicia. Not one of them is in a koinon whose cities
had had and lost a neokoria of Elagabalus. All is-
sued dated coins, and these are not without their
91 Cassius Dio ep. 80.1.2-80.2.1.
92 Millar 1977, 259-268.
problems, but Kaisareia was likely neokoros for
Severus Alexander by 225/226, Neokaisareia by
226/227, and Aigeai by 230/231.
Severus Alexander eventually allowed neokoriai
in the province Asia as well. Under him Magnesia
first declared itself neokoros of Artemis. To make
one city neokoros when others in the province had
lost that title could be dangerous, as it would exac-
erbate the rivalry among the cities. The case of
Magnesia fits well in this context, as its contempo-
rary claim to be ‘seventh’ in a province all too well
supplied with ‘firsts’ shows a sharp interest in sta-
tus as reflected in titulature. The Magnesians could
no doubt have pointed to several cities already
neokoroi whose status they considered inferior to
theirs. On the koinon’s side, there may have been
need to preserve tangible signs of the emperor’s favor
toward the province, and his pardon for any acri-
mony in the debate over Elagabalus’ neokoroi. The
problem was to avoid reopening those scarcely
healed wounds of the cities that had lost neokoriai,
and the solution may have been to choose Magne-
sia, but as neokoros of Artemis, not of the emperor.
Later, Kyzikos may have been readmitted to its
standing as twice neokoros, certainly after 231 and
probably close to Severus Alexander’s death in 235;
that is, if Kyzikos was not simply repressing the
enumeration of its second neokoria, as it had after
the death of Caracalla. If there was going to be
another neokoros chosen for the province Asia, a city
that had already lost the honor through no fault of
its own (but not for Elagabalus—that wound was too
recent) would have been a good choice. Once again,
however, the second neokoria of Kyzikos was not
to endure for long.
The Empire After 235
At the murder of Alexander, last representative of
the Severan dynasty, the Roman Empire fell into
turbulence. There were frequent wars with Goths
and Vandals, Franks and Alamanni. In the East, the
energetic, aggressive Sassanians looked only for the
opportunity to raid, or even to reclaim, the long-lost
empire of the Achaemenid Persians.93 All that was
needed was a weakness in the center, and this was
not lacking either. The occasional murder of an old
emperor and proclamation of a new one was not
93 Kettenhofen 1982.
 chapter 38
without precedent, but after 235 the entryway to
power became a rapidly revolving door, from which
not all the contestants could be cleared as new can-
didates entered.94
For the cities, this instability only multiplied the
factor of uncertainty that had prevailed in previous
civil wars, such as that between Septimius Severus
and Pescennius Niger. It was possible for a city to
obliterate an emperor’s inscriptions and then, chas-
tened, to reinscribe the same name over the erasure
a month later.95 Even those fortunate cities that
chose the ‘correct’ side could find themselves in-
vaded by friendly forces and their supplies of food,
clothing, and animals requisitioned away. Worse, for
the first time since the first century B.C.E., cities in
eastern provinces well within the Empire’s borders
were subject to the threat of foreign invasion. While
the Sassanians snapped up Roman territories east
of the Euphrates and threatened those beyond, the
Goths and their allies repeatedly raided the Greek
peninsula and Asia Minor both by land and by sea.96
The Palmyrenes, for a while Rome’s bulwark against
the Sassanians, began to emulate them in taking over
Roman possessions, and at one time Syria, Arabia,
and Egypt fell under their dominion.
Economic and social consequences were slower
to appear but harder to counteract, and they had a
particular effect on the coins and inscriptions that
are our major sources of evidence for the neokoroi.
There was an increasing debasement and con-
sequent inflation of the standard Roman silver
coinage.97 The bronze civic coinage, which had
flourished for two centuries as a token currency and
a symbol of the cities’ autonomy (also token), prob-
ably fell victim to this economic situation. As the
value of the official coinage, now more bronze than
silver, fell while prices rose, there was less need of
a fractional currency to supplement it, especially one
issued in good bronze. Soon after, official Roman
mints were established in the East, and their prod-
ucts likely supplanted the old civic coinages.98 Most
eastern cities ceased to issue coins after the reign of
Gallienus, and with them our humblest but most
dependable well of evidence for neokoria runs dry.
94 Hartmann 1982; though MacMullen 1976 indicates the
nuances obscured by the term ‘crisis.’
95 Herodian 7.5.8, 7.9.11; CIL 8.757, 10047.
96 Wolfram 1979.
97 Callu 1969.
98 Butcher 1996.
– historical analysis 297
The inflation would have had some effect on
private fortunes, though these were more likely to
be in property than coin. Still, many members of the
elite began to refocus their activities and interests
from their home cities to the larger sphere of the
Roman bureaucracy.99 Now those who managed to
retain their wealth were growing unwilling to take
on civic offices and responsibilities; increasingly,
liturgies had to be forced on them. And as the bonds
of civic patriotism weakened, so did the eagerness
of the wealthy to serve as chief priests and priest-
esses and agonothetai of their koinon. In the same
way, cities themselves became unable or unwilling
to contribute to the coffers of their koinon and its
chief cities.100 The koinon may not have been able
to enforce its demands; judging from inscriptions and
coins, evidence for the provincial koina blinks out,
bit by bit, across the Empire, to a virtual disappear-
ance of data after the reign of Gallienus.101
An end to the evidence, however, does not nec-
essarily imply an end to the koinon, nor to neokoria.
The ‘crisis’ years are notoriously short on all forms
of evidence. The end of civic coinage has already
been mentioned. Though inscriptions were still being
carved, there were many fewer of them. No won-
der: there were fewer buildings built, fewer statues
erected, fewer gifts or dedications to gods or emper-
ors, even fewer gravestones, though apparently the
epigraphic habit died harder in the East than in the
West.102 The parlous state of the literary evidence
for this period echoes that of these archaeological
records. Herodian’s history ends with the accession
of Gordian III in 238. There are the Historia Augusta,
though it contains more fiction than fact; Zosimus,
who is not the latter-day Polybius he may have
wanted to be; and epitomators such as Aurelius
Victor and Eutropius, who give an outline, not a
history. Though calling the age a ‘crisis’ has been
criticized, the later third century was ‘dark’ in both
senses of the phrase: chaotic and little docu-
mented.103
The procession of short-lived emperors must have
had an effect on the imperial cult in the provinces,
and on the neokoroi in particular. On the one hand,
there were many more emperors and thus more
99 De Blois 1984.
100 E.g. Philadelphia in Asia, SEG 17:528; Millar 1977, 390.
101 Deininger 1965, 182-183.
102 Winter 1996, 232; MacMullen 1986.
103 Rogers 1988; Bleckmann 1992.
298 part ii – summary chapters
opportunities for establishing their cult; moreover,
the koinon as an organization may have been grow-
ing weaker and losing the ability to mediate among
the cities regarding what titles they could claim. On
the other hand, the imperial cult and its benefits
became much more uncertain. Was it worth send-
ing ambassadors all the way to the Rhine to request
neokoria from an emperor who was as likely to be
killed by his own officers as by the enemy before the
embassy could even arrive? If the cult and title could
actually be granted, how long would it be before that
emperor was killed and his enemy, now theirs, took
his place?
It is ironic to a modern sensibility that, at a time
when the emperors seem less and less powerful, there
may have been an increased tendency to worship
the emperor, and for him to proclaim his close re-
lationship with the gods.104 By the same token there
was a current belief that the welfare of the entire
empire depended on the proper maintenance of
official Roman religion.105 It may have been grasp-
ing at straws, but no hope, however small, was to
be rejected. If a city became neokoros of an emperor,
perhaps his troops would come to its rescue, would
protect it, or just not pillage it. The emperor’s name,
the status of neokoros itself, might form the city’s
aegis. Whether this was a realistic expectation was
probably a question not to be asked.
From an emperor’s point of view, there was little
reason not to grant neokoria, and much to favor it.
There is no trustworthy evidence for any emperor
after Caracalla modestly refusing to be worshipped.
Indeed, emperors were increasingly likely to claim
the special protection of particular gods.106 The next
usurper could rise out of nowhere, and no city’s
pledge of loyalty was to be despised. An emperor
could bind the cities to himself by granting gifts, but
what money there was was needed for the army;
other privileges could be expensive or impossible to
arrange, and exemption from taxes or requisitions
was out of the question. The neokoria, however,
required no outlay of imperial funds, and if the city
in question reused an extant temple, there was little
expense on that side either.
These factors probably made the title ‘neokoros’
easier to get for those cities that still were interested,
104 Cerfaux and Tondriau 1957, 407-409; Taeger 1960;
Turcan 1978.
105 Nock 1930a.
106 E.g., Aurelian; Alaric Watson 1999, 183-198, 201-202.
and there are signs that many were. But again, the
more it was granted and the less eminent the cities
that boasted of it, the less valuable the simple honor
became: just like the coinage, neokoria was to ex-
perience rampant inflation. Indeed, for a city’s sta-
tus to be made truly significant, it could instantly
become several times neokoros, as we will see in the
cases of Thessalonike under Trajan Decius, and of
Perge and Side under Aurelian and thereafter.
Maximinus
A professional soldier, Maximinus may not have
instigated the army revolt in which Severus Alex-
ander was murdered, but he certainly benefited by
it.107 The sole event of his reign that concerns the
neokoroi was that Kyzikos went back to calling it-
self simply neokoros on his coins after having been
twice neokoros on late coins of Severus Alexander.
Was this due to a condemnation of Alexander’s
memory?108 Nine neokoroi cities declared their title
on coins during Maximinus’ reign: Nikomedia, Per-
gamon, Ephesos, Smyrna, Sardis, Anazarbos, Mag-
nesia, and the aforementioned Kyzikos. Only the
latter two had become neokoros under Severus Alex-
ander, and Magnesia as neokoros of Artemis was
certainly less likely to lose that honor because of an
obliteration of Alexander’s memory. As for Aigeai,
Kaisareia, and Neokaisareia, the neokoroi for
Severus Alexander who did not mint with the title
in Maximinus’ reign all began to mint with undi-
minished titulature soon after, Aigeai as early as 238,
Kaisareia by 240, and Neokaisareia by 241/242.109
Kyzikos did not. It seems that either Kyzikos’
troubles were not caused by a condemnation of
Severus Alexander’s name, or that it was simply
suppressing the enumeration from its titulature.
Gordian III
Though successful in his war against the Germans,
Maximinus was less able to pacify Italy and the pro-
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
the condemnation was unofficial.
109 Aigeai was the only city in Cilicia to strike coins for the
elder Gordiani, though these did not mention the neokoria;
see Weiss 1982, 196-197.
 chapter 38
vinces. Revolt broke out in Africa, where the pro-
consul Marcus Antonius Gordianus and his son of
the same name were declared co-emperors. The
Senate had been alienated by Maximinus and con-
firmed the Gordiani, but within thirty-six days both
men were dead, the son in battle against Maximinus’
troops, the father by suicide on hearing the news of
his son. The Senate was stuck; it had already out-
lawed Maximinus and he was leading his armies to
invade Italy. Two compromise candidates, Pupienus
and Balbinus, were selected from the Senate itself.
To placate the people, among whom the Gordiani
were still popular, a grandson of the proconsul was
named Caesar and successor. Though only thirteen,
within two months he became the emperor Gordian
III: Maximinus, unsuccessful at besieging Aquileia,
had been killed by his own soldiers, while Balbinus
and Pupienus were murdered by their Praetorian
Guard.
Gordian III, though young, had good advisers and
philhellenic tendencies.110 There are few sources for
his reign, however, and most concentrate on his war
against the Sassanian Persians and their king Shapur
I.111 Under his rule Thessalonike in Macedonia
became neokoros; and by 240 its rival in the prov-
ince, Beroia, had again become twice neokoros and
first began to put its name on the koinon coinage
to underline that fact. It is possible that he allowed
Thessalonike that honor because it would be an
important transshipment point for the proposed
eastern campaign, and that Beroia, though less stra-
tegic, was honored at the same time to concede its
long-held primacy in the province. But in fact no
clear connection can be made between Gordian
(who only went East for the war two years later, in
242) and these honors to Macedonian cities. Arme-
nia Minor was closer to the scene of action, and an
inscription from the time of Gordian III first docu-
ments Nikopolis there as twice neokoros. But that
only provides a time by which the title had been
granted, and does not assure that Gordian himself
granted it.
Philip
According to Zosimus, Gordian’s praetorian prefect
Philip contrived a shortage of supplies which caused
110 L. Robert 1970, 14-17.
111 Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 34-45.
– historical analysis 299
the troops massed for war against the Sassanians to
revolt, kill Gordian, and declare Philip emperor.112
The sources’ bias against Philip is partly racial: he
was an Arab from Trachonitis, east of the Jordan.
He did not linger in the East after Gordian’s death,
but made peace with the Persians, named his son
Philip Caesar, and founded a city, Philippopolis,
near his birthplace. It may have been around this
time that he made Neapolis in Syria Palaestina
neokoros. Then he proceeded back to Rome, where
he triumphantly celebrated the millennium of the
city with secular games.
Trajan Decius
Philip appointed the city prefect Decius to command
the restive armies of Pannonia and Moesia, and this
was probably his greatest mistake. The armies de-
clared Decius emperor, Philip had to march against
him, and he was killed in battle.113 Though some
of Philip’s inscriptions were erased after his death,
no official condemnation of his memory has been
documented.114 Neapolis did not issue coins and
probably lost its colonial status under Trajan Decius,
perhaps because favoritism towards its benefactor
Philip turned the city against his successor.115 But
subsequently coins issued under Trebonianus Gallus
occasionally use the title ‘neokoros.’ Herakleia in the
koinon of Pontus also declared itself neokoros first
on coins under Philip, and there too the title seems
to have survived his death; but its neokoria may have
been granted some time before.
The survivor ruled under the name Trajan
Decius, recalling better times for the Roman Em-
pire; in flattery, Pergamon put out an issue of coins
that showed its temple of Zeus Philios and (the origi-
nal) Trajan, the one that had made it twice neokoros
135 years before. But Decius’ reign was anything but
prosperous. The Goths had begun attacks on Moesia
late in Philip’s reign; combating them had been part
of Decius’ assignment to that province.116 His rise
to the throne did not discourage their incursions,
however. The Gothic armies launched a two-
pronged invasion of Moesia and of Thrace. They
112 Zosimus 1.17-20; Aurelius Victor 27.7-28; Eutropius 9.2-
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.
115 Harl 1984, 67-73.
116 Zosimus 1.23; Jordanes, On the Getae 16.18.
300 part ii – summary chapters
besieged the city of Philippopolis, metropolis of the
Thracian koinon and formerly neokoros, and even-
tually captured it.117 At around the same time
the Carpi, allies of the Goths, were advancing into
Dacia. Of course, with foreign war went further
internal rebellions: Priscus, governor of Macedonia
and imperial legate to Thrace, was besieged in
Philippopolis and had to declare himself emperor
and make a pact with the Goths.118 In this context
Thessalonike declared itself four times neokoros,
three more neokoriai than it had under Gordian III;
this probably reflected the city’s importance to the
Balkan front. Anazarbos in Cilicia, however, which
now declared itself three times neokoros, was far
away from the major war of the time. Decius sent
his son and Caesar, Herennius Etruscus, to the front
first, while he himself followed soon after.119 The rest
of their lives would be spent in combat in the Balkan
area, but that would not be a long time. Trajan
Decius became the first Roman emperor to die in
battle against a foreign enemy.
Trebonianus Gallus
It was hinted that some responsibility for Trajan
Decius’ death rested with Trebonianus Gallus, his
ally and military commander of Moesia, who is said
to have plotted with the Goths to lure Decius into
a trap.120 Such suspicions always tended to linger
around the successor. Though the Senate made
Gallus co-ruler with Hostilianus, Decius’ surviving
son, a plague, convenient to Gallus but deadly to
the rest of the Empire, soon carried Hostilianus off.
Thessalonike would lose two of its four neokoriai at
some point after Decius’ death, certainly by 253/
254. This loss was less likely due to a condemna-
tion of Decius’ memory, however, than it was to
restoring the balance between cities in the same
province, so that Thessalonike and its rival Beroia
would each be twice neokoros.121
Trebonianus Gallus made peace with the Goths
and guaranteed them a yearly subsidy, but buying
off one segment of the attackers did nothing about
117 Zosimus 1.24.2; Ammianus Marcellinus 31.5.17.
118 PIR2 I 489 (T. Julius Priscus); Kienast 1996, 208; Aurelius
Victor 29.2; Polemius Sylvius 39-40; Dexippus fr. 18.
119 Aurelius Victor 29.3-5; Dexippus fr. 16a; Zonaras 12.20.
120 Zosimus 1.23.2-1.25.2.
121 Kienast 1996, 204-210; Peachin 1990, 32-35, 239-265;
Varner 1993, 487-488.
the rest. The Danube border may have been breach-
ed again, and for the first time it is possible that the
raiders took ship, extending their grasp to the
wealthy cities of Asia Minor.122 Also ominous was
a successful attack by the Sassanian empire; King
Shapur I had been checked by Gordian III’s expe-
dition, but afterward continued raiding Roman ter-
ritories. In Gallus’ reign he seized a long-awaited
opportunity, and in a series of campaigns took Ar-
menia, invaded Mesopotamia and Syria, and sacked
Antioch.123
Aemilian
The only Roman military success in this period was
that of Aemilian, governor of Moesia, who beat back
the Goths from his province in 253. It was thus
predictable that his troops would declare him em-
peror.124 Aemilian at once set out with his armies
to invade Italy. Trebonianus Gallus summoned
troops from fighting the Alamanni to combat Aemi-
lian, but there wasn’t enough time. Gallus’ own
soldiers, seeing that they were outnumbered, killed
him and went over to Aemilian. The murder did not
stop Gallus’ reinforcements, still on the march from
the Upper Rhine. They declared their commander,
Valerian, emperor, and as they outnumbered Aemi-
lian’s troops, this time it was Aemilian who was
betrayed and killed by his own soldiers.
Valerian and Gallienus
The new emperor, Valerian, combined military
expertise with consular dignity and an illustrious
family background.125 On his arrival at Rome, he
raised his son Gallienus, already made Caesar by the
Senate, to the status of Augustus and full partner in
the realm. Both emperors would be needed, as
122 Zonaras 12.21; Zosimus 1.28.1; the latter perhaps an
anticipation of the invasion described in 1.31-35. The accounts
are plagued by doublets and repetition, but some cities may
have actually been invaded more than once: Potter 1990, 310-
314; Bleckmann 1992, 156-219; Salamon 1971.
123 Zosimus 1.27.2, with problems of interpretation simi-
lar to those of his account of the Gothic sea raids; Bleckmann
1992, 54-155.
124 Zosimus 28.1-29.2; Eutropius 9.5-6; Aurelius Victor 31-
32.1.
125 Aurelius Victor 32-33; Zosimus 1.29-1.40; Eutropius 9.7-
8.
 chapter 38
Rome now had to fight wars on every side. Gallienus
took command at the Rhine and at the Danube
frontier while Valerian went east to combat first the
Goths, then the Persians. Many of the great cities
of the East, some of them neokoroi, came under
attack. The emperor Valerian himself was captured
by the Persians in 260, after which Gallienus reigned
alone.126 The presence of armies in the East may
have encouraged a temporary increase in the issues
of bronze coinage, as it did in Athens between Gal-
lienus’ visit in 264 and the Herulian invasion in
267.127 The chronology of this period is just short
of chaos, however. To the detriment of this study,
most of the bronze civic coinages, those abundant
and dependable informants on city titulature, fade
out after Gallienus’ reign. Without them there is
darkness, with only intermittent inscriptions to show
us the subsequent history of the neokoroi.
At least ten grants of neokoria have been associ-
ated with the names of Valerian and Gallienus, a
total that exceeds even those granted under Cara-
calla or under Elagabalus. Ideally, one might wish
to look at these and discern some cogent series of
circumstances that accounts for them all. But the
only historical evidence we have is anecdotal, not
explanatory, while the archaeological evidence is, as
always, partial and subject to interpretation. Still, the
neokoroi under Valerian and Gallienus do seem to
cluster into groups, or at least into one group with
some outliers.
The most notable cluster is that of cities that were
restored to the status they had held in the reign of
Elagabalus, before the condemnation of his memory
removed one neokoria from each. This includes
Ephesos again four times neokoros, Sardis and
Nikomedia at three times each, and perhaps Hiera-
spolis at one. All of these had regained the honor
before 260, and Nikomedia and Ephesos offer evi-
dence that their neokoriai were granted by 256-258.
If Valerian and Gallienus had for some reason
reinstituted the cult of the emperor Elagabalus, we
might expect to see Beroia, Philippopolis, Miletos,
and Tripolis also with restored neokoriai. Unfortu-
nately all of these had ceased to issue coinage show-
ing the title by this time, and no other evidence is
yet known. Beroia, at least, had already become
twice neokoros again in the reign of Gordian III.
126 De Blois 1976.
127 Kroll 1997.
– historical analysis 301
There are two outliers to this group of neokoroi.
Kyzikos, which had not been neokoros of Elagabalus
but whose second neokoria had wavered several
times, named itself twice neokoros again between
258 and 260. Thessalonike, which had been four
times neokoros under Trajan Decius, was reduced
to two times by the time of Valerian but then upped
to three times by Gallienus’ sole reign. The reap-
pearance of Kyzikos as twice neokoros definitely
postdates the neokoriai to Nikomedia and Ephesos,
and that to Thessalonike may postdate all of them.
As usual, the situation of Kyzikos is uncertain; it
may have only been suppressing the enumeration
from its title. If that was not the case, however, and
if we extend the confined cluster from only Ela-
gabalus’ neokoroi to take in these two outliers, a
remarkable coincidence occurs. The larger set now
includes every city known to have lost a neokoria.
The exceptions are again those cities for which we
lack all evidence of their status at this time: Beroia,
Philippopolis, Miletos, and Tripolis as before, with
only Nikaia added. Thus we no longer need look for
the unlikely reason why Valerian and Gallienus
restored lost neokoriai of Elagabalus, but rather why
they may have restored all lost neokoriai.
There were other neokoriai granted at this time
that do not fall into the ‘regained neokoriai’ group.
Tarsos seems never to have lost a neokoria, but
became three times neokoros, and Ankyra, Side, and
Aspendos, which had never been documented as
neokoroi previously, now claim that honor, Ankyra
as twice neokoros. It is noteworthy that these cities
fall into a geographic area that is distinct from that
of the cities that regained neokoriai: they are in the
south and east, while the ‘regained neokoriai’ are
in the north and west. The one group was prima-
rily threatened by Sassanian incursions, the other
primarily by the Goths.
One unifying factor is war, which brought the
emperor Valerian to the East and made him wish
to reward and encourage cities to hold out against
the invaders. But the factor of war is so widespread
as to be unhelpful to these considerations. If we could
overlay maps with all the various Gothic invasions
and Sassanian incursions, we would find that no city
in the East was safe, none out of raiding distance,
none far from the paths of armies. Then why were
these particular cities singled out as neokoroi?
The answer may lie with the unusual group of
cities with regained neokoriai. Most of these had lost
a neokoria less than forty years before, a few even
302 part ii – summary chapters
more recently. In a situation where many cities, per-
haps even every city, wanted close ties to the em-
perors, which cities could have been seen to have
most claim to the honor? Of necessity, those that had
once had it but lost it through no fault of their own.
In addition, the fact that they had had it once as-
sured that they were important cities already deemed
worthy of neokoria. A grant to them would have the
air of a restoration, harking back to times of peace
and prosperity only a generation before.
As it happens, the ‘restored’ group centers in
northern Greece and western Asia Minor, where
Elagabalus happened to make his grants. What of
the area to the south and east, where Valerian him-
self was leading the Roman armies? Here the choice
seems to emphasize not restoration of particular
neokoriai, but restoration of balance among the
neokoroi.
In Cilicia, Tarsos and Anazarbos had been neck-
and-neck in neokoriai since the Severan period,
though Tarsos had originally had precedence. Yet
under Trajan Decius, Anazarbos had become three
times neokoros, leaving Tarsos behind. Now balance
was restored; Tarsos too became three times
neokoros. Both cities, plus Aigeai, the other Cilician
neokoros, were soon to be sacked by the Sassanians
in the invasion that also carried the emperor Vale-
rian off to captivity.128
Ankyra in Galatia was more remote, though not
untouched. The city built a fortification wall in the
face of famine and barbarian invasions; probably the
Goths followed the ‘royal road’ through Ankyra on
their way into Cappadocia in 261/262.129 So far as
is known, Ankyra had no rivals in its province. We
cannot even affirm that the city was actually given
its second neokoria under Valerian and Gallienus,
only that it began to announce it. Still, there may
be some point in comparing Ankyra not to other
cities in its province but to other provincial metro-
poleis. Even Kaisareia in Cappadocia had been twice
neokoros for some time, and the cities of Asia and
Bithynia had passed that mark even longer before.
The status of twice neokoros would have only
brought Ankyra up to its proper status among the
capitals of the East.
Pamphylia had recently become strategically
important, a status which made grants of honors and
titles understandable, at least from an emperor’s
128 Kettenhofen 1982, 106-112.
129 IGRR 3:209; Salamon 1971, 128-129.
point of view. From a provincial viewpoint, however,
the neokoriai of Side and then of Aspendos (the latter
during Gallienus’ sole rule) changed the balance of
titulature: Perge, since Vespasian probably the only
neokoros, suddenly had to accommodate its rivals.
The change, as always, goes beyond mere titulature
to put in question former relationships among cit-
ies and between them and the emperor: Perge was
no longer alone (and therefore first), but the three
cities stood on equal footing at least as regards
neokoria, and thus on an equal footing towards the
emperor. Perge’s reaction to Side’s neokoria was to
publicize its long-unstated status as neokoros more
intensively. As the rivalry between the two was
heated enough to be alluded to on coins, it may be
that Aspendos was only later added to the neokoroi
in order to dissipate the tension.
To sum up, a multitude of neokoriai were granted
or regranted during the joint reign of Valerian
and Gallienus, when Valerian was leading his cam-
paign against the Sassanians. A common thread
runs through these grants, a thread of restoration,
whether of a title previously withdrawn or of a city’s
position in the province or the Empire. A restora-
tion could have the effect of recalling the great days
of a city, often less than a generation before yet
perhaps seeming sadly remote. Valerian’s neokoriai
in Pamphylia, however, were not so much a resto-
ration as a recognition of the current status of cit-
ies based on their strategic importance. Thus Side,
a vital port, was made equal with Perge, and Aspen-
dos was eventually added too. It is likely that two
basic ingredients, the imperial wish to bind cities in
loyalty by means of grants of neokoriai, and the
cities’ rivalry with one another, combined in Pam-
phylia as it had in other provinces to promote an
inflation of neokoriai once again.
Aurelian and After
There is no evidence for a formal end to neokoria;
at last sight, especially at Perge and Side, it was un-
dergoing rapid escalation in the chaotic years at the
end of the third century. On coins of Aurelian, the
Pamphylian cities show a definite inflation in
neokoriai; both went from simply neokoros to Perge
claiming to be four times and Side three times
neokoros. It is difficult to tell why these cities were
so honored. Though Pamphylia had just suffered
from Gothic raids, with Side defending itself with
 chapter 38
particular distinction, Aurelian’s itineraries for his
war with Palmyra bypassed the province com-
pletely.130 Side’s harbor may have made it vital for
supply lines, but the pecking order still gave the
precedence to Perge. It would be interesting to know
how many times Perge was neokoros when Side later
claimed its sixth; one document may show that Perge
too became six times neokoros.
Inscriptions of the first Tetrarchy, 293-305, call
Synnada and Sagalassos twice neokoros, though both
cities were not known to have been neokoroi at all
up to that point. Sagalassos was still twice neokoros
on inscriptions even down to the time of Constantine
and his sons.
It may seem remarkable that the title ‘twice neo-
koros,’ symbol of the cult of the emperors, was still
being used while the Empire was ruled by Christians.
Yet Constantine deified his father (and was later
himself deified), and accepted a temple at Hispellum
and priests dedicated to his Flavian gens.131 Orators
who spoke before the emperor himself not only
praised his ‘divine mind’ but could attribute his
victories to a vision of Apollo; he is said to have put
up his own image in pagan temples, or even to have
built pagan temples in the city he founded, Con-
stantinople.132 Though some of these statements may
have arisen from pagan/Christian bickering, it is
certain that the emperors of the house of Con-
stantine did nothing that would lessen their power
as rulers, their Christianity notwithstanding.
The more research is done on the late antique
period, the clearer it becomes that reports of the
death of civic life have been greatly exaggerated.
Great eastern centers like Ephesos, Sardis, and
Aphrodisias were prosperous up into the sixth cen-
tury, though the governmental role formerly handled
by their elites gradually passed into the hands of
imperial officials and leaders of the church.133 Prob-
ably due to breakdowns in large-scale transport and
supply lines for any but imperial and military pur-
poses, local building begins to be done with the
materials on hand, and old structures are cannibal-
130 Alaric Watson 1999, 46, 70-84; Halfmann 1986a, 239-
240.
131 Drake 2000, 180-187; Clauss 1999, 196-208.
132 Sokrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.18.1, ed. G. Hansen (Berlin
1995) 57-58; Zosimus 2.31. See Setton 1941, 196-211, on fourth-
century Christian proskynesis toward the emperor or his im-
age.
133 Roueché 1989a, and the works of Foss, especially 1979
and 1976.
– historical analysis 303
ized to build new ones. In many cases, private houses
and workshops encroach upon former public ar-
eas.134 There is also a new emphasis on refuge,
behind walls or in high citadels, especially in places
more threatened by invasion, as in the West, the
Balkans, and Greece.
Most important for the neokoroi, temples began
to be either despoiled for or converted to Christian
churches. The process is generally dated to the fifth
century, following the provisions in the Theodosian
Code for the closing of the temples (below). Of
course, it is obvious from the repetitions in the Code
itself that its injunctions were often unheeded; along
with the anecdotes of Christian zealots destroying
temples well before the law allowed, there were
places where pagan shrines were winked at, or even
vigorously defended, even in the fifth century.135
Temples to the emperors may have been the last to
have been attacked—after all, to impugn the dig-
nity and privileges of emperors was dangerous, no
matter how anti-pagan the emperors themselves may
have been.
The Theodosian Code assembles imperial proc-
lamations, including those on various aspects of the
temples. Pagan priesthood, for example, was not
abolished at once: in 386 C.E. Valentinian II and
Theodosius I decreed that chief priests of the em-
perors were to be chosen from non-Christians of the
decurion class who had performed the most services
for their cities.136
A number of regulations in the code assume that
pagan temples should be preserved, though rituals
practiced around them, especially sacrifice, were
strictly forbidden. In a ruling of 326 (CT 15.1.3), pro-
vincial officials were warned against starting new
public building projects without finishing the old
ones, but temples were excepted. Later CT 16.10.3,
dated to 342, stated that temples outside the walls
of the city were not to be injured, since festivals in
their honor were for the entertainment of the Ro-
man people. One of the most famous provisions, CT
16.10.4, dated somewhere between 346 and 356,
closed the temples in all places and in all cities; but
then CT 16.10.8 (382 C.E.) protected a particular
temple at Osrhoene, with its images and festival,
though sacrifice was again prohibited. Various rul-
ings of 399 C.E., directed at Spain, ‘the five pro-
134 Cameron 1993, 152-175.
135 MacMullen 1997, 20-25, 34-39, 50-59.
136 CT 12.1.112; the following according to Pharr 1952.
304 part ii – summary chapters
vinces,’ and Africa, protected temples empty of il-
licit altars and statues (CT 16.10.15, 18). Though
many fourth-century decisions were aimed at pagan
worship and rituals, they assumed that the temples
themselves would continue, as public property,
under the administration of the cities’ decurions.137
At the end of the fourth century, however, the
emperors’ decrees turned toward the destruction of
temples or reuse of their remains. For example, a
decision of 397, CT 15.1.36, directed the Count of
the Orient to use certain material from destroyed
temples in constructing roads, bridges, and aque-
ducts. While CT 16.10.15 seems to have protected
temples in cities of some provinces in 399 (above),
CT 16.10.16, issued in the same year, declared that
temples in country districts should be torn down. In
407, CT 16.10.19 stated that temples in cities, towns,
or outside towns should be turned to appropriate
public use, and that their administrators should
destroy them. In 425, Theodosius II forbade ado-
ration of imperial statues or images when they were
set up at festivals or on ordinary days (CT 15.4.1).
The last word was the decree of Theodosius and
Valentinian, CT 16.10.25, in 435 C.E.: if any pa-
gan temples or shrines remained, they were to be
destroyed, and purified by erection of the sign of
Christianity.
Of course, it was still a big Empire, and not every
community behaved in the same way. Many temples
137 Provisions against worship, not temples: 356? C.E., CT
16.10.4; 381, CT 16.10.7; 391, CT 16.10.10-11; 392, CT
16.10.12; 395, CT 16.10,13, more vigorous enforcement of
16.10.12. CT 15.1.40, of 401 C.E.: buildings that belong to any
temple, and all public buildings, are the responsibility of the
decurions of the city.
were demolished and deserted, though some pro-
vided good building material for churches; others
survived in good enough condition to be themselves
turned into churches after the late fourth century.138
Rome, the former world capital, sacked by the
Visigoths in 410 and by the Vandals in 455, was a
special case: in 458, Majorian (in Ravenna) forbade
that public buildings (including temples) in Rome be
demolished for reuse of their materials.139
We do not know precisely when, or how, most
temples for which cities were neokoroi were closed,
secularized, Christianized, and/or knocked down.
Constantine himself had had the temple of Asklepios
at Aigeai destroyed; the temple for Antoninus Pius
at Sagalassos was carefully demolished and some of
its stones reused in a local church, perhaps in the
fifth century; and one side of the temenos of what
was probably the temple of Hadrian at Ephesos was
refashioned into the Church of Saint Mary, certain-
ly before 431, when the Ecumenical Council of
Ephesos met there. The last inscription to document
neokoria, at Sardis in 459 C.E., calls the city twice
neokoros when previously it had been three times
neokoros. The superannuated title had likely been
copied off old inscriptions, from monuments under
repair or broken up for reuse. This last statement
of neokoria indicates that by the fifth century the
title had lost its meaning, rather than that it still
retained any.
138 Krautheimer 1986, 41.
139 Novels of Majorian 4.1; Pharr 1952, 553-554.
 chapter
Chapter 39. The Temples
The word ‘neokoros’ means ‘temple warden,’so the
existence of a temple that the neokoros cares for is
explicit in the term. Even before ‘neokoros’ came
to designate a city that possessed a koinon temple,
a temple building was understood to be a vital part
of provincial imperial cult. For example, though
Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9 states that Augustus allowed
the building of sacred precincts (temen¤sai) to him-
self in Pergamon and Nikomedia, in the same pas-
sage he specifies that the Pergamenes were permitted
to celebrate a sacred contest “in honor of his temple”
(§p‹ tª toË naoË aÈtoË timª). Thus scholars who
wished to envision the precincts at Pergamon and
at Nikomedia solely as altar courts should have
turned to the evidence of both coins and literature.1
According to this evidence, both were peripteral
temples, though we have not yet found the remains
of either.
A Greek temple served many functions. Concep-
tually, it was a house for a deity or deities, who were
generally represented in the form of cult statues
within the adyton/cella of the temple. The temple
was also a focus of sacrificial ritual, usually accom-
plished on an altar placed before the temple’s main
entrance. A temple’s rituals and upkeep were the
responsibilities of its priests and/or priestesses, neo-
koroi, hierophantai, hymnodoi, and other officials;
there may have been facilities for the cult’s equip-
ment and practices around the temple itself, though
these are often difficult to isolate archaeologically.2
As mentioned above, the temple was also the focus
of festivals in honor of its cult (examined in chapter
40, ‘The Cities,’ below), and scene of their sacrifi-
cial rites, though the contests themselves were held
in theaters, stadia, or other entertainment complexes.
Temples of the neokoroi were often collection
points for documents of province-wide importance,
especially the earliest ones such as the Rome and
1 Tuchelt 1981; for the rebuttal, see Hänlein-Schäfer 1985,
13-14, 166-168, no. A26.
2 E.g. Bergquist 1998.
39 – the temples 305
Augustus temples at Pergamon and at Ankyra.3 An
important benefactor could be signally honored by
statues placed around the temples in neokoroi cit-
ies: so around 141 C.E., Titus Aelius Alkibiades’
statues were to be set up in the “sacred temples of
the emperors of (the koinon of) Asia.”4 The precincts
of the temples were enlivened by statues and dedi-
cations set up by other cities, to commemorate the
temple’s foundation, celebrate a festival, or simply
honor the emperor, as at the Flavian temple of the
Augusti at Ephesos. Thus the temples of the emper-
ors that made their cities neokoroi were the settings
where dramas of loyalty were enacted, in the present
by the priests and officials of the koinon sacrificing
to the emperors, and in the past through the per-
manent record of statues and documents.
This chapter will examine the evidence for the
temples, cult statues, and other realia of the neokoroi.
In order to keep the focus on these provincial cults,
evidence for imperial cult or for temples in cities that
were not neokoroi will only be used as comparanda.
First the surviving remains of temples of the neokoroi
will be examined; for ease of comparison, all temple
plans are drawn to the same scale, with temenos
plans following in a smaller scale. Then follows the
evidence for temples whose remains have not yet
been discovered, but whose appearance is docu-
mented by depictions on coins. The conventions of
architectural representation on coins have already
been discussed in the ‘Introduction: Methodology,’
allowing their evidence to be interpreted correctly.
Separate sections will then examine what we know
of the funding of the temples, how long it took to
build them, and their place in the urban fabric of
each neokoros city. We will then look at the cult
images that stood in the temples, and ask what other
3 Fayer 1976, 110-111 n. 8. Also note Augustus’ edict 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
to Ankyra than Pergamon: Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 16.162-
165.
4 L. Robert 1938, 48; see Ephesos inscription 42.
306 part ii – summary chapters
cults accompanied those of the emperors in temples
that made their cities neokoroi, including instances
where the imperial cult was moved into the extant
temple of a god. Finally, we will look at the temples
of other gods (rather than emperors) that nonethe-
less made their cities neokoroi: Aizanoi’s temple of
Zeus, and the temples of Artemis at Ephesos and
Magnesia, all of which have remains preserved to
our time.
Temples Known Archaeologically
The earliest surviving temple that made its city
neokoros is that of Augustus and Rome at Ankyra
(illus. pl. 1 fig. 1), a foundation that antedated its
city’s first declaration of neokoria by over two hun-
dred years. Though only the cella stands today, the
temple was octastyle, likely Corinthian, with fifteen
columns along its flank. The pronaos had four col-
umns prostyle, the opisthodomos two columns in
antis. The peristasis was 23.6 x 42.42 m. measured
along the centers of the columns, and probably stood
on an eight-stepped base. Its pseudodipteral plan,
in the tradition of Hermogenes’ temple of Artemis
at Magnesia (below), gave it broad aisles around the
cella, and the fineness of its ornamentation led early
authorities to call it Hellenistic instead of Roman.
What little is left of its architectural sculpture shows
an outer frieze and anta capitals of flowering acan-
thus scrolls with occasional Victories, a program
recalling that of the temple of the deified Julius Cae-
sar in the Roman Forum. In the cella, a high frieze
of garlands, typical ornament of altars, surrounds the
interior. The themes of the sculptural decoration
thus included victory, fruitfulness, and the sacred.
The possible scale of provincial imperial temples
is shown by the fact that the cult of Gaius (Caligula)
designated for Miletos was likely moved into one of
the largest and most elaborate temples in Asia, the
Ionic temple of Apollo at Didyma (illus. pl. 1 fig. 3).
It is possible, however, that this only reflected Gaius’
own thought as to the magnificence his worship
deserved. The temple is a colossal dipteros, facing
east, with ten columns on the short side and twenty-
one on the long; its stylobate measures 51.13 x
109.34 m. It had been under construction since at
least the beginning of the third century B.C.E., and
was never finished. Its unusual layout, probably
dictated by the requirements of its oracle of Apollo,
was a deep twelve-column pronaos leading to a high
door which looked into a two-columned room but
couldn’t actually be entered; instead, access to the
interior was via two stone-lined tunnels into the
hypaethral court and its small central naiskos. The
architectural decoration kept to Apolline themes.
The temenos (illus. pl. 4 fig. 16) was irregular in
shape and not expansive, but the sheer size of the
temple itself still stuns the viewer. It is not possible
to say what, if any, modifications would have been
introduced for worship of Gaius; the cult lasted only
until his death and the condemnation of his memory.
The temple of the Augusti at Ephesos (illus. pl. 2
fig. 2, pl. 4 fig. 17) is not as well preserved nor as
large as the temple in Ankyra, much less the
Didymaion, but its site was designed to make it
imposing. Set axially on a vaulted 50 x 100 m. ter-
race, it overlooked the state agora, site of Ephesos’
governmental buildings and possibly also of Ephesos’
shrine to Rome and Julius Caesar. The terrace’s
north face, two stories tall, may have later been
decorated with galleries of Doric columns and cary-
atids of barbarians, though their actual placement
is uncertain. Finished in the reign of Domitian, the
temple of the Augusti was octastyle and pseudo-
dipteral like the temple at Ankyra, but lacked an
opisthodomos and had only thirteen columns on its
flank. Its stylobate was thus only ca. 24 x 34 m., but
its high position both dominated and helped to shape
the civic/religious center of Ephesos. Its altar deco-
rated with weapons, and the barbarians on its ter-
race facade, play on themes of war and triumph, but
these are later than the original building. The
temple’s order is uncertain; though Corinthian
columns decorated with dolphins and eagles have
been associated with it, the temples on coins
that boast the title ‘neokoros’ in Nero’s reign look
Ionic.
Even more magnificently sited was the temple of
Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon (illus. pl. 4 fig.
18). It was built out on vaults from the highest point
of the city’s acropolis. Its 68 x 58 m. terrace was
broader than it was deep, and was eventually sur-
rounded by stoas on three sides, with a 23 m. high
wall retaining its open front. The temple itself (illus.
pl. 1 fig. 4) was a hexastyle Corinthian, its stylobate
20 x 32 m., and unlike all the temples yet discussed,
it was isolated on a high podium in the Roman
fashion, accessible only by a frontal staircase facing
south. Its shallow depth, with a flank of only ten
columns, suited its position in the center of a broad
terrace, where it was best seen from below. The
architectural decoration combined the acanthus
 chapter
motif with gorgoneia, which had also been used in
the friezes of the temples of the Deified Julius Cae-
sar and of the Deified Vespasian in Rome. The
akroteria featured Victories, so the themes of the
architecture also recall those of the temple of
Augustus and Rome at Ankyra. The coins indicate
that there may have been a shield or tondo in the
pediment.
The remains of the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos,
celebrated for its grandeur and huge size even in
antiquity, were under excavation in the 1990’s (illus.
pl. 2 fig. 7). The publication of a full report will
clarify the description given by Cyriacus of Ancona
in the fifteenth century, but so far it seems that the
building was a massive Corinthian octastyle, with
fifteen or seventeen columns on its flank, each col-
umn over seventy feet tall, rising from a stylobate
of ca. 48.84 x 106.56 m.5 Its models were such
massive dipteral temples as the Artemision of
Ephesos or the Didymaion of Miletos. There may
have been a shield portrait of Hadrian, along with
other statues, in the pediment. Fragments of elabo-
rate vine-wreathed columns were probably from the
interior, and drawings from manuscripts of Cyriacus
hint at a high frieze of groups and processions of the
gods and also large gorgoneia inside the cella. Parts
of a continuous frieze have been discovered, show-
ing combat between Romans and easterners and a
possible apotheosis of Hadrian, reflecting the fact
that the temple was largely built in the age of Marcus
Aurelius and Lucius Verus. One unusual feature
which the manuscripts hint at was a portico of
arches, possibly in the precinct before the temple;
such arches recall the facade of the Basilica Julia in
Rome, or a cryptoporticus surrounding a raised
temple terrace, though none has yet been recorded
at Kyzikos.
Though big enough, Ephesos’ likely temple of
Hadrian was not quite as grandiose as that at
Kyzikos. Sited on infilled ground near the harbor,
its temenos was an expansive 225 x 350 m., includ-
ing colonnades on all four sides (illus. pl. 4 fig. 19).
In the center was a south-facing Corinthian temple
with a peristasis of approximately 33 x 60 m (illus.
pl. 1 fig. 5). Though the excavators have vacillated
concerning the temple’s measurements and possible
reconstruction, it is unlikely to have been any larger
than decastyle, as its stylobate is only slightly larger
5 Barattolo 1995, 84.
39 – the temples 307
that of the temple of Artemis Leukophryene in Mag-
nesia, and was possibly pseudodipteral as well.
It is to be regretted that Hadrian’s temple at
Smyrna has not been definitely located, but if the
ruins noted at Deirman-tepe by Walter and Prokesch
von Osten were indeed of this building, its scale, at
least in column dimensions, was comparable to that
of the Olympieion in Athens (which had a stylobate
of ca. 41.11 x 107.89 m.). It has sometimes been
assumed that all the temples of Hadrian that made
their cities neokoroi were based on the Olympieion
and were part of Hadrian’s panhellenic program.6
But as was shown in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analy-
sis,’ the temples at Kyzikos and Smyrna antedated
Hadrian’s involvement with the Olympieion in Ath-
ens. Moreover, though the temple at Kyzikos was
indeed monumental and possibly dipteral, that at
Ephesos was not quite on that scale, while those at
Smyrna and perhaps Nikaia and Tarsos are not yet
known.
It is not yet certain whether the temple of Anto-
ninus Pius at Sagalassos served a provincial cult, or
even if it was a temple for which the city was
neokoros. It stood axially in a large temenos (ca. 82
x 60 m.) with porticoes on all four sides, the whole
raised on a terrace where it could be seen by all who
entered the southern gates (illus. pl. 5 fig. 20). One
entered via a propylon, possibly with composite
capitals, from the west. The temple was Corinthian
(illus. pl. 2 fig. 8), a modest six by eleven columns
on a stylobate ca. 13.8 x 26.8 m., but rich vegetal
ornament decorated its door, friezes, and cornices.
It also had certain oddities of design: its pronaos,
with two columns in antis, is almost as deep as its
cella, and its pediment is rather steep, the latter
peculiarity seen in other Sagalassian temples as well.
A fragment of a pediment featuring a personifi-
cation of another major city of the province identi-
fies what was probably a koinon temple at Sardis
(illus. pl. 2 fig. 10). The one corner of the building
that has been unearthed is enough to tell us that it
was built on a pseudodipteral plan, probably
octastyle and comparable to, although slightly
smaller than, the temple of Rome and Augustus at
Ankyra. It was set into the lower slopes of the
akropolis hill, with no sign of the grandiose terrac-
ing seen at the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos or
that of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon. It took
6 Schorndorfer 1997, 60-62.
308 part ii – summary chapters
its orientation from the theater, however, and may
have been intended as a centerpiece of a great sa-
cred/civic complex.
More is known of Sardis’ other temple that con-
ferred neokoria: it was the Hellenistic temple of
Artemis, which was refitted to accommodate the cult
of Antoninus Pius and his family (illus. pl. 2 fig. 9).
Originally intended to be another colossal Ionic
dipteral octastyle like the Artemision at Ephesos, the
temple at Sardis was cut down to pseudodipteral, but
even so was never quite completed. It was meant to
have eight by twenty columns in a 45.51 x 97.94 m.
peristasis. While Artemis continued to preside in the
west-facing shrine, a dividing wall and door at the
rear of the cella provided an east-facing shrine for
the Augusti. The six colossi found on site will be
dealt with below; it is likely that Antoninus Pius and
his wife Faustina the Elder were the chief couple
among the cult statues, with their adoptive sons
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, and their sons’
wives Faustina the Younger and Lucilla, in support-
ing roles.
It is possible that the decastyle temple that made
Tarsos twice neokoros for Commodus is identical
with the remains at Donuktaâ outside the ancient city
(illus. pl. 2 fig. 11). These cement/conglomerate
foundations are large enough to have had a peristasis
of ten by twenty-one columns. The temple’s total
footprint was 49.60 x 105.30 m. Set on a podium
11.57 m. high, and thus isolated and dominant in
the Romanizing fashion, it was approached from the
northeast by a steep staircase; vaulted corridors led
from the pronaos to the lower cella, recalling the
layout at Didyma. Fragments of marble show that
the order was Corinthian, with architectural orna-
ment datable toward the end of the second century.
Though Neapolis was only called neokoros after
the reign of Philip, it is possible that it received the
title for a second century C.E. temple on Tell er-
Ras on Mount Gerizim (illus. pl. 3 fig. 12). The
temenos was an irregular oblong with its long axis
running north-south, around 44 x 64 m., approached
by a long staircase that started at a monumental
propylon at the mountain’s foot, in the city itself.
Approximately centered in the temenos, the mod-
est four-column (14 x 21 m.) prostyle looked north
over the city. Though the temple had a three-
stepped krepis, some aspects of its design were more
Roman than Greek: it had attached rather than free-
standing columns on its exterior walls (pseudo-
peripteral), and was approached by a frontal
staircase. The facade columns were Corinthian, pos-
sibly with shafts of red granite; the rest was faced
with limestone, and part of the floor was paved with
marble.
Thirty-five cities were at some time neokoroi for
temples of emperors, or at least not specifically of
other gods; if each neokoria meant one temple dedi-
cated or rededicated to the cult of the emperors, only
about one-seventh of those temples have been pre-
served, that is, we have found archaeological remains
of only ten; eleven if Sagalassos’ temple of Antoninus
Pius is included. This is a very small sample, and
cannot be taken as representative. Nonetheless, sev-
eral features stand out.
Eight of the eleven temples ranged in size from
large to gigantic (among the latter, the Didymaion,
temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos, and the temple of
Artemis at Sardis). The average size, if we can speak
from such a small number of examples, was octa-
style. But even the three smaller temples, the temple
of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon, the temple
of Antoninus Pius at Sagalassos, and the tetrastyle
temple at Neapolis, were set in grandiose contexts,
dominating their cities from prominent positions.
The temple of Antoninus Pius commanded the view
of anyone entering Sagalassos from the south. The
other two, set on hillsides, are also the most ‘Ro-
man’ temples: the temple at Pergamon on its high
podium with stairs only in front and parastades on
either side, the one at Neapolis prostyle and pseudo-
peripteral. Also emphasizing the facade was the
temple at Tarsos, set on its enormous podium, only
approachable via the stairs on its facade.
Eight of the eleven temples were freestanding and
fully peripteral structures set on a krepis of standard
Hellenic type. Of course, two of them, the Didy-
maion and the temple of Artemis at Sardis, were in
fact Hellenistic temples that predated the imperial
cult practiced in them. Still, of the eight temples
newly built for the imperial cult, four follow a Hel-
lenistic model, the pseudodipteral temple canonized
by Hermogenes; the temple at Ankyra so closely that
it was at first dated to the second century B.C.E. This
is not to say that these temples were untouched by
newer trends and tastes in Roman imperial archi-
tecture: the temple of the Augusti in Ephesos, for
example, was shortened and set up on a high vaulted
terrace typical of Roman urban design.7 And the
7 MacDonald 1986, 119-121, 135. For a detailed compari-
 chapter
pseudoperipteral design of Neapolis’ temple was
Roman-inspired. But none of these temples was set
into the back wall of its temenos on the model of
the imperial fora at Rome, like, for example, the
Sebasteion at Aphrodisias.8 Five of the temples were
set axially in the center of sacred spaces, often ringed
by porticos, visible (and generally approachable)
from all sides, again in the manner hallowed by
Hermogenes’ temple of Artemis at Magnesia. In
other words, in these temples, the Roman emper-
ors were housed in a very Greek fashion.
Also noteworthy is what we don’t see. The mul-
tiple-column and aediculated facade of the ‘marble
style’ has been played up as the very type and sym-
bol of the imperial cult.9 Yet not a single example
of this design is in or around any extant temple of
the koinon cult of the emperors. It was not used in
the interior of any cella (as it was, for example, in
the ‘temple of Bacchus’ in Baalbek); nor in the gates
of the precincts, nor in the colonnades that circled
them. Of course, this may be an accident of pres-
ervation. Still, the association of the aediculated
facade with the imperial cult has been overstated:
the inscriptions of the so-called Kaisersäle in fact call
on the patron deities of the cities in question in
addition to, and generally before, the emperors. This
ostentatious and theatrical decor, with its multi-
colored and imported marbles, was a sign of wealth,
even a form of conspicuous consumption; but many
gods and personifications, not just the emperors,
were associated with it, in gates, nymphaea, librar-
ies, gymnasia, and especially in stage buildings. But
not in the temples of the neokoroi.
Instead, we find the rather austere and delicate
treatment of the temple of Augustus and Rome at
Ankyra, with its high interior frieze of garlands
encircling the sacred space. Later, the temple of
Hadrian at Kyzikos may have had a more elabo-
rate interior, judging from the few remains and from
the manuscripts of Cyriacus of Ancona: its cella lined
with vine-wreathed columns, a continuous frieze of
processions of deities above them, and perhaps
gorgoneia below. But this sort of elaborate interior
had been known in Greek temples since that at
Bassae, in the fifth century B.C.E. Where their re-
son between Asia Minor’s Roman-period temples and their Hel-
lenistic predecessors, see Pohl 2002, 169-179, 186-188.
8 Smith 1987. Further exploration at Laodikeia may asso-
ciate its ‘forum temple’ with the neokoria, but at present, this
is uncertain.
9 Yegül 1982.
39 – the temples 309
mains have been found, the temples of the neokoroi
continue the long-standing tradition (itself notable
for magnificent size and elaboration) of temple
building in Asia.
Temples Shown on Coins
More of the temples that made their cities neokoroi
appear on contemporary coins than have remains
extant. Yet it must be remembered that coin types
can be schematic and abbreviated, and can vary in
details represented. The interpretation of coin types
has already been discussed in the ‘Introduction,’ and
closer examinations of each case have been given
in the City chapters in Part I. What follows here is
a compilation of what evidence the coins can give
us for temples that conferred neokoria.
The temple of Rome and Augustus at Nikomedia
appears on both silver cistophori of the koinon and
bronze coins of the city; on the former, it is explic-
itly identified by the legend. Though the represen-
tations differ in style, they can be reconciled to
indicate that the temple had at least eight columns
on the facade, and was of the Corinthian (or per-
haps Composite) order. Pedimental decoration may
have included such Roman symbols as the wolf and
twins, and the akroteria were of Victories erecting
trophies.
The contemporary temple in Pergamon also
appeared on both silver and bronze coinages, and
as at Nikomedia was labeled. Corinthian in order,
it had at least six columns on the facade. Akroteria
and pedimental decoration were present, but on the
coins they were only expressed by numismatic ab-
breviations: floral curlicues for the akroteria, a dot
or disc in the pediment.
The picture of the temple of Rome and Augustus
in Ankyra given by the coins is especially valuable,
as it can be checked against the building itself. The
building is shown as Corinthian, with up to eight
columns, and this representation does not conflict
with the remains as we have them.
The temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate in
Smyrna, known only from coins, is shown with four
fluted Corinthian columns. The figure of the em-
peror, however, stands within the temple’s facade
in all known representations, and takes up space that
would ordinarily be devoted to columns; so it is
possible that the temple was actually larger than
tetrastyle.
310 part ii – summary chapters
The first temple that made Neokaisareia neokoros
was probably built by the time of Trajan, but its
object of cult is uncertain. The coins generally il-
lustrate it as tetrastyle, but on one type pentastyle.
It was Corinthian in order, with large and elaborate
double doors, around which the masonry of the cella
walls is usually indicated.
A comparison between coins and remains is again
possible with the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan
at Pergamon. Though seen as four-column on coins,
the reason for this abbreviation of a hexastyle struc-
ture is obvious: the coins show the two cult statues,
so the die-cutter reduced the columns from six to
four to allow them room. Details which do not in-
terfere with the cult statues, however, are very clearly
delineated, especially the parastades that flank the
steps and indicate that the temple is on a podium,
as the remains at Pergamon indeed are.
The temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos appeared on
coins late in the reign of Antoninus Pius, five or six
years before its dedication but almost forty years
after its inception. It is shown as octastyle and Corin-
thian, which agrees with what we know of it from
written sources and remains. It also appears with a
disc in its pediment, which may represent a shield
portrait. Other temples of Hadrian, for example at
Smyrna and at Ephesos, only appear on multiple-
temple reverse types, so little can be told about them
individually.
The temple of Commodus at Tarsos is shown as
decastyle with a wreath or eagle in its pediment, like
its predecessor koinon temple in the same city. This
may reflect reality, however, as the new temple,
clearly identified, is occasionally shown by itself. The
individual temple’s coin image is what allowed the
remains of a structure at Donuktaâ, of the correct
date and likely decastyle, to be identified as the
temple of Commodus.
The temple of Septimius Severus that finally made
Nikomedia twice neokoros may have been the same
as one earlier dedicated to Commodus, for which
neokoria was given but then withdrawn. Both are
shown as Corinthian and octastyle with outsloping
entablature. Nikomedia’s temple of Rome and
Augustus was also Corinthian octastyle, but is shown
with a standard entablature. Three imperial figures,
likely Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, also
identify the second temple, as do specific architec-
tural touches like the double capricorn at the peak
of its roof, and pedimental sculpture including an
eagle between griffins, two Victories(?) holding a
shield between them, a figure perhaps holding a
sceptre, and a star or cross. The variety in pedimen-
tal sculpture again recalls the temple of Rome and
Augustus, as do Victories as side akroteria, but where
the first temple’s Victories erect trophies, the
second’s drive two-horse chariots, details likely to
reflect reality.
More summarily shown is the temple of Septimius
Severus at Perinthos, a Corinthian octastyle with
figures or a disc in the pediment. His temple at
Kaisareia generally appears as a standard Corinthian
hexastyle, though one (unfortunately very worn) coin
may indicate that it was set on a high Roman-style
podium, and that its baroque ‘broken’ pediment
featured an eagle.
The temple that likely made Perinthos twice
neokoros (though it did not enumerate the title at
the time) was for Caracalla and Geta, but is only
shown as the twin of the city’s earlier temple for
Septimius Severus. At Anazarbos, however, when
the two temples for the same emperors are shown
together, they are sometimes assimilated but some-
times distinct; the latter is so unusual that the coin
image may represent the two temples’ actual appear-
ance. The likely temple for Septimius Severus had
already appeared as a four-column Ionic structure
with a star or sun in the pediment, while that of
Caracalla and Geta is shown as larger, with eight
columns.
The temple of Caracalla at Philadelphia appears
on coins as Ionic, agreeing with the columns on the
stele that documents the emperor’s grant of neokoria.
The coins show additional details: up to four col-
umns, and an arched lintel. Though the latter fea-
ture could have been meant to allow more space on
the coin to show the cult statue, the stele shows a
rounded pediment on the temple, and it is possible
that this temple actually did have arched feature(s)
in its facade. Coins indicate that Caracalla and Com-
modus each had an individual temple at Laodikeia,
though the city was only (once) neokoros for their
cults: both temples are shown with six columns, but
at least one appears with an arched lintel and an odd
pagoda-like roof. Temples for Caracalla at Tralles
and probably Kyzikos only appear schematically on
coins of their cities, the former with six columns, the
latter with as many as nine.
In two cities the cult of Caracalla was introduced
into a previously existing temple of a god. Both the
temple of Asklepios at Pergamon and that of Rome
at Smyrna are shown as Corinthian tetrastyles of
 chapter
standard peripteral type; the latter, however, only
appears with the other two temples to which it is
assimilated.
Of the temples to Elagabalus that made cities
neokoroi, two were extant temples to patron gods,
who thus became partners in the imperial cult.
Elagabalus’ cult was moved into the temple of
Demeter at Nikomedia, shown with up to six col-
umns on the coins, and into the temple of Apollo
Kendrisos at Philippopolis, whose eight-column
Corinthian temple is often marked by a shield with
diagonal spear in the pediment. The temple in
Hierapolis also had a pedimental feature hinting at
the presence of another cult, that of the moon god
Men, but it is uncertain whether the temple was
originally his or was built for the city’s neokoria, in
which case Elagabalus and Men may have shared
cult. The Hierapolis temple is also shown with four
columns and an arch in the pediment, once with a
solid lintel below the arch. The oddity of the latter
detail may reflect reality rather than an effort to
allow room for the cult statue on the coin.
The rest of the coin representations of temples
that made cities neokoroi for Elagabalus are rather
schematic; each city’s coinage shows all the temples
that made it neokoros together, and individualizing
details are rare. So Beroia’s two temples are shown
as identical, with up to seven (!) columns, while
Miletos’ two have two columns and a dot in each
pediment. Ephesos’ temple of Elagabalus has up to
four columns and a togate cult statue, but its image
is affected by that of the Artemision beside it. Sardis
only emphasizes its new (hexastyle) temple by show-
ing the figure of the cuirassed emperor within, and
by placing it next to the temple of the patron god-
dess, Lydian Kore.
Severus Alexander’s cult apparently moved into
Aigeai’s temple of Asklepios to make the city
neokoros. The temple is shown with up to eight
(perhaps Corinthian) columns. Its arched facade and
the eagle in its pediment appear with regularity on
even the smallest images, and so probably represent
real, recognizable features. By contrast, Neokai-
sareia’s temple for Severus Alexander is only shown
as the twin of the other temple that made it neo-
koros, both Corinthian with up to six columns.
The two temples built to the cult of Gordian III
in Macedonia, in Beroia and in Thessalonike, are
only shown as sketchy four-column structures. Then
under Trajan Decius, Thessalonike added three
more temples, none of them more specifically rep-
39 – the temples 311
resented than the first. Anazarbos also became
neokoros for Trajan Decius, though again the temple
is only shown in the most summary manner, with
four up to seven columns.
Of the many neokoriai granted or regranted
under Valerian and Gallienus, very few are reflected
by depictions of the temples on coins. Nikomedia
issues types echoing those of its lost third neokoria
for Elagabalus; again, the third temple is that of
Demeter. Ankyra depicts two temples so schemati-
cally that we cannot be sure whether they are ac-
tual temples or altar courts, while Kyzikos either
shows two identical hexastyle temples or its temple
of Hadrian accompanied by the round shrine of
Demeter and Kore. Aspendos’ coin type shows a
temple-shaped plaque rather than a temple. Only
Side issues a coin with a specific depiction of its likely
imperial temple, shown between two others as
tetrastyle with an equestrian statue within.
One may then ask if many of the third-century
temples were ever built. Most of the coins issued
from Caracalla onward depict the temples as sche-
matic rather than individualized, making us won-
der whether they represent an actual temple or only
the promise of one. That more than one neokoria
could be granted at once raises yet more doubts: how
could Thessalonike have possibly built three new
temples under Trajan Decius, Perge another three
under Aurelian, and Side two under Aurelian and
three more by the last quarter of the third century,
despite the troubled times and pinched finances?
Certainly cases where emperors’ cults moved into
already extant temples of gods increased in the third
century. The first century had only Gaius moving
in with (or supplanting) Apollo at Didyma, and the
second only Antoninus Pius and his family taking
half of the temple of Artemis at Sardis. But from the
start of the third century, Caracalla’s cult was placed
in the temple of Asklepios at Pergamon and that of
Rome at Smyrna; then Elagabalus moved in with
Demeter at Nikomedia, Apollo Kendrisos at Philip-
popolis, and perhaps with Men at Hierapolis; and
Severus Alexander was apparently identified with
Asklepios in his temple at Aigeai. It is very possible
that this also happened in other cases that we don’t
know about.
A feature that appears on the coins showing
temples of the neokoroi, but not yet on any of the
temples that survive, is the arched lintel. As men-
tioned in the ‘Introduction,’ coins sometimes show
a temple with arched lintel in order to make the cult
312 part ii – summary chapters
figure larger and clearer despite the small space. For
example, coins of Aizanoi show Zeus in an arched
shrine or baldochino, though his temple at Aizanoi
is extant and its entry is certainly not arched. For
other temples of the neokoroi, arched lintels appear
on coins at Philadelphia, Laodikeia, Hierapolis, and
Aigeai. In none of these cases do we have remains
of temples to contradict the coin images. All of them
come from the early third century, from Caracalla
to Severus Alexander; not a single one of the pre-
served temples dates that late. An arch in a temple’s
facade is certainly architecturally possible, with
examples ranging from the little shrine at Ephesos
formerly known as the temple of Hadrian, to the
giant triple gate at Baalbek. Until firm evidence to
the contrary is found, it remains possible that some
temples of the neokoroi had arched features in their
facades.
The procedural problem is this: where no ar-
chaeological remains have been found, it can never
be confirmed whether a temple illustrated on coins
was built, or really looked the way it appears to.
Though specificity and repetition of details inclines
us to believe that the depiction reflects reality, we
cannot be positive. On the other hand, even the
clumsiest and most schematic image on coins does
not indicate that the temple it represents did not in
fact exist.
Funding
The question of whether third-century temples were
actually built brings us to another crucial point:
where did the funds necessary for building and
maintaining a temple that made its city neokoros
come from? There is only limited information avail-
able, for the cities, much less the koina, of the east-
ern Roman empire seldom inscribed their financial
matters in stone.10 Also, virtually all the evidence
comes from Asia; other koina may have differed in
how they dealt with their own projects. For example,
the younger Pliny’s letters from Bithynia show both
his and Trajan’s concern for possible misappropria-
tions, peculations, and sheer failures of building
projects in the province.11 Pliny, however, appar-
ently concentrated his investigations on the finances
10 Deininger 1965, 156-158.
11 Harris 1964; Talbert 1980; S. Mitchell 1984.
of Bithynian cities, not of the koinon. Indeed, as the
province shows no evidence of having built more
than a single koinon temple up to Trajan’s time, that
of Rome and Augustus at Nikomedia, its expenses
were likely devoted more to its festivals and embas-
sies than to building projects.
Asia’s first koinon temple, that of Rome and
Augustus at Pergamon, was built ‘by Asia,’ that is,
at the expense of the koinon and likely under the
direction of its officials. Later, the hymnodes of
Rome and Augustus were also maintained by a levy
on the entire province. No contemporary document
states how contributions were assessed, though it is
likely that, as later, payments were organized by
judicial district, and judicial district centers paid the
highest amount (see below).12 Thirty years earlier,
however, Asia had offered to build ‘a temple and
monument’ to Cicero and his brother Quintus, and
in this case the member cities appear to have de-
creed the funds each would contribute to the project
from the outset, rather than taking them from any
accumulated koinon budget or central fisc. It is
noteworthy that Cicero refused the honor, keeping
his eye squarely on the reaction of Rome rather than
that of the Asians.13
For the second koinon temple, that of Tiberius,
Julia, and the Senate in Smyrna, the Senate assigned
a special commissioner to the proconsul of Asia to
take charge of the temple. This does not mean that
Rome was to fund the building, but more likely that
the authorities thought it best to have a man on the
spot to see that the Asians did not overspend their
budget or misallocate funds, leaving the temple
incomplete. After all, Kyzikos had been disciplined
just one year previously, in 25 C.E., for failing to
complete its shrine to Augustus. Later, when the
temple at Smyrna collapsed in the great earthquake
of ca. 177, Aelius Aristides (Oration 19.13) wrote that
it could be rebuilt with the help of Asia, and only
imperial approval, not funds, was needed.
Construction on the temple of Gaius at Miletos,
likely the Didymaion, was also the work of the prov-
ince as a whole, and was supervised by its represen-
tatives, the neopoioi of the thirteen judicial districts
of the koinon. Craftsmen of Asia probably worked
on the same project, and may have been paid out
of pooled provincial funds or those voted by their
cities, though the emperor himself may also have
12 Habicht 1975, 90.
13 Cicero, Letters to Quintus his Brother 1.1.26.
 chapter
played some role in underwriting the great unfin-
ished temple where his cult was to join or supplant
Apollo’s.
Numerous dedications to Domitian for the koinon
temple of the Augusti at Ephesos were set up by
various cities over a period of around three years.
Those found so far are only from cities of Asia:
Aizanoi (two copies), Keretapa, Klazomenai, Phila-
delphia, Silandos, Teos, Kyme, Tmolos, Hyrkanis,
and Synaos, and the free cities Aphrodisias and
Stratonikeia.14 Perhaps these represent members of
the koinon whose contributions built the new temple,
though they could also commemorate participation
in the dedication ceremonies; the two lists would
largely coincide. Later, at the time of Ephesos’ third
neokoria, another series of dedications, this time set
up by Ephesos, commemorated cities outside the
koinon such as Carthage, and may represent these
cities’ participation in a worldwide festival held at
Ephesos. We cannot rule out such outside partici-
pation for the earlier temple; so the dedications for
the temple of the Augusti should still be called those
of ‘celebrants’ rather than ‘contributors.’
Probably in the time of Trajan, Dio Chrysostomos
gave a speech of praise to the people of Apamea in
Phrygia. He pointed out that it was an argument for
the city’s power and high status that it paid the
largest assessment possible, sharing in “the sanctu-
aries of Asia” and paying as much of their expenses
as any city in which they were situated.15 It seems
clear that he is referring to cities with koinon
temples; when Dio gave his speech, these would have
included Pergamon, Smyrna, and Ephesos. Dio’s
statement also implies that cities contributed to the
koinon on a sliding scale according to their status
and ability to pay; Apamea was one of Asia’s thir-
teen judicial centers, as Dio observes, and so con-
tributed at the highest rate.16
Funding arrangements for building a koinon
temple likely differed from those for other expenses
incurred by Asia. For one thing, it occurred seldom,
at least until the time of Hadrian when his temples
proliferated. It required a large initial contribution
from all koinon members, and possibly also the
assignment of supervisors and a workforce for the
14 Friesen 1993, 29-49; on the Macedonian settlement of
Hyrkanis, Cohen 1995, 209-212.
15 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 35.14, 17; C. Jones 1978, 68-
69.
16 Sartre 1995, 198-201.
39 – the temples 313
cities grouped according to judicial center, as in the
case of Miletos under Gaius. Once the temple was
built, however, expenses became much lighter,
merely the costs for hymnodoi if any, regular ritu-
als and sacrifices, etc. Festivals, on the other hand,
involved heavy costs each time they were celebrated.
Thus when private citizens founded contests, they
often gave a large initial endowment, the income
from which was to pay for the festival. It is possible
that the koinon too may have set up such endow-
ments, thus avoiding the necessity of making its
members pay large yearly or quadrennial assess-
ments.17 Of course, chief priests and agonothetai
would make substantial contributions toward or even
endow provincial festivals, as when C. Antius Aulus
Julius Quadratus paid for the Traianeia Deiphileia at
Pergamon.
Hadrian was known for being favorable to Greek
cities and generous with imperial funds, and his
projects in the provinces went far beyond the nor-
mal range of imperial building (generally earthquake
relief and large schemes requiring military engin-
eering).18 Some sources state that two great temples
to Hadrian’s own cult, that at Kyzikos and that at
Smyrna, were in fact built out of funds given by the
emperor. The foundation of the temple at Kyzikos
was connected with Hadrian’s benefaction after an
earthquake, and it was once compared to the Olym-
pieion in Athens as a long-unfinished project com-
pleted out of the public purse. Likely Hadrian made
a grant of money to Kyzikos, some of which the city
may have diverted to its share in the construction
costs of this huge temple. When another earthquake
struck, Marcus Aurelius went before the Senate and
gave a speech asking for assistance to the Kyzikenes;
again, some of the relief funds may have been de-
voted to the temple, which was finally dedicated
about five years later. Yet an epigram copied by
Cyriacus indicates that all Asia joined in the con-
struction, perhaps in the same way that it had in
Gaius’ temple at Miletos. In the case of Smyrna,
Philostratos states that Hadrian gave the city ten
million drachmai, out of which it built a grain
market and a gymnasium as well as the temple; an
inscription puts the emperor’s gift at a more mod-
est one and a half million. In any case, when a gen-
17 Wörrle 1988; for the Republican period, Erkelenz 1999,
49-53.
18 Winter 1996, 67-138, 196-199, 232-236; S. Mitchell 1987;
MacMullen 1959.
314 part ii – summary chapters
erous emperor stood ready to pour money into
building projects, it may be imagined that the koinon
and city would gladly accept. After all, Asia even-
tually would build three major temples to Hadrian,
these two and the later one at Ephesos.
The third century witnessed an explosion in the
number of temples in Asia that made their cities
neokoroi, but information on how they were funded
is scanty, and there is a distinct possibility that few
new temples were actually built. As mentioned be-
fore, Caracalla’s cult was moved into several already
extant temples, saving money that presumably would
have been spent on building them. Caracalla ‘found-
ed’ an apparently new temple at Philadelphia,
though that was likely done just by granting the
neokoria, not by donating the money. But by the
mid-third century, Philadelphia was trying to get out
of its contribution to the metropoleis for the expenses
of chief priesthoods and of festivals. The motive for
this request may have been Philadelphia’s wish to
take on the status of a metropolis itself, but it is also
true that while temples and festivals had multiplied,
times were harder. It may be, then, that the system
of city contributions to koinon functions was under
strain, or even breaking down. Philadelphia in fact
won its exemption from the emperor Valerian.
To sum up the evidence, the koinon of Asia prob-
ably built its temples with money voted by its mem-
ber cities at the inception of a project. Assessments
seem to have been made according to size or im-
portance of the cities, with the thirteen judicial dis-
trict centers contributing the most. A neopoios from
each judicial district was likely appointed to a board
of overseers; they may have supervised a team of
craftsmen or workers from each district, or may
simply have taken care of how the money was spent.
From the point at which the offer of a koinon temple
was accepted by the emperor and permitted by the
Senate, the city in which it stood became neokoros,
not waiting until the completion of the building (see
below). The koinon’s funding process did not exclude
the grants of benefactors, however, whether impe-
rial or private. When neokoriai proliferated in the
third century, however, funds were scarcer, donors
and officers less willing to serve and less generous
when they did, and even imperial projects (with the
exception of military buildings) fell away.19 Cities still
competed to become neokoroi, but expenses could
19 Winter 1996, 232.
be saved by moving the imperial cult into an older
temple.
Construction Times
Once a koinon temple had been decreed, the funds
for it allotted, and the petition finally accepted by
the emperor and Senate, how long did it take for it
to be built? Once again, with a few exceptions, evi-
dence chiefly comes from the koinon of Asia.
One such exception is Ankyra, whose temple of
Augustus and Rome was built by the koinon of the
Galatians. The last Galatian king, Amyntas, died in
25 B.C.E. The organization of Galatia as a Roman
province, from which point its era began, has been
variously dated, but ranges between 25/24 and 22-
20 B.C.E. On the left anta of the temple itself is
preserved a list of priests of the Galatians “of the
god Augustus and the goddess Rome”; the term of
the first priest on the list may be dated to 19-20 C.E.,
but it is quite possible that the beginning of the list
was inscribed elsewhere and did not survive. Thus
the temple of Augustus and Rome can only have
vague dates within a range of forty years or more
to cover the time needed for its planning and con-
struction. This period is comparable to that of the
Forum of Augustus in Rome, vowed in 42 and
dedicated in 2 B.C.E., though the length of that
project may have been due to its long-delayed start.20
Even the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias, begun under
Tiberius, was only ‘finished’ under Nero.21
Back in Asia, there is more data for the earlier
temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon. Augus-
tus granted permission for it to be built when he was
still in the East, in 29 B.C.E. According to an in-
scription of Mytilene, it was in process of construc-
tion ‘by Asia’ in 27 B.C.E. The earliest date for silver
cistophori of Asia that show the temple standing in
full detail is 19 B.C.E.; though buildings could be
portrayed on coins before they were built, there is
no sign that that is so here, since the early depic-
tions do not disagree with later ones.22 So from
acceptance to erection, the temple probably took ten
years.
Asia’s temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate
had a slower start. Though initially offered and
20 Steinby 1993-2000, 2:289-295 (V. Kockel).
21 Rockwell 1990; Smith 1987.
22 Burnett 1999, 141-142.
 chapter
accepted in 23 C.E., it took three years more be-
fore the field of cities vying for it could be narrowed
down to eleven contestants. The Senate decided for
Smyrna in 26 C.E., and the temple soon appears in
some detail on coins issued between 29/30 and 34/
35 C.E. A priest of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate
is documented by 29-31 C.E., but it is not certain
that he served in Smyrna. This temple may have
been built quite speedily, and was probably stand-
ing within a decade from the decision to build it at
Smyrna.
From current evidence, it seems that the koinon
of Asia introduced the cult of Gaius into the temple
of Apollo at Didyma, which was not only one of the
most enormous buildings of the Greco-Roman world
but one that had been started early in the third
century B.C.E. and was still under construction.
Inscriptions document that some work was done
during Gaius’ reign, and the first board of koinon
officials responsible for the building dedicated a
statue of Gaius in 40/41. That emperor, however,
was killed on January 24, 41 C.E. in Rome, ending
the Didymaion’s career as a koinon temple. As we
shall see, there were to be other huge projects long
unfinished among the temples that made their cit-
ies neokoroi.
The next koinon temple of Asia known is Ephesos’
temple of the Augusti. Much of its history has been
obscured, however, by misinterpretations. An early
appearance of a temple and the word ‘neokoros’ on
Ephesian coins dated to 65/66 may indicate that the
koinon temple was originally to be for Nero. His
death and the condemnation of his memory in 68
put the project into limbo. We hear no more of it
until the city again began to be called neokoros, this
time specifically ‘of the Augusti,’ perhaps by 85/86;
the title also appears on dedications that were likely
set up around the temple’s own precinct between
88/89 and 90/91. Though the dedications were to
the current emperor, Domitian, the temple is called
‘the common temple of Asia of the Augusti in
Ephesos,’ a colossal statue found there represents the
emperor Titus, and later inscriptions call it the
temple of Vespasian. If this is the temple that had
appeared on coins of Nero, it took twenty to twenty-
five years to complete. On the other hand, if the
honor of a koinon temple had been granted by Nero,
lost after his death, stymied by changes of emperor
and dynasty, and eventually regranted by Vespasian,
a twenty-odd-year lapse would not seem so out of
line with the decade needed for more straightforward
39 – the temples 315
projects like the temples at Pergamon and at
Smyrna. In addition, Ephesos’ new temple was set
on a large, vaulted artificial terrace that would have
been a project in itself. Unfortunately the dating
material from the excavation of this area has not
been fully published, since a Domitianic date was
assumed. Certainly work went on there even later,
as both the altar and the architectural decoration
of the terrace’s facade may date to the mid-second
century.
The temple that made Pergamon twice neokoros,
that of Zeus Philios and Trajan, was granted some-
where between August 114 and February 116, and
appeared in detail on coins issued before the
emperor’s death in 117. This speedy start on the
temple itself did not carry through to the entire
project, however. The porticoes on either side of the
temple’s precinct and the wing buildings attached
to them were only constructed later, likely after 135,
at the end of Hadrian’s reign.
Like the Didymaion, the temple of Hadrian at
Kyzikos was renowned both for its colossal size and
for remaining long unfinished. It was granted as early
as 123 or 124 C.E., but the huge scope of the project
(even necessitating the invention of new techniques
of building, according to Aelius Aristides) slowed it
down. A chief priest of this temple was recorded
perhaps as early as Hadrian’s reign. It did not ap-
pear on coins until late in the reign of Antoninus
Pius, but an earthquake hit the city shortly before
Pius’ death in March 161 and threw the temple
down. Nonetheless, it was dedicated with an oration
by Aelius Aristides in 166 or 167. This construction
span of over forty years eclipses even the twenty-plus
years of the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos, much
less the ten of the early temples at Pergamon and
Smyrna. On the other hand, this temple was on such
a scale that over forty years seems reasonable, even
brief, considering the earthquake. Since its unfin-
ished state became rather a byword, it is in fact
possible that, like the Didymaion, the temple at
Kyzikos was dedicated and in use before it was ever
completed.
Ephesos became neokoros for a temple to Hadrian
sometime between 130/131 and 132. Yet there was
still only a provincial chief priest ‘of the temple’ in
Ephesos as late as 134/135, which shows that though
the city was twice neokoros, the second temple was
not yet standing. It is likely, however, that the
‘temple of Lord Hadrian Caesar’ was complete
enough for Ti. Claudius Piso Diophantos to serve
316 part ii – summary chapters
as the first chief priest of two temples at Ephesos
before the emperor’s death in 138.
We turn from the province of Asia to Sagalassos
in Pisidia. A temple of Antoninus Pius has been
identified by the inscription honoring that emperor
and his house on the building’s architrave. Some
scholars, however, have preferred to call the temple
Hadrianic, basing their date on the style of archi-
tectural sculpture that decorates the temple, and
positing an initial dedication to Hadrian, a long
building period, completion after Hadrian’s death
in 138, and a final dedication to Antoninus Pius. The
pious Antoninus is unlikely to have usurped Ha-
drian’s temple, however, while it is very possible that
a team of architectural sculptors should have been
working in something other than an up-to-the-
minute fashion. If anything, the architectural style
may indicate a very short building period, early in
Antoninus’ reign; but one would need further data
for proof. It is not even certain that this temple
conferred neokoria on Sagalassos.
Sardis became twice neokoros for the cult of
Antoninus Pius, and the history of its temple should
give some last caveats on interpreting the intersec-
tion between a temple’s function, its history of con-
struction, and when it can be called finished. For
at Sardis, the cult of the emperors was introduced
into a far older temple, that of Artemis. Begun
perhaps in the third century B.C.E. as a colossal
dipteros, it was redesigned as a pseudodipteros. After
the disastrous earthquake of 17 C.E., despite aid
from the emperor Tiberius, the rebuilding of the
temple continued slowly if at all: it seems that most
of its side colonnades were never even erected.
Nonetheless Sardian Artemis’ cult remained one of
the greatest in the city, with asylum status; her priest-
esses were eminent; and the cella of her temple was
divided and one half devoted to the imperial cult that
made Sardis twice neokoros. So how long should we
say that the temple’s construction lasted? In a sense,
the temple was always under construction, never
fully finished. Yet priestesses of Artemis as well as
chief priests of Asia served and sacrificed there, and
colossal statues stood within. One may say, then, that
the cult image and the sacrifice signal a function-
ing temple rather than a ‘finished’ one; this distinc-
tion applies to all the temples discussed above, except
where direct archaeological evidence can show that
every part of the temple planned was actually built.
Temples in Urban Space
Placing a new koinon temple in the extant fabric of
a city must have presented problems to the planners.
When new shrines were brought into a city, gener-
ally the city itself was new, and the shrines not
large.23 The reverse was true of the neokoroi. Again,
how prominent koinon shrines were accommodated
in extant cities is best studied in the eleven temples
known directly from their remains, all but four of
which are in Asia.
Two temples did not have to be inserted, as they
already existed: the temple of Apollo at Didyma, and
that of Artemis at Sardis. In both cases, though, the
temple chosen to receive the imperial cult was the
most prominent temple of the city. The same situ-
ation applies, of course, to the temples of Artemis
that made Magnesia and Ephesos neokoroi for the
goddess. These precincts had already existed for
centuries. By contrast, Aizanoi’s new Hadrianic
urban plan made the temple of Zeus, for which the
city became neokoros, its centerpiece.
Other cities either had to rework or to create land
to ensure the new temple a prominent place in the
city. At Ephesos, the temple of the Augusti was
placed on an artificial platform, both to overcome
the irregularity of the terrain and to let the koinon
temple loom over the state agora’s civic buildings
and shrines; later additions may have made the side
of the terrace a sort of triumphal monument, with
sculptured barbarians lined up as in the Forum of
Trajan at Rome. At Pergamon, the temple of Zeus
Philios and Trajan was also built on a new high
terrace, over remains of the Hellenistic palace com-
pound, and several monuments of the kings had to
be transplanted there. It is difficult to tell what form
the previous buildings on the Pergamene akropolis
had taken, but it is likely that the new complex
completely changed the shape of the city’s heights,
and may have even determined the line of its new
street grid. From that point on, the temple of Zeus
Philios and Trajan, with its terrace overlooking the
Pergamene acropolis, both crowned and dominated
the city.
To make a place for an enormous temenos, Ephe-
sos reclaimed and filled in the marshy land near its
harbor, and built what was likely the temple to
Hadrian that made the city twice neokoros. Indeed,
all Hadrian’s temples in Asia appear to have been
23 Jost 1994.
 chapter
monumental buildings visible from the sea. Ephesos’
was close to the harbor, and Smyrna’s was said to
have “challenged Mimas” across the straits. Accord-
ing to Aelius Aristides, Kyzikos’ temple not only
competed with mountains, but was so great a land-
mark that navigators sailing to Kyzikos would no
longer need beacon fires to guide them. Excavations
at Kyzikos have borne out this picture, as the temple
was erected on flat open land in the westernmost
part of the city, just northeast of its built harbor. It
faced east, and thus turned its south flank to ships
sailing along the bay. Kyzikos’ temple, however, does
not appear to have been set in the midst of a great
temenos like that at Ephesos. Instead, an expansive
walled courtyard or agora adjoined it on the north
side, and may have included an arcaded portico.
Some of the temples that made their cities neo-
koroi were built in proximity to theaters and festi-
val complexes. The temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan
at Pergamon loomed above the city’s theater; the
likely temple of Hadrian at Ephesos was not far from
the city’s stadium; and the pseudodipteros at Sardis
was not far from, and apparently on the same ori-
entation as, the stadium and theater. But, where
datable, these entertainment venues predate the
temples and were placed to benefit from the natu-
ral slope of the terrain. The temples of the neokoroi,
then, cannot be called theater temples. Indeed, large
koinon temples, like stadia, had to be placed where
they would fit, and both were often put in newer and
less built-up districts.
Of the four temples known outside the province
Asia, Ankyra’s temple of Augustus and Rome seems
to have been centrally located on top of the city’s
citadel. It must be admitted that not much is known
of Ankyra’s plan, but this temple was likely one of
its earliest and most important monuments, built
when the urban armature was still fairly open. Fur-
ther excavation is needed to fill in the urban history
of Sagalassos, but certainly the broad terrace and
axial entry of the temple of Antoninus Pius were built
to dominate the city’s southern approach. The
temple at Tarsos, on the other hand, was apparently
built well outside the ancient town, probably due to
its great size. The position of Neapolis’ temple on
Tell er-Ras was likely determined by the sacred
status of Mt. Gerizim, from whose slopes the temple
looked north over the city. Temple and city were
connected by a long staircase and propylon.
Orientation of the temples varied, again based on
the lay of the land and of extant monuments in the
39 – the temples 317
city. At Ephesos, the temple of the Augusti faced
east, while that likely to be Hadrian’s faced south.
The temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan faced south-
southwest, in order to take best advantage of its
position on the Pergamene akropolis, overlooking the
city. Location on a height also determined the ori-
entation of the temple on Tell er-Ras over Neapolis
(north) and likely that of Ankyra (southwest). The
temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos, built on flat ground,
faced east toward the older core of the city, while
the temple at Tarsos that was probably dedicated
to Commodus faced northeast, away from its city.
The pseudodipteros on the lower slopes of Sardis’
acropolis likely faced southeast, aligned towards the
city’s theater and stadium. The temple of Antoninus
Pius at Sagalassos faced west, toward the city’s south-
ern gate. And of course, the temples that had pre-
viously served other deities maintained their
orientation, though a divided cella at Sardis let the
Antonine imperial family face east while the god-
dess Artemis still faced west.
To sum up, the temples of the neokoroi tended
to be large, prominently placed, and when newly
built, Corinthian. They also tended to follow Hel-
lenistic rather than contemporary Roman models,
and to be fairly conservative in their decorative
programs. Beyond that, they followed no cookie-
cutter pattern, but were adapted to conditions in the
cities where they were built.
Cult Statues
The objects of worship within these temples were
statues of the emperors, members of their families,
and deities or personifications who shared the cult.
Some fragments of statuary have been found in the
ruins of the temples; some images can be identified
from coins. As other evidence for the cult practiced
within the provincial imperial temples is scanty, an
analysis of these statues, where identifiable, is cru-
cial.
The accent is on ‘identifiable’ because it is diffi-
cult to say which statues were cult statues, here
defined as statues that were prominent within the
temple and represented the object(s) of cult.24 Even
colossal, not to mention life-sized, portraits of em-
perors could simply be honorifics, whether set up in
24 Donohue 1997 is cautionary.
318 part ii – summary chapters
a temple or anywhere else around the city. For
example, the Athenians set up a colossus of Hadrian
behind their Olympieion among other portraits of
the emperor, and there were four other statues of
Hadrian in front of the temple, but none are men-
tioned inside; the cult statue was a gold and ivory
Zeus.25 Even in ancient terms, the line between a
‘likeness’ (eikon) and what is often called a ‘cult
statue’ (agalma) was not always as clear as archae-
ologists would like; a cult statue could be a likeness,
but a few likenesses were classed as cult statues; and
the limits of the definitions could vary with time and
place. When the technitai of Dionysos in the second
century B.C.E. honored Ariarathes V of Cappadocia
with both an agalma and an eikon, the statues when
discussed together were called eikones.26 In the first
century B.C.E., private individuals were honored
with “a marble agalma” or “a colossal golden
eikon.”27 The latter may have honored the recipi-
ent on an equal level with gods, but may not have
stood in a temple. On the other hand, a ‘colossal
eikon’ of Hadrian may have been the object of
worship in the Panhellenion at Athens.28
Nor does style of dress necessarily determine
whether a statue represented an individual as god
or mortal. To quote two early examples, a cuirassed
statue of Attalos III was classed as an agalma and
worshipped as a cult partner of Asklepios Soter at
Pergamon, while an Italian businessman had him-
self depicted as a heroically naked colossus as a
dedication to Apollo at Delos.29 Given that gold or
ivory statues rarely survive, that a statue when found
is not often labeled agalma or eikon, that few stat-
ues have been found actually in a temple’s cella, and
that colossi were not always cult statues, the entire
discussion that follows here contains many elements
of uncertainty. To top it off, all the evidence we have
only represents a tiny proportion of what once ex-
isted. Not only are the vast majority of cult statues
lost, but we have only indirect evidence of the hon-
ors that were once offered to them, possibly includ-
ing sacrifice, offerings of incense, crowning, clothing,
25 Pausanias 1.18.6. The hips and belly of a colossal stand-
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.
27 Kreikenbom 1992, 39-51; Tuchelt 1979, 68-70; Pekáry
1978 and 1985, 56-57, 66-83.
28 Nock 1930b, 32-33.
29 Attalos III: OGIS I no. 332; Stemmer 1978, 137. The
businessman C. Ofellius Ferus: Kreikenbom 1992, 40-41, 141-
142.
or anointing the statue, lighting torches before it,
carrying it in procession or into festivals in the
emperor’s honor, presenting hymns or orations
before it, or revealing it, as the focus of imperial
mysteries.30 One must also consider that the origi-
nal intention for a statue (whether agalma or not)
does not necessarily indicate how it was treated
throughout its existence, or what rituals may have
been practiced or omitted in connection with it.
Most of the identifiable images dealt with here
were found in the vicinity of the temples themselves,
or among their debris, and are of colossal size.
Though not assured as being cult statues, these
colossi were at least prominent images in the
temples; koinon temples were generally large and
colossi would have dominated the space effectively.
Also, each of the statues so far found has been
acrolithic. In this technique, a statue was built on a
wooden core, with only the flesh and extremities
(head, hands, legs, feet) of marble; clothing was
represented in wood, which could then be covered
in sheet metal, gilt, or paint.31 This was a method
particularly appropriate to colossal statues: it less-
ened the weight of the image, was easier to manipu-
late than either a monolith or jointed stone sculpture
of so great a size, and probably gave the impressive
appearance of an ivory and golden image while
being far less expensive. Though metal and paint
would have protected acroliths to some extent, their
wooden-dowelled structure was sensitive to weather,
and most would have been set up in roofed areas.
Many of the colossi found vary in some respect
from the standard models of imperial portraits dis-
seminated from Rome.32 Some of this difference is
due to the visual tricks needed to remake a portrait
to such a giant scale: facial features would be regu-
larized and idealized, while the eyes were enlarged
so that they would not appear small or squinted in
a face seen only from an angle far below.33 Making
the ruler appear heroic or godlike also affected the
image: even an aged or veristic imperial portrait
could get a dynamic turn to the head, longer wind-
tossed locks of hair, a wide high brow, arched eyes,
and a breathing mouth.34 These features were also
30 Pekáry 1985, 107-143; S. Price 1984b, 188-191; Pleket
1965.
31 Despinis 1975.
32 Rose 1997a, 57-59; Riccardi 1996 (though the general
point is not best proved by study of ‘crisis’ years).
33 Kreikenbom 1992, 113.
34 Zanker 1983, 15-25, 44, 47.
 chapter
characteristic of the sculptural ateliers of Asia Mi-
nor, with their Hellenistic ‘baroque’ background
typified by the Pergamon altar of Zeus.
Local sculptors were not always so adept at pro-
ducing acceptable portraits: Arrian, on his voyage
around the Black Sea, wrote to Hadrian that he had
seen a statue of him at Trapezous, in a good loca-
tion and making a grand gesture toward the sea, but
it was a poor likeness and a bad statue in any case,
and Arrian asked him to send another.35 But it was
the local style, not just the poor likeness, that dis-
pleased Arrian, for he also asked the emperor to send
better cult statues for the temple of Hermes, speci-
fying the sizes (five feet for Hermes, four for his cult
partner and descendant Philesios) that would be
suitable for the space. The local sculptors’ work may
have suited the locals, if not Arrian; or it may have
simply been the best their sculptors could produce.
Of extant remains that may have been from cult
statues in neokoroi cities, the earliest yet known is
the colossal Titus found in the substructures of the
temple of the Augusti at Ephesos (illus. pl. 8 figs. 26,
27). Any official portrait of Titus that the Asians may
have used as a model probably resembled his stat-
ues found in Italy: an affable strongman, benevo-
lent prince, scion of hearty Italian stock, as portrayed
most carefully by artists who decorated the sturdy
Republican model with touches of Flavian sculptural
elegance. Once in Asia, however, the image changed
to such an extent that one cannot really distinguish
which portrait type inspired it. There was no need
for restraint or hints at the ruler’s civilitas. The
Ephesian portrait is intended to portray a god made
manifest, or at least a ruler into whom godhead has
been breathed. The most obvious way of achieving
this effect was simply to increase the size. At about
four times lifesize, the sheer scale of the statue could
awe the credulous and impress the sophisticated. But
then the sculptor faced a conflict between nature and
art. To portray an apotheosized Alexander the Great
was no problem; according to all accounts he fit the
Greek notion of the heroic physiognomy anyway.
But what to do with the pudgy face and homely
features of Titus, who must be made to look like a
god and nonetheless retain his recognizability as a
Roman emperor? The sculptor did the best he could.
Titus’ wrinkled forehead becomes a lowering brow,
35 Arrian, Periplous 1.3-2.1.
39 – the temples 319
under which the eyes are made larger and deeper
set. The mouth, in Roman portraits usually set in a
prim smile, now opens to breathe divine aither; the
emperor’s crisp, wavy hair becomes heavy, baroque
curls; and the entire head strains to the left on a neck
whose muscularity hints at the treatment given to
the rest of the body. The final effect may not be quite
what the artist had in mind: Titus, though not pre-
cisely godlike, has nonetheless ceased to be human,
and the total impression is as strange as it is awe-
some.
It is likely that the statue was cuirassed, and raised
a sceptre in his left hand. An isolated third hand
shows that Titus had at least one colossal compan-
ion, though their placement is uncertain. Possibly
when the temple was dedicated, in the reign of
Domitian, cuirassed figures of Titus and Domitian
stood in mirror poses on either side of an image of
their father Vespasian. Titus’ head may have been
doweled for further support into a wall or niche,
another indication that it stood within the temple
rather than outside, and is more likely to be a cult
statue.
Fragments of three statues were found in the
debris of the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at
Pergamon. They too were colossal, but only about
two and a half times lifesize. The parts of the statue
of Zeus Philios that have been discovered show that
the god was enthroned; and there are enough body
fragments to identify two standing statues with well
preserved portrait heads, one of Trajan, the other
of his successor Hadrian (illus. pl. 7 figs. 24, 25). Both
were portrayed in the same pose, right arm raised
and left arm lowered, and dressed in armor. Coins
that portray the cult images, however, only show
Zeus and Trajan, not Hadrian. Apparently the
Pergamenes had wanted to erect a new temple for
Hadrian, but he only allowed them to set up an
eikon of him in the temple of his father.
Though the portrait of Trajan shares certain traits
with that of Titus (parted lips, sweeping curves in
the hair, a certain broadening of scale necessary to
adapt the portrait to colossal dimensions), its sculp-
tural style is more restrained and classical. This was
also typical of its Roman model, which can be dated
ca. 109-113. In contrast, the head of Hadrian seems
fussy and overworked: the forehead wrinkles and
bulges, the hair appears crimped with large drilled
curls, even the eyebrows are ruffled. Its model has
been dated around 131, and Hadrian indeed granted
320 part ii – summary chapters
permission for this eikon at the end of his reign. Still,
Zanker noted that these statues are closer to their
Roman prototypes than the ‘Asianized’ Titus.36
The two emperors were portrayed as equals, par-
allel in dress and stance, not as an interacting pair.
This is natural if one was set up later than the other,
but even Trajan and Zeus Philios, as shown on coins,
were turned toward each other but did not inter-
act. How the statues would have been placed in the
temple is uncertain. It may be instructive to com-
pare this temple with the temple of Augustus and
Rome at Lepcis Magna (a city that was not neokoros)
in Tripolitania. In that temple, two separate cellas
were reserved for the enthroned acrolithic statue of
Augustus and for the goddess Rome, while an en-
throned statue of Tiberius and one of his mother,
Augustus’ wife Livia, must have been placed else-
where, probably in the pronaos.37
There were at least six colossal acrolithic figures
in or around the temple that made Sardis twice
neokoros (illus. pls. 11-17 figs. 32-45). These included
Antoninus Pius and his wife Faustina the Elder, and
four figures that may have represented their sons and
sons’ wives: Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the
Younger, and Lucius Verus and Lucilla. Enough
fragments have been found to show that Antoninus
was four times life size, naked, diademed, enthroned,
and may have held a sceptre, in the pose of Zeus.
The sculptural treatment is baroque, with dramatic
light-and-dark effects produced by skillful drillwork.
Hair and beard fall into unruly, flamelike curls and
the lips are slightly parted; the head was turned
strongly to the left. Faustina was more composed;
her neck inclines only slightly to the right and her
lips are barely parted. She was over three times life
size, and so on a smaller scale than her husband,
either as a sign of lower status or, if she was stand-
ing, in order to bring her closer to his seated statue’s
height. Her wide, blank eyes are probably designed
to be seen from below; her hair also shows the strong
effects of the running drill, and she probably wore
a veil added in painted, gilt, or metal-sheathed wood.
These two, probably in the guise of Zeus and Hera,
were almost certainly the main cult statues of the
imperial group, he enthroned at the viewer’s left, she
seated or standing at the viewer’s right. The other
four colossi were similar in sculptural treatment and
effect, though not enough parts have been found to
36 Zanker 1983, 24.
37 Rose 1997a, 182-184 no. 125, with bibliography.
show whether they stood or were seated. One male,
here identified as Lucius Verus, probably wore ar-
mor. Where the mouths are preserved, the females’
lips are just parted, while the males breathe more
dramatically. Though the Faustina the Elder comes
closest to its Roman prototype, all the statues de-
part from their models considerably, and show com-
mon traits in the treatment of hair and beards that
may indicate the work of a local atelier. Like the
Antoninus Pius, the two males were approximately
four times lifesize, while the two females were closer
to three, even smaller than the statue of Faustina the
Elder. If their identifications as Faustina the Younger
and Lucilla are correct, the difference in scale may
again reflect hierarchy, this time among the genera-
tions: the one would have been her daughter, the
other her granddaughter. The latter was likely veiled
as well.
There are not many precedents for this large an
imperial family group among colossi. One is from
Africa, and its temple was municipal, not provincial.
The temple whose frieze bears a dedication to the
Gens Septimia Aurelia at Cuicul (Djemila) in Numidia
was finished ca. 229 under Severus Alexander; the
inscription details his lineage through his ‘father’
Caracalla back to Trajan (skipping Hadrian and of
course Elagabalus).38 Found in the temple were
colossal acrolithic heads of Septimius Severus (head
and neck 1.10 m. tall, about four times lifesize) and
Julia Domna (probably once veiled).39 The cella itself
was large for a mere tetrastyle Corinthian temple,
11.10 m. wide including the walls; at the back was
a crosswall, possibly supporting a base for cult stat-
ues ca. 2.85 m. deep and as wide as the whole cella.
This confined viewpoint may explain the stiff
frontality of the preserved colossi. Two Corinthian
colonnades flanked the temple, and at the back of
the precinct on each side were two niches, one in-
side and one outside each colonnade, probably for
four colossi of the family. The names of Severus
Alexander and Julia Mamaea were most prominent
on the facade, but were then erased after their death
and the condemnation of their memories. It is likely
that their statues (or at least heads) were removed
at that point, and the heads of Severus and Domna,
formerly perhaps in the side niches, were put in their
places. Thus Septimius Severus and his wife, the
38 Pensabene 1992; Cagnat 1913, 41-46.
39 McCann 1968, 153 no. 45 pl. 53; Schlüter 1971, 83-84,
134.
 chapter
elders of the Septimii, eventually reigned in the cella,
as Antoninus Pius and his wife probably did at
Sardis.
The temple at Sardis was large, and had a back-
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
was set up in the new eastern-opening cella. The
torsion in the necks of the colossi, where preserved,
hints that they were made to be viewed from dif-
ferent aspects, not strictly from the front, as at
Cuicul. At least one of the colossi, that possibly of
Lucius Verus, shows evidence of water having trick-
led down its neck while it was still in an upright posi-
tion; thus it may have been exposed to the elements,
despite being acrolithic. Perhaps Antoninus Pius and
Faustina the Elder ruled as Zeus and Hera on the
single pedestal in the eastern cella, while their suc-
cessors and their wives, at least four statues, were
placed either among the columns on either side of
the cella or two by two in the eastern porch, per-
haps on either side of the stairs that led into the cella.
Fragments of colossal statuary have also been
found around the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos and
at that likely to be the temple of Commodus at
Tarsos, but so far they are too scanty to be inter-
preted.
The statues from the temples of the neokoroi
share certain significant traits. All are colossal, im-
pressing the beholder with sheer size (though admit-
tedly, the observation is tautological, as colossality
is one of the features that identified them as cult
statues). All are acrolithic, in order to lighten the
immense weight that a colossus brings to bear, and
perhaps as well to introduce more elaborate effects
with metal additions, gilding, and/or painting. The
likelihood is that these acrolithic colossi stood within
the temple, and that at least some of them had the
status of cult statues. Finally, all show the deepset
eyes, turned head, and parted lips that denote their
status as divinities or divinely inspired mortals. In
the one case where we have statues of both the
emperor and the deity with whom he shared the
temple, Trajan and Zeus Philios, the two are the
same size, though the god is seated and the emperor
stands. At Sardis, where the emperors are grouped
with their consorts, the men are all on the largest
scale, the senior empress next, and her female de-
scendants smaller, though the range is only between
four times life size at the largest and three times at
the smallest. Two of the Sardian female colossi were
39 – the temples 321
probably veiled, while Antoninus Pius was shown in
godlike undress; the Lucius Verus at Sardis, along
with Trajan and Hadrian at Pergamon and Titus
at Ephesos, appeared in military costume.
Cult Statues on Coins
A good deal of additional information can be dis-
covered from observing imperial cult statues as
shown on coins. Though they cannot give us any
idea of the size of the original images, they do in-
dicate how the statues appeared when they were
intact, how they were set within the temple, what
relationship they bore to one another, and under
what aspect the emperors were portrayed.
It is important to consider certain numismatic
conventions, however. The most secure case is when
the image stands on a pedestal within a labeled
temple, and is repeated over a period of time yet
still preserves its peculiarities of stance, costume and
attributes. These characteristics should indicate that
the statue was still standing as a model, or at least
as a check, for the die-cutter, and also that it was
still recognizable to the populace among whom the
coin was current. One must also note that general-
ized images in military dress often simply mean ‘an
emperor’ rather than any specific statue. These were
used when space was limited or when the coin de-
sign was otherwise rough or schematic. For example,
we know that the original cult image of Tiberius at
Smyrna was togate, yet when all three of Smyrna’s
temples are crowded onto one coin, the small fig-
ure in the temple labeled with his name wears mili-
tary dress. Thus it is always possible that such
imperial images on coins do not reflect the actual
cult statues. On the other hand, if we did not have
the remains of the cuirassed colossus of Trajan from
Pergamon, we might wonder whether its represen-
tation on coins was just such a conventional image.
The statues of Augustus and Rome at Pergamon
are best observed on the silver cistophori; the civic
bronze issues are freer in design, cruder in execu-
tion, and often omit the figure of Rome. Augustus,
in military dress and with a spear or staff in his right
hand, stands in strong contrapposto looking back at
Rome, who raises a wreath to crown him; she is
costumed as a city goddess and holds a cornucopia.
Though the size of the statues is impossible to cal-
culate from coin images, the goddess and the em-
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
pair, with minor variations, is seen on coins from
Claudius to Trajan.
The various statues in the temple of Rome and
Augustus at Nikomedia are described more fully in
chapter 15. The statue of Augustus was dressed as
a Greek god, probably Zeus; he held a staff in his
right hand and a small figure of Victory in his left.
Accompanying him was Rome, this time in her usual
helmeted guise. She stands to the right of Augustus,
on some issues holding a palm branch in her left
hand, and crowns him with a wreath as at Perga-
mon. Again, this relationship implies that Augustus
and Rome were on the same scale. Some of the
bronze coins include a third figure, a goddess in
chiton and himation with a sceptre in her right hand.
She is difficult to identify. The architrave of the
temple is labeled “Rome, Senate, People, Augustus,”
so it is possible that she personifies the Senate,
though this figure would usually be male; another
male figure occasionally shown in the temple prob-
ably represents the Genius of the Roman people.
Sometimes, however, the emperor appears in armor;
either the die-cutter was conventionalizing the im-
age to make it more recognizable, or else there was
a parallel statue group of a different emperor.
The temple to Tiberius, his mother Julia, and the
Senate at Smyrna had yet another kind of cult
image. Tiberius is togate, as Pontifex Maximus,
within his temple; his head is veiled, and he carries
a priestly implement, the simpulum. The image is
specifically Roman, and one wonders how much
influence the Senatorial commissioner in charge of
this temple had on the choice of its cult image.
Tiberius’ two cult partners appear only as busts on
the other side of the coin: the Senate has been
personified as a young man, whereas the emperor’s
mother is shown for the first time with the diadem
of a goddess.
We have already examined the actual cult stat-
ues from the temple of Trajan and Zeus Philios at
Pergamon, and can compare them with the coin
representations. Coins of Trajan and of Trajan
Decius show the laureate and cuirassed Trajan, with
a staff or spear in his left hand, standing to the right
of his cult partner. The fragments of sculpture show
no laurel wreath, but it could have been of metal,
which would not have survived. The coins confirm
that the statue of Trajan was cuirassed, but differ
with respect to stance: they indicate the left leg as
weight-bearing, whereas the coins show the figure’s
weight on the right leg. Similarly, among the frag-
ments of sculpture is a right arm lifted to hold a staff,
but the statue on the coins raises the staff in its left
hand. That the pose of the sculpture reverses that
of the coin image does not necessarily denigrate the
accuracy of the coins. There are two possibilities:
either the die-cutter reversed the stance in order to
better integrate the image of the emperor with the
composition of the coin type, or he simply cut the
die as he saw the image, so that the coin, when
struck, came out reversed.
The coins’ version of Zeus Philios is enthroned at
the viewer’s left, and holds up a short sceptre in his
left hand. Though he and the emperor are turned
toward one another, they do not interact the way
the groups of Rome and Augustus did; but the sculp-
tural remains show that they were on the same scale.
What the coins do not indicate is the cuirassed
statue of Hadrian whose remains were also found
on the site. Of course the statue would not have
appeared on coins of Trajan because Hadrian was
not yet the designated successor. But the coin types
for Trajan Decius, issued a century and a half later
to play on the reappearance of Trajan’s name, con-
firm that the same images, Trajan and Zeus Philios,
were still the main cult statues. It is uncertain where
the colossus of Hadrian would have stood in his
adoptive father’s temple at Pergamon.
The coin representations of cult images that ap-
pear within the first temple that made Neokaisareia
neokoros are fairly strange. Drawn out to adorn the
facade, from one to three radiate or non-radiate
busts hover about the temple; they may represent
the Augusti, the emperors who were brought in to
share the primary cult. The cult image itself is a
naked male figure standing in contrapposto upon a tall
pedestal; he holds a staff or spear in his left hand.
This image is not incompatible with an emperor
portrayed as a god. The appearance of two such
images on Neokaisareia’s coins may indicate a situ-
ation similar to that in the temple of Zeus Philios and
Trajan at Pergamon, where Hadrian’s statue looked
much like Trajan’s.
It is likely that the three figures in the temple that
made Nikomedia twice neokoros, on a coin of Geta
Augustus, are images of Septimius Severus and his
sons, though they are too small to be distinctly iden-
tifiable. All are shown in military dress, and each
raises his left arm to rest on a long staff or spear.
All are in contrapposto, but the one on the left puts
his weight on his left leg and leans in to the right,
 chapter
whereas the other two do the reverse, weight on right
leg, leaning in to the left. This is an interesting treat-
ment of a group of three, as all repeat the same
gesture, and the two on the right are identical; the
central figure is not marked out in any way, and it
is otherwise difficult to tell which is the senior and
which are the two junior Augusti.
The image of Caracalla that stood in his temple
in Philadelphia was unusual. As illustrated on coins,
he wears a short tunic with a cloak over it, holds a
sceptre over his left shoulder, and extends his right
hand. He also wears the radiate crown so well known
from the antoniniani issued during his reign. The
element of portraiture is not lacking even on so small
a representation, and Caracalla looks distinctly
pudgy. Though he has some of the attributes of
Helios, that god appears otherwise on coins of the
same city: naked, running, with rays emanating from
his head rather than spikes from a distinct crown.
Caracalla (as well as Geta) had been ‘new Helios’
at Ephesos, and apparently was shown in that guise
at Philadelphia too.
Where the coins of Laodikeia show an imperial
cult image, they seem to contradict themselves. One
coin of an issue shows the emperor as togate, hold-
ing a libation bowl in his right hand; another shows
an imperial statue wearing military dress and hold-
ing a sceptre in the left hand as well as the libation
bowl in the right. The latter (if genuine) should re-
present a statue because it stands on a pedestal in
its temple; the other could perhaps be the emperor
himself sacrificing within a temple. On the other
hand, the coins later declare that Laodikeia is
neokoros of both Commodus and Caracalla, and it
is likely that two different emperors are represented
here.
Coins of Ephesos’ fourth neokoria show the lat-
est temple in the center, in the place of honor next
to the temple of Artemis Ephesia. Within it stands
the togate Elagabalus, while the two temples on the
outside, representing that of the Augusti/Vespasian
and that of Hadrian, only show cuirassed figures. At
Hierapolis, however, Elagabalus is shown in military
attire, with a sceptre in one hand and a libation bowl
in the other.
The coins of Aigeai do not show Severus Alex-
ander in the temple he probably shared with As-
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.
39 – the temples 323
Finally, coins of Side show perhaps the most
unusual imperial cult image of all. The temple that
made the city neokoros for Valerian and/or
Gallienus is likely that shown between two others,
and in it appears the tiny representation of an eques-
trian statue (and perhaps another statue standing
behind the horse—a soldier?). Though such a statue
would be perfectly suitable for an emperor, an eques-
trian cult statue within a temple would seem as odd
as having a horse in the house. It is more likely that
it stood somewhere else within the sanctuary, but
was shown instead of the real cult statue because it
was more recognizable.
From both coins and actual images, the majority
of emperors in the temples of the neokoroi appear
in military dress. These include the images of
Augustus at Pergamon; Septimius Severus, Cara-
calla, and Geta at Nikomedia; either Commodus or
Caracalla at Laodikeia; and Elagabalus at Hiera-
polis. Some of these images, of course, may be con-
ventionalized, but three or four actual colossi also
wore the cuirass: Titus at Ephesos, Trajan and
Hadrian at Pergamon, and perhaps Lucius Verus at
Sardis. The usual attributes are a laurel wreath and
a staff or sceptre, occasionally also a libation bowl.
Two images, though also cuirassed, had unusual
attributes that may indicate assimilation to a deity:
Caracalla was shown with a radiate crown, perhaps
as Helios, at Philadelphia, and Severus Alexander
with a snake-entwined eagle sceptre, similar to that
of Asklepios, at Aigeai.
Some imperial images were naked or half draped,
more directly assimilated to gods or heroes. Thus
Augustus at Nikomedia looked like Zeus Nikephoros,
and the cult statue of Antoninus Pius at Sardis was
likely naked, enthroned, and diademed, again like
Zeus. The statue or statues in the temple that made
Neokaisareia neokoros may have been naked and/
or radiate.
Three emperors were shown as togate: Tiberius
at Smyrna, either Commodus or Caracalla at Lao-
dikeia, and Elagabalus at Ephesos. The former was
specifically garbed as Pontifex Maximus, while the
latter two probably wore the toga as a sign of civil
status, as princeps. As for the unique equestrian statue
of Valerian or Gallienus at Side, it probably stood
before the temple rather than in it.
324 part ii – summary chapters
Emperors and Their Cult Partners
It has long been held that when gods and emper-
ors shared a temple, the gods’ cult was considered
primary, whereas the emperors received lesser and
more equivocal honors.40 But in most of the cases
where this occurs, the imperial cult was introduced
into a previously existing temple of the gods. We
shall see that in the provincial temples, the princi-
pal cult was that of the emperors, and any gods who
were introduced to share the temple were consid-
ered secondary. This hierarchy was natural; as chap-
ter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ shows, when gods or
personifications were specifically included in early
temples, it was generally done to accommodate
Roman attitudes rather than those of the provincials.
The first and most famous cult partnership was
that of Augustus with the goddess Rome. As Sue-
tonius stated, “Though he knew it was the custom
to vote temples even to proconsuls, in not one prov-
ince did he accept one unless it was in the name of
Rome as well as in his.”41 It is evident from the
placement of this anecdote among those of Augustus’
melting down his silver statues and not allowing a
temple to himself to be built in Rome that this was
one of the acts of politic modesty by which the first
emperor impressed the Senate and secured his po-
sition in Rome.42 Such qualms about divinization
probably puzzled the provincials, but the gesture was
not aimed at them.
Rome was indeed present in the three provincial
cults of Augustus in question here, though her ico-
nography and companions varied. In the temple at
Pergamon she appeared as an unarmed city goddess
with a cornucopia as her attribute. Her appearance
was constant on the cistophori, intermittent on lo-
cal bronzes of narrower circulation. Her secondary,
or rather supplementary, position to Augustus is
emphasized by the pose of her statue, which held a
wreath of victory over his head; they are on the same
scale, and though he could be illustrated indepen-
dently (as on many bronze civic coins), she could not
be shown crowning empty air. As early as 27 B.C.E.,
before the temple at Pergamon was even complete,
the name of Rome could drop out and the temple
be called simply that of Augustus, or later, the
Sebasteion.
40
Nock 1930b; S. Price 1980; 1984b.
41 Suetonius, Augustus 52.
42
Charlesworth 1939.
Much less documentation remains for the cult
partners of Augustus at Nikomedia. The only evi-
dence is that of the coins, specifically silver cistophori
upon which the temple is labeled ROM(ae) S(enatui)
P(opulo) AVG(usto). That Augustus was perceived as
the most important of the four is again shown by
the fact that he most often appears alone. Next in
importance was Rome; her cult statue was helmeted
this time, but was otherwise quite similar to that in
Pergamon, in a long gown and raising a wreath over
Augustus’ head. In both cities the function of Rome
was to support and to glorify the emperor. Again,
though the statue of Augustus often appears alone,
that of Rome does not. A few bronze coins show a
third cult partner, a female with a sceptre who stands
on the other side of Augustus from Rome. It is un-
certain whether she personifies the Senate or the
People; likely the former, as another image associ-
ated with the temple, a male in a short costume with
sceptre and libation bowl, may represent the Genius
of the Roman people.
There are good Hellenistic precedents for groups
of a ruler or benefactor with a god or personifica-
tion crowning him, and sometimes the two are speci-
fied to be the same size: for example, an Antiochene
dedication at Delphi had two bronze statues, Antio-
chus III and the Demos of Antioch, and each was
eight ells tall.43 Where rulers’ images were intro-
duced into other gods’ temples, on the other hand,
they were often smaller. The case of the neokoroi
is more like the former than the latter.
Unfortunately we have no images of Augustus and
Rome as they were established in the temple at
Ankyra. The emperor’s name took precedence over
that of the goddess in the first catalogue of priests
inscribed on its anta, as early as the reign of Tiberius.
By the time of Nerva, these officials were known as
the chief priests of Augustus, and the name of Rome
had disappeared.
The provincial temple at Smyrna was shared by
Tiberius, his mother, and the personified Senate. It
is likely that this time the Asians themselves sug-
gested the cult partnership; that of Augustus had set
the precedent, and Tiberius was even more hesitant
to accept divine honors than his predecessor had
been. As the Asians had voted the temple in grati-
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
43 Rose 1997a, 212 n. 4; Kreikenbom 1992, 29, 48.
 chapter
of the reasons why Tiberius allowed it. The reasons
for including Livia, now named Julia, in the cult are
more obscure, as according to rumor Tiberius re-
sented her, and after her death in 29 he forbade her
deification, “this having been her own wish” (Tacitus
Annals 5.2). But Tiberius also was accustomed to
refuse cultic honors to himself, so the resentment is
likely overstated. In any case, her position in Rome
was powerful and unique: widow of the deified
Augustus, adopted by his will into his gens, sole
Augusta, and mother of the emperor, to whom he
owed his rise to power. She may have been included
as a matter of course; the temple in Spain that
Tiberius refused in Annals 4.37 was also to be dedi-
cated to him and his mother, though without the
Senate. Nevertheless, coins that present the temple
at Smyrna and its cult images indicate that the cults
of Julia and the Senate were seen as secondary to
that of the emperor. On them, Tiberius stands alone
within the temple, while Julia and the Senate are
not shown in full figure at all, but as busts on the
other side. The Senate was personified as a young
man, and this is the first image of Julia known that
wears a goddess’ diadem.
After Tiberius, the subject of cult partners drops
off. Gaius may have tried to move in on Apollo in
his temple at Didyma. There is no sign of any deity
or personification sharing the cult of the Augusti
(including Titus and Vespasian) at Ephesos. So it
comes as rather a surprise when the Augustan pat-
tern was revived for Pergamon’s temple of Zeus
Philios (Jupiter Amicalis) and Trajan.
So far as is known, there was no previous cult of
Zeus Philios on that site at Pergamon. This aspect
of the god appears to have been new and specifi-
cally designed to accompany Trajan in his temple.
Unlike Rome or the Senate, he was not the personi-
fication of an institution or of Roman power, but a
deity in his own right, and his cult statue as shown
on the coins does not support or glorify that of the
emperor in any way. Instead he was enthroned in
majesty and self-sufficiency, like many another Zeus.
The epithet Philios, however, does hint at a policy
by which that god was chosen as suitable to share
Trajan’s cult: Zeus is patron of kings, and in this
aspect presides over friendships and alliances. In-
deed, on a contemporary coin issued to commemo-
rate Pergamon’s concord with Thyatira, Trajan
himself is identified as ‘Zeus Philios.’
Zeus Philios was probably added as a cult part-
ner at Pergamon because the new temple of Trajan
39 – the temples 325
had a powerful precedent: that of Rome and Augus-
tus in the same city. The epigraphical dossier on the
festival for the new cult specifically provided that it
have the same privileges and status as the older one.
It is likely that the same regard for precedent ap-
plied to the temple itself, and that Zeus Philios was
provided for Trajan to better equate them with
Augustus and his partner Rome. The coins often
compare the two temples, one on the obverse, the
other on the reverse, and always represent the
emperors either as both alone or both with their cult
partners (though again, the coins never show Rome
or Zeus without their emperors).
Of all the emperors, Hadrian was perhaps clos-
est to speaking directly to the Greeks in the dialogue
of benefaction and cult, so it is ironic that his own
cult has been so misunderstood. As early as 123 he
sent earthquake relief to Kyzikos, and the koinon
and city built him a monumental temple that makes
some lists of the wonders of the world, and whose
remains are being excavated today. Some modern
authors, however, have miscalled it a temple of Zeus
and Hadrian. True, Hadrian later became involved
with the temple of Zeus Olympios in Athens; but that
project was only taken up well after the temple at
Kyzikos had been granted. Also, Hadrianeia games
at Kyzikos were sometimes called Hadrianeia Olym-
pia; but again, that was later, after Hadrian himself
took that epithet, and may only indicate that these
were isolympic games modeled on the ones at Elis.
Finally, some scholars took as a proof of Zeus be-
ing worshipped in the temple at Kyzikos the words
of Cyriacus of Ancona in 1444, that the statues of
the gods in the pediment were still intact, thanks to
their lofty height and to “the best Jove their protec-
tor”. Since in Cyriacus’ peculiar Latin ‘Jove best and
greatest’ means the Christian God, he was not in-
dicating the presence of a statue of Zeus. Rather,
he was making the point that Kyzikos’ pediment was
protected from stone robbers by its height and God’s
will. In fact, Cyriacus was uncertain to what god the
great temple was dedicated.
In fact, the ancient sources agree that the temple
at Kyzikos was to Hadrian, without mentioning any
other god. Aelius Aristides at its dedication said that
the name of the “best of rulers up to that time” was
written on it. A list of wonders calls it the temple
“of Hadrian at Kyzikos, unfinished”; an early sixth
century poem from the Palatine Anthology named
it “the blameless temple of King Hadrian”; Johannes
Malalas said that there was a bust of “the god
326 part ii – summary chapters
Hadrian” in the temple’s roof; and the church his-
torian Sokrates said that Hadrian was worshipped
there as “the thirteenth god.”44 Moreover, excava-
tions at the site have found what appears to be an
imperial apotheosis portrayed in the frieze on the
temple’s facade. There is no evidence for Hadrian
sharing cult with Zeus at Kyzikos.
The same false assumption, however, has been
extended to the two other provincial temples to
Hadrian built in Asia. Likely in 124, Antonius Pole-
mon used his influence and his oratory to get a huge
grant and another provincial temple for Smyrna
from Hadrian. Again this was well before Hadrian’s
involvement with Athens’ Olympieion. And again,
though festivals named Hadrianeia, Olympia, and
Hadrianeia Olympia were celebrated, there is no sign
of any god but Hadrian in representations of this
temple at Smyrna.
At Ephesos, a large temple complex near the city’s
harbor has been named ‘the Olympieion of Ha-
drian,’ a term with no ancient basis whatsoever.
Pausanias does mention an Olympieion at Ephesos,
but he relates it to the Magnesian gate, at the op-
posite end of the city from the new temple. What is
more, the cult of Zeus Olympios was already estab-
lished in Ephesos in the Flavian period. Again, the
name of the festival Hadrianeia Olympia is not deci-
sive for the cult in the temple, though this particular
festival was established after Hadrian’s identification
with Zeus Olympios at Athens and elsewhere. But the
fact is that the temple that made Ephesos twice
neokoros is never called the Olympieion in ancient
sources, only ‘the temple of the god Hadrian.’ There-
fore, until better evidence is found, it cannot be
asserted that Hadrian shared cult with Zeus at any
of his provincial temples, whether at Kyzikos,
Smyrna, or Ephesos.
Emperors in Other Gods’ Temples
Moving the statue of an emperor or emperors into
a standing temple of another divinity was a common
practice. But unless Gaius allowed Apollo to remain
as his cult partner in the temple at Didyma, this was
not the practice in temples that conferred neokoria
until the mid-second century C.E.
Our only evidence for the relationship between
44 Aelius Aristides Oration 27.22; list in Codex Vaticanus graecus
989; Palatine Anthology 9.656; Johannes Malalas 11.16; Sokrates
Historia Ecclesiastica 3.23.59.
Artemis and the emperors in the temple at Sardis
is the architecture itself and fragments of colossal
statues that were found in and around it. The temple
was Hellenistic, and as it had the honor of asylum
status for the goddess, she cannot have been moved
out when Antoninus Pius and his family moved in.
The cella was divided to accommodate the impe-
rial cult, with Artemis’ half still facing west and the
emperors’ facing east. One cannot help but look for
special circumstances to explain this double use of
a standing temple, as the mid-second century was
on the whole an age of prosperity for Asia Minor.
Perhaps it was due to the destruction of the
shortlived pseudodipteros which could have been the
original home of Sardis’ second provincial imperial
cult; but that speculation is very tentative. Perhaps
it was only a means of rejuvenating the temple of
Artemis, which had had a long period of dereliction
after the disastrous earthquake of 17 C.E. Certainly
the introduction of the provincial imperial cult could
have provided additional funds for continuing to
build a temple that had never been fully finished.
Caracalla created many neokoroi in Asia. There
is no evidence for gods sharing his cult in any new
temples, but two cities that were already twice
neokoroi became three times neokoroi by installing
the cult of Caracalla in extant temples of other
deities. The main evidence for both is the coin types
they issued to show their three temples that con-
ferred neokoria together.
Smyrna’s ‘new’ third temple, shown between
those of Tiberius and Hadrian, is the temple of
Rome, with the goddess’ image or name clearly
indicated; but the same coins specify that Smyrna
is ‘three times neokoros of the Augusti.’ It seems,
then, that the imperial cult had been moved into
Smyrna’s venerable temple of Rome, built in 195
B.C.E., the first anywhere in the Greek world. The
goddess’ usual image on coins had been armed and
enthroned, often with a Victory in her hand, but
after the third neokoria a small temple is often sub-
stituted for the Victory. Thus she, like the epony-
mous Amazon Smyrna, becomes a symbol of
neokoria, guardian of the imperial cult in her own
temple.
On coin reverses of Pergamon, an image of
Asklepios is shown enthroned in a temple between
those of Augustus and Trajan, but Caracalla’s name
is in the pediment, and the coin legends proclaim
Pergamon three times neokoros of the Augusti.
Likely the cult of Caracalla was moved into Askle-
pios’ temple, where sometimes the emperor himself
 chapter
is shown sacrificing before the temple of his cult
partner.
In each case where Caracalla granted neokoria
to a city already twice neokoros (the third, of course,
was to Ephesos for Artemis), no new temple was
built. Since Caracalla may have allowed as many as
eight new neokoriai for Asia, building new koinon
temples in cities that already had two each would
have been a strain on the province’s finances even
at a time of high prosperity. Perhaps most impor-
tantly, it would have provoked protests from smaller
cities of the koinon who might be expected to con-
tribute more to those who already had too much.
In this dilemma, cult partnership in an older temple
may have appeared as the perfect answer. It had
impeccable precedents from Augustus on, and had
already been used at Sardis for Antoninus Pius. The
only problem might be in choosing the deity most
proper for the emperor to move in with. The em-
peror with Rome was of course a natural combina-
tion; while Asklepios was the chief god at Pergamon.
Such precedents during the reign of Caracalla
likely made it natural that the practice be contin-
ued into the reign of Elagabalus. Whether or not the
emperor arranged marriages between his Syrian
baetyl and other goddesses, it was he who moved
into the temple of Demeter, the chief goddess of
Nikomedia. On coins that proclaim Nikomedia three
times neokoros, her image appears within the cen-
ter temple, draped and veiled, holding a long torch
in her left hand and a few ears of wheat in her right.
Nikomedia never called itself neokoros of Demeter,
but it never specified that it was three times neokoros
of the Augusti either. How can we be sure that the
third neokoria was for Elagabalus? Simply by its
disappearance. Like all other neokoriai for that
emperor, this one was revoked during the reign of
Severus Alexander, and Nikomedia reverted to being
twice neokoros. Had the third neokoria been for the
goddess Demeter there would have been no reason
for removing it despite Elagabalus’ death and the
condemnation of his name (see the case of Magne-
sia, below). During the joint reign of Valerian and
Gallienus the third neokoria was given again, and
the coins indicate that again the imperial cult was
moved into the temple of Demeter.
Elagabalus’ cult was also moved into the temple
of Philippopolis’ patron god, Apollo Kendrisos. Coins
show the emperor and Apollo holding Apollo’s
temple, recognizable by the shield-and-spear motif
in its pediment, between them. Apparently Philip-
39 – the temples 327
popolis too lost its neokoria after Elagabalus’ death,
or at least the evidence for it ceased.
A more uncertain case is that of Hierapolis, where
one coin type appears to show a bust of the moon
god Men in the pediment of the temple of
Elagabalus. This may hint that the emperor’s cult
moved into a temple of Men, or may simply indi-
cate the pedimental decoration.
Aigeai in Cilicia received its first and only
neokoria for the cult of Severus Alexander, but the
temple that keeps appearing on coins is that of
Asklepios. It is a Corinthian structure with six or
more columns, often shown with an arcuated lintel
and/or an eagle in the pediment. The first hint that
the cult of Severus Alexander was moved into this
shrine is the coins that show the city goddess hold-
ing a temple. This coin type is one of the symbols
of neokoria, and the small temple should logically
be that for which the city was neokoros. The most
detailed and clearest examples of the type represent
the little temple with an arcuated lintel, and once
with an eagle in the pediment, both recognized
attributes of the temple of Asklepios. In addition, the
obverses show Severus Alexander and a snake-en-
twined staff, an attribute of Asklepios. Moreover, just
as Caracalla had sacrificed to his cult partner
Asklepios on Pergamene coins, and Elagabalus may
have sacrificed to Apollo before their temple on coins
of Philippopolis, Severus Alexander, holding an
imperial eagle sceptre entwined with an Asklepian
snake, sacrificed before Asklepios’ temple on Aigeai’s
coins. So it is likely that the cult of Severus
Alexander joined that of Asklepios in his temple to
make Aigeai neokoros. And though the argument
from silence is not compelling on its own, it should
be noted that in the reign of Maximinus, when
Severus Alexander’s memory was condemned,
Aigeai never claimed to be neokoros, but returned
to the title immediately afterward, under Pupienus
and Balbinus.
There are also a few late uncertain cases. Kyzikos
declared itself twice neokoros under Valerian and
Gallienus, but its coins show either two temples, or
one and the round shrine of Demeter and Kore; it
is remotely possible, then, that the imperial cult was
practiced in the latter. At the same time and after-
ward, Side named Athena, Apollo, probably Askle-
pios, and perhaps Dionysos either as neokoroi on
its coins or called itself neokoros for them in inscrip-
tions. It is uncertain, however, whether this meant
that they shared cult honors with emperors.
328 part ii – summary chapters
Where emperors shared cult with other gods in
temples that conferred neokoria, there is a striking
contrast between the earliest cases (where the
temples were newly founded, with cult partners
chosen as suitable to the emperors’ modesty or
personae) and these later instances, where the em-
peror was introduced into a cult partner’s extant
temple. One of the chief reasons behind the latter
trend was probably the multiplication of neokoriai
and the difficulty of accommodating this increase
into the system. It is likely that when the provincial
imperial cult was introduced into the temple of a
city’s patron deity, however, that temple, its officials,
and its rituals, still focused on the city, not on the
province. This factor may have promoted the ‘mu-
nicipalization’ of koinon temples, for it threw them
into a vicious circle: the more cities vied for neokoria,
the more temples were granted, and the more rea-
son there was to use older civic temples. Thus, the
more the honor was identified with the city, not the
province, the more it was sought as an honor inde-
pendent of the koinon, and the greater was the
possibility that the koinon either abrogated its re-
sponsibility for the temple or was simply passed over.
Temples of the Gods that Gave Neokoria
Calling a city neokoros of a god may antedate the
title’s application to a koinon temple of an emperor,
if in the mid-50s C.E. a grammateus of Ephesos actu-
ally asked “Who does not know that Ephesos is
neokoros of the great goddess Artemis and of the
heaven-fallen [image]?”45 By the time of Domitian
at the latest, however, Ephesos was officially neo-
koros only for the koinon temple of the Augusti, not
for the goddess; and once that title was used to
designate a city that had a provincial temple, the
informal use of it for the chief local god was no doubt
forbidden. We also know that Ephesos later became
officially neokoros of Artemis, but only because
Caracalla diverted the honor from his own cult. It
is likely, then, that neokoriai for gods, like all other
neokoriai, had to be granted by Roman authorities.
All three temples that made their cities neokoroi
for gods and not emperors have been located, and
their preservation ranges from excellent (Aizanoi) to
problematic (Ephesos). An examination of their
45 Acts of the Apostles 19.35.
remains may also fill out the exiguous evidence for
the other neokoroi and help to show what sort of
temple could get the title neokoros for its city.
The first city known to have become officially
neokoros of a god was Aizanoi, neokoros of Zeus
from the time of Commodus. As the city’s temple
of Zeus was begun under Hadrian, the neokoria may
have been granted then. There is no evidence that
the koinon of Asia counted Aizanoi’s temple of Zeus
among its provincial temples; provincial imperial
temples were administered by officials of the koinon,
while Aizanoi’s temple was administered by its
priests of Zeus.
The temple of Zeus at Aizanoi is well preserved,
with much of its colonnade still standing (illus. pl. 3
fig. 13). It was an Ionic octastyle, pseudodipteral,
with fifteen columns on its flanks and a stylobate of
21.5 x 36.5 m. It was approached from the east via
a staircase which led to the seven-stepped krepis.
Composite-capitaled columns stood before the east-
facing cella of Zeus and the west-facing opistho-
domos; the latter led to an underground vault for
the cult of the mother-goddess. The temple stood
in a squarish colonnaded temenos of 130.5 x 112
m. (illus. pl. 5 fig. 21), which was itself approached
from an enclosed courtyard or agora 95 m. square;
the agora’s entry aligned with the temenos’ original
entry stairway (later a propylon), the altar, and the
east door into the cella itself. The axially symmetrical
plan emphasized the approach from the east while
still preserving a fully Hellenic aspect, recalling its
predecessor, the temple built by Hermogenes for
Artemis at Magnesia (below).
As mentioned above, the Ephesians may have
called their city ‘neokoros of Artemis’ informally
before the title became exclusive to provincial
temples. Later, when Ephesos was already twice
neokoros for koinon temples, it applied for a third
imperial neokoria during the joint reign of Caracalla
and Geta. It is likely that Geta agreed, but Caracalla
refused. As his letter stated, “due to modesty. . . I
transfer the neokoria in my name to the most mani-
fest goddess, so that (the Ephesians) may enjoy the
honor of a temple not from me, but from reverence
for the goddess.” Thus Ephesos finally became of-
ficially neokoros of Artemis. The Senate’s approval
may have already been gained for the proposed
imperial neokoria, and was probably unnecessary for
the transfer to the name of Artemis. Some Ephesian
inscriptions appear to make a distinction between
the two imperial neokoriai, which were issued by
 chapter
decree of the Senate, and the one of Artemis, which
was the emperor’s gift. As the only city that was neo-
koros both for emperors and for its patron god,
Ephesos could either distinguish its neokoria for
Artemis or count it in with the others; occasionally
both are spelled out. It is possible that Ephesos lost
its neokoria for Artemis when some of Caracalla’s
acts were nullified under his successor Macrinus, but
if so, the title was quickly restored after Macrinus’
fall.
The temple of Artemis at Ephesos was often
counted among the seven wonders, as well as one
of the largest buildings, of the ancient world. As it
stood in Roman times, it was an enormous Ionic
octastyle, dipteral, with twenty-one columns along
its length and nine columns at its back (illus. pl. 3
fig. 14). Its stylobate was approximately 51.44 x
111.48 m. The west front had three rows of columns
with sculptured bases and drums, and then four
more rows of two columns each in the pronaos; the
opisthodomos had three rows of three columns each.
In the temple’s main pediment were three openings,
the center one larger than the side two, and figural
sculpture as well. To the west was a U-shaped and
colonnaded altar court, as this temple, like others
to the goddesses of Asia Minor, faced west rather
than east.
During Caracalla’s reign Ephesos could call itself
the only city to be neokoros of Artemis, but this was
not to be so for long. Magnesia on the Maeander
also became neokoros of Artemis from the time of
Severus Alexander. The city always specifies the title
with the goddess’ name, never calling itself simply
neokoros. In all probability some exactitude was
necessary, as the plain title could have been misin-
terpreted to mean the possession of a koinon temple.
Although none can be proved, there are several
possible methods by which Magnesia could have
become neokoros of Artemis. It may have been by
the same process as at Ephesos, that is, diversion of
the honor of the title from the cult of the emperor
to that of a god. It is also possible that the Mag-
nesians, offended at the preeminence of the Ephesian
goddess, applied directly for the neokoria of their
own Artemis Leukophryene. Their great rival, Miletos,
had just lost its second neokoria for Elagabalus, and
the Magnesians were likely eager to be at least on
the level of Miletos neokoros. It should be noted that
if it was Severus Alexander who made Magnesia
neokoros for Artemis, the title was still used even in
the reign of his successor Maximinus, unaffected by
39 – the temples 329
the (short-lived) condemnation of Alexander’s
memory.
The temple of Artemis at Magnesia (illus. pl. 3
fig. 15) was the famous octastyle pseudodipteros
designed by the Hellenistic architect Hermogenes,
who wrote a book about it. It was the basis for the
design of the temples at Ankyra and Aizanoi, among
many others. Though its 31.6 x 57.9 m. stylobate
was not colossal like that of the Artemision of
Ephesos, it was larger than that of the temple of
Rome and Augustus at Ankyra, and probably only
a touch smaller than that of the temple identified
as Hadrian’s at Ephesos. The remains show that the
temple at Magnesia had eight Ionic columns on its
facade and fifteen on its flank. Like the temples of
Artemis at Ephesos and Sardis, it faced westward,
toward an altar lined with statues in a stoa-like Ionic
facade. Both temple and altar were on the axis of a
200 m. long temenos lined with colonnades (illus.
pl. 5 fig. 22). The temple’s Ionic frieze consisted of
combats between Greeks and Amazons. In the west
pediment were three openings similar to those of the
temple of Artemis at Ephesos, either for epiphany
of the goddess, or to throw light on her cult statue
within.
Aizanoi, Ephesos, and Magnesia are the only
assured neokoroi of gods, and so these cities can help
illumine what the standards were for this honor. All
three had shrines of considerable fame, size, and
splendor, all of which had asylum status; and all were
in Asia, the koinon that had the greatest number of
neokoroi cities. But there were other shrines just as
old, honored, and enormous whose cities were not
neokoroi for their gods, so far as is known; one might
mention the temple of Hera at Samos, or Miletos’
Didymaion of Apollo, once site of the koinon cult
of Gaius. Compared to those, Aizanoi’s temple might
seem a small and recent foundation. It may be that
the neokoria for a god was granted on similar terms
as that for an emperor, but was for some reason or
another diverted, as is known to be the case for
Ephesos.
When a city had but one neokoria, and that for
a god, it was usually careful to use the name of the
god instead of calling itself simply neokoros. This
tendency, noticeable in both Magnesia and Aizanoi
(though for the latter there is less evidence), makes
it less likely that any others of the known but un-
specified neokoroi were in fact neokoroi of gods. For
example, Herakleia appears to have connected its
neokoria with honor for the goddess Rome, but this
330 part ii – summary chapters
does not indicate that the city was neokoros of
Rome. Neapolis’ most famous shrine was probably
dedicated to an aspect of Zeus, but as the city never
claimed to be neokoros for the god, we are inclined
to believe that Neapolis too held the honor for an
imperial cult temple.
But when a city had more than one neokoria and
one of them was for a god, as Ephesos had, there
were more options. Where space was plentiful, the
entire title could be written out, with the name of
the god mentioned. Or the divine neokoria could
be included among the imperial neokoriai, bringing
the total number up by one, but in this case the titles
could not be designated ‘of the emperors.’ So dur-
ing the reign of Caracalla, Ephesos could call itself
either ‘twice neokoros of the emperors and neokoros
of Artemis’ or ‘three times neokoros.’ On coins, there
appears to have been a tendency to use whichever
was most impressive: the neokoria of Artemis was
used more when Ephesos was the only city to have
it; in the time of Elagabalus it was counted in to total
a unique four; afterward it went back down to three,
in order to at least equal the count of Ephesos’ ri-
vals, Pergamon and Smyrna.
Summary
Of the temples that conferred neokoria, including
both those of gods and emperors but excluding those
shown only schematically on multiple-temple coin
reverses, fifteen are octastyle or larger (two of those
are decastyle); seven are hexastyle; and nine tetra-
style. But since many of the above are only repre-
sented on coins, which often show an abbreviated
number of columns, many of the four- and six-col-
umn images probably represent larger structures. If
we look at the actual remains, only the temple at
Neapolis (and that only possibly, but not certainly,
conferring neokoria) was tetrastyle, and only the
temples of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon and
that of Antoninus Pius at Sagalassos (again, the lat-
ter uncertain) were hexastyle. Probably five were
octastyle, two (the temple at Tarsos and the Didy-
maion at Miletos) were decastyle, and one (Ephesos’
Koressos temple) either octastyle or decastyle. Thus,
temples that made their cities neokoroi tended to be
large and impressive structures. They also tended to
be prominently placed, though sometimes their sheer
size made them difficult to integrate in an extant
urban plan.
Where order can be discerned, temples that con-
ferred neokoria were generally Corinthian; the Ionic
exceptions are earlier structures and/or are dedi-
cated to other than imperial gods (the Didymaion,
temples of Artemis at Ephesos, Magnesia, and
Sardis, and the temple of Zeus at Aizanoi), though
the temple of Septimius Severus at Anazarbos was
likely Ionic. The temple of the Augusti at Ephesos
and the pseudodipteros at Sardis are surely non-
Doric, but otherwise uncertain. Still, the Corinthian
order was more popular in the Roman period for
all kinds of temples, not just those of the emperors,
and was particularly adaptable on grandiose temples
of large size. In design and structure more temples
that conferred neokoria tended to follow Hellenis-
tic rather than Roman models. The architecture was
not without Roman influences, however, especially
in placing the temple prominently by raising it on
a vaulted substructure or a high podium.
Temples of the neokoroi were often fairly conser-
vative in their decorative programs, though there is
no consistent pattern. Eagles appear in the pedi-
ments of temples represented on coins at Ankyra
(along with a shield), Tarsos, and Kaisareia. Victo-
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
at Pergamon, as well as on the friezes of the Ankyra
temple. Apotropaic Gorgoneia hint at the aegis of
Athena, and featured on the temple of Zeus Philios
and Trajan at Pergamon and that of Hadrian at
Kyzikos, as they also did on the cuirasses of impe-
rial statues. Other decorative details vary from
temple to temple, but center on themes of Roman
imperial triumph and of fruitfulness. There is no sign
of the aediculated ‘marble style’ that has been sup-
posed to be associated with the imperial cult.
Among the cult images, most emperors seem to
have been portrayed in military costume, though
some were caparisoned as gods and others wore the
toga. They could be accompanied by their succes-
sors or consorts. Where remains of the statues sur-
vive and have been identified, they are colossal and
acrolithic. The original portrait models are often
manipulated in order to make them larger in scale
and more godlike in appearance.
On the whole, despite three centuries of differ-
ing preferences, requirements, and circumstances
among the provinces and cities that built them, the
temples and cult images of the neokoroi present a
fairly consistent image, adapting Roman figures to
a Hellenic frame.
 chapter
Chapter 40. The Cities
Though from the beginning the honor of building
a provincial temple to an emperor was granted to
a koinon, that temple was set within a city, and that
city, not the koinon, was named neokoros as a re-
sult. This chapter will examine the internal struc-
ture of the neokoroi, the elites and benefactors who
helped them gain the temple and title, and the fes-
tivals some of them celebrated in connection with
their koinon temples. Their relationships with one
another, however, are treated in the summary of
‘The Koina,’ chapter 41.
Structure
City structure in the eastern provinces was basically
a continuation of what it had been in the previous
Hellenistic period, but Roman administration tended
to introduce certain modifications.1 Though the
details varied from province to province and among
the cities depending on their status, the body of the
voting citizens (demos, meeting as an ekklesia) still
existed, with the oversight of a council (boule). Plu-
tarch’s instructions to an aspiring politician of late
first century Sardis focus on persuading the people,
and generally assume a democratic system of city
government.2 Civic inscriptions often describe the
city as a union between council and people, and gen-
erally it is the people or body of citizens who are
described as neokoros, though at Kyzikos and Hiera-
polis the council is sometimes called neokoros too.
Under Rome, there tended to be a maximum
number of council members allowed, of a certain
standard of wealth and usually possessing Roman
citizenship, each contributing an amount of money
for the privilege. From them the magistrates and exe-
cutives were drawn, who generally had to pay the
expenses of their offices as well as certain benefits
1 The basic picture is still that of Liebenam 1900; more
recently, S. Mitchell 1993, 1:198-226; Quass 1993; Lewin 1995.
2 Plutarch, Political Precepts, esp. 21 (816).
40 – the cities 331
(oil for the gymnasium, gladiatorial shows, feasts) that
were expected by the populace; the truly mag-
nificent added other benefits on top of that.3 This
emphasis on offices as liturgies concentrated power
and responsibility in the hands of a wealthy elite
class. The Roman governors looked to this class to
ensure stability, obedience, and financial rectitude;
their activities thus saved the scanty Roman bureau-
cracy the job of governing the cities directly. On the
other side, Rome was (ideally) a guarantor of peace,
prosperity, and favorable treatment for the city elite,
who were generally quite successful in cultivating
good relations with Romans in power.
Even for the wealthy and influential, this system
was no Utopia. There could be crime, corruption,
and quarreling at all levels, within the city, between
city and city, and between cities and the Romans
who were their overlords.
Elites: Greek Culture, Roman Status
Though Roman authority may have imposed adjust-
ments on established Hellenic traditions only super-
ficially and piecemeal rather than rigorously and
universally, its cultural presence and legal influence
worked profound changes on the social structure of
its provinces.4 The greatest, of course, was that the
overlord was no longer a Hellenistic king, but of a
very different culture. No matter how friendly to or
adept in Hellenic culture the emperor happened to
be, he, his Senate, his legions, and his administra-
tion were of another world, speaking another lan-
guage. This was especially obvious in the conduct
of civic affairs, where the ideal of autonomy could
be easily contradicted by the actuality of Roman
officials. As Plutarch’s instructions to the aspiring
magistrate famously note, “But you must say to
3 Veyne 1976; Delorme 1960; Gauthier and Hatzopoulos
1993; Pantel 1992, 255-420; L. Robert 1971.
4 Brunt 1990.
332 part ii – summary chapters
yourself, ‘You rule (but are ruled) over a city sub-
ject to proconsuls, to Caesar’s procurators. . . “this
is not ancient Sardis, nor that former power of
Lydia.” You must keep your general’s cloak well
tucked in, and not think a lot of your crown or trust
in it; look from your headquarters to the [governor’s]
tribunal, and you see his boots above your head!’”5
Another great change was the admission of the
elite to Roman citizenship. As an orator of the
Antonine period proclaimed to a Roman audience,
“You have divided all the people of your Empire into
two parts. . . the more cultured, better born, and
more powerful everywhere you have declared [Ro-
man] citizens, even if of the same stock [as the oth-
ers]; the rest, subjects under command.”6 Yet the
preservation of Hellenic culture, through descent,
education, purity of language, and institutions both
political and cultic, was still crucial to civic elites in
the Roman period.7 The intercombinations between
Greek culture and Roman status are visible not only
through novels, speeches, and other writings pre-
served to us, but through the careers of the people
themselves, the buildings they built, the statues they
set up, and the gods they honored. Their coins had
the emperor on the obverse but an ancestral god,
founder, or point of civic pride on the reverse. Their
building inscriptions generally honored first their
patron god(s), then the emperor(s), and then the
council and people of the city itself.
If the interpretation of Cassius Dio 51.20.7-8
given in chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ is correct, those who
were allowed to worship the living emperor were
xenoi, that is, peregrini; Romans, at least in Italy, were
to worship the deified dead. This distinction would
seem to present a problem for the chief priests of
koinon temples, people of wealth and high status for
whom this office was the acme of a civic and pro-
vincial career, but most of whom were Roman citi-
zens.8 Of course, the dissonance, if it was felt at all,
was soon obviated by the passage of time and the
death of emperors to whom koinon temples were
dedicated. And in any case, it was possible for the
same person to behave differently in his home prov-
ince than he did at Rome.
That the ostensible conflict between Roman citi-
zenship and koinon cult was, or soon became, neg-
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.
8 Deininger 1965, 151-153.
ligible is shown by the three cities that combined the
status of colony with that of neokoros: Nikopolis in
Armenia Minor, Neapolis in Syria Palaestina, and
Thessalonike in Macedonia. This meant that a city
technically composed of Roman citizens got a title
that was primarily associated with temples to the
living emperor. Nikopolis was probably the first, a
colony with ius Italicum and a component of real
Roman veterans, perhaps metropolis and neokoros
since Hadrian, but certainly twice neokoros after
Gordian III became emperor. In this case, the sta-
tus appears to be the result of Nikopolis’ being the
major, almost the sole, urban center of a very
unurbanized province. But colonial status was in-
creasingly granted to towns with no veteran com-
ponent from the second into the third century, as a
reward, or an inducement, for loyalty.9 The distinc-
tion between Greek city and Roman colony was
blurred in any case by Caracalla’s grant of Roman
citizenship to most of the peoples of the Empire. So
the emperor Philip made Neapolis (among others)
colony and neokoros; it lost its colonial status, but
likely not the neokoria, under his successor Trajan
Decius. Decius, on the other hand, granted the titles
of colony and four times neokoros to Thessalonike,
a particularly strategic city for the empire’s defense
in the Balkans. Two of the four neokoriai were
suppressed after his death, but the rest remained. As
at Neapolis, the titles appear to have been granted
wholesale, to show imperial favor; they did not af-
fect the city’s population or their civic status, and
they could be removed at the next emperor’s will.
The temptation to rise in Roman administration
could certainly pull elite males’ attention away from
civic and provincial offices and direct it toward
Roman aims, a path culminating if possible in a
senatorial career centered in Rome itself. The two
paths were not mutually exclusive, of course, and
we can track a variety of choices.10 On one was Dio
Chrysostomos, who remained an orator and philoso-
pher, urging concord on the cities and undertaking
building projects for his home Prusa, though he only
got tangled in lawsuits as a result. On the other was
Cassius Dio, who referred to his city Nikaia in an
indulgent way, but was not overly concerned with
its quarrels, and took a firmly Roman and senato-
rial viewpoint despite the fact that he was writing a
9 J. Nollé 1995; Millar 1990.
10 Eck 1980.
 chapter
Greek history. Of course, there was also a middle
way: C. Antius Aulus Julius Quadratus, a Pergamene
who became consul and then proconsul of Asia
under Trajan, likely won his city its temple for
Trajan and Zeus Philios, then endowed its festival;
his son probably served as chief priest of Asia after
the temple was completed.11
Brokers of Beneficence
One man’s influence with the emperor sometimes
became a reason to make a particular city neo-
koros.12 Orators could sway the emperors’ opinions,
and so could chamberlains; and some men are cred-
ited with gaining neokoria simply by asking the em-
peror for it, though we do not know precisely why
they were so influential. We may call them ‘brokers
of beneficence,’ as they were not only benefactors
in themselves, but also the means by which the
emperor’s benevolence was channeled to a particular
city.
As mentioned above, C. Antius Aulus Julius Qua-
dratus probably had some influence in obtaining
Pergamon’s second provincial temple from Trajan,
which broke the previous practice of having only one
koinon temple per city. The inscriptions specify that
this ‘most illustrious friend’ of the emperor, a citi-
zen of Pergamon who had risen so far in the Ro-
man world that he not only became consul ordinarius
in 105 but was then proconsul in Asia shortly be-
fore the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan was
granted, paid for the new festival in honor of the
temple.
Then there were the speakers. According to Aelius
Aristides, “the orator has trained so that he will be
able not only to save himself or one other besides,
but also his friends, city, and allies.”13 Cities used
their orators and sophists for embassies, not only
because of the persuasiveness of their speech, but in
the hope that their renown would help the cities gain
access to and influence in the court.14 Dio Chrysos-
11 IvP no. 269. See ‘Pergamon,’ chapter 1; and H. Müller
2000, 519-520 n. 6.
12 For Greek friends of prominent Romans obtaining privi-
leges for their cities and receiving honors and offices in return,
from the late Republic on, see Quass 1993, 138-149, 151-164,
187-192.
13 Aelius Aristides, Oration 2.376 (P. Aelius Aristides, The
Complete Works 1, tr. C. Behr [Leiden 1986] 137).
14 Quass 1993, 168-176; but note also 192-195, on the cities’
40 – the cities 333
tomos supposedly so impressed Trajan that, accord-
ing to an anecdote, the emperor took him up in his
golden chariot and said “I do not know what you
are saying, but I love you as myself.”15 Trajan’s level
of erudition was certainly higher than implied, and
his enthrallment likely lower: Dio’s rivals at home
attacked him for not doing as well as other orators
were rumored to have done for their cities.16 Still,
Dio did win important privileges for Prusa from
Trajan, and accompanied the emperor on his
Dacian campaign.17
One orator who attained neokoria for his city was
M. Antonius Polemon of Smyrna. A man who
“spoke with kings as equals” (and who had the nerve
to kick the proconsul and future emperor Antoninus
Pius out of his house), he was of special value to the
community as an ambassador to emperors. His
oratory worked magic upon the philhellene Hadrian;
though the emperor “had previously favored the
Ephesians, he converted [him] to the Smyrnaean
cause, so that in one day he poured out ten million
[drachmai] on Smyrna, from which the grain mar-
ket was built, as well as the most magnificent gym-
nasium in Asia and a temple that can be seen from
afar.” This temple was the one that got Smyrna the
title ‘twice neokoros,’ as is made clear by that city’s
own inscription: “. . . we gained from the lord Caesar
Hadrian on account of Antonius Polemon a second
decree of the Senate, by which we became twice
neokoros.” Polemon served as agonothetes for the
festival celebrated in this temple’s honor, but died
in the midst of a mission to defend Smyrna’s
“temples and their rights” before the emperor Anto-
ninus Pius.18 This phrase probably refers to the
koinon temples, in which Polemon, having obtained
a second temple and neokoria for Smyrna, had a
special interest. So it seems that, despite confirma-
tion by the Senate, even Smyrna’s status as twice
neokoros could be challenged by rivals in the koinon.
The likeliest is perhaps Ephesos, as shortly before,
Smyrna had offended that city by not giving its pre-
cise titulature in a decree about a joint sacrifice. In
this case, Antoninus Pius read the speech that Pole-
tendency to save money by using ambassadors who could pay
the costs of the mission themselves.
15 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.7. See Dio Chrysostomos,
Orations 40, 44, 45, among others; Swain 1996, 194-195, 225-
241, 397.
16 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 40.13-15.
17 C. Jones 1978, 53.
18 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.10 (539-540).
334 part ii – summary chapters
mon had prepared and ruled in favor of Smyrna.
Philostratos concludes, “thus Smyrna came away
having won first place, and they declared that
Polemon had come back to life to help them.”
The inscription mentioned above makes it clear
that the privileges Hadrian bestowed on Smyrna
were due to Polemon; he is not just the eloquent
pleader of a worthy cause, he is the cause himself.
This is why the Smyrnaeans endowed him and his
descendants with the right to preside at the sacred
contest for which he was responsible, and why he
continued to defend the temples, even posthumously.
This reciprocal relationship between great man and
great city was based on the honor each could give
to the other. Of course, the emperor was the ulti-
mate benefactor of both man and city, and his gifts
to both (of honor and assent to one, of titles and
assistance to the other) were too great to be repaid
in full.19 All that Hadrian could receive in return was
cult, as practiced in the new koinon temple in
Smyrna. But Polemon and his like may truly be
called ‘brokers of beneficence,’ conduits for impe-
rial favor, and thus to be honored for the emperor’s
gifts as well.
Though Hadrian had allegedly favored the Smyr-
naeans over the Ephesians once, a decade later
Ephesos seems to have won his favor back. The man
responsible for this was one Tiberius Claudius Piso
Diophantos, “who was chief priest of the two temples
in Ephesos, by whom the temple of the god Hadrian
was consecrated, [and] who first requested it from
the god Hadrian and obtained it.” Although we
know less about Diophantos than we do about Pole-
mon, it is apparent that he too pleaded his city’s
cause before Hadrian, though this time no competi-
tors are mentioned. It may be that Hadrian wished
to compensate for his previous decision, if he had
favored the Ephesians before Polemon got up to
speak. In any case, Diophantos was successful, and
the Ephesians and the koinon showed their gratitude.
Diophantos was made chief priest, not immediately
but as soon as the temple of Hadrian was complete;
thus he was able to consecrate the temple that he
19 Lendon 1997, 78-84, 113-129, 148-149, 156-157. On the
assertion (put into the mouth of Maecenas) that nothing could
be given to an emperor that would be better than what he
already possessed, Cassius Dio 52.35.2. On the other hand,
Augustus weighed acts of loyalty to himself as if they were gifts
worthy of being requited on a sliding scale, and refused the
status of free city to the Samians because they did not merit it
as had the Aphrodisians: Oliver 1989, 25-26 no. 1.
had obtained, and was first to serve in it as “chief
priest of the two temples in Ephesos.” Diophantos’
memory was still honored in Ephesos as late as the
fifth century.
One man who obtained the neokoria for his city
by personal influence was neither consular, ambas-
sador, nor orator. He was Saoteros, chamberlain to
the emperor Commodus, who got a koinon temple
and a second neokoria for his home Nikomedia. It
is unlikely that Saoteros appeared openly on behalf
of his city, but his position made him powerful with
the emperor, and the Senate went along with what
pleased Commodus. Nonetheless, after Saoteros’ fall
from favor and death the neokoria was promptly
revoked, either on the initiative of his successor, or
by a Senate indignant after the fact.
We have seen that the Smyrnaeans viewed Pole-
mon as the reason for their obtaining the neokoria,
and the Ephesians probably felt the same way about
Diophantos. Certainly the grant was not withdrawn
from Nikomedia because it was an unworthy city,
but because Saoteros was an unworthy citizen. In-
scriptions and literature show that the Greeks of the
East believed one man’s influence or power of speech
to be the key to the emperor’s favor, and from that
favor could come titles, festivals, temples, and show-
ers of drachmai.
We hear a similar story of Philadelphia, but from
the emperor’s side. One Aurelius M... of Philadel-
phia asked Caracalla if another Philadelphian,
Julianus, could be permitted to carry out his pro-
vincial duties in his home city and not at Sardis. This
the emperor graciously allowed (if nothing else for-
bade it), and then added “I do this gladly for your
sake, on account of whom I have given even the
neokoria itself to the Philadelphians.” The letter calls
Aurelius “most honored and beloved by me,” but
gives no hint of why.
A less fortunate outcome was that of Ulpius Apol-
lonius Plautus, grammateus, advocate of Ephesos,
and designated Asiarch on an inscription that also
calls Ephesos neokoros of the most sacred Artemis
and three times neokoros of the emperors. Thus it
dates to the joint rule of Caracalla and Geta, be-
fore Geta’s death and the cancellation of his temple.
That melancholy result is symbolized by the fact that
the whole inscription was negated, crossed out with
a chisel, but so lightly that it could still be read. It
is likely that, like Diophantos as chief priest, Plautus
was designated Asiarch to serve a term once the new
koinon temple was built, probably because he had
 chapter
led the delegation to obtain it. When it fell through,
his honor may have as well.
These individuals were perceived as being a chief
cause of the neokoria being granted to their cities.
Of what did their benefaction consist? Basically, of
asking for an imperial temple, and getting it. Some
headed a formal embassy to the emperor, though
Saoteros can be considered an embassy in himself.
But if merely making the request were all one had
to do to be credited with gaining the neokoria, why
do we know of so few who were accorded that sta-
tus? Perhaps in order to be seen as brokers of be-
neficence, they had to succeed overwhelmingly, win
additional benefits, or as Polemon may have done,
sway an emperor from favoring another city. The
reward was often a leading provincial position once
the new temple was dedicated, and/or the presi-
dency over the contests, if any had been obtained.
On the emperor’s side, the relationship varied
with the emperor’s character and tastes: Hadrian
honored a famous Greek orator, Commodus a pal-
ace insider. But from the Roman viewpoint, such
exchanges fall into the time-honored relationship of
patron and client. The patron could offer gifts and
assistance and protection; the client loyalty, honor,
and his talent, often eloquent speech. But in this
situation the emperor had not only one man as his
client, but through him the entire city. Thus the man
served as intermediary or broker of the emperor’s
patronage, and was recognized and honored as such
by both the city and the emperor.
Agonistic Festivals
Though many have assumed that every grant of
neokoria was associated with a ‘sacred’ contest in
athletics and/or the performing arts, this study has
found a much looser association between the two.
Despite many excellent investigations, there is still
much that is uncertain about these festivals.20 For
20 In general, Roueché 1993; S. Mitchell 1990; Wörrle 1988;
along with many other works, L. Robert 1984 and 1960a;
Moretti 1954 and 1953. Weiss 1998 notes some interesting cor-
respondences between neokoroi, festivals, and concord coin-
ages. Unfortunately there is no encyclopedic work that unites
the evidence of coins and inscriptions, but for the inscriptions,
Malavolta 1976-1977, and for the coins (though vitiated by some
dubious and outdated material), Karl 1975, are useful. The trans-
literations that follow will be based on the majority or the best-
preserved of the surviving monuments, whether coins or in-
scriptions.
40 – the cities 335
one thing, their names are often agglutinative; im-
perial names could be suddenly attached to a
longstanding festival, but later disappear.21 Full titles
of festivals are often abbreviated to the point of (our)
incomprehension on inscriptions and on coins; on
the latter especially, where one prize crown is of-
ten taken as equivalent to one contest, sometimes a
single contest’s name appears on two crowns; and
coins often show fewer crowns than the city had
contests.22 Specific names for contests could also be
masked under the title of Koina, province-wide fes-
tivals. Such Koina were often celebrated by cities that
did not yet have provincial imperial temples, a fact
that argues against an invariable temple/festival
connection. Some celebrations of the Koina were not
even in the name of an emperor, such as the Koina
of Asia Balbilleia at Ephesos, Smyrna, and Perga-
mon.23 And many koinon temples, especially early
ones, are linked to no known specific sacred festi-
val. In some instances, it may be that a sacred fes-
tival was not granted until later, in the third century,
when cities both neokoroi and not acquired the right
to celebrate more and more sacred and imperial-
named festivals.
As often, we must return to Cassius Dio 51.20.6-
9 to learn of the festival associated with the koinon
cult of the first emperor at its origins in Asia and in
Bithynia. The requests to build provincial temples
emanated not from the individual cities, but from
the two koina. Dio then adds the fact that one city,
Pergamon, also got permission to hold a sacred
contest in honor of Augustus’ temple. He says noth-
ing of the sort for Nikomedia and its temple, and
as a Bithynian, he ought to have known. Pergamon
indeed celebrated a Rhomaia Sebasta festival, later
perhaps subsumed among the Koina of Asia; so far
as we know, Nikomedia celebrated no Rhomaia
Sebasta. A Koina festival of Bithynia is only mentioned
later, in Neronian times, and there as in Asia, Koina
were celebrated in cities that had not yet received
a koinon temple (such as Prusias and Claudiopolis).
Lycia’s koinon, unique in so many ways, associ-
ated its provincial imperial cult with the established
cults of ancestral gods, and its festivals often unified
the two. We have no knowledge of Lycia’s building
one or several separate koinon temples as Asia and
Bithynia did, and no city in Lycia is known to have
21 Herz 1990, 177-178, 189 n. 21.
22 L. Robert 1960a, 364, 366.
23 Moretti 1990, 266.
336 part ii – summary chapters
called itself neokoros until the third century.24 It is
therefore risky to reason backward from Patara’s
panegyris for Apollo and the emperor, or Xanthos’
Rhomaia Letoa, or an isopythian festival to Rome and
Augustus, or the great isolympic Vespasianeia, or any
of the Koina celebrated in Myra, Limyra, and Tel-
messos, to account for the eventual neokoria of
Akalissos or the two of Patara.
The passage of Cassius Dio cited above implies
that a sacred festival in honor of a koinon temple
was a separate privilege, for the city, not the prov-
ince, and had to be requested in addition to the
petition for the temple itself. Moreover, as it was
certainly possible for a city to have contests, even
provincial ones, without a temple, so it could have
been possible to have a koinon temple without a
contest of sacred status. Ankyra, despite its cel-
ebrated temple for Augustus and Rome, is not
known to have celebrated any specific sacred festi-
val in its honor, at least at first; Koina were probably
held there, but also at Pessinus and Tavium, cities
whose possession of a koinon temple to the impe-
rial cult is doubtful.
Admittedly, to argue a lack of sacred festivals at
Nikomedia, Ankyra or anywhere else can only be
done from silence. Evidence for a strict connection
between koinon temples and festivals may yet be
found. But until that is true, one should not assume
an inevitable association between temples, neokoriai,
and sacred or imperial-named festivals. It is espe-
cially dangerous to date a grant of neokoria because
of a festival named for an emperor. As has been
noted, such names could be ephemeral; and just as
many cities celebrated sacred and imperial-named
festivals without ever calling themselves neokoroi, the
neokoroi celebrated them for different emperors than
the ones for whom they had provincial temples.25
To associate coin types that show the round prize
crowns awarded at contests with specific neokoriai
also goes beyond the evidence: again, many cities
never known as neokoroi issued such types, and the
association between number of crowns and number
of temples can be misleading.26
Smyrna may have been the first city to celebrate
Koina of Asia under that title, but has left no record
24 S. Price 1984b, 262-263; no. 79, the naos of Caesar at
Xanthos, was likely municipal, not provincial.
25 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:217-225; Wallner 1997, 35-36.
26 Ziegler 1985, Wallner 1997, and Leschhorn 1998 are
unwary on this point.
of a festival specifically for its first provincial temple
to Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate.27 There is none
for the provincial temple of Gaius at Miletos either,
but this is not surprising, as it lasted only a short time
(Miletos did celebrate Koina of Asia by 90 C.E.).
There is also no sign of any festival granted to
Ephesos under Nero.
Of the cities known to have become neokoroi
from Nero to Trajan, Perge in Pamphylia became
neokoros under Vespasian, and is known from later
documents to have celebrated a festival Artemeiseia
Vespasianeia, joining the cult of the emperor to that
of the city’s patron; but the Kaisareia at Perge was
also founded under the Flavians, and it is uncertain
which festival (if either) would have been associated
with the temple for which the city became neokoros.
The case is more difficult for the Asian koinon
temple of the Augusti at Ephesos, which was finished
in Domitian’s reign. It has often been associated with
a celebration of Olympia, but this was likely a revival
of an earlier festival, and may not have been asso-
ciated with the provincial temple at all; instead, Koina
associated with the astrologer Balbillus were being
established at around the same time that the temple
was being granted and built. In Macedonia, the chief
priest Python who asked Nerva to confirm Beroia
as sole neokoros was also agonothetes of the koinon
festival, an isaktian contest; this too may date ear-
lier, to the Flavian period, but cannot be confirmed
to honor a temple of any particular emperor. Un-
der Trajan, Neokaisareia first declared itself
neokoros, and a koinon festival of Pontus was cel-
ebrated in that period, but no name of a specific
sacred festival survives.28 Agonistic coin types that
hint at one festival per neokoria and temple appear
there only in the third century. Pergamon, however,
was granted the Traianeia Deiphileia, a festival of
sacred and eiselastic status, in honor of its new pro-
vincial temple to Zeus Philios and Trajan; but
Pergamon had been punctilious about requesting a
festival for its first koinon temple, and was now being
no less careful to acquire one of equal status for its
second. The fact that the Pergamene citizen and
former proconsul Quadratus took on the expenses
of the new festival only added to its attractions.
Hadrian’s interests in Hellenic culture and in
fostering the cities, already noted in chapter 38,
‘Historical Analysis,’ led to his allowing festivals in
27 Moretti 1954, 282.
28 Moretti 1953, 191, 194.
 chapter
his name to more cities than any previous emperor.29
These cities included some that are known to be
neokoroi for temples to him: Kyzikos, Smyrna (for
which Polemon and his descendents were agono-
thetai), and Ephesos. Some cities that celebrated
Hadrianeia may or may not have also been neokoroi
for him, such as Tarsos, Sardis, and Herakleia, and
some were probably not neokoroi for his cult, like
Anazarbos, Ankyra, and Synnada. Also, no Hadria-
neia is yet documented at Nikaia or Nikopolis, two
cities that may have been neokoroi for him. But
many of the cities that celebrated Hadrianeia were
never known to be neokoroi at all, including Ath-
ens, Hadrianeia, Magnesia on Sipylos, Thyateira,
Gaza, Antioch, and Alexandria.
Of the cities that were surely neokoroi for temples
to Hadrian, all three had Hadrianeia or Hadrianeia
Olympia. Kyzikos’ Hadrianeia Olympia may once be
qualified as a koinon festival. At both Smyrna and
Ephesos there had already been Olympia previous to
Hadrian; it is possible that Olympia means either that
the Hadrianeia festivals were of isolympic status; that
the epithet Olympios, often applied to Hadrian af-
ter 128, became associated with the festival in his
honor; or that he allowed his name to be associated
with a preexisting Olympia festival. It cannot be taken
to imply that Hadrian was identified as or shared
the temple with Zeus Olympios; the temples at Kyzi-
kos and at Smyrna were founded before Hadrian’s
identification with that god, and at Kyzikos and
Ephesos they are only ever called temples of
Hadrian.
Few festivals, but also few neokoriai, were granted
under Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Sardis
became twice neokoros, surely for the cult of Anto-
ninus Pius and his family introduced into its temple
of Artemis. Later Sardian coins show two temples,
each with a wreath over it, perhaps symbolizing two
festivals; but neither is specifically named for the
Antonines. Amaseia first declared itself neokoros by
161/162 C.E., but ceased its coinage in the early
third century, just when agonistic types were increas-
ingly popular, and no festival for its neokoria is
known.
Commodus gave his name to many festivals in
cities such as Caesarea in Mauretania, Athens,
Sparta, Nikaia, Kyzikos, Kaisareia in Cappadocia,
and Antioch; none of these were neokoroi for him.30
29 Boatwright 2000, 99-104.
30 Miranda 1992-1993.
40 – the cities 337
The emperor’s name was often attached to a festi-
val of another god or emperor, such as the Kommodeia
Dionysia Herakleia at Thebes; the Artemisia Kommodeia
and the Hadrianeia Kommodeia at Ephesos; perhaps the
Kommodeia Hadrianeia Olympia at Smyrna, Olympia
Asklepeia Kommodeia at Pergamon, the Didymaia Kom-
modeia at Miletos, the Herakleia Kommodeia at Tyre,
and the festival at Laodikeia (below).
Among the neokoroi, Nikomedia received a
temple, a festival, and a second neokoria for Com-
modus, but lost all in the fall of the chamberlain
Saoteros. Instead, Nikomedia’s rival Nikaia got the
festival, though not, so far as is known, an additional
temple or neokoria. Tarsos certainly became twice
neokoros for a koinon temple to Commodus, and
also received a worldwide isolympic Kommodeios fes-
tival. Laodikeia had already been the site of Koina
in the first century, well before it became neokoros.
Then, as well as receiving the neokoria for Com-
modus, the city added his name to its festival of Zeus,
now the Deia Kommodeia, of sacred and eiselastic sta-
tus. The name was wiped out with Commodus’
death, but it returned when his memory was again
honored by Septimius Severus; an Antoneina was also
celebrated, and Laodikeia became neokoros for tem-
ples to Commodus and Caracalla.
Septimius Severus seems to have granted festivals
along with temples to several neokoroi, though to
other cities as well, especially those on the scene of
his wars. Nikomedia again became twice neokoros,
and now celebrated a great (Augousteia) Severeia con-
test. At this point the city began to issue coin types
on which the number of prize crowns matches the
number of neokoriai. It is possible that an additional
sacred festival had been assigned to the old temple
of Rome and Augustus, but no specific name offers
proof. As for Nikomedia’s rival, though at first
Severus stripped Nikaia of all honors, the city later
celebrated the great Severeia Philadelphia in honor of
him and his sons, especially Caracalla, who may
have pled the city’s case. Apparently the city did not
regain its lost titles, however, which included ‘neo-
koros.’
Severus may have even granted both neokoria
and a festival for his cult, and then another neokoria
and festival for his sons, to two cities, Perinthos and
Anazarbos. Perinthos first called itself neokoros
shortly after the Severeia Prota (and/or Perintheia) began
to be advertised on coins. This festival may also have
been named Aktia, and around a decade later it was
joined by a new contest, the Philadelpheia, also called
338 part ii – summary chapters
Pythia. Coin types show two temples, each with a
prize crown, and probably Perinthos was twice
neokoros, though it only calls itself neokoros.
Anazarbos probably also received a temple and
celebrated a festival for Septimius Severus, or at least
shared the Severeia Olympia Epinikia at Quadrigae with
Tarsos and the rest of the koinon of Cilicia. The city
then got a second neokoria for Caracalla and Geta;
some evidence has been detected for a Philadelphia
contest as well.
In other cases, Kaisareia took the title ‘neokoros’
on coins from 204-206 C.E., at the same time as it
celebrated a sacred contest Severeios Philadelphios, koinos
of Cappadocia. Tarsos celebrated Severeia, but there
is no sign that Severus took over its provincial temple
for Commodus. Sardis too had Severeia, though
Severus granted it no new neokoria. Miletos first
called itself neokoros at this period; there is no evi-
dence for its celebrating Severeia or any other sacred
festival, though it had allied Commodus’ name with
the longstanding Didymaia for Apollo (above).
Caracalla’s Parthian war and his travels in the
East, his grant or restoration of up to eight neokoriai
in Asia and possibly one in Galatia, all could have
resulted in Antonineia (as it is usually spelled); the only
problem is that the same name was applied to fes-
tivals for Elagabalus, so if the reference occurs in the
latter’s reign, it is difficult to tell which emperor is
being honored.31
If we confine consideration to the neokoroi,
Laodikeia celebrated Antoneina, and that was likely
associated with a neokoria shared between Com-
modus and Caracalla; Komodia, Asklepeia, and Pythia
are mentioned as well, though under Caracalla
known types only go up to three prize crowns. Under
Elagabalus coin types show four prize crowns, and
declare that Laodikeia’s temples and festivals were
confirmed as worldwide by the Senate’s decree. But
Laodikeia never became more than once neokoros,
so far as we know. Tarsos celebrated a contest called
Severeios Antoneinianos, but was neokoros for neither
Severus (above) nor his son. Tralles, which had al-
ready celebrated Koina of Asia by the early second
century, was probably made neokoros of the Augusti
by Caracalla: among the names for the three ago-
nistic wreaths on its coin for Elagabalus are Olym-
pia, Augousteia, and Pythia, and if any is a festival for
the neokoria, it is most likely the Augousteia. Phila-
delphia had been the scene of Koina since the mid-
31 L. Robert 1970, 20-27.
second century, but didn’t become neokoros until
214; it did not seem to celebrate Antoneina either, but
this may be because Caracalla was assimilated to
Helios there, so the Haleia festival for the god may
have celebrated the emperor as well. No imperial-
named festivals are known for two third neokoriai,
Pergamon’s for Caracalla (in Asklepios’ temple) and
Smyrna’s for Caracalla (in the temple of the god-
dess Rome); on the other hand, both cities’ coin
types of three temples show each with an (agonis-
tic?) wreath above, possibly for Pergamon’s long-
standing Asklepieia and Smyrna’s Rhomaia. Ephesos
also got a third neokoria, but for Artemis, and if
Caracalla’s name was associated with her Ephesia or
Artemisia, record of it has not come down to us.
Kyzikos likely received a second neokoria for
Caracalla, but a report of a coin proclaiming Anto-
neina could not be confirmed.32 Antandros, though
perhaps neokoros for Caracalla, is not yet known to
have celebrated any sacred festivals at all. Ankyra
boasted ‘great Asklepeia Sotereia Antoneineia,’ an
isopythian festival, during Caracalla’s reign; but the
emperor’s name disappeared as early as the festival’s
second celebration, while the city’s claim to be twice
neokoros first appeared on coins issued decades
afterwards; the two are not directly associated.
Antonineia proclaimed under Elagabalus may have
honored him or his putative father Caracalla, but
the only festival associated with Elagabalus’ grants
of neokoria is that at Nikomedia. That city cele-
brated Demetria Antonia or Antonia Demetria, as Ela-
gabalus was sharing the temple of Demeter, and also
issued a coin type showing three prize crowns, per-
haps alluding to a festival for each neokoria; but the
doubts on this have been expressed above. Ela-
gabalus’ cult was also moved into a patron god’s
temple at Philippopolis, where he shared with Apollo
Kendrisos; but the coins of that time only mention the
Kendreseia and Pythia, contest(s) that had existed pre-
viously and that outlasted the condemnation of
Elagabalus’ memory, as the neokoriai did not.
Of the cities made neokoroi for independent cults
of Elagabalus, none is known to have celebrated
Antonineia; those that name their contests on coins
do so under such shortened and generic terms that
no association with an imperial sacred festival can
be asserted. Ephesos, for example, became four times
neokoros early in Elagabalus’ reign, and a coin is-
sue shows a table with three prize crowns (Ephesia,
32 Karl 1975, 16.
 chapter
Hadrianeia, and perhaps Pythia) and one wreath (Olym-
pia). But only the first and second can be associated
with specific temples for which the city was neokoros,
that of Artemis and that of Hadrian. The Ephesian
Olympia predated the neokoria, and Pythia might
represent any contest modeled on that at Delphi.
The ‘evident’ correspondence between crowns and
neokoriai is only on the surface. The same applies
to Sardis, three times neokoros under Elagabalus,
whose contemporary coins parade agonistic themes,
often featuring four prize crowns. Only three of the
crowns can represent temples that made the city
neokoros, and none can be tied to any specific
emperor; but some may represent festivals for which
Sardis had no provincial temple, such as the Elaga-
balia (for the sun god of Emesa, not the emperor
Antoninus) or the Severeia Koina Asias.33 Both Beroia
and Miletos were twice neokoros, and issued coins
showing two prize crowns; but the former never
identifies the crowns, while the latter only calls them
Olympia and Pythia, the last probably Pythia Panionia
and likely not for an imperial temple. Tripolis in
Phoenicia is called neokoros on only one coin, re-
portedly of Elagabalus, and is not known to have
celebrated a sacred festival for any emperor.
Perhaps the most interesting agonistic coin types
issued by neokoroi are those of Hierapolis. Though
the city was likely neokoros solely for Elagabalus, its
coins show three temples and two wreaths, repre-
senting the contests as Aktia and Pythia; the central
temple with the figure of the emperor has no wreath,
however. This implies that though Hierapolis had
two temples associated with sacred games, the one
that made the city neokoros was not one of them.
Severus Alexander allowed three neokoriai for his
own cult, but no specific festival is associated with
that honor at any of the cities involved. Kaisareia
in Cappadocia issued a coin type with Alexan(drea)
in its legend, but this is likely only an honorific title
for the city itself. Neokaisareia, twice neokoros, is-
sued types showing two temples and up to two prize
crowns associated with them; but the only festivals
named are Aktia and Koina. Aigeai probably became
neokoros for the cult of Severus Alexander intro-
duced into the city’s temple of Asklepios, but Aigeai’s
sacred and worldwide festival in Asklepios’ honor
appears to have been first granted almost twenty-
five years later, by the emperor Valerian. And in the
33 Année Epigraphique 1993 no. 1527; Sardis had celebrated
Koina since Neronian times.
40 – the cities 339
vexed case of Kyzikos, the city may have been cel-
ebrating the (short-lived) return of its second
neokoria under Severus Alexander with coin types
showing two (unnamed) prize crowns; the radiate
emperor’s portrait hovers over one crown, a portrait
of Julia Mamaea over the other. But if each crown
means a festival, the type seems to say that both were
for the current emperor and his mother, neither for
the first temple to make Kyzikos neokoros, that of
Hadrian.
Gordian III founded one of the few Greek-style
contests established in Rome, in honor of Minerva/
Athena Promachos, so it has seemed natural to schol-
ars that similar contests should be associated with
neokoriai he granted.34 The case is unfortunately not
so clear. Beroia, having regained the second neo-
koria it lost after Elagabalus, issued coin types for
the koinon with either two temples and one prize
crown or one temple and two prize crowns; there
is no exact correspondence between temples and
festivals. Some Macedonian koinon coins of Gordian
III mention Alexandreia, an isolympic festival honor-
ing Alexander the Great; the Koina festival of Mace-
donia, established by the late first century and
possibly (though not certainly) honoring the temple
for which Beroia was first neokoros, had been
isaktian, not isolympic. But much as one would like
to interpret the Alexandreia as a festival for Beroia’s
second neokoria, it had in fact been celebrated well
before, at least since Severus Alexander. Thessalo-
nike under Gordian III became neokoros and cel-
ebrated Pythia, possibly for a temple to that emperor;
the names Kabeiria, Epinikia, or K(ai)sareia are occa-
sionally associated, and the last two at least have
direct associations with the imperial cult. Nikopolis
in Armenia Minor, on the other hand, was twice
neokoros under Gordian III, but no sacred festivals
are yet known there.
Considering neokoriai granted in the reign of
Philip, no document is known for a festival corre-
sponding either to the neokoria of Herakleia nor for
that of Neapolis in Syria Palaestina. Thessalonike
under Trajan Decius celebrated its title of four times
neokoros with coin types of either four temples or
of four prize crowns. The types’ consistency indicates
a direct association between temples, titles, and
contests there (see below). Anazarbos was probably
awarded a sacred festival in honor of its neokoria
34 Wallner 1997, 78-83.
340 part ii – summary chapters
for Trajan Decius, the Dekios oikoumenikos; but other
types dated 249-251 C.E. show five prize crowns in
total, and thus go beyond the mere three neokoriai.
Though Anazarbos remained three times neokoros,
the total of prize crowns on its coins would go up
to six from the time of Trebonianus Gallus.
In the joint reign of Valerian and his son Gal-
lienus, many neokoriai were either granted or re-
stored. The clearest case in which a city’s festivals
(if we take them as symbolized by the highest num-
ber of prize crowns shown on coin reverses) go up
and down to equal its number of neokoriai is
Thessalonike. The city lost two of its four neokoriai
and two of its four crowns after Trajan Decius’
death: under Valerian, it was twice neokoros, with
coin types of up to two prize crowns (named as
Pythia, for the cult of Gordian III, and Aktia, the
object of which is nowhere named). Later, in
Gallienus’ sole rule, the city went up to three times
neokoros and its coins show up to three crowns,
though none of the temples is illustrated. Niko-
media’s case is probably similar, though it went
through fewer changes: under Valerian it went back
to being three times neokoros and put up to three
crowns on its coins. The third temple was again that
of the city’s patron Demeter, but none of the con-
tests is explicitly named.
On the other hand, several cities at this time
showed a difference between the numbers of
neokoriai and festivals that they boasted. Coin types
of Sardis, for example, illustrate three prize crowns
when the city calls itself twice neokoros, and still
three crowns when it goes up to three times neo-
koros. In fact, the cities of Asia, though granted
additional neokoriai at this time, apparently were not
showered with more sacred contests, as cities on the
northern and southeastern campaign fronts often
were. Ephesos again became four times neokoros,
but boasted no new festivals and issued few agonis-
tic coin types. The same is true of Kyzikos (again
twice neokoros) and Hierapolis (neokoros again). Of
course, many of these cities (especially Nikomedia,
Nikaia, and Ephesos) were troubled by Gothic raids
that stole their wealth, disrupted transportation and
trade, and destroyed their monuments, while the
emperors’ attention and troops were elsewhere.
The cities of Anatolia’s south coast, entryway for
imperial armies on their way to the Persian conflict,
issued many coins referring to festivals; but even so,
those festivals do not exactly correspond with their
neokoriai. Side, though newly (and only once) neo-
koros, celebrated two contests: the Pythia, already
founded under Gordian III, and the Mystikos, which
appears at this point but may be earlier. Coins of
its rival Perge, now first proclaiming the neokoria
the city had held since Vespasian, do not refer to a
festival for that emperor but illustrate two prize
crowns for Asylia Pythia and Olympia Augousteia, both
apparently recently established. Aspendos’ only
known imperial festival, its great pentaeteric Kaisareoi,
antedates its neokoria under Gallienus, when the city
boasted no sacred contests. Ankyra first calls itself
twice neokoros under Valerian, but its agonistic types
show either one or three prize crowns, and mention
Aktia, Pythia, and Mystikos festivals. The latter was
granted by the time of Hadrian, the Pythia is likely
the Asklepeia Sotereia (by now no longer Antoneineia),
and though it is tempting to ascribe the Augousteia
Aktia to Ankyra’s provincial temple of Augustus and
Rome, most citations of Augousteia in fact date to the
time of Valerian and Gallienus.
Tarsos may seem to have one festival per neo-
koria: it became three times neokoros in Valerian’s
and Gallienus’ joint reign, and its coins show up to
three prize crowns. But the contests specified are the
Severeia Olympia, Hadrianeia Ekecheiria, and Augustia
Aktia, and though all contain emperors’ names, they
do not necessarily coincide with the neokoriai of
Tarsos. It is possible, though not certain, that Tarsos
first became neokoros for Hadrian, and three times
neokoros for Valerian and perhaps Gallienus;
Hadrianeia and Augustia would apply well to these
neokoriai. But the second neokoria was assuredly for
Commodus, whose contest continued under Sep-
timius Severus and afterward, but is not among the
three festivals celebrated on these coins.
The end of city coinage, mainly after the reign
of Gallienus, though in Pamphylia somewhat later,
means the end of our major source of information.
Of cities that were documented as neokoroi in these
later years much is uncertain, but the lack of equiva-
lency between neokoriai and festivals continues.
Perge was made four times neokoros under Aurelian,
and Side three times neokoros, but neither city is
known to have boasted additional festivals at the
time, nor did their few coins emphasize agonistic
types. Afterward, Tacitus made Perge metropolis of
Pamphylia and gave it a new festival, though no
neokoria. Side (and perhaps Perge as well) became
six times neokoros after 275, though again there is
no sign of new festivals. Synnada, twice neokoros on
an inscription dated after 293 C.E., issued coin types
 chapter
with a single prize crown under Gordian III; little
else is known of it. The evidence of Sagalassos as
twice neokoros is also from the Tetrarchic period;
in Flavian times its chief priest of the Augusti had
been an agonothetes, but likely for a municipal fes-
tival, and Sagalassos’ other known contests were
privately founded ones. From the Tetrarchy onward,
civic inscriptions also become infrequent, so our
sources of information on neokoria dry up.
As the above evidence indicates, it should no
longer be simply assumed that a provincial temple
and the title ‘neokoros’ went hand-in-hand with a
sacred contest in the temple’s honor. Too often a
particular festival cannot be allied to a particular
grant of neokoria, and vice versa. From the begin-
ning, it is likely that a sacred festival had to be re-
quested in addition to a provincial temple, not as
an unvarying accompaniment to it. In later centu-
ries, the popularity of sacred and worldwide contests
meant that more were asked for and granted, either
to supplement the honor of a long-standing temple
and neokoria or as an accompaniment to new
temples; but new contests could eclipse older ones,
names could be added to or taken from a contest
to the point of incomprehensibility, or festivals could
lapse through loss of income or mismanagement of
funds. The interrelationship among cities (whether
neokoroi or not), temples, and festivals was compli-
cated, varied according to individual circumstances,
and still requires much research before it can be fully
understood.
Neokoria: City versus Koinon
As was stated at the beginning of this chapter, it was
the city that became neokoros, not the koinon; even
when coins call the koinon of Macedonia neokoros,
this apparently reflected the position of its headquar-
ters, Beroia, where the coins were minted, and which
had long fought for its sole right to the title. This
usage reflects a basic tenet of both Hellenic (or
Hellenized) social structure and Roman administra-
tion of that structure: the organizing unit was gen-
erally the city, not the koinon, despite the fact that
‘neokoros’ was originally a title gained by the pos-
sessor of a koinon temple.
Where one city dominated the activities of the
koinon, there was of course no conflict between their
interests. This was probably true of Kaisareia for
Cappadocia, Ankyra for Galatia, and Nikopolis for
40 – the cities 341
Armenia Minor; it started out being true of Tarsos
for Cilicia and Beroia for Macedonia as well. But
in the latter two koina, rivals soon arose. And as
chapter 41 will show, when cities quarreled most
over the things they called ‘common,’ like the
temples of their koinon, those things were no longer
considered to be shared, but the property of one city
or the other. Thus city rivalry, as well as adminis-
trative structure, led to the increasing ‘municipal-
ization’ of the title ‘neokoros.’
Therefore ‘neokoros’ cannot be called entirely a
‘provincial’ or a ‘municipal’ title.35 It was granted
for temples administered by the koinon and presided
over by its officials. When those temples began to
proliferate, the koinon officials often were said to
preside over several of them—but only within one
particular city. In Asia, we hear of a chief priest of
the temples in Pergamon, never of the temple in
Sardis and the temple in Smyrna.
As has been noted in chapter 38, ‘Historical
Analysis,’ Hadrian’s generosity toward individual
cities not only spread the honor of neokoria among
more cities, but subtly refocused its import, away
from negotiations between himself and the koinon,
and toward a more direct dialogue between himself
and the city he favored. Then Septimius Severus
used the honor to punish and reward rivals in the
same koina, hardly a technique to promote coop-
eration within the koinon. Caracalla granted it to
many cities (some not very eminent) in Asia, often
for personal reasons and direct contact, despite the
fact that he still directed his decisions to the koinon.
We have no record of the smaller cities’ having chief
priests, chief priestesses, or any other koinon offi-
cial in charge of the temples that made them neo-
koroi.
Again in Asia, the title ‘neokoros’ was occasion-
ally granted (or diverted) to a city’s patron god, as
Caracalla did for Ephesos’ temple of Artemis. And
in all provinces, starting from the third century, the
cult of the emperors was apparently moved into
extant temples more often, perhaps because of the
expense of building new ones. Sometimes cities got
three new neokoriai at a time, as did Thessalonike;
likely such honors not only bypassed the koinon, but
threw its membership off balance. All these factors
tended to detach the honor from the koinon and
move it closer to the city.
35
Municipal: Deininger 1965, 143 n. 5, with bibliography.
Provincial: L. Robert 1967, 44-64, with bibliography.
342 part ii – summary chapters

On the other hand, the koinon continued to
administer its temples of the imperial cult in the neo-
koroi cities. It represented its members on embas-
sies, and corresponded with the emperor and Senate
about their rights. And no matter the direct contact
between city and emperor, precedent probably in-
sured that, officially at least, neokoria would result
from an initial petition by the koinon, acceptance
by the emperor, and approval by the Senate. The
next chapter will examine this role of the koinon.
 chapter 41 – the koina and their officials
Chapter 41. The Koina and Their Officials
If there is a thread that runs through the history of
neokoria and draws it together, it is the relationship
among cities within their koinon. They celebrated
the rituals of the imperial cult together, but quar-
reled over who was to go first in koinon processions.
They complained to the emperor if other cities did
not give them the full titulature they deserved, and
struck coins celebrating their concord. Their enmi-
ty could reach such a pitch that they could support
a contender for the throne solely because their closest
rival was supporting his foe. It is as if all the ener-
gy, all the talent, and all the resources that in a truly
autonomous city would have been directed toward
administration and foreign affairs were instead di-
verted to fighting over precedence and titles. Ora-
tors deprecated it, Roman officials derided it. But
we should not be misled into thinking that it was a
squabble over nothing.
The urban structure of the Roman East was high-
ly hierarchic, and this type of stratification, as we
shall see, was encouraged by Rome. Rivalrous cit-
ies can be seen as ‘niche competitors,’ struggling for
desirable positions in the local hierarchy.1 In prov-
inces where there were many cities, like Asia, com-
petition for rank and position was fierce, whereas
less urbanized provinces, like Cappadocia, had one
primary center that served many functions (e.g. seat
of the governor, center of the koinon, mint, focus
of trade and markets) without challenge from rivals.
One can visualize this particular form of hierarchy
as a web, with cities seeking to make their way from
their side of the periphery to the center of attention,
using any means available. Where one city’s ancient
temples and gymnasia were ranged against another’s
harbor and strategic position, the former could gain
a sacred contest, the latter a squadron and the title
nauarchis; and the two could be eclipsed by another
that had both historic and strategic importance. The
acquisition of titles of various sorts was a way of
making a city’s position in the web more evident,
1 Woolf 1997, 9-12.
343
and easing the way toward further and higher hon-
ors. And at the center of the web was primacy, the
begrudged and competed-for place of first among
the cities of one’s koinon.
Modern scholars have often interpreted ancient
cities’ aspirations in modern terms. Thus the prof-
its of a city’s being a judicial district center, for
example, are often seen as basically economic, as if
the Hellenized elite of a city in Asia had the same
motivations as an American city council calling for
a new convention center.2 They generally cite Dio
Chrysostomos, whose Oration 35 points out the eco-
nomic advantages of attracting a motley throng of
litigants, but they sometimes overlook the satirical
tone of this speech.3 When addressing his own fel-
low citizens of Prusa, the same orator stressed not
the economic side, but the indignity if one had to
go for trial elsewhere: it was as if one’s own city had
the status of a mere village.4 Being a judicial district
center was desirable because it came closest to the
ancient ideal of autonomy: to go to no other city to
seek justice, in fact to have citizens of other cities
come to you. It was a matter of honor, not just cash.5
In the same way, some of the rivalry for neokoriai
must have been based on the fact that, if a city was
neokoros, not only it but all the members of the
koinon were probably (or, by the later third century,
theoretically) celebrating at and contributing toward
its temple. Smaller and less fortunate cities not only
had to go somewhere else, but had to send their
money somewhere else too.
This chapter examines the structure of the koina,
how they and their officials related to the imperial
cult as practiced in neokoroi cities, and what role
neokoria played in intra-koinon and intercity rela-
tions, especially in the competition for position on
the hierarchic web.
2 Burton 1975; more recently, Rogers 1991, 3-4.
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-
172.
344 part ii – summary chapters
Koinon Structure
As mentioned in the ‘Introduction: Methodology,’
a koinon (‘commonality’) was an association of cit-
ies of similar ethnic background within a region.6
Its borders did not necessarily conform to those of
a Roman province, though they seldom crossed
them; there could be several koina within one prov-
ince. The koinon had no administrative or govern-
mental capabilities; those were still vested in the
cities, the true administrative sub-units within each
province. A koinon was simply a cooperative orga-
nization of cities, bound together by common inter-
ests and the practice of a particular cult; at the time
of our investigation, the cult was generally that of
the Roman emperor.
Not all such organizations had specific titles for
the cities that held their sanctuaries to that cult. At
least to our knowledge, the neokoroi only appear in
the koina of the East, not in their counterparts, the
concilia of the West. Even in the East, no neokoroi
have yet appeared in Crete, Cyprus, Lycaonia, or
Syria, though all had koina. None are known in
mainland Greece or in Egypt, places that lacked
stable koina in imperial times.7 On the other hand,
both Sagalassos in Pisidia and Neapolis in Syria
Palaestina were made neokoroi, admittedly late,
without known membership in any koinon.
Even the koina known to have had neokoroi dif-
fer from one another, both in structure and in how
they maintained their sanctuaries. Though the
Hellenes of Asia and Bithynia apparently acted to-
gether in requesting their first temples to the ruler
soon to be named Augustus, the Asians may have
attempted to build a koinon temple to each subse-
quent emperor, whereas the Bithynians may have
kept to the single one at Nikomedia for about a
century. The Galatians, who were not Hellenes, also
may have built a provincial temple to Augustus and
Rome as early as his lifetime, and very much in the
Ionic style perfected in Asia; on the other hand, their
center at Ankyra only calls itself neokoros over a
century after Asian cities regularly used the title. The
cities of Pamphylia had rather hostile relations with
one another, while those of Lycia acted in concert
to an unusual degree; but the former had a neokoros
city as early as Vespasian, while we hear of neokoroi
6 The basic work is still Deininger 1965; now also Marek
1993b and Haensch 1997.
7 Deininger 1965, 35, 88-91.
among the latter perhaps as late as the third cen-
tury.
Certain cities in the provinces had the status of
‘free,’ which they were granted by Rome, and held
by Rome’s favor. ‘Freedom’ meant that they were
not covered by the formula provinciae, were outside the
direct control of the Roman governor, and that their
citizens could not be forced to undertake the litur-
gies of the koinon.8 Neither these cities nor their
citizens were kept from membership and participa-
tion in the koinon, however; they did so at their own
pleasure, much as a free city could ask a governor
to look into its affairs if necessary. Under Domitian,
cities of the Asian koinon set up dedications in honor
of their koinon temple of the Augusti at Ephesos.
Ten of them used the same wording, perhaps based
on a previous decree of the koinon. Two free cities,
Aphrodisias and Stratonikeia, made longer and more
elaborate dedications that emphasized that they were
not bound by any decision of the koinon, but were
participating voluntarily. Incidentally, nothing pro-
hibited the city of Philadelphia, neither free nor
particularly eminent at the time, from aggrandizing
itself in its own particular dedication, rather than
keeping to the koinon formula. In Cilicia, Tarsos was
free but was also metropolis of its koinon, as well
as neokoros from at least the time of Hadrian. Thes-
salonike, also free, had citizens who served as Mace-
doniarchs, and became neokoros under Gordian III.
Koina that had one obvious center and few other
major cities (Cappadocia with Kaisareia, Galatia
with Ankyra, Armenia with Nikopolis) generally only
proclaimed that city neokoros late, though they
probably long had koinon sanctuaries and perhaps
even the neokoria; cities with few rivals had little
need to boast of their titles explicitly, so there are
fewer documents to come down to us. In more ur-
banized regions, the centers of pre-Roman admin-
istration were sometimes first to receive koinon
temples, for which they were later made neokoroi,
as Nikomedia was in Bithynia and Pergamon in Asia.
In the latter case, as in some other provinces,
there was rivalry between the seat of the koinon and
the center of Roman administration. Though Perga-
mon had the first koinon temple, Ephesos was where
Asia’s governor generally had his headquarters, and
as will be seen, the cities were frequently at odds with
one another. Macedonia’s metropolis of the koinon
8Ibid., 195; Bernhardt 1971; Reynolds 1982, nos. 14, 16;
Herrmann 1993b, 246.
 chapter 41 – the koina and their officials
was Beroia, and it not only became neokoros first,
it claimed exclusivity for the title from the time of
Nerva on, probably warding off challenge from the
center of Roman government, Thessalonike. The
latter only became neokoros under Gordian III, and
probably at the cost of a second neokoria for Beroia,
preserving that city’s notional primacy.
In Thrace, however, the situation was the oppo-
site: Philippopolis, metropolis of the koinon, didn’t
become neokoros until 219 C.E., and likely wouldn’t
have even then if Elagabalus had not favored the
city on his route to Rome. In that case Perinthos,
the seat of the Roman governor, would have re-
mained the unchallenged neokoros in Thrace; in-
deed, Perinthos probably only boasted that it was
in fact twice neokoros because Philippopolis was
made (once) neokoros.
The reason for this distinction was not that
Thrace was an imperially administered province
while Asia, Bithynia, and Macedonia were procon-
sular. Perge, arguably the governmental center of
Pamphylia, was neokoros from Vespasian’s time, well
before any of its rivals, and Tarsos, headquarters of
the governor of Cilicia, also dominated its koinon
and was its first neokoros; both were in imperial
provinces. The situation in fact varies from koinon
to koinon. The position and title of neokoros was
not automatically accorded to headquarters either
of governors or of koina, but had to be requested,
and was sometimes only accorded to a city due to
some special association with an emperor.
The koina of Pontus are extraordinary, since there
were apparently several, separated by the borders
of the provinces into which Mithridates Eupator’s
kingdom was divided. Likely Neokaisareia was
metropolis of Pontus Polemoniacus and Amaseia that
of Pontus Galaticus, each in a separate province until
the time of Vespasian; each city thereafter retained
its status of metropolis and first of Pontus, and for
each the frequent proclamation of neokoria began
on issues of coins from the same year, 161/162 C.E.
Amastris also claimed to be metropolis of Pontus and
likely seat of a koinon, but this one was in yet an-
other province, Bithynia-Pontus, where the same
person served as Bithyniarch and Pontarch; Amastris
has not yet been documented as neokoros, and
Herakleia is as yet the only neokoros known in that
Pontic koinon. Yet another koinon of Pontus, known
as left-hand, with its center at Tomis, is not yet
known to have had any neokoros.
345
It is possible that the close structure of the unique
koinon of Lycia made the individual cities less ri-
valrous, which is perhaps why so few cities (only
Patara and Akalissos known so far) boasted of be-
ing neokoroi. Patara held the koinon sanctuary of
Apollo Patroos; but it is likely that Xanthos, which
had the ethnikon Kaisareion in its sanctuary of Leto,
was neokoros as well, though the title is not yet
documented there.
Though administered within the same Roman
province, Pamphylia’s cities were far less inclined to
cooperation than those of Lycia. Indeed, their or-
ganization didn’t even call itself a koinon, only the
‘cities of Pamphylia.’ Though Perge became
neokoros quite early, under Vespasian, that city was
only officially made metropolis by Tacitus, about two
centuries later. Perge, however, did not begin to
flaunt its neokoria on its coins until its rival, Side,
also became neokoros. In this it was like Perinthos,
which did not specify that it was twice neokoros until
Philippopolis became neokoros. Cities often took
most care to declare their full titulature when a
challenger to their titles appeared; but if the city had
no close rival, it might proclaim its full titles only
rarely. For example, Cappadocia’s metropolis
Kaisareia added ‘neokoros’ to its coins only under
Septimius Severus, though it may have long had a
koinon temple, and even the title; and when granted
a second neokoria under Severus Alexander, it still
used the exact title and enumeration only intermit-
tently from that point.
Asia is the koinon we know the most about, and
also the one with the most neokoriai. As such, we
must not let the preponderance of its data over-
shadow the situation in other koina that offer less
evidence. These organizations had different histo-
ries, different relationships with the Romans, differ-
ent hierarchies among their members. Even so, koina
could act in concert (as Asia and Bithynia may have
in offering temples to Augustus) or copy another
koinon’s action (as Hispania Ulterior did in offer-
ing a temple to Tiberius and his mother, “with the
precedent of Asia”).9 One factor that may have led
cities and their koina to seek neokoriai was the glit-
tering example of Asia, with so many famous cities,
each endowed with temples and titles.
9 Tacitus, Annals 4.37.
346 part ii – summary chapters
Officials of the Koinon and of its Temples
The koina were generally headed by chief priests,
who presided over the provincial imperial temples
and their ceremonies.10 In their official functions,
they may have come to be called ‘leader of the (in-
dividual koinon),’ so Asiarch, Lyciarch, Pamphy-
liarch, Pontarch, etc. In some cases, a woman also
served the koinon as chief priestess; often she was
the wife or relative of a chief priest or of a koinon
leader. It has been suggested that her chief respon-
sibility was the cult of the Augustae; in Asia at least,
Tiberius’ mother shared his cult in the provincial
temple in Smyrna from 26 C.E.11 But it should be
noted that where chief priestesses and priests are
portrayed as agonothetai and wear imperial portrait
busts on their crowns, both male and female busts
appear on crowns of both priests and priestesses, as
on the crown of Plancia Magna of Perge, chief priest-
ess of the Augusti.12
In most provinces there was only one chief priest
per year, though Asia apparently had more than one
chief priest serving simultaneously once its second
koinon temple was built in Smyrna, after 26 C.E.13
From that point on, chief priests (and later, Asiarchs)
were distinguished by the name of the city whose
temples they presided over: chief priest of the koinon
temple(s) at Pergamon, at Smyrna, at Ephesos, at
Sardis, or at Kyzikos.
Chief priesthood of a koinon was considered the
summit of a provincial career.14 Chief priests were
generally not just Roman citizens but knights or
sometimes even of senatorial family, and frequently
they were friends of prominent Romans in power.
The office was very costly, and could involve mas-
sive outlay not only to add special magnificence to
koinon festivals (for which the cities also made con-
10 The picture here presented is generally (though not in
some particulars) that of Rossner 1974 and Deininger 1965,
148-154; for Asia, 38-41; Bithynia, 60-64. The controversy over
chief priests and priestesses of Asia and Asiarchs is still being
fought, but does not have a vital bearing on this work. See
Kearsley’s articles: 1986, 1987a and b, 1988a and b, 1990, 1994,
and 1996; also Friesen 1999a and 1999b, with a website pre-
senting statistics, but flawed arguments; see below, n. 13. For
rebuttals, Wörrle 1992, 368-370; Herz 1992; Campanile 1994a;
and Engelmann 2000.
11 Herz 1992.
12 Rumscheid 2000, 31-32 cat. no. 32.
13 The main argument of Friesen 1999a, 283-284, and
1999b, 304, is flawed by his failure to recognize that there could
be more than one chief priest (=Asiarch?) per year.
14 Quass 1993, 150-151, 216-218, 307-308.
tributions), but for such things as gladiatorial games
and feasts, special building projects or even the pay-
ment of taxes for the entire province. For this out-
lay, and especially when presiding over the contests
(s)he gave, the chief priest or chief priestess was often
allowed the right to dress in purple, to wear a crown
set with busts of the Augusti, and to walk at the head
of the ritual procession of the koinon.15
Bithynia had Bithyniarchs, and female relations
of the Bithyniarch often appear as chief priestesses
of Bithynia. Bithynia also had archons of the koinon
of the Hellenes in Bithynia, which may have been
the same office as that of Bithyniarch.16 That one
person could be both Bithyniarch and Pontarch has
already been mentioned. Other known offices were
sebastophantes and hierophantes of the mysteries of
the koinon temple of Bithynia; both would have been
in charge of revealing rituals to worshippers, though
the former likely specialized in Augustus’ cult, as was
true in Galatia (below). There was possibly a Hel-
ladarch, and a theologos is discussed below.
Pamphylia’s association of cities was led by Pam-
phyliarchs; at Perge, a ‘chief priest of the Augusti
and agonothetes of the great pentaeteric Kaisareia
games and agonothetes of the Artemeiseia Vespasianeia
games’ is also known.
In Macedonia, the chief priest of the Augusti was
also often named as agonothetes of the koinon fes-
tival, and later as Macedoniarch. Some third-cen-
tury Macedoniarchs were also hierophantai, but
there is no necessity that this provincial office (likely
similar to that of Bithynia or Galatia) be the same
as that of the hierophantes of Kabeiros, patron god
of Thessalonike.17 Sometimes the wife of a chief
priest and/or Macedoniarch is called chief priest-
ess of (the current) Augusta, though one is Macedo-
niarchissa.
It is noteworthy that between ca. 20 and 96 C.E.
the former ‘priests of the Galatians for the god
Augustus and the goddess Rome’ became simply
‘chief priests of Augustus.’ Later, some officials were
chief priests, some were Galatarchs, and some were
both. There were also chief priestesses, and sebasto-
phantai limited to the cult of Augustus, as it was
specifically distinguished from the position of ‘hiero-
phantes of the theoi sebastoi’ for the other Augusti.
15 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38.38; Merkelbach 1978, tem-
pered by Haensch 1997, 284 n. 125.
16 Campanile 1993.
17 Pace Nigdelis 1996, 137-141.
 chapter 41 – the koina and their officials
A statue identified as a Ciliciarch dates to the mid-
third century, and probably portrays an official who
served at temples in Tarsos; Tarsos’ titles are even
included on his agonothetic crown.18 Tarsos was not
only metropolis of its own koinon (Cilicia) but of
three eparchies (also Lycaonia and Isauria), and the
Ciliciarchs at first only presided at Tarsos, though
later they may have served at Anazarbos as well.19
Most is known of the koinon of Asia, but it again
proves to be a unique and complex case. In Au-
gustan times its chief priest bore the title of the sole
koinon temple (in Pergamon), ‘chief priest of the
goddess Rome and of the emperor Caesar Augustus,
son of the god (Julius).’ Asia, however, kept adding
koinon temples for later emperors, as has already
been noted. The priests’ objects of cult could still
be specified, as with the ‘chief priest of the temple
of Gaius Caesar in Miletos’; but this same man had
already served as ‘chief priest of Asia,’ unspecified,
twice before. When the koinon temple of the Augusti
was finished in Ephesos, under Domitian, the man
who presided there was simply known as the chief
priest of the koinon of Asia. As a result of the mul-
tiplication of koinon temples, however, the particu-
lar city was often specified, and early on we hear of
a ‘chief priestess of the temple at Ephesos.’ It is
possible that the ‘chief priest of Asia’ could later be
known as ‘Asiarch,’ as both titles are occasionally
clarified by a statement of which temple(s) the par-
ticular official presided over; but this issue is still
contested, as has been noted.
A precious account of the election of a chief priest
of Asia is offered by Aelius Aristides.20 In 147 C.E.,
Aristides went into the assembly at Smyrna and was
offered ‘the common priesthood of Asia,’ presum-
ably the city’s nomination as its candidate for chief
priest. Though he at some point had a dream (Ora-
tion 50.53) in which someone in Smyrna hailed him
as ‘Asiarch,’ Aristides was unwilling to serve. He
tried to scotch the plan, and believed he had suc-
ceeded, but later on the Smyrnaean delegates went
to the koinon meeting at Laodikeia, and Aristides
18 L. Frey 1982; Rumscheid 2000, 131-132 cat no. 34
claimed that the crown could refer to either Tarsos or Anazarbos;
but she did not note that Anazarbos (q.v.) did not use the titles
‘first, greatest, most beautiful’ at the time to which the statue
dates.
19 Ziegler 1995b; 1999.
20 Aelius Aristides, Oration 50 (Sacred Tales, 4).100-104. For
the identity of the governor who exempted him, Swain 1996,
272-273.
347
came in third or fourth in the balloting, i.e., was
elected. This implies that, had he not wheedled an
exemption from the governor of the province, he
would have become chief priest of the third or fourth
city out of the five possible in Asia (see below).
Aristides’ account does not tell us whether the
chief priests were considered to be of equal or un-
equal rank: though the first one elected could have
been allotted the most honorable place, it is also
possible that the electees drew lots for assignments.
Fayer believed that the provincial chief priest at
Pergamon held precedence over the others, as he
had been the koinon’s first chief priest, originally
known as the chief priest of Rome and of Augustus.21
Campanile guessed that there were three or four
chief priests of Asia, equal in rank to one another,
though she correctly observed that they did not
necessarily preside in the temples in their own cit-
ies or judicial district centers; a chief priest could
serve two different terms in two different cities.22 She
took her number from Dio Chrysostomos, who in
the satirical address to the Apameans mentioned
above referred to ‘three or four long-haired men’
whom he compared to chief priests of Asia; but this
reference is too vague to be an argument either for
the chief priests’ number or equality in rank.23
Though documents mentioning their offices are
abundant, chief priests of Asia or chief priestesses
or Asiarchs are specified as presiding over temples
in only five cities: Pergamon, Smyrna, Ephesos,
Sardis, and Kyzikos. That these temples also made
their cities neokoroi is clear: when the title changes
from, e.g., ‘chief priest of the temple’ to ‘chief priest
of the temples,’ the city in question also goes from
being neokoros to twice neokoros, as happened to
Pergamon under Trajan, to Smyrna and Ephesos
under Hadrian, and to Sardis under Antoninus Pius
(the change is not documented for Kyzikos, whose
second neokoria remains problematic). Three of the
five cities possessed the earliest provincial temples
in Asia yet documented: Pergamon that of Rome
21 Fayer 1976, 112-113.
22 Campanile 1994b. She believed that Miletos was one of
the “three or four” cities, despite the unlikelihood of a provin-
cial temple to Gaius maintaining its status after his death; there
are no records of chief priests, chief priestesses, or Asiarchs of
provincial temples at Miletos after Gaius. She was also incor-
rect and anachronistic in unifying these cities under the title
neokoroi: there were eventually at least eight other neokoroi
in Asia, none of which is yet known to have had a provincial
chief priest, chief priestess, or Asiarch of their temple(s).
23 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 35.10.
348 part ii – summary chapters
and Augustus, Smyrna that of Tiberius, Julia, and
the Senate, and Ephesos that of the Augusti, com-
pleted in the time of Domitian. The first imperial
temple of Sardis, however, is not yet datable, and
that of Kyzikos was probably the great temple of
Hadrian. So the five cities in which chief priests or
Asiarchs served may represent the first five possess-
ors of provincial imperial temples, and later were
named neokoroi for those and for any additional
temples. There are many neokoroi in Asia that are
never documented as having a provincial chief priest,
chief priestess, or Asiarch of their temple(s), however,
and it may be that cities that received their first
neokoria later, such as Laodikeia under Commodus,
did not have provincial chief priests assigned or
elected. So the number of chief priests of the Asian
koinon was likely limited to five sometime after
Hadrian (Kyzikos’ first temple) and before Com-
modus.
The five cities in question were probably the ‘five
metropoleis’ specified in an Ephesian inscription
dated ca. 270 C.E.24 The lady who was its subject,
a member of the eminent family of the Vedii,
boasted in each generation a chief priest in the five
metropoleis. But note that the term ‘metropolis’ did
not exclusively denote the fact that chief priests of
the koinon presided over the city’s temples; it could
also refer to the city’s having established colonies,
being a center of administration, or simply being
large and important.25
The case of Philadelphia is relevant to the ques-
tion of chief priests and metropoleis. The city was
rather a social climber: though its judicial district
center had once been Sardis, it became a center itself
by the mid-second century.26 It was also the site of
the Koina festival of Asia by around the same time.
Its citizen Aurelius M... then directly petitioned
Caracalla, who allowed the city to become neokoros
in 214. Philadelphia was given the title metropolis
by Elagabalus, but apparently lost it with his death.
Nonetheless, on the basis of that lost status, in 255
it successfully petitioned Valerian and Gallienus to
be released from its contribution to the metropoleis
for the expenses of the chief priesthood and pane-
gyriarchy. The cities that were thus deprived of
Philadelphia’s contribution were likely the same ‘five
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.
26 Aelius Aristides, Oration 50.96-98; Habicht 1975, 75.
metropoleis’ later referred to in the Ephesian docu-
ment of 270, and this probable fact solidifies their
connection with the chief priesthood of the koinon.
The cream of the provincial temples in Asia, then,
were in only five cities; yet by the end of the sec-
ond century the neokoria, previously a title signify-
ing possession of such a temple, spread beyond those
five. We do not have the documents to prove pre-
cisely what the status of these new neokoroi was.
Certainly there was a provincial contest at neokoros
Tralles, which occasionally even called itself me-
tropolis, though no chief priest is yet known to have
served there. It seems that, as has been noted, once
neokoroi proliferated in Asia, they lost some of the
features of ‘provinciality,’ or at least, the features that
would have made functioning within the koinon
impracticable, as will be seen. Also, in the third
century, at a time when even the wealthy were be-
coming unwilling to take on the mammoth expen-
diture of provincial chief priesthood, it may have
been difficult to suggest that there be ten or eleven
chief priests of Asia each year instead of five, or to
arrange their election and their order of prece-
dence.27 Asia had a hard enough time with three
‘first’ cities and five or more metropoleis. But in fact
we do not know enough about the administration
of temples of the neokoroi outside those five
metropoleis to make any assumptions at all.
Thus the koinon of Asia had chief priests, perhaps
later referred to as Asiarchs, and chief priestesses;
in one or two cases, mainly in the mid-first century,
chief priests were also sebastophantai.28 In addition,
the koinon of Asia assigned neokoroi officials to at
least some of its temples. They are recorded to have
served at Pergamon, at Smyrna, at the short-lived
koinon temple of Gaius at Miletos, and at Ephesos.
Neokoros must have been quite an honorable office,
as the men who served as such in the latter two cities
had already been chief priests of Asia. The official
at Smyrna was called ‘neokoros of the Augusti’ in
the third century; this may mean that the one offi-
cial was responsible for all three temples that made
Smyrna neokoros in his time. There were also
panegyriarchs, as the petition from Philadelphia
discussed above asked that that city be released from
the expenses of that office; one panegyriarch held
office for the koinon temples at the metropolis of
Pergamon.
27 Rossner 1974, 111.
28 Campanile 1994a, nos. 15, 16.
 chapter 41
Associations of hymnodoi to sing the emperors’
praises were established at specific provincial temples
of Asia by imperial permission.29 The first and most
famous group was that for Augustus at Pergamon,
an elite hereditary organization of up to forty men,
supported by a levy on the entire province. Smyrna
apparently also had hymnodoi for its temple of
Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate; both they and the
Pergamene group were likely exempted from the
edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus of 44 C.E., which
otherwise diverted the duties of hymnodoi to the
ephebes. Hadrian appears to have granted hym-
nodoi for all three of his temples in Asia, at Kyzikos,
Ephesos, and Smyrna; the latter were twenty-four
in number.
Allied with the hymnodoi in some cases, and of
similar elevated status, were theologoi who cel-
ebrated the imperial god(s) in prose.30 P. Aelius
Paion of Side had been rhapsode to Hadrian before
he became theologos of the temples in Pergamon;
and later, one of the Pergamene hymnodoi was the
son of a Pergamene theologos.31 The provincial
temple of the Augusti at Ephesos had nine or more
theologoi (and also fourteen thesmodoi, deliverers
of precepts or oracles) under the direction of the chief
priest. Hadrian gave Smyrna theologoi as well as
hymnodoi, and outside the province Asia there is an
epitaph for a theologos (though not explicitly of the
emperors) at Nikomedia.
The koinon of Asia also had secretaries (grammateis)
‘of Asia,’ ‘of temples in Asia,’ and ‘of temples of Asia
in Ephesos.’32
Miscellaneous other officers are known from
particular temples in Asia. The short-lived provin-
cial temple of Gaius Caesar at Miletos (i.e. the
Didymaion) had neopoioi from all Asia, one from each
judicial district. Such officials were in charge of the
temple’s fabric, and in this case the group probably
oversaw funds for the new construction, and perhaps
directed teams of craftsmen of the province. The
neopoioi inscription also specifies a chief priest of
Gaius’ temple at Miletos (whose third term as chief
priest of Asia this was); a neokoros who had also been
29 Halfmann 1990; IvE 17-19, 3801; Oliver 1989, 90 no.
21.
30
L. Robert 1943, 184-186.
31
Ibid. and 1980b, 16-17; Roueché 1993, 144-145; IvP nos.
374, 525.
32 Asia: IvE 3040; IGRR 4:821, 822 (Hierapolis); in Ephesos,
IvE 3080. See Deininger 1965, 50 n. 2, 155.
– the koina and their officials 349
chief priest of Asia twice; and a chief neopoios who
was also sebastoneos (an otherwise unknown office) and
sebastologos (who like the theologos delivered prose
eulogies, but specifically of Augustus or the Augusti).
Koinon and Neokoria
The increasing number of neokoroi over time
prompts the question if, or when, the title ‘neokoros’
became detached from the koinon and its funding
or administration of a particular temple. One may
wonder whether Septimius Severus’ grants to his civil
war allies, or Caracalla’s rain of favors on Asian cities
large and small, or Elagabalus’ prodigality, or Trajan
Decius’ giving Thessalonike three neokoriai at once,
all involved the building of koinon temples at koinon
expense and administered by koinon officials (see
chapters 39 and 40 on ‘Temples’ and ‘Cities,’ above).
Certainly when the title was accorded to honor the
temple of a deity, as happened by the later second
century at Aizanoi, neokoros of Zeus, that temple
was not put under the control of the koinon. On the
other hand, Caracalla’s letter making Ephesos
neokoros of Artemis was apparently still directed to
the koinon of Asia, not just to Ephesos. By the time
of Philip, Neapolis became neokoros, though we
know of no koinon of Samaria or Syria Palaestina
to which it belonged. But this silence may be because
our records are incomplete, as Caesarea Maritima
in that province was metropolis (of a koinon?) from
the time of Severus Alexander.
We would gain a great deal of insight into the
origins and development of neokoroi cities if we
knew more about how the various koina chose them,
or had them chosen. Unfortunately there are even
fewer records of deliberations within the koina than
of deliberations within individual cities. Again the
best documented koinon is that of Asia, though as
both the most urbanized and most rivalrous of the
provinces it cannot be taken as typical. It had yearly
meetings; one held in 4 B.C.E. had 150 represen-
tatives present.33 Major cities such as Smyrna sent
more than one representative, and at least three
cities, Pergamon, Smyrna, and Ephesos, had the
right to voice their opinions before the others, so that
their views were privileged.34 It is not explicitly stated
33 Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 8.
34 Aelius Aristides, Oration 50 (Sacred Tales 4).103 and Ora-
tion 23.34.
350 part ii – summary chapters
that some cities had more votes than the others,
though that was so in the koinon of Lycia, which
gave the largest cities three, the medium-sized two,
and the rest one vote.35
Financial obligations were likely proportional, and
Asia’s thirteen judicial district centers paid the most:
Dio Chrysostomos praised one of them, Apamea, for
sharing in ‘the sanctuaries of Asia’ and paying as
much of their expenses as any city in which they
were situated (at that point, only Pergamon, Smyrna,
Ephesos, and perhaps Sardis were neokoroi).36 The
inscription of neopoioi for Gaius’ temple at Miletos
also shows that the Asian koinon used its judicial
districts organizationally, for choosing representa-
tives and perhaps for collecting funds and allotting
staff and work for a provincial temple.37 Judicial
districts were not, however, an organizing principle
for neokoroi: from the beginning, cities were cho-
sen to hold koinon temples on the basis of their
individual eminence, not from any aim at geographi-
cal representation. For example, eleven cities vied
for Tiberius’ temple, and among them were the judi-
cial district centers Ephesos, Pergamon, Miletos,
Halikarnassos, Sardis, and Smyrna (the latter ulti-
mately the winner). Tralles was at least a former
center, but Hypaipa, Laodikeia, Magnesia, and Ilion
were not judicial centers at all (though Ilion was itself
the focus of a small koinon worshipping Athena Ilias).
Though our knowledge of the extent of the judicial
districts (as of the neokoroi) remains incomplete,
neither the centers Alabanda, Halikarnassos, Adra-
myttion, Kibyra, Apamea, and Philomelion, nor any
city in their districts, are known to have ever been
neokoroi.
Koinon Politics
Where literature has allowed us a glimpse into the
working of the various koina, we can see intense
political maneuvering and bloc voting among the
cities. Dio Chrysostomos berated the metropolis of
Cilicia, Tarsos, for being at odds with its smaller
neighbors, and apparently prosecuting cases against
Roman officials on its own hook.38 It appears that
35 Strabo 14.664-665.
36 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 35.14, 17; see chapter 39,
‘Temples.’
37 Mileta 1990; Sartre 1995, 198-201.
38 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 34, esp. 7-15, 27, 47-48.
a single metropolis, were it powerful and well favored
by service to Rome (as Tarsos was), could either
swing its whole koinon willy-nilly behind it, or pro-
ceed without the koinon’s cooperation. The situa-
tion was different in Bithynia, which had two rival
‘first’ cities, Nikomedia and Nikaia. There, Dio
pointed out the myriad dangers of their failure to
get along with one another: it not only allowed
Roman governors to play off one city against another
by flattering it with titles, but gave real power to the
smaller cities in the koinon.39 “By joining forces you
[i.e. Nikomedia with Nikaia] will dominate all the
cities; and the governors too, should they ever want
to do an injustice, will be hesitant and even afraid
before you. But as it is now, the other cities are
overjoyed by the quarrel between you; for you seem
to need them, in fact you really do need them,
because of your contest with each other. . . the result
is, while you (two) fight over first place, chances are
that those whom you’re lobbying have first place.”
(Oration 38.34-35). This passage describes very effec-
tively how smaller cities could end up wielding power
and perhaps winning privileges for themselves by
taking sides in their koina. In the same koinon but
at a later time, the little city of Kios did not sup-
port its close (and probably bossy) neighbor Nikaia,
which sided with Pescennius Niger, but fell into the
camp of Nikaia’s rival Nikomedia in supporting
Septimius Severus: ‘the enemy of my enemy is my
friend.’ When its side won, Kios expressed its joy
in a coin legend that precisely echoed one at
Nikomedia: “with Severus as king, the universe is
happy, the Kianans are fortunate!”40
If the cities of Bithynia tended to line up behind
one of two cities, Asia was yet more divided. We
have already seen how eleven cities of various ranks
vied for Tiberius’ temple, probably because as a
koinon the Asians were unable to settle on which
city should have that honor. When Aelius Aristides
addressed a meeting of that koinon at Pergamon,
three cities claimed to be foremost: Pergamon,
Smyrna, and Ephesos.41 The quarrel was not just
among those three, however, as all the others took
sides with one of them against the other two. As
mentioned before, the three had the right to voice
their opinions before the others; but as Aristides was
careful to point out, when their views were at vari-
39 Ibid., Oration 38.26-38.
40 J. Nollé 1998, 345-347.
41 Aelius Aristides, Oration 23, esp. 12, 34.
 chapter 41
ance, the entire koinon fell into faction. This meant
that the Asian koinon was open to the same kind of
maneuvering that Dio Chrysostomos deprecated in
Bithynia.
Koinon institutions and activities could themselves
be a potent cause of hostilities. Aristides played on
that contradiction in the same oration to the koinon
meeting at Pergamon cited above: “I am amazed
that while you pride yourselves most on the temples
and contests you think of as common (i.e., of the
koinon), it is over these very things that you have
become divided. When you even quarrel over what
you’re proud to hold in common, over what will you
ever agree? . . . As if you meant them to be contra-
dictions against divisiveness, you have called your
council chambers ‘common,’ your temples and your
contests ‘common,’ pretty much all the most impor-
tant things ‘common.’ Don’t you have to be wrong
one way or the other? For if you’re rightly proud
of these things being common, why aren’t you
ashamed to be quarreling over them?”42
By the time of Aristides’ oration, 167 or 168 C.E.,
Pergamon, Smyrna, and Ephesos had been at odds
over proper titles and standing within the koinon for
twenty years or more. Aristides called it a quarrel
over proteia, over who was to be preeminent. All three
already had the right to address the council before
others, and one may wonder how the conflicting
precedence was handled; and all were, or would
soon be, entitled ‘first’ in some way. But the primary
issues that Aristides addressed were, as mentioned
above, the temples and contests called ‘common,’
koina. The common temples are likely those that
distinguished cities as neokoroi, and they do seem
to have been the focus of intense competition in the
koinon of Asia.
Aristides was careful to call each of the three rival
cities equally praiseworthy, and to laud each for its
individual attributes, as well as praising the koinon
as a whole; but he reminded the audience that such
points of pride are transient gifts of fortune, and
spent the rest of the speech on the virtue truly worthy
of pride, concord within the koinon. But as will be
seen, this virtue was all the more to be prized be-
cause it was in fact so rare.
42Aelius Aristides, Oration 23, esp. 65, 66. Dated to 167 by
Behr 1968, 104-105, to 168 by Swain 1996, 288-293.
– the koina and their officials 351
Competition and Concord
From the epics of Homer on, it was taken as a prin-
ciple that men would vie with their fellows to be-
come foremost in honor and fame. Hesiod said that
there are two kinds of strife, one good, one bad: the
bad seeks to bring its rival low, while the good seeks
to outperform the competition.43 Tellingly, Aelius
Aristides quoted that passage almost a millennium
later, to urge the factionalized Rhodians to cling to
the good kind of strife, and banish the bad.44 The
lessons of fifth- and fourth-century Greece were
ready to hand in the repertoire of the orators of the
‘second sophistic,’ who practiced their art in the pe-
riod of this study.45 These orators explicated con-
temporary and local events through the examples
offered by the great events of the Hellenic past,
which is how a dispute over who came first in one
koinon could be compared to the Peloponnesian
war. Thucydides had not only applied to cities the
principle that had generally applied to men, but
extended it: it was not enough that Athens be at
Sparta’s level, or Sparta at Athens’, but one of them
had to be first, to have proteia; and it was not enough
that the first city be fully autonomous, but it had to
have cities below that were subservient and tribu-
tary. This was the exalted background against which
the Roman Empire’s Hellenic cities fell into rivalry
and were urged toward concord.
A number of excellent works have illuminated the
agonistic nature of relations among Greek cities in
the Roman empire in general, as well as the rival-
ries between particular ones.46 But few have suffi-
ciently emphasized the place of the koinon as the
main sphere for rivalry. In almost every case docu-
mented in the ancient sources, the cities at odds with
each other were in the same koinon. And this was
not just because neighbors always tend to fall out.
As we shall see, the points of their dispute were often
intimately associated with their places in the web of
koinon hierarchy.
The terms of discussion in documents and
speeches of the Roman East in the first three cen-
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
least, Lendon 1997, 74-77, 136-139, 170-172 (though incor-
rect on Anazarbos’ neokoria).
352 part ii – summary chapters
turies C.E. do not translate happily into modern
English terms; present-day Western culture has a
much more ambivalent attitude toward competition.
Where the documents speak of philotimia, ‘love of
honor,’ we often translate ‘rivalry.’ This does not
mean that the Greeks couldn’t use philotimia in a
denigrating manner, just as we can use ‘rivalry’ in
a good sense—but the basic sense of the Greek word
is good, the English one less so.47 The all-important
proteia, ‘firstness,’ translates (weakly) as ‘primacy,’
‘preeminence,’ or ‘being foremost’—and not only
did several cities quarrel over being ‘first,’ but sev-
eral would actually become ‘first,’ and somehow
each of those could lead a procession, or speak its
opinion, ‘first.’ Greek homonoia, ‘being of the same
mind,’ is usually translated (via the Latin) as ‘con-
cord,’ since ‘unanimity’ has become confined to
contexts of voting. The opposite of homonoia is either
eris, ‘conflict, discord,’ or stasis, ‘faction’; orators and
inscriptions used any of these for agreements or
disagreements among people, among cities, or within
a city.48
One of the most common issues over which cit-
ies of the Roman East could compete was titulature.
Though this type of competition may seem less sen-
sible to us than disputing over such solid items as
territory or harbor rights, titles reflected a city’s place
in the hierarchic web, and as we will see, influenced
both its current and its future treatment. Thus the
quarrel between Nikaia and Nikomedia that Dio
Chrysostomos derided was over onomata, ‘names,’ i.e.
titles, specifically being acclaimed or inscribed as
‘first,’and it continued for a century at least.49
Cassius Dio wrote from a more remote, senato-
rial viewpoint than his possible relative, Dio
Chrysostomos, but he too saw little good in titles.
In his opinion, the best course was to eliminate the
cities’ hatreds and rivalries by not allowing them
empty names, or anything else that set them at odds,
advice which he put into the mouth of Augustus’
advisor Maecenas.50 He further complained that
47 E.g. Aelius Aristides, Oration 23.80, where C. Behr (Aelius
Aristides, The Complete Works 2 [Leiden 1981] 44) translates “let
us engage in an honorable rivalry” for filotimhy«men. See also
MacMullen 1974, 168 n. 14.
48 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:204-206, pointed out that the very
cities that had the most internal turbulence were the ones that
had the most intercity rivalry as well; though perhaps this is so
just because these are the cases best documented by exhorta-
tions of orators.
49 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38.22-31; L. Robert 1977b.
50 Cassius Dio 52.37.10; Gascó 1988.
whereas under Augustus it took a decree of the
Senate to allow Paphos to call itself Augusta as a sign
of real honor, in his own time most cities made out
a list of names to suit themselves.51 Such freedom
of selection may have applied to imperial names,
which were honorific without implying any real
change in a city’s status. But from the time of the
high empire, and even later, both Roman authori-
ties and other cities kept a strict eye to see that titles
like ‘neokoros’ were not misappropriated. Antoninus
Pius himself regulated the titles of Ephesos; at the
end of the third century the citizens of Perge cried
out that their city was “not false with respect to
anything at all; all the rights are by decree of the
Senate”; and even in the tetrarchic period, Ephesos
had to send a dossier of documents to the governor
to justify its preeminence, perhaps as the result of
another city’s challenge.52
It is important to distinguish between a city ‘com-
ing in first’ in some particular contest and that same
city taking the title ‘first,’ as both Nikomedia and
Nikaia did in Bithynia. For example, in Asia,
Pergamon seems to have used the title ‘first’ by the
time of Trajan, and Ephesos by the time of Hadrian;
but even though Smyrna ‘won first place’ in an
embassy to Antoninus Pius regarding the temples
and their rights, and had the right to speak among
the first in the koinon council by 167-168, it is not
known to have called itself ‘first’ until the start of
the third century. Nysa and Magnesia were even-
tually proud to call themselves ‘sixth’ and ‘seventh
of Asia,’ implying that ranking by number went
beyond ‘first.’53 Though these were not the great-
est cities in terms of size or strategic placement, rank
was probably judged not only on those bases, but
took into account ancestry, ancient cults, foundation
myths, associations with gods and heroes, and rela-
tions with Rome, as had the contest for Tiberius’
temple in Asia, already discussed in chapter 2,
‘Smyrna.’
Some titles conveyed relations not just in the
provincial hierarchy but specifically with the rulers.
To be called ‘friend and ally of Rome’ implied a
relationship of equality and of military assistance that
was long obsolete but that still may have evoked
respect in a Roman audience. To be named ‘colony’
conveyed close cultural and social identification with
51 Cassius Dio 54.23.8.
52 Chapter 18, ‘Perge,’ inscription 3; IvE 217.
53 S. Price 1984b, 129.
 chapter 41
Rome, even when the city also became neokoros for
a living emperor rather than a deified one, and even
when most of the ‘colonists’ preferred speaking
Aramaic or Greek to Latin.
Among the various titles, ‘neokoros’ was an im-
portant weapon in the pursuit of honor and rank.54
It conveyed both status within the province and
relationship with Rome. Awarded for the provincial
imperial cult, at first its mere possession was a sym-
bol of preeminence, as the title was at first granted
only to the greatest cities by a consensus of koinon,
emperor, and Senate. Trajan, however, allowed the
title to be duplicated, introducing another layer of
hierarchy based on number of koinon temples and
symbolized by the title ‘twice neokoros.’ This action
made neokoros different from all other titles, and in
its way more desirable. Both Ephesos and Pergamon
claimed to be ‘first,’ and it was hard to say that one
was ‘first-er’ than the other; but Pergamon as twice
neokoros was obviously superior to Ephesos as just
neokoros, which meant that Ephesos would not rest
until it was twice neokoros too. Then Hadrian al-
lowed neokoria to spread yet more widely, making
the title accessible to more cities within the Asian
and Bithynian koina, and possibly allowing it as far
afield as Cilicia. Where the smaller cities saw the
great ones accumulating multiple neokoriai, the price
of their support in the koinon may have become
neokoria for themselves.
A direct request to the emperor could also achieve
results: Hadrian’s philhellenism, Septimius Severus’
rewards, and Caracalla’s and Elagabalus’ generos-
ity with titles led to a rampant escalation in neo-
koriai. Since many of these were apparently granted
due to direct relationships between city/citizens and
emperor (e.g. Hadrian to Polemon, Septimius
Severus to his partisans, Caracalla to Aurelius of
Philadelphia, Elagabalus to Nikomedia and Philip-
popolis), it may be that these grants more or less
bypassed the koinon, which previously had mediated
between the two. This is a powerful explanation of
how the title begins to appear to be divorced from
the koinon and purely municipal. Soon leading cit-
ies boasted the honor three or even four times, the
single title spread to Philadelphia, Aizanoi, or even
Antandros, and likely by the start of the fourth cen-
tury, Side was six times neokoros.
54 Collas-Heddeland 1995 also tried to show this, but was
unfortunately vague and incorrect at points (see L’Année
Epigraphique 1995 no. 1476).
– the koina and their officials 353
The fact that neokoria was so clear an indicator,
became so popular among cities in competition, and
could be attained directly from the emperor, even-
tually changed its nature to some degree. The sys-
tem of koinon cult, with its officials and temples and
contributions, could only expand so far. As we shall
see, it is likely that from the later second century on,
Asia did not continue to create chief priests to pre-
side in all its many neokoroi, but confined that of-
fice to five cities, known as the five metropoleis.
Though the title and the temples were still techni-
cally under the aegis of the koinon, the temples
outside the five metropoleis were not (to our knowl-
edge) called ‘common,’ and evidently did not have
specific chief priests of Asia assigned to them, though
either of these observations may be an accident of
preservation of the documents. It is no wonder that
Deininger preferred to see neokoria as a municipal,
not a provincial, honor, though Robert affirmed the
koinon’s role in it.55
Cities that had the advantage in neokoria worked
hard to preserve the pecking order. Beroia managed
to hold off all competition in Macedonia until the
reign of Gordian III, and then when Thessalonike
finally became neokoros, Beroia kept its advantage,
becoming twice neokoros. Anazarbos eventually beat
Tarsos to a third neokoria, though Tarsos may never
have entirely given up its dominance as metropolis
of the koinon. It was likely not an accident that Neo-
kaisareia, perhaps neokoros since Trajan, only be-
gan to put that title on its coins regularly when
Amaseia began to do so. On the other hand, cities
without rivals for neokoria often saw no need to
advertise their status, as Perinthos did not bother to
specify that it was twice neokoros until its rival
Philippopolis became neokoros. Perge was long
neokoros without declaring it, but Side’s becoming
neokoros produced sudden and rapid escalation:
both cities’ coins begin to constantly proclaim them
neokoroi under Valerian, then Side became three
times neokoros and Perge four times, and the evi-
dence ends with Side (and maybe even Perge) as six
times neokoros.
The greatest evidence for neokoria arises wher-
ever inter-city rivalry was strongest. It is no accident
that among the first cities to gain, publicize, and
multiply neokoriai were Ephesos, Pergamon, and
Smyrna, whose three-way contest for primacy in Asia
55 Deininger 1965, 143 n. 5; L. Robert 1967, 44-64.
354 part ii – summary chapters
was the subject of Aelius Aristides’ lecture to their
koinon.
That oration, like many by Dio Chrysostomos,
deplores rivalry and celebrates concord, a virtue that
orators were as eager to recommend as cities were
loath to practice.56 According to Aristides, the best
and most cultivated of the emperors (perhaps Ha-
drian or Antoninus Pius) said that he would judge
that city best which first willingly practiced concord,
thus only changing the terms of inter-city competi-
tion to rivalry over lack of rivalry.57 Of course, this
harping on concord may result from the chance
survival of the speeches preserved to us. Aelius Aris-
tides noted that it was a common practice for other
orators (whom he called bad speakers) to praise the
city that they were currently visiting, but then slan-
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-
ing it over.
Occasionally cities issued coins in celebration of
their concord.59 Though much is still uncertain
about the occasions for these coins, they do not seem
to represent formal treaties or agreements. Instead,
they appear to be advertisements for a new or re-
newed connection of good relations between the
cities in question, often in connection with cultic or
festival celebrations, or in celebration of common
origins or interests. It is even possible that concord
coins were issued as a reflection of rivalry, especially
when only one of the cities involved minted such
coins, instead of both cities minting reciprocal issues.
For example, only Ephesos seems to have issued
coins of its concord with Pergamon and Smyrna
under Antoninus Pius, and though this too may
represent an accident of preservation, I have sug-
gested that they stood as a claim to Ephesos’ winning
an argument over titulature that is epigraphically
documented as well. Less is known of the associa-
tion of Pamphylian cities than of other koina, but
56 Aelius Aristides, Oration 23.53; Dio Chrysostomos, Ora-
tions 34, 38, 40, 41. I omit many other references that concern
concord within a city rather than among cities: see Plutarch,
Political Precepts 32 (824).
57 Aelius Aristides, Oration 23.74.
58 Ibid., Oration 23.5.
59 Pera 1984; Franke 1987; M. Nollé and J. Nollé 1994;
Franke and M. Nollé 1997; Weiss 1998; Kampmann 1998;
Swain 1996, 181 on concord for the elite. On the personifica-
tion of Concord, specifically between cities, Thériault 1996,
81-99; a treatment which does not assume that all concords
represented the settlings of (otherwise unknown) quarrels.
it is interesting to watch that association’s exchange
of concord issues, and speculate on the relationships
they represent. Both Perge and Side had minted
coins for their mutual concord under Gordian III.
In the reign of Valerian and Gallienus, however,
when there is almost a war of coin types between
the two cities, Perge advertised her concord only
with cities outside Pamphylia, while Side not only
advertised hers with even more foreign cities, but
also minted concord coins with Attaleia and even
with its old enemy Aspendos. Can this indicate a new
voting bloc within the provincial organization, with
Side and its neighbors allied against the previously
dominant Perge? Certainly first Side, and then
Aspendos, became neokoros in rivalry with Perge at
this time.
Rivalry and the Orators
Some of the same orators who deprecated cities’
constant competitiveness nonetheless often chose
their headquarters according to the hierarchy that
competition established. Skopelianos, a chief priest
of Asia and descendant of chief priests, refused the
pleas of his home city Klazomenai to set up his
school there, preferring the more cosmopolitan
Smyrna. Most of the embassies he led were not for
Klazomenai but on behalf of Smyrna, though he also
represented the koinon of Asia as a whole in the
matter of Domitian’s prohibition against vine-grow-
ing.60 Antonius Polemon and Aelius Aristides also
set their more obcure birthplaces (Laodikeia and
Hadrianoi) in the background and adopted Smyrna,
which by their activities gained additional luster as
a center of rhetoric; what is more, by the favors these
orators obtained for their adopted city instead of
their homelands, Smyrna not only gained a second
koinon temple and neokoria but was swiftly rebuilt
with imperial help after an earthquake. Dio Chry-
sostomos, on the other hand, preserved his loyalty
to his home city Prusa even in the face of political
opposition from his fellow citizens.61
Cities that were rivals could choose to support
rival orators, as in Polemon’s battle against the
Ephesian-backed Favorinus (note that Favorinus was
60 Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists 1.21 (515-516, 520);
Campanile 1994a, 49-50 no. 27. On the orators in general,
Bowersock 1969; Swain 1996.
61 Salmeri 2000.
 chapter 41
originally from Arelate in Gallia Narbonensis).62 The
rivalry of two orators, if played out for an emperor’s
favor, could gain not just personal wealth and honor
for the winner but great honors for his city, as
Polemon’s did for Smyrna. Hadrian, however, did
not take his disdain of Favorinus out on Ephesos,
which he eventually honored with its second
neokoria.
Roman Views of Rivalry
One of the chief reasons that orators gave for dep-
recating the competition for honors among the cit-
ies was that it weakened the cities’ autonomy, not
only due to faction in the koinon, but because of the
reactions of the Romans. Historians also noted how
the cities’ rivalry over titulature was perceived, es-
pecially in Rome, as a weakness in the moral char-
acter of the Greeks. For example, Dio Chrysostomos
said that the quarrel between Nikaia and Nikomedia
made them a laughing stock to the Romans, who
called such disputes “Hellenic foibles.”63 Aelius
Aristides called the strife a “madness” and “fight-
ing over a shadow,” and said it annoyed the gover-
nors.64 And when Herodian wrote of a particularly
vicious outbreak of rivalry during the war between
Septimius Severus and Pescennius Niger, he called
it “the old illness of the Greeks,” which had weak-
ened them to the point that they were open to
Macedonian, and then to Roman, domination.65
The Roman overlords’ role in neokoria is covered
in the next chapter, but their response specifically
to Greek cities’ rivalry was probably as negative as
the orators feared it would be. A letter from an
emperor or other high official, set up in Laodikeia,
urged an end to ‘useless contentiousness’ over the
primacy of cities, and bid them be more dignified.66
The most famous case of imperial intervention in
rivalry took place when Ephesos accused Smyrna of
not giving its correct titulature in a decree about a
joint sacrifice, and Pergamon of doing the same in
a letter. The quarrel went before Antoninus Pius,
who had already decreed the proper titles for Ephe-
62 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.8.4 (490-491); Gleason
1995, 21-29.
63 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38.36-38.
64 Aelius Aristides, Oration 23.59, 62-64.
65 Herodian 3.2.7-8.
66 { mata¤a filonike¤a: MAMA 6.6; Corsten 1997 (= IvL)
no. 10; cf. L. Robert 1969b, 287-288.
– the koina and their officials 355
sos: he decided that Pergamon had not erred and
Smyrna’s slight was accidental, but cautioned Ephe-
sos and Smyrna to be more careful with each other’s
titles.67 It was probably at this point that Ephesos
issued the coins alluded to above, celebrating its
‘concord’ with the other two cities. And later, it may
have been Ephesos that sought to retaliate for the
original fault by challenging Smyrna’s temples and
their rights, likely their neokoriai; a case which
Polemon won, albeit posthumously, for Smyrna.
But the same emperor who urged polite reciproc-
ity on the cities himself used the hierarchy they
fought over to decide their privileges. Antoninus Pius
addressed a letter to the koinon of Asia that later
came to universal application, alloting exemptions
from liturgies for doctors and teachers according to
their city’s size or rank: the smaller cities got the
fewest exemptions, the greater got more, and the
greatest cities got the most. This ruling was clari-
fied by the jurist Modestinus in the early third
century: he interpreted ‘the greatest’ cities to be
metropoleis of provinces, ‘the greater’ as judicial
district centers, and ‘the smaller’ as all the rest.68
In fact, it is clear that rivalries over hierarchy and
titulature were not entirely ‘fights over a shadow.’
Witness Tacitus’ account (Annals 4.55-56) of the
Senate’s debate over which of eleven Asian cities
should get the temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the
Senate: each city’s standing was thoroughly evalu-
ated, as if points were allotted for resources, age,
mythic ancestry, and loyalty to Rome. Pliny the
Younger urged an official sent to Achaea to respect
its cities for the gods their founders, their ancient
glory, and their very age; while a proconsul of Asia
praised Aizanoi as well born, ancient, and inferior
in recent construction to none of the chief cities.69
Thus the Romans made frequent evaluations of
which cities in a province were foremost in impor-
tance and honor, and it was generally those that won
further and greater honors. A similar hierarchy
prevailed in public building: not only were more
buildings donated in the provinces that were already
most urbanized, but the bigger a city was, the more
and better buildings and dedications it received.
Provincial centers like Ephesos received the most,
67 See chapters 4, ‘Ephesos’ and 2, ‘Smyrna’; and, in Part
II, chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis.’ The rivalry between Ephesos
and Smyrna was almost proverbial even earlier: Dio Chry-
sostomos, Oration 34.48.
68 Digest 27.1.6.2: Alan Watson 1985, 783.
69 Pliny the Younger, Letters 8.24.3; IGRR 4:572.
356 part ii – summary chapters
probably because that was where the propaganda
value of such donations was greatest.70 “For who-
soever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have
more abundance.”71
Rival Cities, Rival Emperors
Long after Dio Chrysostomos had pointed out how
Roman governors could use rivalry between the
cities for their own advantage, the emperor Sep-
timius Severus did use it, after his war for the em-
pire against Pescennius Niger. Apparently some cities
had chosen which contender to support based on
their rival’s having chosen the other.72 In the after-
math, Severus deprived cities hostile to him of their
titles and privileges, and rewarded his partisans, their
rivals, in the same coin, with new titles and pri-
vileges. This has been discussed in chapter 38,
‘Historical Analysis,’ as well as in the chapters on
Perinthos, which triumphed at the expense of By-
zantion, and Nikomedia, which did the same over
its old enemy Nikaia (chapters 29 and 15 respec-
tively). It is possible that Severus also deprived Nea-
polis of privileges and land, to the benefit of its rival
Sebaste.
Severus’ actions, however, were taken at the end
of a long and bitter civil war.73 By the early 200s
he had abated his hostility to the punished cities,
probably at the request of Caracalla, the designated
successor whose popularity was to be augmented by
such acts of grace. The old enemy cities were re-
stored to civic status, and some took the name Anto-
nineia in Caracalla’s honor, while others got imperial
visits or Severeia contests. The old allies, on the other
hand, received yet more titles, which both kept them
ahead of their rivals and comforted them for their
loss of whatever spoils they had been enjoying up
to that point.
Ziegler contended that the purpose of Severus’
decisions after the civil war was not only to punish
enemy cities but to restore allies that had drained
their treasuries in his cause.74 This is possible as
regards Neapolis’ territory given to Sebaste and
70 Winter 1996, 233-234; also 54-61 on building as an in-
strument of rivalry.
71 Gospel According to Matthew 13:12.
72 MacMullen 1985, 73-74; J. Nollé 1998, 347-351.
73 Sünskes Thompson 1990, 137-155.
74 Ziegler 1978.
Byzantion’s to Perinthos; though whether Nikaia lost
real wealth and not just titles is not yet known. But
Ziegler has since extended Severus’ ‘reward/re-
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
in civil war, while its rival in the province chose the
other.75 If true, this would make titulature yet more
dependent on particular emperors and historical
events.
But the tussle for empire between Philip the Arab
and Trajan Decius, which Ziegler believed to ac-
count for honors granted to Thessalonike and Ana-
zarbos and withheld from their rivals Beroia and
Tarsos, was utterly unlike Severus’ civil war. That
had dragged on for over two years until Byzantion
finally fell, and ranged across the entire eastern
empire; probably every eastern city had little option
but to choose one emperor or the other. Philip’s last
fight for power, however, was brief, lasting only
through the summer of 249; and as was shown in
chapter 22, ‘Thessalonike,’ it was probably confined
to Pannonia, where Decius was declared emperor,
and either northern Italy or Thrace, where the last
decisive battle was fought. Why would cities in prov-
inces far away choose to risk everything by prema-
turely taking sides in what was becoming a routine,
albeit dangerous, way of changing emperors? And
why would Cilician Anazarbos have been singled out
for honors, as its partisanship likely consisted of only
an embassy and the usual gifts? Nor did Aigeai have
such a famous shrine of Asklepios that Decius should
have sought to honor it first of all. As for the cities
that were supposedly dishonored for their lack of
support, Beroia’s titles and status were apparently
unaffected. Decius likely did take colonial status from
Neapolis, but unlike Septimius Severus, he did not
strip it of civic rights, of territory, or even of its other
honors, including the title ‘neokoros.’ It may just be
that after the death of Philip, who granted it, the
coloniate was deemed to be too extraordinary an
honor for Neapolis’ place in the hierarchy. Some-
thing similar happened soon after to Thessalonike:
Trajan Decius’ grant of three neokoriai probably
reflected his view of the city’s importance to his
Gothic wars, but after his death they were likely
judged excessive. Nonetheless, only two were re-
moved: Thessalonike was not dishonored for estab-
75 Ziegler 1988b, 395-401; 1993b, 145-146, 150-151, 159-
160; 1994, 202-204.
 chapter 41 – the koina and their officials
lishing temples to Decius, but retained two neokoriai,
a number equal to what its rival Beroia already had.
This maneuvering hints at what was really going on,
and who might have deemed certain honors exces-
sive: not the emperors, but other cities within the
koinon. After all, it was never within a new empe-
ror’s interest to seek out cities to punish, simply
because they had been loyal to his predecessor. But
just as the cities and their koinon requested particu-
lar honors, leaving the emperor to grant or modify
those requests, so the competitive cities operating
within the koinon may have sought to restore bal-
ance when one city’s gifts brought it too far above
what its fellows thought was its place.
Later Developments
It may be that, by late antiquity, a city’s place in
the hierarchy had become more important than
ever: its greatness could determine its very survival.
Smaller cities lost power as the host of wealthy citi-
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
some of its glory. Its chief priests and priestesses now
came mostly from the great cities, there were appar-
antly fewer to vie for the office, and those provided
fewer and less remarkable festivals and gifts to the
province.77 It is even possible that the post-Dio-
cletianic trend of dividing provinces into smaller and
smaller units was encouraged by favors to various
cities that wanted to preserve themselves by becom-
ing metropoleis (and later seats of bishops). Though
Asia had been divided in this way, it still managed
to muster four metropoleis, one of them Ephesos,
as sites for its games and providers of Asiarchs,
though by an imperial decree of Valens citizens of
smaller cities were also allowed to hold that office.78
Contention over titles and privileges was there-
fore still fierce in the fourth century, though in a
Christian empire claims of neokoria likely declined
along with the rest of the trappings of pagan prac-
76 Roueché 1989b, 215-221.
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
province of Lydia?), and Pergamon; Kyzikos was in the prov-
ince Hellespontus. But as Deininger 1965, 60, wrote, “doch
handelt es sich hierbei bereits um eine neue Institution.”
357
tice. Still, when a governor chose a Syriarch from
Beroia rather than from Antioch, Libanius wrote an
outraged letter addressed to the emperor Theodosius
(379-395 C.E.).79 “One who pulls down a first city
and raises up one not even of the second rank and
allows it to insult its better, doesn’t he wrong your
household? . . . He was not sent, O Emperor, to
disturb the proper order of the cities, or to debase
their standing or to put the lesser above the greater
. . . But he . . .cried out to all that this city [Antioch]
must be subordinate to that other [Beroia], must give
up the title ‘metropolis’ to it, that our council must
yield to theirs, our citizens to theirs, that we must
acknowledge them our betters! You could recognize
the insult in this from the sorrow it gave our well-
wishers and the pleasure it gave our enemies.” Note
that a city’s prestige had direct implications for its
citizens, especially in their relations with citizens of
other cities; and that a major city could still be said
to have enemies and friends, probably among other
cities—which may mean that there were still voting
blocs in post-Diocletianic koina.80
Summary
When one looks back at what we have seen of the
koina, there is staggeringly little information con-
cerning the participants, much less the practices, of
institutions that lasted for three centuries and more.
We can only guess at the machinations and maneu-
verings of the delegates at any one meeting of any
one koinon, much less the fourteen directly involved
in this study. Yet the koina were the major inter-
mediaries between emperors and cities, and their
temples were the reasons why the title ‘neokoros’ was
initially given. The exact actions and relationships
among cities in their koina are often obscure, but
this study has found them to be the crucial link that
brought cities to pursue, attain, and boast of the title
‘neokoros.’
Each koinon was like a web, with cities arranged
in various positions on its strands. Those positions
represent how ancient were the city’s origins, how
notable its citizens, how divine or heroic its associa-
tions, how great its size or beauty, how strategic its
79 Libanius, Oration 33.22-23. Beroia was ranked well be-
hind Laodikeia and Apamea, two cities that went before Julian
to contest the rank of second in Syria: Libanius, Oration 18.
80 Deininger 1965, 183-188.
358 part ii – summary chapters
importance, how grand its temples or monuments,
and how loyal it was to Rome. The cities and their
citizens set and fostered this hierarchy, only trying
to have their city’s position improved or their rival’s
worsened. The Romans in their turn recognized the
same hierarchy, basing their own actions toward the
cities on their positions in the web. Those positions
were signaled by titles. Honor (as represented by
titles) was therefore not as intangible as ancient
authors and modern scholars often portray it. It was
the means of gaining favor and gifts from above,
loyalty and obedience from below. Titles were of-
ten the path to further privileges, some of which
could have been very tangible indeed. A ‘first city,’
in the center of the web, could expect the highest
representation or voice in the koinon, and also the
highest influence, which meant more than just
marching first in provincial festivals. It could sway
smaller cities’ votes in the koinon, holding its own
against important rivals and their supporters; or it
could incur resentment and resistance. Certainly the
cities desired the influx of people and of business that
came to a judicial center, or the financial contribu-
tion to metropoleis. These were the incidentals,
however; titles like ‘neokoros’ were ultimately sought
for the sake of honor and place in the hierarchy.
 chapter 42
Chapter 42. The Roman Powers
The king’s greatest payment is praises and renown
among all, and obeisance for their benefactions, and
whatever statues, temples, and sanctuaries they have
from their subjects—these too are wages for the care
and forethought they exert in always providing for
the common good and making it better.
Lucian, Apology 13
...And this man
Is now become a god, and Cassius is
A wretched creature and must bend his body
If Caesar carelessly but nod on him...
Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed
That he is grown so great?
Shakespeare, Julius Caesar I.2
We will now attempt to look at the imperial cult
practiced by the neokoroi from a Roman point of
view. Sheer familiarity may blind the classicist to the
oddity of the Roman situation as regards imperial
cult. Though the concept that kings were outright
gods (as in Egypt or Japan) has been relatively rare
in human history, countless cultures across the globe
had kings who were viewed as descended from gods
or having special relationships to gods. But in almost
all cases, the king’s divinity was especially recognized
within the core region which he ruled, and mani-
fested in his capital. The Roman emperor, however,
was a different case. He could be hailed as a god
by the provinces or cities or citizens of his empire,
both west and east; but in Rome, the living empe-
ror’s godhead could only be classed as problematic:
accepted at some times and by some people, not by
others.
By the time of Augustus, Rome had been a com-
petitive oligarchy for centuries. There were many
families with as long a history and as much claim
to divine and mythic ancestry as the Julii, and far
more than their successors, the later Augusti. At least
a segment of the elite did not have to derive its sta-
tus from connections with the god-king, but pos-
sessed it on its own. More, the foundation myths of
the Roman state glorified the overthrow of kings and
– the roman powers 359
the beneficent rule of the Senate. That stories from
Rome’s remote history had power to affect later
events is shown by Julius Caesar, killed by (among
others) a descendant of the original regicide Brutus.
The situation is paralleled by the quandary of
Alexander the Great. Macedonian kings, though
they claimed descent from Herakles, had not raised
themselves far above their companions in the Ma-
cedonian elite. When Alexander tried to do so,
whether the objection was to deification or to Per-
sianization, it came from Macedonians of his inner
circle as well as from his own historian Kallisthenes.1
In Rome itself, the emperor could be viewed as
a civic personality, a magistrate, or a benefactor, not
the owner of his Empire but its patron.2 This per-
spective helps to explain some aspects of his persona,
but not his connection to divinity. There is currently
a scholarly tug-of-war over whether in Italy and the
western provinces the living emperor was rarely, or
constantly, treated as a god.3 These efforts to make
a universal case, at least as regards geography, go
back to Cassius Dio (below); but tend to efface the
multifarious levels on which statements, offers, and
actions took place. Simon Price recognized the prob-
lems and contradictions in the situation.4 Though
there are many cases where emperors were treated
as gods in Rome, in Italy, and in the western prov-
inces, not all such instances are the same; nor were
they in the East, as this work has tried to show. A
synthesis between the two opposing theories is still
needed, one which will treat each geographical area
and each level of dedication (provincial, municipal,
group, or personal) as a distinct phenomenon, with
no preconceptions involved. The imperial cult was
a series of behaviors and positions over time, each
varying based on situation and viewpoint. Gener-
1 Bosworth 1996, 98-132.
2 Veyne 1990, 346.
3 Fishwick 1987-1992; Clauss 1999. These recent works
provide references and bibliography for the substance of this
chapter.
4 S. Price 1984b, 1-22; idem 1987.
360 part ii – summary chapters
alizations in this realm must be made with caution,
as they can blind as much as they explain.
In this chapter, we follow the viewpoint of some
of the men of Rome, at least the ones who left
writings behind or whose actions were recorded by
those who wrote. The constraints and biases of such
writings were discussed in the introduction. In ad-
dition, it should be clear that by ‘men of Rome’ we
are not discussing the racial or geographic origins
of individuals, whether emperors, senators, or gov-
ernors, not to mention the wide range of people who
inhabited the actual city of Rome. Our interest here
is in those who, by virtue of office or authority within
the Roman governmental system, affected the course
that provincials took in establishing worship of the
emperor within their koina and their cities. And it
should not be forgotten that those provincials were,
increasingly over time, Roman citizens themselves.
For example, C. Aulus Antius Julius Quadratus was
likely instrumental in obtaining a new provincial
temple and contest for Pergamon, but did he do so
as proconsul of Asia, as a wealthy and eminent Per-
gamene risen to the highest senatorial rank, or as
the ‘most illustrious friend’ of the emperor Trajan?
Though the offer of worship soon became part
of the dialogue between Roman authorities and
provincial subjects, Romans could turn such an offer
to their own purposes by needling those who made
it for flattery or levitas; the contrast was usually to
the advantage of Roman gravitas.5 Such adulation
was held to be especially typical of Hellenes: Tacitus
calls Mytilene’s voting of divine honors to its citi-
zen Theophanes (for using his influence with
Pompey) ‘Greek flattery.’6 But the charge was not
limited to the Greeks. Tiberius refused a temple to
his own cult offered by a Latin-speaking western pro-
vince (Hispania Ulterior), saying that “the honor
paid to Augustus would become empty if it were
made common by indiscriminate flatteries.”7
Nonetheless, as has been shown in chapter 41,
‘The Koina,’ cities that were most dedicated to pur-
suing this form of ‘flattery,’ and even the ones that
fell into rivalry and competition thereby, were the
ones most often chosen for rewards by the same
5 Woolf 1994.
6 Graeca adulatio: Tacitus, Annals 6.18. On Theophanes, L.
Robert 1969c; Salzmann 1985; Anastasiadis and Souris 1992.
I thank Kathryn Welch for her insight on this subject.
7 Tacitus, Annals 4.37: et vanescet Augusti honor, si promiscis
adulationibus vulgatur. See below.
Romans who chided them for ‘vain competitiveness.’
For the Romans, Hellenic culture could be either
rewarded or derided for the same characteristics. An
emperor who refused to take divine honors, or at
least to take them seriously, was a desirable persona
to present in Rome: a civilis princeps who had to put
on a god’s dress for the provincials.8 Only a Caligula
would take his deification seriously. But as we shall
see, there were senators who did not hesitate to
propose divine honors for the emperor before the
Senate, and in Rome there were flatteries more
abject than are known in any province.
From the cities, whose organization was the sub-
structure of the eastern Roman provinces, the em-
perors desired loyalty, peace, and taxes promptly
paid. But this was not all. The cities and koina of
the Empire could also offer gifts of acclaim, of crown
gold, of cult in all its manifestations. We cannot
attribute to them love or fear or religious awe, in-
dividual emotions that are irrecoverable and any-
way inapplicable to actions taken on behalf of whole
provinces. But we may conclude that provinces and
cities offered such things as their role and the
emperor’s right.9 On the other side, the emperor
could accept cult as a recognition of his own honor,
in itself a means of government;10 or could modify
it to suit some purpose of his own, as we shall see.
An offer of cult by the province met by a favorable
reply from the emperor certainly eased the relation-
ship between them, but even an unfavorable re-
sponse clarified the nature of that relationship.
Where an offer was refused, the officials of the prov-
ince were forced to rethink it, and next time make
one more suitable to that emperor’s persona or
purposes. As well as making an imperial acceptance
all the more valuable, the occasional refusal played
well in Rome, especially before the Senate. Cultic
honors were carefully meted out, since to accept cult
in every instance would be to cheapen it.11 But the
fortunate province and city from which the emperor
accepted cult would be raised in the estimation of
its neighbors. The result was a system in which every
action and counteraction carried implications about
the emperor, the provinces, the cities, the Senate,
and their presentation in the wider world of the
Empire at that particular time.
8 Wallace-Hadrill 1982.
9 J. Nollé 1998, 347-351.
10 Lendon 1997, 13-27, 107-175.
11 Ibid., 160-171.
 chapter 42
The way that Romans responded in the dialogue
had a profound effect on the development of the
provincial imperial cult, and later neokoria. Unfor-
tunately, historically documented responses that
resulted in the building of temples in cities that thus
became neokoroi are actually few. Offers of provin-
cial imperial cult seem to have become normalized
in the eyes of the emperors and the Senate, until
gradually the historians found them so quotidian that
they ceased to discuss them at all. To supplement
them, some reference will be made to cults in prov-
inces that had no neokoroi, or to some emperors’
recorded attitudes toward their own cult. The in-
tent is not to be encyclopedic, nor is it to trace some
pattern or policy in provincial proposals or any
particular emperor’s responses. In my view, our
information is so fragmentary, the emperors so re-
sponsive to the needs of the moment rather than
some consistent policy, Roman officials so thinly
spread, and government conducted on such an ad
hoc basis and so particularized to the situation in
each province, that any discernable pattern is more
likely to be imposed by modern scholars than prac-
ticed by the ancients.
The Emperors
For one last time we return to the start of the pro-
vincial imperial cult in 29 B.C.E., as documented
by Cassius Dio two and a half centuries later.12 To
paraphrase, the man soon to be known as Augustus
gave permission that precincts be established to
Rome and the hero Julius in Ephesos and in Nikaia
(cities which Dio calls preeminent in Asia and in
Bithynia at that time), and ordered the Romans
resident there to honor those divinities. But he per-
mitted the xenoi, whom he called Hellenes, to con-
secrate precincts to himself, the Asians’ in Pergamon
and the Bithynians’ in Nikomedia. Dio then carries
the story to his own time: from that beginning, the
practice of dedicating provincial temples to living
emperors has continued, not only in the Greek prov-
inces but all others as well; while Rome and Italy
only worship dead emperors who have ruled justly.
12 Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9. For an assessment of the reliabil-
ity of the source, see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon’; for its place in
the development of neokoria, see chapter 38, ‘Historical Analy-
sis.’
– the roman powers 361
The scene is Asia, after Actium; recent study has
clarified Augustus’ decisions, and the relative re-
straint of his actions toward his own glorification
after that battle.13 The victorious emperor answered
petitions from people he called Hellenes. In this
context, Augustus’ designation does not refer to
Hellenes everywhere, but to the specific koina known
as the Hellenes of Asia and the Hellenes of Bithynia.
Though these provincials made their petitions on
their own home territory, Dio calls them xenoi,
‘strangers,’ referring to their Roman status as pere-
grini. But what exactly did they offer? Undoubtedly,
in line with a tradition stretching back to Hellenis-
tic times, they offered temples to the ruler himself,
and likely specified that these would be in their chief
cities of Hellenistic administration, Pergamon and
Nikomedia.
Augustus, however, seems to have manipulated
this offer, adding modifications that would have
played well before a Roman audience, not the Greek
embassies that stood before him. Thus the first cult
discussed in the passage above, and likely in the
document it derived from, is probably not the one
that the embassies of the two koina originally re-
quested, which was almost undoubtedly that of the
emperor himself. Instead the man soon to be named
Augustus was careful to first address the establish-
ment of shrines to the goddess Rome and to his
father the deified Julius Caesar.14 This action was
unlikely to have been motivated by filial piety, or
concern for the sensibilities of Romans who lived in
Ephesos and Nikaia. More likely, Augustus was
taking the opportunity to send this message to his
Roman audience: that his own cult was for the
provincials, not for Romans, i.e. that he was not
aiming at deified kingship. The temples for the
Hellenes then follow in Dio’s account as if by after-
thought, though in fact they would become the
headquarters for koinon cult in Asia and Bithynia.
A similar response had been given thirty years
before, when Asia had offered to build a ‘temple and
monument’ to Cicero and his brother Quintus.
Cicero declined the honor, and wrote that he didn’t
know how they were taking it in Asia, but that his
refusal was earning him a lot of praise in Rome.15
Just as Cicero had kept his eye squarely on the
reaction of Rome rather than that of the Asians, so
13 Gurval 1995.
14 See ‘Introduction,’ n. 26.
15 Cicero, Letters to Quintus his Brother 1.1.9 (26).
362 part ii – summary chapters
Augustus reacted to offers of worship by provincials
with provisions of cult for Romans; though the
provincials’ worship was not rejected. Had Caesar
acted so circumspectly, Roman history might well
have been different. But in this conjunction Hellenes
and Romans were talking past one another; or
rather, the Roman ruler altered a Greek cultural
communication to convey an additional message to
Romans: that a line was to be drawn between xenos
and Roman, that that line was the worship of the
living emperor, and that he was not crossing it.
Augustus’ modesty was also admired by Sueto-
nius, who wrote that the emperor accepted a temple
in no province unless it was in the name of Rome
as well as in his own.16 Dio did not mention this deity
as Augustus’ cult partner in his account, perhaps
because Rome was added to Augustus’ cult as well
as Caesar’s sometime after Augustus accepted the
temples at Pergamon and Nikomedia (but before 19
B.C.E., when cistophori of Asia show both Rome
and Augustus in the temple at Pergamon); or because
of Dio’s own interpretation of Augustus’ action as
the precedent for later developments which would
not include the goddess. In any case, apparently
Augustus never imposed his worship, nor even ac-
cepted an offer of cult too baldly; though he allowed
such honors to be showered upon him, he seems to
have modified many or most. On the other hand,
we have no record of his outright refusal, as has been
postulated from later refusals by his successors.17 As
his own account boasts (Res Gestae 24), he had eighty
silver statues of himself converted into golden offer-
ings to Apollo—which means that he had previously
accepted, or at least allowed, eighty silver statues of
himself.
It is no accident that the sources that report a
clear division between cults for Romans and for non-
Romans, like most historical writings, emanate from
the (usually senatorial) upper class. That Romans
and Italians by definition only worshipped the
emperors when they were dead and deified was
apparently an important part of senatorial self-pre-
sentation down to the time of Cassius Dio. But not
everyone in that class believed in Augustus’ unwill-
ingness to accept divine honors; Tacitus presented
a pro and (mainly) con analysis of Augustus’ reign
after his death: “Nothing was left as an honor for
16 Suetonius, Augustus 52; see also Tacitus, Annals 4.37.3
above.
17 Charlesworth 1939.
gods, since he wanted to be worshipped in temples
and in the image of divinities by flamines and
priests.”18
The next dialogue of offer and acceptance was
transacted solely between Asia and Rome. In 23
C.E., after winning two prosecutions of former gov-
ernors before the Senate, the cities of Asia decreed
a temple to Tiberius, his mother, and the Senate,
and permission was granted by the emperor and
Senate.19 Likely due to a deadlock in the koinon, the
decision of which city should get the new temple
came back to the Senate, with Tiberius himself in
attendance.20 There eleven cities contended on the
basis of their antiquity, noble ancestry, and loyalty
to Rome, but most were rejected outright as parum
validi, ‘not up to it.’ Of the major cities, Pergamon
argued its possession of the temple to Augustus, but
was ruled out on that very count (one was enough),
while Ephesos and Miletos were also too wholly
devoted to cults of patron gods to get a new one.
After a long debate between Sardis and Smyrna, the
Senators voted overwhelmingly for Smyrna, later a
contender for primacy in the province.
In due course of time a delegation from Hispania
Ulterior used the Asian temple as a precedent to ask
permission to build its own shrine to Tiberius and
his mother. Refusing it gave Tiberius a platform to
state before the Senate his opposition to any exten-
sion of divine honors for himself beyond Augustus’
limits. He justified his permission for the Asian
temple in this way: “Since the deified Augustus did
not forbid that a temple to himself and to the city
of Rome be built at Pergamon, I who view as law
all of his deeds and words have followed his example
all the more readily because reverence for the Sen-
ate was joined with my own cult.”21 Again, the
emperor’s response to a province’s petition was
aimed primarily at a Roman audience, in this case,
the Senate which heard the embassy from Spain.
What mattered to Tiberius, whether personally,
politically, or both, was obedience to Augustus’
precedent and expression to the Senate of his own
modesty in Augustus’ wake; thus both the acceptance
of one cult and the refusal of another were part of
18 Tacitus, Annals 1.10.6: Nihil deorum honoribus relictum, cum
se templis et effigie numinum per flamines et sacerdotes coli vellet.
19 Tacitus, Annals 4.15.
20 Ibid., 4.55-56.
21 Ibid., 4.37-38: in 25 C.E. See Charlesworth 1939.
 chapter
his imperial persona. The Asians’ temple had also
given him the opportunity to trumpet his associa-
tion with, and exaltation of, the Senate, a motive
that may have been sincere on his part, though
Tacitus always interprets it for the worst. The choice
of the personified Senate as a cult partner in the
proposed temple was thus uncommonly fortunate
for, or percipient of, the Asians. The introduction
of the goddess Rome to Augustus’ cult had likely
taught them that it was prudent to include a per-
sonification of Roman power in their petition for a
temple of the living emperor; and in this instance,
they were able to show their gratitude toward the
Senate in particular. The Spanish province, how-
ever, overlooked that part of the message, making
its petition easier to reject.
The attitude of Gaius (Caligula) toward accep-
tance of cult was rather different from those of his
predecessors. Though at first he followed Tiberius’
pattern of modest refusal of cultic honors, later he
was eager to see his worship established, and not just
by the provincials but in Rome itself. There some
hailed him as divus and some deus, and the Senate
went so far as to vote him a temple, in addition to
another that he established for himself on the Pa-
latine.22 In comparison with this and his attempt to
commandeer the temple in Jerusalem, his demand
for a temple in Miletos, even such a great one as
the Didymaion, does not appear to have provoked
indignation. But in Rome Gaius was the first to
break through the persona of the civilis princeps, and
though the Senate gave him divine honors of vari-
ous sorts in his lifetime, they ended by hailing his
murder and condemning his name thereafter.
Claudius is not known to have granted temples
that later made their cities neokoroi. While he prob-
ably emphasized the distinction between his own
character and that of Gaius by frequently refusing
cult, as Tiberius had to Hispania Ulterior, he seems
to have had a temple in Britain, possibly since the
province was conquered under his auspices.23 Nero,
though often assimilated to Apollo, was portrayed
by historians as more interested in being an artist
than a god. In 65, in the aftermath of the Pisonian
conspiracy, a consul designate made a motion in the
22 Cassius Dio 59.4.4, 59.26.5, 59.28.2; Suetonius, Caligula
22.3-4; Barrett 1989, 140-153.
23 Seneca, Apocolocyntosis 8.3; pace Fishwick 1995. See S. Price,
review of Fishwick 1987-1992, in Phoenix 42 (1988) 371-374,
esp. 373.
42 – the roman powers 363
Senate that a temple to divus Nero, presumably in
Rome itself, be built as soon as possible from pub-
lic funds.24 According to Tacitus Nero refused be-
cause such a temple could have been interpreted as
an omen of his death, but the episode shows that
an eminent Senator could think it proper (or at least
expedient) to make such a proposal to a living
emperor at that time. Nero may have also granted
a provincial temple to Asia, which made Ephesos,
at least until his death, one of the first cities to call
itself neokoros; but the grant is anything but certain,
and the circumstances unknown.
There are few documents to record what the end
of the Julio-Claudian dynasty meant regarding
worship of the living emperor. Certainly Galba’s
taking the names Caesar and Augustus smoothed the
transition. In Galatia, coins issued under Galba may
show the temple at Ankyra, but call it ‘of the Au-
gusti,’ no doubt including the current emperor with
his predecessors. Perhaps under Vespasian, and cer-
tainly by the time of Domitian, a provincial temple
in Ephesos (perhaps one originally allowed by Nero)
was called ‘of the Augusti,’ centered on the new
Flavian dynasty, with no sign of gods, personifica-
tions, or even Julio-Claudian predecessors to share
the cult. A colossus of Titus stood there, and surely
another of Domitian, who was remembered with
hatred by the Senate for being called dominus et deus,
though perhaps more for being ‘master’ than ‘god.’25
Trajan, however, returned to Augustus’ precedent
in Asia explicitly: his temple was built in Pergamon
like that of Rome and Augustus, and he too shared
it with a cult partner, Zeus Philios. In Dacia, how-
ever, the province he conquered, later inscriptions
record only provincial priests of the Augustus, with
no cult partner mentioned, so it is likely that his
modesty was not doctrinaire.
Hadrian’s travels and enthusiasm for fostering
Hellenic and other cities resulted in his being wor-
shipped in many parts of the Empire. He was gen-
erous with his attention and with benefactions, and
had no disinclination to be honored or worshipped
in return. He was identified with Zeus Olympios, and
occasionally Eleutherios, among the Hellenes, espe-
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
24 Tacitus, Annals 15.74.3.
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
in their koina: Kyzikos, Smyrna, Ephesos, and pos-
sibly Nikaia, Nikopolis and Tarsos. One important
refusal of cult is known: he did not permit Pergamon
to build a (municipal?) temple to him, but modified
the Pergamenes’ request by allowing them to put his
statue in their provincial temple to Zeus Philios and
Trajan. This occurred at the end of his reign, and
his relationship with the Senate was then so bad that
even a modest refusal of cult may not have impressed
them; after his death, they would not deify him until
his successor Antoninus Pius insisted on it.26 But
Hadrian was so concerned for the cities that his
refusal may not have been even intended to impress
the Senate, but simply to restrain spending at
Pergamon, where they were still working on the
porticoes around Trajan’s temple.
Antoninus Pius’ attitude toward his own cult is
not expressed in what is preserved of the historians,
but he saw to it that both his adoptive father Hadrian
and his wife Faustina were deified after death, and
after his own he joined Faustina in her temple in
the Roman Forum. His successor Marcus Aurelius
took the same care for him and for his other adopted
son, Lucius Verus. The Antonine rulers and their
consorts were also enshrined in the temple of Arte-
mis at Sardis, which had probably gained the sec-
ond neokoria for the city from Antoninus Pius.
Marcus Aurelius leaves us little in his own writings
regarding ruler cult, but he and his son Commodus
wrote to the gerousia of Athens in 179 to modify its
offer of gold or silver statues as honors more suited
to the gods, accepting bronze busts of a size that
could be transported on festal occasions.27 As it
happens, one of the few solid gold busts of an em-
peror preserved to us is of Marcus Aurelius.28 The
context of the modest reply to the gerousia is un-
known, but it certainly harks back to Julio-Claudian
precedents, and possibly was intended to reflect well
on the good character of the new Augustus, Com-
modus.
Commodus’ behavior as sole ruler was not to be
so considerate. He and the Senate first granted a
second provincial temple and a sacred contest to
Nikomedia thanks to the influence of his chamber-
lain Saoteros, and then withdrew them at Saoteros’
26 Cassius Dio ep. 69.23.3, ep. 70.1.2-3; Historia Augusta,
Hadrian 27.
27 Oliver 1989, no. 196.
28 From Aventicum (Avenches in Switzerland); Fishwick
1987-1992, 535-536.
fall. Again the situation at Rome, specifically who
was in favor or not, was more determinative of
provincial cult than the situation of the bewildered
or disappointed Bithynians. Indeed, Nikomedia may
have been punished further for its citizen’s presump-
tion when its rival Nikaia was given the Kommodeia
festival that it had lost.
Commodus’ identification as a god, specifically as
the Roman Hercules, is played up in historical ac-
counts.29 Mitchell therefore attributed Commodus’
grant of a second provincial temple to Tarsos to its
fame as a cult center of Herakles/Sandan, and
thought that Nikaia received a contest in the
emperor’s name because it was founded by Hera-
kles.30 But the grant to Tarsos was not out of line
with its position in the province, and we have seen
that the festival at Nikaia was mainly a way of abas-
ing Nikomedia. In chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ are listed
the many cities unconnected with Herakles who
nonetheless celebrated festivals in Commodus’ name,
while many cities closely associated with or even
founded by Herakles (eight or more Herakleias,
Perinthos, Kallatis, Kios, and Nakoleia) received no
known favors from Commodus. Though it is tempt-
ing to attribute particular grants to emperors’ in-
terests, a look at the broader picture shows that
Commodus did not necessarily focus his favors in
this way. In any case, cults were probably still ini-
tiated by the provincials, not by the emperor.
It is important to note, however, that Cassius
Dio’s mention (ep. 73.12.2) of Nikomedia’s ill-fated
temple and contest in honor of Commodus is the
last explicit citation by a historian of the grant of a
provincial imperial temple that made its city
neokoros. This may simply be due to the fact that
we have so few historical sources for the time sub-
sequent to Commodus, as well as the confused,
incomplete, or downright fictitious state of what we
do have. But it is also likely that such honors were
being taken for granted by the historians as noth-
ing out of the ordinary; indeed, Dio would probably
not have mentioned Nikomedia’s case had it not
been so unusual and so tied up with the fate of
Saoteros.
Historians do document how Septimius Severus
used the grant and withdrawal of honors as a
weapon in his first contest for the Empire. His
29 Cassius Dio ep. 73.15.2-16.1; Historia Augusta, Commodus
8.9, 9.2.
30 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:220-221.
 chapter 42
message was simple: his friends would be rewarded
with the spoils taken from their rivals, his enemies.
Neokoria was simply one of the many rights and
honors that cities desired; when granted to his al-
lies it was an impressive reward, when taken from
his enemies a sign of their disgrace. So far as is
known, Severus acted directly upon the provincial
cities, with no byplay towards the Senate, to Roman
sensibilities, or even to the koina involved. Thus
Severus reinforced his newly gained power (“the lord
giveth, the lord taketh away”) in provinces recently
unsettled, and doubly delighted those that had cho-
sen correctly when they saw their rivals’ fall.31 Later
in the reign, his son and successor Caracalla took
the role of asking mercy for former enemies and
smoothing over his father’s harsh policy. Since mercy
to enemies deprived friends of their rivals’ goods, the
friends were also compensated with further honors.
Cities like Perinthos and Anazarbos likely got two
neokoriai each, one for their loyalty early in Severus’
reign, another later, perhaps for the joint cult of
Caracalla and his brother Geta.
Once Caracalla and Geta inherited the Empire,
their mutual hatred drove each to try to convince
the Roman Senate, people, and army that his
brother was dangerous and that he was the only
hope. The sources, though confused and partial,
nonetheless contain accounts of Caracalla’s refusing
to be called by the name of Hercules or that of any
other god.32 The mention of Hercules recalls that
god’s imitator Commodus, officially deified but still
of unpleasant memory to the Senate (if Cassius Dio’s
attitude be taken as typical). Caracalla’s refusal of
cult, especially if enacted in Rome, recalls Tiberius’
conspicuous modesty, and was also likely aimed at
a Roman audience. Caracalla also redirected the
neokoria which was offered to him to the cult of
Artemis at Ephesos, and probably used the occasion
to impute the worst motives to his brother’s accep-
tance of cult there.33 Certainly the Senate and sol-
diers went along with the propaganda and
considered Geta a public enemy, once Caracalla had
killed him.34
Though grants of neokoria have been associated
with Caracalla’s visits to eastern cities on the way
31 J. Nollé 1998.
32 Herodian 4.3.1-2; Cassius Dio ep. 78.5, probably prefer-
able to Historia Augusta, Caracalla 5, where the scene is Raetia.
33 See ‘Ephesos,’ chapter 4.
34 Cassius Dio ep. 78.3; Herodian 4.5; Historia Augusta,
Caracalla 2-3.
– the roman powers 365
to his Parthian war, many of his neokoriai are traced
in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ to other motives.
Some were apparently personal favors (as at Phila-
delphia), others reflected rivalries within the koinon
of Asia. Macrinus’ removal of titles such as ‘neo-
koros’ can also be seen as a response to specific local
situations, implying little about his own attitude
toward the grant or the withdrawal of rights to
worship the emperor.
The flawed sources on Elagabalus’ reign empha-
size his concern with the cult of the sun god of
Emesa, rather than with his own. Certainly he
granted many neokoriai, some of which can be as-
sociated with his route to Rome at the outset of his
reign. The rest cannot be pinned to any particular
imperial interest, such as cults of other sun gods or
of goddesses for his god to marry; there were few
ancient cities that could not boast one or the other
such cult. Though historians undoubtedly played up
(and in some cases fictionalized) Severus Alexander’s
character as a contrast to Elagabalus’, he does seem
to have chosen a persona of youthful Roman mod-
esty with regard to imperial cult.35 He withdrew all
the neokoriai that Elagabalus had granted, and
seems to have been quite judicious in granting any
more. He may have allowed himself to be wor-
shipped with or as Asklepios at Aigeai, and permit-
ted Magnesia to become neokoros for its patron
goddess Artemis Leukophryene. But the supposition
that he winnowed the ranks of the deified Augusti
from twenty down to twelve would have been out
of character, and is based on an error.36
The onslaught of civil and military emergencies
that followed Severus Alexander’s reign left the
emperors little time for debate in the Senate regard-
ing their own cult; and if there were such, they are
not well preserved in our scanty historical sources
35 For the fiction, Historia Augusta, Alexander Severus 18; on
the sources, Bertrand-Dagenbach 1990.
36 Usener 1902, resurrected by Clauss 1999, 375. When John
Chrysostomos (on 2 Corinthians, Homily 26.4-5: J.-P. Migne,
Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca Prior 61 [Paris 1862]
580-581) stated that the Senate considered Alexander the thir-
teenth god, he certainly meant Alexander the Great, not Severus
Alexander, since he also mentioned his conquests and that his
empire collapsed upon his death. The Saint was condemning
pagan attitudes, not listing the Senate’s declarations of divi; he
also said that Hadrian’s beloved Antinoös was deified, which
the Senate never officially did. Adding one to the canonical
Olympians implied that their number was under human, not
divine, control, a favorite theme of Christian authors: for an-
other ‘thirteenth god,’ Hadrian at Kyzikos, see Sokrates, Historia
Ecclesiastica 3.23.59.
366 part ii – summary chapters
for the period. Nonetheless, some trends are discern-
ible, especially through the coinage.37 The emperor
was often portrayed as appointed by Jupiter or other
gods in the roles of patron, preserver, and compan-
ion, while his rule was foreordained by fate, omens,
and the stars. Since few emperors received the
throne from their fathers, the dynastic principle of
deification became secondary, and the divi became
a college of forerunners whose aura bolstered the
latest Augustus. Trajan Decius, for example, issued
coins for eleven of the divi, including Commodus;
so far as is known, he left out Julius Caesar, Claudius,
Lucius Verus, Pertinax, Caracalla, and all the
women. Decius also attempted to restore the Em-
pire by declaring a universal supplicatio, though this
act is best known from the resultant martyrdoms and
vituperations of the Christians.38 As regards the
neokoroi, probably the most significant events of the
time up to Valerian were that Gordian III extended
the neokoria to Thessalonike, and Trajan Decius
jumped that city from being neokoros to four times
neokoros. This honor probably reflects the city’s
strategic importance to the Empire’s northern front,
and expedience, not religious policy, on the part of
the emperors.
Valerian, like Decius, issued a call for sacrifice that
resulted in the persecution of Christians, though his
son and co-ruler Gallienus apparently abated it after
his father’s capture by the Sassanians.39 Gallienus
also seems to have identified himself with the traits
of various divinities on the Roman coinage. As is
discussed in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ the
actions of Valerian and Gallienus in restoring
neokoriai previously lost, and raising one city to bal-
ance another, were not meant to influence a Roman
audience, but the cities of the East, where Valerian
was fighting. The grants were probably meant to
bolster the morale of cities under threat (and not just
those in the theater of war) with restorations of good
things past.
The promised ‘new age’ did not come on just yet,
however, and would not until Diocletian initiated the
ceremonious Tetrarchy under the aegis of Jupiter
and of Hercules. Aurelian and the emperors who
followed him continued to make grants of multiple
neokoriai, as Trajan Decius had to Thessalonike. In
this later period the strategic area was Pamphylia,
37 Turcan 1978.
38 Selinger 1994.
39 De Blois 1976, 148-185.
with Perge and Side racing to see which could cram
in more neokoriai. Again, the action was seemingly
of purely local importance.
In retrospect, it becomes clear that an offer of cult
was one of the ways in which an emperor was rec-
ognized by subject cities. In the acceptance, modi-
fication, or rejection of this honor, the emperor could
clarify his own personality, policies, and relationship
to the cities, the Senate, and Rome. Emperors like
Augustus and Tiberius addressed themselves to
Roman audiences, while Septimius Severus and
Valerian paid more attention to the cities directly.
Unfortunately, historians did not record all the cases
in which a plain offer met a plain acceptance; this
routine was soon taken for granted, and can be
traced in the steady rise in numbers of neokoriai.
But just as the rulers of the third century sought to
ally themselves with their deified predecessors, they
must also have welcomed the sign of recognition and
honor conferred by the offer of provincial temples
to their cult. This honor would have been especially
valued by those whose descent from a previous
emperor was merely a matter of rumor, or who had
no dynastic connection at all. In a similar fashion
Henry I of England and his son Henry II both
claimed a connection with their hallowed predeces-
sor Edward the Confessor not by lineage, but by
power of healing.40 When the emperors of Rome
accepted cult and granted the title ‘neokoros,’ they
put themselves in the line of all the legitimate rul-
ers who had done so previously.
The Augusti
It is important, then, to define who was part of the
imperial line, the Augusti (Greek Sebastoi). As has
been mentioned, at the break in the Julio-Claudian
dynasty, after the death of Nero, Galba had adopted
the names Caesar and Augustus, and all subsequent
rulers did as well. Thus all the emperors, including
the reigning one, were Augusti; empresses, especially
those named Augustae, were included.41 We have
noted that coins of Galatia issued under Galba il-
lustrate a temple ‘of the Augusti,’ which may mean
that as early as that time the cult of subsequent
emperors had been introduced into what was origi-
40 Bloch 1973, 21-27.
41 E. Meyer 1975; Clauss 1999, 523-525. For groups of
statues of Augusti, Pekáry 1985, 92-96.
 chapter 42
nally the temple ‘of the god Augustus and the god-
dess Rome’ at Ankyra. Indeed the process may have
begun well before Galba, since a Galatian priest of
Augustus and Rome is recorded as having dedicated
statues of ‘(Tiberius) Caesar and Julia Sebaste’ in ca.
23 C.E., though these were not necessarily cult stat-
ues within the temple.
The Augusti worshipped in the eastern provinces
were not confined to those who became divi at
Rome. For example, Asia’s temple at Smyrna had
Tiberius as its principal object of cult, and he is
shown within it on coins as late as the time of Cara-
calla, though he was never deified. The provincial
temples were dedicated to the living emperor, and
it is likely that as a new emperor took the old one’s
place, his cult, and perhaps that of his consort, was
introduced into the temple. There they would stay,
unless their memories were condemned and their
statues removed. The result was likely a gallery of
Augusti in each provincial temple. But subsequent
references to Tiberius’ temple at Smyrna also prove
that the original emperor worshipped was never
quite lost in a crowd of Augusti. There would have
been inscriptions and dedications to him, and his cult
statue undoubtedly held the most prominent place
within the temple, especially if it was colossal. Per-
gamon’s temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan was cele-
brated on coins issued over a century after its
dedication, to flatter Trajan Decius; there are late
but specific references to the temple of Hadrian at
Kyzikos; and Ephesos’ temple of the Augusti was
probably later known as the temple of Vespasian.
A colossal statue of Titus was found in that
temple, and there were likely colossi of Vespasian
and of Domitian as well, as the temple was com-
pleted in the latter’s reign. Hadrian gave explicit
permission to the Pergamenes to have his statue
stand in the temple of his adoptive father Trajan.
In the temple of Artemis at Sardis were at least six
colossi including Antoninus Pius, his wife Faustina,
and likely their two adopted sons with their consorts.
The latter were probably introduced after their
succession rather than included among the original
cult statues during Pius’ reign; Lucius Verus, at least,
became Augustus unexpectedly, and got married
well after his father’s death.
Though the original objects of cult were not for-
gotten, it became a matter of course that provincial
imperial temples, and the neokoriai that resulted
from them, could be called ‘of the Augusti.’ As early
as Nerva, Beroia requested a ruling about its single
– the roman powers 367
neokoria ‘of the Augusti,’ and we do not even know
which emperor was the original object of cult there.
Ephesos’ first neokoria was for its ‘common temple
of the Augusti.’ Nikaia’s and Miletos’ inscriptions
and the coins and inscriptions of Tralles call each
of those cities ‘(once) neokoros of the Augusti.’ And
where cities like Pergamon had several provincial
temples, all neokoriai that were not of gods could
be lumped together as ‘of the Augusti.’
The Senate
The Roman Senate traditionally received embassies,
a role that, though diminished, was not entirely
eliminated under the Empire.42 Thus, even though
communities tended to refer their petitions concern-
ing imperial cult to the emperor himself, the Sen-
ate became the site of hearings and the issuer of
decrees concerning provincial imperial temples, and
later, the affirmer of rights to neokoria.43 This is
ironic, considering that it was the senatorial sensi-
tivity toward treating the emperor as a god that has
colored all subsequent accounts of imperial cult in
Rome.
The Senate, however, was not a monolith, but a
gathering of men. For each Thrasea Paetus, stalwart
in his pursuit of republican dignity, there was at least
one flattering Lucius Vitellius, and very likely
more.44 The honors voted to emperors by senators
in some cases were more adulatory than those of-
fered by Greek cities or provinces. And an emperor
declared who he was and what he wanted by what
he accepted, refused, and modified, just as he did
with the offers of provinces and cities. The senators
did not fail to heed his desires, as those desires had
direct implications for their careers as well.
The first temples for provincial imperial cult were
granted by Augustus while he was still in Asia, and
no consultation of the Senate was mentioned by
Cassius Dio. But the second temple granted to Asia,
under Tiberius, closely connects the Senate with the
procedure of gaining a provincial imperial temple.45
Permission was granted by (or at least thanks were
offered to) both emperor and Senate. When the time
42 Talbert 1984, 411-425, esp. 417.
43 Ibid., 420-423.
44 E.g. Cassius Dio ep. 62.15.1-4, 59.27.2-6.
45 Tacitus, Annals 4.15, 4.55-56; see above, and chapter 2,
‘Smyrna.’
368 part ii – summary chapters
came to decide which city in Asia would receive the
temple, embassies of the various cities presented their
cases before the Senate, with the emperor looking
on. The senators seem to have chosen by process
of elimination, first of the cities that were not large
or rich enough, then of cities with prominent cults
of other deities. Finally, in a deadlock between two
cities of comparable grandeur and antiquity,
Smyrna’s conspicuous and long-held devotion to
Rome won the senators over, by a vote of four
hundred to seven. They then sent one of their mem-
bers to Asia as commissioner to oversee the work of
construction.
That senators were deliberating over the proper
form of cult for Tiberius in the presence of Tiberius
himself doubtless made them all the more careful
in expressing opinions, though reports would have
gotten back to the emperor even had he not at-
tended. But the position of the Senate in these and
subsequent proceedings was a peculiar one. The
emperor, in his modesty, could refuse or downplay
his own cult, but the Senate never could. If the
emperor was in favor of accepting cult, the Senate
had to approve as well, or risk implying that the
emperor was overreaching himself. And it was not
the Senate’s role to say ‘remember that thou art
mortal.’ When offered a decision, it devoted its at-
tention to seeing that the cult accepted (as at
Smyrna) was suitable to the emperor’s honor, prob-
ably as magnificent as precedent allowed.
That the personified Senate should share the cult
with Tiberius and his mother at Smyrna, as Rome
had with Augustus at Pergamon, does not seem
unnatural, since the Senate’s favorable decisions had
first won Asia’s gratitude. Indeed Tiberius harped
on this very fact in a later speech before the Senate
itself, mentioned above. But the cult partnership may
not have been without precedent, as Hadrianic coins
of Nikomedia imply that the Senate and People of
Rome may have long been worshipped alongside
Augustus in Bithynia’s first provincial temple, estab-
lished in 29 B.C.E.46
The Senate also issued decrees concerning the
status of contests associated with neokoriai. At Per-
gamon, a senatus consultum on the festival for Zeus
Philios and Trajan was contained in the foundation
dossier of inscriptions around the temple. As is dis-
cussed in chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ such contests
46 Not noted by Kienast 1985, 256-261.
could be granted to honor a provincial temple, but
probably had to be requested separately by the city
involved. The Senate also granted (and later with-
drew) one to Nikomedia, for Commodus (below).
As well as worshipping the Senate in its first pro-
vincial temple, Smyrna mentioned that body’s role
in its second neokoria, though not perhaps as most
senators would have wished. An inscription of
Smyrna, in listing the gifts that Hadrian gave on
account of the orator Polemon, includes “a second
decree of the Senate, by which we became twice
neokoros.” Though the Senate’s decree was appar-
ently what made the neokoria official, it is portrayed
here as being entirely within the emperor’s gift.
Senatorial decisions confirmed neokoria not only
in provinces with proconsular governors, such as
Asia. Though at the time of Hadrian Bithynia may
already have been governed by an imperial legate,
the only inscription that calls Nikaia neokoros ac-
knowledges the Senate’s role. This inscription also
couples decisions of the Senate with decisions of the
emperors concerning the city’s titles.47 The latter
conforms with the famous letter of Antoninus Pius
to Ephesos, in which Antoninus says that he had
decided what titles were proper to that city.
Bithynia was certainly governed by an imperial
legate under Commodus, when the chamberlain
Saoteros was said to have used his influence to get
his city, Nikomedia, the Senate’s permission to hold
a contest and build a temple to Commodus (Cassius
Dio 73.12.1-2). The Senate may also have taken the
initiative to rescind these grants at Saoteros’ fall,
though certainly not without Commodus’ (and his
new chamberlain’s) permission.
Cities begin to mention the Senate’s confirmation
of neokoria more frequently in their inscriptions of
the early third century.48 Perhaps the first city to take
it up as a formula was Ephesos, at a time when it
was undergoing great uncertainty regarding its
neokoriai. The city cited the Senate’s approval in
inscriptions set up in and after 211, when Ephesos
was granted two neokoriai at once, one neokoria was
diverted from Caracalla to Artemis, and then both
were endangered with the subsequent death of Geta.
That this grueling process involved the Senate is
clear, since Caracalla’s letter to Asia refers to ‘the
47 L. Robert 1977b, 18.
48 This date for the majority of citations is not noted by
Bowersock 1995, 85-98; for a critique, see SEG 45 (1995) no.
2353.
 chapter 42
leading men at Rome’—indeed, his modest diver-
sion of the neokoria for himself to Artemis may have
been acted out partially for the Senate’s benefit, as
mentioned above. Another Ephesian inscription,
initially inscribed before Geta was killed, said that
Ephesos’ neokoria of Artemis and its three neokoriai
of the emperors were “by decrees of the sacred
Senate and by imperial decision.” Later inscriptions
have the formula of Senatorial approval modifying
‘twice neokoros of the Augusti’ but not ‘neokoros of
Artemis.’ Likely the neokoria for Artemis could stand
outside the normal formula of Senatorial decree, as
it was the result of the emperor’s diversion of the
grant. Ephesos inscription 125, however, modifies
the entire group of neokoriai for Artemis and the
Augusti with mention of the Senate’s decrees.
Smyrna, for whose first two neokoriai the Senate’s
debate and approval have been amply documented,
simply made that approval a part of its titular for-
mula sometime after it became three times neokoros
under Caracalla, and used that formula down to the
reign of Valerian and Gallienus. So did Sardis af-
ter 211, though at that point its last neokoria was
for Antoninus Pius, and despite its subsequent gain
and loss of a neokoria for Elagabalus. In the formula
used by all these cities, the words ‘according to
decrees of the sacred (or most sacred) Senate’ are
placed directly after the word ‘neokoros.’ Tralles,
however, apparently attributed not just neokoria but
its titles in general (especially ‘shrine of Zeus Larasios’)
to decrees of the Senate.
In the reign of Elagabalus, Laodikeia and Ephesos
went so far as to squeeze the Senate’s affirmation
onto their coinage. Some coins of Laodikeia read
‘temples, games, by decree of the Senate, worldwide’
and ‘the Laodikeians neokoroi of Commodus and
Antoninus by decree of the Senate.’ The city’s
motive might have been a special senatorial decree
for its (single) neokoria of Commodus and Caracalla;
such an oddity may have been challenged by rivals.
At the same time Ephesos also declared the Senate’s
approval on its coins and at least one inscription;
its coin type 24 shows all four of the temples for
which it was neokoros, and proclaims: “these temples
of the Ephesians by decree of the Senate!”
But the temples and neokoriai for Elagabalus were
not shielded by the Senate’s approval from the con-
demnation of his memory. In Severus Alexander’s
reign, neokoriai of Elagabalus were withdrawn. But
Sardis continued to use the formula even on an
inscription of this very time: it could not yet state
– the roman powers 369
whether it had retained or lost its neokoria for
Elagabalus, but affirmed that it was ‘many times
neokoros of the Augusti according to decrees of the
sacred Senate.’
The last word comes from Pamphylia, whose cities
declared their rival claims to increasing numbers of
neokoriai at the end of the third century. Perge’s
acclamation under Tacitus lists all the city’s titles and
honors, including four neokoriai, and then proclaims
as a proof of the city’s veracity that ‘all the rights
are by decree of the Senate.’ The rival most likely
to have claimed that Perge was false in its titles was
Side, and its inscription claiming six neokoriai is
found on a statue base of the personified Roman
Senate, whose role in confirming titulature was
presumably here invoked.
The Senate’s confirmation of provincial temples
to the emperors, and thus the neokoroi, was
longstanding. Though Augustus may have bypassed
the Senate in allotting temples in Asia and Bithynia,
Tiberius let it take a greater role regarding the
temple to his (and its own) cult at Smyrna. But he
and his successors were privy to the Senate’s debates,
and no senator could have forgotten that the em-
peror, object of the proposed cult, would note ev-
ery item in their deliberations, and judge every
speaker and every vote. So it is not unexpected that
the Senate’s role could be seen as a rubber stamp
of the emperor’s decision, even by far-off provincials:
thus Smyrna lists the second decree of the Senate,
by which it became twice neokoros, among the gifts
of Hadrian. Worse, under Commodus, the Senate’s
grant of a temple and festival to Nikomedia was seen
as due not even to the emperor, but to his cham-
berlain.
The sudden growth of third-century references to
the Senate’s role in confirming neokoria parallels a
growth in the number of cities that put the image
of the ‘sacred Senate’ on the obverse of some of their
coins.49 This is unlikely to have been due to some
generalized respect for the Senate (whose role in
provincial administration continued to decrease), or
for the number of easterners who had now advanced
to senatorial rank. Perhaps, as Kienast believed, it
was part of imperial propaganda to ally honors to
the Senate with honors to the emperor and his
house. But the wording of the inscriptions and coins
seems to indicate that the Senate’s approval was
49 Kienast 1985, 266-277; Talbert 1984, 95-97 also noted
this, though he found no obvious explanation.
370 part ii – summary chapters
important in putting the seal on titles like neokoria
at a time when those titles were most in escalation
and often in question. The cities cited the Senate’s
decrees when there was concern over their titles’
legality, as did Ephesos when its neokoriai for
Caracalla and Geta were threatened. The formula
was also picked up by Smyrna, a city whose troubles
began later, when neokoriai for Caracalla may have
been challenged in the reign of Macrinus. In con-
trast to these cities, Pergamon, the prime object of
Macrinus’ wrath, is not known to have named the
Senate in proof of its titles, and no challenge of
Tralles’ titles is documented, though less is known
of it in general. Laodikeia would claim the Senate’s
approval for its unusual neokoria for Commodus and
Caracalla, while Sardis cited it even on the verge
of losing its third neokoria for Elagabalus. At Perge,
the Senate was invoked as the final guarantor that
the city’s titles were genuine. Considering the claims
and counterclaims that rivalry could induce, the
Senate’s authorization of titulature was probably the
most important role that it played for provincial
cities in the third century.
Provincial Officials
The Roman authorities with whom the cities and
koina had most direct contact were their provincial
governors. Governors probably had no official role
in the koinon; indeed, one of the concerns of the
koinon was prosecution of corrupt governors, or
conferral of honors on favored ones.50 But in a sys-
tem where a governor’s responsibilities in his prov-
ince were universal, with few checks on his actions,
many are known to have taken a hand in koinon
affairs, including the imperial cult. For example,
when the unwilling Aelius Aristides was selected for
the chief priesthood of Asia, an obliging governor
exempted him from service at that time, though
other governors and legati would continue to try to
make him take city offices.51
The performance of certain religious honors for
the emperor was part of the governor’s own sphere
of activity.52 He officiated at the vows taken for the
50 Deininger 1965, 40-41, 146-147, 150-151, 161-169.
51 Aelius Aristides, Oration 50 (Sacred Tales 4).71-104. For
the identity of the governor who exempted him, Swain 1996,
272-273.
52 S. Price 1984b, 69-71; Eck 1997a, 203-217.
emperor’s health and safety by the soldiers and
provincials at the start of the Roman year, on the
emperor’s birth or accession day, and on other spe-
cial occasions. He also sacrificed and set up dedi-
cations for the emperor at visits to the shrines in
cities of his province. Some governors showed ex-
tra zeal. For example, P. Cornelius Scipio, quaestor
pro praetore of Achaea in 2/3 C.E., not only spared
no expense in his celebration of the Kaisareia but
made a special sacrifice for Augustus’ (grand)son,
Gaius Caesar, and ordered all in the cities he gov-
erned to wear wreaths and sacrifice too.53
Influence on the imperial cult has been attributed
to P. Vedius Pollio, an equestrian friend of Augustus
whom he sent on a special mission, probably to
reform the finances of major temples in the East, ca.
27-25 B.C.E.54 Though Pollio is not known to have
held any provincial office, regulations he made were
confirmed by Augustus. But his sole explicit connec-
tion with the imperial cult was personal: he built a
Caesareum in his home town Beneventum. His
regulations were cited as precedents in an edict of
Paullus Fabius Persicus, proconsul of Asia under
Claudius, who regulated sacred expenses at Ephesos
(especially at the Artemision) and by extension in the
other cities of Asia. But Pollio was deferred to only
in regard to certain expenditures: the amount to be
paid back to someone who had bought a priesthood;
the payments due to victors in sacred contests; and
the maximum amount to be paid for pentaeteric
contests.55 None of these was specific to imperial cult.
Perhaps the most crucial document of a gov-
ernor’s direct influence on imperial cult in his prov-
ince is the edict of Paullus Fabius Maximus,
proconsul of Asia.56 Around the time that Augustus
gave the Asians permission to found temples at
Pergamon and Ephesos, the koinon, meeting at
Smyrna, declared its intention of awarding a crown
to whomever could devise the greatest honor for the
emperor. This prize was not awarded until 9 B.C.E.,
when Maximus, the current governor, issued an
edict declaring that the start of the official year for
each city in Asia should be Augustus’ birthday. His
53 Documented on an inscription from Messene: Année
Epigraphique 1967 no. 458; SEG 23 (1968) no. 206.
54 Scherrer 1990 collects the evidence, but would have Pollio
promoting the building of altars as Sebasteia/Augousteia in each
city where he was commemorated, and would redate the
Hellenistic altar of Artemis Ephesia to that purpose.
55 IvE 17-19: 18c lines 8-11, 17 lines 46-48, 18d lines 2-4.
56 Laffi 1967; Bickerman 1980, 48-50.
 chapter 42
tone is hortatory rather than imperative, and he
begins with a panegyric in praise of Augustus and
the good fortune that brought him to the world. The
koinon’s decree awarding the crown to Maximus is
engraved after his edict, and like it begins with praise
for Augustus as savior and benefactor. Copies of
these documents were to be set up in the sanctuary
of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon and in Kaisarea
in judicial centers, and have in fact been found in
five separate cities. Maximus’ triumph was also to
be proclaimed at the Rhomaia Sebasta at Pergamon
and at Kaisarea festivals in each city. Here the gov-
ernor, who was “sent from (Augustus’) right hand
and judgement,” showed the koinon how best to
honor the emperor. The award of the crown was
doubtless helpful in pleasing the governor too, and
the fact that the calendar for all magistracies in the
province was now regularized would not have come
amiss to him either.
When Pliny the Younger governed the cities in
Bithynia and Pontus, his main concern was regulat-
ing and restoring their finances. He wrote to Trajan
for instructions on diverse matters: the rights of cities
and individuals, all sorts of building projects, the
proper numbers of soldiers to accompany officials,
and even, like Vedius Pollio, on awards for the
winners of sacred games (Letters 10.118, 119). He was
confronted with two cases involving the imperial cult.
In the first, the question was whether a derelict house
with a shrine to the emperor Claudius in it could
be rebuilt as a bath; the answer was, if the shrine
had actually been built, it was still sacred to
Claudius’ cult (Letters 10.70, 71). In the second, Pliny
became embroiled in the quarrel over a public por-
tico that the orator Dio Chrysostomos had built at
– the roman powers 371
Prusa (Letters 10.81, 82). Dio’s accusers implied trea-
son because the building included both a statue of
Trajan (in the library) and the graves of Dio’s wife
and son, but Trajan, like a good princeps, rejected
this charge. In this case, Pliny’s usual caution is yet
more understandable, as the emperor had to be the
ultimate arbiter of what attitude subjects should take
with regard to his own image; the ruler himself could
be clement where a governor, for the sake of his own
good standing vis-a-vis the emperor, would neces-
sarily be severe.
Thus provincial officials often interfered with (or,
to put it more diplomatically, guided) the provincials’
practice of the imperial cult; and they were often
themselves guided from above. But there was almost
no limit to what Roman officials could take (or get)
as their business. Just as Pliny wrestled with the
problem of Claudius’ shrine, he was also confronted
with moving a temple to Magna Mater and even the
graves of private persons (Letters 10.49, 50, 68, 69).
Arrian, as governor of Cappadocia, wrote asking
Hadrian to send a better statue of himself for Tra-
pezous; but it is seldom noted that he also asked the
emperor to send better cult statues for the city’s
temple of Hermes as well, and specified the sizes.57
The regulation of imperial cult in the provinces was
not a special mission for provincial governors, any
more than any other aspect of civic life. Nonethe-
less, governors had the direct line to the emperor’s
attention, and their guidance, encouragement, and
decisions helped determine the path that provincial
worship would take.
57 Arrian, Periplous 1.3-2.1.
372 part ii – summary chapters
Chapter 43. Conclusion
We have documented a title, and through it an insti-
tution, that developed and changed over time. This
approach contrasts with that of earlier authorities,
who amassed a range of phenomena across time in
a search for the ‘true nature’ of neokoria. Thus the
long-drawn debate over whether ‘neokoros’ was a
title of municipal or provincial nature can now be
seen as an artifact of oversimplification. The con-
cepts ‘municipal’ and ‘provincial’ do not now seem
so mutually exclusive, for although the koinon was
technically proprietor and administrator of its tem-
ples within a province, the neokoroi, as temple
wardens, gradually absorbed the temples as aspects
of their own civic pride; and direct communication
between city and emperor could bypass the koinon.
When chronology and historical context are consid-
ered, we can see that neokoria evolved according to
the demands and desires of those most concerned
with it: the cities, the koina, and the Roman authori-
ties, especially the emperors.
Such gradual change in response to demands was
typical of Roman provincial administration in gen-
eral. There was little attempt to impose overarching
rules or wholesale change, but instead a patchwork
of solutions to immediate and particular problems
that might also be applied to similar problems in
other regions as required. The end product could
be a radically different entity from the original form,
much as Valerian and Gallienus’ scattering of
neokoriai from Thessalonike to Ephesos to Aspendos
was different from Augustus’ original acceptance of
two temples to his cult in the great cities of Asia and
Bithynia, before the title ‘neokoros’ was even thought
of.
A recent theme in historical studies has been the
search for root causes and unitary explanations for
historical phenomena. Many city gates were built to
welcome Hadrian; when we find such a gate in an
area Hadrian passed through, the assumption is that
it must have been built for Hadrian. Titles and
honorifics were often given for imperial visits, espe-
cially in strategic areas; so if a title was given, it must
have been given for such a visit; and if such a visit
cannot be documented, it must have been planned
but not carried out. If this study makes any contri-
bution, it is a reemphasis on the diversity of cause,
and change of situation, in the explication of a single
phenomenon, the granting of the title ‘neokoros.’
Roman administration up to the end of the third
century was not a unitary and rule-ridden bureau-
cracy, but operated under different laws and pre-
cedents for each province, as well as being subject
to the changing priorities of individual emperors and
officials. The koina of the various provinces were
culturally distinct from one another, and under no
compulsion to act in similar ways. We should not
imagine them as walking in lockstep.
In the eastern provinces’ worship of the living
emperor, diversity and change were part of the
process from the start. Once Augustus set the pre-
cedent of allowing one temple for a major city in
one province, Bithynian cities apparently were con-
tent with their temple to Rome and Augustus, while
Asian cities large and small were at odds over who
was to build a temple for Tiberius. That emperor
responded in his typical fashion, by making Au-
gustus’ actions the model for his own. The Senate
contributed its ideas as well: once the preconditions
of importance, antiquity and lack of other influen-
tial cults were met, cities were judged on their loy-
alty and devotion to Rome.
Tiberius’ famous refusal of a cult on the model
of Asia’s to the province of Hispania Ulterior
(Tacitus, Annals 4.37-38) was not due to some con-
viction that the cult of the living emperor should be
confined to the Greeks of the East. Instead there was
a dual motivation: Tiberius’ own strict adherence
to Augustus’ pattern (the key to the persona he
presented in Rome), and a general reluctance to ap-
ply the institutions of one province to others with-
out demonstrated need. If we then ask why neokoria
is indeed only found in the East, and only in cer-
tain provinces at that, a variety of factors may be
considered. First, the nature of the cities and of the
 chapter
provincial organizations in East and West were
basically different. The cities of Asia were poleis, not
town centers of tribal regions. They had long his-
tories of basic internal autonomy and competition
with one another, though their koinon bound them
together and allowed some corporate action. They
also had a history of making powerful men and rulers
from outside the polis objects of worship within it.
But it is no accident that rivalry immediately sur-
faced in the competition for Tiberius’ temple. One
of the conditions that fostered the multiplication of
neokoroi, and neokoriai, in certain provinces (no-
tably Asia) was the koinon’s tendency to break up
into its quarreling components.
There can be little doubt that Asia was the birth-
place of ‘neokoros’ as a title. At least two cities, Kyzi-
kos and Ephesos, were using it informally in the
mid-first century, and by the reign of Domitian it
had become official: Ephesos was neokoros by grace
of the koinos (‘common,’ i.e. provincial) temple of the
Augusti. Unfortunately we have no direct evidence
as to what happened in the interval to bring on this
change. Perhaps it began with Ephesos’ request to
make official the title which the city was already
using unofficially. However it was done, use of the
title spread by emulation, especially among the larg-
est cities; Pergamon and Smyrna, the only other
cities in Asia known to have had provincial temples,
began to use it on their inscriptions by the end of
the first century C.E.
Neokoria then moved, or already had moved, to
other provinces. Beroia staked its claim to be the only
neokoros in Macedonia as early as the reign of
Nerva. The context is again one of intercity jealou-
sies, which may be why a title that was thus far only
used in Asia penetrated into Macedonia. Outside the
confines of Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna, the
title appeared only occasionally on inscriptions and
coins.
The activities of Trajan and of Hadrian focused
attention on neokoria and took it in a new direc-
tion. Trajan allowed a duplication of provincial
temples, giving the great cities hope of becoming
twice neokoros. Hadrian scattered temples through-
out the provinces, with at least three in Asia alone.
It was after the reign of Hadrian that the title be-
gan to be used more widely on inscriptions and
coins.
Coins, of course, could circulate at least some
distance; citizens of neighboring cities might see the
titles on them and wish to make similar claims.
43 – conclusion 373
Furthermore, coins of smaller cities were generally
provided by mints centered in larger and more
important cities, so the emulation of coin types and
titles could have been fostered by that means as well.
The effect is that of a stone thrown into a pond.
Frequent issues featuring the title began under
Antoninus Pius at Ephesos (newly twice neokoros),
Kyzikos (newly neokoros) and Nikomedia. Under
Marcus Aurelius, Pergamon and Amaseia took it up.
A slight setback occurred when Nikomedia lost its
neokoria for Commodus, but under the Severi the
use of the title burgeoned. In Cilicia, Tarsos had
begun to apply the title more frequently under
Commodus, so Anazarbos also began, probably as
soon as it could, under Septimius Severus; so did
Kaissareia in Cappadocia. Perinthos apparently
started using the title as soon as Severus granted it.
With Caracalla’s reign, Smyrna, which had confined
itself to issuing coins with temple-bearing divinities
instead of stating its title openly, finally celebrated
its third neokoria by beginning to issue coinage that
featured the title frequently. Philadelphia, Laodikeia,
Antandros, and Tralles may have minted coins pro-
claiming themselves neokoroi as soon as Caracalla
gave or confirmed the title, though the latter two
were never frequent, and Elagabalus provoked the
same response from Hierapolis and Philippopolis
(with Perinthos now claiming two), though Miletos
appears to have been a trifle jaded about its unfor-
tunate history as neokoros. Of course, all during this
time cities that had begun to put ‘neokoros’ on their
coins long since were gaining further neokoriai. The
post-Elagabalan slump reduced the number some-
what, but by that time it was more typical to see
‘neokoros’ on the coins of the neokoroi than not to
see it. And finally, just before all civic coinage was
to end for good, the Pamphylian cities entered the
arena, Side to declare a new neokoria and Perge to
counter with proclamation of its old one. The more
widespread the use of neokoria, the more diverse the
demand for it; the more it was granted, however,
the less it meant.1 Cassius Dio, in relating how in
15 B.C.E. it had taken a Senatorial decree to get
Paphos the title ‘Augusta,’ wrote that in his own (and
Severus Alexander’s) time the cities had only to make
out a list of whatever imperial names they liked.2
This may have been an overstatement, but Dio’s
1 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 31.109-110, on the cheapen-
ing of honors granted too widely.
2 Cassius Dio 54.23.7-8.
374 part ii – summary chapters
disillusion reflects the real proliferation, and conse-
quent devaluation, of titles in his time.
There is no evidence for the end of neokoria; at
last sight at Side, it had been undergoing rapid
escalation in the chaotic years at the end of the third
century. The last mention of neokoria, on an inscrip-
tion at Sardis, is more a sign that by the fifth cen-
tury the title had lost its meaning rather than that
it still retained any. A logical time to situate the
cessation of grants of neokoria would be after the
reign of Constantine. It is difficult to imagine the
Christian emperors doing much more than tolerat-
ing temples to their own cult; and the ‘Historical
Analysis’ of chapter 38 traces the gradual process
that led to elimination of pagan temples. It is also
difficult to imagine the cities, already under pres-
sure from an imperial bureaucracy that was increas-
ingly and then almost exclusively Christian, seeking
further neokoriai. Offering a temple to the emperor,
like pursuing an elite civic career, no longer gave
the advantage it once did, but could indeed become
a real disadvantage. Perhaps those who were most
aggressively pagan still thought of seeking neokoria
for their cities. If so, they have left little sign.
 references
REFERENCES
COLLECTIONS OF COINS CITED BUT NOT YET PUB-
LISHED IN CORPORA:
Berlin: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen (with source collec-
tion name).
Boston: Classical Department, Museum of Fine Arts.
London: British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals
(subsequent to BMC).
New York: American Numismatic Society.
Oxford: Heberden Coin Room, Ashmolean Museum.
Paris: Cabinet des Médailles, Bibliothèque Nationale.
Vienna: Münzkabinett, Kunsthistorisches Museum.
Warsaw: Narodowe Museum.
ABBREVIATIONS:
Adana (with coin no.) = D. Cox. A Tarsus Coin Collection in the
Adana Museum. American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes
and Monographs 92. New York 1941.
AMNG = H. Gaebler. Die antike Münzen Nord-griechenlands 3.1.
Berlin 1906.
ANRW = H. Temporini and W. Haase, eds. Aufstieg und
Niedergang der Römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im
Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Berlin 1972-.
Arslan (with coin number) = M. Arslan. ‘The Roman Coin-
age of Ancyra in Galatia.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and
P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen
Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 111-156. Milan 1997.
AUB (with catalogue number) = D. Baramki. The Coin Collec-
tion of the American University of Beirut Museum: Palestine and
Phoenicia. Beirut 1974.
AvH = C. Humann, C. Cichorius, W. Judeich, and F. Winter.
Altertümer von Hierapolis. Berlin 1898.
AvP = F. Winter. Altertümer von Pergamon 7: Die Skulpturen, mit
Ausnahme der Altarreliefs, 2. Berlin 1908.
Aykay = Y. Aykay. “‘Hecht Definesinde” Perge âehir sikkeleri.’
Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri yÌllÌgÌ 13-14 (1967): 242-276.
Ayvagedigi hoard = F. Rebuffat. ‘Le trésor de Ayvagedigi.’ In
M. Amandry and G. Le Rider, eds., Trésors et circulation
monétaire en Anatolie antique, 73-118. Paris 1994.
BMC (followed by coin number of each city’s entry) = British
Museum, Department of Coins and Medals. Catalogue of
Greek Coins.
BMCRE = British Museum, Department of Coins and Med-
als. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum.
CIG = A. Boeckh, ed. Corpus inscriptionum Graecarum. Berlin 1825-
1877.
CIL = Corpus inscriptionum latinarum.
CT (cited by book, title and section) = C. Pharr. The Theodosian
Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions. Princeton
1952.
FdD = Fouilles de Delphes.
FdXL = A. Balland. Fouilles de Xanthos 7. Inscriptions d’époque
impériale du Létoön. Paris 1981.
FiE = Forschungen in Ephesos. Vienna 1906-.
Harl (with catalogue number) = K. Harl. ‘The Coinage of
375
Neapolis in Samaria, A.D. 244-53.’ American Numismatic
Society Museum Notes 29 (1984): 61-97.
IdA = C. Habicht. Die Inschriften des Asklepieions. Altertümer von
Pergamon 8.3. Berlin 1969.
IG = J. Kirchner, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae 2-3. Inscriptiones Atticae
Euclidis anno posteriores. Berlin 1913.
IGBR = G. Mihailov, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae.
Sofia 1956-1961.
IGRR = R. Cagnat et al. Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas
pertinentes. Paris 1906-1927.
IGUrbRom = L. Moretti. Inscriptiones Graecae urbis Romae. Rome
1968.
IvE = H. Wankel, ed. Inschriften von Ephesos. Inschriften griechischer
Städte aus Kleinasien 11-17. Bonn 1979-1981.
IvL = T. Corsten. Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos 1. Inschriften
griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 49. Bonn 1997.
IvM 6.1 = A. Rehm et al. Milet 6.1: Inschriften von Milet. Berlin
1997.
IvP = M. Fränkel, ed. Inschriften von Pergamon, Altertümer von
Pergamon 8.2. Berlin 1895.
IvPerge = S. ”ahin. Inschriften von Perge 1. Inschriften griechischer
Städte aus Kleinasien 54. Bonn 1999.
IvS = G. Petzl. Die Inschriften von Smyrna 2.1. Inschriften griechischer
Städte aus Kleinasien 24.1. Bonn 1987.
IvT = F. Poljakov. Die Inschriften von Tralleis und Nysa, 1. Inschriften
griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 36.1. Bonn 1989.
KP = K. Ziegler and W. Sontheimer, eds. Der Kleine Pauly:
Lexikon der Antike. Stuttgart 1964-1975.
Köln = T. Corsten. Katalog der bithynischen Münzen der Sammlung
des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln 2.
Opladen1996.
LeBas-Waddington = P. Le Bas and W. Waddington. Voyage
archéologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure. Paris 1847-1877.
LIMC = Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. Zürich 1981-
1997.
MAMA = Monumenta Asiae Minoris antiqua.
MvS = D. Klose. Die Münzprägung von Smyrna in der römischen
Kaiserzeit. Berlin 1987.
OGIS = W. Dittenberger, ed. Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae.
Lipsiae 1903-1905.
PECS = R. Stillwell, ed. Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites.
Princeton 1976.
PIR = Prosopographia imperii Romani saec. I. II. III. 1st ed. Berlin
1897-1898.
PIR2 = Prosopographia imperii Romani saec. I. II. III. 2nd ed. Berlin
1933- .
RE = A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds. Real-Encyclopädie
der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart 1894-. 2d ed.
completed in 1980.
RECAM = Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor.
RIC = H. Mattingly et al. The Roman Imperial Coinage. London
1923- .
Rosenberger (with catalogue number) = M. Rosenberger. City-
Coins of Palestine: The Rosenberger Israel Collection 3. Jerusa-
lem 1977.
376 references
RPC 1: A. Burnett, M. Amandry, P. Ripollès. Roman Provincial
Coinage 1. London/Paris 1992.
RPC 2: A. Burnett, M. Amandry, I. Carradice. Roman Provin-
cial Coinage 2. London/Paris 1999.
Sardis = H. W. Bell. Sardis 11: Coins. Part 1: 1910-1914. Leiden
1916.
Schede (with type letters) = D. Krencker and M. Schede. Der
Tempel in Ankara, 40-42. Berlin 1936.
SEG = Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum.
S-G (with coin numbers) = E. Schönert (-Geiss). Die Munzprägung
von Perinthos. Berlin 1965.
SiA = J. Nollé. Side im Altertum 1-2. Inschriften griechischer Städte
aus Kleinasien 43-44. Bonn 1993-2001.
Side Coins = S. Atlan. 1947-1967 Yillari Side Kazilari Sirasinda
Elde Edilen Sikkeler. Ankara 1976.
SIG4 = W. Dittenberger. Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum. 4th ed.
Hildesheim 1960.
S/M (with coin numbers) = E. Sydenham, rev. A. Malloy.
Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia. New York 1978.
SNGANS = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum. The Collection of the
American Numismatic Society. New York 1969-.
SNGBraun = W. Leschhorn, ed. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum.
Katalog der griechischen Münzen. Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum
Braunschweig. Braunschweig 1998.
SNGCop = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum. The Royal Collection of Coins
and Medals. Danish National Museum. Copenhagen 1942-.
SNGFitzw = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum 4. Fitzwilliam Museum.
Leake and General Collections. London 1940-.
SNGLevante = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Switzerland. Levante-
Cilicia. Berne 1986-.
SNGLewis = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum 6. Lewis Collection in
Corpus Christi College. Cambridge 2. Greek Imperial Coins.
London 1972-.
SNGLeypold = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Österreich. Sammlung
Leypold 1. Vienna 2000.
SNGMil = N. Vismara, ed. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Italia 6:3.
Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche. Milan 2000.
SNGMün = D. Klose, ed. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Deutschland:
Staatliche Munzsammlung München 20.1. Ionia. Munich 1995.
SNGParis = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum France. Bibliothèque
nationale. Cabinet des médailles 2: Cilicie. 3: Pamphylie, Pisidie,
Lycaonie, Galatie. 5: Mysie. Paris 1983-.
SNGPfPS = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Deutschland. Pfälzer
Privatsammlungen. Munich 1993-2001.
SNGRighetti = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Schweiz 2. Katalog der
Sammlung Jean-Pierre Righetti im Bernischen Historischen Mu-
seum. Berne 1993.
SNGTüb = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Deutschland. Munzsammlung
der Universität Tübingen. Berlin 1981-.
SNGvA = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Deutschland. Sammlung von
Aulock. Berlin 1957-.
T (with coin numbers) = I. Touratsoglou. Die Münzstätte von
Thessaloniki in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin 1988.
TAM = Tituli Asiae Minoris.
Tokat (with coin no.) = M. Amandry, B. Remy, B. Özcan. ‘La
circulation monétaire dans le Pont à l’époque impériale
à travers les collections numismatiques du Musée de
Tokat.’ In M. Amandry and G. Le Rider, eds., Trésors et
circulation monétaire en Anatolie antique, 119-130, pls. 27-34.
Paris 1994.
Weber = L. Forrer. The Weber Collection. London 1922-1929.
Ziegler Sammlungen (with coin no.) = R. Ziegler. Münzen Kilikiens
aus kleineren deutschen Sammlungen. Munich 1988.
WORKS CITED:
Aalders, G. 1986. ‘Cassius Dio and the Greek World.’
Mnemosyne 39: 282-304.
Abbasoglu, H. 2001. ‘The founding of Perge and its develop-
ment in the Hellenistic and Roman periods’ in D. Parrish,
ed., Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, 173-188. Portsmouth
RI.
Adak, M. 1996. ‘Claudia Anassa —eine Wohltäterin aus
Patara.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 27: 127-142.
Adams, J. 1984. ‘The Maritime Cities of the Greco-Roman East
Using the Title NAUARXIS. Evidence and False Leads.’
The Ancient World 10: 111-126.
Akurgal, E. 1990. ‘Grundzüge der hermogeneischen Archi-
tektur.’ In W. Hoepfner and E.-L. Schwandner, eds.,
Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur, 123-127.
Mainz.
Alföldi, G. 1972. ‘Der Sturz des Kaisers Geta und die antike
Geschichtsschreibung.’ In Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium
1970, 19-51. Bonn.
Alzinger, W. 1970. ‘Nachträge: Ephesos.’ RE Supplement 12,
1588-1704.
Amandry, M., B. Remy, and B. Özcan. 1994. ‘La circulation
monétaire dans le Pont à l’époque impériale à travers les
collections numismatiques du Musée de Tokat.’ In M.
Amandry and G. Le Rider, eds. Trésors et circulation monétaire
en Anatolie antique, 119-130, pls. 27-34. Paris. (= Tokat with
coin no.).
Ameling, W. 1984. ‘Cassius Dio und Bithynien.’ Epigraphica
Anatolica 4: 123-138.
———. 1985. Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium: Inschriften
griechischer Stadte aus Kleinasien 27. Bonn.
———. 1994. ‘Prosopographia Heracleotica.’ In L. Jonnes, The
Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica: Inschriften griechischer Städte aus
Kleinasien 47: 115-168. Bonn.
Anabolu, M. 1970. ‘Küçük Asya’da bulunan imparator tapÌna-
klarÌ.’ Anadolu SanatÌ AraâtÌrmalarÌ 2: 31-54.
Anastasiadis, V., and G. Souris. 1992. ‘Theophanes of Mytilene:
A New Inscription Relating to his Early Career.’ In Chiron
22: 377-383.
Anderson, G. 1993. The Second Sophistic. London.
Andreae, B. 1990. ‘Der Asklepios des Phyromachos.’ In B.
Andreae, ed. Phyromachos-Probleme, 45-100. Mainz.
———. 1993. ‘Laurea coronatur.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom 100: 83-106.
Arslan, M. 1991. ‘The Coinage of Ancyra in the Roman Pe-
riod.’ In C. Lightfoot, ed., Recent Turkish Coin Hoards and
Numismatic Studies, 3-42 and 333. Oxford.
———. 1997. ‘The Roman Coinage of Ancyra in Galatia.’ In
J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales
Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 111-
156 . Milan. (= Arslan with number.)
Ashmole, B. 1956. ‘Cyriac of Ancona and the Temple of
Hadrian at Cyzicus.’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes 19: 179-191.
Atlan, S. 1976. 1947-1967 Yillari Side Kazilari Sirasinda Elde Edilen
Sikkeler. Ankara. (= Side Coins.)
Aurenhammer, M. 1997. ‘Das Porträt eines Kaiserpriesters.’
In H. Thür, ed., ‘...und verschönerte die Stadt...’ Österreichisches
Archäologisches Institut. Sonderschriften 27: 41-53. Vienna.
Aykay, Y. 1967. ‘“Hecht Definesinde” Perge âehir sikkeleri.’
Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri yÌllÌgÌ 13-14: 242-276. (=Aykay.)
Babelon, E. 1898. Inventaire sommaire de la collection Waddington.
Paris.
Baharal, D. 1996. ‘The Emperor Marcus Opellius Macrinus
and the gens Aurelia.’ In R. Katzoff, ed., Classical Studies in
Honor of David Sohlberg, 415-432. Ramat-Gan.
———. 1999. ‘The Emperor Macrinus: Imperial Propaganda
and the gens Aurelia.’ In E. dal Covolo and G. Rinaldi, eds.,
 references
Gli Imperatori Severi: Storia Archeologia Religione, 47-65. Rome.
Balland, A. 1981. Fouilles de Xanthos 7: Inscriptions d’époque impériale
du Létoön. Paris. (= FdXL.)
Bammer, A. 1972. Die Architektur des jüngeren Artemision von Ephesos.
Wiesbaden.
———. 1972-75. ‘Architektur.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 50: Beibl. 386-389.
———. 1978-1980. ‘Elemente flavisch-trajanischer Architek-
turfassaden aus Ephesos.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 52: 67-90.
———. 1984. Das Heiligtum der Artemis von Ephesos. Graz.
———. 1988. Ephesos: Stadt an Fluss und Meer. Graz.
——— and U. Muss. 1996. Das Artemision von Ephesos. Mainz.
Bar, M. 1985. ‘Les monnaies grecques de Césarée de Cappa-
doce, Ier–IIIe s. ap. J.C., trouvées en Europe.’ Bulletin,
Cercle d’Études Numismatiques 22 no. 3: 53-65.
Baramki, D. 1974. The Coin Collection of the American University
of Beirut Museum: Palestine and Phoenicia. Beirut. (= AUB with
catalogue number.)
Barattolo, A. 1995. ‘The Temple of Hadrian-Zeus at Cyzicus.’
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung
Istanbul 45: 57-108.
———. 1998. ‘Ciriaco de’ Pizzicolli ed il tempio di “Proser-
pina” a Cizico: Per una nuova lettura della descrizione
dell’ Anconitano.’ In G. Paci and S. Sconocchia, eds.,
Ciriaco d’Ancona e la cultura antiquaria dell’Umanismo, 103-140.
Reggio Emilia.
Barbieri, G. 1952. L’Albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino.
Rome.
Barnes, T. 1969. ‘In Attali Gratiam.’ Historia 18: 383-384.
———. 1972. ‘Ultimus Antoninorum.’ In Bonner Historia-Au-
gusta-Colloquium 1970, 53-74. Bonn.
Barrett, A. 1989. Caligula: The Corruption of Power. London.
Bartels, J. and G. Petzl. 2000. ‘Caracallas Brief zur Neokorie
des lydischen Philadelpheia—Eine Revision.’ Epigraphica
Anatolica 32: 183-189.
Bartman, E. 1999. Portraits of Livia. Cambridge.
Bartoccini, R. 1931. ‘L’Arco quadrifronte dei Severi a Lepcis
(Leptis Magna).’ Africa Italiana 4: 32-152.
Bastien, P. 1972. ‘Une nouvelle monnaie d’argent de Pescennius
Niger émise à Césarée de Cappadoce.’ Bulletin, Cercle
d'Études Numismatiques 9 no. 4: 69-71.
———. 1992. Le buste monétaire des empereurs romains. Wetteren.
Baydur, N. 1989. ‘Tarsus—Donuktaâ KazÌsÌ 1988.’ XI. KazÌ
SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 1: 161-177.
———. 1990a. ‘Ein römischer Tempel in Tarsos.’ Akten des
XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie, Ber-
lin 1988, 541-543. Mainz.
———. 1990b. ‘Tarsus—Donuktaâ KazÌsÌ 1989.’ XII. KazÌ
SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 1: 377-390.
———. 1992. ‘Tarsus—Donuktaâ KazÌsÌ 1991.’ XIV. KazÌ
SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 415-430.
Bean, G. 1965. Side Kitabeleri. Ankara.
———. 1966. Aegean Turkey. London.
———. 1971. Turkey Beyond the Maeander. London.
———. 1976a. ‘Akalissos.’ In R. Stillwell, ed., Princeton Ency-
clopedia of Classical Sites, 23. Princeton.
———. 1976b. ‘Aspendos.’ In R. Stillwell, ed., Princeton Ency-
clopedia of Classical Sites, 101-103. Princeton.
Behr, C. 1968. Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales. Amsterdam.
Bejor, G. 1991. Hierapolis, Scavi e Richerche 3: Le statue. Rome.
Bell, H. W. 1916. Sardis 11.1: Coins, 1910-1914. Leiden.
Bell, H. I. 1924. Jews and Christians in Egypt. London.
Belke, K. and N. Mersich. 1990. Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 7:
Phrygien und Pisidien. Vienna.
Benjamin, A. 1963. ‘The Altars of Hadrian in Athens and
377
Hadrian’s Panhellenic Program.’ Hesperia 32: 57-86.
Bennett, J. 1997. Trajan: Optimus Princeps. Bloomington.
Bergemann, J. 1990. Römische Reiterstatuen. Mainz.
Berghaus, P. 1978. ‘Erasionen auf Münzen von Pergamon.’ In
S. ”ahin, E. Schwertheim, and J. Wagner, eds. Studien zur
Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festchrift… F. K. Dörner 1: 158-
162. Leiden.
Bergmann, M. 1998. Die Strahlen der Herrscher. Mainz.
Bergquist, B. 1998. ‘Feasting of Worshippers or Temple and
Sacrifice? The Case of Herakleion on Thasos.’ In R.
Hägg, ed., Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological
Evidence, 57-72. Stockholm.
Bernhardt, R. 1971. Imperium und Eleutheria. Hamburg.
———. 1982. ‘Immunität und Abgabenpflichtigkeit bei
römischen Kolonien und Munizipien in den Provinzen.’
Historia 31: 343-352.
Bertrand-Dagenbach, C. 1990. Alexandre Sévère et l’Histoire
Auguste. Brussels.
Beurlier, E. 1877-1910. ‘Neocorus.’ In C. Daremberg and E.
Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines 4.1: 55-
59. Paris.
Bickerman, E. 1980. Chronology of the Ancient World. 2nd ed.
London.
Bingöl, O. 1999. ‘Epiphanie an den Artemistempeln von
Ephesos und Magnesia am Mäander.’ In H. Friesinger
and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen
in Ephesos, 233-240. Vienna.
Birley, A. 1988. The African Emperor Septimius Severus. 2nd ed.
London.
———. 1997. Hadrian: The Restless Emperor. London.
Bittel, K. and A. Schneider. 1941. ‘Archäologische Funde aus
der Türkei 1940: E. Galatien.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 286-
293.
Bittner, A. 1998. Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft in Herakleia Pontika.
Asia Minor Studien 30. Bonn.
Bland, R. 1991. ‘The Last Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia.’
In R. Martini and N. Vismara, eds., Ermanno A. Arslan
Studia Dicata 1: 213-252. Milan.
Bleckmann, B. 1992. Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der
spätantiken und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung. Munich.
Bloch, M. 1973. The Royal Touch, trans. J. Anderson. London.
Bloesch, H. 1965. ‘Caracalla in Aigeai.’ Congresso internazionale
di numismatica 1961. Atti 2: 307-312. Rome.
———. 1989. Erinnerungen an Aigeai. Winterthur.
Blum, G. 1914. ‘Numismatique d’Antinoös.’ Journal International
d’Archéologie Numismatique 16: 33-70.
Boatwright, M. 1987. Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton.
———. 1997. ‘Italica and Hadrian’s Urban Benefactions.’ In
A. Caballos and P. León, eds., Italica MMCC, 115-135.
Seville.
———. 2000. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire.
Princeton.
Bodnar, E. and C. Mitchell. 1976. Cyriacus of Ancona’s Journeys
in the Propontis and the Northern Aegean 1444-1445. Philadel-
phia.
Boëthius, A. and J. Ward-Perkins. 1970. Etruscan and Roman
Architecture. Harmondsworth.
Börker-Klähn, J. 1989. ‘Mons Argaius und “papana,” die
“Berge”.’ In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor
of Tahsin Özgüç, 237-255. Ankara.
Boholm, A. 1996. ‘Political Ritual as Image-making: Medieval
Rome and the Charisma of Cola di Rienzo.’ In A.
Boholm, ed., Political Ritual, 158-192. Gothenburg.
Bol, R. 1984. Olympische Forschungen 15: Das Statuenprogramm des
Herodes-Atticus-Nymphäums. Berlin.
Bonz, M. 1998. ‘Beneath the Gaze of the Gods: The Pergamon
378 references
Evidence for a Developing Theology of Empire.’ In H.
Koester, ed., Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods, 251-275. Har-
risburg.
Borchhardt, J. and B. Borchhardt-Birbaumer. 1992. ‘Zum Kult
der Heroen, Herrscher und Kaiser in Lykien.’ Antike Welt
23 no. 2: 99-116.
Bosch, C. 1935. Die kleinasiatischen Münzen der römischen Kaiserzeit.
2.1.1. Einzeluntersuchungen: Bithynien. Stuttgart.
Bosch, E. 1967. Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ankara im Altertum.
Ankara.
Bosworth, A. 1996. Alexander and the East. Oxford.
Botusarova, L. 1972. ‘ÉArxiereÊw di' ˜plvn à Philippopole’ (in
Bulgarian; French summary). Arkheologicheski Institut.
Bulgarska Akademiia na Naukite. Izvestiia 33: 159-164.
Boulanger, A. 1923. Aelius Aristide. Paris.
Bourget, E. 1929. Fouilles de Delphes 3.1. Paris.
Bowersock, G. 1967. ‘The proconsulate of Albus.’ Harvard Studies
in Classical Philology 72: 289-294.
———. 1969. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford.
———. 1973. ‘Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in
the Second Century A.D.’ In W. den Boer, ed., Le culte
des souverains dans l’empire romain. Fondation Hardt. Entretiens
19: 179-206. Geneva.
———. 1975. ‘Herodian and Elagabalus.’ Yale Classical Stud-
ies 24: 229-236.
———. 1985. ‘Hadrian and Metropolis.’ In Bonner Historia-
Augusta Colloquium 1982/83, 75-88. Bonn.
———. 1995. Martyrdom and Rome. Cambridge.
Bowie, E. 1971. ‘The “Temple of Hadrian” at Ephesus.’
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 8: 137-141.
Bracke, H. 1993. ‘Pisidia in Hellenistic Times.’ In M. Waelkens,
ed., Sagalassos 1: 15-35. Leuven.
Brandt, H. 1988. ‘Kulte in Aspendos.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 38: 237-250.
Brocas-Deflassieux, L. 1999. Beroia, cité de Macédoine. Beroia.
Broderson, K. 1992. Reiseführer zu den Sieben Weltwundern. Frank-
furt.
Broughton, T. 1938. ‘Roman Asia.’ In T. Frank, ed., An Eco-
nomic Survey of Ancient Rome 4: 499-916. Baltimore.
Brunet, S. 1997. ‘The Date of the First Balbilleia at Ephesos.’
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 117: 137-138.
Brunt, P. 1961. ‘Charges of Provincial Maladministration under
the Early Principate.’ Historia 10: 189-227.
———. 1990. ‘The Romanization of the Local Ruling Classes
in the Roman Empire.’ In Roman Imperial Themes, 267-281.
Oxford.
Buckler, W. 1923. ‘Labour Disputes in the Province of Asia.’
In Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay,
27-50. Manchester.
———. 1935. ‘Auguste, Zeus Patroös.’ Revue de philologie 61:
177-188.
——— and D. Robinson. 1932. Sardis 7.1. The Greek and Latin
Inscriptions. Leiden.
Buechner, G. 1888. De neocoria. Giessen.
Bull, R. 1997. ‘Ras, Tell er-.’ In E. Myers, ed., Oxford Encyclo-
pedia of Archaeology in the Near East 4:407-409. New York.
Bürchner. 1927. ‘Smyrna. 3’ in Paulys Real-encyclopädie der clas-
sischen Altertumswissenschaft, ser.2 vol. 5: 730-765. Stuttgart.
Burckhardt, J. 1998. The Greeks and Greek Civilization, trans. S.
Stern, ed. O. Murray. London.
Buresch, K. 1894. ‘Zur lydischen Epigraphik und Geographie.’
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische
Abteilung 19: 102-132.
———. 1898. Aus Lydien. Leipzig.
Burnett, A. 1999. ‘Buildings and Monuments on Roman Coins.’
In G. Paul, ed., Roman Coins and Public Life Under the Empire,
137-164. Ann Arbor.
Burnett, A., M. Amandry, and P. Ripollès. 1992. Roman Pro-
vincial Coinage 1. London/Paris. (= RPC 1.)
———, ———, and I. Carradice. 1999. Roman Provincial Coinage
2. London/Paris. (= RPC 2.)
Burton, G. 1975. ‘Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration
of Justice under the Empire.’ Journal of Roman Studies 65:
92-106.
Butcher, K. 1988. Roman Provincial Coins. London.
———. 1991. ‘Some Cilician Coins in the Hatay Museum.’
In C. Lightfoot, ed., Recent Turkish Coin Hoards and Numis-
matic Studies, 181-200. Oxford.
———. 1996. ‘Coinage and Currency in Syria and Palestine
to the Reign of Gallienus.’ In C. King and D. Wigg, eds.,
Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World, 101-112. Ber-
lin.
——— and M. Ponting. 1997. ‘Silver Standards at Caesarea
in Cappadocia.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss,
eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung
Kleinasiens, 167-171. Milan.
Butler, H. 1925. Sardis 2.1: The Temple of Artemis. Leiden.
Buttrey, T., A. Johnston, K. MacKenzie, and M. Bates. 1981.
Greek, Roman and Islamic Coins from Sardis. Sardis Monograph
7. Cambridge, MA.
Cadoux, C. 1938. Ancient Smyrna. Oxford.
Cagnat, R. 1913. ‘Note sur deux inscriptions d’Algérie.’ Revue
des études anciennes 15: 38-46.
Callu, J.-P. 1969. La politique monetaire des empereurs romains de
238 à 311. Paris.
Cameron, A. 1993. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity.
London.
Campanile, M. 1993. ‘Il koinÒn di Bitinia. Beiyuniãrxai e
êrxontew toË koinoË t«n §n Beiyun¤& ÑEllÆnvn.’ Studi
Classici e Orientali 43: 345-357. Pisa.
———. 1994a. I sacerdoti del koinon d’Asia. Pisa.
———. 1994b. ‘I sommi sacerdoti del koinòn d’Asia: Numero,
rango e criteri di elezione.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 100: 422-426.
Carroll, K. 1982. The Parthenon Inscription. Durham, NC.
Cassius Dio Cocceianus. 1914-1927. Dio’s Roman History, ed.
and trans. E. Cary. Loeb Classical Library. London.
Cavuoto, P. 1983. Macrino. Naples.
Cerfaux, L., and J. Tondriau. 1957. Un concurrent de christianisme:
Le culte des souverains dans la civilisation greco-romaine. Tournai.
Chantraine, P. 1968-1980. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue
grecque. Paris.
Chapouthier, F. 1938. ‘La coiffe d’Artemis dans Éphèse trois
fois neocore.’ Revue des études anciennes 40: 125-132.
Charlesworth, M. 1939. ‘The Refusal of Divine Honours.’
Papers of the British School at Rome 15: 1-10.
Chehab, M. 1977. Monnaies greco-romaines et phéniciennes du Musée
national, Beyrouth, Liban. Paris.
Christol, M. and T. Drew-Bear. 1995. ‘Q. Aurelius Polus
Terentianus et Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus, pro-
consuls d’Asie.’ Anatolia Antiqua 3: 67-93.
Chuvin, P. 1987. ‘Observations sur les reliefs du théatre de
Hiérapolis.’ Revue archéologique, 1987: 97-108.
Cichorius, C. 1889. ‘Inschriften aus Kleinasien.’ In Sitzungs-
berichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Phi-
losophisch-historische Klasse no. 23: 365-378.
Çizmeli, Z., M. Amandry, and B. Remy. 1995. ‘Monnaies
pontiques d’époque romaine au musée d’Istanbul.’ Anatolia
Antiqua 3: 99-108.
Clauss, M. 1996. ‘Deus praesens. Der römische Kaiser als Gott.’
Klio 78: 400-433.
———. 1999. Kaiser und Gott. Stuttgart.
 references
Clerc, M. 1885. ‘Inscription de Nysa.’ Bulletin de correspondance
hellénique 9: 124-131.
———. 1886. ‘Inscriptions de Thyatire et des environs.’ Bul-
letin de correspondance hellénique 10: 398-423.
Cohen, G. 1995. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands,
and Asia Minor. Berkeley.
Colin, J. 1981. Cyriaque d’Ancone. Paris.
Collas-Heddeland, E. 1995. ‘Le culte impérial dans la
compétition des titres sous le haut-empire.’ Revue des études
grecques 108: 410-429.
Contoleon, A.-E. 1902. ‘Inscriptions de la Grèce d’Europe.’
Revue des études grecques 15: 132-142.
Conze, A. et al. 1912-1913. Altertümer von Pergamon 1: Stadt und
Landschaft. Part 2. Berlin.
Cook, J. 1973. The Troad. Oxford.
Cormack, J. 1940. ‘The Nerva Inscription in Beroia.’ Journal
of Roman Studies 30: 50-52.
Corso, A. 1991. Prassitele: Fonti epigrafiche e letterarie, Vita e Op-
ere. Vol. 3 (Xenia 10.3). Rome.
Corsten, T. 1996. Katalog der bithynischen Münzen der Sammlung
des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln 2. Op-
laden.
———. 1997. Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos 1. Inschriften
griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 49. Bonn. (= IvL.)
———. 1999. ‘Die Amtszeit des Proconsul Asiae P. Petronius.’
Epigraphica Anatolica 31: 94.
——— and U. Huttner. 1996. ‘Münzen aus Laodikeia am
Lykos (Phrygien).’ Epigraphica Anatolica 26: 43-51.
Cox, D. 1941. A Tarsus Coin Collection in the Adana Museum.
American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs
92. New York. (= Adana with coin no.)
Croke, B. 1990. ‘Malalas, the Man and His Work.’ In E.
Jeffreys, ed., Studies in John Malalas, 1-25. Sydney.
Cross, T. and G. Leiser. 2000. A Brief History of Ankara.
Vacaville, CA.
Crown, A. 1989. ‘The Byzantine and Moslem Period.’ In A.
Crown, ed., The Samaritans, 55-81. Tübingen.
Cuinet, V. 1891. La Turquie d’Asie: Geographie administrative 2.
Paris.
Cumont, F. 1903. ‘La Galatie maritime de Ptolémée.’ Revue
des études grecques 16: 25-27.
——— and E. Cumont. 1906. Studia Pontica 2. Brussels.
Dagron, G. and D. Feissel. 1987. Inscriptions de Cilicie. Paris.
Daltrop, G., U. Hausman, and M. Wegner. 1966. Die Flavier.
Berlin.
D’Andria, F. 2001. ‘Hierapolis of Phrygia: its evolution in
Hellenistic and Roman times’ in D. Parrish, ed., Urban-
ism in Western Asia Minor, 94-115. Portsmouth RI.
Danov, C. 1979. ‘Philippopolis, Serdica, Odessos. Zur Ge-
schichte und Kultur der bedeutendsten Städte Thrakiens
von Alexander d. Gr. bis Justinian.’ In ANRW 2.7.1: 241-
300.
De Bernardi Ferrero, D. 1993. ‘Hierapolis.’ In Arslantepe
Hierapolis Iasos Kyme: Scavi archeologici italiani in Turchia, 104-
187. Venice.
De Blois, L. 1976. The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus. Leiden.
———. 1978/1979. ‘The Reign of the Emperor Philip the
Arabian.’ Talanta 10-11: 11-43.
———. 1984. ‘The Third Century Crisis and the Greek Elite
in the Roman Empire.’ Historia 33: 358-377.
de Hoz, M. 1991. ‘Theos Hypsistos in Hierokaisareia.’ Epi-
graphica Anatolica 18: 75-77.
Deininger, J. 1965. Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit.
Munich.
———. 1983. ‘Zu einer neuen Hypothese über die Pontarchie
im westpontischen Koinon.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
379
Epigraphik 51: 219-227.
Delorme, J. 1960. Gymnasion. Paris.
de Luca, G. 1990. ‘Asklepios in Pergamon.’ In B. Andreae, ed.,
Phyromachos-Probleme, 25-40. Mainz.
Des Gagniers, J., ed. 1969. Laodicée du Lycos: Le Nymphée. Cam-
pagnes 1961-1963. Quebec.
Despinis, G. 1975. ÉAkrÒliya. Athens.
Deubner, O. 1937. ‘Zu den grossen Propyläen von Eleusis.’
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische
Abteilung 62: 73-81.
Devesne, A. 1982. La frise du temple d’Artemis à Magnesie du
Meandre. Paris.
Devijver, H. 1993. ‘The Inscriptions of the Neon-Library of
Roman Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, eds.,
Sagalassos 2: 107-123. Leuven.
——— and M. Waelkens. 1995. ‘Roman Inscriptions from the
Upper Agora at Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens and J.
Poblome, eds., Sagalassos 3: 115-125. Leuven.
——— and ———. 1997. ‘Roman Inscriptions from the Fifth
Campaign at Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome,
eds., Sagalassos 4: 293-314. Leuven.
Devreker, J. 1982. ‘Les Orientaux au Sénat romain d’Auguste
à Trajan.’ Latomus 41: 492-516.
——— and J. Strubbe. 1996. ‘Greek and Latin Inscriptions
from Pessinus.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 26: 53-66.
———, H. Thoen and F. Vermeulen. 1995. ‘The Imperial
Sanctuary at Pessinus and its Predecessors: A Revision.’
Anatolia Antiqua 3: 125-144.
——— and M. Waelkens. 1984. Les fouilles de la Rijksuniversiteit
te Gent a Pessinonte. Bruges.
Diakonoff, I. 1979. ‘Artemidi Anaeti anestesen.’ Bulletin antieke
beschaving: babesch 54: 139-188.
di Filippo Balestrazzi, E. 1997. ‘Roma.’ In LIMC 8: 1048-1068.
Dittenberger, W. 1960. Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum. 4th ed.
Hildesheim. (= SIG4.)
Dodgeon, M. and N. Lieu. 1994. The Roman Eastern Frontier and
the Persian Wars A.D. 226-363. London.
Dörner, F. 1941. Inschriften und Denkmäler aus Bithynien. Istanbuler
Forschungen 14.
Donohue, A. 1988. Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture. At-
lanta.
———. 1997. ‘The Greek Images of the Gods.’ Hephaistos 15:
31-45.
Dräger, M. 1993. Die Städte der Provinz Asia in der Flavierzeit.
Frankfurt.
———. 2000. ‘Überlegungen zu den Reisen Hadrians durch
Kleinasien.’ Klio 82: 208-216.
Drake, H. 2000. Constantine and the Bishops. Baltimore.
Drew-Bear, T. 1974. ‘Representations of Temples on the Greek
Imperial Coinage.’ American Numismatic Society Museum Notes
19: 27-63.
Duke, T. 1953. ‘The Festival Chronology of Laodicea ad
Lycum.’ In Studies Presented to D.M. Robinson 2: 851-857.
St. Louis.
Dumont, A. 1876. ‘Inscriptions et monuments figurés de la
Thrace.’ Archives des missions scientifiques3 3: 117-200.
Dusanic, S. 1976. ‘The End of the Philippi.’ Chiron 6: 427-439.
Eck, W. 1970. Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian. Munich.
———. 1972. ‘Die Laufbahn des L. Antonius Albus, Suffekt-
konsul unter Hadrian.’ Epigraphische Studien. Sammelband,
17-23. Bonn.
———. 1980. ‘Die Präsenz senatorischer Familien in den
Städten des Imperium Romanum bis zum späten 3. Jahr-
hundert.’ In W. Eck, H. Galsterer, and H. Wolff, eds.,
Studien zur antiken Sozialgeschichte: Festschrift Friedrich Vittinghoff,
283-322. Cologne.
380 references
———. 1982. ‘Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen
Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/39.’ Chiron 12: 281-362.
———. 1983. ‘Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen
Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/139.’ Chiron 13: 147-237.
———. 1997a. Die Verwaltung des römischen Reiches in der hohen
Kaiserzeit 2. Basel.
———. 1997b. ‘Zu kleinasiatischen Inschriften (Ephesos;
Museum Bursa).’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 117:
107-116 .
———. 1999. ‘A. Iunius Rufinus, proconsul Asiae unter Marc
Aurel, und seine Familie.’ In P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber,
and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Dieter
Knibbe, 299-302. Vienna.
Eckhel, J. 1792-1839. Doctrina numorum veterum. 8 vols. Vienna.
Edson, C. 1972. Inscriptiones Graecae 10: Epiri, Macedoniae,
Thraciae, Scythiae. Part 2.1. Berlin.
Ehrhardt, N. 1995. ‘Ktistai in den Argonautika des Apollonios
Rhodios.’ Asia Minor Studien 16: Studien zum antiken Kleinasien
3, 23-46. Bonn.
Elliger, W. 1992. Ephesos—Geschichte einer antiken Weltstadt.
Stuttgart.
Engelmann, H. 1972. ‘Eine Prägung des ionischen Bundes.’
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 9: 188-192.
———. 1993. ‘Zum Kaiserkult in Ephesos.’ Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 97: 279-289.
———. 1996. ‘Das Grab des Androklos und ein Olympieion.’
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 112: 131-133.
———. 1998. ‘Ephesiaca.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
121: 305-311.
———. 1999. ‘Archäologie und Epigraphik in Ephesos.’ In H.
Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische
Forschungen in Ephesos, 157-160. Vienna.
———. 2000. ‘Asiarchs.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
132: 173-175.
——— and D. Knibbe. 1989. Das Zollgesetz der Provinz Asia.
Epigraphica Anatolica 14.
Erkelenz, D. 1999. ‘Cicero, Pro Flacco 55-59, Zur Finanzierung
von Statthalterfesten in der Frühphase des Koinon von
Asia.’ Chiron 29: 43-57.
Errington, R. 1987. ‘Yeå ÑR\mh und römischer Einfluss südlich
des Mäanders im 2. Jh. v. Chr.’ Chiron 17: 97-118.
Ertüzün, R. 1964. KapÌdagÌ YarÌmadasÌ ve Çevresindeki Adalar.
Ankara.
Evers, C. 1994. Les portraits d’Hadrien. Brussels.
Fant, J. 1993. ‘Ideology, Gift and Trade: A Distribution Model
for the Roman Imperial Marbles.’ In W. Harris, ed., The
Inscribed Economy, 145-170. Ann Arbor.
Fayer, C. 1976. Il culto della dea Roma. Chieti.
Felten, F. 1980. ‘Römische Architektur in Pergamon.’ In J.
Dalfen, K. Forstner, M. Fussl, and W. Speyer, eds., Sym-
micta Philologica Salisburgensia, 207-231. Rome.
Fischler, S. 1998. ‘Imperial Cult: Engendering the Cosmos.’
In L. Foxhall and J. Salmon, eds., When Men Were Men,
165-183. London.
Fishwick, D. 1987-1992. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West.
Leiden.
———. 1995. ‘The Temple of Divus Claudius at Camulodunum.’
Britannia 26: 11-27.
———. 1998. ‘Our First High Priest: A Gallic Knight at Ath-
ens.’ Epigraphica 60: 83-112.
Fittschen, K. 1985. ‘Zur Datierung des Augustus-Roma-
Tempels in Ankara.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 309-315.
——— and P. Zanker. 1983. Katalog der römischen Porträts in dem
Capitolinischen Museen 3-4. Mainz.
Fleischer, R. 1973. Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen
aus Anatolien und Syrien. Leiden.
———. 1978. ‘Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kult-
statuen aus Anatolien und Syrien—Supplement.’ In S.
”ahin, E. Schwertheim, and J. Wagner, eds. Studien zur
Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festchrift… F. K. Dörner 1: 324-
358. Leiden.
———. 1984a. ‘Artemis Ephesia.’ In LIMC 2.1: 755-763.
———. 1984b. ‘Artemis Leukophryene.’ In LIMC 2.1: 764-
765.
———. 1984c. ‘Artemis Sardiane.’ In LIMC 2.1: 766-767.
———. 1999. ‘Neues zum Kultbild der Artemis von Ephesos.’
In H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre öster-
reichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 605-609. Vienna.
Fontani, E. 1996. ‘I Vedii di Efeso nel II secolo d.C.’ Zeitschrift
für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 110: 227-237.
Fontenrose, J. 1988. Didyma. Apollo’s Oracle, Cult and Compan-
ions. Berkeley.
Forrer, L. 1922-1929. The Weber Collection. London. (= Weber.)
Foss, C. 1976. Byzantine and Turkish Sardis. Cambridge, MA.
———. 1977a. ‘Bryonianus Lollianus of Side.’ Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 26: 161-171.
———. 1977b. ‘Late Antique and Byzantine Ankara.’
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31: 29-87.
———. 1979. Ephesus after Antiquity. Cambridge.
———. 1986. ‘Appendix: Inscriptions Related to the Complex.’
In F. Yegül, The Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Sardis, 169-172.
Cambridge, MA.
———. 1990. History and Archaeology of Byzantine Asia Minor.
Aldershot.
———. 1996. Cities, Fortresses and Villages of Byzantine Asia Mi-
nor. Aldershot.
Fränkel, M., ed. 1895. Inschriften von Pergamon. Altertümer von
Pergamon 8.2. Berlin. (= IvP.)
Franke, P. 1987. ‘Zu den Homonoia-Münzen Kleinasiens.’ In
E. Olshausen, Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie
des Altertums 1: 1980, 81-102. Bonn.
——— and M. Nollé. 1997. Die Homonoia-Münzen Kleinasiens 1.
Saarbrücken.
French, D. 1981. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. Fasc.
1. Oxford.
———. 1988. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. Fasc.
2: An Interim Catalogue of Milestones. Oxford.
———. 1992. ‘Roads in Pisidia.’ In E. Schwertheim, ed.,
Forschungen in Pisidien, 167-175. Bonn.
———. 1996a. ‘Amasian Notes, 4. Cults and Divinities: The
Epigraphic Evidence.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 26: 87-98.
———. 1996b. ‘Amasian Notes, 5. The Temenos of Zeus
Stratios at Yassiçal.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 27: 75-92.
Frey, L. 1982. ‘Das Bildnis eines Kaiserpriesters aus Pom-
peiopolis in Kilikien.’ Antike Welt 13 no. 3: 27-39.
Frey, M. 1989. Untersuchungen zur Religion und zur Religionspolitik
des Kaisers Elagabal. Stuttgart.
Freyberger, K. 1992. ‘Die Bauten und Bildwirke von Philip-
popolis.’ Damaszener Mitteilungen 6: 293-311.
Freyburger-Galland, M.-L. 1997. Aspects du vocabulaire politique
et institutionnel de Dion Cassius. Paris.
Friesen, S. 1993. Twice Neokoros. Leiden.
———. 1999a. ‘Asiarchs.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
126: 275-290 .
———. 1999b. ‘Highpriests of Asia and Asiarchs: Farewell to
the Identification Theory.’ In P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber,
and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Dieter
Knibbe, 303-307. Vienna.
Friesinger, H., and F. Krinzinger, eds. 1999. 100 Jahre
österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Vienna.
Frolova, N. 1983. Coinage of the Kingdom of Bosporus A.D. 242-
341/342. Oxford.
 references
Frova, A. 1976. ‘Philippopolis.’ In R. Stillwell, ed., Princeton
Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton.
Gaebler, H. 1904. ‘Zur Münzkunde Makedoniens IV.’ Zeitschrift
für Numismatik 24: 245-338.
———. 1906. Die antike Münzen Nord-griechenlands 3.1. Berlin.
(= AMNG with coin number.)
———. 1907. ‘Beroia.’ Nomisma 1: 23-28.
———. 1929. ‘Das koinoboÊlion §leÊyeron in Tarsos und
Anazarbos.’ Zeitschrift für Numismatik 39: 313-331.
———. 1935. Die antike Münzen Nord-Griechenlands 3.2. Berlin.
Gagé, G. 1968. Basiléia. Paris.
———. 1975. ‘Alexandre le Grand en Macédoine dans la Ière
moitié du IIIe. siècle ap. J.-C.’ Historia 24: 1-16.
Gajdukevic, V. 1971. Das Bosporanische Reich. Berlin.
Galsterer-Kröll, B. 1972. ‘Untersuchungen zu den Beinamen
der Städte des Imperium Romanum.’ Epigraphische Studien
9: 44-145.
Garzetti, A. 1974. From Tiberius to the Antonines, trans. J. Fos-
ter. London.
Gascó, F. 1988. ‘Casio Dion y la rivalidad de las ciudades
griegas.’ In G. Pereira Menaut, ed., Actas, 1er Congreso
Peninsular de Historia Antigua 1: 135-145. Santiago de Com-
postela.
———. 1989. ‘The Meetings Between Aelius Aristides and
Marcus Aurelius in Smyrna.’ American Journal of Philology
110: 471-478.
———. 1990. Ciudades griegas en conflicto. Madrid.
———. 1992. ‘Septimio Severo en Anazarbo.’ Emerita 60: 235-
239.
Gates, M.-H. 1997. ‘Archaeology in Turkey.’ American Journal
of Archaeology 101: 241-305.
Gauthier, P. 1989. Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes II. Geneva.
——— and M. Hatzopoulos. 1993. La loi gymnasiarchique de
Beroia. Athens.
Geertz, C. 1973. ‘Religion as a cultural system.’ In The Inter-
pretation of Cultures, 87-125. New York.
Geissen, A. 1992. ‘Die ältere Faustina auf alexandrinischen
Tetradrachmen.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 92:
177-178.
Gerasimov, T. 1966. ‘Edna moneta na gr. Augusta Trajana s
neokorija ot Geta (209-212)’ (in Bulgarian; French sum-
mary). Arkheologicheski Institut. Bulgarska Akademiia na Naukite.
Izvestiia 29: 217-219.
Gill, D. and C. Gempf, eds. 1994. The Book of Acts in its Graeco-
Roman Setting. Grand Rapids.
Giraud, D. 1989. ‘The Greater Propylaia at Eleusis, a Copy
of Mnesikles’ Propylaia.’ In S. Walker and A. Cameron,
eds., The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, 69-75.
London.
Gleason, M. 1995. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in
Ancient Rome. Princeton.
Gough, M. 1952. ‘Anazarbus.’ Anatolian Studies 2: 85-150.
Gounaropoulou, L. and M. Hatzopoulos, eds. 1998. EPI-
GRAFES KATV MAKEDONIAS, TEUXOS A': EPIGRAFES
BEROIAS. Athens.
Grant, M. 1950. ‘The Official Coinage of Tiberius in Galatia.’
Numismatic Chronicle6 10: 43-48.
Greenewalt, C., Jr. and M. Rautman. 2000. ‘The Sardis Cam-
paigns of 1996, 1997, and 1998.’ American Journal of Ar-
chaeology 104: 643-681.
Grégoire, H. 1909. ‘Rapport sur un voyage d’exploration dans
le Pont et en Cappadoce.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique
33: 3-147.
Gros, P. 1996-2001. L’architecture romaine. 2 vols. Paris.
Gross, M. 1940. Bildnisse Traians. Berlin.
Gruben, G. 1961. ‘Beobachtungen zum Artemis-Tempel von
381
Sardis.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.
Athenische Abteilung 76: 155-196.
———. 1976. Die Tempel der Griechen. 2nd ed. Munich.
Guarducci, M. 1969-1975. Epigrafia Greca 2. Rome.
Günther, W. 1985. ‘Inschriften von Didyma.’ Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 35: 181-
193.
Güterbock, H. 1989. ‘The Temple of Augustus in the 1930s.’
In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin
Özgüç, 155-157. Ankara.
Guidoboni, E. with A. Comastri and G. Traina. 1994. Cata-
logue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the
Tenth Century. Rome.
Guinea Díaz, P. 1997. Nicea: Cuidad y territorio en la Bitinia Romana.
Huelva.
Gurval, R. 1995. Actium and Augustus. Ann Arbor.
Habicht, C. 1959/1960. ‘Zwei neue Inschriften aus Pergamon.’
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung
Istanbul 9/10: 109-127.
———. 1969. Die Inschriften des Asklepieions, Altertümer von Pergamon
8.3. Berlin. (= IdA.)
———. 1970. Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte. 2nd ed.
Munich.
———. 1973. ‘Die augusteische Zeit und das erste Jahrhundert
nach Christi Geburt.’ In W. den Boer, ed., Le culte des
souverains dans l’empire romain. Fondation Hardt. Entretiens 19:
39-88. Geneva.
———. 1975. ‘New Evidence on the Roman Province of Asia.’
Journal of Roman Studies 65: 64-91.
Haenchen, E. 1965. Die Apostelgeschichte. Göttingen.
Hänlein (-Schäfer), H. 1981. ‘Zur Datierung der Augustus-
tempels in Ankara.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 511-513.
———. 1985. Veneratio Augusti. Rome.
Haensch, R. 1997. Capita Provinciarum. Mainz.
Hahn, U. 1994. Die Frauen des römischen Kaiserhauses und ihre
Ehrungen. Saarbrücken.
Halfmann, H. 1979. Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Im-
perium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jh. n. Chr. Göttingen.
———. 1982. ‘Zwei syrische Verwandte des severischen
Kaiserhauses.’ Chiron 12: 217-235.
———. 1986a. Itinera Principum. Stuttgart.
———. 1986b. ‘Zur Datierung und Deutung der Priesterliste
am Augustus-Roma-Tempel in Ankara.’ Chiron 16: 35-42.
———. 1990. ‘Hymnoden von Asia in Kyzikos.’ In E. Schwert-
heim, ed., Mysische Studien. Asia Minor Studien 1: 21-26.
Bonn.
Hall, B. 1989. ‘From John Hyrcanus to Baba Rabbah.’ In A.
Crown, ed., The Samaritans, 32-54. Tübingen.
Hamblenne, P. 1968. ‘La légende d’Oppien.’ L’Antiquité classique
37: 589-619.
Hanell, K. 1935. ‘Neokoroi.’ In RE 16.2: 2422-2428.
Hanfmann, G. 1983. Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Cam-
bridge, MA.
——— and N. Ramage. 1978. Sculpture from Sardis: Sardis Re-
port 2. Cambridge, MA.
Hanslik, R. 1965. ‘M. Ulpius Traianus 1a.’ In RE Supplement
10: 1035-1102.
Hanson, J. 1959. Roman Theater-Temples. Princeton.
Harl, K. 1984. ‘The Coinage of Neapolis in Samaria, A.D. 244-
53.’ American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 29: 61-97. (=
Harl with catalogue number.)
———. 1987. Civic Coins and Civic Politics. Los Angeles.
Harper, R. 1970. ‘Podandus and the Via Tauri.’ Anatolian Studies
20: 149-153.
Harris, B. 1964. Bithynia under Trajan. Auckland.
Hartmann, F. 1982. Herrscherwechsel und Reichskrise. Frankfurt.
382 references
Hasebroeck, J. 1921. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers
Septimius Severus. Heidelberg.
Hasluck, F. 1910. Cyzicus. Cambridge.
———. 1913-1914. ‘The “Tomb of S. Polycarp” and the
Topography of Ancient Smyrna.’ Annual of the British School
at Athens 20: 80-93.
Head, B. 1911. Historia Numorum. Oxford.
Heberdey, R., and E. Kalinka. 1896. ‘Bericht über zwei Reisen
im südwestlichen Kleinasien.’ Denkschriften der Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 45 I, 1-
57.
Hecht, R. 1964. ‘Some Coins of Asia Minor in Boston.’ Nu-
mismatic Chronicle 7 4: 159-168.
———. 1968. ‘Some Greek Imperial Coins in my Collection.’
Numismatic Chronicle 7 8: 27-35.
Heinze, T. 1995. ‘Ailios Aristeides. Festrede in Kyzikos
anlässlich der Einweihung des Kaisertempels.’ In E.
Winter, ed., Studien zum antiken Kleinasien 3. Asia Minor
Studien 16: 63-100. Bonn.
Hepding, H. 1907. ‘Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1904-1905, II.
Die Inschriften.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 32: 241-377.
———. 1910. ‘Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1908-1909, II. Die
Inschriften.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.
Athenische Abteilung 35: 401-493.
Herkenrath, E. 1902. Der Fries des Artemisions von Magnesia. Berlin.
Herrmann, P. 1975. ‘Ein Kaiserurkunde der Zeit Marc Aurels
aus Milet.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.
Abteilung Istanbul 25: 149-166.
———. 1979. ‘Schiedsgericht zwischen Temnos und Klazo-
menai.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.
Abteilung Istanbul 29: 249-271.
———. 1980. ‘Kaiserliche Garantie für private Stiftungen.’ In
W. Eck, H. Galsterer, and H. Wolff, eds., Studien zur antiken
Sozialgeschichte: Festschrift Friedrich Vittinghoff, 339-356. Co-
logne.
———. 1986. ‘Die Weihinschrift der ersten römischen Bühne
in Milet.’ In W. Müller-Wiener, ed., Milet 1899-1980, 175-
189. Tübingen.
———. 1989a. ‘Ein Tempel für Caligula in Milet?’ Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 39:
191-196.
———. 1989b. ‘Rom und die Asylie griechischer Heiligtümer.’
Chiron 19: 127-158.
———. 1992. ‘Epigraphische Notizen 4-9.’ Epigraphica Anatolica
20: 69-74.
———. 1993a. ‘Epigraphische Forschungen in Lydien: Poly-
bios aus Sardeis.’ In G. Dobesch and G. Rehrenböck, eds.,
Die epigraphische und altertumskundliche Erforschung Kleinasiens:
Hundert Jahre kleinasiatische Kommission der österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 211-219. Vienna.
———. 1993b. ‘Inschriften von Sardeis.’ Chiron 23: 233-266.
———. 1995. ‘Sardeis zur Zeit der iulisch-claudischen Kai-
ser.’ In E. Schwertheim, ed., Forschungen in Lydien. Asia
Minor Studien 17: 21-36. Bonn.
———. 1997. Milet 6.1.B: Inschriften von Milet, Nachträge. Ber-
lin.
———. 1998. Milet 6.2: Inschriften von Milet 2. Berlin.
——— with S. Greger. 1994. ‘Milet unter Augustus. C. Iulius
Epikrates und die Anfänge des Kaiserkults.’ Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 44:
203-236.
——— with D. McCabe. 1986. ‘Die Weihinschrift der ersten
römischen Bühne in Milet.’ In W. Müller-Wiener, ed.,
Milet 1899-1980 , 175-189. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäo-
logischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul. Beiheft 31. Tübingen.
Herz, P. 1990. ‘Die musische Agonistik und der Kunstbetrieb
der Kaiserzeit.’ In J. Blänsdorf, ed., Theater und Gesellschaft
im Imperium Romanum, 175-195. Tübingen.
———. 1992. ‘Asiarchen und Archiereiai.’ Tyche 7: 93-115.
———. 1998. ‘Addenda Agonistica I.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 30:
133-136.
Heubeck, A. 1968. ‘Da-mo-ko-ro.’ In Atti e memorie del 1.o Con-
gresso internazionale di micenologia 2: 611-615. Rome.
Hijmans, S. 1996. ‘The Sun Which Did Not Rise in the East:
The Cult of Sol Invictus in the Light of Non-Literary
Evidence.’ Bulletin antieke beschaving: babesch 71: 115-150.
Hild, F. and H. Hellenkemper. 1986. Neue Forschungen in Kilikien.
Vienna.
——— and ———. 1990. Tabula Imperii Byzantini 5: Kilikien
und Isaurien. Vienna.
Hill, G. 1923. ‘Some Coins of Southern Asia Minor.’ In W.
Buckler and W. Calder, eds., Anatolian Studies Presented to
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, 207-224. Manchester.
Hirschfeld, G. 1888. ‘Inschriften aus dem Norden Kleinasiens
besonders aus Bithynien und Paphlagonien.’ In Sitzungs-
berichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.
Philosophisch-historische Klasse 22: 863-892.
———. 1893. The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British
Museum 4.1. Oxford.
———. 1894. ‘Antandros (1).’ In RE 1: 2346.
Hobsbawm, E. 1983. ‘Introduction: Inventing Tradition.’ In
E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tra-
dition, 1-14. Cambridge.
Hoepfner, W. 1989. ‘Zu den grossen Altären von Magnesia
und Pergamon.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 601-634.
———. 1990a. ‘Bauten und Bedeutung des Hermogenes.’ In
W. Hoepfner and E. Schwandner, Hermogenes und die
hochhellenistische Architektur, 1-34. Mainz.
———. 1990b. ‘Von Alexandria über Pergamon nach
Nikopolis. Städtebau und Stadtbilder hellenistischer Zeit.’
In Akten des XIII. internationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäo-
logie, Berlin 1988, 275-285. Mainz.
Holtzmann, B. 1984. ‘Asklepios.’ In LIMC 2.1: 863-897.
Hommel, P. 1954. Studien zu den römischen Figurengiebeln der
Kaiserzeit. Berlin.
Houston, G. 1972. ‘M. Plancius Varus and the Events of A.D.
69-70.’ Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philologi-
cal Association 103: 167-180.
Howe, T. 1983. ‘The Temple of Artemis.’ Sardis Guides 6.
———. 1986. ‘The Artemis Temple at Sardis and the End of
the Late Hellenistic Tradition of Temple Design.’ Ameri-
can Institute of Archaeology Abstracts 11: 3.
Hueber, F. 1997. ‘Zur städtebaulichen Entwicklung des
hellenistisch-römischen Ephesos.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 47: 251-269.
Humann, C. 1904. Magnesia am Maeander. Berlin.
———, C. Cichorius, W. Judeich, and F. Winter. 1898.
Altertümer von Hierapolis. Berlin. (= AvH.)
Imhoof-Blumer, F. 1901-1902. Kleinasiatische Münzen. Vienna.
———. 1911. ‘Aedicula als Kopfschmuck der Artemis
Ephesia.’ Nomisma 6:11-12.
Inan, J. 1993. ‘Neue Forschungen zum Sebasteion von Boubon
und seinen Statuen.’ In J. Borchhardt and G. Dobesch,
eds., Akten des II. internationalen Lykien-Symposions 1: 213-239.
Vienna.
——— and E. (Alföldi-) Rosenbaum. 1966. Roman and Early
Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor. London.
——— and ———. 1979. Römische und frühbyzantinische Porträt-
plastik aus der Türkei. Mainz.
Ippel, A. 1912. ‘Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1910-1911, II. Die
Inschriften.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.
 references
Athenische Abteilung 37: 277-303.
Ireland, S. 2000. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Coins in the Museum
at Amasya (Ancient Amaseia), Turkey. London.
——— with S. Atesogullari. 1996. ‘The Ancient Coins in
Amasya Museum.’ In R. Ashton, ed., Studies in Ancient
Coinage from Turkey, 115-137. London.
Isaac, B. 1992. The Limits of Empire. Rev. ed. Oxford.
IâÌk, F. 1990. ‘Patara 1989.’ XII. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 29-
55.
———. 1991. ‘Patara. Dünü bugünü ve gelecegi.’ Türk arkeoloji
dergisi 29: 35-69.
———. 2000. Patara: The History and Ruins of the Capital City of
Lycian League. Antalya.
——— and H. YÌlmaz. 1989. ‘Patara 1988.’ XI. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ
ToplantÌsÌ 2: 1-21.
Jacoby, F. 1950. Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Reprint.
Leiden.
Jakobek, R., and A. Dinstl, eds. 1990. Götter, Heroen, Herrscher
in Lykien. Vienna.
Jalabert, L., R. Mouterde, and C. Mondésert. 1959. Inscrip-
tions grecques et latines de la Syrie 5: Émésène (Bibliothèque
archéologique et historique 66). Paris.
Jameson, S. 1970. ‘Aspendos.’ In RE Suppl. 12: 99-109.
———. 1980. ‘The Lycian League: Some Problems in its
Administration.’ In ANRW 2.7.2: 832-855.
Jeffreys, E. 1990. ‘Chronological Structures in Malalas’
Chronicle.’ In E. Jeffreys, ed.. Studies in John Malalas, 111-
166. Sydney.
———, M. Jeffreys, and R. Scott. 1986. The Chronicle of John
Malalas. Melbourne.
Jobst, W. 1980. ‘Zur Lokalisierung des Sebastion-Augusteum
in Ephesos.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.
Abteilung Istanbul 30: 241-260.
Johnson, A., P. Coleman-Norton, and F. Bourne. 1961. An-
cient Roman Statutes. Austin.
Johnson, S. 1960. ‘Preliminary Epigraphic Report on the In-
scriptions Found at Sardis in 1958.’ Bulletin of the Ameri-
can Schools of Oriental Research 158: 6-11.
Johnston, A. 1982. ‘Caracalla or Elagabalus? A Case of Un-
necessarily Mistaken Identity.’ American Numismatic Society
Museum Notes 27: 97-147.
———. 1983. ‘Caracalla’s Path: The Numismatic Evidence.’
Historia 32: 58-76.
———. 1984. ‘Hierapolis Revisited.’ Numismatic Chronicle 144:
52-80.
———. 1989. ‘The Coinage of Smyrna.’ Journal of Roman Ar-
chaeology 2:319-325.
Jones, A. 1973. The Later Roman Empire, 284-602. Reprint.
Oxford.
———. 1977. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2nd ed.
Oxford.
Jones, B. 1992. The Emperor Domitian. London.
Jones, C. 1978. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Cambridge,
MA.
———. 1986. Culture and Society in Lucian. Cambridge, MA.
———. 1993. ‘The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at
Ephesos.’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 113: 149-152.
———. 1996. ‘The Panhellenion.’ Chiron 26: 29-56.
———. 1998. ‘Aelius Aristides and the Asklepieion.’ In H.
Koester, ed., Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods, 63-76. Harris-
burg.
———. 1999a. ‘A Decree of Thyatira in Lydia.’ Chiron 29: 1-
21.
———. 1999b. ‘Old and New in the Inscriptions of Perge.’
Epigraphica Anatolica 31: 8-17.
———. 2001. ‘Cities, Villages and Sanctuaries in the Reign
383
of Hadrian.’ Journal of Roman Archaeology 14: 651-654.
Jonnes, L. 1994. The Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica: Inschriften
griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 47. Bonn.
Jost, M. 1994. ‘The Distribution of Sanctuaries in Civic Space
in Arkadia.’ In S. Alcock and R. Osborne, eds., Placing
the Gods, 217-230. Oxford.
Judeich, W. 1898. ‘Inschriften.’ In C. Humann, C. Cichorius,
W. Judeich, and F. Winter, Altertümer von Hierapolis, 67-
202. Berlin.
Jürging, A. 1991. ‘Unedierte Stadtmünzen der römischen
Kaiserzeit.’ Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen
Gesellschaft 31: 41-50.
Kadar, Z. 1986. ‘L’importance religieuse et artistique du culte
d’Asklepios-Aesculapius sur les médailles de Caracalla à
Pergamon.’ Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis
22: 31-35.
Kalinka, E. 1926. ‘Altes und Neues aus Thrakien.’ Jahreshefte
des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 23: Beibl.
117-208.
Kampmann, U. 1996. Die Homonoia-Verbindungen der Stadt
Pergamon. Saarbrücken.
———. 1997. ‘Eine gemeinsame Emission der Städte Perga-
mon und Ephesos für das Koinon der 13 ionischen
Städte.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Inter-
nationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Klein-
asiens, 83-91. Milan.
———. 1998. ‘Homonoia Politics in Asia Minor: The Example
of Pergamon.’ In H. Koester, ed., Pergamon: Citadel of the
Gods, 373-393. Harrisburg.
Kanatsoulis, D. 1956. ‘TÚ koinÚn t«n MakedÒnvn.’ MAKEDO-
NIKA 3 (1953-55): 27-102.
Karl, H. 1975. Numismatische Beiträge zum Festwesen der klein-
asiatischen und nordgriechischen Städte im 2/3 Jahrhundert. Diss.
Saarbrucken.
Karwiese, S. 1982-1985. ‘Koressos—Ein fast vergessener
Stadtteil von Ephesos.’ In W. Alzinger and G. Neeb, Pro
Arte Antiqua 2: 214-225. Vienna.
———. 1985. ‘Das Beben unter Gallien und seine anhaltenden
Folgen.’ In M. Kandler, S. Karwiese, and R. Pillinger,
Lebendige Altertumswissenschaft: Festgabe zur Vollendung des 70.
Lebensjahres von Hermann Vetters, 126-131. Vienna.
———. 1989. Erster vorläufiger Gesamtbericht über die Wiederauf-
nahme der archäologischen Untersuchung der Marienkirche in Ephe-
sos. Vienna.
———. 1990. ‘Keine Kaiserhochzeit in Ephesos.’ In B. Otto
and F. Ehrl, eds., Echo: Johannes B. Trentini, 171-178.
Innsbruck.
———. 1995a. ‘The Church of Mary and the Temple of
Hadrian Olympios.’ In H. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropo-
lis of Asia, 311-319. Valley Forge.
———. 1995b. Gross ist die Artemis von Ephesos. Vienna.
———. 1999. ‘Artemis Ephesia ‘Sebasteia’: Ein Entziffe-
rungsbeitrag.’ In P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür,
eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe, 61-75.
Vienna.
Kaster, R. 1983. ‘The Date of FD III 1.206.’ Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 51: 131-132.
Kaygusuz, I. 1984. ‘Perge: Unter Kaiser Tacitus Mittelpunkt
der Welt.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 4: 1-4.
Kearsley, R. 1986. ‘Asiarchs, Archiereis and the Archiereiai of
Asia.’ Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 27: 183-192.
———. 1987a. ‘M. Ulpius Appuleius Eurykles of Aezani.’
Antichthon 21: 49-56.
———. 1987b. ‘Some Asiarchs of Ephesus.’ In G. Horsley, ed.,
New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 4: 46-55. Sydney.
———. 1988a. ‘Asiarchs: Titulature and Function: A Reap-
384 references
praisal.’ Studii Clasice 26: 57-65.
———. 1988b. ‘A Leading Family of Cibyra and Some
Asiarchs of the First Century.’ Anatolian Studies 38: 43-51.
———. 1990. ‘Asiarchs, Archiereis and Archiereiai of Asia: New
Evidence from Amorium in Phrygia.’ Epigraphica Anatolica
16: 69-80.
———. 1994. ‘The Asiarchs.’ In D. Gill and C. Gempf, eds.,
The Book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman Setting, 363-376. Grand
Rapids.
———. 1996. ‘The Asiarchs of Cibyra Again.’ Tyche 11: 129-
155.
———. 1999. ‘Bilingual Inscriptions from Ephesos: The Statue
Bases from the Harbour Gymnasium.’ In H. Friesinger
and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen
in Ephesos, 147-155. Vienna.
———. 2001. Greeks and Romans in Imperial Asia: Inschriften
griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 59. Bonn.
Keil, B. 1897. ‘Kyzikenisches.’ Hermes 32: 497-508.
Keil, J. 1908. ‘Zur Geschichte der Hymnoden in der Provinz
Asia.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in
Wien 11: 108-110.
———. 1915. ‘Die dritte Neokorie von Ephesos.’ Numismatische
Zeitschrift 48: 125-130.
———. 1919. ‘Die erste Kaiserneokorie von Ephesos.’
Numismatische Zeitschrift 52: 115-120.
———. 1931/32. ‘XVI. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Aus-
grabungen in Ephesos.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäo-
logischen Instituts in Wien 27: Beibl. 51-60.
———. 1956. ‘Ein ephesicher Anwalt des 3. Jahrhunderts
durchreist das Imperium Romanum.’ in Sitzungsberichte der
Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, München. Philosophisch-
historische Klasse no. 3: 3-10.
Kennedy-Bailie, J. 1846. Fasciculus inscriptionum Graecarum potis-
simum 2. Dublin.
Kern, O. 1900. Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mäander. Berlin.
Kettenhofen, E. 1982. Die römische-persischen Kriege des 3. Jahr-
hunderts n. Chr. Wiesbaden.
Kienast, D. 1971. ‘Ein vernachlässigtes Zeugnis für die
Reichspolitik Trajans: Die zwiete tarsische Rede des Dion
von Prusa.’ Historia 20: 62-80.
———. 1985. ‘Der heilige Senat: Senatskult und “kaiserlicher”
Senat.’ Chiron 15: 253-282.
———. 1995. ‘Zu den Homonoia-Vereinbarungen in der
römischen Kaiserzeit.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
109: 267-282.
———. 1996. Römische Kaisertabelle. 2nd ed. Darmstadt.
Kindler, A. 1980. ‘Was There a Detachment of the Third
Legion Cyrenaica at Neapolis in A.D. 251-253?’ Israel
Numismatic Journal 4: 56-58.
———. 1982-1983. ‘The Status of Cities in the Syro-Pales-
tinian Area as Reflected by their Coins.’ Israel Numismatic
Journal 6-7: 79-87.
Kinney, D. 1997. ‘Spolia. Damnatio and Renovatio Memoriae.’
Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 42: 117-148.
Kippenberg, H. 1971. Garizim und Synagoge. Berlin.
Klose, D. 1987. Die Münzprägung von Smyrna in der römischen Kaiser-
zeit. Berlin. (= MvS.)
———. 1996. ‘Münzprägung und städtische Identität: Smyrna
in der römischen Kaiserzeit.’ In W. Leschhorn, A.V.
Miron, and A. Miron, eds., Hellas und der griechischen Osten,
53-63. Saarbrücken.
———. 1997. ‘Münz- oder Gruselkabinett?’ In J. Nollé, B.
Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur
kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 253-264. Milan.
——— and G. Stumpf. 1996. Sport Spiele Sieg. Munich.
Knackfuss, H. 1924. Milet 1.7: Der Südmarkt. Berlin.
———. 1942. Didyma 1. Die Baubeschreibung. 3 vols. Berlin.
Knibbe, D. 1970. ‘Ephesos.’ In RE Suppl. 12: 248-297.
———. 1995a. ‘Die statuarische Wiederauferstehung des
Kaiserpriesters Ti. Claudius Piso Diophantus unter dem
christlichen Statthalter Fl. Anthemius Isidorus.’ In D.
Knibbe and H. Thür, Via Sacra Ephesiaca II, 100-102.
Vienna.
———. 1995b. ‘Die zweite Kaiserneokorie und der Wandel
des Erscheinungsbildes der Artemis Ephesia: Die Via
Sacra in der Bildersprache ihres Polos?’ In D. Knibbe and
H. Thür, Via Sacra Ephesiaca II, 96-99. Vienna.
———. 1999. ‘Via Sacra Ephesiaca.’ In H. Friesinger and F.
Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in
Ephesos, 449-454. Vienna.
——— and B. Iplikçioglu. 1981/82. ‘Neue Inschriften aus
Ephesos VIII.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen
Instituts in Wien 53: 87-150.
———, H. Engelmann and B. Iplikçioglu. 1989. ‘Neue
Inschriften aus Ephesos XI.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 59: Beibl. 162-238.
———, ——— and ———. 1993. ‘Neue Inschriften aus
Ephesos XII.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen
Instituts in Wien 62: Beibl. 113-150.
Knoepfler, D. 1993. ‘Le temple du Métroön de Sardes et ses
inscriptions.’ Museum Helveticum 50: 26-43.
Koçhan, N. 1991. ‘Kyzikos 1989 KazÌsÌ HadrÌan TapÌnagÌ
Mimari Bezemeleri.’ Türk arkeoloji dergisi 29: 119-132.
Koester, H. 1982. Introduction to the New Testament 2. Philadel-
phia.
———. 1995. ‘Ephesos in Early Christian Literature.’ In H.
Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis of Asia, 119-140. Valley
Forge.
Kolb, F. and B. Kupke. 1992. Lykien. Mainz.
Kolendo, J. 1992. ‘Les noms dynastiques de villes, Philippe
l’Arabe et Philippopolis de Thrace et d’Arabie.’ Index 20:
51-55.
Kolev, K. 1991. ‘Kopien griechischer Skulpturen auf Münzen
von Philippopolis.’ Klio 73: 510-525.
Kornemann. 1924. ‘koinÒn.’ In RE Suppl. 4: 914-941.
Kourouniotes , K. 1921-22. ‘ ÉAnaskafa‹ §n NÊs_ tª §p‹
Maiãndrƒ.’ Archaiologikon Deltion 7: 1-88.
Kraft, K. 1972. Das System der kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung in
Kleinasien. Berlin.
Kranz, P. 1990. ‘Zeugnisse hadrianischer Religionspolitik im
Osten.’ In C. Borker and M. Donderer, eds., Das antike
Rom und der Osten: Festschrift für Klaus Parlasca, 125-141.
Erlangen.
Krautheimer, R. 1986. Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture.
4th ed. Harmondsworth.
Kreeb, M. 1990. ‘Hermogenes—Quellen- und Datierungs-
probleme.’ In W. Hoepfner and E.-L. Schwandner, eds.,
Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur, 103-113.
Mainz.
Kreikenbom, D. 1992. Griechische und römische Kolossalporträts.
Berlin.
Kremydi-Sicilianou, S. 1997. ‘Zeus—Coins.’ In LIMC 8: 362-
371.
Krencker, D. and M. Schede. 1936. Der Tempel in Ankara. Berlin.
Kroll, J. 1997. ‘The Athenian Imperials: Results of Recent
Study.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Inter-
nationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Klein-
asiens, 61-73. Milan.
Kromann, A. 1989. ‘Marks of Value on Greek Imperials from
Side.’ In G. Le Rider, K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner, and U.
Westermark, Kraay-Morkholm Essays, 149-158. Louvain.
Kruse, G. 1939. ‘Olympios. 55.’ In RE 18.1: 251-257.
 references
Kuhoff, W. 1979. Herrschertum und Reichskrise. Bochum.
Kunckel, H. 1974. Der römische Genius. Heidelberg.
Kunisz, A. 1986. ‘Le monnayage d’argent de Césarée de
Cappadoce sous les règnes de Trajan et d’Hadrien.’ In
Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Numismatics, 201-
206. London.
Kuttner, A. 1995. Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus.
Berkeley.
Lämmer, M. 1967. Olympien und Hadrianeen im antiken Ephesos.
Diss. Cologne.
Laffi, U. 1967. ‘Le iscrizioni relative all’introduzione nel 9 A.C.
del nuovo calendario della provincia d’Asia.’ Studi Clas-
sici e Orientali 16: 5-98.
———. 1971. ‘I terreni del tempio di Zeus ad Aizanoi.’ Ath-
enaeum 49: 3-53.
Laminger-Pascher, G. 1974. ‘Kleine Nachträge zu kilikischen
Inschriften.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 15: 31-
68.
Lanckoronski, K. 1890-1892. Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens.
Vienna.
Langer, P. 1981. Power and Propaganda: Relations between Rome and
Bithynia under the Empire, 27 B.C.-260 A.D. Diss. Univer-
sity of Virginia.
Latyschev, B. 1890. Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti
Euxini. St. Petersburg.
Laubscher, H. 1967. ‘Zum Fries von Hadrianstempels in
Kyzikos.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.
Abteilung Istanbul 17: 211-217.
Lauritsen, F. 1979. ‘The Greek Imperial Coins of Pamphylia
and Evidence for the Monetary Crisis of the Third Cen-
tury A.D.’ In M. Powell Jr. and R. Sack, eds., Studies in
Honor of Tom B. Jones, 277-287. Kevelaer.
Le Bas, P. and W. Waddington. 1847-1877. Voyage archéologique
en Grece et en Asie Mineure. Paris. (= LeBas-Waddington.)
Le Glay, M. 1976. ‘Hadrien et l’Asklépieion de Pergame.’
Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 100: 347-372.
Le Guen-Pollet, B. 1990. ‘Une inscription d’Héraclée du Pont
de 130 ap. J.-C.?’ In Ikinci Tarih Boyunca Karadeniz Kongresi
Bildirileri, 668-680. Samsun.
Lehmann, C., and K. Holum. 2000. The Greek and Latin Inscrip-
tions of Caesarea Maritima. Boston.
Lehmann, P. 1973. ‘Cyriacus of Ancona’s Visit to Samothrace.’
In P. Lehmann and K. Lehmann, Samothracian Reflections,
45-50. Princeton.
Lehnen, J. 1997. Adventus Principis. Frankfurt.
Lendon, J. 1997. Empire of Honour. Oxford.
LeRider, G. 1991. ‘Les trouvailles monétaires dans le temple
d’Artémis à Sardes.’ Revue numismatique 33: 71-88.
Leschhorn, W. 1992. ‘Die Anfänge der Provinz Galatia.’ Chiron
22: 315-336.
———. 1993. Antike Ären. Stuttgart.
———. 1998. ‘Griechische Agone in Makedonien und
Thrakien.’ In U. Peter, ed., Stephanos nomismatikos: Edith
Schönert-Geiss, 399-415. Berlin.
Letta, C. 1994a. ‘Il dossier di Opramoas e la serie dei legati
e degli archiereis di Licia.’ In B. Virgilio, ed., Aspetti e
problemi dell’Ellenismo, 203-246. Pisa.
———. 1994b. ‘Il “naufragio” di Caracalla in Cassio Dione,
nell’ Historia Augusta e nei commentari degli Arvali.’
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 103: 188-190.
Levick, B. 1967. Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor. Oxford.
———. 1969. ‘Caracalla’s Path.’ In Hommages à Marcel Renard
2: 426-446. Brussels.
———. 1982. ‘Domitian and the Provinces.’ Latomus 41: 50-
73.
———. 1987. ‘Aspects of Social Life at Aezani.’ In E. Frézouls,
385
ed., Sociétés urbaines, sociétés rurales dans l’Asie Mineure et la
Syrie hellénistiques et romaines, 259-270. Strasbourg.
———. 1999. Vespasian. London.
———, S. Mitchell, and J. Potter. 1988. Monuments from the
Aezanitis Recorded by C.W.M. Cox, A. Cameron and J. Cullen.
MAMA 9. London.
Levine, L. 1975. Caesarea Under Roman Rule. Leiden.
Lewin, A. 1995. Assemblee popolari e lotta politica nelle città dell’impero
Romano. Florence.
Lewis, R. 1991. ‘Sulla and Smyrna.’ Classical Quarterly 41: 126-
129.
Leypold, F. 1983. ‘Unedierte Münzen aus Pamphylien.’
Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 23:
21-27, 38-43.
———. 1989. ‘Unedierte Provinzialprägungen aus Kilikien.’
Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 29:
85-91.
———. 1991. ‘Unedierte Provinzialmünzen aus Kilikien.’
Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 31:
71-76.
———. 1998. ‘Seltenere Provinzialbronzen aus Ephesus.’
Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 38
no. 2: 32-34.
Liampi, K. 1997. ‘Imperialforschung in Griechenland.’ In J.
Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kol-
loquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 75-81.
Milan.
LiDonnici, L. 1992. ‘The Images of Artemis Ephesia and
Greco-Roman Worship: A Reconsideration.’ Harvard
Theological Review 85: 389-415.
Liebenam, W. 1900. Städteverwaltung im römischen Kaiserreiche.
Leipzig.
Liljenstolpe, P. 1996. ‘De ornamentis templi urbis: Reconstructing
the Main Order of the Temple of Venus and Rome.’
Opuscula Romana 20: 47-67.
Lindner, R. 1994. Mythos und Identität. Stuttgart.
L’Orange, H. 1947. Apotheosis. Oslo.
Lyttelton, M. 1974. Baroque Architecture in Classical Antiquity.
Ithaca, NY.
———. 1987. ‘The Design and Planning of Temples and
Sanctuaries in Asia Minor in the Roman Imperial Period.’
In S. Macready and F. Thompson, eds., Roman Architec-
ture in the Greek World, 38-49. London.
MacDonald, W. 1986. The Architecture of the Roman Empire, 2:
An Urban Appraisal. New Haven.
MacMullen, R. 1959. ‘Roman Imperial Building in the Prov-
inces.’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 64: 207-235.
———. 1974. Roman Social Relations. New Haven.
———. 1976. The Roman Government’s Response to Crisis, A.D. 235-
337. New Haven.
———. 1985. ‘How to Revolt in the Roman Empire.’ Rivista
storica dell’antichità 15: 67-76.
———. 1986. ‘Frequency of Inscriptions in Roman Lydia.’
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 65: 237-238.
———. 1990. Changes in the Roman Empire. Princeton.
———. 1997. Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth
Centuries. New Haven.
Magen, I. 1993. ‘Mount Gerizim.’ In E. Stern, A. Lewinson-
Gilboa, and J. Aviram, eds., New Encyclopedia of Archaeo-
logical Excavations in the Holy Land 2: 484-492. Jerusalem.
Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor. Princeton.
Malavolta, M. 1976-1977. ‘Ludi III-V.’ In Dizionario epigrafico
di antichità Romane 4 fasc. 64-66 : 2025-2097. Rome.
Mansel, A. 1963. Die Ruinen von Side. Berlin.
———. 1965. ‘Side.’ In RE Suppl. 10: 879-918.
———, E. Bosch, and J. Inan. 1951. 1947 senesi Side kazilarina
386 references
dair Önrapor. Ankara.
Marek, C. 1993a. ‘1992 ÇankÌrÌ ve Kastamonu’da AraâtÌr-
malar, Kaunos ve Patara KazÌlarÌnda Epigrafik AraâtÌr-
ma.’ XI. AraâtÌrma SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ, 85-104. Ankara.
———. 1993b. Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und
Nord-Galatia. Tübingen.
Mason, H. 1974. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions. Toronto.
Mastino, A. 1978/79. ‘L’ erasione del nome di Geta dalle iscri-
zioni.’ In Annali della Facoltà di Littere e Filosofia della Uni-
versità di Cagliari 2: 47-81. Publ. 1981.
———. 1981. Le titolature di Caracalla e Geta attraverso le iscrizioni.
Bologna.
McCann, A. 1968. The Portraits of Septimius Severus. Rome.
McDonald, T., ed. 1996. The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences.
Ann Arbor.
Meckler, M. 1994. Caracalla and his Late-Antique Biographer. Diss.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Mellor, R. 1975. YEA RVMH. Göttingen.
Mendel, G. 1909. ‘Catalogue des monuments grecs, romains
et byzantins du Musée Impérial de Brousse.’ Bulletin de
correspondance hellénique 33: 245-435.
Meriç, R. 1985. ‘Rekonstruktionsversuch der Kolossalstatue des
Domitian in Ephesos.’ In W. Alzinger and G. Neeb, Pro
Arte Antiqua 2: 239-241. Vienna.
Merkelbach, R. 1971. ‘M’. Acilius Glabrio in Hierapolis.’
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 7: 43-44.
———. 1978. ‘Der Rangstreit der Städte Asiens und die Rede
des Aelius Aristides über die Einheit.’ Zeitschrift für Papy-
rologie und Epigraphik 32: 287-296.
———. 1979. ‘Ephesische Parerga 25: Commodus als Bruder
des Septimius Severus.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epi-
graphik 33: 189-191.
———. 1985. ‘Eine Inschrift des Weltverbandes der diony-
sischen Technitai (CIG 6829).’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 58: 136-138.
———. 1987. ‘Nikaia in der römischen Kaiserzeit.’ Rheinisch-
Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vorträge G 289, 12.
——— and S. ”ahin. 1988. ‘Die publizierten Inschriften von
Perge.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 11: 97-170.
———, ——— and J. Stauber. 1997. ‘Kaiser Tacitus erhebt
Perge zur Metropolis Pamphyliens und erlaubt einen
Agon.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 29: 69-74.
Meshorer, Y. 1985. City-Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis in
the Roman Period. Jerusalem.
———. 1989. ‘Three Interesting Cults at Neapolis in Samaria.’
In G. Le Rider, K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner, and U.
Westermark, eds., Kraay–Morkholm Essays, 173-177.
Louvain.
———. 1993. ‘New Discoveries in the Coinage of the Cities
of Roman Palestine.’ In A. Biran and J. Aviram, eds.,
Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, 141-146. Jerusalem.
Metcalf, W. 1980. The Cistophori of Hadrian. American Numismatic
Society Numismatic Studies 15. New York.
———. 1996. The Silver Coinage of Cappadocia, Vespasian-Com-
modus. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 166. New York.
———. 1997. ‘Notes on the Coinage of Severan Caesarea.’
In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales
Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 173-
181. Milan.
———. 1999. ‘Coins as Primary Evidence.’ In G. Paul, ed.,
Roman Coins and Public Life Under the Empire, 1-17. Ann
Arbor.
Meyer, E. 1975. ‘Augusti.’ Chiron 5: 393-402.
Meyer, H. 1991. Antinoös. Munich.
Michel, D. 1967. Alexander als Vorbild für Pompeius, Caesar und
Marcus Antonius. Brussels.
Mihailov, G. 1956-1961. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae.
Sofia. (= IGBR.)
Mikocki, T. 1995. Sub specie Deae: Les impératrices et princesses
romaines assimilées à des déesses. Rome.
Mileta, C. 1990. ‘Zur Vorgeschichte und Entstehung der
Gerichtsbezirke der Provinz Asia.’ Klio 72: 427-444.
Millar, F. 1977. The Emperor in the Roman World. Ithaca, NY.
———. 1983. ‘Empire and City, Augustus to Julian: Obliga-
tions, Excuses and Status.’ Journal of Roman Studies 73: 76-
96.
———. 1987. ‘Introduction.’ In S. Macready and F. Thomp-
son, eds., Roman Architecture in the Greek World, ix-xv. Lon-
don.
———. 1990. ‘The Roman Coloniae of the Near East: A Study
of Cultural Relations.’ In H. Solin and M. Kajava, eds.,
Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History, 7-
58. Helsinki.
———. 1993. The Roman Near East. Cambridge, MA.
Milne, J. 1947. ‘Some Greek Coins in Oxford.’ Numismatic
Chronicle6 7: 52-61.
Miltner, F. 1958a. Ephesos, Stadt der Artemis und des Johannes.
Vienna.
———. 1958b. ‘Die neuen Artemisstatuen aus Ephesos.’
Anatolia 3: 21-34.
Mingazzini, P. 1976. ‘La datazione della base di Pozzuoli.’
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom
83: 425-429.
Mionnet, T. 1806-1808. Description des médailles antiques. Paris.
Miranda, E. 1992-1993. ‘Testimonianze sui Kommodeia.’ Scienze
dell’Antichità 6-7: 69-88.
Mitchell, C. 1960. ‘Archaeology and Romance in Renaissance
Italy.’ In E. Jacobs, ed., Italian Renaissance Studies, 455-483.
London.
Mitchell, S. 1977. ‘Inscriptions of Ancyra.’ Anatolian Studies 27:
63-103.
———. 1980. ‘Population and the Land in Roman Galatia.’
In ANRW 2.7.2: 1053-1081.
———. 1984. ‘The Greek City in the Roman World: The Case
of Pontus and Bithynia.’ In A. Kalogeropoulou, ed.
Praktikå toË H' DieynoËw Sunedr¤ou ÑEllenik}w ka‹
Latinik}w Epigrafik}w 1: 120-133. Athens.
———. 1986. ‘Galatia under Tiberius.’ Chiron 16: 17-33.
———. 1987. ‘Imperial Building in the Eastern Roman Prov-
inces.’ In S. Macready and F. Thompson, eds., Roman
Architecture in the Greek World, 18-25. London.
———. 1990. ‘Festivals, Games and Civic Life in Roman Asia
Minor.’ Journal of Roman Studies 80: 183-193.
———. 1993. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. 2 vols.
Oxford.
———. 1999. ‘The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans,
Jews, and Christians.’ In P. Anthanassiadi and M. Frede,
eds., Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, 81-148. Oxford.
——— with D. French and J. Greenhaigh. 1982. Regional
Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor, 2: The Ankara District.
Oxford. (= RECAM 2.)
——— with E. Owens and M. Waelkens. 1989. ‘Ariassos and
Sagalassos 1988.’ Anatolian Studies 39: 63-77.
——— and M. Waelkens. 1998. Pisidian Antioch. London.
Molthagen, J. 1991. ‘Die ersten Konflikte der Christen in der
griechisch-römischen Welt.’ Historia 40: 42-76.
Monceaux, P. 1885. De communi Asiae provinciae. Paris.
Mor, M. 1989a. ‘The Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean
Period.’ In A. Crown, ed., The Samaritans, 1-18. Tübingen.
———. 1989b. ‘The Samaritans and the Bar Kokhbah Re-
volt.’ In A. Crown, ed., The Samaritans, 19-31. Tübingen.
Mordtmann, J. 1881. ‘Zur Epigraphik von Kyzikos.’ Mitteilungen
 references
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 6:
40-55.
———. 1889. ‘Nachträge zu Bd. XII S. 168 ff.’ Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 14:
314-317.
Moretti, L. 1953. Iscrizione agonistiche greche. Rome.
———. 1954. ‘KOINA ASIAS.’ Rivista di filologia classica n.s. 32:
276-289.
———. 1959. Review of Rehm 1958. Rivista di filologia e istru-
zione classica n.s. 37: 199-206.
———. 1968. Inscriptiones Graecae urbis Romae. Rome. (=
IGUrbRom.)
———. 1990. Tra epigrafia e storia. Rome.
Moutsoupoulos, N. 1977. ‘Contribution à l’étude du plan de
ville de Thessalonique à l’époque romaine.’ In L’Archittetura
in Grecia: Atti del XVI Congresso di Storia dell’Architettura, 187-
263. Rome.
Müller, C. 1878-1885. Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum. Paris.
Müller, H. 1992. ‘Phyromachos im pergamenischen Nike-
phorion?’ Chiron 22: 195-226.
———. 2000. ‘Der hellenistische Archiereus.’ Chiron 30: 519-
542.
Münsterberg, R. 1985. Die Beamtennamen auf den greichischen
Münzen. Reprint. Hildesheim.
Mutafian, C. 1988. La Cilicie au carrefour des empires. Paris.
Nafissi, M. 1995. ‘Tiberius Claudius Attalos Andragathos e le
origini di Synnada.’ Ostraka 4: 119-136.
Naster, P. 1987. ‘Monnaies impériales de Pamphylie et de
Pisidie sous Claude II le Gothique et Aurélien.’ In H.
Huvelin, M. Christol, and G. Gautier, eds., Mélanges de
numismatique offerts à P. Bastien, 131-143. Wetteren.
Naumann, F. 1985. ‘Ulpii von Aizanoi.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 35: 217-226.
Naumann, R. 1979. Der Zeustempel zu Aizanoi. Berlin.
———. 1986. ‘Zeustempel und Kybeleheiligtum in Aizanoi.’
Anadolu Araâtirmalari 10: 503-509.
Naveh, J. 1998. ‘Scripts and Inscriptions in Ancient Samaria.’
Israel Exploration Journal 48: 91-100.
Nawotka, K. 1997. The Western Pontic Cities. Amsterdam.
Niemeyer, H. 1968. Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der
römischen Kaiser. Berlin.
Nigdelis, P. 1995. ‘Oberpriester und Gymnasiarchen im
Provinziallandtag Makedoniens: Eine neue Ehreninschrift
aus Beroia.’ Klio 77: 170-183.
———. 1996. ‘Geminii und Claudii: Die Geschichte zweier
führender Familien von Thessaloniki in der späteren
Kaiserzeit.’ In A. Rizakis, ed., Roman Onomastics in the Greek
East: Social and Political Aspects, 129-141. Athens.
Nock, A. 1930a. ‘A Diis Electa: A Chapter in the Religious
History of the Third Century.’ Harvard Theological Review
23: 251-274.
———. 1930b. ‘SUNNAOS YEOS.’ Harvard Studies in Classical
Philology 41: 1-62.
Nohlen, K. 1984. ‘Planung und Planänderung am Bau zum
Gewinnen räumlicher Vorstellung im Bauverlauf des
Traianeum in Pergamon.’ In Bauplanung und Bautheorie der
Antike, 238-249. Berlin.
———. 1985. ‘La conception d’un projet et son évolution:
L’example du Trajaneum de Pergame.’ In Le dessin
d’architecture dans les sociétés antiques: Actes du Colloque de
Strasbourg, 26-28 janvier 1984, 269-276. Leiden.
Nollé, J. 1986a. ‘Die Blütezeit der Stadt Side in der 2. Hälfte
des 3. Jhdts. n. Chr.’ IV AraâtÌrma SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ, 269-
272. Ankara.
———. 1986b. ‘Pamphylische Studien.’ Chiron 16: 199-212.
———. 1987. ‘Pamphylische Studien 6-10.’ Chiron 17: 235-265.
387
———. 1990. ‘Side.’ Antike Welt 21.4: 244-265.
———. 1992. ‘Zur Geschichte der Stadt Etenna in Pisidien.’
In E. Schwertheim, ed., Forschungen in Pisidien, 61-141.
Bonn.
———. 1993. ‘Die feindlichen Schwestern—Betrachtungen zur
Rivalität der pamphylischen Städte.’ In G. Dobesch and
G. Rehrenböck, eds., Die epigraphische und altertumskundliche
Erforschung Kleinasiens: Hundert Jahre kleinasiatische Kommission
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 297-317.
Vienna.
———. 1993-2001. Side im Altertum 1 and 2: Inschriften griechischer
Städte aus Kleinasien 43, 44. Bonn. (= SiA.)
———. 1995. ‘Colonia und Socia der Römer.’ In C. Schubert
and K. Broderson, eds., Rom und der griechische Osten: Fest-
schrift H. Schmitt, 350-359. Stuttgart.
———. 1997. ‘Zur neueren Forschungsgeschichte der kaiser-
zeitliche Stadtprägungen Kleinasiens.’ In J. Nollé, B.
Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur
kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 11-26. Milan.
———. 1998. ‘EÈtux«w to›w kur¤oiw—feliciter dominis!’ Chiron
28: 323-354.
——— and H. Zellner. 1995. ‘Von Anazarbos nach Mopsu-
hestia.’ Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 45: 39-49.
M. Nollé and J. Nollé. 1994. ‘Vom feinen Spiel stadtischer
Diplomatie.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 102:
241-261.
Nony, D. 1971. ‘Le monnayage de Pescennius Niger à Césarée
de Cappadoce.’ Latomus 30: 345-351.
Oberleitner, W. 1999. ‘Das Partherdenkmal von Ephesos.’ In
H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österrei-
chische Forschungen in Ephesos, 619-631. Vienna.
Özgan, R. 1995. Die griechischen und römischen Skulpturen aus
Tralleis. Asia Minor Studien 15. Bonn.
Özgür, E. 1993. ‘Aspendos örenyeri 1991 yÌlÌ kazÌ onarÌm ve
çevre düzenleme çaliâmalarÌ.’ In III. Müze Kurtarma KazÌlarÌ
Semineri, 251-261. Ankara.
Ohlemutz, E. 1940. Kulte und Heiligtümer der Götter in Pergamon.
Würzburg.
Oliver, J. 1970. Marcus Aurelius: Aspects of Civic and Cultural Policy
in the East. Hesperia suppl. 13. Princeton.
———. 1978. ‘The Piety of Commodus and Caracalla.’ Greek,
Roman and Byzantine Studies 19: 375-385.
———. 1989. Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from
Inscriptions and Papyri. Philadelphia.
Olivier, J.-P. 1967. ‘Le damokoro: Un fonctionnaire mycénien.’
Minos 8: 118-122. With commentary by L. Palmer, 123-
124.
Olshausen, E. 1990. ‘Götter, Heroen, und ihre Kulte in Pontos.’
In ANRW 2.18.3: 1865-1906.
Outschar, U. 1999. ‘Zur Deutung des Hadrianstempels an der
Kuretenstrasse.’ In H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds.,
100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 443-448.
Vienna.
Pace, B. 1916-1920. ‘La zona costiera da Adalia a Side.’
Annuario 3: 29-71.
Pantel, P. 1992. La cité au banquet. Rome.
Paoletti, O. 1988. ‘Gorgones Romanae.’ In LIMC 4: 345-362.
Papazoglou, F. 1979. ‘Quelques aspects de l’histoire de la
province de Macédoine.’ In ANRW 2.7.1: 302-369.
———. 1988. Les Villes de Macédoine a l’Époque Romaine. Paris.
Parke, H. 1985. The Oracles of Apollo. London.
Peachin, M. 1990. Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D.
235-284. Amsterdam.
———. 1991. ‘Philip’s Progress.’ Historia 40: 331-342.
Pekáry, T. 1978. ‘Statuen in kleinasiatischen Inschriften.’ In
S. ”ahin, E. Schwertheim, and J. Wagner, eds. Studien zur
388 references
Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festchrift… F. K. Dörner 2: 727-
744 . Leiden.
———. 1985. Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und
Gesellschaft. Berlin.
Penn, R. 1994. Medicine on Ancient Greek and Roman Coins. Lon-
don.
Pensabene, P. 1992. ‘Il tempio della Gens Septimia a Cuicul
(Gemila).’ In L’Africa Romana, Atti del IX convegno di stu-
dio...1991, 771-802. Sassari.
Pera, R. 1984. Homonoia sulle monete da Augusto agli Antonini.
Genoa.
Perrot, G. 1876a. ‘Inscriptions de Cyzique: Les fouilles de M.
Carabella.’ Revue archéologique 32: 264-272.
———. 1876b. ‘Note sur la Situation de Synnada.’ Revue archéo-
logique 31: 190-203.
Petrusevki, M. 1965. ‘Aukewa damokoro.’ Ziva Antika 15: 12.
Petzl, G. 1987. Die Inschriften von Smyrna 2.1: Inschriften griechischer
Stadte aus Kleinasien 23. Bonn. (= IvS.)
Pflaum, H.-G. 1972. ‘La valeur de l’information historique de
la vita Commodi à la lumière des personnages nommément
cités par le biographe.’ In Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium
1970, 199-247. Bonn.
Pharr, C. 1952. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian
Constitutions. Princeton.
Piatkowski, A. 1984. ‘Cassius Dio über den Kaiserkult.’ Klio
66: 599-604.
Pick, B. 1904. ‘Die tempeltragenden Gottheiten und die
Darstellung der Neokorie auf den Münzen.’ Jahreshefte des
Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 7: 1-41.
———. 1906. ‘Die Neokorien von Ephesos.’ In Corolla Numis-
matica: numismatic essays in honour of Barclay V. Head, 234-
244. Oxford.
———. 1914. ‘Un monnaie du KOINON ARMENIAS.’ Revue des
études anciennes 16: 283-289.
Pickard-Cambridge, A. 1988. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens. 2nd
ed. revised. Oxford.
Platner, S. and T. Ashby. 1929. A Topographical Dictionary of
Ancient Rome. London.
Pleket, H. 1965. ‘An Aspect of the Imperial Cult: Imperial
Mysteries.’ Harvard Theological Review 58: 331-347.
———. 1973. ‘Some Aspects of the History of the Athletic
Guilds.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 10: 196-227.
———. 1976. ‘Olympic Benefactors.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie
und Epigraphik 20: 1-6.
———. 1981. ‘A Free DHMOSIOS.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 42: 167-170.
Pohl, D. 2002. Kaiserzeitliche Tempel in Kleinasien under besonderer
Berücksichtigung der hellenistischer Vorläufer. Asia Minor Studien
43. Bonn.
Pohlsander, H. 1982. ‘Did Decius Kill the Philippi?’ Historia
31: 214-222.
Poland, F. 1934. ‘Technitai.’ In RE 5A.2. Nachträge: 2473-
2558.
Poljakov, F. 1989. Die Inschriften von Tralleis und Nysa, 1. Inschriften
griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 36.1. Bonn. (= IvT.)
Potter, D. 1990. Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman
Empire. Oxford.
Preger, T. 1889. De epigrammatis Graecis meletemata selecta. Diss.
Monaco.
Price, M. and B. Trell. 1977. Coins and their Cities. London.
Price, S. 1980. ‘Between Man and God.’ Journal of Roman Studies
70: 28-43.
———. 1984a. ‘Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of
the Roman Imperial Cult.’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 104:
79-95.
———. 1984b. Rituals and Power. Cambridge.
———. 1987. ‘From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: The
Consecration of Roman Emperors.’ In D. Cannadine and
S. Price, eds., Rituals of Royalty , 56-105. Cambridge.
———. 1988. Review of D. Fishwick, Imperial Cult in the Latin
West. Phoenix 42: 371-374.
Prickartz, C. 1993. ‘La chute de Philippe l’Arabe.’ Les Études
classiques 61: 51-64.
Prokesch von Osten, A. 1834. ‘Smyrna.’ Jahrbücher der Literatur
68: Anzeige-Blatt 55-86.
———. 1836. Denkwürdigkeiten und Erinnerungen aus dem Orient.
Stuttgart.
Pülz, S. 1989. Untersuchungen zur kaiserzeitlichen Bauornamentik von
Didyma. Tübingen.
Quass, F. 1993. Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen
Ostens. Stuttgart.
Rabe, H. 1906. Scholia in Lucianum. Lipsiae.
Radt, W. 1978. ‘Pergamon, Vorbericht 1977: Trajaneum.’
Archäologischer Anzeiger, 426-433.
———. 1982. ‘Pergamon 1981: Trajaneum.’ Archäologischer
Anzeiger, 522-561.
———. 1988. Pergamon, Geschichte und Bauten, Funde und Erfor-
schung einer antiken Metropole. Cologne.
———. 1993. ‘Pergamon.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 347-379.
———. 1999. Pergamon, Geschichte und Bauten einer antiken Metro-
pole. Darmstadt.
———. 2001. ‘The urban development of Pergamon’ in D.
Parrish, ed., Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, 43-56. Ports-
mouth RI.
Raeck, W. 1993. ‘Zeus Philios in Pergamon.’ Archäologischer
Anzeiger, 381-387.
———. 1999. ‘Untersuchungen zur Vorgängerbebauung des
Trajaneums von Pergamon I: Überblick. Obere
Hangstufe.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.
Abteilung Istanbul 49: 333-361.
Ramsay, W. 1882. ‘Inscriptions of Cilicia, Cappadocia, and
Pontus.’ Journal of Philology 11: 142-160.
———. 1883a. ‘Inscriptions de la Galatie et du Pont.’ Bulletin
de correspondance hellénique 7: 15-28.
———. 1883b. ‘Unedited Inscriptions of Asia Minor.’ Bulletin
de correspondance hellénique 7: 258-278, 297-328.
———. 1895-1897. The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. Oxford.
Ratté, C., T. Howe, and C. Foss. 1986. ‘An Early Imperial
Pseudodipteral Temple at Sardis.’ American Journal of Ar-
chaeology 90: 45-68.
Rebuffat, F. 1994. ‘Le trésor de Ayvagedigi.’ In M. Amandry
and G. Le Rider, eds., Trésors et circulation monétaire en
Anatolie antique, 73-118. Paris. (= Ayvagedigi hoard.)
Rehm, A. 1924. ‘Inschriften.’ In H. Knackfuss, Milet 1.7: Der
Südmarkt, 281-360. Berlin.
———. 1958. Didyma 2: Die Inschriften. Berlin.
——— et al. 1997. Milet 6.1: Inschriften von Milet. Berlin. (= IvM
6.1.)
Reinach, T. 1890. ‘Lettre à M. le commandeur J.B. de Rossi
au sujet du temple d’Hadrien à Cyzique.’ Bulletin de
correspondance hellénique 14: 517-545.
Reinhold, M. 1988. From Republic to Principate. Atlanta.
Remy, B. 1986. L’évolution administrative de l’Anatolie aux trois
premiers siècles de notre ère. Lyons.
———. 1989. Les Carrières sénatoriales dans les provinces romaines
d’Anatolie au Haut-Empire. Istanbul.
———. 1990. ‘Trouvailles de monnaies romaines et byzantines
dans les cités de Neocaesarea et de Sebastopolis du Pont.’
Epigraphica Anatolica 16: 81-90.
———. 1991. ‘L’activité des fonctionnaires sénatoriaux dans
la province de Lycie-Pamphylie au Haut-Empire d’après
les inscriptions.’ In De Anatolia Antiqua/Eski Anadolu 1: 151-
 references
182. Paris.
———, M. Amandry, and B. Özcan. 1995. ‘Un monnaie
inédite de Neocaesarea.’ Anatolia Antiqua 3: 95-97.
Reynolds, J. 1981. ‘New Evidence for the Imperial Cult in Julio-
Claudian Aphrodisias.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 43: 317-327.
———. 1982. Aphrodisias and Rome. London.
———. 1999. ‘Ephesus in the Inscriptions of Aphrodisias and
Aphrodisians.’ In H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds.,
100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 133-137.
Vienna.
Rheidt, K. 1995. ‘Aizanoi.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 693-718.
Riccardi, L. 1996. Roman Imperial Portraiture in the Eastern Prov-
inces, A.D. 235-270. Diss. Boston University, Boston.
Rich, J., ed. 1990. Cassius Dio. The Augustan Settlement. War-
minster.
Richter, F. 1884-1937. ‘Roma.’ In W. Roscher, Ausführliches
Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie 4: 130-164.
Leipzig.
Ridgway, B. 2000. Hellenistic Sculpture II: the Styles of ca. 200-
100 B.C. Madison WI.
Rigsby, K. 1996. Asylia. Berkeley.
Ritti, T. 1979. ‘Due iscrizioni di età augustea da Hierapolis.’
Epigraphica 41: 183-187.
———. 1983a. ‘Epigrafie dedicatorie imperiali di Hierapolis
di Frigia.’ Rendiconti dell’Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 38:
171-182.
———. 1983b. ‘I pyxia della gerusia a Hierapolis di Frigia.’
Rendiconti dell’Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 38: 221-230.
———. 1985. Hierapolis, Scavi e Richerche 1: Fonti Letterarie ed
Epigrafiche. Rome.
———. 1988. ‘Il sophista Antipatros di Hierapolis.’ Miscella-
nea Greca e Romana 13: 71-128.
———. 1989-1990. ‘Hierapolis di Frigia: Santuari e dediche
votive.’ Scienze dell’Antichità 3-4: 861-874.
Robert, J. and L. Robert. 1948. Inscriptions grecques de Lydie.
Hellenica 6. Paris.
——— and ———. 1961. ‘Bulletin Épigraphique.’ Revue des
études grecques 74: 119-268.
Robert, L. 1929. ‘Études d’épigraphie grecque.’ Revue de
philologie, de litterature et d’histoire anciennes 55: 122-158.
———. 1930. ‘Pantomimen im griechischen Orient.’ Hermes
65: 106-122.
———. 1937. Études Anatoliennes. Paris.
———. 1938. ‘Les Aelius Alcibiade de Nysa.’ In Études
épigraphiques et philologiques, 45-53. Paris.
———. 1939. ‘Hellenica III: Inscriptions de Beroia.’ Revue de
philologie, de litterature et d’histoire anciennes 65: 12-132.
———. 1940. ‘La titulature de la ville de Sardes.’ Hellenica 1:
56-59.
———. 1943. ‘Voyages épigraphiques en Asie Mineure.’ Re-
vue de philologie 17: 170-201.
———. 1946. ‘Le dieu Fulvus a Thessalonique.’ Hellenica 2:
37-42.
———. 1949. ‘Le culte de Caligula à Milet et la province
d’Asie.’ Hellenica 7: 206-238.
———. 1960a. ‘Inscription agonistique d’Ancyre, concours
d’Ancyre.’ Hellenica 11-12: 350-368.
———. 1960b. ‘Monnaies et divinités d’Aspendos.’ Hellenica
11-12: 177-188.
———. 1960c. ‘Recherches épigraphiques.’ Revue des études
anciennes 62: 278-361.
———. 1961. ‘Voyage en Grèce et en Cilicie.’ Comptes Rendus,
Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 173-179.
———. 1964. ‘La déesse de Hiérapolis Castabala a l’époque
gréco-romaine.’ In A. Dupont-Sommer and L. Robert,
389
La déesse de Hiérapolis Castabala (Cilicie), 17-99. Paris.
———. 1967. ‘Sur des inscriptions d’Éphèse.’ Revue de philologie
41: 7-84.
———. 1968. ‘Les épigrammes satiriques de Lucillius sur les
athlètes.’ In A. Dihle, ed., L’Epigramme Greque. Entretiens
Hardt 14: 179-295. Geneva.
———. 1969a. ‘Inscriptions d’Athènes et de la Grèce Centrale.’
Archaiologike Ephemeris, 1-58.
———. 1969b. ‘Les Inscriptions.’ In J. Des Gagniers, ed.,
Laodicée du Lycos: Le Nymphée. Campagnes 1961-1963, 247-
389. Quebec.
———. 1969c. ‘Théophane de Mytilène a Constantinople.’ In
Comptes rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions, 42-64.
———. 1970. ‘Deux concours grecs à Rome.’ Comptes rendus
de l’Academie des Inscriptions, 6-27.
———. 1971. Les gladiateurs dans l’orient grec. Amsterdam.
———. 1973. ‘De Cilicie à Messine et à Plymouth.’ Journal
des savants, 161-211.
———. 1975. ‘Nonnos et les monnaies d’Akmonia de Phrygie.’
Journal des savants, 153-192.
———. 1976. ‘Monnaies grecques de l’époque imperiale.’ Revue
numismatique6 18: 25-56.
———. 1977a. ‘Documents d’Asie Mineure.’ Bulletin de cor-
respondance hellénique 101: 43-132.
———. 1977b. ‘La titulature de Nicée et de Nicomédie: la
gloire et la haine.’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 81:
1-39.
———. 1978a. ‘Documents d’Asie Mineure.’ Bulletin de cor-
respondance hellénique 102: 395-545.
———. 1978b. ‘Monnaies et textes grecs I: Retour à Aigeai
de Cilicie.’ Journal des savants, 145-150.
———. 1980a. À travers l’Asie Mineure. Paris.
———. 1980b. ‘Deux poètes grecs à l’époque imperiale.’ In
STHLH. TOMOS EIS MNHMHN NIKOLAOU KONTO-
LEONTOS, 1-20. Athens.
———. 1981a. ‘Documents d’Asie mineure 18: Fleuves et
cultes d’Aizanoi.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 105:
331-360.
———. 1981b. ‘Une épigramme satirique d’Automédon.’ Revue
des études grecques 94: 338-361.
———. 1984. ‘Discours d’ouverture.’ In Praktika tou 8. Diethnous
Synedriou Hellenikes kai Latinikes Epigraphikes, 35-45. Athens.
Rockwell, P. 1990. ‘Finish and Unfinish in the Carving of the
Sebasteion.’ In C. Roueché and K. Erim, eds., Aphrodisias
Papers, 100-118. Ann Arbor.
Roesch, P. 1984. ‘L’Amphiaraion d’Oropos.’ In Temples et sanc-
tuaires. Séminaire de recherche 1981-1983, 173-184. Lyons.
Rogers, G. 1988. ‘The Crisis of the Third Century A.D.’ In
Belleten 52.2: 1509-1526.
———. 1991. The Sacred Identity of Ephesos. London.
———. 1999. ‘The Philosebastoi Kuretes of Ephesos.’ In P.
Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege:
Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe, 125-130. Vienna.
Roller, L. 1999. In Search of God the Mother. Berkeley.
Rose, C. 1997a. Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture
in the Julio-Claudian Period. Cambridge.
———. 1997b. ‘The Imperial Image in the Eastern Mediter-
ranean.’ In S. Alcock, ed., The Early Roman Empire in the
East, 108-120. Oxford.
Rosenberger, M. 1977. City-Coins of Palestine (The Rosenberger Israel
Collection) 3. Jerusalem. (= Rosenberger, with catalogue
number.)
Rossner, M. 1974. ‘Asiarchen und Archiereis Asias.’ Studii
Clasice 16: 101-142.
Roueché, C. 1989a. Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity. London.
———. 1989b. ‘Floreat Perge.’ In M. Mackenzie and C.
390 references
Roueché, eds., Images of Authority, 206-221. Cambridge.
———. 1993. Performers and Partisans at Aphrodisias. London.
Rouvier, J. 1903. ‘Numismatique des villes de la Phénicie:
Tripolis.’ Journal international d’ archéologie numismatique 6:
17-46.
Rügler, A. 1988. Die Columnae caelatae des jüngeren Artemisions von
Ephesos. Tübingen.
Ruijgh, C. 1986. ‘Observations sur kor°sai, kor°v, myc. da-
ko-ro dakÒrow, etc.’ In A. Etter, ed., O-o-pe-ro-si: Festschrift
für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag, 376-392. Berlin.
Rumscheid, J. 2000. Kranz und Krone. Tübingen.
”ahin, S. 1978. Bithynische Studien. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus
Kleinasien 7. Bonn.
———. 1979. Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik
(Nikaia). Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 9. Bonn.
———. 1994. ‘Ein Vorbericht über den Stadiasmus Provinciae
Lyciae in Patara.’ Lykia 1: 130-137.
———. 1995. ‘Studien zu den Inschriften von Perge II.’
Epigraphica Anatolica 25: 1-24.
———. 1999. Inschriften von Perge 1. Inschriften griechischer Städte
aus Kleinasien 54. Bonn. (= IvPerge).
Salamon, M. 1971. ‘The Chronology of Gothic Incursions into
Asia Minor in the Third Century A.D.’ Eos 59: 109-139.
Saller, R. 1982. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Cam-
bridge.
Salmeri, G. 2000. ‘Dio, Rome, and the Civic Life of Asia
Minor.’ In S. Swain, ed. Dio Chrysostom: Politics, Letters, and
Philosophy, 53-92. Oxford.
Salmon, E. 1969. Roman Colonization Under the Republic. London.
Salzmann, D. 1985. ‘Cn. Pompeius Theophanes.’ In Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom 95: 245-
260.
Sartre, M. 1995. L’Asie mineure et l’Anatolie. Paris.
Savelkoul, A. 1988. ‘Un néocore de Zénoposéidon à Mylasa.’
L’Antiquité classique 57: 274-279.
Savio, A. 1994-1995. ‘Intorno ai medaglioni talismanici di
Tarso e di Aboukir.’ Rivista italiana di numismatica 96: 73-
103.
Sayar, M. 1991. ‘Equites singulares Augusti in neuen Inschriften
aus Anazarbos.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 17: 19-38.
———. 1998. Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereglisi) und Umgebung.
Vienna.
———. 2000. Die Inschriften von Anazarbos und Umgebung. Inschrif-
ten griechischer Stadte aus Kleinasien 56. Bonn.
Scalamonti, F. 1996. Vita viri clarissimi et famosissimi Kyriaci Anco-
nitani, ed. C. Mitchell and E. Bodnar. Philadelphia.
Schäfer, J., ed. 1981. Phaselis. Tübingen.
Schäfer, P. 1995. The History of the Jews in Antiquity. Luxembourg.
Scherrer, P. 1990. ‘Augustus, die Mission des Vedius Pollio und
die Artemis Ephesia.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäo-
logischen Instituts in Wien 60: 87-101.
———. 1995a. ‘The City of Ephesos from the Roman Period
to Late Antiquity.’ In H. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis
of Asia, 1-25. Valley Forge.
———, ed. 1995b. Ephesos: Der neue Führer. Vienna 1995.
———. 1997. ‘Anmerkungen zum städtischen und provinzialen
Kaiserkult.’ In H. Thür, ed. ‘...und verschönerte die Stadt...’
Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Sonderschriften 27: 93-
112. Vienna.
———. 1999. ‘Am Olympieion vorbei...?’ In P. Scherrer, H.
Taeuber, and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für
Dieter Knibbe, 137-144. Vienna.
———. 2001. ‘The historical topography of Ephesos’ in D.
Parrish, ed., Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, 57-93. Ports-
mouth RI.
Schindler, F. 1972. Die Inschriften von Bubon (Nordlykien). Vienna.
Schlüter, R. 1971. Bildnisse der Kaiserin Julia Domna. Diss.
Münster.
Schlumberger, J. 1974. Die Epitome de Caesaribus. Munich.
Schmaltz, B. 1995. ‘“Aspectus” und “effectus,” Hermogenes
und Vitruv.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.
Abteilung Rom 102: 133-140.
Schneider, R. 1986. Bunte Barbaren. Worms.
Schönert (-Geiss), E. 1965. Die Munzprägung von Perinthos. Ber-
lin. (= S-G with coin numbers.)
———. 1989. ‘Die Münzprägung von Augusta Traiana.’
Altertum 35: 166-170.
———. 1991. Griechisches Münzwerk. Die Münzprägung von Au-
gusta Traiana und Traianopolis. Berlin.
Schorndorfer, S. 1997. Öffentliche Bauten hadrianischer Zeit in
Kleinasien. Münster.
Schott, H. 1891. De septem orbis spectaculis quaestiones. Ansbach.
Schowalter, D. 1998. ‘The Zeus Philios and Trajan Temple:
A Context for Imperial Honors.’ In H. Koester, ed.,
Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods, 231-249. Harrisburg.
Schulte, C. 1994. Die Grammateis von Ephesos. Stuttgart.
Schulten, A. 1906. ‘Zwei Erlasse des Kaisers Valens über die
Provinz Asia.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen
Instituts in Wien 9: 40-70.
Schultz, H.-D. 1995. ‘Falschungen ephesischer Münzen.’
Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 35
no. 1: 7-14.
———. 1997. ‘Das Ende der städtischen Münzprägung von
Ephesos und Samos.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P.
Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen
Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 231-252. Milan.
Schultz, S. 1975. Die Münzprägung von Magnesia am Mäander.
Berlin. (= S#.)
Schulz, A. 1995. ‘Bonsignore Bonsignori in Kyzikos.’ In E.
Winter, ed., Studien zum antiken Kleinasien 3. Asia Minor
Studien 16: 113-125. Bonn.
——— and E. Winter. 1990. ‘Historisch-archäologische
Untersuchungen zum Hadrianstempel von Kyzikos.’ In
E. Schwertheim, ed., Mysische Studien. Asia Minor Studien
1: 33-82. Bonn.
Schwabl, H. 1972. ‘Zeus I. Epiklesen.’ In RE 10A/R. 2: 253-
376.
———. 1978. ‘Zeus. Nachträge.’ In RE Suppl. 15: 1441-1488.
Schwertheim, E. 1983. Die Inschriften von Kyzikos und Umbegung
2. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 26. Bonn.
———. 1996. ‘Neue Inschriften aus Alexandria Troas, Antan-
dros, Skepsis und Kebren.’ In E. Schwertheim and H.
Wiegartz, eds., Die Troas: Neue Forschungen zu Neandria und
Alexandria Troas 2. Asia Minor Studien 22: 99-124. Bonn.
Sear, F. 1982. Roman Architecture. Ithaca, NY.
Selinger, R. 1994. Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Decius. Frank-
furt.
Setton, K. 1941. Christian Attitude towards the Emperor in the Fourth
Century. New York.
Seure, G. 1912. ‘Archéologie Thrace.’ Revue archéologique4 19:
319-336.
Shelton, J. 1979. ‘Commodus’ Name in CPR 1.174.’ Zeitschrift
für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 36: 103.
Sheppard, A. 1984-1986. ‘Homonoia in the Greek Cities of the
Roman Empire.’ Ancient Society 15-18: 229-252.
Smallwood, E. 1966. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva
Trajan and Hadrian. Cambridge.
Smith, R. 1987. ‘The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at
Aphrodisias.’ Journal of Roman Studies 77: 88-138.
———. 1988. ‘Simulacra Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion
at Aphrodisias.’ Journal of Roman Studies 78: 50-77.
Southern, P. 1997. Domitian: Tragic Tyrant. London.
 references
———. 1998. Augustus. London.
Spawforth, A. 1999. ‘The Panhellenion Again.’ Chiron 29: 339-
352.
——— and S. Walker. 1985. ‘The World of the Panhellenion.’
Journal of Roman Studies 75: 78-104.
Sperti, L. 2000. ‘Ricognizione archeologica a Laodicea di
Frigia: 1993-1998.’ In G. Traversari, ed. Laodicea di Frigia
1. Rome.
Steinby, E. 1993-2000. Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae. Rome.
Stemmer, K. 1978. Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Chronologie und
Ikonographie der Panzerstatuen. Berlin.
Stenhouse, P. 1985. The Kitab al-Tarikh of Abu ’l-Fath. Sydney.
Stewart, A. 1979. Attika. London.
Stichel, R. 1982. Die römische Kaiserstatue am Ausgang der Antike.
Rome.
Stiller, H. 1895. Das Trajaneum, Altertümer von Pergamon 5.2.
Berlin.
Strocka, V. 1981. Das Markttor von Milet: 128. Winckelmanns-
programm der archäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 1-55.
———. 1988. ‘Wechselwirkung der stadtrömischen und klein-
asiatischen Architektur unter Trajan und Hadrian.’
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung
Istanbul 38: 291-307.
———. 1989. ‘Zeus, Marnas und Klaseas.’ In N. Basgelen and
M. Lugal, eds., Festschrift für Jale Inan, 77-92. Istanbul.
Strong, D. 1953. ‘Late Hadrianic Architectural Ornament in
Rome.’ Papers of the British School at Rome 21: 118-151.
———. 1960. ‘Some Early Examples of the Composite Capi-
tal.’ Journal of Roman Studies 50: 119-128.
Struve, V. 1965. Corpus inscriptionum regni Bosporani. Moscow/
Leningrad.
Stumpf, G. 1991. Numismatische Studien zur Chronologie der römischen
Statthalter in Kleinasien. Saarbrücken.
Sünskes Thompson, J. 1990. Aufstände und Protestakionen im Impe-
rium Romanum. Bonn.
Sutherland, C. 1970. The Cistophori of Augustus. London.
Swain, S. 1996. Hellenism and Empire. Oxford.
Swan, P. 1987. ‘Cassius Dio on Augustus: A Poverty of An-
nalistic Sources?’ Phoenix 41: 272-291.
Sydenham, E., rev. A. Malloy. 1978. Coinage of Caesarea in
Cappadocia. New York. (= S/M with coin numbers.)
Syme, R. 1958. Tacitus. Oxford.
———. 1980. ‘An eccentric patrician.’ Chiron 10: 427-448.
———. 1983. ‘The Proconsuls of Asia under Antoninus Pius.’
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 51: 271.
Szubert, W. 1978. ‘On the Depictions of Sacred Architecture
on Coins from Lower Moesia and Thrace.’ Archeologia 29:
35-45.
Taeger, F. 1960. Charisma: Studien zur Geschichte des antiken
Herrscherkultes 2. Stuttgart.
Talbert, R. 1980. ‘Pliny the Younger as Governor of Bithynia-
Pontus.’ Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 2: 412-
435. Brussels.
———. 1984. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton.
Taâliklioglu, Z. 1953. ‘Trakya’da M.S. III. asÌr baâlarÌndan
kalma Grek kitabesi.’ Belleten Türk Tarih Kurumu 17: 483-
487.
Tataki, A. 1988. Ancient Beroea: Prosopography and Society. Ath-
ens.
Tekin, O. 1994. ‘Some Greek Imperial Coins found at Perge.’
Anadolu AraâtÌrmalarÌ 13: 179-188.
Thériault, G. 1996. Le culte d’Homonoia dans les cités grecques.
Lyons-Québec.
Thiersch, H. 1935. Artemis Ephesia. Göttingen.
Thomasson, B. 1977. Laterculi Praesidum Moesia, Dacia, Thracia.
Gothenburg.
391
———. 1984. Laterculi Praesidum 1. Arlöv.
Thür, H. 1995a. ‘Der ephesische Ktistes Androklos und (s)ein
Heroon am Embolos.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 64: 63-103.
———. 1995b. ‘The Processional Way in Ephesos as a Place
of Cult and Burial.’ In H. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis
of Asia, 157-199. Valley Forge.
———, ed. 1997. ‘...und verschönerte die Stadt...’ Österreichisches
Archäologisches Institut. Sonderschriften 27. Vienna.
———. 1999. ‘“Via Sacra Ephesiaca”‘ In P. Scherrer, H.
Taeuber, and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für
Dieter Knibbe, 163-172. Vienna.
Tölle-Kastenbein, R. 1994. Das Olympieion in Athen. Cologne.
Touratsoglou, I. (=Y.) 1970. ‘DÊo n°ai §pigrafika‹ martur¤ai
per‹ toË KoinoË t«n MakedÒnvn.’ In B. Laourdas and Ch.
Makaronas, eds., Ancient Macedonia, 280-290. Thessalonike.
———. 1988. Die Münzstätte von Thessaloniki in der römischen
Kaiserzeit. Berlin. (= T with coin numbers.)
———. 1996. ‘Miscellanea Thessalonicensia.’ In MnÆmh Martin
Jessop Price, 177-187 (Greek), 188-194 (English translation).
Athens.
Traversari, G., ed. 2000. Laodicea di Frigia 1. Rome.
Travlos, J. 1971. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens. New York.
Trebilco, P. 1994. ‘Asia.’ In D. Gill and C. Gempf, eds., The
Book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman Setting, 291-362. Grand
Rapids.
Trell, B. 1945. The Temple of Artemis at Ephesos. American Numis-
matic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs 107. New York.
Trout, D. 1989. ‘Victoria Redux and the First Year of the
Reign of Philip the Arab.’ Chiron 19: 221-233.
Troxell, H. 1982. The Coinage of the Lycian League. New York.
Tsakyroglou, M. 1876, 1879. Tå Smurna
ka. Smyrna.
Tsontchev, D. 1938. Contributions à l’histoire antique de Philippopolis
(in Bulgarian; French summary). Sofia.
Tuchelt, K. 1979. Frühe Denkmäler Roms in Kleinasien 1: Roma und
Promagistrate. Tübingen.
———. 1981. ‘Zum Problem, “Kaisareion-Sebasteion”.’ Mit-
teilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul
31: 167-186.
———. 1992. Branchidai-Didyma. Mainz.
——— and F. Preisshofen. 1985. ‘Zur Identitätsfrage des
“Augustus-Tempels” in Ankara.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger,
316-322.
Turcan, R. 1978. ‘Le culte impérial au IIIe siècle.’ In ANRW
16/2: 996-1084.
Usener, H. 1902. ‘Divus Alexander.’ Rheinisches Museum 57: 171-
173.
Vagalinski, L. 1994. ‘Données numismatiques pour des
compétitions sportives en Thrace romaine’ (in Bulgarian;
French summary). Arkheologieiia 36: 6-18. Sofia.
van den Hout, M. 1999. A Commentary on the Letters of M. Cornelius
Fronto. Leiden.
Vandeput, L. 1993. ‘The Re-use of Hadrianic Architectural
Elements in Basilica E1 at Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens,
ed., Sagalassos 1: 93-109. Leuven.
———. 1995. ‘Dating by Means of Architectural Decoration:
Possibilities and Limits.’ In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome,
eds., Sagalassos 3: 129-136. Leuven.
———. 1997. The Architectural Decoration in Roman Asia Minor.
Sagalassos: A Case Study. Leuven.
Vann, R. 1989. The Unexcavated Buildings of Sardis. Oxford.
Varner, E. 1993. Damnatio memoriae and Roman Imperial Portrai-
ture. Diss. Yale, New Haven.
Velkov, V. 1980. ‘Siedlungsleben im antiken Thrakien.’ Eirene
17: 45-63.
392 references
Vermeule, C. 1981. ‘The Basis from Puteoli: Cities of Asia
Minor in Julio-Claudian Italy.’ In L. Casson and M. Price,
eds., Coins, Culture and History in the Ancient World, 85-101.
Detroit.
———. 1983. Art of Antiquity 5.1. Cambridge, MA.
———. 1987. The Cult Images of Imperial Rome. Rome.
Vetters, H. 1972-1975. ‘Domitianterrasse und Domitiangasse.’
Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien
50: Beibl. 323-330.
———. 1986. ‘Ephesos: Vorläufiger Grabungsbericht für die
Jahre 1984 und 1985.’ Anzeiger Wien 123: 84-85.
Veyne, P. 1976. Le pain et le cirque. Paris.
———. 1990. Bread and Circuses, trans. B. Pearce. London.
Vickers, M. 1970. ‘Towards Reconstruction of the Town Plan-
ning of Roman Thessalonike.’ In B. Laourdas and C.
Makaronas, eds., Ancient Macedonia 239-251. Thessalonike.
———. 1976. ‘Thessalonike.’ In R. Stillwell, ed., Princeton
Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, 912. Princeton.
Vidman, L. 1970. Isis und Sarapis bei den Griechen und Römern.
Berlin.
Vismara, N., ed. 2000. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Italia 6:3.
Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche. Milan. (= SNGMil.)
Vittinghoff, F. 1936. Der Staatsfeind in der römischen Kaiserzeit.
Berlin.
Voegtli, H. 1993. Die Fundmünzen aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon.
Berlin.
Voigtländer, W. 1975. Der jüngste Apollontempel von Didyma.
Tübingen.
Vollkommer, R. 1997. ‘Victoria.’ In LIMC 8: 237-269.
von Aulock, H. 1963. ‘Die Münzprägung der kilikischen Stadt
Mopsos.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 231-278.
———. 1968. ‘Kleinasiatische Münzstätten.’ Jahrbuch für
Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 18: 43-48.
———. 1974. Die Munzpragung des Gordian III und der Tranquillina
in Lykien. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.
Abteilung Istanbul. Beiheft 11. Tübingen.
———. 1979. ‘Zur Münzprägung von Aizanoi.’ In R.
Naumann, Der Zeustempel zu Aizanoi, 82-87. Berlin.
von Fritze, H. 1908. ‘Asklepiosstatuen in Pergamon.’ Nomisma
2: 19-35.
———. 1910. Münzen von Pergamon. Abhandlungen der Deutschen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Philologisch-historische
Klasse. Anhang 1.
von Gaertringen, H., ed. 1906. Inschriften von Priene. Berlin.
von Heintze, H. 1982. ‘Annia Lucilla.’ In W. Alzinger, C.
Schwanzar, and G. Neeb, eds., Pro arte antiqua. Festschrift
für Hedwig Kenner, 170-183. Vienna.
von Papen, F. 1908. ‘Die Spiele von Hierapolis.’ Zeitschrift für
Numismatik 26: 161-182.
von Prott, H. 1902. ‘Dionysos Kathegemon.’ Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 27: 161-
188.
——— and W. Kolbe. 1902. ‘Die 1900-1901 in Pergamon
gefundenen Inschriften.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäo-
logischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 27: 44-151.
Waddington, W. 1883. ‘Inscriptions de Tarse.’ Bulletin de
correspondance hellénique 7: 281-292.
———, E. Babelon, and T. Reinach. 1976. Recueil général des
monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure. Reprint. Hildesheim.
Waelkens, M. 1986. ‘The Imperial Sanctuary at Pessinus.’
Epigraphica Anatolica 7: 37-73.
———. 1987. ‘The Adoption of Roman Building Techniques
in the Architecture of Asia Minor.’ In S. Macready and
F. Thompson, eds., Roman Architecture in the Greek World,
94-105. London.
———. 1989. ‘Hellenistic and Roman Influence in the Impe-
rial Architecture of Asia Minor.’ In S. Walker and A.
Cameron, eds., The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire,
77-88. London.
———. 1993. ‘Sagalassos: History and Archaeology.’ In M.
Waelkens, ed., Sagalassos 1: 37-81. Leuven.
——— with S. Mitchell and E. Owens. 1990. ‘Sagalassos 1989.’
Anatolian Studies 40: 185-198.
——— et al. 1997. ‘The 1994 and 1995 Excavation Seasons
at Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, eds.,
Sagalassos 4: 103-216. Leuven.
Walentowski, S. 1998. Kommentar zur Vita Antoninus Pius der
Historia Augusta. Bonn.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1982. ‘Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen
and King.’ Journal of Roman Studies 72: 32-48.
Wallner, C. 1997. Soldatenkaiser und Sport. Frankfurt.
Walter, O. 1922-1924. ‘Antikenbericht aus Smyrna.’ Jahreshefte
des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 21/22:
Beibl. 223-259.
Walters, J. 1995. ‘Egyptian Religions in Ephesos.’ In H.
Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis of Asia, 281-309. Valley
Forge.
Wankel, H., ed. 1979-1981. Inschriften von Ephesos. Inschriften
griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 11-17. Bonn. (= IvE.)
Watson, Alan. 1985. Ed., Engl. trans. of T. Mommsen and P.
Krueger, eds., The Digest of Justinian 1. Philadelphia.
Watson, Alaric. 1999. Aurelian and the Third Century. London.
Webb, P. 1996. Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture. Madison.
Weber, G. 1899. ‘Die Wasserleitungen von Smyrna II.’ Jahrbuch
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 14: 167-188.
Weber, L. 1911. ‘Zur Münzprägung des phrygischen
Hierapolis.’ In XARITES Friedrich Leo, 466-490. Berlin.
———. 1912. ‘Die Homoniemünzen des phrygischen
Hierapolis.’ Journal international d’archéologie numismatique 14:
65-122.
Wegner, M. 1939. Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit. Berlin.
———. 1956. Hadrian, Plotina, Marciana, Matidia, Sabina. Ber-
lin.
Weinreich, O. 1913. Lykische Zwölfgötter-Reliefs. Sitzungsberichte
der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-
historische Klasse.
Weinstock, S. 1971. Divus Julius. Oxford.
Weiser, W. 1983. Katalog der Bithynischen Münzen der Sammlung
des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln: Nikaia.
Opladen.
———. 1988. ‘SC als Revers einer Münze der ersten Emis-
sion aus Neokaisareia in Galatia unter Traianus.’ Schweizer
Münzblätter 38: 9-12.
———. 1989. ‘Römische Stadtmünzen aus Bithynia et Pontus.
Addenda und Corrigenda zum Recueil général.’ Schweizerische
Numismatische Rundschau 68: 47-83.
———. 1998. ‘Namen römischer Statthalter auf Münzen
Kleinasiens.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 123:
275-290.
Weiss, P. 1979. ‘Die Abkürzungen GB und GG auf den spät-
kaiserzeitlichen Münzen von Tarsos und Anazarbos.’
Chiron 9: 545-552.
———. 1981. ‘Ein agonistisches Bema und die isopythischen
Spiele von Side.’ Chiron 11: 315-346.
———. 1982. ‘Ein Altar für Gordian III, die älteren Gordiane
und die Severer aus Aigeai (Kilikien).’ Chiron 12: 191-205.
———. 1985. ‘Argaios/Erciyas Dagi—Heiliger Berg Kappa-
dokiens: Monumente und Ikonographie.’ Jahrbuch für
Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 35: 21-48.
———. 1991. ‘Auxe Perge.’ Chiron 21: 353-374.
 references
———. 1992. ‘Pisidien: Eine historische Landschaft im Licht
ihrer Münzprägung.’ In E. Schwertheim, ed., Forschungen
in Pisidien, 143-165. Bonn.
———. 1995. ‘Hadrian in Lydien.’ Chiron 25: 213-224.
———. 1997. ‘Kaiserzeitliche Städteprägung und klassische
Altertumswissenschaften.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and
P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen
Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 27-36. Milan.
———. 1998. ‘Festgesandtschaften, städtisches Prestige und
Homonoiaprägungen.’ Stadion 24: 59-70.
Westermann, A. 1845. Biographoi. Braunschweig.
Westermark, U. 1991. ‘Bronze Coins of Pergamon.’ Quaderni
Ticinesi 20: 145-159.
White, L. 1995. ‘Urban Development and Social Change in
Imperial Ephesos.’ In H. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis
of Asia, 27-79. Valley Forge.
———. 1998. ‘Counting the Costs of Nobility: The Social
Economy of Roman Pergamon.’ In H. Koester, ed.,
Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods, 331-371. Harrisburg.
Whittaker, H. 1996. ‘Two Notes on Octavian and the Cult of
Divus Iulius.’ Symbolae Osloenses 71: 87-99.
Wilhelm, A. 1938. ‘Das Epithalamion in Lukianos’ SumpÒsion
µ Lap¤yai.’ Wiener Studien 56: 54-89.
Willemsen, F. 1939. Frühe griechische Kultbilder. Wurzburg.
Willers, D. 1990. Hadrians panhellenisches Programm. Basel.
Williams, W. 1979. ‘Caracalla and the Authorship of Impe-
rial Edicts and Epistles.’ Latomus 38: 67-89.
Winks, R. 1969. Clipeata imago. Bonn.
Winter, E. 1996. Staatliche Baupolitik und Baufürsorge in den römischen
Provinzen des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. Asia Minor Studien 20.
Bonn.
Wiplinger, G., and G. Wlach. 1996. Ephesos: 100 Jahre
österreichische Forschung. Vienna.
Wörrle, M. 1988. Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien.
Munich.
———. 1992. ‘Neue Inschriftenfunde aus Aizanoi I.’ Chiron 22:
337-376.
———. 1995a. ‘Inschriftenfunde von der Hallenstrassen-
grabung in Aizanoi 1992.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 719-727.
———. 1995b. ‘Neue Inschriftenfunde aus Aizanoi, II: Das
Problem der Ära von Aizanoi.’ Chiron 25: 63-81.
Wolfram, H. 1979. Geschichte der Goten. Munich.
Woodward, A. 1911/1912. ‘Inscriptions from Beroea in
Macedonia.’ Annual of the British School at Athens 18: 133-
165.
———. 1963. ‘The Neocorate at Aegeae and Anazarbus in
Cilicia.’ Numismatic Chronicle 7 3: 5-10.
Woolf, G. 1994. ‘Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture,
Identity and the Civilizing Process in the Roman East.’
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40: 116-143.
———. 1997. ‘The Roman Urbanization of the East.’ In S.
Alcock, ed., The Early Roman Empire in the East, 1-14.
Oxford.
Wroth, W. 1882. ‘Asklepios and the Coins of Pergamon.’
Numismatic Chronicle ser. 3, 2: 1-51.
Yalouris, N., and T. Visser-Choitz. 1990. ‘Helios.’ In LIMC
5: 1005-1034.
YaylalÌ, A. 1976. Der Fries des Artemisions von Magnesia am Mäander.
Tübingen.
———. 1990. ‘Kyzikos 1989 YÌlÌ ÇalÌâmalarÌ.’ XII. KazÌ
SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 171-194.
———, N. Koçhan and C. Baâaran. 1991. ‘Kyzikos 1990
ÇalÌâmalarÌ.’ XIII. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 1: 205-225.
——— and V. Özkaya. 1992. ‘Kyzikos Arkeolojik KazÌ
ÇaliâmalarÌ: 1991.’ XIV. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 223-
245.
393
——— and V. Özkaya. 1993. ‘Kyzikos 1992 KazÌ Çaliâma-
larÌ.’ XV. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 1: 537-561.
——— and V. Özkaya. 1994. ‘1993 Kyzikos KazÌsÌ
Etkinlikleri.’ XVI. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 107-130 .
——— and V. Özkaya. 1995. ‘1994 Kyzikos Arkeolojik KazÌsÌ.’
XVII. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 311-335.
——— and V. Özkaya. 1996. ‘Kyzikos 1995: Arkeolojik KazÌ
Etkinlikleri.’ XVIII. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 409-429.
Yegül, F. 1982. ‘A Study in Architectural Iconography:
Kaisersaal and the Imperial Cult.’ Art Bulletin 64: 7-31.
———. 1986. The Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Sardis. Cambridge,
MA.
YÌldÌz, H. 1994. ‘Denizli-Laodikya antik kenti temizlik ve çevre
düzenleme çaliâmalari.’ IV. Müze Kurtarma KazÌlarÌ Semineri,
219-225. Ankara.
——— and T. Corsten. 1997. ‘New Inscriptions from
Laodikeia in the Archaeological Museum at Denizli/
Turkey.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 28: 50-52.
Zahrnt, M. 1979. ‘Zwei Zeugnisse für die Titel von Nikomedeia
und Kyzikos.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 36:
215-218 .
Zangenberg, J. 1994. SAMAREIA. Tübingen.
Zanker, P. 1983. Provinzielle Kaiserporträts. Abhandlungen, Bayerische
Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, n.f.
90. Munich.
Zaprjanov, N., and K. Kolev. 1971. ‘Asklepios dargestellt auf
antiken Münzen von Philippopel.’ Folia Medica 13 fasc. 4:
273-280.
Ziebarth, E. 1902. ‘Cyriacus von Ankona in Pergamon.’
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische
Abteilung 27: 445-446.
Ziegenaus, O. 1981. Altertümer von Pergamon 11.3: das Asklepieion,
die Kultbauten aus römischer Zeit. Berlin.
——— and G. de Luca. 1968. Altertümer von Pergamon 11.1: Das
Asklepieion. Der südliche Temenosbezirk. Berlin.
——— and ———. 1975. Altertümer von Pergamon 11.2: Das
Asklepieion. Der nordliche Temenosbezirk. Berlin.
Ziegler, R. 1977. ‘Münzen Kilikiens als Zeugnis kaiserlicher
Getriedespenden.’ Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte
27: 29-67.
———. 1978. ‘Antiochia, Laodicea und Sidon in der Politik
der Severer.’ Chiron 8: 493-514.
———. 1984. ‘Die “Historia Apollonii Regis Tyri” und der
Kaiserkult in Tarsos.’ Chiron 14: 219-234.
———. 1985. Städisches Prestige und kaiserliche Politik. Düsseldorf.
———. 1988a. Münzen Kilikiens aus kleineren deutschen Sammlungen.
Munich. (= Ziegler, Sammlungen, with coin no.)
———. 1988b. ‘Thessalonike in der Politik des Traianus Decius
und der Tod des Philippus Arabs.’ In M. Wissemann, ed.,
Roma Renascens, 385-414. Frankfurt.
———. 1993a. ‘Ären kilikischer Städte und Politik des
Pompeius in Südostkleinasien.’ Tyche 8: 203-219.
———. 1993b. Kaiser, Heer und städtisches Geld. Vienna.
———. 1994. ‘Aigeai, der Asklepioskult, das Kaiserhaus der
Decier und das Christentum.’ Tyche 9: 187-212.
———. 1995a. ‘Ein numismatisches “Missing Link” aus Ana-
zarbos.’ Asia Minor Studien 16: Studien zum antiken Kleinasien
3: 175-181. Bonn.
———. 1995b. ‘Zur Einrichtung des kilikischen Koinon.’ Asia
Minor Studien 16: Studien zum antiken Kleinasien 3: 183-186.
Bonn.
———. 1999. ‘Das Koinon der drei Eparchien Kiliken,
Isaurien und Lykaonien im späten 2. und frühen 3. Jahr-
hundert n. Chr.’ Asia Minor Studien 34: Studien zum antiken
Kleinasien 4: 137-153. Bonn.
394 references

Ziethen, G. 1994. Gesandte vor Kaiser und Senat. St. Katharinen. 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.