Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 481






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

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


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


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

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

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


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.


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
Fig. 43. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 4038T, left side. Photo: Brian
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.

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
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
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
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
Fig. 67. Ephesos coin type 2 a) London 1973.5-1-4. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British
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
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
Fig. 79. Kyzikos coin type 2 a) London 1893.4-5-2. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Fig. 175. Anazarbos coin type 1 a) London 1962.11-15-2. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British
Fig. 176. Anazarbos coin type 2 a) London 1970-9-9-206. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British
Fig. 177. Anazarbos coin type 8 b) London 1970.9-9-208. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British
Fig. 178. Aigeai coin type 4 b) London 1962.11-15-1. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British
Fig. 179. Aigeai coin type 6 a) London 1975.4-11-296. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British
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.


The Emperors of Rome and Some Members of their Families

Synoptic chart of Neokoroi Cities
illustrations and credits xvii


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

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


i. General Introduction first century B.C.E. to the end of the third century
C.E., a period for which sources exist but are var-
This book tracks a singular phenomenon: that cit- ied and intermittent. Writing about it, then, is like
ies of Hellenic culture in some eastern provinces of surveying at night; there is a general darkness,
the Roman empire (map p. xix) called themselves though occasional moonlight allows some under-
‘neokoroi,’ usually translated ‘temple wardens,’ to standing of the terrain, and once in a while a for-
signify that they possessed a provincial temple to the tunate flash of lightning illuminates some crucial
cult of the Roman emperor. Though the phenom- detail fully.
enon is confined only to a certain place and time, The neokoroi were cities Greek in structure,
a full pursuit of the circumstances and history of the though not necessarily in genealogy, and neokoros
neokoroi can, I believe, illumine many misunder- is a Greek title. The word originally designated an
stood issues regarding the imperial cult in the larger official whose basic responsibility was the care,
sense, as well as relations between the provincial upkeep or practical daily functioning of a sacred
cities and their Roman rulers, and among the cities building, and whose duties could include the con-
themselves. trol of entry, safekeeping of valuable items, and the
Any theoretical approach to such a study is enactment of ritual or sacrifice; a more detailed dis-
pulled in different directions by polarities of gen- cussion will follow below. In the first century C.E.
eralization and particularization. One may tend to we begin to find this role attributed to entire peoples
generalize because individuals of our species have or cities, and then more specifically to cities that
certain tendencies in common, and these tendencies maintained a provincial temple to the Roman em-
make human history repetitious. Moreover, the peror. This book will examine the title neokoros as
current prestige of the hard sciences privileges the it was applied to those cities, and what it meant to
search for general laws, as in physics, in the behav- them politically, socially, and in practical terms.
ior of human beings. On the other hand, each hu- Understanding those cities’ governmental system
man is formed by particular circumstances of the is vital to understanding how neokoria (the state or
history that came before, and that human also con- institution of being neokoros) can be studied. Struc-
tributes to the formation of a particular present and turally the cities were Greek poleis, and their in-
future. This study tends toward the particular, scriptions document independent decisions made by
making the canonical bows toward Clifford Geertz’ a council (boule) and the body of adult male citi-
technique of ‘thick description,’ where close obser- zens (demos, sometimes meeting as an ekklesia), plus
vation of certain institutions can illumine an entire variously named magistrates.2 The actualities be-
culture, and toward Marc Bloch and the annalistes, hind this structure are more complex. Though le-
who showed the importance of scales of inquiry, galities varied depending on the precise status of
and how such inquiry could be done despite the each city, the power to decide foreign, and increas-
lack of precise sources and the inability to interro- ingly internal, policy was vested in Roman hands,
gate living informants.1 This particular inquiry also ultimately in the emperor himself. More imme-
traces developments over time, from the end of the diately the provincial governor and various impe-
rial officials were on the spot making decisions,
1 For an excellent history of recent interactions between adjudicating disputes, and seeing that taxes were
theories of history and the social sciences, see McDonald 1996. paid. In this they generally had the cooperation of
I have been guided by the examples of Geertz 1973; Bloch 1973;
and S. Price 1984b; the latter’s observations inform my work
everywhere. 2 Lewin 1995.
2 introduction: methodology

each city’s own elite, who competed among them- ethnic background and interests within a region,
selves to take on offices and services, and often laid bound together by the practice of a particular cult.
out their personal fortunes, in order to be preemi- Under the Empire the central cult of most koina
nent among their fellow citizens, to stand in the es- was that of a living human being, the emperor of
teem of the Romans, and to rise in power and Rome. By the end of the first century C.E., some
status, sometimes to the ranks of Roman authority (but not all) of the cities that had a temple for this
itself.3 provincial imperial cult were called neokoroi. It is
A city’s relationships with other cities could be worth noting that the very title denoted a caretaker,
conducted on good terms or in jealous rivalry, but not an ‘owner’ of a temple: ownership, at least in
only within the narrow confines that Rome allowed the beginning, was in the hands of the koinon,
to each city’s nominal autonomy. Attempts to go which assigned its chief priests to preside over the
beyond those limits could be met by some reasser- temples in neokoroi cities, often an increasing num-
tion of control by the imperial government, and the ber of temples as emperor succeeded emperor.
very presence of an overarching power beyond the Koina also represented the cities in other aspects of
city and the province assured that one party or the their relationship with Rome, e.g. embassies and
other in any dispute could appeal to that power, legal proceedings.
further eroding any independence that the cities Simon Price’s seminal book, Rituals and Power,
tried to assert. altered the landscape of inquiry concerning the
In discussing the neokoroi I have often found it worship of rulers in the Roman East. We have gone
necessary to refer to these cities as if they were beyond former attitudes: the Judeo-Christian con-
people, who thought, weighed possibilities, and cern for what was believed rather than what was
even had emotions like jealousy and pride. This is done, and its accompanying disdain for flatterers
primarily an outgrowth of contemporary speeches who would call a man a god; and beyond a simple
and histories that exhorted, blamed, or categorized faith in Realpolitik, which can only ask who profits,
cities for such human traits; neokoros was after all whether politically or economically. We have come
a person’s title applied to a city.4 But it also masks to a more anthropological approach, which seeks to
a lack of specific knowledge of such matters as who understand how the Hellenes handled their Roman
initiated the quest for an imperial temple and when, world. Price, however, chose to be cautious, to pri-
whether there was debate on where to put it, down vilege the balancing act between seeing the emperor
to who decided what order the columns should be. as man or god in rituals private and public, great
Generally, we know that the cities of the Roman and small.
empire were run on the lines of urban oligarchies, But in this study, which is at the level of the
and that an elite often made decisions without much koinon and the province, we shall see less contra-
consultation of the rest of the city’s male voting diction: the living emperor was addressed as a god,
population, still less of nonvoters. They felt little sometimes second only to the chief and patron gods
need to inscribe their day-to-day accounts on stone of the cities in which he was worshipped. He had
for public reference, so we know little of the details his own temple, which was referred to as his. His
of their operation, but much of magniloquent de- successors, perhaps his predecessors, and other
crees and votes of thanks. members of his family, often including his consort,
Provincial cities often banded together in an or- joined him in that temple; this was recognized by
ganization known in the East as a koinon.5 Though calling it a temple of the Augusti, or of the Greek
the name translates as ‘league’ or ‘commonality,’ it equivalent, the Sebastoi. Thus the city where that
was not a subset of official imperial administration, temple was established could be called neokoros of
nor did its geographic lines have to correspond the Augusti. Despite this fact, the individual em-
exactly to the borders of a Roman province. Instead peror who was the prime object of cult was not for-
a koinon was an organization of cities of similar gotten: for example, what was at first called the
temple of the Augusti in Flavian times at Ephesos
was later referred to as that of the god Vespasian.
What is more, where another god shared the
Quass 1993.
4 For anthropomorphic cities, Lendon 1997, 31, 73-89. temple, (s)he was often a personification or a place-
5 The basic work is still Deininger 1965. holder, whose name could drop from common ref-
introduction: methodology 3

erence, as the name of the goddess Rome slipped non, Roman emperor, and Senate, and how they
away from mentions of the temples of Augustus at arrived at results satisfactory to, or at least accepted
Pergamon and Ankyra, and Tiberius and Trajan by, all.
could stand alone in depictions of their temples at As will be seen, there were mechanisms that
Smyrna and Pergamon, with no sign of their cult encouraged the establishment and the spread of
partners Livia and the Senate or Zeus Philios. The neokoria. Rivalries among cities in the same koinon
reverse is never true: the provincial temples initially might make each one strive to be neokoros, or if
dedicated to Rome and Augustus are never called disappointed at first, to become the next one. At the
simply temples of Rome. same time, province-to-province comparisons could
Looking at the neokoroi is important in itself, but be made when provincial embassies met one an-
doubly important in the light it sheds upon what other. This was frequently the case at a succession,
modern scholarship calls ‘the imperial cult.’ Under for example, where ambassadors from all over the
that rubric have been lumped all aspects of the Empire brought an initial tribute of crown gold and
worship of emperors, living and dead, in East and declared their first honors to a new emperor. But it
West, by Romans and non-Romans of all sorts, was well into Tiberius’ reign that his acceptance of
organized by province, by city, and down to indi- Asia’s offer of a temple to his cult prompted the
viduals. Often the practice, and even the vocabu- province of Hispania Ulterior to offer him another
lary, of one of the above differs widely from that of one. He refused, not necessarily because he was a
another. Despite a common thread of Hellenic difficult man to please, though Tacitus portrays him
speech and culture, a Sebasteion built by decree of as such, but because he could make that refusal a
the Athenians may well have been different, and symbol of his modesty before the Senate.6 This re-
served different functions, from one built by Ephe- fusal would have then informed other aspirant prov-
sians, Alexandrians, Aphrodisians, or Palmyrenes. inces how not to approach this particular emperor,
Towns and individuals may have set up altars or and the dialogue could go on.
statues to the emperor without even bothering to Still, only certain koina of the Greek-speaking
seek permission of a governor, much less the nod East are known to have named their cities neoko-
of authorities at Rome. roi.7 It is possible that this circle of organizations
In narrowing our focus to the neokoroi, however, was influenced by events in the koinon of Asia,
we study a less mixed phenomenon, composed of where the earliest uses of ‘neokoros’ as a city title
events that are internally comparable, though sub- are known. In other areas, most notably mainland
ject to development over time. Honors proposed for Greece, no neokoroi have yet been found. But it is
an emperor passed through the sieve of each koinon vital to note that our pools of evidence only repre-
and reached some sort of consensus among its cit- sent a fraction of what once existed, and may yet
ies small and large, rich and poor, cosmopolitan and be increased: a previously unknown inscription or
isolated. Even after this was achieved, the conduct coin could add new names and historical circum-
of the provincial imperial cult was too large in stances to our knowledge of the neokoroi at any
scope, too important to the image of the Roman au- time.
thorities at which it was aimed, to pass unexamined
by them. What few sources we have emphasize
ceremonious deliberation by the Roman Senate and ii. The Word ‘Neokoros’
careful consideration by the ultimate recipient, the
emperor. Thus applications for provincial imperial Before going further, it is essential to examine the
temples, and subsequent neokoriai, were subject to word ‘neokoros,’ both etymologically and in the
review on at least three levels: emanating from a context in which it was adopted as a title for cities.
city that offered a home for the cult, they had to The 1888 thesis of Buechner assembled the ancient
also be acceptable to the other cities of the province sources, though it must be supplemented by recent
as grouped in their koinon, to the emperor, and to discoveries.8
the Senate. This is as close to a homogeneous group
6 Tacitus, Annals 4.37-38; Charlesworth 1939, discussed
of events as the modern term ‘imperial cult’ covers.
In fact, a study of the neokoroi can serve as a labo- 7 See also Lendon 1997, 160-172.

ratory to examine this dialogue among cities, koi- 8 Buechner 1888, 2-21.
4 introduction: methodology

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

16 Greek Anthology 11.324.

17 Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 351E; Romulus 5.1; Roman
9 Chantraine 1968-1980, 3:734 (naÒw). Questions 264D, 267D.
10Hesychius, Lexicon s.vv. naokÒrow, neokÒrow, nevkÒrow, 18 Aelius Aristides, Oration 47/Sacred Tales 1.43.

also zãkorow; Suda s.vv. KÒrh, KÒrow, nevkÒrow, but also zãko- 19 Oration 47/Sacred Tales 1.11, 44, 58, 76; Oration 48/Sa-

row, nevkorÆsei. cred Tales 2.30, 35, 46-49, 52; Oration 49/Sacred Tales 3.14, 22-
11 Buechner 1888; Euripides, Ion lines 54-55; for his tasks, 23; Oration 50/Sacred Tales 4.46.
102-183. 20 Roesch 1984.
12 Chantraine 1968-1980, 2:565-566 ( kore- and kor°v). 21 Anabasis 5.3.6-7.
13 Ruijgh 1986. Earlier theories: Heubeck 1968; Olivier 22 Elliger 1992, 126-127. Chief priest: Strabo 14.1.23.

1967, with commentary by Palmer; Petrusevki 1965. I thank Eunuch: Pliny, Natural History 35.93, 132; Roller 1999, 253.
Greg Nagy for the initial reference. Von Gaertringen 1906, no. 231, did not comment on whether
14 Savelkoul 1988; Hero(n)das, Mimiambi 4. the Megabyzoi were eunuchs or how one could be son to an-
15 Greek Anthology 9.22. other.
introduction: methodology 5

tions; but in any case, in Ephesos the office of the Hellenistic period, by Roman times only persons
neokoros was responsible and respected. of high rank were neokoroi of the great Serapis at
Women also served as neokoroi, often for female Alexandria. Also in Egypt were the neokoroi of
deities but sometimes for male. Pausanias, writing temples of the god Augustus at Alexandria and at
in the second century C.E., noted that the office of Canopus; aspirants to this very honorable post were
neokoros of Aphrodite at Sikyon was given to a chosen by lot, as the emperor Claudius had de-
celibate woman, and elsewhere called the virgin creed.30
Herophile, the sibyl who prophesied to Hecuba at The neokoroi of the provincial imperial cult in
Troy, the neokoros of Apollo Smintheus.23 Lucius Asia were also quite eminent. Under Tiberius,
Annaeus Cornutus, writing in the first century C.E., Pergamon’s neokoros of the goddess Rome and the
categorized the role of the Vestal Virgins at Rome god Augustus was also (municipal) priest of Tiberius
as that of neokoroi.24 And just to show that virgin- and gymnasiarch for the Sebasta Rhomaia games,
ity was not integral to a woman’s becoming which involved considerable expenditure.31 The
neokoros, in a poem by Pankrates (pre-first-century neokoros of the temple of Gaius at Miletos (q.v.),
B.C.E.), a neokoros of Artemis suggests to the god- before taking that office, had already been chief
dess that her twin four-year-old daughters should priest of Asia, i.e., head of the koinon, twice. The
succeed her as neokoroi.25 chief priest of the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos
It would take another monograph to chase down (q.v.) in 89 C.E. was one of the city’s greatest bene-
the complete history of various nevkÒroi, naokÒroi, factors, and stepped into the office of neokoros the
and zãkoroi, all of different statuses, serving differ- year after his chief priesthood.
ent temples in different ways at different times, Two Jewish authors transferred the term ‘neoko-
across the Greek world. Our main purpose here, ros’ to the context of their own religion. Philo,
however, is to discern how the word ‘neokoros’ was writing around the time of Gaius, used it specifically
transferred from humans and made to officially for the tribe of Levi, especially in their functions as
designate a city which had a specific kind of temple, priests (under supervision of the high priest), guard-
a provincial temple for the cult of the emperor.26 ians, gatekeepers, purifiers, and general caretakers
We will now focus on neokoroi officials of around of the temple at Jerusalem.32 Josephus, who issued
the first century of the common era, the time when the Greek version of his Jewish War ca. 75-79 C.E.,
‘neokoros’ was adopted as a title for cities. called certain functionaries who were responsible
Though there is little further evidence for a chief for the purification of the Jerusalem temple neoko-
priest also being neokoros for Artemis at Ephesos roi.33 More importantly, in his account of his own
in Roman times, the neokoria of Artemis Leuko- speech to the holdouts in the siege of Jerusalem, he
phryene, chief goddess of Magnesia, was certainly a conferred the title on an entire people, referring to
high office; one neokoros, graced with many sono- all the Jews as neokoroi.34 At the times he referred
rous honorifics, served as chief ambassador for the to, however, the Jews were either in exodus or in
city and set up a statue of Drusilla, sister of the exile and no temple yet stood, implying that the
emperor Gaius (Caligula).27 At Smyrna, one post- Jews’ ward over their temple (which he indeed
Vespasianic neokoros of the patron goddesses called ‘naos’ elsewhere) was a spiritual one.35
Nemeseis held pretty much all the highest city of- The first known inscription to call a city, rather
fices as well.28 The Greco-Egyptian cult of Serapis than a person, neokoros is earlier than Josephus’
often had neokoroi, both at Alexandria and in other book, dating to 38 C.E. In it Kyzikos (q.v.) is de-
cities.29 Though it was perhaps a humble office in

30 H. I. Bell 1924, no. 1912 line 60, esp. p. 35; Oliver 1989,
23 Description of Greece 2.10.4, 10.12.5. 77-88 no. 19.
24 The Nature of the Gods 52 l. 7. 31 IGRR 4:454.
25 Greek Anthology 6.356. 32 On the Special Laws 1.156, 2.120; On Flight and Finding 90,
26 Careful readers will have already noted that I consider
93, 94; On Dreams 2.273; Life of Moses 1.316-318, 2.72, 159, 174
the ban on split infinitives a Latinizing affectation, foreign to (where priests and Levites fight over proteia!), 276; On Rewards
English. and Punishments 74; and Questions and Answers on Genesis frag. 17.
27 Kern 1900 no. 156. 33 Jewish War 1.153.
28 IvS no. 641. 34 Ibid. 5.383, 5.389.
29 Vidman 1970, 53-60. 35 E.g. Jewish Antiquities 8.61-106 on Solomon’s temple.
6 introduction: methodology

scribed as “ancient and ancestral neokoros of the For example, calling the city ‘sacred’ or ‘shrine’
family” of the “greatest and most manifest god (hieron/a) would not only have involved long-winded
Gaius Caesar.” The use of the word is probably explanations (‘for the provincial cult of the Augus-
metaphoric, implying that Kyzikos held a shrine to ti’?) but could have caused confusion with cities that
a relative of Gaius, whether his great-grandfather were already ‘sacred and inviolable.’37 The word
Augustus, his grandfather Agrippa, his sister Dru- ‘neokoros,’ by contrast, had the concept of ‘temple’
silla, or several of the above. That this early ex- central to its meaning, and was thus precisely adapt-
ample of a city as neokoros refers to the imperial able when a city received more than one koinon
cult is significant, as the two would soon be closely temple: it became twice, three times, and even four
associated. or six times, neokoros.
Saint Paul visited Ephesos (q.v.) around the years On the great majority of coins that will be dis-
52-54 C.E. According to Acts of the Apostles 19.35, a cussed here, it is the group of (male) citizens who
riot was fomented against him, and the people are neokoroi. Most inscriptions, however, call the
flocked to the theater shouting “Great is Artemis of (feminine) city, the polis, neokoros. A few inscrip-
the Ephesians!” They were there addressed by the tions of Ephesos (q.v.) specify the demos as neokoros
city’s secretary, the grammateus, who is quoted while the council or boule is ‘philosebastos,’ ‘friend
saying “Who does not know that Ephesos is of the Augusti’; and in three out of the four inscrip-
neokoros of the great goddess Artemis and of the tions that document neokoria at Hierapolis (q.v.),
heaven-fallen [image]?” Here as in the Kyzikos the council is neokoros, while in the fourth the
inscription, the term ‘neokoros’ is used as a meta- people are so designated. At Side (q.v.), the council
phor. It expresses the city’s wardship of Artemis’ of elders (gerousia) may once be neokoros, while on
image and her temple, and acclaims it as a point of coins that city’s patron gods also take the title.
civic pride. But only a short time after, in 65/66, Finally, in the exceptional case of an inscription
the word would appear on the city’s coins, and it is found at Herakleia (q.v.), it may be not the city it-
possible that at this point it meant what it came to self but the synod of theatrical artists who are neo-
mean later, that Ephesos possessed a koinon temple koroi.
for the cult of the emperor, in this case for Nero.
At that time, it would become, not just a metaphor,
but an official title vied for by cities and regulated iii. Forms of Evidence
by the Senate and the emperor himself; and the
main subject of this study. 1. Literary Evidence
Equating a city or a people with a temple offi- Examination of the neokoroi cities has to draw upon
cial is not a far-fetched comparison. Greek cities diverse forms of evidence, each of which must be
were often personified, usually as females; the title studied and interpreted in its own way. The rare
metropolis exalts them as mothers, and a few were words on the subject written by ancient Roman and
even called nurses.36 A city could also be repre- Greek historians make up the narrative links among
sented by its people, the Demos (personified as a all the other forms and come closest to explaining
male); or simply by the collective body of its citizens, neokoria. Where preserved, they are precious. On
as is normal on its coins. The term ‘neokoros’ was the other hand, none is strictly contemporary and
not specific to female or male; it was often applied all are liable to the flaws of written history in gen-
to an official high in honor; and it was concerned eral: authorial bias, scholarly misinterpretation, in-
specifically with care for a temple. There may have completeness, and sheer silence on the very points
been other terms available to express a city’s being which modern scholars are agog to know. In fact,
a center of cult for its koinon, but for one reason or historians’ accounts concerning neokoria are ex-
another they were not chosen while ‘neokoros’ was. tremely scarce. For the early years of the Empire,
we have a few accounts of the foundations of the
imperial cult in certain provinces, written by later
historians. These events are treated as notable, but
36 L. Robert 1980a, 400-402, of Ionopolis. Other nurse

cities: Syracuse in the fifth century B.C.E., Pindar, Pythian 2.2;

Ephesos in 162-164 C.E., IvE 24; Miletos in 361-363 C.E.,
SIG4 906A, from Cyriacus of Ancona. Also see above, n. 4. 37 Rigsby 1996, 34-36.
introduction: methodology 7

their effect in other provinces is not mentioned, and of such coins was generally devoted to a standard
once such honors became typical, historians appar- bust of the current emperor or a member of his
ently felt no need to continue documenting them. family, while the reverse gave the city’s name and
Thus in all but a few cases, we see the results with- titles (including neokoros), thus offering an exact
out hearing all of the dickering behind them; we correlation between imperial chronology and civic
know some titles and temples, but have scant record titulature. Since many cities issued coins often and
of the imperial letters, senatorial decisions, or de- in abundance, they can be checked against each
bates in the koinon that gave rise to them. Indeed, other for confirmation of the title as well.
we have no idea where the decision that cities with From the start, we should note that beyond the
provincial imperial temples could be honored as standards for depiction of the emperor’s image and
‘neokoroi’ came from, though it probably occurred the listing of his titles on the obverse, there seem to
in the late Neronian or Flavian period. have been no firm rules about what a city could
Since all our literary evidence is partial, we must choose to put on its bronze coinage. Reverses could
also guard against the tendency to make the few boast the city’s name, titles, magistrates, and any
facts that we receive from it loom larger in our one of a wide range of images, including the city’s
reasoning than the many factors that left less evi- chief gods; its founders and legends; its festivals; its
dence for their operation. For example, since our alliances; monuments, including temples, fountains,
historical sources tend towards a biographical ap- harbors, mountains, or bridges; and honors toward
proach to history, concentrating on the individual the emperors. Large-size and special issues were
emperors and their personalities, we may be led to frequent, especially from the late second to early
use some quirk of a particular emperor to explain third century, and these were often showy coins,
why certain cities became neokoroi in his reign and produced with care and exactitude. Some illustrate
others did not. The emperor’s inclinations may the temples by means of which a city became
have made neokoroi in some cases, but the evidence neokoros, often in great detail.
in others is equivocal, and in any case it is danger- Not every city had its own mint, but most prob-
ous to investigate no deeper than what little our his- ably contracted either with a centralized workshop
torical sources leave to us. or with itinerant craftsmen. The same obverse dies
One of the most valuable sources, and an eye- were sometimes used for different cities, and even
witness for certain crucial events of the late second reverse dies, which had to be specially cut to include
and early third century, is Cassius Dio. His histo- the city’s name and titles, may have been made by
ries are only partially extant, however, and must be craftsmen who didn’t know what that city’s chief
reconstructed from epitomes. I cite them according gods or temples looked like.40 The reverses, of
to the Loeb edition, which is still the one most course, were tailor made to include the name of the
readily available.38 city and some image of civic pride, but sometimes
these images were very specific, sometimes more
2. Numismatic Evidence conventional.
Coins issued by the cities that were neokoroi have Before we can examine in detail the coin evi-
exactly the opposite advantages and disadvantages dence from each of the neokoroi, it is essential to
of literary evidence. They are not only contempo- discuss how coin types, especially architectural ones,
rary but by far the most abundant form of evidence. can be interpreted, and to what extent these small
Cities of Rome’s eastern provinces issued bronze depictions might represent an ancient reality. Some
coinage not only for economic functions, but as a scholars have trusted ancient numismatic images to
symbol of autonomy and civic pride.39 The obverse represent reality; others have not.41 Each side has
approached the debate from a preconceived posi-
38 Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Dio’s Roman History, trans. E.

Cary (London 1914-1927). tioning of coins issued by cities of the Roman provinces is not
39 In general, see Harl 1987; Butcher 1988. Iconography directly relevant to this inquiry.
of the obverse image: Bastien 1992; here my terminology dif- 40 Kraft 1972, from which Brandt 1988; but see the com-

fers from his only in using the term ‘diadem’ instead of ments of L. Robert 1975, 188-192, and J. Nollé 1992, 78-97.
‘stephane’ for empresses’ crowns. Coinage in precious metal 41 For: M. Price and Trell 1977, 19-33; Vermeule 1987,

was more directly controlled by the Roman central authority. 9-22. Against: Drew-Bear 1974; J. Nollé 1997. For a thought-
Though independently an important topic, the monetary func- ful analysis, Burnett 1999.
8 introduction: methodology

tion based on a limited number of cases: one found Coin types can copy particular cult images, and this
certain monuments well represented by certain imitation helps to make them recognizable. But they
detailed coins, and so decided that coin images are can also hew to conventions dictated by the medium
trustworthy; the other found varying representations of coinage itself: for example, the chief cult image
that contradict certain monuments, and so rejected at the Artemision of Ephesos was for untold centu-
coin images. ries the famous Anatolian dressed image, but for
Certainly these images cannot be taken as liter- much of its coining history Ephesos portrayed
ally as if they were photographs: all are minuscule, Artemis as a huntress instead, using the Hellenized
with only those details that could be conveyed by a style typical of other contemporary coinage. And
die-cutter’s chisels and punches. Some craftsmen after all, in a city containing many temples and
may not have known or cared much about the shrines, a god could be worshipped in many differ-
image, or may have been copying it from other ent forms.
coins. Plainly there was some standardization of So by what rules can we recognize when an
images, especially prevalent on repetitive issues of image on a coin approaches the true reflection of a
small-sized coins. On the other hand, even if a die- statue or statues that once stood within a koinon
cutter lacked knowledge and was not motivated by temple to a particular emperor, and when it does
patriotism, coining was certainly supervised by not? First, the coin type should show the image(s)
members of the city’s elite class, who could supply standing within the temple; otherwise it is likely that
both. Their care is evident in many (though again, a representation of the active and living emperor,
not all) of the coins that were produced. not of his statue, is meant. Then, the more care
We can never tell whether those who ultimately devoted to conveying the image, and the more de-
handled the coins (mainly the citizens whose name tails added that are not strictly conventional, the
adorned the reverse, but with some circulation more chance that the representation is based on
among neighboring cities, judging from site finds) visual reality. Another good indication of visual lit-
understood all the messages that the coinage tried eralness is when the same image, with its particu-
to convey, but certainly the coins were manufac- larities, continues to be conveyed on later coins and
tured as if they did. Otherwise there would have in other emperors’ reigns. Large, carefully produced
been little point in coining anything but unchang- and wider-circulating coin issues may show the
ing types and legends. Given that the images on emperor in his temple beside his cult partner, while
coins did often change, the messages they carried, smaller and more local issues show only the more
like the legends, were designed to be readable and important one of the pair, the emperor: thus silver
recognizable. Therefore the coins must have con- coins of the province Asia show both Augustus and
veyed some element of reality that made their types Rome in their temple at Pergamon, while Perga-
recognizable; but that element did not have to be mon’s bronze coins show Augustus alone. Coins
visual exactitude, like a photograph’s. It could in- issued soon after the construction of a temple often
stead be symbolic. show it and its image with more exactitude than
The way that cult images are portrayed best later ones. For example, under Tiberius, Smyrna’s
shows the symbolic nature of coin types. When a coins show his image in his new koinon temple as a
god or personification appears independently on a veiled and togate priest; but under Caracalla, when
coin, her/his attributes and gestures identify her/ Smyrna wanted to show all three of its koinon
him to the intended audience: the radiate Helios temples together, the image in the one labeled with
raises his whip, while Dionysos spills his kantharos Tiberius’ name is in more conventional military
toward an attendant panther. Thus many of the guise. It must be conceded that a disastrous earth-
coin images are rather static and repetitive; yet the quake had knocked down this particular temple in
ancient audience seems to have had no trouble with the interim, and it is possible that the old togate im-
interpretation when the god picked up an unusual age had been lost and a new cuirassed one intro-
attribute like a temple, or when she/he joined duced in its place. But it is also possible that on the
hands with another city’s god or an emperor. The later coin, which offered very little space within the
images on coins are not photographic copies of temples for detailed representation, the military
particular cult images, they are representations of image was used as shorthand for ‘an emperor.’
a god or a personification that can move and act. Again, the symbolic aspects of how coins repre-
introduction: methodology 9

sent temples can obscure the purely visual informa- Tralles (two), Ankyra (two), Side (three), Anazarbos
tion that we wish to obtain. A god’s or emperor’s (two), Tarsos (two), Damascus (two, carried by Vic-
image can appear in a shrine whose details change, tories); and Neapolis (two, with Mt. Gerizim). Fur-
and we cannot tell whether the new depiction is ther such types may be expected to appear as more
simply a symbol for ‘cult’ or ‘shrine’ or whether it coins are found and published: recent appearances
represents an actual temple with different details include a coin of Antipatris under Elagabalus, in-
emphasized on different issues. A four-column cluding what appears to be two tetrastyle temples
shrine of Zeus, with either an arched or a flat lin- facing one another (but this may represent the city’s
tel, appears on coins of Aizanoi before the city’s sacred spring between the two shrines); and several
temple of Zeus was built, probably in Hadrian’s issues of concord (between Ephesos and Alexandria,
reign. Is this a temporary shrine or shrines, or sim- and between Smyrna and Pergamon).43 Still, by
ply a symbol for the temple the god had not yet now it will have become obvious that twenty out of
received? Often coins show a temple’s lintel as the twenty-four cities mentioned, or all except
arched, or its number of columns reduced, in order Abdera, Damascus, Antipatris, and Alexandria, are
to show the cult figure(s) within more clearly. On known to have been neokoroi. Of course Price and
the other hand, at Aigeai the arched lintel of the Trell realized this, not only pointing it out within
temple of Asklepios is shown so consistently that it their text but identifying such temples as imperial
becomes a point of identification, appearing even or ‘neokorate.’ In almost all cases the number of
when the cult image is absent. In this case, we have temples matches the number of neokoriai, and
some reason to believe that the representation could changes when it does.
convey a recognizable visual feature of the temple, The seeming exceptions are cases where the
either an actual arched lintel, a niche, or a balda- shrine of a patron god is included among the
chino. temples that conferred neokoria, all of them being
The first of the two most important coin types for important sources of civic pride: so Ephesos some-
this study arrays all the temples for which the city times adds the temple of Artemis, Sardis the temple
was neokoros, sometimes accompanied by the city’s of Lydian Kore, and Tralles the temple of Zeus, but
patron god in or out of her/his own temple. Images none claim more than the proper number of
of emperors, probably representing cult statues, are neokoriai. Side and Hierapolis, however, showed
very often represented within these temples. When two additional temples with the one for which they
two or more temples that made a city neokoros are were neokoroi, and Nikaia used a type of two
illustrated on coins, they are generally shown as temples, probably imitated from its rival Niko-
identical to one another. This need not indicate that media, after it had lost its sole neokoria. Laodikeia
a city’s second temple had to be a copy of the first, was probably unique in being once neokoros but of
but is again symbolic: two temples of similar func- two emperors, Commodus and Caracalla, whose
tion are shown as similar in appearance. separate temples were grouped with a third of a pa-
The most wide-ranging work on architectural tron god. Kyzikos as twice neokoros sometimes
coin types, by Price and Trell, appends exhaustive shows two peripteral temples, at other times only
catalogues of known examples.42 From these lists, one with its shrine of Demeter and Kore; but
the cities that issued coins showing two or more Kyzikos presents many problems.
identical temples are: Abdera in Spain (two The other important type for this study is that
temples), Perinthos (two), Beroia and its Macedo- which shows a patron deity or city goddess holding
nian koinon (two), Thessalonike (four), Neokaisareia a temple, the personification of the city as neoko-
(two), Nikaia (two), Nikomedia (two or three), ros.44 The preeminent discussion of these types is
Kyzikos (two), Ephesos (two, three, or four), con- almost a century old but it still has application to-
cord between Ephesos and Magnesia (two, but with day. Of the ten cities Pick named, eight were
each city’s Artemis within), Hierapolis (three), neokoroi. The two that are not known to have been
Laodikeia (two or three), Pergamon (two or three),
Sardis (two, three, or four), Smyrna (two or three),
43 Meshorer 1993, 142-144 no. 6; Franke and M. Nollé

1997, nos. 549-551, 2133-2144.

42 44 Pick 1904.
M. Price and Trell 1977, 241-287.
10 introduction: methodology

neokoroi are the koinon of Lesbos and Kolybrassos ervation: though coins must have been issued in
in Cilicia. their hundreds of thousands, only a small propor-
Some of the temple-bearer types show an attempt tion of them escaped being melted down and
to make the god hold as many temples as the city reminted. Of those, only a small proportion have
had neokoriai; Nikomedia went so far as to put one survived to be found, and of those, only a smaller
on its goddess’ head after both her hands were full. proportion have made their way into museums or
Smyrna’s Amazon, however, always held only one. publications. Museum collections contain choice
The majority of temple bearers are generic city specimens acquired over many years, but sometimes
goddesses, as at Perinthos, Philippopolis, Nikome- omit humbler examples that could provide crucial
dia, Side, Aigeai, Tarsos, and Ankyra. But often a information. The collections of small and local
patron deity stands for the city, as Demeter does for museums are rarely published, while those of indi-
Nikomedia, or Athena for Side and for Ankyra. In viduals are difficult to locate and authenticate. The
a few cases we see the emperor for whose cult the abundant coins found in excavations are often in
neokoria was granted holding his own temple, as poor condition and illegible, or have not yet been
Septimius Severus does at Perinthos, while Cara- published; and many sites are unexcavated. Since
calla hands a second temple over an altar to the city we have such a minuscule fraction of the possible
goddess of Kyzikos, who already holds the first. At information, the publication of even one new coin
Philippopolis, Elagabalus and Apollo Kendrisos hold can overturn an hypothesized chronology.
the temple they shared between them. Side, which Problems also lurk in the older publications of
also used a type of three temples while calling itself ancient coins. Though scholars such as Eckhel and
only neokoros, again went beyond its exact titu- Mionnet (see below) made the first great strides in
lature with a type showing the city goddess holding collecting, analyzing, and publishing the coins of
two temples. Rome’s eastern provinces, misreadings of legends
There is also a verbal equivalent to the deity who and misinterpretations of types published without
holds a temple: the coin’s legend simply calls the illustration were frequent. In addition, coins with
deity, not the citizens, neokoros. The city goddesses recut legends and even outright forgeries occasion-
Thessalonike, Perge, and Side are so named, while ally went unrecognized. In order to avoid incorpo-
at Side the gods Apollo and Asklepios are also rating such errors, I have kept mainly to coins in
neokoroi. public collections that I could examine directly, in
It must be remembered, however, that no mat- clear photographs, or in casts of both obverse and
ter how close the correlation between cities known reverse, for in case of a doubtful reading only such
to have been neokoroi and those that used either coins can easily be checked. The increasing num-
multiple-temple or temple-bearer reverses for their ber of published corpora of various cities’ coins, and
coins, it is not exact. There do not appear to have of volumes in the Sylloge nummorum Graecorum series,
been many rules about what a city could put on its has helped immeasurably. On the other hand, with
coinage, and it was common for reverse types to be some few exceptions I have avoided using coins
imitated. Also, only rarely do coins like the special from unpublished private collections and auction
issues of Pergamon or Smyrna proclaim the city catalogues. Beside the obvious ethical consider-
three times neokoros and label the three temples ations, I prefer to rely upon coins that have been
with the names of the emperors they honored. The examined critically by disinterested scholars, and
overwhelming majority of coin types are generalized preferably by more than one. Where I have made
and schematic, their legends laconic sets of titles. exceptions to these guidelines (notably in chapter
Unlike historical accounts, they give no indication 11, Antandros, and chapter 32, Tripolis), I have
of why or how neokoria was awarded. Some, with- hedged the cities with question marks, and have in-
out imperial portraits, can be difficult to date; on cluded them at all mainly to make scholars aware
others the title drops off and we cannot always tell that there is a possibility of neokoria that still needs
whether it was because it was taken away from the to be proved or disproved. No doubt I have missed
city, or only not mentioned on the coin, perhaps su- many interesting examples, but I hope that I have
perseded by some other honor. missed compromising my conclusions as well. Also
Other limitations must be considered when using omitted are examples where the word ‘neokoros’ is
coin evidence. The greatest is the accident of pres- obscure or restored. My aim has been to be correct,
introduction: methodology 11

not universally inclusive: one misprint, misreading, can break, leaving only fragments difficult to inter-
or recut coin can introduce a falsehood, whereas a pret, or be built into walls, or burnt up for lime.
gap in the story can be noted and filled in by later Correct restoration of the lost parts of inscriptions
scholarship. is a task that requires the combined talents of a
My method of citing coins was chosen as the cryptographer and a computer memory. The late
most appropriate and expeditious for the purposes Louis Robert had these talents in abundance, and
of this study, and is not meant to be a full numis- fortunately the neokoria was among his innumer-
matic publication. All coins that mention the title able interests.45 For the most part I have trod in his
‘neokoros’ are listed at the end of their city’s chap- footsteps and in those of other experts, only occa-
ter. Coins with a reverse type that I find relevant sionally straying off on my own.
to the neokoria (generally involving a temple or At the end of each city chapter, I collect a list of
temples, an image of the emperor, or reference to all inscriptions that call that city neokoros, consecu-
festivals in his honor; almost always with the word tively numbered and in rough chronological order
‘neokoros,’ but occasionally not) are cited in the where independently datable. If not datable, they
body of the text as ‘coin type 1,’ et cetera. They are are listed after datable inscriptions with which they
grouped according to general congruence of ob- share the number of neokoriai; and fragments fol-
verse and reverse types, not according to die iden- low more complete examples. Except where noted,
tity or denomination; variations are listed in the they come from the city under discussion. This
description in parentheses. It should be noted that study is neither an epigraphic nor a numismatic
coin types mentioned in the body of the text are catalogue; it cites only published inscriptions (with
listed again, but not picked out specifically, in the a single exception),46 and does not quote them
lists of coins at the end of each chapter, but only if unless they are discussed in the text. The original
they mention the title ‘neokoros’ in their legends. publication should always be consulted in case of
questions. Unlike my organization of coin types,
3. Epigraphic Evidence which are numbered consecutively as each is cited
Though monumental inscriptions on stone usually within a chapter, and then also gathered together
contain more words than do the legends on coins, at chapter’s end, all inscriptions that call a city
they may or may not say more about the neokoria. neokoros are both listed in chronological order and
Some inscriptions, especially imperial letters, are consecutively numbered at the end of each chapter.
invaluable for giving precise and contemporary This means that the chapter’s text may refer to
accounts of grants of neokoria, but the overwhelm- inscription 2, inscription 7, and then inscription 4,
ing majority of inscriptions that call a city neokoros as the sense demands; the reader may then refer to
simply include it as one of a list of titles, as their the list at the end of the chapter for more informa-
main purpose was to honor someone for benevo- tion.
lence, not to document neokoria. If we are fortu-
nate, the inscription can be dated by the name of 4. Archaeological Evidence
an emperor, a governor, or some person otherwise As we have seen, the Greek word for ‘temple’ is
known, but that is not always the case. inherent in the word ‘neokoros.’ It was in the na-
Inscriptions offer a great proportion of the evi- ture of both Greek and Roman religion to provide
dence on the neokoroi cities, but even that evidence most gods with a house, and each cult with a par-
is only part of the story. Some cities appear to have ticular place and paraphernalia for its rituals. Inso-
set up more inscriptions than others. Of those that far as any of these survived to manifest itself in the
were set up, honorifics far outnumber records of archaeological record, they provide valuable evi-
civic deliberations or finances; much more is known dence on the realia of the cults for which cities be-
of the elite than of commoners, more of city than came neokoroi. In fact a good deal of archaeological
of village or countryside. Also, most of the evidence material has survived and can be analyzed.
available to us comes from the major cities, those
with longer records of excavations and more com-
45 See the reference list for particular works.
plete publications; this is likely why Ephesos tends 46 The exception is Sardis inscription 6; my thanks to
to predominate. Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr., Director of the Sardis expedi-
The accidents of preservation also apply: stones tion, for permission to refer to it.
12 introduction: methodology

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

ues (agalmata) may have been made of metal, ivory, of Vaillant 1700; Mionnet 1806-1808, 105.
48 Hanell 1935.
or other precious and/or perishable materials, and 49 L. Robert 1975, 168 n. 73; French 1981, 45-46; recut-

thus have not survived. We shall see three cases, ting of a coin of Hierapolis to read Juliopolis.
introduction: methodology 13

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


This page intentionally left blank
chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 17


Chapter 1. Pergamon in Mysia: Koinon of Asia

The early history of the neokoria at Pergamon is the permitted the foreigners, whom he called Hellenes, to
early history of the provincial imperial cult in Asia.1 consecrate precincts to himself, the Asians’ in
Pergamon and the Bithynians’ in Nikomedia. From
Though the title itself was not used for Pergamon that beginning, the latter practice has been carried on
until the end of the first century, the first of the three under other emperors, not only in the Greek provinces
temples that would ultimately make Pergamon but in the others as well, insofar as they obey the Ro-
neokoros was the temple of Rome and Augustus. mans. For in the capital itself and the rest of Italy none
of the emperors, no matter how worthy of fame, has
dared to do this; still, even there they give divine
honors and build shrines as well to dead emperors who
First Neokoria: Augustus have ruled justly. These events happened in the win-
ter, and the Pergamenes got permission to hold the
The fullest account is Cassius Dio’s chronicle of the contest known as ‘sacred’ in honor of his temple.
winter of 29 B.C.E., when the victor of Actium, later
to be known as Augustus, permitted the consecra- Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9.
tion of sacred precincts in the provinces of Asia and
of Bithynia: Dio, like most historians of his time, was not a great
investigator of archives or inscriptions, but used
Ka›sar d¢ §n toÊtƒ tã te êlla §xrhmãtize, ka‹ tem°nh tª earlier historical works as his sources.2 This passage,
te ÑR\m_ ka‹ t“ patr‹ t“ Ka¤sari, ¥rva aÈtÚn ÉIoÊlion however, seems to be quoting from an actual docu-
Ùnomãsaw, ¶n te ÉEf°sƒ ka‹ §n Nika¤& gen°syai §f}ken: ment, or at least using the same terminology as such
a´tai går tÒte a| pÒleiw ¶n te tª ÉAs¤& ka‹ §n tª Biyun¤&
a document, at certain specific points. For example,
proetet¤mhnto. ka‹ toÊtouw m¢n to›w ÑRvma¤oiw to›w parÉ
aÈto›w §poikoËsi timçn pros°taje: to›w d¢ dØ j°noiw, Augustus “named [his father] the hero Julius”
ÜEllhnãw sfaw §pikal°saw, •aut“ tina, to›w m¢n ÉAsiano›w (Ùnomãsaw) or “the foreigners, whom [Augustus]
§n Pergãmƒ to›w d¢ Biyuno›w §n Nikomhde¤&, temen¤sai called Hellenes” (§pikal°saw) (italics mine). Some of
§p°trece. ka‹ toËtÉ §ke›yen érjãmenon ka‹ §pÉ êllvn this terminology is unusual in Greek but would fall
aÈtokratÒrvn oÈ mÒnon §n to›w ÑEllhniko›w ¶ynesin, éllå naturally into Latin: the usual term for what Dio
ka‹ §n to›w êlloiw ˜sa t«n ÑRvma¤vn ékoÊei, §g°neto. §n gãr
toi t“ êstei aÈt“ tª te êll_ ÉItal¤& oÈk ¶stin ˜stiw t«n
translated ‘hero’ (¥rva) is ‘divus,’ while Dio’s ‘for-
ka‹ §fÉ ~posonoËn lÒgou tinÚw éj¤vn §tÒlmhse toËto eigners’ (j°noiw), or non-Romans, is likely to have
poi}sai: metallãjasi m°ntoi kéntaËya to›w Ùry«w been his translation from the Latin term ‘peregrini.’3
aÈtarxÆsasin êllai te ¸sÒyeoi tima‹ d¤dontai ka‹ dØ ka‹ It is also worth noting that ¶ynow, his word for
{r“a poie›tai. TaËta m¢n §n t“ xeim«ni §g°neto, ka‹ ¶labon ‘provincia,’ was not the term in general use at the
ka‹ o| Pergamhno‹ tÚn ég«na tÚn |erÚn »nomasm°non §p‹ tª
toË naoË aÈtoË timª poie›n.
time of the events he described, but only after the
second century.4 In other words, it is likely that Dio
In the meantime Caesar, besides taking care of affairs was taking his account directly from a Latin source.
generally, gave permission that there be established Moreover, this section follows one that has been
sacred areas to Rome and his father Caesar, whom
he named the hero Julius, in Ephesos and in Nikaia;
for these were at that time the preeminent cities in Asia 2
and in Bithynia respectively. He commanded that the Reinhold 1988, 6-9; Rich 1990, 4-11.
3 Dio named the temple of Divus Julius in the Forum “the
Romans resident there honor those divinities, but he heroön of Julius” (51.22.2-3) and the praetor peregrinus the jenikÒw
(53.2.3); Freyburger-Galland 1997, 159 and 215-226 on Dio’s
language in general.
1 S. Price 1984b, 56, 67, 133, 137-138, 156-157, 178, 182, 4 Mason 1974, 13, 70, 124-125, 136. Mason (16) comments

187, 252-253. on Dio’s tendency to translate from the Latin quite literally.
18 part i – section i. koinon of asia

categorized as an ‘urban “cluster”’ probably taken temple to the ruler himself, as it had for a long line
from a detailed annalistic historian, and perhaps ul- of rulers and even magistrates before.11
timately based on the acta senatus.5 It is certainly pos- Augustus’ answer to those petitions, however, gave
sible that the report of the favorable response to the pious primacy to the cult of his deified father, to be
Hellenes came from the same source, or at least one practiced in Ephesos. Dio’s assessment that this city
just as detailed. The response is not repeated with- was preeminent in Asia is likely his own, but there
out changes; Dio was a historian, not an epitomator. was good reason for choosing Ephesos: it was the
He managed to sneak in a comment in praise of his seat of the governor, and a port likely to have many
home city, Nikaia, and the interpretation of the Romans in residence to practice the cult of Rome
influence of Augustus’ ruling on the later develop- and Caesar.12 Pergamon, however, had been the
ment of imperial cult is all his.6 But the rest of the center of the province’s Hellenistic administration,
account may represent Augustus’ response to the and was a logical center for the koinon of the Hel-
embassies of Asia and Bithynia closely, though it is lenes to choose for the location of its cult of Augus-
also possible that, as elsewhere, Dio has taken an en- tus. The Hellenes were not turned away from the
actment by a magistrate or by the Senate and put worship of the deified Caesar, but were allowed the
it into the mouth of the man whom he saw as actu- worship of the living ruler as their main focus. For
ally wielding the power.7 Dio, writing from the viewpoint of a Roman sena-
As Dio portrays its history here, provincial impe- tor of elite Hellenized background in the third cen-
rial cult originated not in a command from above, tury C.E., a line of demarcation was intended to
but in a petition from two provinces that volunteered separate the Roman, who worshipped the deified
it; and specifically from the provincial organizations, dead, from the non-Roman, who could also worship
the koina, that were to make this cult their main the living ruler, though that line was in actuality
concern.8 The evidence for the involvement of the rather blurred.13 Dio made no distinctions between
koina is twofold. First, they were the only represen- eastern and western provincial practice: any prov-
tative bodies known to have dealt with the imperial ince subject to the Romans could so honor the
cult throughout each province.9 That the new cults current emperor.
were to be province-wide is clear from Dio’s state- Yet Dio did not mention a crucial detail.
ment about “the foreigners, whom [Augustus] called Suetonius wrote of Augustus’ modesty in accepting
Hellenes.” This designation does not comprehend honors: “Though he knew it was the custom to vote
temples even to proconsuls, in not one province did
all Hellenes everywhere, as only Asia and Bithynia
he accept one unless it was in the name of Rome
are under discussion, and Dio carefully distinguishes
as well as in his.”14 In Dio’s account, the goddess
the Asians from the Bithynians, referring to arrange-
Rome is the cult partner of Julius Caesar, not of
ments for four separate cities in two provinces. It is
Augustus; yet the evidence of coins, inscriptions, and
most likely, then, that petitions came from, and
other historians tells us that she was present in
responses were given to, the koinon of the Hellenes
Augustus’ cult as well. Perhaps the addition of Rome
of Asia and the koinon of the Hellenes of Bithynia
was an afterthought to the original decision of 29
(the latter of which will be dealt with in chapter 15,
B.C.E. In some later cases the name of Rome
‘Nikomedia’).10 As will be discussed in chapter 38,
dropped out when Augustus’ cult was mentioned.15
‘Historical Analysis,’ it is probable that the koinon Or perhaps Dio himself omitted her because her
of Asia in fact asked for the privilege of building a presence would have obscured the point he made

11 See, for example, Cicero, Letters to his brother Quintus 1.1.26:

5 51.20.1-4; Swan 1987, 272-291. the cities of Asia voted money for a “temple and monument”
6 Reinhold 1988, 154; Piatkowski 1984 is a rather broad- to Cicero and his brother.
brushed treatment. 12 Haensch 1997, 286, 298-321.
7 Swan 1987, 279. 13 Whittaker 1996, 93-99, held that the presence of the
8 Ameling 1984, 124; Ziethen 1994, 54, 92-93, 221-222, goddess Rome in both cults assisted in blurring the line. See
treated this embassy as if it came from the city alone, ignor- also Clauss 1996; Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 17-18.
ing the koinon’s role. 14 Suetonius, Augustus 52; see also Tacitus, Annals 4.37.3:
9 Deininger 1965, 16-19. “Since the deified Augustus did not forbid that a temple to
10 Habicht 1973, 55-56. For the formulae used to refer to himself and to the city of Rome be built at Pergamon...”
the koinon see L. Robert 1967, 47. 15 Fayer 1976, 108 n. 4.
chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 19

at the end of this passage, that Augustus’ was the COIN TYPE 2. Obv: TI CLAVD CAES AVG
model for subsequent imperial cult; as Dio must have Head of Claudius, l. Rev: COM ASI; Two-col-
known, later emperors did not consider themselves umn temple on stepped podium, ROM ET AVG
obliged to honor the goddess Rome in the temples on entablature; within, female at r. crowns
that were dedicated to them. cuirassed male at l. 1) BMCRE 228 (= RPC 1:379
Though Dio at first speaks only of ‘sacred areas,’ no. 2221, minted at Ephesos; illus. pl. 18 fig. 46).21
he specifies that the Pergamenes got a sacred con-
As the entablature again bears the names of the two
test “in honor of [Augustus’] temple.” The site of
divinities, the long-gowned female figure on the right
the temple at Pergamon has not yet been identified,
who holds a cornucopia in her left hand should be
but there is a good deal of evidence for its develop-
Rome, in her nonmartial aspect of a city goddess.22
ment. According to an inscription of Mytilene, it was
Though her headdress is not clear, a later relief from
under construction by 27 B.C.E., when it was being
the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias shows Agrippina the
built ‘by Asia,’ that is, by the province as a whole,
Younger with the same attributes and costume and
represented by the koinon.16 Presumably it was
her son Nero in the place of Augustus, and on that
standing by 19 B.C.E., which is the date of the ear-
relief Agrippina wears a diadem.23 Rome, however,
liest silver cistophori of Asia (here type 1a) that show
raises her right hand and the crown toward Augus-
its full facade.
tus, whereas the later relief shows the act of crown-
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: IMP IX TR PO V (IV, a) ing accomplished, with the mother’s hand resting on
Head of Augustus, r. Rev: COM ASIAE; six-col- her son’s head. In the original Pergamon group
umn Corinthian temple on stepped podium, Augustus is in military dress and holds a long sceptre
ROM ET AVGVST on the entablature. a) SNGvA in his right hand; in the best examples, one can see
6560 b) BMCRE 705 c) BMCRE 70617 (series the paludamentum wrapped around his hips, in the
dated 19-18 B.C.E.). style of the Primaporta statue, and the extreme
contrapposto, with weight supported on the right foot,
From at least 9 B.C.E. onward, the temple of Rome
that makes him appear to propel himself away from
and Augustus served as a collecting place for docu-
Rome while still looking back at her.24 The temple
ments of importance to the koinon, and the docu-
depicted is that at Pergamon, even when the coins
ments themselves specify how and where they are
were minted in other cities of the province; that is,
to be set up in this chief shrine of the province.18 It
Pergamon’s temple, as the first provincial temple to
is likely that the temple’s central role in both the
be established, served as a symbol of the koinon of
province and the city was reflected in its grandeur
and artistry, of which these coins must be a pale
Shortly after the first silver cistophori were issued,
reflection. Telephos, a Pergamene scholar who wrote
but still during the reign of Augustus, the temple of
a guidebook to the city and a history of its kings,
Rome and Augustus also appeared on humbler
also produced a work in two books on the Sebasteion
bronze coins issued by the city of Pergamon:
in Pergamon.19
Later Asian silver cistophori show the same COIN TYPE 3. Obv: %EBA%TON Laureate head
temple, but with the number of columns reduced to of Augustus, r. Rev: XARINO% GRAMMATEUVN
two. This numismatic simplification permitted the Six-column temple. a) BMC 237 b) BMC 238 c)
cult statues, or at least a pair of statues closely as- SNGCop 464 (RPC 1 no. 2358, dated between 10
sociated with the temple, to be shown within.20 and 2 B.C.E.).

16 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 166-168 no. A26.

17 RIC 1:61 no. 15; Sutherland 1970, 102-104 group VII; 21 The same reverse image, with few variants, appears on

RPC 1:378-379 nos. 2217, 2219. cistophori of Vespasian (BMCRE 449), Domitian (BMCRE 254
18 Fayer 1976, 110-111 n. 8. bis), Nerva (BMCRE 79) and Trajan (BMCRE 711); each is
19 Suda, s.v. TÆlefow; Jacoby 1950, no. 505. described as the reigning emperor, but the unchanging image
20 Misunderstanding of this numismatic abbreviation led and legend in the entablature show that it is still Augustus
Mellor 1975, 141-142, to reject the use of coin evidence as a within the provincial temple at Pergamon. For the Flavians,
whole, specifically for the existence of the provincial temple see RPC 2:132-134, esp. nos. 859, 875.
at Nikomedia (q.v.). He was followed in this by Tuchelt 1981, 22 Di Filippo Balestrazzi 1997, no. 193.

who reduced both provincial temples to altar courts thereby. 23 Rose 1997a, 164-169 cat. no. 105; figs. 207, 208.

For the rebuttal, see Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 13-14, and above. 24 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 81-82.
20 part i – section i. koinon of asia

COIN TYPE 4. Obv: PERGAMHNVN KAI in Smyrna’s temple on the reverse; and similar types
%ARDIANVN Bearded male in long chiton (the continued under subsequent rulers.
People of Pergamon) raises r. hand to crown
a similar figure (the People of Sardis).25
TRVNIOU TO q Draped bust of Julia r. and laur-
eate head of Tiberius l., turned toward one
Two-column temple, cuirassed emperor with
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
Togate M. Plautius Silvanus, proconsul, crowned
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).
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
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 21

as Rhomaia Sebasta, appears in inscriptions from about the identity of chief priests and Asiarchs, opining that
20 B.C.E. to the early second century, though after ‘Asiarch’ was a municipal office, and that the ap-
Augustus’ death it could have been called simply the pearance of chief priestesses in inscriptions means
Koina of Asia (an extended title which included pro- that women could fulfill all the functions of, that is,
vincial contests held in other cities beside Pergamon), substitute for, chief priests.35 Kearsley’s work has
or more specifically the Koina of Asia Augusteia.29 If been criticized by Campanile, Wörrle, Herz, and
the great tax document from Ephesos has been Engelmann, most of whom have emphasized the
correctly restored to refer to this festival, Augustus enduring value of Rossner’s conclusions.36 Herz
confirmed its tax-free status for a thirty day period, described the office of the chief priestess as worship
both for Pergamon and its harbor of entry Elaia.30 of the Augustae, a role which usually the wife, but
Dio did not discuss the personnel of the proposed in her absence any female relation, of a chief priest/
temples, so information on them must be gathered Asiarch could fulfill; but this claim has not been
from other sources. In Asia, the highest official of proven. The chief priest could also give (or perhaps
the imperial temple, and probably of the koinon as had to give) provincial contests: thus Anaxagoras,
a whole, was the chief priest. In Augustan times he of the time of Claudius, was “[chief priest] of Asia
bore the title of the single provincial temple in and agonothetes for life of the goddess Rome and
Pergamon, ‘chief priest of the goddess Rome and of the god Augustus Caesar.”37
the emperor Caesar Augustus [with various titles There was also a neokoros of Rome and Augustus
added], son of the god [Julius].’31 The longer Aug- at Pergamon, presumably an official caretaker serv-
ustan title dropped out of use when temples to other ing under direction of the chief priest, documented
emperors at other cities were added to the provin- as late as the second century.38 The position was not
cial imperial cult; these too would have chief priests, a humble one, however: under Tiberius, the neo-
though the chief priest of the temple of Rome and koros was also (municipal) priest of Tiberius and
Augustus at Pergamon probably maintained his gymnasiarch for the Sebasta Rhomaia games, positions
primacy.32 that involved considerable expenditure.39
There has been some controversy over these later A citizen of Thyateira later served as “panegyr-
titles associated with the chief priesthood of the iarch of the temples in the most illustrious metro-
provincial temple(s) and headship of the province. polis of the Pergamenes,” presumably for presiding
Rossner held that ‘chief priest of Asia’ and ‘Asiarch’ over a festival for the koinon temples at a time af-
were alternate ways of expressing the priestly and ter they became plural, after Trajan (below); it is not
official duties of the heads of the koinon, and that certain how early this office would have been insti-
the wife of the chief priest or Asiarch could receive tuted.40 By the mid-third century, the city of Phila-
the title of chief priestess of Asia.33 All these titles delphia (q.v.) requested that it be released from its
could be modified by the addition of the place where contribution to the metropoleis for the expenses of
the provincial temple(s) were located. For example, the chief priesthood and panegyriarchy. This shows
an inscription dated to around 100 C.E. refers to that the panegyris was held in the metropoleis of the
one Tiberius Claudius Sokrates as “chief priest of province, and like the chief-priesthood, was funded
Asia of the temple in Pergamon.”34 Kearsley rejected
35 Kearsley’s articles include bibliography and new citations:
29 Magie 1950, 448, 1295-1297 n. 57 (the latest document Kearsley 1986, 1987a and b, 1988a and b, 1990, 1994, and
is that concerning the games for Trajan and Zeus Philios, see 1996. Also separating the two offices: Friesen 1999a and b.
below); Moretti 1954, 282; Deininger 1965, 54-55; and L. Rob- 36 Campanile 1994a, 19-25; Wörrle 1992, 368-370; Herz

ert 1968, 267 on the oakleaf crown awarded to the victors. 1992; Engelmann 2000. Herz 1992 held, however, that the first
Fayer 1976, 113-118 and 123-125 disagreed with the identifi- chief priestess of Asia was only appointed after Drusilla the sister
cation of Koina with Rhomaia Sebasta, and Magie 1950, 1296 be- of Gaius was made diva in Rome in 38 C.E.; this seems un-
lieved that Augusteia was a civic festival, but now see Wörrle likely, as Livia was already a cult partner in the provincial
1992, 351, 359. temple at Smyrna (q.v.) from 26 C.E.
30 Engelmann and Knibbe 1989, 125-129 sec. 57, perhaps 37 IGRR 4:1608c, from Hypaipa, 41 C.E. Also see IGRR

dating from the celebration of 8 or 12 C.E. 4:1611b, C. Julius Pardalas, also at Hypaipa, and Buckler and
31 Fayer 1976, 112-113. Robinson 1932, no. 8.10, M. Antonius Lepidus; both of the
32 Campanile 1994b contains the most recent bibliography. time of Augustus.
33 Rossner 1974. For further discussion, see chapter 41 on 38 Fayer 1976, 125.

the koina and their officials, below. 39 IGRR 4:454.

34 IGRR 4:1239, from Thyateira. 40 Clerc 1886, 416 no. 25.
22 part i – section i. koinon of asia

by the koinon (see summary chapter 41, ‘The The radiate bust, brassy fabric, and broad letter
Koina,’ in Part II). forms of this coin indicate that it is post-Augustan.
Attached to the provincial temple at Pergamon Unfortunately the abbreviation for ‘neo(koros)’ is not
was a choir of up to forty men who were “hymnodoi clear on any of the coins, but the placement of the
of the god Augustus and the goddess Rome.” They die-cutter’s drill holes should indicate that the in-
had come together for the first time to sing the empe- itial letter was indeed N; and the alternative makes
ror’s praises voluntarily and without pay. This so no sense.46 If it could be confirmed by a clearer
impressed Augustus that he made the choir perma- example, this would be the only coin to show
nent and hereditary, to be supported by a levy on Pergamon as simply neokoros.
the entire province. One of their chief duties was Other coins likely from Trajan’s time also glori-
to sing at provincial celebrations of the birthday of fied Augustus and his temple:
Augustus and those of subsequent emperors, and
they maintained their own private cult of the em-
TON Laureate head of Augustus, r. Rev: AU-
perors in the hymnodeion.41 In Claudius’ time it was
TOKRATORA KAI%ARA Four-column temple,
decreed that hymnodoi should come from among
cuirassed emperor with sceptre within; monogram
the ephebes of the Asian cities, but the choir at
in exergue. a) SNGCop 462 b) Berlin, von Rauch
Pergamon was exempted42 and hymnodoi of the god
c) Berlin, Löbbecke (RPC 1:400 no. 2355).
Augustus continue to be mentioned well into the
second century C.E.43 COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AUTOKRATORA %EBA-
Pergamon adopted the title ‘neokoros’ by around %TON KAI%ARA Laureate head of Augustus, r.
100, perhaps ten or more years after it had been Rev: %EBA%TON PERGAMHNOI Four-column
incorporated into the titulature of Ephesos.44 Inscrip- temple, cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a)
tions 1-4 simply call the Pergamenes neokoroi, while BMC 236, misdescribed (RPC 1:400 no. 2356).
6-10, of the first fifteen years of the second century,
The latest known inscription to use the single neo-
add ‘first’ to the city’s titles. A particularly interest-
koria, without enumeration, is Pergamon inscription
ing bronze coin type, perhaps datable to Trajan’s
10, which is dated by the proconsulship of C. Antius
time and thus contemporary with these inscrip-
Aulus Julius Quadratus to ca. 109/110.47 Quadra-
tions,45 may in fact be one of the first to use the title
tus, a Pergamene who had risen to the highest rank
‘neokoros’ for the city:
among the Roman senatorial aristocracy, did not
COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AU KAI%ARA %EBA%TON forget his home city. He would soon take on the
Radiate head of Augustus, r. Rev: PERGAMHNVN expenses of a festival founded in honor of Perga-
NEV (or K%V) Four-column Corinthian temple mon’s second provincial temple.
on stepped podium, disc in pediment; within,
cuirassed emperor with sceptre and phiale. a) Lon-
don 1894.7-6-38 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 49) b) Warsaw Second Neokoria: Trajan
59700 b) New York, Newell.
Pergamon, site of the first provincial imperial temple
in Asia, inaugurated a new era in the provincial
imperial cult in the reign of Trajan: it was the first
41 The main document is an altar dedicated to Hadrian
city to receive a second provincial imperial temple.
Olympios that lists the names of about 35 hymnodoi with their
officers, celebrations, and fees: IvP 260-270, no. 374; Fayer The event was unprecedented, though not unlooked-
1976, 125-127; S. Price 1980, 30 n. 15. for. Augustus had allowed one such temple in one
42 Halfmann 1990. For the Pergamene exemption, see the
city per province. Later Pergamon, along with ten
edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus, dated to 44 C.E., IvE 17-19.
43 IvP no. 523 (= IGRR 4:460) (Antonine, mentioning a other cities of Asia, petitioned the Senate for per-
priest of the goddess Faustina). mission to build a new temple of Tiberius. The city’s
44 IdA 158-161. Dräger 1993, 113 dangerously assumed, and

119 stated as a fact, that Pergamon called itself neokoros of

the emperors by the time of Domitian or before, but no such 46 Personal communication of the late M. Price concern-

document has yet been found; see also 176-180. His treatment ing the London example.
of titulature, 107-121, though a worthy effort, was flawed by 47 Eck 1970, 171; Eck 1997b, no. 1; Halfmann 1979, 112-

such false assumptions throughout. 115; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 95; Stumpf 1991, 267-269;
45 RPC 1:400 no. 2357. Weiser 1998, 289.
chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 23

chief inducement, its possession of the temple to overstepped the usual boundary drawn between the
Rome and Augustus, backfired: the Senate consid- god and the emperor (who, as will be seen, were rep-
ered that temple to be honor enough.48 The same resented by distinct images on Pergamene coins),
restriction prevented Pergamon from gaining an- it presages the later identification of Hadrian with
other neokoria under Gaius: Augustus was held to Zeus Olympios and Eleutherios throughout the Greek
have ‘preempted’ (prokateilÆfasi) Pergamon.49 world.
Thus when the city was granted a second imperial The new cult at Pergamon seems to have been
temple by Trajan, it set a precedent that would be consistently compared with and modeled on that of
followed eagerly throughout Asia: the precedent of Rome and Augustus in the same city, as is shown
multiple neokoriai. The title ‘neokoros’ was in fact by coins and by the inscriptions that document its
the only one among many (e.g. ‘metropolis,’ ‘most sacred contests. These inscriptions were found in the
illustrious,’ ‘first of the province,’ ‘greatest,’ ‘most area of the temple itself, and probably formed part
beautiful’) that could be multiplied for the same city of its foundation documentation.54 They consist of
(i.e. a city could be twice neokoros but not twice various letters, orders, and a decree of the Senate
metropolis), an aspect which added to its attractive- concerning the status of and arrangements for the
ness in the century to come. new festival. Judging from Trajan’s titulature
The second provincial temple was dedicated to (Optimus but not yet Parthicus), they date between
Zeus Philios and Trajan. This aspect of Zeus, un- August 114 and February 116.55 The grant of the
documented at Pergamon previously, was probably festival was probably contingent upon and second-
brought in to share the cult with Trajan much as ary to the grant of the provincial temple, just as it
the goddess Rome had been brought in to share cult had been in 29 B.C.E.56
with Augustus.50 Zeus was a natural choice as chief The first part of the dossier is a letter, probably
of the gods, who grants rule to kings. The cult name from the proconsul of Asia. The recipient has been
Philios (in Latin, Jupiter Amicalis), focuses on the god’s restored as the council and people of Pergamon, a
patronage over the bond of friendship, particularly restoration which seems appropriate when compared
in the sense of alliance: for example, in the Hellen- with the events of 29 B.C.E.; though the koinon
istic period, Zeus Philios had joined the personifica- made the petition for a provincial temple, the right
tions of Concord and Rome in presiding over loyalty to celebrate a festival in its honor was given to the
oaths among Asian cities and between them and Pergamenes. The letter refers to the ‘second’ festi-
Rome.51 The god may also have been particularly val as having the status of sacred, just as the festi-
appropriate to Trajan, as Dio Chrysostomos both val for Rome and Augustus was. Next is the Latin
named him in his first oration on kingship, and dwelt decree of the Senate, really an affirmative answer
on friendship’s benefits to kings in his third oration, to a petition of the Pergamenes. It declares that the
both perhaps delivered before the emperor himself.52 contest in honor of Jupiter Amicalis and Trajan
Indeed, on coins issued to commemorate the con- (named in that order) should be eiselastic, that is,
cord between Thyateira in Lydia and Pergamon, that winners should receive the honor of a trium-
perhaps at the time of the grant of the provincial phal entry into their own cities. Also, the new con-
temple, an ordinary laureate obverse portrait of test was to have the same status as that for Rome
Trajan as Germanicus and Dacicus is also titled and Augustus (also named in that order). The next
‘Philios Zeus.’53 Though this assimilation may have section, a summary of the emperor’s directions,
repeats this statement and calls the contest pen-
taeteric. The final text, Trajan’s letter to the Per-
Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56; chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’
49 Cassius Dio 59.28.1; see chapter 3, ‘Miletos.’
50 Stiller 1895; Nock 1930b, 28.
51 Reynolds 1982, 6-11 no. 1; on the aspect of friendship,

Thériault 1996, 84 n. 384. statue base of the People of the twice-neokoroi Pergamenes
52 Oration 1.37-41 (echoed in the Olympian oration, 12.75- dedicated by Thyateira; also Pera 1984, 38-40.
76), Oration 3.86-132. A perceptive view of Dio’s possible pre- 54 IvP no. 269 (IGRR 4:336; CIL 3:7068). Note that these

sentations is Swain 1996, 187-206; also C. Jones 1978, 117. particular documents refer only to contests, not to temples; this
Bonz 1998, 260-267 instead saw an overwhelming ideology is made unnecessarily problematic by Schowalter 1998, 238-
emanating from Rome. 239.
53 BMC 145; Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 166; Kampmann 55 Kienast 1996, 122-124.

1996, 78-79, 126 no. 154, with discussion of an unpublished 56 Cassius Dio 51.20.9; Hanslik 1965, 1094-1100.
24 part i – section i. koinon of asia

gamenes, is very fragmentary, but mainly concerns of a senatorial family, son of a former consul, to
the success of the petition.57 become a provincial chief priest.63 On the other
Despite the fact that the koinon is not mentioned, hand, there must have been very few, if any, other
was this festival on a provincial scale? The term chief priesthoods that, like the one cited in inscrip-
‘sacred’ and constant references to the precedent set tion 11, included in their duties the supervision of
by the festival for Rome and Augustus indicate that more than one temple; and nothing forbids a pro-
it was.58 After all, as Dio documented, permission vincial chief priest from being honored by his own
to celebrate the festival honoring Pergamon’s first city. Quadratus the father, as a citizen and bene-
provincial temple had also been granted to the factor of the city of Pergamon, may have used his
Pergamenes, not to the koinon. That the temple of influence in the province (as its recent proconsul) and
Zeus Philios and Trajan was provincial is shown by in Rome (as friend to the emperor) to obtain the pro-
a change in the titulature of the chief priests of Asia vincial temple and/or the sacred contest for his
after its establishment: the chief priest (or chief priest- city.64 The latter, at least, we know he paid for. It
ess, or Asiarch) of the temple in Pergamon becomes would have been a proper reward for his benefac-
that of the temples in Pergamon.59 The only new note tion to both city and province that his son, as chief
is the endowment: expenses for the new contest were priest of the province, should preside over the
to be paid by C. Aulus Antius Julius Quadratus, the temples in Pergamon, including the one his father
emperor’s ‘most illustrious friend.’ This funding is had been instrumental in attaining.
not necessarily inconsistent with provincial status; Newly discovered inscriptions from Aizanoi com-
there is no evidence at all about who endowed the memorate three chief priests and a chief priestess of
earlier festival for the temple of Rome and Augustus. temples in Pergamon, and show two of the chief
There is no reason why even provincial festivals priests’ agonothetic crowns decorated with nine or
should not have been paid for by some wealthy ten (chesspiece-like) imperial busts.65 In addition, a
benefactor, if any could be found.60 Quadratus theologos of the temples in Pergamon is known from
therefore became agonothetes of the provincial the Antonine period.66
Traianeia Deiphileia, and his son later held the office The temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan does not
of chief priest of temples, almost certainly the two appear on provincial silver as the temple of Rome
provincial ones, in Pergamon:61 and Augustus had, but this is because such coinage
INSCRIPTION 11. Habicht, IdA no. 20. The city wasn’t minted at the time. The temple does, how-
honors the son of Quadratus. [{ boulØ ka‹ ~ ever, appear on bronze coins of the city of Perga-
d{mow t}w mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ d‹w mon, where a whole series was devoted to both the
ne]vk[Òrou pr]\thw [Perg]amhn«n pÒlevw new and the old provincial temples.
§t¤mhse ÉA. [ÉI]oÊlion Kouadrçton érxiera-
teÊsanta filote¤mvw ka‹ éj¤vw na«n t«n §n
TRAIANO(%, d) (%EB, abc) PER(GAMH, d) Four-
Pergãmƒ. . .
column Corinthian temple on high Roman po-
Habicht, and then Halfmann, doubted that this dium, steps up the front, within it seated Zeus with
priesthood was provincial because this inscription phiale and sceptre and laureate, cuirassed em-
was not a decree of the koinon and because the peror with sceptre. Rev: YEA RVMH KAI YEV
temples are not specifically called provincial.62 In- %EBA%TV Four-column Corinthian temple on
deed, it was rare, but not unknown, for a member
63 Campanile 1994a, 168-169; the close connection between
57 See Oliver 1989, 141-143, also 146-147, other (fragmen- high-ranking provincials and the imperial cult is emphasized
tary) letters from Trajan to the Pergamenes. For imperial by Quass 1993, 149-151, while the provincial benefactions and
constitutiones on the endowment of games, Herrmann 1980, 347. magistracies of the senatorial class are discussed by Eck 1980,
58 Despite Ziegler 1985, 65. 291.
59 Rossner 1974, 112, 124, 125, 129, 131 (chief priest); 131 64 Halfmann 1979, 112-115 no. 17. White 1998, 346-356

(chief priestess); 117 (Asiarch); 118 (chief priest who is elsewhere on Quadratus (though fraught with mistranslations through-
known as Asiarch); and 121, 127 (chief priest and chief priest- out).
ess in the temples in first and twice neokoros Pergamon). 65 Wörrle 1992, 349-368, 376; Rumscheid 2000, 12-14,
60 For such benefactions in general see Pleket 1976. 113-114 cat. 1.
61 For the son and the provincial status, see H. Müller 2000, 66 P. Aelius Paion, poet and rhapsode of the god Hadrian:

519-520 n. 6. IvE 22, decree of the technitai of Dionysos; L. Robert 1980b,

62 Halfmann 1979, 34. 16-17; Roueché 1993, 144-145.
chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 25

stepped podium, cuirassed emperor with sceptre Severus.67 On the other hand, types 13 and 14,
crowned by Rome with wreath and cornucopia issued under Trajan, differentiate the two temples
within. a) BMC 263 b) BMC 264 c) BMC 265 d) with an interesting detail: the square shapes that
BMC 266 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 50). flank the steps up the high podium of the temple of
Trajan are lacking on the representation of the
GERM DAKI Laureate draped bust of Trajan r.
Greek-style temple of Augustus. This detail can be
Rev: FILIO% ZEU% TRAIANO% PERGAMHNVN borne out from the actual remains: the square shapes
Four-column Corinthian temple on high Roman represent the parastades, wings that flank the stairs
podium, steps up the front, within it seated Zeus of the podium that still supports the temple of Zeus
with phiale and sceptre and laureate, cuirassed Philios and Trajan at Pergamon.
emperor with sceptre. a) BMC 262 (illus. pl. 18 The temple, sometimes called the Trajaneum, was
fig. 51). set in a broad plaza on one of the highest points of
the Pergamene acropolis, above the great Hellenis-
COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AUT TRAIANO% %EBA- tic theater. It was originally excavated and published
%T Laureate head of Trajan r. Rev: FILIO% ZEU% in the late nineteenth century; a project for resto-
PERGA Seated Zeus with phiale and sceptre. a) ration and further research lasted from 1974 to
BMC 259. 1996.68 Excavations in the substructure of the temple
COIN TYPE 16. Obv: AUT TRAIANO% %EB(A, terrace have revealed small rooms or workshops of
d) Laureate head of Trajan r. Rev. ZEU% FILIO% Hellenistic date, perhaps outbuildings of the palaces
Head of Zeus r. a) BMC 260 b) BMC 261 c) SNGvA of the Attalid kings. No signs of an earlier temple
1394 d) SNGvA 1395. were found, so the cult of Zeus Philios and Trajan
was likely new to the site.69 Two Hellenistic monu-
COIN TYPE 17. Obv: AUGOU%TO% PERGA ments, one with an inscription of Attalos II (159-138
Four-column temple, capricorn in pediment, cui- B.C.E.), were probably displaced by this or other
rassed emperor with sceptre within. Rev: %TR I Roman construction, but were reinstalled at the back
PVLLIVNO% TRAIANO% Four-column temple, of the temenos on either side of the temple.
cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a) BMC The temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan stood in
267 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 52) b) SNGvA 1393 c) SNGCop the midst of a broad plaza (70 x 65 m.), eventually
478 d) SNGRighetti 761.
with a portico on either side and a hall with an
Coin type 13, like the foundation documents from elevated colonnade at its back; its basis was an enor-
the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan, draws the mous vaulted terrace facing south-southwest over the
comparison between the city’s first provincial temple, city (illus. pl. 4 fig. 18). It can be said to have domi-
that of Rome and Augustus, and the second, of Zeus nated, or perhaps crowned, the city of Pergamon,
Philios and Trajan: one on the obverse, the other, and the orientation of its axis may have even de-
so familiar from the cistophori, on the reverse. Type termined the lines of the city’s contemporary street
17, of smaller module, portrays the two temples in grid.70 The temple itself (illus. pl. 1 fig. 4) was a large
a similar way, but due to the reduced size both (32 x 20 m.), tall (18 m. high) and richly decorated
divine cult partners, Rome and Zeus Philios, are Corinthian hexastyle with ten columns on its long
eliminated, indicating in each temple only what the side.71 It was set up on a Roman-style podium, un-
Pergamenes thought to be essential: the emperors, reachable except from the front, where the marble-
Augustus and Trajan. This type also assimilates the
two temples to one another except for Augustus’ 68 Stiller 1895; Radt 1988, 239-250; yearly reports in
zodiac sign in the pediment of his temple; one can- Archäologischer Anzeiger, most recently, Radt 1993, 374-379, and
not tell whether this detail reflects an actual feature Radt 1999, 209-220, 301-305, 350-351.
of the temple or an iconographic marker to iden- 69 Radt 1978, 431; Hoepfner 1990b, 279-281, against K.

tify it more plainly. Coin type 17 may in fact be of Siegler’s theory of a Doric temple of Zeus; Raeck 1999, 337.
Zschietzschmann 1937, 1259-1260, had first posited an ear-
later date than the others, as a magistrate named lier cult. Of course, the great altar of Zeus was not far away.
Julius Pollio is known to have served under Septimius 70 On the expansion and regularization of the plaza and

addition of the side colonnades, see Nohlen 1984, 238-249. On

the city plan, Radt 2001, esp. 49, 53.
67 Münsterberg 1985, 70. 71 Stiller 1895.
26 part i – section i. koinon of asia

clad podium swept out on either side to flank a flight Augustus on the earlier cistophori. Though this por-
of steps; it is this feature that gives the facade its trayal has been interpreted as Trajan “respectfully
particular appearance on the coins. Only a few approaching” the seated figure of Zeus, he is in fact
marble orthostats remain of the altar that stood standing still, as the long spear or scepter that he
before it. The temple’s high podium, its axial set- leans on shows.77 The contrapposto posture was stan-
ting in an (eventually) colonnaded plaza, and the dard in male standing sculptures since Polykleitos.
vaulted substructure of its terrace have all been noted The enthroned Zeus is as much a standard icono-
as characteristic of imperial Roman architecture.72 graphic type as the armored emperor; the two fig-
It has even been suggested that the Pergamene ar- ures do not interact as had the earlier statue group,
chitect of this temple was also responsible for the in which Rome crowned Augustus. It is as if they
temple of Venus and Rome, though mainly on the inhabited different planes of status: the emperor is
basis of sculptural decoration, not layout.73 The one not costumed as an Olympian, but simply as em-
may be called a Roman-style temple in a Greek city, peror, and the god does not respond to his presence.
the other a Greek temple in the heart of Rome. Among the ruins of the temple’s cella in the vaults
There were also Asian precedents, however. Helle- of the terrace below were found the marble frag-
nistic temples in Asia Minor, such as the temple of ments, not of two, but of three colossal acrolithic cult
Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia, had been placed statues: Zeus Philios, Trajan, and his successor
on the axis of an enframing colonnaded courtyard Hadrian.78 It has been postulated that the statue of
far earlier than any Roman example, and even the Hadrian, who was often identified with Zeus Olym-
podium temple may have had native Pergamene pios, replaced the statue of Zeus Philios that previously
antecedents.74 shared the temple with Trajan, or even replaced
The architectural decoration of the temple was Trajan himself, but both hypotheses are unlikely.
suitably imposing, if a trifle bland. Consoles in the The proof is the following coin issued in the reign
frieze combined the acanthus motif of the columns of Trajan Decius (249-251):
with a rising Ionic-style volute. Between the consoles
were gorgoneia, combining a traditional apotropaic
ANO% DEKIO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust of
function with some overtones of imperial imagery:
Trajan Decius r. Rev: EPI % KOMF GLUKVNO%
they had been featured in the friezes of the temples
of the Deified Julius Caesar and of the Deified
column temple on high Roman podium, steps up
Vespasian in Rome, and a gorgoneion was becom-
the front; within, seated Zeus with sceptre and
ing a standard feature on the breastplate or shield
cuirassed emperor. a) London 1901.6-1-41 (illus.
of imperial images.75 No pedimental sculpture was
pl. 18 fig. 53).
found, but perhaps there was a (metal?) shield in the
gable(s), as the coins indicate. Rooftop akroteria con- On it appears the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan,
sisted of interlaced acanthus shoots with a Victory its architecture and cult statues just as they had been
standing on a globe in the center; the imagery of in the time of Trajan himself. That no legend was
imperial victory is obvious, especially when emper- needed to identify it more explicitly indicates that
ors on coins and as statues often held such Victory the temple and its inhabitants were readily recog-
statuettes.76 nizable to the Pergamenes, and therefore that the
Coin types 13-15 concentrate on this new temple cult of Zeus Philios and Trajan was still active well
and its cult images. On them, Trajan’s contrapposto, over a century after it was founded. The temple’s
standing with one knee bent, is not unlike that of appearance at just this time is an obvious bit of flat-
tery to the current emperor, based on the city’s long-
standing cult of his namesake; it is therefore unlikely
Lyttelton 1987, 39 posited that it was modeled on the that either the statue of Trajan or the statue of Zeus
temple of Mars Ultor in the forum of Augustus at Rome; Gros (still seated) was replaced with a standing, cuirassed
1996-2001, 1.182 stressed the Roman elements, though he was
incorrect about it also being a Hadrianeion (see below). Hadrian.
73 Strong 1953, 131-142; Felten 1980, 223-225; Boatwright

1987, 127-128; Strocka 1988, 297-299; Liljenstolpe 1996.

74 Waelkens 1989, 84-85.
75 Paoletti 1988, nos. 29, 31, 44; Bastien 1992, 2:341-367. 77 S. Price 1980, 42.
76 Vollkommer 1997, nos. 267, 56-58, 362-370. 78 Raeck 1993.
chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 27

There had been some doubt about the existence was a cross wall. Pedestals for each standing emperor
of, and even the room available for, a seated cult have been estimated at 2.5 to 3 m. wide, while that
statue of Zeus Philios until parts of its face, torso and of the enthroned Zeus would have naturally been
throne were found.79 Their measurements indicate yet larger. Possibly a new pedestal had to be made
that the Zeus was on the same scale as the Trajan to accommodate the pair of emperors, though the
and the Hadrian, about two and a half times life size. side-by-side arrangement of two figures standing in
The two imperial statues, however, stood in exactly exactly the same pose does not seem particularly
the same pose as one another, contrapposto with the felicitous. Interestingly, though Hadrian had granted
weight on the left leg, the right arm raised (to hold permission only for a portrait and not specifically a
a spear?), the lowered left hand holding an eagle- cult statue or agalma, the new statue copied the cult
headed sceptre.80 The pose reflects an exact mirror statue of Trajan in all its features, and was presum-
image of the Trajan on the coins, but the reversal ably meant to receive similar respect.
may be explained if the die-cutter sculpted the dies
The two marble imperial heads are well pre-
in the image he saw; coins struck from such dies
served. Unlike the cult statue of Trajan on the coins,
would come out in mirror-reverse. From the scale
neither wears a laurel wreath; it could have been
of the fragments, the standing statues may have been
about 4.8 m. tall. The legs show attachment surfaces added in metal, though there are no cuttings in the
for a wooden core in the acrolithic technique, and stone to show it, or even in actual foliage, as impe-
the surviving bits of marble also include hands, one rial statues were often ceremonially crowned.83
with a ring marked S, a sword, the head of an eagle Zanker found both portraits to be of an unusual style
sceptre or hilt, and elaborately decorated high boots for Asia Minor, and postulated that they came from
(illus. pl. 6 fig. 23). Many of the coin types that il- a western atelier, but Evers believed that both were
lustrate Trajan’s statue beside Zeus Philios show the local.84 The treatment of Trajan (illus. pl. 7 fig. 24)
emperor wearing just such high boots. is very different from, for example, that of the ear-
The statues’ exact arrangement remains uncer- lier colossus of Titus at Ephesos (see chapter 4,
tain. The limited area of the cella (only 8.5 m. wide) ‘Ephesos’). Where the latter was almost exaggerat-
was only designed for two colossi, and at least origi- edly baroque, the former is more restrained and clas-
nally, Zeus and Trajan perhaps stood side by side sicizing. Still, there is a distinct emphasis on the
in the temple, in a position similar to that portrayed slightly windblown fringe of hair, the linear treat-
on the coins. There may even have been a dividing ment of the eyes, and the slightly parted lips. Though
wall down the cella between them, which would ex- the Trajan and the Hadrian are all but identical in
plain why the two do not interact much with each pose, even turning their heads to the right at ap-
other.81 proximately the same angle, there are distinct dif-
A fragmentary inscription, not yet published, may ferences in style between the two. Hadrian’s portrait
explain how the colossal statue of Hadrian fit in.82 (illus. pl. 7 fig. 25) offers more scope for a baroque
The inscription seems to be the fragment of a let- treatment, with drilled curls in hair and beard; even
ter from Hadrian to the Pergamenes, dated to the the eyebrows are ruffled. Where the sculptor of the
last years of his reign, ca. 135-138. The Pergamenes Trajan concentrated on broad, smooth planes, that
had apparently asked for permission to build a new
of the Hadrian was more concerned with dramatic
imperial temple to Hadrian himself, and though he
effect, breaking up the planes of the face with hol-
denied them this request, he allowed his own like-
lows and wrinkles. The stylistic disparity tends to
ness (‘eikon’) to be set up in the temple of his fa-
ther. This is presumably how the colossal Hadrian indicate that the two were not carved at the same
came to stand in the temple, though it must have time: the head of Trajan fits with the date of the
been a tight squeeze in that cella, especially if there foundation inscriptions, 114-116, but that of Hadrian
takes after a prototype dated in 128.85 Therefore the
79 Raeck 1993, figs. 4 and 5.
80 Radt 1988, 239-242. 84 Zanker 1983, 18 n. 41; Evers 1994, 89.
81 Radt 1988, 247. 85 Trajan: Berlin, AvP no. 281: Gross 1940, 61-62, 93 no.
82 Raeck 1993, 387; Schorndorfer 1997, 55 n. 212; Radt
26, of the ‘decennalia type’ after 108 C.E.; Hadrian: Berlin,
1999, 212, 350; to be published by H. Müller, Munich. AvP no. 282: Wegner 1956, 20, 23-24, 39, 59-61, 94; Evers
83 Pekáry 1985, 118-119; though in this case, of course, it
1994, 257-259, type of ‘Imperatori 32,’ connected with
would have taken a ladder to do it. Hadrian’s becoming pater patriae and Olympios.
28 part i – section i. koinon of asia

statue of Hadrian is likely to represent the eikon construction was delayed; or that they were con-
granted after 135, perhaps ordered from the same nected with the letter of Hadrian referred to above.
studio that sculpted the original cult statue.86 It is dangerous to guess the real import of this docu-
At first, the complex dedicated to Zeus Philios and ment before its full publication, but from the snippets
Trajan consisted only of the temple and the hall that have been cited, we know that the Pergamenes
backing it on the north; the broad terrace was con- had asked for permission to build a temple of
fined at east and west by plain precinct walls. Some Hadrian, and Hadrian had refused. This was quite
time later, however, porticos were built on the east late in his reign, after he had permitted temples of
and west sides of the precinct. Like those of the Asia to be built in Kyzikos, Smyrna, and Ephesos;
earlier north hall, their columns had Pergamene-style had Pergamon asked for that privilege as well, the
capitals with leaves, but the level of the side porti- granting of which would have made it the only city
coes was lower than that at the back; it is uncertain yet to be three times neokoros? Possibly, or the re-
how the roofing was resolved. Nonetheless, the com- quest may have simply been for a municipal temple;
plex now resembled the forum temples of Rome, the refusal was apparently addressed to the Perga-
except for the fact that it was completely open to menes, not to the koinon of Asia.
the south. There, from the ends of the side porti- In any case, Hadrian did allow the Pergamenes
coes, two buildings jutted winglike. Exploration of to put his portrait in the temple to his father. That
the one on the west has revealed a large vaulted hall portrait was made as similar to the previous cult
that may have been used for cultic gatherings, some image of Trajan as was possible, though the temple
(third century) podia and wall paintings, and a con- itself was not changed or expanded. It could be that
nection with one of the vaults of the terrace sub- the Pergamenes chose this moment to aggrandize
structure. The underground setting has suggested the temple precinct with new porticoes, one or all
imperial mysteries, but none have yet been docu- of which could have been named in honor of
mented for this temple, though they were practiced Hadrian. Aelius Aristides recounts a dream about
by the college of hymnodoi of Rome and Augustus.87 a Hadrianeion that may have been in Pergamon, but
Other (cultic?) buildings were attached to either end it was situated in a place where bathing was pos-
of the north hall: on its west end, behind the west sible, as this was not.90 In any case, the apsed end
portico, was another large hall; and a row of small of the east portico of the temenos would have been
rooms extended from its east end further east, per- suitable for an imperial statue, and in fact a replica
haps serving as depots, workshops, or rooms for cult of a cuirassed torso found in the western annex of
functionaries. the precinct has been set there today.91 The sash and
The addition of east and west porticoes has been griffins on its cuirass are more typical of one of the
attributed to a visit from Hadrian, either in 124 or later Antonine emperors than of Hadrian, as whom
in 129.88 The date of construction is not certain, it is sometimes identified, and it is likely that images
however, but is based on the assumption that only of later emperors were added and honored within
the presence of Hadrian would have prompted such the complex.92 In any case, once all the documents
a change in his father’s temple, with the added from the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan are fully
possibility that the expansion’s entire purpose was published, we shall see whether the elaboration of
the addition of Hadrian’s cult to Trajan’s. Whether the precinct could date after Hadrian’s letter of 135-
Hadrian visited Pergamon in 124, 129, or at any 138.
point, is in fact not confirmed by any document.89 The formula ‘first, neokoroi Pergamenes’ was
Also, no modification was made to the temple itself; merely changed to ‘first and twice neokoroi Perga-
only the precinct was elaborated. menes’ on inscriptions dated just after the grant:
It is more likely that either the porticoes and their these include inscription 12, which like the docu-
attachments were intended in the original plan, but ments for the contest is dated by Trajan’s titulature

90 Aelius Aristides, Oration 47/Sacred Tales 1.29. C. Jones

1998, 74. A Hadrianeion did not have to be a peripteral temple:

86 Evers 1994, 90. S. Price 1984b, 134, 260 no. 59; Boatwright 2000, 24 n. 30.
87 91 Radt 1982; a base and dedication by Quadratus are also
Radt 1999, 219-220, 351.
88 Nohlen 1985; Radt 1999, 212, 218-219. mentioned. Radt 1999, 218-219.
89 92 Niemeyer 1968, 49-50.
Halfmann 1986a, 191, 199.
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
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, image on the reverse is clearly beardless. The same
though perhaps modeled after this type, place non- strategos who issued this type also minted a joint
imperial personages on the column between the issue for Severus’ sons Caracalla (as Augustus) and
temples: issues of Nikomedia (q.v.) from 209-211 Geta (as Caesar), thus after 197 and before 209,
show Demeter on the column, and a similar one of when Geta became Augustus.101 A beardless em-
the koinon of Macedonia (Beroia, q.v.) may show peror could not be Septimius Severus, and a single
Alexander the Great. The figure on the Pergamene figure is more likely to be the senior than the jun-
column may be Marcus Aurelius, but the identifi- ior of his two sons. The sacrifice may have been on
cation cannot be assured. some such occasion as Caracalla’s elevation to the
During Commodus’ sole rule Pergamon issued title of Augustus after autumn 197, his assumption
coins that celebrated imperial victories with the of the toga virilis in 201, or his marriage to Plautilla
sacrifice of a bull (type 20). That type helps to ex- in April 202. The sacrifice did not have any direct
plain a later issue that has been much misunder- association with the cults that made Pergamon twice
stood: type 21, the sacrifice of a bull before an neokoros.
imperial statue.
COIN TYPE 20. Obv: AUTO KAI M AURH Third Neokoria: Caracalla
[KO]MO[DO%] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Commodus r., mature. Rev: E[PI] %TR M AI Pergamon was still only twice neokoros by 209, as
GLU[KVNIANOU] PERGAMHNV[N B] NEVKO- coins of Geta as Augustus show. The occasion and
RVN Cuirassed emperor with sceptre crowns tro- reasons for Pergamon’s receiving its third neokoria
phy, a captive at its foot, on low pedestal; below, from Caracalla are fairly well documented. Herodian
sacrifice of a bull. a) SNGParis 2166. stated that Pergamon was the first city that Caracalla
visited in Asia, even before Ilion, though the epito-
mes of Dio imply the reverse.102 His motive appears
to have been to get treatment at the famous shrine
draped cuirassed bust of Septimius Severus r. and
of the healing god Asklepios. The visit was probably
draped bust of Julia Domna l. Rev: EPI %TRA
at the end of 213, before Caracalla went on to win-
ter quarters in Nikomedia; a base dated to 214 was
NEOKORVN Cuirassed emperor, beardless, with
found with its twice-lifesize, veiled portrait of the em-
sceptre and phiale on high pedestal; below, sac-
peror in the Asklepieion.103
rifice of a bull. a) SNGParis 2209 (illus. pl. 19 fig.
As Pergamon’s coins are distinguished by the
55) b) SNGParis 2208 c) Berlin, Fox d) Berlin,
names of yearly strategoi, they are fairly easy to
Löbbecke e) New York, Newell.
group, though more difficult to date.104 The names
Von Fritze believed that a sacrifice to the emperor of three strategoi appear on coins registering Perga-
could not be held outside of ‘neokorate cult.’ There- mon’s third neokoria under Caracalla. The major-
fore he had to identify the beardless emperor as ity of the coins are of medallic size, suitable for
either Augustus or Trajan, the two emperors with celebratory issues. The coins of M. Caerelius Attalos,
koinon temples in Pergamon.99 But sacrifice to and however, make the most of the new neokoria, with
for emperors did exist at private and municipal as types showing the three imperial temples and with
well as provincial levels.100 Type 20 also shows a types of the emperor both in military and in civil-
sacrifice on a special occasion, in this case an im- ian dress presiding at sacrifices before Pergamene
perial victory symbolized by Commodus crowning temples, especially those of Asklepios (both the stand-
a trophy. Type 21 is less specific, but a hypothesis
regarding the identification of its images can be
worked out from the following observations. Despite 101 BMC 315, e.g.; Kienast 1996, 162-167.
the fact that the obverse shows a fully bearded 102 Herodian 4.8.3; Cassius Dio ep. 78.16.7-8, also 78.15.2-
Septimius Severus with his wife Julia Domna, the 7 on his ailments.
103 Halfmann 1986a, 227; also Letta 1994b, documenting

the emperor’s arrival in Nikomedia on January 1, 214. The

portrait: Bergama Museum inv. no. 163, Inan and Rosenbaum
99 Von Fritze 1910, 77 pl. 8.15. 1966, 84-85 no. 60.
100 S. Price 1980 and 1984b, 207-233. 104 Münsterberg 1985, 70-71.
chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 31

ing and a seated image, see below) and his compan- For the purposes of this study the most important
ion deities.105 The coins of Julius Anthimos, on the of M. Caerelius Attalos’ issues are the multiple-
other hand, show Caracalla only in military dress temple types. The three temples for which Pergamon
and emphasize his triumph; where the emperor hails was neokoros are shown as architecturally similar,
the city goddess of Pergamon, there is no architec- but are identified by minute letters in their pediments
tural setting.106 Thus the coins of Attalos are likely as the temples of Aug(ustus), Tra(jan), and An(to-
to be earlier and to refer to the visit of 213, while ninus), i.e. Caracalla. Thus they confirm what has
those of Anthimos were probably minted later, when been assumed up to this point, that Pergamon be-
the Parthian campaign was in full swing. Only one came neokoros for the temples of (Rome and) Augus-
coin of the third strategos, M. Aurelius Alexandros, tus and (Zeus Philios and) Trajan. Yet the temples
is yet known to mention neokoria; it is difficult to of those two show normal imperial images, while the
place him precisely, but he should not be confused central temple displays a seated, bearded male fig-
with Tiberius Claudius Alexandros, who was a later ure with his left arm holding up a staff, and a snake
strategos, under Elagabalus. curled in his lap. That this is not an alternate im-
age for Caracalla is shown by coin types on which
the togate emperor presides at a sacrifice before the
same temple to the same seated god:
Laureate cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: EPI
PRVTVN G NEVKORVN Three temples on abdefgh) AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate cuirassed
stepped podia, each with wreath at apex; outer bust of Caracalla r. Rev. EPI %TR M KAIREL
two six-column, each with cuirassed emperor on ATTALOU PERGAMHNVN PRVTVN G NEVKO-
pedestal with sceptre within, in one pediment RVN Togate emperor with phiale and scroll turns
AUG, in the other TR(A, c); center temple four- toward four-column Corinthian temple (above,
column, seated male holding snake and staff abcdef; in three-quarter view, gh); in pediment
within, in pediment AN. a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer (disc, a; dot, g; AN, f); seated within, a draped
b) New York ANS 1944.100.43356 (illus. pl. 19 male with snake and staff; youth sacrifices bull be-
fig. 56) c) SNGvA 7513. fore the temple. a) SNGParis 2246 b) SNGParis
2245 c) SNGParis 2247 d) Berlin, Löbbecke e) New
York, Holzer f) Munich107 (illus. pl. 19 fig. 58) g)
AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate cuirassed bust of
BMC 324 h) SNGParis 2230.
Caracalla r. Rev: EPI %TR M KAIREL ATTALOU
PERGAMHNVN PRVTVN G NEVKORVN Three That an emperor should be portrayed sacrificing to
Corinthian temples on stepped podia; lower two himself as divinity makes no sense. Yet coins and
four-column (six-column, ij), turned toward each inscriptions (below) insist that Pergamon was three
other, a dotted circle in each pediment; higher, times neokoros of the Augusti, and on several coins
center one four-column, AN in pediment, seated the initial letters of Caracalla’s name fill the temple’s
draped male holding snake and staff within. a) pediment. A similar case of temple-sharing would
BMC 327 b) Oxford 36.10 c) SNGParis 2227 d) soon occur at Smyrna (q.v.), where the cult of Cara-
SNGParis 2229 e) SNGParis 2228 f) SNGCop 500 calla was apparently moved into the ancient temple
g) SNGvA 1411 h) SNGvA 1412 i) Berlin, Löbbecke of the goddess Rome, and Smyrna too became three
j) Berlin, Löbbecke k) New York, ANS 1944.100. times neokoros of the Augusti. Thus it is likely that
43357 (illus. pl. 19 fig. 57). Caracalla shared a temple at Pergamon with another
god, and it is that cult partner to whom he sacri-
fices.108 This concept may seem odd, but there
105 For an artistic analysis of the group of issues celebrat- would be other occurrences: on contemporary coins
ing the emperor’s worship of Asklepios, see Kadar 1986. For of Smyrna, the goddess Rome carries in her arms
a socio-political slant, see Harl 1987, 53-54. For the protocol
of imperial visits, Lehnen 1997, 77-84, 182 n. 558, more on the temple that she shared with Caracalla; and later,
literary than visual evidence, and on the latter tending more
to the late antique at Rome than the provinces.
106 E.g. BMC 319, SNGCop 499. Metcalf 1999, 14 took the 107 Von Fritze 1910, pl. 8.7.
opposite view of the two magistrates’ chronology, but did not 108 Despite Nock 1930b, 24-25, who did not take all the
consider all the relevant types. coin types into account.
32 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Philippopolis’ coins would show Elagabalus sacrific- exedra to Hadrian.113 The topic of imperial dedi-
ing before the temple of his own cult partner Apollo, cations will be dealt with in examining the so-called
while on Aigeai’s coins, Severus Alexander, holding temple of Hadrian at Ephesos (q.v.). But in the case
Asklepian attributes, would sacrifice to Asklepios in of Pergamon, the coins that show the third temple
the temple they shared (qq.v.). for which neokoria was given without the other two
Cult partners, of course, were the rule rather than and in the most detail depict it as Corinthian, not
the exception at Pergamon. Augustus had as cult Ionic like the temple on the theater terrace.114
partner the goddess Rome, and Trajan had Zeus Von Fritze recognized the seated god as Asklepios,
Philios; it was only proper that Caracalla also share though he still wanted to place him in the temple
his temple. The question is, with whom? on the theater terrace.115 Asklepios had been por-
One trail, but a false one, led to Dionysos Kath- trayed as enthroned with a snake before him on
egemon.109 This untenable hypothesis was based on coins of Pergamon from the Hellenistic period.116
the fact that his Ionic temple on the terrace at the The original cult image of the god at Pergamon may
foot of the Pergamene theater was reconstructed in have been based on the famous chryselephantine
the third century, and that on its entablature the fol- statue by Thrasymedes at Epidauros, the ultimate
lowing dedication could be restored: source of the Pergamene cult (Pausanias 2.26.8). But
though both were enthroned, contemporary coins
INSCRIPTION 35. IvP 299 (IGRR 4:362; cf. AvP
depict them somewhat differently: the Pergamene
1.2 no. 229110). Inscription of the epistyle of the
god has no dog under his chair; feeds his serpent
Ionic temple of Dionysos Kathegemon on the the-
with a phiale rather than holding his right hand over
ater terrace of Pergamon. Restored from nail
its head; the snake faces toward the god, not away;
holes left by the original bronze letters. AÈtokrã-
and the god’s staff is held behind his lowered left
tori Ka¤s[ari M. AÈr. ÉAntvne¤n]vi Sebas[t«i
arm, not as an upright prop for a raised arm.117
{ Pergamhn«n t]«n tr‹w nevkÒ[r]vn mhtrÒpoliw.
Recent debate has raged over whether this is a rep-
The slightly awkward syntax of this phrase could resentation of the famous statue by Phyromachos
perhaps be improved by changing it to [{ t«n that King Prusias of Bithynia stole in 156 B.C.E.;
Pergamhn]«n tr‹w nevkÒ[r]vn mhtrÒpoliw. This is where in Pergamon he stole it from; and whether it
the earliest inscription of the Pergamenes as three was ever returned.118 These considerations have little
times neokoroi yet known. The restoration to Cara- import for the question before us, however, as the
calla was based on the fact that he had granted seated image of Asklepios that appeared in Cara-
Pergamon its third neokoria, and it was assumed that calla’s temple on Pergamene coins was rather dif-
a new inscription on the temple’s epistyle meant the ferent from the earlier Hellenistic coin image.
presence of a new cult partner in the temple. The Starting in Antonine times, the seated god has his
original god was mentioned in another, fragmentary left arm raised, leaning on his staff, as in the Epi-
inscription, likely from a naiskos within the temple dauran image; a marble figurine in the same pose
itself; von Prott identified him as Dionysos, probably and also probably Antonine was found in the Asklep-
rightly.111 A dedication to an emperor, however, was ieion itself.119 There are three variants as well: ei-
an honor inscribed on many types of buildings, not ther the snake curls in front of the god,120 twines
a necessary sign that the imperial cult was practiced
within. Emperor’s names were added to the archi- 113 IvP nos. 287, 293.
traves of temples as famous as the Parthenon and 114 Even S. Price 1984b, 253 no. 23, seemed to conflate the
the Temple of Athena at Priene.112 Among non- two; bibliography of the dispute there.
115 Von Fritze 1908, 28-35; 1910, 50-51.
sacred buildings at Pergamon itself, the entry to a 116 Wroth 1882, 14-16, 20.
bath complex was dedicated to an emperor, and an 117 The Pergamene coin: BMC 73; Penn 1994, 18-19, 57-

59. De Luca 1990 has noted the differences, where others have
not: Stewart 1979, 12-16; Holtzmann 1984; Westermark 1991,
151 no. 11, 155-156.
109Von Prott 1902; Ohlemutz 1940, 103-117. 118 Polybius 32.15.1-6; Diodorus Siculus 31.35; Andreae
110Conze et al. 1912-1913, 284-285. 1990, 75-77; H. Müller 1992; Andreae 1993, 96-105; Ridgway
111 IvP 300; von Prott 1902, 180-188. 2000, 234.
112 Von Gaertringen 1906, no. 157; Carroll 1982, 59-63, 119 De Luca 1990, 26-28 pl. 14.

though Nero’s name is in the accusative, not the dative, in the 120 Von Fritze 1910, pl. 5.17 and von Fritze 1908, pl. 3.20

latter. (Antoninus Pius); on a concord coin, the god holds an image

chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 33

round his staff,121 or, in the case of the minuscule would be distinct from the temple of the seated god
representations on coin types 22-24, moves up into which Caracalla shared, and which gained Perga-
the god’s lap. It is difficult to tell whether these mon its third neokoria.124 The standing image, as
variants represent different cult images, the same cult mentioned above, was more popular on Pergamon’s
image as affected by lack of space on the coins, or coins of the imperial period, where Asklepios served
simply different ways of depicting Asklepios himself. as the city’s patron god.125 It was also picked up on
In fact, the seated god’s appearances on post- the coins of many other cities, not only due to the
Antonine coins are far outnumbered by those of a authority of the Pergamene sanctuary, but to the ten-
standing Asklepios, who stands as the city’s symbol dency of the minting centers to standardize iconog-
on its concord coinages, as will be seen. raphy from one city to another.126 Putting aside the
Can the enthroned image, or its temple, be iden- question of Phyromachos, however, Kranz’s thesis
tified? Its combination of the attributes of Zeus and is thrown into doubt by coins of Commodus and
Asklepios brings to mind the Pergamene god Zeus Caracalla that show the temple of the standing
Asklepios, whose temple was mentioned by Aelius Asklepios as Corinthian and six-column, while the
Aristides and whose name is preserved in a Perga- rotunda’s facade had only four columns.127 In fact,
mene inscription.122 The temple of Zeus Asklepios no temple in the Asklepieion has yet been shown to
has been identified as an important building in the have six columns.128 And though Müller would like
sanctuary of Asklepios just outside the city, a build- to eliminate the current attribution of several temples
ing that took the Pantheon in Rome as its model in Pergamon to Asklepios, there may have been at
(illus. pl. 1 fig. 6).123 Its stepped porch is four-col- least one such temple outside the Asklepieion, at least
umn and Corinthian like the coins, and leads into by Antonine times.129 The young Marcus Aurelius
a broader and higher pronaos, also gabled; their made a metaphoric trip to the arx of Pergamon to
standard temple format mediates between the viewer entreat Asklepios for his teacher Fronto’s good
and the rotunda which was unprecedented for a health; though the journey may have been imagi-
temple at that time and in that place. Within the nary, that need not make a temple on the heights
almost 24 m. diameter hall, originally decorated with imaginary too.130
variegated marble revetment, there is a 2 x 2 m. If the rotunda was not the temple of the seated
plinth for a cult statue in a 9.15 m. tall niche oppo- Asklepios and Caracalla, there is yet one more
site the entry. Another marble base ca. 1 x 2 m. was known temple to Asklepios: the one on the rocky
found near the center of the rotunda, but this was scarp in the Asklepieion known as the Felsbarre. This
probably reused, not in its original position. was likely the main temple of the Asklepieion from
The temple of the seated god is portrayed on the the third century B.C.E. down into Roman times.
coins as a standard temple, however, and though the Its god was known as Asklepios Soter, and is gen-
suppression of a rotunda behind a columnar facade erally identified with the standing image.131 The
may be due to numismatic abbreviation, coins that
show the temple in three-quarter view also make it
seem a detached peripteron. As yet no sign of im- 124 Kranz 1990, 130-141.
perial cult has been found in the round temple in 125 Holtzmann 1984, 866-867; Kampmann 1996, 8-11.
126 Kraft 1972; Kranz 1990 overlooked this point, which
the Asklepieion.
led him to overplay Hadrian’s imposition of a cultic program
Kranz claimed that the cult statue of the round on the Asian cities. For further critique, see Kampmann 1996,
temple was a standing image, which he identified 10-11 and Schorndorfer 1997, 51-52; 153-155 on the Hadrianic
as the Asklepios of Phyromachos; if this were cor- Asklepieion.
127 Commodus: BMC 295; Caracalla: von Fritze 1910, pl.
rect, the round temple with the standing image 8.9.
128 Ziegenaus and de Luca 1968, 72-73 (Roman temple of

of Artemis Ephesia instead of the phiale, von Fritze 1910, pl. “Bauphase 15”); see below for temples on the Felsbarre.
9.20 and SNGCop 517 (Commodus). 129 H. Müller 1992, 214-215; though perhaps correct that
121 SNGFitzw 4231, von Fritze 1910, pl. 5.15 and 1908, pl. neither Ionic ‘temple R’ nor its Doric predecessor were nec-
3.19 (Commodus). essarily temples to Asklepios.
122 IdA 11-14, 102-103 no. 63. 130 Fronto, Letters to Marcus Caesar 3.9; 3.10.2, ed. M. van
123 Ziegenaus 1981, 30-75; Radt 1988, 260-261; Radt 1999, den Hout (Leipzig 1988); C. Haines, ed. Marcus Cornelius Fronto
230-232; Gros 1996-2001, 1:182-183. For the construction (Cambridge MA 1982) 1:50-51; M. van den Hout 1999, 115-
technique, a combination of a Roman brick dome on a more 118.
traditional ashlar drum, see Waelkens 1987, 95. 131 De Luca in Ziegenaus and de Luca 1968, 28.
34 part i – section i. koinon of asia

temple was also the likely scene of an earlier cult back in the reign of Commodus became the Olym-
partnership: during the reign of Attalos III (138-133 pia Asklepeia Komodeia. Thus the festival long predated
B.C.E.) a five-ell high cuirassed agalma of the king, the neokoria that Caracalla granted to Pergamon.136
standing on a trophy, was installed “in the temple It may have had something to do with the emperor’s
of Asklepios Soter, to be a synnaos to the god.”132 The cult partner, but that question is complicated by
temple itself, however, is neither six-column (like that problems in identifying that god among the various
of the standing Asklepios) nor Corinthian (like both aspects of Asklepios available at Pergamon, as dis-
temples on Caracallan coins); it is another small cussed above.
Ionic temple, tetrastyle prostyle with no peripteron— The latest known inscription calling Pergamon
not very different from the one on the theater ter- neokoros, inscription 36, probably dates soon after
race, in fact.133 Its stylobate was 13.08 x 6.54 m. Caracalla’s visit, as the priestess it honors is recorded
measured outside the columns, and its cella was ca. as having been greeted three times by ‘the god
5.7 x 4.8 m. within. If the agalma of Attalos III is Antoninus’ (not necessarily deified in the Roman
any guide, at least one and likely two statues of he- sense, i.e. dead, at the time of the inscription):137
roic size, ca. 2.64 m. tall not counting the base, were
once crammed inside the cella, which also featured
513). The city honors a citizen. t}w pr\thw mh-
a rock-cut shaft in its center.
tropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ tr‹w nevkÒrou t«n
On the Pergamene triple-temple coins, even when
Seb(ast«n) Perg(a)mhn«n pÒlevw . . .
the center temple is identified by the letters in its
pediment and no emperor stands before it to sacri- A coin issued under the strategos Anthimos uses all
fice, the image within remains that of the divine cult its space to expand these titles to their utmost, as
partner rather than that of the emperor. This con- “the first of Asia and first metropolis and first three-
sistency, of course, would have helped make the times-neokoros-of-the-Augusti city of the Perga-
temple recognizable to those who handled the coins. menes”:
It is also likely that what made the god’s image
recognizable was that his cult was already well
AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate cuirassed bust of
known, and that Caracalla’s cult had been moved
Caracalla r. Rev: [EPI %TR] IOUL ANYIMOU
into an already existing temple; the emperor’s cult
Wreath, within which H PRVTH TH[% A]%IA%
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
MHNVN POLI%. a) BMC 318.
that particular temple at Pergamon.
The coins of Julius Anthimos, as mentioned This coin makes it quite clear that Pergamon was
above, were probably minted later than those of M. claiming more than simple primacy among the cities
Caerelius Attalos, and they concentrate on the fes- of Asia. ‘First metropolis’ and ‘first three times
tival Olympia.134 No direct connection between this neokoros of the Augusti’ may indicate claims of
festival and the grant of the third neokoria can be chronological as well as qualitative primacy: the
established, however. The Olympia at Pergamon may former based on Pergamon’s possession of the first
reach back to the time of L. Cuspius Pactumeius provincial imperial temple to Rome and Augustus,
Rufinus: friend of Aelius Aristides and builder of the the latter on having obtained a third neokoria be-
temple of Zeus Asklepios, he was also Pergamon’s fore any other city. Some artful wording was nec-
priest of Zeus Olympios, the deity whose cult flour- essary here, as Ephesos (q.v.) became three times
ished under the patronage of Hadrian.135 The coins neokoros before Pergamon did, but that city’s title
of Anthimos likely only refer to a long-established had been diverted to honor Artemis, not the em-
festival at Pergamon, the Olympia Asklepeia, which peror. As for the other competitor, Smyrna called
itself ‘first of Asia, three times neokoros of the
Augusti’ on coins of Caracalla’s reign, without any
H. Müller 1992, 206-212; idem 2000, 540 n. 113.
Ziegenaus and de Luca 1975, 5-16.
134 Von Fritze 1910, 80-82; Karl 1975, 97-100 should be

taken with reservations. 136 L. Robert 1930, 106-108; Moretti 1953, 197-198.
135 Halfmann 1979, 154 no. 66; Habicht 1969, 9-11. 137 S. Price 1984a.
chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 35

repetition of ‘first.’138 It is indeed more likely that in pediment, remains of figure within. a) BMC 336
Pergamon became neokoros for Caracalla before b) SNGParis 2265 c) SNGParis 2266 d) SNGCop 502
Smyrna did, as Pergamon was one of the first cities e) SNGvA 1417 f) Berlin, Löbbecke.
he visited on his final tour of Asia.
The city of Pergamon continued to mint with the
Pergamon’s happy position was soon threatened,
title ‘three times neokoros’ down to the end of its
however. Macrinus, who was said to have killed his
coinage, in the reign of Valerian and Gallienus. It
predecessor, withdrew some grants made by Cara-
had been not only the first city in Asia to receive a
calla to the Pergamenes. They insulted him in turn,
koinon temple to the ruling emperor, but also the
and he responded by publicly stripping them of
first to receive a second and become twice neokoros;
honors. The story is told by Cassius Dio, who knew
and though its rival Ephesos may have had a head
the details well; Macrinus later sent him to keep
start on its third neokoria, that honor fell under a
order in Pergamon and Smyrna.139 Under Macrinus,
cloud and Pergamon became three times neokoros
many of the cities that had been made neokoroi by
soon after. It was not without reason that the city
Caracalla ceased to mention the honor on their coins
called itself ‘the first of Asia and first metropolis and
or inscriptions (see chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis’).
first three-times-neokoros-of-the Augusti city of the
Smyrna, the other city put under Dio’s authority,
had previously minted and cited its neokoros status
abundantly, but suddenly stopped minting alto-
gether. Even Ephesos (q.v.), which may have won
its case for primacy before the emperor, possibly lost
its neokoria of Artemis. But Pergamon seems to have
been the city most forthcoming and inventive in its
1. IvP no. 461 [IGRR 4:447; see Habicht 1969, 139-
insults to Macrinus, and suffered in proportion. Like
140, 159]. The council and people of the neokoroi
Smyrna it issued no coins citing neokoria, possibly
Pergamenes honor a citizen. Dated by Habicht to
no coins at all, in his reign, and inscriptions stripped
ca. 100.
of the usual magniloquent city titulature may be
2. Hepding 1910, 472-473 no. 58 [IGRR 4:1689].
datable to that time.140 It has even been suggested
The city honors a citizen; language parallel to that
that the city lost its independent college of hymnodoi
of inscription 1.
of Rome and Augustus, the first and most prestigious
3. Hepding 1907, 330-331 no. 62 [IGRR 4:453]. The
of Asia.141
city honors a citizen; titulature and letter forms simi-
After Macrinus’ death and the condemnation of
lar to those of inscriptions 1 and 2, thus similar date.
his memory, however, the titles, including ‘first, three
4. IdA no. 157. Inscription on architrave and sima
times neokoros,’ returned, and became a standard
of the gate from the city into the Asklepieion.
part of Pergamon’s coin legends, though only a few
Titulature and date similar to inscriptions 1-3.142
later types (such as type 18 above, under Trajan
5. IG 12.2 no. 243 [CIG 2189; also CIG 3486 and
Decius) recall the specific temples for which the city
IGRR 4:1293, a copy from Thyateira]. From near
was neokoros:
Mytilene; that city honors a Pergamene, calling
COIN TYPE 26. Obv: AUTOKR K M AUR %EBH- Pergamon ‘first’ as well as neokoros.
RO% ALEJANDRO% Laureate cuirassed bust of 6. Hepding 1907, 335-337 no. 66 [IGRR 4:459]. The
Severus Alexander r. Rev: EPI %TR K council and people of the first, neokoroi Pergamenes
TERTULLOU PERGAMHNVN PRV(TVN, cd) G honor a Basilissa.143
NEVKORVN Three Corinthian temples; lower two 7. Hepding 1907, 331-333 no. 64. The city honors
three-column(!), turned toward each other (a the son of a chief priest of Asia. Titulature same as
wreath over each, d); center one four-column, dot that of inscription 6.

138 See chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis’; examples of the

Smyrna coin type are BMC 405, 406 and Berlin 619/1914.
139 Cassius Dio 79.20.4, 80.7.4. This was not noted by

Baharal 1999. 142 Dräger 1993, 178, special pleading to date this inscrip-
140 Habicht 1969, 18-19, 71-74. tion as early as Domitian.
141 Halfmann 1990, 26. 143 Gagé 1968, 119 n. 21.
36 part i – section i. koinon of asia

8. Hepding 1907, 333-335 no. 65. The city honors 24. IdA no. 24. The city honors a quaestor pro
the brother of the honoree of inscription 7; same praetore of the time of Septimius Severus. Titulature
titulature as inscriptions 6, 7. the same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-23.
9. IvP no. 438 [IGRR 4:375]. The city honors C. 25. IdA no. 34. The city honors the philosopher
Antius Aulus Julius Quadratus in reign of Trajan. Hermokrates, dated to Severan times.146 Titulature
Same titulature as inscriptions 6-8. the same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-24.
10. IvP no. 441 [IGRR 4:385]. The city honors 26. IdA no. 35. The city honors the Cappadocian
Quadratus as proconsul of Asia in ca. 109/10; see in- sophist Diodotos, dated to the end of the second or
scription 9. Titulature the same as in inscriptions beginning of the third century.147 Titulature the
6-9. same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-25.
Twice neokoros: 27. Heberdey and Kalinka 1896, 3 no. 8 [IGRR
11. IdA no. 20. Pergamon honors the son of Quadra- 4:908]. From Kibyra. The koinon honors a chief
tus. Enumeration restored. See discussion above. priest and priestess of Asia of the temples in first and
12. IvP no. 395 [IGRR 4:331]. Statue base of Trajan, twice neokoros Pergamon. Undated.
dated by his titulature to 114-116. The Pergamenes 28. Ippel 1912, 299-301 no. 25 [IGRR 4:1687].
are first and twice neokoros. Dedication by the daughter of the proconsul Qua-
13. Ippel 1912, 301 no. 26 [IGRR 4:1688]. Honor- dratus of inscriptions 9-10 (sister of the Quadratus
ific dated by the proconsulship of Ti. Caepio Hispo of inscription 11) to her mother. Titulature the same
to 117/118 or 118/119.144 The city has the same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-26; not securely
titulature as in inscription 12. dated, though assigned by White to 120-128.148
14. IvP no. 520 [IGRR 4:452]. The city honors a ci- 29. Ziebarth 1902, 445-446 [IGRR 4:426]. An hon-
tizen; titulature the same as in inscriptions 12 and 13. orific restored from the Latin of Cyriacus of Ancona;
15. IvP no. 397 [IGRR 4:339]. Statue base of titulature similar to that of inscriptions 16-18, 21-
Hadrian, dated by his fourth consulate to 120; the 26, and 28. Dated to the middle or the end of the
city’s titulature is the same as on inscriptions 12-14. second century.
16. IdA no. 38. The council and people of the me- 30. IdA no. 32. The city honors a Pisidian philoso-
tropolis of Asia and first twice neokoros city of the pher; titulature the same as that of inscriptions 16-
Pergamenes honor a citizen; Hadrianic. 18, 21-26 and 28. Undated.
17. IdA no. 37. The city honors a citizen; titulature 31. IdA no. 30. The city honors a benefactor who
the same as on inscription 16. Hadrianic. was chief priest of Asia of the temples in Pergamon.
18. IdA no. 23. The city honors a citizen; titulature Titulature the same as that of inscriptions 16-18, 21-
the same as on inscriptions 16 and 17. Time of 26, 28 and 30. Undated.
Antoninus Pius. 32. IdA no. 42. The council honors a citizen; the
19. IdA no. 10. Statue base of Marcus Aurelius, ca. city’s titulature the same as that of inscriptions 16-
162. See discussion above. 18, 21-26, 28, 30 and 31. Undated.
20. IdA no. 11. Statue base of Lucius Verus, ca. 162. 33. IdA no. 54. The council of the metropolis of Asia
See discussion above. and first twice neokoros of the Augusti city of the
21. IvP no. 324 [IGRR 4:360]. Introduction to an Pergamenes dedicates the statue of a citizen. Un-
oracle on averting a plague, perhaps that brought dated.
back from the East by Lucius Verus’ troops.145 34. Von Prott and Kolbe 1902, 9697 no. 89 [IGRR
Titulature same as that of inscriptions 16-18. 4:480]. Fragment; titulature similar to that of inscrip-
22. Habicht 1959/1960, 126-127 no. 2. Statue base, tion 33. Undated.
dated between 147-150 and the end of the century. Three times neokoros:
Titulature same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21. 35. IvP no. 299. Epistyle of the Ionic temple of Dio-
23. IdA no. 28. Statue base of Marcus Aurelius’ ab nysos Kathegemon on the theater terrace of Pergamon.
epistulis, dated by the imperial titles to 173-175; the See discussion above.
city’s titulature is the same as that of inscriptions 16-
18, 21 and 22.
146 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.25.
144 Magie 1950, 1583; Syme 1958, 2:665. 147 Ibid. 2.27.
145 Historia Augusta, Verus 8; Ammianus Marcellinus 23.6.24. 148 White 1998, 354, 364.
chapter 1 – pergamon in mysia 37

36. IvP no. 525. Honorific for a priestess who had Geta Caesar: SNGParis 2254, 2255.
been greeted by Caracalla. See discussion above. Geta Augustus: SNGParis 2256, 2257; Berlin (2 exx.), Lon-
don, Vienna.
Not included among these inscriptions is: Three times neokoros:
IvP no. 524 [IGRR 4:475]. The restoration ...érxie- Caracalla: BMC 318-327; SNGCop 499, 500; SNGvA 1411-
r°v]w ÉAs¤aw ka[‹ t}w pr\thw mhtropÒle]vw ka‹ 1414, 7513, 7514; SNGParis 2218, 2223-2225, 2227-
nev[kÒrou tÚ g' patr¤dow] is extremely odd. It is 2234, 2236-2252; Berlin (19 exx.), Boston (6 exx.),
more likely to form part of the cursus of the husband London (2 exx.), New York (10 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.),
of the priestess honored, thus [érxier°v]w ÉAs¤aw Vienna, Warsaw (2 exx.).
Julia Domna: BMC 317; SNGParis 2214-2216; Berlin (4
ka[‹ ..........érxier°]vw ka‹ nev[kÒrou toË.........] exx.), London, Oxford.
Elagabalus: BMC 331, 332; SNGParis 2258, 2259, 2261;
Berlin (5 exx.), Vienna.
COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Julia Maesa: Berlin, Oxford.
Severus Alexander: BMC 333-335; SNGCop 502-504;
Neokoros?: SNGvA 1417, 1418, 7516; SNGParis 2263-2267; Ber-
Trajanic?: London, New York, Warsaw (see above, coin lin (5 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford,
type 10). Vienna.
Twice neokoros: Julia Mamaea: BMC 337; SNGCop 505, 506; Berlin (4
Marcus Aurelius: BMC 285, 286, 288, 289; SNGCop 486; exx.), New York, Vienna (2 exx.).
SNGvA 1404, 1405; SNGParis 2123-2135; Berlin (5 Maximinus: SNGCop 508; SNGvA 7517; SNGParis 2270-
exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), 2272; Berlin (2 exx.).
Oxford, Vienna. Maximus Caesar: BMC 340; Berlin.
Lucius Verus: BMC 291-294; SNGvA 7506; SNGParis Maximinus or Maximus (obverse erased149): BMC 338,
2143-2148; Berlin (7 exx.), London, New York (2 339; SNGCop 507, 508; SNGvA 7517; SNGParis 2273;
exx.). Berlin (3 exx.), London, Oxford.
Commodus Caesar: BMC 295, 305, 308; SNGvA 1406, Gordian III: BMC 341, 342; SNGCop 509; SNGParis 2274-
7507; SNGParis 2149-2151, 2155; Berlin (6 exx.), 2276; Berlin (4 exx.), London, Vienna.
Boston, London, New York (3 exx.), Warsaw. Trajan Decius: BMC 343; SNGvA 1418-1420; SNGParis
Commodus Augustus: BMC 304, 307; SNGvA 1408, 7508; 2283, 2284; Berlin, London (3 exx.), New York,
SNGParis 2165, 2166, 2168-2170; Berlin (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
New York, Vienna (2 exx.). Etruscilla: SNGParis 2287; Berlin, New York.
Septimius Severus: BMC 309, 311-313; SNGCop 495; Herennius Etruscus: SNGvA 1421; SNGParis 2288, 2290,
SNGvA 7509-7511; SNGLewis 1345; SNGParis 2189, 2291; Berlin, Boston, New York (2 exx.), Oxford,
2191, 2193-2202, 2205; Berlin (15 exx.), Boston (2 Vienna.
exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford Valerian: BMC 345; SNGCop 511; SNGvA 1422, 7518;
(3 exx.), Vienna (7 exx.). SNGParis 2292, 2293; Berlin, New York.
Septimius Severus and Julia Domna: BMC 314, 315; Gallienus: BMC 346-348; SNGCop 512, 513; SNGLewis
SNGCop 497; SNGParis 2208-2211; Berlin (6 exx.), 1346; SNGParis 2294-2299; Berlin (5 exx.), Oxford,
Boston, London, New York (4 exx.). Vienna.
Septimius Severus and Caracalla: BMC 316; SNGParis Salonina: BMC 349; SNGCop 514; SNGRighetti 764;
2212; Berlin. SNGParis 2304, 2305; Berlin (4 exx.), New York,
Julia Domna: SNGCop 498; SNGParis 2213; Oxford, Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.).
Vienna. Saloninus Caesar: SNGParis 2306, 2307 (misattributed);
Caracalla: SNGParis 2217, 2219, 2221, 2268 (the last Berlin, Boston, Vienna.
misattributed). Non-imperial obverse: BMC 235; SNGCop 460; SNGParis
Caracalla and Geta Caesar: BMC 328-330; SNGCop 501; 1963 (incorrect); Berlin, New York.
SNGvA 1415, 1416, 7515; SNGParis 2253; Berlin (2
149 Berghaus 1978.
exx.), New York, Vienna.
38 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 2. Smyrna in Ionia: Koinon of Asia

First neokoria: Tiberius temple at Nikomedia for the entire first century,
whereas Asia may have dedicated new provincial
Less than a decade after the death of Augustus, the temples for subsequent rulers, perhaps even for each
Greeks of Asia again petitioned to build a temple emperor.
to a reigning emperor, this one to Tiberius. In 22 In regard to the earlier award, no author informs
C.E. the Asians had successfully prosecuted C. us how Pergamon had been chosen for the honor,
Silanus for his depredations as proconsul, and the but Tacitus is quite explicit about the contest for the
next year they also won their case against Lucilius temple of Tiberius in 26, three years after the origi-
Capito, a procurator of imperial holdings in Asia nal grant:
who had usurped the powers of a praetor. In return Caesar, to divert gossip, often attended the Senate,
for these favorable judgements, “the cities of Asia and for quite a few days he heard the ambassadors
decreed a temple to Tiberius, his mother, and the of Asia disputing about in which city the temple should
Senate. Permission to build was granted, and Nero be built. Eleven cities competed, equal in ambition
[the young son of Germanicus] gave thanks to the but differing in resources. With little variety they all
Senate and to his grandfather [the emperor] on that recalled their antiquity and their zeal for the Roman
people through the wars with Perseus, Aristonikos,
account.”1 and the other kings. But the people of Hypaipa,
Tacitus, to whom we owe the description of these Tralles, Laodikeia, and Magnesia were passed over
events, stated specifically that the cities of Asia took as not up to it; even the Ilians, though they boasted
the initiative in offering the temple. Both prosecu- Troy as the mother of the city of Rome, were strong
tions had been carried on by the province as a only in the splendor of their antiquity. There was
some hesitation over the Halikarnassians, who
whole; indeed, the most persuasive advocates of all claimed that their home had never been shaken by
Asia stood against Silanus. Therefore it can be as- earthquake in twelve hundred years, and that the
sumed that both the court cases and the vote of foundations of the temple would be in living rock.
thanks were the products of the provincial organi- The Pergamenes (and they were using this itself as
zation of Asia, the koinon.2 In this the precedent set an argument) were judged to have been honored
enough by the temple to Augustus there; the Ephe-
by the foundation of the temple of Rome and Augus- sians and Milesians were seen as having totally de-
tus at Pergamon (q.v.) was followed, as this act too voted their cities to the worship of Artemis in the
had been the result of a province’s petition, not an former case, Apollo in the latter. So the decision lay
imperial ukase. But this time Bithynia, which had between the Sardians and the Smyrnaeans.
previously been coupled with Asia in requesting a Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56.
temple to Augustus, took no part. Bithynia had no
interest in the prosecutions of Silanus and Capito Tacitus reported the ensuing debate in detail, but
which were the reasons for offering the temple, but to sum it up, the Sardians fell back on the two ar-
it also indicates a point at which the two provinces guments of antiquity and loyalty to Rome, while also
began to diverge. The koinon of Bithynia apparently tracing a genealogical connection between the
remained content with its one provincial imperial Lydians and the Etruscans. Smyrna too related its
ancient origins, but relied chiefly on its ties to Rome,
which rested on cult, not genealogy, and were both
1 Tacitus, Annals 3.66-69; the quotation from 4.15. Dräger
more recent and more tangible than the hazy le-
1993, 98 incorrectly allied this establishment of a new provin-
cial cult with aid given to Asian cities damaged by the earth-
gends offered by the Sardians. Smyrna, its envoys
quake of 17 C.E. claimed, had been the first to erect a temple to the
2 Brunt 1961, 206-220, 224-225; Deininger 1965, 56-57.
goddess Rome, in 195 B.C.E., “when Roman power,
chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 39

though great, was not yet at its height; for Carthage plete enough to appear in detail on coins of Petro-
still stood and there were mighty kings in Asia.” nius, whose proconsulship lasted the six years be-
Carthage in 195 was not much of a threat, nor, as tween 29/30 and 34/35 C.E.6
it turned out, were the kings of Asia; and Smyrna
had built its temple to Rome not through admira-
tion or altruism, but more as a reward for Roman Draped youthful male bust of the Senate r. and
assistance against Antiochos III.3 Yet to mention diademed draped bust of Livia l., turned toward
Carthage and kings before the Roman Senate was each other. Rev: EPI PETRVNIOU %EBA%TO%
to recall for it some of its proudest moments. It was TIBERIO% Four-column Corinthian temple, disc
this that appealed to the Senate more than all the in pediment; within it the emperor, togate, head
contrived genealogies. Add a rather melodramatic veiled, holding simpulum. a) MvS 212-214 no. 26
episode, when the Smyrnaeans stripped the clothes (59 exx.; here Vienna 17731 is illus. pl. 20 fig.
from their backs to send to Rome’s suffering legions, 59).7
and the Senate (by a vote of four hundred to seven)
decided for Smyrna.4 The three objects of cult are identified explicitly,
In Tacitus’ account, the ambassadors of eleven Sebaste (Julia Augusta, i.e. Tiberius’ mother Livia) and
individual cities, not of the koinon as a whole, were the youthful Senate on the obverse, Tiberius Sebastos
pitted against one another and retailed their claims, in his temple on the reverse. By no coincidence,
not in a meeting of the koinon, but directly before Pergamon issued a very similar-looking series of
the Senate and the emperor.5 Why the Greeks of coins (Pergamon type 6) under the same proconsul.
They answered Smyrna’s pride in its new temple
Asia, who apparently had themselves presented
with pride in its Pergamene precedent, the temple
Pergamon as the site for Augustus’ temple, should
of Rome and Augustus.8 Even the small Phrygian
abdicate choice at this point is a puzzle that needs
city of Tiberiopolis honored its namesake by emu-
to be explained. Possibly the koinon had been dead-
lating the Smyrnaean coin type almost exactly,
locked. Its two greatest cities, Ephesos and Per-
though it is uncertain whether the coin of Tiberio-
gamon, had both received important cult centers in
polis represents the temple and cult statues in
the grant of 29 B.C.E. The next candidate may not Smyrna or copies of them in Tiberiopolis itself.9
have been so obvious. It is noticeable that after the That the personified Senate should share the cult
emperor’s and Senate’s acceptance of the temple, with Tiberius, as Rome had with Augustus, does not
three years intervened before the site for it was seem unnatural, since the Senate’s decision had
debated in the Senate. The koinon may have cho- brought Silanus and Capito to punishment. Indeed
sen to let the Senate make the decision in order to Tiberius harped on this very fact in a speech of the
break a deadlock, or to avoid lasting resentment year 25 reported in Tacitus, Annals 4.37. A delega-
among the cities that were not chosen. tion from the province of Hispania Ulterior had
Once Smyrna was finally selected, the Senate asked permission to build a shrine to Tiberius and
appointed a special commissioner to the proconsul his mother, using the temple granted to Asia as a
of Asia to take charge of the new temple. This is precedent. Refusing it gave Tiberius an opportunity
likely to have been a supervisory position, and does to state his opposition to any extension of divine
not necessarily mean that Rome was undertaking honors for himself beyond the limits set out by
any of the costs of the foundation. In any case, soon Augustus. “Since the deified Augustus did not for-
after the decision of 26 C.E. the temple was com- bid that a temple to himself and to the city of Rome
be built at Pergamon, I who view as law all of his
3 Mellor 1975, 14-16; Fayer 1976, 11; Errington 1987, 100-
102. 6 Corsten 1999.
4 Lewis 1991. The vote count is given by Aelius Aristides, 7 MvS (= Klose 1987); see also Burnett, Amandry, and
Oration 19.13; Aristides’ portrayal differs from Tacitus’ in that Ripollès 1992 (= RPC 1), no. 2469.
‘the rest of Asia’ got only seven votes, while Smyrna got four 8 Klose 1996, 53-63, esp. 58.

hundred, but the address was written in extreme haste (see 9 BMC 1, pl. 49 no. 6; Kienast 1985, 258-261. On the ob-

below). Talbert 1984, 149, 284 defended the accuracy of this verse, Livia and the Senate are called ‘twins,’ perhaps a refer-
count. ence to Artemis and Apollo, although their images resemble
5 Ziethen 1994, 97-98, 229 did not note this oddity. those at Smyrna, not the gods.
40 part i – section i. koinon of asia

deeds and words have followed his example all the served coins show the temple itself as Corinthian,
more readily because reverence for the Senate was but no trace of it has yet been found at Smyrna.
joined with my own cult.”10 The image of the Sen- As early as the second year of Petronius’ procon-
ate shown on contemporary coins of Smyrna is a sulship, the name of a (chief?) priest of Tiberius
draped bust of a beardless youth wearing a fillet Caesar Sebastos, Julia Sebaste, and the Senate ap-
around his head; a similar image, minus the fillet, peared in a letter from the proconsul to the gerousia
would frequently appear on coins of Smyrna and of of Ephesos.16 Though the editors believed that the
her neighbors down to the later third century.11 man in question, L. Cossinius or Coussinius, was a
The third partner of the cult at Smyrna, however, civic priest in the Ephesian gerousia rather than at
was no abstract personification but the mother of the the temple in Smyrna, the fact that Petronius called
emperor, and there was no Augustan precedent for him his friend hints that he could have been a holder
this. Yet if Tacitus’ account in Annals 4.15 is correct, of provincial office; and after all, Ephesians had no
the Asians specifically included her in their proposal provincial temple of their own to serve as yet.17 Civic
for a temple in 23, as they did the Senate. Tacitus bodies probably did honor the current emperor and
made much of Tiberius’ alleged discord with Livia, the Senate in their ceremonies, but the specificity
based upon his standard refusal of special honors of this priest’s three cult objects should indicate that
voted to her (Annals 1.14, 3.64, 5.2).12 This refusal he served either the temple in Smyrna, or at the very
in fact differs very little from his standard refusal of least an Ephesian cult modeled on it.
honors voted to himself, which Tacitus also inter- Later documents cite a chief priest of Asia spe-
preted to Tiberius’ detriment. Livia was not only the cifically assigned to the provincial temple in Smyrna,
emperor’s mother, but the widow and priestess of as distinct from the chief priest of Asia whose respon-
the deified Augustus, sole Augusta, member of the sibility was the temple of Rome and Augustus at Per-
gens Julia, and the true dynastic link between the gamon (q.v.).18 Thus Asia became the one province
dead emperor and the reigning one, and many forms yet known to have more than one chief priest serv-
of divine honor were extended to her.13 Her image ing at the same time.19 The documents do not tell
at Smyrna wears the diadem of a goddess for the us precisely how this double priesthood functioned
first time yet known.14 Perhaps she had used her within the meetings and activities of the koinon, but
influence in the Asians’ behalf, and they were grate- it is likely that the chief priest at Pergamon retained
ful; or perhaps it was simply dangerous and undip- seniority.20
lomatic to overlook her. Even the embassy from At least two chief priestesses are specified as hav-
Hispania Ulterior was careful not to do so, though ing served at Smyrna.21 These were often female re-
the Senate never appeared as an object of cult in lations of a chief priest or Asiarch, though their
that request. standing and functions are still disputed. Herz held
Tiberius’ image at Smyrna did not take after the that they presided over the cult of the Augustae, and
precedent of Augustus’ cuirassed portrait in Perga- that the first chief priestess of Asia was only ap-
mon. On contemporary coins, Tiberius appears in pointed after Drusilla, the sister of Gaius, became
full toga and with his head veiled, and where the the first woman officially deified in Rome in 38
coins are clear, the ladle-shaped simpulum in his C.E.22 This is a trifle Romanocentric, however: as
right hand can be seen. Thus Tiberius took the role
of Roman pontifex maximus; the selection of this 16 Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1993, no. II.9; also
aspect may have been directed by Valerius Naso, corrected by Scherrer 1997, 97.
17 Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1993, 142-143 for
whom the Senate had placed as commissioner in
the name.
charge of the Smyrnaean temple.15 The better-pre- 18 Tiberius Claudius Meidias, after Claudius: IGRR 4.1524,

from Sardis.
19 Deininger 1965, 37-41; Campanile 1994b.
20 For discussion and more recent literature on chief priests,
See Charlesworth 1939. chief priestesses, and Asiarchs, see Pergamon chapter, above,
MvS 23. and the summary on the officials of the koina, chapter 41 in
12 On Tiberius’ ambivalent attitude toward such honors, Part II.
especially those in Rome itself, Bartman 1999, 108-112. 21 Both after the time of Hadrian when Smyrna had more
13 Mikocki 1995, 151-170 nos. 1-132; Hahn 1994, 34-105. than one temple: IGRR 4.1254, from Thyateira, Ulpia Marcella;
14 Rose 1997a, 23, 60, 180-181. and Petzl 1987 (= IvS), 727 and 772, Aurelia Melite.
15 As implied by Rose 1997a, 181. 22 Herz 1992, 103-105.
chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 41

we have seen, Julia was a full cult partner with Tibe- early as the reign of Domitian (inscriptions 1-3,
rius and the Senate in Smyrna’s provincial temple below). The title does not appear on coins earlier
from at least 26 C.E. onward. An inscription dat- than the reign of Caracalla, perhaps because most
ing to the reign of Gaius cites one Juliane, wife of of the space in Smyrna’s coin legends was generally
Alkiphron the chief priest of Asia, as the first woman devoted to magistrates’ names. Smyrna was, how-
to become chief priestess of Asia;23 but the inscrip- ever, the first city known to issue a coin type that
tion also praises Juliane for holding a number of specifically refers to that honor: it shows the temple-
other priesthoods and offices (stephanephoria and bearing city god who represents the city itself as
gymnasiarchy at Magnesia, both more likely to have neokoros. This image, extensively studied by Pick
been taken during her widowhood), and it is not in 1904, first appears on coins issued ca. 87/88,
impossible that the couple’s chief priesthood of Asia under the Domitianic proconsul L. Mestrius Flo-
had occurred a decade or so before. Also, there is rus.26
some evidence against pairing the gender of the
priest with that of imperial cult objects: statues of
%EBA%TO% GERMANIKO% Laureate head of
women wearing agonothetic crowns, one identified
Domitian r. Rev: EPI L ME%TRIOU FLVROU
by inscription as a chief priestess of the Augusti (not
ANYUPATOU ZMUR Amazon Smyrna seated,
Augustae), show them with both male and female
holding small temple and double axe. a) BMC 110
imperial busts on them, just like the crowns of male
(illus. pl. 20 fig. 60) b) Berlin 640/1878 c) SNGvA
7998 d) MvS 238-239 nos. 4-9 (4 other exx.). (RPC
Hymnodoi to sing the emperor’s praises were
2 no. 1018).27
already a feature of the cult of Rome and Augustus
at Pergamon (q.v.). Another such organization of COIN TYPE 3. Obv: DOMITIANV KAI%ARI
hymnodoi may also have been instituted for the %EBA%TV ZMURNAIOI THN A%IAN Veiled
temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate at Smyrna. draped bust of Asia l., with sheaves. Rev: EPI L
In the edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus, proconsul of ME%TRIOU FLVROU ANYUPATOU Amazon
Asia under Claudius, the duties of hymnodoi were Smyrna seated, holding small temple and double
supposed to devolve onto the ephebes, thus saving axe. a) Berlin, Fox (MvS 145 no. 74; RPC 2 no.
the cities money; the sole exceptions made were for 1020).
the hymnodoi of Augustus at Pergamon and, in frag-
The city god is in this case the eponymous Amazon
mentary lines, for those of Julia Augusta, whom
founder of Smyrna. In her role as patron and city
Claudius had recently deified.25 The edict may be
symbol, she appears from this time to the end of
referring to hymnodoi of Julia at Smyrna, even
Smyrnaean coinage, carrying her double axe, pelta-
though the other objects of cult at this temple,
shield, as well as a number of attributes (including
Tiberius and the Senate, are not mentioned; neither
small images of other patron gods) as necessary.
does the edict mention Rome, the cult partner of
Klose doubted whether she was in fact the city as
Augustus, even though later documents at Pergamon
neokoros, mainly because she first appears on coins
(q.v.) confirm that its choir continued to be called
of Domitian’s time rather than that of Tiberius, and
‘hymnodoi of the god Augustus and the goddess
because she continues to carry one temple rather
Rome.’ The emphasis on Julia’s deification may
than the eventual three that made Smyrna three
reflect the proconsul’s Roman attitudes, not the cult
times neokoros.28 But this simplification may have
practiced by the Asians; Tiberius himself had not
been the result of an artistic problem: as the Ama-
been deified. But the fragmentary state of this part
zon had to carry or wear a number of attributes to
of the inscription means that nothing is certain.
be recognizable (axe and shield in her left hand,
Although the temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the
mural crown on her head, prow beneath her foot),
Senate was later to be included among those that
she barely had room to carry one temple, much less
gave the city the title ‘neokoros,’ Smyrna did not use
an eventual three. The fact that the coin image
that title until late in the first century, perhaps as
26 Pick 1904, 2 nos. 1-2. For Florus, Stumpf 1991, 228-230,
23 Kern 1900, no. 158. with his year of office dated no later than 89/90.
24 Rumscheid 2000, 31-32, 37-38; see ‘Koina’ chapter 41. 27 Burnett, Amandry, and Carradice 1999 (= RPC 2).
25 IvE 17-19; on hymnodoi Halfmann 1990, 21-26. 28 MvS 27-28.
42 part i – section i. koinon of asia

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

Methodology’ part iii.2.

30 Price and Trell 1977, 32 fig. 326; MvS 38-39, 144-145 32 See the discussion of architectural coin types in the In-

nos. 71-73. troduction (‘Methodology’), above.

31 RPC 1:16-17, 43-44. 33 Cassius Dio 59.28.1; see chapter 3, ‘Miletos.’
chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 43

even the behavior of a speaker could determine a second decree of the Senate, by which we became
whether or not a petition was granted, orators’ tal- twice neokoroi; a sacred contest; immunity; theologoi;
hymnodoi; one-and-a-half million [drachmai]; columns
ents in persuasion often proved invaluable to their for the anointing room: seventy-two(?) Synnadan,
home cities.34 In the case of Smyrna, the orator who twenty Numidian, six porphyry.
persuaded Hadrian was one of the most renowned
of his time, M. Antonius Polemon. Here the emperor’s gift of columns for the gymna-
Born in Phrygian Laodikeia, Polemon came to sium itself follows the list of his more important gifts
Smyrna’s famous schools of rhetoric as a youth, and to the city as a whole, notably those associated with
as he rose in his profession he used his considerable the city’s new status of twice neokoros.36 The inscrip-
talents for the benefit of his adopted home.35 One tion also confirms that the Roman Senate contin-
of those talents was pleading causes before the rulers ued to play an essential role in granting neokoria,
of the Empire: as it had in allotting Tiberius’ temple to Smyrna: it
was the (second) decree of the Senate that made
He was of great value to the city in going on em- Smyrna twice neokoros. This decree, however, is
bassies to the emperors and defending the commu- portrayed by the inscription as totally within the
nity. For example, Hadrian, who had previously
favored the Ephesians, he converted to the Smyr- emperor’s power to grant, just like such material gifts
naeans’ side to such an extent that in one day as money and columns.
[Hadrian] poured out ten million [drachmai] on Though the gymnasium inscription and Philo-
Smyrna, from which the grain market was built, as stratos’ account differ as to the amount of money
well as the most magnificent gymnasium in Asia and Hadrian gave, they are at one in attributing the
a temple that can be seen from afar, the one on the
akra that seems to oppose Mimas.
imperial favors to the good offices of Polemon. The
gifts were Hadrian’s but the credit was also Pole-
Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.2 (531) mon’s, as he was the one who had won the emperor’s
The gymnasium that Philostratos mentions was in- favor and had made the request. Thus Polemon can
deed important. Smyrna inscription 4 preserves part be seen as the intermediary or ‘broker of benefi-
of a list of public and private contributors and the cence’ between Hadrian and Smyrna.37 On the one
gifts they gave to build and adorn this gymnasium side, the emperor honored his talents, indulged his
complex, and perhaps other buildings as well. Its requests, and even took him on as a favored travel-
magnificence is indicated by some of the gifts men- ing companion.38 On the other, Smyrna’s rewards
tioned: a basilica with bronze doors, a columned to Polemon were commensurate with the glory he
anointing room with a gilt roof, a porticoed palm reflected on the city and the gifts he obtained for it
court with gardens and a temple of Tyche, and a from the emperor. He was made agonothetes of the
sun room. Toward the end of this catalogue comes festival he was responsible for obtaining (a privilege
the following passage: that was passed down to his descendants), and was
allowed to go aboard the city’s sacred trireme.39 His
INSCRIPTION 4. IvS 697. ka‹ ˜sa §petÊxomen appointment as Smyrna’s strategos, mentioned on
parå toË kur¤ou Ka¤sarow ÑAdrianoË diå
ÉAntvn¤ou Pol°mvnow: deÊteron dÒgma sunklÆ- 36 On columns as specifically imperial gifts, see Fant 1993,
tou, kay'  d‹w nevkÒroi gegÒnamen, ég«na |erÒn, 156; for the question of whether aleipterion refers to an anoint-
ét°leian, yeolÒgouw, ÍmnƒdoÊw, muriãdaw •katÚn ing room or the entire gymnasium, Herrmann 1993b, 234-235
pentÆkonta, ke¤onaw e¸w tÚ éleiptÆrion Sunna- nn. 5, 7.
37 See chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ in Part II. Also Saller 1982,
d¤ouw [o]b', NoumedikoÁw k', porfure¤taw ' 63, 74-75; although Saller discusses only the brokerage posi-
tion of Romans, the Smyrnaeans plainly also perceived
. . . and as many things as we gained from the lord
Polemon as their source of successful access to Hadrian. See
Caesar Hadrian on account of Antonius Polemon: Anderson 1993, 24-28 on cities and sophists, a slightly jaun-
diced view, especially 26 on Philostratos’ picture of Polemon
and Smyrna: “...he practically owns the place.”
34 Bowersock 1969, 43-58, 120-123; Millar 1977, 234, 384- 38 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.4 (532-533); Half-

385, 392, 434-435. mann 1986a, 109, 200-202; Birley 1997, 159-161, 170. Weiss
35 Gleason 1995, 21-29. Polemon’s fierce rivalry with Favo- 1995 defends the Arabic translation of Polemon’s work on
rinus (Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.8.4 [490]) parallels physiognomy as a source on his travels with Hadrian. Polemon
Smyrna’s rivalry with Ephesos (see below), and draws out the is also mentioned in a letter of Hadrian to the Pergamenes
agonistic character of professional as well as intercity relation- dated ca. 132 C.E.: Oliver 1989, 150-154 no. 59.
ships. 39 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.1, 3 (530-531, 532).
44 part i – section i. koinon of asia

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

MvS 68-69.
MvS 16; IvS 644, 659-661, 668; Moretti 1953, 225; 46 IvS 595, 697 = IGRR 4:1436, 1431.
Malavolta 1976-1977, 2063-2064. 47 IvS 596, 639; MvS 71 assigned the latter’s office to the
42 Contra Schorndorfer 1997, 53-37, 79, 173-175, who al- Caracallan temple of the third neokoria, but the inscription
lowed the erroneous attribution at Kyzikos (q.v.) to outweigh does not specify, and he could easily have served as neokoros
the ancient evidence. in the second temple (or in all the imperial temples?) instead.
43 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.5, 11 (534-535, 541- 48 Halfmann 1986a, 200.

542). 49 Winter 1996, 65, 85-86, 327-328 no. 44; IvS 697
44 IvS 697 (2.1:196). (2.1:196). MvS 21 n. 120 is incorrect.
45 IvS 594; J. Keil 1908; Halfmann 1986a, 200. 50 Cassius Dio ep. 69.10.3; Dräger 2000, 214-215.
chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 45

in the temple’s coin images, nor is she ever men- 80, the year of M. Ulpius Trajanus’ proconsulship
tioned in association with the provincial temple at of Asia, an aqueduct was built leading up to his
Smyrna or its institutions. Most tellingly, the pas- temple.54 Philostratos does not mention the rebuild-
sage epitomized from Cassius Dio upon which this ing of an older temple, or Zeus Akraios; Polemon’s
theory is based praises Hadrian for his piety toward influence won Smyrna neokoria, and more likely a
his adoptive mother: but the temple in Smyrna is new temple to Hadrian on another akra.
not a good example of that piety, as it was likely built The new temple has also been identified with a
(at least officially) by the koinon of Asia, and the “thank-offering temple” mentioned in the gymna-
emperor himself was the preeminent object of wor- sium inscription.55 This terminology recalls Aelius
ship in it. Aristides’ reference to the Hadrianic temple at
Klose assumed that a six-column Ionic temple Kyzikos (q.v.), but there are some differences. Look-
with a disc in its pediment that appeared on coins ing at lines 16-20 of inscription 4 itself, the passage
of Hadrian at Smyrna represented the contempo- in question runs:
rary provincial temple.51 The problem is that an KlaudianÚw prÊtaniw xrus\sein tÚn ˆrofon
identical six-column Ionic temple with a disc in its toË éleipthr¤ou t}w gerous¤aw ka‹ OI e¸w tÚn
pediment had appeared on a series of coins that xaristÆrion ne ke¤ona sÁn speirokefãlƒ.
Klose dated to just after the reign of Nero.52 Both Claudianus the prytanis [promised] to gild the roof
issues show the temple on a Greek-style stepped of the anointing room of the gerousia, plus [an
podium, distinguishing them from the previously amount] towards the column with its base and capital
mentioned Ionic octastyle temple on a Roman-style for the thank-offering ‘temple’ (neo).
podium that appears on coins under Domitian (see
above). Though the Hadrianic coins are larger and Other than this one column, there is no other men-
better struck than the post-Neronian, they may both tion of donations of columns or indeed of anything
represent the same temple, which therefore cannot else to such a temple. Another peculiarity is that
be confirmed as the temple that made Smyrna twice earlier in the same inscription (line 14) the accusa-
neokoros. The Caracallan triple-temple coins are tive for ‘temple’ is spelled naÒn, not given its Attic
also of little help in picturing the temple of Hadrian: variant, as it supposedly is here. This oddity has not
like the coins of other cities, these show all the been explained; is a nu missing, and could the text
temples for which the city became neokoros as iden- refer to a thank-offering of the youths (ne«n), not a
tical, and preserve no individual architectural fea- temple? Beyond these considerations, however, it
tures. should be remembered that all the other private
Philostratos is our only other source for the ap- structural donations listed in the inscription, includ-
pearance or placement of the temple to Hadrian at ing a temple of Tyche, seem to be parts of the gym-
Smyrna. In his list of the buildings erected out of nasium complex. A donation to a separate temple
Hadrian’s grant he called it “a temple that can be seems out of place. Although there is no hard evi-
seen from afar, the one on the akra that seems to dence to prove that a ‘thank-offering temple’ did not
oppose Mimas.” From his reference to an akra (which exist or was not the temple of Hadrian at Smyrna,
can mean either a height or a cape on the seacoast) these considerations make it more likely that the
some scholars have conflated this new temple with structure, whatever it was, was in the gymnasium.
another temple documented at Smyrna, that of Zeus What can be known, then, about the temple that
Akraios (‘on the heights’).53 But the temple of Zeus made Smyrna twice neokoros? Following Philo-
Akraios was already in existence before Hadrian made stratos’ account, it was built out of Hadrian’s dona-
his grant: the god himself had been named on tion. It was on an akra, which could be either a height
Smyrna’s coinage as early as Vespasian, and in 79/ or a cape by the sea; Smyrna offers a plenitude of
both.56 It could be seen from afar; this implies great
51 Klose 1996, 58; MvS 68, 247 nos. 1-13 (15 exx.); the

stephanephoros’ name is Pom. Sextus.

52 MvS 67, 132-134 nos. 19-61 (61 exx.); the magistrate is 54 Father of the emperor: Thomasson 1984, 216-217 no.

Tiberius Hieronymos Sosander. 71; MvS 26-27; IvS 680; Dräger 1993, 87-89.
53 Cadoux 1938, 202, 248, 254 n. 4; Magie 1950, 584, 615, 55 H. Jüthner, Breslauer philologische Abhandlungen 8.1 (1898)

1445 n. 46, 1474 n. 15; S. Price 1984b, 258; Boatwright 2000, 27.
157-162. 56 Though C. Jones 2001 believed that the word used here
46 part i – section i. koinon of asia

size and/or prominent position. A height would be akra depends on proximity to the temple of Zeus
suitable, and so would a position by the sea where Akraios, the site of that temple is also uncertain; an
ships could spy it from far off. Aelius Aristides por- inscription concerning repairs to its aqueduct was
trayed a similar topographical placement for the found on Mt. Pagos, the akropolis of Smyrna, not
temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos (q.v.). The Smyrnaean on DeÅirmen-tepe.61 Therefore the second koinon
temple “seemed to oppose Mimas.” That was the temple of Smyrna cannot be proved to have been
ancient name for the mountainous heights of Kara found.
Burun, the headland that closes off Smyrna’s gulf Polemon continued to act on behalf of Smyrna
on the west.57 Just about anything in Smyrna would to the end of his life, and indeed died before he could
be ‘opposite’ Mimas in the broader sense, but the complete a mission to defend “the temples and their
verb can imply a challenge as well. That challenge rights” before the emperor Antoninus Pius. When
was likely to be in size, though again prominent substitute advocates botched the job, the emperor
position, especially position close to the gulf, would himself inquired whether Polemon had left a speech,
add emphasis. and then delayed the hearing until it could be
Remains of an appropriate temple were found on fetched. Upon hearing it, he decided for Smyrna.
DeÅirmen-tepe, a height (though by no means “Thus Smyrna came away having won first place,
mountainous) which is also directly over the gulf, and and they declared that Polemon had come back to
so may be called an akra and visible from afar; it is life to help them.”62 The contest on behalf of the
in the western part of the city, that closest to Mimas, temples probably refers to the ones that made the
and has been identified by many as the site of the city twice neokoros, in which Polemon had a spe-
older temple of Zeus Akraios.58 There in 1824-25 cial interest.63 As the decrees of the Senate men-
Graf Anton Prokesch von Osten observed the foun- tioned previously should have made their status
dations of a large east-facing temple with ten unchallengeable, Polemon’s defense may have been
Corinthian columns on its short side and perhaps necessitated by some question of relationships (in-
twenty-three on its flank, of dimensions comparable volving precedence, finance, proper titulature, or any
to those of the Olympieion in Athens, which he of a number of factors) among rival neokoroi cities
dated to the Hadrianic or Antonine period.59 But in the koinon.
the building’s marble superstructure was rapidly Probably shortly before this incident, Ephesos had
being plundered for building stone; about a century complained that Smyrna had not given that city its
later, Walter found only a fragment of a fluted col- precise titulature in a decree about a joint sacrifice,
umn drum.60 A building on such a scale would not and that Pergamon had similarly offended; the quar-
only have been suitable for what we know of pro- rel went all the way to Antoninus Pius, who had
vincial temples of Hadrian (e.g. Kyzikos and perhaps already decreed the proper titles for Ephesos. The
Ephesos) but may well have been said to “challenge emperor decided that Pergamon was not at fault and
Mimas.” Smyrna’s slight was accidental, but cautioned
We must sound a note of caution, however. The Ephesos and Smyrna in future to give each other
modern city of Izmir covers most traces of this and their correct titles.64 It was probably at this point that
of the other temples of ancient Smyrna. No sign
identifies this east-facing temple as the temple of 61 IvS 681b; an aqueduct did lead from Kara-Bunar to the
Hadrian except its size and order, comparable with west end of Mt. Pagos: Hasluck 1913-1914, 92; Cadoux 1938,
such temples as Kyzikos’. And if the identity of the 177, 248, 254. G. Weber 1899, 167-174, identified the Zeus
Akraios aqueduct as the one originating at Ak-Bunar, despite
the fact that it considerably predates the first century C.E., be-
denoted a height, not a promontory, Philostratos in fact used cause he had already decided that the temple of Zeus was on
êkra in either sense, with its basic meaning being ‘extremity’ the “Mühlenhügel,” or DeÅirmen-tepe.
(up or out). Height: Philostratos, Life of Apollonios of Tyana 2.8.5 62 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.10 (539-540).

(the mountain Nysa); promontory: Life of Apollonios of Tyana 63 Perhaps more likely than a challenge to the right of asy-

5.1.4, 6 (the pillars of Hercules and the cape of Libya, Abinna). lum, which centered on one temple, that of Aphrodite Stratonikis,
57 Bean 1966, 41; map, 23. rather than several; Rigsby 1996, 95-105, esp. 96.
58 Tsakyroglou 1876, 1879, 1.87, 2.70; Cadoux 1938, 17, 64 See chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis.’ The emperor’s letter

248; Bürchner 1927, 750-756; Schorndorfer 1997, 173-175. is dated in his third consulship, 140-144 C.E.: IvE 1489, 1489a,
59 Prokesch von Osten 1834, Anzeige-Blatt 55-86, esp. 62- 1490; Oliver 1989, 293-295. Polemon was still alive in 143,
63; Prokesch von Osten 1836, 1.522. when Marcus Aurelius heard him declaim: Fronto, Letters to
60 Walter 1922-1924, Beibl. 232. Marcus Caesar 2.5; 2.10 ed. M. van den Hout (Leipzig 1988);
chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 47

Ephesos issued a series of coins celebrating its con- this assumes that he regulated the titles of all three
cord with the other two cities.65 Polemon’s subse- cities, Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna, not just
quent (posthumous) mission to defend Smyrna’s Ephesos’, which is all the inscription states. Also, she
temples and their rights indicates that the emperor’s did not emphasize what stands out in this particu-
letter did not bring the bickering to an end, and that lar concord coinage: that unlike many others, it was
perhaps Ephesos, by questioning the status of only minted by one party, Ephesos; neither Smyrna
Smyrna’s temples, was retaliating for the offence. nor Pergamon reciprocated, so far as is known. To
Much has been made of these quarrels in Anto- be slightly cynical, ‘concord’ in this case may rep-
ninus Pius’ reign, and rightly so; but in order to resent not an equal accord but what the Ephesians
understand them, it is necessary to get all the de- saw as a victory. Such a victory was given to them
tails correct. Cadoux was the first to conflate Pole- by Antoninus Pius’ letter: it would make the other
mon’s posthumous embassy with Antoninus Pius’ two cities give Ephesos its full and correct titles. The
decision, and make one result from the other.66 As Ephesians liked the emperor’s decision so much that
will be noted, however, in the former Smyrna won, they inscribed the letter publicly at least twice. No
but in the latter Ephesos did. Merkelbach then took copies have yet been found at Pergamon or Smyrna.
Philostratos’ tå prote›a literally to refer to Smyrna’s On the other hand, in Philostratos’ account,
winning the right to walk first in the festival proces- Smyrna won its case. Neither Merkelbach, Dräger,
sion of the koinon.67 It is more likely, however, that nor Kampmann noticed that Polemon’s mission was
Philostratos was referring only to victory in the court originally on behalf of the temples and their rights,
case, as translated above. The title ‘first’ does not and so is more likely to have concerned neokoria
become common in Smyrnaean inscriptions until the than the title ‘first.’ That victory must be set in the
time of Caracalla, and indeed does not appear until context that Philostratos gave it. Rather than sim-
late in the time of the second neokoria, the early ply favoring Polemon, as Hadrian had, Antoninus
third century, as on inscriptions 8, 7, and probably Pius had good reason to resent him: once, when
6, below.68 Note the simplicity of an actual inscrip- Antoninus was proconsul of Asia, Polemon had had
tion under Antoninus Pius: inscription 5 only calls him thrown out of his house. The emperor’s deci-
Smyrna ‘the [twice] neokoros city of the Smyr- sion in favor of Smyrna was not only a tribute to
naeans.’ Polemon’s peerless (posthumous) oratory, but to
Dräger and Kampmann, though differing on Antoninus’ own civility as a ruler.70
chronology, both followed Cadoux in connecting the After the time of Hadrian, when Smyrna had
two accounts, and Merkelbach in concentrating on received its second neokoria and second provincial
the title ‘first’ and scanting other details.69 Kamp- temple, the titulature of the chief priests of Asia (and
mann’s account is somewhat preferable, though she the Asiarchs) reflected the increase: these officials
attributed the concord coinage mentioned above to were in charge of the (plural) temples in Smyrna.71
Antoninus Pius’ initial regulation of Ephesos’ titles; No chief priestesses specifically of (plural) temples
in Smyrna have yet been clearly documented.
After Polemon’s death, one of the most important
C. Haines, ed. Marcus Cornelius Fronto (Cambridge MA 1982) orators to make Smyrna his home and his cause was
1:116-119; van den Hout 1999, 77-80. Collas-Heddeland 1995 Aelius Aristides. When Marcus Aurelius visited the
is unfortunately vitiated by mistranslations and misunderstand-
ings; see Année Epigraphique 1995 no. 1476. Perhaps the same city, probably in 176 during his tour of the East after
joint sacrifice appears on coins of Ephesos under Antoninus the revolt of Avidius Cassius, he went out of his way
Pius: Hecht 1968, 28 no. 1.
65 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 1:38-39 nos. 305-316; Kamp-

mann 1996, 29-34, 108-109. 70 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.5-6 (533-535).
66 Cadoux 1938, 262-264. A similar error in his account 71 For the discussion of the nature of Asiarchs and chief
of CIG 3175 as connected with the cult in the provincial temple; priests of Asia, see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ and chapter 41 on
the neokoros of Zeus in line 3 of that inscription is in fact an the koina. A chief priest of Asia of the temples in Smyrna, after
official of Zeus’ temple. Hadrian: IGRR 4:586, from Aizanoi; an Asiarch of the temples
67 Merkelbach 1978, 290. in Smyrna, after Caracalla: IGRR 4:17, from Eresos; also FiE
68 Petzl (IvS 603, 672) occasionally restores the title earlier, 3:72, dating an Asiarchy to the end of the second century; and
but almost all unrestored examples date from the time of the the abundant dossier on M. Ulpius Appuleius Eurykles, desig-
third neokoria. nated chief priest of the temples at Smyrna for the second time
69 Dräger 1993, 115; Kampmann 1996, 29-34; Kampmann under Commodus, and also named Asiarch: OGIS 509, from
1998, 377-379. Aphrodisias, and Wörrle 1992, 352 and 358.
48 part i – section i. koinon of asia

to send for Aristides, who had at first held back.72 to itself.78 No further mention was made of the
The emperor treated him indulgently, however, and koinon temple that had been given such prominence
he eventually acquitted himself well. According to by Aristides’ earlier letter, but it was probably among
Philostratos’ account of these events, destiny was the first of the city’s shrines to be reconstructed.
preparing ahead for Smyrna to be rebuilt through
Aristides’ talents, and he could rightfully be called
the founder of the city.73 For soon after, when Com- Third Neokoria: Caracalla
modus had been raised to share the title of Augustus
with his father, Smyrna was rocked by a disastrous Although Smyrna had possessed a provincial impe-
earthquake.74 As soon as the news came to Aristides rial temple since the reign of Tiberius and two since
on his estate, he dashed off a monody on the city’s that of Hadrian, the word ‘neokoros’ did not appear
fall, and then wrote to the two emperors the next on its coinage until its third neokoria, under
day to ask for their aid.75 Marcus Aurelius shed tears Caracalla.79 In the interim there had been occasional
over Aristides’ letter and promised to rebuild the city; appearances of the temple-bearing Amazon who had
Cassius Dio confirms that he sent both money and symbolized the city as neokoros since the time of
a senatorial commissioner for the purpose.76 Domitian:
Aristides’ letter is rather vague about the scenes
of devastation at Smyrna: so many temples, so many
[ANTV]NEINO% Laureate head of Marcus Aure-
gymnasiums, the streets, the agora, the harbor. He
is particular to note, however, that the temple that
%MUR Amazon Smyrna in long dress, seated,
Smyrna had obtained when it was preferred (at a
holding small temple and double axe.80 a) SNGCop
vote of four hundred to seven) to all the other cities
1369 b) Paris 2573 c) MvS 258 nos. 15-17 (2 other
of Asia had now sunk beneath the ground; though
that temple might be recovered with Asia’s help, only
the emperors had the resources to rebuild the en- COIN TYPE 5. Obv: L AUR KOMODO% KAI%AR
tire city.77 This distinction helps to point out that Head of Commodus as Caesar r., youthful. Rev:
the temple in question was provincial, and the ref- %TR PO AI ARIZHLOU %MURNAIVN Seated
erence to the vote identifies it as that of Tiberius, Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, double
Julia, and the Senate. axe and shield.81 a) Paris 2620 b) MvS 266 no. 6
It and the city did not remain in ruins for long, (Athens).
however. Aristides’ subsequent Oration 20 hailed the
emperors as the new founders of Smyrna, and
Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius
praised all the cities of Asia for offering aid to the
Severus r. Rev: EP(I, b) %T(R, b) K ROUFINOU
refugees. Within a short time (before Marcus’ death
%OF %MURNAIVN Amazon Smyrna holding
in 180 C.E.), Aristides could write without blushing
small temple, double axe and shield is crowned
that before the earthquake Smyrna had been supe-
by Victory with palm. a) Vienna 35984 b) MvS
rior to the other cities, but now it was superior even
268-269 no. 7 (Boston).

Smyrna’s inscriptions call the city twice neokoros
Gascó 1989 postulated that this was because Aristides
had supported Avidius Cassius, though the point in Philostratos’ until 201/202 (inscription 7, below), and coins of
account seems to be Aristides’ scholarly modesty. Geta as Augustus, issued sometime between 209 and
73 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.9.2 (582-583).
74 Commodus became Augustus in mid-177 C.E., at least
his death at the end of 211 C.E., do not yet claim
before June 17: Kienast 1996, 147-150. Behr 1968, 112 n. 68,
the third neokoria.82 So Smyrna was one of three
however, preferred to date the earthquake shortly after Janu-
ary 177. Eusebius, Chronica 209c dated it to 179, and said that 78 Aelius Aristides, Oration 21.11.
due to it ten year’s tribute was remitted; while the Chronicon 79 Two seeming exceptions are in fact falsifications. Paris
Paschale 262 dated it to 178. See Guidoboni with Comastri and 2540 and Vienna 11789, coins with obverse portraits of
Traina 1994, 237-238 no. 117. Antoninus Pius, have been recut to read that Smyrna was
75 The Monody for Smyrna is Oration 18, the letter to the neokoros (Paris, two temples on the reverse) or twice neokoros
emperors Oration 19. (Vienna, three temples, a reworked coin of Ephesos).
76 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.9.2 (582-583); Cassius 80 Pick 1904, 2 no. 3.

Dio 72.32.3. 81 Pick 1904, 3 no. 4.

77 Aelius Aristides, Oration 19.13. 82 MvS 294-295, nos. 18-22; Kienast 1996, 166-167.
chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 49

cities (including Ephesos and Pergamon, qq.v.) that d) Paris 2687 e) Oxford 16.86 f) Oxford 21.04 g)
became three times neokoros during the sole rule SNGCop 1389 h) Vienna 17845 i) Warsaw 58629
of Caracalla. Celebratory types for the third neokoria j) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer k) Berlin, Löbbecke l)
were issued under the strategoi Aurelius Charidemos SNGvA 8005.
and Tiberius Claudius Kretarios, or without any
The most explicit types are probably the earliest:
magistrate’s name at all. Klose believed that two
under the titles ‘Smyrna first of Asia three times
further annual magistrates served after the award of
neokoros of the Augusti’ appear the three temples,
the neokoria and before Caracalla’s death, though
each with a wreath on the peak of its roof. The three
their coinage did not proclaim the title; thus he dated
temples, all Corinthian, are assimilated to one an-
the grant of the title between February 212 and mid-
other. Each side temple contains a cuirassed figure
214 C.E.83 The date should be narrowed to after
of an emperor; these are identified by small letters
January 214, as Caracalla was then in the area, and
in the pediment as Tiberius and Hadrian. Tiberius’
was awarding commensurate gifts to other Asian
original image was certainly togate, so unless the old
cities such as Pergamon.84 Pergamon seems to have
statue had been replaced since the earthquake, he
made a claim to be the first city that was three times
was here either assimilated to the cuirassed figure
neokoros of the Augusti, and it was one of the first
of Hadrian, or merely conventionalized into a mili-
places that Caracalla visited upon landing. Smyrna’s
tary figure denoting ‘an emperor.’ In the new temple
honors probably followed shortly after. The emperor
in the center, however, a seated female figure is
need not have been in Smyrna itself to have made
distinguished, and the letters in the pediment iden-
it neokoros, but it is not impossible that he did visit
tify her as Ro(me). Yet on the very same coin Smyr-
such a beautiful and important city.
na calls itself three times neokoros of the Augusti,
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: A K M AUR ANTVNEINO% with no mention of Rome. The one seeming excep-
Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r., tion is the following:
bearded. Rev: %MURNAIVN PRVTVN A%IA% G
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
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
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 Clearly the type refers to the third neokoria, and
practiced in it. Something similar might have hap- again indicates that Smyrna could not have gained
pened at Pergamon (q.v.): the cult of Caracalla was a third neokoria simply for the cult of Rome. If it
moved into an extant temple, probably that of had, why would Rome have been shown carrying
Asklepios. On the Pergamene coins, however, the her own temple instead of standing within it as the
small letters in the pediment of the temple in ques- object of cult? Instead she is shown as the custodian
tion read “An(toninus).” This indicates the presence of cult, like the city’s namesake, the Amazon Smyr-
of the cult of Caracalla, though the cult statue re- na; in fact, the coin types of these two temple bear-
mains that of the original occupant. On Smyrna’s ers later would run parallel with one another, and
coins we find no mention of the emperor at all. Yet would easily have been compared.
if Smyrna were neokoros of the goddess Rome, one The peculiar logic of depicting Rome carrying the
would expect the fact to be stated explicitly, and it temple she shared with the emperor is much like that
never is. Ephesos, for example, called itself either of the contemporary coinage at Pergamon (q.v.),
‘three times neokoros’ or ‘twice and of Artemis’ where the emperor was shown sacrificing to the deity
during the sole reign of Caracalla, but never ‘three with whom he shared a temple. The coinage of Side
times neokoros of the Augusti,’ as Smyrna did. can also be compared: there several of the city’s
Moreover, a new temple-bearer type appears patron gods appear as neokoroi, though whether
under Caracalla and persists in the same way that they shared cult with emperor(s) in their own temples
the Amazon Smyrna had: here again is the goddess is uncertain. Though Nock called the concept
Rome. “thinkable, but no more,” others have accepted that
the cult of Caracalla was moved into the old temple
of Rome at Smyrna.95 There were time-honored
INO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla
precedents: Augustus shared a temple with Rome
at Pergamon and in other provinces, Tiberius shared
%MURN Seated goddess Rome holding small
one with his mother and the Senate in Smyrna it-
temple and spear.90 a) BMC 410 b) BMC 411 c)
self. These others, however, had been new founda-
Paris 2682.
tions. Under Caracalla the ‘new’ neokoria was
COIN TYPE 11. Obv: %EBA%TH IOU DOMNA conferred for an old temple at Smyrna, as it was also
Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: (G NEVKO- at Ephesos (for the temple of Artemis) and at Perga-
RVN EPI KRHTARIOU %MURN, a-e;91 %MU- mon (for a temple of Asklepios).
RNAIVN EPI XARIDHMOU G NEVK %EB, f-h;92 G Under Caracalla Smyrna, like Pergamon, called
NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN %MURNAIVN i- itself ‘three times neokoros of the Augusti.’ The
k;93 PRV A%IA% G NEVKORVN %MUR, l-w).94 goddess Rome is certainly not to be considered one
Seated goddess Rome holding small temple and of the Augusti, especially at Smyrna, where the cult
spear. a) Oxford 13.73 b) Oxford 11.07 c) Paris of Rome remained independent and unallied to any
2654 d) Paris 2655 e) Paris 2655A f) BMC 389 imperial name up to the third century.96 Nor can it
(illus. pl. 20 fig. 62) g) Paris 2673 h) Berlin, be assumed that the cult of Augustus simply was
Imhoof-Blumer i) Oxford 19.11 j) Oxford 14.48 moved in with the cult of Rome when Republic
k) Paris 2660 l) BMC 390 m) BMC 391 n) BMC became Empire; though a Smyrnaean inscription
392 o) London 1895.6-6-36 p) Boston 63.2600 q) mentions a priest of Rome and Augustus, this is no
Paris 2657 r) Paris 2658 s) Paris 2659 t) Vienna local document but a decree of the koinon of Asia,
17824 u) Berlin, Löbbecke v) Berlin, Löbbecke w) and the cult to which it refers is the provincial one
Berlin 548/1874. at Pergamon.97 In fact, Smyrna was only neokoros
of Rome to the same degree that it was neokoros
of the Senate and of Julia: these were the cult part-

90 MvS 287-288 nos. 22-23 (these exx.). 95 Nock 1930b, 28; Pick 1904, 21-23; J. Keil 1915, 130 n.
91 MvS 279 nos. 36-38 (3 further exx.). 1.
92 MvS 278 no. 34 (2 further exx.). 96
Moretti 1953, 237; Fayer 1976, 17-18.
93 MvS 281 no. 49 (these exx.). 97
IvS 591; Richter 1884-1937, 138, 157-159; Buckler 1935,
94 MvS 281 nos. 45-48 (10 further exx.). 181 no. 9.
chapter 2 – smyrna in ionia 51

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

nos. 14, 16.

98 Cassius Dio 79.20.4, 80.7.4. 104 MvS 300-301 no. 4 (5 further exx.); Pick 1904, 4 no. 10.
99 MvS 295 nos. 1-2 (1 further ex.). 105 MvS 303-304 no. 3 (2 further exx.); Pick 1904, 4 no. 17.
52 part i – section i. koinon of asia

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

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

(NAIVN, acdefijkm) G NEV(K, befghikl) EP (%, 5. IvS 767. Dedication to the river Hermos and to
abcfghjlm) (M, abdefghikl) (A, ei or AUR abdfghkl) Antoninus Pius. Enumeration restored.
%EJ%TOU Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, 6. IvS 672. Fragment, from Haci Köy. Dated only
double axe and shield.115 a) BMC 475 b) BMC 476 by neokoria.
c) Oxford 6.19 d) Oxford 6.27 e) Oxford 6.92 f) 7. IvS 815. Milestone from Hacilar, on the Smyrna-
Oxford 5.47 g) Paris 2807 h) Paris 2808 i) SNGvA Sardis road, set up under the proconsul Lollianus
2239 j) Vienna 31994 k) Vienna 36690 l) Berlin, Gentianus, whose term is dated to 201/202.118
Löbbecke m) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Smyrna is “most illustrious, first of cities of Asia and
twice neokoros of the Augusti.”
In the mid-third century the Amazon Smyrna even
8. IvS 814. Milestone from west of Pinarbaâi, on the
took her small temple with her when she served as
Smyrna-Sardis road. Similar to inscription 7 and of
symbol of the city on concord coins:
same date.
COIN TYPE 29. Obv: AU KAI M ANT GORDI- Three times neokoros:
ANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian 9. IvS 637. Statue base of an Asiarch, dated to the
III r. Rev: A%IA %MURNA OMONOIA EP % first half of the third century. Enumeration of the
PVLLIANOU Asia with sceptre and phiale and the neokoria restored, but titulature is same as that of
Amazon Smyrna with small temple, double axe inscription 10, below.
and shield, an altar between them.116 a) Paris 10. IvS 667. Statue base of an athlete honored by
2739 b) Vienna 17865 c) London 1893.6-4-56. Valerian and Gallienus; Smyrna is “first of Asia in
beauty and greatness, most illustrious, metropolis,
This may serve as a final illustration of Smyrna’s three times neokoros by the decrees of the most
long-standing pride in its status as neokoros. sacred Senate and jewel of Ionia.”
11. IvS 640. Statue base of a chief priestess. Undated;
titulature same as that of inscriptions 9 and 10.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: 12. IvS 665. Statue base of an athlete. Undated;
titulature same as that of inscriptions 9-11.
Neokoros: 13. IvS 666. Probably a statue base of an athlete.
1. IvS 657. Statue base from Olympia, dated after Undated; titulature same as that of inscriptions 9-
41 C.E. but before second neokoria. The neokoros 12.
people honor an athlete and fellow citizen. 14. IvS 674. Fragment, undated, probably with
2. IvS 634. [The ...] neokoros people honor M. titulature same as that of inscriptions 9-13.
Atilius Bradua; set up by M. Aurelius Perperos. 15. IvS 638. Statue base of an Asiarch. Enumera-
Beurlier 1877-1910, 58 posited that the (plural?) tion restored; titulature similar to that of inscriptions
number of neokoriai was missing from the stone, and 9-13 but “three times neokoros of the Augusti and
a first line with the article should indeed be restored; jewel of Ionia by decrees of the most sacred Sen-
but PIR2A 1303 attributed the inscription to M. ate.”
Atilius Postumus Bradua, proconsul of Asia under 16. IvS 673. Statue base, undated. Smyrna is “most
Domitian, in 94/95 according to Eck, and a Domi- illustrious and metropolis and three times neokoros
tianic date for Perperos may be confirmed.117 So the of the Augusti by decrees of the most sacred Sen-
city was simply neokoros. ate.”
3. IvS 696. List of contributors toward harbor con- 17. IvS 646. Fragment, undated. Petzl restored
struction. Undated. titulature similar to that of inscriptions 9-13, but the
first line is much longer than the rest; titulature simi-
Twice neokoros: lar to that of inscription 16 is more likely.
4. IvS 697. The ‘gymnasium inscription’ document- 18. IvS 603. Imperial letter? Fragmentary, undated,
ing the second neokoria and Hadrian’s gifts on ac- though previously attributed to Hadrianic times due
count of Polemon. See discussion in text above. to the word ‘to Olympian’ (Zeus or Hadrian?).
Enumeration missing; restored on the model of in-
115 MvS 325 nos. 1-4 (7 further exx.); Pick 1904, 6 no. 22.
116 MvS 344 no. 1 (6 further exx.); Franke and M. Nollé
1997, 215-216 nos. 2235-2248; Pick 1904, 5 no. 18.
117 Eck 1982, 322; Thomasson 1984, 219 no. 81. 118 Christol and Drew-Bear 1995.
54 part i – section i. koinon of asia

scriptions 9-13, but the order of the titles is differ- 8010; SNGLewis 1403; SNGRighetti 913, 914; Berlin
ent and the syntax a bit strained. (9 exx.), London, New York (3 exx.), Oxford (12
exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw.
Non-imperial obverse, time of Gordian III: BMC 239,
240; SNGCop 1314-1318; SNGvA 7991; SNGLewis
COINS CITING NEOKORIA: 1405; Berlin (8 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (2
exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford (12 exx.), Paris (15
Three times neokoros: exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw.
Caracalla: BMC 403-417; SNGCop 1389; SNGvA 2220, Philip BMC 452; SNGvA 2231.
2221, 8005; Berlin (6 exx.), New York, Oxford (7 Otacilia: BMC 453; SNGCop 1404; SNGvA 2232; Berlin
exx.), Paris (9 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw. (3 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.),
Caracalla and Julia Domna: Oxford. Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Julia Domna: BMC 389-394; SNGCop 1385; SNGvA 2219; Non-imperial obverse, time of Philip: BMC 247; SNGCop
Berlin (9 exx.), Boston, London, New York (2 exx.), 1325; SNGvA 2195; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston, New York
Oxford (8 exx.), Paris (13 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.). (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (2
Elagabalus: SNGvA 2224; Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Paris exx.).
(2 exx.). Valerian: BMC 454-456; SNGvA 2233; Oxford, Paris (3
Julia Maesa: Oxford, Paris (2 exx.). exx.).
Severus Alexander: BMC 428-433; SNGvA 2225, 2226; Gallienus: BMC 458-469, 471-474; SNGCop 1405-1416;
Berlin (5 exx.), Boston, London, New York (3 exx.), SNGvA 2234-2238, 8011, 8012; SNGLewis 1409,
Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). 1410; SNGRighetti 915, 916; Berlin (22 exx.), Boston
Julia Mamaea: BMC 434-439; SNGCop 1394-1396; (4 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (10 exx.), Ox-
SNGLewis 1399; SNGRighetti 912; Berlin (4 exx.), ford (25 exx.), Paris (29 exx.), Vienna (17 exx.),
Boston (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (8 exx.), Warsaw.
Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). Salonina: BMC 475-478; SNGCop 1417-1419; SNGvA
Non-imperial obverse, time of Severus Alexander: BMC 2239-2241; Berlin (5 exx.), London, New York,
244; SNGvA 2195; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (3 Oxford (8 exx.), Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
exx.), Vienna. Valerianus: Boston, New York, Oxford, Paris (2 exx.).
Maximinus: Paris, Vienna. Non-imperial obverse, time of the joint rule of Valerian
Maximinus and Maximus Caesar: BMC 441; SNGCop and Gallienus: BMC 246; SNGCop 1326; SNGvA 2196;
1397; SNGLewis 1400; Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Berlin, New York, Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2
Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). exx.).
Maximus Caesar: London, Oxford. Non-imperial obverse, not dated: BMC 227-231, 233-237;
Gordian III: BMC 442, 444, 445; SNGCop 1399, 1400; SNGCop 1321-1324; SNGvA 2190-2192, 7990;
SNGvA 2227-2230; SNGLewis 1402; Berlin (9 exx.), SNGTüb 3754, 3755 (Philadelphia, concord issue);
Boston, London (3 exx.), New York, Oxford (13 Berlin (15 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York
exx.), Paris (9 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw. (8 exx.), Oxford (22 exx.), Paris (21 exx.), Vienna (9
Tranquillina: BMC 446-451; SNGCop 1401-1403; SNGvA exx.), Warsaw (6 exx.).
chapter 3 – miletos in ionia 55

Chapter 3. Miletos in Ionia: Koinon of Asia

First Provincial Temple: Gaius ruling out several Asian cities that wanted to build
the temple to Tiberius: “The Pergamenes (and they
The precedents of Augustus and Tiberius combined were using this itself as an argument) were judged
with his own inclinations to assure that Gaius Cae- to have been honored enough by the temple to
sar, better known as Caligula, was worshipped in a Augustus there; the Ephesians and Milesians were
provincial temple in Asia. The fullest account is that seen as having totally devoted their cities to the
of Cassius Dio, though it exists only as a paraphrase worship of Artemis in the former case, Apollo in the
from later compilations (ep. 59.28.1): “Gaius ordered latter.” Gaius’ reasoning, as (para)phrased by the epi-
that a precinct be set aside for his worship in Miletos tomator of Dio, seems to have followed the Senate’s
in the province Asia, giving as his reason that in Tacitus: a city could be ‘preempted’ by another
Artemis had preempted Ephesos, Augustus Perga- major cult from getting a provincial imperial temple,
mon, and Tiberius Smyrna; but the truth was that at least in this period.
he wanted to appropriate for himself the large and Suetonius, in his life of Gaius (21), confirms that
very beautiful temple that the Milesians were build- the emperor indeed took an interest in the Didy-
ing for Apollo.” This is the first of a series of anec- maion at Miletos: he included its completion in a
dotes all having to do with Gaius’ temple building list of semi-impossible projects that Gaius intended
and temple altering for the sake of his favorite cult, to undertake.2 But Suetonius listed this among his
his own. They are grouped with events of the year actions as head of state; though extravagant, it was
40, and may have simply been placed at this point not considered outrageous, and Suetonius made no
to serve as variations on a megalomaniac theme. mention of changing the cult.
Other documents, however, have indicated that in Inscriptions confirm that provincial officials and
the beginning of his reign at least, Gaius followed workers gathered at Didyma in the reign of Gaius.
an Augustan/Tiberian tradition of modesty even in A base for a statue of the emperor himself, dated
accepting honorific statues, and a date late in his to 40/41, was found near the southwest corner of
reign is not inconsistent with the inscriptional evi- the temple at Didyma.3 The dedicants were a group
dence (below).1 The terminology that Dio used in of neopoioi, officials responsible for construction or
this instance differs sharply from his previous treat- physical upkeep of a temple, in this case, the temple
ment of the events of 29 B.C.E., where Augustus of Gaius Caesar “in Miletos.” Robert first pointed
“gave permission” to the Greeks of Asia to build a out that they represented each city center of thir-
temple at Pergamon (q.v.); here Gaius “commands,” teen judicial districts, and thus the whole of the
but one cannot place too much faith in the word- province Asia.4 He also indicated that the temple’s
ing of a passage that is only known in epitome. being ‘in Miletos’ did not necessarily rule out the
The large but still incomplete temple that Gaius Didymaion, as it was also within the territory and
is said to have coveted must have been the monu- under the administration of that city.5 Less securely
mental temple of Apollo at Didyma. Ironically, it had dated, but perhaps from the same time, is an inscrip-
previously taken Miletos out of the running for a
provincial temple eventually given to Smyrna. Taci- 2 Pülz 1989, 8-9 n. 25 had doubts about the probability of
tus (Annals 4.55) listed the reasons for the Senate’s this list.
3 Rehm 1958, no. 148.
4 L. Robert 1949.
1 Oliver 1989, 69-77 no. 18: Gaius requested a decrease 5 Note also that the Didymaion had won the titles ‘sacred’

in the number of statues set up in his honor, allowing only the and ‘asylos’ for the city of Miletos itself in the third century
ones at the major Panhellenic sanctuaries. B.C.E.: Rigsby 1996, 172-178.
56 part i – section i. koinon of asia

tion that mentions the craftsmen of Asia working on organization or funding of the project, as Suetonius
the temple at Didyma.6 But why would provincial implied, it is not evident from the other documents,
craftsmen be working on Miletos’ Didymaion if it but his building projects elsewhere were numerous
were not a provincial temple? And why would pro- and this is not inconsistent with them.13
vincial officials in charge of building a temple to If the Didymaion served as the third provincial
Gaius dedicate a statue to him in the sacred area imperial temple in Asia, it is the first whose ruins
of a different temple? On the current balance of we can identify (illus. pl. 1 fig. 3, pl. 4 fig. 16). And
evidence, it seems that Dio was right, and that the if the temples of Augustus at Pergamon and of
koinon temple to Gaius was going to be the Didy- Tiberius at Smyrna were anything like it, they must
maion. have been on a truly magnificent scale, which was
Some historians have downplayed Dio’s account what had attracted Gaius to Didyma in the first
as error, prejudice, or scandal-mongering.7 But place. The Didymaion was a colossal Ionic dipteros,
neither Suetonius nor the inscriptions contradict facing east, with ten columns on the short side and
him. Though his attempts to deify himself in Rome twenty-one on the long; its stylobate, at 51.13 x
could be interpreted as sheer madness, Gaius’ move 109.34 m., was almost as large as that of the Arte-
into the Didymaion, at least as a cult partner to mision at Ephesos.14 Strabo (14.1.5) thought it the
Apollo, would probably not have been considered largest of all temples, and that its lack of a roof was
so outrageous by the Asians, who had the precedent due to its great size. It had been under construction
of provincial temples to Augustus and Tiberius.8 since at least the beginning of the third century
Certainly Dio was familiar with such new cults in B.C.E. Its layout was unusual, and was perhaps
old temples for an emperor he knew well (and also dictated by the requirements of the oracle of Apollo
disliked): Caracalla’s cult was moved into the temple which issued from it.15 What seemed to be a stan-
of Rome at Smyrna and into that of Asklepios at dard, though grandiose, approach through a twelve-
Pergamon, and Dio served as administrator of both column pronaos (three rows of four columns each)
those cities shortly afterward.9 was stymied by a huge door with a threshold too
The neopoioi inscription documents how the build- high (1.5 m.) to enter; one could just look into a
ing of one temple, now made provincial and impe- double-(Corinthian)-columned room accessible only
rial, was organized by the koinon. Each city that was from the other side. Instead, access to the interior
the seat of a judicial district of the province sent a was indirect, down one of two stone-lined tunnels.
representative neopoios, presumably to oversee the One followed them out into an enormous hypaethral
collection and disbursement of funds as well as court that dwarfed the small building sunk into its
temple construction.10 We know less of the crafts- middle; this may have been a naiskos for Apollo’s
men of Asia, but they too may have been organized statue, though the presence of a well indicates that
and sent as representatives of their cities or judicial it may have served the oracle. The decorative
districts.11 Thus all parts of the provincial koinon scheme was predictably Apolline, with a frieze along
were represented at, and responsible for, the build- the inner wall of griffins, winged lions, and lyres,
ing of this (and by extension other) provincial im- more griffins and bulls’ heads on the column capi-
perial temples.12 If the emperor took any part in the tals, as well as busts of Zeus and of Apollo, and
gorgoneia on the exterior frieze.
6 Rehm 1958, no. 107. The connection is given new em- Archaeological evidence is not decisive on the
phasis by Herrmann 1989a. temple’s state of construction during the reign of
7 Parke 1985, 71-72; Fontenrose 1988, 21-22, 169.
8 Herrmann 1989a, 195 suggested the synnaos relationship.
Gaius. Coins of Miletos show a hexastyle temple at
Barrett 1989, 143-144 judged it “by no means implausible” that
this and at other periods, but are not specific enough
Gaius meant to take the Didymaion for himself alone, com- to identify the Didymaion or any particular struc-
paring this action to his proposal to take over the Temple at
Jerusalem. Ibid. 140-153 on Gaius’ divine honors and contem-
porary attitudes toward them. 13 Barrett 1989, 192-212; Herrmann 1992, 70 believed that
9 Cassius Dio 79.20.4, 80.7.4. the emperor played a financial role.
10 Habicht 1975, 90-91. 14 Knackfuss 1942; Voigtländer 1975; Gruben 1976, 359-
11 Herrmann 1992, 69-70 believed that the craftsmen were 375; Tuchelt 1992, with current bibliography.
paid by the province as well. 15 Parke 1985, 210-219; Fontenrose 1988, 78-85. Tuchelt
12 The doubts of Magie 1950, 1366-1367 as to the provin- 1992, 12-13 was more pessimistic about reconstructing the
cial status of this temple seem unfounded. rituals from the remains.
chapter 3 – miletos in ionia 57

ture.16 Work on the huge project may have been one temple per emperor that the koinon of Asia had
taken up again at around this time, but the details established thus far: Augustus’ provincial temple was
of construction and ornament cannot be dated spe- in Pergamon, Tiberius’ in Smyrna. We have no
cifically.17 We do not know whether any changes evidence on whether or where Asia built a temple
were intended in order to accommodate Gaius’ cult, to Claudius. There is, however, one later inscription
and in any case the shortness of his reign hints that of Miletos as neokoros:
not much was accomplished; he was assassinated in
INSCRIPTION 1. Rehm 1958, 164. Decree hon-
January 41.18
oring an athlete. [MeilÆtou t}w] |e[rvtãthw
The chief priest on the neopoioi inscription, Gnaeus
mhtrop]Òlevw t[}w ÉIvn¤aw k(a‹)] nevkÒro[u t«]n
Vergilius Capito, had already served as chief priest
Sebast«n k(a‹) toË [t]}w ÉAttik}w eÈgene¤a[w
of Asia twice before serving this, his third term, as
é]ji\matow. . .
chief priest of the temple of Gaius Caesar in Miletos.
He was obviously a powerful figure in his city and Rehm dated the decree to the early third century.
province, and came from a Milesian family to whom It is not impossible that enumeration is missing
the imperial cult was important.19 The neokoros of before ‘neokoros,’ but the space is tight and a single
the temple, Tiberius Julius Menogenes, was eminent neokoria is consistent with the evidence of later coins
as well, having already been chief priest twice.20 The (below). As for the terminology, ‘neokoros of the
chief neopoios also held the offices of sebastoneos, oth- Augusti’ assures us that Miletos did not achieve its
erwise unknown, and sebastologos, for delivering prose title for the cult of its patron god Apollo at the Didy-
eulogies of the emperor. Thus some of the person- maion. Moretti assumed that ‘neokoros of the
nel of the third provincial imperial temple in Asia Augusti’ and ‘of the rank of Attic nobility’ should
have been laid out for us. be combined into one phrase, but Robert corrected
The death of Gaius and the obliteration of all him; they are independent titles.22 Price attributed
reminders of him must have put an end to the es- this first neokoria to a temple of Augustus, but that
tablishment of his cult and the building of his temple was a municipal, not a provincial, temple.23 In fact,
(qua koinon temple, though of course the Didymaion the field is wide open, being limited only to emper-
would go on).21 As Gaius’ death and dishonor came ors from Claudius to Septimius Severus whose names
before ‘neokoros’ became a title for cities with koinon were not subsequently wiped from the records.
temples, Miletos never became neokoros for his
Second Neokoria: Elagabalus

First Neokoria Miletos declared itself twice neokoros of the Augusti

on coins with portraits of Elagabalus, his mother
It is possible that Miletos tried to retain the honor Julia Soaemias, his grandmother Julia Maesa, and
it had received from Gaius by diverting the worship his successor, Severus Alexander, adopted and made
intended for him to some other emperor, whether Caesar in 221.
current (Claudius) or previous (Augustus or Tibe-
rius). No evidence for this has been found, however,
NEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
and an attempt to dedicate the temple to a previ-
Elagabalus r. Rev: EPI ARX MINNIVNO%;
ous emperor would have contradicted the policy of
column temples on high podia, a disc in each
16 E.g., BMC 143 and SNGCop 1007, with obverses of Gaius.
pediment, turned toward each other; within each
Voigtländer 1975, 123-130; Pülz 1989, 8-9.
18 Barrett 1989, 169-171; Kienast 1996, 85-87.
19 Herrmann with S. Greger 1994.
20 Rehm 1924 (= IvM 6.1.A), no. 258 documents a neokoros 22 Moretti 1959, 202-203; J. and L. Robert 1961, 266-267

official of perhaps the second century, but the cult served is no. 582.
restored ‘of the Augusti.’ 23 S. Price 1984b, 257. See Herrmann with Greger 1994,
21 Cassius Dio 60.4.1, 5-6. On the nature of his condem- 225-226, on the municipal priest of Augustus, and 230 on the
nation, see Barrett 1989, 177-180 and Varner 1993, 14-77. temple of Augustus, previously incorrectly located north of the
Riccardi 1996, 209 n. 270, and passim on neokoria, was de- council house. On the latter, Herrmann with McCabe 1986,
pendent on outdated information. 180.
58 part i – section i. koinon of asia

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

Chapter 4. Ephesos in Ionia: Koinon of Asia

One of the largest, wealthiest, and most prominent rivals as the foremost city in the province, it was the
cities in the province of Asia was Ephesos. Its im- primary seat of the governor, and also a significant
portance was recognized by a third-century impe- port.4 Pergamon, however, was the center of the
rial decree according to which each new proconsul province’s pre-Roman administration, and thus also
was required to make Ephesos his first landfall in for the koinon of the Hellenes, which was permit-
the province.1 Yet Ephesos was not the first city to ted to worship Augustus himself. Despite Dio’s state-
receive an imperial temple for the Hellenes in its ment that Ephesos was the foremost city of the
province; that honor went to Pergamon (q.v.). On province at that time, the chief temple and center
the other hand, it was one of the first cities to call of provincial cult in Asia was to be in Pergamon,
itself neokoros. not in Ephesos.
In 29 B.C.E., at the same time that he allowed a The location of Ephesos’ sanctuary for Rome and
provincial temple for his own cult at Pergamon, the hero Julius, as well as that of a Sebasteion built
Augustus permitted that there be a sacred precinct by the city and documented on local inscriptions,
for Rome and the hero Julius Caesar in Ephesos, are problems that are not entirely settled. A consen-
which Cassius Dio called the chief city of Asia.2 The sus of opinion has located both imperial shrines in
best evidence that Ephesos’ shrine to Rome and the the ‘state agora’ of the city, a monumental square
deified Julius was not a provincial imperial temple including the prytaneion and bouleuterion, devel-
would come when cities began to acquire the title oped in the first century B.C.E. Whether the shrine
‘neokoros’ for such temples. Under Domitian, when of Rome and the hero Julius can be identified as the
Ephesos called itself neokoros, it had a single iden- structure previously known as the ‘state altar’ (re-
tifiable provincial imperial temple, that ‘of the stored as two diminutive four-column prostyle
Augusti,’ not of Rome and Caesar; and its chief temples on the same podium), or as the six-by-ten
priest did not begin to be called ‘chief priest of the column temple in the center of the state agora (first
[plural] temples in Ephesos’ until the temple of identified as a temple of Isis, then of Dionysos/Mark
Hadrian, for which Ephesos became twice neokoros, Antony, and then as the Sebasteion), is uncertain.5
was built. There appears to have been a Sebasteion connected
Dio stated that Augustus designated Ephesos’ with the great temple of Artemis outside the city as
sanctuary to Rome and the hero Julius for the use well.6
of resident Romans. That there was already an orga- Ephesos was among the eleven cities of Asia that
nized body of them is proved by an inscription of competed to build a koinon temple to Tiberius, but
36 B.C.E. set up by the conventus of Roman citizens was passed over as being too wholly occupied by the
doing business in Ephesos.3 Though Ephesos had cult of Artemis.7 This reason was used again to rule
1 Ulpian, Digest, by Caracalla: Alan Watson 1985,
out a temple to Gaius.8 Yet in a province eager to
32; Millar 1987, xi.
establish a temple to each of its rulers, such a promi-
2 Cassius Dio 51.20.6-7; see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon.’ Wein-

stock 1971, 401-404, constructed an earlier history for this cult 4 Haensch 1997, 286, 298-321.
at Ephesos: already in 41 B.C.E. Antony had carried a letter 5 Thus far no decisive evidence for either identification has
from the Senate to sacred delegates in Asia regarding it. The been adduced. Alzinger 1970, 1648-1649; Jobst 1980; Scherrer
letter, however, does not mention Ephesos as the cult place at 1995a, 4-5; Walters 1995, 293-295; Scherrer 1997, 93-100;
all, nor can Weinstock’s identification of its priesthood and the Scherrer 2001, 69-71. Both monuments have the same build-
flaminate of Caesar with the chief priesthood of the province ing technique: Waelkens 1987, 96.
Asia be correct. See Whittaker 1996, 93-99. 6 Engelmann 1993.
3 IvE 658, supplemented by Knibbe, Engelmann, and 7 Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56; chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’

Iplikçioglu 1989, 235-236; see also Scherrer 2001, 85. 8 Cassius Dio 59.28.1; chapter 3, ‘Miletos.’
60 part i – section i. koinon of asia

nent city, seat of the Roman governors, center of a First Neokoria: Nero
world-famous cult and of a judicial district, should
not have had to wait for long; the only question is, The first appearance ever on a coin of the title ‘neo-
how long? koros’ occurred at Ephesos.
An inscription of Kyzikos (q.v.) had used the term
‘neokoros’ in connection with the city’s imperial cult
head of Nero r. (l., e) Rev: AOUIOLA ANYUPATV
as early as the reign of Gaius, but another early
(AIXMOKLH%, acefgh) EF(E, af) NEVKORVN
literary citation associated it with Ephesos’ temple
(NEOKORVN, a) Four-column Ionic? temple in
of Artemis. Saint Paul visited Ephesos around the
three-quarter view on three-step podium. a) Lon-
years 52-54; at that time a local silversmith who
don 1972.8-7-12 (illus. pl. 21 fig. 66) b) Oxford
made his business out of selling silver images of the
10.12 c) Paris 626 d) Vienna 31480 e) Berlin,
temple of Artemis roused the citizens against him,
Löbbecke f) Berlin, Bernhard-Imhoof 1928 g)
so that a riot erupted. According to the account in
Berlin h) SNGvA 7863.12
the Acts of the Apostles, when the people flocked to the
theater shouting “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” COIN TYPE 2. Obv: NERVN KAI%AR Laureate
they were quieted by the city’s secretary, the gram- head of Nero r. Rev: EFE%IVN NEOKORVN
mateus, who is quoted saying “Who does not know Six-column Ionic? temple on three-step podium,
that Ephesos is neokoros of the great goddess disc in pediment, Victories as akroteria; to either
Artemis and of the heaven-fallen [image]?”9 Most side, a bee. a) London 1973.5-1-4 (illus. pl. 21 fig.
studies of Acts have indicated that, though the ac- 67).13
count is not that of an eyewitness, it is a fairly reli-
Type 1 is dated by the name of the proconsul M’.
able representation of the events of Paul’s mission
Acilius Aviola; as his name appears on coins with
and his visit to Ephesos; the text itself may have been
portraits of both the Empress Poppaea and her
prepared twenty-five years or more after the event.10
successor Messalina his proconsulship of Asia must
The term ‘neokoros’ was not cited here as part of
have been in 65/66.14 Type 1 is also one of the
the city’s official titulature; the grammateus used it
earliest coin types to show a temple in three-quar-
as a metaphor, to illustrate the city’s relationship to
ter view, and probably represents the same temple
Artemis’ temple and image. As a detail, however,
shown in facade on type 2, which was likely issued
it places the episode precisely in the late Claudian/
at around the same time. But whose temple was it?
early Neronian period.11 For very soon after, the title
Though the better examples make it appear Ionic
‘neokoros’ was to be become part of official civic
like the Artemision, Price and Trell thought it was
titulature in Asia, identified exclusively with the
Corinthian; also, Victory-akroteria do not appear on
provincial imperial cult, not the possession of the
coin images of the temple of Artemis.15 The bees on
temple of Artemis.
type 2 do not help, as they are the symbols of the
9 Acts of the Apostles 19.35; on the office, Schulte 1994. city itself on much of Ephesian coinage. One shows
Images seen as primitive were often classed as ‘heaven-fallen’: up on another coin of this Neronian series, and ac-
Willemsen 1939, 18-35, esp. 28-32 on Artemis; see chapter 9, companies a bust of the goddess Rome; this draped
‘Philadelphia.’ LiDonnici 1992, 395-396, incautiously deni-
grated both the Acts citation and the evidence for Artemis’ and mural-crowned city goddess is also shown hold-
headdress (below). ing a statuette of the Artemis of Ephesos.16 All these
10 Haenchen 1965, 60, 77, 672; Molthagen 1991, 65-71,
types show a close connection between Ephesos and
dates the text ca. 90 C.E.; also see Gill and Gempf 1994, ix-
xiii; and Trebilco 1994. the personification of Rome, who after all had shared
11 White 1995, 37 doubted a Neronian date for the events cult with the hero Julius in the temenos for resident
in Acts despite the appearance of ‘neokoros’ on later Neronian Romans established in the city in 29 B.C.E. But why
coins, and supported a date closer to the turn of the second
century; yet the grammateus’ use of the term ‘neokoros of
Artemis’ as if it were well known would not have been per- 12 RPC 1:438 no. 2627 (example e) and 2626 (all but e).
mitted in the early second century, as by that time Ephesos 13 RPC 1:438 no. 2628.
was officially neokoros of the Augusti, and only of the Augusti. 14 Stumpf 1991, 178-181; Thomasson 1984, 214-215 no.
Indeed, the title would not have been appropriate again until 59.
Ephesos did become neokoros of Artemis, at the beginning of 15 Pace Karwiese 1999, fig. 9, who did not distinguish be-

the third, not the second, century; see below. The same ap- tween these akroteria and (unwinged?) figures in the pediment;
plies to Koester’s own doubts about the episode’s timing and M. Price and Trell 1977, 262 no. 380; Trell 1945.
historicity: Koester 1982, 310; idem 1995, 130-131. 16 RPC 1:438 nos. 2629, 2632.
chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 61

would so old a cult suddenly be celebrated on coins tivals.22 It is remotely possible that a petition for a
of 65/66 C.E.? And is it only a coincidence that the koinon temple in a city that had once established a
Ephesian kouretes, an association dedicated to the cult koinon temple for Nero would not be among the
and rituals of Artemis Ephesia, add the title cases heard by Vespasian with favor, or that there
philosebastoi, ‘Augustus-loving,’ to their lists of was some other reason for delay. But on the whole,
members just at this period?17 Asia was apparently prosperous during the reigns of
It has long been thought that Ephesos was declar- Vespasian and Titus, and could have begun (or
ing itself to be neokoros of Artemis on the Aviola continued?) building a provincial imperial temple if
coins, just as the grammateus declared the city permission for one were granted.
neokoros of Artemis in Acts.18 But it is just possible Only later, however, under the emperor Domi-
that instead Ephesos was calling itself neokoros for tian, did a group of cities of the koinon of Asia make
a provincial temple that it had been seeking since dedications for “the common [koinos, implying pro-
the reign of Tiberius, and which it may have finally vincial status] temple of Asia of the Augusti [Sebastoi]
won in the reign of Nero.19 If that was so, it was a in Ephesos.”23 Though the dedications were to the
particularly unfortunate time for the establishment current emperor, the temple was not called a temple
of such a temple. Some two years later, in June 68, of Domitian, but of the Augusti.24 This could mean
Nero was declared a public enemy by the Senate and that the cult in this provincial temple included the
killed himself, after which his name, not to mention current rulers (Domitian with his consort Domitia),
his cult, was condemned.20 all three emperors of the Flavian dynasty, or all their
honored imperial predecessors, each without ruling
out the presence of the others. The latter group was
Rededication: Vespasian or Later not necessarily limited to those recognized as divi at
Rome: for example, Tiberius, though never deified,
If Ephesos had been granted permission to build a continued as an object of the Asian provincial cult
temple to Nero, petitions to change the object of cult in Smyrna’s temple at least into the third century,
to a subsequent emperor may have been similarly and his mother Livia, as Julia Sebaste, shared that
unfortunate. Within the infamous year 69, Galba, temple well before Claudius deified her.25 Later
Otho, and Vitellius each attempted to serve as head inscriptions, datable to the early third century,
of state, and each was displaced in turn. Vespasian record a temple of the god Vespasian, probably
finally succeeded in holding power and passing it on referring to the main object of worship at the pro-
to his sons, but it is uncertain how long it would have vincial temple of the Augusti at Ephesos.26
taken for the pleas of an Asian city and its koinon On the inscriptions that celebrated the founda-
regarding a lost provincial temple for a dishonored tion, and probably stood around this temple, ten
emperor to be presented or to be heeded.
Though Vespasian’s advent was apparently greet-
22 Dräger 1993, 39-54, 66-70, 77-89, though several of his
ed with enthusiasm in Asia, local disputes may have
assumptions are highly questionable; see below.
been serious enough to necessitate lengthening the 23 J. Keil 1919; IvE 232-242, 1498, 2048.

term of the proconsul Eprius Marcellus.21 There was 24 E. Meyer 1975; pace S. Price 1984b, 58, 254-257. Al-

some Flavian reorganization of the province, and though one inscription cities a “chief priest and neokoros of
Domitian Caesar and Domitia Sebaste and their house and the
expenditure, some imperial and some local, was Senate,” it is likely that this was a local office, held in his home
made on the road system, earthquake repair, pub- town of Tmolos. Note also SIG4 820, an inscription copied by
lic works in the cities, and the celebration of fes- Cyriacus of Ancona, which joined the cult of the theoi Sebastoi
with the ancient cult of Demeter at Ephesos in the
proconsulship of L. Mestrius Florus (ca. 88/89, around the time
of the dedication of the temple of the Augusti).
25 Pace Scherrer 1997, 100-106, all too dependent on Dräger
17 Rogers 1999. 1993; see ‘Smyrna,’ chapter 2.
18 J. Keil 1919. 26 IvE 710 B and C, 3038; Friesen 1993, 37 n. 27 was un-
19 RPC 1:433. necessarily perturbed over the fact that the provincial status
20 Kienast 1996, 96-98; Varner 1993, 78-187; and Rose of the temple was not explicitly mentioned in these inscriptions,
1997b, 112-113. Individual cities could be haphazard in their and postulated a municipal temple of Vespasian. But see be-
approach to the condemnation, especially in early cases such low, where Ephesos’ own second provincial temple, which made
as Nero’s. it twice neokoros, is called simply ‘the temple of the god
21 Thomasson 1984, 215 no. 65. Hadrian’ (contra Friesen 1993, 34).
62 part i – section i. koinon of asia

cities adhered to a ‘short formula’ of dedication, The first inscription to call the city neokoros is
which may have been modeled on a motion in the of uncertain date: though it may come from the
koinon council.27 The two free cities, Aphrodisias Neronian period of the Aviola coins, it may on the
and Stratonikeia, expanded on that formula, empha- other hand show that Ephesos was neokoros of the
sizing that they were not bound by the koinon’s Augusti by late 85 to 86 C.E.
actions, but joined in the dedication as a voluntary
INSCRIPTION 1. IvE 2034 (FiE 2:34; SEG
act.28 Only the free cities and Philadelphia in Lydia,
4:563). Building inscription of the skene of the
which used a formula of its own in setting up a statue
theater. { neo[kÒ]row [t«n Sebast«n ÉEfes]¤vn
of the demos of Ephesos, called the city of Ephesos
pÒ[liw]. . .
neokoros (inscriptions 2, 3, and 4, below). The free
cities emphasized their own status in their inscrip- The dedication is to an emperor who was
tions, while Philadelphia, a less important city, Germanicus at the time of his eleventh imperial
played up its relationship with neokoros Ephesos. acclamation, and whose name was later obliterated.
Friesen believed that these inscriptions tended to This could have been either Nero or Domitian. If
“minimize the significance of the cult for Ephesus, Nero, the date would fall between late summer 66
while emphasizing the role of the other cities of the and 67, just after the issue of Ephesian coins with
province.” But it is not that the inscriptions mini- the title ‘neokoros’ under Aviola, and providing
mize the significance of the cult; they only play up further indication that the title ‘neokoros’ was offi-
their own cities’ importance. Naturally so, as these cial (and likely for the Augusti) at that time. If
were not inscriptions of Ephesos, even if they stood Domitian, the inscription dates between October/
within that city; their function was to document the November 85 and March/April 86 C.E., two years
donors’ piety in contributing toward, or celebrating before the dedications began to be set up for the
the dedication of, the common temple of the prov- temple of the Augusti at Ephesos.29 Either is pos-
ince. A parallel example is Ephesos’ own dedication sible, as both occur around a time when the neokoria
to Hadrian at the Olympieion at Athens (inscription was otherwise documented.
37, below): its magniloquence celebrated Ephesos’ Keil believed that since there was only one pro-
titles, not Athens’. At the temple of the Augusti at vincial temple in Ephesos, the reading of inscription
Ephesos, neokoros was not a denigrating term, as 1 should be restored as ‘neokoros of the Augustus,’
Friesen implied. It only stated the terms under which but this would be unparalleled. Certainly the temple
the current dedications were being made: Ephesos itself is called that of the Augusti, not of the
held the new provincial temple which was being Augustus, as noted above. In any case, additional
celebrated. evidence is needed before the date of inscription 1
When was the temple of the Augusti decreed? can be decided.
First of all, the coins issued by Ephesos under Aviola Dräger, taking the date of inscription 1 as Domi-
(65/66) make it possible that the title ‘neokoros’ had tianic and using as his model Tacitus’ description
already come to Ephesos for a provincial imperial of how Smyrna (q.v.) received its provincial temple
temple in the reign of Nero, and that the ‘temple under Tiberius, spun a scenario that had the koinon
of the Augusti’ had been at some stage the temple voting a provincial temple to Domitian (and Zeus
of Nero (its image shown, but presumably as a pro- Olympios) in 83, to celebrate Domitian’s German
jection, not yet built) for which the city had called victory, complete with a debate on where to build
itself neokoros on coins two decades before the time it held in summer 84.30 The result is more in the
of Domitian, when the temple was completed. The nature of historical fiction than history, based as it
delay would have been long, as noted above; but the
period comprehended the disruption of an empire, 29 Kienast 1996, 96-98, 115-118. Heberdey’s FiE publica-

the fall of one dynasty, and the foundation of an- tion opted for Nero, but the Domitianic date suited J. Keil 1919,
other. 116 n. 5, and was also adopted in IvE. The similar skene at
Miletos proved to be Neronian, however: Herrmann 1986, 183,
on the Ephesian question; and Herrmann 1998, no. 928.
30 Dräger 1993, 122-135, 181-182. The usefulness of Drä-
27 Friesen 1993, 29-49. They include Aizanoi (twice), Kere- ger’s work was also vitiated by his tendency to refer to any pro-
tapa, Klazomenai, Silandos, Teos, Kyme, Tmolos, Hyrkanis, vincial imperial cult as “Neokoriekult” even in cases where the
Synaos, and an unknown city. title ‘neokoros’ never appeared (e.g. Lycia in the first century,
28 Reynolds 1982, 109, 167-168; Reynolds 1999, 135. 246-249; see chapter 33, ‘Patara’).
chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 63

is on coincidences, and filled in with imagination. architectural facade of its terrace were not added
As for IvE 230, which was postulated to concern the until the mid-second century (see below).
grant of the neokoria by Domitian, the inscription It has already been noted that the official desig-
is much too fragmentary to be certain about its nation of the temple even at its final dedication
subject; neither the temple nor the title is mentioned. under Domitian was ‘the temple of the Augusti.’
When, and for whom, was the temple of the Previous provincial temples had not used this para-
Augusti at Ephesos finally built? J. Keil, who first phrase: even in the lifetimes of the emperors in
gathered and analyzed the evidence, noted that after question, the temple at Pergamon was called that
Domitian’s death, his name was obliterated from the of Rome and Augustus, that at Smyrna of Tiberius,
dedications of the cities and that of ‘the god Julia, and the Senate, that at Miletos of Gaius Cae-
Vespasian’ written in. He believed that not only the sar. Why was the Ephesian temple not called ‘the
inscriptions but the temple itself underwent the temple of Domitian’? Possibly because there had
process of rededication, and that it had originally been a delay in its construction, and its original ob-
been built for the worship of Domitian. Magie, on ject of cult was not the current emperor. If Ephe-
the other hand, attributed the original temple to an sos was originally granted a provincial temple for
emperor earlier than Domitian, but this hypothesis Nero, lost it due to the condemnation of his memory,
was based on an early date, 83/84 C.E., for the first had it regranted under Vespasian (who was remem-
proconsul of Asia, L. Mestrius Florus, under whom bered into the third century as the chief object of
the cities set up their dedications.31 In fact, Eck has cult of this temple), but didn’t complete it until af-
dated Florus’ proconsulship five years later, to 88/ ter that emperor’s death and the death of his im-
89.32 The city dedications, set up under three dif- mediate successor, then ‘temple of the Augusti’ might
ferent proconsuls perhaps from 88 to 91, certainly have been the best compromise as the title for a
indicate that the temple was completed and dedi- building with such a varied history. Vespasian’s place
cated in the reign of Domitian. Friesen dated the as the temple’s chief object of cult in the third cen-
completion of the temple to exactly 90 C.E., based tury has already been noted; Domitian, emperor
on the absence of the temple’s neokoros official on when the temple was completed, would surely have
all but two dedications dated to the proconsulate of been included; and Titus’ portrait head is what later
L. Luscius Ocr(e)a.33 As two of the rest of the inscrip- identified the temple (below). The empress Domitia
tions are incomplete and four feature a prominent may have had her place as well, but no sign of the
erasure, one cannot place too much dependence on cult of any emperor previous to Vespasian has been
this assumption from silence. found.35
It is still possible that the temple had been granted The koinon temple of the Augusti at Ephesos has
earlier, under Vespasian, or even under Nero. been identified as an east-facing octastyle structure
Though the long delay in building would still have set axially on a monumental 50 x 100 m. vaulted
to be explained, there is a parallel for it: the festi- terrace (illus. pl. 4 fig. 17).36 Though not extraor-
val in the name of Ti. Claudius Balbillus, established dinary in size, its position and its artificial height
by permission of Vespasian, was also not celebrated made it a major building project; it took over resi-
until Domitian’s time.34 The year 88/89 (or 85/86, dential areas and made them civic space, part of and
if inscription 1 proves to be for Domitian) is only dominating the state agora to its east.37 Inscription
the point by which the neokoria and the temple of
the Augusti must have been granted. Dedicated 35 Scherrer 1997, 103-106 reasoned across provincial lines

between 88 and 91, its point of absolute completion to produce an official cult of the divi Augusti (including Augustus
and Claudius as well as Vespasian, Titus, and some empresses)
may have been yet later: its decorated altar and the under Domitian, but his chief source, the imperial statues in
the Metroön at Olympia, only represent one particular case
of dedications made over time, probably by Elis; see the re-
evaluation by Rose 1997a, 147-149, who noted that no dedi-
31 Magie 1950, 1432-1434 n. 18. cations to Claudius of Flavian date survive in the eastern
32 Eck 1970, 85, 139; Eck 1982, 315. Thomasson 1984, 217- Mediterranean region.
218 no. 75, assigned it only to a year of Domitian’s reign before 36 Still often called the ‘Temple of Domitian’: J. Keil 1931/

90. 32, 54; Boëthius and Ward-Perkins 1970, 392; Lyttelton 1987,
33 Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 77 (85-91 C.E.); Friesen 1993, 44; Scherrer 1995b, 94. On the building technique, Waelkens
45-49. 1987, 96.
34 Brunet 1997 dates it to 85 or 86 C.E. 37 Vetters 1972-1975; Scherrer 2001, 74.
64 part i – section i. koinon of asia

9, of the mid-90s C.E., mentions the “new magni- head and the left forearm found with it were the
tude of the Augustan works,” perhaps referring to best-preserved parts of the colossal statues that stood
the temple and its terrace, and suggests that reno- in the provincial temple at Ephesos. Pieces of a pair
vation of the older monuments (perhaps those of the of legs and an open-handed right arm were also
state agora below) would be fitting.38 Access to the found built into late walls.43 The find of a third
temple was by climbing monumental stairways to its colossal hand proves that the statue of Titus did not
terrace at the north and southeast. Only the foun- stand alone, and makes it at least possible that not
dations remain to show the temple’s plan (illus. pl. all the parts so far found came from the same statue.
1 fig. 2): an eight-by-thirteen column peristasis, The position of the knees shows that one statue
pseudodipteral, with a four-column (prostyle) cella did stand, and one raised its left arm to hold a spear
and no opisthodomos, set six steps up on a stylobate or long sceptre (illus. pl. 8 fig. 27).44 The standing
of ca. 24 x 34 m. It follows the typical plan of Ionic statue must have been stupendous if only for its size
temples as canonized by the Greek architect Hermo- (the Titus head alone is 1.18 m. high). Judging by
genes in all respects, except for the omission of the the treatment of the base of Titus’ neck, the statue
opisthodomos and the corresponding loss of two was acrolithic, with the flesh represented by white
columns on the long side. Scanty fragments of the marble; the marble legs accommodated a wooden
superstructure left on the site do not permit recon- armature that held the statue together. No part of
struction, nor can the order be established, except a torso has been found, and it is likely that it was
as non-Doric. It is likely, however, that parts of the made of perishable wood, which could then be
temple were reused in the time of Theodosius I to painted, gilt, or bronze-covered (for the acrolithic
rebuild the ‘tetragonos agora’ to the northwest. technique, see summary chapter 39 on temples and
These may include Corinthian capitals decorated statues in Part II). At least one statue’s costume was
with eagles and dolphins.39 An altar with reliefs of probably a cuirass, indicating an emperor in trium-
weapons and sacrifices stood on a columned and phant military mode. About four times life size, the
stepped platform east of the temple and on its axis. Titus statue may have stood 7 m. tall, and together
Both it and the figural decoration of caryatid bar- with a companion statue of Vespasian and, until his
barians (at first misidentified as the gods Attis and death, one of Domitian, would have filled the ca.
Isis) along the north side of the temple terrace may 7.5 x 13 m. interior of the cella.45 Since one (cui-
date significantly later than the building itself, per- rassed?) statue raised a sceptre in his left hand, it is
haps to the mid-second century.40 These facts ob- possible that another mirrored his gesture on the
viate Friesen’s theory of the terrace representing the right; these two were likely Titus and (at first)
gods supporting the emperors, and substitute a more Domitian, with Vespasian placed between them,
earthly and martial metaphor of imperial triumph.41 though the father’s guise is unknown. Strocka recon-
The keystone for the identification of this temple structed the post-Domitianic group as a cuirassed
was the discovery of marble pieces of colossal stat- Titus, lacking the shield that Meriç restored on the
ues, including one head, in the vaulted substructures incorrect side, with Vespasian in the pose of a stand-
of its terrace (illus. pl. 8 fig. 26). The head was at ing Zeus, and speculated that the sculptors came
first supposed to be Domitian’s, but Daltrop, in his from Aphrodisias.46 Scherrer proposed an overly
reexamination of Flavian iconography, identified it speculative reconstruction of five statues (Augustus,
as a portrait of Domitian’s elder brother Titus, who Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian) on 2 x
reigned briefly after their father Vespasian.42 This
14. Varner 1993, 226-227, led by Price, argued unconvincingly
38 Winter 1996, 80, 325 no. 40. Other projects may have for Domitian, and apparently believed that cult statues would
been included among the ‘Augustan works.’ be allowed to stand in an imperial cult temple in a Christian
39 Scherrer 1995b, 19-20, 22. empire until the triumph of Islam.
40 Bammer 1978-1980, 81-88; Schneider 1986, 125-128; 43 Meriç 1985, where the third hand is plate 23.13, not

Bammer 1988, 153-156. 23.16 as labeled.

41 Friesen 1993, 68-75. 44 Kreikenbom 1992, 103, 213-215, still led on a Domitianic
42 Daltrop, Hausman, and Wegner 1966, 26, 86, 100, pl. tangent by the legacy of J. Keil 1919. The restoration of Rose
15b; Rose 1997b. H. von Heintze, in Gymnasium 76 (1969) 372 1997b, fig. 5 is illustrated here (R. Hagerty, artist), based on
criticized the identification but not convincingly. Surprisingly, Meriç 1985, pl. 24.
it is still sometimes called Domitian, even by Meriç 1985; he 45 Miltner 1958a, 38-40.

apparently led S. Price astray, above n. 24; also Rogers 1991, 46 Strocka 1989, 85-87, 92 n. 58.
chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 65

3.5 m. bases, one against the cella’s back wall and that the provincials could worship the living em-
two each on either side facing each other.47 Bammer peror. So though it is likely that the head was carved
visualized the standing Titus outdoors, either on the close to the time of the temple’s dedication, in the
axis between altar and staircase or elsewhere on the reign of Domitian, the divine traits are not an in-
temple terrace. This would have been an odd place dependent confirmation of that date.
for an acrolithic statue, whose wooden structure Early scholars, and later ones who have depended
required protection from the weather, but one head on them without checking the coins themselves, have
of a colossal statue found at Sardis (q.v.) did show been deceived by two falsified Ephesian coins that
signs of exposure to the elements. Meriç noted that called the city twice neokoros under Domitian.51
holes in the portrait’s back indicate that the head
and perhaps the arms were doweled into the back
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 der Trajan also mention it, generally in abbrevia-
husband’s reign (she became Augusta in 81); pos- tion (NEV). It is unfortunate that all the inscriptions
sibly Julia, daughter of Titus, was as well (Augusta that call Ephesos neokoros of the Augusti are frag-
since 79, she was deified at her death in 89).55 It mentary (nos. 1, 2, 11, 32). The unadorned title
should be noted, though, that no real trace of such appears well into the reign of Hadrian, who would
honors to any Augusta has been found here, and that give the city a second provincial imperial temple,
later statues of female agonothetai at Ephesos itself thus making it (for the first time) twice neokoros.
and elsewhere show both male and female Augusti
on their crowns.56
The temple’s officials included a neokoros at least Second Neokoria: Hadrian
from 90 C.E.57 There were also fourteen thesmodoi
of the provincial temple of the Augusti in Ephesos, When Hadrian granted a second neokoria to
and perhaps nine or more theologoi under the di- Ephesos, he had already allowed the Smyrnaeans to
rection of the chief priest of that temple.58 add a temple for his own cult to their previous pro-
The first chief priest of the provincial temple at vincial temple; earlier still, Trajan had done the same
Ephesos yet known was Tiberius Claudius Aristion, for Pergamon. Great cities were no longer to be
who served in that office in 89 C.E. and became the considered occupied by one cult to the exclusion of
temple’s neokoros in the very next year. He has now others, and the same emperor could allow a single
been daringly identified with a skeleton whose sar- province to build more than one temple in his honor.
cophagus was reburied to include a marble portrait In the case of Hadrian and Asia, three separate
head with a diadem of imperial busts.59 Though the provincial cults are known to have been established,
skeleton and the portrait may well be the same man, in Kyzikos, Smyrna, and Ephesos.
no evidence explicitly identifies either one as Arist- In his account of Hadrian’s gift to Smyrna (q.v.),
ion, whom the scholars settled on because he was Philostratos wrote that “Hadrian, who had previ-
the most eminent of the city’s benefactors of the late ously favored the Ephesians, [the orator Polemon]
first/early second century, the date of the sarcopha- converted to the Smyrnaeans’ side.” Since the
gus and of the portrait. But the site of the find was emperor’s grant of a second neokoria to Ephesos was
beside the monument which Thür and her col- later than that to Smyrna, however, likely Philo-
leagues wished to identify as the ‘heroön of Andro- stratos was overinterpreting Hadrian’s favor as a
klos,’ so they opined that the sarcophagus could not choice. In fact, Hadrian never seems to have
have come from that monument, but from one near frowned on the Ephesians, and for his benefactions
the nymphaeum of Trajan which Aristion donated; was hailed as ‘founder’ even before he made the city
why the Ephesians of late antiquity would have twice neokoros.60 The date of that grant can be
dragged the great stone sarcophagus so far up the established from the inscriptions: no. 31, the last to
Embolos to bury it is never adequately explained. call Ephesos simply neokoros, dates to 130/131,
Inscriptions 1-34 use the simple title ‘neokoros’ whereas the first to call it twice neokoros has been
to describe the city or its people; coins issued un- dated to 132:61
INSCRIPTION 37. IG II2 3297, from Athens.
55Kienast 1996, 114, 118-119. Statue base of Hadrian from the Olympieion. {
56The Ephesos examples are Severan: Rumscheid 2000, mhtrÒpoliw [pr\th ka‹ meg¤sth] t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹
122-123 nos. 17-18. See also chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’
57 Friesen 1993, 45-49; Campanile 1994a, no. 12. d‹w n[evkÒrow ÉEfes¤v]n pÒliw. . .
58 IvE 27 (inscription 17, below) lines 457-458, 532-535

(thesmodoi), 258-265 (theologoi). Rogers 1991, 46-54 noted the

Hadrian visited Ephesos on at least two and prob-
integration of these officials of the imperial cult temple into ably more of his journeys through the East. In 124
processions and lotteries honoring Artemis primarily and the he listened as the ephebes sang his praises in the
emperors as well. IvE 645, a third century dedication to theater;62 and perhaps it was on his way back from
Artemis, mentions a synedrion of hymnodoi, theologoi and
thesmodoi. Hymnodoi at Ephesos are usually those of Artemis,
though there are some nonspecific citations, and as the latter 60 Gifts to Artemis, grants of grain shipments, rebuilding

inscription shows, functionaries of the imperial cult and of the the harbor and restoring the river Kaystros: IvE 274; Winter
city’s chief goddess seem to have been closely associated; see 1996, 71, 143-144.
Rogers 1991, 55-56. 61 Magie 1950, 1480 n. 30.
59 Thür 1997; Rumscheid 2000, 120-121 cat. no. 13. 62 IvE 1145.
chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 67

his last trip in 131 that he called in at Ephesos and of the temple (singular) in Ephesos, while the same
awarded that city its second provincial imperial inscription called the city twice neokoros.66 Though
temple.63 But the grant need not have been con- the title was official, the new temple was not yet
nected with any particular visit. Since the time of standing by 134/135. Another document of this
Trajan, the Ephesians had seen their rivals Perga- temple is an inscription honoring a chief priestess
mon and Smyrna become twice neokoroi, whereas of Asia of the temples in Ephesos.67 There it is called
they only held that honor once. Moreover, Hadrian simply ‘the temple of Lord Hadrian Caesar.’ As both
had already shown himself willing to allow more temples were now standing, the inscription must
than one provincial temple for his own cult in Asia. postdate the previous one of 134/135, but the
It is likely that the Ephesians did not cease to lobby uninflated titulature for Hadrian should place it
until they won the second neokoria that brought before his death in 138. Thus the completion of
them back onto the same level with the other lead- Hadrian’s temple and the chief priesthood of Dio-
ing cities in their koinon, Pergamon and Smyrna. phantos can be dated after 134/135 and before 138.
The moving spirit behind the second neokoria was After the temple of Hadrian was completed, many
Tiberius Claudius Piso Diophantos. A statue base inscriptions referred to the chief priest, chief priest-
from Ephesos records his accomplishments: “. . . ess, or Asiarch of the temples (plural) at Ephesos.68
[Tiberius Cl]audius Piso Diophantos, who was chief Occasionally the inscriptions detail exactly how
priest of the two temples in Ephesos, under whom many temples the official had in his or her charge.69
the temple of the god Hadrian was consecrated, who Inscriptions also document hymnodoi ‘of the god
first asked for (it) from the god Hadrian and obtained Hadrian’s temple’ in Ephesos.70
(it).”64 Thus the request for the temple was presented The temple itself has been identified as the cen-
by Diophantos, probably acting as advocate for the ter of a monumental complex in the northern dis-
city and/or koinon. We know little else of Dio- trict of Ephesos (illus. pl. 4 fig. 19); though no actual
phantos; if his request won approval from Hadrian, proof beyond size and a Hadrianic date of construc-
who was a connoisseur of orators, he must have been tion has been offered, its identification as the temple
an accomplished speaker. His memory may have that made the city twice neokoros is not unreason-
lasted long in the city’s annals, if not in ours, since able.71 The new complex was part of a mid-impe-
a bronze statue of him was perhaps re-erected in rial expansion of the city to the west and north, built
Ephesos as late as 405-410 C.E.65 In any case, the on landfill near, or perhaps in, the former harbor.
koinon likely rewarded him for his talents by pro- It consisted of a huge colonnaded temenos, ca. 225
viding that he be chief priest (of Asia) when the
temple of Hadrian was consecrated, making him the 66 Eck 1970, 210; Campanile 1994a, no. 70.
first chief priest of two provincial temples in Ephesos. 67 IvE 814; Rossner 1974, 101-142, esp. 139.
Of course, there must have been some delay until 68 Rossner 1974, 115, 117, 119, 126, 128, 129, 135, 137,

the temple itself was built. This is shown by the 139; for additional citations, see Kearsley 1988a. Also note the
following inscription: error in citation by Rossner 1974, 127: CIL 3 (not CIG) 6835-
6837, from the Roman colony Antioch in Pisidia, document
INSCRIPTION 39. IvE 279. Base of a statue of Cn. Dottius Plancianus as ASIAR(CH) TEMPL at Ephesos,
which should be restored TEMPL(orum), as there were plural
the empress Sabina. { filos°bastow [ÉEf]es¤vn temples making Ephesos neokoros in the time of Marcus
boulØ ka‹ ~ nev[kÒ]row d‹w d}mow . . . Aurelius. This is also of interest as recording a citizen of a
Roman colony who took a high position in a koinon of a dif-
Dated to 134/135 by the proconsulship of Antoninus ferent province.
69 Rossner 1974, 124 (two temples, time of Hadrian), 129
Pius, it was set up by Tiberius Claudius Magnus
(Asiarch of twice neokoros Ephesos), less likely 133 (perhaps
Charidemos, probably the last chief priest of Asia twice chief priest rather than of two temples) and 140 (three
times Asiarch rather than of three temples). There is also a chief
priestess “of the greatest temples in Ephesos” honored by the
63 Halfmann 1986a, 194, 199-201, 204, 208; Lehnen 1997, koinon: see Kearsley 1990 and Wörrle 1992, 368-370; below,
86-87, 90, 257, 260, 265; Schorndorfer 1997, 28 n. 44, an inscription no. 91.
unpublished inscription possibly from the first trip. 70 IvE 921, also 742. On hymnodoi in general, see Halfmann
64 IvE 428, where the language is characterized as “hoch 1990.
stilisiert.” See Campanile 1994a, no. 77. 71 Karwiese 1982-1985 has incorrect architectural details
65 Both Knibbe 1995a, 100-102 and Scherrer 1999, 139 and measurements; corrected by Vetters 1986; Karwiese 1995a
misinterpreted the reference to Hadrian yeÒw as being posthu- and 1995b, 102-103; Scherrer 1995 b, 186; Schorndorfer 1997,
mous, thus after 138; but see S. Price 1984a. 168-170 (incorrect measurements); Hueber 1997, 259-261.
68 part i – section i. koinon of asia

x 350 m. including all the stoas, although only the rian and a complex known as the Olympieion at
stoa on the south has been fully explored. In the Ephesos.77
center of the temenos was a south-facing temple Pausanias (7.2.8-9), in his great aside on the
whose foundations show it to have had a peristasis Ionians that leads into his guide to Achaea, men-
of approximately 33 x 60 m. and a cella 9 m. wide tioned that the tomb of Androklos, founder of
whose door wall is still undetermined (illus. pl. 1 fig. Ephesos, was still visible at the city, beside the road
5). A battered capital shows the temple to have been from the shrine of Artemis past the Olympieion to
of Corinthian order. No reliable restoration of the the Magnesian gate. Pausanias’ road was the same
peristasis has yet been published; though at first as the route of the procession endowed by C. Vibius
Karwiese postulated a dipteral temple with an outer Salutaris in 104 C.E., which went from the Arte-
ring of twelve by twenty-one columns and an inter- mision around the east side of PanayÌrdaÅ to enter
nal one of eight by seventeen (for a total of 104 the city at the Magnesian gate.78 Attempts to iden-
columns), he later called it pseudodipteral with a tify the tomb of Androklos as a U-shaped monument
total of seventy-four columns; the latest city plans in the ‘triodos’ of the city have ignored Pausanias’
of Ephesos make it pseudodipteral with nine(!) col- association of it with the road from the Artemision
umns on the front and fifteen on the sides.72 As the to the Magnesian gate, whose position is not in
peristasis is only slightly larger than that of the doubt.79 Both tomb and Olympieion would have
temple of Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia, the been outside the city, far from the great temple
temple is unlikely to have been any greater than currently identified as that of Hadrian.80 What form
decastyle.73 The south stoa of the plaza, as yet the the Ephesian Olympieion took is as yet impossible
only one explored, has been dated in its first phase to tell.
only to the mid-second century, with a second phase Zeus Olympios had appeared and been named on
around 200 C.E.; a connection with an eastern coins of Ephesos since the reign of Domitian.81 Also,
colonnade has been found, but further work is though a contest known as Olympia was celebrated
needed to clarify the entire complex’s building his- in Ephesos under Domitian, this was probably a
tory and the placement of its temple, plaza, and revival of an earlier festival; the evidence does not
colonnades.74 It has been suggested that the ‘Par- associate it with either the provincial temple of the
thian monument,’ an Antonine relief frieze, once Augusti or with Domitian personally.82 The prob-
stood in this complex, perhaps forming part of its lems in interpreting festivals known as (great)
altar.75 In the years of crisis after the third century, Hadrianeia and Olympia at Ephesos are not entirely
its north and west temenos walls were used as for- resolved, but it is clear that the two were to be dis-
tifications. tinguished from each other; the Olympia in fact far
The excavators have chosen to call this temple
complex ‘the Olympieion,’ on the same policy of
premature (mis)naming that gave us the ‘temple of 77 C. Jones 1993. The term ‘Hadrianeion’ is not docu-
Domitian’ and the little ‘temple of Hadrian’ (below), mented at Ephesos, as Jones admitted, but his analysis still holds
despite the carping of Thür 1995a, 77-80 and Scherrer 1999.
and that has continued to bedevil the Ephesos pub- For the Ephesian dedications to Hadrian with Zeus Olympios
lications.76 Despite the fact that at Ephesos (as ev- in his titulature, see IvE 267-271a; Knibbe and Iplikçioglu
erywhere in the Greek-speaking world) Hadrian was 1981/82, 135 no. 143; Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu
1989, 163-166 no. 2; elsewhere, Benjamin 1963; Spawforth and
often assimilated to Zeus Olympios, there is no nec- Walker 1985; Willers 1990, 48-60.
essary connection between Ephesos’ temple of Had- 78 Rogers 1991, 80-126; the later foundation of the sophist

Damianos (Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.23) monumental-

ized and covered the already existing road: Knibbe 1999.
Earlier levels of this road date back at least to the beginning
Pl. 1 in Friesinger and Krinzinger 1999. of the first century C.E.: Thür 1999, 168.
My reconstruction is illustrated on pl. 1 fig. 5. The old 79 Thür 1995b; her version of Pausanias’ road not only goes

reconstruction was republished in Wiplinger and Wlach 1996, through the city in the longest possible way, but makes sev-
114-115. eral turns to do so. Scherrer 1999 reinterpreted Pausanias’ text
74 Karwiese 1989, 10-15, 42-43; the hoped-for conclusions instead, but was no more convincing.
have apparently affected the termini. 80 Engelmann 1996.
75 Hueber 1997, 260-261, 264. For the monument, see 81 RPC 2:167 no. 1073.

Oberleitner 1999. 82 Engelmann 1998, 305-308 has finally cleared away the
76 S. Price 1984b, 256; Karwiese opera citata; Scherrer 1995b, false association between the cult of Zeus Olympios, the Olym-
94, 120, 186; Scherrer 1999; Scherrer 2001, 78. pia, and honors to Domitian at Ephesos.
chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 69

predated Hadrian.83 In any case, one cannot depend this particular shrine, though the presence of a head
upon the names of festivals to give dependable in- of the mural-crowned city goddess on the keystone
formation on the object of worship in a temple; any of the arched facade should indicate a civic cult or
‘Olympieion of Hadrian’ is a purely modern agglom- cults.88
eration for what the Ephesians called ‘the temple of The coinage of this period, though sparse, bears
Lord Hadrian Caesar’ (IvE 814) or ‘the temple of out other evidence on the second neokoria of
the god Hadrian’ (IvE 428, 921). Ephesos. All catalogued types that call Ephesos twice
Though often assumed to have begun at Had- neokoros name Hadrian Olympios, thus dating after
rian’s first visit, and dated to 123 or 124, the Hadria- 128/129; the second neokoria also appears on a joint
neia contest must have started later: one Aristokrates issue of Hadrian and his short-lived heir, L. Aelius
son of Hierokles was chief priest of Asia of the Caesar, probably in 136-137 C.E.89 Most important
temples in Ephesos and agonothetes of the second is one of the earliest multiple-temple types, a type
pentaeteria of Hadrianeia in the reign of Antoninus that showed both imperial temples (portrayed as
Pius.84 This would place the festival’s first celebra- identical) and thus served as a symbol of neokoria:
tion four years before, perhaps at the time of the COIN TYPE 5. Obv: ADRI[ANO%] KAI%AR
provincial temple’s completion or consecration by OLUMPIO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Diophantos. Later a member of the Vedii family Hadrian r. Rev: [EFE%IVN] DI% [NE]VKORVN
served as hereditary agonothetes for life of the great Two two-column temples turned toward one an-
Hadrianeia festival (inscription 51, below).85 other, an emperor within each. a) Paris 684 (worn)
The confusion that has resulted from erroneously (illus. pl. 21 fig. 68).
naming a small though decorative streetside shrine
The titulature of the period of the second neokoria
in Ephesos ‘the Temple of Hadrian’ has begun to
soon became a type of formula. Some inscriptions
dissipate, though the name unfortunately has con-
continued to attribute the title ‘neokoros’ to the
tinued in use.86 The name was given because of the
people (nos. 38, 39, perhaps 76, 82, 85), just as was
building’s dedication to [Artemis], Hadrian, and the
most common when the city was simply neokoros.
neokoros people of Ephesos (inscription 26); that
Beyond that the city uses the titulature ‘first and
Artemis was the first dedicatee was largely ignored. greatest metropolis of Asia and twice neokoros of the
Dedicatory inscriptions using similar formulae, to the Augusti city of the Ephesians’ with few exceptions.
patron god, the current emperor, and the city itself, Inscriptions 40, 77, and 84 included philosebastos,
were common at Ephesos and elsewhere, on build- ‘Augustus-loving,’ an epithet usually used for the
ings and parts of buildings, sacred and profane, large council, in this formula.
and small.87 Such formulae cannot be taken to in- That Ephesos’ precise titles were regulated by the
dicate which cult specifically was practiced within emperor is shown by a letter from Antoninus Pius
to the Ephesians. They had complained that Smyrna
83 See summary chapter 40, below. Lämmer 1967 was not
and Pergamon had not given Ephesos the correct
as rigorous an examination as one might wish; see above, n. titulature, one in a decree about a joint sacrifice, the
82. other in a letter. Antoninus Pius, who stated that he
84 IvE 618; Campanile 1994a, 110-111 no. 111. Bowie 1971,
had already decreed the proper titles for Ephesos,
139 n. 9; J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques 85 (1972)
455. decided that Pergamon was not at fault and
85 IvE 730; Fontani 1996, 231. Smyrna’s slight was accidental, but cautioned both
86 IvE 429; Price 1984b, 149-150, 255-256; Scherrer 1995b,
Ephesos and Smyrna to be more punctilious in fu-
120. Schorndorfer 1997, 162-165 named it as such, though she
also cited the evidence for its dedication to other city cults, ture.90 It was probably to honor the emperor’s deci-
specifically that of Artemis. Fontani 1996, 229 still considered
it a temple of Hadrian.
87 To Artemis, emperor(s) and Ephesos: IvE 404, a basilica; 88 Outschar 1999 would have it a heroön to the founder

IvE 430, revetment of a stoa; IvE 431 and 438, gymnasia; IvE Androklos as identified with Hadrian’s beloved Antinoös, but
424 and 424A, a nymphaeum; IvE 509, a statuary group. To this raises more problems than it solves.
Artemis and emperor(s): IvE 411, the stadium; IvE 413, a 89 Kienast 1996, 131-132.

nymphaeum; IvE 414, a fountain; IvE 415 and 416, waterworks; 90 IvE 1489, 1489a, 1490; Oliver 1989, 293-295 no. 135

IvE 422, a propylon; IvE 435, a reservoir; IvE 443, workshops. a-b. See also chapter 2, ‘Smyrna,’ and chapter 38, ‘Historical
To emperor(s): IvE 423, a stoa(?); IvE 410, the ‘Sockelbau’; IvE Analysis.’ Collas-Heddeland 1995, 422 unfortunately mistrans-
432, a sundial; IvE 455, a latrine. lated important aspects of the dispute (see Année Epigraphique
70 part i – section i. koinon of asia

sion that Ephesos issued a series of coins celebrating The three temples were even illustrated without
its concord with the other two cities.91 Smyrna soon mention of neokoria, but with the simple legend ‘first
after had to send an embassy to Antoninus to de- of Asia.’
fend ‘the temples and their rights,’ probably the
status of the temples which made the city twice
PER Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius
neokoros; this dispute over temples and rights im-
Severus r. Rev: EFE%IVN PRVTVN A%IA% Three
plies that the emperor’s letter and the concord coin-
age did not bring the bickering to an end, and that temples on podia, two side ones turned toward
perhaps Ephesos, by questioning some privilege of one another, emperor in each; center one four-
Smyrna’s, was retaliating for the offense. column, Artemis Ephesia within. a) Paris 798 b)
The use of the two imperial temples as a coin type Vienna 33914 c) BMC 261 d) Berlin, Imhoof-
carried on throughout the period of Ephesos’ sec- Blumer.
ond neokoria, but after their independent appear- COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AU KAI MAR AU AN-
ance under Hadrian they were generally shown TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
flanking the temple of Artemis or the goddess her- Caracalla r., youthful. Rev: EFE%IVN PRVTVN
self. Ephesos always saw the goddess as its primary A%IA% Three temples on podia, two side ones
patron, but never claimed more than its proper two-column, turned toward one another, an
number of neokoriai.92 emperor in each; center one four-column, Artemis
COIN TYPE 6. Obv: T AILIO% KAI%AR AN- Ephesia within. a) Paris 824 b) Berlin, Imhoof-
TVNEINO% Laureate draped bust of Antoninus Blumer.
Pius r. Rev: EFE%IVN DI% NEVKORVN Two two- The plainness of the legend is unusual, and its com-
column temples, each with emperor within, bination with the three-temple reverse type may
turned toward one another; between them,
indicate that Ephesos considered its temples to
Artemis Ephesia. a) BMC 235 b) Vienna 17173 c)
Artemis and to the emperors to be part of its claim
Berlin, von Knobelsdorff.
to primacy. Triple-temple coin types such as these
COIN TYPE 7. Obv: T AILIO% KAI%AR AN- inspired imitation in cities that were to become three
TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust (head, times neokoros later.
b) of Antoninus Pius r. Rev: EFE%IVN DI%
NEVKORVN Three temples on podia, side two
two-column, each with emperor within, turned Third Neokoria: Geta; Neokoria of Artemis: Caracalla
toward one another; the center one four-column,
Artemis Ephesia within. a) Paris 711 b) New York, Septimius Severus died in 211, leaving his sons
Newell c) Oxford 29.55 d) London 1961.3-1-234 Caracalla and Geta as co-rulers; by the end of the
(illus. pl. 21 fig. 69). year Geta too was dead, killed by his brother. In this
COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU[T] KAI PO %[EPT] context the question of Ephesos’ third neokoria
GETA% Laureate head of Geta Augustus r., ma- arises. It is a complex one, made yet more complex
ture. Rev: B NEOKO[RVN] EFE%IVN Two two- by changes in coin legends, misreadings of those
column temples on high podia, an emperor within legends by early authorities, and blind dependence
each, Artemis Ephesia between them. a) Berlin, on those misreadings by later scholars.
Löbbecke. Fortunately Ephesos’ coinage under the Severans
is both abundant and well preserved. Those of Geta
as Augustus show the change from a boyish portrait
(while his father still lived) to a more mature like-
1995 no. 1476) and misunderstood the nature of Ephesos’ ness, lightly bearded and with a close resemblance
neokoria of Artemis. to his brother Caracalla, like type 8 above, with the
91 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 38-39 nos. 305-316;
title ‘twice neokoros.’ Then one of his coins declares
Kampmann 1996, 29-34, 108-109; Kampmann 1998, 377-379.
92 Karwiese 1995b, 105-106 saw such types as an illegal at- Ephesos three times neokoros:
tempt to claim a third neokoria under Antoninus Pius. His ac-
count (85-125) contains several inaccuracies and exaggerations COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT KAI PO %EP GETA%
of the Ephesian obsession with neokoria. %EB Laureate undraped bust of Geta Augustus
chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 71

Artemis subduing deer. a) formerly Gotha, EINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla
Munich. r., slight beard. Rev: EFE%IVN DI% NEVKORVN
KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% Two emperors on horse-
There is now no way of directly examining the
back ride toward and salute Artemis Ephesia. a)
coin, however.93 More certain is a reverse legend BMC 269 (illus. pl. 21 fig. 71).
known for several issues, claiming that Ephesos
is ‘three times neokoros and of Artemis’: Thereafter issues of Caracalla and of Julia Domna
simply call Ephesos ‘three times neokoros,’ though
COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AU K M AUR AN- some of these may in fact be contemporary with the
TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of coin of type 11, if that should be found to be gen-
Caracalla r., youthful. Rev: EFE%IVN TRI% uine.
NEVKORVN KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% Two emper- This bleak numismatic narrative can be illumined
ors on horseback ride toward and salute Artemis by a document of inestimable importance found at
Ephesia. a) Berlin, Löbbecke b) SNGvA 7871. Ephesos, here inscription 124. As Robert’s meticu-
COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AU(T, abcef) K(AI%, ace) lous analysis has shown, it is part of an epigraphic
M AUR ANTVNEINO% KAI P(O, adef) %EP dossier of documents on the same subject, in this case
GETA%; NEOI HLIOI Laureate draped busts of imperial letters concerning privileges for the cult of
Caracalla and Geta turned toward one another. Artemis, collected and inscribed in a public place.
Rev: EFE%IVN TRI% NEVKORVN KAI TH% Inscription 124 is preceded by part of a letter from
ARTEMIDO% Two emperors on horseback ride Julia Domna to the Ephesians, in which she made
toward and salute Artemis Ephesia. a) BMC 292 reference to some favor that they had (presumably)
(illus. pl. 21 fig. 70) b) Paris 848 c) SNGCop 436 asked of her “dearest son.” This may have been the
d) SNGvA 1904 e) Berlin, Fox f) Berlin, Löbbecke. neokoria, as the next letter in the dossier runs on
that topic:
INSCRIPTION 124. IvE 212 (L. Robert 1967, 44-57 no.
Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Geta Augustus 6). Imperial letter. ÑO kÊriow ÉAntvn[e]›now tª [ÉAs¤&:]
r., slight beard. Rev: EFE%IVN TRI% NEVKORVN épedejãmhn [t]}w gn\mhw Ímçw mey' w pros[n°mein . . . tª]
KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% City goddess leads bull to- lamprotãt_ t«n ÉEfes¤vn pÒlei: kr¤sei går tØn t[eimØn
kayÆkei] prosn°mein: diÒper éji\sasin Íme›n ka‹
ward Artemis Ephesia. a) London 1961.3-1-243 b) sunapo[dejam°noiw to›w ÑR\]mhw {goum°noiw tØn Íp¢r
Berlin, Löbbecke. ÉEfes¤vn a‡thsin ¶dvka k[a‹ sun_´ne]sa tr‹w e‰nai
nevkÒrouw tØn pÒlin: tØn d¢ §p\num[on §mautoË] nevko-
COIN TYPE 15. Obv: IOULIA %EBA%TH r¤an katå tØn §mØn a¸d« énat¤yhmi tª §narges-
Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: EFE%IVN tãt_ ye“ …w mØ §j §moË karpoËsyai tØn teimØn éll' §k
TRI% NEVKORVN KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% City t}w kata[log}w t}w yeoË?. . .]
goddess leads bull toward Artemis Ephesia. a) Lon- Lord Antoninus to Asia: I have seen with favor your
don 1894.11-4-1 b) Paris 820 c) Berlin, Löbbecke. proposition to grant (the neokoria) to the illustrious city
of Ephesos; by (my) decision, it is suitable to grant the
That these coins were minted with obverses of honor. Wherefore to your petitions and with the approval
Caracalla, Geta, the two together as ‘new sun gods,’ of the leading men at Rome, I have granted your claim
on behalf of the Ephesians and have consented that the
and their mother Julia Domna indicates that they city should be three times neokoroi (sic). Due to modesty,
are firmly dated to the period of joint rule. Finally, however, I refer the neokoria in my name to the most
one lone coin of Caracalla proclaims the aftermath: manifest goddess, so that they may enjoy the honor not
from me, but out of regard for the goddess...
though it still uses the outmoded reverse of the two
horsemen and Artemis, the legend has been changed So many crucial points are made by this document
to ‘twice neokoros and of Artemis’: that it is difficult to know where to begin. First, the
addressee: it is not the Ephesians but the koinon of
Asia. This confirms that the neokoria was still a
provincial honor even after two centuries and a rapid
93 The photos are in Kraft 1972, 121 pl. 11.10; Dr. Dietrich multiplication of neokoroi cities. The koinon is said
Klose stated that, judging from the photograph, the coin did to have petitioned on behalf of the Ephesians,
not appear doubtful to him (personal communication, 15 Oct. though the letter gives no hint of how (and in what
72 part i – section i. koinon of asia

atmosphere) the koinon decided which city should campaigned for himself and against his brother.98
receive the honor. Thus when the koinon first brought its petition for
Secondly, the Roman Senate is mentioned, not (probably a single) neokoria for Ephesos to Rome,
directly but as “the leading men at Rome.” They it may at first have dealt with Julia Domna, as the
are part of the triad (koinon, Senate, and emperor) new emperors had not yet returned from Britain.
that had to approve before neokoria could be Once they did, however, the koinon’s representa-
awarded. The emperor, however, could modify their tives probably had to face two emperors who
decision. Caracalla transferred the grant of neokoria couldn’t share a palace, much less a temple, and a
from his own cult to that of another god without any Senate factionalized between the two. Although the
mention of senatorial consent. Later Ephesian in- sources are hostile to the surviving brother, two
scriptions sometimes make special mention of an include accounts of Caracalla’s refusal to be called
imperial decision in addition to the Senate’s decree, by the name of Hercules or that of any other god.99
or seem to exclude the neokoria of Artemis from While each puts the event in a different time and
those in the Senate’s domain (nos. 126 and 134, context, the statement itself was probably meant to
below). ingratiate Caracalla with some powerful group, such
When we attempt to reconcile Caracalla’s letter as the soldiers, the Senate, or the people of Rome.
with the numismatic evidence, however, we hit a Certainly what can be discerned of Caracalla’s own
snag. The inscription is worded as if it dated from propaganda put a distinct emphasis on his pietas.100
the period of Caracalla’s sole rule, after Geta’s death Adding this to the evidence of the Ephesian coins,
at the end of 211.94 The fact that it was preceded we may conclude that Geta accepted the offer of a
by a letter from Julia Domna, who is known to have temple to his own cult, and that his action sent
handled Caracalla’s correspondence while he was on Caracalla into a display of politic modesty of a sort
his eastern campaign, seemed to suit that period.95 little seen since Julio-Claudian times.101 According
Even Robert assumed that this was so, although he to inscription 124, Caracalla refused divine honors
also observed from the abbreviation of titulature and for himself, transferring them instead to the glory
omission of flowery greetings that the letter as in- of Artemis. Such a show of high principles and old
scribed was not the letter as sent.96 Yet the coins Roman virtue seems designed to excite the approval
show that both the third imperial neokoria and that of the Senate, before which this little drama might
for Artemis had already been granted during the even have been enacted; inscription 124 itself refers
joint rule of Caracalla and Geta. Robert’s picture to ‘the leading men at Rome.’ By contrast, Geta’s
of a single neokoria designated for both emperors acceptance of honors that were by now only the
and then diverted to Artemis by a miffed Caracalla usual fare for emperors could have been exagger-
cannot be made to conform with that fact. ated to imply tyrannical tendencies.
The lack of trustworthy historical sources for this What the koinon had likely proposed as one
period makes it difficult to guess what events could neokoria had thus been transformed into two: one
have led to such a complex situation. Cassius Dio for the imperial cult due to Geta, and one for
exists only in epitome, Herodian is inexact and over- Artemis due to Caracalla. In a spirit of jubilation,
rhetorical, the Historia Augusta is curt and confused, Ephesos minted the coins that called its imperial
though fortunately its life of Caracalla comes before benefactors ‘new sun gods.’ Coins once issued are
its plunge into historical fiction.97 On one thing they hard to recall; thousands can be melted down, but
all agree: Caracalla and Geta hated one another. In the survival of even one can tell the entire story.
addition to his expansive description of their pro- Inscriptions are another thing. The dedication of the
posed partition of the Empire, Herodian stated that east hall of the agora at Ephesos was carved in that
the opinions of all those of any standing in Rome
were divided between them, and each emperor 98 Herodian 4.3.1-2 (according to Alföldi 1972, 30-33 over-

dramatized, especially in the supposed plan to divide the Em-

94Kienast 1996, 162-167. 99 Cassius Dio ep. 78.5 (protecting Cilo after trying to as-
95Williams 1979, 86-87; the fulsome language of the let- sassinate him), and Historia Augusta, Caracalla 5 (on campaign
ter fits with other edicts of Caracalla. in Raetia). Also see Cerfaux and Tondriau 1957, 369.
96 L. Robert 1967, 45-46, 50 n. 5. 100 Oliver 1978.
97 Meckler 1994; Alföldi 1972. 101 Charlesworth 1939.
chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 73

time of celebration, and Geta’s name and the titles 128, a statue base of Caracalla datable by his
‘three times neokoros of the Augusti’ and ‘neokoros titulature (Parthicus Maximus and Britannicus
of Artemis’ were likely prominent. That prominence Maximus but not yet Germanicus Maximus), gives
became an embarrassment after Geta’s murder, and an assured point in time for this period of eclipse
the inscription had to be erased and recarved. of both the neokoria for Geta and that of Artemis:
Unfortunately the enumeration of the neokoriai must
INSCRIPTION 128. IvE 297. t}w pr\thw ka‹
be restored, but the words ‘according to the decrees
meg¤sthw mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ d‹w
of the most sacred Senate’ (first version) and ‘of
nevkÒrou ÉEfes¤vn pÒlevw . . .
Artemis’ (second version) assure that it was there.
It was inscribed sometime between February 212
INSCRIPTION 125. IvE 3001 (second version).
and October 213, but on it Ephesos is simply twice
[t“ nevkÒrƒ dÆmƒ t}w pr\thw pas«n ka‹]
neokoros again, as if the neokoriai for Geta and for
meg¤st[hw] ka‹ §ndoj[otãthw mhtropÒlevw t}w
Artemis had never existed.
ÉAs¤aw ka‹ nevkÒrou t}w ÉArt°]midow ka[‹ d‹w
Another statue base, datable by Caracalla’s hav-
nevkÒrou t«n Sebast«n katå tå dÒgmata t}w
ing become Germanicus Maximus after October
|ervtãthw sunklÆtou ÉEfes¤vn pÒlevw]. . .
213, shows how the problem was settled:
What happened there can be paralleled with what
INSCRIPTION 133. IvE 300. t}w pr\thw ka‹
befell the base of a statue of Ulpius Apollonios
meg¤sthw mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ tr‹w
Plautus, grammateus of the council, advocate of
nevkÒrou pr\thw, d‹w m¢n t[«]n Sebast[«]n,
Ephesos, and designated Asiarch.102 Its original in-
ëpa[j] d¢ t}w ÉArt°midow, { filos°bastow
scription trumpeted the city as neokoros of the most
ÉEfes¤vn boulØ ka‹ ~ nevkÒrow dÆmow . . .
sacred Artemis and three times neokoros of the
Augusti by decrees of the Senate and by imperial The neokoria of Artemis was reconfirmed, and when
decision; perhaps Plautus had even earned his added to the two previous imperial neokoriai, made
Asiarchy by pleading Ephesos’ case for neokoria suc- up a total of three, so the inscription states explic-
cessfully. How could he foresee the fall of Geta, of itly: “First three times neokoros, two of the Augusti
one neokoria, and perhaps his Asiarchy with it? His and uniquely of Artemis.” More compressed ver-
inscription was erased, but so lightly that the proud sions, as with the coin legends, simply say ‘three
titles could still be read beneath the chisel’s scratches: times neokoros’ without further specification. Among
this latter group is a series of bases from statues of
INSCRIPTION 126. IvE 740. [{] boulØ t}w
cities (inscriptions 130-132, including Carthage,
pr\thw pas«n ka‹ meg¤sthw ka‹ §ndojotãthw
Knidos, and Nikaia in Lydia; also Kos, IvE 2055,
mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ nevkÒrou t}w
the neokoria only restored), the occasion for whose
|ervtãthw ÉArt°midow ka‹ tr‹w nevkÒrou t«n
dedication may have been an empire-wide festival
Sebast«n katå tå dÒgmata t}w |erçw sunklÆtou
to celebrate the return of the third neokoria, but may
ka‹ tØn ye¤an kr¤sin ÉEfes¤vn pÒlevw...
equally have been some other (likely agonistic) oc-
That Ephesos’ neokoria itself underwent a similar casion. One of the group includes the words “city
eclipse is borne out by inscription 127: of the Ephesians, three times neokoros by the de-
cree from the authorities”:
INSCRIPTION 127. IvE 647. Dedication to Ti.
Claudius Serenus (PIR2 C.1017). t}w pr\thw INSCRIPTION 131. IvE 2054. Statue of Knidos.
pas«n ka‹ meg¤sthw ka‹ §ndojotãthw ka‹ { pr\th ka‹ meg¤sth mht[rÒ]poliw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹
mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ nevkÒrou t}w tr‹w nevk[Ò]row ÉEfes¤vn pÒliw katå tÚ
_ÉArt°midow ka‹ tr‹w nevkÒrou t«n Sebast«n´ kÊ[rv]yen cÆfisma. . .
This phrase may allude, albeit vaguely, to whatever
Only the words ‘Artemis and three times neokoros special permission the Ephesians had to obtain to
of the Augusti’ are erased, while the rest of the in- reactivate their third neokoria.
scription (including ‘neokoros of,’ the last words The case of Ephesos’ third neokoria shows per-
before the erasure) was allowed to stand. Inscription fectly how the evidence of coins, inscriptions, and
historical references can be combined to produce a
102 Campanile 1994a, 141-142 no. 167. complete picture, where dependence on only one of
74 part i – section i. koinon of asia

them could have led to inconsistency. Keil offered pose.106 The goddess is well known both from
a model for this procedure in his 1915 article on this Ephesian coins and from large-scale statues of Ro-
topic, and further documents have confirmed it. man date, and it is particularly interesting from the
Ephesos in fact received a third and a fourth neo- point of view of this study that she often appears with
koria in 211, the one for Geta and the other for miniature temples set on top of her tall crown, as if
Artemis. The third fell with Geta, while that of she were another type of ‘temple bearer.’ Chapou-
Artemis was eventually allowed to stand, and to be thier even suggested that the templed headdress re-
counted in for a total of three. Thus the inscription presented the city’s status as neokoros, with the
of Caracalla’s letter, no. 124, is both an informative number of temples varying to suit the number of
and a misleading document. Inscribed well after the temples for which Ephesos was neokoros.107 This
event, it did not alter the truth so much as tell a particular hypothesis can be disproved from various
partial truth. Geta had become a non-person; if there representations whose dates are known; for example,
had been any mention of him, or even if he had the (probably Trajanic) ‘great Artemis’ found in
written the letter along with his brother, any hint Ephesos bears five temples, while the Ephesians were
of it would have been excised from the later dos- never known to be five times neokoroi (illus. pl. 9-
sier.103 The Ephesians would have been happy to 10 figs. 28-31).108 Moreover, Fleischer plausibly iden-
avoid explicit reference to a time when they had tified a young hunter on the reused frieze from the
climbed to a peak and then fallen from it. Caracalla so-called temple of Hadrian as Androklos founder
was subsequently to give third neokoriai, both im- of Ephesos, and he too bears a (three-column!)
perial, to Pergamon and Smyrna, taking the lead temple on his head.
among neokoroi away from Ephesos and leaving the Examination of the various temple-crowned im-
three cities again locked in competition. ages shows that where there is room for detail the
The cult of Artemis had finally gotten its neokoria order of the temple(s) is Ionic, with at most four
for Ephesos, so it seems worthwhile to examine it columns on the facade.109 The temples are gener-
here. The temple of Artemis at Ephesos appears on ally assimilated to one another, just as they are on
many lists of wonders of the ancient world. As it multiple-temple coins, but the central one is por-
stood in Roman times, which is how I reconstruct trayed as dominant. On the ‘great Artemis’ the
it in the illustration (pl. 3 fig. 14), it was an enor-
central temples are shown with discs in their pedi-
mous Ionic octastyle, dipteral, with twenty-one col-
ments, and the towered city walls appear in the
umns along its length and nine columns across its
back.110 Though the temples are never more than
back; the space within the peristasis measured 50.48
generic, their Ionic order recalls the Artemision it-
x 107.11 m., the stepped platform that it sat upon
self. The towers indicate that the crown is meant to
63.36 x 128.20 m. The front resembled a forest of
represent the entire city of Ephesos, with its temples,
columns with sculptured bases and drums.104 In its
including the provincial temples of the emperors and
main pediment it had three openings, the center one
that of Artemis herself (though the latter was actu-
larger than the side two, and figural sculpture as
well.105 To the west was a U-shaped and colonnaded ally outside the city walls), as its main ornaments.
altar court, as this temple, like others to the god- Artemis wears Ephesos as a crown, in the same way
desses of Asia Minor, faced west rather than east. that a city goddess wore a mural crown.
Even the cult statue (in some versions) may have During the reign of Caracalla’s successor Macri-
referred to the temples that made Ephesos neokoros.
The ‘heaven-fallen’ image of Artemis of Ephesos 106 Thiersch 1935; Fleischer 1973, 1978, 1984a, and 1999.
echoed the indigenous tradition of Asia Minor with For the recent find of belts and amber objects (‘breasts’?) in
its monolithic stance, elaborate costume, and hieratic the Artemision see Bammer and Muss 1996, 71-78.
107 Imhoof-Blumer 1911; Chapouthier 1938. This idea has

been resurrected by Knibbe 1995b, referring only to ‘the great

Artemis’ from the prytaneion, with several misinterpretations,
Mastino 1978/79. and without response to Fleischer’s objections.
Bammer 1972 and 1984; Rügler 1988; Scherrer 1995b, 108 Fleischer 1973, 54-58, cat. no. E45.

46-59; Bammer and Muss 1996, 45-61 and 65-70. 109 Thiersch 1935, nos. 19, 26, 32, 34, 42, 44, 45, and coins
105 Trell 1945; M. Price and Trell 1977, 126-132; Bingöl on pl. 49 nos. 12, 15; pl. 51 nos. 4, 6; Fleischer 1973, cat. nos.
1999. Karwiese 1999 would identify two figures with raised E17, E31, E43, E45, E49, E63, E85, E88, E92, E93, E96a and
arms in the pediment as two Victories, though wings are not coin on pl. 56a.
apparent. 110 Miltner 1958b, pls. 5, 6.
chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 75

nus, Ephesos preferred other titles (such as ‘first of coin type 17 is falsified) issued no coinage that men-
Asia’) to neokoros for coin legends. There is one tioned the neokoria whatsoever in the reign of
possible exception, but it is worn and appears re- Macrinus: Pergamon, Smyrna, Laodikeia, Philadel-
worked: phia, Tralles, and Antandros (the latter two inter-
mittent anyway); some, like Pergamon and Smyrna,
COIN TYPE 17 (RECUT?). Obv: [AU] K M
issued no coinage at all. Kyzikos, perhaps the only
OPEL MAKRINO% Laureate draped bust of
neokoros for Caracalla beside these, changed its titu-
Macrinus r. (legend tooled?) Rev: EF[E%]I[VN]
lature from ‘twice’ to simply ‘neokoros.’ All this in-
. . . [%]EBA . NEVK[OR]VN Four-column temple
dicates that some question was thrown on the
in which togate emperor, sacrifice of bull at al-
neokoriai granted by Caracalla after his death. This
tar below. a) Vienna 32385 (worn) (illus. pl. 21
instability is further indicated by another Ephesian
fig. 72).
The reverse type is similar to that of a coin that does
INSCRIPTION 135. Knibbe, Engelmann, and
not mention neokoros in its legend, but illustrates
Iplikçioglu 1989, Beibl. 166-167 no. 3. Statue base
the annual vows taken on behalf of the emperor.111
of Caracalla as Armeniacus and new Helios.
Another Ephesian coin puts Macrinus’ name on the
Originally erected by the council t}w pr\thw ka‹
reverse as well as his portrait on the obverse, along
meg¤sthw m`[htro]pÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ _[tr]´‹w
with the figure and name of the goddess Justice.112
[nevkÒ]r_ou pr\thw, d‹w m¢]n`´ t«n Se`[bast«n],
These coin types and the insistence on the title ‘first
_ëpaj d¢ t}w ÉArt°mid]o`w´ ÉEf[es¤vn] pÒlevw,
of Asia’ may tie in with an inscription in honor of
later changed to (d)‹w [nevkÒ]r_ou[ m¢]n`´ t«n
an Ephesian advocate who went before Macrinus to
Se`[bast«n] _ o`w`´ ÉEf[es¤vn] pÒlevw . . .
defend Ephesos’ “primacy and the rest of the rights”
and won his case.113 Though the title was never officially granted, ‘Arme-
Why did Ephesos stop boasting on its coins of its niacus’ did appear on an inscription of Caracalla
status as three times neokoros? Winning the right, after 215; the Ephesians had hailed both him and
perhaps temporarily the sole right, to be ‘first’ was his brother as new sun gods during their joint reign,
one reason, but another may have been a question as does this inscription.116 Moreover, inscription 136,
about the neokoria itself. Asia fell into ferment on another Ephesian document, used very similar titles,
the death of its benefactor Caracalla, a state that the both imperial and civic, and was similarly erased.
new emperor Macrinus tried unsuccessfully to con- The original titulature of inscription 136, ‘first three
trol.114 Pergamon, perhaps deprived of previous times neokoros [i.e. twice of the Augusti and alone
privileges, heaped insults upon him and was dishon- of Artemis]’ is correct for 215. Though the editors
ored further; that city and Smyrna were assigned to attributed the erasure to rivalry on the part of neigh-
the special charge of the historian Cassius Dio by bors and could go little farther, it must be seen in
the emperor himself.115 Not only these cities were the context of the unstable situation, not only in
affected, however. Of eight cities in Asia that had Ephesos, but in many of her sister cities, during the
become neokoros for Caracalla, six (seven if Ephesos’ reign of Macrinus.
It is known that under Macrinus the Senate nul-
lified certain of Caracalla’s acts.117 The removal of
111 BMC 293; Price 1984b, 214-215, 256-257, fig. 3a. For the title ‘neokoros of Artemis’ granted by Caracalla
a fantastical explanation of type 17, with the invention of a to Ephesos can be accounted for by such an event.
‘neokorate’ temple for Macrinus somewhere in the precinct of Pergamon’s, and perhaps Smyrna’s, disgrace may
the temple of Hadrian, and the basilical stoa south of it as the
third ‘neokorate temple,’ see Karwiese 1995a, 314-315.
have helped make Ephesos uncontestedly first of
112 Leypold 1995, 32-34 no. 6; also note no. 7, another ‘first Asia; but the city may have still been forced yet again
of Asia’ type.
113 IvE 802; J. Keil 1956; with the caution of Deininger
to drop the neokoria that Caracalla had granted, at
1965, 50 n. 4. See also Ziethen 1994, 145.
least until the death of Macrinus and the subsequent
114 Cassius Dio ep. 79.22.3-4. Macrinus’ problem in choos- condemnation of his memory.
ing a governor for Asia cannot have helped. The provincial
picture is not covered, however, by Baharal 1999.
115 Cassius Dio ep. 79.20.4, 80.7.4. See chapter 1, ‘Perga-

mon,’ chapter 2, ‘Smyrna,’ and chapter 38 of part II, ‘Historical 116 Mastino 1981, 50-57; CIL 8:10236 (dated).
Analysis.’ 117 Cassius Dio ep. 79.18.5.
76 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Fourth Neokoria: Elagabalus statue of Artemis Ephesia held out by city goddess.
a) Oxford 9.95.
If Ephesos had been deprived under Macrinus, it
Type 20 alludes to some sign of honor made by the
would make up for it under Elagabalus. According
emperor toward the goddess and/or the city. All
to Cassius Dio’s account of Elagabalus’ journey from
these issues proudly proclaim the fourth neokoria.
the East, his route to Rome bypassed the province
Even inscriptions that were already standing were
of Asia entirely.118 Nonetheless, four cities in that
recarved to read ‘four times’ rather than ‘three times
province would gain a neokoria during his reign, in-
neokoros’ (though inscription 137 was to have a
cluding Ephesos, which became four times neokoros,
melancholy subsequent history, see below):
more than any other city of its day. It is certainly
possible that Ephesos sent a delegation to the em- INSCRIPTION 137. IvE 625 (See J. and L. Rob-
peror on his passage from Antioch or during his ert, Revue des études grecques 1974 280 no. 503).
winter at Nikomedia, or even that the emperor him- Statue base of a chief priest of Asia. katå tå
self may have traveled beyond the itinerary that Dio dÒgm[a]t[a t}w |ervtãthw s]unklÆtou t}w
recorded. _tet[rãkiw]´ nevkÒrou _ . . . ´ { krat¤sth boulØ
Of the newly honored cities only Ephesos is docu- ka‹ ~ |er\tatow t«n pãnta pr\tvn ÉEfes¤vn
mented as having received its neokoria as early as d}mow...
220, during Elagabalus’ marriage to Julia Paula.
The coin legends also take on a particularly exult-
Coin type 18, which shows him sacrificing before the
ant note: the Ephesians are ‘alone, first of all four
temple of Artemis, seems to imply his actual pres-
times neokoroi’ (types 18, 19, 22) or the city is ‘four
ence in the city, though it may merely represent his
times neokoros, the first of all and greatest’ (type 21):
sending honors to Artemis from a distance.
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
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
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
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.
Leypold 1995, no. 8 is similar, but with mistranscribed
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
made the city four times neokoros. The city, which
had possibly lost its neokoria in the previous reign, COIN TYPE 25. Obv: AUT K M AUR ALEJ-
thus publicly declared that the fourth neokoria for ANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Elagabalus was official. Laodikeia (q.v.) also empha- Severus Alexander r. Rev: (D, ab; TETRAKI%, c)
sized the Senate’s decree on its coins at just the same NEVKORVN EFE%IVN Togate emperor seated on
time, perhaps because its joint neokoria for Com- curule chair grasps hand of city goddess holding
modus and Caracalla had been questioned. All the statue of Artemis Ephesia. a) Oxford 18.89 b) BMC
Ephesian coins further indicate that Ephesos did 314 c) Vienna 32629.
have an independent temple for the cult of Elaga-
balus, which means that Knibbe’s attempts to asso- 121 Knibbe 1970, 281-284. Alzinger 1970, 1649-1650 of-

ciate the fourth neokoria with the construction of a fers a date for the altar only after the middle of the second
new altar before the Flavian temple are not securely century.
122 Karl 1975, 51, 118; Johnston 1984, 58.
founded, though it is not impossible that all the 123 Johnston 1984, 59 tentatively identified the bust on the

prize crown as Julia Paula; the Empress is in fact portrayed as

looking much like her husband on these issues.
120 Bingöl 1999. 124 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 98 nos. 988-992.
78 part i – section i. koinon of asia

COIN TYPE 26. Obv: AUT K M AUR ALEJ- INSCRIPTION 141. IvE 4336. Base of statue of
ANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III. { pr\th ka‹ meg¤sth mhtrÒpoliw t}w
Severus Alexander r. Rev: TETRAKI% NEVKO- ÉAs¤aw ka‹ nevkÒrow t}w ÉArt°midow ka‹ d‹w
RVN EFE%IVN Togate emperor seated on curule nevkÒrow t«n Sebast«n ÉEfes¤vn pÒliw. . .
chair hands scroll to city goddess who holds statue
of Artemis Ephesia. a) Berlin, Fox (illus. pl. 22 fig.
77). Fourth Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus
Like other cities that had lost a neokoria, however,
ANDRO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
in the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus Ephesos
Severus Alexander r. Rev: EFE%IVN MONVN
came back to the number of neokoriai that it had
PRVTVN NEVK Victory writes on shield hung on
had under Elagabalus. The date of the grant does
palm tree. a) Vienna 17248.
not conflict with that at Nikomedia (q.v.). Coins of
The outcome, however, was not good. Elagabalus’ both Gallienus’ sons Valerianus and Saloninus were
memory was condemned and temples to his cult issued over the transition between Ephesos’ third and
were no longer viable.125 Where once neokoros had fourth neokoriai. On all but one where no title is
been by far the most common title on Ephesian given, Valerianus is named Caesar. Thus the re-
coins, on the later coins of Severus Alexander any granting of Ephesos’ fourth neokoria must have
mention of neokoria once again lapsed (as in the dated between the year 255, when he received that
reign of Macrinus) in favor of titles like ‘first of Asia.’ title, and 258, when he died.126 It is notable that
Coins issued after his reign confirm that Ephesos had Ephesos was also issuing coins with the portrait of
become three times neokoros, but where cities like his young brother Saloninus at the same time.
Nikomedia and Sardis (qq.v.) still issued coins with Saloninus has no title, as was proper; he did not
the title ‘neokoros’ (its enumeration decreased) dur- become Caesar until after his brother’s death. Both
ing Severus Alexander’s reign, Ephesos and Beroia boys generally appear in armor and with laurel
seem to have chosen to avoid mentioning the title crowns, though Valerianus appears bareheaded on
at all, at least for a time. The only exception is type one type where his title is Caesar.
27, which recalls the happier past with its claim that Unlike Nikomedia’s, Ephesos’ coin types do not
the Ephesians are ‘alone first neokoroi’; this is one reflect any special jubilation at the return of the
of the only coin types from which Ephesos omitted fourth neokoria. The reverses continue to concen-
its full enumeration of neokoriai. This lack of speci- trate on the gods, especially on the city’s patron
ficity is comparable to that of an inscription at Sardis Artemis in her various manifestations. Coinage that
(q.v.) that called the city ‘many times neokoros’ cited the neokoria, in fact all coinage, was soon to
without specifying how many. At Ephesos, inscrip- cease, whether due to inflation, war, or both. In 261/
tion 137, which as mentioned above had been joy- 262 a Gothic force took ship, crossed the Hellespont,
ously re-engraved to add the fourth neokoria, now and invaded the province of Asia. One of their chief
had the word ‘four times’ erased. goals was Ephesos, where they pillaged and burned
The enumeration of neokoriai returned to the great temple of Artemis for which the city was
Ephesian coins in the time of Severus Alexander’s neokoros; the grim signs of burning elsewhere in the
successor Maximinus. Then it would be a sober city may also have been their doing.127 Ephesos was
‘three times neokoros,’ with other legends, especially to recover and continue, but its coinage ceased,
ones referring to Artemis, just as common. The perhaps ca. 263/264.128 The title ‘neokoros’ would
multiple-temple types no longer appeared. The in- not appear in its documents any more. Still, as late
scriptions, unlike the coins, make the distinction
between the neokoria for Artemis and that for the 126
Augusti instead of adding the three together. Typi- Kienast 1996, 220-221.
127 Jordanes 107-109; Salamon 1971, 124-125. The argu-
cal of a datable group from the reign of Gordian III ments of Karwiese 1985, for an earthquake in 262 (documented
(nos. 138-141) is the following: only by the Historia Augusta) causing the destruction, are based
on two sections of one residential building and a statistical anal-
ysis of too few coins; the destruction layers elsewhere are not
closely datable. See Foss 1979, 190-191.
125 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417. 128 H.-D. Schultz 1997.
chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 79

as the time of Maximinus Daia (305-313 C.E.), it by Cn. Pedanius Fuscus, proconsul 99/100.135
was still considered an honor to have Asiarchs of the 14. IvE 2037. Dedication to Artemis Ephesia, Trajan,
temples in Ephesos as one’s forebears.129 and the city, dated by imperial titulature to 102-112.
15. IvE 509. Bilingual dedication of a statue group
to Artemis Ephesia, Trajan, and the city, under C.
INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Aquilius Proculus, proconsul 103/104.136 This is the
only example of the Latin transliteration of neokoros
Neokoros: outside of the coins of Neapolis (q.v.).
1. IvE 2034. Architrave of theater skene, dated either 16. IvE 517. Bilingual dedication of a statue group,
66-67 or 85-86 C.E. See text above. similar to nos. 15, 18 and 22; dated by imperial
2. IvE 233. Dedication at the koinon temple of the titulature late in or after 102.137
Augusti, to the god Vespasian, over erased name of 17. IvE 27. Decree of the foundation of C. Vibius
Domitian, by city of Aphrodisias under M. Fulvius Salutaris, under C. Aquilius Proculus, proconsul
Gillo, proconsul likely in 89/90.130 103/104.138
3. IvE 237. Similar to no. 2, dedicated by Stra- 18. IvE 858. Bilingual dedication of a statue group,
tonikeia under L. Luscius Ocr(e)a, proconsul likely similar to nos. 15, 16 and 22, under L. Albius Pullae-
in 90/91.131 nus Pollio, proconsul ca. 104/105.139
4. IvE 236. The city of Philadelphia honors Ephesos, 19. IvE1385. Decree dated by the name of the
probably on same occasion as that of inscriptions 2 prytanis to ca. 105.
and 3. 20. IvE 3060. The city honors a citizen of Salamis
5. IvE 508 plus errata l. 5. Dedication to an emperor, in Cyprus for piety to the goddess; dated by letter
under P. Calvisius Ruso, proconsul likely in 92/ forms to ca. 106.
93.132 21. IvE 36 A-D. Dedication of benefits performed
6. IvE 415 plus addendum. Dedication of fountain by the honoree of no. 17, under L. Nonius Asprenas
to Domitian, dated by titulature to 92 C.E. Torquatus, proconsul ca. 107/108.140
7. IvE 416. Similar to inscription 6 above. 22. IvE 857. Bilingual dedication of a statue group,
8. IvE 3008. Building inscription to Domitian, un- similar to nos. 15, 16, 18, under Valerius Asiaticus
der M. Ateilius Postumus Bradua, proconsul perhaps Saturninus, proconsul ca. 108/109.141
94/95.133 23. IvE 422 plus errata. Dedication of a propylon
9. IvE 449. Decree of the city on the renewal of to Artemis Ephesia, Trajan, and the city, dated by
imperial building projects, which IvE suggested re- imperial titulature between August 114 and Febru-
ferred to the provincial temple of the Augusti. In- ary 116.
scribed under the same grammateus as no. 8. 24. IvE 1500. Statue base of Trajan, under Q. Ful-
10. IvE 793. Honorific inscription, same grammateus vius Gillo Bittius Proculus, proconsul 115/116.142
as nos. 8 and 9. 25. IvE 492. Dedication by a priestess of Artemis to
11. IvE 3005. Dedication to Domitian (name erased) Artemis (restored) and [tª p]r\t_ t«n [Sebast«n
on agora gate. nev]k[Òr]ƒ ÉEfe[s¤vn pÒlei]. The proconsul’s name
12. IvE 264. Statue base? of Nerva dedicated by is Fulvius, probably Q. Fulvius Gillo Bittius Proculus
Carminius Vetus, proconsul 96/97.134 as in no. 24; the Asiarch is probably also the same
13. IvE 1499. Base of statue of the Senate dedicated as the one mentioned in no. 24. The position of

129 Rossner 1974, 141, inscription of the Sempronii Aruncii, 135 Eck 1970, 154-155; Thomasson 1984, 220 no. 87 (98-

from Panamara. 102 C.E.).

130 Eck 1970, 85-86; Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 76 (84-90 136 Eck 1970, 161; Thomasson 1984, 220-221 no. 90;

C.E.). Stumpf 1991, 263-264; Weiser 1998, 281. On these bilingual

131 Eck 1970, 85, 141; Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 77 (85- dedications, Kearsley 1999 and 2001, 155.
91 C.E.). 137 Eck 1997b, no. 4.
132 Eck 1970, 84-85, 143; Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 79; 138 Rogers 1991.

Stumpf 1991, 230-232. 139 Eck 1970, 163; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 91 (105 C.E.).
133 Eck 1970, 86, 145; Thomasson 1984, 219 no. 81 140 Eck 1970, 168; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 93 (107 C.E.).

(Domitianic, after 84 C.E.). 141 Eck 1970, 170; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 94 (108 C.E.).
134 Eck 1970, 84, 148; also Thomasson 1984, 219-220 no. 142 Eck 1970, 180; Stumpf 1991, 275-276; Thomasson 1984,

86 (if no. 85, Peregrinus, is spurious). 223 no. 104.

80 part i – section i. koinon of asia

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

143Wörrle Archäologischer Anzeiger 88 (1973) 470-477;

Thomasson 1984, 223 no. 107 (117-119 C.E.). 150 For the person and the date, L. Robert 1938.
144 Eck 1970, 185 n. 300, 186 n. 309; Thomasson 1984, 151 Restored by Kourouniotis 1921-22, 83-85 fig. 67.
223 no. 106 (118 C.E.). 152 For the Vedii in these and the following inscriptions,
145 Eck 1970, 197; Thomasson 1984, 224 no. 113 (124/125 see Fontani 1996 and Engelmann 1999.
C.E.); Weiser 1998, 283. 153 Early: PIR 2 A.810, Eck 1972; ca. 146-148 C.E.:
146 Eck 1970, 202; Thomasson 1984, 225 no. 116. Thomasson 1984, 227 no. 128; ca. 147-149 C.E.: Halfmann
147 Bowie 1971, 139 n. 8; Thomasson 1984, 225 no. 118. 1970, 148 no. 58; 148/149 C.E.: Fontani 1996, 228. Late:
148 PIR2 J.141; Thomasson 1984, 226 no. 120. Bowersock 1967; J. and L. Robert, Bulletin Epigraphique 1968
149 Eck 1970, 210; Thomasson 1984, 226 no. 121 (133-137 no. 171.
C.E.). 154 Halfmann 1986a, 210-211; Fontani 1996, 228, 234.
chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 81

family as agonothetes for life and hereditarily of the 68. IvE 3037. The city honors a legatus pro praetore
great Hadrianeia festival. Asiae, probably before 175-180.
52. IvE 661. The city honors a citizen; dated ca. 140- 69. IvE 692. Base of statue of a “twice Asiarch of
150. Asia of the temples in Ephesos,” his career dated
53. IvE 642. Statue base of a chief priest of Asia of 154-174 (IvE 1105 A, 1130).
the temples in Ephesos; probably dated before the 70. IvE 699 A. The city honors a local official; dated
proconsulate of L. Antonius Albus (see above no. 46). around the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
54. IvE 611. Statue base of M’. Acilius Glabrio, 71. IvE 718. The city honors a quaestor pro praetore
consul in 152 and then legatus Asiae and curator Asiae; except for the city’s titulature, this inscription
rei publicae of Ephesos.155 is wholly in Latin. Dated by letter forms to the mid-
55. IGUrbRom 26 [IGRR 1.147]. Dedication of a second century.
building for Ephesian shipowners and merchants in 72. IvE 2069. The city honors a chief priest of Asia
Rome, to Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius of the temples in Ephesos; dated around the mid-
Caesar, dated January 18, 154. second century.
56. IvE 2049. Statue base of Antoninus Pius and 73. IvE 3036. The city of Selge honors an Ephesian,
members of his family, dated 146-161. the son of the chief priest of Asia honored in no. 72,
57. IvE 2050. Six statue bases of Antoninus Pius, who was proconsul of Pamphylia and Lycia; dated
each dedicated by a different Ephesian tribe. The after 178.
grammateus is the same one who was in charge of 74. IvE 1555. Fragment of honorific; mid-second
setting up inscription 56. century.
58. IvE 282D. Statue base of Antoninus Pius, simi- 75. IvE 721. The city honors a chief priest of Asia
lar to no. 57. of the temples in Ephesos; dated between 170 and
59. IvE 1541. The city honors a quaestor pro 184/185.
praetore; dated to the reign of Antoninus Pius. 76. IvE 1380 B. Dedication to an emperor who was
60. IvE 288 (4) C and D. Statue base of Hadrian son Germanicus (Marcus Aurelius or Commodus).
of Marcus Aurelius (born 152, died before 166).156 77. IvE 613 A. The city honors a citizen. Dated to
61. IvE 288 (5). Base of the family of Marcus the reign of Commodus.
Aurelius, including the Hadrian of no. 60. 78. IvE 627. The city honors an equestrian official
62. IvE 4341. The city honors a legatus Asiae and honored by Commodus (name erased).
curator of the city; dated to the 160s, in the reign 79. IvE 367. The city honors an Asiarch of the
of Marcus Aurelius. temples in Ephesos; dated after the second half of
63. IvE 696. The city honors a legatus pro praetore the second century.
Asiae and curator of the city, dated before 167; set 80. IvE 3049. The city honors a citizen of Tralles,
up by the same two men who set up no. 62. father of a curator of Ephesos. Dated around the end
64. IvE 24 B. Part of a dossier containing an edict of the second/beginning of the third century.
of the proconsul C. Popillius Carus Pedo, probably 81. IvE 3052. The city honors a procurator vicesimae
in 162/163.157 hereditatum. Dated by letter forms to the end of the
65. IvE 1543. The city honors a legatus pro praetore second/beginning of the third century.
Asiae, before 163. Except for the city’s titulature, this 82. IvE 4109. Statue base of Septimius Severus and
inscription is wholly in Latin. his family, dated 198-210.
66. IvE 672 A. The city honors a sophist and bene- 83. IvE 294. Base of Septimius Severus (name
factor, ca. 166. restored) as ‘new Helios,’ dated by the editors to 210-
67. IvE 665. The city honors Pomponia Triaria, 211; but the titulature could also be that of Cara-
daughter of A. Junius Rufinus, proconsul of Asia, calla, who was occasionally given the titles Arabicus
and wife of C. Erucius Clarus, consul in 170.158 and Adiabenicus after 211. The inscription would
thus date before he became Germanicus in 213, like
inscription 128 below.159 Thus the enumeration of
155 Merkelbach 1971; Syme 1980, 446-448.
156 Kienast 1996, 140.
157 Hanslik, ‘Popillius. 37’ in RE 22 (1953) 67 (162/163 or 158 Eck 1999 dates the inscription to the time of Avidius

163/164); Thomasson 1984, 229-230 no. 146; Stumpf 1991, Cassius’ revolt in Syria.
299-300. 159 Mastino 1981, 50-57.
82 part i – section i. koinon of asia

neokoria could be [d]‹w nevkÒrou t«[n Sebast«n 107. IvE 1926 (2). Fragment, undated.
ÉEfes¤]vn pÒlevw. 108. IvE 2909. Top of base, undated.
84. IvE 1238. Base of statue of Tyche given by Probably twice neokoros:
Pisidian Antioch; the city secretary is son of the chief 109. IvE 708. Statue base of a local official. Undated.
priest of Asia of no. 72. 110. IvE 683 B. [Riemann, Bulletin de correspondance
85. IvE 2052. A statue of the People set up by the hellénique 1 (1877) 290 no. 77, from Cyriacus of Anco-
council. Undated. na, CIG 3004]. The people honor a citizen; though
86. IvE 644. The city honors a citizen. Undated. the title is restored as only ‘neokoros,’ the formula
87. IvE 687. The city honors a citizen; here neokoros is that typical of the second neokoria.
modifies ‘the Ephesians,’ not ‘the people’ or ‘the 111. IvE 893. The city honors a citizen. Undated.
city.’ Undated. 112. IvE 1907 (2). Top of base, undated.
88. IvE 664 B. The city honors a chief priest of Asia 113. IvE 2908. Fragment, undated.
of the temples in Ephesos. Undated. 114. IvE 1921 (3). Fragment of a base, undated.
89. IvE 985. The city honors a priestess of Artemis. 115. IvE 1921 (2). Upper corner of a base, undated.
Undated. 116. IvE 1915 (2). Fragment, undated.
90. IvE 686. The city honors M. Julius Aquila, chief 117. IvE 1909 (1). Fragment of base, undated.
priest of Asia of the temples in Ephesos. See the 118. IvE 1906 (2). Top of a base, undated.
following. 119. IvE 2908. Fragment, undated.
91. IvE 689. The city honors the mother of Aquila, 120. Knibbe and Iplikçioglu 1981/82, 90 no. 6. Half
chief priest of Asia of no. 90. Her name now restored of a torus capital, reused; undated.
from a new inscription from Amorion as Aelia 121. IvE 1918 (3). Top of statue base, undated.
Ammia, “chief priestess of the greatest temples in 122. IvE 1902 (2). Fragment of statue base, undated.
Ephesos” by Kearsley 1990. See above, n. 69. Al- 123. IvE 1810. Fragment, undated.
most certainly paired with inscription 90, above.160 Three times neokoros and following:
Despite Kearsley’s arguments to the contrary, this 124. IvE 212. Letter of Caracalla granting neokoria
indicates that Aelia Ammia served as chief priest- of Artemis, for a total of three. See text above.
ess when her son was Asiarch (as expressed on the 125. IvE 3001. Inscription of east hall of agora,
new inscription), presumably because he was unmar- inscribed 211, recarved 212 or after. Probably
ried, widowed, or simply wished to give his mother changed from ‘neokoros of Artemis and three times
this great honor. Kearsley’s geneaology would date neokoros of the Augusti’ to ‘neokoros of Artemis and
this to around 190 C.E. twice neokoros of the Augusti,’ though the enumera-
92. IvE 1606. The city honors a winner of contests. tion is restored. See text above.
Undated. 126. IvE 740. Inscription of Ulpius Apollonius
93. IvE 4342. The city honors a citizen. Undated. Plautus, designated Asiarch, who is also mentioned
94. IvE 649. The city honors a citizen. Undated. in inscription 133, below. Ephesos is neokoros of
95. IvE 1517. Fragment, undated. Artemis and three times neokoros of the Augusti.
96. IvE 1563. Fragment, undated. Dated to 211, subsequently all erased. See text
97. IvE 1532. Fragment, undated. above.
98. IvE 2909 A. Fragment, undated. 127. IvE 647. Dedication to Ti. Claudius Serenus.
99. IvE 1902 (1). Fragment, undated. Ephesos is neokoros of Artemis and three times
100. IvE 1906 (1). Top of base, undated. neokoros of the Augusti. Dated to 211, subsequently
101. IvE 1909 (3). Fragment, undated. erased. See text above.
102. IvE 1913. Fragment, undated. 128. IvE 297. Base of Caracalla, dated between
103. IvE 1915 (1). Top of base, undated. February 212 and October 213. Ephesos is only
104. IvE 1921 (1). Corner of base, undated. twice neokoros of the Augusti. See text above.
105. IvE 1923 (1). Fragment, undated. 129. IvE 834 plus addenda. Unfortunately fragmen-
106. IvE 1926 (1). Fragment, undated. tary honorific, placed at this point by its use of the
formula ‘twice neokoros of the Augusti by decrees
of the most sacred Senate.’ The mention of the
160 See Wörrle 1992, 368-370, restoring sun[ierasa]m°nhn Senate is characteristic of the period after the grant
t“ u|“ in lines 11-12. by Caracalla and Geta, while the count of only two
chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 83

imperial neokoriai allies it to no. 128; though it for the Augusti and once for Artemis; later erased
might also date to the reign of Macrinus. and changed to twice neokoros of the Augusti only.
130. IvE 2053. Base of a statue of the city of See text above.
Carthage, one of a group including nos. 131, 132, Enumeration uncertain:
and IvE 2055 (the latter a base of a statue of Kos 136. IvE 291. Statue base of an emperor who was
on which the neokoria is only restored). Ephesos is Germanicus Maximus and Armeniacus, probably
here three times neokoros, so the occasion may have Caracalla. Remains of the words ‘twice’ and ‘of the
been a festival to celebrate the restoration of the Augusti’ are still on the stone but are interspersed
neokoria for Artemis, which is being counted in. with erasures. The editors attribute this to Christians
Carthage’s participation was likely in return for obliterating the name of Artemis, but it is more likely
Ephesos’ at the inauguration of the Pythia at the result of the changes in neokoriai that occurred
Carthage.161 The dedicator here later became city in the reign of Macrinus, as in inscription 135.
secretary and set up statues of Caracalla and Julia Four times neokoros:
Domna after October 213 (no. 133, below). 137. IvE 625. Base recarved from ‘three times’ to
131. IvE 2054. Statue of Knidos. See text and in- ‘four times neokoros,’ enumeration later erased
scriptions 130, 132. completely. See text above.
132. IvE 2056. Base of a statue of Nikaia in Lydia, Three times neokoros:
one of a group of city statues; see above inscriptions 138. IvE 304. Base of a statue of Gordian III, un-
130, 131. Ephesos is three times neokoros. der Decimus Junius Quintianus, logistes ca. 243/
133. IvE 300. Base of Caracalla and Julia Domna, 244, at the end of Gordian’s reign.163 Ephesos is
dated after October 213. Ephesos is three times neokoros of the most holy Artemis and twice
neokoros, twice of the Augusti, once of Artemis. See neokoros of the Augusti.
text above. One of the board who voted and set up 139. IvE 304 A. Base of a statue of Tranquillina wife
the statue is Ulpius Apollonius Plautus, the desig- of Gordian III, with the same formula of neokoriai
nated Asiarch of inscription 126, above. and set up under the same logistes as no. 138.
134. IvE 2040. Building inscription of theater aw- 140. IvE 467. Architrave inscription, one fragment
ning. Ephesos is twice neokoros of the Augusti by of which may mention the logistes of nos. 138 and
decrees of the sacred Senate and neokoros of 139, and whose formula of neokoriai can be restored
Artemis, i.e. a total of three; by the wording, the in the same way.
Senate’s decrees seem to pertain only to the 141. IvE 4336. Statue base of Gordian III. See text
neokoriai of the Augusti. The construction was partly above.
financed from funds found by the proconsul Q. Probably three times neokoros (two of the
Tineius Sacerdos, whose office has been dated ca. Augusti, one of Artemis):
206-208 by the inscription of the skene at Hiera- 142. IvE 300 A. Statue base? in fragments. Formula
polis.162 As that surely predates Caracalla’s grant of similar to that of inscription 133.
the neokoria for Artemis (inscription 124), however, 143. IvE 284 A. Fragmentary dedication to an
it is clear that this inscription dates after Sacerdos’ emperor named Ant[oninus?] and to the city: tª
proconsulship; the fund-gathering and reconstruc- pr\[t_ ka‹ meg¤st_] mhtrop[Òlei t}w ÉAs¤aw] ka‹
tion of the awning probably took some time. The nev[kÒrƒ...] The editors restore nev[kÒrƒ t«n
titulature should postdate the reappearance of the Sebast«n ÉEfes¤vn pÒlei] and postulate Antoninus
third neokoria for Artemis in 213, as shown by in- Pius or Marcus Aurelius, but Ephesos was twice
scription 133. neokoros on inscriptions of their reigns. More likely
135. Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1989, is a restoration on the lines of no. 138; the emperor
Beibl. 165-168 no. 3. Statue of Caracalla, dated after would then be Gordian III, his name Ant[onius].
215. The city is originally three times neokoros, twice 144. IvE 1910 (2). Fragmentary, undated; the city
is neokoros of Artemis, first, greatest, metropolis of
Asia, and twice neokoros of the Augusti.
161 L. Robert 1978a, 468-469; Weiss 1998, 59.
162 Ritti 1985, 108-113 and L’Année épigraphique (1994) no.
1638 (206/207); for Sacerdos, PIR 3.332.170; KP 5.854 no. 3;
Thomasson 1984, 233 no. 175 (under Septimius Severus?),
Magie 1950, app. 1 (202-214). 163 PIR2 J.803.
84 part i – section i. koinon of asia

145. IvE 1916. Upper right corner of statue base, Septimius Severus: BMC 259, 260; SNGCop 411; SNGvA
undated. My restoration: [k]a‹ nev[kÒrou? t}w ÉAr- 1893, 7869; SNGMün 152-155; SNGRighetti 853;
Berlin (7 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York (3 exx.),
t°mid]ow ka‹ d[‹w nevkÒrou? t«n Seba]st[«n].
Oxford (10 exx.), Paris (12 exx.), Vienna (7 exx.).
146. IvE 1904 (2). Fragment of base, undated. Could Julia Domna: BMC 263, 265; SNGCop 415, 416; SNGvA
be restored as ‘three times’ or perhaps ‘four times 1895; SNGMün 158; SNGLewis 1449; Berlin (2 exx.),
neokoros.’ Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.).
147. IvE 1908 (3). Fragment, undated. Could be Caracalla: BMC 271-275; SNGCop 419-423; SNGvA 1896-
restored as twice (or three times) neokoros of the 1898; SNGMün 160, 161, 163, 164; Berlin (9 exx.),
London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (7 exx.), Paris
Augusti and of Artemis. (6 exx.), Vienna (10 exx.).
148. IvE 473 (3). Fragment of archivolt, undated. Geta Caesar: SNGCop 425; SNGvA 7874; SNGMün 168;
Ephesos is twice or three times neokoros. Oxford, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Uncertain and restored: Geta Augustus: BMC 281, 282; SNGCop 431; SNGvA 1902,
149. IvE 2906. Fragment of Hellenistic ashlar block. 1903, 7877; SNGMün 173; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston,
London, New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (5 exx.),
From the context, it may refer to a neokoros offi- Vienna (4 exx.).
cial rather than the city’s titulature. Three times neokoros:
150. IvE 1907 (1). Fragment, undated. Geta Augustus: Gotha (genuine?).
151. IvE 2040. Fragment, undated. Three times neokoros and of Artemis:
152. IvE 1908 (2). Fragment, undated. Julia Domna: Berlin, London, Paris.
153. IvE 1551. Fragment, undated. Caracalla: SNGvA 7871; Berlin.
Caracalla and Geta: BMC 292; SNGCop 436; SNGvA 1904;
154. IvE 1924 (3). Fragment, undated. Berlin (2 exx.), Paris.
Geta Augustus: Berlin, London.
Twice neokoros and of Artemis:
Three times neokoros:
Neokoros: Julia Domna: BMC 266, 267; SNGCop 417; Berlin (4 exx.),
Nero: SNGvA 7863; Berlin (3 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna
Oxford, Paris, Vienna. (5 exx.).
Trajan: BMC 223; SNGvA 1884; Berlin (2 exx.), New Caracalla: BMC 276-279, Adramyttium 24, 25; SNGvA
York, Oxford. 1899, 1900, 7872, 7873; SNGMün 162, 165, 166;
Twice neokoros: SNGLewis 1450; SNGParis Adramytium 59; Berlin (17
Hadrian: BMC 227, 228; SNGMün 127; Berlin, New York, exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (6 exx.), Oxford
Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). (6 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (13 exx.), War-
Hadrian and Aelius Verus: Paris. saw.
Antoninus Pius: BMC 233-236; SNGCop 397; SNGvA 1888; Uncertain:
SNGMün 132, 133; Berlin (7 exx.), London (2 exx.), Macrinus: Vienna (falsified?).
New York (2 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (7 exx.), Four times neokoros:
Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw. Elagabalus: BMC 300, 302-305, 307; SNGCop 442-448165;
Marcus Aurelius Caesar: BMC 242; Berlin (2 exx.), SNGvA 1905, 1906; SNGMün 184; SNGRighetti 854;
Oxford, Paris (2 exx.).164 Berlin (21 exx.), London (7 exx.), New York (4
Marcus Aurelius Augustus: BMC 243; SNGCop 400; exx.), Oxford (8 exx.), Paris (19 exx.), Vienna (13
SNGvA 1890, 1891; SNGMün 141-145; SNGLewis exx.).166
1448; Berlin (10 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Julia Paula: BMC 308; SNGCop 453, 454; SNGvA 1907;
Oxford (4 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (9 exx.), SNGRighetti 856; Berlin (4 exx.), London, Oxford (2
Warsaw. exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Faustina the Younger: BMC 235; SNGCop 402; Berlin (4 Annia Faustina: BMC 309; SNGvA 1908; SNGMün 187 (fal-
exx.), Oxford, Paris, Vienna (2 exx.).
Lucius Verus: BMC 247; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris.
165 SNGCop 444 and several Berlin examples have been
Commodus Caesar: BMC 254; Berlin, Boston, New York,
Paris. identified as late 17th century casts from genuine ancient coins;
Commodus Augustus: BMC 255; SNGCop 409; Berlin (2 for the purposes of this study, the use of such casts is less
problematic than the use of recut coins, as the legends and types
exx.), London, New York, Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (2 are true copies of ancient coins, not inventions. See H.-D.
exx.). Schultz 1995.
166 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 114 no. 1116, a concord
164 One issue celebrating concord between Ephesos TR NEO
coin of Laodikeia with Ephesos three times neokoros under
and Hierapolis is presumably an engraver’s error: Franke and Elagabalus, is presumably retouched on the reverse as well as
M. Nollé 1997, 41 nos. 323-325. on the obverse, and should be considered falsified.
chapter 4 – ephesos in ionia 85

sified);167 Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris (4 exx.), 1457; SNGRighetti 861-863; Berlin (23 exx.), Boston
Vienna. (2 exx.), London (8 exx.), New York (12 exx.), Ox-
Julia Soaemias: New York, Paris (2 exx.). ford (12 exx.), Paris (19 exx.), Vienna (12 exx.),
Julia Maesa: BMC 310; Paris (3 exx.). Warsaw.
Severus Alexander Caesar: BMC 312; SNGMün 189; Gallienus: BMC 370-376; SNGCop 510-512; SNGvA 1928-
Berlin (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna. 1930, 7887; SNGMün 249-254, 263; SNGLewis 1459;
Severus Alexander Augustus: BMC 311, 314, 318, Kibyra Berlin (20 exx.), Boston, London (5 exx.), New York
94; SNGCop 460-462; SNGvA 7880; SNGMün 190, (3 exx.), Oxford (10 exx.), Paris (12 exx.), Vienna (7
193, 196; SNGLewis 1453; SNGRighetti 857; Berlin (4 exx.).
exx.), London, New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (8 Salonina: BMC 390-394;168 SNGCop 532-534; SNGvA
exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). 1933, 1934; SNGMün 266-268, 270; SNGLewis 1461;
Julia Mamaea: BMC 328; Berlin. Berlin (6 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York (4 exx.),
Neokoros: Oxford (7 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.),
Severus Alexander Augustus: Vienna. Warsaw (2 exx.).
Three times neokoros: Valerianus: SNGMün 276; SNGLewis 1463; Berlin, New
Maximinus: BMC 329, 330; SNGCop 472, 473; SNGvA York, Oxford, Paris (2 exx.).
1912; SNGMün 208, 209; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston, Saloninus: SNGCop 541; Berlin, London, Paris.
London (3 exx.), New York, Oxford (4 exx.), Paris Four times neokoros:
(8 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.). Valerian: BMC 359?, 360-363; SNGCop 501-503; SNGvA
Maximus Caesar: SNGMün 212; London, Paris. 1924, 1925; Berlin (4 exx.), London, New York (2
Gordian III: BMC 331; SNGvA 1913; SNGMün 213-215; exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.).
SNGLewis 1454; SNGRighetti 860; Berlin (2 exx.), New Gallienus: BMC 377-384; SNGCop 513-521; SNGvA 1931,
York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). 7888, 7889; SNGMün 257-260; SNGRighetti 864, 867,
Philip: Berlin. 868; Berlin (12 exx.), London (6 exx.), New York (6
Otacilia: BMC 342, 343; SNGCop 486; Berlin, New York exx.), Oxford (9 exx.), Paris (13 exx.), Vienna (10
(2 exx.), Oxford, Paris, Vienna. exx.).169
Philip Caesar: SNGCop 488, 489; SNGvA 1914; SNGMün Salonina: BMC 395; SNGCop 535, 536; SNGMün 275;
224; New York, Oxford, Paris, Vienna (2 exx.). SNGRighetti 869; Berlin (4 exx.), New York (3 exx.),
Trajan Decius: SNGvA 1916; Berlin, London, Oxford, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
Paris (2 exx.), Vienna. Valerianus: SNGCop 538; Berlin, Vienna.
Valerian: BMC 350-358; SNGCop 496-500; SNGvA 1921- Saloninus: Paris.
1923; SNGMün 234-238, 240, 241, 243; SNGLewis
168 BMC 392 is a cast of an ancient coin. See H.-D. Schultz

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

Chapter 5. Kyzikos in Mysia: Koinon of Asia

Kyzikos had a checkered relationship with the Helios,’ was serving an honorific term as hipparchos,
emperors and their cult. According to Tacitus, in 25 the city’s chief magistrate.3 Whatever the exact
C.E. the emperor Tiberius deprived it of its status object(s) of cult to which the title alludes, this is the
as a free city for, among other serious charges, first use of ‘neokoros’ to describe a city’s association
neglecting the cult of the deified Augustus. Cassius with the imperial cult, and indicates the conditions
Dio amplified this account: the Kyzikenes did not under which it would later become a recognized title.
complete the heroön to Augustus that they had
begun to build.1 The heroön was likely a munici-
pal shrine, as Asia’s koinon temple to Augustus was First Neokoria: Hadrian
of course the one in Pergamon (q.v.).
Some years later, Kyzikos produced the first in- In 123 C.E., according to the Chronicon Paschale,
scription yet known to call a city neokoros: Hadrian visited Kyzikos, where he founded a temple
and paved a marketplace with marble.4 Though
INSCRIPTION 1. Dittenberger 1960, SIG4 799
unremarkable at first sight, this reference provides
(IGRR 4:146). Decree honoring Antonia Try-
an origin for a project as elusive to trace as it is
phaena, dated to 38 C.E. meg¤stƒ ka‹ [§pifa-
important, the construction of a provincial temple
nes(tã)tƒ ye“ _Ga¤ƒ´ Ka¤sari érxa¤an ka‹
to Hadrian that was to gain the title ‘neokoros’ for
progonikØn toË g°nouw aÈtoË nevkÒron §pa-
Kyzikos. The evidence for this temple is scattered
naktvm°nh pÒlin. . .
through a number of late and obscure sources, and
The phrasing is unique, not formulaic; this is a its very object of cult has been doubted, while the
metaphor, comparing the city to the neokoros offi- remains of the temple itself only recently began to
cial of a shrine, and does not yet represent an offi- be revealed.5
cial title. The Kyzikenes call their city “ancient and Though the Chronicon Paschale mentioned nothing
ancestral neokoros of the family” of the “greatest and of a temple beyond Hadrian’s foundation of one, a
most manifest god Gaius Caesar” (Caligula, whose scholion to Lucian’s Icaromenippus 24 stated that the
name was erased after his death and the condem- Olympieion in Athens stayed uncompleted for over
nation of his memory), much as an Ephesian (q.v.) three hundred years due to lack of money, like the
could call his home “neokoros of the great goddess temple in Kyzikos, and that neither of them would
Artemis and of the heaven-fallen [image].” One may have been finished had not Hadrian taken up the
wonder whether Kyzikos called itself neokoros here work with public (i.e. imperial) funds.6 This infor-
due to the now completed heroön of Augustus, mation may derive from Arethas, the tenth-century
Gaius’ great-grandfather, or whether the city had a bishop of Kaisareia in Cappadocia; presumably the
shrine honoring his grandfather Agrippa, who held temple at Kyzikos is introduced as a comparison
imperium in the East in 15 B.C. when Kyzikos’ 3 IGRR 4:145 (= SIG 4 798).
status as a free city was restored, and who is men- 4 Chronicon Paschale 475.10 (Dindorf); Halfmann 1986a, 191,
tioned in line 7 of this inscription.2 The city also cel- 199 (preferring a date of 124); Lehnen 1997, 87; Birley 1997,
ebrated a festival in honor of Drusilla, Gaius’ sister, 162, 164 (inferring that the temple of Hadrian was originally
a temple of Zeus begun by the kings of Pergamon).
under the titles of ‘goddess, new Aphrodite,’ in 37 5 Excavations directed by Prof. A. YaylalÌ, with many new
during her lifetime, when Gaius himself, called ‘new finds, especially of architectural fragments. See YaylalÌ 1990;
Koçhan 1991; YaylalÌ, Koçhan, and Baâaran 1991; and YaylalÌ
and Özkaya 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996.
1 Tacitus, Annals 4.36; Cassius Dio 57.24.6. 6 Rabe 1906, 107 sec. 20, ll. 16-22. On the funds, see
2 Cassius Dio 54.7.6, 23.7. Winter 1996, 90, 101.
chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia 87

because its story was well known to him or to the huge size of the temple, though Dio’s epitomator
scholiast. But how far is the comparison to go? The Xiphilinos is not specific about its identification. The
figure of three hundred years seems to refer to the earthquake should date only shortly before Pius’
Athenian Olympieion, and probably represents the death in March 161, because his successor Marcus
interval between the start of its construction on Aurelius gave a speech before the Senate and asked
Peisistratid foundations in 174 B.C.E. and its final for aid to be sent to the stricken Kyzikenes, prob-
dedication by Hadrian in 131/132.7 If we apply a ably in August of that same year.10
similar lapse to the temple in Kyzikos, it too would In 166 or 167 the orator Aelius Aristides deliv-
have been founded in the second century B.C.E., ered a panegyric in Kyzikos that included the temple
but the excavation has produced no sign of so early there as one of its main themes.11 A proper occa-
an origin. In fact, unlike Athens’ Olympieion, whose sion for such a speech might have been the dedica-
construction seems substantially Hellenistic, the tion of the temple, but Hasluck, disturbed by the
foundations of the Kyzikos temple are completely forty-year gap between inception and panegyric,
Roman, with vaulted substructures of cement and preferred to call it the anniversary of the dedication,
agglomerate. The scholiast, then, may be referring which he placed in 139, the date suggested by
to some period of incompletion of a temple at Boeckh for the first celebration of Hadrianeia Olym-
Kyzikos, though not necessarily of three hundred pia at Kyzikos.12 Yet such a delay from inception to
years. He may even be conflating Cassius Dio’s completion does recall the scholiast on Lucian,
reference to the heroön to Augustus still incomplete though forty years cannot compare with the three
in 25 with the later temple founded by Hadrian. The centuries of the Olympieion at Athens. It is then
words of the scholiast make no doubt, however, of likely that Aristides’ speech did commemorate the
the role of Hadrian and his money in both Athens dedication of the temple of Hadrian; it had been
and Kyzikos. begun ca. 123 or 124, had probably still been un-
The sixth-century author Johannes Malalas con- finished when it had been thrown down by an earth-
nected Hadrian’s foundation with aid given to quake late in Antoninus Pius’ reign, and was finally
Kyzikos after a disastrous earthquake. He called it dedicated (but was it finished?) in 166 or 167.
“a very large temple, one of the wonders.”8 The folly It is unfortunate for us that Aristides’ oration is
of building such a large monument in a proven not more specific about the temple’s history and even
earthquake zone would soon become apparent. about its object of worship, but a flowery panegy-
During the reign of Antoninus Pius another earth- ric did not need to mention such commonplace facts,
quake shook Kyzikos and threw down what was, well known to both orator and audience. When
according to Cassius Dio, “the largest and most Aristides speaks of the temple (sections 16-21), it is
beautiful of all temples.”9 Both accounts stress the in such hyperbolic and metaphorical terms that he
cannot be taken literally.13 The temple competes
7 Travlos 1971, 402-411; Willers 1990; Tölle-Kastenbein with mountains; it is so great a landmark that navi-
1994; C. Jones 1996, 33. gators sailing to Kyzikos will no longer need bea-
8 Johannes Malalas 11.16; ed. Dindorf (Bonn 1831) 279;

E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, and Scott 1986, 147-148. This earth- con fires to guide them. Each of its blocks is as big
quake, on the night of November 10, probably in 120, has been as a temple, the temple itself as big as a sanctuary
associated with different seismic events of Hadrian’s reign, no- precinct, and the sanctuary precinct as big as a city.
tably an earthquake in Nikomedia and Aoria dated to 128, by
Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 233-234 no. 112. It is difficult to say whether there is more marble
On earthquakes and chronology in Malalas, see E. Jeffreys in the temple than had been left over in its quarry
1990, 155-160, 166. on Prokonnesos.
9 Cassius Dio ep. 70.4.1-2; other cities were also affected.

Barattolo 1995, 60-62 n. 15, attempted to move this section

of Dio from the reign of Antoninus to that of Marcus Aurelius, 10 Fronto, Letters to the Emperor Antoninus 1.2.4; ed. M. van

but the argument is special pleading, largely incoherent. B. Keil den Hout 86-91. Van den Hout 1999, 231 on 89.3 dates the
1897 dated the earthquake too early, between 150 and 155 C.E. letter to October 161; Behr 1968, 92-93 n. 1b. Winter 1996,
See Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 236-237 no. 102-103 put the earthquake in 160 and the speech in 162.
116, where the date is no more exact than the mid-second 11 Oration 27 (Keil, 125-138); P. Aelius Aristides, The Com-

century, and two seismic events (this at Kyzikos, and another plete Works, tr. C. Behr (Leiden 1981) 2:98-106, with commen-
at Ephesos and Nikomedia) that may have been diverse are tary 379-382; Heinze 1995; Swain 1996, 285-288. See also
again associated. But there were many earthquakes in the area Bowersock 1973, 195-196.
during this period, and it is likely that the same cities were 12 Hasluck 1910, 187-188; CIG 3674.

repeatedly shaken: Eusebius, History of the Church 4.13. 13 Boulanger 1923, 342-346, esp. 344 n. 1.
88 part i – section i. koinon of asia

The orator then began his transition to the next and dated to the twelfth or thirteenth century, lists
essential part of his speech, praise of the rulers: the temple eighteenth, as “the [temple] of Hadrian
§pegrãcasye m¢n går tÚn êriston t«n e¸w §ke›non
in Kyzikos, unfinished.”16
tÚn xrÒnon basil°vn: ¥kei d¢ Ím›n tÚ ¶rgon prÚw If it was never finished, it was no wonder. Almost
t°low §n to›sde to›w kairo›w, o„ tå kal«n aÔ every author who mentioned the temple at Kyzikos
kãllista e¸lÆxasin ka‹ Íp¢r œn dikaiÒtat' ín xari- harped on its prodigious size. Aristides dredged up
stÆrion tosoËton •sthkÚw e‡h to›w yeo›w, §peidÆper hyperbole after hyperbole for it. Like Johannes
oÈ =ñdion [hâ n] me›zon §jeure›n. Malalas, an anonymous poet during the reign of
You [Kyzikenes] have had written [on the temple] Anastasius (491-513 C.E.) classed it among the
the name of the best of rulers up to that time. But wonders of the world, though in this epigram it is
the work has come to completion in these times, specified as coming after the Roman Capitolium and
which have brought about the best of good things Pergamon’s grove of Rufinus and before the pyra-
and on account of which so great a thank-offering
to the gods would have been most rightly set up, mids, the colossus of Rhodes, and the lighthouse at
since it should not be easy to find a better one. Alexandria:
(section 22) mhd¢ tanupleÊroisin érhrÒta, KÊzike, p°troiw,
ÑAdrianoË basil}ow émemf°a nhÚn ée¤seiw.
Presumably ‘the name of the best of rulers up to that
time’ was that of Hadrian written on the temple, Nor will you sing, Kyzikos, the blameless temple
of King Hadrian, close-joined with enormous stones.
though even this would not assure that he was the
object of cult and not simply the donor. Aristides Greek Anthology 9.656
also refers to the temple as if it were “a thank- Also in the opinion of Niketas of Herakleia, an elev-
offering to the gods,” which has made some think enth-century author, Hadrian’s sanctuary in Kyzikos
that this was the explanation for the temple’s foun- was the seventh of the wonders.17
dation.14 Aristides expresses a possibility, however, Cassius Dio (70.4.1-2) seems to sum it all up,
not a fact: saying that the temple would make a fine writing that “in general, the details were more to be
thank-offering for the fortunes of present times says
nothing about why it was originally built. In fact,
16 Codex Vaticanus graecus 989, last page, 110, bound into a
Aristides never mentions the cult for which the
collection of works ascribed to Xenophon: B. Keil 1897, 503
temple was built in any but the most allusive (and n. 1; Corso 1991, 158-163 (giving the date). Barattolo 1995,
to us, elusive) manner; he saves specificity for present 73 amended the Greek ét°[le]stow for no reason but his own
times and present rulers, as when he compares argument, not explaining why the temple of Hadrian should
be referred to as ‘fulfilled,’ t°lestow. Barattolo (71) also mis-
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus to Asklepios and interpreted Aristides, who never said that the work came to
Serapis. an end “thanks to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus,” but only
The speech does make clear, however, that the in their time; see also 73, where he imagined that they would
have naturally put their portrait busts on the temple with
current celebration was in honor of a great work, Hadrian’s. For those emperors’ actual attitude toward honors
i.e. the temple, which had been started in a previ- to their forebears, Pekáry 1985, 38.
17 Niketas, in Philonis Byzantini Libellus de septem orbis specta-
ous emperor’s reign.15 The size and scope of the culis... aliorum scriptorum veterum de iisdem septem spectaculis testimo-
project were probably reason enough for delay, even nia, fragmenta Callinici Sophistae et Adriani Tyrii adque indicem
if no earthquake had intervened; in section 21 of the graecitatis adiecit Jo. Conradus Orellius (Lipsiae 1816) 144. See
Broderson 1992, 129. Schott 1891, 30, postulated that the
speech Aristides notes that the temple’s construction temple substituted for earlier lists’ citation of the Artemision
had even necessitated the invention of new engineer- at Ephesos, though in order to support his belief in a Helle-
ing devices and means of transport. But Aristides nistic dating for this reorganization, he had to state that the
“temple at Kyzikos” cited in the wonder lists of Georgios
never states that his oration was to celebrate the Kedrenos (chart no. IX) and in the two lists in Anecdota
completion of the temple, as is often assumed. An Graeca, Codex Ambrosianus c. 222 (chart no. XIIa and b) differs
anonymous list of thirty things most beautiful and from the explicitly cited “temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos” of the
lists given by Niketas and Codex Vaticanus graecus 989. He chose
worth seeing, probably amassed from previous lists instead the shrine cited by Pliny Natural History 36.22.98, which
holds a marble statue of Apollo crowning an ivory Zeus, and
then stated that this was later rebuilt by Hadrian. See below
n. 63, and Broderson 1992, 66, 68, 84, 96, 106 (again explic-
14 Pace S. Price 1984b, 153; following him, Swain 1996, 285.
itly naming the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos), 122 (see be-
See also C. Jones 1986, 84 n. 28. low), 130 (Kedrenos), 132, 136, 140 (Cyriacus’ translation of
15 This fact is passed over by Barattolo 1995. Niketas), 140, 142, 144.
chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia 89

wondered at than praised.” His further statement east and turning its south flank towards one of Kyzi-
that each column was a single block is scarcely to kos’ harbors, probably the Chytos.22
be believed, especially as he gave their proportions In the fifteenth century the main use of the temple
as four orguiai (about 24 feet) thick, though that pre- at Kyzikos was as a stone quarry for building in
sumably represents their circumference, and fifty nearby Bursa. It was in this condition that the trav-
cubits (about 75 feet) in height, a measurement that eler and antiquarian Cyriacus of Ancona saw it in
has been found by modern scholars to be not far off 1431, with thirty-one of its columns still standing.23
the mark.18 Dio’s epitomators Xiphilinos and Zona- He attempted to convince the governor of the pro-
ras agreed on the figures, though Zonaras com- vince that the depredations should be stopped, but
mented parenthetically, “if these things should not when he returned in 1444 two more columns had
appear incredible to anyone.”19 disappeared. In view of this, Cyriacus described,
An octastyle Corinthian temple with the legend measured, and sketched what remained of the
‘neokoros’ begins to appear on coins of Kyzikos late temple. His judgment was good. Bonsignore Bon-
in the reign of Antoninus Pius; the archon’s name, signori, who traveled in the area in 1498, saw only
Hestiaios, also appears on the first coins of Anto- twenty-six columns, which he noted (against the
ninus’ successors, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius testimony of Dio) as being not monolithic, but made
Verus.20 in ten parts; by then, the drums were being used to
make cannonballs, and large pieces of marble hid
what remained of the floor.24 By the nineteenth
NO% (%EB cgi) (Laureate, ahi) head (draped bust,
century the structure had been plundered down to
dgh) of Antoninus Pius r. Rev: (EPI E%TIAIOU
the platform. So Cyriacus’ careful account, preserved
in several copies, provides information about the
cdfgh) NEVKORVN Eight-column Corinthian
temple’s original state that would otherwise be un-
temple on podium (disc in pediment, adghi) a)
London 1895.6-6-14 b) London 1961.3-1-172
Though not at his best at history or epigraphy,
(illus. pl. 22 fig. 78) c) BMC 218 d) Oxford e)
Barattolo has made a significant contribution to-
SNGParis 659 f) SNGParis 662 g) SNGvA 1260 h)
wards reconstructing the temple that Cyriacus saw.26
Vienna 16147 i) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer.
He used the podium structure, still extant though
Even if the temple was not yet finished by the time overgrown on the site, to confirm that the temple
of issue of these coins, it still had risen far enough was octastyle and contained long galleries under-
to be portrayed in some detail. It would continue ground, conforming to Aristides’ description. Cyria-
to be a theme of Kyzikos’ coins so long as the city cus measured the stylobate to be 110 cubits by 40
issued them. cubits (165 x 360 feet), and originally with sixty-two
Though Aelius Aristides’ speech is not a model columns in all, though only twenty-nine were stand-
of lucid description, it too offers some hints as to the ing when he described them. Barattolo accounted
temple’s structure and placement. In section 20, he for the impossibility of reconciling all of Cyriacus’
compares it to a three-story house or a trireme in observations with any coherent modern reconstruc-
being threefold, with passages that followed a cir- tion of an ancient temple by positing that the col-
cuit from subterranean vaults to the customary onnades of the back and both sides of the temple
shrine and then to hanging walks, presumably up- had been so thoroughly robbed that Cyriacus did
per galleries. Indeed, underground vaults in the not recognize that they had been there. Thus Barat-
foundations of the temple have long been acces- tolo made one restoration of the original temple as
sible.21 In addition, Aristides’ comment that mari- a monumental octastyle structure with seventeen
ners would no longer need beacons but could use
the temple to guide them is quite apposite: the 22
temple stood in the western part of the city, facing Hasluck 1910, 5; YaylalÌ 1990, 179-181.
23 Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 28; Scalamonti 1996, 61-
62 gave the figure as thirty-three columns still standing. See
also Barattolo 1998.
18 Schulz and Winter 1990, 81. 24 Schulz 1995.
19 Zonaras 12.1. 25 Ashmole 1956; P. Lehmann 1973.
20 Münsterberg 1985, 66. 26 Barattolo 1995, 77-108; preferable to Schulz and Win-
21 Ertüzün 1964, 124-142. ter 1990, 33-82.
90 part i – section i. koinon of asia

columns along the flanks, dipteral, with an extra row eastern frieze, which may represent an emperor’s
of eight in both front and back, and both pronaos apotheosis.34 The apotheosis of Hadrian would be
and opisthodomos distyle in antis. It is to be hoped a very suitable subject for the entrance to his temple,
that the new excavations led by YaylalÌ (who restores especially as he had already died and been deified
the temple with eight by fifteen columns, as here at Rome by the time that the frieze was finally
illus. pl. 2 fig. 7) will clear up the matter.27 sculpted.
The cella can be restored with more certainty, From over a large and magnificent door, perhaps
with two rows of five vine-wreathed columns down that leading into the cella itself, Cyriacus copied the
its center, and half-columns to match along the walls; following metrical inscription:35
drawings copied from Cyriacus’ originals show the
ÉEk dap°dou m' w[ryvsen ˜lhw ÉAs¤aw [. . .]
cella’s interior wall topped with a continuous frieze, éfyon¤_ xeir«n d›ow ÉArist(°)netow.
and fragments that conform to such a frieze (pro-
cessions of Dionysiac and marine deities) are in At the end of the first line, Reinach restored [dapã-
Istanbul.28 An upper gallery resting on the cella’s n_sin], and this was generally accepted: “from level
interior columns would have given the temple the earth, with [wealth] of all Asia (and) no lack of
third, upper level of Aristides’ three-decked meta- hands, godlike Aristenetos erected me.”36 Wilhelm
phor, and was so restored by Barattolo. Other draw- pointed out, however, that the two datives and no
ings seem to indicate an arcaded forecourt in front connectives made the restoration untenable, and
of the temple, and this may in fact have been part offered [parexoÊshw] instead: “from level earth, with
of a large rectangular walled courtyard that adjoined no lack of hands of all Asia [offering], godlike
the temple’s north flank.29 One might have expected Aristenetos erected me.”37 The genitive is still awk-
such a monumental temple to stand in the center ward, and so far no version offered has been quite
of its own courtyard; but archaeologists have not yet satisfactory. Herrmann, however, compared this
defined or dated the ‘agora’ north of the temple. A inscription with that found at Didyma concerning
manuscript of Cyriacus also illustrates one of the the craftsmen of Asia working on the temple for
temple’s elaborate Corinthian capitals adorned with Gaius at Miletos (q.v.), and agreed with Wilhelm that
gorgon’s heads.30 Fragments of capitals and columns the emphasis of the Kyzikos inscription should fall
suitable in scale and material to such a building have on the workers, not the wealth, of Asia.38 So this
been identified, and Barattolo estimated the peris- inscription cannot be used to document who (be-
tasis columns to have been 72.5 feet high, right sides, of course, Hadrian) paid for the erection of a
between Cassius Dio’s and Cyriacus’ measurements provincial temple, though likely craftsmen from all
of 75 and 70 feet respectively.31 A fragment of what the province worked on it.39 Still, this does at least
was probably the exterior continuous frieze shows confirm that the temple that Cyriacus studied was
eastern barbarians fleeing on horseback, and more produced by the koinon of Asia.
recent finds include a figure of a Roman soldier.32
Both theme and style are suitable to a date in the
160s, around the time of Lucius Verus’ Parthian ‘Parthian monument’ at Ephesos (for which Oberleitner 1999
campaigns.33 Also suggestive are fragments of the gives the most cogent arguments for a date after 166, and likely
after 169). In any case, as Laubscher 1967 pointed out, the
Kyzikos frieze’s combats with generic easterners might be
27See above, n. 5. suitable for the times of either Trajan or Verus, not for the
28Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fols. 133v– “grand programme” of Hadrian.
136r; Barattolo 1995, pls. 35-39 and 31.3-4. 34 Gates 1997, 294.
29 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fols. 132v– 35 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fol. 133v;

133r; Barattolo 1995, pls. 32-33; Lyttelton 1974, 261-263. Barattolo 1995, pl. 34. Colin 1981, 555 preferred to interpret
30 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fol. 136v; this (and almost all the epigrams given by Cyriacus) as copied
Florence, Laurentian Library, Ms. Ashburnensis 1174 fol. 122v; from a Byzantine anthology; arguing for the authenticity of the
P. Lehmann 1973, 48-49 figs. 30A and B. For the gorgoneion inscription, Barattolo 1998, 109-110.
as a decorative element on the temple of Zeus Philios and 36 Reinach 1890; IGRR 4:140.

Trajan, see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon.’ 37 Wilhelm 1938, 56. Preger 1889 offered [ m°ga yaËma ];
31 Barattolo 1995, 96. this would remove the centrality of the assistance of the koinon
32 Laubscher 1967; YaylalÌ 1990, 174 fig. 6. of Asia, and should be rejected in view of Herrmann’s com-
33 Pace Barattolo 1995, 104-105, more special pleading for ments, below.
a Hadrianic date while ignoring the iconographic difficulties 38 Herrmann 1992, 69-70; 1989a.

this presents for interpreting the frieze’s comparandum, the 39 Pace Schulz and Winter 1990, 37.
chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia 91

There has been some controversy over the pedi- Jove best and greatest and of the kind blessed Vir-
mental sculpture of the temple at Kyzikos. The gin and of the most holy John the Evangelist,’ or ‘the
earliest sources for it are the contemporary and later birthday of incarnate Jove,’ meaning Christmas.43
coins, which often show a large disc in the center Thus Cyriacus was not describing a statue of Zeus,
of the pediment: but saying that the statues in the pediment were
protected by God’s power and their great height,
which made them unreachable to stone plunderers.
OUHRO% Draped cuirassed bust of Lucius Verus
This sentiment conforms with both Cyriacus’ sense
of mission as a preserver of the past and his tendency
KUZIKHNVN Eight-column Corinthian temple on
to conflate his Christianity with a romanticized view
podium, disc in pediment. a) London 1893.4-5-
of the ancient world.44
2 (illus. pl. 22 fig. 79).
Can the disc of the coins, the bust of Malalas’ text,
COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU KAI M AU(RH, abd) and the statues of the gods of Cyriacus’ description
KOMMODO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of be reconciled? Perhaps, if a leaf of the Destailleur
Commodus r., bearded. Rev: KUZIKHN(VN, cd) manuscript of Cyriacus can be trusted.45 It shows
NEVKOR(VN, a) Eight-column Corinthian tem- the facade of an octastyle Corinthian temple, rather
ple on podium, disc in pediment. a) BMC 241 b) sketchily copied. In the right side of the pediment
SNGParis 748 c) SNGCop 122 d) SNGvA 1274. is a reclining male figure with hand outstretched
toward a squiggle in the corner, and in the pedi-
Such a disc may be merely a numismatic conven-
ment’s center is a shieldlike disc. On that is a de-
tion for pedimental decoration, but it could reflect
piction of something the copyist probably did not
reality. Johannes Malalas observed that Hadrian “set
understand and therefore had difficulty conveying:
up a marble portrait, a large bust of himself, there
an abbreviated figure on a pedestal, its left arm(?)
in the roof of the temple, on which he wrote ‘of the
raised or with something protruding from behind its
god Hadrian,’ as it is still.”40 It is not impossible that
back, and squiggles to either side. The great disc,
Malalas himself saw it there.41
which fills the pediment’s center from base to apex,
Cyriacus of Ancona also described (probably)
is a detail confirmed by the coins, and the object in
pedimental sculpture in the temple at Kyzikos at his
its center, though distorted, may have been the bust
first visit as “different very splendid statues of the
of Hadrian mentioned by Malalas. Such a shield
gods in the front,” but again later in his visit of 1444:
portrait is well known in Roman art, and the clos-
“But those splendid and very beautiful marble stat-
est architectural parallel is offered by the bust of
ues of the gods in its noble and wonderful facade
Marcus Aurelius set in a shield in the pediment of
are preserved unhurt, with the best Jove himself as
the greater propylaea at Eleusis.46 There are no
their guardian and with the protection of their lofty
additional statues in that pediment, but of course the
height, and they remain untouched in almost their
propylaea was much smaller than the temple at
original glory.”42 Simon Price took the phrase about
Kyzikos, which would have offered enough room
Jove to refer to a specific statue of Zeus in the pedi-
and to spare for both a shield portrait and statues.
ment, to support his contention that this was not a
Unfortunately Cyriacus gave no explicit descrip-
temple of Hadrian but of Zeus (see below). A closer
tion of statuary in or around the temple. Miscella-
look at other parts of Cyriacus’ journals, however,
neous fragments of colossal statues have been found
reveals that in his enthusiastic antiquarianism he was
accustomed to refer to the Christian God as ‘Jove,’ 43 Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 57 ll. 1069-1071, 1051;
with such phrases as ‘with the auspicious power of similar examples pp. 32, 37, 50, 58. Cyriacus himself defended
this practice in a letter of March 15, 1423: Scalamonti 1996,
app. 1, 166-180.
44 C. Mitchell 1960. For a disapproving view of this ten-
40 Johannes Malalas 11.16 (ed. Dindorf, Bonn 1831, 279). dency, Colin 1981, 281-288.
The translation of E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, and Scott 1986, 147- 45 Ashmole 1956, pl. 35c. But also note the doubts of

148 is not sufficiently precise. On the word stÆlh meaning ‘por- Barattolo 1995, 88 n. 206; the drawing shows an octastyle
trait,’ used both of statues and other forms, see Stichel 1982, facade, and Barattolo believed that Cyriacus thought the build-
23-25; for the dative used for ‘portrait of’ see Tuchelt 1981, ing to be hexastyle, even stating (p. 92) that Cyriacus described
170-171 n. 17. it so, which he did not explicitly do.
41 Croke 1990, 6. 46 Hommel 1954, 110; Winks 1969; Deubner 1937, pls. 39-
42 Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 28 ll. 248-251. 42; Giraud 1989.
92 part i – section i. koinon of asia

on the site: a hand holding a sceptre, 30 cm. from tion of the temple of Hadrian. The date of the in-
wrist to end of thumb; part of a female head with scription is uncertain, but the slight prevalence of
an eye 75 cm. long (originally described as 7.075 m. names of Aurelii and the presence of a strategos
long!); and a phallus 29 cm. in circumference. These, Aelius Onesiphoros, perhaps identical with an ar-
though they seem to suit a temple of large size, have chon under Caracalla, makes it likely to have been
not been proven to be from the temple of Hadrian, early third century, a time when Halfmann has
much less to have been its cult images.47 The church posited a reorganization of the hymnodoi of Asia as
historian Sokrates wrote that Hadrian was wor- a unified body, covering all the neokoroi of the
shipped in Kyzikos as ‘the thirteenth god,’ but out- koinon.
side of preserving the fact that Hadrian was indeed In addition to temple and title, a festival was
an object of cult at Kyzikos (and not identified with granted, which was called either Hadrianeia Olympia,
Zeus, who would of course be the first of the canoni- Hadrianeia, Olympia, or once Hadrianeia Olympia Koinon
cal twelve gods), this statement is too vague to base Asias.51 Its inception, if correctly dated to 135 C.E.,
any iconographic reconstruction upon it.48 postdates the grant of the temple by at least eleven
Once the cult was established, and perhaps even years, and predates Aristides’ panegyric by about
before the temple was completely finished, a chief thirty. As in the case of Pergamon’s temple to Rome
priest of Asia of the temple in Kyzikos was brought and Augustus (q.v.), a petition and grant of a festi-
to office, making Kyzikos one of the five known cities val of sacred status could accompany, but was not
to have chief priests, chief priestesses, or Asiarchs a necessary result of, the building of a provincial
of specific temples.49 One of the earliest may have imperial temple; cities without provincial temples
been Gaius Orfius Flavianus Philographos: that celebrated festivals named for emperors are too
INSCRIPTION 2. Mordtmann 1881, 42-43 no. numerous to mention.52 Therefore the old assump-
1 (IGRR 4:155). Heading of a prytany list. tion that the date of initiation of a festival must be
érxier°vw d¢ t}w ÉAs¤aw naoË §n Kuz¤kƒ G. that of the dedication of the temple associated with
ÉOrf¤ou FlaouianoË Filogrãfou ka‹ érxiere¤aw it should not be resumed.53 Even if a temple’s roof
OÈib¤aw P\llhw, grammat°vw d¢ t}w nevkÒrou were not on, its columns could still be garlanded,
boul[}w] P. A¸l¤ou PrÒklou ÑEl°nou. . . and sacrifices take place at its altar; the contests took
place in the theater, odeion, stadium, or gymnasium,
The city’s new title ‘neokoros’ is here applied to the
not in the temple.54
council in particular; the same is true for inscriptions
Olympios was an epithet associated with Hadrian,
3 and 4 below, which are similar prytany lists. The
so the name Hadrianeia Olympia cannot be taken to
names include only one Aelius and no Aurelii, so
indicate that Hadrian shared his temple at Kyzikos
the list has been provisionally placed in Hadrianic
with another deity, Zeus Olympios. Though this fes-
tival may have been associated with the temple and
Another inscription found near Kyzikos records
granted with it, its subsequent history is not neces-
three (presumable) Kyzikenes as hymnodoi ‘of
sarily tied to the temple’s, and names of festivals were
Asia.’50 This office recalls the hymnodoi of the
temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon, as well often ephemeral.55 Olympia could also mean only that
as those at Smyrna and Ephesos (qq.v.). There is no
explicit documentation that a choir of hymnodoi was 51 Moretti 1953, 266; Malavolta 1976-1977, 2056-2057. The
established at Kyzikos after, or due to, the construc- date of inception hinges on IGRR 4:162, a document of the
eleventh Olympiad. Based on IGRR 4:160, Moretti 1954, 283
n. 3 and 286 n. 1, held that the koinon Asias was founded in
47Perrot 1876a; Mendel 1909, 275 no. 32 (cat. no. 256). 139, and was a separate festival from the Hadrianeia Olympia.
48Sokrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 3.23.59, ed. G. Hansen (Ber- 52 Moretti 1953, passim. For a general view, see Ziegler 1985,

lin 1995) 224; polemical, like most Christian references to dei- 9-12 and 62-64 on provincial contests.
fication. For another thirteenth god (Alexander the Great) see 53 This is one of the flaws in the reasoning of Barattolo 1995;

John Chrysostomos on 2 Corinthians, Homily 26.4-5; J.-P. Migne, though not of Schulz and Winter 1990, 41 n. 80, 50 n. 158;
Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca Prior 61 (Paris 1862) 580- Schulz nonetheless conflates the temple’s hieromenia and panegyris,
581. celebrated by Aristides’ oration, and the Olympic contest (agones)
49 For other chief priests of Asia of the temple in Kyzikos, at Kyzikos, 54-55; on the distinction see L. Robert 1969a, 54.
see IGRR 4:153 and 157 (Aebutius Flaccus, and nameless). 54 S. Price 1984b, 101-132, esp. 108-111.

Rossner 1974, 112, 134, 139. 55 L. Robert 1969a, 49-58; J. and L. Robert 1948, 43-48,
50 Halfmann 1990; SEG 40 (1990) 1128. 72-79; Herrmann 1975.
chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia 93

the festival was isolympic, modeled on that of the endow a new temple to Zeus Olympios at Kyzikos as
famous sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia, Greece. But well? Or we could take the words of the scholiast
it is likely that the name was applied well after 123 to Lucian more literally and posit a pre-existing (for
or 124, when the temple (and probably the festival) three hundred years?) cult at Kyzikos. It is even
was first granted. Some years later, Hadrian had tempting to associate that unfinished temple that
work restarted on the Olympieion in Athens, and Hadrian took over with the unfinished heroön
when that was complete, subsidized the building of mentioned by Cassius Dio (but would that, likely a
a Panhellenion in the same city.56 These cult names, municipal shrine, have been so gigantic in scale?).
originally of Zeus, came into the emperor’s titulature, Outside the scholion, there is no direct evidence for
becoming standard after 128. It is not unexpected a standing temple or cult taken over by Hadrian at
that at Kyzikos, as in many cities throughout the Kyzikos. Again, the only positive evidence for a cult
East, there were dedications to Hadrian Olympios as associated with Hadrian’s at Kyzikos is the name of
savior and founder of the city.57 So either the Hadria- the festival Hadrianeia Olympia, which again brings us
neia festival was of the Olympic type, or the name back to Zeus Olympios. It seems too great a coinci-
became attached to the festival as an epithet of dence for Kyzikos to have had a large and incom-
Hadrian. Note that in the case of Pergamon (q.v.), plete temple of Zeus Olympios for Hadrian to see and
where Trajan did share cult with Zeus (Philios), the take up as a project even before his fateful visit to
festival was not called Traianeia Phileia, but Traianeia Athens.61 There are indeed intermittent occurrences
Diphileia, with Zeus named explicitly.58 of this cult in Asia Minor, but most of them origi-
Simon Price, however, contended that the temple nate with Hadrian himself and his identification with
in Kyzikos was not dedicated to Hadrian at all, but that deity.62 The name of the festival Olympia, which
to another god, probably Zeus Olympios; Schulz and sometimes only indicates that the contest was mod-
Winter took him up enthusiastically; and subsequent eled on that of Olympia, has been discussed above.
scholars have followed along.59 Price’s arguments One must also ask what effect a cult of Zeus would
went back to Nock’s basic belief that where emper- have had on Kyzikos’ neokoria. Price never ques-
ors shared cult with gods, the emperors were sub- tioned that Kyzikos first became neokoros for this
ordinated; and in many cases, especially where an temple. Yet neither on its inscriptions nor on its coins
emperor was introduced into a pre-existing cult, this did Kyzikos call itself neokoros of Zeus, as Aezani
was true. In this case, however, the individual ar- would (q.v.). The coinage left the reason for neokoria
guments are not well based, and would necessitate unspecified, both at this point and later, when an-
a preceding course of events that is far more improb- other (imperial) neokoria was added. Ephesos (q.v.),
able than an initial dedication to Hadrian alone. when it became officially neokoros for Artemis, of-
Hadrian granted a temple to Kyzikos about a year ten distinguished this honor from its imperial
before his visit to Athens in 124/125, when he took neokoriai, though not invariably.
the uncompleted Athenian Olympieion under his Price preferred what he believed was the testi-
aegis.60 It is mainly the latter act that gave him his mony of Cyriacus to that of several (admittedly late)
close association with Zeus Olympios. Are we to sources calling it a temple of Hadrian. But as we
believe that an earlier premonition told Hadrian to have seen, Cyriacus never identified a statue of ‘Jove’
in the pediment at Kyzikos. If Cyriacus did hint that
56 C. Jones 1996, 33. the temple he described at Kyzikos could have been
57 IGRR 4:138, 139. For similar dedications from elsewhere dedicated to Zeus, it was a guess based on an an-
in Mysia, see E. Schwertheim 1983, no. 27 a-d. cient reference (Pliny the Elder’s Natural History
58 Magie 1950, 594-595, 1451 n. 7.
59 S. Price 1984b, 153-154, 251-252; Schulz and Winter 36.22.98) to a statue of Zeus crowned by Apollo that
1990, passim; Birley 1997, 162, 164; Boatwright 1997, 126-130. stood in an unnamed shrine at Kyzikos; but Pliny
Barattolo 1995 seems to accept it judging from his title, but wrote of this statue a half century before Hadrian
not necessarily his text, where Price is not mentioned. The error
has penetrated so far that Schorndorfer 1997, 53-37, 79, 146-
153, has postulated from it undocumented cults of Zeus at the
temples to Hadrian at Ephesos and Smyrna as well. Boatwright 61 The attempt of Schulz and Winter 1990, 37 n. 46, to

2000, 157-162 makes similar assumptions for Smyrna. introduce the name of Zeus into the Aristenetos inscription was
60 This is true whether one accepts the Chronicon Paschale’s scotched by Herrmann 1992, 70.
date of 123 for the visit to Kyzikos (above, n. 4), or moves it, 62 Kruse 1939; Schwabl 1972, 342-344; idem 1978, 1466-

as does Halfmann 1986a, 191, 199 to 124. 1468.

94 part i – section i. koinon of asia

even visited Kyzikos to found the temple.63 And neokoros under Caracalla. The city had already
Cyriacus was only guessing: on his later visit, he been honored with the emperor’s names in his
implied that the temple was a different Kyzikene father’s reign, as recorded on coins of his short-lived
shrine, that of Persephone, known from other an- marriage to Plautilla (202-205).65 Coins of Kyzikos
cient references.64 The fact is that Cyriacus had no twice neokoros were issued later, during his sole rule;
idea to whom this giant temple was dedicated. Caracalla’s portrait is mature, while his mother’s title
The ancient sources, however, that identify the is regularly transliterated as Augusta, rather than
temple by anything but its size (the fragment from translated to Sebaste as on earlier coins of the city.
the Codex Vaticanus, which groups it with monuments
no later than Antonine; the poem in the Palatine
ANTVNINO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust
Anthology; and Johannes Malalas) all call it the temple
of Caracalla, r. Rev: ARX AIL ONH%IFOR AUR
of Hadrian; and the church historian Sokrates af-
firmed that Hadrian was worshipped at Kyzikos. As
cuirassed Caracalla hands small temple to the city
Price noted, the cult had probably ended and the
goddess, who holds another six-column temple;
cult statues been despoiled by the sixth century, but
between them, an altar. a) Berlin 955/1904 (illus.
we cannot assume that the Kyzikenes of that date
pl. 22 fig. 80).
had completely forgotten the object of a cult that
was probably practised into the fourth, if not the COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT K M AURH AN-
fifth, century in the largest temple in their city. One TVNINO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of Cara-
would have to suppose late antiquity a dark age calla, r., with spear, bearded. Rev: ARX AIL
indeed, of the sort interposed between Cyriacus of ONH%IFOROU AUR ANTVNEINIA KUZIKHNVN
Ancona and the ruins he was trying to interpret, to B NEOKORVN Two eight-column temples on
imagine that the Kyzikenes of that period had to podia, a disc in each pediment. a) SNGvA 7378.
read the dedication inscription on the temple to
puzzle out what it was.
TVNINO% Laureate head of Caracalla, r. Rev:
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
umn temples turned toward one another, a dot
cult was dedicated was not necessarily subsumed into
in each pediment. a) SNGParis 780 (illus. pl. 22
a cult of ‘the Augusti’ or of a god who shared the
fig. 81) b) SNGParis 781.
temple, but could stand independently to the end
of the cult and beyond. COIN TYPE 7. Obv: [AUT K] M AURHLI AN-
TVNIN[O%...] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Caracalla, r. Rev: AUR ANT[VN]EI[NIANVN
Second Neokoria: Caracalla KU]ZIKHNVN DI% NEOKORVN Nine-column
temple on podium, and round shrine of Deme-
Though no inscription remains to record the honor, ter and Kore, the latter flanked by snake-entwined
the coins indicate that Kyzikos became twice torches. a) Berlin 955/1904.
Coins of the archon Aelius Onesiphoros make the
63 Scalamonti 1996, 61-62; Barattolo 1995, 77 also correctly
most of the (probably recent) second neokoria. On
observed the chronological difficulty, 72 n. 122 and 108; Colin type 4 the actual grant is metaphorically portrayed
1981, 480 on Cyriacus’ knowledge and use of Pliny. Pliny’s when the emperor hands a second temple to the
citation is indeed in a list of wonders, but it focuses on the mural-crowned city goddess, who already holds one.
golden tube or thread inset into the temple’s stones, not the
temple itself. Nonetheless, it is likely that this citation led to
Caracalla was also shown sacrificing among military
much confusion for later wonder compilers. Kosmas of Jerusa- standards and saluting one of Kyzikos’ chief gods,
lem, in the eighth century, added it to his rather garbled list Hades/Serapis.66 These types allude to the empe-
as a temple formerly of Apollo, now dedicated to the Virgin: ror’s presence in the area in 214-215 on his way to
above, n. 17 and Broderson 1992, 122.
64 Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 28; B. Keil 1897 misiden-

tified Dio’s very large temple destroyed by earthquake as the

temple of Persephone; see P. Aelius Aristides, The Complete 65 Johnston 1983, 64 n. 9.
Works, trans. C. Behr (Leiden 1981) 2:379, 393. 66 SNGvA 1277, 7379; SNGParis 776-779.
chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia 95

the Parthian front; they do not necessarily indicate found at the temple’s east side came from lime kilns,
that Caracalla visited the city, but only that he gave may represent collection from other areas, and
honors to it and to its god.67 Coins of Onesiphoros’ should not be used to recreate the temple’s history
archonship also show the two temples together, the or sculptural program.
new one portrayed as the twin of the eight-column
temple of Hadrian. This does not mean that it was
the same size as the temple of Hadrian, or even Withdrawn? Macrinus
necessarily built within Onesiphoros’ term of office;
it is never shown in any detail. The only coin that Unfortunately, the honor of Kyzikos’ second neo-
may portray it without its predecessor (type 7) shows koria was not to last long, nor to leave enough evi-
it carelessly as nine-column beside the round shrine dence for us to be sure of its nature. After the death
of Kyzikos’ patron goddesses Demeter and Kore.68 of Caracalla, Kyzikos seems to have lost its second
The temple is not identified, however, and could well neokoria: on coins from the reigns of Macrinus and
be the temple of Hadrian instead. Elagabalus the city is only neokoros, with no enu-
Multiple temple types usually show the temples meration mentioned. Though other cities of Asia,
for which the city was neokoros, but type 7 con- including Pergamon, Smyrna, and probably Ephe-
tradicts types 5 and 6 by showing the round shrine sos, also appear to have lost neokoriai granted by
instead of a second peripteral temple. Was the im- Caracalla (see ‘Historical Analysis,’ chapter 38), they
perial cult moved into the round shrine? It is pos- would all have their titles restored by the time of
sible, as Caracalla also granted neokoria to many Elagabalus. Kyzikos, however, was unique in not
cities in Asia, such as Pergamon and Smyrna, where regaining its lost second neokoria on coins of
the imperial cult was moved into the temple of Elagabalus. And it would (to its misfortune) be
another god. Less likely is that Kyzikos was given unique in gaining and losing the same honor yet
its second neokoria for the cult of Demeter and again, this time for Severus Alexander.
Kore, as no inscription states that Kyzikos’ neokoria Coins of Kyzikos issued in Severus Alexander’s
was for any but the imperial cult. Either the inter- early years, those with military reverses proper to
pretation of the coin type should be less strict, and the time of his eastern campaign of 231, and coins
it shows Hadrian’s temple and the round shrine with the portrait of Julia Mamaea still proclaim
simply as sources of civic pride to Kyzikos; or the Kyzikos only neokoros. This is also true of a lost
round shrine was made the temporary home to the inscription which honored a governor of Thrace in
imperial cult until another temple could be built. that reign.
In any case, the fact that two temples are gener-
INSCRIPTION 6. Sayar 1998, no. 21 (IGRR
ally shown on coins celebrating Kyzikos’ second
1:797). From Perinthos, copied by Cyriacus of
neokoria should indicate that the new imperial cult
Ancona. Statue base for M. Ulpius Senecio
was at least housed in a different temple from that
Saturninus, governor of Thrace under Severus
of Hadrian. The current excavators of the temple,
Alexander, benefactor of Kyzikos and patron of
however, attribute any third-century elements found
the concord between it and Perinthos. {
in its area to Caracalla’s introduction of the provin-
lamprotãth mhtrÒpoliw t}w ÉAs¤aw nevkÒrow
cial imperial cult for Septimius Severus and Julia
Kuzikhn«n pÒliw. . .
Domna into the temple of Hadrian itself.69 This
contradicts the evidence of the coins’ chronology as Senecio is known to have been legatus Augusti pro
well as iconography. Though some late architectural praetore of Thrace under Severus Alexander.70 His
elements may have been due to repairs to the term is not firmly dated, except that it cannot in-
temple, many miscellaneous pieces of sculpture tersect with that of Rutilius Pudens Crispinus ca.
227.71 But it should also be noted that since inscrip-
67 Halfmann 1986a, 228.
tion 6 only calls Kyzikos neokoros, Senecio’s gov-
68 For Kore as patron, L. Robert 1978a, 460-477; for the ernorship should not be dated to the very end of
Demeter-Kore shrine, see M. Price and Trell 1977, 109-115, Severus Alexander’s reign, when the coins would call
figs. 198-202. Barattolo 1995, 65-67 interprets the peripteral
temple as that of Hadrian.
69 YaylalÌ and Özkaya 1993, 542-543; 1994, 109-112; and 70 Thomasson 1984, 172-173 no. 52.
1995, 315. 71 Sayar 1998, 203-204.
96 part i – section i. koinon of asia

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

have been mistranscribed with an omicron in the catalogue.

74 Kienast 1996, 177-179; pace Varner 1993, 418-422, who
72 Halfmann 1986a, 231-232. believed that the condemnation was unofficial.
chapter 5 – kyzikos in mysia 97

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

ten misses the enumeration on these coins.

98 part i – section i. koinon of asia

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

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

Chapter 6. Sardis in Lydia: Koinon of Asia

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

1932, nos. 13, 14.

4 In Naples; Blum 1914, 51 Sardes no. 3; A. Johnston, in
1 Tacitus, Annals 2.47, 4.55-56; see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ On Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 11 n. 36. John-
the earthquake, see n. 29 below. ston’s corpus of Sardis’ coins is forthcoming.
2 There were, however, municipal temples to Augustus and 5 Campanile 1994a, 25-27; Rossner 1974, 119 (a chief priest

to Tiberius in Sardis: Herrmann 1995. A coin of Nero that of temples in Sardis, of the time of Elagabalus), 132 (Libonia-
seemed to declare Sardis twice neokoros (SNGLeypold 1214) does nus, below), and 140 (a chief priestess, of the third century).
not in fact exist: the reverse is that of a coin of Julia Domna, 6 Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986.

SNGLeypold 1220. 7 Vann 1989, 47-55, 100.

chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 101

Corinthian (no column capitals were found), prob- center for a judicial district of the province Asia.10
ably octastyle with prostyle porch, and perhaps 20 About the only way to account for this block is
x 32 m., on a scale about the same as that of the that a personification of the city of Adramyteion was
temple of Zeus at Aizanoi (q.v.). depicted, or was intended to be depicted, in the
Unfortunately no further excavations were done, temple’s pediment, and about the only way to ac-
and none of the probes included layers beneath the count for that is to suppose that this was a koinon
foundations, so the structure can only be dated on temple, whose sculptural decoration included patron
stylistic grounds. From the building technique of deities, heroes, or personifications representing major
mortared rubble in the foundations, the temple has cities of the province. The close association between
been plausibly dated after the time of Augustus.8 The the thirteen centers of judicial districts in Asia and
style of the small amount of architectural ornament the construction of a provincial imperial temple has
found is suitable to a first century date, but one can- already been shown by the inscription of neopoioi for
not be precise without more extensive comparanda Gaius’ temple in Miletos (q.v.). In the case of this
from Sardis itself; though Howe leaned toward a temple at Sardis, that association may have been
period in the second or third quarter of the first immortalized in its pedimental sculpture.
century (based on comparisons from Ephesos and It is difficult, however, to find a precise parallel.
Ankyra), his less precise but more assured date was There are certainly precedents for the appearance
‘Augustus to Hadrian.’ of unlabeled personifications of cities that partici-
The temple’s basic structure was finished: its pated in a certain cult (e.g. the frieze of the temple
column bases were elaborately decorated, the one of Hecate at Lagina), or of named cities (the Puteoli
partial column that has been found was fluted, and base of cities restored by Tiberius) or of named
the stylobate was used long enough to have had peoples on a building associated with the imperial
graffiti carved on it. Fragments of monumental cult (the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias).11 There are city
bronze sculpture (including the paw of a lion), some goddesses in pediments, but not identified by label;
of it gilt, were found in the excavations, hinting at inscriptions in pediments tend to be votive or grave
rich decor or dedications. But many fragments of the inscriptions.12 The letters on the Sardian pediment
superstructure and decorative details from the top block are too large and long to be a builder’s inscrip-
of the temple were left roughly claw-chiseled, not tion, like the one matching a personification to its
polished down to their final finish. base at Aphrodisias.13 In any case, the placement
Among these fragments is one that gives rise to of cornice blocks would have been architecturally
more self-evident than that of the Aphrodisias re-
the probability that this temple was provincial. It is
liefs. As ‘Adramyteon’ is nominative but neuter, what
a section of the left-hand raking cornice, including
sort of personification could it have been? On the
a half-finished egg-and-tongue molding and the
Puteoli base, some personifications of cities with
surface of one of the pediments. 9 Though it has
masculine-form names are masculine (Tmolos,
clamp-cuttings with lead and iron in them, indicat-
Temnos), though Ephesos is represented by one of
ing that it was put into place on the temple, its face
its founding Amazons; all the rest are female.
was only claw-chiseled; a broken-off extrusion likely
Adramyteion could have been represented by the
attached to pedimental relief sculpture, though it is
normal city goddess, or perhaps by Adramys/
impossible to say what sort. Most importantly, to the
left of the extrusion was the word ADRAMU/THON,
in letters 8 cm. high, deeply cut and carefully shaped 10 SEG 36 (1986) 1103; Habicht 1975, 70. See below, chap-

but again only claw-chiseled and without serifs. The ter 11, ‘Antandros.’
11 Kuttner 1995, 69-93 with these and many other ex-
word is a version of the name ÉAdramÊteion, Adra-
amples; though on 249 n. 52 she went beyond the evidence
myteion, a city in Mysia which was, like Sardis, the regarding the Sardis pseudodipteros, which she called a
Sebasteion, restoring “at the corners enthroned figures facing
and framing the center” on its pediment. Lagina: Webb 1996,
8 Waelkens 1987, 96-97 noted that Sardis had a local tra- 108-120. Puteoli base: CIL 10.1624; Mingazzini 1976 (who
dition of mortared rubble walls, and so more readily adopted attempted to move its date from 30 to 81-90 C.E. mainly based
that Roman technique, especially after the earthquake of 17 on style); Vermeule 1981. Aphrodisias: Reynolds 1981, 323-
C.E. and the massive rebuilding of the city under Roman super- 327; Smith 1988.
vision. 12 Hommel 1954, 52, 105-106.
9 Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986, 54-55, 63-65, pl. 3 fig. 3. 13 Smith 1988, 61.
102 part i – section i. koinon of asia

Adramytes, its eponymous founder. term ‘twice neokoros,’ though, especially at this early
Whatever its date and decor may have been, the period.
temple at Sardis did not have long to flourish. A There is another problem with Foss’ chronology.
layer of dark grey ash lying directly on top of its The roughed-out state of the pediment and frag-
podium and similar destruction layers to the north ments of the decoration indicate that the temple still
produced bronze coins of Hadrian, Faustina the lacked only some few final touches, mainly on the
Elder thea (‘goddess’), and Marcus Aurelius Caesar, upper levels of the building, before it was finished.
some of the latter in mint condition.14 As Sardian These were moldings, surfaces, and inscriptions,
coins that titled Faustina Sebaste, ‘Augusta,’ are ear- basic tasks of journeymen carvers, not master sculp-
lier than those that title her thea, the coin finds should tors, and though placed high, they were important
probably be placed after her death in 141 C.E.15 and in full view.18 If this were a temple to Vespasian,
Thus the temple had to have been destroyed some- it would have stood for seventy or eighty years in
time after 140-150 C.E. It appears to have been this state, its inscriptions blurry, its moldings rough,
intentionally dismantled after an accidental collapse, when only a minimum of work could have brought
its parts being broken down and burnt for lime right it to completion. But if the pseudodipteros was only
on the podium. After that, the site was abandoned built a short time (perhaps a decade or two) before
to later Roman waterworks, conceding to the slope’s its destruction, the architectural sculptors of Sardis
natural drainage. would not be as dilatory as it previously seemed,
Foss identified the pseudodipteros as the first though they might stand out as being quite conser-
provincial imperial temple of Sardis.16 Though that vative in their style. If the preponderance of the
may well be correct, it is by no means the only al- evidence should tip the scales toward Sardian con-
ternative, as we shall see. Foss, probably influenced servatism, the pseudodipteros might represent yet
by the bounds of Howe’s preferred limits (second to another provincial temple of Hadrian; if toward a
third quarters of the first century) for the ornamen- building project left long unperfected, then possibly
tal style of the temple, limited the object of cult to a cult for Claudius, for whom no Asian temple has
emperors up to Vespasian. If we disregard that limi- yet been found. Any decision must await further
tation in favor of Howe’s more extended but surer evidence.
dating, we end with Nerva and Hadrian, as we have There is yet another (though more remote) pos-
seen. Foss inclined toward Vespasian due to a se- sibility for the pseudodipteros. As we shall see,
ries of coins with tetrastyle temple reverse issued at Sardis’ second provincial imperial cult, for Antoninus
Sardis during his reign, but there is nothing on these Pius, was moved into the old temple of Artemis. This
to indicate that this is even an imperial temple.17 is the first known instance in which a provincial im-
Foss also guessed that since this was the first pro- perial cult was set up in a previously existing struc-
vincial temple, after its destruction the cult moved ture rather than a new one. Such a measure cannot
elsewhere while resources concentrated on the necessarily be explained by lack of funds: Sardis, like
temple that gained the city its second neokoria, i.e. most of the cities of Asia that would have contrib-
that of Artemis (below); or even that the first pro- uted to a provincial temple, was prosperous in
vincial imperial cult moved in with the second, which Antonine times.19 It may be accounted for, however,
would have stuffed the precinct that still belonged if a new temple just on the point of completion had
to Artemis with three temples’ worth of cults. Hav- been demolished by an earthquake and/or landslide.
ing two provincial imperial cults housed in the same When this happened at Kyzikos the temple was
temple would have made rather a mockery of the rebuilt on the same spot. The pseudodipteros at
Sardis, however, was abandoned, perhaps because
14 The identification of coin C81.82 in Ratté, Howe, and the site had become too uncertain to build upon. It
Foss 1986, 48 n. 7 is in error: this is a coin of Sardis with por- is just possible, then, that the pseudodipteros was
trait of Faustina the Elder, not the Younger, of the type SNGvA built as Sardis’ second provincial temple, not its first,
3154, BMC 139.
15 Dated coins of Alexandria show the change very clearly:

Geissen 1992. In other cases, the term theos/thea is often used

for the living ruler: S. Price 1984a. 18 See Rockwell 1990. Though the ‘Sebasteion’ sculpture
16 Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986, 63-68. stood with many roughed-out details, its inscriptions were care-
17 BMC 67-70; SNGvA 3148; Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, fully finished.
and Bates 1981, Greek nos. 246, 247, 251-255. 19 Hanfmann 1983, 145.
chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 103

early in the reign of Antoninus Pius, but was de- of Lucius Verus perhaps dates to his return from his
stroyed by some natural disaster only about a de- eastern campaign in 166:
cade later. The mid-second century was a bad time
INSCRIPTION 1. S. Johnson 1960, 10 no. 4
for earthquakes in Asia Minor, and according to
(Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 178 no. 276; Foss
Cassius Dio 70.4, many cities were shaken in
1986, 169-170 no. 2; SEG 36 [1986] 1093).24 {
Antoninus’ reign.20 Faced with the daunting neces-
b' nevkÒrow Sardian«n pÒliw...
sity of starting from scratch, a decision may have
been made to move the provincial imperial cult into This means that one cannot attribute Sardis’ second
an older temple instead. The tumbled remains of the neokoria to Septimius Severus, as has recently been
new temple could be reused elsewhere or burned for done.25
lime on the spot; the destruction layers of the As is mentioned above, it is just possible that the
pseudodipteros are indeed the result of such a lime- provincial cult of Antoninus Pius was originally
burning process. Again, this would explain why the centered in the pseudodipteros at Sardis but had to
pseudodipteros’ upper architectural ornament was be moved when that temple was destroyed sometime
only preliminarily roughed out, never finished, after 140-150. Whether or not that was so, the cult
though it would make the architectural sculptors of ended up in a temple that was and is one of Sardis’
Sardis even more stylistically conservative than they landmarks: the temple of Artemis, where in 1882
had appeared before. George Dennis, the British Consul at Smyrna, found
among the ruins the head of a colossal statue of
Faustina the Elder, Antoninus’ wife. In later and
Second Neokoria: Antoninus Pius more formal excavations at the temple, H. Butler
found a companion piece, the lower part of the
We reach more certainty once Sardis became twice colossal head of Antoninus himself.26 More recent
neokoros for a cult of Antoninus Pius. An inscrip- excavations have shown the temple to have been well
tion records that a certain L. Julius Libonianus was populated with colossal sculpture, and pieces of at
chief priest of Asia ‘of the Sardian temples in Lydia,’ least six statues in all (three male, three female) have
i.e. at a time when Sardis had more than one such been found.
temple; this same Libonianus served as strategos in The history of the temple of Artemis before the
the reign of Trajan, and his career cannot have arrival of the imperial cult is controversial, as are
lasted much more than twenty-five or thirty years.21 the adaptations that were to accommodate that cult
A hint at significant honors granted to Sardis early thereafter.27 Designed as a huge (45.51 m. x 97.94
in Antoninus Pius’ reign is a dedication to that m.) eight-by-twenty-column Ionic structure, aspir-
emperor which, though dated after his death in 161 ing toward the lines of the great temples at Ephesos
(by the term ‘hero’), gives his titulature as it was in or Didyma, it was probably begun in the third cen-
139 at the start of his rule.22 Yet another dedica- tury B.C.E. Like other temples to Artemis, at
tion names him Olympios, a continuation of the epi- Ephesos and Magnesia, it opened to the west. The
thet best known for his adoptive father Hadrian.23 earliest design may have been for a dipteral temple,
This may date the inscription soon after Hadrian’s with two rows of columns ranged around the cella,
death and Antoninus’ succession, and may also hint but if so, the plan was changed before the founda-
at his divine role at Sardis (below). Certainly Sardis tions for the colonnade could be built. Instead, it was
was twice neokoros, and probably had been for some
time, by the reign of Antoninus’ sons and succes- 24 See J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques 75 (1962)
sors, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. The rather 200 no. 290; Herrmann 1993b, 251.
simple declaration ‘twice neokoros’ on a statue base 25 Herz 1998, 134 n. 3.
26 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, nos. 79 and 251, the latter

now in the British Museum.

20 Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 236-237 no. 27 F. Yegül is to publish an analysis of the temple; see

116, probably referring to several separate incidents. Greenewalt and Rautman 2000, 673-675; also Howe 1983 and
21 Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 47; Hanfmann 1983, 1986. Early description: Butler 1925. For Hanfmann’s views
144; Campanile 1994a, 101-102 no. 99. vs. those of Gruben 1961: Hanfmann 1983, 119-121 (by W.
22 Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 58. Mierse). Hoepfner 1990a, 3-7 proposed moving columns for
23 Sardis inventory no. IN 70.4; Hanfmann and Ramage a prostyle east porch, but this has been disproved by the cur-
1978, no. 161. rent excavations.
104 part i – section i. koinon of asia

to be treated as a pseudodipteros, with an interior As has already been mentioned, Faustina the
aisle instead of a double colonnade. Elder’s colossal presence in the temple of Artemis
Some time after the long, west-facing cella was is assured, and Antoninus Pius’ head has been plau-
completed, it was lengthened, divided in half by a sibly identified. R. Smith has now reidentified a long-
cross wall, and a door was opened through its east- known colossal head, which Hanfmann thought was
ern wall into the opisthodomos (illus. pl. 2 fig. 9). Zeus in the guise of the Seleucid pretender Achaeus
This produced two back-to-back cellas, one facing (above), as Antoninus’ son and successor Marcus
west, the other east. The original statue base, with Aurelius, and part of another colossal head found
two hoards of third-century B.C.E. coins still wedged at the temple as Marcus Aurelius’ son Commodus.33
into the stones of its foundation, now lay in the In addition, parts of two female colossi beside the
eastward-facing cella, while a new base of similar size elder Faustina have been found. All colossi were
was constructed for the shortened western cella.28 acrolithic, with some parts executed in materials
Ironically, the alteration was aided by the fact that other than stone, probably erected on a wooden
the building had been shattered by the disastrous framework.34
earthquake of 17 C.E., and reconstruction was pro- Fragments from the statue of Antoninus Pius
ceeding slowly, if at all.29 New excavations indicate indicate that he (or another of the male colossi) was
that many of the columns on the flanks of the temple about four times life size, nude, and seated.35 His
were never erected.30 head, turned strongly to his left, was diademed with
Hanfmann held that the division of the cella was a plain fillet, and he likely held a sceptre or spear
done at the end of the third century B.C.E. for the in his left hand (illus. pl. 11 figs. 32, 33, pl. 17 fig.
introduction of a cult of Zeus. He based this on an 45). The pose and attributes are those of Zeus, which
inscription that refers to the precinct of Artemis and recalls the fact already mentioned, that Antoninus
Zeus Polieus, and on a colossal bearded head in was called by the epithet Olympios at Sardis. The por-
whose battered features he discerned a likeness to trait was carved with a lavish use of the running drill
the Seleucid pretender Achaeus, who held Sardis to produce rich baroque contrasts of light and dark
from 220 to 214 B.C.E.31 Thus the male god would in the curls of the moustache and beard. As on the
have a proper east-facing cella, while Artemis held colossal portrait of Titus from Ephesos (q.v.), the
the west-facing one as before. Howe saw the divided mouth is slightly open, conveying the ideal of an
cella as a Roman innovation, however. He discerned inspired ruler; that and the turn of head produced
no mid-Hellenistic architectural phase, but held that a dynamic effect.36 The head of Antoninus does not
the cella was only divided in the second century C.E. fit into any known type, but shares features of both
to accommodate the provincial imperial cult. Lime- early (Croce Greca 595) and late portraits (Vatican,
mortared rubble typical of the Roman period was Sala dei Busti 284) of the emperor.37 One notable
indeed found under the new door to the eastern idiosyncracy is the fan-shaped tuft of hair isolated
cella, in the new west statue base, and reinforcing between lower lip and line of beard.
the dividing wall between the two cellas, as well as The mien of Faustina the Elder is more com-
in the foundations of the outer colonnade. Greene- posed, as was usual for a lady and an empress (illus.
walt has noted that the back-to-back cellas recall the pl. 12 figs. 34, 35). Her head is turned slightly to
temple of Venus and Rome in Rome, in whose her right, her lips just barely parted. But where other
design Hadrian was said to have played a decisive portraits show Faustina’s eyes as unremarkably al-
role, but which may have only been completed as
late as the reign of Antoninus Pius.32
Boatwright 1987, 119-133; Gros 1996-2001, 1:179-180, cites
earlier examples of such cellas.
33 Greenewalt and Rautman 2000, 675-676.
28 On the hoards, LeRider 1991. 34 For the acrolithic technique, see chapter 39 of part II
29 Tacitus, Annals 2.47; Hanfmann 1983, 141-142; Guido- on temples and cult statues.
boni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 180-185 no. 79. 35 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, nos. 79-87, esp. 79, 81,
30 Greenewalt and Rautman 2000, 673-675. 82 and 87. The description of no. 79 seems in error, as the
31 Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 8, of 2 B.C.E.; Hanf- illustrations show that the neck and head turn to the viewer’s
mann and Ramage 1978, no. 102. right, not the figure’s.
32 C. Greenewalt, Jr., personal communication of April 3, 36 Zanker 1983, 21-22 saw these traits as typical to Asia

2001; I am most grateful for his help and information regard- Minor, with roots in Hellenistic ruler portraits.
ing these and other Sardian matters. For the temple in Rome, 37 Wegner 1939, 15-25, 125-153.
chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 105

mond shaped, the colossus’ eyes are exaggerated and meeting with the neck. As with the Antoninus, the
deepset, with intense shadows under the brows, a head was about four times life size, and turned to
sculptural effect designed to dramatize the statue’s its left. The back of the head preserves several of the
gaze, so far above the viewer in the darkened cella. dowel holes that keyed the great weight of the head
Seen face-to-face, the eyes seem preternaturally wide into the armature of the acrolithic statue (illus. pl.
and blank. The hair is carved into loose, rippling 13 fig. 37). Other fragments, including more pieces
waves, once again with copious use of the drill. Like of a head and a hand curved as if to hold a sceptre,
all acrolithic heads, this one was hollowed out to have been tentatively assigned to this statue.41
reduce the weight, with dowel holes left for attach- But a problem comes with Smith’s identification
ing other parts (illus. pl. 13 no. 36). Perhaps the back of a new fragment as Marcus Aurelius’ son and
of the head was covered with a veil of painted, gilt, successor Commodus. The implication would be that
or metal-sheathed wood. The veil is not only char- he (and likely his wife, Crispina) were added as a
acteristic of Faustina’s posthumous coinage, but as third generation of colossi, to stand with his father
an attribute of Hera would make her the perfect and (adoptive) grandfather. Commodus, however,
pairing for her husband posed as Zeus.38 Her statue’s was murdered at the end of 192 C.E., and his
prototype and date are slightly more secure than memory condemned.42 Though his name was reha-
those of the Antoninus. Despite the peculiarities and bilitated and Septimius Severus deified him as his
distortion engendered by her colossal size and her brother in 195, one wonders what would have hap-
function as a deity, the Faustina has been closely pened to his colossal statue in the intervening time.
allied to a type (Imperatori 36) classified by Wegner It is possible that it simply stood there, waiting for
as standard in Rome around 138-139.39 She stood a decision to be made; or discredited portraits could
between three and three-and-a-half times lifesize, be stored up in ‘recycling centers’ to be recarved,
thus on a slightly smaller scale than the Antoninus meaning that this one could have been rescued from
Pius. This may have been a way of denoting her such a marble yard and reinstalled after Commodus’
position as subsidiary to the emperor’s; on the other consecration.43 As for Crispina, she had been ac-
hand, if they were posed as a pair and he was seated cused of adultery, exiled to Capri, and then killed
and she standing, her smaller scale would have made in 192; her memory was condemned, with no re-
the difference in their heights less obvious. habilitation.
Smith’s confirmation that the colossal head once The new fragment consists of the lower part of a
identified as Zeus was actually Marcus Aurelius adds bearded face and powerful neck (illus. pl. 15 fig. 40).
to the consistency of an Antonine family group (illus. The acrolithic treatment is the same as that of the
pl. 14 figs. 38, 39). Hanfmann dated the work to other male heads, as is the scale, though the regu-
Hellenistic times because of the preponderance of larity of the neckline hints that this statue was
chisel-work over drillwork in its sculptural treatment, clothed, probably cuirassed. The mouth is open, with
but it is possible that the showier and higher-relief the teeth visible. The moustache is sketchy and light,
passages of drillwork in the moustache and beard only gently overshadowing the upper lip, which is
have been battered off; the head is badly damaged, noticeably fleshy and full. The beard grows in ba-
and looks as if it was defaced by deliberate hammer- roque twisted locks from just below the cheekbones,
ing.40 From what is preserved, the mouth was open with strong accents of drillwork among curls that are
and breathing, shadowed by a wide, full moustache. lightly windswept to the figure’s left. The chin is
The beard started just below the gently rounded but marked by two swirling double-ended locks. The line
narrow cheekbones, and there is a sensuous contrast of the mouth and the outgrowth of the beard from
between the skin’s high polish and the feathered between the corners of the lips and down to the chin
opacity of the edging locks of beard. Three isolated forms a rectangle, in the center of which is an iso-
locks come down in a triangle from the lower lip. lated tuft of three locks of hair, which flare out from
The beard itself was full and wide, rounded at its under the lower lip.

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

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

As for the other female head, there is little left of Faustina, may have stood in the east-facing cella.52
it but a fragment of a wide-arched eye, nose, and It is extremely unlikely, however, that any imperial
cheek, consistent in style with all the others (illus. image displaced Artemis from the western cella.
pl. 17 fig. 44).51 If one of the colossi was Marcus Sardian Artemis’ sanctuary had received the coveted
Aurelius, this may have been his empress, Faustina title asylos, confirmed by Julius Caesar himself
the Younger. shortly before his death.53 The city would not have
It is likely, then, that the colossi from the temple forgone this honor to rededicate the temple entirely.
of Artemis at Sardis represented Antonine rulers and Still, imperial colossi could have been placed else-
their consorts. The emperor Antoninus Pius and his where than on the cella bases. The head attributed
wife, Faustina the Elder, were almost certainly here to Lucius Verus shows marks of water that
present. Antoninus’ adoptive son and successor Mar- flowed down its neck when it still stood upright, in-
cus Aurelius, and his wife, Antoninus’ and Faustina’s dicating that it may have stood in a semi-exposed
daughter Faustina the Younger, were likely present. area, perhaps in one of the temple’s porches; in fact,
The third imperial couple were probably Lucius it was found in a late Roman pit in the eastern
Verus and his wife Lucilla, as Marcus Aurelius raised porch. Hanfmann noted that the colossi had vary-
Verus to be his full partner and co-ruler. Though ing fates: Faustina and Antoninus Pius apparently
none of the statues is strictly datable, it is most likely stayed in the temple until their wooden parts fell to
that Antoninus and Faustina the Elder were the pieces, while the head here identified as Marcus
original cult pair. Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the Aurelius was badly battered, and a piece of it ended
Younger were added at a time when he was fully up built into a church foundation.54 It is certainly
mature and well bearded, either as designated suc- possible that one or more of the heads could have
cessor or after succeeding Pius. A joint succession been exposed to the elements in this period of dere-
was unexpected, so Lucius Verus could have only liction.
been introduced after Pius’ death, and Lucilla after Statue groups of the Antonine family were not
their marriage. Each of the male heads has an iso- uncommon.55 Also, more is becoming known about
lated tuft of hair under the lip which, though dif- the grouping of freestanding imperial statues, espe-
fering in form, may be a grace note typical of an cially in Sebasteia and Kaisareia.56 But the Sardis
eastern, perhaps Sardian, sculptural workshop. group is a special case. All are colossi, and all are
Though no scientific testing has yet been done, all in or around a temple whose purpose was the pro-
vincial imperial cult; and if the identifications pro-
the colossal marbles are consistent with the prod-
posed above are correct, all the individuals portrayed
ucts of local quarries.
were reigning emperors and their consorts. Other
It is not certain how these statues were arranged.
Antonine groups often include children as well as
They show slight differences in scale, with males
rulers, while municipal temples might have been
largest, the senior female (Faustina the Elder) slightly
more idiosyncratic than provincial ones.
smaller, and junior females (e.g., the portrait here
The comparanda are discussed more fully in part
identified as Lucilla) smaller still. Though it is most
II, in the summary chapter 39 on temples and stat-
likely that they stood as pairs of consorts, it is not
ues, but a few may be mentioned here. Strongest
impossible that the males took one area of the
among the parallel cases are those of the other neo-
temple, perhaps the eastern half, while the females koroi. At Ephesos, Titus’ colossal statue stood in a
stood with Artemis in the west.
No matter how large the temple, six colossal stat-
ues would be difficult to place. The cella was 18.35 52 For such a composition, see the relief of the Severan arch

m. wide, and in its divided form, each side had a at Leptis Magna (below, n. 57).
53 Herrmann 1989b, 127-158; Rigsby 1996, 433-437.
statue base of approximately six m. square wedged 54 Hanfmann 1983, 193.

between its central columns. This base could have 55 For several examples, Bol 1984, 31-45, 88-89. Also

supported one colossus, or a pair if one were stand- Moretti 1968 (IGUrbRom) fasc. 1 no. 25, a Delphian dedica-
tion at Rome. An inscribed base from Patara in Lycia (IGRR
ing; the senior pair, Antoninus Pius and the elder 3:665) places Marcus Aurelius in the center, with his wife
Faustina on the left (at his right hand) and Lucius Verus on
the right.
56 Pekáry 1985, 92-96, 104-106; Inan 1993; Rose 1997a,
51 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, no. 88. 147-149 with bibliography.
108 part i – section i. koinon of asia

temple of (probably) Vespasian, while at Pergamon, perhaps as a group rather than piecemeal; the ear-
Hadrian’s colossus stood near or with the temple’s liest possible date for this addition would be 163 or
original inhabitants, Zeus Philios and Trajan. Among 164 C.E., after the marriage of Lucius Verus and
municipal imperial temples, acrolithic statues of Lucilla. This took place not so far away, at Ephesos,
Augustus and Rome held the dual cellae of their and the ceremonies connected with the wedding and
temple in Leptis Magna, while Tiberius and Livia the emperor’s progress among the cities of western
were enthroned elsewhere, perhaps in the porch. At Asia Minor toward his Parthian war may have been
the temple of the Gens Septimia Aurelia at Cuicul, the the impetus behind the addition of the new colossi.59
cella was probably held by the emperor under whom But where they stood is uncertain, as no other ped-
it was dedicated, Severus Alexander, perhaps accom- estals have been found. If placed one by one, the
panied by his mother Julia Mamaea; acrolithic stat- four statues could have been set among the columns
ues of his forebears, Septimius Severus and Julia on either side of the eastern cella, before their en-
Domna, could have stood in the great niches at the throned parents. If they stood as two pairs of con-
back of the precinct. The tiny Sebasteion at Boubon sorts, they would have fit better in the eastern porch,
showed that Septimius Severus could be imported in the open space on either side of the entry stairs.
into an Antonine family group, which becomes an In either case, it is likely that they remained, despite
important precedent if the Sardis colossus here iden- the opprobrium into which Lucilla fell, until pagan-
tified as Lucius Verus should prove to be Septimius ism was replaced by Christianity at Sardis.
Severus instead. Though Foss has stated that the new, imperial
Another trend at Boubon was to place an empress incarnation of the Artemis temple is “evidently”
at her husband’s right hand. If that was true at recognizable on coins, the case is slightly more com-
Sardis, however, the pairs of consorts would be plex.60 The coins in question, issued by Claudius
portrayed as looking away from one another, which Fronto as Asiarch and strategos, show on the obverse
is not what Julia Domna and Septimius Severus do Faustina the Elder thea and on the reverse a hexastyle
on the Severan arch at Leptis Magna.57 Posed as temple with a standing male figure (in a short cos-
Juno and Jupiter of the Capitoline triad, she stands tume and holding a sceptre) inside. The clearest
gesturing toward him, while his throne is canted examples, however, show that the hexastyle temple
toward her. A Fortuna figure and a peacock were is of the Corinthian order, while the temple of
added on Julia’s side to echo the standing Minerva Artemis at Sardis was Ionic.61 So if the coin type
and owl beyond Severus, thus bracketing and em- represents any provincial imperial cult temple in
phasizing the imperial couple rather than the triad. Sardis, it should be the first one, not be that of
The pattern of seated male/standing female was not Antoninus Pius and Artemis. Following this chain
unusual: enthroned statues of Marcus Aurelius and of remote possibilities, if the pseudodipteros were the
Lucius Verus were found with a diademed statue of first provincial imperial temple of Sardis, a coin
Faustina the Younger and a veiled statue of Lucilla commemorating it would be found in the debris of
in the theater at Bulla Regia.58 its destruction. The coincidence would be pleasantly
Unfortunately, there is too little evidence to tell ironic, though the multitude of other possibilities
how the Sardis colossi were arranged around the make its likelihood remote.
temple of Artemis. Perhaps the most logical arrange- Moreover, the figure in the temple, unlike
ment is based on pairs of consorts. Antoninus Pius Antoninus Pius, is beardless, and may in fact depict
and Faustina the Elder, as the senior pair, would some god who was generally represented in a short
have taken the main statue base in the eastern cella, tunic. That costume, which has been taken to repre-
he enthroned, she standing, possibly at his left hand
(on the right), and were probably installed during
his reign and lifetime. The statues of his successors Lehnen 1997, 260; Halfmann 1986a, 210-212. Karwiese
and their consorts would have been added later, 1990 seems to be based on an argument from silence and a
series of misreadings.
60 In Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986, 66 n. 98; also Johnston

in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 12 no. 289;

57Bartoccini 1931, 83-85 fig. 48. S. Price 1984b, 260.
58Von Heintze 1982, 171 no. 9; similar dynastic groups 61 BMC 139; SNGvA 3154; Sardis C81.82 (found in the

came from the theater in Leptis Magna and the temple at destruction layer of the pseudodipteros, above); Paris (Babelon
Sabratha, 174. 1898, 5254).
chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 109

sent an emperor’s military costume, is probably neokoros’ on its coins, early in the reign of Septimius
different from that of the imperial image from Sardis’ Severus (when Albinus was still Caesar, perhaps 193-
temple of Artemis, where, as has been discussed, 195).66 The type remained popular throughout the
Antoninus was probably enthroned and caparisoned Severan period.
as Zeus. On the other hand, numismatic convention
often showed the emperor in cuirass, because he was COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI% L %EPTIMI
%EOUHRO% PERTINAJ Laureate draped cui-
more recognizable that way. Could the figure in the
temple be the (clean-shaven) emperor for whom rassed bust of Septimius Severus r. Rev: EPI G I
Sardis was first neokoros? KRI%POU ARX %ARDIANVN DI% NEVKORVN
A more distinct possibility is that the coins show Two six-column temples, a disc in each pediment,
a temple of Dionysos, whose origins were thought turned toward one another; a leafy wreath over
to be Lydian, and whose cult is well documented at one, a plain one over the other. a) SNGvA 3155
Sardis.62 A similar temple, little clearer except for b) Paris 1248 c) Ireland 2000, no. 1714.
a tall leaflike attribute (a thyrsos?) in the central COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU KAI L %EPTI %EOU-
figure’s right hand, appears on a coin of the koinon HRO% PER Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
of thirteen Ionian cities, of which Sardis was not a Septimius Severus r. Rev: EPI %TR[A K]OR
member.63 This type was issued by the same man OUETTHNIANOU A%IARX D %ARDIANVN DI%
who issued the Sardis coins, the Asiarch Claudius NEVKORVN MHTROPOLEV% A%IA% Two six-
Fronto, but here he gave his title as chief priest of column temples, a disc in each pediment, turned
the Ionian koinon, whereas on the Sardis coin he toward one another; a leafy wreath over one, a
stood in the office of strategos of that city. Though plain one over the other. a) Paris 1248A (illus. pl.
he used the title ‘Asiarch’ on both issues, this does 24 fig. 89).
not necessarily mean that he issued these coins in
that capacity, or that the office had anything to do COIN TYPE 3. Obv: L %EPTI GETA% K[...]
with the subject of the coins’ reverses.64 But the cult Draped cuirassed bust of Geta as Caesar r., boy-
of the wine god was a major theme of the series of ish. Rev: EP %TRA KOR OUETTHNIANOU [...]
Ionian coins underwritten by Fronto.65 On balance %ARDIANVN DI% NEVKORVN MHTROPOLEV%
of evidence, then, the temple portrayed on Fronto’s A%IA% Two six-column temples turned toward
issues at Sardis is more likely to be that of Dionysos one another, a wreath over each. a) SNGvA 3162.
than that of Antoninus Pius and Artemis. As usual, the buildings are assimilated to each other
So far as is known, the temples that made Sardis
to convey the concept ‘temples for which the city is
twice neokoros only appear on the multiple-temple
neokoros,’ though architecturally they may have
coins so dear to neokoroi cities. Sardis began to issue
looked quite different and been far separated from
such types about as soon as it began to include ‘twice
each other. The only distinction is in the (agonis-
tic?) wreaths, one smooth, one leafy, that are shown
62 Hanfmann 1983, 93-94, 118, 133, 155 with particular over the temples. This may indicate that contests in
note of the coins of Fronto showing Hermes and Dionysos. The honor of the two temples were of different types: for
temple is tentatively identified as Dionysos’ by M. Price and
Trell 1977, fig. 380, though their catalogue (268 n. 486) con- example, a wreath of laurel might symbolize a
tinued to call it an imperial temple. Pythian festival, one of olive an Olympian.
63 SNGvA 7814.
64 Campanile 1994a, 80 no. 67. Also associated with the two provincial imperial
65 Engelmann 1972, not a very acute analysis; 188 n. 4 states temples is the enigmatic draped figure of a goddess,
that the dies of SNGvA 3154 (the Sardis coin) and SNGvA 7814 the Lydian Kore.67 She is not there as an object of
(the Ionian league coin) are “almost identical,” a meaningless koinon cult but as Sardis’ patron deity. Artemis Ephe-
term even if direct comparison between the photographs did
not show great differences in legends and proportions between sia had appeared in the same way on coins of
both pairs of dies, though the reverses may show the same Ephesos (q.v.) as early as the reign of Antoninus Pius.
temple. Engelmann is followed by Lindner 1994, 144-149, and
by Kampmann 1997, who would attribute the connection
between Sardis and the Ionian cities to a simultaneous celebra-
tion of the koinon games of Asia for the dedication of Sardis’ 66 Kienast 1996, 160-161.
second provincial temple and a festival for the thirteen Ionian 67 Identified by a scene of Kore’s abduction by Hades on
cities, specifically between 141 and 145 C.E. See also Kamp- a statue of Lydian Kore in Padua: Fleischer 1999, 606; for other
mann 1998, 379-380. evidence, idem 1973, 187-201; 1984c.
110 part i – section i. koinon of asia

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

ated by an unwary use of old catalogues. For a subtle investi-

68 Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates gation on the pecking order of deities, see M. Nollé and J. Nollé
1981, 7-10, ultimately an argument from silence; see Hanfmann 1994, 248-249.
1983, 129-135. 71 See chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ in Part II.
69 Gauthier 1989, 54-58; Knoepfler 1993; Roller 1999, 196. 72 Kienast 1996, 177-179.
chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 111

This type again includes the temple of Kore with the people he ruled. So far as this study has found,
the temples for which the city was neokoros, just as the title ‘neokoros’ had historically implied the ex-
type 5 had. The latter had been similar to the more istence of a temple, and where these have been
impressive types of cities like Pergamon and Smyrna found, they have not been small shrines but large,
that were three times neokoros, though the legend independent peripteral structures. This is what the
never claimed more than the proper two for Sardis. coins show for Elagabalus as well, and that is what
This tendency simply continued on type 6 under we should believe unless there is some positive evi-
Elagabalus: though Sardis was only three times neo- dence against it.
koros, with the addition of the temple of Kore its Sardis coin type 6 illustrates the temple to
multiple-temple reverses resembled contemporary Elagabalus as six-column, a shield in its pediment.
issues of four-times neokoros Ephesos (q.v.). The imperial statue shown within is very small but
Some doubt has been expressed as to whether this appears to be the usual cuirassed figure, with left arm
or any temple to Elagabalus was ever built.73 raised, perhaps propped on a sceptre or spear.
Though Johnston never made the logic behind her Contemporary coins under Hermophilos show a
skepticism explicit, her reasoning appears to be that parade of agonistic types, often with four prize
there were simply too many temples to Elagabalus crowns, recalling type 6 with four temples.74 Only
crammed into too short a reign; therefore his cult three of the temples made the city neokoros, how-
must have been moved into other temples, likely ever, and none of the ‘worldwide’ contests on the
including that of Kore at Sardis. It is true that at coins can be tied to any specific emperor. The Koina
Nikomedia and at Philippopolis there is coin evi- was indeed a provincial imperial festival, but had
dence that the emperor’s cult was moved into the already been celebrated at Sardis since the first
temple of the city’s chief deity. But for Sardis as for century.75 A festival called Elagabalia at first looks
Ephesos, Miletos, and Hierapolis (qq.v.), the coins promising, but is in fact named after Elagabalus the
are our only form of evidence and we cannot disre- sun god of Emesa, not the emperor properly known
gard what they say. The coins of Sardis show a third as Antoninus.76 The nickname ‘Elagabalus’ would
imperial temple for Elagabalus, separate from the not have been publicly used for the emperor at any
temple of Kore. They give no indication that the time before his death. Though a festival for his god
emperor shared his temple with any other deity. might well have been allied with one for the em-
That no such temple has yet been found is insignifi- peror, there is no evidence for or against it.
cant, an argument from silence: none of these cit-
ies has been excavated so completely that we could
expect to find all its temples. As for the shortness Withdrawn: Severus Alexander
of Elagabalus’ reign: that may have affected whether
temples to him were completed, but it should not Sardis does not appear to have issued coins for
affect whether or not they were begun. Any city that Severus Alexander’s sole rule that still claim the city’s
became neokoros for Elagabalus presumably trusted third neokoria. That there was a period of indeci-
that his would be a long and honorable rule, per- sion about the status of the neokoria for Elagabalus,
haps to be followed by legitimate successors, and that however, is shown by Sardis inscription 7:
the Severan dynasty would continue. The fact that
INSCRIPTION 7. Herrmann 1993b, 248-266
the historical sources preserved to us are unani-
no. 2 (Sardis inventory no. IN 82.16). [t}w
mously hostile and portray Elagabalus as a sex-
prvtÒxyonow ka‹ |erçw] t«n [ye«n ka‹ mhtro-
crazed religious maniac should not lead us to
pÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤a]w ka‹ L[ud¤aw èpãshw ka‹
imagine that he could be slighted with impunity by
74 Karl 1975, 76-79, 134-135; Johnston in Buttrey, John-
73 Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates ston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 12-14.
1981, 9-10, 12; Johnston 1984, 58. If her theory that the temple 75 Moretti 1954, the earliest document Neronian; also note

of Kore was the temple of Artemis were also correct, the temple Année Epigraphique 1993 no. 1527, which mentions the Severeia
of Artemis would have then housed two provincial imperial koina Asias in Sardis, a festival that could not have originated
cults, that of Antoninus Pius and his house, and that of from any of Sardis’ provincial imperial temples, though they
Elagabalus. This makes the temple as crowded as did Foss’ may have been involved in its celebration.
theory that the first provincial imperial cult moved into the 76 L. Robert 1976, 53-54; apparently unknown to Johnston

temple of Artemis, above. 1984, 58.

112 part i – section i. koinon of asia

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

77 Herrmann 1993b, 248-266 provided a full discussion of

the family. 80 Münsterberg 1985, 148-149; Neikomachos’ grandfather

78 Halfmann 1986a, 212-216. is likely the Neikomachos named on coins of Marcus Aurelius.
79 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417. 81 For the magistrate, Herrmann 1993b, 257 n. 84.
chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 113

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

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

Sardis twice neokoros, a title that the city held for 3. Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 178-179 no. 277
over a century at the time of its highest prosperity. (Foss 1986, 170-171 no. 4; SEG 36 [1986] 1095).
Inscriptions of the third neokoria would naturally be Statue base of children of Kore, dated to 211 by
rarer: that title was correct only from perhaps 220 dedication to Caracalla and Geta, the latter’s name
or 221 to 222 during the reign of Elagabalus, and erased.
by the time it was reinstated in the joint reign of 4. L. Robert 1967, 48 n. 6 (Foss 1986, 171 no. 5;
Valerian and Gallienus, probably just before 260, SEG 36 [1986] 1096). Statue base of Caracalla, prob-
few inscriptions were being set up. It is no accident ably dated to his sole rule (212-217), as the epithet
that of Sardis’ eight inscriptions citing neokoria ‘relative of the lord emperor’ is singular not plural;
(where enumeration is preserved, and other than this the two neokoriai of the Augusti are by decrees of
last one), only one records the city as three times the Senate.
neokoros.86 5. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 63 (Cichorius
In fact the source of the titulature may have been 1889, 371-373 no. 3; IGRR 4:1528; corrections by
right above the builders’ noses. Members of their L. Robert 1940, 56-59). Sardis is twice neokoros of
corporation must have been involved in the various the Augusti by decrees of the Senate. Similar in form
renovations and building projects of the bath/gym- to inscription 4 except for added titles ‘sacred’ and
nasium complex at Sardis from the late fourth ‘first of Hellas.’ The more grandiose formulae are
through the fifth century. Perhaps the most exten- peculiar to Caracalla’s reign, but Bowersock 1995,
sive of these renovations was commemorated in a 85-98 tried to redate inscription 5 to Lucius Verus’
long inscription, dated in the middle to late fifth time. For a rebuttal, see SEG 45 (1995) no. 2353.
century, around the podium of the ‘marble court.’87 6. Sardis inventory no. IN 74.7, unpublished.
And just above, on the entablature, ran the great Titulature similar to no. 5; again, the neokoriai are
dedication inscription from the joint reign of Cara- by decrees of the Senate.
calla and Geta, cited above, calling Sardis ‘metro- Many times neokoros:
polis of Asia and twice neokoros of the Augusti.’ 7. Herrmann 1993b, 248-266 no. 2 (Sardis inven-
Despite its best efforts, Sardis appears to have tory no. IN 82.16). Probably dated to Severus
been fated to go down the centuries as only twice Alexander’s reign, 222-235 C.E. See text above.
neokoros. But thanks to that error, we can recog- Neokoria of indefinite number:
nize that the last known document of the neokoria 8. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 64 (CIG 3464;
commemorates not the survival of the imperial cult, SEG 4:638; IGRR 4:1516; corrections by L. Robert
but an attempt to recapture the glories of the past. 1929, 138 n. 2). Fragment of honorific. Titulature
By the mid-fifth century, the title ‘neokoros’ was a other than neokoria similar to that of inscription 7;
Herrmann 1993b, 240-241, time of Severus
dead letter.
Alexander–Gordian III?
9. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 70. Fragment;
neokoria by decrees of the Senate. Titulature other
than neokoria similar to that of inscription 7;
Herrmann 1993b, 240-241, time of Severus Alex-
Twice neokoros:
ander–Gordian III?
1. S. Johnson 1960, 10 no. 4 (Hanfmann and
10. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 67. Fragment.
Ramage 1978, 178 no. 276; Foss 1986, 169-170 no.
11. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 69. Fragment.
2; SEG 36 [1986] 1093). Dedication to Lucius Verus,
Twice neokoros:
probably ca. 166. See text above. 12. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 18. From the
2. Foss 1986, 170 no. 3 (SEG 36 [1986] 1094; reign of Leo, dated 459 C.E. See text above.
Herrmann 1993b, 233-248 no. 1). Inscription of
‘marble court,’ dated to 211 by dedication to
Caracalla and Geta, the latter’s name erased. See COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
text above.
Twice neokoros:
Sardis inventory no. IN 76.4, unpublished: Herrmann Albinus Caesar: BMC 146; Berlin, London, Vienna.
1993b, 252 n. 63.
87 Foss 1976, 40, 113-114 nos. 15, 16; Hanfmann 1983, 160; Septimius Severus: SNGvA 3155; SNGRighetti 1087; Ber-
Foss 1986, 171-172 no. 8. lin, Paris (4 exx.).
chapter 6 – sardis in lydia 115

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


Neokoria of Zeus: Commodus The temple of Zeus, which still stands in great part
today, apparently formed the centerpiece of a whole
Coins and inscriptions of Aizanoi agree in proclaim- new urban plan for Aizanoi.6 The date of this plan
ing the city to be neokoros of Zeus, though both do can be postulated from the remains of the temple’s
so only rarely. Starting from the reign of Commo- foundation documents, preserved on its north
dus, the documents make this the first official neoko- pronaos wall. The income from cleruchic land, al-
ria for a deity yet known; though in Acts of the Apos- lotted to Zeus by decisions of kings of Pergamon and
tles 19.35 a magistrate of Ephesos had earlier hailed Bithynia, had lapsed, and a reorganization was
his city as neokoros of Artemis (q.v.), that was not undertaken under Hadrian; the emperor himself
yet an official title. Aizanoi is so far the only city wrote letters concerning it, and they were proudly
known to have been neokoros of Zeus. inscribed on the walls of the new temple.7 New
Two coin types mention neokoria in their legends, boundary stones had been laid out in 127/128 C.E.,
both showing the mature, bearded portrait of and the return of income no doubt paid for the new
Commodus likely to date from Saoteros’ fall in 182 temple of Zeus and prompted the city’s reorganiza-
(see ‘Nikomedia,’ chapter 15) to the end of Com- tion and renewal.8 This fostering of Hellenic civic
modus’ reign, in 192. life is typical of Hadrian, and it is probably no co-
COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU KAI M AURH KOMO- incidence that the cult of Zeus at Aizanoi got this
DO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Commo- boost at the same time as that of Zeus Olympios at
dus r., bearded. Rev: AIZANEITVN NEVKORVN Athens. Later, a prominent citizen and descendant
TOU DIO% Seated mother goddess with tympanum of a family deeply involved in the temple’s building
holds the infant Zeus, a lion at her feet; three would represent Aizanoi in Hadrian’s Panhellenion
Korybantes around her.1 a) Boston 1973.606. in Athens.9
The blocks of the pronaos’ southern and door
COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU KAI M AURH KOMO- walls are missing, and would likely have been as
DO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Commodus r., carefully inscribed as its north wall was.10 Names
bearded. Rev: AIZANEITVN NEVKORVN TOU that probably stood among the missing documents
DIO% Zeus with sceptre and eagle.2 a) Paris 241 can now be restored from inscriptions found else-
(illus. pl. 24 fig. 94). where in the city.11 Surely M. Ulpius Appuleius
The imagery of these types refers to the cult of Zeus Flavianus and his family were among them, as a
as practiced in Aizanoi: his birth to the mother letter from Antoninus Pius honoring his grandson
goddess, Meter Steuene, in the grotto Steunos south Eurykles was among the preserved documents on the
of the city;3 his adult manifestation; and on another north outer wall of the pronaos.12 A prominent citi-
coin his open-air cult place: a high column on which
an eagle perches, flanked by an altar and a tree.4
Zeus’ cult was important enough to win asylos sta-
tus as well as the neokoria for Aizanoi.5 6 R. Naumann 1979; Rheidt 1995, 715; Gros 1996-2001,

7 Smallwood 1966, 165-166 no. 454; Laffi 1971.
1 Von Aulock 1968, 48 pl. 3.9. 8 Levick 1987; Levick, S. Mitchell and Potter 1988, xxiii-
2 Babelon 1898, no. 5581. xxix; Winter 1996, 89-90.
3 Roller 1999, 189, 336-341. 9 C. Jones 1996, 35-36, 41.
4 L. Robert 1981a, 352-353; J. and L. Robert, Revue des études 10 R. Naumann 1979, 34-36.
grecques (1982) 406 n. 399. 11 F. Naumann 1985; Wörrle 1992.
5 Rigsby 1996, 447-448; see inscriptions 1 and 2, below. 12 Oliver 1989, 321-322 no. 155.
chapter 7 – AIZANOI IN PHRYGIA 117

zen of Aizanoi, Appuleius Flavianus undertook with eight columns on the facades and fifteen along
embassies to Rome, likely concerning the cleruchic the sides.15 Its stylobate was approximately 21.5 x
land income. He also held the koinon position of 36.5 m. It stood on a high podium, broached only
chief priest of Asia for the temples at Pergamon (the by an eastern staircase; atop the podium, and pre-
plural showing that his post was held after 114-116 sumably giving access to the temple on all sides, was
C.E. when Pergamon was made twice neokoros). He a seven-stepped krepis, unfortunately omitted from
passed his civic interests down to his son: M. Ulpius this plan. The temple stood in its own colonnaded
Appuleianus Flavianus was priest of Zeus for life and court (130.5 x 112 m., illus. pl. 5 fig. 21), and was
agonothetes (and likely founder) of the first-ever Deia approached from an enclosed courtyard or agora 95
contest held in Aizanoi in Zeus’ honor. In the next m. square, whose entry aligned with the temple
generation, Eurykles became his city’s representa- court’s original entry stairway (later a propylon), the
tive to the Panhellenion in Athens, and this honor altar, and the east door into the cella itself.
stands among the foundation documents of the The cella, with four composite columns set be-
temple at Aizanoi, giving Naumann his closing date fore its porch, faced east and was dedicated to Zeus.
for the building of the temple. The grandfather’s The west-facing opisthodomos had two more com-
advocacy for the temple and the father’s role in posite columns in antis, and contained two doors that
starting the Deia festival help to explain the son’s led via stairs to the roof, or down to an underground
prominent place in the temple documentation. It is vault that was likely the domain of the mother god-
also possible that either the grandfather or the fa- dess.16 No remains of cult statues or hints at their
ther of Eurykles may have helped to get other hon- arrangement have been found.17
ors for his city and temple at the same time, perhaps That Zeus had had some sort of shrine even
even the title ‘neokoros’ itself. One cannot date the before the completion of this temple is shown by
careers exactly; the grandfather reached the provin- coins from the time of Domitian that portray Zeus
cial summit of chief priesthood of Asia sometime in a four-column Ionic temple.18 These coins indi-
after 114, and his grandson’s activities stretch from cate the temple’s lintel as either flat or arched to
Antoninus Pius’ reign to Commodus’. One would show the cult image within; the arched facade also
imagine that the new title, and perhaps the Deia appears on coins of Hadrian.19 In the reign of Anto-
festival, followed the confirmation of land rights and ninus Pius an eight-column facade with a disc in-
the building of the new temple under Hadrian; but stead of a cult statue within it appears, possibly
absolute certainty is not yet possible. celebrating the completion of the new temple. Af-
According to Naumann’s analysis of the docu- ter Marcus Aurelius’ accession, however, the type
reverts back to Zeus in his four-column arched
ments inscribed on its cella wall, the temple of Zeus
shrine. It may be that the four-column structure rep-
was built between 126 and 157, in the reigns of
resents an aediculum rather than the full-scale
Hadrian and Antoninus Pius.13 Strocka’s wide-rang-
temple; more likely, it is shorthand for a temple, and
ing studies of Hadrianic architecture in Asia Minor,
the arch is a convention that allows the cult statue
however, categorize the temple’s architecture and
to be displayed more prominently.20
details as too all-of-a-piece to have been produced
over such a stretch of time. He agreed with Nau-
mann in associating its origins with a confirmation
of land rights for the cult of Zeus and the mother 15 R. Naumann 1979, passim.
goddess after 125/126; but he preferred to date the 16 R. Naumann 1986 defended these identifications.
start of work in 128 or 129, and the finish within 17 R. Naumann 1986, however, placed a small statue of

only a few years.14 Presumably, then, there was space Kybele (i.e., the mother goddess) centrally in the underground
vault; reports of an aediculum in the cella are the result of a
left on the cella’s walls for subsequent inscriptions misinterpretation of the opisthodomos wall (R. Naumann 1979,
to be carved. 18).
18 R. Naumann 1979, 63-64 would consider restoring an
The temple of Zeus at Aizanoi (illus. pl. 3 fig. 13)
earlier temple west of the Doric courtyard which abuts and
was an impressive Ionic pseudodipteral structure enters the new temple’s courtyard at the southeast corner; this
suite would have provided a model for the new temple and the
agora that approaches it.
13 R. Naumann 1979, 36, 65-75. 19 Von Aulock 1979, nos. 43, 44, 49, 53, 54, 57, 59.
14 Strocka 1981, 29-30 and n. 83. 20 Drew-Bear 1974; M. Price and Trell 1977, 19-33.
118 part i – section i. koinon of asia

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

There is no evidence that the koinon of Asia 25 There has been some confusion due to coins of Aizanoi

counted Aizanoi’s temple of Zeus among its provin- that mention the title ‘archineokoros,’ but this an individual’s,
not the city’s, title: see Münsterberg 1985, 156. Both archineo-
koroi and neokoroi for the temple of Zeus are well known at
21 Magie 1950, 637. Aizanoi. For the prominent status of these officials, see Levick
1987, 262, 267; Wörrle 1995a, no. 4; idem 1995b, 71-72.
chapter 8 – laodikeia in phrygia 119

Chapter 8. Laodikeia in Phrygia: Koinon of Asia

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

1 Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56; see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’

2 Mileta 1990, 440-442. 5 L. Robert 1969b, 281-289; detail pl. 112. See also S. Price
3 Bean 1971, 247-257; YÌldÌz 1994; Traversari 2000 (with 1984b, 264-265.
color aerial photos). 6 Barnes 1969.
4 Des Gagniers 1969; for a critique, Sperti 2000, 40. 7 Pflaum 1972, 212-216, 246-247.
120 part i – section i. koinon of asia

cities, but on only one occasion did it mint for a he was still three times imperator, between October
Bithynian city: coins with obverses of Commodus as 213 and an unknown month of 214; his fourth (un-
Lucius, thus dated before October 180, and of official) acclamation would come with his campaign
Crispina, whom he married in 178, show that the against the Parthians.13
two cities shared some important connection at this
INSCRIPTION 2. Moretti 1968, IGUrbRom 37
time.8 It is most likely that both became neokoros
(IG 14:1063; IGRR 1:130). Statue base, from
for Commodus early in his reign, and Laodikeia
Rome. [{] Laodik°vn t«n prÚw t“ LÊkƒ
issued the coins commemorating this bond. Niko-
ne[vkÒrvn] pÒliw . . .
media’s neokoria was so strongly tainted by associa-
tion with Saoteros that it was withdrawn during The restoration of neokoria to Laodikeia thus an-
Commodus’ own lifetime, after 182. It is doubtful tedates the Parthian campaign, though it has often
that Laodikeia would choose to issue coins for the been connected with Caracalla’s presence on the
embarrassed city after that point. Laodikeia’s, how- eastern front.14
ever, may have been associated with the emperor, Later Laodikeia celebrated the renewal of its
not with his satellites. Its loss and eventual restora- neokoria, among other things, with a special issue
tion might reflect what happened to Commodus. of coins labeled ‘year 88’ or ‘the eighty-eighth,’ with
On the last day of the year 192, Commodus was obverse portraits of Caracalla and his mother Julia
assassinated by a palace plot. The next day, January Domna; reverse types show temples within the city:
1, 193, he was declared a public enemy, his statues
torn down and mutilated, his name erased from all
NEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
public and private records.9 This act meant that
Laodikeia’s temple of Commodus, as well as the part
PH Three temples on high podia; side two two-
of the Deia Kommodeia festival that celebrated his cult
column and turned toward the center, in one a
along with that of Zeus, were officially wiped out.10
female or togate figure, in the other a male with
As enforcement was spotty, especially far from
sceptre; the center temple four-column, male fig-
Rome, one cannot tell how far the Laodikeians went
ure with sceptre within. a) SNGvA 3858.
in expunging their cult of Commodus.
Tarsos (q.v.) seems to have regained its neokoria COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTV-
for Commodus as soon as the reign of Septimius NEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
Severus, who claimed Commodus as his brother and Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN T PH
thus rehabilitated his memory.11 Laodikeia’s docu- Six-column temple with arched entablature and
ments, however, only show the return of the Deia pagoda-like roof, togate emperor with phiale
Kommodeia festival under Severus.12 Its neokoria within. a) Paris 1611 (illus. pl. 25 fig. 95).
would not return to sight until the sole rule of that
emperor’s son, Caracalla. Titulature that is almost
NO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla
certainly that of Caracalla on Laodikeia’s inscrip-
tion 2 shows that the neokoria had returned while
column Ionic temple with arcuated lintel,
cuirassed emperor with sceptre and phiale on
pedestal within. a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer (illus.
8 Kienast 1996, 147-150; Franke and Nollé 1997, 107, 117
pl. 25 fig. 96).15
nos. 1152-1158; Weiss 1998, 64.
9 Cassius Dio ep. 74.2.1-3; Historia Augusta, Commodus 18-
If type 3 is not a reworked version of type 2, the
20; Varner 1993, 295-317.
10 L. Robert 1969b, 283-284. Karl 1975, 80-81 suggested deliberate distinctions between the imperial images
that the contest’s name meant that Commodus became a cult within the temples should indicate that two separate
partner in Zeus’ temple, but this is unnecessary: such festival
names are agglutinative. See Miranda 1992-1993, 75-76.
11 Merkelbach 1979. Kommodeia (coupled with Antoneina, with Deia, and with other
12 On coins: Berlin; Paris (2 exx., one of them Babelon 1898, festivals), see below.
no. 6295). S. Mitchell 1993, 1:221: “Commodeia at Laodi- 13 Kienast 1996, 162-165.

cea...were renamed Severeia,” overinterpreted Robert in imply- 14 Levick 1969, 433-434 no. 43; Johnston 1983, 70 no. 43.

ing that the name of Commodus was lost. For the survival of 15 Imhoof-Blumer 1901-1902, 273 no. 49; there are several

unusual features of its module and types which led Bernhard

chapter 8 – laodikeia in phrygia 121

emperors are intended. Type 1 shows three temples, ‘Eighty-eight’ on these issues has been interpreted
and if coins like Ephesos’ inspired this type, the side as the year 88, indicating a Laodikeian era that prob-
temples should be those of the emperors (unfortu- ably started with a documented visit by Hadrian in
nately faint, but the figure in the left temple is per- 129 C.E.16 If so, the eighty-eighth Laodikeian year
haps togate, while the right one does appear to be would be mid-August 215 to mid-August 216. It is
cuirassed). The center temple, like Ephesos’ of Arte- not impossible that the celebration was connected
mis, may be that of Laodikeia’s patron god, Zeus with Caracalla’s passage through Asia Minor on his
Laodikeus, though all that can be seen of the central way to the Parthian War. But it should be noted that
figure is that it is male and holds a spear or sceptre, the coin types of ‘eighty-eight’ refer more to the city’s
while Zeus Laodikeus generally carries an eagle as temples and festivals than they do to the imperial
well. A possible alternative is offered by coins issued presence. Instead, undated issues in the name of the
at the same time that emphasized festivals rather Asiarch P. (or L.) Aelius Pigres (minted with obverse
than temples. heads of Julia Domna, of Caracalla, and of the
‘People of Laodikeia neokoroi,’ in this case a rec-
COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU [K M] AU ANTVNEI- ognizable portrait of Caracalla) are the ones whose
NO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla reverse types indicate Caracalla’s presence and ac-
r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO PH Three tivities in the area.
prize crowns, center one labeled ANTVNIA, right Coins of Pigres show Caracalla in a chariot, but
one [KO]M[ODIA], left one obscure; all on ago- instead of commonplace horses he is drawn by li-
nistic table, its edge labeled [. . .]EIA, three ons or centaurs; sometimes he rides a horse over a
amphorae below. a) Vienna 34019. fallen enemy.17 These are generic representations for
COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR AN- a triumphant emperor, but other Laodikeian issues
TVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Pigres are more specific and hint at a possible visit
of Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO by the emperor to Laodikeia itself, which after all
PH Prize crown with palms, labeled ANTVNHNA, seems to have been the site of a temple to his cult
and two purses on agonistic table, its edge labeled that made the city neokoros.
A%KLHPEIA, amphora with palms and the word COIN TYPE 7. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR ANTV-
PUYIA below. a) Paris 1617 (illus. pl. 25 fig. NEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
97). Caracalla r. Rev: EPI L AIL PIGRHTO% A%IAR
LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Veiled, togate emperor
stands between Zeus Laodikeus and Asklepios. a)
TVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust
London 1970.9-9-125.
of Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO
PH Prize crown with palms, labeled ANTVN, (and COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR ANTV-
two purses, bc) on agonistic table, its edge labeled NEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
KOMODEIA (KOMODO%, c), hydria with palms Caracalla r. Rev: EP[I AIL PIG]RHTO% A%IAR
below. a) BMC 230 b) Paris 1616 c) Vienna 34278. LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Emperor, togate with
phiale over tripod, presides at sacrifice before
Type 4 shows three prize crowns just as type 1
eight-column Ionic temple with three openings in
showed three temples, but unfortunately only the
the pediment; at his side two city goddesses hold-
center one is legible, and it proclaims the Antonia or
ing statues; to the left, attendants (accompanied
Antoneina festival for Caracalla. Types 5 and 6 both
by aulos-player) slaughter a bull before a military
show the Antoneina prize crown alone, but the name
of the Komodeia festival for Commodus is added to
the table upon which the crown sits on type 6,
whereas type 5 has Asklepieia/Pythia instead. Thus Weisser of the Berlin Münzkabinett to suspect it of being false
or recut. My thanks to Dr. Weisser for his communication in
Asklepios, whose festival was being celebrated on the this matter (letter of 19 Dec. 2002).
same coins of ‘eighty-eight’ as those for Caracalla 16 Leschhorn 1993, 382-385; despite the doubts of L. Robert

and Commodus, may be the figure in the center 1969b, 263. Duke 1953, no. 11, misdated the era to 124 and
was justifiably blasted by J. and L. Robert in Bulletin Épigraphique
temple. 1954, no. 231, but inexplicably followed by Johnston 1983, 70
122 part i – section i. koinon of asia

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

no. 43; though she, like the Roberts, corrected his addition.
For Hadrian’s visit, see Halfmann 1986a, 193, 204.
17 Lions: BMC 225, Berlin 604/1913; centaurs: Paris 1688;

on horseback: Paris 1604. 20 Sperti 2000, 91-92 (building 12), pls. 8, 18, 22. Plate 18
18 M. Price and Trell 1977, 129 fig. 226, incorrectly as six shows the temple actually projecting out of the temenos, but
column. plan 22 shows its back wall as coterminous with that of the
19 Ibid. fig. 23. temenos.
chapter 8 – laodikeia in phrygia 123

COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT K M AU ANTV- Laodikeia’s neokoria and the status of its contests in
NEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of particular. Though types 11 and 12 show only two
Elagabalus r. Rev: KOMODOU KE ANTVNEINOU temples, type 13 specifies four festivals (unfortunately
LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Two four-column unnamed) as ‘worldwide’ and allies them with the
temples turned toward each other. a) Berlin, (two?) temples under the rubric of the Senate’s de-
Löbbecke (illus. pl. 25 fig. 98) b) Berlin 622/03. cree. Perhaps it is only that the Senate had finally
confirmed Laodikeia’s unusual dual neokoria and the
status of the allied two imperial contests of the four
TVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of
‘worldwide’ ones it boasted. Whatever the details,
these coin types add valuable evidence that as late
DOGMATI %UNKLHTOU Two two-column tem-
as the third century, the Senate played a vital role
ples on high podia turned toward each other, a
in confirming the status of cities, including their
figure in each. a) BMC 242 b) Paris 1615.
COIN TYPE 13. Obv: IERO% DHMO% LAO- The question could be asked, how many times was
DIKEVN Laureate draped bust of the People of Laodikeia truly neokoros? On none of its coins or
Laodikeia r. Rev: NAOI AGVNE%; DOGMATI inscriptions does any enumeration appear before the
%UNKLHTOU; OIKOUMENIKOI; LAODIKEVN title. The coins show the existence of two separate
NEVKORVN Four prize crowns on agonistic table, temples, one for Commodus and the other for
amphora below. a) SNGvA 8414. Caracalla, but type 1 adds a third, unidentified
temple and type 13 refers to four festivals. It is just
Type 10 declares “Laodikeia neokoros of Commo-
remotely possible that Laodikeia was in fact twice
dus and Antoninus by decree of the Senate.” Type
neokoros, once for Commodus (a title perhaps re-
11 shows and identifies the two imperial temples,
stored in the reign of Septimius Severus, as Tarsos’
each with a wreath, perhaps symbolizing a festival,
was), then again for Caracalla. It seems odd, how-
above it, and type 12 reiterates the Senate’s decree.
ever, that a city in Asia, that hotbed of neokoroi,
In fact, most of Laodikeia’s coins proclaim the city
with a rival neokoros like Hierapolis not far away,
neokoros by decree of the Senate at this time. Type
should be so particular to claim that it was neokoros
13 states “temples, contests, by decree of the Sen-
by Senatorial decree but fail to specify that it held
ate, worldwide, of the neokoroi Laodikeians” and
that honor twice over. More likely Laodikeia was
illustrates a table with four prize crowns.23
only once neokoros but gained the title for unifying
The reason for this insistence on the Senate’s
a former cult of Commodus with that of his post-
decree on coins of the time of Elagabalus is un-
humously adopted nephew Caracalla during the
known.24 Sardis, Smyrna, and Ephesos had often
reign of the latter. No other city is known to have
referred to themselves as neokoroi by the Senate’s
been once neokoros for two different imperial
decrees on inscriptions from about the time of the
joint reign of Caracalla and Geta. Under Elagabalus,
Laodikeia continued to commemorate its two
Ephesos also issued a coin which mentioned “these
imperial temples, its festivals, and its title ‘neokoros’
(four) temples of the Ephesians by decree of the
on coins down to the reign of Philip.25
Senate.” Perhaps there was some wide-ranging in-
vestigation into the cities’ proper titulature or hon- COIN TYPE 14. Obv: M IOUL FILIPPO%
ors after the reign of Macrinus; Laodikeia is not KAI%AR Draped cuirassed bust of Philip Caesar
known to have issued any coinage that specified it r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Two two-col-
as neokoros during that troubled time. Or perhaps umn temples on high podia, an emperor in each,
there had been a challenge to the legitimacy of turned toward one another. a) Berlin, Imhoof-
Blumer b) SNGvA 3864.
21 Lehnen 1997, 77-84, 182, 353, more on literary than A different Laodikeian coin type of Philip mentions
visual evidence, and on the latter tending more to the late a ‘renewal,’ probably referring to a renewal of ties
antique Roman than to the high empire in the provinces.
22 Halfmann 1986a, 228-229.
23 Karl 1975, 65 held the noun ‘temples’ ( NAOI) equiva-

lent to the adjective ‘sacred’ (IEROI) but gave no reason or uncommon in coin legends where much information must be
precedent for it. I take it to be simply a case of asyndeton, not crammed onto a small surface.
124 part i – section i. koinon of asia

of kinship with the other cities of Phrygia and of koros after the change. It is likely that it did, how-
Caria (see below).26 ever, as even Synnada (q.v.), up in the central
Just after the time of Philip, probably ca. 250 Phrygian highlands, could call itself twice neokoros
C.E., Laodikeia’s region of Phrygia was detached at the end of the third century.
from the province Asia and joined with Caria to
become the independent province of Phrygia and
Caria.27 Laodikeia, then, was separated from the INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:
province for which it held its imperial temples and
neokoria, and may have lost its primacy in the area Neokoros:
to Aphrodisias.28 It is uncertain what, if anything, 1. IvL 45. Inscription of time of Commodus, with
was done to regularize the situation. A fragment of ‘neokoros’ erased. See text above.
a letter from an emperor or governor found at Lao- 2. IGUrbRom 37. Statue base from Rome, dated
dikeia may refer to the rivalries of this time.29 October 213–214. See text above.
Did the new province equip itself with a koinon? 3. IvL 50 (= CIG 3938, IGRR 4:863). Statue base,
Some coins of Apamea mention a koinon of Phrygia, dated by neokoria after Caracalla.
but they extend back as early as the reign of Nero, 4. IvL 135 (= L. Robert 1969b, 288; IGRR 4:859).
and do not seem to extend the koinon’s sphere Fragment including the titulature ‘the emperor-lov-
beyond Apamea itself.30 Another early text that ing neokoros metropolis of Asia, Laodikeia,’ dated
distinguishes Phrygia from Asia is Acts of the Apostles by neokoria after Caracalla.
2.9-11, where a passage mentions Jews from “Cap- 5. IvL 136 (= CIG 3941). Fragment dated by
padocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia.” neokoria, though it may refer to neokoroi officials
Though the text is not exactly dated, it surely re- (as in IvL 53).
fers to a time when Phrygia was administratively part
of the province Asia; so ‘Asia’ can refer specifically
to the Greek cities of the Aegean coast.31 Dräger COINS CITING NEOKORIA:
attempted to date the new province of Phrygia and
Caria’s existence as far back as the time of Caracalla, Neokoros:
despite the fact that Laodikeia then still celebrated Caracalla: BMC 225-236; SNGCop 589-591; SNGvA 3856-
the Koina Asias and called itself ‘metropolis of Asia’ 3862, 8418, 8419; SNGRighetti 1200, 1201; Berlin (25
exx.), Boston (8 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York
(inscription 4). The coin type (BMC 228) he used as (2 exx.), Oxford (7 exx.), Paris (25 exx.), Vienna (6
evidence, however, only showed the city’s goddess exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.).32
between personifications of Phrygia and Caria, in Julia Domna: BMC 213-218, 221; SNGCop 583-586;
whose borderlands Laodikeia indeed stood, just as SNGvA 3851-3854, 8417; SNGLewis 1608; SNGRighetti
a similar coin type of the time (BMC 229) presented 1197; Berlin (13 exx.), London, New York (3 exx.),
the same goddess between personifications of the Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.).
Non-imperial obverses, time of Caracalla: Berlin (2 exx.),
city’s rivers, the Lykos and Kapros. The formation Oxford.
of the province should remain dated to the 250’s, Elagabalus:33 BMC 228-245; SNGCop 595-597; Berlin (9
as above. Unfortunately, we have no documents of exx.), London, New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (7
any koinon of Phrygia and/or Caria (outside of the exx.), Vienna (5 exx.).
Apamean one) organized after the new province, nor Annia Faustina: BMC 246; SNGCop 598; SNGvA 3863;
SNGRighetti 1202; Berlin, Paris, Vienna.
do we know how Laodikeia held its status of neo- Julia Maesa: BMC 247-250; SNGCop 599; SNGvA 8420;
SNGLewis 1609; Berlin (7 exx.), London, New York
(2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (3
24 Talbert 1984, 95-97; see chapter 42, ‘The Roman exx.).
Powers,’ in Part II. Severus Alexander Caesar: BMC 251-253; SNGCop 600,
25 Deia Kommodeia and Koina Asias under Philip: SNGCop 606

(mistranscribed); SNGvA 8422.

26 Hecht 1968, 30 no. 9 (pl. 4.8, sic): reverse of the city

goddess between Phrygia and Caria. For renewal of kinship

ties between cities, see L. Robert 1977a, 119-129. For a mis-
interpretation of ‘renewal’ and this coin type, see below, n. 30. 28 For a criticism of Roueché’s argument, Haensch 1997,
27 Roueché 1989a, 1-4; S. Mitchell 1993, 2:158. 297 n. 199.
29 IvL 10.
chapter 8 – laodikeia in phrygia 125

601; Berlin (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Otacilia: BMC 254-258; SNGCop 602-605; SNGvA 3866;
Vienna, Warsaw.34 Berlin (12 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford
Non-imperial obverses, time of Elagabalus: SNGvA 8414; (3 exx.), Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.).
Berlin, Paris. Philip the Younger: BMC 259-261; SNGCop 606-609;
Philip: New York, Paris, private collection (Hecht).35 SNGvA 3864, 3865, 8421, 8422; SNGLewis 1611;
Berlin (13 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (6 exx.),
30 Dräger 1993, 70-77. Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw.
31 Trebilco 1994, 302. Non-imperial obverses: BMC 126-132; SNGCop 540, 541;
32 Warsaw exx.: Corsten and Huttner 1996, nos. 29, 30. SNGvA 3832; SNGLewis 1610; SNGRighetti 1195;
33 See also Corsten and Huttner 1996, no. 31 (private Berlin (10 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris
collection). (6 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).
34 Warsaw ex. incorrectly assigned to dates of sole reign by

Corsten and Huttner 1996, no. 32.

35 See above, n. 26. Also Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 229

nos. 2370-2371, for an issue of Tripolis under Philip, celebrating

concord with neokoros Laodikeia.
126 part i – section i. koinon of asia


First Neokoria: Caracalla founds you” on the epistyle. The important phrase
comes at the end of the emperor’s letter: “I do this
In the case of Philadelphia, one document gives us gladly for your sake, on account of whom I have
more information on its neokoria than we have for given even the neokoria itself to the Philadelphians.”2
cities with hundreds of coins and inscriptions. Phila- This phrase may explain why the letter was carved
delphia inscription 1 gives the text of a letter from on a stele shaped like the new temple that Caracalla
the emperor Caracalla to a man named Aurelius, had founded with his grant.3 It is also possible that
whose cognomen, now established as beginning with the epistyle inscription represents an acclamation
an M, has been erased: that was shouted in the theater, or even that the
emperor was honored as kt¤sthw (presumably of the
INSCRIPTION 1. Bartels and Petzl 2000 city) for granting the neokoria.4 It is unlikely, how-
(Buresch 1898, 15-26 no. 13; IGRR 4:1619; SIG4 ever, that Caracalla actually contributed toward the
883). Stele in the form of a distyle Ionic temple temple’s construction.5 The imperial grant of neo-
with rounded pediment, on its entablature: ÉAntv- koria was enough.
ne›now se kt¤zei. Between the columns: AÈto- Aurelius M., whom Caracalla addressed as “most
krãtvr Ka›sar Mçrkow AÈrÆliow ÉAntvne›now honored and beloved by me,” but whose name was
EÈsebØw SebastÚw ParyikÚw m°gistow, Bretta- later erased, is otherwise unknown. As for Julianus,
nikÚw m°gistow, GermanikÚw m°gistow AÈrhl¤ƒ that name frequently appears for magistrates on the
_ . . . ´vi t“ timivtãtƒ xa¤rein: e¸ ka‹ mhde‹w coins of Philadelphia, including those of Geta Cae-
a|re› lÒgow tÚn Filadelf°a ÉIoulianÚn épÚ t«n sar (before 209) and later under Elagabalus and
Sardian«n e¸w tØn t}w patr¤dow metaye›nai Severus Alexander.6 This profusion of Juliani pro-
filoteim¤an, éll' ˜mvw sØn xãrin {d°vw toËto hibits us from identifying any of the archons named
poi«, di' ˜n ka‹ tØn nevkor¤an aÈtØn to›w F[il]a- on coins as the reluctant liturgist. We can be cer-
delfeËs[in d°]dvka: ¶rrvso M_ . . . ´e, timi\tat° tain only that the neokoria was granted by Novem-
moi ka‹ f¤ltate. ÉAnegn\syh §n t“ yeãtrƒ ¶touw ber 18 or 19, 214 C.E., when the letter to Aurelius
sme', mhnÚw ÉApella¤ou e' é(piÒntow). M. was read in the theater.7 At that time, Caracalla
The letter concerns one Julianus, presumably a cli- was in Asia Minor for his Parthian campaign.8 No
ent or relative of Aurelius M., who was to be allowed
to perform a liturgy (likely provincial) in his home 2 Williams 1979, 87-88 found the fulsome language and
city of Philadelphia and not in Sardis (the closest city emphasis on personal benefaction typical of Caracalla’s style.
that had a provincial imperial temple).1 This bit of 3 Most authorities on this inscription have interpreted the

business, though doubtless of importance to Julianus, second person (rather than first person) singular pronoun to
mean the temple or the neokoria. See S. Price 1984b, 69 n.
is not what caused the letter to be read out in the 61, 259.
city’s theater and then inscribed on a 2 m. high 4 Bartels and Petzl 2000, 185; S. Mitchell 1987, 20-21.
5 Winter 1996, 71, 335 no. 55; contra Guarducci 1969-1975,
temple-shaped stele with the declaration “Antoninus