Archaeologia

DedicatorsBulgarica
with Roman Names XI 2007 Cult of the 3Thracian Horseman
and the Indigenous 75-89 (A Reprint)
Sofia

DEDICATORS WITH ROMAN NAMES AND THE INDIGENOUS CULT

*
OF THE THRACIAN HORSEMAN (A REPRINT)

DILYANA BOTEVA

The following text was presented in April three elements are considered: the sender of the
2004 at the Conference “Nuove ricerche sulla message, the message itself and its addressee
Romanità danubiano-balcanica” organized by (Posner 1992). So far, a thorough analysis both
the Romanian Academy in Rome and was pub- of the dedicators and the addressees of the vo-
lished in its proceedings (Ephemeris Dacoro- tive reliefs with a representation of the Thracian
mana, Serie nuova, XII, fasc. 1, 2004, pp. Horseman is still lacking, although some steps
205-225). Unfortunately, it appeared with ma- in this direction have already been made
ny editorial mistakes making the text unreadab- (Hamparþumian 1979, 17-23; Goèeva 1982;
le. As so far my complaints gave no result, I Goèeva 1990).
**
find it justified to re-publish it here . A database with the votive monuments of
the Thracian Rider, created back in 1994-1996
During the Roman period of the Thracian and since then constantly enlarged, enables
history a huge amount of votive reliefs with rep- such a research of the dedicators and address-
resentations of different deities had been pro- ees. Through an analysis of the dedicators with
duced and a big part of them have come down Roman names, the present paper attempts to
to us. Thanks to these monuments there could fill in only partially this big gap in modern knowl-
hardly be any doubt now that the votive reliefs edge of the most popular Thracian cult (see also
with arched upper side reflect one essential fea- Boteva 2005).
ture of the Thracians’ communication with their At the beginning some important explana-
Gods. The most numerous representations tions are needed. When speaking about dedica-
among them, as well known, are connected with tors with Roman names I mean only such
a personage not attested by the ancient authors names, which are composed after the Roman
– namely the Thracian Horseman. Despite the onomastic pattern and do not include non-Ro-
thousands of monuments with his image, found man components. Thus, names as Êáðßôùí
within territories where the Thracians used to Óáâåßíïõ (IGBulg. II, 537), or Marcianus
live, the Thracian Rider still remains obscure Lecti (CCET II-2, 619) are not considered
for the modern historians and has been inter- here; neither are Graeco-Roman and any other
preted for over hundred years in quite contra- kind of mixed names as for instance Gaius
1
dictory ways . Aurelius Alexander (CCET IV, 48) and
Still, the recent development of the science Átëéïò Ìïõêéáí{ò Êáññïõ (IGBulg. V,
in the field of communications proved that a 5856). Excluded are also all dedicators with
message – and the votive monuments are a kind supposed Thracian origin because of their eth-
of a message - could be grasped only if at least nic or of their father’s name as for instance
* The analysis presented here appears as a result of my research at the Laboratory for Semiotics of the Technical University
– Berlin as an Alexander von Humboldt fellow. I am much obliged to both Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and to my
scientific host Prof. Dr. Roland Posner for their kind and stimulating support.
** The list of literature looks here differently as it was expected to fit in another publishing model. Meanwhile an autopsy of
an inscription from Montana proved that it was twice wrongly published without an indication that it is only fragmentarily
preserved (Ìîíòàíà 2, 100; Kazarow 1938, no 587, fig. 295). This necessitated an alternation within the text: the inscrip-
tion is moved from previous IV 3 position in the list of dedicators to present III 22 position, despite its fragmentarity. I
would like to thank N. Sharankov for his valuable criticism.
1
For the last two decades see Goèeva 1997, Oppermann 1992; Toporov 1990; Stojanov 1985; Venedikov 1979. Most re-
cently also Dimitrova 2002, Boteva 2000 and Boteva 2000a.

75
 Dilyana Boteva
ÖëÜâéïò ψÜëçò óôñáôéþôçò Äõóõñçíïò
(IGBulg. III-2, 1809). The present analysis
does not consider such names that are only
fragmentarily preserved and it is not clear
whether originally they were composed of Ro-
man components only.
So far there are no monuments along the
Thracian Black Sea coast and its immediate
2
hinterland to fulfill these conditions . Truly,
eight members of a thiasos attested by the stele
from Cumpãna, district Constanþa (CCET IV, 48)
are with Roman names. However, this monu-
ment from the territory of ancient Tomis stays in
connection with “Mater Romanorum” and be-
cause of this it will not be considered here.
The monuments under scrutiny attest four
different types of Roman names:
I. Dedicators introduced by names with
three Roman components, following the pattern:
praenomen, nomen gentile, cognomen.
II. Dedicators introduced by two nomina
gentilia and one cognomen.
III. Dedicators introduced by names with
two components.
IV. Dedicators introduced by only one name.
Types I-III point at a Roman citizenship. The
dedicators are listed here in Latin (not Greek!)
alphabetical order of their family name.
I.
So far twelve dedicators with names of the
first type are attested on votive monuments of
the Thracian Rider within the provinces of
Lower Moesia and Thrace:
NORTH OF THE HAEMUS RANGE
1. P(ublius) Ael(ius) Felix: veteranus
(CCET II-2, 585: near Tãrgovište)
Addressee: Heron(i) sancto
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
Relief: a lion attacks a bull; R.’s r. hand is
on the horse’s croup.
Quality: now lost; no photo is available
2. Ð(üðëéïò) Átë(éïò) Óôáôßë(éïò)
2 2
This is the territory covered by IGBulg I and CCET I. As a matter of fact, CCET I, 126=IGBulg I 356 (Bata, Burgas region)
attests Áˆñ. ‘Ñïõôå[éëéáí]{ò âïõë(åõôÞò) as a dedicator, but it is not sure if the relief was with a representation of the
Rider.
76
(IGBulg. II, 557: Glava Panega)
Addressee: Êõñáéêíf
Form: statuette
Relief: R. holds a phiale and a shield; fe-
male figure; a dog attacks a boar
Quality: relatively good
3. Ê(ïßíôïò) <Áí2Ýóôéïò ψáëåñéáíüò:
âåíå5éêéÜñéïò (IGBulg. II, 529: Glava Pane-
ga)
Addressee: Êõñߥ <Áóêëçðé©
Óáëäïïõéóóçí¥ êáp >ÕãåßJ
Form: plate with a pediment and two ac-
roteria
Relief: a boar hunt; female figure; ser-
pent-entwined tree; in the pediment – small
Telesphoros; a frieze with fighting animals;
Quality: relatively good
4. T(itus) Fl(avius) Valens (CCET II-2,
589: Razgrad)
Addressee: no
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
Relief: deer hunt; 2 women; attendant
Quality: relatively good
5. M(arcus) Iulius Val(ens ?): eques legi-
onis I Italicae (Kaz. 958, fig. 465 = ILBulg.
245: Trãnèovica)
Addressee: [S]ancto deo Assallacano
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
Relief: not clear; Kazarow claims a boar
hunt and an alopekis on R.’s head;
Quality: now worn
6. L(ucius) Naevius Probus: vet(eranus)
(ILBulg., 207: Glava Panega)
Addressee: Sal[daecaput]eno / Silva-
no et Dianae
Form: rectangular plate
Relief: bearded R. holds a phiale; altar;
female figure (goddess ?) with a short dress
holding a long torch in her l. hand and a phiale
 Dedicators with Roman Names and the Indigenous Cult of the Thracian Horseman (A Reprint)
above the altar in the r.
Quality: schematic faces
SOUTH OF THE HAEMUS RANGE
7. Ð(üðëéïò) Átëéïò Ëï‡ð[ïò] (IGBulg.
III-2, 1658: Malka-Vereja, St. Zagora region)
Addressee: broken if any
Form: only a fragment of a plate
Relief: only a fragment
Quality: now worn
8. a) Ðüð(ë)éïò Êáëðïýñíéïò Ìßëùí
(IGBulg. V, 5806: Pernik)
Addressee: Êõñߥ <Áóêëçðé©
Form: plate with a triangular top
Relief: galopping R. with a spear; altar;
serpent-entwined tree
Quality: very good
b) Ðü(ðëéïò) Êáëðïýñ(íéïò)
Ìßëùí (IGBulg. V, 5807: Pernik)
Addressee: Êõñßùé <Áóêëçðé™é
Form: plate with a triangular top
Relief: galopping R. holds a lash; a ser-
pent creeping towards an altar
Quality: very good
c) [Êáë]ðïýñíéïò Ì[ßëùí] (IGBulg.
V, 5808: Pernik)
Addressee: Êõñߥ <Áóêëçðé©
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
Relief: a boar hunt
Quality: badly damaged but the high qual-
ity is still recognizable
9. Ë(ïýêéïò) ÊÜóóéïò [Óå?]êï‡íäïò
(IGBulg. III-1, 1184: Batkun)
Addressee: Êõñߥ <Áóêë[ç]ðé™é
Æõëìõæäéçí¥
Form: only a fragment of a plate with an
untypically broad lower frame
Relief: only a fragment
Quality: the high quality is still recogniz-
able
10. Ôßôïò ÖëÜâéïò Ðñéìáíüò (IGBulg.
III-1, 1193: Batkun)
Addressee: <Áóó[êëçðé© sic
Æõ]ìõæñçí¥
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
Relief: R. holds a deer, attacked by two
dogs; altar
Quality: relatively good
11. Ð(üðëéïò) #Ïë(ðéïò) Êüì(ì)ïäïò
(IGBulg. III-1, 1422: Voden, Asenovgrad reg.)
Addressee: no
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
Relief: R.’s r. hand is on the horse’s neck
Quality: poor
12. Ã(Üéïò) Âïëôßëéïò <ÉíãÝ(í)<ð>ïõò
(= <ÉíãÝíïõò) (IGBulg. III-1, 973: Plovdiv)
Addressee: Æåéíäñïõìçí¥ añùåé sic
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with a slightly arched upper side
Relief: R. holds high a hare; serpent-en-
twined tree; a dog attacks a boar.
Quality: relatively good
Two of these dedicators trace their Roman
citizenship back from the Flavian dynasty as at-
tested by their names: Titus Flavius Valens (I-
4) and Titus Flavius Primanus (I-10). Further
three of them - Publius Aelius Felix, a vet-
eran (I-1), Publius Aelius Statilius (I-2) and
Publius Aelius Lupus (I-7) – owe it to emperor
Hadrian.
Half of the dedicators within this first cat-
egory (i. e. six) are attested to the north of the
Haemus range and four of them are connected
with the Roman army. Quintus Anthestius
Valerianus, beneficiarius (I-3) and Lucius
Naevius Probus, veteranus (I-6) dedicated
monuments at the sanctuary near Glava Panega
(table I/6). Their votive reliefs show important
differences both in form and in iconography
when compared with the Thracian tradition (ta-
ble IV/1-2). Thus, the relief dedicated by
Anthestius Valerianus shows in front of the
Rider both a woman and a serpent (entwined
round a tree). This is not customary for the
Thracian iconography of the Horseman where
we normally see either the snake or the woman
(Table III) (Stojanov 1985, 275f.; Boteva
2000, 113f; Boteva 2000a, 964). The names of
the two dedicators testify definitely their non-
77
 Dilyana Boteva

Table I.
Sanctuaries within Lower Moesia and Thracia where votive monuments of the Thracian Rider brought by
dedicators with Roman names have been found. The single finds are not indicated.

A. North of the Haemus range B. South of the Haemus range

1. Draganovec (Tãrgovište region) 9. Slivnica (Sofia region)
2. Plãstina (Tãrgovište region) 10. Pernik
3. Ljublen (Tãrgovište region) 11. Batkun (Pazardjik region)
4. Paskalevec (Veliko Tãrnovo region) 12. Ezerovo (Plovdiv region)
5. Trãnèovica (Pleven region) 13. Krãn ( near Kazanlãk)
6. Glava Panega (Loveè region) 14. Lozen (Haskovo region)
7. Brestnica (Loveè region)
8. Liljaèe (Vraca region)

78
 Dedicators with Roman Names and the Indigenous Cult of the Thracian Horseman (A Reprint)

Table II.
The Dedications of Publius Calpurnius Milo in the Sanctuary of Asklepios Keilaidenos in the present town of
Pernik

1. A. IGBulg V, 5806 1. B. IGBulg. V, 5807

Êõñߥ <Áóêëçðé© Êõñßùé <Áóêëçðé™é
Ðüð(ë)éïò Êáëðïýñíéïò Ìßëùí BíÝèçêåí Ðü(ðëéïò) Êáëðïýñ(íéïò) Ìßëùí BíÝèçêåí

2. IGBulg. V, 5808
Êõñߥ <Áó[ê]ë[çðé©]
[Êáë]ðïýñíéïò Ì[ßëùí]
[åˆ÷]áñéóóôÞ[ñéïí](sic)

79
 Dilyana Boteva

Thracian origin thus explaining the iconographi-
cal and formal peculiarities of these two votive
reliefs.
From the territory to the south of Haemus
range originate also six votive reliefs, dedicated
by Roman citizens all of them giving no personal
information. The most interesting case within
this category is the one of Publius Calpurnius
Milo (I-8). He is known to have dedicated
three reliefs of the Horseman at the Thracian
3
sanctuary of Asklepios Keilaidenos, exca-
vated in the modern town of Pernik (Table I/
10). These dedications reveal interesting infor-
mation about him due both to the reliefs and the
epigraphic data connected with them (Table II).
Thus, in two cases we read BíÝèçêåí (Ta-
ble II/1.A, 1.B), but we do have also an
åˆ÷áñéóôÞñéïí (Table II/2) that might follow
the first two dedications. This supposition finds
a further proof in the form of the plates. Due to
the form the first two plates point at a possible
association with a temple, while traditionally the
Thracian votive plates point at a possible asso-
ciation with a cave (Boteva 2003, 386f.). Most
significantly, the dedication expressing a grati-
tude, i.e. the one which dates to a later moment,
follows already the Thracian customary form
having an arched upper side.
Apart from the form, the two earlier plates
attest numerous iconographical discrepancies
when compared with the bulk of the monuments
with a representation of the Thracian Horse-
man. On one of these reliefs we see the Rider
armed though alone with the serpent which is
entwining round a tree in front of him (Table
II/1.A), while customarily he is unarmed when
meeting the serpent (Table III/1-2) (Boteva
1997; Boteva 2000). On a relief representing
the serpent creeping under the horse towards
an altar (Table II/1.B), we see a lash in the
4
Rider’s right hand. This lash is almost unique
for the monuments of the Thracian Horseman
and is certainly not connected with the Thracian
tradition.
Only after some period of time, Calpurnius
Milo brought a votive plate, which followed al-
ready both the local iconographical canon and
customary form of the Thracian votive reliefs
(Table II/2).
Thus, one might guess that Calpurnius Milo
was a new-comer to Thrace who had arrived
(might be even settled down) shortly before he
made his first two dedications. Unfortunately
he did not left any further information about
himself, i.e. about his profession and adminis-
trative position. That he was socially and finan-
cially well established is beyond doubt. This is
clear due to the masterly work of the monu-
ments he dedicated at the sanctuary that were
5
obviously very expensive. It is also sure that
he was a Greek-speaking Roman citizen who
became gradually acquainted with the local tra-
ditions. Nevertheless he “refused” to make one
further step in the recognition of the local cult
worshipped at the sanctuary in present Pernik.
The addressee of all his dedications is Askle-
pios (obviously the Greek one, firmly connected
with a serpent). Calpurnius Milo never men-
tions the Thracian epithet “Keilaidenos” which
appears together with the theonym Asklepios
on many dedications found in this sanctuary
(IGBulg. V, 345).
II.
Only two dedicators introduced by two
nomina gentilia and one cognomen are attes-
ted so far:
1. Flavius Mestrius Ius[tus]: […]

3
He might have dedicated even four (IGBulg. V, 5806-5809). Due to the fragmentary character of IGBulg. V, 5809 and an
iconographical detail which is not typical for the representations of the Thracian Rider, we can not be sure about the image
on this relief. For the sanctuary and its inscriptions see Ëþáåíîâà 1980 and Ãåðàñèìîâà-Òîìîâà 1980.
4
A similar, though not the same, iconography of the serpent is seen on several further votive plates: IGBulg. II, 554; CCET
I, 111; CCET II-2, 674. A lash is depicted also on CCET V, 57.
5
The stylistic features of these monuments coincide with the features of the group labeled by M. Oppermann “Batkun –
Glava Panega”. He defines it chronologically as earlier reliefs of the Thracian Horseman (Îïåðìàí 1970, 20f). The monu-
ments here under scrutiny incline me suppose that this “group” appears as a phenomenon due not only to chronological
reasons but had mostly a financial background. See also here below votive plate III-17, dedicated by the buleuta Valerius
Maximus (Table IV/ 4).
80
 Dedicators with Roman Names and the Indigenous Cult of the Thracian Horseman (A Reprint)

Table III.

1-2. Two examples for customary Thracian votive plates, representing a serpent entwined round a tree in
front of the Rider

3-4. Two examples for customary Thracian votive plates, representing a woman in front of the Rider.

coh(o)r(tis) II Lucensium (ILBulg., 210: a boar

Brestnica) Quality: good
Addressee: [Hir]one santo sic 2. Ôß(ôïò) Öë(Üâéïò) ψÜñéïò
Form: fragment of a statuette Ëï‡ððïò: } êñÜ(ôéóôïò) äïõ[êçíÜñéïò
Relief: only a fragment; two dogs attack êáp] íåùêüñïò ô\ò ÈñJê™í Tðáñ÷åßá[ò]
81
 Dilyana Boteva
(...) 2ñJêáñ÷™í (IGBulg. III-1, 1183=
IGBulg. V, 5485: Batkun)
Addressee: Èå© <Áóêëçðé©
Form: only a fragment of a broad lower
frame of a plate
Relief: not preserved
Flavius Mestrius Iustus (II-1) dedicated a
statuette of the Horseman at a sanctuary near
the present village of Brestnica, to the north of
the Haemus range (Table I/7). The monument
is only fragmentarily preserved, and there are
some missing parts of the inscription as well.
(Table IV/3). According to B. Gerov the name
of the dedicator should be read as Fl(avius)
Mestrius Ius[tus], who might have been a sol-
dier (Gerov puts a question mark after
6
“miles”) of cohors II Lucensium.
Before Gerov, Kazarow had accepted a
reading of the name just as Fl(avius) Mestrius,
also supposing him to have served in cohors II
7
Lucensium as a soldier . However, another so-
lution is also possible. Because of the two fam-
ily names of the dedicator – so far almost a
unique case among the monuments of the
Thracian Horseman – I incline to think that
Flavius Mestrius Iustus was not a common
soldier but an officer, might be even of a higher
rank.
Titus Flavius Varius Lupus (II-2) brought
his dedication with a Greek inscription to the
sanctuary near Batkun to the south of the
Haemus range (Table I/11). He appears as a
procurator ducenarius provinciae Thraciae
and a thracarch. Unfortunately, his votive mo-
nument has come down to us only fragmenta-
rily: The relief field is now lost and we do not
have any idea about its iconography.
III.
Most numerous are the dedicators intro-
duced by names with two Roman components:
so far 29 are attested. As a rule, almost all of
them dedicated votive monuments of the Thra-
cian Rider compatible with the indigenous Thra-
cian tradition. The exceptions are few and their
iconography will be discussed elsewhere.
6
ILBulg., 210.
7
Kaz. 372, fig. 204. In previous papers I accepted Gerov’s reading – see Boteva 2005, 200; Áîòåâà 2004, 20.
82
The names of almost all dedicators from this
category follow the onomastic pattern nomen
gentile+cognomen. There are two exceptions,
each of them composed differently: praenomen
+ praenomen (used as a nomen gentile);
praenomen + cognomen/.
NORTH OF THE HAEMUS RANGE
1. Átëéïò ÌáñôéÜëçò: Bñ÷éåñáôéêüò
(IGBulg. V, 5301 = CCET II-2, 477: Dragano-
vec)
Addressee: no
Form: the upper part of the plate is bro-
ken
Relief: a boar hunt; altar
Quality: very good
2. Átë(éïò) Âçñáíüò (IGBulg. V, 5293 =
CCET II-2, 458: Draganovec)
Addressee: èå© Áëïõóáäé
Form: rectangular
Relief: galloping R. holds a spear; a
horned animal (CCET: a boar) hidden behind an
altar and attacked by a lion
Quality: now worn
3. Ant(onius) Mercurius: eq(ues) n(ume-
ri) c(ivium) R(omanorum) (Ìîíòàíà 2, 96 =
Kaz. 592, fig. 296: Berkovica, Montana reg.)
Addressee: Eroni sancto
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
Relief: R. holds a deer, attacked by two
dogs; two women; attendant
Quality: relatively good
4. Ant(onius) Valentinus: IIvir col(oniae)
Napoc(ae) (CCET II-1, 410: Vãrbak, Šumen
reg.)
Addressee: Deo Apollini
Form: only the base of a statuette
Relief: R. (now lost) holds a deer, at-
tacked by a lion and a dog; a vessel with pour-
ing out liquid; attendant
Quality: relatively good
 Dedicators with Roman Names and the Indigenous Cult of the Thracian Horseman (A Reprint)

Table IV.

3. ILBulg, 210 (Brestnica, Loveè reg.)

Hirone santo sic Fl(avius) Mestrius
Ius[tus mil(es) ?] | coh(o)r(tis) II Lucensium
votu(m) posu[it . . .

1. IGBulg. II, 529 (Glava Panega)

Êõñߥ <Áóêëçðé© 4. CCET II-2, 657 = ILBulg. 413
Óáëäïïõéóóçí¥ êáp >ÕãåßJ (Paskalevec, V. Tãrnovo reg.)
Ê(ïßíôïò) <Áí2Ýóôéïò ψáëåñéáí{ò Val(erius) Maximus bul(euta)
â(åíå)5(éêéÜñéïò) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)

2. ILBulg., 207 (Glava Panega)

Sal]daecaput[eno vel enis
L(ucius) Naevius Probus
vet(eranus) posuit Silvano et
Dianae v(otum) s(olvit)
l(ibens) n(uminibus) p(osuit)

83
 Dilyana Boteva
5. Aur(elius) Iovinus: miles leg(ionis) XI
Claudiae (Ìîíòàíà 2, 84: Liljaèe)
Addressee: no
Form: rectangular
Relief: bearded R. represented as Silva-
nus; two dogs; altar; woman.
Quality: relatively good
6. Aur(elius) Max(imus): cornicen (CCET
II-2, 485: Draganovec)
Addressee: broken if any
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
Relief: R. holds a hare (or a little deer); a
lion attacks a little horse; woman;
Quality: good
7. [A]ur(elius) Victor: mil(es) [leg(ionis)
I] Italica sic (ILBulg., 244: Trãnèovica)
Addressee: no
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
Relief: R. holds a hare (or a little deer);
boar; woman; attendant
Quality: relatively good
8. Êëáýäéïò <Éïõë[éáíüò]: óôáôéùíÜñéò
(CCET II-1, 257: Avren, Varna reg.)
Addressee: $Çñùé Ïõôáóðé¥
Form: rectangular
Relief: R.’s right hand on the horse’s
neck
Quality: relatively good
9. Êëáýäéò ÌÜîéìïò: â(åíå)5(éêéÜñéïò)
(IGBulg. II, 553: Glava Panega)
Addressee: : Êïðçí êïéñߥ (sic) èå©
Tðéðßï
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
Relief: R. holds a deer, attacked by two
dogs; a vessel with pouring out liquid; altar.
Quality: very good
10. Êë(áýäéïò) >Ñï‡5ïò (Öúðîâ 1999,
80-81, Fig. 3: Veliko Tãrnovo)
Addressee: $Çñùé Óïõñåãåèéf
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
84
Relief: a boar hunt with a lion accompa-
nying the R.; altar; serpent-entwined tree; a
miniature Horseman in the upper left corner.
Quality: very good
11. Flavius Montanus: miles (ILBulg., 206:
Glava Panega)
Addressee: Silvanu Salt(e)caputeno
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
Relief: R. with a spear; lion attacking a
bull; altar; serpent-entwined tree
Quality: good
12. ÖëÜâéò sic ψÜëçò (IGBulg. II, 558:
Glava Panega)
Addressee: no
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
Relief: a boar hunt; altar
Quality: now worn
13. [I]ulius Iulianus: mil(es) leg(ionis) I
Italicae Sev[erianae] (ILBulg., 205: Glava
Panega)
Addressee: broken if any
Form: fragmentarily preserved
Relief: galloping Rider
Quality: poor
14. Iul(ius) Val(ens?): decurio (ILBulg.,
204: Glava Panega)
Addressee: no
Form: broken
Relief: R. holds a deer, attacked by a dog
and a lion; a vessel with pouring out liquid
Quality: very good
15. <Éïýíéïò Ëïõêéáíüò: Bñ÷éåñå†ò ô{
äåýôåñïí (CCET II-2, 658: Paskalevec)
Addressee: broken if any
Form: broken.
Relief: a lion attacks a bull.
Quality: very good.
16. Ulpius Maximianus: speculator
(CCET II-1, 194: Marcianopolis)
Addressee: Deo sancto Heroni
Form: plate with a triangular top (part of
 Dedicators with Roman Names and the Indigenous Cult of the Thracian Horseman (A Reprint)

it is now broken) Addressee: Èå© Tðçêü¥ <Áðüëëùíé

Relief: a stag hunt; serpent-entwined ÁõëïõóáäJ
tree. Form: base of a statuette
Quality: very good Relief: a lion attacks a bull; altar
Quality: relatively good
17. Valerius Maximus: buleuta (ILBulg.,
413 = CCET II-2, 654: Paskalevec) 22. [- - -] Vinus: vet(e)ranus (Ìîíòàíà 2,
Addressee: no 100 = Kaz. 587, fig. 295: Montana)
Form: only a fragment of a plate Addressee: no
Relief: a boar hunt; altar Form: irregular; without frames
Quality: very good Relief: galloping R., with his spear he had
reached the boar beneath the horse
18. Valerius Valens (CCET IV, 104: Ostrov, Quality: now worn, still a good work is
Constanþa region) recognizable
Addressee: no
Form: customary Thracian votive plate SOUTH OF THE HAEMUS RANGE
with an arched upper side 23. <Áôßëéïò ψÜëçò: óôñáôéþôçò
8
Relief: R.’s right hand is on the horse’s ëåã(é™íïò) [éá’] Êë(áõäßáò) (IGBulg. III-
neck 2, 1845: Zornica, Yambol region)
Quality: poor Addressee: Ãåíéê© <Áðüëëùíé
Form: a rectangular stele with a relief
19. Âá(ëÝñéïò) ÂÜëçò (IGBulg. V, 5268 = decoration of a pediment and two acroteria
CCET II-2, 603: Topèii, Razgrad reg.) Relief: a deer hunt; altar; serpent-en-
Addressee: no twined tree; attendant
Form: customary Thracian votive plate Quality: now worn
with an arched upper side
Relief: R. holds a deer, attacked by a lion 24. ÁˆñÞëéïò ÌáñôéÜëéò (IGBulg. V,
and three dogs (or a three-heads dog); a vessel 5833: Pernik)
with pouring out liquid; two women; attendant; 25. ÁˆñÞëéïò Ìáñêåëqíïò (a statuette
small R. in the upper left corner, his horse look- dedicated together with 24)
ing backwards Addressee: no
Quality: good Form: base of a statuette
Relief: a lion attacking a bull
20. ÌAñêïò Ëïýêéï(ò): êéñêßôùñ Quality: relatively good
(IGBulg. II, 530: Glava Panega).
Addressee: È[å©] T[ðçêü]¥ 26. Áˆñ(Þëéïò) Óéëâáíüò: óôñáôéþôçò
Óáëôïâõóç[í¥] (IGBulg. V, 5819: Pernik)
Form: customary Thracian votive plate Addressee: no
with an arched upper side Form: customary Thracian votive plate
Relief: R. holds a deer, attacked by a lion with an arched upper side
and a dog; a vessel with pouring out liquid; two Relief: a boar hunt; two women; atten-
women; attendant; frieze with fighting animals dant
Quality: good Quality: poor

21. ÌAñêïò Ìáñêåëëåqíïò: êïõñÜôùñ 27. ÁˆñÞëéïò ÂÜëçò  (IGBulg. V, 5736:

÷þñôçò ⒠Öëáâßáò Âñõôôáí™í (IGBulg. Slivnica)
V, 5290 = CCET II-2, 494: Draganovec) Addressee: broken if any
8
For this soldier and number of his legion see Boteva 2005, 201; Áîòåâà 2004, 21.

85
 Dilyana Boteva

Form: only the lower part of a plate is
preserved
Relief: a dog running towards an altar
Quality: now worn
28. ÁˆñÞëéï[ò] ψÜë<å>çò (IGBulg. V,
5705: Slivnica)
Addressee: <Áóêëçðé© Ëåéìçí¥
Form: statuette
Relief: R. holds a deer, attacked by a lion
and a dog; a vessel with pouring out liquid
Quality: relatively good
29. ÁˆñÞëéïò ψÜëçò: óôñáôéþôçò
ëåã(é™íïò) éᒠÊë(áõäßáò)
(IGBulg. III-2, 1597: Augusta Traiana)
Addressee: Èå© Tðçêü¥ ìåãßóô¥
Áõëáñ÷çíùé
Form: a rectangular stele with missing
upper part
Relief: a boar hunt; altar
Quality: now worn
The great majority of these dedicators (22
of all 29) are attested to the north of the
Haemus range. This phenomenon is eloquent
enough to explain the distribution of the Roman
citizenship throughout this territory with the in-
tensive military presence. No wonder that we
find here thirteen military dedications (out of
22). Apart from them two priests are attested
(III-1; III-15), one duumvir coloniae Napocae
(III-4) and one buleuta (III-17).
Remarkable is the variety of nomina
gentilia attested to the north of Haemus and
their relatively equal share in the names of the
Roman citizens here under scrutiny. Thus we
know of three Aurelii, three Claudii and three
Valerii, while Aelii, Antonii, Flavii, Iulii, are
each two. Only one Iunius and one Ulpius ap-
pear as dedicators connected with the Thracian
Rider. This picture is due, beyond doubt, to the
regular acquisition of Roman citizenship with
the constant military recruits and military pres-
ence in the territory under scrutiny.
As already mentioned there are two cases
of different onomastic patterns. A circitor ap-
pears as Marcus Lucius (III-20). Marcus
Marcellinus, a curator cohortis II Flaviae
Brittonum (III-21), has a praenomen and a
cognomen.
The onomastic situation attested for the ter-
ritory to the south of the Haemus range is to-
tally different. At present we know of only
seven dedicators with two Roman names here
and they are very uniform in respect of their
nomina gentilia. One of them is Atilius and all
other six dedicators are Aurelii. For the four of
them who are not connected with the Roman
army (III-24, 25, 27, 28) this, beyond doubt, is
due to the Constitutio Antoniniana; for the
two soldiers (III-26, 29) this is not necessarily
true as emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commo-
dus should also be considered here.
Among the 29 dedicators from this third cat-
egory the most frequent Roman cognomen is
Valens traditionally popular among the soldiers.
Here the name is attested nearly in one third of
the dedications written either in Latin or in
Greek. A Greek dedication from Glava Panega
was brought by a certain Flavius Valens (III-
12). Another Flavius Valens, a soldier, is at-
tested as dedicator at the sanctuary near Lozen
(Table I/14), but is not listed here because of
his Thracian ethnic (IGBulg. III-2, 1809).
IV.
So far three dedicators with one Roman
name only are attested, two of them found to
11
the north of Haemus .
NORTH OF THE HAEMUS RANGE
1. Herculanus: actor Fl(avii) Gemelli

11
In an earlier version of this paper I had included in this category the dedication of [M]ontanus dec(urio) Mo(ntanensium)
(see Kaz. 589 = Ìîíòàíà 2, 101). Mr. Romeo Cirjan, to whom I express my gratitude, draw my attention to this monu-
ment thus making me check the inscription again. It came out that what we have now from this dedication is only the right
part of the lower frame and from the relief the figures of a lion attacking a bull. Because of this we can insist that Montanus
was a Roman citizen and that his nomen gentile was inscribed on the missing part of the lower frame thus remaining for us
obscure. For another Montanus, who was a soldier and whose family name was Flavius see here above III-11 (from Glava
Panega). Noteworthy is the fact that both dedications are further similar because of the Latin language and of the same relief
scene (a lion attacking a bull) which otherwise was not very popular within the iconography of the Thracian Rider.

86
 Dedicators with Roman Names and the Indigenous Cult of the Thracian Horseman (A Reprint)
(Kaz. 556, fig. 285: Kramolin, near Sevlievo)
Addressee: unreadable
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
Relief: R. holds a phiale in his r. hand;
attendant; two very small figures of a dog at-
tacking a boar
Quality: relatively good
2. ÌAñêïò: ðñïâáôïâïó÷üò (CCET II-
1, 246: Trãstikovo, Varna region)
Addressee: 2å™é añùé
Form: only the lower part of a plate
Relief: a dog attacking a boar; altar
Quality: relatively good
SOUTH OF THE HAEMUS RANGE
3. >Ñï‡5ïò (IGBulg. III-1, 1399 = Kaz. 120,
fig. 49: Brestovica, Plovdiv region)
Addressee: Êõñߥ [añ]¥
Form: customary Thracian votive plate
with an arched upper side
Relief: R.’s r. hand is on the horse neck;
female figure
Quality: good
All three votive reliefs fit in the indigenous
tradition concerning the cult of the Thracian
Rider. Of course, this fact could not prove the
Thracian origin of their dedicators.
Summarizing, several points should be
put forward:
Firstly. Among the dedicators of monu-
ments of the Thracian Horseman with Roman
names we find both Romans and Romanized
individuals.
Secondly. Some of the monuments dedi-
cated by persons with Roman names show se-
rious violation concerning the customary
Thracian iconography. For these cases we
might insist on the non-Thracian origin of the
dedicator. The opposite is not necessarily true.
Thirdly. Some of the monuments here
under scrutiny have an addressee who is re-
ferred to as 2åüò / deus (God) not $Çñùò
(Hero) / Êýñéïò (Lord), the latter being cus-
tomary for the Thracian dedications. For these
cases we might insist on Greek or Roman influ-
ence, even on process of Hellenization or Ro-
manization of the dedicator. The opposite is not
necessarily true.
Fourthly. The Constitutio Antoniniana
affected to a greater extend the territory to the
south of the Haemus range, giving to its inhab-
itants a Roman citizenship. A greater part of
the population living to the north of this moun-
tain met Caracalla’s edict already as Roman
citizens due mostly to the Roman army. Accord-
ingly, here the Aurelii among the dedicators
under scrutiny are not so numerous as they are
in the region to the south of Haemus.
Fifthly. The dating of a number of monu-
ments that have been classified under the group
“Batkun – Glava Panega” and thought to be
“earlier” should be questioned. It seems now
that the production of these plates depended
much more on quality of work and of course on
the financial potential of the dedicator.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ìîíòàíà 2 = Âåëêîâ / Àëåêñàíäðîâ 1994
CCET I = Goèeva / Oppermann 1979
CCET II, 1-2 = Goèeva / Oppermann 1981-1983
CCET IV = Hamparþumian 1979
CCET V = Cermanoviæ-Kuzmanoviæ 1984
IGBulg. I-V = Mihailov 1958-1997
ILBulg. = Gerov 1989
Kaz. = Kazarow 1938
Áîòåâà, Ä. 2004. Åïèãðàôñêè äàííè çà êóëòà
êúì Òðàêèéñêèÿ êîííèê ñðåä ðèìñêàòà àðìèÿ â
Äîëíà Ìèçèÿ è Òðàêèÿ. In: Àêàäåìè÷íè ÷åòåíèÿ â
÷åñò íà 110 ãîäèíè îò ðîæäåíèåòî íà ïðîô. ßíêî
Òîäîðîâ (= Ãîäèøíèê íà ÍÁÓ, Äåïàðòàìåíò
„Ñðåäèçåìíîìîðñêè è Èçòî÷íè èçñëåäâàíèÿ, òîì
2). 19-29.
Áîòåâà, Ä. 2002. Èçîáðàæåíèÿ-ðàçêàç “Ëîâ íà
ãëèãàí” âúðõó îáðî÷íèòå ðåëåôè íà Òðàêèéñêèÿ
êîííèê - àíàëèç íà áàçà-äàííè. In: Ðéôýç. Èçñëåä-
âàíèÿ â ÷åñò íà ïðîô. Èâàí Ìàðàçîâ. Ñîôèÿ. 395-
406.
Âåëêîâ, Â. / Àëåêñàíäðîâ, Ã. 1994. Ìîíòàíà 2.
Åïèãðàôñêè ïàìåòíèöè îò Ìîíòàíà è ðàéîíà.
Ìîíòàíà.
Ãåðàñèìîâà-Òîìîâà, Â. 1980. Íàäïèñè îò ñâå-
òèëèùåòî íà Àñêëåïèé Êåéëàéäåí. In: Òðàêèéñêè
ïàìåòíèöè. Òîì ²²: Òðàêèéñêè ñâåòèëèùà. Ñîôèÿ.
48-93.
Ëþáåíîâà, Â. 1980. Ñâåòèëèùåòî ïðè Ïåðíèê.
In: Òðàêèéñêè ïàìåòíèöè. Òîì ²²: Òðàêèéñêè ñâå-
òèëèùà. Ñîôèÿ. 15-47.
Îïåðìàí, Ì. 1970. Çà îáðî÷íèòå ïëî÷êè íà
87
 Dilyana Boteva
ëîâóâàùèÿ Òðàêèéñêè êîííèê îò ðèìñêàòà åïîõà
â Áúëãàðèÿ. – Àðõåîëîãèÿ 3, 19-31.
Öúðîâ, È. 1999. Íÿêîè àñïåêòè íà êóëòà êúì
Òðàêèéñêèÿ êîííèê â Regio Nicopolitana. –
ÈÐÈÌ-Âåëèêî Òúðíîâî ÕVI, 78-87.
Boteva, D. 2005. Soldiers and veterans dedicating
votive monuments with a representation of the Thra-
cian horseman within the provinces of Lower Moesia
and Thrace. In: Römische Städte und Festungen an der
Donau. Akten der Regionalen Konferenz (16-19 Oktober
2003). Belgrade. 199-210.
Boteva, D. 2003. Darstellung einer thrakischen
Katabasis-Sage? - Thracia 15 (in honorem Alexandri
Fol). Sofia. 383-394.
Boteva, D. 2000. A propos des “secrets” du Cavalier
thrace. - Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 26/1, 109-118.
Boteva, D. 2000a. The Votive Reliefs of the Thracian
Horseman as a Sign System: an Attempt at Modelling
the Thracian Mythology. In: Modelling History and
Culture (= Angewandte Semiotik 16/17). Vol. II. Wien.
961-972.
Boteva, D. 1997. A New Approach to the Monu-
ments of the Thracian Horseman. - Archaeologia Bul-
garica 1, 25-29.
Cermanoviæ-Kuzmanoviæ, A. 1984. Corpus Cultus
Equitis Thracii. V: Monumenta intra fines Iugoslaviae
Reperta. Leiden.
Dimitrova, N. 2002. Inscriptions and Iconography
in the Monuments of the Thracian Rider. - Hesperia 71,
209-229.
Gerov, B. 1989. Inscriptiones Latinae in Bulgaria
repertae. Serdicae.
Goèeva, Z. 1997. Changements cultuels et l’icono-
graphie du cavalier thrace. In: Thrace ancienne. Actes
du 2e symposium international des études thraciennes.
Vol. I. Komotini. 199-203;
Goèeva, Z. 1990. Weihungen für den Thrakischen
Reiter von Mitgliedern der römischen Legionen. In: Stu-
dia in honorem B. Gerov. Sofia. 88-93
Goèeva, Z. 1982. Données épigraphiques sur les dé-
dicateurs du Cavalier thrace de la province de Mésie.
In: Actes du VIII-e Congrés International d’épigraphie
grecque et latine. Athènes. 239-241.
Goèeva, Z. / Oppermann, M. 1981-1983. Corpus
Cultus Equitis Thracii II, 1-2: Monumenta inter Danubi-
um et Haemum reperta. Leiden.
Goèeva, Z. / Oppermann, M. 1979. Corpus Cultus
Equitis Thracii. I: Monumenta orae Ponti Euxini Bulga-
riae. Leiden.
Hamparþumian, N. 1979. Corpus Cultus Equitis
Thracii. IV: Moesia inferior (Roman section) and Dacia.
Leiden.
Kazarow, G. 1938. Die Denkmäler des thrakischen
Reitergottes in Bulgarien. Budapest.
88
Mihailov, G. 1958-1997. Inscriptiones Graecae in
2
Bulgaria repertae, I -V. Serdicae.
Oppermann, M. 1992. Der Heros Equitans im Ost-
balkanraum. In: Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae
Classicae. Vol VI. Zürich. 1073-1077.
Posner, R. 1992. Was ist Kultur? Zur semiotischen
Explikation anthropologischer Grundbegriffe. In: M.
Landsch, M./Karnowski, H./Bystrina, I. (eds.). Kultur –
Evolution: Fallstudien und Synthese. Frankfurt am
Main. 1-65.
Stojanov, T. 1985. Le Cavalier et la Déesse. Observa-
tion sur une série de reliefs thraces. - KTEMA 10, 273-285.
Toporov, V. 1990. The Thracian Horseman in an In-
do-European Perspective. – Orpheus 46-63.
Venedikov, I. 1979. Der thrakische Reiter. In: Goèeva,
Z. / Oppermann, M. 1979. 1-6.
ÏÎÑÂÅÒÈÒÅËÈ Ñ ÐÈÌÑÊÈ ÈÌÅÍÀ ÍÀ
ÏÀÌÅÒÍÈÖÈ Ñ ÈÇÎÁÐÀÆÅÍÈÅ ÍÀ
ÒÐÀÊÈÉÑÊÈß ÊÎÍÍÈÊ
Äèëÿíà Áîòåâà
(ðåçþìå)
Îãðîìíîòî êîëè÷åñòâî òðàêèéñêè îáðî÷íè ðå-
ëåôè ñ èçîáðàæåíèå íà ðàçëè÷íè áîæåñòâà, ñúçäà-
äåíè ïðåç ðèìñêàòà åïîõà è çàïàçåíè äî íàøè äíè,
ñâèäåòåëñòâàò, ÷å îáðî÷íèòå ïëî÷êè ñúñ çàîáëåíà
ãîðíà ñòðàíà ñà èãðàëè ìíîãî ñúùåñòâåíà ðîëÿ â
îïèòèòå íà äðåâíèòå òðàêè äà îáùóâàò ñúñ ñâîèòå
áîãîâå. Ìîäåðíîòî ðàçâèòèå íà íàóêàòà çà êîìó-
íèêàöèèòå äîêàçà, ÷å âñÿêî åäíî ïîñëàíèå ìîæå äà
áúäå ðàçáðàíî åäèíñòâåíî ïðè îò÷èòàíåòî íà ïîíå
òðè ôàêòîðà: àäðåñàíòúò íà ñúîòâåòíîòî ïîñëà-
íèå, ñàìîòî ïîñëàíèå è íåãîâèÿò àäðåñàò. Òúé êà-
òî îáðî÷íèòå ïàìåòíèöè áåç ñúìíåíèå ñà âèä ïîñ-
ëàíèå, äíåñ âå÷å íå áè ìîãëî äà ñå îñïîðè íåîáõî-
äèìîñòòà îò àäåêâàòåí òåõåí àíàëèç, êîéòî äà îò-
÷èòà ñúùî ôàêòîðèòå äåäèêàíò è àäðåñàò íà âñåêè
åäèí îáðîê.
Ïðåäëàãàíèÿò òóê àíàëèç íà ïàìåòíèöèòå ñ
èçîáðàæåíèå íà Òðàêèéñêèÿ êîííèê, ÷èèòî ïîñâå-
òèòåëè íîñÿò ðèìñêè èìåíà, å îïèò çà, ìàêàð è ÷àñ-
òè÷íî, ïîïúëâàíå íà åäíà ñúùåñòâåíà ïðàçíèíà â
èçñëåäâàíèÿòà âúðõó òîçè íàé-ïîïóëÿðåí òðàêèé-
ñêè êóëò. Ïîä „ðèìñêè èìåíà” òóê ñå èìàò ïðåä-
âèä ñàìî òåçè, êîèòî ñà ôîðìèðàíè ïî ðèìñêèÿ
îíîìàñòè÷åí ìîäåë è íå âêëþ÷âàò íå-ðèìñêè ñúñ-
òàâêè. Òîâà îçíà÷àâà, ÷å èìåíà êàòî Êáðßôùí
Óáâåßíïõ èëè Marcianus Lecti íå ñà âêëþ÷åíè â
àíàëèçà. Íå ñà îò÷åòåíè ôðàãìåíòàðíî çàïàçåíè
èìåíà, ïðè êîèòî ëèïñâà ñèãóðíîñò äàëè ñà
âêëþ÷âàëè ñàìî ðèìñêè ñúñòàâêè. Èçâúí èçñëåä-
 Dedicators with Roman Names and the Indigenous Cult of the Thracian Horseman (A Reprint)
âàíåòî îñòàâàò ñúùî òàêà ãðúêî-ðèìñêèòå èëè
äðóãè ñìåñåíè èìåíà êàòî íàïðèìåð Gaius Aurelius
Alexander è Átëéïò Ìïõêéáíüò Êáññïõ. Îò òîçè
àíàëèç ñà èçêëþ÷åíè è äåäèêàíòè ñúñ ñèãóðåí
òðàêèéñêè ïðîèçõîä, äîêàçâàí áèëî îò èìåòî íà
áàùàòà, áèëî îò åòíèêîí êàêòî å ïðè ÖëÜâéïò
ψÜëçò óôñáôéþôçò Äõóõñçíïò.
Ïðè èçñëåäâàíèòå òóê ïàìåòíèöè ñà çàñâèäå-
òåëñòâàíè ÷åòèðè ðàçëè÷íè òèïà ðèìñêè èìåíà:
I. Ïîñâåòèòåëè, ÷èèòî èìåíà ñà ïðåäñòàâåíè ñ
òðè ðèìñêè ñúñòàâêè ïî ìîäåëà praenomen, nomen
gentile, cognomen – 12 áðîÿ.
II. Ïîñâåòèòåëè, ÷èèòî èìåíà ñà ïðåäñòàâåíè
÷ðåç äâå nomina gentilia è åäèí cognomen – 2 áðîÿ.
III. Ïîñâåòèòåëè, ÷èèòî èìåíà ñà ñàìî äâóñúñ-
òàâíè – 29 áðîÿ.
IV. Ïîñâåòèòåëè, ïðåäñòàâåíè ñàìî ñ ïî åäíî
èìå – 3 áðîÿ.
Èìåíàòà îò I, ²² è III òèï ñâèäåòåëñòâàò çà ðèì-
ñêî ãðàæäàíñòâî.
Àíàëèçúò íà ñúîòâåòíèòå îáðî÷íè ïàìåòíèöè
îôîðìè ñëåäíèòå èçâîäè:
1. Èçìåæäó äåäèêàíòèòå ñ ðèìñêè èìåíà, êîèòî
ñà ïîñâåòèëè îáðî÷íè ïàìåòíèöè ñ èçîáðàæåíèå íà
Òðàêèéñêèÿ êîííèê, îòêðèâàìå êàêòî ðèìëÿíè,
òàêà è ëèöà ñ ðàçëè÷íà ñòåïåí íà ðîìàíèçàöèÿ.
2. Íÿêîè îò ïàìåòíèöèòå íà äåäèêàíòè ñ ðèì-
ñêè èìåíà ïîêàçâàò ñåðèîçíè îòêëîíåíèÿ îò òðà-
êèéñêèÿ èêîíîãðàôñêè „êàíîí”.  òåçè ñëó÷àè ñ
ãîëÿìà ñèãóðíîñò ìîæå äà ñå íàñòîÿâà íà íå-òðà-
êèéñêèÿ ïðîèçõîä íà òåõíèòå ïîñâåòèòåëè (²-3, ²-
6, ²-8). Îáðàòíîòî íå ìîæå äà ñå ñìÿòà çà ñèãóðíî.
3. Ïðè íÿêîè îò ðàçãëåæäàíèòå òóê îáðîöè
àäðåñàòúò å îïðåäåëåí êàòî 2åüò / deus (Áîã), à íå
êàòî $Çñùò (Õåðîñ) èëè Êýñéïò (Ãîñïîäàð), êàê-
âàòî å õàðàêòåðíàòà çà òðàêèéñêèòå ïîñâåùåíèÿ
äåôèíèöèÿ. Çà òåçè ñëó÷àè ìîæå äà ñå òâúðäè ãðúö-
êî èëè ðèìñêî âëèÿíèå è äîðè ïðîöåñ íà åëèíèçà-
öèÿ èëè ðîìàíèçàöèÿ íà ïîñâåòèòåëÿ. Îáðàòíîòî
íå ìîæå äà ñå ñìÿòà çà ñèãóðíî.
4. Ïðàâè âïå÷àòëåíèå ãîëÿìîòî ðàçíîîáðàçèå
íà ãåíòèëíè èìåíà ñðåä ïîñâåòèòåëèòå íà ñåâåð îò
Ñòàðà ïëàíèíà è òÿõíîòî ñðàâíèòåëíî ðàâíîñòîé-
íî ïðåäñòàâÿíå ïðè àíàëèçèðàíèòå òóê ðèìñêèòå
ãðàæäàíè. Èçâåñòíè ñà òðèìà Aurelii, òðèìà Claudii
è òðèìà Valerii, äîêàòî Åëèèòå, Àíòîíèèòå, Ôëàâè-
èòå è Þëèèòå ñà ïî äâàìà. Ñ ïîñâåùåíèÿ âúðõó ïà-
ìåòíèöè íà êîíåí Õåðîñ ñà èçâåñòíè ñàìî ïî åäèí
Iunius è åäèí Ulpius. Ñðåä ïðè÷èíèòå çà òàçè êàð-
òèíà áåç ñúìíåíèå ñà ðåäîâíîòî ïîëó÷àâàíå íà
12
Íàèñòèíà, îñåì ÷ëåíîâå íà ðåëèãèîçíîòî ñäðóæåíèå, çà êîåòî íàó÷àâàìå îò ñòåëà îò Cumpãna, â òåðèòîðèÿòà
íà àíòè÷íèÿ ãðàä Òîìè (CCET IV, 48), ñà ñ ðèìñêè èìåíà. Íî òîçè ïàìåòíèê å ñâúðçàí ñ “Mater Romanorum”,
ïîðàäè êîåòî íå å îò÷åòåí òóê.
ðèìñêî ãðàæäàíñòâî ÷ðåç ïîñòîÿííèòå âîåííè ðåê-
ðóòè è âîåííîòî ïðèñúñòâèå â çåìèòå íà ñåâåð îò
Õåìóñ.
5. Îíîìàñòè÷íàòà ñèòóàöèÿ, çàñâèäåòåëñòâàíà
þæíî îò Õåìóñ, ñå ðàçëè÷àâà êîðåííî îò òàçè â çå-
ìèòå ñåâåðíî îò ïëàíèíàòà. Çàñåãà ñà èçâåñòíè ñà-
ìî ñåäåì äåäèêàíòè ñ ðèìñêè èìåíà. Ñ åäíî
åäèíñòâåíî èçêëþ÷åíèå (Atilius) òå âñè÷êè ñà Aure-
lii. ×åòèðèìàòà îò òÿõ, êîèòî ñúñ ñèãóðíîñò íå ñà
ñâúðçàíè ñ ðèìñêàòà àðìèÿ (III-24, 25, 27, 28), äúë-
æàò ðèìñêîòî ñè ãðàæäàíñòâî áåç ñúìíåíèå íà
Constitutio Antoniniana.
6. Î÷åâèäíî å, ñëåäîâàòåëíî, ÷å åäèêòúò íà èì-
ïåðàòîð Êàðàêàëà îò 212 ã. å èìàë ïî-ñåðèîçíè
ïîñëåäèöè çà òåðèòîðèÿòà þæíî îò Ñòàðà ïëàíè-
íà, äàâàéêè íà íåéíîòî íàñåëåíèå ðèìñêî ãðàæ-
äàíñòâî. Ïî-ãîëÿìàòà ÷àñò îò æèâååùèòå íà ñåâåð
îò òàçè ïëàíèíà ñà ïîñðåùíàëè Constitutio Antoni-
niana âå÷å êàòî ðèìñêè ãðàæäàíè è òîâà ñå äúëæè
â ãîëÿìà ñòåïåí íà ó÷àñòèåòî èì â ðèìñêàòà àðìèÿ.
Çàòîâà è Àâðåëèèòå èçìåæäó àíàëèçèðàíèòå òóê
äåäèêàíòè íå ñà òàêà ìíîãîáðîéíè êàêòî òåçè íà
þã îò Õåìóñ.
7. Äâåòå ãåíòèëíè èìåíà íà Flavius Mestrius
Iustus (²²-1) ñà ñðåä îñíîâàíèÿòà çà àðãóìåíòèðà-
íàòà òóê òåçà, ÷å òîé íå å îáèêíîâåí âîéíèê â co-
hors II Lucensium, êàêòî ïðèåìàò è Êàöàðîâ, è Ãå-
ðîâ, à îôèöåð è òî âåðîÿòíî ñúñ ñðàâíèòåëíî âèñî-
êà äëúæíîñò â êîìàíäâàíåòî íà ïîñî÷åíàòà âîåí-
íà ÷àñò.
8. Îáîñîáÿâàíåòî íà ãðóïàòà “Áàòêóí – Ãëàâà
Ïàíåãà” íà õðîíîëîãè÷åñêè ïðèíöèï èçãëåæäà íå
å îïðàâäàíî. Ñúçäàâàíåòî íà òåçè îáðî÷íè ïëî÷êè
âåðîÿòíî å â çàâèñèìîñò íàé-âå÷å îò êà÷åñòâîòî
íà èçðàáîòêàòà è ñâúðçàíèòå ñ íåãî ôèíàíñîâè
âúçìîæíîñòè íà äåäèêàíòà.
9. Äîñåãà íå å èçâåñòíî íèòî åäíî ïîñâåùåíèå
îò ðàéîíà íà ×åðíîìîðñêîòî êðàéáðåæèå è íåãî-
âèÿ íåïîñðåäñòâåí õèíòåðëàíä, ÷èéòî äåäèêàíò äà
å ñ ðèìñêî èìå, îòãîâàðÿùî íà ôîðìóëèðàíèòå òóê
12
â íà÷àëîòî óñëîâèÿ . Òîçè ôàêò áåç ñúìíåíèå îò-
ðàçÿâà äî ãîëÿìà ñòåïåí ðåàëíàòà îíîìàñòè÷íà ñè-
òóàöèÿ â ïîñî÷åíèòå çåìè.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dilyana Boteva
Department of Ancient History and Thracology
“St Kliment Ohridski” University of Sofia
Blvd. Tsar Osvoboditel 15
BG-1504 Sofia
boteva@clio.uni-sofia.bg
dilyanaboteva@yahoo.com
89