Civic coins and civic politics in the Roman East, A.D. 180-275 9780520055520

Citation preview

are ae at ae cetaaa a acerae a ce Le zn utr ya) bf el CRE Oe eh

Though similar comments concerning the significance of the legends and types on civic coins have not survived, their selection was undoubtedly just

as important a matter to the city magistrate as it was to Julius Caesar or Nero. The designs used on civic coins were not just empty professions of loyalty or expressions of good manners toward the emperor; they were, rather, symbols of deeply felt beliefs. It is best to view the symbols on coins as part of a greater whole —— embracing also sculpture, panegyrics, and ceremonies that reflected higher, eternal realities — rather

than as a strict narration of historical events. Modern anthropologists of the Indic monarchies of Southeast Asia have demonstrated how the symbols and court ceremonies of sacral kingship formed elements of what is best described as an extended sacred drama.!* The earthly royal palace, or negara as it is called in the Indonesian world,

served in a sense as the central theater for this great drama whereby all the human world, through carefully orchestrated rituals and symbols, reflected and partook of the divine macrocosm. In these traditional Southeast Asian societies, the perpetual replaying of the drama of divine rule took precedence over mundane political events. The symbols and ceremonies did not just express divinely sanctioned power; they became

the very sources of legitimate power. This notion was as relevant for the Roman emperors of the second and third centuries as it was for the Southeast Asian monarchs of the Indic period. Both worlds lacked the legitimacy of fixed hereditary succession, so that fictitious genealogies, claims of divine descent (or even godhood), and intimate association with divine symbols and favor characterized these differing cultures. Such

notions not only legitimized the monarch, they enabled him to participate as the director of the eternal events of the macrocosm on the earthly stage of the microcosm. In the process, the king or emperor became “‘divine,”’ or, perhaps more accurately, an immediate and tangible image of the true, divine order. Hellenic intellectuals of the Roman Empire, whether they were followers of the doctrines of Stoicism or late Platonism, could grasp the fundamental connection between the reality and the symbols of divine power. The Roman emperor came to be

viewed by Neoplatonists— Plotinus, Iamblichus, and Julian—as Plato’s ‘‘kingly man” (basilikos aner), who contemplates the supreme Idea of the good.!’ The emperor and his symbols of power could be viewed as the intermediary between the higher

34 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS Ideas of the eternal order and his earthly subjects and, therefore, the varied symbols on the coins of the Roman Empire were probably not regarded lightly. In 362 the emperor Julian the Apostate, answering his Christian detractors at Antioch in the Misopogon, mentions their taunts at the pagan content of his coins — probably an allusion to the heroic striding bull on his large bronze ‘‘double maiorina.’’ 1® According to Dio Chry-

sostom, the bull—the favorite animal of Zeus—had long been interpreted as the symbol of divinely inspired kingship.'? Both Julian, who defended this symbol of pagan sacral kingship, and his Christian subjects, who mocked it, saw it as one of the

very sources of regal power. The insults the Christian Antiochenes heaped upon Julian’s coins were but a milder manifestation of the fears of the power within pagan symbols that motivated Christian mobs to destroy pagan cult statues.?° After the Empire’s conversion to Christianity, the strong feelings over religious symbols on coins did not abate; if anything, they intensified. Byzantine writers of the sixth and seventh centuries record incidents of popular outrage over supposedly crypto-pagan or Islamic coin types.?! Perhaps the imperial portrait, or imago, best demonstrates the political and religious emotions attached to the symbols found on coins. Suetonius and Cassius Dio record that the emperors Tiberius and Caracalla regarded it an act of maiestas, high treason, to carry coins bearing the effigy of the emperor into a brothel.?? At the close of the fourth century, the anonymous author of De rebus bellicis, who spoke as the self-proclaimed

reformer of the Roman world, implored his emperors not to debase the coinage, because it demeaned the image of the imperial person.*? In the provinces of the Roman East, there is every reason to believe that the imperial imago commanded just as deep a devotion from the masses as from the aristocrats. During the third century sebastophoroi are recorded in inscriptions as responsible for carrying gold, silver, or gilded bronze statues of the emperor during civic religious processions.?* Christian authors of the

fourth century continued to acknowledge the almost religious respect due to the imperial imago.?? The numerous and varied depictions of the imperial figure on later civic coins were, then, not rallying cries to marshal public support behind the emperor in the struggle against threats to the ancestral order — barbarians, inflation, and new mystic gods; instead, they reflect the constellation of group values around the office of emperor and hence, inevitably, although with considerably less credibility, around his person. This adulation of the imperial person among the Hellenic ruling classes ultimately blossomed into the later Byzantine ideology of the autocracy.”°® The remarkable speed with which some Greek cities coined issues for short-lived emperors and usurpers suggests the symbolic importance of, and deep respect forthe _ imperial portrait. During the confused wars of succession of 193-95, cities in Europe and Asia quickly displayed their loyalties by minting coins for such short-term emperors as Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger, and Clodius Albinus.*’ In the brief civil war of 238 several Greek towns commissioned series for the two pairs of senatorial candidates, the Gordiani and Balbinus and Pupienus,”® and later ephemeral rulers such as the emperor Aemilian (253) and the boy usurpers Macrianus and Quietus (260-61) obtained recognition on local money.”? When Greek cities struck coins with the portrait of an emperor such as Aemilian, they were affirming the sacrosanctity and legitimacy of his rule. The author of the Augustan History appreciated the potent symbolism behind coin portraits, because he frequently records coins that imperial person-

ages, both real and bogus, minted to announce their legitimacy during the chaotic

Political Values in the Roman World 35 decades of the third century.*° In particular, he notes how each of the emperors Diadumenian and Severus Alexander adopted the Antonine name in his coin legends to sanctify his accession to the throne.?! _ ,

, The importance of the imperial portrait also explains several peculiar features found on local coinage during the third century. A coinage hailing the new emperor was apparently viewed as so important that errors and expedients were tolerated in the haste to present his name and visage (pl. 10.1—13). At so important a mint as Pisidian Antioch in central Asia Minor, die cutters hopelessly botched the names of Volusian and Valerian and engraved childish caricatures of their likeness.** Other cities, upon learning of the proclamation of Valerian and Gallienus, modeled their portraits after the previous team of co-rulers—Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian. Thus, Valerian frequently sprouts a beard (pl. 10.3), while Gallienus is shown as a clean-shaven youth (pl. 10.4), and sometimes he is even demoted to the rank of caesar (pl. 10.5—6). Other cities, such as Nicomedia and Tarsus, employed the same portrait for both rulers and distinguished them by appropriate legends (pl. 10.7—10). These mistakes and the widespread popularity of stylized linear engraving (pl. 11.1-—9) suggest that the symbol of imperial power embodied in the imago took precedence over the personalities of the individual emperors. The best reflection of this attitude is the perverse honor Greek cities paid to an emperor by defacing coins of acondemned predecessor or rival (pl. 12.1 —6).3? Though defacing an emperor’s coins (damnatio memoriae) was not unknown during the earlier days of the Principate — some cities mutilated coins of both Nero and Domitian (pl. 12. 1) — during that period cities most often withdrew from circulation, melted down, and restruck coins of condemned emperors.** In the third century, a number of cities in Asia Minor adopted the drastic procedure of chiseling off the bust and titles of condemned emperors. At least two cities mutilated the head of Commodus on their coins before Septimius Severus rehabilitated his ‘‘divine brother.” 3° In 212 an unprecedented number of cities protested their undying fealty to Caracalla by defacing coins bearing the portrait of the emperor’s murdered brother, Geta (pl. 12.2 -3).3® Carian Stratonicea apparently exerted considerable effort to track down and excise Geta’s portrait from virtually all her coins. Most of these defaced pieces were the large special denominations that bore two imperial portraits so that the action was therefore all the more dramatic because the coins preserved the image of the blessed imperial personage. Countermarking of coins was a far less radical, but far more common, practice in the

second and third centuries. Many countermarks were imperial portraits or names employed as symbolic gestures of loyalty, converting the coins of a previous emperor into those of the newly proclaimed princeps (pl. 12.7).37 The Bithynian city of Prusias ad

Hypium, for example, regularly countermarked old coins to honor the accession of successive emperors during the second and third centuries (pl. 12.8).38 Other cities updated old coins of Trajan with countermarks proclaiming his newest conquests.?? Somehow civic coins had to reflect proper political sympathies, and at times inelegant methods were employed in the name of propriety. No one would have resorted to the practices of defacing or countermarking coins if the imperial portrait had been considered a trivial symbol. The reverence Greek provincials paid to different imperial imagines (or eikones ton Sebaston) was certainly matched by the worship they rendered to the statues (agalmata),

36 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS altars, and temples of their civic gods and of the divine personifications of their polis and Rome.*° It would be a mistake to conclude a priori that, because engravers resorted to standardized models to produce en masse representations of civic gods on coins, these coin depictions of divinities did not evoke at least respect, if not awe and worship, from viewers. The vast majority of coins struck by Carian Stratonicea during the imperial age depict on the reverse either an equestrian Zeus Panamaros or Hecate of Lagina standing before her altar. These standard renditions, however, carried potent significance to Stratoniceans because a stone relief and accompanying inscription prove that each coin type represents a major cult statue of Panamara and of Lagina.*! Most likely, the mounted Zeus alludes to the annual procession when his cult statue was conveyed

from his mountain sanctuary to the town hall as the opening event of the ten-day festivities.

The coin types of Stratonicea were not unique in their powerful thrust of local political and religious symbols. Standard renditions of the famous cult statues of Artemis on Ephesian coins (pl. 7.5) and of the Asiatic Aphrodite on those of Aphrodisias (pl. 8.6) were no less meaningful to their respective devotees.** Recumbent river gods on coins of Bithynian and Paphlagonian cities, for all their pedestrian, mediocre artistic quality, have been shown to portray local divinities held in pious esteem by the natives of the region.*?

The significant innovations in messages and iconography on local bronze coins during the late second and third centuries, therefore, resulted not from a change in tastes in coin designs; instead, they were charged with powerful emotional symbolism for both Greek notables and the populace.” The later coins of the Hellenic cities in Asia

only in part reflected the iconography found on contemporary imperial medallions and coins. To appreciate the creativity of the interpretations of the age by Greek provincial notables, we need to consider briefly the new messages and symbols characterizing the reverses of the coinage struck at imperial, rather than local, mints during

the third century. Imperial artists had consolidated a sculptural and numismatic vocabulary at the close of the Antonine age, but the mounting political and military crisis after 180 forced them to reinterpret the emperor and Rome.*? After the civil war of 238, millions of debased silver antoniniani conveyed these appeals to every quarter of the Empire. Traditional personifications and state gods were employed to announce imperial virtues and promises.* As if in a procession, personifications march across the reverses of imperial antoniniani singing a paean to the imminent golden age of abundant harvests and to the end of pestilence and war. The fruits of this expected golden age result from the emperor’s foresight, or providentia.*” Some coins lauded this age with personifications and slogans of felicitas saeculi, novum saeculum, or ubique pax.*® The emperor’s pietas, , liberalitas, iustitia, and disciplina— all portrayed as personifications on coins — secured

divine favor and toughened the moral fiber of his grateful subjects so that Aeternitas Augusti and Roma Aeterna were mystically united.*? This preference for stereotyped designs and legends, which was already evident on imperial coins of the late Antonine and early Severan periods, resulted in many reverses of the antoniniani (which were often poorly struck in comparison to the obverse) unimaginatively repeating personifications and gods. Even so, routine personifications on imperial coinage may still have stirred pious sentiments in many Romans. They certainly represented the imperial

government’s promises, aims, and views of the age.

Political Values in the Roman World 37 The figure of the Roman emperor also gained increasing prominence on both imperial medallions and coins of the late second and third centuries. On fewer and fewer coins, the emperor figured as the dispenser of the fruits of the new era; instead, | he was viewed as the conqueror and guardian of the Roman order. With the accession of Marcus Aurelius, earlier sympathy for the plight of the vanquished enemy yielded to

the glorification of imperial invincibility; imperial reliefs, medallions, and coins all treated the barbarians as abject captives or annihilated foes on the battlefield.”° Simultaneously, imperial coinage alluded less to specific campaigns because of the alarming frequency with which Roman armies suffered major disasters on the battlefield. In-

stead, imperial coins flattered military units or provinces celebrated for nurturing sturdy legionaries,?! and four emperors struck extensive series honoring legions that were crucial in deciding civil wars.’? Even more often, the emperor was shown haranguing his loyal soldiers (adlocutio) or being received in triumph by jubilant subjects.°? The emperor’s military excellence was the gift of his favorite tutelary deities. Successive emperors claimed as their companion, or comes, the gods Mars Pacifactor, Venus Victrix, Sol Invictus, Jupiter Victor, or Hercules Conservator.*4 Through the timely storm clouds sent by Hermes-Thoth, Marcus Aurelius dispersed the Quadic host; a century later Aurelian prayed to the Syrian Sol of Emesa to beat back the victorious Palmyrenes with his blinding rays.’ Imperial coins of each of these emperors express

his thanks to his god for the critical intervention. Both the author of the Augustan History and the designers of imperial coins stressed that emperors traced legitimate descent from Augustus or adopted the Antonine name, grasping at any tenuous link with the last great dynasty of Rome.”® Wives, heirs apparent, and deified parents were

all pushed before the public on coins of short-lived emperors. The emperor Trajan Decius even initiated an extensive coinage in honor of all his deified predecessors.’ Altogether the main lines of evolution of imperial iconography are almost brutally clear. Imperial iconography of the third century steadily transformed the Roman princeps into the savior who would halt the calamities of the Mediterranean world. He strides across imperial coins with such appellations as pacator orbis, liberator orbis Romani, restitutor libertatis, conservator rei publicae, and dominus et deus.?® All these lofty

claims exalted the emperor’s omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. Coins struck at imperial mints show a progressive intensification of the appeals to the beliefs in Roman unity, in the expected peace of the inspired emperor, and in imperial direction of the destinies of the cosmos. Such potent political and religious symbols logically culminated in the court ceremony of the Tetrarchs and their fierce persecution of the disloyal. Yet the emperor’s eastern subjects did not perceive or interpret these events in quite the same manner. Their coinage has left a different, more subtle record.

5 Greek Views of the

q 5 phant

Conquering and Triumphan Roman Emperor

Ve

A MEN SS Nog AL Re

Sus

Sat oo a

Ever since Roman imperatores first crossed the Adriatic Sea at the opening of the second century B.C., Greeks had hastened to seek the favor and protection of the great princes from the city on the Tiber. In the late Roman Republic both Greek cities and Hellenistic

kings had courted the leading principes of the Senate, which, as Polybius notes, appeared to them as the supreme council of the Roman state." In the first two centuries of the Principate, Greek aristocrats of the cities of the East redirected their attention and heaped their problems and their veneration upon the emperor. Upon the accession of Caligula, the assembly of Assus—an ancient Hellenic town located on the southern shores of the Troad— passed a resolution, which, although extravagant, nonetheless well reflects a genuine belief in the powers of the emperor: Since the reign of Gaius Caesar Germanicus, for which all mankind has prayed and

hoped, has been announced, the universe has found no limit to its rejoicing. Every city , and every race has eagerly hastened to the sight of the god, as if the sweetest era of mankind has now arisen. It has seemed appropriate to the council, to the Roman businessmen among us, and to the assembly of Assus to appoint an embassy from the foremost and noblest of both the Romans and Greeks to obtain an audience and to congratulate him, and they should remind him that our city is bound through his memory and his beneficence as he had pledged when he had first landed, along with his father Germanicus, in the province of our city.”

Although such outbursts of enthusiastic praise for a living emperor were common in the provinces, they were regarded as undignified by the senatorial class in Julio-Claudian Rome. Attitudes would change —not in the provinces, but at Rome. Hellenic cities affirmed their devotion to the Roman emperor not only by laudatory inscriptions, but also, from the reign of Augustus on, by constructing temples and instituting rites to the divinity of the living Roman emperor. In contrast to the practices at Rome, where the imperial spirit, or genius, was worshipped as destined for deification upon the emperor’s death, Greek cities bestowed their public devotion upon the Roman emperor as a living god (theos).? There was no official ceremony of imperial apotheosis in the East, so many more emperors were accorded divine worship in Hellenic cities than those who were enrolled among the divi at Rome. The Greeks, who discerned real

38

Greek Views of the Roman Emperor 39 from fictional power, also helped to expand the emperor’s prerogatives and administrative competence by appealing to Caesar rather than to the Roman Senate.* Hellenic conceptions of Rome were inextricably linked with the sovereignty and the

, divinity of the ruling princeps, and Greek aristocrats and intellectuals viewed the emperor as the supreme arbiter and benefactor of the community of their cities (oikoumene). Aelius Aristides in his Roman Oration considered the rule of law of the philosopher-emperor comparable to the eternal laws of the cosmos that Plato’s Demiurge in the Timaeus had fashioned. Inscriptions as early as the resolution from Assus echoed Stoic and late Platonic notions of divinely directed kingship.’ At the close of the second century, bronze coins from Bithynian cities recorded, for Commodus (180-92) and for Septimius Severus (193-211), ‘‘with you as sovereign the cosmos prospers.’’* The inscriptions on local coins parallel the official greeting shouted upon the accession of new emperors and recorded in public dedications. The Athenians hailed the promotion of Geta in virtually identical language.’ The enlightened, well-ordered rule of the emperor distinguished Rome from the despotism of the Oriental monarchies of Achaemenid Persia and Arsacid Parthia.® In the last decades of the second century, war

altered Hellenic perceptions of the emperor; it focused attention on his role as a defender, rather than as the lawgiver, of Greek cities. When the emperor Antoninus Pius died on March 7, 161, he left his adoptive sons Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus a major crisis on the eastern frontier.’ The ensuing war brought an emperor, Lucius Verus, and his army to the East for the first time in fifty years. The Parthian War (161-66) also portended the arduous campaigns to come on the Euphrates. The cities of northern Hellas and western Anatolia were soon exposed to the fury of Germanic marauders in the 170s, as Marcus Aurelius was locked in ferocious combat against the Marcomanni and Quadi on the banks of the Danube. Germans penetrated as far west as Aquileia in Italy and as far south as Elatea in central Greece.!° Although Rome’s emperors ultimately repelled Parthian and German, the murder of Commodus — the dissolute son of the noble Marcus Aurelius — plunged the eastern provinces into the horrors of civil war. In December 193, outside of Nicaea, the Pannonian and Moesian legions of Septimius Severus inflicted a decisive defeat upon the forces of Pescennius Niger, the candidate of the eastern army. This victory delivered Asia Minor north of the Taurus mountains to Septimius Severus, and many cities promptly defected from Niger’s cause.'! Septimius Severus, who meted out severe punishments to his opponent’s steadfast supporters, used the pretext of Parthian assistance to Niger to launch a punitive expedition into northern Mesopotamia. The continuing Parthian threat necessitated further military expeditions by both Septimius Severus (197-99) and his son Caracalla (214-17). Within a little more than a generation, Hellenic cities witnessed three emperors wage four separate campaigns against the Parthian foe. These Parthian wars profoundly changed the perceptions of the Hellenic political elite, and their coinage forcefully expressed this new awareness. Many Greek cities and Roman colonies in the East commenced minting careers by celebrating the Parthian War of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, and they terminated operations a century later with a similar victory coinage for Valerian and Gallienus.

In reinterpreting the role of the Roman emperor, Greek provincial engravers adopted some of the iconography seen on imperial reliefs, medallions, and coins. Though contemporary imperial artists and engravers used personifications of the

40 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS virtues of the emperor or dwelled upon a mythical golden age, they had also by 175 refined a rich iconography, rooted in ancient republican traditions, narrating themes of imperial victory and dynastic legitimacy.!* These latter notions — imperial victory and dynastic legitimacy, ideals relevant to their experiences with frontier and civil wars — were emphasized on the coins of the Hellenic notables. The imperial portrait, or imago, on the obverses of civic coins also underwent a number of new interpretations. Although engravers in the third century manufactured standardized obverse dies and adopted linear styles to facilitate mass production, a remarkable number of unusual portraits survive, especially on large multiple denominations (pl. 13.5-—8). Many cities, adopting the fashion seen on contemporary debased imperial antoniniani, showed the emperor as a cuirassed general wearing a radiate solar crown (pl. 13.1—2). The empress is often decked out in Selene’s crescent and wears the stephane (the golden headdress of goddesses) (pl. 13.3 —4).1* Several cities portrayed Severan rulers with right hand upraised in an act of blessing (pl. 14.1 -—3).!4 The hand is attenuated so that it can be accommodated within the confined space of the obverse. This gesture of cosmic kingship, derived from the iconography of such oriental deities as Serapis and Sol Invictus, was more than just an eye-catching device.!? At least since the time of the Latin poets of the Silver Age, the upraised hand had been considered the source of the emperor’s transcendent powers and invincibility.!° Procopius, writing in the mid—sixth century, believed that the upraised right hand of his emperor, the Christian Justinian, held the barbarian hordes on the frontiers in check.?” On later local coinage, obverse portraits with right hand upraised were made even more expressive by the use of an enlarged eye, which conveyed the concentrated, hypnotic gaze of imperial power.’8 The military aspects of the emperor were also emphasized. Obverse portraits show him holding a shield over his left shoulder, carrying a spear, and wearing ornate field armor— often a ceremonial, single-piece lorica, or breastplate, that bears the mythological Gorgoneion, the emblem on the cuirass of Alexander the Great, whom all emperors waging eastern campaigns emulated (pl. 14.4-6).'? Cities in northern Hellas, western Asia Minor, and Mesopotamia depicted first Caracalla (pl. 14.4-—5) and later Elagabalus and Severus Alexander (pl. 14.6) as Roman incarnations of Alexander the Great.?° The emperor wears the laurel crown and a fancy cuirass; he is equipped with a shield over his left side; and in his right hand he clasps a spear balanced over his right shoulder. At times the more functional scale armor, or mail, the lorica segmentata, replaces the traditional stylized, heroic single-piece lorica (pl. 14.7). Later emperors assume even more bellicose attitudes. Gordian III and his successors, whether they sport the radiate or the laurel crown, brandish spear and shield (pl. 14.8).7! Gallienus is even fitted out with a helmet (pl. 14.9).?2 Starting with the Severan age, many Greek cities stressed dynastic harmony and stability on large coins by portraying obverse portraits of members of the imperial family face to face (pl. 13.5 —8).?? The relatively modest town of Stratonicea in western Caria minted an extensive series of group portraits of Septimius Severus and his family (pl. 13.7-8).*4 During the civil war of 238, the Cilician cities of Aegeae and Tarsus used

a group of three portraits to stress the imperial harmony among the senatorial emperors Pupienus and Balbinus and the caesar Gordian III.*? In a clever innovation, the Roman colony of Cremna combined an obverse bearing the portrait of the empress

Herennia Etruscilla with a reverse on which an eagle supports the heads of her hus- |

Greek Views of the Roman Emperor 4] band, the emperor Trajan Decius, and their two sons Herennius Etruscus and Hostilian (pl. 13.6).7°

The laudatory titles and epithets Hellenic communities heaped on the emperor in

, public dedications were used, although sparingly, as obverse legends for later local coins.*”? While Greek inscriptions of this period hail emperors as ‘‘masters of land, sea,

and the entire race of mankind,” ‘‘the most divine autocrat,”’ and ‘‘savior of the Universe,”’ civic bronze coins often simply state the imperial name.?® There were, however, exceptions. Two young rulers of the mid—third century, Herennius Etruscus and Saloninus, were accorded the Greek version of the Tetrarchic title of ‘‘noblest of caesars.’’?? On occasion, local coins, expanding upon the imperial name, stressed the divinity of an imperial personage. At Ephesus and the Roman colony of Neapolis Samariae, empresses are named with the title mater castrorum, an epithet used in the imperial mysteries celebrated by legionaries.*° Several Greek cities also recognized the pretenses of the megalomaniac Commodus to being Hercules reincarnate by naming him either the Olympian One or the Roman Heracles.*! In accordance with the homage paid in contemporary public inscriptions, other coins designate Severan rulers as the newest epiphany of a Hellenic god. Coins of the Ephesians call the brothers Caracalla and Geta the new Helioi.?? In 202, three Carian cities commemorated the marriage of Caracalla and Plautilla by naming the bride ‘‘the new goddess Hera’”’ (pl. 13.8).?? By implication, Caracalla was envisioned as a youthful Zeus, so that the imperial marriage became a symbolic reenactment of the celestial one. While the obverses of later local coinage express new perceptions of the soteriology, invincibility, and legitimacy of the Roman emperor and of dynastic stability, the reverses carry far more innovations on these themes. Among these varied themes the earliest attention was directed toward dynastic stability and legitimacy. The joint accession of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus inspired imperial artists to rework traditional devices to stress fraternal harmony (pl. 15.1-—2). After the assassination of Commodus, as civil war more often determined the succession, the virtue of cooperation between co-rulers became painfully clear to Romans and provincials alike. The handshake, or dextrarum iunctio, symbolizing imperial concord, enjoyed an unbroken popularity on imperial relief work, medallions, and coins from the second to the fourth centuries (pl. 15.3 —4).** Greek cities first adopted the scene of togate emperors shaking

right hands on coins for Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. On some coins the common Latin phrase ‘‘concord of the Augusti’’ is translated into Greek.*? It may be inferred from dates on coins of certain towns in Cilicia that this iconography of mutual

trust was associated with the Parthian War of 161-66 rather than with hopes of imperial concord expressed upon imperial accession.?° In the reign of Septimius Severus, whose complicated plans to perpetuate his house came to naught, Greek notables again reflected upon imperial harmony. The brothers Caracalla and Geta shake hands — sometimes as laureate, cuirassed generals; sometimes as junior senators holding scrolls (pl. 15.3). The ill-fated marriage of Caracalla to Plautilla, the daughter of his father’s praetorian prefect C. Fulvius Plautianus, was similarly treated by the Cilician cities Adana and Tarsus, whose coins show Caracalla affectionately receiving the hand of his consort and wife.?” Nicene coins — in a composition resembling contemporary Roman medallions and coins, as well as a panel from the triumphal arch of Lepcis Magna in North Africa— show the armored Septimius Severus and Caracalla shaking hands before an altar, as Homonoia auspiciously

42 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS hovers in the background; the accompanying inscription proclaims ‘‘to our eternal lords.’’ 78 The design is reinterpreted on Nicene coins after Geta was promoted to full powers in 209.*? On these coins, the two brothers also shake hands, and, instead of the

figure of Homonoia, accessory devices and the legend announce the great Severan Philadelphian games, instituted by Septimius Severus to perpetuate fraternal harmony and joint rule. The motif of imperial partnership was repeated for such later imperial couples as Elagabalus and Julia Paula, Gordian III and Tranquillina (pl. 15.4), and Philip I and Otacilia Severa.*° At the colonial mints in Roman Palestine, Trajan Decius was shown united with his wife Herennia Etruscilla and his son Herennius Etruscus in symbolic concord.*} While the theme of imperial concord continued on the reverses of coins throughout the East, it yielded premier place to scenes that showed the emperor in his guise as victor or as triumphator. Success in battle secured the borders of the Empire against Iranian and German foes; it protected the ordered life of the polis; and, perhaps most important of all, it marked the emperor as the favorite of the gods and worthy of the

purple. Aelius Aristides, who enjoyed the tranquility of the high Roman Empire, regarded imperial victory (Victoria Augusta) as legitimizing emperors ‘’‘in the opinion of the gods.’ 44 Over a century later the Greek rhetor Menander of Laodicea admonished future composers of encomia to praise the emperor’s exploits on the battlefield and then to treat his peaceful achievements.*? The extensive martial and triumphal iconography found on later civic coins was a departure from earlier conventions. Prior to the Parthian War of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, the few depictions of the emperor on the reverses of local money are most often concerned with the imperial cult. The emperor officiates over sacrifices as pontifex maximus or, at cities such as Pergamum and Smyrna, the temple to the imperial cult is depicted.** Only a handful of Greek cities issued coins commemorating the campaigns of Domitian and Trajan.** The rapid and widespread diffusion of militant iconography after the

Parthian War of 161-66 resulted from the new perceptions of the Hellenic urban elites. The Roman emperor astride his war steed striking down Parthian or German foes gave a vivid image of imperial courage (pl. 15.5-—7; pl. 16.1-4).*° Although imperial coins and medallions, relief sculpture and orations had, at least from the Flavian age, dwelled upon the heroic imperial cavalryman, this motif was not given prominence on local coins until the late second century, when Greek cities in Asia Minor— and, to a lesser degree, those in the Levant—depicted Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, and Commodus (pl. 15.5) mounted and spearing prostrate foes. The number of cities employing this type increased significantly during the reigns of Septimius Severus and Caracalla, and all subsequent emperors leading expeditions against Parthian or Persian monarchs were accorded the honorable privilege of galloping triumphantly across the reverses of civic coins. In commemoration of one of the Parthian Wars, Aphrodisias ordered large coins bearing on the reverse the unmistakable likeness of Septimius Severus spearing a fallen Parthian warrior {pl. 15.7).4” At least by some emperors these apparently standard depictions of the victorious emperor in combat were not regarded as empty gestures. The Aphrodisians, on their ‘‘archival wall,’”’ inscribed two letters preserving the polite thanks of Septimius Severus and Caracalla because the city had saluted them as impera-

tores upon hearing of the capture of the Parthian capital at Ctesiphon in 198. In the second letter, the emperors commented:

Greek Views of the Roman Emperor 43 It was most appropriate that you, who rejoiced at the conquest of the insolent barbarians and [the establishment of peace in] all [the inhabited world], celebrated the coming of joint rule shared with my father to me Antoninus [i.e., Caracalla], [ .. . for you are good and noble men and] more closely related than others to the empire of the Romans because of [the goddess] who presides over your city.*8

Since the imperial victors were hailed as a bulwark against the Parthians, who were despised as the oppressors of Greek poleis, it is hardly surprising that native tutelary gods were sometimes portrayed as aiding the heroic emperor.*? On coins of the Lydian town of Bagis, both Ares and Athena are shown lending their swords to a mounted Septimius Severus, who cuts down Parthian barbarians (pl. 15.6).°° A decade later, in

his slaughter of the same foe, Caracalla fights shoulder to shoulder with divine comrades sacred to the cities of Sardes and Magnesia sub Sipylum.’! In most of these equestrian combats, the barbarians are clad in Iranian costume, although several mints in western Anatolia, conscious that their security rested upon the Danubian limes, depicted members of the German tribes (pl. 16.2).? On coins of the Lydian town of Silandus, a youthful Commodus hurls the avenging thunderbolt of Zeus at a German (pl. 15.5).°* Whatever the identity of the foes, all local coins, in contrast to contemporary imperial coins, treat these combats in a hieratic fashion. The mounted emperor tramples diminutive barbarians, who are either prostrate foes or bound captives. The combat is simplified, concentrating solely upon the imperial person as the

architect of victory; and it is stylized, with no attempt being made to suggest the slightest resistance from the barbarians. In many instances, the emperor does not even

aim his spear at the fallen foe; he directs his attention elsewhere. Such techniques emphasize the overwhelming superiority of the emperor, while little, if any, sympathy is accorded to the vanquished. A generation earlier Aelius Aristides could still urge a conciliatory policy toward defeated Germans, but by the Severan age barbarians were officially regarded on local coinage as the annihilated foe, whose sole function was the

glorification of imperial victory.** From the start local coins had depicted events symbolically rather than historically. Commodus, who hastily concluded the German War after the death of his father so that he could devote his genius to the arena and the decadent pleasures of the capital, is shown on Silandan coins as an impressive Olympian (pl. 15.5).°? Commodus was hardly accorded this flattering coinage because of

martial prowess; the scene was symbolic, but the message, even though it did not record a historical event, need not for that reason be any less forceful. Equestrian emperors at times are depicted charging with leveled lances, presumably

into an offstage fray (pl. 16.5). In one peculiar scene, an engraver of Nicomedia apparently attempted to show Valerian as a resourceful commander — the emperor, mounted on a trotting stallion, deliberately surveys the battlefield and directs troop dispositions with his right hand (pl. 16.6).°° Among less dramatic depictions are those of the emperor riding calmly off to war in what very likely is a provincial’s conception of the official imperial departure (profectio) (pl. 16.8).°’ Youthful emperors such as Severus Alexander and Volusian are shown on their horses dashing across the battlefield and beckoning with an outstretched right hand (pl. 16.7).°° Though the gesture implies encouragement to legionaries, by the late second century it had also acquired a symbolic significance. On imperial sarcophagi of

the third century, epitomized by the remarkable Ludovisi Sarcophagus, artists

44 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS disrupted the strict narrative presentation of imperial combats so that the emperorina similar pose emerged as the central figure. In the tumult of battle, the emperor does not actually participate; instead, he presides over the chaos of a symbolic combat in which the enemy is a mix of Germanic and Oriental barbarians. With a wave of his protective, victorious right hand, he disperses the barbarians and brings order out of the confusion of battle. Contemporary Greek civic coins repeat the same symbolic message of the emperor as victor omnium gentium (‘‘conqueror over all races’’), but the crowds have been omitted because of the constraints of space. In accordance with Hellenic tastes, many local coins express imperial prowess allegorically. The emperor appears as a huntsman spearing a bear, lion, or boar (pl. 17. ]—4). Hadrianotherae, a sleepy town in eastern Mysia whose principal claim to fame was as the birthplace of the sophist Aelius Aristides, struck the first coins celebrating an imperial huntsman (pl. 17.1). These bronze coins commemorated an actual hunt by Hadrian, reported in the Augustan History: ‘‘In one locality he [i.e., Hadrian] founded a town Hadrianotherae, because once he had hunted successfully there and killed a bear.” °? Hadrian’s renowned passion for the sport was celebrated in various artistic forms, but the revival of imperial hunting scenes on local coinage in the reign of Commodus was probably not so topical. Commodus and later emperors are cast in a hieratic mold, looming over their quarries which are invariably of diminutive size (pl. 17.3-A). The numismatic portrayals of ritual hunts of wild beasts were more than the praise of an individual emperor’s prowess; they exalted the emperor as the pacator orbis, the master over the forces of nature. In major imperial processions, great numbers of exotic beasts — along with foreign captives — were often paraded before the Roman public to glorify the emperor’s far-flung conquests. Historians meticulously recorded the numbers and kinds of animals in processions such as the decennial parades of Septimius Severus, the millennial celebrations of 248, and Aurelian’s triumph marking the restoration of the Roman world.*! The symbolism of the hunt seen on local coins was intimately associated with imperial military success and triumph. The symbolic message of the imperial hunt was expressed well when Tetrarchic orators compared the restoration of civilization by the ‘‘“new gods” Diocletian and Maximianus to the clearing of the earth of wild beasts and wilderness by Hercules, the most famous of mythological huntsmen.® The popularity of this symbolism in the Roman world is echoed by the depictions of hunting scenes on third-century sarcophagi and on mosaics such as those uncovered at the imperial villa of Piazza Armerina in Sicily.®? Whether as general or as huntsman, the equestrian emperor battles the forces of darkness and chaos threatening the Roman world (orbis Romanus). Local coinage treats scenes of this important theme as manifestations of a symbolic, timeless truth about imperial invincibility, rather than as specific, historical incidents. The presence of local gods in some of the scenes of battle and the simultaneous issuance at some cities of coins depicting combats and imperial hunts confirms the message of this symbolism. Many other local coins show the emperor received in triumph, the procession that

marked his victorious return to Rome. The ceremony of the triumph exalted the emperor’s martial skills; it also generated popular consent because the impressive parade (pompa triumphalis) dazzled the Roman plebs, who were vicariously drawn into the events and thus celebrated the emperor’s victory as their own. The ceremony also epitomized the Roman passion for cataloguing. Roman soldiers carried statues, car-

Greek Views of the Roman Emperor 45 toons, and placards publicizing the exploits of the triumphator; strange animals, spoils of war, prisoners, and captive kings were paraded past the eyes of the Roman populace. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the Flavian age, reports that even the images of the gods were borne aloft during the processions to indicate that the triumphant emperor, standing in his chariot, briefly mingled in divine company.” Roman imperial relief artists and medalists had long possessed a rich triumphal iconography, but it was not until the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus that municipal bronze coins began to carry depictions of the Roman triumphator (pl. 17.5 -

6). With the Severan age, the triumphal imagery appeared in force (pl. 17.7-8). In accordance with the canons of imperial art, the conquering Roman emperor is shown on local Greek coinage standing in his quadriga, a chariot drawn by four horses. Quite often, Nike is seen flying above offering a laurel crown to the triumphator. In these depictions, local coinage again concentrated on the symbolic message rather than the historical details of the ceremony. In an age of multiple emperorships, imperial cooperation and victory were inextricably linked, so that success on the battlefield redounded to all emperors. A splendid example of this outlook is offered on large bronze coins from the town of Maeonia in central Lydia (pl. 17.5).°’ Septimius Severus shares his triumphal quadriga with his two sons, Caracalla and Geta, while Nike alighting from above presents a laurel wreath. The stately procession, probably commemorating the Second Parthian War of Septimius Severus, embodies the iconographic elements commonly used on local coins of his successors. It also reflects the growing stress on ceremonies of imperial concord. A Tetrarchic orator at the end of the third century rejoiced in this virtue because Diocletian and Maximianus ‘‘when they first returned as triumphatores to you, they desired to be borne together in a single chariot.’’ °° The spread of triumphal iconography from the late second century probably resulted from actual experience with the triumphal ceremony — as emperors campaigned in the East more frequently — rather than just imitation of contemporary imperial art. At the same time, cities in Hellas and Anatolia initiated a new wave of construction of Roman triumphal arches. The decorations on these provincial arches, such as those at Isaura in southeastern Asia Minor, were not the heroic and mythological themes of Hellenistic inspiration, but rather reflect Roman narrative techniques to recount the details of imperial campaigns.®’ Arches from Cilicia, and coins as well, commemorated local triumphal celebrations. The Roman triumphal arch located on the highway north of the city of Tarsus probably marks the site of Septimius Severus’s victory over Pescennius Niger in 194. It is also probably the place where the Tarsans held regular triumphal festivities, which are called on their coins ‘“‘the Severan Epinician Games held on the frontiers of Cilicia.’ ®* Very likely in honor of the Parthian victory of Macrinus in 217, the city of Anazarbus, Tarsus’s rival for primacy over Cilicia, constructed a triumphal arch with triple gates and elaborate entabulature typical of the late Antonine and early Severan periods. The city’s coins bear the epithet ‘triumph bearer of the Romans,”’ which was probably granted by Macrinus because the Anazarbans instituted their own triumphal celebrations.*° By the late Antonine age, Hellenic notables were introducing the Roman triumph into the civic calendar of festivals. Through their festivals, coins, and arches they conspicuously announced their loyalty to the Roman emperor, even as his wars were ever more draining their wealth. At the same time, local triumphal processions generated the same consent to the emperor’s rule among citizens of Hellenic cities as the

46 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS great triumph at Rome did among the plebs. At some cities the Roman ceremony may

have been assimilated into the more familiar local religious processions. Unusual depictions of the imperial quadriga and emperor on local coins minted between the reigns of Commodus and Gordian III strongly suggest a deliberate merging of Roman and local ceremonies. Civic religious processions climaxed when a cult statue was solemnly transported before adoring crowds from its principal shrine, more often than not situated at some distance from the city, and installed in the council hall or theater so that the god could preside over the festivities. The cult images of the gods — and of deified emperors, who

were accorded the same veneration— made the journey in sacred carts pulled by horses, deer, elephants, or even humans.” Later civic bronze coins abound with scenes of gods standing in such vehicles (pl. 35.6 —9). The processions and installations of cult images were believed to be the physical manifestations of the divinities themselves, and they are often called epiphanies in the epigraphic dedications.’! Hellenic provincials could have drawn parallels between the parades of their own cult statues and the triumphal returns of the living Roman emperor. If the imperial triumph came to be regarded as another form of epiphany, it explains how the vehicles of gods such as Helios (pl. 18.7-—8), Dionysus (pl. 35.8-—9), and Cybele influenced interpretations of the triumphal quadriga found on later civic coins. On bronze coins of Smyrna, a youthful Commodus, decked out in the radiate crown and the attire of Helios-Apollo, rides a solar biga (pl. 18.1). It is unclear whether the coins intended a triumphal scene or they simply substituted Commodus as the ‘‘new

Helios’’ for the god himself. The Smyrnan coins, even though their symbolism is murky, anticipate the efforts of later emperors to assume the mantle of Helios. In some public processions, Caracalla drove a chariot decorated in the fashion of the celestial quadriga of Helios.’”* Even the more sober Gallienus assumed the identity of Sol Invictus. He is reported to have ‘‘sprinkled his hair with gold dust. He went out in public processions with the radiate crown, and at Rome — where emperors had always appeared in the toga—he appeared in purple cloak with jewelled and gold clasps.’’ 4 Coins of the Lycian city of Arycanda preserve the best visual example of a triumphal procession imbued with solar imagery. The young Gordian III and his wife Tranquillina are driving a triumphal-looking quadriga dressed as avatars of Helios and Selene (pl. 18.4).” Greek provincials compared the ancient mythological and artistic image of HeliosApollo, the friend of mankind who rises in his quadriga from the East and brings the sun that dispels darkness and evil, to the triumphal procession of the emperor returning in his chariot from the East (pl. 18.7-—8). As early as the Julio-Claudian age, Greek cities associated imperial arrivals and departures with the risings and settings of the sun.’° The Assians implied this connection when they swore an oath of loyalty to Caligula as “‘the new sun” who “‘shall with his own rays shine forth together with Helios.’’”” The Egyptians 150 years later declared Septimius Severus and Caracalla the lords ‘‘who have risen in their Egypt.”” 78 The association of Helios and the Roman emperor hardly represented a consistent theology — sometimes the emperor was regarded as the newest manifestation of Helios; sometimes as the favorite or comrade of the sun. Constantine, whose family was devoted to the solar cult, preferred the latter belief, and his panegyrist hailed him as he whom “‘the sun god himself, ready to drive across the sky, has received into his chariot, which remains nearly invisible, because at

Greek Views of the Roman Emperor 47 the hour of his setting he actually regains his rising, since the risings are quite close to the settings.”’ 7?

The frontal depiction of the rising solar quadriga was the most dramatic representation found on coins, and it ultimately derived from Scytho-Iranian art.®° Greek provincial engravers, in advance of imperial medalists, initiated the use of the hieratic, frontal perspective of the quadriga. The Coele-Syrian town of Leucas displays the quadriga of

Helios in a frontal pose on coins of Trajan, Commodus, Macrinus, and Gordian III; similar presentations are found on coins of Septimius Severus from the Arabian town of Madaha and on those of Gordian III from Tralles in Asia Minor (pl. 18.8). Late second- and third-century coins of the Phrygian towns of Colossae (pl. 18.7) and Cotiaeum depict the quadriga of Helios from the front in a fashion suggestive of the morning sun arising from Ocean.®! On Cibyran coins dated 220/1 a remarkably symmetrical and abstract frontal composition was applied to Hecate in her lion biga. With their completely frontal, flat depiction, the Cibyran coins look forward to the consular chariots on gold imperial medallions of the late Constantinian and Theodosian ages (pl.

19.4—5), On coins of Cilbianian Nicaea in western Asia Minor, the transcendence of Caracalla was somewhat awkwardly stressed by the use of a stiff, symmetrical frontal presentation (pl. 18.9). A pair of horses leaps away on each side of the chariot, while Caracalla,

wearing the radiate crown, turns his head slightly to the right and gives the solar benediction with his right hand.*? More often Caracalla is shown dressed as a Roman triumphator. He stands as the axial figure dominating frontal depictions of the triumphal quadriga on coins of Philadelphia (pi. 19.2), Amorium (pl. 19.1), Tarsus (pl. 19.3), and Iasus.®* Given their elaborate decoration, the chariots on the coins of the first two cities are composites of the solar and triumphal vehicles. These frontal depictions of the imperial chariot carry the same visual impact as similar depictions of divine carts and quadrigae, so that, at least iconographically, triumphal and local religious processions were associated on local coins by the opening of the third century.

The imperial triumphal chariot was also assimilated to the vehicles of the great mother goddesses. Laodicea-on-the-Lycus struck handsome large bronze coins that show Caracalla, dressed as a Roman triumphator, holding a globe surmounted by Nike offering a palm branch and wreath in his right hand, and balancing in his left hand the eagle-tipped scepter of Zeus (pl. 18.2).8° Caracalla drives the cart of Cybele pulled by four lions however, rather than the triumphal chariot. While imperial medallions and coins never made such overt identifications, Elagabalus, the cousin and heir of Caracalla, is reported by the Augustan History to have adapted Hellenic civic religious processions to Roman parades. He even appeared in public processions driving four stags of great size. He sometimes harnessed lions to his chariot and called himself the Great Mother [i.e., Cybele], and sometimes he yoked tigers, and called himself Dionysus; and he always appeared in the particular garb in which the deity that he was representing was usually depicted.*®

Though Elagabalus was hardly the standard of acceptable behavior for a Roman emperor of any age, his merging of divine and imperial ceremonies may reflect some of the associations his Greek provincial subjects were making. Coins of Sidon under Severus Alexander show that impeccably Roman emperor driving his triumphal char-

48 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS iot while the celestial vehicle of Astarte stands in the background — a detail suggesting the association of imperial and civic processions (pl. 18.5-—6).8” The report of Elaga-

balus’s imitation of the chariot of Dionysus brings us to the last civic god whose processions influenced Greek interpretations of the Roman triumph. Classical authors report that Roman imperatores of the late Republic substituted teams of elephants for white horses so that their triumphal chariots would evoke comparisons of their victories to the conquest of India by the god Dionysus and by Alexander the Great.®® During the first two centuries of the Principate, imperial coins depicted chariots drawn by elephants only for deified emperors, because the animals had become so closely associated with the divine honors voted by the Roman Senate.®? Coins for Caracalla issued by the Phrygian city of Amorium bear the earliest identifica-

tion of the triumphal procession of a living emperor with the mythological return of Dionysus from India (pl. 18.3). Caracalla stands in a triumphal chariot, shown in frontal perspective, flanked on each side by a pair of elephants.”° The coins of Amorium fit well with the report of the historian Cassius Dio that Caracalla favored an elephant-

drawn quadriga because it associated him with both Dionysus and Alexander the Great.?! According to later historians, the emperors Severus Alexander, Gordian III, Aurelian, and Diocletian employed elephants as the draft animals for their triumphal chariots in imitation of Dionysus.?? Galerius’s triumphal procession on his arch at Thessalonica depicts the Dionysiac elephant quadriga, and gold medallions of Constantine struck for the vicennial celebrations of 326 depict the emperor in an elephantdrawn chariot and proclaim ‘‘the innumerable triumphs of our Augustus.”’ 7? Local bronze coins of the late second and third centuries suggest that the Greek East initiated the assimilation of elements of religious ceremonies into the Roman triumphal procession. In the process, the Hellenes transformed the Roman ceremony into a more symbolic expression of universal, eternal imperial victory. In the absence of more specific literary or epigraphic evidence, it is difficult to determine the precise process. Traditional civic ceremonies of welcome offered to a ruler (whether they be comparable to the Roman adventus, profectio, or triumph) may have gradually attracted preexisting religious parades and festivities. On the other hand, considering their interest in imperial events as expressed on coins and in their construction of triumphal arches, later civic officials may have adopted the Roman ceremonies and consciously adapted

them to the more familiar religious processions. Whatever the process, the Greek provincials of the late second and early third centuries, in adapting Roman triumphs to local religious ceremonies, shaped some of the conceptions of the Tetrarchic emperor who was hailed as the ‘‘manifest god” (deus praesens) in Roman public ceremonies. On other civic coins the emperor is shown with different attributes and in various guises emphasizing his roles as conqueror and triumphator. At times he assumed the dignified pose of the bringer of peace (pacator) clothed in consular robes and holding either a spear and globe or a scepter and laurel branch (cf. pl. 25.1). Togate emperors were also shown seated on the sellae curules, the republican chairs of high office, as they received either the goddess Nike or a Roman soldier (pl. 20.5-—7). Hellenic religious sentiments once again transformed a Roman ceremony. Severus Alexander, seated as a republican consul, secures the favor of the tyche of the Ephesians, who presents him with a miniature statuette of the city’s patron goddess, Artemis Ephesia.”* As the third century progressed, Roman emperors often exchange their consular robes for armor and the paludamentum (the military cloak of the camp) (pl. 20.1 —4). More frequently,

Greek Views of the Roman Emperor 49 Severan and later emperors clad in battle dress stand before trophies and bound captives, while Nike sometimes offers a wreath or crowns the the emperor. Large bronze coins struck by the Carian city Alabanda in connection with Caracalla’s Parthian War well illustrate new provincial expectations and perceptions (pl. 20.2).?? Clad in full armor, Caracalla holds forth a small Nike; he towers over a miniscule kneeling Parthian, who is crushed beneath the imperial spear. The dramatically hieratic treatment suggests indifference to the trivial barbarian, while Caracalla concentrates his gaze elsewhere — on eternal victory. In contrast to the Augustan ideal, the stress in the third century shifted from the fruits of peace achieved by the emperor’s war to the virtue of perpetual imperial victory. Civic coins thus never dwell upon imperial clemency or the restoration of subjected foes (a theme common to state reliefs, medallions, and coins of the early Principate). They reflect instead the growing preoccupation seen in contemporary imperial iconography with the total submission of the defeated.”° Local coins from the Severan age also turned back to the time-honored triumphal personification of Nike, who at both Roman colonies and Greek poleis assumed her familiar stances ever more frequently (pl. 20.5-—11).?” Seldom did these routine depictions of Nike elaborate upon specific victories. The cities of Nicaea and Ancyra nominated Nikes on coins of Lucius Verus as either “‘the Roman” or ‘‘imperial victory.’’”® Nicene coins a century later boast of Valerian’s anticipated ‘‘Roman victory”’ coupled with a striding Nike offering her usual laurel wreath and palm branch.”’ At times, the goddess was substituted for the figure of the emperor. At several cities Nike is shown crowning trophies (pl. 20.9), while suppliant barbarians cower below, or Nike is seen driving the emperor’s triumphal chariot (pl. 20.8).'°° Greek artists were following a long-established convention of Roman art by selecting isolated elements of triumphal iconography to design coin types.'°! Imperial victory and triumph on later civic coinage were closely linked to a related theme: the virtues of the Roman army. The legions — although rebellious, rapacious, and far from ever-victorious in the third century — were still regarded as the defenders of order and unity. Dio Chrysostom and Aelius Aristides had hailed the Roman emperor’s army not only as a civilizing agent of the world, but also as a league force composed of the emperor’s “‘allied”’ cities.'°? This outlook attuned Hellenic notables to the growing importance of the emperor’s soldiers as they marched eastward ever more frequently over the military highways of Asia Minor and Syria to battle the Parthians or Persians. The Parthian War of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus stimulated interest in the Roman army as well as in the militant or triumphant emperor. While Lucius Verus sailed in comfort to Antioch, M. Statius Priscus led the vexillations from the Danube overland to the Euphrates. Along the route of Priscus’s march Greek cities of Asia Minor first commissioned coins bearing on their reverses legionary eagles (aquilae), signa, and vexilla (pl. 21.1-—11).'°? During the preceding two centuries only coins of Roman colonies had depicted legionary standards firmly planted in the ground with inscriptions identifying the legions founding the colony (pl. 21.8-—9). Often vexilla stood in the background while the veiled Roman emperor ploughed the sacred limits (pomerium) of a new colony according to the Etruscan rite. The colonies in northern Mesopotamia, Rhesaena and Singara, adopted the zodiacal signs of the birthdate of their founding legions as appropriate coin types.'°* Though the symbolism of military

30 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS standards was therefore not unknown in the Roman East, few cities, other than certain Roman colonies, had ever stressed it. This situation changed in the late second century as Roman colonies south of the Amanus revived the dormant coin type that recalled their proud origins (pl. 21.5). Tyre, for instance, struck massive numbers of coins hailing the standards of the III Gallica even after it had taken up new headquarters at Raphaneae (pl. 21.6).!°? North of the Taurus Mountains, Roman colonies in the unruly and rugged central Anatolian districts of Pisidia and Lycaonia also resumed striking coins bearing Roman legionary standards (pl. 21.4, 7-9). Elsewhere in Asia Minor, Greek cities followed the lead of colonies and adopted the legionary motifs.!°° In Bithynia, for example, the Greek cities of Nicaea, Nicomedia, and Juliopolis were most active in popularizing the type during the Severan and later periods. Cities in central and eastern Anatolia showed no interest in legionary standards until the reign of Gordian III, when Pisidian Antioch apparently replaced Ancyra as the pivotal point where Roman armies swung eastward toward the Cilician Gates (pl.

21.1-3)./°7 Pisidian Antioch and the mints of Docimeum (pl. 21.3), Iconium, and Cremna all struck coins with legionary standards. Perhaps, as the fighting on the Euphrates moved ominously closer to these cities, they became more conscious of the security afforded by Roman arms. The devices associated with the legions represented a powerful symbolism closely

linked with belief in the victorous emperor. At best the types are uninspired and stereotyped — although the cippus, altar, wreaths, and eagles relieve the monotony at some mints— but it is unlikely that cities along the highways linking the Propontis with Syria adopted legionary standards as coin types simply in imitation of coins struck at Roman colonies.'°8 The military standards, particularly the legionary eagle, symbolized the very numen, the religious power and entity of the legion. Soldiers paid deep religious devotion to the standards and the loss of a legion’s eagle on the battlefield was the ultimate disgrace and was cause for disbandment. There is the well-known incident

of the audacious standard-bearer of the Tenth Legion who stirred his wavering comrades forward by brandishing the eagle and plunging into the waves during Julius Caesar’s landing in Britain.'°? In the third century several emperors appealed to the

loyalties of soldiers during civil war by minting series of imperial coins honoring legionary emblems. Hellenic local coinage thus adopted a very potent Roman military symbol. Several unusual depictions on local coins give us some sense of the spiritual force behind these symbols (pl. 21.1-—3). At Germa, a Galatian town located along a major highway, a togate and veiled Commodus stands within an imperial temple and pours a libation to the gods; two legionary standards flank the shrine.'!° Similarly, later emperors such as Caracalla are shown sacrificing before altars and military vexilla (pl. 21.10).!'* At the Pamphylian city of Perge, which is on the southern coastal road of Asia Minor, the native tutelary gods Serapis and Ares are shown sanctifying Roman

military standards.'! This consciousness of the role played by the emperor’s army closely corresponds to

the spread of interest in the militant and triumphant princeps. Greek cities, unlike Roman colonies, could not inscribe their coins with the names of specific founding legions, but struck generalized types honoring eastern expeditions. Coastal cities even

minted coins with imperial galleys to represent the arrival of Roman forces from Europe.!!3 The provincial silver cistophoric tetradrachmae of Asia, which were minted at infrequent intervals, dramatically illustrate the change in interest. The topical diver-

Greek Views of the Roman Emperor 51 sity of cistophoric iconography climaxed in the issues of Hadrian, when virtually every Anatolian divinity of note put in an appearance.’'* After seventy years of inactivity the

city of Ephesus struck its last issue of cistophori in honor of Septimius Severus’s Parthian War. Legionary standards and Victoria upstage all other appeals on the reverses of these last cistophori.'?? The disturbed conditions of the late second and third centuries reoriented the attention of Hellenic notables in Rome’s Asiatic provinces away from narrow, local concerns toward wider horizons. This new awareness, focused on the emperor, was reflected in the coinage, and themes of imperial victory, triumph, and concord gained prominence. Jt was perhaps only natural, in an age facing the twin threats of civil and

foreign war, that much of the iconography dealt with imperial achievements — at times real, but more often only prospective and uncertain. Cities in Roman Mesopotamia and Cilicia, close to the Parthian frontier, so consistently proclaimed the victory of the much-maligned Macrinus (217-18) that the ruling classes of these cities no doubt

genuinely appreciated his peace with Parthia.'!® On the other hand, much of this iconography — such as that found on the coins of Tarsus in the names of Balbinus and Pupienus—is generalized and stylized. Throughout the East, emphasis was placed upon the symbolic meaning of the imperial person, on his virtues, on his ceremonies, and on the symbolic essence of his armies, the legions. When the Tarsans minted bronze coins honoring the militant or triumphant emperors Balbinus and Pupienus, who ruled merely three months in Italy, they either expected the two senatorial emperors to plan an eastern expedition or, more probably, they were affirming their belief in the emperors’ innate, although untested, prowess.!!” As we have seen, however, the political beliefs expressed on local coinage during this century went beyond mere recitations of the military exploits of the emperor and his army or the search for political stability. In the choice of scenes and symbols, the Hellenic notables expressed their political beliefs and their expectations of the Roman emperor. They at times repeated the iconography and messages of contemporary imperial art and coins — for example, in their emphasis on the absolute invincibility of the emperor on the battlefield at the expense of the Augustan virtue of clementia. More

often, however, the designs of local coins blended important Hellenic religious and political notions and ceremonies with their Roman counterparts. Such seems to be the case of the vision of the Roman triumph on local coins of the third century. In these instances the native gods emerge as the powerful agents of the polis. The gods not only legitimize imperial actions and virtues, they also act as the intermediaries that familiarized and explained the ceremonies, exploits, and aims of the Roman emperor to his Hellenic subjects.

6 The Roman Emperor and nd the City Gods God ye ees,

Se Jou Ma

jae ¥ Se ts ti

Y tS vl At the close of the second century, new types emphasizing the pious meeting between god and emperor became prevalent on the reverses of local coins. The martial and triumphal imagery associated with the Roman emperor had started to be depicted on local bronze coins during the Parthian War of 161-66, and in some of these scenes civic gods are shown aiding or sanctifying imperial actions — victory and imperial legitimacy had always depended upon the favor of the gods. It was not, however, until the reign of Commodus (180-92) that designs illustrating the piety of the emperor toward local gods and his celebration of civic festivals and games gained widespread popularity. The ceremony of the adventus, or the official welcome a provincial city paid to a visiting emperor, was the most conspicuous among these new depictions. By the eve of the third century the adventus had evolved beyond protocol and had been transformed

into a religious ceremony—a sacred, theatrical performance par excellence — through which the emperor met the city’s gods, magistrates, and populace, and won the popular consent (consensus omnium) so vital to his legitimacy.’ The cult statues of the gods were conveyed from their shrines to greet the arriving emperor. The emperor in turn visited the shrines of the gods, offered sacrifice, repaired the temples, and bestowed gifts upon native gods and their worshippers. Sacred festivals and games in honor of both immortal gods and the Roman emperor were the closing acts of this drama. Each step in this ceremonial meeting — from the initial greeting at the city’s gate to the epilogue of the games and the festivals, perhaps the most important exchange between emperor and gods — inspired designs for later civic coins. Emperors who arrived from the West to battle Parthians or Persians probably presided over some of the civic games honored on municipal bronze coins. They also, at times, responded favorably to Greek petitions for the elevation of civic games to ‘“‘sacred’’ rank or to requests that dynastic status be conferred upon local games — either award announced to the Roman world the privileged position of the polis and its gods.? These actions were also part and parcel of the established conventions that governed relations between emperor and city; none of them represented an innovation born in an age of crisis. At the height of the Roman peace the peripatetic Hadrian had with impeccable propriety performed all the pious actions required of an emperor and

that became so popular as designs on later civic coins.’ In turn, the enthusiastic 52

The Roman Emperor and the City Gods 53 welcomes given Hadrian by Hellenic provincials, both at Athens and in the cities of Asia, indicate the depth of affection the Greeks could express toward a popular prince through official] ceremonies. Upon his advent in Athens, Hadrian completed the construction of the spectacular

Olympieion and ordered extensive repairs of the city’s other monuments; he was initiated into the holy Eleusinian mysteries; he presided over the festival of the Great

Dionysia; and, among his many gifts, he placed Athens at the head of the Panhellenion — an international Hellenic religious league.* Athenian coins make little comment on these displays of imperial piety. The coins of the Hellenic cities of Asia that also entertained Hadrian and benefited from his generosity are almost as reticent about Hadrian’s advent, piety, and liberality.? Civic coins only record the visits and piety of later emperors between the reigns of Commodus and Aurelian. This pattern alone suggests that imperial piety to the local gods assumed an increased importance in the eyes of Hellenic notables as emperors traveled more frequently to the East. The emperor, in turn, had to court the political loyalty of his Greek subjects by his acts of reverence to their religious traditions. The later civic bronze coins present a pictorial record of this changing relationship between the Roman emperor and the civic gods (and thus with the ruling classes and citizens of the cities of the East).

Imperial Visits, Piety, Gifts, and Civic Patriotism When Hellenic cities began to note imperial advents on their coins, their engravers could draw upon a rich iconography perfected by Roman artists and medalists. By the

reign of Trajan the central element of this iconography— an equestrian imperator raising his right hand in an act of salutation — was firmly linked with the ceremony of the adventus (pl. 22. 5 - 6).° Imperial medallions and coins of Trajan depict the emperor mounted and attended by soldiers and the personification of Felicitas, while the reverse legend identifies the scene as ADVENTVS AVG.’ Again on imperial coins, the

travels of Hadrian inspired a civilian version of the emperor’s arrival. Hadrian is dressed in a toga and clasps a scroll as he is greeted before an altar by Tyche (in this context the female personification of a province).® On these imperial coins —in contrast to later civic depictions — Tyche often kneels with the submissive deference of a

grateful inferior, or sometimes, as in the case of Judaea, presents children to the beneficent Hadrian.’ In the later second and the third centuries most imperial artists focused on the arrival of the soldier-emperor on campaign, who often is led into the city of Rome by Victoria.'° The emperor, riding his steed, raises his right hand—a gesture that, as previously discussed, came to be regarded as the sign of the emperor’s world domination." During the Parthian War of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, few cities minted coins representing imperial visits; instead it was the Marcomannic Wars of the 170s that prompted cities in western Asia Minor to strike large bronze coins — mimicking contemporary imperial iconography — recording the visits of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, who are shown astride their mounts surrounded by legionary escorts, military standards, trophies, and submissive Teutonic captives (pl. 22.1 —3).!2 Most impressive are the depictions of the advent of Commodus on the large coins of Mytilene (located on the isle of Lesbos) and of Elaea, the city opposite Mytilene on the Asian

54. CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS shore (pl. 22.3).!* Even the Roman colony of Aelia Capitolina, which occupied the site , of Jerusalem, struck coins with a youthful Commodus making a symbolic entrance.'* It , was, however, in the Severan age that this type spread throughout the cities of the Roman East (pl. 22.4-—9). In some of these advents, the emperor is shown, in a fashion more relevant to scenes of combat, as trampling Iranian captives (who wear unmistakable oriental trousers and felt-tipped Phrygian caps and had replaced Germans as the principal foe on local coins) under the hooves of his horse (pl. 22.4).!? Usually local coins present the adventus as the meeting of the Roman emperor and the divinities of a Greek city rather than as part of a military campaign. Often the equestrian emperor is shown saluting Tyche, the tutelary god, or the city’s eponymous hero (pl. 22.7-—9). Ephesian coins, for example, display pairs of mounted emperors — Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus or, later, Caracalla and Geta— saluting the cult image of Artemis Ephesia.!® The coins thus present the adventus as a pilgrimage undertaken by a pious philhellene emperor to the shrines of the gods. In paying their respects

to local gods, both Severans and later emperors were seen as emulating the popular Germanicus and Hadrian, who had toured the East during more tranquil times.!’ Ever astute imperialists, the Romans had from the beginning enrolled the divinities of vanquished cities into the ranks of the supernatural guardians of the Empire. After leaving Athens, Hadrian consulted the hoary oracles of Claros and Didyma; he sacrificed to Zeus Casius, whose shrine was perched upon a mountain overlooking Antioch’s plain; and he even poured libations to Semitic gods with the foreign-sounding names of Aglibol and Malakbel, who protected the caravan city of Palmyra in the Syrian desert.!8 The emperors who trekked eastward after Hadrian just as assiduously worshipped at the shrines of these sundry gods, seeking the approval of the magistrates, populace, and, most important, the city gods themselves. In more pragmatic terms, the gods had to be appeased if the Greek cities were to remain loyal and willing to supply the expensive, ponderous imperial war machine. The political life and patriOtic spirit of the polis sprang from the proper veneration of ancestral cults according to the dictates of custom, and every public action required at least a token sanctification from the immortal gods of the city. Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, and Aelius Aristides

voice a commonly held opinion that the foremost concern of a city should be the preservation of its cults, because the gods give their city its identity and prosperity.’? . From the emperor’s viewpoint, his visit to a Greek city became a pilgrimage — a means

of securing and retaining the patriotic support of his Greek subjects. Through the . advent and other rituals, the distant imperial war on the Euphrates was made into their war as well. By the opening of the third century, therefore, civic coins record the transformation of a specifically Roman occasion — primarily military in theme and concerned with

the reception of the emperor into the imperial capital—into a major religious exchange between emperor and Greek city (pl. 22.7-—9).?° In this ceremony the Greek

provincials venerated the emperor as a ‘‘manifest god,’’ or, in the words of Latin panegyrists of the Tetrarchic age, deus praesens.*! The third-century rhetor Menander of

Laodicea wrote that the emperor’s arrival merited two separate orations, one before (epibaterios) and one after (prosphonetikos) he passed through the city gate, but these greetings signaled only the beginning of celebrations.?? In contrast to contemporary imperial medallions and coins, local coins dwelled not just upon the single event of the arrival of the emperor. With a rich, complex numismatic iconography they elaborated |

The Roman Emperor and the City Gods 55 upon the other ceremonies that followed and further manifested the piety of the emperor: his visits to shrines, sacrifices to the city gods, imperial gifts, and festivals and games. Many of these depictions of the adventus and other scenes of imperial piety were _ used as reverse types in a single series recording either an actual visit or, in the case of many lesser cities, asymbolic visit. For ease of discussion, a single series of large bronze coins, struck by the city of Pergamum in western Asia Minor, may serve as an illustration of some of the more important coin types that celebrated the advent and related ceremonies. Pergamum commemorated the visit of the emperor Caracalla in 214 by

striking a remarkably attractive series of medallion-sized bronze coins depicting in detail, as if in a succession of frieze panels, the official reception and ceremonies that followed (pl. 23.1-8; pl. 24.1-6).?3 In the spring of 214 Caracalla departed from Rome for the East. His motive for this eastern expedition is difficult to fathom; perhaps it may have been the prospect of civil war in Parthia, or perhaps his delusion of being the reincarnate Alexander the Great Jured him on to dreams of oriental conquests.7* After a hazardous crossing of the Propontis, probably in the late summer of 214, Caracalla established his base at Nicomedia and busied himself during the next six months with visits to the great cities and shrines of Asia Minor. Probably in the autumn of 214 Caracalla undertook a pilgrimage to the shrine of Asclepius at Pergamum to seek the healing god’s cure for maladies he had contracted while in Germany (the innately nervous Caracalla, who had progressively grown more unbalanced after the murder of his brother Geta, was subject to anguished fits).2? Caracalla seems to have enjoyed his visit to Pergamum, since he ordered the reconstruction of the Ionic temple dedicated to Asclepius and the imperial

cult and, it seems very likely, the restorations of temples to Roma and the deified Augustus and to Zeus Philos and the deified Trajan as well.?° After Caracalla’s departure the Pergamenes commissioned their handsome coins recording the highlights of

his visit.

Pergamum recorded the arrival of Caracalla on the reverses of several denominations (pl. 23.1—4). On some coins Caracalla, bareheaded and wearing the armor and paludamentum of a soldier, is shown riding toward the right, saluting a trophy with his right hand, and followed by Nike, who offers the victor’s laurel crown (pl. 23.1).?” On some coins a magistrate clothed in ceremonial robes presents the equestrian Caracalla with a miniature cult statue of Asclepius (pl. 23.3).28 A mutilated panel of the later Arch

of Thessalonica records a similar advent by showing a bustling throng of impatient magistrates pouring from the main gate to greet the emperor.?? Even more concisely, other Pergamene coins record this event by replacing the magistrate with the city’s tyche, clothed in the long peplos and wearing the mural headdress of a protective goddess, symbolizing the councillors, officials, and populace of the city seen on the arch (pl. 23.2).7° In both scenes, the offer of the statuette of Asclepius symbolizes the common practice of carrying forth cult statues to meet the emperor. A Latin panegyrist recounts how crowds hailed the emperor Constantine when he visited the Gallic city of Autun in 311: ‘““‘We decorated the streets leading to the palace, although only poorly,

yet we carried forth for your welcoming the standards of all the colleges, and the images of all our gods, accompanied by the clear sounds of some few instruments.” ?} The Greek rhetor Menander advises that during such an initial meeting an eloquent orator should deliver a congratulatory speech comparing the imperial arrival to the holidays of the city.** Later Latin panegyrists echoed these sentiments, describing the

56 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS emperor’s journey as a miracle worthy of adoration. When the emperors Diocletian — and Maximianus crossed the Alps and returned to Milan in 291, theirjourney became a descent of the gods from the heavens: ‘“Now for the first time your holiness radiated from the eastern and western peaks of the Alps, and all Italy was covered with wonder and doubt, asking themselves what gods were rising on those mountain peaks, and descending on such steps from heaven.” ?* The two Balkan soldier-emperors became in the minds of the panegyrist and his audience the incarnations of Jupiter and Hercules. Orations, however, were just the opening compliment. Music, incense, and flowers prepared the way, while choruses chanted standard phrases of rejoicing. Among Bithynian cities, coins of Commodus and Septimius Severus preserve these laudatory chants in the legend ‘‘with you as sovereign the universe prospers,’’ and later other cities struck coins with sacrificial scenes dedicated ‘‘to our eternal lords.’’ #4 Pergamene coins, however, move the emperor from this scene of first meeting on to other ceremonies. Two reverse types record salutations and receptions following the emperor’s passage through the city gate. Still mounted and dressed in his military

costume, Caracalla salutes the statute of Asclepius perched on a column, a detail suggesting a stationary position within the city (pl. 23.4).?? In the second depiction Tyche stands upon a platform, perhaps a representation of the entrance to the bouleuterion, or council hall, and once again offers the statuette of Asclepius to Caracalla, who is ascending to meet her (pl. 23.5). The goddess Roma, clad in full armor and offering a

small Nike in her right hand, stands behind Caracalla.** In this scene, the emperor, even though his deeds and piety raise him into the company of the gods, still comports himself with the affable accessibility of a princeps. For all the formalities, Caracalla

probably thanked the chief citizens of Pergamum more in the style of the modest , Germanicus of two centuries earlier, who had adopted Hellenic manners and dress, than in that of the immobile Constantius II, who would stand remote and aloof from his subjects upon his entrance into Rome in the year 357.’ A unique depiction on coins of the Phrygian city of Laodicea-on-the-Lycus also suggests that Caracalla conducted himself as a princeps rather than in the manner of the divinely inspired emperor of the Dominate (pl. 23.6).*® In a peculiar three-dimensional setting, Caracalla stands in the center of the agora and addresses the city’s citizens after he has made his formal

entrance. — : Pergamum was the most conspicuous of the cities that minted coins publicizing

Caracalla’s arrival. Other cities had the opportunity to devise their own interpretations as Caracalla — with confused visions of reenacting the exploits of his heroes Heracles, Achilles, and Alexander the Great — visited most of the major centers of the Roman Orient. Nicene coins gave prominence to Caracalla’s propitious crossing from Europe

by showing a warship conveying the emperor in the company of Serapis, who was credited with rescuing the emperor from a storm at sea (pl. 21.11).*? In imitation of his exemplum Alexander the Great, Caracalla toured the Homeric sites in the Troad, and the Roman colony of Alexandria Troas struck coins of an equestrian Caracalla saluting the Homeric plague god Apollo Smintheus, whose wrath initiated the entire action of the Iliad.*° Caracalla also detached from the conventus of Sardes a huge new district and nominated the city of Thyatira as its capital. In memory of his generosity and visit, the Thyatirans struck handsome coins on which the emperor exchanges salutations with both the patron god Apollo Tyrimnaeus and the city’s tyche (pl. 22.8).*! Ever seeking the

healing powers of Asclepius, Caracalla later worshipped at other shrines of the god; |

The Roman Emperor and the City Gods | 57 and these visits are commemorated on civic coins illustrating the imperial advent, the emperor at sacrifice, and symbols associated with Asclepeian games (pl. 28.6).* Once an emperor was received into a city, he betook himself to the shrines and altars

of its tutelary gods. The remarkable Pergamene coins, although by no means the earliest examples, best illustrate this iconography, for they continue to narrate these later phases of Caracalla’s visit in 214. A park or garden attached to the Asclepieion housed the oracular serpent of the god and a small cult figure of Telesphorus, the son of

Asclepius and reputed founder of the city.** In one depiction Caracalla, dressed in military uniform, salutes the serpent as it coils around a sacred tree (pl. 23.7). A small, squat cult image of Telesphorus stands between the emperor and serpent.“ In another rendition Caracalla hails the cult statues of both Asclepius and Telesphorus (pl. 23.8).*° Still other coins illustrate Caracalla, dressed as an imperator, pouring the blood of a sacrificial victim from a patera onto a burning altar before the cult statue of Asclepius (pl. 24.1).4° This scene of the emperor sacrificing before a local god became a favorite motif for coins of many cities throughout the third century. Coins of some cities omit any reference to the cult figures and instead show Caracalla alone, dressed as a general and officiating over sacrifices in the presence of military standards (pl. 21.10).*’

One of the artists who engraved dies for Pergamum offered an ambitious and unusual interpretation of the sacrifice. The main action is not presented on a single plane. Instead, the artist attempted to achieve perspective by placing elements of the composition on three different planes and treating the figures hieratically (pl. 24.2 —3). Caracalla — holding a scroll and wearing a long cloak, probably in the guise of the high priest — advances, usually to the right, as the dominating figure in the foreground. The middle ground is occupied by a small ax-wielding attendant about to strike a sacrificial bull. In the background, the cult figure of Asclepius stands within a hexastyle temple (pl. 24.2 —3).*® Such ambitious multifigure sacrificial scenes, so common in sculptural representations, are exceedingly rare on coins. Though the Pergamene engraver had few prototypes for his work among local coins, he perhaps was familiar with conven-

tions for this scene on imperial coins, medallions, and reliefs from the reigns of Commodus and Septimius Severus.*? The Carian city of Stratonicea (as well as Pergamum) had struck something of a prototype a decade earlier in the reign of Septimius Severus (pl. 24.4-5). On the Stratonicean coins the high priest of Zeus Panamaros (bouthytes), who may have been a surrogate for the Roman emperor, occupies an elevated platform and prepares to strike the head of the sacrificial victim.°° More ambitious interpretations of sacrificial scenes were attempted on later local coins. For example, Ephesian coins for Macrinus, the successor of Caracalla, illustrate a multifigure scene — the votive sacrifice of a bull by the emperor with ten attendants standing before the temple of Artemis Ephesia.*! The scenes of sacrifice so effectively presented on Pergamene coins had become characteristic reverse types for the money of a number of cities of the Roman East at least a generation before Caracalla marched east for his Parthian War (pl. 25.1 -—8). As early as the Julio-Claudian period, some local coins show the emperor— wearing his

priestly garments and standing alone, without the company of either gods or attendants — pouring libations over an altar (pl. 25.1). In the earliest depictions of the emperor at sacrifice, civic coins, much in the fashion of imperial reliefs since the Ara Pacis, present the emperor as veiled and togate, acting in his capacity as chief priest of the Roman state (pontifex maximus). On Roman imperial coins and relief depictions, the

58 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS emperor, whenever he offered up libations in time of war, was clothed either in his priestly robes or in his field armor.?* During the reign of Septimius Severus, local coins in Asia Minor usually show the emperor in a more militant guise: clad in his cuirass and

paludamentum, and wearing the laurel crown of a triumphant Roman general (pl. 21.10). By the reign of Macrinus, Greek cities and Roman colonies south of the Taurus also began to adopt this more militant interpretation of imperial sacrifice. Even when

the emperor wears a toga and priestly veil, the inclusion on local coins of military standards, trophies, and the goddess Nike denotes the martial aspects of the ritual (pl. 21.7). At times, Nike is portrayed as standing behind the Roman emperor and crowning him with the victor’s laurel crown (pl. 25.2). On coins of the Phrygian city of Temenothyrae, the emperors Valerian and Gallienus, father and son, stand opposite each other pouring libations over an altar; between them stands the goddess Nike who crowns each of them (pl. 25.2).°? The scene is a symbolic statement of Hellenic perceptions that imperial piety and harmony were essential ingredients of imperial victory and peace. As early as the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, other interpretations of

sacrificial scenes present new views of the relationship of emperor and god. The emperor, customarily in his field armor, officiates over an altar in the company of the city’s tyche, chief protective god, or eponymous hero (pl. 25.4—8). Some of the first examples of the emperor and gods at sacrifice appear on large commemorative coins from the league of the island of Lesbos. On some coins, Commodus and the tyche of Mytilene (the head and mint of the league) stand together in the presence of a recumbent river god; on others the tyche of Mytilene takes the place of Nike and crowns the

emperor Commodus.** Much later, the coins of Thyatira (in Asia Minor) combined notions of imperial and divine harmony: the emperor Maximinus and his son, the caesar Maximus, sacrifice jointly in the presence of Apollo Tyrimnaeus.”? During the last quarter of the second century, concord between emperor and god was often emphasized by the handshake, a device not found on Caracalla’s Pergamene coins. In an act of approval, the god shakes the emperor’s hand (pl. 26.2 -9).°° This image of harmony between earthly sovereign and divine benefactor was rooted in the ancient iconography of the Near East; and there are pictorial antecedents of the Roman scene in the relief sculpture of several Hellenistic monarchs. Iconographically, the _ coins of Ceretapa (a small town in Phrygia) on which the togate emperor Marcus Aurelius shakes the hand of Heracles have much in common with the rock reliefs in

northern Syria of some three centuries earlier showing the kings of Commagene shaking hands with Heracles or Mithras (pl. 26.4).°” The scenes of sacrifice and greetings between emperor and god on local coins were probably often understood as taking place in the inner sanctum of the god’s temple, or at least within the temenos, or sacred enclosure of the shrine. The small city of Alinda, in western Caria, struck coins depicting Septimius Severus shaking hands with Heracles while they officiate together over sacrifices (pl. 26.3). The inscription seems to locate the ritual within the Heracleion:

“the naos to Heracles offering welcome.” 7* Coins from Pisidian Antioch minted during |

the Persian war of Gordian III (241-44) also suggest that location (pl. 26.9). The , emperor and the city goddess Antiochia are shown shaking hands with an altar between them, as each figure stands on the pedestal of a cult statue. The coins were apparently intended to depict the cult statues within the temple of the Romancolony’s | | city goddess, and they also seem to be a rare pictorial representation of the common

The Roman Emperor and the City Gods 59 practice reported in inscriptions in Asia Minor whereby the god shared his temple with the Roman emperor (synnaos).’? The civic officials of Pergamum installed such a statue of Caracalla in their Asclepieion in 214, but none of the coins records this honor.® Finally, some coins depict the emperor at sacrifice before a city’s major temple. Pergamene coins, as already discussed, exhibit some of the most imaginative such scenes for Caracalla (pl. 24.2-3). Aegeae, which was a city of second rank in Cilicia near the southeastern coast of Asia Minor, possessed a celebrated shrine to Asclepius, which the emperor Caracalla paused to visit.°} During the third century, Severus Alexander (pl. 25.8) and Valerian, who each probably took the time to pay his respects to Asclepius before proceeding against Persia, are each presented on this city’s coins as sacrificing

before the temple.** Nicomedia issued an even more auspicious interpretation for Gordian III; this emperor and an augur sacrifice before the Olympieion while the eagle of Zeus flies above in answer to their prayers for success (pl. 25.5).° On a number of Jater civic coins, scenes of emperor and god stress their mutual adoration and respect, with either one or both parties saluting with the right hand (pl. 26.1-2). The earliest such scenes show the emperors Lucius Verus and Marcus Aure-

lius saluting such famed cult statues as Carian Aphrodite, Ephesian Artemis, and Artemis Leukophryene (the patroness of the Ionian town of Magnesia).°* More often coins show the arriving emperor receiving a cult statuette of the city’s chief divinity from the hands of Tyche, or the patron god himself invests the emperor with orbs, wreaths, or small figures of Nike (pl. 26.6-—9). The emperor Caracalla was entrusted with a wide range of holy objects. Bronze coins from the remote Anatolian town of Isaura show Caracalla accepting the good wishes and a sacred diptych from the hand of Apollo (pl. 26.7).°? On large coins of Laodicea-on-the-Lycus, the goddesses of Sea (Thalassa) and Earth (Ge) join hands to elevate a statuette of Caracalla-Helios, who wears the radiate solar crown (pl. 26.8).°° This depiction recalls late Stoic and Platonic notions of parallel creations of the cosmos and the Roman Empire.*’ The emergence of

Roman power mirrors the initial creation when Ge arose from the primeval sea, Thalassa, and Helios first scattered his benign light over the land. Few coins of the Roman Empire better express the symbolic connections between divine favor and imperial domination. With a similar message in mind, the Ephesians struck coins showing Elagabalus, who was devoted to the sun god of Emesa, receiving a cult statuette of Artemis Ephesia from the city tyche in the presence of Helios and Selene.®

Such exchanges between emperor and god persisted on local coinage as late as the reign of Tacitus (275 — 76), who appears on coins of Perge accepting a miniature statue of Artemis Pergaia from the city’s protective tyche.®° From the 170s, therefore, a host of civic gods, tychai, and eponymous heroes greet

the pious emperor either during his initial advent or during his sacrifice before the principal shrine. Frequently, the divine figure on local coins transfers to the care of the emperor the orb of the civilized world, the cult figure of the city, or Nike — victory herself (pl. 26.6-—9). Much more readily than medalists at Rome, Hellenes thrust the emperor directly into the company of the gods on their coins. Imperial medalists during the early third century were seldom so bold as to place the Roman emperor in the actual presence of the gods; instead, the divine figures on imperial medallions and

| coins were styled the emperor’s comes, or comrade, thus implying some sort of partnership.”° It is perhaps significant that when Valerian opened an imperial mint at Cyzicus in Asia Minor, his artists, who must have included men of eastern origin trained in the

60 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS traditions of civic engraving, introduced to late Roman antoniniani what modern numismatists call ‘‘the two-figure type.’’ 7! This type shows the emperor and Jupiter (or

some other divine comrade) shaking hands or exchanging symbolic objects such as

orbs and wreaths in a manner similar to the exchanges found on local bronze coins. The two-figure type, although it spread to western imperial mints, remained the hallmark of antoniniani struck at Asiatic and Balkan mints. It seems more than probable that this Hellenic interpretation of the emperor and the god presented on later civic bronze coins contributed directly to the political iconography and ideology of the late Roman state. The ceremonies welcoming an arriving emperor and his pilgrimage and sacrifice at major shrines were important rituals, premised not only upon the piety of the Roman

emperor, but also, as the coins make clear, upon the political fiction of equality between emperor and Greek city. Yet every emperor visiting the East since Augustus had also cemented the bonds of political affection with a judicious display of patronage to both Greek cities and shrines. Prior to the late second century, Greek notables did not employ their coinage to reflect the generosity (liberalitas) of philhellene emperors who styled themselves heirs of Alexander the Great and patrons of cities. Throughout the imperial age inscriptions, such as the dedication the Thyatrians raised at Athens in thanks to Hadrian, recorded civic thanksgiving and listed the gracious gifts and endowments of munificient emperors.’* During the time of the Principate, however, few local coins name emperors ‘‘benefactor,’”’ ‘‘founder,”’ ‘“‘philhellene,”’ or ‘‘the blessed Augustus’’— the epithets found in epigraphic dedications that exalted the emperor so that he could be easily identified as the successor to earlier Hellenistic kings or, to the more learned, as the beneficent World Soul of Plato.”* Greek engravers did not adopt from imperial art and coinage the common scenes commemorating the emperor’s largesse (liberalitas) when he appeared before the Roman people to distribute money and gifts.’”* Instead, civic coins from the last quarter of the second century carried iconography more relevant to Greek conceptions of the Roman emperor’s patronage. The construction, restoration, or endowment of temples and altars of the gods were showered as gifts (doreai) on Greek cities by Roman emperors. Local coins in the East had always carried representations of temples, but during its last century civic coinage _ Saw a Major rise in the use of religious buildings as coin types (pl. 27.4-6).”* Though the popularity of temples on coins sprang in part from civic pride, these coins were

more often struck in commemoration of imperial patronage. Pergamum certainly struck depictions of her principal temples to honor Caracalla’s grant of a third neocorate and the repairs of the Asclepieion and the temples to the deified Augustus and Trajan. The three temples appear on the coins, each carefully identified with its name inscribed in the pediment and with the cult statues visible (pl. 24.6).7° At the Same time Smyrna, Pergamum’s great rival, minted coins to advertise Caracalla’s visit and patronage of her three major temples (pl. 27.4).77 Coins at anumber of Greek cities in Asia Minor and the Levant present us with a firm picture of Roman emperors between Commodus and Gallienus promoting a high profile as patrons of shrines. The city of Aegeae in Cilicia, which on her coins depicted the emperors Severus Alexander and Valerian at sacrifice before her Asclepieion, assimilated the two emperors to the healing god. On the reverse each emperor is robed and bears the serpent-staff of Asclepius, and the obverse portrait ofeachemperorisalso equipped with the serpent-staff (pl. 25.8). The obverse inscription on the coins of

The Roman Emperor and the City Gods 61 Severus Alexander leaves no doubt that they honor an act of imperial patronage: “Imperator Severus Alexander the architect of the newly repaired temple of Asclepius.”’ 78

Out of a mixture of sincere piety and calculated politics, Roman emperors lavished their patronage upon temples because they were the dwellings of the gods and their

, proper upkeep was a perpetual human concern.” If the gods were denied decorous residences, the prayers offered during sacrifice fell upon deaf ears. The emperor Augustus considered his restoration of eighty-two temples in the city of Rome one of his greatest accomplishments.®° Over 350 years later the emperor Julian the Apostate lamented the decay of the temples of the gods, which his Christian uncle Constantine had so methodically despoiled and closed. Christians pointed to ruined temples as proof

of the falsity of the pagan gods; Julian in turn ordered ‘the temples to be opened, victims brought to the altars, and the worship of the gods restored.” 8! For Julian knew that only when smoke carried the scent of savory burnt offerings up to heaven from the altars before their richly ornamented earthly residences did the gods listen to human

supplication.

In manifesting himself as the protector of shrines, the Roman emperor entered the heavenly company, and later local coins stressed this aspect of imperial sanctity. Ever since Augustus had permitted the Pergamenes to consecrate a temple to Roma and the divine Julius Caesar, cities and koina had struck coins depicting imperial cult temples.

From the late second century on, local coins increasingly specified the number of imperial grants of neokoros (‘‘temple warden’) as a regular part of the city’s ethnic (pl. 7.2).84 Cities keenly competed for the coveted rank of neokoros and the right to dedicate a temple to the divinity of the living emperor (pl. 27.4-—6). Pergamene coins boast of their third neocorate, granted by Caracalla in 214 (pl. 24.6). One of the three temples shown on the coins was the Asclepieion, which was rebuilt and received the neocorate cult to the emperor.®* Down to the reign of Gallienus, Pergamene coins continue to include this scene of the three temples. In the reign of Elagabalus, Ephesus, first city of

Asia, struck coins celebrating her extraordinary privilege in having four neocorate temples. Coins show the four temples together, and the legend records that ‘‘these temples were dedicated by the resolution of the Senate” (pl. 27.6).8* Laodicea, with pretenses to being the metropolis of Phrygia, obtained a second neocorate temple from Elagabalus and concurrently struck an issue with a similar legend and a picture of her two temples.® The spirit of the pious emperor was considered to reside within his temples as ‘‘the all-seeing god,’’ and often he was conceived of as an avatar of HeliosApollo, whose penetrating sunlight disclosed all truth in the universe.®* This ancient solar imagery associated with the enshrined cult images of emperors was expressed on

Ephesian coins celebrating the city’s third neocorate grant in 208/9. The brothers Caracalla and Geta are styled on the coins as the ‘‘new suns’’ (neoi Heliot).®’ At several cities in Cilicia and northern Syria, some local coins in the third century

record more tangible benefits received from emperors. The Greek cities dotting the well-watered Cilician coastal plain and the Greek and Phoenician centers clinging to the narrow Levantine littoral were points of concentration for the massive manpower and matériel of the eastern Roman army. As ports of call for the imperial fleet, the cities became hubs of frenetic activity to supply Roman soldiers in wartime, and too often the needs of imperial logistics disrupted local economic life. The city of Tarsus minted bronze coins that express deeply-felt thanks for donations of grain by Caracalla and

62 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS Severus Alexander to relieve food shortages created by the quartering of Roman forces in the city. Bronze coins of both emperors show cargo ships carrying grain (pl. 27.1); on silver didrachmae of Caracalla, Triptolemus, son of Persephone, drives his dragon biga bringing what is called ‘‘the gifts of grain from Egypt granted to Tarsus.’’ §* Imperial

grants of foodstuffs to hard-pressed cities, well attested in the documentary records, were sound acts of policy. Roman colonies at Laodicea ad Mare and Sidon in the Severan age also minted coins that proclaimed such donations imperial ‘‘generosity’’ and ‘’eternal benefits”’ (pl. 27.2).8? A benefit just as practical, but more lasting — the construction of roads and bridges— was also sometimes celebrated on civic coins. During his first Persian expedition the emperor Valerian rebuilt the road system in Cilicia and constructed a permanent bridge spanning the river Pyramus. Aegeae and Mopsus, the two chief beneficiaries of this piece of imperial largesse, each struck coins dated to 255/6 that illustrate the bridge, designated a gift (dorea), and the turbulent waters of the Pyramus (pl. 27.3).7°

In the late second and third centuries, as more emperors visited and patronized Hellenic shrines and cities, the emperor’s role as benefactor of mankind and designate of the gods grew. The emperor’s name, as much as his imago, was venerated as sacred,

and civic coins and inscriptions evince the common practice of incorporating the emperor’s cognomen into the official title of a city. In the early Principate, this practice often commemorated an imperial act of generosity, as when the Lydian town Tralles assumed the additional name of Caesarea in gratitude for Augustus’s relief to victims of an earthquake.”! In the Severan age many cities — particularly those in Cilicia and Roman Mesopotamia, areas directly menaced by the growing Iranian threat — revived obsolete imperial appellations such as Hadriane or devised new titles from the names of current emperors.?* Aegeae and Tarsus preserve on their coins remarkably complete lists of such dynastic ethnics. Other cities briefly enshrined the names of ephemeral emperors who never set foot in the East.”?

It is quite likely that civic officials at times adopted the imperial name out of opportunism. Aegeae, which proclaimed herself the ‘faithful city of Macrinus,”’ secured privileges from that emperor, who, as the former praetorian prefect and the assassin of Caracalla, had good cause to bolster his reputation in the face of the machinations of Julia Maesa and the Severan sympathies of the eastern legions.”* After

a reign of fourteen months, Macrinus was decisively defeated by the forces of the newest scion of the Severan house, Elagabalus, and took refuge in Aegeae, from whence he tried to flee westward.?? With undignified alacrity Aegeae dropped all references to Macrinus and revived on her coins the older Severiane and Antonineiane. However ignoble the motives of the Aegeaean council, Macrinus, in defeat, had forfeited his claims to divine favor and legitimacy, and the Aegeaeans no longer regarded

his name as a talisman.*° More often, cities adopted imperial names in the third century not so much to announce tangible benefits or even imperial visits as to stress the legitimacy and divine sanction of the emperor.?’ The aura of the imperial name drew polis and patron emperor together. We have discussed this diverse body of civic coins as if we were retracing the steps of a Roman emperor of the third century as he moved from one ceremony to the next. His

advent in a Greek city, a theme so popular on coins, prompted the first act of the celebrations that admitted him into the presence of the gods. The initial ceremonious meeting of emperor and subjects moved in a crescendo from the welcoming oration to

The Roman Emperor and the City Gods 63 the emperor’s sacrifice before the gods’ altars; to the jubilant excitement of the provincials on hearing the expected announcement of imperial gifts; to the complimentary

honors, rites, and, above all, festivals rejoicing in the emperor’s health. The commencement of the festival and games in thanksgiving for the emperor’s epiphany marked the climax and conclusion of the emperor’s pilgrimage. The rhetor Menander catches the force of this emotional pitch when he advises the aspiring panegyrist to conclude his address, ‘‘Let theatres be opened, let us hold festivals, let us avow our gratitude to the emperors and to the gods.” 7° Festivals and their accompanying games were the most visible and magnificent displays of thanksgiving to a visiting emperor. They inspired the themes of a major portion of later local coinage, and it is to this coinage, which best exemplifies the complicated interaction of Roman emperor, civic gods, and Greek citizens, that we next turn. Games manifested the piety of the emperor and were the greatest gift he

could bestow upon a dutiful and faithful city. They were also one of the highest compliments a city could pay an emperor. In short, they were the means whereby the emperor and his Hellenic subjects celebrated their common beliefs.

Civic Thanksgiving: Festivals and Games During the century following the death of Marcus Aurelius, most of the five hundred municipal mints of the Roman East struck coins with what are called ‘‘agonistic”’ inscriptions and designs (pl. 27.7-9; pl. 28.1-—8; and pl. 29.1-—11). These coins carry representations of athletes, prizes, and deities relevant to sacred festivals and competitions, and, ina number of instances, name specific festivals.’ The diffusion of agonistic types and legends, especially among cities of Asia Minor, more than matched the speed and extent with which the adventus and scenes of imperial piety achieved popularity on local coins. In the reigns of Commodus (180-92) and Septimius Severus (193-211), Greek artists, possessing few precedents among Roman imperial medallions and coins, quickly articulated a repertoire of regular types and legends to commemorate civic festivals and games. The sudden emergence of this agonistic coinage is a tribute to the

artistic creativity of provincial engravers and to the efficiency of the network of workshops described by Konrad Kraft. Most Greek cities between 180 and 275 struck at least a few major issues of agonistic coinage; at some cities, such as the Phrygian cult center of Hierapolis, festival coinage constituted a major proportion of the home currency (pl. 29.5).'°° The coins carry inscriptions that announce the splendor and ranks of festivals, often quite verbosely, especially if games were elevated by imperial grant to the coveted class of sacred competitions (pl. 28.1). Such festivals and games are called “‘sacred,”’ ‘‘iselastic’’ (referring to the right of victors to return to their native cities through a breach in the walls), or ‘‘ecumenical”’ (announcing unrestricted accessibility to Hellenic competitors). Even many lesser contests that were not ennobled with sacred status are recorded on later civic coins. These less distinguished contests were sometimes dubbed ‘‘remunerative games” (agones themikoi) because the only rewards were bags of money (to thema) and the victors did not, in contrast to the winners of sacred contests, obtain special public honors, privileges, exemptions, and admission into the Athletic Guild.'°! Cities on the Pamphylian and Cilician shores minted some coins naming certain such ‘‘remunera-

64 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS tive’ festivals (pl. 28.7-—8).!°? Scores of cities in the Asiatic provinces stamped their coins with standard decorations of athletes (pl. 28.6-—8), patron gods of the games (pl. 29.1-—2), the judges’ sortition urns (pl. 29.9), or agonistic tables decked out with

different awards: money purses, laurel wreaths, apples, prize crowns, and palm branches (pl. 27.9; pl. 28.2-4; pl. 29.9). At several cities of western Asia Minor, panegyrarchai and agonothetai who supervised the games even added their names as eponyms.'!%

Greek cities had always prided themselves upon the magnificence of their festivals and games.!°* The dances, dramatic performances, poetic recitals, and athletic events were honors grateful magistrates and populace paid to their gods in thanksgiving for the prosperity of their polis. Plato had reasoned that such festivals were blessings from the gods and that men had created the polis so that they could devote their leisure to celebration of festivals to the gods.'®? Aelius Aristides paid Rome the highest compliment when he commended her peace for permitting a perpetual holiday of the gods throughout the cities of the civilized world.'°° The almost complete absence during the two centuries preceding the Severan age of references on coins to civic festivals and games is not easily understood. The varieties of artistic styles and the numbers of local types found on provincial and civic coinages had soared by the reign of Hadrian, and the wars of the late Antonine age stimulated cities to adopt more iconography concerned with the emperor. Even though long an essential part of Hellenic urban life, festivals and games did not, however, become acommon feature of local coinages until almost the Severan age. The subsequent stress on civic coins did not result from a sudden increase in the number or frequency of festivals, and, given the present state of our evidence, it is not even clear that emperors of the third century —in contrast to earlier emperors, who had hesitated to cheapen the Pythia and Olympia— granted many more requests by cities to raise their games to sacred status.!°”? What is certain is that, in a century regarded as inflationary, civic governments— which might have been expected, in the face of rising costs, to reduce the schedule of festivals — sponsored such events with all the display of their forefathers. Proper devotion to the gods was so tightly interwoven in the political fabric of the polis that Greek notables continued even after 180 to sponsor more expensive and impressive sacred games and festivals. The epigraphic evidence at Aphrodisias from the first half of the third century reveals an aristocracy more than willing to fund the city’s expensive cycle of holidays. Even more telling is the voluminous epigraphic record from the shrines of Zeus Panamaros and Hecate Soteria of Lagina that reveals how the nobility of Stratonicea expanded facilities to house and feed the crowds, as well as how it generously augmented the number and cost of processions, cult objects, and contests. 108

Even if Greek notables became more passionately aware of the need to maintain civic games in emulation of their more solvent forefathers, such new awareness does not explain why they failed to employ their coins earlier as a means to emphasize these festivals and games. Between the Flavian and Antonine ages Greek aristocrats poured

out their philanthropy and wealth upon improving the architecture, constitutional trappings, social amenities, and certainly the religious rites and games of their poleis. As

comments in literary sources indicate, they were also aware that festivals increased local business and the demand for token bronze currency when Roman dignitaries, . pilgrims, and peasants flocked to the marketplace.'°? During the late Hellenistic and

The Roman Emperor and the City Gods 65 early imperial period, Greek cities issued much of their currency in anticipation of a rise in demand during festivities,!!° but few cities employed their coins as a medium to commemorate these festivals and games. For example, the aristocratic lady Julia Severa and her son Servenius Capito, citizens of the Phrygian city of Acmoneia, which lay on the highway connecting Philadelphia and Dorylaeum, dedicated an imposing complex of monuments and porticoes by holding games in honor of the emperor Nero.??! Coins struck for this festival bear their names, but the designs are routine, with

no reference to the games. “ In contrast, major festivals in the third century received considerable advertisement

on local coinage. This change in practice from the earlier Principate suggests that perhaps civic coins were put to new uses—the publicizing of major festivals and games — because these events were also subtly being put to new uses. By the eve of the

third century, the emperor, even if he were unable to visit each Hellenic city that minted a festival coinage, made his presence felt much more among his eastern subjects. To be sure, each city operated according to her own religious calendar and some agonistic coinage was struck without any reference to the advent of an emperor. It is, however, more than coincidence that the great majority of agonistic coinages not only appeared at the time when local coins began to celebrate imperial advents, piety, and patronage, but also that many agonistic issues were indisputedly struck during the great eastern campaigns. Important civic festivals either coincided with, or were rescheduled to coincide with, the arrival of emperors, and the resulting agonistic coinages are a record of thanksgiving and hopes for imperial success. Fortunately, surviving epigraphic dedications at several cities in Asia Minor confirm the impression given by the assorted coinages. The city of Side, which occupied a strategic point along the southern highway of Asia Minor and possessed a fine port, minted an extensive series of agonistic coinages coinciding with the arrivals of emperors on campaign between the reigns of Gordian III and Valerian. When Gordian III arrived in 242 to take the field against the Persians, Side loyally contributed to the provisioning of his expeditionary forces. Even though the emperor’s father-in-law and praetorian prefect Timesitheus eased the burden on many cities, these contributions must have strained the city’s resources.'}? In return, Gordian III granted isopythian (i.e., equal in rank to the Pythian Games) status to Side’s native festival to Apollo and Artemis, and Side minted an array of agonistic coins that proclaimed the ‘‘imperial gifts of sacred games.” ‘1? Side’s ‘first Pythia,”’ on the basis of

two epigraphic dedications, were celebrated in 242/3 as ‘‘the sacred, ecumenical, Gordianeian Antoneinian isopythian games to Apollo.” !'* Some of the later coinages for this festival coincided with the presence of Philip I or Valerian in the East. Other issues can be associated with a recently uncovered altar, a bema (or platform) decorated with agonistic themes, and an honorary inscription to local magistrates presiding over the third Pythia in 250/1. On the basis of the evidence offered on coins, Valerian gave the city a second, special ‘‘mystical’’ games (pl. 27.9).1?? The particularly well documented case of Side is paralleled at many other cities in the third century. Cremna, a Roman colony in the Pisidian highlands to the north of : Side, struck coins that publicized a grant of sacred games from the emperor Aurelian in 272/3 (pl. 27.7).!'© In central Anatolia, the renowned shrine of Asclepius at Ancyra received a visit from the incurable Caracalla during his march eastward in 214-15. Numerous bronze coins that honor the isopythian Asclepeian games and a public

66 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS dedication to the presiding agonothetes indicate Caracalla must have rewarded this loyal

city with sacred games (pl. 28.6).'!” The best visual demonstration of a connection between civic games and the imperial presence during the third century survives from the city of Thyatira in central Lydia. Thyatira, an ardent and well-rewarded Severan city, struck coins showing Elagabalus shaking hands over a lit altar with the native god Apollo Tyrimnaeus (pl. 27.8). In an otherwise standard scene, a prize crown and the inscription Pythia in the upper field of the coins indicate that they celebrate both a visit and a grant of sacred games.'!® Elagabalus had probably assented to a request of the Thyatirans for sacred games very similar in language to the petition to him preserved on a stone from Tralles, in the Maeander valley.!!? The anticipated arrival of Roman emperors on campaign spurred Greek magistrates

to conduct their traditional festivals on a grand scale. Many games became more closely associated with the imperial house. Nicene bronze coins celebrate the Philadelphian games of 208/9 to honor the fraternity of Caracalla and Geta. The busts of the

two young Augusti are displayed among rewards and sortition jars on an agonistic table (pl. 12.2), and some of the coins proclaim ‘‘on behalf of our eternal lords.’’ !7° Other cities, notably Tarsus, also inscribed agonistic issues with similar inscriptions, which were probably customary invocations to open festivals.!} Severan coins from the two leading, and hence rival, cities of Tarsus and Anazarbus in Cilicia show how closely intertwined festivals became with civic politics and loyalty to Rome. Tarsus, which claimed primacy over the three “‘provinces”’ of Cilicia, Isauria, and Lycaonia, minted coins advertising games held by this regional league throughout the third century. The importance Tarsus attached to the presidency of these games is

seen in reverse types that show the seated tyche of the city enthroned in the presence of personifications of the three provinces (pl. 29.3; cf. pl. 29.4).!?2 The goddess Cilicia, in particular, humbly offers Tarsus the crown of the Ciliciarch, the symbol of office for the head of the league. The emperors Commodus, Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Severus Alexander are all presented on the obverse of Tarsan coins, dressed in the robes of the civic official known as the demiourgos, who presided over the assorted league games (pl. 19.3).!?? For Commodus and Septimius Severus, the council and assembly of Tarsus

| probably voted an honorary demiourgia, but Caracalla’s coins are dated to 214/5, the year of his sojourn in the city, from whence he directed preparations for his Parthian | war. He more than likely presided over the games held in his honor and advertised on the coins of Tarsus. Base silver didrachmae even show the personified goddess Demiourgia crowning Caracalla as he takes office.!** For unclear reasons the emperor Elagabalus favored the claims of Anazarbus to primacy over the three provinces. The coins of that city, dated to 221/2, portray the obverse bust of Elagabalus dressed in the robes of the demiourgos, and the reverse types suggest that the presidency over the league’s games had been transferred from Tarsus _ to Anazarbus.'?? Anazarbus’s primacy and presidency over the games did not long survive the death of Elagabalus. En route to his Persian war in 232, Severus Alexander must have returned the care of the league games to Tarsus and presided over their celebration in that year. Tarsan coins show him dressed in the robes of the demiourgos and proclaim her usual agonistic types.1*° Though municipal authorities focused at least some of the powerful emotional and

religious forces of their civic celebrations upon loyalty to the Roman emperor on the | bronze coins of the third century, the festivals and games remained primarily civic

The Roman Emperor and the City Gods 67 events, intimately bound up with the social and religious life of each polis. From a practical viewpoint, the ruling classes viewed games as a means to placate an unemployed urban populace all too prone to riot. The majority of spectators, it was hoped, escaped their drab existence when they cheered or jeered their favorite champions. Such vicarious experiences provided a much-needed safety valve for dissipating the resentment and discontent of the urban mob.!?’ All members of the polis, from the most illustrious to the lowliest, also viewed the athletic victor as the epitome of their city’s virtues. Since Rome had prohibited interstate warfare, hitherto-the means for young men honorably to display their patriotism, impressive games became the best instrument for a city to humble her ancient rivals and the neighboring cities. So keenly did various Classes follow the competitions that on more than a few occasions tempers flared and disputes among factions of different cities erupted into riots. Tacitus records that the emperor Nero had to close the theater of Pompeii in punishment for bloody disorders between the residents and visitors from Nuceria during gladitorial combats in 59.128 Even so, despite the various reasons in the third century for continuing to hold traditional festivals and games, local coins indicate by the Severan age that some of the more important ones were more overtly linked with hopes for the success and stability of the imperial house. Epinician, or “‘victory,’’ games perpetuated on local coins the memory of specific imperial successes. Septimius Severus and Caracalla sent a courteous response to the council, magistrates, and people of Aezanis in Asia Minor, thanking them for their spontaneous rejoicing. I learned most clearly from the decree of your assembly about the delight you expressed for the propitious events of both the accession of my son M. Aurelius Antoninus, with the blessed favor of the hopes of the empire, and for his association in imperial power with [me] his father. You men of Aezanis inasmuch as you instituted a public festival and sacrificed to the gods most pleasing offerings, were a city both celebrated and, from of old, invaluable to the Roman empire. Inasmuch as I also perceived as proof of these propitious events the victory which arrived along with your decree, I sent you this letter in the presence of your native gods.}2°

The citizens of Aezanis probably held a festival to commemorate the victories of Septimius Severus over his rivals Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus and also to celebrate the promotion of Caracalla. At the same time the council of Tarsus featured on her coins festivities of ‘‘the Severan Epinician Games held on the borders of Cilicia,” which were celebrated on the site where Septimius Severus had crushed the army of Pescennius Niger in 194 after forcing the passes of the Taurus Mountains.}3° Success over the barbarian foe had, even during the earlier days of the Principate, occasioned many festivals among the cities of the Roman East. Laodicea-on-the-Lycus constructed a temple to Zeus, instituted epinician games and struck appropriate coins to commemorate Domitian’s successes over the Germans and Dacians.}3! Local coin-

age suggests that the consciousness of ruling classes in eastern cities concerning the

| connection between imperial victory and divine favor was sharpened by the Parthian War of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. The Aphrodisians, through the generosity of a leading citizen, struck coins for the epinician celebrations of this war.!32 The Aphrodisians also dedicated public holidays to Septimius Severus and Caracalla after the sack

68 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS of the Parthian capital of Ctesiphon.!?*? The town of Anazarbus on the Cilician plain, discussed earlier, constructed a Roman triumphal arch, instituted games, and assumed the epithet ‘‘triumph-bearer of the Romans”’ to mark Macrinus’s favorable conclusion of his Parthian War.!74 Many cities responded to the news of imperial victories by holding festivals and industriously striking commemorative coins; many more held such festivities in anticipation of military successes just after the emperor had crossed over from Europe. Celebrations held in expectation of victories and in hope of dynastic legitimacy are best illustrated by the imperial additions to the original great cycle of Panhellenic games of the Pythia, Olympia, Nemea, and Isthmia. In 31 B.c. Octavian, the future emperor Augustus, had founded the city of Nicopolis and reorganized the local annual games to Actian Apollo to celebrate his victory at Actium over Antony and Cleopatra.!3> The city of Nicopolis which occupied the site of Octavian’s camp, celebrated pentaeteric Actian games modeled after, and equal in prestige to, the national Hellenic games. Nicopolis for three centuries duly minted a series of agonistic coinages.'*° The later emperors Nero, Domitian, Gordian III, and Aurelian followed Octavian’s exam-

ple, adding new national Hellenic games to perpetuate the memory of important dynastic or military events.!*” In the early Severan age emperors began to extend to particularly loyal Greek cities the privilege of such games as the Aktia and the Capitolinia, the latter instituted to honor the German victories of Domitian. Prized games such as these were held in anticipation of the emperor’s success in war and in thanksgiving to the most prominent tutelary deity of the city. The city of Perinthus, on the European shores of the Propontis, fervently espoused

the Severan cause during the civil war of 193-95 and Septimius Severus richly rewarded the city./7® In 207 Perinthus — already loaded with new privileges, dynastic

festivals, and an imperial cult temple— was the first city permitted to elevate her isopythian games of Apollo to Actian status. During the next half-century, Perinthus coined beautiful large denominations depicting temples of the imperial cult and agonistic scenes advertising the city’s celebration of the Aktia, the Pythia, and the Philadelphia (pl. 29.2).17? Caracalla granted Aktia to two other major eastern cities, which he undoubtedly visited, Sardes in Asia Minor and Tyre in Phoenicia. In anticipation of Caracalla’s victories, each of the cities coined its first series of coins announcing its own Aktia, which in each case was assimilated into local festivities.!*° Caracalla probably regarded the Tyrians, who had promptly and bravely adhered to Septimius Severus in 193, as especially deserving of the magnificent Aktia.'*! Cities most conspicuous in their loyalty obtained the coveted games; conversely, through disloyalty and disgrace, cities forfeited the right to Aktia. Tyre was stripped of both its colonial rank and its

Actian games after it had committed the unpardonable blunder of supporting an abortive coup against the emperor Elagabalus. During 220-21 Tyre held, and honored on its coins, the lesser Olympia Heraclea rather than the more illustrious Actia Heraclea.'44 When Severus Alexander restored the city to its former standing, the Actian games once more returned to the city’s coinage. Some Actian festivals were also granted because of an emperor’s personal attachment to a local deity. The depraved boy-emperor Elagabalus, who is best remembered among Latin and Greek authors for his fanatical worship of the Emesan Helios, accorded Actian games to Hierapolis, located in the Lycus Valley, which housed an

The Roman Emperor and the City Gods 69 ancient shrine to the Phrygian solar god Lairbenus, thinly Hellenized as Apollo.'*? Elagabalus probably regarded the Phrygian Apollo Lairbenus as but another manifestation of his personal sun deity. In memory of the emperor’s patronage of their sun god, the Heliopolitans, when they celebrated their Pythia Letoneia in 221, struck coins for both the Pythia and the Aktia (pl. 29.5). The emperor Philip I, ‘‘the Arab,’”’ similarly honored Bostra, the capital of his native province, Arabia Petraea, and Dusares, the national god of the Nabataens, who was identified with Dionysus. Bostra struck a series of coins for Philip, and for his successor Trajan Decius, depicting the sacred baety]l (meteoric stone) of Dusares and proclaiming his Aktia Dusaria.'** In both instances, Elagabalus and Philip I were professing genuine personal devotion to a favorite god by honoring that god’s major city with privileged games. Other grants of Actian games and the related Capitoline celebrations in the midthird century indicate a direct link between city festivals and hopes for victory over the Sassanian Persians. The youthful Gordian III, whose courteous nature and possible

eastern ancestry gained him wide popularity in the Roman Orient, took the field against the Persian Shah Shapur in 242.'*? In northeastern Asia Minor, the metropolis Neocaesarea initiated a substantial coinage dated to that year advertising Actian games (pl. 29.6).'4° These celebrations probably honored the adventus of Gordian III and his wife Tranquillina and expressed the city’s hopes for victory over the Persians. Neocaesarea then ceased to mint festival coinage until the years 255/56 and 259/60, when she apparently broke from a strict pentaeteric cycle and rescheduled her Actian festivities to honor the arrivals of the emperor Valerian during his two Persian campaigns. '*’ The city of Aphrodisias also coined issues celebrating her local variant of the Capitoline

Games for both Gordian III and Gallienus, and Ancyra, Tarsus (pl. 29.7), and the Roman colony in Syria Heliopolis (pl. 29.8) all struck coins listing combinations of Actian, Capitoline, and other games to honor Valerian’s expeditions. '*° From the last quarter of the second century, numerous Greek cities also linked local festivities to dynastic celebrations in honor of the current imperial house. Several major centers in Asia Minor— Nicaea, Miletus, and Tarsus — initiated the first such coinages, celebrating games with dynastic names dedicated to the health of Commodus.!*? Septimius Severus encouraged cities to revive their Komodeia after he retroactively adopted himself into the family of his ‘‘divine brother’’ Commodus (pl. 28.4).!°° In the Severan age, references to the Severan, Antonineian, and even the Philadelphian games, which promoted the fraternal harmony of Caracalla and Geta, appeared on the coins of a number of cities (pl. 12.2).!°! More general games —the Sebasteia, Augousteia, Kaisareia, and Adrianeia—were also popular. The rhetor Menander implies that such agonistic festivals were so common in his own day that the format of orations opening these celebrations was familiar to his readers.!*? Festivals for the later emperors — Gordian III, Valerian, and Gallienus, and even the short-lived Tacitus — are commemorated on civic coins.'*? Civic coins also indicate that the Roman emperor extended the privileges of Olympian or Pythian status to a wide number of festivals in the Asiatic provinces (pl. 29.1, 9-10). Cities that obtained Pythian status, such as Thyatira, entered a charmed elite of Hellenic poleis. They could add more diverse competitions and thus attract more renowned competitors, larger audiences, and, with them, more business.!** Whatever the benefits of entertainment or financial profits from sacred games, the urban popu-

70 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS lace saw, most of all, that their city’s cults and political traditions were ennobled by imperial grants of sacred status. By such grants the emperor paid the highest compliment to the native gods, while rival neighboring cities were impressed and shamed. Cities thus proudly struck coins advertising fabulous combinations of local, dynastic, and sacred games. By the mid—third century Tarsus celebrated not only Actian games: her coins boasted of the Severan Olympian Hadrianic Caesarian Actian games (pl. 29.7). Nicene coins announced such combinations as the Valerianian Gallienic - Severan Dionysian Augustan games.!°? Even when their festivals had not attained any special rank, many cities commissioned major coinages to celebrate festivities that were most likely held in honor of an emperor who was preparing to take the field against the Persians. For example, Valerian’s second Persian expedition inspired the cities in the Maeander Valley to strike coins announcing their native festivals: the Theogamia at Nysa, the Enmonidea at Magnesia, and the Didymeia at Miletus.!*° Many other cities during this century struck coins celebrating festivities and athletic competitions without reference to specific deities or emperors, although these issues also probably alluded to games held in connection with imperial visits and victories. With their festivals cities concluded their religious ceremonies commemorating the arrival or return of a victorious Roman emperor. The formal greeting of the adventus, the sacrificial rites, and the festivals all sanctified and legitimized the Roman emperor

in terms comprehensible to his Hellenic subjects. Though it was a major theme throughout these rituals and on the local coinage, the piety of the emperor toward the local gods was not the prime emotional force. These coins and ceremonies upheld the religious symbols of the polis and its autonomy rather than the universal majesty of the Roman emperor.!*’ Even in the stylized depictions of the advent and sacrifice, civic coins stressed the concord (and only at times, the equality) between the emperor and tutelary god. For these gods were neither the state gods of Rome nor personifications of imperial virtues; they remained above all the gods of the Greek cities — they had to be propitiated before they would greet and approve of the Roman emperor. Devotion to _ these deities and respect for the autonomy of Hellenic cities were mystically united; for the cities after all housed the earthly abodes of the gods. Throughout the late second and third centuries, the iconography of this profuse local coinage exalted the piety, pride, and political integrity of the polis. Local coinage furthermore suggests that in an age of political crisis the Roman emperor earned his awesome sovereignty, at least in the East, largely through pious actions that generated consent to his rule among his Greek subjects and their gods.

7 Images of Rome and the Polis

es Say)

, a eh eS

TANS ate FNS

Ass local coins of the late second and third centuries document, the Parthian and Persian wars focused the attention of Hellenic provincial notables upon the martial prowess and piety of the Roman emperor. Yet, it is easy to exaggerate the importance of the emperor in the political attitudes of this ruling class. The humble civic bronze coins also reflect other changing views toward both Rome and the native polis. Political and religious symbols long associated with the goddess Roma, the Roman Senate, and the

Roman people proliferated on local coins from the Antonine age to the late third century. Though these coin types were in a number of cases efforts by Roman colonies to recall their identity, a large number of Hellenic cities, especially in Asia Minor, also adopted this iconography. The choice of these designs sprang from a sense of Romanitas

that went deeper than just personal loyalty to the emperor. Even more widespread were the themes and symbols on civic coins from both Roman colonies and Greek cities that were directly inspired by the ancient virtues of patriotism and selfless service to one’s native city. Thus, two different concepts — Romanitas and devotion to polis — are expressed on later local coinage. During the second century, many Greek literati had neatly reconciled the apparent contradiction of Roman rule and local civic autonomy.' Public dedications and bronze coins of the late second and third centuries attest to the growth and persistence of the dual political loyalties of the Greek notables. The local worthy Typhron expressed such

loyalties when he dedicated baths he donated to his fellow citizens of the Phrygian town of Tacina: On behalf of the salvation and victory and eternal spirit of the greatest and invincible emperors L. Septimius Severus and M. Aurelius Antoninus, and the New Hera Julia Domna and P. Septimius Geta, and of the entire house of the Caesars and of the Sacred Roman Senate, and the Roman people, in the proconsulship of the most illustrious Tarius Titianus, Tryphon son of Apollonides . . . donated the bath to the sweetest of homelands, to the populace of the Tacineans.?

For Typhron of Tacina, the imperial family, the Senate, and the vague ‘‘Roman people”’ were worthy of the same respect he paid the political bodies and gods of his own city. Local coinage is a major guide to how this sense of dual patriotism, which had emerged in the literature of the Flavian and Trajanic periods, acquired greater impetus in the political and military crisis following the death of Marcus Aurelius. 71

72 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS Most cities minted issues that expressed devotion to the institutions and values honored in Typhron’s dedication. It should be noted that cities often struck a series of coins with reverse types expressing both wider Roman and specifically local political and religious sentiments. In Asia Minor one obverse die was frequently combined with a number of reverse dies that conveyed a rich mixture of Roman and civic appeals. For example, the city of Hierapolis, the major shrine to the Phrygian solar deity Lairbenus in southwestern Asia Minor, struck an extensive series of coins commemorating the Aktia-Pythia games of 221.7 The council, magistrates, and assembly of Hierapolis affirmed their dual loyalties by striking coins bearing the portraits of persons honored by the celebrations — the emperor Elagabalus, his newest consort Annia Faustina, his

mother Julia Soaemias, his grandmother Julia Maesa, and his cousin and heir, the caesar Severus Alexander — as well as the personified Roman Senate and Hierapolitan

demos, and the patron gods Apollo Lairbenus and Zeus Troius. In addition to the customary agonistic themes, the reverses of these Hierapolitan coins included depictions of Roma Nikephoros and the twins Romulus and Remus suckled by the Capitoline wolf. Although the two related political themes of Roman patriotism and devotion to the traditional values of the polis often emerged together on the coins of cities throughout the Roman East, they are best treated separately.

Images of Rome From the late Antonine age, the number of local coins that concentrated upon the divinities, traditions, and institutions of Rome increased markedly. Such mintings were new expressions of significant changes in attitude already evident in the late first century. By the opening of the second century, a growing number of Hellenic intellectuals proclaimed that Rome had swept away the old distinction between Hellenes and barbarians, replacing it with the new classifications of Roman and non-Roman.* Rome came to be regarded as the supreme polis presiding over the community (oikoumene) of civilized poleis. The writings of the literati and the more formulaic praise of public decrees alike hail Rome with a plethora of titles such as ‘‘the imperial polis,’’ ‘‘the blessed polis,’ and ‘‘the metropolis of the cosmos and the earth.” ° Aelius Aristides even transferred the ancient image of Delphi as the ‘‘navel’’ (omphalos) of the world to the imperial capital when he burst into an enthusiastic description of Rome as “at the navel of the empire.’’ © Rome’s gods, her laws, and her political institutions, which governed the actions of her sons, had made her a worthy mistress of the civilized world to many Greek intellectuals ever since Polybius had first explained the Roman constitution to his countrymen. Before the Constitutio Antoniniana of 212 officially declared the entire civilized world ‘‘Roman,”’ Greeks were well on their way to reconciling civic patriotism with the imperial citizenship of Rome. The union of Roman imperial and Hellenic civic identities was achieved in various

ways. Foremost, Greek authors invoked the images of alliance, gratitude, and free association between their cities and Rome. Aelius Aristides lauded Smyrna’s steadfastly loyal disposition to Rome; Philostratus alluded to the ‘‘alliance from earliest times” of the Lycians with Rome; and in a decree of the second century the city of Cibyra, in southwestern Phrygia, prided itself on longstanding friendship to Rome.’

Images of Rome and the Polis 73 With a keen sense of historical perspective, Aelius Aristides cleverly explained that Rome was the hegemon of a confederation, or koinon, of Hellenic cities, and that she wore the mantle of the earlier hegemones of Greece — Sparta, Athens, and Thebes.® Notions of alliance and unity under the protective aegis of Rome steadily led to closer association of Roman with local identities. The Lycians, long familiar with the concept of ‘joint citizenship” (isopoliteia), which men held in their league’s cities, viewed the relationship with Rome as another form of this dual citizenship.’ In a sense, the Greeks were coining their own version of Romanitas, whereby they moved from being allies and confederates to being citizens of Rome. Throughout the Principate, the goddess Roma commonly appeared on many Civic coins. The introduction and spread of the cult of Roma among the cities of the East greatly assisted the growth of a Roman political consciousness among provincials. Since the second century B.C., the goddess Roma had been worshipped in the Greek world as the tyche of the eternal city on the Tiber, and the obverses of civic coins of the first century most often present her in this role.!° Roma is usually veiled and she wears the Greek peplos and turret crown headdress that are the common garb of all city tychai (pl. 30.1). By the reign of Hadrian, however, Roma fell out of favor as an obverse type. When she reappears on the obverses of city coins at the close of the second century, she assumes a more militant pose, wearing the Corinthian helmet and cuirass of the war goddess (pl. 30.2 -3). Often it is difficult to distinguish Roma from Athena or lesserknown bellicose sister goddesses who grace the obverses of many local coins. This image of the goddess as a militant Roma was not confined to obverse depictions, as both

Roman colonies and Greek cities adopted or revived reverse types of the militant warrior goddess. Roma in the guise of ‘the bearer of victory”’ (or Nikephoros) succeeded to the role and iconography of the earlier Athena Nikephoros, who had been the supernatural protector of so many Hellenistic monarchs. As the giver of victory, Roma became a frequent comes of the Roman emperor on imperial coins and medallions of the third century. Greek provincials repeated these perceptions of Roma on their coins. She stands upright and clad in armor complete with helmet, usually holding a small Nike brandishing a laurel wreath in her outstretched right hand, while her left hand holds spear and shield. Frequently Roma is seated similarly equipped upon a throne or trophy of arms (pl. 30.4-—5). These two standard depictions, stressing the martial prowess of Roma, were repeated on thousands of civic coins throughout the Asiatic provinces between the reigns of Commodus and Aurelian.

The Hellenic aristocracy, however, viewed the goddess Roma as more than the embodiment of the eternally victorious state. As early as the reign of Augustus, the cult of Roma was linked to the worship of the deified genii of emperors. Pergamum had raised the first joint temple to the goddess Roma and the deified Julius Caesar, and later Smyrna obtained permission from Tiberius to worship Roma and the deified Augustus

within the same shrine.'! During the reign of Caracalla, the great centers of the province of Asia, such as Pergamum (pl. 24.6) and Smyrna (pl. 27.4), minted commemorative coins depicting their temples of Roma and the deified emperors.!* The Roman colony of Philippopolis struck coins portraying Philip I and members of the imperial

family in the presence of Roma Nikephoros. These coins had a pronounced local impact, because the emperor Philip I had founded the colony on the site of his native

. 74. CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS village. These new colonists even honored the shade of Marinus, the posthumously deified father of Philip I, who is depicted on some coins officiating over sacrifices before Roma.??

During the second century Greek literati had come to identify the goddess Roma with a wider conception of Romania, embracing all civilized good men."* This broader perception of the goddess is well reflected on local coins. On coins of Cibyra, a Phrygian city located on the southern border of the proconsular province of Asia, the city tyche appears enthroned, shaking hands with Roma, who is seated upon a trophy of arms (pl. 30.6)./° During the reign of Gordian III, Nicene bronze coins showed the city tyche presenting the child Dionysus to a seated Roma.!® Later still, the Pamphylian city of Aspendus depicted her protective tyche and Rome shaking hands as allies and comrades (pl. 36.2).!” The shift to a wider concept of Roma also helps explain Greek interest in the foundation and origins of the Roman people. Greek cities of the Troad struck reverse

scenes — previously found only on the coins of Roman colonies—of the Roman progenitor Aeneas bearing his father Anchises upon his shoulder and holding his son Julus by the hand (pl. 30.14).!® The Phrygian town Otrus, whose citizens claimed origins from Otreus, one of Priam’s Phrygian allies, also included Aeneas on its coins, suggesting common ancestry with the Roman people (pl. 30.13).!? Often cities depicted the Capitoline she-wolf nursing the twins Romulus and Remus; by reviving this scene,

many Roman colonies asserted their Roman origin (pl. 30.12). Damascus, which received colonial rank under Philip I, struck coins depicting the motif of twins and wolf, with the standard of the founding legion, VI Ferrata, visible in the background.?° Even several Hellenic cities in Asia Minor, including Hierapolis, Philadelphia, and Tralles, adopted this unmistakably Roman scene as a design for their coins.?} Though the Senate and people of Rome, the sovereign political bodies of the Roman constitution, had commanded respect in the Greek world for several centuries before the onset of political crisis in the third century, it was not until the third century that local coinage gave widespread expression to this devotion. In the reign of Valerian, the Phrygian city of Synnada struck one of the few pictorial representations of the Roman people (demos Romaion) — a togate youth, identified as the genius of the Roman popu-

Jace, pours a libation from his patera (pl. 30.9).22 The Roman colony of Caesarea Maritima in Palestine minted coins honoring the political slogan S.P.Q.R. (Senatui Populoque Romano).*? Philomelium, a Greek town on the major Roman road across central Asia Minor, adopted this Latin abbreviation as the central device for her Greek-style coinage during the third century (pl. 30.7).2* More frequently, Roman colonies in the Levant and Asia Minor paid homage to the Roman Senate by including on coins such abbreviations as S(enatus) C(onsulto) or S(enatus) R(omanus) (pl. 30.8).?° Colonies in the Syrian and the Cilician provinces probably employed the S.C., which was long familiar from imperial aes, because their engravers were incapable of designing proper Latin coin legends.?° Thus, while their coins exhibited a hodgepodge of Greek and Latin letter forms or purely Greek inscriptions, at least they bore the magic of S.C., and in this respect they looked like proper Roman coins. Although the power and competence of the Roman Senate had steadily been eroded in the eyes of many of the emperor’s subjects, the public devotions paid by Greek cities to the Senate experienced a rise during the third century. This shift in perception is not altogether surprising. It sprang from new attitudes on the part of Hellenic notables in

the second century, when more wealthy easterners entered the halls of the ‘‘divine

Images of Rome and the Polis 75 Senate.” Since the second century B.C., the Senate had often been worshipped together with the goddess Roma in the province of Asia.?’ Civic coins from the late second and

third centuries invariably call it either the ‘divine’ or the ‘‘sacred’’ Senate (thea synkletos or hiera synkletos).?8 The bust of the Roman Senate, conceived as a youth with long flowing locks and often sporting the regal diadem, occupied the obverses of many coins during the last century of civic coinage (pl. 30.10).2? Roman colonists at the city of Mallus preferred to visualize the Senate as a female deity, but as new colonists, they proved unequal to the task of translating the Greek hiera synkletos into Latin (pl. 30.11).

Their coins bravely offer the misspelled SACRA SINATVS as the Latin name of the Senate.?° Provincial interest in the worship of the Senate on coins is paralleled by a number of surviving epigraphic dedications from the same period.*? In an age of political instability, the emperor, aristocracy, army, and some provincials came to regard the Roman Senate as the repository of political continuity and traditions. Only the Senate could confer the legitimacy that turned a military usurper into a Roman princeps, and, as a consequence, successive third-century Roman emperors paid reverence to that body. Severus Alexander, Aurelian, and Tacitus conspicuously revived the defunct office of censor.** The ruthless Maximinus, who was heedless of the Senate, found that it was not an ossified relic that could safely be ignored — he lost his throne and head before the gates of Aquileia after the Senate had nominated its own emperors Balbinus and Pupienus.*? Later, when the usurper Postumus, founder of

the Gallo-Roman state, needed senatorial approval, he created his own Senate at Cologne, since he had no hope of securing the imperial capital of Rome.* As late as 275 the Senate still exercised an influence over the imperial succession: it designated one of its number, Tacitus, as successor to Aurelian when the legions became deadlocked over a choice.*?

In contrast to the Roman aristocracy of the first century, Hellenic aristocrats and intellectuals did not nostalgically look to the Senate as the power that might restore a romanticized version of republican rule.** Since the reign of Hadrian, many of the wealthiest, most ambitious aristocrats of the Roman Orient had gained admission to the Senate — the highest attainment of a successful political career. Aristocrats hailing

from eastern and African provinces during the second and third centuries sought service under the emperor in the hope of being promoted into its illustrious ranks. In the eyes of these provincial notables, the Senate was the supreme council, or boule, composed of the greatest men from all the provinces. Many of these men retained ties of friendship, patronage, and marriage with their cousins and peers who remained at home. One eponymous magistrate, Aurelius Phoebus of Gordus-Julia, boasted of his senatorial descent on his city’s coins.*” From the Antonine age onward, the proconsular province of Asia was the birthplace of so many Roman senators that it is hardly surprising that the majority of coins and inscriptional dedications to that august body have survived from the cities in this province. In so honoring the Roman Senate, Greek notables revealed their collective political sentiments and the private ambitions of many of their number.

Images of the Polis For all their affirmations of Romanitas, eastern aristocrats still considered themselves Hellenes and citizens of their polis even during the bleak days of military and economic

, 76 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS crisis in the mid-—third century. The last century of civic coinage reflects the continuity and, it would seem, a new intensity of belief in the old civic virtues of philotimia and philopatris. In its final century, rather than during the halcyon days of the early Principate, local coinage — in addition to innovations in style, iconography, and production

— experienced a flowering of distinctly local coin types. Although the figure of the Roman emperor and types glorifying Rome gained importance on later civic coins, most coins still dwelled upon local political and religious themes. Despite this local flavor, the coins did not just repeat or elaborate upon traditional messages; many of them also exhibit the Hellenic aristocrats’ renewed awareness of their role and of the role of their poleis within the Roman empire. It is to the complex Hellenic side of the self-image of these notables and their view of their poleis, as revealed on civic coins, to which we now turn. While literati wrestled with the reconciliation of their Roman and civic loyalties, the peace and security of the high Empire bred a sense of accomplishment and confidence among the political and intellectual classes of the Hellenized East. One significant aspect of the self-image of this class was its claim to direct succession from the polis of their classical forefathers.*® Pride in the achievements and glories of the past and hopes of their recovery and perpetuation permeate the literature of the Second Sophistic and

were a driving force behind the vast architectural expansion of cities throughout the East and the adoption of the Greek language and Hellenic civic institutions even at Semitic caravan cities such as Palmyra, Bostra, and Petra.*? The appearance of coin types picturing aetiological myths, eponymous founders, and celebrated shrines stems from the same conscious assertion of a Hellenic identity and past.*° The authors of the Second Sophistic movement in Greek letters viewed themselves not so much as reviving an antique Greek heritage as directly continuing the work of the sophists of the fifth century B.c. Some sense of the immediacy of the past felt by these Greek intellectuals is conveyed by the great rise in the publication of works on local history, myths, antiquities, and cults.*! The pragmatic professional administrator and soldier Arrian, who was steeped in the traditions of Greek letters, composed a history of his native province of Bithynia not out of discontent with contemporary Roman rule or as an escapist flight into a more congenial Hellenic past but because this rich past had generated the present and— more important — it instructed all who partook of its letters, arts, and rites. Arrian the author could thus sincerely compare the emperor Trajan with Alexander the Great, and, as a personal friend of the philhellene Hadrian, he could share with that emperor a direct appreciation of and immediate communion with the Hellenic past. In some instances, the passionate revival of pure Attic Greek prose with all its pedantic archaisms, the retention of old-fashioned civic calendars, the use of ancient ethnics, and the favoring of Greek names over Roman nomenclature assumed an anti-Roman tinge, but this most often represented cultural snobbery and a sense of superiority, rather than active hostility to Roman rule.*? Roman emperors of the second century, who consistently styled themselves philhellenes, joined Greek intellectuals in the glorification and promotion of Athens as the religious and cultural center of a wider Greek world.** Hadrian organized the Panhellenion around the cults of Zeus Olympios and the Eleusinian mysteries, which placed Athens at the head of a vast religious league (koinon) of all ‘“Hellenic’’ cities.*? The Panhellenion, which was still operating as late as the reign of Valerian (253 —60), has been considered part of the

Images of Rome and the Polis 77 | conscious ‘humanistic’ policy of Hadrian and the Antonine emperors in fostering Hellenism on behalf of Rome. Ever since the reign of Commodus civic coins had carried a multitude of messages and symbols that possessed the same force as the ‘‘Hellenism’’ more eloquently described by the great writers of the Second Sophistic. In part, Greek notables expressed their shared beliefs in pride of polis and civic gods; in part, they perhaps encouraged themselves, or even exhorted some of their number, to observe the values of philopatris and philotimia. The representations of these messages on later civic coinage, while rooted in sound traditional political values, indicate a wide dissemination of these beliefs and also some important innovations. The institutions of civic government had always been the objects of a veneration just as profound and sincere as that paid to the cults of the imperial genius or of the Roman Senate. Public and private dedications extolled the tychai or the genii of the boule, demos, gerousia, and the colleges of young men (neoi).4° Thousands of surviving coins depict the

personified busts of these local political bodies. The boule, or council, was frequently shown as a veiled female divinity (pl. 31.2). The demos was invariably a virile youth,

who often bore a close resemblance to representations of the Roman Senate (pl. 31.1).4*” These portrait busts were so common that engravers in Severan and post-Severan Anatolia manufactured stereotyped obverse dies of these types that could be used

with any number of reverse dies.*® Although the portraits of the boule and demos suffered from such formulaic renditions, the proliferation of these types during the third century suggests a new appreciation of these institutions. In the same period, many fractional denominations began to carry the portrait of Tyche or of a patron deity as the central design on the obverse.*? Whereas many civic coins simply carried the portraits of personified civic political bodies, coins from several cities, using less formulaic designs, give us insights into local politics of the late second and third centuries. Coins from the Roman colony of Alexandria Troas show the members of the council seated the bouleuterion deep in deliberation (pl. 31.4).°° On the reverses of other coins, particularly on those from the Pisidian city of Sagalassus, personifications of the council and the popular assembly shake hands as the best of friends and partners (pl. 31.5).°' No less than the Roman emperor, municipal officials pursuing their administrative tasks were viewed as the favorites of the gods (pl. 31.5-—7). On many coins of the third century, the boule of the Ionian city of Metropolis

is depicted shaking hands with the protective, eponymous hero of the city, thus securing divine approval.’ In similar scenes Roman colonists at Bostra stressed cooperation between the city’s tyche and Zeus Ammon, adding the phrase CONCORDIA BOSTRENORVM.”? Finally, the last two decades of the second century witnessed the rapid and widespread diffusion of so-called homonoia coinage throughout Asia Minor (pl. 5.1; pl. 6.1; pl. 31.8-—10). An Anatolian city minted coins in tandem with one or more of her neighbors with whom she enjoyed political cooperation, joint citizenship, common ancestry and rites, or some other special affiliation. On the reverse these coins bore the patron deities or tychai of each city shaking hands or sacrificing together.** Besides announcing political reconciliation among potential rival cities, a virtue long popular as a subject in Greek oratory, homonoia coinages were yet another manifesta-

tion of the industrious activity of each city’s council and assembly in pursuing an independent ‘‘diplomacy.”’ A vast number of coins reflected upon the rich cultural and religious traditions of the

78 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS polis, and these messages wove a colorful tapestry of antique cults and heroic ancestors. In their search for a respectable mythological past, Asiatic Greeks — who were active

in this endeavor as early as the reign of Hadrian — used their coins to remind their fellow citizens of their Ionian, Dorian, or Macedonian origins.’? Even descent from noble autochthonic races such as the Lydians became worthy of mention.’ Invented eponymous heroes, Hellenistic kings, and mythological figures are all presented as founders.’’ Though cult statues, temples, and other traditional types continue to receive their due on coins, many coins cast the ancestral gods and heroes in roles more appropriate to a turbulent age. Striding Athena brandishing her spear, fierce Ares, and a host of lesser bellicose divinities parade across the reverses of many third-century bronze coins (pl. 33.1-—2).°® Although supernatural warriors were not strangers to earlier civic coinage, they now gained greatly in popularity. Often these gods are portrayed locked in mythological combats. From the inception of Greek art, sculptors and vase painters had used mythological combats to symbolize the struggle of civilized heroes and gods against the forces of chaos. Even when relief sculpture in the Roman East incorporated the traditions of Roman historical narrative, as in the Antonine altar at Ephesus, it still exhibited many elements of mythological allegory.*? Heracles was perhaps the most popular hero acclaimed on later civic coins, in part because his journeys gave so many cities the opportunity to lay claim to him as their founding father. Heracles had also, however, been transformed by rhetors and philosophers into the archetypal cultural hero and beneficent monarch. At the close of the first century Dio Chrysostom retold the myths of Heracles as a political morality tale.®° Heracles had selected the righteous path of civic order, cleared the earth of wild beasts, subdued barbarians, and spread the arts of civilization. This view of the hero as the primeval patron king (basileus euergetes) was the basis for his identification with the Roman emperor, and Latin panegyrists, artists, and medalists of the Tetrarchy consciously molded the emperor Maximianus in this image.*’ During the Severan age and thereafter, a number of cities recorded on their coins the more symbolic of Heracles’ labors against the forces of darkness— he wrestles with the Nemean lion (pl. 32.9), slays the Hydra (pl. 32.4-—5), and captures the Arcadian stag (pl. 32.7 —8).®* The Carian

town of Alinda even illustrated a local interpretation of his search for the golden apples of the Hesperides (pl. 32.10).°* Heracles also often stands erect as victor over the slain or captured beasts of his labors. The Philadelphians conceived of a nude youthful Heracles dragging the vanquished Nemean lion (pl. 32.2).°* A splendid coin from Germe shows a more mature Heracles holding his club and lionskin who glances toward Zeus’s eagle

while the Arcadian stag lies prostrate at his feet (pl. 32.3). The mythological combats of other heroes are celebrated on local coins. Perseus slays Medusa on coins of Tarsus; Seleucia portrays a Cilician Athena spearing a bizarre

serpent-footed monster (pl. 33.2); and the Samian hero Ancaeus targets a boar with leveled lance (pl. 33.3).°° The early Severan coins of Ilium celebrated the exploits of the Trojan hero Hector (pl. 33.8 — 10).°” Since the heroic deeds of gods and heroes reminded

most Hellenes of their city’s past glories, they drew from this past the inspiration and courage to face new challenges. The Athenian historian Dexippus stirred the dispirited ephebes to repel Herulian marauders in 267 with a speech delivered in fine Thucydidean style that conjured up images of the deeds of Athens’s heroes.®* Coin depictions of ancient mythological struggles also became an artistic expression of the defense of the

Hellenic city-state during the third century. Hellenic provincials from the reign of

Images of Rome and the Polis 79 Marcus Aurelius shared with their forefathers a reverence and strong sense of immediacy with this mythological past. As discussed previously, these heroes and divinities are

shown on numerous coins as the protective comrades of the Roman emperor — offering greetings, laurel wreaths, or cult statuettes. In several instances, Hellenic medalists depicted a city’s divinities interceding in battle on behalf of the Roman emperor. Local gods were also associated with the emperor as defenders of the Roman peace, when they were shown on local coins assuming the dress and manner of the princeps.

The merging of the identities of god and emperor derived from Roman imperial sculptural, relief, and numismatic art, where the emperor and his favorite divine comrades influenced one another’s iconography, gestures, titles, and attitudes during the later second and third centuries. By the mid-third century, the unconquerable rising Sun, Sol Invictus, who had become one of the most popular divine colleagues of soldier-emperors, frequently sported imperial dress or struck imperial poses in Roman art.©? On imperial aurei and antoniniani struck at eastern mints, Aurelian commemorated his Palmyrene campaign and honored Sol with the imperial epithets ‘Restorer of the East” and ‘‘Restorer of the Roman world” and by depicting the god like a Roman triumphator with his right foot firmly planted on the neck of a submissive barbarian.” On Roman sarcophagi of the last quarter of the second century, there is a noticeable increase in the number of gods and mythological heroes such as Heracles or Diomedes who are shown wearing the decorative Roman ceremonial cuirass complete with Gorgoneion.”! By the Severan age, the local coins of Asia Minor and the Levant also began to present native deities in military uniform and wielding weapons. Since the late Hellenistic period, gods in Syria, Palestine, Arabia, and Roman Mesopotamia had often been given regal titles and equipped with the armor and arms of soldiers (pl. 34.1-—2). Protective gods were considered weak against the forces of evil unless they were appropriately armed.’* The endemic raids of predatory Arab nomads caused residents of caravan cities such as Emesa, Palmyra, Bostra, and Petra to conceive of their deities in more militant terms as early as the second century B.C.” Reliefs of the first century already show the sky-god of Doliche in northern Syria and, in eastern Syria, the divine triad of Bel at Dura-Europos and the Palmyrene trinity of Aglibol, Baalshamin, and Malakbel fitted out in military tunics and cuirasses and wearing swords in fancy scabbards.”* Civic coins in the Roman Levant as early as the Flavian period likewise show local gods in similarly militant dress. By the late second century many Greek cities, especially those in the interior of the Empire, began to depict a number of their tutelary gods on their coins in the military trappings of the Roman emperor.” In cities on or near the Syrian limes, long accustomed to arming their deities, protective gods exchanged their earlier uniforms for the ceremonial lorica and paludamentum of the Roman emperor. In some instances, the divinities were even clad in the more serviceable mail or scale armor of the late Empire (lorica segmentata).’© Often, the hero or god on civic coins stands in a pose indistinguish-

able from that of the emperor, as is illustrated by the three heroes of Metropolis, a Greek city on the Ionian shore (pl. 34.6), and by the Amazon of Smyrna, who wears a Roman tunic and holds a Nike (pl. 34.8).”” In the guise of Roman emperors, the heroes Mygdon of Stectorium, Hector of Ilium, and Otreus of Otrus stand poised with one foot on a prow while they turn to beckon unseen comrades into battle (pl. 34.3 —4).”8 This shift in the perception of the city gods affected more than their attire. The gods

80 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS often imitate the martial and triumphal exploits of the Roman emperor rather than reenacting the distant struggles of mythology. On coins of Isinda, a remote mountain town in Pisidia, a native equestrian god, fully armed, spears a gigantic serpent, a scene easily mistaken for an imperial hunt (pl. 35.1).”? At Ephesus, Artemis the Huntress is somewhat awkwardly mounted upon one of her stags in the fashion of a cavalryman (pl. 35.4).8° Perhaps, the most remarkable assimilation of imperial combats with mythological scenes comes from the Ionian city of Magnesia (pl. 35.5).8? The founder Leucippus, in his costume as patron of the chase, rides a horse galloping toward the right, while below him one of his hounds is springing forward. The hero is hurling a spear, and the engraver has somewhat illogically included a suppliant woman praying at an altar in the lower right corner. Although the artist has in a clumsy fashion combined the elements of two quite different actions, prayer and combat, the coin does reveal the new, more militant, character of the local gods and heroes quite well. While mythological combats often echoed symbolic conflicts between East and West or good and evil, other depictions of the ancestral gods and heroes on local coins carried allegorical comparisons with imperial triumphal processions or advents (pl. 35.6—9).°* The image of the young god Dionysus seated triumphant in his sacred cart pulled by elephants, tigers, or panthers had from the opening of the second century enjoyed a wide popularity in Greco-Roman relief sculpture. The triumphs of the imperial conquerors were often compared to the return of the conquering god from India.® In ascene that can easily be mistaken for an imperial procession, coins of the Bithynian city of Nicaea and of the Galatian town of Ancyra depict the virile Dionysus holding kantharos and thyrsos as his elephants draw the cart to the left in the direction of the setting sun (pl. 35.8—9).%4 As late as the Tetrarchic age imperial panegyrists and sculptors still linked this Dionysiac procession with imperial triumphs, victory, and eternity.®°

Equally suggestive of the symbolic parallels between emperor and god are the depictions on later civic coins of the celestial vehicle of Helios-Apollo. On coins of Tralles from the reign of Gordian III the frontal presentation of Helios in his rising chariot differs, visually and iconographically, only very slightly from similar renditions of the emperor in his triumphal quadriga (pl. 18.7—8).8° At the Pisidian city of Amblada, in central Anatolia, coins show Zeus, who has the facial features of the emperor Septimius Severus, wearing Roman regalia and driving a biga (pl. 35.7).°”7 On coins of many other cities, the processional vehicles of Dionysus (pl. 35.8—9), Cybele, Artemis, and lesser-known deities are executed in more conventional fashion, and without direct allusions to imperial triumphal processions; but even some of these depictions may, at times, betray some fusion of local piety with interest in the Roman emperor.®® For example, the coins of the Phrygian city of Colossae during the reign of Septimius Severus, executed in a superb, baroque style, show the goddess Artemis the Huntress driving her stag-drawn biga furiously across the reverse field (pl. 35.6).8? She prepares to take aim with her bow, and a boar already transfixed by one of her arrows stands beneath the hooves of her stags. The entire scene, which exalts the virgin goddess as the mistress of animals, bears resemblances in iconography and message to imperial hunting scenes. On the symbolic level, the processional scene of the goddess Artemis has been converted into something of a scene of triumph, with allegorical similarities to coin depictions of the emperor’s hunting skills. Less dramatically, some later, standard depictions of equestrian gods, which almost certainly connote festival

Images of Rome and the Polis 81 | processions of cult statues, may also owe some inspiration to artistically similar imperial scenes. An autochthonic ax-wielding god popular in Lydia and Phrygia sometimes

wears the radiate crown, tunic, and chlamys of the emperor as he rides toward a Hermes who greets him with an upraised right hand. This scene conveys some of the aura of an imperial advent (pl. 35.10).?° Reinterpretation of the costume and roles of the tutelary gods coincided with an altered outlook on the part of Hellenic notables toward obligations they owed to Rome and the Roman emperor. In the course of the third century the ruling elite came to view themselves not just as diligent public servants and taxpayers, but also as allies of Rome. The notion of Rome’s emperor presiding over a confederation of autonomous cities was not new to Greek intellectuals, but in the oppressive reality of increased imperial demands during the third century, Hellenic aristocrats stressed the voluntary nature of their fidelity, material support, and military assistance.?! Hence, city tychai or gods often hold forth a small Nike. In one instance, the emperor Gordian III is depicted as crowning the tyche of Seleucia, a polite reversal of roles that expressed imperial gratitude to a dutiful ally.” In the course of the third century, various cities revived the notion that they were the “faithful friend and ally of the Romans.’”’ While these terms were not unknown to Hellenic ears, the titles and treaties of alliance belonged better to the world of the late Republic; certainly to the age before the Constitutio Antoniniana.?* In the diplomatic exchanges between emperor and Greek city during the early Principate, frequent reference had been made to notions of alliance and friendship. Emperors long respected this etiquette, and in the late second century some cities stressed this political fiction more ardently.” In his letter to the council and people of Aezanis, Septimius Severus thanked them “‘for being a distinguished city and useful to the Roman Empire from early times.’’”’ In the middle of the third century, in accordance with ancient practice, the emperors Trajan Decius and Herennius Etruscus announced their thanks for sacrifices and honors paid by the Aphrodisians ‘‘on account of their goddess who gives the city her name and on account of their friendship and good faith to the Roman people.’’”¢

Though the image of Rome and Greek city as yoke fellows was an ancient one, it was revived with particular effectiveness on some local coins in the third century. Several cities in Asia Minor adopted the symbolic handshake of concord between emperors as a reverse motif to express cooperation between emperor and city. This pictorial device was at times combined with the common boast of being the ‘‘faithful friend and ally of the Romans.’’’’ The city of Diocaesarea, formerly the Jewish Sepphoris, had adopted a Greek constitution and urban life in the course of the second century.?’ On coins of the emperor Caracalla, Diocaesarea announced itself to be ‘‘sacred, asylos, autonomous, faithful friend, and ally of the Romans” (pl. 36. 1).? The coins were most probably minted during the emperor’s Parthian War and the claims suggest that the Diocaesareans contributed supplies or recruits to the army massing in Syria. The city again proclaimed its free alliance shortly afterward on the coins of Elagabalus, the next Severan emperor.’°° Again it is possible that the city had somehow assisted the military forces of the emperor, perhaps this time in the civil war to unseat the emperor Macrinus. Other cities in Asia Minor joined in declaring themselves free and independent allies of the Roman people. Sagalassus, paramount city of Pisidia and the impregnable

82 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS guardian of the highway traversing this mountainous district, boasted of its rank as a friend and ally of the Romans both in inscriptions and on coins from Marcus Aurelius to Diocletian.!°! On its coins, which include some of the last civic coinages minted in

the sole reign of Gallienus (260-68) and under Claudius II (268-70), a prominent handshake accompanies the slogan ‘‘friend and ally of the Romans” (pl. 36.5 —6).1°? To

the south of the Pisidian highlands, ancient Greek cities dotted the fertile littoral of Pamphylia. The cities of Side, Sillyum, and Aspendus were major ports of call for ships trafficking between the Aegean world and the Levant. They also occupied important points along the southern coastal highway of Asia Minor. In the reigns of Valerian and Gallienus, when the Roman military position on the Danube and the Euphrates all but collapsed, these three strategic cities struck coins proclaiming alliance and friendship with Rome. Side listed the complete slogan on its coins (pl. 36.3); Sillyum employed shortened forms and added two clasped right hands as a token of fidelity to Rome (pl. 36.4).!°3 Aspendus expressed this political notion effectively on coins of the caesar Valerian II, the son of Gallienus (pl. 36.2).1°* The goddess Aspendus, who wears the garb of a tyche, stands on the left and extends a welcoming hand to the helmeted, armored Roma. The inscription reads ‘‘Aspendus the ally of the Romans.” Other cities

, throughout Asia Minor were less explicit, adopting the prominent handshake from Roman iconography to symbolize concord and alliance between Rome and polis. Three Phrygian cities — Amorium (pl. 36.7), Laodicea-on-the-Lycus (pl. 36.8), and Synnada — struck bronze coins in the mid-third century depicting the goddess Thea Rome on the obverse and the handshake on the reverse.!© These claims of partnership between city and Rome against barbarian or insurgent threats were not just platitudes uttered by members of the ruling classes. In the late second and third centuries, civic magistrates bearing such titles as eirenarchos and paraphylarchos marshaled local militia or police to restore order against brigands or Persian and Teutonic marauders. During the Marco-

mannic War, magistrates commanded volunteer forces that joined the armies of Marcus Aurelius as allies.1°° Several inscriptions in southwestern Anatolia attest to self-defense measures. At the Lycian mountain town of Termessus Minor, one local hero, a certain Valerius Statilius Castus, was proclaimed ‘‘a most powerful ally of the Caesars.’’197

: Hellenic aristocrats reflected their growing awareness of Rome upon their coinage, but they were simultaneously just as expressive of the new roles of their cities. Crisis did not just sharpen loyalty to Rome, it forced a reevaluation of local patriotism as well. For the first three-quarters of the third century, civic coinage reveals that Hellenic notables in the cities of the East still reconciled their local patriotism with growing obligations to Rome. Throughout the coinage, the appeals are surprisingly optimistic and conservative. Rome and the polis emerge as the greater and lesser wheels of the commonwealth of the Empire. The polis stands simultaneously as ally, friend, and member of the Roman Empire; its gods sanctify and assist in the struggles against barbarism. In a word, the central, underlying theme of these messages is eunomia, the well-ordered and reasoned rule of law that had always characterized the polis. In the face of the crisis during the third century the Hellenic notables of the East affirmed their beliefs in eunomia as well as their loyalty to their home city and to Rome.

,&e

theHellenic Hell 8 Civic Coins andndthe Notables’ Response to Crisis SESS

CESS The appeals and symbols found on municipal bronze coins between the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Aurelian proclaim civic political institutions, faith in the city gods, and loyalty to Rome during a century generally regarded as an age of catastrophic change. These appeals and symbols were neither the banal administrative platitudes of

minor functionaries, indifferent to the wider issues of their day, nor the results of artistic shortcuts by engravers to facilitate mass production of local money; they are indices of the political beliefs of the Hellenic notables who issued the coins. As such they reaffirm political opinions found in the literature of the Second Sophistic and in the numerous inscriptions made during the Roman peace. They augment and support the few optimistic voices preserved in the literature of the third century. The praises of

traditional civic virtues found in the fragmentary pages of the Athenian historian Dexippus, whose works are among the few of the mid—third century known to us, were not isolated, hollow oratorical flourishes. They were premised upon the same political beliefs expressed in the varied iconography of later civic coinage. Civic coins and Dexippus are eloquent witnesses to the endurance of civic institutions and values

at least among the municipal ruling classes.’ The coins give little hint of a great third-century conflagration that consumed the classical city, its elites, its life, and its gods. To the contrary, the coins preserve an unbroken record of expressions of civic patriotism, devotion to ancestral gods, and loyalty to Rome. The confident appeals on the coins issued by a conservative elite — whose leaders, in modern terms, combined the powers and patronage of urban boss, mayor, and head of the chamber of commerce —cannot be taken as the only, or even the most accurate, voice of events in this century. After all, coins were public documents, and they should be expected to reflect political, social, and religious continuity. In their image of stability, they can be as deceptive as the complaints about violent upheaval of pagan critics of the age and Christian apologists for their faith. The coins do, however, provide us with an insight into the opinions, outlook, and values of the ruling class, and what we see is a remarkable self-confidence and an unexpected optimism. This perception warns against facile generalizations that the economic prosperity and the confidence of the literature of the Antonine and Severan ages masked an inner, psychic foreboding of imminent disaster.* It further warns against viewing the political and economic crisis of the third century as a single, inexorable process—a gigantic multifaceted 8&3

84 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS spasmodic convulsion overturning the entire structure of Greco-Roman urban life. To be sure, the third century witnessed a major transformation in the patterns of urban life and the beliefs and roles of the urban elites, but at least until the 260s the direction of

this process was probably far from clear to those who experienced these so-called cataclysmic changes.’ Instead, as the civic coinage’s conservative Messages suggest, most Greek notables probably considered traditional civic values and religious practices as fundamentally sound; they perceived the disruptive forces as violent, but temporary, aberrations in normal civic life. The coins, then, are but one source for this troubled century, and they unfortunately do not provide nearly the detailed picture we would like. Even in the first and second centuries, when civic coins are ancillary sources to an extensive literature and prolific public and private inscriptions, the resulting picture falls far short of the completeness historians of other periods expect of their sources. Unlike a colleague working in Tudor and early Stuart England, the historian of the Roman Principate cannot uncover the workings of local and court patronage, the management and incomes of the estates of the aristocracy, the religious and personal opinions of members of the aristocracy, and

the matrix of familial, marital, and social bonds that united and divided men.* The strokes on the canvas depicting the political attitudes of the Hellenic notables and civic life in general between the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Constantine must perforce be broad and impressionistic outlines. Civic coins can only suggest additions, rather than sharply delineate the picture. Instead of years, broad changes must be surveyed in the sweep of decades, generations, or even greater lengths of time, and it must always be

remembered how much the fortunes and perceptions of individuals and cities must have differed over the course of a century. The appeals and iconography of later civic coins contribute to understanding two important features of the far-from-clear process of change in civic life in the Roman East during the third century. The powerful images of resilient civic values and institutions, of faith in the gods of the polis, and of loyalty to the Roman emperor stand in contrast — at times in direct contradiction—to much of the other evidence of this period. Civic coins depict the Hellenic city of the third century in a landscape quite at odds with the usual picture of desolation by foreign and civil wars, crushing taxation, rampant inflation, and deep-seated social unrest. Since Edward Gibbon proposed his explanation of the decline and fall, the leitmotiv of many interpretations of the third century has been that radical, even catastrophic, changes swept over the Empire and profoundly altered the political and social fabric of Greco-Roman cities to the ultimate benefit of the Christian bishops and monks.’ The image on later civic coinage of a robust polis with its institutions intact must somewhat modify that of rapid change in eastern cities. The strongly patriotic, often overtly militant, tone of so many of the appeals on civic coins reveals much about why Hellenic notables and cities opposed barbarian invaders at mid-century after the collapse of imperial defenses along the Danube and Euphrates, and how they perceived the insurgency of military usurpers and of Palmyrene princes. The affirmation of political ideals such as loyalty to polis and

Rome seems directly tied to the political assumptions and actions of the Hellenic notables during the military crisis in the mid-third century. Civic coins therefore illuminate two important aspects of the Hellenic notables’ response to crisis, each of which deserves separate discussion. If the relative importance of the coins is to emerge, however, the discussion must encompass a wider perspective and a broader range of evidence than civic coins alone.

The Hellenic Notables’ Response 85 First, there is the matter of accuracy of civic coinage’s image of continuity in the values and institutions of the polis. The wars and economic disorders of the third century are considered the great solvents of the classical city. By the year 300, literary,

epigraphic, and archaeological testimony almost unanimously informs us that the curial or, as they were called in the East, bouleuteric classes were compelled to surrender

their dominance over civic life to the Roman emperor and, after the conversion of Constantine, to the Christian hierarchy.° The dismal picture of the decurions in the late Roman law codes of the fourth century is usually explained as the culmination of a process set in motion by the political and economic crisis arising at the end of the second century or early in the third century. As eastern expeditions from the 160s on drew more heavily upon the resources of the cities, local public service was burdened with the thankless responsibility for the collection of imperial taxes, the military grain tax (annona militaris), the transport levy (angareia), and a welter of other levies and surcharges that at times were nothing more than outright pillage of private property to support ‘‘our glorious armies in Syria.’’” In the face of such demands, many decurions had already in the second and third centuries sloughed off the ruinous values of philopatris and philotimia long before the actions of their descendants provoked the spate of late imperial legislation. Legal pronouncements of emperors and jurists from the Hadrianic age to late Severan times indicate a mounting reluctance on the part of municipal aristocrats to serve their cities.* Procedures such as the well-known cessio bonorum (whereby a nominee surrendered two-thirds of his property to the public treasury to escape the impoverishment of

an Office or liturgy) compelled unwilling candidates to respond to the calls of their cities.? A rare glimpse of such coercive procedures in operation survives from the minutes of a council meeting of the Egyptian town of Hermopolis in 192. When a candidate for high office attempted to excuse himself on the grounds of insolvency, his fellow members forced his reluctant consent through moral suasion and the promise of sureties. '°

Along with blatant compulsion of the unwilling came other measures to cut the personal expense of local office. In some cities, several men shared the title and expenses of a costly annual high office; at others, councils widened the pool of eligible liturgists and officeholders by means fair or foul. Tenants from an imperial estate in Phrygia petitioned the emperor Philip I (244-49) to rescue them from the councils of neighboring cities that used strong-arm tactics to draft them into expensive, unwanted municipal offices and liturgies.’ The grievance was hardly unique; Egyptian peasants voiced similar complaints against the town of Arsin6e.!?

Scattered incidents from different quarters of the Empire can be interpreted as evidence that by the opening of the third century a number of cities were already confronting serious difficulties in inspiring the patriotism and patronage of their ruling notables. They also seem to confirm more general complaints among the Greek literati that imperial demands and monarchical rule were eroding civic institutions.

Plutarch in the second, Menander Rhetor in the third, and Libanius in the fourth century comment on the corrosive effect of the imperial autocracy upon civic political life.‘? Other authors are more specific, fingering despotic emperors as the root of the evil.!4

Cassius Dio, in the closing years of the Severan dynasty, wrote that the death of the noble Marcus Aurelius heralded a darker age ‘‘for our history now descends from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust, as affairs did for the Romans of that day.’’!°

86 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS Many of Dio’s contemporaries and later authors did not disagree with his verdict upon the third century. Greek and Latin historians recoiled in dismay when they narrated the story of the incessant civil wars, barbarian invasions, Roman defeats, and divinely sent pestilence and famine that fell upon the cities of the Empire. In the eyes of these authors, who viewed history as the actions of prominent individuals rather than a record of changes within institutions and classes, the soldier-emperors were responsible for the rising tide of disaster engulfing the Roman world. With ghoulish relish the Latin historians vituperated the ignominious defeats of Valerian and Gallienus.!* The author of the Augustan History strung together the brief biographies of the usurpers of the most chaotic decades of the century under the title of the ‘‘Thirty Tyrants’’—a learned allusion to the most oppressive regime of classical Athens. Although they spoke for a persecuted minority rather than for the Roman order, the Christian apologists Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Tertullian echoed the language and opinions of their pagan contemporaries when they reflected upon the dismal affairs of the world.” Christian and pagan writers alike, although they strove to reason through the causes of the evil times, often viewed their age through a flawed glass. They misread symptoms of the malady as causes.!8 Opinions voiced in the surviving literature, which confirm other documentary evidence, represent legitimate perceptions of the age, but they are not the entire story. Human nature, as Thucydides acutely observed, instinctively exaggerates present events and romanticizes the deeds of the past.!? This is all the more true for the authors

of the Roman Empire, the heirs of a literary tradition replete with well-wrought phrases and conventions for lamenting the lost golden age and forecasting future disasters.*° The purpose here is not to refute or to vindicate the impressions of the literati, but to introduce caution in generalizing about the conditions of the Empire from a single viewpoint. No period of human history can be concisely written as a chain of interlocking events leading to a single, inevitable conclusion. The varied appeals and the iconography of civic, league, and provincial coinages of the Roman East add a bold stroke to the picture of underlying continuity at the local level during turbulent changes. In the proconsular province of Asia, eponyms on coins record the names of many later magistrates who combined expensive priesthoods and offices. Their ranks included sophists and their descendants, who, despite their exempt status, are listed as holding office in the best tradition of being philotimos and philopatris.21 Widespread dissemination of local coin types and legends —recalling with new intensity the foundation myths, legendary heroes, ancestral gods, festivals, games, and the ruling bodies of the polis —— reveal a reawakened consciousness as some members of

the ruling class assumed an active role in the political and cultural leadership of their cities. Cassius Dio may well have correctly judged the state of the imperial government when he christened the third century Hesiod’s Kingdom of Iron, but his allegory hardly need imply the immediate political decline and moral bankruptcy of the municipal ruling classes. The local coinage of the East alone indicates that, even in Cassius Dio’s Kingdom of Iron, many Hellenic notables confronted the conditions of their world without abandoning their traditional civic institutions and values, at least until the early 270s. The image of continuity, so persistent a theme on later local coinage, must have characterized much of the third century, and it is encountered in other sources as well. Though many pagan and Christian writers lament the calamities of the Empire,

The Hellenic Notables’ Response 87 others give versions of the age that bear some resemblance to the one found on civic coins. The orator Pseudo-Aristides, who perhaps delivered his encomium to the emperor Philip I (244-49), praised the restoration of prosperity and peace of the cities.?? In Egypt, the prefect, apparently with some plausibility, assured a group of liturgists from the town of Oxyrhynchus that the reign of Trajan Decius (249 —-51) opened a new golden age for the communities of the Nile Valley.*? An even stronger sense of continuity in Hellenic public values permeates the exchange of letters between the Aphrodis-

ians and emperors of the third century and the testimonials the Stratonicean aristocracy raised to themselves at the shrines of Panamara and Lagina.** Even though they decline in number, inscriptions from the entire Roman East and papyri from Egypt still praise aristocrats for donating their time and fortunes to their cities. There is nothing in these later renditions of the formulaic praise of philotimia and philopatris to suggest that these dedications, in contrast to those of the first and second centuries, vociferously praised only a precious few patriots among a growing mass of unwilling and indifferent decurions. As the collective appeals of later civic coins suggest, many Hellenic notables well into the third century felt that the dignity and privileges of local public careers

outweighed the liabilities. Imperial law at least as late as the reign of Gordian III treated expulsion from the town council as a harsh penalty.”? Often legal disputes over the recruitment of liturgists and expedients to reduce the costs of local government arose from problems inherent in the very structure of politics in the Greco-Roman city, regardless of the era. On the eve of the second century Dio Chrysostom was personally aware of how overgenerous public gift-giving could ruin a family’s patrimony, and hence that any man needed to reflect soberly before agreeing to serve his city.2° Dio’s contemporary, Pliny, while imperial legate for BithyniaPontus, wrote to the emperor Trajan deploring the habitual, reckless overspending of enthusiastic Greek oligarchies.?’ Neither these aspects of civic life alone nor, for that matter, the natural attrition of older, distinguished families and the rise of ‘‘“new men” (novi homines) can, however, account for the picture of civic life in legal documents of the fourth and fifth centuries. Furthermore, disputes over the legal procedures of civic service in the Antonine and Severan ages did not necessarily mark the fateful turning point in the decline of urban aristocracies. Much of the controversy raged over unreasonable entrance fees charged less-well-to-do councillors.*8 Efforts to share the costs of expensive liturgies and offices, to widen the pool of eligible candidates, and to induce the reluctant to serve addressed problems endemic to the entire structure of municipal political life during any decade of the Principate. The charter of the Spanish municipality of Malaca, preserved in an inscription of the Flavian age, contained a number of clauses dealing with these issues.?? In Egypt evasions are documented from the advent of Roman rule.*° What is unclear is whether these difficulties alone impaired the operation of daily government and ruined the volunteer spirit of the entire ruling class in Hellenic cities. The cities of the Hellenic East, and even the municipalities of North Africa and the

northwestern provinces, probably weathered political and economic turmoil much better than is usually thought. For all their destructiveness, Goths and Persians did not significantly reduce the absolute number of cities in the East. New foundations, such as Tymandus in eastern Anatolia, to which Diocletian and Maximianus granted a municipal charter, replaced losses from the ravages of the third century.*! The eastern prov-

88 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS inces were still thickly covered with splendid cities at the close of the fourth century, even if many cities were diminished in size and wealth.*? In the Roman East, the fate of the classical city in the third century centered not so much around its rapid decline and

disappearance as around the fundamental transformation of the civic ruling classes and civic life.

Just as with our other sources, the symbolism on later civic coins has two sides. Many coins present a picture of stability; others convey Hellenic perceptions of the great struggles of the emperor on the Danube and Euphrates. The increasingly militant iconography of civic coinage reminds us that the political events of the third century

cannot be reduced to the humdrum of business as usual. Martial themes on civic coins—the emperor in battle, triumphal processions, and legionary standards — reflect a growing awareness of the importance of the frontier wars, and in a sense they bear out much of what both pagan and Christian authors report about the violence of the age. The threat of invasion and warfare, with all its financial and social cost, hung like a dark cloud over the cities of the Roman East. If contradictory images of the era arise from civic coins as much as from any other source, it is because events were neither simple nor outcomes uniform. While the sources do not permit us to assess the daily health of civic government in the third century, they do allow a diagnosis of its powers of resistance and recuperation. If foreign invasion, outbreaks of revolts, uncontrollable brigandage, and the flight of the peasantry were the ills infecting the Roman world, then the Hellenic notables as a class displayed remarkable resilience in responding to these challenges. The content of the coins themselves probably had little, if any, direct effect on stirring the populace to action; nonetheless, their images, appeals, and values collectively represented the deeply held political beliefs of a relatively homogeneous ruling elite. Viewed in isolation, the appeals on later civic coins may be very difficult to assess,

but they arose from the patriotism reflected in the writings of Aelius Aristides and others during the Roman peace. In the course of battling the gentes externae, Greek notables were forced to rethink their political heritage. The easy, intellectual patriotism of Aelius Aristides and the writers of the Second Sophistic, who had declaimed endlessly on the glorious union of Rome and polis, had forever passed; civic patriotism assumed a grimmer, pragmatic mask. For all their artistic and iconographic imagination, the coins are intensely conservative in their appeal, and they are poor evidence

for a failure of political nerve on the part of the ruling classes. Nor are they at all indicative of a loss of faith in the ability of the gods to defend their cities. Against the background of later civic coins, the Decian and Valerian persecutions emerge as great

pagan revivals, not desperate rearguard actions waged by a discredited paganism against Christianity.*? In the face of common enemies, the majority of Greek notables asserted their loyalty and the cooperation between polis and Rome on local coins. The iconographic strands spun a tapestry portraying Rome and city as the twin pillars of the reasoned rule of law. Each was defended by the Roman emperor, exalted as the symbol of unity, and each was sanctified by a multitudinous company of divinities. The adoration of the emperor rested upon his victories, which —as a manifestation of divine favor — generated a consensus from the revered Roman Senate and people, a dutiful army, and a comity of

autonomous Cities. This heightened awareness of both Roman and local political identities logically evolved from the opinions voiced by earlier Greek writers such as

|

The Hellenic Notables’ Response 89 Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, and Aelius Aristides. The depth of these political beliefs may

| perhaps be sensed in the minutes of the council of the Egyptian town of Oxyrhynchus, which at the end of the third century opened its sessions with shouts of ‘“Roman power forever.’’*4

The psychological and emotional impact of barbarian invasions of the third century upon the Greek municipal notables may profitably be compared to the pressures that later renewed barbarian threats exerted on their better-known Christian descendants from the late fifth to early seventh centuries.*’ Slavic and Arabic assaults upon the Byzantine heartland provoked intense local patriotism, along with practical measures of self-defense. In repelling invaders, citizens implored the intercession of their native supernatural defenders. In the early Byzantine period, the proliferation of the cults of

| patron saints and icons was in part linked to the search for intercession against invaders. At Thessalonica during the early seventh century, clergy and laity, aristocrats and humble townsmen, all invoked the assistance of St. Demetrius in repelling Slavic and Avar marauders.*° Similarly the population of Constantinople entrusted its city to the Virgin Mary during the Persian-Avar siege of 626, and, over eighty years earlier, Edessa was spared when God, through the intercession of the holy icon of the Mandylion (a napkin impressed with the visage of Jesus), destroyed the siege works of Khurso I in 544.7” Faith in divine intercession in times of great stress was one of the oldest, most fundamental beliefs in the Mediterranean world. With no less gratitude, the Athenians had given thanks to the divine apparition that arose over the plain of Attica from the direction of Eleusis and foretold the Persian disaster at Salamis.*® Hellenic cities have left considerable evidence from the third century of their effort to strengthen their walls and to invoke divine protection against barbarian invaders.

Scattered references in the literary sources and the mutilated remains the soil has yielded to archaeologists suggest that the open design of the classical polis in European Hellas and Anatolia was evolving into the fortress town of the Byzantine age.® Cities far-behind the frontiers added new fortifications or hastily repaired old ones by short-

ening the circuits of their walls. The debris of ancient monuments, statuary, and dedications were tossed into the foundations of improvised battlements; houses were nestled closely together to form bulwarks. In the Roman East, walls went up either in anticipation of, or out of bitter experience with, the cruel barbarian visitations at Athens, Thermopylae, and the Isthmus of Corinth in Hellas, and at Ephesus, Nicaea, Dorylaeum, and Ancyra in Asia Minor.*®° Human efforts against barbarians were futile without divine sanction. Apollo of Didyma and Zeus Panamaros were thanked for their deliverence of the Milesians and Stratoniceans from the fury of the Goths.*! After the Herulian sack of Athens, Dexippus rallied the Athenian ephebes with a speech in the best Thucydidean style invoking the examples of past Athenian heroes.** No doubt his

listeners expected and prayed for Ajax and Theseus to deliver them from the most recent defilers of Attica. Growing belief in the protective powers of ancestral gods and native heroes probably explains why city gods appear on local coins blessing and aiding the Roman emperor, eponymous heroes are shown engaged in combat, and gods and heroes are depicted in the dress and armament of the imperator.** Behind these different coin types lurks a rising sense of civic identity in the face of the threats and hardships of

the third century. The test of this increased sense of civic identity and cohesion came in the year 251, when the emperor Trajan Decius and his son Herennius Etruscus fell fighting the Goths

90 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS at Abrittus in Lower Moesia.** The defeat exposed the cities of European Hellas and western Asia Minor to successive waves of Goths, Carpi, Herulians, and lesser folk inhabiting the hyperborean regions between the lower Danube and the Dneister. For nearly a decade, civil war paralyzed imperial efforts to halt the German raiders, who surged over the frontier cutting wide swathes of destruction.*? The Teutonic Borani even seized the fleet of the Hellenized kingdom of the Bosporus and menaced the Greek cities of the Black Sea, twice attacking Pityus on the far southeastern Euxine shore of Asia Minor.*® Cities had to look to their own defense. In the European provinces, the cities of Marcianopolis, Philippopolis, Nicopolis, Thessalonica, Anchialus, Tomi, and Byzantium all refortified their walls and withstood sieges in the 250s and 260s.*” With the debacle of the emperor Valerian’s army in 260, the northern storm broke over Hellas and Anatolia. Some Gothic raiders penetrated deep into northern Greece, while others crossed the Bosporus and ravaged the Hellespontine cities at their leisure.*® The cities of Byzantium and western Asia Minor gained a brief respite in the next year (261), when the army of the pretenders Macrianus and Quietus marched westward to contest Gallienus for mastery of the war-torn Empire.*? The insurgent legions of the East went down in decisive defeat, however, and the two Macrianii, father and son, were slain. Instead of retrieving the situation in the East, Gallienus then marched his loyalist forces against Postumus, the rival emperor of Gaul, Britain, and Spain, so that in 262 another Gothic horde was free to swoop down upon the sorely tried cities of Hellas and Anatolia, overrunning much of the provinces of Bithynia and Asia and burning the Artemision of the Ephesians.*° The invaders escaped with their haul of plunder and captives before relief forces sent by Gallienus could intervene. Further incursions and pirate raids followed in the next years; a massive Herulian invasion of

the Balkans in 267 ended in the sacking of venerable Athens herself.°! Although Gallienus paved the way for imperial recovery by his reforms of the army and his bloody victory over the Goths at Nessus in Upper Moesia, the high tide of the barbarian

threat receded only gradually.°? Between 267-69 pirate fleets wreaked havoc throughout the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean as far as the shores of Crete, Pamphylia, and Cyprus, and the emperor Tacitus (275-76) had to repel a Gothic incursion into Cappadocia.?”?

The Roman position on the Euphrates was no less critical by mid-century. After expelling the philo-Roman king Tiridates of Armenia, Shapur, the shah of Sassanid Iran followed up with a massive invasion of Syria in 253.°* Some Syrian provincials took matters into their own hands and proclaimed Sampsigeramus, the high priest of _ _Emesa’s sun god and a distant scion of the Severan house, as the emperor Uranius Antoninus. He organized resistance so well that after sacking Antioch Shapur’s army was obliged to retire from Syria.’ This usurper sequestered himself at Emesa, minted an impressive series of coins, and disappeared when Valerian, the legitimate emperor of the West, arrived.°° After waging two desultory Persian campaigns, Valerian plunged the entire Roman East into the depths of crisis in June 260 when he sustained a major defeat and fell captive to Shapur outside Edessa in northern Mesopotamia.*’ As a result of Valerian’s ineptitude the Persians pillaged the cities of Mesopotamia, Syria, and eastern Asia Minor, but Shapur added no new territory to his vast domains.*8 Although humiliated and demoralized, the Roman army was not decisively defeated. The praetorian prefect Callistus and the quartermaster-general Macrianus rallied the army and successfully counterattacked the scattered Persian forces.’? Just as important, the Greek cities resolutely resisted the Persians.

The Hellenic Notables’ Response 91 There is little indication that the Greek ruling classes of eastern cities considered the Persians as anything other than barbarian marauders. Although the councilman Mariades betrayed his native Antioch, the third city of the Empire, to Shapur, no strong evidence exists that Mariades was championing the cause of a disaffected circus faction

or the Aramaic-speaking populace against the Hellenized aristocracy of the city. Shapur cared little about his image among Antiochenes; he ruthlessly butchered the population and put the city to the torch. Elsewhere in the Roman East, too, devotees of ‘Iranian’ cults, the disenfranchised and unemployed urban poor, and the autochthonic peasantry did not welcome the Persians as liberators.®' Instead, they probably fled in terror. In the chilling idiom of Akkadian and Assyrian conquerors, Shapur’s monumental trilingual inscription at Naqshi-i-Rustim records catalogues of cities sacked and districts ravaged.° Local aristocracies organized the resistance of their cities to the Persian invaders. In Mesopotamia, Edessa defied all of Shapur’s efforts to reduce it, and the citizens of Samosata received and refreshed the dispirited soldiers of Valerian.®* Several years before Valerian’s capture, Dura-Europos probably offered strong resistance, falling only after a prolonged siege and an assault, as did Nisibis and Carrhae in 260.% In eastern Asia Minor, the Cappadocian metropolis of Caesarea Mazaca put up a stouthearted defense under the command of a Roman officer named Demosthenes until a captive divulged a secret entrance into the city to the Persians.® In eastern Syria, just as Sampsigeramus had done several years earlier, the prince of Palmyra, Odenathus, assembled an army from his tenants, caravan escorts, villagers of the oases, and the archer cohorts who had proved their mettle in so many of the Empire’s battles.°° By 264 the improvised forces of Odenathus and the remnants of the eastern legions had decisively defeated Shapur and carried the war to the gates of the Persian capital of Ctesiphon in Babylonia.®’

The steadfastness of the Hellenic cities, with the exception of the two known instances of individual traitors, may perhaps be attributed to instincts of self-preservation

and local patriotism that had nothing to do with a wider loyalty to Rome. By their brutality the Persians forfeited whatever support discontented elements might have offered, and few men would have voluntarily considered entrusting themselves to the tender mercies of the Goths.® Self-defense in the third century must have bred self-confidence in some cities; in others contempt for ineffectual imperial efforts. From the late fifth to early seventh centuries, Greek cities, when faced with similar emergencies, gained greater self-confidence through the success of their efforts and the intercession of their patron saints.°? Dexippus records in his Gothic War that the emperor Trajan Decius was displeased with the initiative the citizens of Philippopolis displayed in warding off Teutonic raiders

because he feared a victorious populace, versed in the arts of war, might become revolutionary.’”° The spasm of usurpations and unrest throughout the Roman world and the resurgence of native linguistic and cultural diversity indicate strong, hidden separatist, regional, or even national currents beneath the edifice of imperial unity.”! At least among the urban elite, the attraction of a ‘‘Roman” identity turned out to be more powerful. Rather than emphasizing distinctions and fragmenting the diverse peoples and cities that composed the Latin West and the Greek East, crisis strengthened the bonds and prejudices that united the Mediterranean world against the outlandish

barbarians who encircled the empire.’ The iconography of later local coinage probably focused with as much intensity on

92 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS the images of the Roman emperor, army, and Roman institutions as it did upon the traditions of the polis. In contrast to their Christian heirs of the fifth and sixth centuries,

the Roman emperors of the third century commanded adequate military forces and financial resources not only to repel the barbarians but also to crush civil war and latent separatist movements. The vast outlay of civic coinage that marked the arrivals and campaigns of emperors from Septimius Severus to Aurelian reflects the two sides of the

relationship between Rome and city. Despite the brief collapse of the frontiers at mid-century, the Roman emperor and his legions acquitted themselves well in parrying invasions.”* On the other side, the Greek notables willingly supported imperial efforts from the outset, implicitly entrusting themselves and their cities to an imperial deliverer. The fundamental acceptance of Roman rule among the Hellenic notables probably explains why the Roman Empire survived the great crisis of the third century with its boundaries intact and its internal order much more unified and homogeneous than the polity of its Christian heirs, who faced and weathered a similar crisis. The fundamental acceptance of a Roman order that accommodated and nourished the integrity of the polis also fostered a jealous, local patriotism among Hellenic cities, which brooked no challenge to Roman rule from their ranks.’* Revolts and usurpations

in the Roman East did not inspire the separatist or nationalistic impulses that might be expected when a central government fails in providing security. As long as the municipal elites clung to their political convictions, the cities of the East, and with them the provinces, would remain under Roman rule, however much imperial oppression darkened the lives of most provincials. When provincial protest and frustration in the third century brought forth local saviors, each came in the trappings of a Roman emperor rather than as a symbol of independence. Popular rebels, insurgent generals, and later Palmyrene princes assumed impeccable Roman dress on their coins — the radiate crown, cuirass, and paludamentum. Syrians and Cappadocians articulated their grievances against the excessive taxation of Philip I by proclaiming an obscure figure, M. Fulvius Jotapianus, as their emperor (ca. 248).”° Several years later ‘the men of Syria’”’ declared another shadowy figure, Sampsigeramus of Emesa, as the emperor L. Julius Sulpicius Uranius Antoninus (253-—54).”© Provincials seeking to redress administrative abuses (as in the case of

Jotapian’s usurpation) or to organize resistance to invaders (as in that of Uranius Antoninus) created their own Roman emperor. Neither action was a bid for independence. In the late summer of 260 the generals Callistus and Macrianus advanced the two sons of the latter, Macrianus Junior and Quietus, as the heirs of the captured Valerian. All Asia and Egypt quickly recognized the young usurpers because Gallienus, tied down in the West, offered no prospect of effective aid against Shapur.’” Imperial mints in the East industriously minted gold aurei and billon antoniniani bestowing all the hackneyed praises of the age upon the two brothers.”® The cities of Pisidian Antioch, Nicaea, Heraclea Pontica, and Byzantium struck their own bronze coins in the names of the two rulers; dedications have survived at Nacolea in Phrygia and the Roman colony of Apamea on the southern shores of the Sea of Mamara.” Yet this mighty

whirlwind from the East represented neither a popular insurgency to overthrow Roman rule nor the apocalypse predicted in anti-Roman literature. Macrianus Senior and Callistus, the true architects of the revolt, aimed at securing mastery of the entire Roman world.®® As soon as these hopes were dashed, when the Illyrian legions loyal to

The Hellenic Notables’ Response 93 Gallienus defeated and slew the two Macriani in the spring of 261, support for Callistus and Quietus quickly evaporated.®! The defeat of Valerian also catapulted the caravan city of Palmyra in eastern Syria and its prince Odenathus into political prominence in the Near East. Odenathus, who was descended from his namesake the celebrated senator, had regrouped Roman forces in Syria in 260.°? It is difficult to fathom the motives and tergiversations of Odenathus, who between 260 and 267 assumed not only command of the war against Shapur but also an assortment of titles.8? Contrary to the unsubstantiated claims of the Augustan History, he most likely did not assume the purple.** Later Greek chroniclers describe

him as a ‘faithful ally’ and ‘‘general of the East,’’ but the Roman administration of Syria took no official notice of him, and none of the cities in Roman Asia Minor or Syria ever minted coins in his name.®* The ambiguous position of Odenathus reflects both

the peculiarly independent status Palmyra had always enjoyed within the Roman Empire and Odenathus’s own difficulty in thinking in terms of political independence. Odenathus assumed the royal diadem and the ancient title King of Kings probably in

defiance of Shapur and to bolster his own reputation among the wealthy, proud oligarchs of his native city rather than to announce the renascence of a Semitic empire in the Near East.86 While Roman provincial authorities and Hellenic cities were pre-

pared to accept Odenathus as commander in the war against Shapur, they would tolerate neither Odenathus nor Palmyra as the imperial heir to Rome. The emperor Gallienus grew even less tolerant; he attempted, without success, to resume direct rule in the East upon the death of Odenathus.®’ Queen Zenobia, the wife and successor of Odenathus, although less circumspect in her imperial ambitions, projected herself (somewhat inconsistently) as an Aramaic princess, a refined Hellenistic queen, and a Roman Augusta.*8 When upon the death of Claudius II Gothicus (268-70) civil war gave her the opportunity to seize Antioch, Zenobia initially courted Aurelian to gain recognition of herself and her son Vaballathus as co-rulers in the East.®? Simultaneously, she styled herself as the new Cleopatra, an image hardly likely to endear her to most Romans, and gathered to her court Hellenic savants such as Longinus.?° Whatever her motives and goals, Zenobia seems to have had little success in rousing the cities of the East to embrace her cause or to send their young men into her armies.”! In Syria, the actions of Antioch’s population and the intercession of Emesa’s Sol on the Roman side during the campaign of Aurelian suggest that these two cities resented the upstart Palmyra.” In Palestine and Roman Arabia, when Zabdas, Zenobia’s leading general, invaded Egypt, the Palmyrene army

encountered resistance that provided a pretext for pillaging the Roman colony of Bostra and the temple of Jupiter Hammon.” In Alexandria and the lower valley of the Nile, the Palmyrene conquest was marred by bloody fighting, confused and chaotic even by Egyptian standards.”* Twice in 270-71 Zabdas had to invade Egypt; neither the Greeks of the towns nor the Egyptian fellaheen seem to have greeted the Palmyrenes as liberators. The prefect Probus, who opposed the first Palmyrene attack, and the general and future emperor Probus, sent by Aurelian to recover the province in 271, dealt only with Palmyrene forces and not with native insurgents. Zenobia’s rule of the Greek cities of Asia Minor was probably the weakest link in the Palmyrene hegemony over the Roman East. Zabdas in 271 seems to have attempted nothing more than a military occupation of strategic cities along the major highways to check the impending Roman invasion by Aurelian. Palmyrene forces apparently

94 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS never garrisoned any bastion farther west than Ancyra; Chalcedon flatly rejected Palmyrene overtures; and at Cyzicus the imperial mint operated in the name of Aurelian without interruption.”? The success of Aurelian’s lightning campaign perhaps owed more to the welcome of the Greek cities than to his own genius. The Palmyrenes offered their first and only resistance in Asia Minor at Tyana in Cappadocia, and the speedy capitulation of that city opened the route to Syria. Aurelian’s fair treatment of Tyana as a liberated ally rather than as a conquered foe must have confirmed the faith of Rome’s Hellenic supporters.” Some cities of the East sent irregular contingents to fight alongside the Romans and, at the decisive battle of Immae in 272, even the gods of the East foresake Zenobia. Helios-Sol of Emesa, protector of Severan emperors, interceded on behalf of Aurelian, dispersing the advancing Palmyrene cavalry with his blinding rays of sunlight.?’ Zenobia’s short-lived Palmyrene empire offered the best opportunity for a disaffected provincial nobility to throw off the yoke of an oppressive Rome. Instead, the cities of the East overwhelmingly rejected this chance and adhered steadfastly to the

legitimate emperor in Rome. The triumphant departure of Aurelian from the East marked Rome’s mastery of the political crisis in the East, although Persian pressures would require Aurelian’s successors to take the field again. The return of Aurelian to Rome also marks the close of this study. Shortly thereafter, local coinage ceased and our main source of information about the political attitudes of Greek notables during the third century disappears. Crisis in the third century sharply defined the political allegiances of the Hellenic notables, but it also undermined the

financial and economic foundations of local elites in the last quarter of the third century. Inflation abruptly terminated the minting of municipal bronze coinages throughout the East, and the economic consequences were felt immediately. Between the currency reforms of Aurelian and Diocletian, eastern cities lacked adequate supplies of coined money and resorted to expedients such as countermarking old, worn civic bronze pieces. The great monetary reforms of Diocletian at the close of the third

century relieved cities after nearly two decades of chronic shortages of currency. Diocletian, although the great conservative reformer, never revived the local minting

of currency. Besides its economic results, the swift and complete demise of local coinage in the Roman East had other, less obvious, consequences. For the end of local coinage is part of the wider story of the important changes arising in the last quarter of the third century that wrought the transformation of the classical city and the Greek notables under the Dominate.

9 Epilogue Civic Politics Without Civic Coins, 284-363

See, “a Re eee”. Bee Vea ie Cm \\ EY

ss ie

L477) 4 A Gs

During the three generations between the accession of Diocletian and the death of Julian the Apostate, there was a strong possibility that the rich pagan political and religious traditions responsible for the success of the Greek polis under the Roman Empire might revive. The emperors Diocletian (284-305), Galerius (305-11), and Julian the Apostate (360-63) all posed as upholders of the ancient notion of Romanitas,

veneration of ancestral gods, and the life of ‘‘autonomous” cities. They were the architects of the great pagan revivals that sought to rally conservative forces against Christianity. As Peter Brown has noted, although they might never have eradicated Christianity, they might have halted its inroads among the ruling classes and demoted it to the inferior faith of the masses, much as the traditional forces of medieval China

were to do against Buddhism.’ If these later emperors who so ardently professed traditional values had been successful, one expected result would have been the resumption, albeit ephemerally, of local coinage. Yet this never happened. The years between the reigns of Diocletian and Julian are marked by the complete absence of any effort to revive local coinage. The reasons for the cessation of civic coinage in the 270s were primarily economic; the reasons for the failure to resume local coinage were far more complex. In 296 when Diocletian closed the provincial mint of Alexandria —the last of the regional mints in the Roman East — he inaugurated a standardized imperial coinage carrying empirewide appeals and exhibiting minimal variations in style.* The personnel at Alexandria were put to work in turning out reformed imperial aurei and silverwashed base-metal nummi, and Egypt at last joined the currency system of the rest of the Roman world. By his comprehensive currency reforms and the enactment of the

Edict of Maximum Prices and the Monetary Edict recently found at Aphrodisias, Diocletian turned his back on the Principate’s traditions of local minting.* Perhaps the exigencies of inflation compelled Diocletian to dispense with independent civic silver and bronze coinages, but his decision can also be viewed as the logical outcome of fifty years of the imperial policy of opening imperial mints in provincial centers to strike currency as pay for military forces.* The purpose of his reforms and the content of the coins themselves suggest that Diocletian, as well as Galerius and Julian later in the fourth century, did not revive local coinage because it was beyond the means of both the emperor and the cities to do so.

95

96 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS The content of Tetrarchic coinage, while strongly traditional, is single-minded in its

use of a few universal appeals: ‘‘to the spirit of the Roman people” (Genio Populi Romani), Jupiter, and Hercules. These were later joined on the coins of Constantius I and Constantine by Sol Invictus and Mars Conservator.’ The coinage of Carthage under Maximianus— which bore personifications of the city Karthago and the province Africa— was a minor anomaly, but this mint was quickly brought into line with the iconography of the other imperial mints.°® It is as if the Tetrarchs desired to keep the political and religious appeals on their coins to a manageable few. This reflected, in part, a break from the hackneyed personifications and declarations of valuesseenon % antoniniani of the third century; but it also kept the symbolism of the coinage uniform and readily comprehensible to the diverse inhabitants of the Roman world. Although

local coinage contributed much to the linear engraving, iconographic details, and appeals found on later imperial coinage, Tetrarchic coinage was primarily an imperial art, distinctly abstract in its style and universalist in its appeals. The numerous divine figures so often found on local coins were not restored by either Diocletian or Galerius in their struggle against Christianity. What neither Diocletian nor Galerius chose to do, Julian the Apostate was in an even less favorable position to effect. His pagan reaction had remarkably little impact on Roman imperial coinage. Some of his earliest gold solidi, struck just after his proclamation at Paris, show a Roman soldier in the company of the eagle of Jupiter and proclaim the ‘‘bravery of the Gallic army’’ (VIRTVS EXERC. GALL.).’ Julian’s most overt, and

virtually only, pagan coin type—which provoked bitter criticism from Christian Antiochenes — is the striding heroic bull found on the large reformed bronze ‘‘double maiorinae.”’ The bull, strongly reminiscent of the heroic bulls that populate so many local coins of Asia Minor, is easily recognized as a pagan symbol, but its meaning is so cryptic as to confound precise identification.® The bull has been explained as a symbol of Zeus, the astral sign of Taurus (i.e., the birth sign of Julian), the cosmic Mithraic bull, the Platonic bull of divine kingship mentioned by Dio Chrysostom, the bull Apis of Alexandria, or a sacrificial victim.’ The very diversity of explanations suggests that Julian’s bull, which is accompanied by the legend ‘‘Security of the Commonwealth” (SECVRITAS REI PVBLICAE), represented no one of these, but instead was a composite of

them all, just as the single Neoplatonic godhead wore the varied identities of many lesser divinities. Except for these magnificent specimens of the heroic bull, Julian’s coinage makes no comment on his pagan revival; nor did the later pagan revival in the West in the late 380s and early 390s affect the coinage. Above all, Julian did not encourage the reopening of local mints, even though he was striving to restore Greek civic institutions in so many other ways.!° While there was no local coinage from the East during the reigns of the last great pagan emperors of the Dominate, the afterglow of municipal coinage flickered in Rome—the bastion of the senatorial aristocracy——which minted small bronze ‘“pseudo-coins” (probably in connection with distributions at the festivals of Isis and Serapis) throughout the first three-quarters of the fourth century.!! The Roman senators also commissioned larger medallions called contorniates, which, it is generally agreed, did not function as true currency. With their varied pagan symbolism, these contorniates may have been efforts by the Roman aristocracy to propagate pagan symbols and festivals, but their meaning and impact are still open to serious question. !” Their importance in large part depends upon how serious a threat the senatorial pagan

Epilogue 97 revival at Rome posed to the Christian court at Constantinople in the last half of the fourth century.!? Fainter still are the last echoes of municipal bronze coinages during the late fifth and early sixth centuries, which again, ironically, survive from Italy rather than from the populous Hellenic cities of the East. First under Odovacar and then under the Ostrogothic kings, Rome, and to a much lesser extent Ravenna, minted

) assorted bronze denominations with the obverse bust of Roma Invicta and with re-

verses depicting the wolf and twins or with the abbreviation S.C, which here makes its last numismatic appearance.!* These coins were probably inspired neither by lingering

civic pride, however, nor struck on the initiative of the Roman Senate. They were probably issued by order of German kings reluctant to use the likeness of the living Byzantine emperor, with whom they happened to be either at diplomatic loggerheads or at war. The total absence of any numismatic revival in the Hellenic cities is eloquent testimony to the changed political and religious attitudes among the notables during the first half of the fourth century. Although the Christian church exploited its favored position under Constantine and his sons, urban life in the early fourth century was still far from completely Christianized. The Greco-Roman city contained a polyglot society of pagans, Christians, Jews, and heretics of every stripe. The Greek-speaking upper classes, whether Christian or pagan, shared the same tastes in literature and art, as well as the same philosophy, politics, and social outlook.’? Julian the Apostate shrewdly calculated that the pagan local elites could be marshaled behind the cause of his reformed paganism under the banner of his Platonic King Helios-Zeus; yet Julian’s revitalized local elites never reasserted the sovereignty of their cities by striking new issues of local money. Their failure to resume local coinage arose not simply from economic causes but from the fundamental differences —in spite of all their outward similarities ——that separated the Greek city of the age of Julian from that of the Antonine, Severan, or even the Gallienic ages. These differences underlay the failure of Julian’s program to restore the pagan cults, the Hellenic notables, and the classical city. Public inscriptions proclaimed Julian the Apostate ‘‘restorer of the world” (reparator orbis) and ‘‘defender of liberty and the commonwealth” (propugnator libertatis et rei publicae), epithets accorded to soldier-emperors of the bleak mid—third century and

certainly deserved by Julian, who was the first emperor since Diocletian to face squarely the plight of decurions and cities.'° Julian perceived that a revival of paganism

required the restoration of the dignity, finances, and political responsibility of the decurions who had staffed the priesthoods and officiated over the public sacrifices. In contrast to Diocletian and Galerius, Julian comprehended how much imperial civilization rested upon its classical cities. He did not just appreciate the importance of the classical city; he was devoted to fostering its rebirth. In 358 Julian wrote to his mentor Libanius at Antioch: ‘“You would wish that the cities had all the other advantages by which they prosper and, above all, that they were rich in literary production; for you are well aware that if this is wiped out, we differ in nothing from barbarians.’’!” Julian, who spoke Greek as his first language and was steeped in classical letters and manners, possessed a Hellenic outlook that distinguished him sharply from the Latinspeaking, Balkan soldier-emperors who had monopolized the throne since Gallienus. His study at Athens proved decisive not only in molding his religious and intellectual beliefs, but also in his political perceptions; for in the staunchly pagan Athens of the fourth century, the blood and spiritual descendants of the noble Athenian families still

98 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS proudly served their polis, spurning the high offices of the Roman emperor.!® Iamblichus, son of Himerius and scion of an illustrious family of philosophers, rebuilt the wall of the city at his own expense, and even into the mid-—fifth century the Athenian nobility continued to sponsor the Panathenaic festivals and to repair the civic monuments and religious shrines of the city.!? With the image of the pagan Athens in mind, Julian devised measures for resuscitating the spiritual and political life of the Empire’s

cities. During his first months of undisputed rule at Constantinople, he feverishly implemented relief to the hard-pressed decurions as an integral part of his program to restore his beloved Hellenism. He ruthlessly dismissed palatine officials and servants not as a measure of economy or out of personal distaste for the overblown ritual of the Constantinian court, but because most of these former imperial servants were of curial origin, and Julian intended to force them to return to their native cities.?° Restoration of municipal properties usurped by the imperial fiscus or the Christian church and exemptions to decurions from onerous taxes and from the even more odious duty of tax

collection followed quickly. Julian strove to expand the membership of the local councils, and to raise the prestige, morale, and responsibility of their individual members.?}

On the surface, Julian’s legislation appears nostalgically conservative, perhaps even

reactionary. Its aim seems to be nothing less than the restoration of the delicate balance of Romanitas— political loyalty and service to Rome — with ‘‘Hellenism,”’ Julian’s word for the ancient political and religious traditions of the polis expressed ina host of terms such as philopatris, philotimia, eusebeia, and the like.** Julian’s conception of the Roman Empire appears to have promised a return to the old alliance of Roman and Hellenic values —the confident fusion epitomized in the careers of such men as Herodes Atticus and Arrian of Nicomedia. For it was this brilliant alliance that had carried the Empire through the political and economic crisis of the third century. The descendants of these decurional families offered the only hope, in the mid—fourth century, to reverse the policies of two generations of Christian emperors who had methodically attacked the religious and cultural foundations of the classical city. The reforms of Julian, however, no more represented a return to the classical past than did the policies of his Christian predecessors or of his Christian successors.

However much financial relief and moral support Julian held out to the pagan

aristocracies, he in no way restored, nor intended to restore, the vital ingredients of | local political initiative and the self-motivated patriotism still proclaimed on local coins as late as the reign of Aurelian. The ‘‘autonomous”’ pagan cities visualized by Julian

remained but components of the universal Roman state headed by the philosopher emperor breathing divine inspiration from the Platonic King Helios-Zeus. Nowhere is Julian’s universalist view more evident than in his approach to the restoration of the innumerable local temples and shrines of the cities. He considered all local, ethnic gods but the emanations of the ultimate, indivisible reality of the Platonic One; likewise, the cities remained local aspects of the greater, truer whole of the Roman state.?? In combating Christianity, Julian sought to impose administrative and hierarchical order upon the priesthoods and cults of the cities, just as Galerius had attempted to do earlier in the century. In the words of his most recent biographer, ‘‘Julian proved that his empire was Byzantine rather than Antonine, with Hellenism instead of Christianity fulfilling the role of the State cult.’ The decurions alone, whether as civic administrators or as priests of the gods, could not generate a pagan revival. They had to look above

Epilogue 99 for leadership, and the need for such leadership was in itself a sign of the demise of the independent political and religious life of the classical polis. For, in the early fourth century, whether the Roman emperor and his court adopted paganism or Christianity, the universal imperial state had triumphed. It is no accident that local coinage, along with the vast array of public monuments, religious shrines, and inscriptions, failed to reappear in the eastern cities of Julian’s day.’ It was not a matter of too brief a reign of a pagan emperor or even too few decurions to implement the reforms. The values and

traditions of the men themselves, not just their numbers, had been the key to the success of the cities of the high Empire. The ultimate fate of civic patriotism (and its expression in local coinage) in the classical city rested not upon the success or failure of Julian’s reforms, but upon the state of the fortunes and morale of cities and civic elites during the closing decades of the third century. The appeals on later local coinage might suggest that crisis in the third century tested and strengthened the beliefs and institutions of the Greek notables of the East; yet this clearly was not the case. The oligarchies of the Greek cities after 300 were reduced in numbers and many lesser notables were too hard-pressed financially

to emulate the patriotism and philanthropy of their forefathers. All too often the wealthiest members of the civic council (the principales) contributed to the evils as they

secured for themselves special standing and exemptions, while they burdened the lesser decurions with the most ruinous obligations.*° In drawing upon their innermost resources to preserve civic life during the third century, the Greek notables had won a

pyrrhic victory. By the last quarter of the third century, the costs of meeting new imperial demands, confronting invasion, and maintaining the traditions of civic life had become too much; the finances, goodwill, and credibility of the curial class were seriously weakened. The political and social life of cities did not, however, suddenly collapse during the fourth century; the outward forms of municipal values and institutions persisted. After the death of Diocletian, many aristocrats, both pagan and Christian, rose to the call of their cities. While it is not known how well the Hellenic provincial aristocrats of the

early fourth century were positioned to recover their wealth and to resume their political, social, and religious leadership in eastern cities, it is evident from late imperial legislation that most urban elites lacked the confidence and capacity to resume their full traditional roles immediately. What is not quite as clear is that the old ruling

class never had the opportunity, even during the brief months of Julian’s frenetic reforms, to reassert itself. Greek notables were steadily forced to yield political control

and patronage to the Roman emperor, his bureaucrats, and the hierarchy of the Christian church. By the time of Constantine (306 — 37), the relatively small Roman central administration of Septimius Severus (193-211) had grown into a bloated bureaucracy, swallowing up the talents of decurions and the independence of the Empire’s cities.?7 Simultaneously, the army doubled, and in its need for more officers, logistical staff, and administrative personnel, it drained off trained, competent men from local councils.?8

Diocletian first shifted the locus of imperial power in the East when he took up residence at the city of Nicomedia in northwestern Asia Minor. Constantine appreciated the insight of his pagan predecessor and chose to build his Christian capital, ‘‘New Rome,” on the European shores of the Bosporus. The foundation of Constantinople was the culmination of a long historical process that had begun when Trajan and

100 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS Hadrian had opened the doors of the Roman Senate to deserving eastern aristocrats. Constantinople became the magnet luring the most promising students of Libanius away from Antioch into the emperor’s palatine and provincial bureaucracies; it became the fount of nobility and social recognition as well as the source of the lucrative public careers that were the life blood of the aristocratic ethos.*? Provincial notables reacted as would be expected; they trod the road to the Christian capital to swell the widening circle of senators, officials, pensioners, and servants who revolved around the sacred imperial person. By placing his capital in the Roman East, Constantine had transformed the various eastern provinces —each with its distinct group of leading cities —into an eastern empire whose capital Constantinople quickly grew into the ‘queen of cities,’’ dwarfing the political and religious significance of all other eastern cities. The politics of the imperial court and the imperial Senate in Constantinople determined the fate of all the cities and the peoples of the East. The once proud, autonomous Hellenic cities of the provinces, such as Ephesus, Nicomedia, and Antioch, fell to the level of following administrative directives from the capital.?° The cities of Thrace and western Anatolia especially declined almost to the status of suburbs of Constantinople. Perhaps the best measure of how much political and religious life came to center on the new capital is the growth of imperial ceremony at Constantinople in the fourth century. By the mid—fourth century the ceremony of the adventus came to rest at Constantinople in the ritual of the enthronement of Theodosian emperors.?! The emperor no longer departed from his capital to tour his eastern cities and to court consensus from his Hellenic subjects. The innumerable festivals and games that cities had held as expressions of political loyalty in the second and third centuries were replaced by the ceremonies centered on the Hippodrome, the imperial palace, and Hagia Sophia. Constantinople now acted as the theater for all such political ceremonies; the populace of Constantinople played a double role — as the Roman people and as proxy for the popular assemblies of eastern cities.*? The essence of the political and religious ceremonies of the pagan cities of the East survived by being absorbed into the public ceremonies of Christian Constantinople. While pagan and Christian emperors alike professed love for the cities and styled themselves as their benefactors, they all, save for Julian, acted ambivalently in their patronage of the cities. Diocletian and Maximianus granted a traditional civic charter to Tymandus, a small town in eastern Asia Minor, as an announcement that imperial support for urban life had not waned.’? As late as the mid-— fifth century, the Western emperor Majorian acknowledged decurions as ‘‘the sinews of the state and the hearts of the cities.’’** Emperors, however, directed their primary attentions to Constantinople, Rome, Treveri, Milan, and other imperial residences. Their largesse to provincial cities proved selective; and those cities not blessed with imperial gifts often languished.??

Even more detrimental to the survival of the classical pagan city were the policies Christian emperors pursued toward cities and decurions. Successive Christian emperors attacked the cultural and religious foundations of the city by closing pagan temples, confiscating their treasuries and votive offerings, and forbidding public worship of the old gods.*® Eusebius rejoiced when Constantine channeled the gold he had plundered from pagan shrines to strengthening the Christian church and winning souls for God.?” Worship of the local gods and civic political institutions were inter-

Epilogue 101 twined; both in turn were linked with the social institutions civic elites had long dominated. When Christian emperors assailed the old cults and priesthoods, they inevitably undermined the social deference paid to the ruling classes; they eroded civic pride and the importance of local political offices; and they discouraged private endowments and patronage. The destruction of paganism demanded as its corollary the demise of the traditional civic ruling class.** Christian emperors of the fourth century were more erratic in their policies and the application of their laws relating to the administration of cities. All emperors, including Julian, envisioned the cities in a subsidiary role, and most emperors were indifferent to the difficulties faced by local councils in meeting imperial obligations and maintaining civic finances and morale. In the crucible of the third century, soldieremperors — insecurely seated on their thrones and desperate for men, money, and services to defend a beleaguered Empire — had broken and reforged civic institutions for imperial ends. They imposed upon civic notables the responsibility for the collection of taxes and drafted them into imperial service as unpaid liturgists and administrators.*? The decurions were, however, denied initiative and social recognition. Deprived of the rewards but left with the obligations of philotimia and philopatris, local aristocrats ceased to compete for the plaudits of their peers and demesmen at home; instead, they sought to enter the ranks of the imperial bureaucracy.*° The wholesale exodus of the decurions threatened imperial administration and taxation, and the emperors — who

had so systematically destroyed the patriotism and solvency of the decurions — fulminated and issued coercive, shortsighted legislation. In a fashion all too characteristic of the fourth century, emperors offered no comprehensive reforms to combat the evils of their central administration, but instead issued edicts to force decurions to assume their unwanted tasks. Between the conversion of Constantine and the death of Constantius IJ, forty-nine surviving ‘‘constitutions”’ stipulate compulsory, hereditary service of decurions.*! Emperors succeeding Julian continued to cajole, remonstrate, and bully decurions to return to their native cities and to discharge their tasks. The edicts, for all their moralistic admonitions and stern punishments, must be considered failures by virtue of the very frequency of their reenactment. Corrupt officials and culpable decurions connived in undermining reform; and what was worse, the emperor himself all too often suspended his own rulings to retain offenders in his own service.*? Facing his own acute shortage of competent administrative personnel, the emperor insisted that imperial needs took precedence over local ones. Haphazard enforcement of those few measures aimed at relieving hard-pressed decurions undermined whatever remained of local initiative and enthusiasm.* Inexorably local pagan aristocrats were driven into relinquishing their roles to the imperial officials and army officers of the Christian emperors. Many of the new imperial senators and bureaucrats descended directly from the old civic nobilities of the East, but they possessed a fundamentally different outlook in their service to the emperor and their patronage of provincial cities. They remained apart from the local governing bodies. Roman officers and even common soldiers, either on active service or in retirement, were particularly well placed to interfere in civilian life and politics without entering the ranks of the city council.** Libanius has

left us a telling picture of how his own Jewish tenants sought the protection of a general who must have been typical of generals who exercised their influence and patronage in the villages and small towns of the Empire.*? Civil and financial agents of

102 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS the emperor and the governors of provinces were also able to acquire patronage over villages, towns, urban guilds, and other local organizations that had once largely been the preserve of decurional families.*° In lamenting that Syrian villagers hunted for powerful patrons, Libanius did not censure the institution of patronage — for lesser

men had always put themselves at the disposal of greater ones; instead, Libanius resented the fact that the villagers sought favors and protection from palatine officials

and Roman soldiers rather than from the established families of Antioch’s social register.*”

Libanius perceived that the notables of Antioch in his day, with their ranks thinned

. and sharply divided between principales and lesser members, lacked the prestige, selfesteem and numbers to absorb the members of the new imperial aristocracy.*® Local service and patriotism had sunk to an unwanted expense, conferring nothing of the

honor or distinction that had once attracted new members. During the Principate, whenever demographic or economic forces ravaged the boule, new members, who often purchased estates and social respectability at a premium, eagerly entered the ranks of the ancient civic families. Adopting the attitudes and tastes of the decurional class, these novi homines and their descendants in turn recruited, intermarried with, and

assimilated the next generation of new men into the city’s ruling class. Although Statistics are wanting, the law codes and literary sources of the Dominate give the distinct impression that the new imperial servants who patronized provincial cities preferred to remain outside the town council. For them, the attractions of imperial service far outweighed any inducement to join the decurional order—a rank they came to despise as a means to lose the honors and rewards gained in imperial service.*?

Even those decurions who preferred to serve their cities as did Libanius at Antioch, Synesius at Cyrene, and Romanianus, the patron of Augustine — split their time and efforts between their native city and the imperial capitals of Constantinople and Milan.”° Civic politics, patronage, and administration were slowly enmeshed in the subtle politics of the imperial court. If an aristocrat was to exercise his traditional role in his polis, he could no longer depend upon his wealth, his ancestry, his education, and

his willingness to serve. Imperial connections and patronage had become essential at the local level. As a result, the civic aristocracies lost not only their power to attract and assimilate new blood, but also the will to espouse the traditional political values of their own order. The true heirs of the Greek notables were not found among imperial officialdom, but among the bishops, deacons, holy men, and monks of the eastern cities. When Julian ordered the reopening of pagan temples throughout the Roman world, the aristocrats and populace of some pagan cities, such as Athens, hailed the return of piety, but many others, such as Antioch and Caesarea Mazaca, remained obdurately Christian.?! Even in cities where Christians did not compose the majority of the population, Julian had to appoint trusted intimates to oversee the implementation of his pagan reforms.*? The resistance of Christians to Julian’s reforms revealed their political influence and the

extent to which the Hellenic city had redefined itself in Christian terms. Although society in the Greco-Roman cities throughout the fourth century was pluralistic, the initiative in local public life was decisively shifting to the Christian side. Not until the eve of the sixth century were most cities in the Roman East substantially Christian in population.** Not until the last half of the sixth century did the Christian episcopacy, along with a Christianized upper class, place a decidedly Christian stamp on local life

Epilogue 103 and patriotism by erecting Christian buildings and instituting civic religious processions, holy days, and cults to saints.** Even so, the Christian bishops of the early fourth century, backed by the rulings of Constantine and his sons, had already coopted much of the local political pride and civic religious sentiment once directed by the pagan decurional class. In the eastern cities, the episcopacy of the new faith was heir to the educational, aesthetic, and philosophical values of the pagan Hellenic notables. In fact, the Christian clergy were, for the most part, the descendants of Hellenic notables of the second and third centuries.°’ Gregory Nazarinus reports the dream that inspired his father, the elder Gregory, to seek baptism from Bishop Leontius of Caesarea, who was seated with his entourage at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Within four years, the elder Gregory, a refined pagan aristocrat, had not only embraced Christianity, but was ordained as one its bishops.’® Likewise, later in the fourth century, John Chrysostom, member of a distinguished Antiochene family, perfected his oratorical skills under Libanius, and then applied his genius to the service of the new faith as he transformed the pulpit and platform of Antioch’s church into the new rostra of the popular orator. His sermons, delivered in flawlessly beautiful prose, were worthy successors to the political orations of the theater, the odeum, and the agora.”” With good reason, Christians adopted the word for a popular political assembly, ecclesia, to describe the congregration of the faithful. The ritual and drama of the Christian Church absorbed the essence of local pagan political life. Under the Constantinian emperors, the bishops of eastern cities had already assumed much of the patronage from the pagan curials by sponsoring charity and relief for the poorer urban classes. The bishop’s courts, with the grants made by Constantine, acquired wide areas of legal competence in the cities.*® These new Christian leaders in the eastern cities, whose ancestors had once ruminated upon the local political and religious values declared on their cities’ coins, turned their energies and their sentiments toward the local manifestations of their Christian faith.

Julian’s conception of a revived paganism was, therefore, perhaps doomed to founder, at least in the heavily Christianized cities of the eastern provinces, because the

bishops had become the true local leaders. The episcopacy’s position was greatly enhanced by the holy men who rose to prominence first in the towns and countryside of Syria during the fourth century, and slightly later in Asia Minor.?? The Christian holy man acted as the indispensible mediator between the transcendent God and His true believers; he also became a powerful patron and arbiter among villagers and townsmen in their more mundane daily disputes. He became, in the view of Peter Brown, “‘the ancient ideal of the great benefactor, presiding over the good cheer — the evgpoobvy— of the united community.’’©° His mortification of the flesh and his divinely inspired miracles played to the theatrical sense and spiritual emotions of the masses, filling the void left by the disappearance of pagan religious festivals and public rites. The patronage, intercession, and holiness of the charismatic ascetic engendered intense local pride and belief during his lifetime; and his canonization and cult after his death helped to revitalize local morale and civic life in the early Byzantine city.*! The bishops and local holy men did not simply assume the mantle of civic politics and the traditions of the later Principate. There were subtle, important distinctions between their beliefs and the values of philotimia and philopatris of the Greek notables living in the early Severan age. In contrast to the classical city, the Christian city’s loca] religious and political patriotism reflected the greater, universal Christian message.

104 CIVIC COINS AND CIVIC POLITICS God’s largesse in the form of an inspired holy ascetic in eastern Syria or of the doctrinal variation offered by an insightful theologian of Alexandria (whether he be orthodox or

heretic) was granted not just to a particular city, but to the whole of mankind. The deeds of holy men in remote Syrian villages and the Trinitarian doctrines of Egyptian bishops could, within a decade, resound throughout the entire Christian Roman Empire and beyond. The local proponents of the Christian message spoke not only for their own flocks, cities, ‘“ethnic’’ people, or provinces; but for the whole of the Christian

community. This difference in outlook between pagan and Christian was already evident in the third century. The civic coins and monuments of the hellenized Phrygian cities, such as Laodicea and Hierapolis in the Lycus valley, embodied symbols and

beliefs primarily, if not exclusively, relevant to the inhabitants of the region.®* In contrast, the charismatic revelations of Montanus and his followers did not speak only

to Phrygians, but reached out to all—Christians and unbelievers — and even converted such intellectuals as Tertullian of North Africa.© In the Christian city of the fourth century, potent local beliefs and energies were harnessed to the universal purpose. The shift in the role of local political and spiritual values within eastern cities at least in part reflected the passing of polytheism. Traditional paganism offered no real precedent for the universalist appeal of Christianity. In the later second century Alexander

of Abonouteichus created his own god, the serpent Glycon, an avatar of Asclepius complete with oracles. Alexander’s affiliations with the imperial house and influential senatorial families, as well as his contacts with the powerful oracular center of Claros, ensured the spread of Glycon’s worship throughout Asia Minor and the Balkans. Yet,

in the three centuries of the Principate— an age considered to be one of religious ferment — the worship of Glycon is the only new pagan cult to have emerged.® Both Glycon and the divinities of the older, and now much debated, enthusiastic ‘‘mystery”’ cults, succeeded in winning devotees because they firmly embedded themselves in the local religious surroundings of wherever they took root. These so-called dynamic cults of paganism were a far cry from being local manifestations of an organized religious establishment with a universal dogma. By the close of the fourth century, civic patriotism and public religious beliefs were rapidly being Christianized. The Byzantine emperors of the later fifth century were partially successful in linking this Christian civic patriotism to a wider imperial loyalty.°* Under the aegis of the Christian Church, civic patriotism and public worship in

the fourth and fifth centuries flowered until the Avar and Slavic invasions of the Balkans and Persian and Arabic conquests in the Near East disrupted Hellenic civic traditions.°” Yet the religious sentiments and politics of these Byzantine cities, while local in appearance, did not possess the same sense of unique identity that characterized the autonomy of the polis and its gods. Roman emperor and Christian episcopacy shared the view expressed by Eusebius that the Roman Empire and the Christian gospel were the common gift of God to mankind.® The idea of the Principate of a confederation of diverse cities and ethnic gods in the orbis Romanus had shifted to that of a community of Christian cities united in their faith, which was by definition orthodox and catholic. Perhaps the change is best explained in the metaphor used by the ecclesiastical historian Theodoret when he described the power of the miracles of Symeon Stylites: ‘Therefore, inasmuch as I recollected this man [i.e., Symeon] just as if I were to pass

Epilogue 105 current some coin type of his apostolic and prophetic miracles, so I leave him as a heritage for those men present to consider from whence he received the power of God’s grace.’’©? So, too, on a larger scale it was as if the values and beliefs of the old pagan civic

elites were — like old currency —recalled, reminted, and passed into circulation to demonstrate the untapped bullion of the Christian beliefs and values of their descendants. Though the crisis of the third century may have shaken loose the structure of the classical polis, a new and vigorous Christian structure arose upon its surviving foundations. Yet there is a sad irony in the story of the Hellenic notables of the third century. Their very resilience and tenacity in confronting crisis had undone the intellectual and economic basis for their dominance of civic life. For, in supreme crisis, as the appeals and iconography of civic coinage indicate, the local notables summoned up great reservoirs of strength, and in so doing, they sacrificed it, and Rome was much the poorer for the loss.

APPENDIX I Active Civic Mints, 31 B.C.-—A.D. 276

Emperor Number of Mints Striking Coins

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Tiberius SS Caligula so

Augustus

Nero | Claudius

Flavians Nerva/Trajan Hadrian

Antoninius Pius: > Marcus Aurelius

Septimius Severus >

Commodus

Macrinus —S Caracalla

Severus Alexander > Maximinus | Elagabalus

Gordian II = Philip I

Trajan Decius co Valerian/Gallienus — Trebonianus Gallus Claudius II Aurelian Tacitus

SOURCES: T. B. Jones, PAPAS 107 (1963):310, and M. C. Caltabiano, Quaderni ticinesi 6 (1977):245.

107

APPENDIX 2 Two Chronological Problems in the Reign of Valerian (253-60)

The poor state of the literary sources for the mid—third century has left obscure the dates of two important events in the East — the fall of Antioch to Shah Shapur and the defeat and capture of Valerian. Two contemporary Near Eastern sources date the fall of Antioch to the “’second campaign”’ of Shapur. The Persian shah states this on his monumental inscription (Res Gestae divi Saporis 1. 15). Rostovzteff, Berytus 8 (1943): 23-27, and Baldus, Urantus Antoninus 252-55, thus argue for a date of 253, and they note that Shapur’s list of captured cities, all located in northern Syria, corresponds closely to that of Philostratus preserved in Malalas (p. 297, Bonn). The Oracula Sibyllina (13.11.125-—26) indicates a

capture of Antioch sometime in the reign of Trebonianus Gallus as a result of the treachery of Mariades. Although Olmstead, CP 37 (1942): 398, suggests a date of 251, Rostovzteff, Berytus 8 (1943): 45, and Metcalf, ANSMusN 22 (1977): 90-91, demonstrate that this is too early. F. M. Heichelheim, ‘‘“Numismatic Comments IV: A Sassanian Issue in Antioch on the Orontes at the Time of Trebonianus Gallus,’’ Hesperia 16

(1947): 277-78 ( = SNGFitz 5918), supported this early date by publishing a tetradrachma of Gallus with reputed Sassanian countermarks. Metcalf, ANSMusN 22 (1977):

89-90, however, demonstrates that the coin is misread and the markings prove nothing of a Sassanian occupation during 251-53. The Near Eastern sources therefore seem to accord with statements in Zos. 1.27.2 that Syria was devastated and Antioch was sacked in the reign of Trebonianus Gallus. The other classical sources are either vague or inconsistent about the date of Antioch’s fall and the details of Mariades’ treachery. The two native Antiochenes of the fourth century, Ammianus Marcellinus (23.5.3) and Libanius (Or. 24.38) record the incident when Shapur’s army surprised at least part of the citizenry on the slopes of

Mount Silpius while it was watching a theatrical performance. Ammianus alone names Mariades as the traitor, and he ambiguously dates the event to temporibus Gallieni. It is uncertain whether Ammianus meant by this phrase that the city fell during the sole reign of Gallienus (260-68), and thus after the capture of Valerian, or

during the period of the joint reign (253-60). In either case, it is also uncertain whether his date is trustworthy (see Downey, Antioch 590). Ammianus (20.11.11) also

records that Shapur used a great ram against Antioch and then abandoned it near Carrhae, although it is unclear whether the assault implied by a ram is a detail incon-

109

MO ARRENDIK 2 sistent with the treachery of Mariades. Libanius (Or. 60.23) also reports an undated incident of Apollo saving his shrine at Daphne when Shapur burned the city. The other, later Antiochene author Malalas (p. 297, Bonn) preserves the account of Philostratus that records Shapur’s sack of Antioch in the year 264/5, a patently impossible date, but no emendation has been satisfactory (see Downey, Antioch 590-91). Malalas/Philostratus, however, dates the sack before the departure of Valerian for the East, but he casts doubt on his sense of chronology by writing that Valerian was murdered at Milan before his departure —an obvious confusion with Gallienus. If the identification of Sampsigeramus of Malalas (p. 296. 10—11) with Uranius Antoninus (253 —54) named

on coins is accepted, then the case for a 253/4 sack is considerably strengthened. Among later Latin authors, S.H.A., Vitae Tyr. Trig. 2.2 -3, records that Mariades led two Persian armies, one under Hormizd (Odomastes) and another under Shapur, against Caesarea Mazaca and Antioch before the capture of Valerian. Rostovtizeff, Berytus 8 (1943): 42, concludes that SHA records two separate columns operating in 253

(cf. Olmstead, CP 37 [1942]: 409-10). Caesarea Mazaca, however, is not listed as having been captured during the ‘second campaign’ (RGdS 11.10—18) and so see reservations in Downey, Antioch 592. The remaining Latin authors speak only of the devastation of Syria after the capture of Valerian; see Eutrop. 9.7; Oros. Hist. ad Pag. 12.24.4 and 12; Aur. Vict. De Caess. 32, Epit. de Caess. 32. 5; Festus Brev. 23; and Hier. Chron., p. 220 (Helm), and see comments of G. Pugliesse Carratelli, ‘“Res gestae divi Saporis,’’ PP 2 (1947): 223. Among Greek sources, Zosimus (1.27.2; cf. 1.32.3 and F. Paschoud, ed., Zosime: Histoire nouvelle, vol. 1 [Paris, 1971], 149-50) places the fall of the city in the reign of Trebonianus Gallus. Later Zosimus (1.36) discusses the capture of Valerian without

reference to a sack of Antioch or an invasion of Syria. (Cf. his remarks to RGdS 11.18-—33, for cities sacked in a ‘‘third campaign,’’ which are located in Asia Minor rather than in Syria.) Petrus Patricius (FHGIV 192, frag. 1), who employed the contemporary source of Dio Continuator, records that, after the capture of Valerian, Shapur encamped twenty stadia from Antioch. The upper classes fled; the masses awaited revolution; and Mariades betrayed the city. This account can be considered inconsistent with the details recorded by Ammianus Marcellinus (23.5.3) and Libanius (Or. 24.38), but the poor state of our knowledge does not allow us to discern whether these incidents were part of a single sack or are muddled references to two separate sacks. The Byzantine writer Zonares (12.23), who used Petrus Patricius, follows him in dating the sack after the capture of Valerian. Syncellus (I, pp. 715-16, Bonn ed.) records two sacks of the city, one under Trebonianus Gallus and the other under Valerian, but it is uncertain whether this late source was reconciling two separate traditions. Ensslin, SBAW 5 (1947): 30, argues that the first reference in Syncellus is merely anticipatory to the second passage, but this is unlikely (see Downey, Antioch 592 n. 20). Only the eleventh-century Nestorian Chronicle of Seerf (= Histoire nestorienne inédit [Chronique de Seerf], ed. Scher, Patrologia Orientalis 4.221) follows Syncellus in recording two sacks of

the city, although the chronicle’s chronology is obscure. A considerable body of scholarly opinion dates the sack of Antioch recorded in RGdS 1.15 and Orac. Sibyl. 13.125-—26 to 256/7 rather than to 253 on three grounds. (1) Itis argued that the fall of Dura-Europos in 256/7 was connected with Shapur’s “second campaign,” which resulted in the sack of Antioch. See notably Bellinger, Berytus 8 (1943): 66-67; A. Alfoldi, Studien zur Geschichte der Weltkrise des dritten Jahrhun-

APPENDIX 2 IIl derts n. Chr. (1967): 124-28; Honigmann and Marcigq, Mém. de l'Acad. roy. de Bel. 8, no. 47

(1955): 142; Pekary, Historia 11 (1962): 128; G. Walser and T. Pekary, Die Krise des romischen Reichs: Bericht itber die Forschungen zur Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts (193-284 n.

Chr.) (1962): 24-33; P. Bastien and H. Huvelin, ‘Trésor d’antoniniani en Syrie. La Victoria Parthica de Valérien. Les Emissions d’Aurélien a Antioche et Tripoli,’” RN 6, no. 11 (1969): 233 —-34; Callu, La Politique monétaire 210; A. Chastagnol, in Syria 51 (1974):

208-14; and J. P. Rey-Coquais, ‘‘Syrie romaine, de Pompée a Dioclétien,’”’ JRS 68 (1978): 57-58. The fall of Dura is usually dated to 256-57. See Bellinger, Dura, nos. 1337-38 and p. 209 and cf. Carson, Berytus 17 (1967): 127. See Alfoldi, Berytus 4 (1937): 14-15, and Bellinger, Berytus 8 (1943): 66-67, for emendation of the date of Malalas (p. 297) to 256/7 in support of this thesis. Dura, however, is nowhere recorded as sacked during Shapur’s ‘‘second campaign”’ (RGdS 11.10—18) and it is not necessary

for the sack of Antioch to be connected with the fall of Dura. Rostovtzeff, Berytus 8

| (1943): 26-27, argues persuasively that Shapur in 253 bypassed the strongpoint of Dura. Dura’s fall in 256 may belong to the period between Valerian’s return to Rome and his departure for his second fateful Persian expedition. (2) It is argued that the Chronicle of Seerf (ca. 1036) records two sacks of Antioch and

two deportations of some inhabitants, including Christians and the Bishop Demetrianus. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 7.5) preserves a letter to Pope Stephen I (May 12, 254August 2, 257) praising the activities of Demetrianus, which would seem to imply a capture of the city closer to 256/7 than 253. See P. Peeters, ‘‘Demetrianus, évéque d’Antioche?” Analecta Bollandiana 42 (1924): 288-314. The “‘second campaign”’ can thus be explained as encompassing all military operations between 253 and 258. See W. Henning, ‘‘The Great Inscription of Shapur I,”’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 4

(1951): 826; R. N. Frye, Bibliotheca Orientala 4 (1951): 103-6; and Honigmann and Maricq, Mém. de l’Acad. roy. de Bel. 8, no. 47 (1955): 132-40. Demetrianus died in captivity, probably in 260/1, and Paul of Samosata was elected as his successor, but the date of Demetrianus’s deportation is unknown and, especially if the Persians sacked Antioch in 260, he may well have suffered exile later than 256/7 (see Downey, Antioch 309, and G. Bardy, Paul de Samosate, étude historique, 2nd ed. [Louvain, 1929]: 249). Baldus, Uranius Antoninus 255-59, however, suggests 253 as the year of Demetrianus’s deportation. (3) Itis argued that Valerian moved the imperial mint at Antioch in 256/7 or opened a ‘‘second eastern mint” to replace Antioch either because Antioch had been sacked or was so exposed that it would fall to Shapur. Alf6ldi, Berytus 4 (1937): 41, favors Samosata as the new ‘‘second eastern mint,”’ and he is followed by Olmstead, CP 37 (1942): 419-20; R. Gobl, ‘“Der Aufbau der romischen Mtinzpragung in der Kaiserzeit, V/1: Valerianus und Gallienus (253.-—260),’’ NZ 75 (1951): 61; Callu, La Politique monetaire 209-12; and Rey-Coquais, JRS 68 (1978): 58. Bellinger, Berytus 8 (1943): 66-67,

: favors Emesa, and he is followed by Downey, Antioch 261. This ‘‘second eastern mint”’ was opened by Valerian in ca. 255 and coined money for him until Valerian’s capture in 260; it then minted the bulk of the coinage for the usurpers Macrianus and Quietus (260-61). Carson, Berytus 17 (1967): 123-42, and Elks, NC 7, 15 (1975): 96-97, demonstrate that the probable location of this mint was Cyzicus (see Besly and Bland, Cunetio Treasure 40-41). The overlap of the activities of the ‘‘second eastern mint” (Cyzicus), opened in 255, and Antioch, inactive between 257-63, suggests that Valerian’s decision to establish another mint — probably located in Asia Minor — was not

IT12 APPENDIX 2 related to the sack of Antioch. The cessation of coinage at Antioch in ca. 257 proves nothing about a sack in that year. Antioch did not strike on a continual basis and the use of an interruption in the coinage as evidence for a sack is not warranted. In 253 Antioch dramatically increased production with its last issues of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian, probably to pay for forces mobilized against Shapur’s invasion, and the mint commenced operations for Valerian perhaps as early as the fall of 253 (see Metcalf, ANSMusN 22 [1977]: 82-91). There was a brief hiatus in the production of imperial coinage and the provincial tetradrachmae were discontinued after the death of Trebonianus Gallus, but this inactivity could have been caused by the reluctance of cautious provincial authorities to declare their allegiances during the civil war of 253. (It is unlikely that Uranius Antoninus controlled the city without minting coins there; contra Callu, La Politique monétaire 209, and Baldus, Uranius Antoninus 179.) See Price, NC

7, 13 (1973): 75-78, for chronology. See P. Le Gentilhomme, ‘La Trouvaille de Nanterre,’ RN 5, no. 9 (1946): 52-54, and Callu, La Politique monétaire 175-76, for Aemilian’s imperial coinage produced only at Rome and Viminacium. It is significant that in the East only Alexandria (Vogt II 1520-51, and Milne, nos. 3863 —66), Viminacium, and six civic mints in western Asia Minor recognized Aemilian. The inactivity of civic mints in Syria and Mesopotamia could well reflect the invasion of Shapur, who took advantage of the confusion of the Roman civil war in the summer of 253 (see Carson, PINC 240-44, and the summary in Rey-Coquais, JRS 68 [1978]: 58). After Antioch suspended activities in 257, the ‘‘second eastern mint’’ (Cyzicus) ~ struck continuously for Valerian until 260 and then for the usurpers Macrianus and

Quietus (260-61). See Carson, Berytus 17 (1967): 130-31. A second mint (‘third eastern mint’’) under Macrianus and Quietus struck a coinage in a distinctively crude style, but it is unclear whether this mint was at Antioch or some other location. See Mattingly, NC 6, no. 14 (1954): 58-59, and Besly and Bland, Cunetio Treasure 41. After

the collapse of the great eastern revolt in 261, eastern mints struck no coinage for Gallienus until 263, when a mint at Antioch was once more opened; see Alfoldi, Berytus | 5 (1938): 48-59, and cf. the Cyzicene mint discussed in Elks, NC 7, no. 15 (1975):

99-107. This long inactivity of eastern mints may have resulted either from the caution of provincials in declaring their loyalties to Gallienus or Odenathus, or from the effects of the destruction wrought by Shapur’s ‘‘third campaign.”’ In sum, in light of Shapur’s own words and the Oracula Sibyllina, as well as the Antioch hoard, the evidence suggests that Mariades probably betrayed Antioch to Shapur sometime in the summer of 253 during the civil war ensuing from the death of Gallus. Scholarly opinion is evenly divided between the years 259 and 260 as the year of the

capture of the emperor Valerian by the Persians. It is certain that Valerian and Gallienus reckoned their regnal years from a year one of 252/3 (see Price, NC 7, no. 13 [1973]: 75-78, and contra Mattingly, NC 5, no. 16 [1939]: 95-97) so that opinions in favor of a date before 259 can be ruled out. The Latin historical tradition was confused over the year of Valerian’s capture. S.H.A. (Vita Gall. 21.5) and Aurelius Victor (De Caess. 32.5) report Valerian’s capture in

the ‘‘sixth year’ (258/9) (cf. John of Antioch, FHG IV 599, frags. 152-53). Aurelius Victor (De Caess. 33.2) states further that Ingenuus rebelled after the capture of Valerian and S.H.A. (Vitae Tyr. Trig. 9.1) dates this revolt to 258. Therefore, J. Fitz, Ingenuus et

Régalian (Brussels, 1965) 9-13 and 64-71, argues that the order of events on the

APPENDIX 2 113 Danube rules out a date of 260 (see also Callu, La Politique monétaire 213-14). The epitomator of Aurelius Victor (Epit. de Caess. 33.3), however, records that Valerian was

captured in his ‘‘seventh year,’ which supports a date of 259/60. Given the poor state of the literary evidence, it is adduced that Valerian was probably captured before the revolt of Postumus, the date of which is determined by the chronology of Gallo-Roman coinage. G. Lopuszanski, La Date de la capture de Valérien et la chronologie des empereurs gaulois, Cahiers de |’Institut d’études polonaises en Belgique 9

(1951), 4-21 and 31-40, and J. F. Drinkwater, ‘‘Coin Hoards and the Chronology of the Gallic Emperors,” Britannia 5 (1974): 293 — 302, date the revolt of Postumus to the winter of 259/60, and hence the capture of Valerian to the summer of 259. See also the opinions of H. Seyrig, ‘‘Nemesis et le temple de Maqam er-Rabb,”’ Mélanges de l’université de St. Joseph 37 (1960-61): 265 n. 2; F. Paschoud, ed., Zosime: Histoire nouvelle, vol. 1 (Paris, 1971), 154-55; Callu, La Politique monétaire, 212-14; L. de Blois, ‘‘Odaenathus and the Roman-Persian War of 252-264 A.D.,”’ Talanta 6 (1975): 12-18; and Rey-Co-

quais, JRS 68 (1978): 59. It is nowhere stated in the literary sources that Postumus rebelled in response to the news of Valerian’s capture, and there are numismatic grounds to date his revolt to 260. See P. Bastien, Le Monnayage de bronze de Postume (1967), 17-18 and 46-47; M. Christol, ‘“Les Régnes de Valérien et de Gallien (253 268),’’ ANRW II. 2 (1975), 818-20; N. Shiel, ‘“Saloninus as Augustus,’’ ANSMusN 24 (1979): 117-22; andR. A. G. Carson, ‘‘The Date of the Capture of Valerian I,”’ Actes de 9e congres international de numismatique, Berne, 1979: I Numismatique antique (1982),461-65.

Alfoldi, CAH XII, 172, proposes that Valerian was captured in June 260 because Alexandria coined numerous tetradrachmae dated year 7 (August 31, 259-August 30, 260) and rare pieces dated year 8 (August 31, 260-— August 30, 261) in his name. Alfoldi

reasons that the coins of year 8 were probably minted while the emperor was in captivity and before Egypt recognized the usurpers Macrianus and Quietus. Egypt still recognized Valerian and Saloninus on August 29, 260 (POxy. 2186), but by September 29, 260, the province had recognized Macrianus and Quietus (POxy. 1476). The surviv-

ing Greek literary accounts clearly indicate that the rebel emperors were declared shortly after the capture of Valerian and the counterattack was launched against Shapur (see Bowman, JRS 66 [1976]: 155). Lopuszanski, La Date de la capture de Valérien 58 n. 18, and Drinkwater, Britannia 5

(1974): 293-302, explain away the Valerian year 8 coins of Alexandria as struck in 259 in anticipation of the forthcoming year. Given the huge production of year 7 coinage (259/60), it seems likely that Valerian was free during most of year 7 and any coinage struck in anticipation of year 8 would most likely date two or three months before the new year of 260/61. See Milne, xxiv, and Shiel, ANSMusN 24 (1979): 121-22; and cf. Price, NC 7, no. 13 (1973): 75-76, for an analogous situation with Aemilian’s coinage in 253. In Asia Minor the civic mints of Sinope (RGA I?. 1, 209, no. 164) and Neocaesarea (RGA I?. 1, 131, no. 69, and SNGvAulock 114) and the imperial mint of Cyzicus (Carson, Berytus 17 [1967]: 30-32) still coined for Valerian in 259/60. In the light of the numismatic evidence from the East, therefore, it seems most likely that Valerian was defeated and captured by the Persians in the summer of 260.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

The following list covers abbreviations of numismatic and secondary works not generally familiar. This work has employed the standard abbreviations of classical authors, papyrological and epigraphic collections, reference works, and journals throughout.

Abbott and Johnson F, F. Abbott and A. C. Johnson. Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire. Princeton, 1926.

AMNG Die antiken Miinzen Nord-Griechenlands. Edited by F. Imhoof-

: Blumer. Vols. 1-4. Berlin, 1898-1935.

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. Berlin, 1972-. ASPWHB Anatolian Studies Presented to William Hepburn Buckler. Edited by W. W. Calder and J. Keil. Manchester, 1939.

ASPWMR Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsey. Edited by W. H. Buckler and W. M. Calder. Manchester, 1923.

AUB D. C. Baramki. The Coin Collection of the American University of Beirut Museum: Palestine and Phoenicia. Beirut, 1974.

Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum. Vols. 1-29. :BMC London, 1873-1927. BMCRE H. Mattingly et al. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vols. 1-6 published. London, 1923-62.

BMCRR Grueber, H. A. Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum. Vols. 1-3. London, 1910.

CAH Cambridge Ancient History. Carson, PCR R. A. G. Carson. Principal Coins of the Romans. London, 1978 — 81.

Charites XAPITE2: Friedrich Leo zum sechzigsten Geburtstag. Edited by E. Bruhn. Berlin, 1911.

115

116 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CNP Corpus Nummorum Palaestinesium J L. Kadman. The Coins of Aelia Capitolina. Jerusalem, 1956. II L. Kadman. The Coins of Caesarea Maritima. Jerusalem, 1957. IV L. Kadman. The Coins of Akko Ptolemais. Jerusalem, 1961. Cohen H. Cohen. Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l’empire romain communement appellées médailles imperiales. Vols.

1-8. 2nd ed. Paris, 1880-92.

Coll. Hirsch P. Naster. Catalogue des monnaies grecques: Le Collection de Hirsch. Brussels, 1952.

CPANS Centennial Publication of the American Numismatic Society. Edited by H. Ingholt. New York, 1958.

Crawford, CRR M. Crawford. Coinage of the Roman Republic. Vols. 1-2. Cambridge, 1974.

de Saulcy L. F. J. C. de Saulcy. Numismatique de la Terre Sainte. Paris, 1874.

Dembski G. Dembski. Katalog der antiken Miinzen Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien |. Griechen A. Hispanien und die romischen Provinzen

Galliens. Vienna, 1979.

Egger (Prowe), 1914 Bruder Egger. Auktions-Katalog n. XLVI, Griechische Miinzen (Sammlung des Herrn Th. Prowe, Moskau u. a.). Vienna, 1914.

ERCHM Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly. Edited by R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland. Oxford, 1956.

ESAR An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. Edited by T. Frank. Vols. 1-5. Baltimore, 1935-40.

Forni G. Forni. “IEPA e @EO2 CVNKAHTOC: Un capitolo dimentiaco nella storia del Senato Romano.” Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 8, 5 (1954): 49-168.

GM F, Imhoof-Blumer. Griechische Miinzen: Neue Beitrage und Untersuchungen. Munich, 1890.

Gnecchi F. Gnecchi. I medaglioni romani. Vols. 1-3. Milan, 1912. Grant, APT M. Grant. Aspects of the Principate of Tiberius. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 116. New York, 1950.

Grant, FITA M. Grant. From Imperium to Auctoritas: An Historical Study of Aes Coinage in the Roman Empire 49 B.c.-A.D. 14, Cambridge, 1946.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 117 Grant, SMACA > M. Grant. The Six Main Aes Coinages of Augustus: Controversial Studies. Edinburgh, 1963.

Head, HN? B. V. Head. Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Coins. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1911.

Hunter G. MacDonald. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, University of Glasgow. Vols. 1-3. Glasgow, 1899-1905.

Inventaire Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre. Edited by J. Cantineau, J. Starcky, and J. Teixidor. 11 fascs. Beirut/Damascus, 193065.

Jones, CERP? A. H. M. Jones. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1971.

Jones, GC A. H. M. Jones. The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian. Oxford, 1966.

Jones, LRE A. H. M. Jones. The Later Roman Empire, 284-602: Social, Economic and Administrative Survey. Vols. 1-3. Oxford, 1964.

Jones, PLRE A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, and J. Morris. Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Vols. 1-2. Oxford, 1971—80.

Kent J. P. C. Kent. Roman Coins. With photographs by M. and A. Hirmer. New York, 1978.

KLM. F. Imhoof-Blumer. Kleinasiatische Miinzen. Vols 1-2. Vienna, 1901.

Kraay, Ashmolean C. H. V. Sutherland and C. M. Kraay. Catalogue of Coins of the Roman Empire in the Ashmolean Museum, I: Augustus (31 B.C. -

A.D. 14). Oxford, 1975.

Kraft K. Kraft. Das System der kaiserzeitlichen Miinzpragung in Kleinasien. Berlin, 1972.

Krzyzanowska, Antioche A. Krzyzanowska, Monnaies coloniales d’Antioche de Pisidie. Warsaw, 1970.

Lane, CMRDM E, N. Lane. Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Det Menis. Vols. 1-4. Leiden, 1975-78.

Lyd. Stadt. F. Imhoof-Blumer. Lydische Stadtmiinzen. Geneva, 1897.

MeM Miinzen und Medallion. Basel. Mabbott The Thomas Olive Mabbott Collection. Part I, The Greek Coins. H. Heltzer and H. Schulman Auction. New York, 1969.

118 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS McClean S. W. Grose. Fitzwilliam Museum: Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Greek Coins. Vols. 1-3. Cambridge, 1923-29.

MacMullen, ERO R. MacMullen. Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest and Alienation in the Empire. Cambridge, Mass., 1966.

MacMullen, PRE R. MacMullen. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven, 1981.

MacMullen, RGRC R. MacMullen. Roman Government’s Response to Crisis, A.D. 235-337. New Haven, 1976.

MacMullen, RSR R. MacMullen. Roman Social Relations. New Haven, 1974. MacMullen, SCLRE R. MacMullen. Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire. Cambridge, Mass., 1967.

Magie, RRAM D. Magie. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the Third Century after Christ. Vols. 1-2. Princeton, N.J., 1950.

Mattingly, RC? H. Mattingly. Roman Coins from the Earliest Times to the Fall of the Western Empire. 2nd ed. London, 1960.

Millar, ERW F. Millar. The Emperor in the Roman World (31 B.C.-A.D. 337). Ithaca, N.Y., 1977.

Milne , J. G. Milne. Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins in the Ashmolean Museum. Supplement by C. M. Kraay. London, 1971.

Mionnet T. E. Mionnet. Déscription des médailles antiques grecques et romains. Vols. 1-7 and supplement vols. 1-9. Paris, 1806 37.

MG F. Imhoof-Blumer. Monnaies grecques. Paris, 1883. Moretti, IAG L. Moretti. Iscrizioni agonistiche Greche. Rome, 1953.

Muller L. Miller et al. Numismatique de l’ancienne Afrique. Vols. 1-3

with supplement. Copenhagen, 1860-74. :

Munsterberg, R. Miinsterberg. ‘“Die Beamtennamen auf den griechischen “Beamtennamen” Miinzen.” NZ 44 (1911): 69-132; 45 (1912): 1-111; and 47 (1914): 1-98. Published in one volume. Vienna, 1914.

Niggler Sammlung Walter Niggler, Auktion 10/3 -4/1965. Vols. 1-2. Basel, 1965.

NNM Numismatic Notes and Monographs.

NS Numismatic Studies.

aac

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS | 119 OMS L. Robert. Opera Minora Selecta. Vols. 1-4. Amsterdam, 1969-74.

PINC Proceedings of the International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem, 27-31 December 1963. Edited by A. Kindler and C. H. V.

Sutherland. Jerusalem, 1967.

Price and Trell J. M. Price and B. L. Trell. Coins and Their Cities: Architecture on the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome and Palestine. London, 1977.

Ramsey, Cities and Bishoprics W. M. Ramsey. The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia: Being an Essay on the Local History of Phrygia from the Earliest Times to the

Turkish Conquest. Vol. 1, parts 1-2. Oxford, 1895-97.

Ramsey, SBRPAM W. M. Ramsey. The Social Basis of Roman Power in Asia Minor. Aberdeen, 1941.

Reynolds J. Reynolds. Aphrodisias and Rome: Documents from the Excavations of the Theatre at Aphrodisias Conducted by Professor Kenan T. Erim, Together with Some Related Texts. Journal of Roman Studies

monograph 1. London, 1982.

RGA W. H. Waddington, E. Babelon, and T. Reinach. Recueil general des monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure. Parts 1—4. Paris,

1904-12, and 2nd ed. of part 1, Paris, 1925.

RIC H. Mattingly et al. The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vols. 1-9. London, 1923-81.

RIC |? C. H. V. Sutherland. The Roman Imperial Coinage 1. Rev. ed. London, 1984.

Rosenberger I M. Rosenberger. The Rosenberger Israel Collection. Jerusalem, 1972.

Rosenberger II M. Rosenberger. City-Coins of Palestine. Jerusalem, 1975. Rosenberger III M. Rosenberger. City-Coins of Palestine. Jerusalem, 1977. Rosenberger IV M. Rosenberger. The Coinage of Eastern Palestine and Legionary Countermarks and Bar-Kochba Overstrucks. Jerusalem, 1978.

Rostovizeff, SEHRE M. Rostovtzeff. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Vols. 1-2. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1957.

Rouvier J. Rouvier. Numismatique des villes de la Phénicie. Athens, 1904.

Sear D. R. Sear. Greek Imperial Coins and their Values: The Local Coinages of the Roman Empire. London, 1982.

Sherwin-White, RC? A. N. Sherwin-White. The Roman Citizenship. 2nd ed. rev. Oxford, 1973.

120 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS SNGANS Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, The United States of America: The Collection of the American Numismatic Society. Fascs. 1-4 and 6.

New York, 1970-81.

SNGCop Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum. Copenhagen, 1942-69.

SNGFitz , Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Volume IV. Fitzwilliam Museum: Leake and General Collections. London, 1940-58.

SNGvAulock Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Deutschland, Sammlung von Aulock. Berlin, 1957-68.

SPDMR Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson. Edited by G. E. Mylonas. Vols. 1-2. St. Louis, 1951.

Spijkerman A. Spijkerman. The Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia. Jerusalem, 1978.

Sydenham, CRR E. A. Sydenham. Coinage of the Roman Republic. London, 1952.

Toynbee, RM J. M. C. Toynbee. Roman Medallions. Numismatic Studies 5. New York, 1944.

Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art C. C. Vermeule. Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor. Cambridge, Mass., 1968.

v. Fritze, AMM H. von Fritze. Die antiken Miinzen Mysiens. Berlin, 1913.

Vogt J. Vogt. Die alexandrinischen Minzen. Vols. 1-2. Stuttgart, 1924.

von Aulock Index P. R. Franke, W. Leschhorn, and A. U. Stylow. Sylloge Nummorum, Deutschland: Sammlung von Aulock Index. Berlin, 1981.

von Aulock, MGTL H. von Aulock. Die Miinzpragung des Gordien III und der Tranquillina in Lykien. Tubingen, 1974.

von Aulock, MSL H. von Aulock. Miinzen und Stadte Lykaoniens. Tubingen, 1976.

von Aulock, MSP H. von Aulock. Miinzen und Stadte Pisidiens. Vols. 1 —-2. Tuibingen, 1977-79. von Aulock, MSPh H. von Aulock. Miinzen und Stadte Phrygiens. Vol. 1. Tubingen, 1980.

Waddell Auc. I (1982) “Greek and Greek Imperial Bronze Coins from an Important Old Collection and other Consignments,’’ Edward J. Waddell, Ltd., Auction I (December 9, 1982, New York).

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS I2] Waddington Inventaire sommaire de la Collection Waddington acquisé par l'état en 1897 pour le Départment des médailles et antiques de la Biblioth-

eque nationale. Edited by B. Babelon. Paris, 1897.

Walker, Coinage D. R. Walker. The Metrology of Roman Silver Coinage. 3 parts. British Archaeological Reports, supplementary series 5, 22,

and 40. Oxford, 1976-78.

Weber L. Forrer. The Weber Collection. Vols. 1-3. London, 1922-29. Wruck W. Wruck. Die syrische Provinzialpragung von Augustus bis Trajan. Stuttgart, 1931.

Public Collections of Coins

ANS American Numismatic Society, New York. Athens National Numismatic Collection, Athens.

Berlin Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. BM Department of Coins and Medals, British Museum.

Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Cambridge The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Glasgow Hunter Coin Cabinet, University of Glasgow.

Munich Staatliche Munzsammlung, Miinchen. Munich D Staatliche Minzsammlung, Munchen, Gotha Depositum.

Oxford Heberden Coin Room, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Paris Bibliotheque nationale, Cabinet des médailles, Paris.

Rome Museo nazionale romano (Terme), Roma. Vatican Conservatore del medagliere vaticano, Bibliotheca apostolica vaticana.

Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum, Sammlung von Medaillen, Miinzen und Geldzeichen, Wien.

Winterthur Munzkabinett, Winterthur.

NOTES

Unless otherwise noted, all dates are A.D.

l The Classical City in an Age of Crisis, 180-305 1 Jones, LRE 23. 2 See MacMullen, RSR 38-40. For the West, see M. T. W. Arnheim, The Senatorial Aristocracy in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1972), and J. F. Matthews, Western Aristocracies and the Imperial Court (1975), and contrast the East in Jones, GC 147-56, 192-210, and J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Antioch (1972). For the colonate, M. Rostovtzeff, Studien zur Geschichte des romischen Kolonates (1910), is still fundamental; cf. W. Goffart, Caput and Colonate: Towards a History of Late Roman Taxation, Phoenix suppl. 12 (Toronto, 1974). 3 For Sardes, see G. M. Hanfmann and W. E. Mierse, Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times: Results of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, 1958 - 1975 (1983). See alsoG. M. Hanfmann

and J. A. Scott, eds., Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Reports, vols. 1-2 (1975-78) and Monograph Series, vols. 1-7 (1971-81). For Aphrodisias, see J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, JRS monograph 1 (1982). (My thanks to the excavator, Professor Kenan T. Erim.) See also K. T. Erim, ‘“Aphrodisias,’’ National Geographic (August 1967): 280-94, and ‘‘Aphrodisias and the 1968 Campaign,” Turk. Ark. Dergisi 12 (1968): 43 -47. For Ephesus, see O. Benndorf et al., Forschungen in Ephesos veréffentlich vom Osterreichischen Archaeologischen Institut 1-8 (1906-77). See also W. Alzinger, ‘‘Ephesos,”’ RE suppl. XII (1970); cols. 1588-1704, and D. Knibbe, ‘‘Ephesos,”’ RE suppl. XII (1970), cols. 248-97. For Ephesian inscriptions, see collection in H. Wankel, Die Inschriften von Ephesos (1979-81).

4 See W. G. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (1969), and J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 (1977).

5 See J. Bidez, Vie de l’empereur Julien (1930) 236-41, and P. Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism (1981) 67, 97-99, and 103-9. 6 Jones, GC 236-40. See S.R. F. Price, Rituals and Power (1984) 78-100, for the interaction between Greek urban and indigenous rural cultures. See L. Robert, Les Gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec (1940) for Greeks assimilating Roman mores. 7 (Cf. B. Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (1967) 68-91 and 121-29, and E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under the Roman Empire (1976) 478-81.

123

124 NOTES TO PAGES 3-5 8 Arist. Pol. 1.2.1253a. For eunomia, see V. Ehrenberg, Polis und Imperium: Beitrdge zur alten Geschichte (1965) 139, and D. Norr, Imperium und Polis in hohen Prinzipatzeit, Minchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 50 (1966) 76-77. See the views collected in J. Palm, Rom, Rémertum und Imperium in der griechischen Literatur, Acta

Reg. Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 57 (1959) 16-44 and 56-62. 9 IGRomIII.739, viii, ch. 30,11.16-—31(140A.D.). For the Hellenization of Lycia, see Magie, RRAM 516-39.

10 See Jones, GC 170, and Magie, RRAM 639-41. 11 Jones, GC 271-73, and MacMullen, ERO 183-88; and cf. remarks of J. H. Oliver, ‘‘The Civilizing Power: A Study of the Panathenaic Discourse of Aelius Aristides Against the Background of Literature and Cultural Conflict,’”” TAPhs, n.s., 58 (1968): 23-25, and C. Vatin, ‘‘Damiurges et épidamiurges a Delphes,”’ BCH 85 (1961): 248-50. For exclusion of freedmen from the assembly, see PGnom. 49 (Alexandria) and IGRom III.800 - 802 (Sillyum). For disenfranchisement of Bithynian peasants at Prusias ad Hypium, see IGRom III.69, and Jones, CERP? 162. For fees levied on exercise of the franchise at Tarsus, see Dio Chrys. Or. 34.21-—23, and cf. C. P. Jones, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (1978) 80-81.

For similar devices at Polga and Sillyum, see IGRom III.409 and 800-801. See also remarks of Plut. Praec. ger. reipub. 19.815a.

12 For Athens, see estimates in D. J. Geagen, The Athenian Constitution after Sulla, Hesperia suppl. 12 (1962): 92-103. For Antioch, see Lib. Or. 2.3. See comparable sizes at Ephesus (BMusInscr. 481.129ff.), Oenoanda (IGRom III.492), Tiberias (Jos. Bell. Jud. 2. 641), and Thyatira (IGRom IV.1222). 13. SeeP.D.A. Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (1970) 124-54. For the term bouleutikon tagma, see IGRom I11.833b = CIG 4411 (lotape, Cilicia, 175 A.D.). For importance of liturgies, see A. K. Bowman, The Town Councils of Roman Egypt, American

Studies in Papyrology 11 (1971) 23-32. Still fundamental are F. Oertel, Die Liturgie: Studien zur ptolemaischen und kaiserlichen Verwaltung Aegyptens (1917), and P. Jourget, La vie municipale dans l'Egypte romaine (1911).

14 Jones, GC 342 n. 49, with full documentation. For Egypt, see Bowman, Town Councils 22 —30. For educational background, see H. I. Marrou, Histoire de l'éducation dans l’antiquité,

6th ed. (1965) 412-30. Note also remarks in F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (1964) 5-15; A. Boulanger, Aelius Aristide (1968) 112-19; and P. Graindor, Hérode Atticus et sa familie

(1930) 39-88. 15 See Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics 42 -46. Cf. Seleucidae at the Carian town of Cidramus; see Robert and Robert, La Carie, II, 348-50. See Julii at Eumenia, Phrygia, in ‘’Bull. épigr.”’ (1977), no. 436, and H. Englemann, “’C. Julius Kleon aus Eumenia,” ZPE 20 (1976): 86. See Claudii at Synnada, Phrygia, in ‘’Bull. épigr.’”’ (1980), no. 484, and H. Miller, ‘’Claudius Basilo und seine Verwandtschaft,”” Chiron 10 (1980): 457-84.

16 Ael. Aris. Or. 26.61 and 102. See Palm, Rom, Romertum und Imperium 54-75, and cf. Norr, Imperium und Polis 87-89.

17. See K. Hopkins, Death and Renewal (1983) 184-98, and R. J. A. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (1984) 31 —38. See, too, however, H. Halfmann, Die Senatoren aus dem ostlichen

NOTES TO PAGES 5-6 125 Teil des Imperium Romanum, bis zum Ende des 2 Jh. n. Chr., Hypomnemata 58 (1979): 16-27,

who points out that lack of connections and qualifications delayed admission of easterners. For analytical totals, see M. Hammond, ‘Composition of the Senate, A.D. 68235,’ JRS 47 (1957): 74-81. See P. Lambrechts, La Composition du sénat romain de l’accession au tréne d’Hadrien a la morte de Commode (117- 192) (1936) 192 —-207, and “‘La Composition

du sénat romain de Septime Sévére a Dioclétien (193 —284),”’ Dissertationes Pannonicae 1, no. 8 (1937): 81-89. See also G. Barbieri, L’albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino (193-

285) (1952) 432-73. 18 Cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 46.3-—5, Plut. Praec. ger. reipub. 31.822d~-f, and especially Plin. Ep. 10.

23-24 and 37-40, on the ruinous cost of local government. For inbreeding among decurional families, see P. D. A. Garnsey, ‘Aspects of the Decline of the Urban Aristocracy

in the Empire,’ ANRW II.1 (1974) 241-49.

19 MacMullen, RGRC 164-71. 20 See A. Birley, Marcus Aurelius (1966) 217-88 and 323-27. For chronology, see P. Oliva, Pannonia and the Onset of Crisis in the Roman Empire, trans. I. Urwin (1962) 259-67, and W.

Zwikker, Studien zur Markussdule, I (1941), 53-101.

21 See accounts in S.N. Miller, ‘‘The Army and the Imperial House,” CAH XII, 6-18, andA. Birley, Septimius Severus (1972) 181-84 and 200-205, for the Parthian Wars of 195 and 197~—99. For Caracalla’s Parthian War, see Miller, CAH XII, 48-50, and Magie, RRAM 685 — 86; note, too, the chronological studies of A. R. Bellinger, ‘Chronology of Edessa,”’ YCIS 6 (1935): 142-54, and A. Marcigq, ‘‘La Chronologie des deniéres années de Caracalla,”’ Syria 34 (1957): 297-302. 22 Dio 80.4.1 and Herod. 6.4.5; cf. later claims of Shapur II (309 - 79) in Amm. Mar. 17.5.3 -— 8 and 18.6.18—19. For accounts of the Persian wars, see W. Ensslin, ‘Zu den Kriegen des Sassaniden Schapur I,”’ SBAW 5 (1947): 1-115, A. Christensen, ‘Sassanid Persia,” CAH XII 126—37, and A. Alfdldi, ‘The Crisis of the Empire (A.D. 249-—270),” CAH XII, 16981. See also M. Sprengling, Third Century Iran, Sapor and Kartir (1953), and A. Christensen, L’Iran sous les Sassanides (1944) 206-34. 23 RGdS 1. 24, Zos. 1.36.2-3, Zon. 12.23, Sync. I, p. 716, Aur. Vict. De Caess. 32.5 and Epit de Caess. 32.5, Eutrop. 9.7, Festus Brev. 23, and Oros. Hist. ad. Pag. 7.22.4. See J. Gage, ‘‘Comment Sapor a-t-il de Valérien?” Syria 42 (1965): 343 —- 88, and B. C. MacDermot, ‘‘Roman Emperors in the Sassanian Reliefs,’’ JRS 44 (1954): 76-80. 24 SeeJ.G. Février, Essai sur l'histoire politique et économique de Palmyre (1931) 95-141, J. Gage, La Montée des Sassanides et l'heure de Palmyre (1964) 119-53, and L. Homo, Essai sur le regne de

l‘empereur Aurélien (1904) 84-115.

25 Zos. 1.23.2-—3. For Gothic Wars, see A. Alféldi, ‘The Invasions of Peoples from the Rhine to the Black Sea,’’ CAH XII, 138-64. 26 Forthe nature of the Gallo-Roman state, see J. J. Hatt, Histoire de la Gaule romaine (120 avant J.-C.-451 apres J.-C.): Colonisation ou colonialisme?? (1970) 227-30, and Homo, Aurélien

116-21. For the Roman appeals on coins of Gallo-Roman emperors, see L. Laffranchi, “Su alcuni problemi storico-numismatici riferentesi agli imperatori gallo-romani,”’ RIN 1 (1941): 130-40 and 2 (1942): 3-22. For chronology, see J. Lafaurie, ‘‘La Chronologie des

126 NOTES TO PAGES 6-8 empereurs gaulois,’’ RN 6, no. 6 (1964): 91-127, and P. Bastien, Le Monnayage de bronze de Postume (1967) 17-47. 27 See W. Ensslin, ‘’“Zur Ostpolitik des Kaisers Diokletians,’’ SBAW 1 (1942): 1 —- 83, but note the chronological revisions of T. B. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine

(1982) 62-63, and “‘Imperial Campaigns, A.D. 285-311,’" Phoenix 30 (1976): 180-83. 28 For imperial inflationary policies, see S. Bolin, State and Currency in the Roman Empire to 300 A.D. (1958), and J.-P. Callu, La Politique monétaire des empereurs romains de 238 a 311 (1969). See also the tables of metrological analysis of Roman silver coinage in Walker, Coinage,

and conclusions in vol. 3, 106-48.

29 Walker, Coinage, vol. 2, 58-59, and vol. 3, 125-26. 30 Dio 77.15.2. See Walker, Coinage, vol. 3, 59-69 and 129-32. For increases in military pay, see estimates in P. A. Brunt, ‘Pay and Superannuation in the Roman Army,” PBSR 18

(1950): 50, R. Develin, ‘‘The Army Pay Rises under Severus and Caracalla, and the Question of Annona Militaris,’’ Latomus 30 (1971): 687, andR. P. Duncan-Jones, ‘Pay and Numbers in Diocletian’s Army,” Chiron 8 (1978): 541-60.

31 Cf. BMCRE V, xvii-xviil. 32 Walker, Coinage, vol. 3, 66-69 and 132-42. See discussion in Bolin, State and Currency 248-90, and Callu, La Politique monétaire 197-230. 33 See foremost, E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (1965); H. Jonas, Gnosis und spdtantike Geist? (1934-54); and A.-J. Festugiere, La Révélation d'Hermes Trismégiste, 4 vols. (1944-54). For changes in artistic tastes, see K. Weitzmann, ed., Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art (1979), but note the “‘classical”’ revival under Gallienus in G. Matthew, ‘’The Character of Gallienic Renaissance,”’ JRS 33 (1943): 65-70. 34 See A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, 2nd ed.

rev., trans. J. Moffatt, vol. 2 (London, 1908), 89-306 and W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1967) 303-46 and 389-476. 35 See Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution 276 —80 and 483 - 86, and P. de Labriolle, La Réaction paienne: Etude sur le polemique antichrétienne du I* au VI siécle, 2nd ed. (1948), and R. L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (1984). Cf. remarks in P. Brown, ‘Ap-

proaches to the Religious Crisis of the Third Century,” EHR 83 (1968): 553-54. 36 For the impact of the oriental cults, see foremost F. Cumont, Les Mysteres de Mithra? (1902) and Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain* (1929); also A. D. Nock, Conversion (1933); but note the criticisms of MacMullen, PRE 112-30. See reservations of W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians (1982) 241 n. 44. My thanks to Professor R. Mellor for his comments and a copy of his paper ‘‘Archaeology and the Oriental Cults of the Western Provinces,”’ delivered at the annual conference of the Association of Ancient Historians at Ann Arbor, Michigan, on May 9, 1981. 37 Rostovtzeff, SEHRE 450-59. See criticisms by N. H. Baynes, ‘‘The Peasantry and the Army in the Third Century,” Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (1966) 307-9, and A. Momigliano, ‘‘M. I. Rostovtzeff,”” in Studies in Historiography (London, 1966) 91-104.

NOTES TO PAGES 8-10 127 38 Jones, LRE 732. 39 MacMullen, RGRC 97-101, and cf. remarks in Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 353-63. 40 Lac. De mort. persecut. 7.3. See R. MacMullen, ‘Social Mobility and the Theodosian Code,’’ JRS 54 (1964): 49-53.

41 P.R.L. Brown, The World of Late Antiquity, A.D. 150-750 (1971) 40. 42 See P. Petit, Libanius et la vie municipale a Antioch au IV’ siécle apres J.C. (1955), and Liebeschuetz, Antioch 41-51. See J. Bregman, Synesius of Cyrene (1982) 171-76, and P. R. L. Brown, Augustine of Hippo (1967), especially 19-27.

43 See H. Bloch, ‘‘The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century,” in The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. A. Momigliano (1963)

193-218. For the usurpation of Eugenius, see O. Seeck and G. Veith, ‘Die Schlacht am Frigidus,’’ Klio 13 (1913): 451-67, and J. Szidat, ‘‘Die Usurpation des Eugenius,”’ Historia

28 (1979): 487-508. 44 Rostovtizeff, SEHRE 477-78, and cf. C. E. Van Sickle, ‘‘Particularism in the Roman Empire

During the Military Anarchy,’’ AJP 51 (1930): 343-57 and ‘’The Changing Bases of Roman Imperial Power in the Third Century A.D.,’’ AC 8 (1939): 153-70. 45 See MacMullen, SCLRE 176-77. 46 See Reynolds xv—xvii and 140-43, doc. 25. 47 See G. Alfdldy, ‘‘The Crisis of the Third Century as Seen by Contemporaries,’’ GRBS 15 (1974): 98-102. Note especially the thirteenth book of the Sibylline Oracle, discussed in . A. T. Olmstead, ‘“The Mid- Third Century of the Christian Era,’”’ CP 37 (1942): 241-62

and 398-420. The lacuna in the Augustan History and the loss of the early books of Ammianus Marcellinus and of the works of Dexippus impose severe restrictions on our comprehension. See H. Michael, Die verlorenen Biicher des Ammianus Marcellinus (1880), and

R. Syme, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Historia Augusta (1968). For Dexippus, note F.

Jacoby, FGrH IJ.1, 304-11 and 452-80. See S. Mrozek, ‘‘A propos de la répartition chronologique des inscriptions latines dans le haut-empire,”’ Epigraphica 35 (1973): 11318, for the scarcity of epigraphic evidence after 235.

48 See Mattingly, RC? 188-90, and M. Grant, ‘‘The Decline and Fall of City-Coinage in Spain,’”’ NC 6, no. 9 (1950): 93-106, for western municipal and provincial coinages, all suppressed by the reign of Claudius.

49 See Callu, La Politique monétaire 36-110.

50 Kraft, 15-17 and 96-98. 51 OGI 484 (Pergamum, Hadrianic) and OGI 515 (Mylasa, ca. A.D. 206), but note the exception of Egypt; see A. C. Johnson, ‘‘Roman Egypt,”’ ESAR, vol. 2, 427-29. 52 See von Aulock Index 268 and tables 1-12, and T. B. Jones, ‘‘A Numismatic Riddle,’’ PAPhs 107 (1963): 308-18. See comments of Price, Rituals 80-81.

128 NOTES TO PAGES 10-13 53 Consult AMNG vols. 1-3, and monographs by E. Schénert-Geiss, Die Miinzprdgung von Byzantion (1972) and Die Miinzpragung von Perinthos (1965). See also M. Oikonomides, He Nomismatokia tes Nikopoleos (1975).

54 See Vogt I, 10-11; Milne, xviii- xix; and S. Skowronek, On the Problems of the Alexandrian

Mint (Warsaw, 1967) 11-20 and 65-81.

2 Civic Coins: Their Design, Production, and Use 1 A.R. Bellinger, ‘“Greek Mints under the Roman Empire,’’ ERCHM 137-38. 2 SeeD.B. Waage, Antioch-on-the-Orontes; vol. IV, pt. 2, Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Crusaders’ Coins (1952) ix. The S.C. or “senatorial’”’ aes, the ANTIOCHIA series of the Flavian age, and

the bronze denominations of Trajan dated by his second consulship were most likely struck at Antioch as provincial] rather than as civic coinages. The obverses of ‘‘senatorial”’ aes, which were struck into the reign of Severus Alexander, bear the imperial portrait and name in Latin until the reign of Trajan when Greek replaced Latin. The reverse bears a Jaure] wreath enclosing S.C. without a city ethnic. The Jetters S.C. must be honorific; see C. H. V. Sutherland, ‘The Symbolism of the Early Aes Coinages of Augustus,”’ RN 6, no. 7 (1965): 94-105, and The Emperor and the Coinage (1976) 15-17. S.C. does not denote senatorial initiative (contra Callu, La Politique monétaire 26 n. 2), refer to Antioch’s acquisi-

tion of ius Italicum (ibid. 25 n. 2), or validate provincial or local money for general circulation or payment of obligations to the imperial fiscus (contra ibid. 172-74 and A. R. Bellinger, The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report VI: The Coins [1949] 165-82). The Antiochene S.C. series, consisting of the two major denominations, the dupondius and the as, was struck in large numbers until the reign of Antoninus Pius. The dupondius was revived between the reigns of Macrinus and Severus Alexander; see Waage, Antioch vii—ix. The evidence from hoards indicates that the coins circulated throughout Roman Syria; see Bellinger, Dura 73 -77 and nos. 1567-1671, and the evidence collected in M.G.

Raschke, ‘‘New Studies in Roman Commerce with the East,”” ANRW II. 9. 2 (1978) 827-28 nn. 758-60. The coins probably were intended for use by the native population of Syria; they were not a substitute for Roman bronze denominations as pay to the eastern army. See C. M. Kraay, Die Minzfunde von Vindonissa (bis Traian) (1962), and C. H. V. Sutherland, ‘The Intelligibility of Roman Imperial Coin Types,”’ JRS 49 (1959): 53 nn.

55-56, for the use of these denominations as pay for the western legionaries. For Latin-inscribed aes with S.C. reverse, see RIC I? 37 and 83-84, nos. 528-30. Note ibid. 35-37, for issues with C.A. reverses, which may have been struck at Ephesus and Pergamum; see BMCRE I 115-19, nos. 707-744, Grant, SMACA, classes 1, 3, 4, and Bellinger, ERCHM 145-47. See, however, the reclassifications proposed by C. J. Howgego, ‘Coinage and Military Finance: The Imperia] Bronze Coinages of the Augustan East,’” NC 142 (1982): 1-20. Note that al] other bronze coins, whether with Latin, Greek, or bilingual inscriptions, bear the city ethnic and thus constitute the city’s coinage; contra the distinctions in Waage, Antioch ix. After Elagabalus raised Antioch to colonia! rank, the S.C. series was soon discontinued and a reformed civic aes bearing Greek legends, the imperial portrait and name on the obverse, and the city ethnic, S.C., and officina marks on the reverse displaced all other series. See Waage, Antioch, nos. 603 — 32 and 635 —- 66, but note that no. 602 lacks

KOAQNIAC.

NOTES TO PAGES 13-14 129 3 See J. Deiniger, Die Provinziallandtage der romischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis zum Ende des dritten Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (1965).

4 See Abbott and Johnson, 21 —30. Note that the advent of Roman rule ended Celtic tribal coinages of northern Europe; see C. Rodewald, Money in the Age of Tiberius (Manchester, 1976) 29-45. The few tribal ethnics found on coins in Asia Minor represent regional] koina or synoecized cities. For the tribe Abbaetae-Mysi, organized into the cities of Ancyra and Synaus, see BMCPhrygia xx — xxi, and Jones, CERP? 88 — 89. Coins for the loca] league Hyrgaleis were struck at the city of Lounda; see BMCPhrygia |xxi-—IJxxii, Ramsay, Cities and

Bishoprics 129, and Jones, CERP? 92-94. The Cilbiani, who inhabited the Cayster valley, were divided into upper and lower tribes. The Lower Cilbiani were synoecized in 214/5 as the city of Nicaea and minted coins; see BMCLydia xl|v —- x) viii, and Jones, CERP* 78-79. 5 See the corpus of L. Robert, notably Monnaies antiques en Troade (1966); Villes d’Asie mineure, 2nd ed. (1962); Documents de Asie mineure méridionale (1966); Monnaies grecques (1967); and, with A. Dupont-Sommer, La Déesse de Hierapolis Castabala (Cilicie) (1964).

6 See G. MacDonald, Coin Types: Their Origin and Development (1905) | -47.

7 Ibid. 159-76. See remarks in Mattingly, RC? 200-202, and Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 142-45. See also P. R. Franke, Kleinasien zur Romerzeit (1968).

8 See Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 72-73 and 144. 9 Contra Bellinger, ERCHM 147-49, the choice of obverse portraits had no constitutional significance, such as indicating the minting authorities. Instead, specific obverse portraits or reverse types were often associated with specific denominations. See D. J. MacDonald, Coins from Aphrodisias 33 -35, and B. L. Marthaler, ‘’Two Studies in Greek Imperial Coinage of Asia Minor,” University of Minnesota Ph.D. Diss. (1968). Cf. remarks in Bellinger, Dura 165-85, and C. H. V. Sutherland, ‘The Pattern of Monetary Development in Phoenicia and Palestine during the Roman Empire,”’ PINC 90-94.

10 See Munsterberg, ‘““Beamtennamen” 246-50, and von Aulock Index 149-51, for the names of Roman proconsuls or legates on civic or league coins in Asia, Bithynia, GalatiaCappadocia, and Syria. This practice was most probably complimentary. For example, Antioch named nine legates on its civic coins between the reigns of Augustus and Vespasian; see G. MacDonald, ‘‘The Pseudo-Autonomous Coinage of Antioch,’ NC 4, no. 4 (1904): 106~—22, and Waage, Antioch 29 — 30, and nos. 300-303, 324-25, and 339. The legate’s name was often replaced as the main reverse design by a date, Augustus’s titles, or a civic title. Compare also the practice in Bithynia where the koinon, Nicaea, and Nicomedia named Claudian governors on their coins as patrons —a title that suggests a compliment rather than proconsular control. See, respectively, RGA 1.2, 235-36, nos. 1-6; 1.3,

400~401, nos. 27-35; and 1.3, 516-17, nos. 14-17 and 20-23. Under Claudius and Nero the Bithynian league also minted simultancous issues that named the governor and the imperial procurator, probably as a sign of respect. See F. M. Heichelheim, ‘Atticus Laco, the Proconsul, and Iunius Cilo, the Procurator, in Bithynia,”” AJA 48 (1944): 17677.

11 See J.B. McMinn, “Fusion of the Gods: A Religio-Astrological Study of the Interpenctration of East and West,’”’ JNES 15 (1956): 201-13, and cf. T. Drew-Bear, ‘Local Cults in Graeco-Roman Phrygia,”’ GRBS 17 (1976): 247-68.

130 NOTES TO PAGES 14-15 12 Cf. R. Fleischer, Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Kleinasien und Syrien (1973) 263-75 and 341-42, andC. R. Morey, Dusares and Coin-Types of Bostra 5-6. For the

persistence of traditional gods in the Semitic-speaking provinces, see J. Teixidor, The Pagan God: Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman Near East (1977).

13 For absence of Mithras, see MacMullen, PRE 118. For syncretic deities on coins, see J. Bregman, ‘Pagan and Religious Syncretism and Symbolism on the Greek Imperials of the East,”’ Dionysius 6 (1982): 58-72.

14 See Price and Trell 122-32. 15 (Cf. ibid., passim, Morey, Dusares 4-5, and Robert, La Déesse de Castabala 79 - 82, for shrines.

For the city gate at Nysa, see BMCLydia 183, no. 66; RSN 19 (1913) 159, no. 52; and Winterthur 3517. For the bridge at Antiochia ad Maeandrum, see BMCCaria 22, no. 52. For the Nicene basilica, see RGA I.3, 400, nos. 27-28 and 401, nos. 31-33. 16 Forinvented eponymous heroes, see Magie, RRAM 637 — 38. Stectorium claimed Mygdon, the Phrygian ally of Priam; see Str. 12.4.7, and cf. BMCPhrygia 385 —- 86, nos. 11 and 18. For doubts about Mygdon’s identity, see K. Regling, ‘“Hector auf Munzen von Stektorium,”’

Klio 8 (1908): 489-92, but see P. Carrington, ‘The Heroic Age of Phrygia in Ancient Literature and Art,’’ AS 27 (1977): 123-36. For Otrus’s appropriation of Otreus in Iliad 2.186, see Waddington 6369 and 6371, and BMCPhrygia 345, nos. 12-13. For the popularity of Dionysus, see M. Bernhart, ‘‘Dionysos und seine Familie auf griechischen Minzen,’’ JNG 1 (1949): 1-175. For Alexander the Great as founder of Smyrna, see BMClonia 279, no. 346; 294, no. 442; 296, no. 452; and SNGvAulock 2231. For Alexandria ad Issum,

see NC 7, no. 11 (1971): 101, nos. 86-89 and 96. For Themistocles as founder, see S. | Schultz, Die Miinzpragung von Magnesia am Mdander (1975) 61, no. 103; 86, no. 244; and Athens, Agora M. NN-595 (Caracalla).

17 MacDonald, Coin Types 176. 18 For iconography, see F. Imhoof-Blumer, ‘‘Beitrage zur Erklarung griechischer Munztypen II: Athleten und Agonotheten mit Preiskronen,’’ Nomisma 5 (1910): 39-42, H. Gaebler, ‘‘Die Losurne in der Agonistik,’’ ZN 39 (1929): 271-312; and L. Robert, ‘Les Boules dans les types monétaires agonistiques,’’ Hellenica 7 (1949): 93-104. Cf. also L. Robert, Etudes anatoliennes (1937) 138-46, 161-65, and 418-33, and Schonert-Geiss, Perinthos 49 —52.

19 See Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 73-76 and 143-44, and Kraft 17 and 96 - 98. The influence of Arsacid and Sassanian art is much less than usually argued; contra C. C. Vermeule, ‘‘Eastern Influences in Roman Numismatic Art,’ Berytus 12 (1956-57): 89-94. 20 See, especially, W. Trillmich, Familienpropaganda der Kaiser Caligula und Claudius (1978) 132-36, for bronze coins. Note also iconography, flans, style, and letter forms on silver drachmae of Caesarea Mazaca during the reigns of Domitian, Trajan, and Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus; see Walker, Coinage, vol. 1, 127-29; vol. 2, 81-83; and vol. 3, 159, appendix 4. For the Roman style of provincial silver coinages of Crete, Cyrene, and Arabia under Trajan, see ibid. II 66, 108-09, and 112-13. For Antiochene tetradrachmae cut by engravers of Rome in 246, see H. Baldus, MON(eta) URB(is) ANTIOXIA: Rom und Antiochia als

Pragestatten syrischer Tetradrachmen des Philippus Arabs (1969) 17 and 28-37, but the coins were struck from Syrian silver at Antioch; see Walker, Coinage, vol. 3, 101-2.

NOTES TO PAGES 15-16 13] 21 See von Papen, ‘Die Spiele von Hierapolis,”’ ZN 26 (1908): 178-79; L. Weber, “The Coins of Hierapolis in Phrygia,” NC 4, no. 13 (1913): 137-61; and A. Johnston, ‘‘Hierapolis Revisited,’” NC 144 (1984): 52-80. 22 See B. Levick, ‘’The Coinage of Pisidian Antioch in the Third Century A.D.,”" NC 7, no. 6 (1966): 49-50, and Krzyzanowska, Antioche 194-204. Cf. remarks in Kraft 96. At Tarsus, cf. SNGvAulock 6077 (Valerian) to SNGFitz 5348 (Gallienus), and cf. SNGCop 408 (Valerian)

to 410 (Gallienus). 23 See K. W. Harl, ‘Caracalla or Elagabalus?’” ANSMusN 26 (1981) 165-67, for linear style and errors in late local engraving. For a differing view on the imago, see A. Johnston, “Caracalla or Elagabalus?’’ ANSMusN 27 (1982): 100-105. Note, however, the paucity of imperial portraits in the East during the third century; see J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum, Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor (1966) 17-19 and contrast rapid production at Rome in E. H. Swift, ‘‘Imagines in Imperial Portraiture,’’ AJA 2, no. 27 (1923): 299-300.

24 SeeG. F. Hill, “Ancient Methods of Coining,’’ NC 5, no. 2 (1922): 1-42. For estimates of production, see D. G. Sellwood, ‘‘Some Experiments in Greek Minting Technique,” NC 7, no. 3 (1963): 217-31. For the organization of the familia monetalis at Rome, see Mattingly, RC? 130-31; RIC VII 22; and M. R. Alfoldi, ‘“Epigraphische Beitrage zur romischen Miunztechnik bis auf Konstantin den Grossen,”’ RSN 39 (1958-59): 35-48.

25 See Kraft 16-21 and 90-92 plus maps, but see also comments of A. Johnston, ‘““New Problems for Old’, NC 7, no. 14 (1974): 204-5.

26 Kraft 13-15. 27. Ibid. 17—32 and 90-92. Central workshops at Ephesus, Pergamum, Sardes, or Smyrna could have easily shipped dies or coins to customers by way of the routes following the river systems of western Asia Minor. See ibid. 70-72 and 93 for itinerant engravers among Pontic cities in 204-7 and 226.

28 See Johnston, NC 7, no. 14 (1974): 205-6. 29 See Kraft 23-25, 40-41, and 50-54, for examples from Asia. Note ibid. 72—78, where two or three different workshops operated simultaneously for the same group of cities in northwestern Asia Minor. See ibid. 79 — 80 for successive workshops in southwestern Asia Minor.

30 For Aphrodisias, see MacDonald, Aphrodisias 35. Stratonicea employed at least five different workshops during the reign of Septimius Severus. Detailed discussion will be found in

a forthcoming study by K. W. Harl, ‘The Coinage of Stratonicea in Caria During the Imperial Age.” 31 See Kraft 28-29 and cf. pls. 9.67a—67h, 10.72a—72c, 10.73a—73c, 10.75a—75d, and 10.76a— 76h.

32 Cf. ibid., pl. 102.31a—31d, for cities of Alia, Caesarea in Bithynia, Cius, and Prusias. Cf. also ibid., pl. 102.38a—38c, for Nicaea, Nicomedia, and Prusias. See remarks of Johnston, NC 7, no. 14 (1974): 205.

132 NOTES TO PAGES 16-17 33 See Kraft 49. 34 Note von Aulock, MSL, nos. 61 (Marcus Aurelius) and 67 (Lucius Verus) share a reverse die with no. 76 (Philip II as Caesar).

35 Kraft 94-95, but standard depictions of deities need not diminish the effect on the viewer or the intent to use coins to reinforce local beliefs. Isis and Serapis, who are frequently rendered in stereotyped poses on coins of cities of Asia Minor, are also known to have been venerated at those same cities. For the epigraphic evidence and votive offerings, see D. Magie, ‘Egyptian Deities in Asia Minor in Inscriptions and on Coins,’’ AJA 57 (1953): 163-87. For a collection of the numismatic evidence, see also W. Drexler, ‘Der Isis- und Serapis-Cultus in Kleinasien,’’ NZ 21 (1889): 1-234. 36 =©See Kraft pl. 79. 22b = Oxford, for unique reverse of Asclepius at Stratonicea (ca. 201, Julia Domna). See also BMCCaria 67, no. 32 (Julia Domna), for Asclepius on coins of Attuda. The confusion at both cities probably arose because an engraver at the Apamea workshop also cut reverses of Asclepius for Saitta in Lydia; see Kraft 56-57. See A. Laumonier, Les Cultes indigenes en Carie (1958) 277-78 and 290, for the late reception of Asclepius into the civic worship of Stratonicea.

37 See Kraft 94-95, and to his list of cities blundering the name of Salonina add Magnesia; see Schultz, Magnesia 124, no. 506. 38 See Bellinger, ERCHM 145-48. For Greece, see K. M. Edwards, Corinth, vol. VI, The Coins, 1896 - 1929 (1933) 164. The Greek imperial aes were omitted in M. Thompson, The Athenian Agora II (1954), but the small number of Roman bronze coins unearthed, of which the

sestertius enjoys a 3:1 margin over all lower denominations, suggests that most of the minor bronze coinage was local during the Principate. For Asia Minor, see especially H. W. Bell, Sardis XI: The Coins, Part I (1916), nos. 425-27 and 436, for imperial aes and contrast the numerous local issues, of which half were struck at Sardes. See also comments of A. Johnston, ‘’The Greek Coins,” in Greek, Roman, and Islamic Coins from Sardis (1981) 2-5, and T. V. Buttrey, ‘‘The Roman Coins,” in ibid. 92 —- 93. For statistics comparable to Sardes, see A. R. Bellinger, Troy: The Coins, Supplementary Monograph No. 2 (1961) 194-95, and MacDonald, Aphrodisias 40 — 50. See also finds from Tarsus in H. Goldman, Excavations of Gézlukule Tarsus I (1950) 72-78, and from Cyprus in D. H. Cox, Coins from the Excavations at Curium, NNM 145 (1959) 17-27. For Syria, see Waage, Antioch 175-81 and charts VI-XI; Bellinger, Dura 205-09; and A. R. Bellinger, Coins of Jerash, 1928 - 1934, NNM 81 (1936). For the use of local aes in village and rural economies, see the example of Galilee in M. Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-212 (1983) 57-58. Contrast the

more limited use of currency in the rural districts of the western provinces; see M. Crawford, ‘“Money and Exchange in the Roman World,” JRS 60 (1970) 43-45. 39 See T. B. Jones, PAPhs 107 (1963): 310, for activity of mints in Hellas. 40 See Bell, Sardis, nos. 421-438; Bellinger, Troy 194-95; Bellinger, Dura 202-8. See, too, Waage, Antioch 75-90, and cf. id. 92-99 for the circulation of the denarius vis-a-vis the local bronze denominations. See also Callu, La Politique monétaire 147-60. Al See Callu, La politique monétaire 149 and 167-78, for the privileged status of cities striking silver coins. Contra Walker, Coinage, vol. 1, 78-79 n. 27, who dismisses city ethnics on silver coins as relevant to the minting authority.

NOTES TO PAGES 17-18 133 42 See J.N. Svoronos, Numismatique de la Crete antique (1890) 113-14, 123, 136, 181, 194, 214, 239, and 284, and cf. Walker, Coinage, vol. 1,50-—51, and vol. 2, 109. For drachmae of Byzantium, see Schonert-Geiss, Byzantion, no. 1303 (Augustus), and for hemidrachmae of Nicopolis, see Oikonomides, Nikopoleos, nos. 12-14 and 30-32 (Antoninus Pius).

43 See C. H. V. Sutherland et al., The Cistophori of Augustus (1975), and W. E. Metcalf, The Cistophori of Hadrian, NS 15 (1980). Note smaller Ephesian or Pergamene issues of cistophori; see RIC I? 130-31, nos. 117-21 (Claudius); RIC II 125, nos. 74-76 (Titus); 182 83, nos. 221-31 (Domitian); 231, nos. 115-25 (Nerva); 296, nos. 714-24 (Trajan); RIC IV.1, 163-64, nos. 527-33 (Septimius Severus); 179, nos. 649-50 (Julia Domna); and 268, nos. 356-—58A (Caracalla). For Severan issues, all dating to 198-202, see A. M. Woodward, ‘‘The Cistophoric Series and Its Place in the Roman Coinage,”’ ERCHM 171 72. For reattribution of tetradrachmae of Trajan at Caesarea (E. A. Sydenham, The Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia [1933], nos. 186-187) to Asia, see Walker, Coinage, vol. 2,69-70. Note that the silver coinages of Crete and the Lycian league were based on a cistophoric (i.e., reduced Attic) weight standard; see Walker, Coinage, vol. 1, 50-51, 55-56, and II 70-71. For silver issues of Lycia, see Magie, RRAM 1380-81 n. 33, and L. Robert, “’Villes et monnaies de Lycie,”’ Hellenica 10 (1955): 208-10. Civic silver issues in western Asia Minor were sporadic. For Chios, see BMClonia 339, no. 102 (Augustus). For Mylasa, Caria, see A. Akarca, Les Monnaies grecques de Mylasa (1958) 58, nos. 13-15 (Augustus). For silver

issues of Stratonicea under Augustus, see BMCCaria 151, no. 33; SNGvAulock 2663 and 8161; GM 675, no. 449 = Berlin; and Berlin 69/1875 and 653/1910. For the Stratonicean drachmae of Antoninus Pius, see BMCCaria 154, no. 49, and Mionnet III 378, no. 440 = Paris 944. For Tabae, Caria, see Robert, La Carie II 124-27.

44 See Sydenham, Caesarea 7-8, but numerous issues must be reassigned to other mints in light of Walker, Coinage, vol. 2, 81-85 and 117. For silver issues of Amisus, Pontus, between 131-38, see RGA I?. 1, 80-85, nos. 79-109; Woodward, ERCHM 162-63; Walker, Coinage, vol. 2,68-69; and A. G. Malloy, The Coinage of Amisus (1970) 13-14, nos. 112-46. In Cilicia, for silver tetradrachmae of Tarsus, see Walker, Coinage, vol. 1, no. 566 (Augustus); Waddington 4622 and NC 7, no. 11 (1971): 134 (Tiberius); and BMCLycaonia

186-88, no. 144 (Domitian), and nos. 145-49 and 153-54 (Hadrian). H. Seyrig, ‘‘Antiquités syriennes 25: Sur quelques monnaies provinciales de Syrie et de Cilicie,’’ Syria 20

(1939): 39-42, attributes to Tarsus many Antiochene silver issues (Wruck, nos. 14, 17-23, and 29 —35), but these belong to Antioch; see Walker, Coinage, vol. 1,56 and 79 n. 32. For later Cilician silver issues of Tarsus, Aegeae, Seleucia, and Mopsus, see Callu, La Politique monétaire 153-54; Walker II 86-91; H. von Aulock, “‘Die Minzpragung der kilikischen Stadt Mopsos,”’ AA 87 (1963): 254, nos. 33-37, and H. Bloesch, ‘’Caracalla in Aigeai’”’ (1965) 307-12 and pl. xxiii. 2.

45 Acomprehensive treatment of the silver provincial issues of greater Roman Syria is sorely needed. See W. Wruck, Die syrischer Provinzialpragung von Augustus bis Trajan (1931) and A. R. Bellinger, The Syrian Tetradrachms of Caracalla and Macrinus, NS 3 (1940). See correc-

tions to latter in Seyrig, Syria 20 (1939): 39-42, and in R. G. McAlee, ‘’The Severan Tetradrachms of Laodicea,’”’ ANSMusN 29 (1984): 43-59. See Walker, Coinage, vol. 1, 70-74, for simultaneous use of a Tyrian standard of 4 denarii: 1 tetradrachma, and of an Antiochene one of 3 denarii: 1 tetradrachma until Antioch adopted the Tyrian standard in

ca. 59-63. Note lesser silver coinages in East. For Arabia, see W. E. Metcalf, ‘’The Tell Kalak Hoard and Trajan’s Arabian Mint,’’ ANSMusN 20 (1975): 39-108. For Mesopotamian drachmae of 161-66, see G. F. Hill, ‘The Mints of Roman Arabia and Mesopotamia,’’ JRS 6 (1916): 157-58; E. Babelon, ‘‘Numismatique d’Edesse en Mesopotamie,”’ Mélanges numismatiques

134 NOTES TO PAGE 18 2 (1900): 232-39; BMCArabia 137-39, nos. 1-9; Weber III 8158; and SNGFitz 189. The mint probably is Edessa, but note reservations of Bellinger, Dura 147. For Cyprus, see BMCCyprus Cxvili—CXxvl.

For Cyrene, see S. H. Weber, An Egyptian Hoard of the Second Century A.D., NNM 54 (1932)

40, nos. 296-300, and A. Meliu, ‘‘Le Cirenaica romana e le monete provinciali di Traiano, Adriano e Marco Aurelio,’’ Rassegna numismatica 32 (1935): 182-90.

46 Dio 52.30.9. The names and portraits of Roman governors on local aes are honorary. Contra Grant, APT 52 n. 9 and FITA 398-400, the preposition ézt with the name of the governor does not connote the sense of permissus on civic bronze coins of Augustus and Tiberius. Roman colonies and municipalities in Spain, North Africa, and the East struck only a few issues of coins that specified they were issued by permission of the emperor or the governor. Their exercise of the ius feriendi represented a legal problem different from that of a Greek polis; see Callu, La Politique monétaire 25 n. 2. In Spain six communities minted aes of Augustus or Tiberius PERMISSV CAESARIS AVGVSTI, see Dembski 42 — 49, nos. 297 —

308, 315-16, 326-27, 362-65, 382-89, and 394-96, and Kraay, Ashmolean 1037-53, 1060-62, and 1067-73. In the East, Philippi coined with IVSSV AvG(usti) on its earliest coins; see Grant, FITA 275; Kraay, Ashmolean, 1098; and P. Collart, Philippes: Ville de Macedonie depuis ses origines jusqu’a Ia fin de l’époque romaine (1937) 224-41. Coins of Livia from Patrae are inscribed on the obverse INDVLGENTIA AVG MONETA,; see Grant, FITA 295, and APT 135, no. 5. Coins of

Domitian from Corinth are inscribed PERM(issu) IMP(eratoris) GERM(anici), and they probably refer to Corinth’s resumption of her coinage after Vespasian had disgraced the city. See BMCCorinth xlv; Edwards, Corinth, no. 107 = Bellinger, Corinth, no. 48 (Cohen, nos. 717-18); and Edwards, Corinth, no. 95 = Bellinger, Corinth, no. 49 = Imhoot-Blumer and Gardner, NCP 14, no. 6, pl. B. xxi. For aes struck by permission of the governors, see examples from Smitthu and Thapsus

in North Africa: Grant, FITA 232-33; Grant, APT 9-11, nos. 24-26 and 28-31; and Miller II 35, no. 65, 155-56, nos. 330-34, 336-38, and 340; and Supp. 38. In the East, bronze coins were probably struck at Berytus by “permission” of the legate Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus (12/3-17) for Augustus and Tiberius. See Grant, FITA 127 and 398-400; Kraay, Ashmolean 1485; and JIAN 5 (1901) 281, no. 504. The coins

bear no ethnic and they were possibly struck in connection with Silanus’s operations in Palestine after the death of Herod I or, less likely, in connection with the Homandensian War. See A. Momigliano, ‘““Herod of Judaea,’”’ CAH X, 338 and R. Syme, “Some Notes on

the Legions under Augustus,” JRS 23 (1933): 24 and 29-31. Note that the restoration of the obverse legend on KI.M. I 294, no. 15 (= Head, HN? 686 = Ramsay, SBRPAM 252), a bronze coin of Antoninus Pius from Synnada as AIJOKAT(éotynoev) AVTO(vopov) ANTONEINOC is a misreading for AVT KAI] AAPI ANTQNEINOC; cf. K1.M. 1 294, no. 16; BMCPhrygia 400, no. 41; and SNGCop 729-30. The coin does not support the argument that Antoninus Pius restored autonomy and coinage to the city after it had been under the supervision of an imperial logistes.

47 Dig. 46.31.32. 48 See Callu, La Politique monétaire 57-59 and 109-10, and J. Melville-Jones, ‘“Denarii, Asses, and Assaria in the Early Roman Empire,” BICS 18 (1971): 99-105. 49 See Bellinger, ERCHM 137-44, and E. W. Kilmowsky, ‘‘The Monetary Function of City ~ Coins,’” PINC 150-51. For range of local bronze denominations, see tables in Callu, La Politique monétaire 59-110.

NOTES TO PAGES 18-19 135 50 OGI 484 (Pergamum, Hadrianic) and 515 (Mylasa, ca. 206). See P. Bogaert, Banques et banquiers dans les cités grecques (1968) 39-42 and 307-31. 51 See Jones, PAPhS 107 (1963) 317-24 and Callu, La Politigue monétaire 25-37. See MacDonald, Aphrodisias 40-50, for a comparison of the smaller city of Aphrodisias, whose currency was probably 50 percent imported coin, to the major mint city of Tarsus, where only 10 percent was imported. 52 See Broughton, ESAR IV 873, for coins of Ionian and Euxine cities found in the Balkans due to commerce. For the transport of coins from Pisidian Antioch and the Moesian and Thracian cities into Central Europe by traders or German raiders, see A. Kunisez, ‘East and Central European Finds of Autonomous Coins from the Roman Empire Period,’”’ Wiadomosci Numizmatyche, special issue 2 (1973): 27 —39. For soldiers in the third century

bringing Syrian and Egyptian coins to Gaul, see A. Blanchet, ‘“Monnaies provinciales de l’empire romaine trouvée en Gaule,’’ NZ 46 (1913): 193-202. 53 Broughton, ESAR IV 873; Robert, La Carie II 150; and cf. hoards in S. P. Noe, A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards, NNM 78 (1937), nos. 417, 418, 517, 693, 775a, 843, 999, and 1114.

54 See Bellinger, Dura 204 and 207; and Coins of Jerash 9. Note objections of H. Seyrig, “Antiquités syriennes 18: Les Trouvailles de monnaies péloponnesiennes et la guerre parthique de Caracalla,”’ Syria 17 (1936): 174-76, who argues that the coins unearthed date to 202 —5. The objections are not well founded because the cities of European Hellas minted so sporadically; see Jones, PAPhS 107 (1963): 325-26. Most likely the majority of coins in the hands of Caracalla’s recruits were issues of 202-5.

55 For cistophori, see Metcalf, Cistophori of Hadrian 110-12; Woodward, ERCHM 172-73; Grant, FITA xv; and Bell, Sardis, nos. 422-23 and 428-29, but no cistophori were found at Troy; see Bellinger, Troy, passim. For Caesarean drachmae, see Walker, Coinage, vol. 1, 45-46, and vol. 2, 78-81, whose findings modify previous opinions summarized in Callu, La Politique monétaire 160-62, and Bellinger, Dura 205. Note the ‘‘Caesarean” drachmae at Dura (ibid., nos. 2060-69) belong to Trajan’s Arabian mint; see Metcalf, ANSMusN 20 (1975): 93-96. For restricted circulation of Cilician silver coins, see BMCLycaonia cxi and Bellinger, Syrian Tetradrachms 9-11. For circulation of Syrian silver coins, see Callu, La Politique monétaire 170-78, and Bellinger, Dura 202-3.

56 Walker, Coinage, vol. 1, 130, and vol. 2, 70-72. 57 For festivals, see Mattingly, RC? 195-96 and Franke, Kleinasien 24-27. Cf. Robert, Mon-

| naies antiques 18-46, for Hellenistic Troy. For building projects, see C. H. V. Sutherland, ‘The Pattern of Monetary Development in Phoenicia and Palestine during the Early Empire,’’ PINC 93-94. 58 See von Aulock Index 238 and tables 1 — 12; Jones, PAPhS 107 (1963): 325-29 and 333 — 34;

and Callu, La Politique monétaire 18-35. For specific mints in the East, see notably, E. Levante, ‘‘The Coinage of Alexandria Kat’issou in Cilicia,’”” NC 7, no. 11 (1971): 93-102; W. Kubitschek, ‘‘Ninica-Claudiopolis,’” NZ 34 (1902): 1-27; K. Castelin, The Coinage of Rhesaena in Mesopotamia, NNM 108 (1946) 10-13; and Kadman, CNP II 69-77, for Caesarea Maritima. For the Balkans, see E. Gren, Kleinasien und der Ostbalkan in der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung der romischen Kaiserzeit (1941) 150-51, and E. Schonert-Geiss, ‘‘Das Ende der Provinzialpragung in Thrakien und Mosien,” Klio 50 (1968): 251-55.

136 NOTES TO PAGES 19-20 59 See Klimowsky, PINC 150-51. Contra Walker, Coinage, vol. 3, 111-36, who argues that imperial regulation of silver currencies of the East indicates that these coins were primarily ‘‘military’’ issues. For Neronian drachmae of Caesarea paid out to Roman military forces in Syria, see Sutherland, Emperor and Coinage 59 n. 13 and 75-76; and cf. Sydenham, Caesarea 3-11; Bellinger, Dura 203; and Walker, Coinage, vol. 1, 45, and vol. 2, 83. For Syrian tetradrachmae as military pay, see Bellinger, Dura 165-82 and 205-7; Syrian Tetradrachms 6-7; and F. M. Heichelheim, “Supply Bases for Caracalla’s Parthian Campaigns,”” CP 39 (1944): 113-15. 60 For Hadrian’s visit prompting the overstriking of cistophori in Asia, see Metcalf, Cistophori of Hadrian 115-20, and Walker, Coinage, vol. 2, 63-64. See also W. E. Metcalf, ‘“Hadrian,

Iovis Olympius,’’ Mnemosyne 4, no. 27 (1974): 59-66, and ‘The Overstriking of Hadrian’s | Cistophori’”’ (1976) 347-53.

61 See Jones, PAPhS 107 (1963): 310 and W. Leschhorn, ‘‘Le monnayage impé€rial d’Asie Mineure,”’ in PACT: Statistics and Numismatics, ed. C. Carcassonne and T. Hackens (Strasbourg, 1981): 252-66. See criticisms of this view in A. Johnston, ‘Greek Imperial Statis-

tics: A Commentary,” RN 6, no. 26 (1984): 240-54, but see, however, response and conclusions of W. Leschhorn, ‘Die kaiserzeitlichen Miinzen Kleinasiens: zu den M6ég-

lichkeiten und Schwierigkeiten ihrer statistischen Erfassung,’’ RN 6, no. 27 (1985):

200-16.

62 See Jones, PAPhHS 107 (1963): 310-13 and 334-39, and M. Crawford, ‘Finance, Currency, and Money from the Severans to Constantine,’”” ANRW II. 2 (1976) 572-75. For impact of debasement upon aes in general, see J. Guey, ‘“L’Aloi du denier romain de 177 a 211 aprés J-C.,’’ RN 6, no. 4 (1962): 73 —80.

63 For countermarks, see C. J. Howgego, Greek Imperial Countermarks (1985) 1-16 and 6073; von Aulock Index 184-86; Jones, PAPhS 107 (1963): 339-44; Callu, La Politique monée-

taire 67-111; and M. C. Caltabiano, ‘‘Contromarche microasiatiche di eta imperiale,”’ Quaderni ticinesi 6 (1977): 239-55, although it is difficult to accept the conclusions of the last that all countermarks revalidate old, demonetized currency. There was no regular policy of demonetizing old currency; see Bolin, State and Currency 57 — 58. For the honorific intent of many countermarks, see especially J.-B. Giard, Catalogue des monnaies de l’empire

romaine, vol. I, Auguste (Paris, 1976) 25-26 and 40, and M. J. Price, ‘“Countermarks at Prusias ad Hypium,”’ NC 7, no. 7 (1967): 37-42. 64 See D. J. MacDonald, ‘‘Aphrodisias and the Currency of the East,’’ AJA 78 (1974): 279 86, and Crawford, ANRW II. 2, 572-75. For comparable shortages of token bronze coins in the West, see T. V. Buttrey, ‘“A Hoard of Sestertii from Bordeaux and the Problem of Bronze Circulation in the Third Century A.D.,’” ANSMusN 18 (1972): 33-55. For the striking of unofficial barbarous radiates to supply currency, see P. V. Hill, “Barbarous Radiates”’: Imitations of Third-Century Roman Coins, NNM 112 (1949), and G. C. Boon, ‘Counterfeiting in Roman Britain,” Scientific American 231, no. 6 (1974): 120-29. Note that imperial mints were established in the East primarily to pay for military expenses. See P. Tyler, The Persian Wars of the 3rd Century A.D. and Roman Imperial Monetary Policy A.D. 253-268, Historia Einzelschriften Heft 23 (1975). For Rome, see S. K. Eddy, The Minting of

Antoniniani A.D. 238-249 and the Smyrna Hoard, NNM 156 (1967) 77-83 and 106-21. For Antioch, see W. E. Metcalf, ‘‘The Antioch Hoard of Antoniniani and the Eastern Coinage of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian,’’ ANSMusN 22 (1977): 85-91. For Cyzicus, see

NOTES TO PAGES 20-22 137 R. A. G. Carson, ‘The Hama Hoard and the Eastern Mints of Valerian and Gallienus,”’ Berytus 17 (1967): 123-42. 65 See C. H. V. Sutherland, ‘Flexibility in the Reformed Coinage of Diocletian,’” ERCHM 180-85; but note that the location of later imperial mints was dictated primarily by military needs. See M. Hendy, ‘Mint and Fiscal Administration Under Diocletian, His Colleagues, and His Successors, A.D. 305 — 324,” JRS 62 (1972): 75-82.

3 Local Coins and the Greek Notables 1 Cf. epigraphic phrases such as ot apyovtog Kat n Bovdn Kat 0 dnuos TwV ’"Evectwv; see MacMullen, PRE 60-61, concerning abbreviations of formulaic dedications. 2 BMClonia 76, no. 223, pl. xiii.6, and SNGvAulock 1884: NEQ(Kopwv) EBE(atwv) AH (jos) EITIEXA P(a@éato).

3 See Head, HN? 240, 243, 320, 414, 463, 509-10, 532, 882, and 889. Note the IB andIT on coins of Tarsus and Anazarbus refer to each city’s neocorate and its claim to leadership of the league of the three eparchies of Cilicia, Lycaonia, and Isauria; they do not refer to T(v@un) B(ovanc) and T'(v@pn) T(epovotac). See P. Weiss, “Die Abktirzungen IB und IT auf den spatkaiserzeitlichen Miinzen von Tarsos und Anazarbos,”’ Chiron 9 (1979):

545-52. 4 Dio Chrys. Or. 40.16-17, and cf. Or. 38.6-—7 and 21-22. Cf. remarks in Jones, Roman World 83-94. 5 IGRom IV.1424. 6 MacMullen, RSR 61. See also Norr, Imperium und Polis 76—77. For philotimia as public munificence, see Jones, Roman World 20, and cf. Robert, Gladiateurs 276 — 80 and P. Herrmann, ‘‘Zwei Inschriften von Kaunos und Baba Dag,” Opuscula Atheniensia 10 (1971): 37. 7 See Head, HN? lxxix—Ixxxiii; Franke, Kleinasien 17-22 and von Aulock Index 50-55. 8 See von Aulock Index 54, and Weiss, Chiron 9 (1979) 545 —52, for Tarsus as AMK = Ilpwtn Meytoty Kaddotn. See KI.M. 1 156, no. 10a, and Waddington 2572 (= KI.M. I 156, no. 10b = Paris 943A), for Stratonicea, Caria, aa DIAOCEBACTQN. See comments of Laumonier, Les Cultes indigenes 245. Cf. also cities that proclaimed themselves on coins as NAVAPXIC or observers of a festival of Isis; see J. P. Adams, ‘‘Logistics of the Roman Imperial Army,’’ Yale Ph.D. diss. (1976) 136-49. For titles neokoros and metropolis, see Price, Rituals 64-73; Magie, RRAM 1497-98 nn. 20-21; and L. Robert, ‘‘Les Inscriptions d’Ephése,’’ Revue phil. 41 (1967): 44-64. 9 See BMCCaria 4, nos. 20-21; KI.M.1105, no. 6; SNGFitz 4665; SNGCop 9; Waddington 2104 (= Paris 34); Vienna 33, 956; Rome 110411; Athens 55688; and BM (Ready, 1902). The

grant was probably temporary; see Millar, ERW 425-26. 10. Dio Chrys. Or. 34.48 and Ael. Arist. Or. 42.532. See Price, Rituals 128-29; Magie, RRAM 636-37; and Norr, Imperium und Polis 47-50. For coins, see D. Kienast, ‘‘Die Homonoiavertrage in der romischen Kaiserzeit,’”’ JNG 14 (1964): 52-53.

138 NOTES TO PAGES 22-23 11 Schultz, Magnesia 82, no. 224; 94, no. 303; 111,no. 421; and 114, no. 444. See also Robert, Monnaies grecques 116—18; ‘’Sur des inscriptions d’Ephese 6, lettres imperiales a Ephese,”’ Rev. phil. 41 (1967): 51-54; and ‘‘Documents de Asie mineure,’”’ BCH 101 (1977): 64-77. 12 See Norr, Imperium und Polis 60-64; cf. C. Wirszubski, Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome During the Late Republic and Early Principate (1960). For the powers of imperial governors to intervene in legal matters, see R. Bernhardt, Imperium und Eleutheria (1971) 229-40, and G. P. Burton, ‘‘Proconsuls, Assizes, and the Administration of Justice under the Empire,”’ JRS 65 (1975): 135-36. 13 See Bosch, KIM. I.2,199-—202, and L. Robert, ‘La Titulature de Nicée et de Nicomedie: La Gloire et la haine,’’ HSCPh 81 (1977): 1-40. For Nicomedia, see RGA I. 3,519, nos. 30-31;

for Nicaea 401 ff., nos. 30-65, 82, 621, 822-24, and 846-48. 14 Plut. Praec. ger. reipub. 8. 805a, LCL translation. Cf. thanks given by Eresos to an ambassador in ‘Bull. épigr.’”’ (1938), no. 272.

15 See Millar, ERW 410-44, with full documentation. 16 See Norr, Imperium und Polis 73-74. For rights of asylos, see Tac. Ann. 3.62, and Robert, Hellenica 6 (1948): 33 —-35. For festivals, see SEG 6. 59, and Robert, Hellenica 11 ~- 12 (1960):

359. For donations of money, see Dio Chrys. Or. 44.10; SIG’. 837; and Robert, Hellenica 6

(1948): 80-84. 17 See Millar, ERW 398 and 409-10. 18 For Athens, see JG II?, 1095-1125, and J. H. Oliver, Marcus Aurelius: Aspects of Civic and Cultural Policy in the East, Hesperia supp. 13 (1970). For Delphi, see A. Plassart, Fouilles de Delphi, 11. 4 (1913), nos. 286 — 332, and cf. the oracle at Claros; see L. Robert, A travers l’Asie Mineure: Poetes et prosateurs, monnaies grecques, voyages et géographie (1980): 404-8. For Ephesus, see Wankel, Inschriften von Ephesos la, nos. 15~—41, and II, nos. 207-31. For

Aphrodisias, see Reynolds 38-143, docs. 6-25. 19 J. Keiland F. Gschnitzer, ‘“Neue Inschriften aus Lydien,”’ Anz. Ost. Ak. Wien 93 (1956): 219 and 226, no. 8. See also ‘Bull. épigr.”” (1958) no. 438 and (1974) no. 529, and SEG 17. 528. Cf. C. P. Jones, ‘A Note on the Letter of Valerian and Gallienus to Philadelphia,”” ZPE 14 (1974): 294.

20 Philostr. VS, 582-83. See E. D. Phillips, ‘““Three Greek Writers on the Roman Empire,” C @ M 18 (1957): 115.

21 See Millar, ERW 234, 380-85, 391-92, and 434-35. For Vespasian’s edict, see Dig. 50.7.5.6.

22 Dio 52.30.9; see remarks of Millar, ERW 380-81. 23 See Dio 52.14.4; see remarks in Norr, Imperium und Polis 87-88 and 107-10. Cf. Dio Chrysostom’s Stoic beliefs in the kingly virtues of sophrosyne and philanthropia; see V. Valdenberg, ‘La Théorie monarchique de Dion Chrysostome,” REG 40 (1927): 15354, and Phillips, C@ M 18 (1957): 110-13.

NOTES TO PAGES 23-24 139 24 For prompt replies, see Trajan from Rome in Plin. Pan. 76. 6-7, and from Antioch in Dio 68.24.]1-2. For courteous replies, see letters of Commodus, Severus Alexander, and Gordian III at Aphrodisias in Reynolds 110-11 anddocs. 16,19, and 20—2].See also H. J. Mason, ‘““The Roman Government in Greek Sources: The Effect of Literary Theory on the Translation of Official Titles,’” Phoenix 24 (1970): 150-59. For personal attention of the emperor, see Dio 55.33.2 and 56.25.7, who notes that Augustus only in extreme old age delegated the hearing of petitions to subordinates.

25 See Reynolds, docs. 20-21 and 25, and comments on pp. 111] -12. 26 Luc. Vita Alex. 58, LCL translation. See M. Caster, Etudes sur Alexandre ou le faux prophete de

Lucien (1938) 21-29, and MacMullen, ERO 115-19. 27 Fornewethnic, see RGA? I. 1, 166; cf. F. Cumont, Alexandre d'Abonoteichos (1887) 42, and E. Babelon, ‘‘Le Faux Prophéte Alexandre d’Abonotichos,”’ RN 4, no. 4 (1900): 1-2. Note coins show Glycon as a type from the reign of Antoninus Pius; see RGA? 168-70, nos. 7-9, 12, and 15-18. See also U. Westermark, ‘‘Amastris-Abonoteichus-Jonopolis,’”’ Numismatica Stockhomiensia 1 (1975-76): 7-8, and Robert, A travers 393-94.

28 See L. Robert, “AITHZAMENOS® sur les monnaies,” Hellenica 11-12 (1960): 55-58, with full numismatic and epigraphic evidence. See also von Aulock Index 151. Contra Callu, La Politique monétaire 25, who argues that the formula denotes imperial supervision. The

cities are Stratonicea in Lydia, and the five Phrygian towns of Alia, Ancyra, Appia, Eucarpia, and Stectorium. Only C. Plotius Pollio of Appia is designated a magistrate, strategos for the second time. The coin of Ancyra designating Tib. Bassilaus as ephor is misread (Mionnet IV 220, no. 153). Note the Flavian issues from Mylasa_ inscribed attnacpevoc KAavdtog Médac aveOnkev (Akarca, Mylasa, nos. 52-53), should be emended to wydicapevoc KtA; see Robert, Monnaies grecques 54.

29 Forcorrespondence, see L. Robert, ‘Letters d’Hadrien a la ville d’Hadrianopolis-Stratonicée en l’'an 127,” Hellenica 6 (1948): 80-84. For coins, see BMCLydia cxvii—cxviii; RSN 6 (1896): 18, no. 14; and G. Blum, ‘‘Numismatique d’Antinoos,”’ JIAN 16 (1914): 49, dating the issue to 127/8.

30 IGRom IV. 1156c, and cf. Hellenica 6 (1948): 80-84.

31 See Robert, Hellenica 11-12 (1960): 60-62. 32 BMCPhrygia 218, nos. 47-51, and KLM. I 230, nos. 6-7: EICANIEIAATOC M KA OVAAEPIANOV APXI ACIAC. Robert, Hellenica 11-12 (1960): 54, and Head, BMCPhrygia xIxii n. 1, consider elgayyéAAetv as synonymous with attetaMau; but there is a differ-

ence in sense. Classical authors use the former verb to mean “to enter and announce,”’ usually in the presence of a monarch; cf. Hdt 3.118 Lys.1. 20 and Xen. Cyr. 8.3.20. Note that later epigraphic and papyrological usages offer no parallels; the former use the verb in religious and legal contexts, the latter to announce liturgists.

33 See W. Gawantka and M. Zahrnt, ‘Eine neue Inschrift der Stadt Stratonikeia-Hadrianopolis in Lydien,”’ Chiron 7 (1977): 305-14, for date 131-32. See Blum, JIAN 16 (1914): 49, nos. 1-2; Waddington 1002; and SNGvAulock 3187.

140 NOTES TO PAGES 24-26 34 SNGFitz 6101-2; BMCPalestine 1-3, nos. 1-20; AUB 1, nos. 1-8; SNGCop 3; and Rosenberger III 60-61, nos. 3-6: TPAIANOC AVTOKPATQP EAWKEN. See also Jones, CERP? 277-78, and contra Y. Meshorer, ‘‘Sepphoris and Rome” (1979) 164, who argues that the grant allowed the city to mint ‘‘Jewish’’ types as opposed to the overtly pagan types of Caesarea and Tiberias. Sepphoris’s coins, although they do not bear pagan gods, carry the imperial name and portrait and the reverse types are not strictly Jewish. 35 See Birley, Septimius Severus 186 — 87. For the demotion of Antioch, see S.H.A., Vita Sept. Sev. 9.4; Herod. 3.6.9; and cf. Downey, History of Antioch 241 —42, and R. Ziegler, ‘“Antiochia,

Laodicea und Sidon in der Politik der Severer,’’ Chiron 8 (1978): 493-514. For the suspension of its coinage, see Waage, Antioch x—xi. For the punishment of Athens, see S.H.A., Vita Sept. Sev. 3.7, and, for the termination of autonomous aes of Group II (ca. 150-193), see J. H. Kroll, ‘‘Two Hoards of First-Century B.c. Athenian Bronze Coins,”’ Arch. Deltion 27 (1972): 101, and ‘The Eleusis Hoard of Athenian Imperial Coins and Some Deposits from the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 42 (1973): 312-32. For punishment of Byzantium, see Dio 75.14.2, and, for closure of the mint, see Schonert-Geiss, Byzantion 12. For punishment of Neapolis, see S.H.A., Vita Sept. Sev. 9.5-—8, and, for suspension of its coinage, see BMCPalestine xxvi.

36 §©Dio 78.20.3-—4; see also Magie, RRAM 1557 n. 3; Kraft 38-39; and ‘Bull. épigr.”’ (1958)

no. 422. 37 See Norr, Imperium und Polis 107-10, and cf. criticisms of Caracalla in S.H.A., Vita Car. 5.3.

38 For the suppression by Vespasian of Corinth’s right to coin, see BMCCorinth xlv. For the loss of colonial rank and right to mint coins with Latin inscriptions, see the cases of Iconium under Vespasian; Ninica-Claudiopolis under Hadrian; Tyre under Elagabalus; and Neapolis Samariae under Trajan Decius, all discussed in K. W. Harl, ‘‘The Coinage of Neapolis in Samaria, A.D. 244-—253,’’ ANSMusN 29 (1984): 70-73.

39 =Plut. Praec. ger. reipub. 17.813c—d; cf. Bowersock, Greek Sophists 17-29.

40 See von Aulock, MSPh I 154-55, nos. 899-907. 41 Paus. 10.4.1, LCL translation. 42 Plut. Praec. ger. reipub. 79 1c.

43 Dio Chrys. Or. 36.20. 44 For use of eras, see Head, HN? lxxxv-Ixxxvii. In Bithynia, eponyms appear only on the Nicene-Byzantine homonoia issue (RGA I. 3, 498, nos. 779-80 and 786) and coins of Chalcedon (RGA I. 2, 300, no. 62). Note that the abbreviations on Severan aes of GangraGermanicopolis represent city titles and not eponyms; see RGA I? 187. Note the following false readings: at Nicaea (Mionnet, Supp. V 143, no. 831; 152, no. 888, and Supp. VI 526, no. 429) and at Cius (Mionnet, Supp. V 253, no. 1479). In Galatia, see Waddington 6002 and SNGCop 108, for coins of Ancyra. Note that the eponymous coins of Caesarea Mazaca also are misreadings; see Waddington 6741 and RSN 14 (1908) 120, no. 4. The last belongs to Hydisus in Caria; see G. F. Hill, ‘“Some Coins of Southern Asia Minor,’ ASPWMR 210. In , Pisidia, see eponymous coins at Apollonia Mordiaeum (von Aulock, MSP II 55, no. 62); Isinda (ibid. 1 98-99, nos. 907-10; 913-22, and 931 — 34); and Termessus Maior (KIM. I]

413, no. 20, misread = RSN 14 (1908) 85, no. 2). See Robert, La Carie Il 249-50, for

NOTES TO PAGES 26-27 14] reattribution of coins of Apollonia Mordiaeum to Apollonia Salbace, but note comments in M. Grant, ‘‘Apollonia-Mordiaeum under Tiberius,” NC 6, no. 9 (1949): 150-53. The eponyms reported for Adada and Cordula are misread city titles; see von Aulock, MSP I 53-59 and 104-05, no. 1004. In Cilicia, eponyms reported on coins of Aegeae are also misread city titles (Mionnet, Supp. VI 2, no 8; MG 349, no. 8; SNGvAulock 5452; and Mionnet III 546, no. 49). 45 Sometimes the names of two magistrates appear on coins. See BMCCaria 43 —-44, nos. 111 and 113-14, and SNGvAulock 2457 for Ti. Claudius Zenon and Menippus at Aphrodisias. See RSN 14 (1908) 20, no. 4 (= Hill, ASPWR 210), for stephanophori M. Aurelius Hermonax and Metrophanes at Hydisus, Caria. More often two or more magistrates share an obverse die. See especially J.G. Milne, Kolophon and Its Coinage, NNM 96 (1941): Callinicus and Aurelius Marcus share obverse die of Gordian III (nos. 219-20); Aurelius Aeschrion, Aurelius Lucion, and Aurelius Capitolinus share an obverse die of Otacilia Severa (nos. 233 —36, 240); Claudius Callistus and Aurelius Athenaeus share an obverse die of Volusian (nos. 259-60, 262); and P. Aelius Callinicus and P. Aelius Severinus share obverse dies of Valerian and Gallienus (nos. 263-65, 267-71). See also example from Cidyessus, Phrygia, where the Jogistes Aurelius Varus and archon Aurelius Marcus share an obverse die (BMCPhrygia 152, nos. 14-15, 247-49 A.D.). At Cotiaeum, Phrygia, the two magistrates Aurelius Menander (ANS, 6.63 grs.) and C. Julius Ponticus (ANS, 5.53 grs.) share an

: obverse die of Otacilia Severa.

46 See examples from Philadelphia in Lydia and Aezanis in Phrygia during the reigns of Caligula and Claudius in Trillmich, Familienpropaganda 128-36. 47 For Magnesia, Nysa, and Tralles, see K.W. Harl, ‘Caracalla or Elagabalus,’” ANSMusN 26

(1981): 173-75. 48 Cf. Minsterberg, ‘‘Beamtennamen,” passim, and von Aulock Index 144-53.

49 OGI339.11.44-49, and see text in L. Robert, ‘‘Les Monétaires et un decrét hellenistique de Sestos,’’ RN 6, no. 15 (1973): 47-48. In translating the crucial phrase in 11.47-48, I have followed the suggestions of N. F. Jones, ‘‘The Autonomous Wreathed Tetradrachms of Magnesia-on-Maeander,’’ ANSMusN 24 (1979): 85 —87. See also F. v. Fritze, ‘‘Sestos,”’ Nomisma 1 (1907): 1-3, and Robert, Monnaies grecques 103-4.

50 See N. F. Jones, ANSMusN 24 (1979): 86-89, and contra Robert, RN 6, no. 15 (1973): 51-52, who translates tyv émuéAecav in a general sense rather than as a liturgy. 51 See M. Thompson, The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens, NS 10 (1961) 547-86 and 593 - 96. See also Milne, Kolophon 28-29; J. G. Milne, ‘‘The Autonomous Coinage of Smyrna,’’ NC

5, no. 7 (1927): 1-2; A. R. Bellinger, ‘‘First Civic Tetradrachms of Ilium,’’ ANSMusN 8 (1958): 15-24; W. Wallace, ‘‘Some Eretrian Magistrates,’ Phoenix 4 (1950): 21-25; T. Gerassimov, ‘‘The Alexandrine Tetradrachms of Cabyle in Thrace,’’ CPANS 276; G. Severau, ‘‘Tetradrachme d’Alexandre le Grand frappée par Dioscurides,’’ BSNR 25-26 (1930-31): 29; and J. Kroll, ‘The Late Tetrobols of Kos,’’ ANSMusN 11 (1964): 94-99. For a differing view, see L. Robert, Monnaies antiques en Troad (1966) 21-40 and RN 6, no. 15

(1973): 43-45.

52 OGI 485 = BCH 18 (1894) 12, no. 17 = Inscr. Magn. no. 164. The inscription cannot be Hellenistic and thus connected with the Moschion named on coins; see Waddington 1733

| and SNGCop 812. Cf. remarks of Robert, Monnaies grecques 103 — 4; RN 6, no. 15 (1973): 49;

142 NOTES TO PAGES 27-28 and especially Jones, ANSMusN 24 (1979): 83 and 89-90. Note also older editions in E. Bourguet. ‘Inscription de Magnesia du Méandre,’”’ REG 3 (1900): 16—17, and W. Kubitschek, Rundschau iiber ein Quinquennium der antiken Numismatik (1890 - 1894) (1895) 50-51, no. 102.

53 Schultz, Magnesia 22-25. 54 BMCPhrygia 243, nos. 93-94; SNGCop 447; Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics 107; and Grant, FITA 387, no. 3, pl. xi. 58: ZOZIMOX ®BIAONATPIY IEPOTMIOAEITON XAPAZ (ac). 55 BMCLydia 373-74, nos. 56-59, and SNGvAulock 3318: P@EOAQPOC B EXAPA (Zev).

56 The commission may have been composed of the following magistrates: Artemon (BMCPhrygia 245, no. 103), Byron (Waddington 6135 and 6142), Chares (BMCPhrygia 244, no. 96, and Charites 486), Dioscurides (BMCPhrygia 245, no. 102; Waddington 6134; and GM 738, no. 691), Dorycanus (SNGCop 448), Dryas (Waddington 6137-38; SNGCop 449; KIM. 1238, no. 14; and GM 737, no. 688), Zosimus (BMCPhrygia 243 — 44, nos. 93-94 and 97-98; SNGCop 447; Waddington 6141; SNGvAulock 3643; and Grant, FITA 387), Theo-

critus (Waddington 6136; GM 739, no. 694; and KIM. I 238, no. 15), and Tryphon (Waddington 6143 and BMCPhrygia 243, no. 95).

57 See Miunsterberg, ‘‘Beamtennamen” 80 and von Aulock Index 152. The ten cities were: Miletopolis in Mysia; the Lydian cities Mastaura and Philadelphia; the Phrygian cities Apamea, Cotiaeum, and Hierapolis; and the Carian cities Antiochia, Aphrodisias, Attuda, and Stratonicea. Note five examples should be deleted from Miunsterberg’s list: Mylasa (Mionnet, Supp. VI 509, no. 368, and cf. Akarca, Mylasa, nos. 44-45, for correct reading);

Mastaura, Lydia (Mionnet, Supp. VII 391, no. 343, bogus, and Waddington 5097, misread); Silandus, Lydia (RSN 14 [1908] 21, no. 3, misread, and cf. SNGvAulock 3181 for correct reading); and Grimenothyrae, Phrygia (SNGCop 401 -2, misread, and cf. SNGvAulock 3601-2 for correct reading).

For use of equivalent zpovoynaapévov by the Ionian League in 139-40 on coins with , name of M. Claudius Fronto (cos. 166, PIR? 203-4, no. 874), see J. U. Gillepsie, “KOINON IT’ TIOAEQN: A Study of the Coinage of the ‘Ionian League,’’’ RBN 102 (1956): 31-52. Note that the middle form of verb is preferred to passive; cf. CIG 2930b; BCH 8 (1883) 317, no. 1; Imscr. Prien. no. 12; and Milet 252. Note the use of dt@ with a magistrate’s name at Laodicea ad Lycum and the five Carian cities of Apollonia, Attuda, Cidramus, Tabae, and Trapezopolis; see Munsterberg, ‘‘Beamtennamen” 79; von Aulock Index 151; and Robert, La Carie II 268 and 343-48. It abbreviates du ’Entwedntov, found in inscriptions. At Trapezopolis, Caria, T. Flavius Maximus Lysius is named on coins of Hadrian with dtd (KI.M. 1 161, no. 1, and Waddington 2658), and with ot ’éntwwedntov in an inscription (JHS 17 [1897] 402, no. 8). Attuda used dua and emtueAnOevtoc interchangeably on coins of M. Ulpius Carminius Claudianus.

58 See BMCLydia 197, nos. 60-61; GM 721, no. 610; and Waddington 5138 (Vespasian), naming Heros and Polemaeus. 59 See Jones, ANSMusN 24 (1979): 85. See Head, BMCPhrygia xix and liii n. 2, and Franke, Kleinasien 22-23, who believe that it designates a superintendant or mint master (cf. epimeletes to curator monetae).

60 See G. MacDonald, ‘“Head’s Coins of Phrygia,’’ CR 21 (1907): 58; Broughton, ESAR IV 773; and Ramsay, SBRPAM 70-75. Contra Head, BMCCaria xli and BMCPhrygia xxxvii— xxxviili

NOTES TO PAGE 28 143 and Ixxxiii, and Mattingly, RC? 193, who believe ét denotes a date, while zapa and dua : denote an official who supervises the coinage. Note also the use of the formula ézt t@v 7épl plus a magistrate’s name in the accusative; it may designate the chief magistrate of a board or year. See Miinsterberg, ‘“-Beamtennamen” 80 and von Aulock Index 152. Note the less common offices of archiprytanis, prytanis, nomothetes, and tamias. Hipparchos and stephanophoros were assumed usually by men holding the archonship or generalship. A significant minority of prytaneis and stephanophoroi were aristocratic women. See Mitinsterberg, ‘‘Beamtennamen”’ 77—78, and von Aulock Index 144-48; cf. R. MacMullen, ‘‘Women in Public in the Roman Empire,” Historia 29 (1980): 208 — 18. For archiprytaneis at Miletus and Aegiale, see Robert, Monnaies grecques 40-41. Delete Miinsterberg’s examples of prytaneis at Dioshieron, Lydia (RSN 6 [1897] 215, no. 11; BMCLydia 75, nos. 7-8; | SNGCop 114-15, misreading prytanis for grammateus), and Prymnessus, Phrygia (Mionnet, Supp. V1 611, no. 560, misread). Delete from tamiae the example of Pordosilene (Mionnet | II 629, no. 732). Delete stephanophoroi at Tralles, Lydia (Mionnet, Supp. VII 478, no. 750);

Ancyra, Phrygia (ibid. 505, no. 115), and Prymnessus, Phrygia (ibid. 611, no. 560) as

: misreadings.

The appearance of the names of imperial logistai (curatores rei publicae) does not indicate

imperial supervision. P. Claudius Attalus, renown sophist (cf. Philostr. VS 2. 24-25), is named as both prytanis and logistes on coins of Synnada, Phrygia, from 161-69 (BMCPhrygia 395,no. 17 and 401, nos. 49 —50; Waddington 6540 and 6542; SNGCop 732; and KI.M. I 295,no. 21). He probably obtained local citizenship for his services and was hence named on coins as both imperial auditor and local official. See analogous cases of such grants of citizenship in Robert, La Carie II 318, no. 169; IGRom IV. 218; and M. N. Tod, ‘‘Greek

Inscriptions from Macedon,” JHS 42 (1922): 167-83. For logistai named on coins of Cidyessus, Phrygia, see von Aulock, MSPh I 129, nos. 534 and 544 (ca. 198-205), and

130-32, nos. 567-73, 582-83, and 586-87 (ca. 247-49). The office by then was probably local; cf. C. Lucas, ‘‘Notes on the Curatores Rei Publicae of Roman Africa,’’ JRS 30 (1940): 70, and G. P. Burton, ‘The Curator Reipublicae: Towards a Reappraisal,”’ Chiron 9

(1979): 485-87. 61 See Minsterberg, ‘“‘Beamtennamen” 75-76, and von Aulock Index 144, 146, and 152. Delete from Miunsterberg’s list the misread example from Perperene, Mysia (Mionnet, Supp. V 483, nos. 1207-8). The men named as agonothetai often held another major office, but the panegyriarchoi probably supervised special festival issues. Panegyriarchoi are named only after 180 on coins of the Phrygian towns Apamea, Ceretapa, Metropolis, and Siblia.

They invariably are found with the formulaic preposition mapa. See Robert, Monnaies grecques 25-30, and Price, Rituals 107, for the regulations of festivals by panegyriarchoi.

62 Ramsay, JHS 4 (1883) 396-97 = IGRom IV. 769. 63 Seevon Aulock, MSPh1I 115-16, nos. 358-60. The coins bear the ethnic of the Hyrgaleis, the tribal koinon, for which Lounda served as the political center and mint; see Jones, CERP?2 71; Broughton, ESAR IV 773; and Ramsay, SBRPAM 72-75. Cf. IGRom IV. 1393 =

CIG 3173, where Cosconia, daughter of Myros, is named as stephanophoros in a dedication to Domitian (83) and she is named on contemporary coins of Smyrna (BMClonia 250, no. 133). At Thyatira, Lydia, the strategos C. Aruntius Antoninus is named in both an epigra-

phic dedication to Severus Alexander and on coins; see BCH 10 (1886) 409-10, no. 13, and cf. BMCLydia 315, no. 122.

| 64 See Laumonier, Les Cultes indigenes 225-50, 292-321, 362-65, and 395-405.

144 . NOTES TO PAGES 28-29 65 The offices of strategos, archon, prytanis, grammateus, and epimeletes are represented. A full discussion of the evidence will be offered in the study of K. W. Harl, ‘The Coinage of Stratonicea in Caria during the Imperial Age.” 66 M. C. Sahin, Die Inschriften von Stratontkeia II (1981), no. 701. See Laumonier, Les Cultes indigenes 396, and cf. the extent of the practice on 395-97. For the identification of Tib.

Claudius Aristeas on coins as the generous donor recorded in the inscriptions, see A. Laumonier, ‘“Recherches sur le chronologie des prétres de Panamara,’”’ BCH 61 (1937): 251-52, and Les Cultes indigenes 270 and 386-87.

67 At Stratonicea, Caria, see BMCCaria 153, no. 42 (= GM 675, no. 450); SNGCop 499; Paris 941; and Athens 1912/13 A Z5 (all Flavian date); and cf. Laumonier, Les Cultes indigénes 201-2, 206 n. 8, and 376, and E. Varinlioglu, ‘Inscriptions from Stratonicea in Caria,” ZPE 41 (1981): 189-91. At Mylasa, Caria, see Akarca, Mylasa, nos. 53-54, and corrections offered in Robert, Monnaies grecques 54-55. Cf. usage in inscriptions; BMusInscr. III. 164D

11. 14-15. 68 IGRom Ill. 739, c. 17, 11. 63-65. 69 See Abbott and Johnson, no. 87, Broughton, ESAR IV 779-80, and Magie, RRAM 533 n. 56, for difficult phrase in 11.64-65 of etc THY KaTAAAAYNV TOD VOMLGUATOG. Magie trans-

lates KatadAayny as “exchange” and cites it as vague, whereas Abbott and Johnson explain that the gift covered the loss in the exchange from converting local into Roman currency, but this hardly makes sense. In literary sources and papyri, the term means either exchange or the discount for the conversion of currencies; see A. C. Johnson and L. C. West, Currency in Roman and Byzantine Egypt (1944) 90-96, andS. L. Wallace, Taxation

in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (1938) 55-60, 259, 263-64, 323, 329-30, 464, and 489. Note that the gift of Opramoas was diverted to other purposes; see [GRom IV. 739, c. 20,11. 108-9, and cf. remarks in Oliver, TAPHS, n.s., 43 (1953): 963-64. For absence of coinage in Hadrianic and Antonine Lycia, see Robert, Hellenica 10 (1955) 188-210. 70 See J.J. Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum, vol. 4 (Vienna, 1792-98) 370-74; Mattingly, RC? 194; and Robert, A travers 331. The verb avé@yxev on coins abbreviates the phrase avéOnkev eK Tov LoLwy found in inscriptions; cf. IGRom IV. 208, 232, and 243. See Franke, Kleinasien 22 -23, who suggests that the phrase denotes a liturgy. Contra Head, BMCPhrygia

xxvii n, avéOnxev is not related in meaning to attyaapévov. For cities employing the formula on coins, see Miinsterberg, ‘““Beamtennamen” 80, and von Aulock Index 151. Delete from Miunsterberg’s list the following: Julia-Ipsus, Phrygia (Mionnet IV 311, no. 664, a misread coin of Phocaea, Ionia) and Heronomus at Cyme, Aeolis (Mionnet III 11, nos. 66-67, and 229, no. 1287, misread coins of Colossae, Phrygia). 71 See Blum, JIAN 16 (1914): 33-70. Cf. L. Robert, ““Voyages épigraphiques en Asie mineure,” Rev. phil. 17 (1943): 184. n. 9, and “Bull. épigr.”” (1958) no. 476. 72 For coins to neoi at Heraclea Salbace donated by Statilius Attalus, see BMCCaria 120, nos. 25-26, and Winterthur 3377. For coins to gerousia at Aezanis, Phrygia, donated by Ulpius Eurycles, see BMCPhrygia 39, no. 112, and ZN 12 (1886): 340. See thanks of gerousia to Ulpius Eurycles in CIG 3831 and BCH 8 (1885): 71. For family connections, see J. A. O. Larsen, ‘‘A Thessalian Family under the Principate,’’ CP 48 (1953): 86-95, and Oliver, Marcus Aurelius 113-16, nos. 28-30.

NOTES TO PAGES 29-32 145 73 See BMCCaria 41-42, nos. 106-110; SNGCop 120; and SNGvAulock 2451-52. See MacDonald, Aphrodisias 20, who suggests that the coins honor his earlier gifts, but this leaves unexplained the point of the legend ézuvixtov avednxey.

74 See Munsterberg, ‘‘Beamtennamen”’ 75-78, and von Aulock Index 144-49. 75 See Munsterberg, ‘“Beamtennamen”’ 75-78, and von Aulock Index 144-49. For asiarchai and priests of the imperial cult, see also M. Rossner, ‘‘Asiarchen und Archiereis Asias,”’ Studii classice 16 (1974): 101-42. For the social importance of imperial priests, see especially Price, Rituals 62-64. See Miller, Chiron 10 (1980): 457 — 84, for a consular family as moneyers at Synnada in the late second century.

76 See Miunsterberg, ‘‘Beamtennamen” 75-78, von Aulock Index 144-49, And L. Robert, ‘Notes de numismatique,”’ Rev. arch. 1 (1939): 54-61 = OMS IV 1018-25.

77 See R. Munsterberg, ‘‘Die Mitinzen der Sophisten,” NZ 48 (1915): 119-24, and cf. Bowersock, Greek Sophists 40-42. Delete from Munsterberg’s list the coin of Sosthenes (Mionnet III 228, no. 1274, Hadrian) as probable misreading. Add the rhetor Hybreas of Mylasa; see Robert, Hellenica 8 (1950): 95-96. Add also the archiater Statilius Attalus at Heraclea Salbace (BMCCaria 120, nos. 25-26, and KI.M.1 134, no. 577) and Tabae (Robert, La Carie IJ 220, Waddington 2406 and 2422, and SNGvAulock 2551).

78 Philostr. VS 2.24-25, and PIR II? 172-173, no. 797. See IG V. i. 445, and cf. A. M. Woodward, ‘Sparta and Asia Minor under the Roman Empire,’’ SPDMR II 874-76. Attalus held dual citizenship at Smyrna and Laodicea-on-the-Lycus; he served as imperial logistes at Synnada, where he may have secured local citizenship, and Phocaea was the home of his son-in-law. 79 Plut. Praec. ger. reipub. 17.813c—d, and cf. 27.820a—f. For exemptions and public services of sophists, see Bowersock, Greek Sophists 40 — 42.

4 Coins and Declarations of Political Values in the Roman World 1 For funerary inscriptions, see G. Picard, La Civilization de l'Afrique romaine (1959) 249-54

and 293-97. 2 IGRom Ill. 648. 3 In addition to Apollodotus of Lounda and Claudius Candidus of Lydian Stratonicea, ten other ‘‘“moneyers”’ were praised for their services on public inscriptions. See CIG 3424 for

praise of Philadelphia, Lydia, to archon and athletic victor Aurelius Eugenetor; for his coins, see BMCLydia 199, nos. 72 — 73 (Marcus Aurelius), and Mionnet IV 104, no. 575. See CIG 3416 for Philadelphia’s praise of Severan archon C. Julius Pericles as ‘’a lover of honor

in all matters,’’ and, for his coins, see BMCLydia 191, no. 30. The city of Thyatira praised strategos Laebianus as ‘‘an upright and patriotic man” for his many donations — see CIG 3491; for his coins, see RSN 6 (1897): 16, no. 25 = Lyd. Stadtm. 153, no. 25 (Commodus). The Thyatirans also praised the general Hermogenes for his zeal in discharging all offices and liturgies —see REG 4 (1891) 175; for his coins, see BMCLydia 308, nos. 89-90, and

146 NOTES TO PAGE 32 SNGvAulock 3221. Thyatira also acclaimed the virtues of strategos M. Aurelius Diadochus in CIG 3494, esp. 11.12-16. For his coins, see BMCLydia 312, no. 110; SNGvAulock 3230; and

Mionnet, Supp. VIl 452, no . 624 (Macrinus). See BCH 10 (1886): 402-8, no. 1, for praise of the Thyatiran strategos L. Marcius Pollianus. For his coins, see BMCLydia 299, no. 47;

314-15, no. 12]; and 317, no. 134; Mionnet IV 172, nos. 993-94, and 173, nos. 998-99; SNGCop 588; and SNGvAulock 3211 and 3235 (Severus Alexander). Note that Thyatiran coins reported for Aurelius Artemagoras (Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum, vol. 3, 123; Mionnet IV 173, no. 995) are doubtful and the magistrate cannot be identified with his namesake in CIG 3498. Tralles, Lydia, praised the secretary Glyptus as ‘‘the founder of the city’’ (CIG 2926); for his coins in the reign of Septimius Severus, see Mionnet IV 188-89, nos. 1089 and 1095, Supp. VII 474, no. 732; SNGvAulock 3289; and KIM. I 187, no. 3. At Acmonia, Phrygia, the gerousia thanked the priestess Julia Severa and her son C. Servenius Capito ‘‘on account of their every virtue and patronage towards it’’; see MAMA V1.263 and Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics 648-50. The two presided over games in the reign of Nero; see MAMA VI. 265, esp. 11.11 -12 (=IGRom 1V.654 = LBW 754 = CIG 3858 and iii add., p. 1091). They are both also named on a “‘festival’’ issue of coins; see BMCPhrygia 9-11, nos. 36 and 39-50; SNGvAulock 3371 —73; and SNGCop 17 and 27-29. Aezanis, Phrygia, praised stephanophoros Nannas because of his benefits ‘to the Augustan gods who share common altars” (IGRom IV.582); for his coins, see SNGCop 81, and Waddington 5563 (Caligula). At Eumenia, Phrygia, both public inscriptions (C/G 3887) and coins (BMCPhrygia 216, no. 36, Tiberius) praise Epigonis as philopatris.

4 See Minsterberg, ‘‘Beamtennamen”’ 76, von Aulock Index 146, and Robert, Rev. arch.} (1939): 54-58 = OMS II, pp. 1018-22. 5 See Robert, Villes d'Asie mineure* 405-6; ‘Bull. épigr.”” (1960) no. 242; BMCLydia 82, no. 19; and F. Imhoof-Blumer, ‘“Nymphen und Chariten auf griechischen Mtinzen,”’ JIAN 11 (1908): 194, no. 524. Cf. Artemon, called tropheus on coins that carry Demeter and a grain stalk — allusions to his relief of a famine in Synnada. See Robert, Monnaies grecques 66 ~ 67; Hellenica 7 (1949): 74-81; BMCPhrygia 399, no. 38; Waddington 6523; and SNGvAulock 3974.

6 See Robert, Monnaies grecques 49-51; Etudes anatoliennes 23-27, and cf. BMuslInscr. IV.1.922, 11.16-—27; Rehm, Didyma 176 add. no. 237B; and Delphinion, no. 134. For coins,

see BMClonia 198, nos. 148-51; SNGCop 1006 and 1010-12; and SNGvAulock 2103-5. 7 For Flavius Praxeas, priest of Cybele at Philadelphia, see Robert, Monnaies grecques 73 — 77; SNGCop 376-77; RSN 14 (1908) 16, no. 8; SNGvAulock 3074; and KIM. I 180, no. 5. For

Glycon, priest of Heracles at Heraclea Salbace, see MAMA VI. 106-7 and 119, and cf. Robert, Monnaies grecques 51-52; Robert, La Carie IJ 156-57; SNGCop 399-400; and SNGvAulock 2546-47. For Menander, priest of Apollo at Miletus, see Robert, Monnaies grecques 52; Waddington 1866; and BMClonia 200, no. 161. 8 See Sutherland, JRS 49 (1959): 50-54; J. M. C. Toynbee, ‘‘Picture-Language in Roman Art and Coinage,’’ ERCHM 224-25; and R. Brilliant, Gesture and Rank in Roman Art (1963) 23-36, 56-69, and 180-89. For conventions used to depict monuments, see Price and Trel] 24-33. Contra the critical assessment of the meaning of coin types and legends, and the audience’s comprehension in A. H. M. Jones, ‘“Numismatics and History,’’ ERCHM 15-19, and M. H. Crawford, ‘‘Roman Imperial Coin Types and the Formation of Public Opinion” (1983) 59. Cf. also cautious approach in D. Mannsperger, ‘ROM. ET AVG. Die

NOTES TO PAGES 32-33 147 Selbstdarstellung des Kaisertums in der romischen Reichspragung,’’ ANRW II.1 (1974)

919-96.

9 See C.H. V. Sutherland, Coinage and Roman Imperial Policy 31 B.C.- 68 A.D. (1958). See also J. R. Fears, Princeps a dits electus (1977) 199-205, and Trillmich, Familienpropaganda 4-5.

10 See Sutherland, JRS 49 (1959): 53-54. 11 ~=For coins hailing Julius Caesar as pater patriae, see Dio 44.4.4, and cf. Crawford, RRC 491, nos. 19-20. For coins depicting Brutus’s portrait on the obverse and, on the reverse, the cap of Libertas and two daggers, see Dio 47.25.3 and Plut. Brutus 40; cf. Crawford, RRC 518, no. 3. For coins with the capricorn, the astrological sign of Augustus, see Suet. Aug. 94.12, and K. Kraft, ‘‘Zum Capricorn auf den Muinzen des Augustus,” JNG 17 (1967): 17-27. See BMCRE I 56, nos. 305-8 and 107, no. 664; RIC I? 83, nos. 521 —22; 85, nos.

541-42; and 86, nos. 547-48; and Sutherland, Cistophori of Augustus 97. For Nero as Apollo Citharoedes, see Suet. Nero 25.3 and BMCRE I 245 — 46, nos. 234 - 38; 249-50, nos.

254-57; and 274, nos. 376-77; RIC I? 158, nos. 73-82; 160, nos. 12] —23; 163, nos. 205-12; 174, nos. 380~81 and 384-85; 176, nos. 414-17; and 178, nos. 451-55; and Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, NCP 7, pl. V. 109. 12 See Tac. Germ. 5.4-—5, who reports that Germans recognized the designs of the Republican serrati and bigati, which they preferred to imperial coin. See Plin. Nat. Hist. 6.24.84-—85, who reports that a freedman captain of Annius Plocamus paid Roman coin to the ruler of

Taprobane, who was amazed that, despite the multiplicity of designs, all the coins weighed the same. In the Indic world, types denoted denominational value; Pliny implied by the incident that Romans obtained more information from their coins than the values of their money. 13. «S.H.A., Vita Gall. 12.1. The coins never existed; the entire passage is probably a fourth-century anachronism. The description of the reverse types was based on the reformed aes of Constantius II and Constans (346 — 54) that depict the emperor dragging a captive barbarian from a hut; see RIC VIII 35. It also was policy in the fourth century to recognize new imperial colleagues by minting common reverse types; see ibid., VI 109-12, VII 50-56, and IX xxxix— xlili. 14 For Constantine’s portrait, see Euseb. Vita Const. 4.15, and cf. M. R. Alf6éldi, Die constantinische Goldpragung (1963) 128, and E. B. Harrison, ‘‘The Constantinian Portrait,’” DOP 21 (1967): 90-91, and figs. 35 and 37. For Helena’s portrait, see Euseb. Vita Const. 3.47, and Theophanes, p. 29 (Bonn ed.); cf. J. Maurice, Numismatique constantienne I (1908) 90. Note

the similar policy of the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (610~41), who ordered solidi to bear various combinations of the figures of himself, his wife Martina, and his two sons Heraclius Constantine and Heraclonas; see John of Nikiu, Chron. 16.3 (p. 563), and N. Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, II (1972) 176. 15 Euseb. Vita Const. 4.73; andsee S.G. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (1981) 123, and RIC VIII 33.

16 See foremost R. von Heine-Geldern, ‘‘Conceptions of State and Kingship in Southeast Asia,”’ Far Eastern Quarterly 2 (1942): 15-30, and C. Geertz, Negara: The Theater State in

Nineteenth Century Bali (1980) 3-25 and 98-136. My thanks to my colleague Judith Eklund for her judicious advice and assistance on Southeast Asia. For the role of the ritual

148 NOTES TO PAGES 33-34 drama in the imperial cult, see Price, Rituals 7-19 and 114-21. See A. D. Nock, ‘Studies in the Graeco-Roman Beliefs of the Empire,’’ JHS 45 (1925): 91-93, for Greco-Roman notions of identifying the emperor with the divine —a tradition that is not an imported “oriental” belief. 17 See Plato Rep. 505a, 508b—c, and 509b; cf. Arist. Pol. 1287c and Nic. Eth. 1108a21—23. For later Platonic beliefs, see notably Plot. Enn. 5.1.8 and 5.9.7; lamb. V. Pyth. 27; Proc. In remp. 1.156.12-—14; and Julian Or. 6.252a—c.

18 Julian Miso. 355d; cf. comments of the Christian Socrates Hist. eccl. 3.17. For heroic bull, see RIC VIII 46—47 and 532, nos. 216-18, and F. D. Gillard, ‘“Notes on the Coinage of Julian the Apostate,’ JRS 54 (1964): 135-41. The coins cannot be the small ‘‘pseudocoins” struck at Rome with the heads of Isis and Serapis; see RIC VIII 300 — 305, and contra

W. C. Wright, Julian II, LCL (1944) 471 n. 2.

19 See Dio Chrys. Or. 2.66—70. See also Valdenberg, REG 40 (1927): 148-49. 20 See Rufinus, Hist eccl. 2.22; Soz. Hist. eccl. 7.15; Soc. Hist. eccl. 5.16; and Julian Ep. 115, in Juliani imperatoris epistulae leges poematia fragmenta varia, ed. J. Bidez and F. Cumont (1922).

See also Lib Or. 30.390, and cf. remarks in R. van Loy, ‘‘Le ‘Pro Templis’ de Libanius,”’ Byzantion 8 (1933): 395-97. See J. R. Martindale, ‘‘Public Disorders in the Late Roman Empire: Their Causes and Character,’’ Oxford Ph.D. thesis, 1960. 21 See John of Ephesus 3.14, where he reports that Tiberius II (578 — 82) substituted the cross

potent for the personification of the city of Constantinople as the reverse type of the solidus. The mob, which misinterpreted Constantinopolis for the goddess Aphrodite, took the change as proof that Tiberius’s predecessor, Justin II (565-78), had been a cryptopagan. See A. R. Bellinger and P. Grierson, Catalogue of Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks

Collection and in the Whittemore Collection I (1966) 266-68. See MacCormack, Art and Ceremony 228, who suggests that the incident reveals the Christian audience’s loss of memory of pagan iconography. See A. H. M. Jones, ‘‘Numismatics and History,”’ 15, who suggests that the incident proves the popular audience’s poor ability to understand coin types and legends. Note, however, that the crazed Justin II was so unpopular that the mob could well have deliberately misread the coins as a pretext for rioting; see J. B. Bury, A History of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2 (1923) 73-78. There are also the muddled accounts of Theophanes (p. 365, Bonn ed., 692 A.D.) and the ninth-century Arab writer al-Baladhari concerning mutual offense between the emperor Justinian II (685-95; 705-11) and Caliph Abd al-Malik (685 — 705) over religious symbols on solidi and dinars. See R. S. Lopez, ‘““Muhammad and Charlemagne: A Revision,” Speculum 18 (1943): 24, and P. Grierson, ‘’The Monetary Reforms of Abd al-Malik,” Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 3 (1960): 243. Contra J. D. Breckenridge,

The Numismatic Iconography of Justinian IL NNM 144 (1972) 71-73, who rejects the accounts.

22 Suet. Tib. 58, and Dio 78.16.5. Cf. Philostr. VA 1.15, and Talmud references collected in Crawford, Studies in Numismatic Method 55-56.

23 Anon. De rebus bellicis 3.2 and 3.4.

24 See IGRom III. 481 = ILS 8870 (Termessus Minor, 253/4). See discussion in L. Robert, ‘‘Recherches épigraphiques, VI: Inscriptions d’Athénes,”’ REA 62 (1960): 322-23 = OMS

NOTES TO PAGE 34 149 II 838-39, and Price, Rituals 175 —76. For the importance of the imperial imago in ceremo-

nies, see Price, Rituals 188-91 and 220-22; Pleket, HTR 58 (1965): 342-45; R. Turcan, “Le Culte imperial au III* siécle,”” ANRW II.16.2 (1978) 1016; Magie, RRAM 1377 n. 22;

and Swift, AJA 2. 27 (1923): 298-300. 25 See K. M. Setton, Christian Attitudes Towards the Emperor in the Fourth Century (1941) 196211.

26 See F. Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy I (1966) 659-723.

27 See G. Dattari, Numi Augustorum alexandrini (1901) 270-71, and Vogt I 157-60, for successive issues at Alexandria for Pertinax, Didius Julianus, and Pescennius Niger. For

: Antiochene aurei and denarii of Niger, see BMCRE V.2 71-82, nos. 290A —317, and RIC IV. 1 23-39, nos. 1-94; and, for his tetradrachmae, see BMCGalatia 192, no. 346. For Niger’s Caesarean drachmae, see Walker, Coinage, vol. 3, 79. For civic aes in the name of Pertinax, see Prusa, Bithynia (RGA 1.4, 589, nos. 61-65), and Tomi, Thrace (AMNG 1.2, nos. 2729 — 38). For Didius Julianus, see Prusa (RGA I.4, 584,

nos. 66-67) and doubtful Cypriote coin of Didia Clara (Mionnet III 675, no. 182). For Pescennius Niger, see Caesarea, Bithynia (RGA 1.2, 281-82, nos. 5-9) and Nicomedia (RGA 1.3, 538, no. 168); and delete coins of Aelia Capitolina (de Saulcy 95) and Caesarea Maritima (ibid. 127) as misreadings. For Clodius Albinus as Augustus, see Side-Perge homonoia in BMCLycia 164, no. 129. For Clodius Albinus as Caesar, see Elaesua-Sebaste, Cilicia (K1.M. II 442, no. 2; Hunter II 540, no. 1; Niggler II 648); Pautalia (BMCThrace 235, no. 14a); Sattia, Lydia (RSN 6 [1897] 280, no. 7); Sardes (BMCLydia 259, no. 146; BM 4—7-6); Side (Mionnet III 479, no. 197); and Smyrna (BMClonia 281-82, nos. 360-62).

28 For Alexandrine tetradrachmae of Gordian I and II, see Vogt I 190-91, and Milne, nos. 3293 —3303. The majority of their civic aes are posthumous; see C. E. Bosch, ‘“Mtinzen Gordians I aus Kleinasien,’’ Anadolu Arastirmalari 1 (1955-59): 203-5. See Caesarea, Bithynia (RGA I.2, 286, no. 34); Prymnessus, Phrygia (ZN 7 [1881]: 140); and delete as a misreading Corcyra (Mionnet II 78, no. 88). For tetradrachmae of Balbinus and Pupienus, see Vogt I 191-92, and Milne, nos. 3304-20. For civic aes, see Aegeae, Cilicia (Waddington 432; ZN 23 [1903]: 195-96; SNGCop 38; Paris 113; and Chiron 12 [1982], pl. 5.3); Amisus, Pontus (RGA I?. 1, 92, nos. 131-32); Hadrianopolis, Phrygia (ZN 3 [1876]: 148, no. 11; SNGvAulock 8374); Heraclea Pontica (RGA I.2, 375-76, nos. 200-204); Miletus (BMClIonia 201, no. 164; Waddington

1878); Nicomedia (RGA 1.3, 562-63, nos. 358-61); Ninica Claudiopolis, Cilicia (von Aulock Index, table 11); Prymnessus (BMCPhrygia 367, nos. 33 —- 34; Waddington 6438; RSN

14 [1908]: 52, no. 3); and Tarsus (BMCLycaonia 208-11, nos. 239-50; Hunter II 552, nos. 37-40; Weber III 7666; NC 5, no. 5 [1925]: 323, nos. 75 —87; Chiron 12 [1982], pl. 5.4; and SNGvAulock 6033 — 35). Note probable misreadings at Corcyra (Mionnet II 78, no. 87) and Cilician Seleucia (Mionnet III 603, no. 311).

29 See J. M. Price, ‘‘The Lost Year: Greek Light.on a Problem of Roman Chronology,” NC 7, no. 13 (1973): 75-77. See civic aes at Aegeae, Cilicia (Mionnet III 546, nos. 50-51; NC 4, no. 2 [1901]: 42, no. 20; Vienna); Amisus (RGA I?. 1, 96, nos. 147-48); Antiochia ad Pisidiam (Krzyzanowska, Antioche 198-99); Julia-Ipsus (von Aulock, MSPh I 120-21, nos. 421-44); Parium (SNGvAulock 7448); Side (K/.M. II 343, no. 33, and Sear 4405); and Viminacium (AMNG I.1, nos. 179-84). Less certain are coins of Antiochia ad Orontem (Mionnet, Supp. VIII, 145 no. 121); Damascus (de Saulcy 53-54); and Pergamum (Mionnet, Supp. V 473, no. 1163).

150 NOTES TO PAGE 35 For Macrianus and Quietus, see Antiochia ad Pisidiam (RN 6, no. 10 [1968]: 293-96, and Krzyzanowska, Antioche 204); Heraclea Pontica (SNGvAulock 465 and ZN 7 [1880]: 24,

no. 8); Nicaea (RGA 1.3, 510-11, nos. 867-73; SNGCop 543-44; SNGvAulock 733-35); and Byzantine-Nicene homonoia (Schonert-Geiss, Byzantion, nos. 1877-84). 30 Forusurper Saturninus, see S.H.A., Vita Sat. 7, and cf. Zos. 1.66; and, for coins, see RIC V.2, 574 and 591, no. 1. Bogus coins are attributed to Odenathus (S.H.A., Vita Gall. 12.1); Trebellianus (S.H.A., Vitae Tyr. Trig. 26.2); Victoria (ibid. 31.2); and Firmus (Vita Firm. 2.1). The portrait on the coin reported for Victoria, the reputed “ite of Tetricus I, is the goddess Victoria; see RIC V.2, 389, no. 30.

31 For Diadumenian’s use of name Antoninus, see S.H.A., Vita Car. 8. 10, and Vita Diad. 2.6; and cf. BMCRE V.1, ccxix and RIC IV.2, 13 and 22. Note, contrary to S.H.A., that all the imperial coinage of Macrinus and Diadumenian was struck at Rome; see C. L. Clay, “The Roman Coinage of Macrinus and Diadumenian,”’ NZ 73 (1979): 21 —40. For a report that Severus Alexander used Antoninus, see S.H.A., Vita Sev. Alex. 8.3, but S.H.A. is in error because none of his coinage employed the name Antoninus; see RIC IV.2, 71. Cf. S.H.A., Vita Sev. Alex. 25.9, for emperor depicted on coins as Alexander the Great, and cf. gold niketeriai minted at Beroea or Thessalonica in RN 2, no. 13 (1868): 309-36; Abh. der Berl. Akad. 2 (1906) 54; and JRS 34 (1944): 69-71. 32 SeeK.W. Harl, “Caracalla or Elagabalus,”” ANSMusN 26 (1981) 165-67, for full documentation of errors in imperial nomenclature and blundered portraits. Note also aes of Smyrna that name Titus as Vespasian Junior; see J. R. Jones, ‘‘Vespasian Junior,’’ NC 7, no. 6

(1966): 61-63. 33 For damnatio memoriae on coins, see R. Mowat, ‘‘Martelage et abrasion des monnaies sous l’empire romain,”’ RN 4, no. 5 (1901): 443-71, and no. 6 (1902): 286-90 and 464-67; R. Minsterberg, ‘“Damnatio Memoriae,”’ Monatsblatt der numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien

11 (1918): 32-37; K. Regling, ‘“Erasionen,”’ ZN 24 (1904): 129-44; M. Bernhart, ‘’Erasionen,”’ in Festschrift Heinrich Bitchenau, ed. K. Pink (1922), 1-8; and P. Berghaus, ‘’Era-

sionen auf Munzen aus Pergamon in der Sammlung Th. Bieder der westfalischen Wilhelms Universitat,’”” in Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens, ed. S. Sahin (1978), 158-62. For overstriking and countermarking of coins of Elagabalus by cities in Palestine and Phoenicia, see A. Kindler, ‘‘The damnatio memoriae of Elagabalus on City Coins of the Near East,’’ SMB 30 (1980): 3-7. 34 See Dio 60.22.3 for the Senate’s edict recalling and restriking the aes of Caligula; also A. M. Burnett, ‘The Authority to Coin in the Late Republic and Early Empire,’’ NC 7, no. 17 (1977): 55. Cf. Stat. Silvae 4.9.22 and Dio 68.15 for Trajan’s recall and restriking of old money as “‘restored coinage.” For defacement of the name of L. Aelius Sejanus on coins of the Spanish municipality of Bilbilis in 31, see Vires IV 56, no. 17; Paris 444 = Mowat, RN 4, no. 5 (1901): 445, pl. X. 3;

Mowat, RN 4, no. 5 (1901): 445, pl. X. 5; Munich = Bernhart 2, no. 2; Vienna 179 = Dembski 23, no. 28; and Grant, APT 141. See also M. P. Cadado-Lopez, ‘‘La ‘damnatio memoriae’ en les monedas bilbilitanas de Sejano,’” Numisma 26 (1976): 137-40, and Crawford, Studies in Numismatic Method 55. For Nero, Thessalonica defaced the head of Nero and countermarked her aes QEC(aaAovixéwv); see Munich 92 - 93 = Bernhart 2-3, nos. 3—4. At Patrae, Nero’s name may have been erased from aes; see Munsterberg, MNGW 11 (1918): 34 (= Vienna 13,841 = Tiepolo 7,220). Note that Bernhart 2, no. 3 (Munich

NOTES TO PAGE 35 15] 29), reports erasure of Nero’s name from a coin of the Thessalian league, but this resulted from wear and not deliberate action. See also Mowat, RN 4, no. 5 (1901): 449 (= Rollin and Feuardent, no. 8587), for reported defacement of an Alexandrine tetradrachma, but this is wear and not erasure; see Muinsterberg, MNGW 11 (1918): 34. For Domitian, note the defaced portrait on Cibyran coins bearing the face-to-face Domitian and Domitia; see BMCPhrygia 138, no. 45; SNGvAulock 3731; BM 12-—2-2 (1971); and Berlin = Mowat, RN 4, no. 5 (1901): 450-51, pl. X. 1. At Olympia, perhaps Patran aes of Caligula and Domitian were countermarked with the monogram of Zeus Olympios and, dedicated as votive offerings, but see reservations in Howgego, Countermarks 3 and no. 614. At the shrine of Zeus Cassios, Neronian civic coins were similarly defaced and countermarked as votive offerings; see BMCThessaly 158, nos. 625-32, Babelon, Traité I 647, and Howgego, Countermarks, nos. 532, 544, and 613. Note that reports of erasures of Caligula’s name from coins of Clazomenae are bogus; see Bernhart 2, nos. 1 - 2 = Munich 67 and 55). Both coins are simply misread worn coins of Augustus (cf. BMClonia 31, no. 118, for correct reading). The koinon of Asia restruck the legends of coins of Drusus and Germanicus in 37/8, but this was to honor the proconsul C. Asinius Pollio rather than an act of damnatio memoriae; contra Mowat, RN 4, no. 6 (1902): 286-88. Note that reports of erasures for Faustina II on local coins are bogus; they are simply worn pieces. See Bernhart 8, no. 15 (= Munich 33, Thessaly), and 8, no. 14 (= Munich 12a, Cyzicus).

35 For defacement of coins at Pergamum, see Bernhart 3-4, no. 6 (= Munich 188), and Vienna 16,458. For defacement of coins at Silandus, Lydia, see Mowat, RN 4, no. 6 (1902): 288-89. For the rehabilitation of Commodus, see CIL VIII.9317; CIG 1736; IGRom IIT.644 and IV.1014; IGLS VII.4006; and YCIS 7 (1940): 154-55. 36 =©The portrait of Geta was defaced on coins of the following cities: Adramyteum (K/.M. 112, no. 7 =v. Fritze, AMM 150, no. 150), Clazomenae (Paris 221A; Paris 221 = Waddington 1478; KLM. I 69, nos. 27 and 29), Erythrae (SNGvAulock 1970), Miletus (Berlin = ZN 24 [1909]: 138), Mytilene (SNGvAulock 7755), Nicaea (Vienna 15,606, and BMCPontus 162, no. 63 = RGA 1.3, 443, no. 355), Pergamum (SNGvAulock 1415 and 7515; BMCMysia 157, nos. 328-30; ANS; Mowat, RN 4, no. 5 [1901]: 452-53, nos. 2—3 and RN 4, no. 6 [1902]: 289-90), Perperene (BMCMysia 169, no. 11), Smyrna (BMClonia 283, no. 371; Hunter II 383, no. 231; Paris 4715 = Mowat, RN 4, no. 5 [1901]: 454, no. 7; Berlin = Mowat, RN 4,

no. 5 [1901]: 454, no. 6), Stobi (Vienna 9890), and Stratonicea (SNGvAulock 2678-79, 2683-92, 8162-63; SNGCop 510-12; SNGFitz 4732; Mabbott 1739-40; BMCCaria 15859, nos. 68 and 70-71; and Waddington 2587-88). Compare the thoroughness of the defacement of Geta’s papyri; see P. Mertens, ‘‘La damnatio memoriae de Geta dans les papyrus,” in Hommages a Léon Hermann, Coll. Latomus 44 (1960) 541-42. Note also the defacement of coins of Maximinus and Maximus at Elaea, Aeolis (K/.M. I,

47, no. 3 = Regling, ZN 24 [1909]: 143), and at Pergamum (BMCMysia 159-60, nos. 338-39; SNGvAulock 7517; SNGCop 507-8; Berghaus 160, nos. 1-2; Vienna 15,511 and 35,902; Paris 1407 and 1439; Munich 238 = Bernhart 6, no. 12 = H. von Fritze, Die Miinzen von Pergamon [1910], p] VI.20; Berlin = Regling, ZN 24 [1909]: 142-43; Vatican 119; and Oxford).

37. Cf. honorific content of countermarks on imperial coins; see remarks of Giard, Auguste 25-26; C. M. Kraay, ‘‘The Behavior of Early Imperial Countermarks,’’ ERCHM 135 — 36;

and T. V. Buttrey, Jr., ‘“Observations on the Behaviour of Tiberian Countermarks,”’ ANSMUSN 16 (1970): 67-68. Contra C. M. Caltabiano, ‘‘Contremarche di rivalutazione su

serie monetali di Statonicea di eta severiano,” Atti della accademia peloritana 241-42

152 NOTES TO PAGES 35-36 (1971-72) 274-84, and Quaderni ticinesi 6 (1977): 239-53, who argues nonnumerical countermarks revalidated old currency. 38 See Price, NC 7, no. 7 (1967): 37-42. Cf. Phoenician Tripolis, which successively countermarked its old coins of Nero for Galba, Otho, and Vespasian. See BMCPhoenicia 208, nos.

39-42; Rouvier, JIAN 6 (1903): 31, nos. 1688-91; AUB 212, nos. 19-20; H. Seyrig, “Antiquités syriennes 67,” Syria 35 (1958): 192-93; and Howgego, Countermarks, nos. 592 and 594-95. 39 Forcountermarks AAK(tkoc) or AAKIKOC, see Leucas Balanea (Howgego, Countermarks, no. 529) and Metropolis (ibid., no. 530). For countermark API(at0¢), see Heliopolis (ibid., no. 517).

40 Robert, REA 62 (1960) 316-24. See Price, Rituals 176-81, for terminology, and 188208, for widespread worship of imagines.

41 See Laumonier, Les Cultes indigenes 303, no. 8, and pl. V.13 and Sahin, Stratonikeia II, no. 1005.

42 For the cult statue of Artemis Ephesia, see Price and Trell 127-32, and Fleischer, Artemis 39-46. For Aphrodite on Aphrodisian coins, see Laumonier, Les Cultes indigenes 486 —50 and 503-4, and Fleischer, Artemis 146-62. See L. Robert, ‘““Monnaies grecques de |’€poque imperiale,’”’ RN 6, no. 18 (1976): 28-48 and 55-56, and Fleischer, Artemis 185 —87, for cult statue of Artemis Anaitis on coins of Hypaepa. Cf. cult statues of Hephaestus on coins in F. Brommer, ‘‘Die kleinasiatischen Mtinzen mit Hephaistos,”’ Chiron 2 (1972):

531-44. 43 See Robert, A travers 169-201. 44 Contra Jones, ‘‘Numismatics and History,’”’ 15-16, and Crawford, Studies in Numismatic Method 54-59.

45 See Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 105-62. 46 For Roman belief in personifications, see M. P. Charlesworth, ‘The Virtues of the Roman Emperor,’’ PBA 23 (1937): 105 —34, and Fears, Princeps 298-315; and cf. Sutherland, JRS | 49 (1959): 46-47.

47 See MacMullen, RGRC 233 nn. 68-69. 48 For saeculum, see J. Gagé, ‘‘Saeculum Novum: Le Millenaire de Rome et le Templum Urbis sur les monnaies du III®™* siécle ap. J.-C.,”” in Transactions of the International Numismatic

Congress, 1936 (1938) 179-86, and M. J. Carbonneaux, ‘‘Aion et Philippe d’Arabe,”’ Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire 72 (1950): 253 —62. For VBIQVE PAX, see RIC V.1, 131-62,

nos. 15, 72-74, 121, 359-60 (Gallienus), and RIC V.2, 32, no. 139 and 48, no. 296 (Probus).

, 49 MacMullen, RGRC 30-33. See also G. C. Picard, Les Trophées romains (1957) 469-70, and R. H. Storch, ‘‘The ‘Absolutist’ Theology of Victory,”” C @ M 29 (1968): 203-5.

NOTES TO PAGE 37 153 50 A.C. Levi, Barbarians on Roman Imperial Coinage and Sculpture, NNM 123 (1952) 4-6. See also J. Babelon, ‘‘La Theme de violence,’’ SPDMR II, 279; Picard, Les Trophées 451-61; and

, Storch, C @ M 29 (1968): 198-203. 51 Picard, Les Trophées 466-81, and F. Taeger, Charisma II (1960) 410-14 and 443-45. See DACIA FELIX under Trajan Decius in RIC IV.3, 122, no. 14; PANNONIAE under Trajan Decius in ibid. 120-41, nos. 5, 20-25, 41, and 158; and GENIVS EXERCITVS ILLYRICANI in ibid. 121-41, nos. 9, 15-18, 38-40, and 163. For FIDEI EQVITVM, see RIC V.1, 133, nos. 33 —34, and ibid. 169, nos. 445 —46 (Gallienus). For FIDE PRET, see ibid. 133, nos. 36-37 and ibid. 181, nos. 568-69 (Gallienus). For FIDES EQVIT, see RIC V.2, 367-68, nos. 368 and 376-79 (Postumus). For VIRTVS EQVIT, see RIC V.1, 276-78, nos. 100 and 115 (Aurelian) and RIC V.2, 367-68, nos. 369 and 385-89 (Postumus). For CONCORDIA EQVIT, see ibid. 367-68, nos. 366 and 370—75 (Postumus).

52 For Septimius Severus, see BMCRE V.1, lxxxii—lxxiv and xcvii; BMCRE V.2, 21-23, nos. 7-25; RICIV.1, 92-93, nos. 3-17; and cf. J. Fitz, ‘“A Military History of Pannonia from the Marcomannic Wars to the Death of Severus Alexander,” Acta Archaeologica 14 (1962):

38-39 and 89-90. For Gallienus, see RIC V.1, 157-63, nos. 306-72; and A. Alfoldi, ‘‘The Numbering of the Victories of the Emperor Gallienus and the Loyalty of His Legions,”” NC 5, no. 9 (1929): 218-79, and ‘The Reckoning by the Regnal Years and Victories of Valerian and Gallienus,”’ JRS 30 (1940): 1-10. For Victorinus, see RIC V.2,

388-89, nos. 11-25, and, for Carausius, ibid. 468—70, nos. 55-86. See also H. Mattingly, ‘‘Legionary Coins of Victorinus,”’ in Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress, 1936, pp. 214-18, and C. Oman, “‘The Legionary Coins of Victorinus, Carausius and Allectus,’’ NC 5, no. 4 (1924): 53-68.

53 Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 165-77, and cf. S. MacCormack, ‘Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of the Adventus,”’ Historia 21 (1972): 721—52, and Art and Ceremony 17-33.

54 See A. D. Nock, ‘The Emperor’s Divine Comes,’’ JRS 37 (1947): 110-16, and Taeger, Charisma II 450.

55 For Hermes/Thoth and the Battle of the Rain Miracle, see Dio 71.8-10, and cf. A. Birley, Marcus Aurelius (1966) 237-39. See also BMCRE IV.2, 469, nos. 583-85, and 628-29, nos. 1441-48. This incident should not be confused with the earlier battle when Jupiter | was invoked to send lightning; see S.H.A., Vita Mar. 24.4, and BMCRE V.2, 466, no. 566. For intervention of Emesan Sol, see S.H.A., Vita Aur. 25.4—6; 31.7-9; and CIL VI.2151.

184-89. |

For coins naming Sol as Restitutor Orbis, see RIC V.1, 306, no. 367. See also Homo, Aurélien

| 56 Forthe magic of the Antonine name, see S.H.A., Vita Car. 8.9-—10; Vita Diad. 2.5; and Vita Sev. Alex. 8.3.

57 See RIC IV. 3, 130-33, nos. 77-100; H. Mattingly, ‘‘The Coins of the ‘Divi’ Issued by Trajan Decius,’’ NC 6, no. 9 (1949): 75-82; A. S. Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet III (1977) 255-58, nos. 1-34; and M. R. Alféldi, ‘The Consecration

- Coins of the Third Century,” Acta Archaeologica 6 (1955): 57-70.

154 NOTES TO PAGES 37-40 58 See H.-P. L’Orange, Studies on the Iconography of Cosmic Kingship (1953) 142-57, and MacMullen, RGRC 33-34. For dominus et deus on coins, see RIC V.1, 299, nos. 305-6 (Aurelian); RIC V.2, 114, no. 885 (Probus); and ibid. 145-46, nos. 96-100 (Carus). See remarks in Turcan, ANRW II.16.2, 1049-50.

5 Greek Views of the Conquering and Triumphant Roman Emperor 1 Polyb. 6.13.8-—9, and see Price, Rituals 25-47.

2 IGRom IV.251. 3 See Price, Rituals 75; L. R. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, MAPA 1 (1931) 152, 181-82, 190-94, and 214-22; S. Calderone, Le Culte de souverains, Entretiens Hardt 19 (1973) 217-18; and Taeger, Charisma II 447. For the belief inspired by rites of imperial

cult, see Price, Rituals 102-26, and H. W. Pleket, ‘‘An Aspect of the Emperor Cult: Imperial Mysteries,’’ HTR 58 (1968): 331-47.

4 See Millar, ERW 363-85 and 410-20. 5 See Price, Rituals 54-56, for emphasis upon the emperor as the universal benefactor. Cf. Ael. Aris. Or. 26.57-—58, and see Oliver, TAPhS, n.s., 43 (1953): 876-77 and 925-26.

6 For Commodus, see coins of Nicaea in RGA I.3, 439, no. 321, pl. xxv. 20, and note

Mionnet IV 421, no. 105 (misattributed to Caesarea Mazaca)) KOMOAOY BACIAEYONTOC O KOCMOC EYTYXEI. For similar legends for Septimius Severus, see coins of Cius, Bithynia (RGA I.2, 321, no. 56, pl. li. 12 = BMCPontus 133, no. 36) and Nicomedia (RGA I.3, 540, no. 191, pl. xciii. 14). For games held with these salutations, see Robert, HSCPh 81 (1977): 31-33, and ‘Sur les inscriptions d’Ephése,”’ Rev. phil. 50

(1977): 11. For the use of basileia and basileus to connote the philosopher-king, see Mason, Greek Terms 120-21; Millar, ERW 613-14; and cf. Reynolds, docs. 20 and 25 and FD III.4.3, no. 332.

7 CIG 353 = 1G II?. 1077 = Oliver, Marcus Aurelius 110, no. 23, 11. 17-22. 8 See Ael. Aris. Or. 26.80-81, and cf. Or. 1.234. See Palm, Rom, Rémertum und Imperium 82-83, and cf. A. Alfdldi, ‘‘Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells am romischen Kaiserhofe,’’ RM 9 (1934): 7-18.

9 See Birley, Marcus Aurelius 189-216. 10. For the siege of Aquileia, see S.H.A., Vita Mar. 14.2-3 and Amm. Mar. 29.6.1. For the raid on Elatea and the sack of Eleusis, see S.H.A., Vita Mar. 22.1; Ptolem. 3.8.3; Paus. 10.34.5; Ael. Aris. Or. 22.20; ILS 8501 and 9118. 11 See Birley, Marcus Aurelius 226-30. 12 See Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 23 —49. For the absence of personifications on local coins, see Robert, A travers 252 —54. Note that the Dikaiosyne on coins of Prymnessus is not the

NOTES TO PAGE 40 155 Roman equivalent of Aequitas, but a Phrygian goddess similar to Isis; see Robert, Documents de l’Asie mineure 25-29.

13. See R. Delbrueck, Die Minzbildnisse von Maximinus bis Carinus (1940) 22-27. 14 For Elagabalus, see SNGvAulock 321 (Bithynium); SNGvAulock 526 (Cretia-Flaviopolis,

Bithynia); and BMCArabia 103, nos. 77-78 (Edessa). For Julia Paula, see Kraft, pl. 101.17 = Munich, SNGvAulock 324-25 (Bithynium), and SNGvAulock 527 (Cretia-Flaviopolis). For Julia Maesa, with corn-ear and poppy behind and corn-ear in right hand, see SNGvAUulock 322-23 (Bithynium); SNGvAulock 7183 = Kraft, pl. 101.18 (Tius, Bithynia); and RGA J? 180, nos. 157-58, pl. xxi. 15 (Amastris, Paphlagonia). For Julia Paula, see SNGvAulock 324-25 (Bithynium). For Severus Alexander, see SNGvAulock 326-28 (Bithynium); Oxford = Sear 3292 (Cyzicus); and Bellinger, Dura, no. 1465 (Edessa). For Julia Mamaea, see SNGvAulock 332 (Bithynium). For Gordian III, see SNGCop 678-79, and AMNGI.2, nos. 2314-17, pl. v. 5 (Odessus, Thrace); ibid., nos. 3364 and 3366, pl. vii. 8 (Tomi, Thrace); and ibid. I. 1., nos. 1098-99 (Macrianopolis, Moesia). For Philip I, see Bellinger, Dura, no. 1725, and Waage, Antioch, no. 678 (Antioch).

15 See H.-P. L’Orange, “Sol Invictus Imperator,” Symb. Oslo. 14 (1935): 86-114, and Cosmic Kingship 143-56.

16 See Mart. 4.30.5; 4.8.10; 6.1.5—7, and Stat. Silv. 1.1.37; 3.4.61; and 5.1.184. 17 ~=~Proc. Aedif. 7.1.2.5.

18 H.-P. L’Orange, Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture (1947) 112-17, and cf. 112, fig. 83a = BMCGalatia 143, no. 44, pl. xvii. 13 (Hierapolis, Syria; Caracalla).

19 For lorica segmentata in imperial relief work, see G. Mancini, ‘Le statue loricate imperiali,’’ Bull. comm. 50 (1923): 151-204, and C. C. Vermeule, ‘Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues: The Evidence from Paintings and Reliefs in the Chronological Development of Cuirass Types,’’ Berytus 13 (1959): 29-31. Suet. Calig. 52 reports that the emperor wore the cuirass of Alexander the Great, which was embossed with the Gorgoneion; see A. Bruhl, ‘‘Le Souvenir d’Alexandre le Grand et les Romains,’’ MEFR 47

(1930): 211-12. 20 For the symbolic associations of the spear with the right to rule, see A. Alfdldi, ‘‘HastaSumma Imperii: The Spear as Embodiment of Sovereignty at Rome,’’ AJA 63 (1959): 1-27. See Vermeule, Berytus 13 (1959): 3-82; 15 (1964): 95-110; and 16 (1966): 49-60, for the development of the decorated imperial cuirass. For Caracalla, see coins from Ancyra (BMCGalatia 11, no. 17), Cyzicus (Hunter II 269, no. 35, and SNGvAulock 1277 and 7378-79), Nicomedia (RGA I.3, 544, no. 216); Byzantium (Schoénert-Geiss, Byzantion, nos. 1538-64), and Perinthus (Schonert-Geiss, Perinthos, nos. 583-614). For Caracalla brandishing spear and shield, see coins of Amisus (Malloy, Amisus 15, nos. 160-61) and Carrhae (RSN 14 [1908]: 31, no. 2). Cf. coins of

Geta from Amorium (Waddell Auc. 1 [1982] no. 332) and Macrinus from Bithynium (SNGvAulock 313).

For Elagabalus, see coins of Edessa (BMCArabia 100-101, nos. 60-68, and cf. 101-2,

nos. 69-76, for eagle-tipped scepter in lieu of spear) and Perinthus (Schonert-Geiss, Perinthos, nos. 710-12). Cf. Elagabalus brandishing shield and spear on coins of Amisus (RGA I?. 1, 90, no. 127b).

156 NOTES TO PAGES 40-41 For Severus Alexander, see coins of Antioch (Waage, Antioch, no. 643, and Bellinger, Dura, no. 1458) and cf. Amasia (RGA I?. 1, 50, nos. 109a—110) and Byzantium (Sch6nert-Geiss, Byzantion, nos. 1738-42).

21 For Elagabalus, see coins of Ancyra (KIM. II 495, no. 2; SNGCop 119; Lane, CMRDM II 158, no. 12). For Gordian III, see coins of the cities of Alia (SNGvAulock 3837 = Kraft, pl. 102.31la and BMCPhrygia 45, no. 9); Amastris, Paphlagonia (SNGvAulock 175 = Kraft, pl.

102.32); Caesarea, Bithynia (Kraft, pl. 102.31b = ANS); Nicaea (Kraft, pl. 102.33 = Vienna); Prusias, Bithynia (SNGvAulock 910 = Kraft, pl. 102. 31d); Saitta, Lydia (Lyd. Stadtm. 130, no. 41); Tarsus, Cilicia (BMCLycaonia 213, no. 257; ibid. 214, no. 264; ibid. 218-20, nos. 282-89; SNGCop 389; SNGvAulock 6038-40; Waddell Auc. 1 [1982] nos.

528-29 and NC 5,5 [1925]: 327-32,nos. 109-10, 115-21, 131-41, and 147-52); and Tius, Bithynia (SNGvAulock 7187 = Kraft, pl. 102.34). For Philip I, see coins of Antioch (Waage, Antioch, nos. 675 and 677, and Bellinger, Dura, nos. 1721 and 1724) and Metropolis, Phrygia (Kraft, pl. 52.19 = Paris). For Philip II, see Antioch (BMCGalatia 219-20, nos. 575-77, and Bellinger, Dura, no. 1733). For Trajan Decius, see Caesarea, Bithynia (RGA I. 2, 287, no. 39 = Kraft, pl. 104.63d); Cius (SNGvAulock 7007 = Kraft pl. 104.64); Prusa (Kraft, pl. 104.63b = BM); and Tius (SNGvAulock 1025 = Kraft, pl. 104.63c and SNGvAulock 1026-28.). For Trebonianus Gallus, see coins of Abonouteichus, Paphlagonia (RGA I*. 1, 170, nos. 18—19, and Kraft, pl. 107.106b); Amastris, Paphlagonia (SNGvAulock 6817 = Kraft, pl. 107.106a); and Nicaea (SNGvAulock 7134). For radiate Valerian, see coins of Nicaea (SNGvAulock 7138) and Prusias, Bithynia (SNGvAulock 7169 = Kraft, pl. 106.96).

22 For helmeted Gallienus, see Antiochia, Caria (SNGvAulock 2430-31; SNGCop 63; ZN 39 [1929], no. 76; SNGFitz 4674-75; and Egger [Prowe] [1914], no. 1150) and Aphrodisias, Caria (BMCCaria 49, no. 136 and 51, nos. 150-51; SNGvAulock 2471; and MacDonald, Aphrodisias 7, no. 242). The type appears simultaneously on imperial coins; see RIC V. 1, 136, no. 71; 147, no. 193; and 159, no. 333. For radiate or laureate Gallienus, see coins of Ephesus (Kraft pl. 128.168a = Munich; Vienna 31,888; and Kraft, pl. 28.169a = Paris 1072) and Samos (Kraft, pl. 28.169b = Vienna and SNGvAulock 2332).

23 See R. Munsterberg, ‘‘Die romischen Kaisernamen auf den griechischen Miinzen,’’ NZ 59 (1926): 1-50, and von Aulock Index 60-89.

24 Six obverse dies of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna are used; two of Septimius Severus and Geta; nine of Caracalla and Geta; and three of Caracalla and Plautilla. 25 SeeP. Weiss, ‘Ein Altar fiir Gordian III,”’ Chiron 12 (1982): 196. For Aegeae, see ibid., pl. 5.3 (= Paris 113). For Tarsus, see ibid., pl. 5.4; BMCLycaonia 209, no. 243; and SNGvAulock 6034.

26 See von Aulock, MSP IJ 134, nos. 1464-73. 27 See Minsterberg, NZ 59 (1926): 4-10, and von Aulock Index 60-62. Cf. discussion in S.R. F. Price, ‘“Gods and Emperors,” JHS 104 (1984): 79-95. For the Julio-Claudian age, see traditional epithets of ktistes or theos; for Hadrian note Olympios, Panhellene, and ktistes; for Antonine and Severan emperors, note eusebes (pius) and eutyches (felix).

NOTES TO PAGE 41 157 28 For the titulature of later Greek inscriptions, see Taeger, Charisma II 410-14, 443-44, 447-48,451, and 455. See also W. Ensslin, ‘’Gottkaiser und Kaiser von Gottes Gnaden,”’ SBAW 6 (1943): 38-44, and J. Gaudemet, La Monarchie, Recueils de la Société Jean Bolin

20 (1970) 455-56. 29 For Herennius Etruscus as epiphanestatos Kaiser on coins of Mopsus, see BMCLycaonia 108,

no. 22, and Waddington 4395. For Saloninus styled similarly on coins of Tabae, see Robert, La Carie II 138; ZN 12 (1885): 324, no. 2; and SNGCop 582. Cf. IGRom III. 643 (Arycanda, Lycia) for same title used for Valerian II. 30 For Julia Domna as MATRI CASTR(orum) on Ephesian cistophori, see RIC IV.1, 179, no. 650. For Otacilia Severa as M(ater) C(astrorum), see coins of Neapolis Samariae in Harl, ANSMN 29 (1984): 82-83, nos. 49 —60. For connection of title with imperial cult, see D. Fishwick, ‘‘The Imperial Cult in Roman Britain,’’ Phoenix 15 (1961): 222. The epithet is common in Greek inscriptions for the empresses from Julia Domna to Galeria Valeria. See IGRom III.6, 333, 337, 404, 806, 848, 907, and IGRom IV.674, 698, 878, 926 and 1562; MAMA I.24; Inscr. Magn., nos. 256—57; TAM II.3.739; Inscr. Prien., no. 230; Inan and Rosenbaum 50, no. 2; Abh. der Berl. Akad. 5 (1932) no. 7; and Archaeology 12 (1959):

283 and 14 (1961): 10-11, fig. 13. 31 For Commodus as POMAIOC HPAKAH2®, see coins of Cyzicus (GM 615, no. 170; BMCMysia 51, nos. 237-38; ANS; and Nomisma 4 (1901): 34, pl. iii. 8) and Juliopolis, Bithynia (SNGvAulock 468, and Niggler II, no. 590). For Commodus as Olympios, see Ephesus (BMClonia 82, nos. 255-56 and SNGCop 409 —- 10). For Commodus’s Herculean pretensions, see S.H.A., Vita Comm. 8.5 and 9.2; Dio 73.15.5; and Herod. 1.14.9. See also J. Aymard, ‘‘Commodie-Hercule fondateur de Rome,”’ REL 14 (1936): 350-64. Cf. his

imperial medallions in Gnecchi II 54-55, nos. 23-43, pl. 78.2—10 and 80.1-7. Cf. , imperial coins in BMCRE IV.2, 752-53, nos. 339 — 345; ibid. 842 —-44, nos. 711-13, 717 and 722-25; RIC III 394-96, nos. 247 and 250-53; and ibid. 436-39, nos. 616, 629, 634, 637-39, and 644-45. 32 See BMClonia 89, no. 292, SNGvAulock 1904, and SNGCop 436. Cf. Septimius Severus as neos Helios in IGRom IV.664 (Dioclea, Phrygia, 196/7). See discussion and evidence collected in A. D. Nock, ‘‘Notes on the Ruler Cult,” JHS 48 (1928): 33-44, and Turcan, ANRW II.16.2, 1051-54. 33 See Laumonier, Les Cultes indigenes 714-15, for youthful Zeus and Hera in Caria and their

assimilation to young imperial consorts. For Plautilla as nea thea Hera, see coins of Alabanda (Paris 40A and 65, and K/.M. 1 106, no. 11), Alinda (BMCCaria 12, nos. 17-19; NZ 45 [1912]: 194, no. 2 = Winterthur 3295; SNGvAulock 2412-15; Waddington 2137 = Paris 91; ANS; M & M 41 [1970] no. 395; KI.M. I 107, nos. 6—7; Paris 91A; SNGCop 26; Munich 4-—4a; Vienna 18,236; and Rome 80,338), and Stratonicea (BMCCaria 158, nos. 65-67; KI.M.1 156, no. 12; SNGCop 508 — 9; SNGvAulock 2693 —96; and Mabbott 1741). Cf.

CIG 39566b, and C. Bean, AS 9 (1959): 89-91, for Julia Domna as nea thea Hera. See also remarks in J. H. Oliver, ‘‘Julia Domna as Athena Polias,’’ in Studies Presented to W. S. Ferguson, HSCPh, supp. 1 (1940) 521-40, and Taeger, Charisma II 411-12.

34 See P.G. Hamberg, Studies in Roman Imperial Art (1968) 21-27, and Brilliant, Gesture and

Rank 78, 90-92, 134, and 201, for Roman imperial iconography.

158 NOTES TO PAGES 41-42 35 Note OMONOIA AVTOKPATOPQN on coins of Amasia (RGA I?. 1, 36, nos. 20-21, and 37-38, nos. 25 - 30; SNGvAulock 24-25 and 6699; and SNGFitz 4032), Selge (SNGCop 277; RSN 14 [1908]: 84, no. 2; BMCLycaonia 265, no. 76), Soli-Pompeiopolis (Hunter II 558,no. 1), and Tius (RGA I.4, 628, no. 96, and SNGvAulock 947 and 949). See remarks in M. P. Charlesworth, ‘’Providentia and Aeternitas,’’ HTR 29 (1936): 130-31. The design is close to imperial aes of 161; cf. RIC II] 277-79, nos. 795 — 803 and 823 —32; BMCREIV.1,

518-24, nos. 844, 847-50, 852-62, 866, 868-69; and ibid. 545-49, nos. 1007-10, 1016-18, 1021-26, and 1031-36. 36 See coins of Amasia, dated to 162/3 or 163/4 (with correction of RGA I?. 1, 36, no. 21 from 169/70 to 163/4); Anazarbus, dated 163/4 (SNGvAulock 5479; SNGCop 42; and Hunter II 528, nos. 5-6); Soli-Pompeiopolis, dated 163/4 (Hunter II 558, no. 1); and Mopsus, dated 165/6 (KI. M. II 474, no. 7, and Waddington 4386). 37 For Adana, see E. Levante, ‘‘Coinage of Adana in Cilicia,’’ NC 144 (1984) 90, no. 186. For Tarsus, see BMCLycaonia 199, no. 202, and NC 5, no. 5 (1925): 319, nos. 44-45 and 49. For marriage, see Dio 76.2.5 and Herod. 3.10.8.

38 See SNGvAulock 590, and for the use of the phrase in cult practices, see Price, Rituals 61. Cf. togate Caracalla and Geta and the same inscription on coins of Cretia-Flaviopolis, Bithynia; see P. Weiss, ‘“Zwei Miinzen von Nikaia und Ilion,”’ Chiron 10 (1980): 487 n. 9 and pl. 9.2 = Carnuntum excavation (Geta Caeasar). Cf. sacrificial scene on imperial aureus in BMCRE V.1, 255, no. 376, pl. 37.3. For panel of the Arch of Septimius Severus at Lepcis Magna, see Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 201, fig. 4.104.

39 RGAI. 3, 460, nos. 485-86. 40 See BMCLycaonia 201, nos. 208-9 (Tarsus), for Elagabalus and Julia Paula. Gordian III and Tranquillina appear on coins of Mallus (SNGvAulock 5726) and Tarsus (BMCLycaonia 218, no. 281; Hunter II 554, no. 51; NC 5, no. 5 [1925]: 330, nos. 142-46; and SNGFitz 5339). Philip I and Otacilia Severa are shown on coins of Damascus (Rosenberger IV 29, no. 43, and de Saulcy 47, no. 6) and Ionian Metropolis (SNGFitz 4529).

41 See Aelia Capitolia (CNP I, nos. 172 and 179, and AUB, nos. 57 and 59) and Caesarea Maritima (CNP II, nos. 170 and 179). 42 Ael. Aris. Or.21.1.See M. P. Charlesworth, “‘Pietas and Victoria,’’ JRS 33 (1943): 1-10, and

Storch, C 2 M 29 (1968): 197-206. 43 Menander Rhetor, 372.25-—373.16 and 374.19-33 (ed. Russell and Wilson). 44 Forearly depictions of Augustus and his temple at Pergamum, see cistophori (RIC I? 82, nos. 505-6, and Sutherland, Cistophori of Augustus, class VII, 19-18 B.C.) and Pergamene bronze coins under Augustus (BMCMysia 137, no. 236; ANS; and SNGvAulock 1389-91), Tiberius (BMCMysia 140, nos. 253-56; Weber IJI.5210-—11; Hunter II 282, nos. 55-56; and ANS), and Claudius (BMCMysia 141, no. 257 and ANS). For depiction of Tiberius and his temple at Smyrna, see BMClonia 268, nos. 266-68, and Magie, RRAM 1360 n. 26 and

1363 n. 38. For Hadrian within his temple at Nicomedia, see cistophori in Metcalf, Cistophori of Hadrian 132-34, nos. B5-B10; RIC II, 396, nos. 459a—460; and RGA I.2,

240-43, nos. 32-37 and 58.

NOTES TO PAGES 42-44 159 45 See notably coins of Trajan from Nacoleia, Phrygia (von Aulock, MSPh I 135, no. 636).

46 See Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 54-55, 93-97, and 181-86. For an equestrian emperor spearing a barbarian as the main motif of the reverse, see sestertii of Vespasian (RIC II 86,

: no. 613; ibid. 90, nos. 639 and 642; and BMCRE II 140, no. 634). 47 See BMCCaria 43,no. 111; SNGvAulock 2457-58 and 8065; MacDonald, Aphrodisias 7, no. 239; Hunter II 420, no. 3; and SNGFitz 4680.

48 See Reynolds, doc. 18., and cf. language of IGBulg 659, 1. 29 (Nicopolis ad Istrum, Moesia). 49 Cf. Ael. Aris. Or. 1.234, and Palm, Rom, Rémertum und Imperium 82 — 83. Contrast imperial

iconography where northern and eastern barbarians are depicted together to stress the emperor as “victor omnium gentium”’; see Levi, Barbarians 46-47. 50 See BMCLydia 35, no. 25, and RSN 14 (1908): 115, no. 1. 51 For Sardes, see SNGvAulock 3159. For Magnesia, see Weber III.6845.

52 See notably Commodus’s coins from Silandus (SNGvAulock 3175) and Gordus-Julia (BMCLydia 94, no. 30).

53 See SNGvAulock 3175.

54 See Ael. Aris. Or. 26.22 and 70; and cf. Levi, Barbarians 21-23 and 41-50. 55 Dio 72.2-3; 73.6.1; Herod. 1.6.1-—9; and S.H.A., Vita Comm. 3.5. 56 See SNGvAulock 7137 and 7145. 57 For the profectio in imperial iconography, see Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 110 and 141 —42.

58 See Severus Alexander at Lampsacus (Kraft, pl. 49. 12 = ANS). Cf. coins of Acmoneia in Phrygia. See SNGvAulock 8313, and McClean III.8736 (Caracalla) and SNGvAulock 3380 (Volusian). For the symbolism of the scene, see Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 184-86. The date of the Ludovisi Battle Sarcophagus is disputed, although it is generally agreed that the date is between the mid—third and early fourth centuries. See Hamberg, Studies in Roman Imperial Art 181-84; G. Rodenwaldt, ‘‘Zur Kunstgeschichte der Jahre 220 bis 270,’ JDAI 51 (1936): 90; B. M. Felletti Maj, Iconografia romane imperiale da Severo Alessan-

dro a M. Aurelio Carino (222-285 d.c.) (Rome, 1958) 167-68; Levi, Barbarians 46 n. 22, and

H. von Heintz, “Studien zu den Portrat des 3 Jahrhunderts,’’ RM 64 (1957): 69-91. 59 S.H.A., Vita Hadr. 20.13, and cf. Dio 69.10.2 (A.D. 124). For depictions in imperial art, see

I. Maull, ‘“Hadrians Jagddenkmal,”’ JOAI 42 (1955): 53-67. For Hadrianic hunting medallions on the Arch of Constantine, see H.-P. L’Orange, Der spdtantike Bildschmuck des

Konstantinsbogen (1939), pls. 4b, 5a, 40a, and 41a. On coins of Hadrianotherae, Hadrian spears either a lion (SNGvAulock 7243) or fleeing bears (v. Fritze, AMM 194-95, and Nomisma 6 [1911]: 10-11).

160 NOTES TO PAGES 44-45 60 Note that no civic coins show Lucius Verus at hunt, although his passion for hunting is well attested; see S.H.A., Vita Ver. 9.8, and Toynbee, RM 135, pl. 22. 7. 61 See E. W. Merten, Zwei Herrscherfeste in der Historia Augusta (1968) 116-21. For the importance of ritual hunts of elephants, see H. H. Scullard, The Elephant in the Ancient World (Ithaca, N.Y., 1974) 50-54. For Septimius Severus’s decennalia, see Dio 76.1.1-5. For the millennial games, see S.H.A., Vita Gord. 33, and RIC IV.3, 62. For Aurelian’s triumph, see S.H.A., Vita Aurel. 33.4, and Homo, Aurélien 122-30.

62 See Pan. Vet. 10.4.2-3, 7.5-6, 11.6; and 11.10.5 and 16.2. Cf. also 4.16.6 (to Constantine). See S.H.A., Vita Car. 5.9, who notes that Caracalla’s passion for hunting was part of his pose as Hercules.

63 See Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 58-59, for the close connection between sculptors of sarcophagi in Rome and Asia Minor. For hunting sarcophagi, see Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 186-88. For mosaics of Piazza Armerina that depict hunting scenes, see H. Kahler, Die Villa des Maxentius bei Piazza Armerina (1973) 35-39 and pls. 20-23. For the transmission of hunting scenes common in North African mosaics, see I. Lavin, ‘“The Hunting Mosaics of Antioch and their Sources: A Study of Compositional Principles in the Development of Early Medieval Art,’’ DOP 17 (1963): 229-51, and K. M. D. Dunbadin, The Mosaics of Roman North Africa: Iconography and Patronage (1979) 46-64 and 212-21. 64 Jos. Bell. Jud. 7.5, and cf. Dio 67.7.3 —4. See also H. Kahler, ‘‘Triumphbogen,” RE VIIA R2

(1939), cols. 373-493, and H. S. Versnel, Triumphus (1970) 56-131. For imperial iconography, see Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 71-73, 93-96, 144, and 177-81. 65 SNGvAulock 3020 (= Kraft, pl. 82.43) and ANS; cf. similar depiction on coins of Philadelphia, Lydia (SNGvAulock 8265, Commodus). Cf. scenes to those on the panel of triumph of Septimius Severus and his two sons on the Arch of Lepcis Magna; see R. Bartoccini, “L’arco quadrifronte dei Severi a Lepcis (Leptis Magna),” Africa Italiana 4 (1931): 101, fig. 70, and I. S. Ryberg, Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art, MAAR 22 (1955) 160-61 and pl. lvii. 88.

66 Pan. Vet. 10.13.2. 67 See Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 16, 78-79, 485, and 494. For reliefs of the Severan arch at Antioch, see D. M. Robinson, ‘‘“Roman Sculpture from Colonia Caesarea Pisidian Antioch,”’ Art Bulletin 9 (1926): 45 -69, and Levi, Barbarians 8 —9. For arches at Isaura, see H. Swoboda et al., Denkmdaler aus Lykaonien, Pamphylien und Isaurien (1935) 73-130; Magie, RRAM 1170-71; and P. Verzone, ‘Citta ellenistiche e romane dell’Asia minore,”’ Palladio

9 (1959): 1-18. 68 See Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 500. The arch is near the village of Merkes-Kalesi on the road to Alexandria; see R. Heberdey and A. Wilhelm, ‘‘Reisen in Kiliken,”’ Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.-hist. Klasse 44, no. 6 (1896): 19 and

fig. 2, and A. Baumeister, Denkmaler des klassischen Altertums, III (1888) 1897. See W. M.

Ramsay, ‘“‘Asiana,’’ BCH 22 (1898): 237-38, for the identification of the Severan arch with one north of Tarsus near Bayramli, but see comments in Magie, RRAM 1154, who identifies this arch with Aurelian. See also W. Kubitschek, “’’Ev Kodpeylatc Opolc Kedcktov,” NZ 27 (1895): 87 — 100; Hill, BMCLycaonia xciii — xciv; and R. Ziegler, ‘“Mun-

zen Kilikiens,’’ JNG 27 (1977): 37-39.

NOTES TO PAGES 45-47 161 69 See M. Gough, ‘“Anazarbus,’’ AS 2 (1956): 96-108, figs. 2-3, pl. XIa, who dates the arch to 194, but the coins support the date of 217-18. See also Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 495. For coins of Macrinus with title trophaiophoros Romaion, see Waddington 4129-33, and BMCLycaonia 34, no. 16. Cf. a milestone with the same title from the reign of Severus

: Alexander; see SEG 12.516. For Macrinus’s claim to a Parthian victory, see H. Mattingly, “The Reign of Macrinus,” SPDMR II 964-67, and P. Salama, ‘“L’Empereur Macrin Parthicus Maximus,”’ REA 66 (1964): 340-50.

70 For royal and religious processions of the Near East and Greece as precedents for the Roman triumph, see Versnel, Triumphus 201-54. For civic religious processions, see MacMullen, PRE 18-23 and 27-28, and F. Bomer, ‘‘Pompa,’’ RE XXI.2 (1952), cols. 1908-74, with over 350 entries. The importance of processions in the ritual of the imperial cult is discussed in Price, Rituals 109-14. For sacred carts on local coins, see G. F. Hill, ‘“Notes on Additions to the Greek Coins in the British Museum, 1887-1896,” JHS 17 (1897): 87-88, and ““Some Graeco-Phoenician Shrines,” JHS 21 (1911): 61.

71 See inscriptions from Stratonicea, Caria, where epiphanein is regularly used to describe the processions from Panamara or Lagina. See Sahin, Stratonikeia I, nos. 289 and 31617, and ibid. II, nos. 665a, 701, and 704-7. 72 Kraft, pl. 90.5 = Paris. Cf. MAMA VII. 107 = Robert, “Bull. épigr.” (1958), no. 471, for inscription styling Commodus as neos Helios. Contra E. H. Kantorowicz, ‘‘Oriens Augustus,’” DOP 17 (1963): 128-29, imperial medallions and coins do not assimilate em-

, peror to Sol. See bronze medallions of Antoninus Pius (Gnecchi II 16, no. 67, pl. 50.6)

and Commodus (Gnecchi II 52, nos. 3-4, pl. 78.3-4, and J. M. C. Toynbee, The Hadrianic School [1934] 141, no. 5, pl. xix. 8-9), show Sol, not the emperor, in the quadriga rising from the sea. Note also that BMCRE V 56, no. 225, pl. x. 8, an aureus of Septimius Severus, depicts Sol as the charioteer rather than as the emperor.

73 Dio 77.10.3. For the close association of solar and imperial iconography, see Homo,

, Aurélien 184-86 and 366 —72; L’Orange, Symb. Oslo. 14 (1935): 86-114; P. Schmitt, ‘Sol Invictus: Betrachtungen zu spatromischer Religion und Politik,’”’ Eranos 10 (1943): 169 252; and Taeger, Charisma II 386, 410, 439, 442, 451, 455, and 461 -62.

74 S.H.A., Vita Gall. 16.4 and cf. 18.2—4. For Commodus’s similar dress, see Herod. 1.14.8. 75 Seevon Aulock, MGTL 59, no. 47 =SNGvAulock 4278 = Kraft, pl. 109.30. See also Turcan, ANRW II.16.2, 1028.

76 See Kantorowicz, DOP 17 (1963): 128-33. For styling the emperor as neos theos, see Nock, JHS 48 (1928): 33-44, and Turcan, ANRW IJ.16.2, 1046-51. 77 SEG? 798. Cf. Stat. Silv. 4.1.3-—4, and Anth. Pal. 9.178, and see parallel notions on papyri in P. Oslo. II 128, no. 52, 1.18 and P. Oslo. III 188, no. 126, 1.4.

78 See F. Preisigke, Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Agypten (1915-22) I, no. 4284, 1.13, and cf. W. Schubart, ‘‘Das Gesetz und der Kaiser in griechischen Urkunden,” Klio 30 (1937): 60. 79 = Pang. Vet. 7.14.3.

162 NOTES TO PAGE 47 80 See H. Seyrig, ‘‘Antiquités syriennes 21,” Syria 18 (1937): 43-47, and M. Bussagli, ‘‘The Frontal Representation of the Divine Chariot,”’ East and West 6 (1955): 9-13 and 21-23. The earliest use of the symmetrical, frontal chariot of Sol Invictus on imperial coins is on

antoniniani of Probus. See RIC V. 2, 38-39, nos. 199-208; 50, no. 311; 63, nos. 418-20; 101-2, nos. 776-82; 112-13, nos. 861-70; and 118, no. 911. On silver argentei of Maximinus II (309 - 13), Sol Invictus stands in a frontal quadriga. See RIC VI 224, no. 826 (Treveri). Cf. also his nummi from Antioch (ibid. 637-38, nos. 140-45). For similar designs on gold solidi of Constantine I from Ticinum, see ibid. 297, no. 113

(ca. 312-14). The frontal triumphal quadriga, however, appeared on imperial bronze medallions in the reigns of Severus Alexander (Gnecchi II 81, no. 14, pl. 99.3-4, and 8] -82, no. 18, pl. 99.7) and of Gordian III (ibid. 91, no. 35, pl. 105.6). Cf. also the quadriga seen in three-quarter view on aurei of Postumus, see JNG 26 (1976): 81-87, pl. 13. The frontal presentation of the quadriga reappears on bronze medallions of Probus {276 — 82), see Gnecchi II 117, no. 13, pl. 119.8. Cf. similar scene on Tetrarchic aurei from Treveri (ca. 295-305), see RIC VI 171, nos. 65-69. A five-aurei gold medallion of Diocletian and Maximianus depicts the two emperors in frontal consular quadriga drawn by elephants, see Gnecchi I 12, nos. 1-2, pl. 5. 1-2; Kent 578; and Toynbee, RM 88 (Rome, 287). Nummi of Maxentius struck at Rome in 310 show the emperor in a frontal consular chariot; see RIC VI 378, no. 216 (four horses) and 383, no. 264 (six horses). Constantine I is shown in a frontal quadriga drawn by elephants on gold medallions of 4% solidi struck at Treveri in 326, see RIC VII 207-8, nos. 467-69, and Toynbee, RM 52 nn. 88-89, pl. 4.3. Aes of Alexandria, Egypt (dated 163/4 and 164/5), depict Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus together in a frontal quadriga, see Vogt II 95, and BMCAlexandria 172, no. 1389. Cf.

small frontal quadriga surmounting triumphal arch on coins of Domitian (dated 86/7, 94/5, 95/6), see Vogt II 18 and 22-23, and BMCAlexandria 35, no. 286, and 41, nos.

341-42. 81 Forcoins of Leucas ad Chrysoroam, Coele-Syria, see BMCGalatia 296, no. 3 (Trajan); ibid. 297, nos. 4—5 (Commodus); de Saulcy 27-28, no. 1; Niggler II, no. 679; Waddell Auc. 1 (1982), no. 558 (Macrinus); and BMCGalatia 297, no. 6 (Gordian III). For coins of Madaha, Arabia, see Spijkerman, nos. ] —3 (Septimius Severus). For coins of Tralles (Gordian III), see BMCLydia 355, no. 170, pl. xxvii. 8; Hunter 11 473, no. 10 (= Kraft, pl. 19.78); and SNGvAulock 3294 ( = Kraft, pl. 19.79). For coins of Colossae, see BMCPhrygia 154-55, nos. 4—5; Waddington 5867 — 68; and Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 163, fig. 98 (Demos, A.D. 180-92). For coins of Cotiaeum, see BMCPhrygia 160-61, nos. 10-13; SNGvAulock 3774; and Waddell Auc. 1 (1982), no. 380 (Demos, A.D. 253-60). See BMCPhrygia 28, no. 35, pl. v.6, for similar scene on coins of Aezanis (Demos, A.D. 253-60). See also Apollo Tyrimnaeus standing in frontal quadriga on coins of Thyatira; see Lyd. Stadtm. 159, no. 30, pl. vi.17 (Severus Alexander). See ibid., no. 31, pl. vi.18, for same scene, but with lions replacing the horses. 82 See SNGvAulock 3742 = Kraft, pl. 108.10; BMCPhrygia 141, nos. 61-62, pl. xvii. 7 = Syria 18 (1937) pl. vi.10; and Imhoof-Blumer, Nomisma 8 (1913): 11-12. For Cybele’s cult at Cibyra, see Robert, Villes d'Asie mineure 217-18. For frontal depictions of emperors in consular chariots on late imperial gold medallions, see L’Orange, Cosmic Kingship 143-45, and Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 179-81.

83 BMCLydia 67, no. 16. |

NOTES TO PAGES 47-48 163 84 For Amorium, Phrygia, see SNGvAulock 3414. For Iasus, Caria, see Kraft pl. 59.6 = Munich (obverse portrait of Septimius Severus). For Philadelphia, Lydia, see Johnston, “Greek Coins,”’ in Sardis 41, no. 178. For Tarsus, see BMCLycaonia 197, no. 191.

| 85 BMCPhrygia 315,no. 225. See also M. Bieber, ‘The Images of Cybele in Roman Coins and Sculpture,’’ Hommages a Marcel Renard III 35-36. Neither deified nor living empresses were depicted on imperial coins as driving Cybele’s cart. The examples cited by Mattingly in BMCRE IV 241 and 249, no. 1505 (Faustina I) and BMCRE V 163, nos. 47-48; 308, no. 721; 309, no. 744; and 312, no. 788 (Julia Domna), and repeated by J. M. C. Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life and Art (1973) 64 are misreadings. Contra Bieber, Hommages a Renard III 36, coins of Caracalla from Cotiaeum do not depict the emperor driving Cybele’s cart; the figure is the goddess. See BMCPhrygia 168, no. 49, pl. xxi. 5.

86 S.H.A., Vita Elag. 28.2. Cf. scandalous behavior of Mark Antony and his mistress driving Cybele’s lion biga in public; see Plut. Ant. 9.5 and Plin. Nat. Hist. 8.21. 87 BMCPhoenicia 199, no. 323. 88 See Plut. Pomp. 14.3-4 and Plin. Nat. Hist. 8.4 for Pompey’s triumph in 81 B.c. For use of elephants in late republican and Augustan processions, see evidence and discussion in Scullard, Elephant 255-56 and Toynbee, Animals 39-42.

89 See BMCREI134,no. 103; 135,no. 108; and 138, nos. 125-28; and RIC I? 98, nos. 56, 62, and 68, for sestertii of Tiberius (34-37), showing divus Augustus drawn left in a carpentum by four elephants. This depiction of the pompa circensis, in which elephants imply consecratio and aeternitas, has no association with Dionysus. It is repeated on imperial coins and medallions between the reigns of Nero and Septimius Severus. See Scullard, Elephant 199 — 201, for full discussion and, for persistence of the symbolism, see the ivory

diptych of ca. 400 discussed in H. Graeven, ‘‘Heidnische Diptychen,”’ RM 28 (1913): 277-78, and R. Delbrueck, Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmadler (1929) 18996, no. 48. 90 SNGvAulock 3415. Mytilene struck coins under Tiberius with the deified Augustus in a cart drawn by four elephants, but these coins were directly inspired by imperial sestertii; see BMCTroas 203, no. 186. F. Matz, ‘‘Der Gott auf dem Elefantenwagen,”’ Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur, Mainz, geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse

10 (1952) 749 n. I, reports that the emperor is shown driving Dionysus’s elephant cart on a number of local coins. He is followed by Scullard, Elephant 256, and Toynbee,

. Animals 43. All these coins, however, depict Dionysus rather than the emperor, see coins of Caracalla at Ancyra (BMCGalatia 12, no. 18, pl. ii. 10) and Nicene coins of Vespasian (RGA 1.3, 404, no. 51, and Hunter II 247, no. 6), Antoninus Pius (RGA I.3, 409, no. 80), Commodus (ibid. 432, no. 269), Gordian III (ibid. 486, no. 696, and Hunter II 251, no. 33), and Gallienus (BMCPontus 177, no. 154 and RGA 1.3, 506, nos. 836-37).

91 Dio 77.7.3. 92 See S.H.A., Vita Sev. Alex. 55-56; the Senate voted an elephant team for the chariot of Severus Alexander in his Persian triumph so that he could imitate Dionysus and Alexander the Great. Cf. Herod. 6.4-—5, who has no reference to elephants. See similar honors

voted to Pupienus, Balbinus, and Gordian [JI in 238 (S.H.A., Vita Max. 26.5) and to Gordian III in 243 (S.H.A., Vita Gord. 27.10 and 33.1). Cf. accounts of $.H.A., Vita Aurel.

164 NOTES TO PAGES 48-49 33.2-—4, and Zon. 12.27, the latter of which reports that Aurelian in his 274 triumph drove a quadriga drawn by elephants so that he would be compared to Dionysus returning from India. Scullard, Elephants 201-2, dismisses these passages as fourth-century anachronisms, but see Homo, Aurélian 125, and Merten, Zwei Herrscherfeste 102-3 and 112-18, who demonstrate that by the mid-third century elephants were regarded as animalia regia appropriate for imperial triumphs. 93 SeeK. F. Kinch, L’Arc de triomphe de Salonique (1890) 28-29, pl. viii, and H. P. Laubscher, Der Reliefschmuck des Galeriusbogen in Thessaloniki (1975) 33-34, pls. 61.1-—2 and 62.1-2. See elephant quadrigae on gold medallions of Diocletian and Maximianus (GnecchiI 12, nos. 1-2, pl. 5.1-—2 = Kent 578, and Toynbee, RM 88) and Constantine (RIC VII 207-8, nos. 467-69, and Toynbee, RM 52 nn. 88-89, pl. 4.3). Cf. similar consular processions on nummi of Maxentius (RIC VI 378, nos. 215 and 217).

94 Kraft pl. 15.48a and BMClonia 94, no. 314. See Price, Rituals 181-85, for the meaning of these different portrayals of emperors on local coins. 95 See BMCCaria 9, nos.51—52;RN1,21 (1851) 232; Waddington 2115 = Paris 63; Paris 53; and Munich D 25149. See Levi, Barbarians 25-31, for use of diminutive barbarians.

96 See Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 193-94, for ‘‘restoration”’ motif in Roman imperial art. For rare theme of clementia on local aes, see bound Dacian captives gazing upward toward Trajan on coins of Tripolis (BMCLydia 373, nos. 54-57; Weber III.6967; SNGCop 745; and SNGvAulock 3318).

97 See MacDonald, Coin Types 176-77, and cf. A. R. Bellinger and M. A. Berlincourt, Victory as a Coin Type, NNM 49 (1962) 59-64.

98 For Ancyra’s coins inscribed NIKH CEBACTQN, see BMCPhrygia 63, no. 32. For Nicaea’s coins with POMAION NIKH, see RGA 1.3, 428, nos. 232 —34 (Marcus Aurelius). Cf. PAMAIQN NEIKH on coins of Ephesus, see SNGFitz 4443.

99 See RGA I.3, 801, no. 601, and SNGvAulock 714 and 7077. Cf. also TVXH POMAION NEIKH on Ephesian coins of Macrinus; see K/.M. I 61, no. 70. 100 ‘~—For Nike crowning trophy on coins of Magnesia, Lydia, see SNGCop 263 (Commodus); SNGFitz 4864 (Septimius Severus); and SNGFitz 4865 (Trajan Decius). For Nike driving a triumphal quadriga, see BMCLycaonia 192, no. 174, and NC 5, no. 5 (1925): 314, nos. 10-13 (Tarsus, Septimius Severus); ANS (Amorium, Phrygia, Caracalla); K.MII 507, no. 2 (Alexandria Troas, Maximus); and K/.M. II 464, no. 6 (Laerte, Cilicia, Saloninus). Nike inscribes a shield on coins of many cities. Nike writes NEIKH SEOYHPOY on coins of Amasia, Pontus (RGA I*. 1, 41, no. 45, Septimius Severus). On Ephesian coins, she inscribes VICTORIA (BMClonia 94-95, nos. 318-19; KLM.1 61, no. 72; and Mionnet VI Supp. 178, no. 649, Severus Alexander). Nike inscribes EAEV@QE(ptac) on coins of Seleucia ad Calycadnum (see Waddington 4471 and Cox, Tarsus Coin Coll. 31, no. 123, Gordian III), or two Nikes support a shield inscribed EAEVQEPAC (Hunter IJ 541, no. 6, Gordian III). For two Nikes supporting a shield inscribed S(enatus) R(omanus) on coins of Pisidian Antioch, see Krzyzanowska, Antioche 178-80; BMCLycia 193, no. 99; Weber IJI.7375; and Hunter II 517, no. 19 (Gordian III).

NOTES TO PAGES 49-5] 165 101 See Picard, Trophées 371-88 and 451-65. Cities also struck coins with trophies and barbarians; see Sardes (Waddington 5251, Trajan); Aelia Capitolina (AUB, no. 25; BMCPalestine 88, no. 37, Marcus Aurelius); Sinope, Pontus (RGA I’. 1, 206, no. 141, Geta Augustus); Gangra-Germanicopolis, Bithynia (RSN 13 [1905]: 190, no. 2, Julia Domna, and SNGvAulock 6822, Caracalla); and Anazarbus, Cilicia (SNGvAulock 5485, Elagabalus).

102. See Ael. Aris. Or. 26.75 and Dio Chrys. Or. 1.29. 103 See C. Bosch, “Die kleinasiatischen Minzen der rémischen Kaiserzeit,’’ AA 1-2 (1931), cols. 426-27. Cf. also Gren, Ostbalkan und Kleinasien 52 n. 113; ibid. 56 n. 140; and Callu, La Politique monétaire 26 n. 2.

104 For zodiacal emblems, see Castelin, Rhesaena 58-60 and BMCArabia xcili-xciv and CxXi-—CXIll.

105 SeeE. Ritterling, ““Legio,” RE XII (1925), col. 1528, and cf. Smallwood, Jews under Roman Empire 478 —- 86, for Roman consciousness among colonists in Palestine and Phoenicia.

106 See Levick, Roman Colonies 130-62. 107 See W.M. Ramsay, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor (1890) 237-41 and 357-61 and cf. Callu, La Politique monétaire 25 n. 2.

108 See Kraft 94, for the role of engravers in transmitting the types. 109 Caes. Bell. Gall. 4.25. Cf. remarks in Jos. Bell. Jud. 6.316; Dio 40. 18; and Tert. Apo. 16.8. See J. B. Campbell, The Emperor and the Roman Army, 31 B.C.-A.D. 235 (1984) 96-99.

110 See SNGvAulock 6204; Waddington 6602-3; and Price, Rituals 185 and catalogue no.

lll.

111 For Caracalla sacrificing before standards, see coins of Cyzicus (SNGvAulock 1277) and of Pergamum (SNGCop 499 and Mabbott 1339). 112 For Serapis with standards, see SNGvAulock 8523; BMCLycia 134, no. 73; and KI.M. II 331, no. 24a (Gallienus). For Ares and standards, see NC 7, no. 4 (1964): 162, no. 10 (Salonina). 113 See L. Anson, Numismatica Graeca: Greek Coin Types Classified for Immediate Identification, pt.

V (London, 1914) 87-95. Also see D. Kienast, Untersuchungen zu den Kriegsflotten der rémischen Kaiserzeit (Bonn, 1966) 82-123, but see criticisms of C. Starr, ‘Naval Activity on Greek Imperial Issues,’’ RSN 46 (1967): 51-57, and especially discussion and evidence collected in Adams, ‘‘Logistics,’’ 89-102.

114 See Metcalf, Cistophori of Hadrian 126-29, and H. Hertzfelder, ‘‘The Cistophori of Hadrian,’’ NC 5, no. 16 (1936): 1-2. 115 See Woodward, ERCHM 170-71. For eagle between standards, see RIC IV.1, 163, no. 528, and 268, no. 356. For Victory, see ibid. 164, nos. 532-33 and 268, nos. 358a— 358A. The issues date to 200-205 from Ephesus. My thanks to W. E. Metcalf for his assistance.

EEE EID?

166 NOTES TO PAGES 51-53 116 For civic mints under Macrinus, see Minsterberg, NZ 59 (1926): 30-32 and 63; von Aulock Index 77 and 93; Magie, RRAM 1558 n. 4; and Kraft 22-23, 39-40, 45, 48-49, and 72. For Cilician and Mesopotamian cities, see Robert, La Déesse de Castabala 79 - 80,

and Hill, JRS 6 (1916): 150-68. 117 See emperor and trophy (SNGvAulock 6035); emperor holding Nike (BMCLycaonia 211, no. 249); emperor spearing lion (Hunter II 552, nos. 38 and 40, and NC 5, no. 5 [1925]: 324, no. 85); and emperor at sacrifice (Weber III.7666; NC 5, no. 5 [1925]: 323, no. 77 and 85; and BMCLycaonta 211, no. 250). See S.H.A., Vitae Max. et Balb. 13.5 for operations on upper Danube, probably against the Carpi (cf. Jord. Getica 16, and Dexippus in Miller, FGrH IV 186-87, frag. 8), and proposed expedition against Persians (cf. Zon 12.8, but contrast statements in Herod. 7.8.4).

6 The Roman Emperor and the City Gods 1 See MacCormack, Art and Ceremony 22-62, and ‘Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of the Adventus,”’ Historia 21 (1972): 721 —52. For imperial election . and consent, see H. U. Instinsky, ‘Consensus Universorum,’’ Hermes 75 (1940): 265-78, and K. Oehler, ‘Der consensus omnium als Kriterium der Wahrheit in der antiken Philosophie und der Patristik,”” Antike und Abendland 10 (1961): 103-29.

2 See Price, Rituals 62-73, for the granting of festivals, neocorate temples, and honors. More imperial grants of sacred games after 180 in part reflect the state of the evidence: cf. Jones, GC 232 — 33, and Price, Rituals 59 —- 60. See Jones, GC 232 — 33, for the argument of

more imperial grants of sacred games after 180. See IGRom IV.5119 = Moretti, IAG, no. 84 (Sardes, ca. 212-17), which lists many games as ‘now sacred” (vbv tepoc). Contrast the games listed in earlier tituli in Moretti, IAG, nos. 58-63. See also L. Robert, ‘“Deux concours grecs a Rome,” CRAI (1970): 23-27, for Severan emperors granting sacred games to encourage loyalty among strategic cities. The evidence of the coins supports this view. The cities of Anazarbus (Waddington 4117) and Nicaea (RGA I.3, 438, no. 315; SNGCop 497; and SNGvAulock 7031) first proclaim the sacred status of their games on coins in the reign of Commodus. See von Aulock, MSP II 139, nos. 1574-85, for coins of Aurelian from Cremna, Pisidia, which announce DON(atio) SACR(orum) CERT(aminum).

3 See Magie, RRAM 612-13 and 1470-71 n. 6, for the itineraries of Hadrian in the East. 4 See Dio 69.16.1—2 for Hadrian’s completion of the Olympieion, presidency over the

. Dionysia, and gifts. See also R. E. Wycherley, The Stones of Athens (1978) 162-64. For his initiation into Eleusinian mysteries, see S.H.A., Vita Had. 13.1; Dio 69.11; and JG III.900.

For the establishment of the Panhellenion, see Oliver, Marcus Aurelius 130-32.

5 See S.H.A., Vita Had. 13.5-6, and Magie, RRAM 613-23 and 1472-86, for Hadrian’s popularity in Asia Minor and Syria. 6 See Crawford, CRR 397, no. 381; BMCRR II 463, no. 16, pl. cx. 11 (‘‘East’’); Sydenham, CRR, nos. 762-—62a; and M. Bahrfeldt, Die rémischen Goldmiinzenpragung (1923) 25, no. 12, pl. iii.4-6. Cf. remarks of App. Bell. Civ. 1.97. See also denarii of M. Aemilius Lepidus (Crawford, CRR 443, no. 419; BMCRR J 447 - 48, no. 3638-41, pl. xlvi.2; andSydenham, CRR, nos. 827-34) and Marcius Philippus (Crawford, CRR 448 no. 425; BMCRR I 48586, nos. 3890-95; Sydenham, CRR, no. 919).

NOTES TO PAGES 53-54 167 7 See Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 90-91, for iconographic features of the first century. For Trajan’s adventus, see bronze medallions in Gnecchi, II 3, no. 1, pl. 38.1 and Toynbee, RM 107. Cf. the silver medallion in Gnecchi 44, no. 1, pl. 21.6. For aes, see BMCRE II 68, no. 257; Cohen 1; Strack I 130, 131, and 218.

8 See RIC II 451-56, nos. 872-907, and BMCRE III 487-96, nos. 1628-71. For emperor

: raising tyche (‘‘restitutor type’’), see RIC II 463-67, nos. 938-66, and BMCRE III 50426, nos. 1692-1831. 9 See RIC II 454, nos. 890-94, and BMCRE III 493, nos. 1655-61. 10. See Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 141, 145, and 173-74; MacCormack, Historia 21 (1972): 727-32; and L’Orange, Cosmic Kingship 143-45. 11 = Cf. remarks in Arr. Perip. pont. eux. 1.2. for the symbolism of the outstretched right hand on the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius at Trapezus. 12 The adventus of Marcus Aurelius appears on coins of Nicomedia (RGA I.3,529, no. 97) and Pergamum (BMCMysia 147, no. 289). For the adventus of Lucius Verus, see coins of Carrhae (NC 5, no. 16 [1939]: 291, pl. xviii), Mytilene (Waddington 1398), and Nicaea (RGA I.3, 428, no. 235). Cf. imperial bronze medallions of Antoninus Pius in Gnecchi II 14, nos. 40~42, pl. 48.1 —2, and his sestertii (BMCRE IV.1, 314, no. 1890, pl. 46.8). See also bronze medallions of Commodus (Gnecchi II 63, no. 100, pl. 84.10) and Septimius Severus (ibid. 73, no. 2, pl. 92. 7-8). 13. For Mytilene, see SNGvAulock 1755 and BMCTroas 207, no. 204. For Elaea, see SNGvAulock

7687.

14 CNPI, no. 65. 15 See Levi, Barbarians 25 — 26, and Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 174, for examples in imperial

art of emperors trampling barbarians during their advent.

16 For Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, see Hunter II 333, no. 47; Kraft, pl. 115.21 = Berlin; Egger (Prowe), 1914, no. 873; and BMClonia 81, no. 297. Cf. same two emperors saluting Artemis Leukophryene on coins of Magnesia (Schultz, Magnesia 65, no. 130) and Zeus on those of Tralles (Kraft, pl. 115.20 = Munich).

17 ‘For the reception of Germanicus in the East, see Magie, RRAM 497-98 and 1356-58. | 18 See C. Delvoye and G. Roux, ‘’L’Oracle de Claros,”’ in La Civilization grecque I (1967) 305-12, and Robert, A travers 292-94, for oracles of Claros and Didyma. For Hadrian’s visit to Mount Casius, see S.H.A., Vita Had. 14.3, and note that Zeus Casius was the Hellenized Baalshamin; see Teixidor, Pagan God 32 —-33. For his sacrifices at Palmyra, see J. Milik, Recherches d’épigraphie proche-orientale I (1977) 10-11.

19 See Norr, Imperium und Polis 78-80, and cf. MacMullen, PRE 1-5, 102-7, and 130-36. See opinions of Ael. Aris. Or. 1.33-46, Dio Chrys. Or. 31.103 and 161-62, and Plut. Praec. ger. reipub. 10.805a.

20 See MacCormack, Art and Ceremony 17-22.

168 NOTES TO PAGES 54-55 21 See ibid. 22 —- 28; cf. absence of the adventus in earlier ritual of the imperial cult; see Price,

Rituals 1-2.

22 Menander Rhetor 377-80 and 382 (ed. Russell and Wilson). 23 See H. von Fritze, Die Miinzen von Pergamon (1910) 72-73; W. Wroth, ‘‘Asklepios and the Coins of Pergamon,”’ NC 3, no. 2 (1882): 46-49; and Price, Rituals, catalogue no. 23. For imperial coins celebrating the visit, see RIC IV.1, 248, nos. 251-53; 301-2, nos. 53839; and 302-3, nos. 549-50; also BMCRE V.2, 384, no. 57, pl. 64.10; 448, no. 91; and

451-52, nos. 103-6. 24 See Herod. 4.10.1—11 and S.H.A., Vita Car. 6.1-6; and cf. N. C. Debevoise, A Political History of Parthia (1938) 262-65. For the chronology of Caracalla’s movements in 21415, see Magie, RRAM 684-85, and Marciq, Syria 34 (1957): 297-302. For his reverence of Achilles, see Dio 77.16.7; Herod. 4.8.3-—5; and cf. Philostr. VA 4.11-17. For his imitation of Hercules, see Dio 77.5.1 and S.H.A., Vita Car. 5.9. For his imitation of Alexander the Great, see Dio 77.7.1-—9.2 and Herod. 4.8.1-—8 and 4.10.1-1]. See B. Levick, ‘‘Caracalla’s Path,’’ Hommages a Renard II 426-46, who argues that Caracalla’s march retraced the steps of Alexander the Great, but see criticisms by A. Johnston, ‘“‘Caracalla’s Path: The Numismatic Evidence,”’ Historia 32 (1983): 58-76.

25 See Herod. 4.8.3 and Dio 78.16.7. Dio’s order — Caracalla visiting first ium and then Pergamum — is to be preferred. See W. Reusch, ‘Der historische Wert der Caracalla-Vita in SHA,” Klio Beiheft 24 (1931): 36. For Caracalla’s maladies, see Dio 78.15.2-—6, and cf.

Herod. 4.7.1 for his guilty conscience. For visits to the Asclepieion at Pergamum by prominent Romans from the Flavian age on, see C. Habicht, Die Inschriften des Asklepios

(1969) 8-9. 26 See Dio 78.20.4. For the construction of the Asclepieion, see IGRom IV. 362 = Frankel, Altherth. von Pergamon V11.ii, no. 229. See Price, Rituals 152 —53 and catalogue no. 23, for

full discussion and evidence; also see catalogue nos. 19-21 for the temples of Augustus and Trajan. The depiction of the temples of Augustus and Trajan together with the Asclepieion on coins suggests that all three were restored simultaneously; see von Fritze, Pergamon 83-89 and pl. viii. 16 and 19, and IGRom IV.363-65.

27 See von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. vii.7 = Paris; ANS; and Waddell Auc. 1 (1982) no. 186. 28 See von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. vii.15 = Paris. 29 See BMCMysia 154, no. 319; von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. vii.13 = Vienna; and ANS. For meeting at city gate, see Herod. 2.14.1 and Amm. Mar. 21.10.1. Cf. the motif in imperial coinage. See RIC V.2, 510, nos. 554-58, and 528-29, nos. 771 — 75, for Carausius being received by Britannia with legend EXPECTATE VENI. For Constantius I meeting Londin-

ium before city gates, see the Arras medallion in RIC VI 167, no. 34 = Toynbee, RM 182-83, pl. 8.4 =P. Bastien and C. Metzger, La Trésor de Beaurains (dit d’Arras), NR 10 (1977) 94, no. 218. For the persistence of the image in Christian art, see H. Lawrence, ‘‘City-Gate Sarcophagi,” Art Bulletin 26 (1944): 1-45. 30 See Kinch, L’Arc de triomphe de Salonique 20 — 22, pl. vi; H. von Schonebeck, ‘Die zyklische

Ordnung der Triumphalreliefs am Galeriusbogen in Saloniki,”” BZ 37 (1937): 363-64, no. 19; and Laubscher, Reliefschmuck 38 and 125-29, pl. 45.1 and 46.

NOTES TO PAGES 55-56 169 31 Pan. Vet. 8.8.4, and see L’Orange, Cosmic Kingship 143 -45, and MacCormack, Historia 21

(1972): 729-32. 32 Menander Rhetor, 381.6—23 (ed. Russell and Wilson). 33 ~=Pan. Vet. 3.10.4.

34 SeeA. Alféldi, “Zur Erklarung der konstantinischen Deckengeméalde in Trier,”’ Historia 4 (1955): 134-36, andcf. E.H. Kantorowicz, Laudes Regiae: A Study in Liturgical Acclamations and Ruler Worship (1946) 17-31, 65-66, and 71-111, and MacCormack, Art and Ceremony 23 and 283 n. 31. For BaotdAebovtoc 0 KOGLOG EvTLYEL, see coins of Commodus at

Nicaea (RGA I.3, 439, no. 321), and of Septimius Severus at Cius (RGA I.2, 321, no. 56) and at Nicomedia (RGA I.3, 540, no. 191). For the legend ét¢ atwvatove KupLouG, see coins of Caracalla at Nicaea (SNGvAulock 590) and at Caesarea Mazaca (Sydenham, Caesarea, no. 486). See also coins of Geta Caesar at Cretia-Flaviopolis, Bithynia (Chiron 10 [1980]: 487

n. 9, pl. 9.2). See also coins of Gallienus from Tarsus where Nike inscribes EIC AIQNATOVC KVPIOVC on a shield (Waddington 4692, BMCLycaonia 229, no. 327, and SNGvAulock 6080). For epigraphic parallels of these acclamations, see IGRom II1.84, IGLS 529, and Robert, Rev. phil. 51 (1959): 13-14; and cf. Charlesworth, JRS 33 (1943): 5. 35 See BMCMysia 154, no. 321; Weber III.5225; Hunter II 284, no. 64; ANS; BM 5- 14-3; SNGvAulock 1414 and 7514; and M @ M 41 (1970), no. 371.

36 See BMCMysia 154, no. 320; Basel = Cahn, Fest. Laur. 69, Abb. 19; and von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. vii.12 = Munich.

37 For the manner of Germanicus, see Tac. Ann. 2.53-54 and 68, and cf. Magie, RRAM 497-98. For Constantius II, see Amm. Mar. 16.10.9-—12, and cf. Largitio dish in the Hermitage. See R. Delbrueck, Spdtantike Kaiserportrats von Constantinus Magnus bis zum Ende des Westreichs (1933) 47 and pl. 57; A. Grabar, L’Empereur dans l'art byzantin (1936) 48;

and J. P. C. Kent and K. S. Painter, Wealth in the Roman World (1975) 25.

38 See BMCPhrygia 316-17, no. 227; Niggler II, no. 639; Waddington 7072; Price and Trell 25, fig. 23 (= Boston); and ibid. 31, fig. 23 (= Berlin). 39 See RGAI.3, 458, no. 469, and, for Caracalla without Serapis, no. 470 and Kraft, pl. 100.3 = Munich. For the hazardous crossing and rescue, see S.H.A., Vita Car. 5.8; Dio 78.16.7; and CIL V1I.2103a. Cf. Caracalla’s interest in the worship of Isis and Serapis; see S.H.A., Vita Car. 9.10-11 and M. Malaise, Les Conditions de pénétration et de diffusion des cultes égyptiens en Italie (1972) 442. For Caracalla’s poem to Asclepius for his safe crossing, see Abh. Berl. Akad. 5 (1932) 53-54,no.6,andA. Wilhelm, S. B. Berl. Akad. (1933)52,no.5= AE (1933), no. 280. Note that naval advents appear only later on imperial coins and medallions. For coins showing Gordian III crossing in a galley and with the legend TRAIECTVS AVG, see RIC IV. 3, 28, no. 132; ibid. 50, no. 323; Gnecchi II 91, no. 39, pl. 105. 10; and Toynbee, RM 106. For the Arras medallion depicting a mounted Constantius lin a galley, see RIC VI 167, no. 34 = Toynbee, RM 182-83, pl. 8.4. For his aurei of 296 depicting mounted emperor conveyed by galley, see RIC VI 173-74, nos. 87-89. 40 See Herod. 4.8.3 and Dio 78.15.3-—4, for the visit to Ilium. On coins of Dardanus in the Troad Caracalla received the Palladion; see GM 625, no. 221, and Bellinger, Troy 68, no.

, 241 = Robert, A travers 210, fig. 7.10, but the coins probably date to 198-205. For

EEE ee OE

170 NOTES TO PAGES 56-57 Caracalla saluting Apollo Smintheus on coins of Alexandria Troas, see BMCTroas 19-20, nos. 81—85; Weber III.5299; SNGvAulock 1472; and SNGFitz 4261. See also A. R. Bellinger, ‘‘The Late Bronze Coins of Alexandria Troas,’” ANSMusN 8 (1958): 27-33.

41 See BMCLydia 309, no. 94, and Johnston, Historia 32 (1983): 67, no. 23. 42 See Levick, Hommages a Renard II 430-31, no. 4, for isopythian games to Asclepius at Ancyra, Galatia. See also L. Robert, Hellenica 11 —12 (1960) 350-52 and 365 and Laodicée du Lycos (1969) 294. Coins advertised the Asclepeia Sotereia Isopythia: see BMCGalatia 12-13, nos. 22—26 and 28; BM 4-—11-188; Waddington 6630-32; and SNGvAulock 6164-66. For Caracalla sacrificing before Asclepius, Hygieia, and Telesphoros on coins of Cilbianian Nicaea, Lydia, see SNGvAulock 2992 = Levick 432, no. 32. For Asclepeia on coins of Laodicea ad Lycum, Phrygia, see ZN 14 (1887): 122 = Levick 433-34, no. 43. For Caracalla’s sacrifice at Soli-Pompeiopolis, Cilicia, see Levick 443, no. 3.

43 See Euseb. Vita Const. 3.56, for description of the temple complex. Tame serpents are recorded at the Asclepieia of Epidaurus (Paus. 2.11.8) and Sicyon (2.28.1). For the popularity of ophism in Asia Minor, see Cumont, Alexandre 22-25 and 42-44. Fora serpent coiled around tree as reverse type, see Pergamene coins of Severus Alexander (BMCMysia 158, no. 333 and SNGCop 504).

44 See Mabbott 1337; Oxford; ANS; Weber III.5227; Boston = Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 156, no. 89; and BMCMysia 156, no. 326.

45 See von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. viii.5 = BM and Vatican 115. These cult statues of standing figures must be distinguished from the seated cult statue depicted with the Asclepieion; see Price, Rituals 153. 46 See BMCMysia 155, no. 322 = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. viii.2; Hunter II 284, no. 65; and Waddell Auc. 1 (1982) no. 155. 47 See SNGCop 499; von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. vii.8 = Berlin; Mabbott 1339; and ANS.

48 For the scene with Caracalla advancing right, see BMCMysia 155, no. 324 = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. viii.8; Hunter II 284, no. 66; Vatican 112; von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. viii.7 = Munich; and Paris = Price and Trell 211, fig. 439. For Caracalla advancing left, see BMCMysia 156, no. 325; von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. viii.9 = Berlin; Niggler II, no. 606; M@M

10 (1951), no. 125; ibid. 13 (1954), no. 884; ANS; and Rome 111514, 75815, and 80280. The sacrificial scene depicted on these coins presents problems of interpretation; see E. Ohlemutz, Die Kulte und Heiligtiimer der Gotter in Pergamon (1940) 151-54, and Habicht, Asclepios 167-90. Caracalla should not be interpreted as a ‘‘new Dionysus” or a ‘‘new Asclepius’’; see von Fritze, Pergamon 50-51, and Price, Rituals 153, 213-16, and catalogue no. 23.

49 Cf. multifigure sacrifice by Caracalla before a hexastyle temple on coins of Laodicea, Phrygia; see Price and Trell 129, fig. 226 = Berlin. Cf. depiction of sacrifice at Pergamum on aurei of Caracalla; see BMCRE V.2 458, no. 148, pl. 71.8. See also sacrificial scenes on

bronze medallions. For Antoninus Pius, see Gnecchi IJ 15-16, no. 57-58, pl. 50.2-3; M. Bernhart, Handbuch zur Miinzkunde der romischen Kaiserzeit II (1926), pl. 57.1; and Ryberg, Rites 179 - 80, pl. lxiv.107b. For Marcus Aurelius, see Gnecchi II 33, no. 51, pl. 63.2, and ibid. 34, no. 60, pl. 63.9. For Commodus, see Bernhart, Handbuch Il, pl. 57.2;

NOTES TO PAGES 57-58 171 Gnecchi II 70, nos. 167-68, pl. 89.3-—4; and Ryberg, Rites 181, pl. lxiv. 180c. For sculptural scenes, see ibid. 161, pl. lvii.89a. See R. Bartoccini, ‘“‘L’Arco quadrifonte dei Severi a Lepcis (Leptis Magna),”’ Africa Italiana 4 (1931): 133, fig. 97, for the sacrificial panel of the Arch of Septimius Severus at Lepcis Magna. For sacrificial scenes on the

, General’s sarcophagus, see Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 157-59. 50 See Laumonier, Les Cultes indigenes 338 —39.See SNGvAulock 2666; Oxford; BMCCaria 157,

no. 59; and M @M 41 (1970), no. 406. Cf. sacrifices on earlier Pergamene coins; see von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. vii.16 (Commodus) and pl. viii.13 (Septimius Severus and Julia Domna).

51 BMClonia 89, no. 293; Kraft, pl. 13.29a = Vienna; Egger (Prowe) (1914), no. 884; and Price, Rituals, catalogue no. 36. Another unusual sacrificial scene is depicted on coins of Tarsus: a humped bull lies before an altar; a togate emperor and an attendant stand behind the altar on either side of a tall column surmounted by the cult statue of Apollo

, Lykeios; Perseus stands on the right and tyche stands on the left, each saluting the statue. See Waddington 4655; SNGvAulock 6027; Munich = Hirsch Auk. 21 (1908), no. 21 =JNG

27 (1977) 50, pl. 5.4; and Lederer, BMB (1933): 89-90 (Severus Alexander). See also BMCLycaonia 22, no. 304 = Lederer, BMB (1933) 92, no. 3b = JNG 27 (1977): 50, pl. 5.6 (Trajan Decius).

52 See Ryberg, Rites 174-89. 53 See BMCPhrygia 415, no. 34. 54 ForCommodus and Mytilene sacrificing together, see BMCTroas 170, no. 5. For Mytilene crowning Commodus, see ibid. 169, nos. 3-4, and Hunter II 314, nos. 12-13.

55 Hunter Il 471, no. 20. 56 See Hamberg, Studies in Roman Imperial Art 21-27. For the connection of the handshake with a grant of neocorate, see B. Pick, ‘‘Die tempeltragenden Gottheiten und die Neokorie Darstellung der Neokorie auf den Miinzen,”’ JOAI 7 (1904): 44, and Turcan, ANRW II.16.2, 1025-26. See Ensslin, SBAW 6 (1943): 39-134, for imperial coins and medallions depicting the emperor and god at sacrifice or shaking hands. Note that the earliest depictions show the emperor as the smaller figure; see Commodus and Hercules sacrificing together on bronze medallions (Gnecchi II 64, nos. 115-16, pl. 85.8—9). By the mid-—third century, emperor and god are of equal height; see Fears, Princeps 241, and cf. Postumus and Hercules sacrificing together (Gnecchi II 112, no. 2, pl. 116.7, and Toyn-

, bee, RM 162, pl. 46.8).

57 Seevon Aulock, MSPAI 124-25, nos. 491-92. For Hellenistic reliefs of Commagene, see J. Keil, ‘‘Basaltstele des Kénigs Antiochos von Kommagene,” in Serta Hoffilleriana (Agram, 1940) 129-34, and H. Waldmann, Die kommagenischen Kultreform unter Konig Mithradates I Kallinkos und seinem Sohne Antiochos I (Leiden, 1973) 18-27, 36-39, 197202, and plates vii (Selik), xxi.3 —4, xxii.3, and xxiv (Nemrud Dag), and xxxi (Arsameia).

58 Oxford; BM 3-2-1 (Eyre, 1974); and ANS. The scene and inscription may also suggest the admission of the imperial cult into the Heracleion; see Price, Rituals 147-55, for reception of the emperor as synnaos, although his worship always was clearly subordinate to that of the civic deity.

172 NOTES TO PAGES 59-60 59 BMCLycia 188-89, nos. 75-76; SNGCop 62; McClean III.8958; and Weber III.7378.

60 AE(1933), no. 280. For the head of Caracalla, see Inan and Rosenbaum 84-85, no. 60,

pl. 38.1-2. 61 For Asclepieion at Aegeae, see L. Robert, ‘‘De Cilicie a Messine et 4 Plymouth avec deux inscriptions grecques errantes,’’ Journal des Savants (1973): 184-204, and ‘‘Documents d’Asie mineure,”’ BCH 101 (1977): 119-20. Cf. Euseb. Vita Const. 3.55-—56 and 58; Soc. Hist. eccl. 1.18; and Soz. Hist. eccl. 2.5.

62 See A. M. Woodward, ‘‘The Neocorate at Aegeae and Anazarbus in Cilicia,’’ NC 6, no. 3 (1963): 5-10, and Weiss, Chiron 12 (1982): 198-200. For coins of Severus Alexander (all dated to 230/1), see SNGvAulock 5495; Imhoof-Blumer, RSN 14 (1908): 202, no. 2, pl. vii.20; Woodward, NC 6, no. 3 (1963), pl. i.4; Robert, Journal des Savants (1973): 196, fig. 13; Weiss, Chiron 12 (1982), pl. 5.5-6; and Bloesch, ‘‘Caracalla in Aigeai,’’ 311, pl. xxili.4. See Robert, Journal des Savants (1973): 170-71, and 199, and Woodward, NC 6, no. 3 (1963): 7, for this reverse type celebrating the imperial restoration of the temple and the grant of a neocorate. For Valerian’s coins (all dated 253/4), see BMCLycaonia 27, no. 39; Vienna = Price and Trell 204, fig. 406; and Weiss, Chiron 12 (1982), pl. 5.7. See Robert, Journal des Savants (1973): 197, and BCH 101 (1977): 119-20, for these coins alluding to the grant of ‘‘sacred oecumenical Asclepeian games.”’

63 RGAI.3, 563, no. 367, and SNGvAulock 826 and 7120. 64 For Aphrodisias, see BMCCaria 41, no. 106. For Ephesus, see BMClonia 81, no. 247; Kraft, pl. 115.21; Hunter II 333, no. 47, and 334, no. 50; and Egger (Prowe) (1914), no. 873. For Magnesia, see Schultz, Magnesia 65, no. 130 = SNGvAulock 2050 = Kraft, pl. 115.19.

65 BMCLycaonia 13-14, nos. 3-4; RN 3, no. 1 (1883), no. 2; and Weber III.7557. 66 BMCPhrygia 316, no. 226, and Historia 32 (1983): 73, no. 43.

67 Cf. Plut. De fort. romanorum 317a-—c. For repetition of theme in inscriptions, see W. Schubart, ‘“Das Gesetz und der Kaiser in griechischen Urkunden,” Klio 30 (1937): 6162, and cf. Aelius Aristides’ use of notion in Oliver, TAPhS, n. s., 43 (1953): 874-75. For the symbolism of the solar rays of the radiate crown, see Taeger, Charisma 426; A. Alfoldi, Die monarchische Reprasentation im romischen Kaiserreiche (1970) 242; and Turcan, ANRW

II.16.2, 1042-44. 68 BMClonia 94, no. 314. 69 SNGvAulock 8530.

70 See A. D. Nock, ‘The Emperor’s Divine Comes,”’ JRS 37 (1947): 101-16, and Ensslin, SBAW 6 (1943): 39-134. 71 For the “‘two-figure type,’”’ see A. Alféldi, ‘“Die Hauptereignisse der Jahren 253-261 n. Chr. im Orient im Spiegel der Munzpragung,”’ Berytus 4 (1937): 45-53, and Carson, Berytus 17 (1967): 128-34. See a reassessment of the opening imperial mints inR. A. G. Carson, “‘Mints in the Mid-Third Century” (1978) 63-74. For coins of Cyzicus under Claudius II which are marked M(oneta) C(yzicensis), see RIC

NOTES TO PAGES 60-61 173 V.1, 207-9 and 230-33, nos. 227-55. Valerian, however, probably opened the mint during his first Persian expedition; see Carson, Berytus 17 (1967): 123-42; K. J. Elks, ‘The Eastern Mints of Valerian and Gallienus,’’ NC 7, no. 15 (1975): 91-109; and Tyler, The Persian Wars 19-23. Note that Cyzicus also coined for the usurpers Macrianus and Quietus (260-61); see Carson, Berytus 17 (1967): 133. Earlier opinion located the mint at Emesa in Syria; see A. T. Olmstead, ‘“The Mid- Third Century of the Christian Era,’’ CP 37 (1942): 419-20; A. R. Bellinger, ‘‘The Numismatic Evidence from Dura,” Berytus 8 (1943): 66-67; M. Rostovizeff, ‘‘Res gestae divi Saporis and Dura,” Berytus 8 (1943): 47; H. Mattingly, ‘‘The Coinage of Macrianus II and Quietus,”’ NC 6, no. 14 (1954): 58-61; and Callu, La Politique monétaire 219-21. See Alfoldi, Berytus 4 (1937): 51 and 65 — 66, for the suggestion that the mint was Samosata. Emesa, however, never replaced Antioch as the mint of Syria because of the danger posed by Shapur. See Metcalf, ANSMusN 22 (1977): 89-93, for the continuous activity of Antioch in reigns of Gallus and Valerian. Emesa struck only for the usurper Uranius Antoninus (253-54); see RIC IV.3, 203-6, nos. 1—8; R. Delbrueck, ‘‘Uranius Antoninus,’’ NC 6, no. 8 (1948): 11-29; and H. R.

, Baldus, Uranius Antoninus (1971) 55-56.

72 For the dedication of Thyatirans in thanks for Hadrian’s gifts, see IG II?. 1075 = Hesperia 10 (1941) 363-68 = Oliver, Marcus Aurelius 126-28, no. 5. For the patron monarch in the Hellenistic age, see E. R. Goodenough, ‘The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship,’” YCIS 1 (1928): 55-102, and Price, Rituals 54-57. For Roman emperors as patrons and founders of Greek cities, see L. Harmand, Le Patronat sur les collectivités publiques des origins au Bas-Empire (1957) 131-48; Norr, Imperium und Polis 69-70; and Millar, ERW 420-34. Cf. Ael. Aris. Or. 26.98. 73 For basileus, as opposed to tyrannos, as beneficent monarch, see Ant. Pal. 10.25.5—6; App.

Hist., praef. 6.23; Dio 53.17.2; Justin 41.5.8; and cf. Reynolds, docs. 20 and 25 for

: imperial letters to Aphrodisias. The concept is derived from Plato (Leges 10.896e). 74 See Brilliant, Gesture and Rank 132-33, 150-52, and 170-73. See also A. U. Stylow, Libertas und Liberalitas (1972).

75 See Price and Trell 245-85. 76 See IGRom IV.362 and 365, and cf. von Fritze, Pergamon 82-83. For coins, see BMCMysia 156, no. 327 = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. viii.16; McClean II1.7733; SNGvAulock 1411-12 and 7513; Vatican 113-14; Oxford; Mabbott 1335; SNGCop 500; ANS; and von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. viii.19 = Leningrad.

77 For Caracalla’s grant of a neocorate to Smyrna, see Pick, JOAI 7 (1904): 22-23; Magie, RRAM 686 and 1552 n. 42; Levick, Hommages a Renard I 432, no. 27; and Price, Rituals,

catalogue no. 46. For the same engraver(s) operating at Pergamum and Smyrna, see Kraft 22 —23. For coins, see BMClonia 288-90, nos. 403-404 and 415-16; Kraft, pl. 2.11 (= ANS); SNGvAulock 8005; McClean III.6341 (misattributed to Elagabalus); and SNGvAulock 2224 (misattributed to Elagabalus). The three temples are those of Tiberius, Hadrian, and Roma. For revival of the type under Gallienus, see BMClonia 299, no. 470.

78 For coins, see Imhoof-Blumer, RSN 14 (1908) 202 n. 2, pl. vii.20; Waddington 4079; NZ 58 (1925): 45, no. 2; Mionnet Supp. VII 162, no. 57; Woodward, NC 7, no. 3 (1963), pl. i. 4; Bloesch, ‘Caracalla in Aigeai,’’ 311, pl. xxiii. 4; and Weiss, Chiron 12 (1982),

pl. 5. 5-6. Several restorations have been proposed for the obverse legend. Imhoof-

174 NOTES TO PAGES 61-62 Blumer offers AVT(oxpatopa) K(atoapa) AAEEANAPON APX(nyétnv) NEIOK (ov) ACKAH(zetov). Minsterberg offers APX(tep@pevov) NEIOK(ov). Bloesch proposes APXHI(étyv) OIK(etov) ACK AH(zetov). Woodward, followed by Robert, HSCPh 81 (1977): 36-37 n. 125, offers APX(tepéa) ME(ytotov) OIKE(tov). Whatever the precise reading, the emperor is assimilated to Asclepius and honored as the restorer of the shrine; see Turcan, ANRW II.16.2, 1042, and Weiss, Chiron 12 (1982): 200-201.

79 Millar, ERW 447-55.

80 RGA, c. 20. 81 See Amm. Mar. 22.5.2, and cf. Lib. Or. 18.126. For restoration of pagan cults by Julian, see Juliani imperatoris epistulae leges poemata fragmenta varia, ed. J. Bidez and F. Cumont

(1922), no. 42, and cf. CTh 5.13.3 and 10.1.8 (364). See Euseb. Vita Const. 2.45.1 for Constantine’s prohibitions in 324 against public sacrifices, oracles, and the erection of cult statues. See CTh 16.10.2 (341) for Constans’s reissue of the prohibitions against pagan sacrifices. For the confiscation of cult objects, see Euseb. Triac. 8.1-—3 and Vita Const. 3.54.4—6; Lib. Or. 6.37 and 62.8; Julian Or. 7.228b; and cf. Anon. De rebus bellicis

2.1. For the confiscation of temple lands, see CJ 11.70.4 (397), 11.62.14 (491), and 10.10.32 (425). For the destruction of the Asclepieion at Aegeae and the Phoenician

1.18, and Soz. Hist. eccl. 2.5.

shrines of Apheca and Heliopolis, see Euseb. Vita Const. 3.55-56 and 58, Soc. Hist. eccl.

82 See K. Hanell, ‘“Neokoroi,”’ RE XVI (1937), cols. 2422 —28; Sherwin-White, RC? 403-4; and Price, Rituals 67-72.

83 See Price, Rituals, catalogue no. 23. See also von Fritze, Pergamon 82-83, and Levick, Hommages a Renard II 431, no. 17, for grant of neokoreia. For the reception of Caracalla’s cult statue, see IGRom IV.362 = Frankel, Altherth. von Pergamon VI1.ii, no. 229. See also B.

Pick, ‘‘Die Neokorie Tempel von Pergamon und der Asklepios Phyromachos” (1929) 34-35, and Magie, RRAM 1551 n. 41.

84 See BMClonia 92, no. 306 = Kraft, pl. 13.27a and SNGCop 442: AOTMATI CVNKAHTOV E®ECIQN OVTOI NAOLI. For the crucial role of the Roman Senate in grants of neokoros, see Robert, Rev. phil. 41 (1967): 48-49, and Price, Rituals 66 —67.

85 For two temples, see BMCPhrygia 320, no. 242. For other types, see ibid. 319-22, nos. 238-41, 246-49, and 251; SNGCop 598 — 600; SNGvAulock 3863 and 8414; SNGFitz 4985;

KLM. I 275, no. 56; and MacDonald, Aphrodisias 12, no. 418. All bear the legend AAOAIKEQN NEQKOPON AOTMATI CVNKAHTOV. 86 See Dio Chrys. Or. 3.73-84 and Ael. Aris. Or. 26.6 for tov mavonov Oeod, drawing on Plato’s idea that the sanctuary of Apollo Helios is the center of the polis (Leges 12.945 — 47). Cf. solar imagery in dedications; see SIG?. 798 and 814; IGRom III.345; and TAM JII.45. 87 BMClonia 89, no. 292; SNGCop 436; and SNGvAulock 1904.

88 See M. Rostovtzeff, “AQPEA CITOV TAPCQ,” NC 3, no. 20 (1900): 96-107, and R. Ziegler, ‘“Munzen Kilikiens,’’ JNG 27 (1977): 34-37. See ibid. 57-61, for connection of coins with the famine reported in Tarsus by Historia Apollonii regis Tyri, 9-10. For

NOTES TO PAGE 62 175 Caracalla’s silver didrachmae with legend AQPEA CEITOY AIIO AIDYIITOY TAPCQ), see JNG 27 (1977): 35, no. 2 and pl. 3.3 = NC 3, no. 20 (1900): 288, no. 1 = BCH 7 (1883): 288, no. 1 = NC 6, no. 11 (1971): 134, no. 26, pl. 26; and SNGvAulock 6005. Cf. aes with obscure legends that are probably similar; see SNGvAulock 6014; BMCLycaonia

| 195-96, nos. 185-86; and Mionnet III 634, no. 474.

For aes of Caracalla, with galley and legend CEITOC, see JNG 27 (1977): 34, no. 1 and pl. 3. 1 (= Munich) and pl. 3.2; BMCLycaonia 199, nos. 198 (= NC 3, no. 20 [1900]: 288, no. 2) and 199-201; Mionnet III 632, no. 462; NC 5, no. 5 (1925): 318, no. 47; Weber III.7663; Hirsch Auk. 25 (1909), no. 2783; ANS; Munich; Franke, Kleinasien 52, no. 223; SNGCop 368; SNGvAulock 6015; and M @ M 41 (1970), no. 582, pl. 32. For aes of Severus Alexander, with galley and legend AWPEA, see JNG 27 (1977): 35, no. 1, pl. 3.4 (= Rome); BMCLycaonia 202, no. 213; Waddington 4656 and 7168; RN 2, no. 3 (1859): 291, pl. X.6; BCH 7 (1883): 289, no. 3; JNG 21 (1977): 35, no. 2, pl. 3.5 = Berlin; Paris = BCH 7 (1883): 289, no. 4; NC 5, no. 5 (1925): 321, no. 62; and ANS.

89 See Ziegler, JNG 27 (1977): 29-34, for discussion, with full documentation, of imperial grants of grain to cities. For grain shortages in cities, see Jones, Roman World 20-22. For Severan patronage of Antioch, Laodicea ad Mare, and Sidon, see H. Seyrig, ““Antiquités

, syriennes 52,” Syria 29 (1952): 54-59, and Ziegler, JNG 27 (1977): 61-64. For coins of Sidon, with AETERNVM BENEFICIVM, see BMCPhoenicia 190, nos. 274-78 (Elagabalus). For same inscription on coins of Laodicea ad Mare, see BMCGalatia 260, no. 94 and NC 3,

) no. 20 (1900): 10 (Caracalla).

90 See Magie, RRAM 712; Ziegler, JNG 27 (1977) 66-67; and T. Pekary, ‘‘Kaiser Valerians Briickenbau bei Mopsos in Kilikien,” in Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium, 1964/6 (1966) 139-41. Coins of both Aegeae and Mopsus bear the reverse legends AQPEA and ITYPAMOC with the bridge. For Aegeae, see Mionnet III 547, no. 53, and BMCLycaonia cxv. For Mopsus, see BMCLycaonia xcii; SNGvAulock 5747; BCH 7 (1883): 289, nos. 1-2;

Mionnet, Supp. VII 235, no. 313; KIM. II 475, no. 12; and von Aulock, AA 78 (1963)

271-72, no. 84, and 275-76, no. 87. | 91 SeeGrant, FITA 383 and Magie, RRAM 1332 n. 8. Cf. adoption of prefix of Klaudio- for city ethnics on coins of Lycaonian cities; see von Aulock, MSL 55-56. Cf. extensive practice

of assuming Hadriane and variants; see Magie, RRAM 616-17. See also creation of Faustinopolis by Marcus Aurelius in $.H.A., Vita Mar. 26.9 and Dio 71.29.1. 92 See Head, HN2 928-32, for dynastic ethnics of Severan and later emperors. See Spijkerman 300-303 for their use in Roman Arabia. For their use among Anatolian cities, see von Aulock Index 22-50. For their use among Cilician cities, see Robert, ‘Bull. épigr.”

, (1970), no. 407 and (1975), no. 577.

93 Note Tarsus was successively Komodiane, Ioulia Seoueriane, Antoneiniane, Makrianiane, Seoueriane and Antoneiniane, and Alexandriane. Cf. Aegeae’s titles: Komodiane, Ioulia Seoueriane, Antoneiniane, Makrinoupolis, Antoneiniane, and Alexandroupolis.

94 For Macrinus’s patronage of Aegeae, see Seyrig, Syria 29 (1953): 56—- 58, and Ziegler, JNG

27 (1977): 61-64. See Mattingly, SPDMR II 962-64 and 968, for literary tradition hostile to Macrinus. For the Severan sympathies of the legions, see $.H.A., Vita Macr. 8.4ff.: Herod. 5.3.1 -—3; and Dio 79. 28a. For coins, see BMCLycaonia 24-25, nos. 25-28; Niggler Il, no. 646; SNGFitz 5224-25; Waage, Antioch, no. 817; Waddington 4075-77; SNGCop 36; ANS; and SNGvAulock 5455. All are dated to 216/17 or 217/18.

176 NOTES TO PAGES 62-64 95 Dio 80.7.103. Note that the initial coins of Elagabalus bore piste, a title granted by Macrinus (SNGvAulock 5456, 217/18), but it was quickly dropped. See its revival on coins of Severus Alexander (SNGvAulock 5457-58; ANS; and GM 704, no. 549) and of Philip II (SNGCop 39 and JHS 18 [1901]: 161, no. 2). For use of the title piste by other cities, see Robert, Hellenica 11-12 (1960): 141 and 149.

96 See M. Bernhart, ‘“Erasionen’” (1922) 1-2. 97 Adana assumed the title Maximiane on her coins (BMCLycaonia 18, no. 18). Mopsus assumed Dekiane (ibid. 108, no. 22) and later Valeriane-Galliane (KI.M. 1475, nos. 11-12). Cf. also revival of Hadriane in the third century on coins of Adana, Aegeae, Petra, and Stratonicea-Hadrianopolis; Kaisarea on those of Bagis, Lydia and Cibyra, Phrgyia; and Flavia on those of Philadelphia, Lydia.

98 Menander Rhetor, 381.23 (ed. Russell and Wilson). 99 See Imhoof-Blumer, Nomisma 5 (1910): 39-42; Robert, Hellenica 7 (1949): 93-104; and Robert, Etudes anatoliennes (1937) 138-46, 161-65, and 418 — 33, for standard agonistic types. 100. See H. Karl, ‘‘“Numismatische Beitrage zum Festwesen der Kleinasiatischen und Nordgriechischen Stadte im 2/3 Jahrhundert,’”’ Ph.D. diss., Saarbriicken (1975), for a catalogue of games named on later civic coins. For agonistic coinage of Hierapolis, see von Papen, ZN 26 (1908): 161-82; Weber, NC 4, no. 13 (1913): 133-61; and Johnston, NC 144 (1984): 52-80. Cf. festival coinages in T. T. Duke, ‘The Festival Chronology of Laodicea ad Lycum,”’ SPDMR II 851-57. 101 See J. Meier, ‘““Agones,”’ RE I (1894), cols. 847-48; L. Robert, ‘‘Deux concours grecs a Rome,” CRAI (1970): 67; and Jones, GC 355 n. 40. For the guild of athletes, see Moretti, IAG 153-54; L. Robert, ‘‘Un Athlete milésien,’”’ Hellenica 7 (1949): 123 n. 1; C. A. Forbes,

‘‘Ancient Athletic Guilds,’” CQ 50 (1955): 239-42; and H. W. Pleket, ‘‘Some Aspects of the History of Athletic Guilds,’’ ZPE 10 (1973): 200-206.

102 +For coins of Corycus, Cilicia, see BMCLycaonia 69, nos. 21-23; SNGCop 121-23; and SNGvAulock 4602 (Valerian). For Syedra, Cilicia, see SNGvAulock 5686-87 (Valerian); SNGvAulock 5905 and Waddington 4545 (Gallienus); BMCLycaonia 160, no. 21; Wadding-

ton 4547; and SNGCop 257 (Salonina). For Aspendus, Pamphylia, see BMCLycia 104, no. 82 (Julia Domna); ibid. 106, no. 93 (Gordian III); SNGvAulock 4602 (Valerian); SNGvAulock 4610 = Kraft, pl. 113.80 (Valerian II); BMCLycia 108,.no. 101, and SNGvAulock 4602 (Gallienus); and BMCLycia 288, no. 103A; SNGCop 275; and SNGvAulock 4606 (Salonina). For Ariassus, Pisidia, see von Aulock MSP I 75, nos. 843 —44 (Otacilia Severa). For Baris, Pisidia, see MSP II 67, nos. 266-68 (Severus Alexander). For Prostanna, see MSP II 149, no. 1809 (Severus Alexander), and 150, nos. 1816-17 (Gordian III).

Cf. IGRom JII.319 (Apollonia, Pisidia), 461-62 (Bubon, Lycia), 499 (Oenoanda, Lycia), 519 (Calyanda, Lycia), 623-25 (Xanthus, Lycia), and 829 (Syedra, Cilicia). 103 For the names of liturgists used as eponyms, see Munsterberg, ‘‘Beamtennamen” 7576, and von Aulock Index 194, 196, and 152. For donors at Side, see L. Robert, ‘‘Fétes de Sidon,’’ RN 4, no. 40 (1936): 237.

NOTES TO PAGES 64-65 177 104 See Ael. Aris. Or. 1.249-—50, and cf. remarks in Oliver, TAPHS, n. s., 58 (1968): 86.

105 Plato Leges 8.835e, and cf. Plato Phaed. 255.3 -256.13. See also Ael. Aris. Or. 1.41 and Pseudo-Diony. 1.255-56. See remarks in MacMullen, PRE 25-32.

, 106 Ael. Aris. Or. 26.97-99. 107 See Jones, GC 232-33, for the argument for strict imperial supervision based on IGRom IV.1519 = Moretti, IGA, no. 89 (Sardes, ca. 212-17). For early regulation of grants, see Plin. Ep. 10.118-—19; IGRom IV.336, 1251, and 1431, and Inscr. Magn., no. 180. For close

association of Pythia and Olympia with the imperial cult, see Meier, ‘“Agones,’’ RE I (1894), cols. 860-64. See, however, S.H.A., Vita Ant. 13.4, for the interest of Antoninus Pius in proper festivals and games for the gods. For the promotion of decorous festivals, see the policies of emperors of the second century in J. H. Oliver, The Sacred Gerusia, Hesperia suppl. 6

, (1941) 21-52, and Marcus Aurelius 135-38.

108 See Laumonier, Les Cultes indigenes 223-27, 245-50, 301-13, 362-65, and 395-405, and cf. similar situation at Aphrodisias in Reynolds, docs. 58-62.

109 Cf. Dio 52.30.3 and Herod. 8.3.3-6. 110 See Mattingly, RC* 195-96, Franke, Kleinasien 24-27, and Robert, Monnaies antiques

18-46. 111 See Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 222, and see above 146 n. 3.

112 See S.H.A., Vita Gord. 28.2-5, and Adams, ‘‘Logistics’’ 244-45, for the logistics of Timesitheus. For campaign of Gordian III, see W. Ensslin, ‘“Zu den Kriegen des Sassaniden Schapur I,’”’ SBAW 5 (1947): 5-16, and Magie, RRAM 698-700 and 1562-63 n. 15. 113 See Robert, RN 4, no. 40 (1936): 237 (= OMS II, p. 1033), La Déesse de Castabala 90, and Etudes anatoliennes 121 n. 2, who notes that coins of Side inscribed AWPEA should be expanded to dmpéa TOD @ya@vos Lepov. For coins of Gordian III inscribed with AWPEA, see P. Weiss, ‘Ein agonistiches Bema und die isopythischen Spiele von Side,’’ Chiron 11

(1981): 344, no. 1 (= Mionnet III 483, no. 215), and 344, no. 3, pl. 27.3 ( = Mabbott 1988), and, for Tranquillina, 344-45, no. 3, pl. 27.2 (= Hirsch Auk. 118 [1979], no. 971).

| 114 See Weiss, Chiron 11 (1981): 331-34, for full discussion of epigraphic evidence. See crucial inscriptions: (1) JHS 28 (1908): 194, no. 24 = “Bull. épigr.”” (1951), no. 219 = G. E. Bean and T. B. Mitford, ‘‘Journeys in Rough Cilicia, 1965-1968,’’ DAWW 102 (1970): 43-45, no. 21 = AE (1972), no. 628, and (2) Weiss, Chiron 11 (1981) 315-18 (for inscription) and 319-32 plus pl. 19 (for bema and reliefs).

115 See Weiss, Chiron 11 (1981) 334-35, for Pythia 2 and 3, and 338-39, for Valerian’s grant of mystical games. For coins of Salonina with the reverse legend AW PEA, see SNGvAulock 4856; KIM. II 346, no. 48; and NC 3, no. 20 (1900), pl. xiv.12. Cf. mystical games in inscriptions; see Robert, Hellenica 11 — 12 (1960): 367; ‘‘Bull. épigr.”’ (1951), no. 219; and AE (1968), no. 460 = ‘Bull. épigr.”’ (1968), no. 460 =G. E. Bean, Inscriptions of Side (1965) 65-67.

178 NOTES TO PAGES 65-66 116 See von Aulock, MSP I 139-41, nos. 1574-1612, and 144, nos. 1721-35: DONATIO SACRVM CERTAMEN.

117 See BMCGalatia 12-13, nos. 22-26 and 28; BM 4- 11-188; Waddington 6630 - 32; and SNGvAulock 6164-66. See Robert, Hellenica 11 —12 (1960): 365, and Levick, Hommages a

Renard II 430, no. 14, for the dedication honoring the first isopythian Asclepeian games

ca. 214-15. 118 See BMCLydia 312,no.112=ANRW 16.2, pl. ii.16; Hunter II 470, no. 17; and Winterthur. See remarks in Turcan, ANRW II.16.2, 1025. 119 See IGRom IV.1251 and Robert, Etudes anatoliennes 119-23. Cf. thanksgiving of Smyrna to Antonius Polemo for securing from Hadrian the sacred games Olympia Adrianeia; see CIG 3148 = IGRom IV.1431.

120 SNGvAulock 590. 121 BMCLycaonia 229, no. 327, and SNGvAulock 6080 (Gallienus). Cf. coins of Caesarea Mazaca (Sydenham, Caesarea, no. 486, Caracalla) and Cretia-Flaviopolis, Bithynia (Chiron 10 [1980]: 487 n. 9 and pl. 9.2).

122 See Ziegler, JNG 27 (1977): 36-37. For tyche and the personifications of the three eparchies, see SNGvAulock 6001 = JNG 27 (1977), pl. 4.1 (Septimius Severus). Cf. similar scene on coins of Volusian; see RSN 14 (1908): 112, no. 8. For the league, see Dio Chrys. Or. 34.7; BCH 7 (1883): 381-82; and G. Laminger-Pascher, ‘Kleine Nachtrage zu kilikischen Inschriften,’’ ZPE 15 (1974): 32.

123 See Ziegler, JNG 27 (1977): 39 —-49, for discussion, with full documentation, of emperors holding the office of demiourgos and presiding over the games. For the office of demiourgos, see W. Ruge, “Tarsos,”’ RE IVA (1932), col. 2427, and L. Robert, Noms indigenes dans l’Asie

mineure greco-romaine (1963) 478-79. For Tarsan coins depicting on the obverse a portrait of Commodus in the robes of the demiourgos, see BMCLycaonia 191, no. 168; SNGvAulock 5996 = JNG 27 (1977), pl. 3.6; Mionnet III 628, no. 439; and Cox, Tarsus Coin Coll. 43-44, nos. 185-86. For those showing Septimius Severus, see E. Babelon, ‘‘Monnaies de la Cilicie,’’ Annuaire de la Société francaise de numismatique et archéologique, ser. 5, no. 6

(1883): 21 and pl. ii.3. For those showing Caracalla, see BMCLycaonia 193, no. 177; ibid.

195, nos. 182-83 and 185; ibid. 196, nos. 187-88; ibid. 198, nos. 194 and 197; ibid. 199, no. 198; SNGvAulock 6010 and 6017-19; JNG 27 (1977) pl. 3.1 = Munich and pl. 5.1 = McClean I11.9116; NC 5, no. 5 (1925): 317-18, nos. 41 and 47; and Cox, Tarsus Coin Coll.

45, no. 190. For those showing Severus Alexander, see BMCLycaonia 203, nos. 211 and 213; Waddington 4643 and 7168; NC 5, no. 5 (1925): 321, no. 62; and JNG 21 (1977), pl. 5.2 = Munich. For coins that proclaim on the reverse AHMI(ovpyta) AAEZANAPOV TAPCOY, see BMCLycaonia 203, no. 214 =H. Gaebler, ‘Das KotvovBovAtov édevbepov in

Tarsos und Anazarbos,’’ ZN 39 (1929): 329, 01 and Mabbott 2196 (misattributed to Seleucia, Cilicia).

124 Ziegler, JNG 27 (1977), pl. 4.4 = Mabbott 2222. 125 See Ziegler, JNG 27 (1977): 40 and 46-49. For coins of Anazarbus showing Elagabalus dressed in robes of demiourgos on the obverse and with the reverse legend AHMI(ovputa),

NOTES TO PAGES 66-68 179 see SNGvAulock 5487 = JNG 27 (1977), pl. 4.3; Mabbott 2122; BMCLycaonia 34, no. 20; and

Gaebler, ZN 39 (1929): 329, N.

126 See Ziegler, JNG 27 (1977): 46, 48-49. 127 See Dio 54.17.5. For games as a means of gaining popularity, see especially Dio 53.31.2; Vell. Pat. 2.93.1; and cf. Moretti, JAG 157 and 185-86. For the impact of civic games on neighboring cities, see MacMullen, PRE 25-32.

128 Tac. Ann. 14.17.1. For urban disorders, see MacMullen, ERO 169-73. 129 J[GRom IV. 566 = ILS 8805 (196/7). For the close association of native festivals and emperor, cf. Reynolds 175-76, doc. 48. 130 Kubitschek, NZ 27 (1895): 87-100. See NC 5, no. 5 (1925): 315-16, nos. 26—32, and

: Mionnet VII 630, no. 499 and Supp. VII 264, no. 428. Cf. IGRom III.879 — 880. 131 See BMCPhrygia 307, nos. 181-85, which depict a temple inscribed EITIINEIKOC. Cf. KLM. 1 265-66, nos. 15-17; Waddington 6273; and Price, Rituals, catalogue no. 87. For institution of games at Rome, see Dio 67.7 — 8; Suet Dom. 4; and Mart. 4.19.3 and 8 praef.

132 See MacDonald, Aphrodisias 20; BMCCaria 41-42, nos. 106-8 and 110; and SNGvAulock 245] —52. For other epinician games in honor of the Parthian War (161-66), see I. R. Arnold, ‘The Festivals of Ephesus,’’ AJA 76 (1972): 21, and Robert, ‘Bull. épigr.”’ (1959), no. 448, for games at Ephesus, Anazarbus, Laodicea, and Tarsus.

133 See Reynolds, doc. 17. 134 See Waddington 4129~—33 and BMCLycaonia 34, no. 16: POMAIQN TPOTIAIO@MOPOC. Cf. SEG 12.517 and contra Gough, AS 2 (1952): 96 and 136, who argues that the title dates from Septimius Severus. For revival on coins of Elagabalus, see BMCLycaonia

34, nos. 17-20; Waddington 4134-36; McClean III.9049; KIM. II 432, no. 6; and SNGvAulock 5487-88. For association of this title with epinician games, see Dio. Hal. 2.34.3; Dio 26.25; 28.21.1; 54.24.8; 55.2.4; and 59.23.2; and Herod. 4.11.9. 135 Suet. Aug. 18.2; Dio 51.2; and Strabo 7.7.6. See also Reisch, ‘‘Aktia,’’ RE I (1894), cols. 1213-14; B. Tidman, ‘‘On the Foundation of the Actian Games,’’ CQ 44 (1950) 123-25; and R. Ricks, ‘‘Sebasta und Aktia,’’ Hermes 98 (1970): 96-116. For isactian games in the provinces, see Suet. Aug. 59 and Tac. Ann. 15.23.

136 See Oikonomides 63-166, passim. 137 Forthe Neroneia, see Suet. Nero 12.7 and H. Philipp, ‘“Neroneia,”’ RE XXXIII (1936), cols.

42-47. For the Capetoleia, see Suet. Dom. 4 and Censor. 18.4 and 15; and cf. later references in Herod. 1.9.2; 8.8.3; CIG 21806; and CJ 10.53 —54. For introduction of the agon Athenes Promachou by Gordian III, see Aur. Vict. De Caess. 27.4 and Robert, CRAI

(1970): 15-17. 138 = S.H.A., Vita Sept. Sev. 8.13; Dio 74. 63; and cf. IGRom 1.787 = CIG 2022. For Severan games

and agonistic coinage, see Schdnert-Geiss, Perinthos 46 -47 and 50-51. For the associa-

180 NOTES TO PAGES 68-69 tion of Aktia with Pythia, see L. Robert, ‘“Les Boules dans les types monétaires agonistiques,”’ Hellenica 7 (1949): 93-104.

139 See Sch6nert-Geiss, Perinthus, nos. 494-99, 501-4, 516-19, 581, 627-30, 639, 646—49, and 668. 140 Coins of Sardes name Aktia Koraia; see Hunter IJ 466, no. 23, and Munich (Julia Domna). Cf. revival of festival on coins of 221-22; see Hunter II 466, no. 25. Tyre’s coins name Actia Heraclea; see BMCPhoenicia 270, no. 379; AUB, nos. 210—11; Rouvier 2324; ANS; Paris C.B. 841-42 and Y28888,1; Vatican 248; Munich; Vienna 22, 353 and 39, 224.

141 See Herod. 2.3.3-4; Dig. 50.15.1 and 50.15.8.3. For association of Heracles with Melqart and his festivals at Tyre, see P. Stengel, ‘“Heracleia,’’ RE VIII (1913), cols. 439-40; H. Seyrig, ‘“Les Grand Dieux de Tyre a l’€poque grecque et romaine,” Syria 40 (1963): 478-79; and Teixidor, Pagan God 34-35.

142 See Dio 79.70.1. For coins naming Actia Heraclea, see BMCPhoenicia 278-79, nos. 414-15 and 418; Paris 2247-49 and 2257; Vienna 22,370 and Rouvier 2394 = Mionnet IV 435, no. 6 (the last misread Aktia Olympia). For full restoration of city’s privileges in 232, see H. Ingholt, ‘“Varia Tadmorea,’”’ in Palmyre: Bilan et perspectives. Colloque de Strasbourg (18-20 octobre 1973) (1976) 122-23.

143 See von Papen ZN 26 (1908): 175-77; Weber, Charites (1911) 466-69; Robert, ‘Bull. épigr.’”’ (1980), no. 506; and Johnston, NC 144 (1984): 58-60. For coins with Aktia, see ibid. 65 — 78, nos. 8, 39-40, 46, 54,61,64-65, and 74-75. For the cult of Lairbenus, see Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics 101-2. For the promotion of solar festivals by Elagabalus, see Robert, CRAI (1970): 192-95.

144 Forcoins under Philip I, see Spijkerman 83, nos. 59-60 (= Morey, Dusares, nos. 45 and 44); Rosenberger IV 15, no. 52; Munich; Paris 98-100 and C.B. 1792, 1794 and 1797; Oxford; Vienna 22,728 and 22,731; and BM 4-4 - 13. For those under Trajan Decius, see Spijkerman 87, no. 66 (= Morey, Dusares, no. 47) and 89, nos. 69-72 (= Morey, Dusares, nos. 54, 51, and 52); Rosenberger IV 15, no. 53 and 16, no. 57; BM; Oxford; Munich; Berlin; and Vienna 32, 831. See Hdt. 3.8; Strabo 16.741; Arr. Anab. 7.20.1; Origen Contra Cel. 5.37; and cf. Hill, JRS 6 (1916): 169, and Teixidor, Pagan God 82 —- 87 for Dusares as Dionysus. Note that the city

was favored by the Severans, receiving colonial rank from Elagabalus; see Morey, Dusares 6-7. 145 See Magie, RRAM 700 and P. W. Townsend, ‘“‘The Administration of Gordian III,”’ YCIS 4 (1934): 129-31. For Gordian’s eastern ancestry, see A. Birley, ‘The Origins of Gordian 1,” in Britain and Rome, ed. M. G. Jarrett and B. Dobson (Kendal, 1965) 56-57.

146 SEG12.540= Moretti, IAG, no. 64, which refers to an Aktia held at Nicopolis rather than at Neocaesarea. It is possible that the unnamed agonistic types on coins of Severus Alexander allude to an earlier Aktia (RGA I?. 1, 125-26, nos. 40-49). For coins of 241/2, see RGA J?. 1, 126-27, nos. 51-57; ibid. 130, nos. 58-58a; and SNGvAulock 109-110, 6762, and 6764. 147. The year 241/2 is assumed as the year of reckoning. See RGA I?. 1, 130, nos. 65 — 66a (A.D. 255/6), no. 69 (A.D. 259/60), and SNGvAulock 114 (A.D. 259/60). Compare later depar-

NOTES TO PAGES 69-70 181 tures from the schedule; see RGA I?. 1, 131, nos. 71 and 74—74a (A.D. 262/3) and 132, nos. 75a-75c (A.D. 263/4).

148 Coins of Aphrodisias name Kapetoleia with Gordianea and Attalea; see BMCCaria 47, nos. 128-29; KI.M.1 118, no. 25; SNGvAulock 2463 (= Kraft, pl. 54.34) and 2464; ZN 39 (1929): 304, no. 82; Vienna 34,783; and SNGCop 125 (Gordian III). Issues of Gallienus associate Kapetoleia with Pythia, see BMCCaria 50-51, nos. 148-51; SNGCop 105 and 132; SNGvAulock 2470; MacDonald, Aphrodisias 7, nos. 252-53; KLM.1115,nos. 14-15;

Weber III.6412; Mionnet III 330, no. 159; and Vienna 18,265, and 30,975. For coins of Ancyra that honor Aktia XX, Pythia XX, and Mystikos, see Paris 174-76 (Valerian); Paris 183 —-85 (Gallienus); Waddington 6648 (= Paris 186); SNGvAulock 6199;

Coll. Hirsch 1619; and Mionnet IV 389, no. 95 (Salonina). See also Robert, Hellenica 11-12 (1960): 367, for an inscription honoring the agonothetes of the great Actian games, Claudius Caecilius Hermianus. Ancyra’s Actian coins bear the portrait of Salonina, wife of Gallienus, who was honored as mater castroum in IGRom III.237. Tarsan coins name Severeia Olympia Adrianeia Kaisareia Augousteia Aktia, see SNGvAulock 6077; ANS; Oxford; BM 8- 1-425; Paris 1525; Munich; and Vienna 31,472 (Valerian) and SNGFitz 5348 and BM 4-11-35 (Gallienus). Coins of Heliopolis name CERT(amina) SACR(a) CAP(itolina) OBCV(mania) ISE(lastica) HEL(iopolitana). See BMCGalatia 294, nos. 27-28; SNGCop 439 — 40; Hunter III 221, no. 7;

McClean II1.9439; Paris 179-83, 185, 191, Y28472, and C.B. 1282 and 1295; BM 12524-10 and 1-—2549-10; and Vienna 21,916 and 21,920 (Valerian); BMCGalatia 295, nos. 30 —32; SNGCop 441; Paris 192-95, Y28472, 13-14, C.B. 1293, 1300, and 1304-5; Vienna 21,916 and 21,920; and BM 1-—2528-10 through 1-—2530-10 (Gallienus). 149 For Didymeia Komedeia on Milesian coins, see SNGvAulock 2109. For Nicaea, see RGA 1.3, 437-38, nos. 305-6, 310, 316, and 320, and Niggler II, no. 593. For Tarsus, see BMCLycaonia 192, nos. 169-70; Mionnet III 628, no. 439; Waddington 4636; and SNGvAulock 5997.

150 Deia Komodeia is named on coins of Laodicea ad Lycum, see Waddington 6295; NC 5, no. 19 (1940): 221, no. 3; Kraft, pl. 79. 21c (= Oxford); ibid. pl. 84.69 (= Vienna); and Robert, Hellenica 7 (1949): 89 -92. For Didymeia Komodeia on Milesian coins, see ZN 24 (1909): 138 (= Berlin) and Waddington 1872. See also CIL VIII.9317; and for the cult of Commodus, see CIG I.vi.1736; IGLS VII.4006; IGRom III.550 and 881 andIGRom IV.1014; and YCIS 7 (1940): 154-55.

151 Cf. IGRom IV.1762 (Philadelphia, Lydia) and Birley, Septimius Severus 262-64.

152 Menander Rhetor 366.21 (ed. Russell and Wilson). 153 See especially BMCLycia 140, nos. 103-4, for Takitios Metropolitios Kaisaria.

154 See MacMullen, PRE 25-26. 155 See SNGvAulock 6077 and SNGFitz 5348, for Tarsus. See RGA I.3, 502-3, nos. 815-16, and 508, no. 854, for Nicaea.

156 For Didymeia, see Waddington 1881 (Valerian) and Robert, Monnaies grecques 42. For Enmonidea, see BMCLydia 154, nos. 92 —-97; McClean III.8677; Hunter 11 457, nos. 15-16;

SNGCop 274-75; and Kraft, pl. 8.56a (= Boston) (Gallienus). For Theogamia, see Reg-

182 NOTES TO PAGES 70-74 ling, Nysa 88-90, nos. 185, 189-90, 195-98, and 204; Hunter II 460, no. 6; SNGCop 330; and Kraft, pl. 25.138a. See also SGDI 3881 and L. Robert, ‘‘Un type monétaire a Nysa,”’ BCH 101 (1977): 169-75.

157 See Price, Rituals 213-16. Cf. Ael. Aris. Or. 26.96 for intimate connection of official piety and autonomy of the polis.

7 Images of Rome and the Polis 1 See Norr, Imperium und Polis 94-97. 2 IGRom IV.881 = LBW 1700 (202/3). 3 See von Papen, ZN 26 (1908): 161-82; Weber, Charites (1911) 466-90; Weber, NC 4, no. 13 (1913): 133-61; and Johnston, NC 144 (1984): 64-79.

4 See Norr, Imperium und Polis 97-98, and Palm, Rom, Rémertum und Imperium 56-62, 81-84. See especially Ael. Aris. Or. 26.62 -63, Oliver, TAPHS, n.s., 43 (1953): 928, and contra Sherwin-White, RC? 202. 5 See Norr, Imperium und Polis 98-99. For Rome as basilis, see OGI 597, 1.17 (174), and cf. Athen. Deipnosoph. 2.121. For Rome as makaria polis, see Dio Chrys. Or. 4.9. For Rome as kosmou kai ges metropolis, see IG XIV. 1561 = Robert, Hellenica 2 (1946): 102.

6 Ael. Aris. Or. 42.301 (519). 7 For Smyrna’s eunomia to Rome, see Ael. Aris. Or. 41.296 (516). For symmachia palaia of Lycians and Rome, see Philostr. VS 2.26.613. For Cibyran-Roman friendship, see OGI 497, and cf. ILS 8805 and 8807. 8 Ael. Aris. Or. 26.42 —96. See Oliver, TAPHS, n.s., 43 (1953): 889-92; Norr, Imperium und Polis 84; and Palm, Rom, Rémertum und Imperium 94-97.

9 See Sherwin-White, RC? 408-11. Cf. Ael. Aris. Or. 26.59 and Oliver, TAPAS, n.s., 43 (1953): 901. 10 See C. Fayer, Il culto della dea Roma (1976) 107-84, and R. Mellor, 9EA PQMH (1975) 207 - 34.

11 For the temple of Pergamum, see Dio 51.20. For the temple of Tiberius at Smyrna, see

Magie, RRAM 1360 n. 26 and 1363 n. 38.

12 For the temples of Tiberius, Roma, and Hadrian on coins of Smyrna, see BMClonia 288-90, nos. 403-4, 410-11, and 415-16, and Price and Trell 215, fig. 455 (= Paris). For the three neocorate temples at Pergamum, see Price and Trell, fig. 30 ( = ANS); BMCMysia 156, no. 327; and von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. viii.19.

13 See Spijkerman 260-61, nos. 3-7. For deified Marinus, see IGRom IJJ.1199—- 1200; BMCArabia 42, nos. 1—3; and Spijkerman 260-61, nos. 1-2.

NOTES TO PAGE 74 183 | 14 See Sherwin-White, RC? 438-40, 466-68; and cf. Mellor, BEA PQMH 195-98. 15. See SNGvAulock 3737 = Kraft, pl. 75.8f. For the cult of Roma at Cibyra, see Robert, Monnaies grecques 64-66.

16 See RGA I.3, 486, no. 691; SNGvAulock 655; and Kraft, pl. 103.46a (= BM). Cf. coins of Nicomedia depicting tyche presenting a model temple to Roma (RGA I.3, 563, no. 361 and SNGvAulock 810). See coins of Otrus, Phrygia, depicting tyche receiving Nike from Roma (Kraft, pl. 75.9 [= BM], Caracalla).

17 BMCLycia 109, no. 104; Weber III.7327; Hesperia Art Bull. 25 (1963), no. 39; and BM

5-2-1 (von Aulock). 18 See coins of Ilium (SNGvAulock 1533, Caracalla) and Scepsis (Kraft, pl. 56.27 = Munich, Julia Domna).

19 See von Aulock, MSPh I 146, nos. 787-89 (Caracalla) and 148, no. 816 = SNGvAulock 8431 (Geta). 20 Cf. remarks of Levick, Roman Colonies 130-62. For coins of Damascus, see BMCGalatia 286, no. 25; Rosenberger III 20, no. 98; and de Saulcy 48, no. 13.

21 Forcoins of Hierapolis, see Johnston, NC 144 (1984): 70, no. 44; 72, no. 54; and 76, no. 73. For Philadelphia, see BMCLydia 193, no. 49; SNGCop 361; and SNGvAulock 3069. For Tralles, see SNGCop 703.

22 See Forni 163-68 and MacMullen, RGRC 38-39. Note that the obverse of Synnada’s coins bears the portrait of Hiera Synkletos. See Forni, no. 518; BMCPhrygia 394-95, nos.

15-16; KLM. I 292, no. 6; SNGCop 714-15; and ANS. For coins of Lamus, Cilicia, depicting demos Romaion, see Forni, no. 555. Cf. dedication to ‘Roman people” at Side; see G. Bean, Side Kitaberleri (1965), no. 19. 23 See CNPII, nos. 45 (Marcus Aurelius), 56 (Lucius Verus), 62 (Commodus), 73 (Caracalla), 77 (Macrinus), 86 (Elagabalus), 96 — 102 (Severus Alexander), 111-12 (Philip I), and 130 (Trajan Decius).

24 Forcoins of Severus Alexander, see BMCPhrygia 357, nos. 23-25 and Waddington 6407. For Philip I, see BMCPhrygia 359, no. 33 and Waddell Auc. 1 (1982) no. 403. For Trajan Decius, see Waddington 6412, SNGvAulock 3930, and BMCPhrygia 360, no. 43.

25 Since the abbreviations S.R. and S.C. are frequently enclosed by a wreath, they are honorific types rather than designations of the constitutional status of the coins. See remarks in Sutherland, RN 6, no. 7 (1965): 99-101, and contra Bellinger, ERCHM 147 48 and Kraft 95 —96. See Levick, NC 7, no. 6 (1966): 55-58, who refutes the suggestion that S.R. on coins of Pisidian Antioch means S(estertius) R(omanus) offered by J. G. Milne, ‘The Coinage of Pisidian Antioch after A.D. 250,’’ NC 6, no. 7 (1947): 102-3. For S.R.

appearing on coins of Pisidian Antioch and Iconium after 238, see Krzyzanowska, Antioche 175-211 and von Aulock, MSL 82-90. For SR as the main device on the reverses of coins of Pisidian Antioch, see Krzyzanowska, Antioche 180 and 183 (Gordian III) and 207 (Gallienus).

184 NOTES TO PAGES 74-76 26 S.C. appears on civic aes of Antiochia ad Orontem (Waage, Antioch ix and 54-69), Damascus (BMCGalatia 286, no. 25, and de Saulcy 48, no. 13), Mallus, Cilicia (BMCLycaonia 101-2, nos. 30-35; and SNGvAulock 5727-28), and Philippopolis (BMCArabia

42-43, nos. 1-10, and Hunter III 300, no. 1).

27 See Forni 163-68. 28 =For the use of hiera and thea, see MacDonald, Coin Types 161 and Forni 53 — 58. For use of | the term synkletos (or in inscriptions, synkletos boule) to describe the Roman Senate, see Robert, Monnaies grecques 76; Mason, Greek Terms 121-22; and Reynolds 137.

29 See MacDonald, Coin Types 157-58; Forni 60-62; and Kraft 27-29. For Senate personified as a bearded male, see coins in Forni for Crete (no. 204); Mallus, Cilicia (nos. 536-37); and Selge, Cilicia (no. 538).

30 Forni 56-50 and nos. 536-37, and BMCLycaonia cxxiv. 31 See Forni 163-68 and F. Ghinati, ‘‘Ricerche sulle synkletoi di Grecia,’’ PP 15 (1960):

354-73. 32 See Van Sickle, AC 8 (1939): 156-57. For Severus Alexander’s respect to the Senate, see Dio 82.21.3-—4 and S.H.A., Vita Sev. Alex. 27.4 and 41.1-—2. For censorships of Aurelian

and Tacitus, see S.H.A., Vita Aur. 45.4-46.6 and Vita Tac. 11.6.

33 See S.H.A., Vitae Max. et Balb. 13.3, and Herod. 7.8-8.5. 34 Given Postumus’s appointment of his own consuls and the appearance of S.C. on his aes,

| a Senate at Cologne is probable; see Alfoldi, CAH XII, 189-90. 35 S.H.A., Vita Aur. 11.3; Aur. Vict. De Caess. 35.9; Zon. 12.28.1; and cf. RIC V.1, 361, nos. ] —- 3. Cf. approval of the nomination of Carus by the Senate; see Aur. Vict. De Caess. 37.5.

36 See Hammond, JRS 47 (1957): 78-81, for a statistical summary of the origins of senators. For eastern provincial views of the Roman Senate, see remarks of Oliver, TAPAS, n.s., 43 (1953): 893 —94, and contra Forni 56 —57 and Levick, Roman Colonies 58, who suggest that

the appearance of the coin type reflects provincial belief in the Senate as a defense against despotic emperors. Note especially the frequent joint public dedications to the imperial house and Senate; see Forni 163-68. 37 BMCLydia 98, no. 45, and RN 4, no. 39 (1936): 273-74.

38 See Bowie, P & P 46 (1970): 4-10. 39 See Bowersock, Greek Sophists 1-16 and 89-109; B. Reardon, Courants littéraires grecs de I et III siecle apres J.C. (1971); and G. Kennedy, ‘The Sophists as Declaimers,”’ in Approaches to the Second Sophistic, ed. G. Bowersock (1979) 17-22.

40 See Magie, RRAM 637-38, and MacMullen, PRE 60-61. 41 See Bowie, P € P 46 (1970): 19-24, for evidence and discussion.

NOTES TO PAGES 76-77 185 42 See Stadter, Arrian 152-58, and contra Bowie, P @ P 46 (1970): 37-41.

43 See MacMullen, ERO 187-91, and Bowie, P @ P 46 (1970): 32-41, but the cultural snobbery expressed in literary sources is a deceptive guide. Contrast the study of Robert,

| the literati.

Les Gladiateurs 248 — 56, for the popularity of gladiatorial games, despite the objections of

44 See Ael. Aris. Or. 1.227-44 for Athens as cultural capital of Hellenic world. Cf. Thuc. 2.41.1 and Isoc. 4.50. See Oliver, Marcus Aurelius 92 - 134, for Roman views of Athens as cultural center, and cf. the persistence of this belief among pagans as late as Julian; see Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism 8A.

45 See Oliver, Marcus Aurelius 130-34, for Panhellenion. 46 See MacMullen, PRE 58-59. For dedications to demos and gerousia, see Robert, A travers 130. Cf. priesthoods of personified civic institutions in MAMA IV.38 and VI.259 and 380 —380a.

47 See Mattingly, RC? 197-98 and Forni 60-63.

48 See Kraft 26-27. 49 See MacDonald, Coin Types 155-56; contra Bellinger, ERCHM 147-48, who suggests that

| obverse portraits of tychai, civic personifications, and gods designated the constitutional status of the coins. See, however, MacDonald, Aphrodisias 33-35. These portraits were often matched with specific denominations. 50 BMCTroas 27, no. 145 = Price and Trell 218, fig. 474, and Bellinger, ANSMusN 8 (1958): 45 and pl. xi.54 = Paris (Trebonianus Gallus). 51 BMCLycia 250, nos. 53-54 (Claudius II). Cf. coins of Tius, Bithynia, depicting Boule and Demos shaking hands (SNGvAulock 7183 = Kraft, pl. 101.18, Julia Maesa).

300, no. 4). |

52 SNGCop 925-27 (Gordian III), 935 (Valerian), and 939 (Salonina). Cf. demos officiating , on coins of Lysias, Phrygia (KI.M. 1276, no. 2, Lucilla). See coins of Tiberiopolis depicting Gerousia and Boule shaking hands (BMCPhrygia 421, no. 2; Weber III.7200; and K/.M. I

| 53 BMCArabia 25, nos. 44-45; Morey, Dusares, no. 50; Rosenberger IV 15, no. 54; Winterthur (Trajan Decius); de Saulcy 371, no. 4; and Rosenberger IV 16, no. 58 (Herennius Etruscus and Hostilian). 54 See von Aulock Index 161-63 for the extent of homonoia coinages, with my thanks to P. R. Franke for his assistance. For examples of homonoia coinages, see von Fritze, Pergamon

99-104; L. Weber, ‘Die Homonoiemunzen des phrygischen Hierapolis,’” JIAN 14 (1912): 65-122; H. von Aulock, ‘‘Kleinasiatische Mtinzstatten: V. Die Homonoia-Munzen von Mytilene,’’ JNG 19 (1969): 83 —89; and Callu, La Politique monétaire 29 — 33. For

, the importance of homonoia among cities, see Dio Chrys. Or. 33 —34 (Tarsus) and 43 —45 (Bithynian cities), and comments in Jones, Roman World 76 — 78, 83 —94. Cf. Ael. Aris. Or.

1. 4 for notions of the political independence of polis and its solidarity with fellow poleis.

60 NOTES TO PAGE 78 See Price, Rituals 126-27, for the connection of some homonoia coinages with the establishment of imperial festivals. 55 Cf. Menander Rhetor 355.2—12. See Woodward, SPDMR II 869 - 83, for cities claiming Dorian or Spartan ancestry. For Synnada claiming both Dorian and Jonian ancestry, see BMCPhrygia 397, nos. 29 — 30. The following cities claimed Macedonian origins: Aegeae (BMCLycaonia, nos. 25-37), Blaundus (BMCLydia, nos. 48, 55-62, and 69-73), and Peltae (BMCPhrygia, nos. 12-33).

56 See MacMullen, RGRC 40-42. For Mostene’s claim of Lydian origins, see BMCLydia 162-63, nos. 9-13. Cf. Apollonia, Pisidia, which claimed Lycian and Thracian origins. See BMCLycia 201-6, nos. 1-8; W. M. Calder, ‘‘A Hellenistic Survival at Eucarpia,’”AS6 (1965): 49-51; and Robert, ‘“Bull. épigr.’’ (1958), no. 467.

57 See Magie, RRAM 637-38. Coins of Aphrodisias celebrate the festival Attaleia in the reign of Gordian III; see BMCCaria 37 - 38, nos. 75-76 and 78; ibid. 47, no. 128; KIM. I 118, no. 25; Weber III. 6398-99; SNGCop 104 and 114; MacDonald, Aphrodisias 5, nos. 159-60; and SNGvAulock 2463 (= Kraft, pl. 53.34). Cf. Reynolds 131, doc. 20 and CIG 2801. For Gerasa honoring Perdiccas as her founder, see Gerasa 423, no. 137.

58 See Kraft, pl. 47.70 = Paris (Valerian) for a militant Ares on coins of Cyme. Cf. the militant Pisidian Ares on coins of Amblada (von Aulock, MSP I 60-61, nos. 133 and 137-42), Prostanna (MSP II 151-52, nos. 1826 and 1841-45), and Sagalassus (KIM. II 393,no. 1, Julia Maesa; no. 18, Philip II; and SNGvAulock 5202, Claudius II). On many Samian coins between the reigns of Severus Alexander and Gallienus, a heroic warrior brandishing a spear mounts a prow. See F. Imhoof-Blumer, ‘‘Beitrage zur Erklarung

griechischer Munztypen: I. Seefahrende Heroen,’’ Nomisma 5 (1910): 32, no. 28; BMClonia 380-95, nos. 278, 301-2, 313-15, 325, 348, 363, and 384; Hunter II 408-16, nos. 24, 32, 55, 62-63, 71, and 80; Weber III.6349; SNGCop 1757, 1764, 1771, 1782, 1794, 1804, and 1816; and SNGvAulock 2311, 2318, 2323, and 2326.

59 See Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 98-120. Cf. local gods replacing the Roman emperor in triumphal scenes. Astarte on coins of Tyre crowns a trophy; see Hunter III 270, no. 55; BMCPhoenicia 270, nos. 372-74; and AUB, nos. 206-8 (Caracalla). For Athena in a similar scene on coins of Termessus, Pisidia, see SNGvAulock 5364-65 (Maximinus). For Ares in similar scene, see coins of Lystra (SNGvAulock 5402, Maximinus) and Syedra (SNGvAulock 5906, Salonina).

60 See Dio Chrys. Or. 1.59-60, and cf. Menander Rhetor 358.26-359.15. For identification of Heracles/Hercules with the unconquerable emperor, see S. Weinstock, ‘‘Victor and Invictus,” HTR 50 (1957): 211-47. 61 See Pan. Vet. 10.4.2—-4 and 11.6, and 11.3.6. For Hercules on the mosaics of Piazza Armerina, see Kahler, Piazza Armerina, pl. 51. 62 Forcombat with Nemean lion, see coins of Alinda, Caria (BMCCaria 12, no. 6; SNGvAulock

2407-8; Munich; Waddington 2134 = Paris 88; Paris 88A and 947; Vienna 33,698, Septimius Severus), Attaleia, Mysia (Kraft, pl. 44.49 = Berlin), and Tralles, Lydia (Kraft, pl. 15.49b = Winterthur, Severus Alexander). For slaying the Hydra, see coins of Gangra-Germanicopolis, Paphlagonia (RGA I?. 1, 186, no. 55, Caracalla).

NOTES TO PAGES 78-79 187 For capture of Arcadian stag, see coins of Alinda, Caria (BMCCaria 12, no. 18; SNGvAulock 2415; KLM.1 107, no. 6; Vienna 18,236; Munich 4a; and Rome 80338, Caracalla and Plautilla).

63 SNGvAulock 2409 and 8053, and Vienna 33,959 (Septimius Severus). Cf. depiction on coins of Temenothyrae, Phrygia under Valerian; see BMCPhrygia 415, no. 33, pl. xviii. 5, and Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 161, fig. 95.

64 SNGvAulock 8242 = Kraft, pl. 21.100 (Philip I). 65 SNGvAulock 7226 = Kraft, pl. 66.29a (Septimius Severus). 66 For Perseus on coins of Tarsus, see BMCLycaonia 214, no. 264; NC 5, no. 5 (1925): 327, nos. 109-10; and Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 150, fig. 80 (Gordian III). See also L. Robert, ‘‘Deux inscriptions de Tarse et d’Argos,’” BCH 101 (1977): 88-132, for cult of Perseus at Tarsus. For Perseus carrying the head of the Medusa, cf. coins of Sebaste, Phrygia (BMCPhrygia 375, no. 34 = Kraft, pl. 81.40g, Caracalla) and of Daldis, Lydia (Kraft, pl. 45.57 = Berlin). For Athena slaying serpentine monster on coins of Cilician Seleucia, see SNGvAulock 5842 (Gordian III); BMCLycaonia 141, no. 54, and SNGvAulock 5851 (Volusian); SNGvAu-

lock 5854 and BMCLycaonia 141-42, nos. 57-58 (Gallienus). Ancaeus appears on Samian coins between the reigns of Macrinus and Gallienus. See BMClonia 378-95, nos. 271, 277, 285, 299 — 300, 324, 362, and 383; Waddington 2085; Hunter II 407 — 13, nos. 16, 18-19, 23, 31, 36, and 61; SNGCop 1754, 1757, 1764, 1794; and Weber III.6336.

67 Forcoins showing Hector burning the ships, see BMCTroas 70, nos. 91-92; Waddington 1174; and SNGCop 436. For Hector advancing, see BMCTroas 69, no. 83, and Waddington

1177 (Geta). For Hector slaying Patrocles, see BMCTroas 68, no. 75; for Hector holding

Palladion, ibid. 69-70, nos. 88-89. 68 Muller, FGrHII.1, 472-73, frag. 28, and see F. Millar, ‘’P. Herennius Dexippus,’’ JRS 59 (1969): 26-30. Cf. sacrifice offered during the annual celebrations of the anniversary of the Battle of Plataea (479 B.c.) for victory over the Parthians in 163-64; see IG II?. 2086 = III. 1128, 11. 37-38, and J. H. Oliver, ‘‘Roman Emperors and the Athenian Ephebes,”’ Historia 26 (1977): 93-94. 69 See L’Orange, Symb. Oslo. 14 (1935): 86-114; Kantorowicz, DOP 17 (1963); and Turcan, ANRW IJ.16.2, 1025-28. 70. For aurei of Antioch with Sol as RESTITVTOR ORIENTIS, see RIC V.1, 307, nos. 374-75. For antoniniani of Cyzicus with Sol as RESTITVTOR ORBIS, see ibid. 306, no. 367.

71 Vermeule, Berytus 13 (1959): 23-25. 72 See MacMullen, PRE 81-82, and E. H. Kantorowicz, ‘‘The Gods in Uniform,”’ PAPhS 105

(1961): 368-95. 73 See H. Seyrig, ‘“Antiquités syriennes 89,” Syria 47 (1970): 94-100, and Robert, “Bull. épigr.”’ (1971), no. 679.

188 NOTES TO PAGES 79-80 74 Forreliefs of Jupiter Dolichenus, see Merlan, Répertoire des Inscriptions 8-9. For Palmyrene reliefs, see H. Seyrig, Syria 47 (1970): 107-8 and fig. 29, and ‘’Antiquites syriennes 94,’’ Syria 48 (1971): 89-95 and figs. 1-2. For fresco of Bel at Dura-Europos, see F. Cumont, Fouilles de Doura-Europos (1922-23), Bibliotheque archéologique et historique, no. 19 (1926), pl. lv.

75 See Kantorowicz, PAPhS 105 (1961): 368-76. 76 See Seyrig, Syria 48 (1971): 95-96, and Vermeule, Berytus 13 (1959): 23-25.

77 For Amazon of Smyrna, see Kraft, pl. 4.le = Vienna (Julia Domna). For the three standing heroes of Metropolis, see SNGvAulock 2067, SNGFitz 4526, and SNGCop 910 (Septimius Severus), and BMClonia 176-77, nos. 9-10 (Severus Alexander). The central figure probably is Ares, who also appears alone on coins. See Robert, Hellenica 7 (1950): 67-73, and “Bull. épigr.’’ (1950) no. 172, and cf. BMClonia 176, no. 6 (Julia Domna); Weber III.6019 and BMClonia 176, no. 7 (Caracalla); Kraft, pl. 17.66b = Boston (Gordian III); BMClonia 179, no. 22 and Weber JII.6025 (Philip I); Kraft, pl. 27.157b (Valerian); and BMClonia 182, no. 39 (Saloninus).

78 See Imhoof-Blumer, Nomisma 5 (1910): 29-34, nos. 15-17, 28, and 30-31. For Mygdon, see coins of Stectorium in BMCPhrygia 385, no. 11 (Severus Alexander); ibid. 386, no. 18 (Philip I and II); and SNGCop 692 (Philip I). For Otreus, see coins of Otrus in von Aulock, MSPh I 146, no. 791 (Caracalla), and 148-49, nos. 826-47 (Geta). For Hector,

see coins of Ilium in BMCTroas 66, no. 64 (Commodus). For Meiletus, see coins of Miletopolis, Ionia in Waddington 7129 (Septimius Severus) and SNGvAulock 7420 (Caracalla).

79 See von Aulock, MSP 1 87-99, nos. 733-42, 745, 762-69, 774, 792, 795, 804-5, 815-16, 853-54, 859, 868, 907-10, and 927-34. Cf. also the Lycian equestrian god; see coins of Corydalla (von Aulock, MGTL, nos. 73-76 and 83), Cyaneae (ibid. nos. 84-90 and 97-100), and Tlos (ibid. nos. 310-15).

80 Kraft, pl. 20.91 = Winterthur (Tranquillina). 81 Schultz, Magnesia 71-72, nos. 165-66; 85, no. 240; and 99, no. 338. 82 See Oliver, Marcus Aurelius 132-33. 83 See R. Turcan, Les Sarcophages romains a représentations dionysiques (1966) 374-75 and 460-67, and Metz, Abh. der Akad. der Wiss. und Lit., Mainz 10 (1952): 719-63.

84 For Nicene coins, see RGA I.3, 409, no. 80 (Antoninus Pius); ibid. 432, no. 269 (Commodus); ibid. 486, no. 696, and SNGvAulock 656 (Gordian III); and RGA 1.3, 506, nos. 836 —37 (Gallienus). For coins of Ancyra, see BMCGalatia 12, no. 18 (Caracalla). See also

coins of Methymna, Lesbos, in BMCTroas 182, no. 42 = Kraft, pl. 66.22 (Caracalla), where Dionysus drives a panther biga. 85 See Merten, Zwei Herrscherfeste 27-28. 86 See BMCLydia 355, no. 170, pl. xxxvi. 8; Hunter II 473, no. 10, pl. lvi (= Kraft, pl. 19.78); and SNGvAulock 3294 (= Kraft, pl. 19.79). See also Seyrig, Syria 18 (1937): 45.

NOTES TO PAGES 80-81 189 87 SNGvAulock 4903 = Kraft, pl. 70.59d. 88 See especially Hector in quadriga on coins of Ilium (Bellinger, Troy, no. T216; Kraft, pl. 57.34 = Munich; and Paris 765, Septimius Severus). 89 SNGvAulock 3770 = Kraft, pl. 77.3 (Septimius Severus). 90 For equestrian Men imitating an imperial adventus, see coins of Apamea (Lane, CMRDM II 54,no. 1, Volusian) and Eriza (ibid. 57, no. 1, Caracalla). See equestrian Men greeted by Hermes on coins of Blaundus (SNGvAulock 8222 = Kraft, pl. 53.38, Trebonianus Gallus) and Mostene (Kraft 8.53b, Gallienus). 91 Ael. Aris. Or. 26.75. See Oliver, TAPHS, n.s., 43 (1953): 935, and Norr, Imperium und Polis

96-97.

92 See BMCLycaonia 138, no. 46 and SNGFitz 5277. Cf. Macrinus on BMCLycaonia 135, no. 31.

93 See E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae 264-70 B.c. (Oxford, 1958) 52-115. 94 See Millar, ERW 410-20. The titles are not efforts by Greek cities to claim equality with Romans; contra C. E. Bosch, ‘’Kleinasiatischen Miinzen,”’ AA 1 —2 (1931), cols. 446-47. Nor are they frivolously disputed titles of rank; contra Jones, GC 324. See also Norr, Imperium und Polis 60-62, and cf. Plin. Nat. Hist. 6.7 and Dio 54.9.1. 95 IGRom III. 566 = LBW 874 = OGI 511. Cf. titles of Amorium, Phrygia (JGRom IV. 619 = Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics 612, no. 518); Nicaea (Hellenica | [1940]: 58 = Rev. arch. 1 [1949]: 295, no. 321), Nicomedia (IGRom III.6 = CIG 3771), and Sardes (IGRom IV.1528 = Hellenica 1 [1940]: 56). 96 See Reynolds 141, doc. 25. Cf. S.C. de Aphrodisiensibus = Reynolds 73, doc. 8, 11.21-23, and Tac. Ann. 3.62 (A.D. 22). See discussion in P. Willems, Le Sénat de la Republique romaine

(1978) 215-16, and Reynolds 169-70, doc. 43. 97 For prototypes, see coins of Commagene province in 72 (BMCGalatia 112, nos. 1-3, and SNGCop 11). Bronze coins of Carrhae (161-66) called the city philoromaios. See BMCArabia 82, no. 1, and Hill, JRS 6 (1916): 150-52. Cf. also Mannus VIII of Edessa, who is styled philoromaios; see BMCArabia 92 —93, nos. 6-9; SNGFitz 190; and Babelon, Mélanges

numismatique II 232-29. For philoromaios in inscriptions, see BCH 5 (1881): 473; SIG°. 804; and cf. ILS 8499. See also Magie, RRAM 637.

98 See Jones, CERP? 279-80, and contra Meshorer, Greek Numismatics 166-69, who suggests the inscription alludes to friendship between Caracalla and R. Judah I. Instead, the titles were granted for the city’s consistent loyalty to Rome; see Jos. Bell. Jud. 3. 45, for voluntary surrender in First Revolt, and see S. Applebaum, Prolegomena to the Study of the Second Jewish Revolt (A.D. 132-135), BAR supp. series vol. 7 (1976) 22, for loyalty in Second Revolt.

99 See Meshorer, Greek Numismatics 167, no. 1-3.

100 See BMCPalestine 4, no. 28; Paris 13; and Meshorer, Greek Numismatics 167, no. 4 (= Rosenberger III 62, no. 10). See IGRom 1.387 = IG XIV.926, for Gaza’s use of piste during the expedition of Gordian III.

190 NOTES TO PAGES 82-84 101 See JGRom III.348-—53 and SEG 2.735.

102 + For coins of Philip II, see Winterthur 4463 and RSN 30 (1943): 75, no. 84. For Trajan Decius, see Paris 663 ( = Mionnet VII 72, no. 1716) and BM 9-9-194 (Hecht). For Valerian, see Mabbott 2076; BM 9-9-195 (Hecht); Paris 641; Waddington 3875; and Munich. For Valerian and Gallienus, see BM 10- 19-1 (Buckler 1924). For Salonina, see Paris 650 and 653. For Claudius II, see BMCLycia 251, no. 59; SNGvAulock 5208-9; SNGFitz 5177; Munich; Paris 671; Berlin; Winterthur 4463; Vienna 30-32; and Markl, NZ 32 (1900): 169, nos. 40-42. 103 For coins of Side (with portrait of Salonina), see SNGvAulock 4853; ZN 5 (1878): 7; S. Alten, 1947-1967 Yillari (Side), Turk Tarin Kurum Yayinlarindan 5, no. 34 (1976): 50, no. 140; and BM 9-9-196 (Hecht). For Sillyum, see BMCLycia 50, no. 140 (Gallienus), and ibid. 169, no. 24, and ANS (Salonina). For coins of Elaeusa-Sebaste, Cilicia, with D(iAnc) C(vuuayov) P(wuatwv), see BMCLycaonia 236, no. 15 (Gordian III); ANS = ANSMusN 5 (1950): 81, no. 3; Mionnet, Supp. VII 296, no. 92 (Valerian); and Cox, Tarsus Coin Coll. 23, no. 92.

104 See BMCLycia 109, no. 104; Weber III.7327; BM 5-2-1 (von Aulock); Hesperia Art Bulletin 25 (1963), no. 39 (Valerian I). 105 For Amorium, see BMCPhrygia 49 —50, nos. 16—21; SNGCop 118-19; SNGvAulock 3395 — 96; ANS; MG 392, no. 55; and KI. M. I 202, no. 24. See IGRom IV.619 and T. Drew-Bear,

“The City of Temenothyrai in Phrygia,’ Chiron 9 (1979): 294-95, for connection of these coins with Amorium’s title symmachos. For Laodicea, see BMCPhrygia 298, nos. 121-23; SNGCop 544; and ANS. For Synnada, see BMCPhrygia 398, no. 31 and SNGvAulock 3980.

106 Forbrigandage, see MacMullen, ERO 192-99. For honors voted to citizens commanding detachments of ‘‘allies’’ sent to Marcus Aurelius, see dedications at Aezanis (OGI 511 = CIG II add., p. 1060 = LBW III.922) and at Termessus (TAM III.1. 106 = IGRom II.449). 107. JIGRom III.481 = ILS 8870 (A.D. 253). See comments of Rostovizeff, SEHRE 477, but see also MacMullen, SCLRE 111-12, who argues that he may have been commander of a regular detachment of Romans on special assignment. MacMullen translates kratistos as vir egregius. For similar disorders put down by a dux ca. 275-300, see M. Christol, ‘‘Un Duc dans une inscription de Termessos (Pisidie): Un Témoignage sur les troubles intér-

ieurs en Asie mineure romaine au temps de la crise de l’empire,”’ Chiron 8 (1978): 529-40, and note comments in Robert, ‘‘Bull. épigr.”” (1979), no. 578.

8 Civic Coins and the Hellenic Notables’ Response to Crisis 1 See Millar, JRS 59 (1969): 27-29, and contra Norr, Imperium und Polis 79 and 122. 2 See P. Brown, ‘‘Approaches to the Religious Crisis of the Third Century,” EHR 83 (1968): 544, and contra Dodds, Pagan and Christian, especially 3-4, 36, 63-66, and 100.

3 Brown, EHR 83 (1968): 542-45.

NOTES TO PAGES 84-85 19] 4 See MacMullen, ERO 183-85, concerning the complexity of social bonds and class in the Roman world. Contrast J. H. Hexter, ‘Storm over the Gentry,” in Reappraisals in History (London, 1961) 117-49. 5 See E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. 20. See survey of opinions in M. Mazza, Lotte sociali e restaurazione autoritaria nel III secolo D.C., 2nd ed. (1973)

31-49. See notably Rostovtzeff, SEHRE 433-87; Jones, LRE 737-63; F. Lot, La Fin du monde antique et le début du moyen age, rev. ed. (1951) 123-36 and 181-95; and R. MacMul-

len, RGRC 164-70.

6 See Jones, LRE 732-34, and cf. Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 7-10 and 328-35, for the reduction in public spending by local patrons. , 7 SeeG. Webster, The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D. (1969) 52-54, and MacMullen, SCLRE 77-84, for quartering of forces in eastern cities. For the difficulties encountered in supplying eastern expeditions, see Adams, ‘’Logistics,’’ 22-23 and

228, and cf. the disaster that occurred when vulnerable supply lines broke down in 243-44; see S.H.A., Vita Gord. 29.2—4; Zos. 1.18.3; and Zon. 12.18. See D. van Berchem, ‘‘L’Annone militaire dans l’empire romain au III* siécle,’’ Mémoires de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France 8, no. 10 (1937): 136-60, for the development of the military grain tax by Caracalla. Note also the assessments at Pessinus in Galatia, and the Egyptian town of Philadelphia (216-17); see J. Devreker, ‘Une Inscription inédite de Caracalla a Pessinote,”’ Latomus 20 (1971): 352-62 (= Robert, ‘Bull. épigr.”’ [1977], no. 486) and P. Yale Inv. 296 (my thanks to N. Lewis for assistance on the latter). For earlier impositions of extraordinary grain taxes in the second century, see C. Préaux, “‘Ostraca de

| Psélkis,”” CE 26 (1951): 126-31; A. Nicoletti, “I prefetti del pretorio e la riscossione dell’annona militaire,”” Labeo 15 (1969): 177-87; and Mazza, Lotte sociali 356-64. Note cautions in MacMullen, RGRC 130-31, that these methods were not regularized until the

third century. For the requisition of transport, see Wallace, Taxation in Egypt 23-25; W. H. C. Frend, “A Third Century Inscription Relating to Angareia in Phrygia,”’ JRS 46 (1956): 46-56; S. M. Mitchell, ‘‘Requisitioned Transport in the Roman Empire: A New Inscription from Phrygia,” JRS 66 (1976): 106-31; and Robert, ‘Bull. épigr.” (1958), no. 469, and ibid. (1977), no. 486. See MacMullen, RGRC 105 —6, for the growing importance of transport in the wars of the third and fourth centuries. For additional levies, cf. R. MacMullen, ‘The Anabolicae Species,’’ Aegyptus 38 (1958): 184-98, and Wallace, Taxation in

Egypt 214-19. For unfair exactions by soldiers, see MacMullen, SCLRE 85-89. Cf. especially the petition of Scaptopara to Gordian III in IGRom 1.674 = CIL I1.12,336, col. 12 = SIG? 888 =

, Abbott and Johnson, no. 142. See similar complaints by Anatolian villagers in ibid., nos. 143-44. For euphemisms used in the collection of taxes, see R. MacMullen, ‘‘Roman Bureaucratese,” Traditio 18 (1962): 365-78. See especially Dio 78.18.3 for ‘‘gifts’’ collected by Caracalla, and cf. P. Oxy. 1412.11.16—17 (284). For phrases praising the maintenance of “our glorious armies in Syria,’’ see Yale P. Inv. 296 (216-17), POxy. 3109 (253 —56); BGU 1.266 = Daris, Documenti, no. 57 (215-16); and S. Avogadro, ‘‘Le anoypagat di proprieta nell’Egitto Greco-Romano,”’ Aegyptus 15 (1935): 185-86.

8 See Dig. 50.1.15.2 (Papinian), 50.2.1 (Ulpian), and 50.5. 7 (Papinian). 9 See CJ 10.67(65).1 and 7.71.1.5. Cf. cases recorded in Egypt in Chr. 1.402 (II.375); POxy. 1405 and 1645; and PLond. 2665.11.95-—97 = JEA 25 (1935), 233.

192 NOTES TO PAGES 85-87 10 PRyl. 77 and see Jones, GC 186-89. Cf. also compulsion used at Oxyrrhynchus in POxy. 1642 and the petition of complaint from Antinodpolis to epistrategos in BGU 1022 ( = Select Papyri Il 278-81, no. 288 [196]). For the legal means used to force service, see Dig. 50.2.1 (Ulpian) and CJ 10.32.1 (Septimius Severus); 10.44.1 (Severus Alexander); 7.64.3 (Gor-

dian III); 7.66.4 (Gordian IJ); 4.13.3 (Philip); and 10.32.3 (Diocletian). 11 OGI519 = 1GRom IV.598 = CIL suppl. 14191 = Abbott and Johnson, no. 141. Cf. similar complaints by Lydian villagers to Septimius Severus in ibid., no. 142.

12 PlLond. 2565, col. iii = JEA 25 (1935), 231. Cf. Callistratus’s recommendation to draft shopkeepers into town councils in Dig. 50.2.12.

13 See Plut. Praec. ger. reipub. 10.805a—805b and 19.814f-615a. See Menander Rhetor 360.10—15 (ed. Russell and Wilson), and, for Libanius’s opinion, see Petit, Libanius 284 — 94.

14 See S.H.A., Vita Car. 5.3.

15 Dio 72.36.4, LCL trans. 16 SeeS. Mazzarino, End of the Ancient World, trans. G. Holmes (1966) 21-40, andG. Alféldy, “The Crisis of the Third Century as Seen by Contemporaries,’’ GRBS 15 (1974): 98-102. See Alfoldi, CAH XII, 223-31, for blackened image of Gallienus. 17. See Dodds, Pagan and Christian 12-15. See also G. Bardy, Hippolyte, Commentaire sur Daniel (Paris, 1947) 10-11. Cf. especially complaints in Cypr. Ad Demetr. 3.5.7 and 10-11, and De mort. 2; and Tert. De anima 30.3 —4 and Apol. 32.1 and 39.2. See also Orig. In Math. comm. 36 = Migne, PG 13. 1649.

18 See Alfoldy, GRBS 15 (1974): 106-9.

19 Thuc., 1.21.1. 20 See critical remarks in MacMullen, RGRC 2-11. See, however, views of S$. MacCormack, ‘Latin Prose Panegyrics: Tradition and Discontinuity in the Later Roman Empire,”’ Revue des études augustiniennes 22 (1976): 29-77, and Art and Ceremony 1-14.

21 See Munsterberg, NZ 58 (1915): 119-24, and cf. Bowersock, Greek Sophists 30-42.

22 See Ael. Aris. Or. 35.21 (Keil II, p. 258). See Boulanger, Aristide 39-82; S. Mazzarino, Trattato di storia romana II (1956) 406; J. Moreau, Scripta minora (1964) 35-40; L. J. Swift, “The Anonymous Encomium of Philip the Arab,”’ GRBS 7 (1966): 267-89, for dating it to

Philip’s reign; and J. H. Oliver, ‘The Piety of Commodus and Caracalla and the EIZ BASIAEA,” GRBS 19 (1978): 386-88. See the summary of opinions in Aelius Aristides, The Complete Works, vol. II, Orations XVII-LIII, ed. and trans. C. A. Behr (Leiden, 1981) 399-400. For the view that the oration was a genuine work of Aelius Aristides composed in 140s, see C. P. Jones, ‘“Aelius Aristides, EZ BASIAEA,” JRS 62 (1972): 134-52, and “The EIX BAXIAEA Again,” CQ, n.s., 31 (1981): 224-25. See criticisms of Jones’s opinion in S. A. Stertz, ‘‘Pseudo-Aristides EZ BAZIAEA,” CQ, n.s., 29 (1979): 172-97, who considers it a rhetorical piece without a specific historical occasion.

NOTES TO PAGES 87-89 193 23 SB 7696 (250). 24 See Reynolds 129-43, docs. 19-25, and Laumonier, Les Cultes indigenes 286-92 and 365-404. 25 Contra arguments in Jones, GC 183. See CJ 9.45.2, for the law of Gordian III, and cf. POxy. 3101-2 (225-26) and CJ 10.2 (285). For the desirability of the decurionate, see Garnsey, Social Status 242-45, and A. F. Norman, “‘Gradations in Later Municipal Society,’”’ JRS 48

(1958): 80-82. 26 Dio Chrys. Or. 46.3-6, and cf. Plut. Praec. ger. reipub. 31.822e-—823c. See Jones, Roman World 23-24. 27 =Pilin. Ep. 10.24, 25, and 37-40. Hence arose the need to send imperial auditors (Jogistai or curatores rei publicae) to review the finances of cities; see Magie, RRAM 633-35 and Reynolds 109. Contra Jones, GC 136-38, the office quickly became a municipal one; see Lucas, JRS 30 (1940): 70 and Burton, Chiron 9 (1979): 485 —87.

28 See P.D.A. Garnsey, ‘“Honorarium Decurionates,”’ Historia 20 (1971): 309-25, and C. P. Jones, ‘‘A New Commentary on the Letters of Pliny,’’ Phoenix 22 (1968): 138-39. For complaints of unfair fees, see Dio Chrys. Or. 40.14 and 48.11 and Plin. Ep. 10.79 -80 and 112-13, and cf. SEG 11.479. See letter of Antoninus Pius concerning entrance fees in D. Detschew, ‘‘Ein neuen Brief des Kaisers Antoninus Pius,”’ Jahrehefte 41 (1954): 110-18, and Robert, “’Bull. épigr.’’ (1956), no. 159.

29 See CIL II. 1964 = Dessau, ILS 6089 = Abbott and Johnson, no. 65, chaps. 51-65. 30 See Lewis, Life in Egypt 181-82, and ‘‘Leitourgia Papyri: Documents on Compulsory Public Service in Egypt under Roman Rule,’’ TAPHS, n.s., 53 (1963): 1-39.

31 Dessau, ILS 6090 = CIL III suppl. 6866 = Abbott and Johnson, no. 515.

32 See Jones, LRE 712-19. 33 See Brown, EHR 83 (1968): 553-54, and Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism 110-15. 34 POxy. 41.1.4 = Select Papyri J 145-48, no. 239. 35 See D. Claude, Die byzantinische Stadt im 6 Jahrhundert, Byzantinisches Archiv 13 (1969) 15-40 and 95-106, and P. Brown, “’‘A Dark Age Crisis,’” EHR 88 (1973): 1-44 ( = Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity [1982] 251-301). See, however, reservations concerning the “Indian Summer” of the Byzantine city in E. Patlagean, Pauvrété économique et pauvreété sociale a Byzance: 4°- 7 siecle (1977) 17-35 and 181-96. 36 Brown, Society and the Holy 275-77, and see Miracula S. Demetri 1225B, 1232A, 1252C, 1268A, 1301A, 1324B, and 1341C. 37 ~For intercession of the Virgin, see Mai, Bibliotheca Nova Patrum V1.W, 426, and cf. account in F. Barisic, ‘‘Le Si¢ge de Constantinople par les Avares et les Slaves en 626,”’ Byzantion 24

194 NOTES TO PAGES 89-90 (1954): 371-95. See also Av. Cameron, ‘‘The Theotokos in the Sixth Century: Constanti-

nople Finds Its Symbol,” JTS, n.s., 29 (1978): 79-108. For the siege of Edessa, see Evagrius Hist. eccl. 4.27 (Mansi XJII.192A).

38 Hdt. 8.65.1-6. 39 See MacMullen, SCLRE 141-51; Magie, RRAM 1566 n. 28; and Millar, JRS 59 (1969): 25 and 29.

40 For the fortification of Thermopylae and the Isthmus of Corinth, see Zos. 1.29.3 and Zon. 12.23. For the reconstruction of the ‘‘Valerian Wall’’ at Athens, see Thompson, JRS 49 (1959): 63-64. For the walls of Ephesus, see J. Keil, ‘‘Vorlaufiger Bericht,’’ JOAI 30 (1937): 204-5, and Robert, Hellenica 4 (1948): 43-44. For the thanks of the citizenry of Nicaea for the repair of the city gate by Claudius II, see CIG 3747 —48 = IGRom IV.39-40 (269). Note also Nicene coins depicting fortifications; see RGA J.3, 510-11, nos. 867-68 and 872 —73 (Macrianus and Quietus). For hasty repairs of walls at Dorylaeum in Phrygia and Heraclea Salbace in Caria, see MAMA V xii-xiii. For possible repairs at Sardes, see IGRom IV.1510 = Sardis VII, no. 83, but note reservations of Robert, Hellenica 4 (1948): 35-47. See A. M. Mansel, Die Ruinen von Side (1963) 11, no. 40, for the poor state of Side’s walls, but the citizens were still able to repel a Gothic pirate raid; see Dexippus, FGrH IV.1,

474, frag. 29. 41 Forthree poems honoring Apollo of Didyma, see SEG 4.467 = Didyma II 137-39, no. 159, and 116, nos. 89-90 (263). For date of 268-69, see A. Rehm, ‘‘Kaiser Diokletian und das Heiligtum von Didyma,” Philologus 113 (1938): 74-84. See Milet II (1935) 81-84 and 126-27, for defense directed by the asiarches Macarianus. See Milet I.9 (1928) 164, no. 339, and 167, no. 340, for the repair of walls. For the oracle of Zeus Panamaros, see CIG II.2717 ( = Sahin, Stratonikeia, 11.1, 158, no. 1103) and Magie, RRAM 706.

42 See Dexippus, FGrH II.1, 472-73, frag. 28, and Millar, JRS 59 (1969): 27-29. 43 See Kantorowicz, PAPhS 105 (1961): 368-95 and MacMullen, PRE 88-89. 44 Zos. 1.23.2-—3; Zon. 12.21; and Aur. Vict. De Caess. 29.1 —5. See Alf6ldi, CAH XII, 138-46, and T. S. Burns, The Ostrogoths: Kingship and Society, Historia Einzelschriften 36 (1980)

13-18. . 45 Coin hoards concealed in the 250s and 260s reflect the disturbed conditions; see Jones, PAPhS 107 (1963): 314-15. The civil war of 253 opened the Balkans to major invasions; see Zos. 1.28. 1—3 and Zon. 12.23. Possibly an attack on Dyrrachium reported in Dexippus, FGrHII, 465, frag. 3, occurred in 253; see Alfoldi, CAH XII, 146. Note Alféldi, Berytus

4 (1937): 53-55, argues that the invasion recorded under Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian in Zos. 1.26.1. and 27.1 differs from that in Zos. 1.28.3. The evidence is so uncertain that Zosimus may have been dealing with either a single or two separate assaults in 253. For the vexed chronology of the civil war, see Price, NC 7, no. 13 (1973): 76-77. See Zos. 1.28.1 and Cred. I, p. 452, who report that in 253 the Goths crossed the Bosporus into Asia and raided as far as Ephesus, Pessinus, and Cappadocia. See Alféldi, CAH XII, 146, who accepts the accuracy of the report. The incident may well be a doublet of the 262 invasion recorded in Zos. 1.39.1 and S.H.A., Vita Gall. 5.6 -6.2. See arguments in B. Rappaport, Die Einfalle der Goten in das rémische Reich bis auf Konstantin (1899) 43-44 and 65; L. Schmidt, Geschichte der deutschen Stamme bis zum Ausgang der Volkerwanderung I,

NOTES TO PAGE 90 195 2nd ed. (1941) 215 n. 1; and M. Salmon, ‘’The Gothic Incursions into Asia Minor in IIIrd Century A.D.,”’ Eos 59 (1971): 115-18. See Magie, RRAM 1566 n. 28, for the less plausible suggestion that the raiders of Pessinus and Cappadocia may have operated out of the Caucasus in 253. 46 Forthe first attack (ca. 254), see Zos. 1.31 -—32, Alfoldi, CAH XII, 147-48, and Salmon, Eos

59 (1971): 118 n. 40. For a second Boranian attack on Pityus and Trapezus, see Zos. 1.33.1-3. See Alfoldi, Berytus 4 (1937): 56-57, and CAH XII, 148, and Magie, RRAM 705,

who date the second attack to 256, whereas Salmon, Fos 29 (1971): 118-19, dates it to 258. 47 For the siege of Marcianopolis (ca. 248), see Dexippus, FGrH II.1, 466-67, frag. 25. For the siege of Philippopolis (ca. 250-51), see Dexippus, FGrH II.1, 470-72, frag. 27, and Jord. Getica 102 —3; cf. B. Gerov, “Die gotische Invasion in Mosien und Thrakien unter Decius im Lichte der Horfunde,”’ Acta Antiqua Philippopolitana (Stud. hist. et phil. Serdicae), 4

(1963): 127-46. For the siege of Thessalonica in 253, see Zos. 1.29.2 and Zon. 12.23. For the siege in 267, see Zos. 1.39.1; Sync. I, p. 717; and S.H.A., Vita Gall. 5.6. For the 269 siege, see Zos. 1.43.1; Zon. 12.26; Euseb., FHG II 480, frag. 1; Dexippus, FGrH II.1, 474, frag. 29; S.H.A., Vita Claud. 9.8; and Amm. Mar. 31.5.16. For the sieges of Anchialus and Nicopolis (ca. 268-69), see S.H.A., Vita Claud. 12.4. For the siege of Tomi (ca. 269-69), see Zos. 1.42, and cf. I. Stoian, ‘“Le citte pontica di Tomis: Saggio storico,’’ Dacia 5 (1961): 233-74. Walls were repaired extensively by Moesian and Thracian cities on the Euxine coast; see S. Lambrino, ‘‘La Destruction d’Histra et sa reconstruction au III* siecle ap. J.-C.,’” REL 11 (1933): 457-63; I. B. Brasinskij, ‘“Recherches sovietiques sur les monuments antiques des régions de la Mer Noire,”’ Firene 7 (1968): 81-118; and A. Suceveanu, ‘Observations sur la stratigraphie des cités de la Dobrogea aux II*—IV* siécle a la lumiere des fouilles d’Histria,’’ Dacia, n.s., 13 (1969): 327-65. For the refortification of Byzantium (262), see S.H.A., Vita Gall. 13.6.

48 Zos. 1.34-35 and Zon. 12.24 record that Goths crossed the Danube, pushed south to Byzantium, and invaded Asia Minor. Chalcedon and Nicomedia were abandoned by their garrisons; Nicaea was burned; Cius, Apamea, and Prusias were pillaged; and Cyzicus was saved only because the waters of the Rhyndacus were swollen. See remarks in Salmon, Eos 59 (1971): 121-22. Zos. 1.36.1 —3 states that the Goths invaded Bithynia just before the capture of Valerian; Zon. 12.23 dates it to after the revolt of Ingenuus and before the revolt

of Postumus, which most likely should be dated to 260. Note the date of 258-59 for Gothic invasion in Salmon, Fos 59 (1971): 121, is premised upon a date of 259 for the capture of Valerian. For the less plausible date of 257, see Alf6ldi, Berytus 4 (1937): 56-58.

49 See Zos. 1.36.1 and 37.2. 50 See Zos. 1.39; Sync. I, p. 717; S.H.A., Vita Gall. 5.6 and 6.2; and Jord. Getica 20.107 - 108m. Note S.H.A., Vita Gall. 6.1, on the Gothic invasion of Achaea probably belongs to the 267

, invasion (cf. ibid. 13.10 and Zos. 1.40.1). See Salmon, Fos 59 (1971): 130-33, for a proposed itinerary of the invasion, but the scheme is simplified and probably there were several independent bands of Goths; see Magie, RRAM 705. Note that S.H.A., Vita Gall. 6.8 and 7.2 —3, states that Gallienus allowed Byzantium to be sacked because of his animosity

toward the city. This would make more sense if the city had recently supported the usurpers Macrianus and Quietus (260-61). A 262 sack is also suggested by the decennial celebrations that were probably held in the autumn of 262 after the sack; see S.H.A., Vita Gall. 7.4-9. 8, and Vogt I 208. An inscription of Daldis, dated 263, honors a slave who

9600 NOTES TO PAGE 90 after six months’ captivity escaped from the barbarians. See Salmon, Eos 29 (1971): 135, who argues that it refers to the Gothic invasion in 262. See, however, Robert, Hellenica 6 (1948): 117-19, for the text and criticisms of the use of this inscription to reconstruct any chronology. 51 S.H.A., Vita Gall. 13.6-—8, and Hier. Chron., p. 220 (Helm), who each date the invasion to 266; but perhaps 266/7 is more accurate because the event is associated with murder of Odenathus and 266/7 is year one for the reckoning on Vaballathus’s Alexandrine coins; see Vogt II 160, and Milne 104-5. See Alfoldi, Berytus 5 (1938): 76-78, and CAH XII, 721-23, for the suggestion that there were only two invasions in the 260s (in 266/7 and then in 267) and that references to an invasion in 262 belong to one of these two. This chronology seems unwarranted; see Magie, RRAM 1567 n. 28. 52 SeeS.H.A., Vita Gall. 13.9; Sync. I, p. 717; and cf. Zon. 12.24. Two years later Claudius II crushed the Goths at Naissus (269); see Zos. 1.43.2; S.H.A., Vita Claud. 11.5-9; Aur. Vict. De Caess. 34.5; Eutrop. 9.11; and cf. Dessau, ILS 571, and RIC V.1, 232-33, nos. 251-52. See also P. Damerau, Kaiser Claudius II Gothicus (268-270 n. Chr.), Klio Beiheft 33 (1934) 64—75, and J. Straub, Studien zur Historia Augusta (1962) 40-74. 53 SeeJ. Straub, Studien zur Historia Augusta (1962) 40-74, for naval war. Zon. 12.26 misread the names of Cleodamus and Athenaeus sent to relieve Byzantium in 262 (S.H.A., Vita Gall. 13.6) as Cleodamus the Athenian and incorrectly placed the event (and the 267 sack of Athens) in the reign of Claudius II. See A. Dethier and A. D. Mordtmann, Epigraphik von Byzantium und Constantinopolis (1864) 72-73, for possible naval fighting off Byzantium and Chrysopolis. For raids on the environs of Cyzicus, see S.H.A., Vita Gall. 13.8; Sync. I, p. 717; Zos. 1.43.1, and Amm. Mar. 31.5.15. For Gothic attacks in the Aegean and the Mediterranean, see S.H.A., Vita Claud. 12. 1; Dexippus, FGrH IV 196, frag. 29; and Amm. Mar. 31.5.15. See discussion in P. Lambrechts, ‘‘Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van het Romeinse Keizerrijk,’’ AC 6 (1937): 129-33, and Salmon, Eos 59 (1971): 137. For Tacitus’s Gothic War, see Zos. 1.63.1; Zon. 12.28; S.H.A., Vita Tac. 13.2 -—3; John of

Antioch, FHG IV 599, frag. 157; and possibly Malalas, p. 301 (if Persians are read as Goths). See RIC V.2, 21, no. 10; Dessau, ILS 597 = CIL II. 3738; and Dessau, ILS 594 = CIL XI.11786, for Probus as Gothicus Maximus, suggesting that he concluded Tacitus’s war. See also G. Vitucci, L’imperatore Probo (1952) 135-36.

54 For expulsion of Tiridates III, see Zon. 12.21 and Agathangelus, FHG V.2, 120-21, frags. 15-16. For the outbreak of the war, see RGdS 1.10 (“second campaign’’); Zos. 1.27.2; Zon. 12.23; Sync. I, p. 715; Eutrop. 9.7; and Malalas, p. 295 (Bonn). For the date as 253, see Rostovtzeff, Berytus 8 (1943): 44-45; T. Pekary, ‘‘-Bemerkungen zur Chronologie des Jahrzehnts 250-260 n. Chr.,” Historia 11 (1962): 123-24; and Metcalf, ANSMusN 22 (1977): 82-91. See L. de Blois, ‘“Odaenathus and the Roman-Persian War of 252-264 A.D.,” Talanta 6 (1975): 12-18, for the date as 252. 55 Forthechronology, see Appendix 2. For the ‘‘second campaign,”’ see RGdS 11.10—18. For the Greek text and commentary, see A. Maricq, “Res gestae divi Saporis,”’ Syria 35 (1958): 295-360, and E. Honigmann and A. Maricq, ‘Recherches sur les Res Gestae Divi Saporis,’’ Mémoires de l’'Academie royale de Belgique 8, 47 (1953): 1-204.

56 See Price, NC 6, no. 13 (1973): 76—77, for accession of Valerian and Gallienus. Valerian’s

, arrival in the East is suggested by aes minted by Anazarbus and Augusta in 253/4 and 254/5. Coins of Aegeae dated 253/4 show Valerian sacrificing before the Asclepieion —

NOTES TO PAGES 90-91 197 almost certainly acommemoration of a visit to the city in late 253 or early 254. See Weiss,

Chiron 12 (1982): 198-99. For Valerian at Antioch in January 255, see Robert, ‘Bull. épigr.’”’ (1958), no. 438; Jones, ZPE 14 (1974): 294; and AE (1957) no. 19. For repairs of the highway system (although difficult to date) in southern Asia Minor, see Magie, RRAM 712

and 1572 n. 32. Coins of Aegeae and Mospus dated 255/6 celebrate Valerian’s bridge over the Pyramus so that most of these repairs should probably be dated to the first campaign during 254-56. See Pekary, Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1965/65 139-41.

57 For the first eastern campaign (ca. 254-56), see the martial symbolism of Valerian’s eastern coinage in Carson, Berytus 17 (1967): 125-29, issues 1-5. Contra arguments in Bastien and Huvelin, RN 6, no. 11 (1969): 231-40, and Baldus, Uranius Antoninus 262, the issues celebrating Victoria Parthica probably refer to some successes against the Persians rather than the recovery of Antioch from a second Persian occupation in 256. For Valerjan’s return to Rome by October 10, 256, see CJ 6.42.15, and cf. Pekary, Historia 11 (1962): 125, and Callu, La Politique monétaire 211; and contra arguments of Baldus, Uranius Antoninus 261 —62, who rejects this evidence. It is uncertain precisely when Valerian returned to the East to wage his second campaign, but he was in Antioch by May 15, 258. See CJ 5.3.5 (= 9.9.18) and the comments in Callu, La Politique monétaire 211, and Millar, ERW

570 n. 24. Cf. accounts in Zos. 1.36.1 and Zon. 12.23, and the confused account in Malalas, pp. 296-97. See de Blois, Talanta 6 (1975): 14-17, for Valerian’s strategy. 58 For the date of the capture of Valerian, see Appendix 2. See RGdS 1.24; Zos. 1.36.2 — 3; Zon. 12.23; Sync. I, p. 716. For the submission of Valerian in Sassanian reliefs, see MacDer-

mont, JRS 44 (1954): 78-80, and cf. Gagé, Syria 42 (1965): 434-88. The Latin epitomators report only general destruction. See Aur. Vict. De Caess. 32.5; Eutrop. 9.7; Fest. Brev. 23; Oros. Hist. ad. Pag. 7.22.4 and Hier. Chron., p. 220 (Helm). Shapur (RGdS 11.27 -33) only lists cities in eastern Anatolia for his ‘‘third campaign.” See Rostovizeff, Berytus 8 (1943): 28-29, who notes that the Antioch and Seleucia in 1.31 are Antiochia ad Pisidiam and Seleucia ad Calycadnum in Asia Minor. See also Zos. 1.36.2-—3, who fails to mention a sack of Antioch after the capture of 260. The location of Valerian’s defeat at Samosata makes it likely that in 260 Shapur concentrated on ravaging eastern Anatolia rather than Syria. See, however, Zon. 12.23 and cf. Sync. I, pp. 715-16, for a sack of Antioch after Valerian’s capture; and cf. Pet. Patr., FHGIV 192, frag. 2, and Amm. Mar. 23.5.3. See the unlikely suggestion that during his ‘‘second campaign”’ Shapur may have omitted references to cities he sacked again in 260, in Henning, Bulletin of School of Oriental Studies 9 (1937-39): 836; Rostovtzeff, Berytus 8 (1943): 30 and 40; and Ensslin, SBAW 5 (1947): 106. At best, the sources suggest that some classical authors confused the activities of Mariades and Shapur’s sack in 253 with another sack in 260; contra Ensslin, SBAW 5 (1947): 18-35 and 105-115, who argued, before the publication of the full text of RGdS, that Shapur sacked the city only once, in 260.

59 For the rally at Samosata and a Roman counterattack in Cilicia, see Zon. 12.23; Sync. I, p. 716; and S.H.A., Vita Val. 4.4. See also Alfoldi, Berytus 4 (1937): 64-65; Ensslin, SBAW 5 (1947): 59-62; and Olmstead, CP 37 (1942): 398-420. 60 See Pet. Patr., FHGIV 192, frag. 1, for revolutionary notions of populace and the flight of upper classes before Shapur’s advance. For a pro-Iranian Aramaic-speaking circus faction behind Mariades, see J. Gagé, ‘Les Perses a Antioche et les courses de l’hippodrome au milieu III® siécle a propos du ‘transfuge’ syrien Mariades,”’ Bulletin de la Faculté de Lettres de

Strasbourg 31 (1952-53): 310-11. For the lack of support for Shapur among an Aramaic or ‘‘Iranian’’ element, see M. L. Chaumont, ‘‘Conquétes sassanides et propagande maz-

198 NOTES TO PAGE 91 déenne,”’ Historia 22 (1973): 676-78, and Millar, JRS 61 (1971): 5-10. See especially the slaughter of the Antiochenes in the theater in Amm. Mar. 23.5.3 and Lib. Or. 24.38, and cf. notices of the burning of the city in RGdS 1.15; Orac. Sibyl. 13.125-26; Amm. Mar. 20.11.11 and 23.5.3; Lib. Or. 60.2 —3; S.H.A., Vitae Tyr. Trig. 2.2; and Malalas, p. 296. The literary tradition also records various just ends of a traitor for Mariades (see S.H.A., Vitae Tyr. Trig. 2.3; Malalas, p. 296; and Amm. Mar. 23.5.3).

61 See Chaumont, Historia 22 (1973): 676-83, and cf. P. Brown, ‘The Diffusion of Manichaeism in the Roman Empire,”’ JRS 59 (1969): 92-103. 62 See Olmstead, CP 37 (1942): 403. For Shapur’s deportation of captives to Gundeshapur, see RGdS 11.34- 38, and cf. Tabari (ed. Noldeke), 32 -33 and 40-41, and Chronicle of Seerf, in Patrologia Orientalis 4.221.

63 For the purchase of immunity by Edessa, see Zon. 12.23 and Pet. Patr., FHG IV 187-88, frag. 11. For Samosata, see Pet. Patr., FHG IV 193, frag. 3.

64 For the fall of Dura (256), see Bellinger, Dura 181 and 187. For the fall of Carrhae, see Amm. Mar. 20.11.11. For the fall of Nisibis, see Tabari (ed. Néldeke), 31-32, which indicates a date of 252/3 (i.e., either year eleven or twelve of Shapur). It is possible that Nisibis fell again in 259-60, because Odenathus recovered it from the Persians. See S.H.A., Vita Gall. 10.3, and Vitae Tyr. Trig. 15.3; Zos. 1.39.1; and Agathias IV.24 (Bonn, p. 266).

65 Zon. 12.23, who dates the fall after the capture of Valerian, and cf. list in RGdS 11.26 -33. See S.H.A., Vitae Tyr. Trig. 2.2., who records the betrayal by Mariades in 253 — possibly a garbled account of the 260 sack.

66 See Février, Palmyre 82, and Ingholt, in Palmyre 123-28. 67 See Février, Palmyre 85-87; Alfoldi, Berytus 5 (1938): 74-79; Ensslin, SBAW 5 (1947): 77-80; and de Blois, Talanta 6 (1975): 18-27, for the campaigns of Odenathus. 68 See J. Gagé, La Montée des Sassanides et l'heure de Palmyre (1964) 122-23, for objectionable efforts to ‘‘Iranianize.”’

69 See Brown, EHR 88 (1973): 30-31 ( = Society and the Holy 281-82), and cf. J. D. Beckenridge, ‘‘The Long Siege of Thessalonika: Its Date and Iconography,”’ BZ 48 (1955): 116-22, for the powerful local influence of St. Demetrius at Thessalonica. For civic icons

and saints operating outside of, or in opposition to, the imperial government and the institutional church, see Brown, EHR 88 (1973): 8 and 33 —44 (= Society and the Holy 259 and 284-95). See also E. Kitzinger, ‘’The Cult Images in the Age before Iconoclasm,’’ DOP 8 (1954): 95-149, and Byzantine Art in the Making (1977): 103-4. For criticisms of this

view, see Av. Cameron, ‘Images of Authority: Elites and Icons in Late Sixth Century Byzantium,” P @ P 84 (1979): 29-35; S. Gero, ‘Notes on Byzantine Iconoclasm in the Eighth Century,”’ Byzantion 45 (1974): 23-42; and P. Henry, ‘‘What Was the Iconoclastic Controversy All About?” Church History 45 (1976): 16-31. 70 Dexippus, FGrH IV.1, 468, frag. 26.

71 See MacMullen, ERO 219-38. For resurgence of native art forms, see R. MacMullen, : “The Celtic Renaissance,’’ Historia 14 (1965): 93-104. For linguistic diversity, see R.

NOTES TO PAGES 91-92 199 MacMullen, ‘Provincial Languages in the Roman Empire,” AJP 87 (1966): 1—17. For growing separatist tendencies, see Van Sickle, AJP 51 (1930): 343-57, and Rostovtzeff, SEHRE 477-80. For the problem of Egyptian ‘‘nationalism,” see J. G. Milne, ‘Egyptian Nationalism under Greek and Roman Rule,” JEA 14 (1928): 226 —34, and contrast views of S. Oost, ‘’The Alexandrine Seditions under Philip and Gallienus,’’ CP 56 (1961): 1-20, and R. MacMullen, ‘‘Nationalism in Roman Egypt,” Aegyptus 44 (1964): 179-99. 72 See MacMullen, ERO 215-20. For distinction of North vs. South as opposed to East vs. West, see P. Brown, ‘Eastern and Western Christendom in Late Antiquity: A Parting of the Ways,” in The Orthodox Churches and the West, Studies in Church History 13 (1976) ] — 24 (= Society and the Holy 166-95). For the resurgence of a ‘’Roman” identity in face of barbaria, see MacMullen, RGRC 39. In the East, see Palm, Rom, Rémertum und Imperium 82-84, and Alfdldi, RM 49 (1934): 7-18. Cf. case of Gaul in the fourth and fifth centuries in F. Paschoud, Roma Aeterna: Etudes sur le patriotisme romain dans I'occident latin a l’époque des

grandes invasions (1967) 18-22.

73 See Ritterling, ‘‘Legio,’”” RE XII (1952), cols. 1365-66, and Jones, LRE, table 9.

74 For inter-city rivalries, see MacMullen, ERO 187-88 and 224-25. For ill feeling between cities deplored by literati, see Dio 52.37.10; 54.23.8; Ael. Aris. Or. 42 and 44; and Dio Chrys. Or. 38.33 and 39. Note how cities used civil wars to settle old scores with rivals. For

Vienne and Lugdunum in 68-69, see Tac. Hist. 1.65. For Perinthus vs. Byzantium (Dio 75.14.3) and Antioch vs. Laodicea (Herod. 3.6.9) in 193-95, see Magie, RRAM 1540 n. 21.

For civic rivalries in 218, see ibid. 1557-58 nn. 3-4. 75 See RGdS 1.9, and cf. Rostovtzeff, Berytus 8 (1943): 22-23; Sprengling, Third Century Iran 15; and Honigmann and Maricq, Mém. de l’Acad. roy. de Belg. 8, no. 47 (1953): 11-20. For submission of Philip in Persian reliefs, see MacDermont, JRS 44 (1954): 78-79.

For revolt against the subsidy to Shapur, see J. Guey, ‘‘Autour des ‘res gestae divi Saporis’: Deniers (d’or) et deniers d’or (de compte) anciens,”’ Syria 38 (1961): 263-74, and T. Pekary, ‘‘Autours des ‘res gestae divi Saporis’: Le ‘tribut’ au Perses et les finances de Philippe l’Arabe,”’ Syria 38 (1961): 275-83. For Julius Priscus, see Zos. 1.19.2 and 20.2; CIL II1.14149° = Dessau, ILS 9005; and Orac. Sibyl. 13.42-—45 and 50-53. For the revolt in

Syria, see Zos. 1.20.2; Aur. Vict. De Caess. 29.2; and cf. Orac. Sibyl. 13.11.59-63, and Olmstead, CP 37 (1942) 261-62. For the revolt in Cappadocia, see Polemius Silvius in Mommsen, MGH IX 521-38. See discussion in A. Stein, ‘‘Iotapianus,’’ RE 11 (1916), col. 2009. For coins of Jotapian, probably minted at Emesa, see RIC V. 3,105, nos. 1-20.

76 See Malalas, p. 298 (Bonn ed.). Zosimus names two usurpers in Emesa in the reign of Severus Alexander (1.12.1 -—2)—an Antoninus and a Uranius — and another Antoninus in the reign of Gallienus (1.38.1). For identification of Sampsigeramus with the figures

named in Zosimus’s account and the Uranius Antoninus named on coins, see R. Delbrueck, ‘‘Uranius of Emesa,”’ NC 6, no. 8 (1948): 27-29; H. Seyrig, ‘‘“Uranius Antoninus: Une Question d’authenticité,”’ RN 6, no. 1 (1958): 51-57; and Baldus, Uranius Antoninus

229-55. Civic aes of Emesa in the name of Uranius Antoninus are dated to 253/4 (see ibid., nos. 40-45). Sampsigeramus is usually identified with the unnamed hero hailed in the inscriptions found outside Hama dated to 252/3. The hero is praised for the repulse of invaders. See IGLS IV.1799-—1801 and J. Lassus, Inventaire archéologique de la région du

nord-est de Hama (1933) 132-34. See also allusion to Sampsigeramus in Orac. Sibyl. 13.11.142—46, and cf. Olmstead, CP 37 (1942): 406, and Baldus, Uranius Antoninus 252 55. Note that Shapur’s list of cities captured during his ‘second campaign” (RGdS 11.1018) makes no mention of Emesa or cities farther south.

200 NOTES TO PAGES 92-93 77 For the proclamation of the rebel emperors, see Zon. 12.23 and 24; Sync. I, p. 716; Pet. Patr., FGHIV 195, frag. 8; Euseb. Hist. eccl. 7.10.5; Amm. Mar. 23.5.3; and S.H.A., Vita Val. 4.4; Vita Gall. 1-2; and Vitae Tyr. Trig. 12-15. The revolt is securely dated to 260-61. See POxy. 1476 and 2710 and discussion in A. K. Bowman, ‘‘Papyri and Roman Imperial History,’ JRS 66 (1976): 155. For their reception by ‘‘Asia,’’ see Zon. 12.23. For their

recognition in Egypt, see A. Stein, ‘’T. Fulvius Junianus Macrianus, no. 73,” RE VII (1912), cols. 244-45, and ‘‘Zur Chronologie der romischen Kaiser,” Archiv 7 (1924): 44. See the dedication at Coptos (JGRom ].1182) and imperial largesse to Hermopolis (PLond. 955 = Select Papyri Il 354-57, no. 320). Contrast the confused fighting in Alexandria; see Oost, CP 56 (1961): 9-14. See also POxy. 1411 for probable reluctance of moneychangers to accept coins of the usurpers; cf. remarks in A. Segré, Metrologiae circolazione monetaria degli Antichi (1928) 414; Johnson and West, Currency in Egypt 4; and Bolin, State and Currency 288.

78 See Mattingly, NC 6, no. 14 (1954): 55-56, and cf. RIC V.2, 580-81, nos. 1-14, and 582-83, nos. 1-13, and Carson, Berytus 17 (1967): 133. 79 For coins of Pisidian Antioch, see Krzyzanowska, Antioche 204 and RN 6, no. 10 (1968): 293-96. For coins of Nicaea, see RGA I.3, 510-11, nos. 867-68 and 872-73; SNGCop 543-44; SNGvAulock 733-34 and 7098; and Kraft, pl. 107.105 = Munich. For Heraclea, see ZN 7 (1890): 24, no. 8, and SNGvAulock 456. For Byzantium, see Schénert-Geiss, Byzantion, nos. 1877 — 84. For the dedication at Apamea, see IGRom III.27 = CIG 3710; for

that of Nacolea, see MAMA V 93-94, no. 199. 80 See S.H.A., Vita Gall. 1.2 and Vitae Tyr. Trig. 12.2-—12, who states that Macrianus Senior

was also proclaimed Augustus. In the absence of coins or dedications to him, this is unlikely. See RIC V.2, 572, and B. Gerov, ‘’La carriera militare di Macriano, generale di Gallieno,”’ Athenaeum 42 (1965): 338-54. 81 See Zon. 12.24;S.H.A., Vita Gall. 3.1 —5 and Vitae Tyr. Trig. 14.1 -2, 15.4, and 18.3; and Pet. Patr., FHG IV 195, frag. 8.1. Odenathus executed Callistus; the Emesans put Quietus to death.

82 For the descent and family of Odenathus, see Février, Palmyre 75 — 79; H. Seyrig, ‘Les Fils du roi Odainet,’’ Annales archéologiques de Syrie 13 (1963): 159-72; and Ingholt in Palmyre

115-36. For his earlier career, see Alféldi, Berytus 5 (1938): 74-80; de Blois, Talanta 6 (1975): 12-21; and Ingholt, in Palmyre 128-36. The incident in his career that is most difficult to interpret is in Pet. Patr., FGH IV 182, frag. 10, recording that Odenathus sent gifts and overtures of alliance to Shapur, who impolitely refused both. The incident is usually dated to just after Valerian’s capture; see Alféldi, Berytus 5 (1938): 75; Février, Palmyre 81; Ensslin, SBAW 5 (1947): 75; Baldus, Uranius Antoninus 238-39; and Bowersock, Roman Arabia 129-30. See de Blois, Talanta 6 (1975): 18, who suggests a date between the first and second campaigns of Valerian. 83 Forgrant of consularis in 257/8, see IGRom 111.1031 = Inventaire I1I.17. See Février, Palmyre 54; J. Starcky, Palmyre (1952) 54; Alfoldi, Studien 352; and contra Millar, JRS 61 (1971): 8. See also de Blois, Talanta 6 (1975): 17-18, who argues that the dedication of the legion-

aries of IJJ Cyrenaica to members of the Palmyrene princely house (IGRom III.1035) suggests that Odenathus commanded Roman forces; but see reservations in Ingholt, Palmyre 132-33. Odenathus probably held the military title of dux; see CIS 11.3946 =

NOTES TO PAGE 93 201 Inventaire II1.19, and cf. Zos. 1.39.1; Zon. 12.24; and Sync. I, p. 716, who call him strategos Romaion. His son Vaballathus claimed to be dux. See CIS IJ.3971, and cf. coins in RIC V.1, 308, no. 381, and Mattingly, NC 5, no. 16 (1936): 112. See full discussion in C. Gallazzi, “La titulature di Vaballato come riflesso della politica di Palmiro,’’ Quaderni ticinesi 4 (1975): 250-51. For Odenathus’s rank as corrector, see CIS 11.3946 = Inventaire III.19. (The office was also claimed by Vaballathus; see CIS II.3971.) See Gallazzi, Quaderni ticinesi 4 (1975): 255, and Rey-Coquais, JRS 68 (1978): 59, who summarize earlier opinions on the preferred translation of the Aramaic title as corrector. _

84 5S.H.A., Vita Gall. 10.4-—5. Cf. Latin historians, probably reflecting a tradition hostile to Gallienus, who stress imperium of Odenathus; see S.H.A., Vita Gall. 12.1 and Vitae Tyr. Trig. 15.1; Eutrop. 9.10; and Oros. Hist. ad. Pag. 7.22.12. See older views accepting these claims in Gagé, Montée des Sassanides 150, and contrast the arguments in Gallazzi, Quaderni ticinesi

4 (1975): 256-58. The absence of genuine coins for Odenathus make it unlikely that he held the emperorship; see Alfoldi, Berytus 5 (1938): 47-48, Vogt I 206-12, and contra C. Lenormant, RN 1, no. 5 (1846): 277-80, and V. Langlois, Numismatique des Arabes avant l'Islamise (1864) 103-4. There is no evidence that Odenathus “controlled” the imperial mint of Antioch after 261 (contra Mattingly, NC 5, no. 16 [1936]: 107-10).

85 See Zon. 12.23 and Sync. I, p. 716. For Odenathus’s lack of impact upon the Roman administration of Syria, see Jones, PLRE 638-39, and Février, Palmyre 85. For the uninterrupted activity of the imperial mint at Antioch, see Alf6ldi, Berytus 5 (1938): 48-56. For later civic issues for Gallienus (260-68), see Jones, PAPhS 107 (1963): 309, and cf. select

mints in Krzyzanowska 209-11; RGA I*. 1, 132-33, nos. 66-70; von Aulock, MSL 85-90; and Bellinger, Troy 144-51. Cf. inscription in northern Syria hailing restoration of pax Romana in February 265 (without reference to Odenathus). See Seyrig, Mélanges de l’université St. Joseph 37 (1961): 246-47.

86 For the autonomy of Palmyra, see Seyrig, Syria 13 (1932): 266-77, and Février, Palmyre 43-45. For Aramaic titles of Odenathus, see H. Seyrig, ‘‘Les Fils du roi Odaint,’”’ Annales archéologiques de Syrie 13 (1963): 162-67, and H. Ingholt, ‘Inscriptions and Sculptures from Palmyra,” Berytus 3 (1936): 93-94. For Odenathus’s royal title, see CIS II.3971 (a posthumous dedication), and cf. rex Palmyrenorum in S.H.A., Vita Gall. 10.1. S.H.A., Vita Tyr. Trig. 15.2, notes that Odenathus was the first of his family to assume the regal title; see

Ingholt, Palmyre 134-35, and Starcky, Palmyre 53-66. For the use of the title to defy Shapur and announce equality with the Persian shah, see Février, Palmyre 83; A. Solari,

“La politica orientale del principato palmireno,’’ Philologus 92 (1937): 239-43; J. Schwartz, ‘’L’Histoire Auguste et Palmyre,”’ Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium, 1964/65

185-95; and Robert, ‘‘Bull. épigr.”” (1964), no. 496. For lack of a greater ‘’Aramaic’”’ nationalism, see Millar, JRS 61 (1971): 2—5 and 12-17. See also D. Sperber, ‘’Varia Midrahica III,” Revue des études juives 134 (1975) 126-27, for Jews in Sassanian Babylonia lamenting Odenathus as an agent of Rome. Cf. language of Orac. Sibyl. 13.11.164-65, and Olmstead, CP 37 (1942): 419-20, for the identification of Odenathus as an agent of Rome,

and contra Baldus, Uranius Antoninus, 252-55, who identifies the allusions with the activities of Sampsigeramus.

87 For the death of Odenathus, ca. 266/7, see Zos. 1.39.2 (assassination outside of Emesa) and Sync. I, pp. 716-17 (en route against the Goths in Asia Minor). Cf. Malalas, p. 298, for Gallienus ordering the execution of Odenathus. For the defeat of the Roman expedition under Heraclianus, see S.H.A., Vita Gall, 13.4-—5, and G. Bersanetti, ‘‘Eracliano, prefetto del pretorio di Gallieno,’’ Epigraphica 4 (1942): 169-76. For Zenobia’s break with Gal-

202 NOTES TO PAGES 93-94 lienus in 267/8, see Schlumberger, Bulletin d'études orientales et l'Institut de Damas 9 (1942 — 43): 35; H. Seyrig, ‘“Vaballathus Augustus,”’ in Mélanges offerts 4 Kazimierz Michalowski, ed.

M.-L. Bernhard (Warsaw, 1966) 659-62; Callu, La Politique monétaire 235; Millar, JRS 66 (1971): 8—10; and Bowman, JRS 66 (1976): 176.

88 See Millar, JRS 61 (1971): 12-18, for ambiguous loyalties and political symbols. For Zenobia as the new Cleopatra, see S.H.A., Vita Aurel. 27.3 and Vita Prob. 9.5, and cf. A. Stein, ‘‘Kallinikos von Petra,’’ Hermes 58 (1973): 448-56.

89 For the seizure of Antioch and its mint by Palmyra, see A. Markl, ‘‘Die Reichsmiinzstatten unter der Regierung des Quintillus und ihre Emissionen,’”’ NZ 22 (1890): 24; Alfoldi, Berytus 5 (1938): 47-59; C. Brenot and H.-G. Pflaum, ‘‘Les Emissions orientales de la fin du III* siecle apres J.-C. a lumiére de deux trésors découverts en Syrie,’’ RN 6, no. 7 (1965): 134-205; Bastien and Huvelin, RN 6, no. 11 (1969): 238-39; Callu, La Politique monétaire 235; and Millar, JRS 61 (1971): 9. Contra views of a “‘convention’’ between Aurelian and Zenobia in Homo, Aurélien 66-69; Février, Palmyre 114; and Mattingly, NC 5, no. 16 (1936): 107-10. For initial recognition of Aurelian on coins of Vaballathus (270-71), see RIC V.1, 308, no. 381, and Milne, nos. 4299-4348. For dropping of Aurelian’s portrait and name from later coins, see RIC V.2, 584, nos. 1-2, and 585, nos. 1—8, and Milne, nos. 4349-53, and cf. Gallazzi, Quaderni ticinesi 4 (1975): 270-71.

90 See Ingholt, Palmyre 136-37. 91 See Millar, JRS 61 (1971): 12-18. For the composition of Palmyrene armies, see Homo, Aurélien 105-6. 92 For Zenobia’s fears of Antiochene sympathies for Aurelian, see Zos. 1.51.1 —2. For Aurelian’s generous treatment of Antioch, see S.H.A., Vita Aurel. 25.1. For the reception of Aurelian by Apamea, Larissa, and Arethusa, see Zos. 1.54.1. For his reception in Emesa, see S.H.A., Vita Aurel. 25.4-6. For Aurelian’s alliance with Arab tribes, notably the Lakhamids, against Palmyra, see Bowersock, Roman Arabia 132-37.

93 See Malalas, p. 188. For the sack of Bostra, see H. Seyrig, ‘‘Les Inscriptions de Bostra,’’ Syria 35 (1958): 46-48, and Bowersock, Roman Arabia 139. 94 Zos. 1.44; Zon. 12.27; Sync. I, p. 721; $.H.A., Vita Claud. 11.1 -—2 and Vita Prob. 9.5. See also

| dedications of CIL suppl. 65, p. 83, and III.83. For prefect Probus, see Jones, PLRE 740-41, no. 8. See J. Schwartz, ‘Les Palmyreniens et l’Egypte,”’ Bulletin de la Société royale archéolo-

gique d’Alexandrie 40 (1953): 66-75, for initial invasion in late 269 or early 270. For the recovery of Egypt by Aurelian in the spring or summer of 272, see J. Schwartz, ‘‘Chronologie du III*¢ siécle aprés J. C.,"" ZPE 24 (1977): 167-77, and Bowman, JRS 66 (1976): 156.

Alexandria probably did not fall immediately since its mint recognized Quintillus on its coinage; see Milne, nos. 4296-98 and Vogt I 212. See also P. J. Parsons, in CE 42 (1967):

, 397-401. For the lack of widespread insurgency in Egypt, see MacMullen, Aegyptus 44 (1964): 187-90. For a pro-Palmyrene party in Alexandria, see J. Schwartz, ‘‘Palmyre et l’opposition a Rome en Egypte,” in Palmyre 139-51, and Lucius Domitius Domitianus, Papyri

Bruxelles 12 (1975) 110-76. 95 See Zos. 1.50.1. For operation of Cyzicene mint, see Callu, La Politique monétaire 234-36.

96 For siege of Tyana, see Zos. 1.50.2 and S.H.A., Vita Aurel. 22.5~-24.3. For Aurelian’s reception in the East, see S.H.A., Vita Aurel. 24-25, and Pet. Patr., FHGIV 197, frag. 10.

NOTES TO PAGES 94-96 203 97 See Zos. 1.52.4. For the intercession by Sol of Emesa, see S.H.A., Vita Aurel. 24.4-6; Homo, Aurélien 185-86; and E. Will, ‘“Le Sac de Palmyre,”’ in Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire offrets a Andre Piganiol, ed. R. Chevallier (1966) 1409-16.

9 Epilogue: Civic Politics without Civic Coins, 284-363 1 See Brown, EHR 83 (1968): 553, and cf. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution 477-535.

2 For nummi struck prior to the revolt of Domitius Domitianus (295-96), see J.-P. Callu, Genio Populi Romani (296 - 315) (1960) 27. For the end of Alexandria’s provincial coinage, see C. H. V. Sutherland, ‘‘Diocletian’s Extension of the Latin’ Follis to Egypt: The Date and Sequence of Issues,’’ Congresso internazionale di numismatica II, atti, Roma, 1961 (1965) 341 —46; M. Thirion, ‘’Folles d’Alexandrie (295 —304),’’ RBN 107 (1961): 192-209; and J. Schwartz, ‘‘La Monnaie d’Alexandrie et la réforme de Dioclétien,’’ SMB 14 (1964): 98102.

3 For the introduction of the nummus in 293, see P. Bruun, ‘’“The Successive Monetary Reforms of Diocletian,’” ANSMusN 24 (1979): 133-34. For arguments that the name of the silver-washed bronze coins was nummus (rather than follis), see Crawford, ANRWII.2, 580 n. 80. For the purpose of the reform, see Bolin, State and Currency 300-10, andC. H. V. Sutherland, ‘‘Denarius and Sestertius in Diocletian’s Currency Reform,’”’ JRS 51 (1961): 94-95. The values of Diocletian’s currency have been subject to much debate since the publication of the monetary edict of 301 found at Aphrodisias, Caria; see K. T. Erim, J. Reynolds, and M. Crawford, ‘‘Diocletian’s Currency Reform: A New Inscription,” JRS 61 (1971): 171-77, and Crawford, ANRW II.2, 578-79. For differing opinions on the purpose of the reform, see notably J. Jahn, ‘Zur Geld- und Wirtschaftspolitik Diocletians,”’ JNG 25 (1975): 91-105; E. Ruschenbusch, ‘‘Diokletians Wahrungsreform vom 1. 9.301,” ZPE 26 (1977): 193-210; Bruun, ANSMusN 24 (1979): 129-48; and K. W. Harl, ‘’Marks of Value on Tetrarchic Nummi and Diocletian’s Monetary Policy,’’ Phoenix 39 (1985): 263 —70. 4 See Callu, La Politique monétarie 197 —237; Eddy, Minting of Antoniniani 107-21; and Tyler,

Persian Wars 1-8, for the vast output of antoniniani after 235 to pay military costs. For imperial mints opened in provinces during the third century, see Carson in Scripta Nummaria Romana 63—74. See M. Hendy, ‘‘Mint and Fiscal Administration under Diocletian, His Colleagues, and His Successors, A.D. 305-324,” JRS 62 (1972): 133-34, for the locations of Tetrarchic mints opened to faciliate pay of military forces. 5 See Sutherland, ERCHM 177-79. For the limited variety of Tetrarchic appeals, see C. H. V. Sutherland, ‘‘Some Political Notions in Coin Types between 294 and 313,” JRS 53 (1963):

119-20. 6 See RIC VI 411-21 and Sutherland, ERCHM 180. The mint at Carthage was probably opened during Maximianus’s Mauretanian campaign of 298; see Pan. Vet. 8.5.2 and E. Galletier, Panégyriques (1949) 107-08. See also Seston, Dioclétien I 117-20; B. W. Warmington, The North African Provinces from Diocletian to the Vandal Conquest (1954) 8; and J.-P. Callu and J. Yvon, ‘‘Le Trésor de Ngaous (Algerie),’’ Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histotre offerts

a Andre Piganiol (1966) 307-8.

204 NOTES TO PAGES 96-97 7 RICVIII 194, no. 226 (Lugdunum), and 227, nos. 303 —4 (Arelate). Cf. remarks of Soz. Hist. eccl. 5.17.3 and Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism 76. See, however, RIC VIII 45, for uncertainty concerning the identity of the eagle.

8 The type was struck at all] mints except those at Trier, Rome, and Alexandria, see RIC VIII 46-47. For the reaction by the Christians, see Julian, Miso. 355d and Soc. Hist. eccl. 3.17. Perhaps the most relevant prototype is the bull on the reverses of bronze coins minted by Smyrna in the name of the deified Antinous; see Blum, JIAN 16 (1914): 40, no. 10. 9 See Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum, vol. 2.8, 113, for the identification of the bull with the Bull Apis mentioned in Amm. Mar. 22.14.6 (362), but this incident dates well after the

introduction of the coin type. For the possibility that the bull and the reverse legend denote the Neoplatonic guardian of the state, see J. P. C. Kent, ‘“Notes on Some FourthCentury Coin Types,” NC 6, no. 14 (1954): 216-17. For a critique of earlier views and the proposal that the bull represented the sign of Taurus, see F. D. Gillard, ‘Notes on the Coinage of Julian the Apostate,”’ JRS 59 (1969): 135-41.

10 See RIC VIII 230-31, for the neutral religious symbols on later Constantinian coin types. For the decidedly nonpagan content of the coinage of the pagan usurper Eugenius (392 — 94), see RIC IX xxiv—xxv. For the steady Christianization of coin types starting in the mid-—fourth century, see J. M. C. Toynbee, ‘“Roma and Constantinopolis in Late-Antique Art from 312 to 365,” JRS 37 (1947): 135-44; G. Bruck, ‘‘Die Verwendung christlicher Symbole auf Miinzen von Constantin I bis Magnentius,’’ NZ 76 (1955): 26-32; and W. Kellner, Libertas und Christogramm: Motivgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Miinzpragung des

Kaisers Magnentius (350-353) (1968) 57-105. ll See RIC VIII 300-305 and A. Alfoldi, A Festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian Emperors of the Fourth Century (1937) 30-59.

12 SeeA. and E. Alféldi, Die Kontorniat-Medallion (1976) 15 and 48-57, for pagan symbolism directed against the Christian court on contorniates of the 350s. See also Piganiol, L'Empire chrétien 108-10. See criticisms of this view by J. M. C. Toynbee, JRS 35 (1945): 116-19 andR. O. Edbrooke, ‘The Visit of Constantius IJ to Rome in 357 and Its Effect on the Pagan Senatorial Aristocracy,’’ CP 47 (1976): 60-61. 13 For the senatorial pagan ‘‘revival’’ at Rome, see H. Bloch, ‘‘A New Document of the Last Pagan Revival in the West,”’ HTR 38 (1945): 202 - 14, and “The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century,” in The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. A. Momigliano (1963) 193 —218; J. O’Donnell, ‘‘The Demise of Paganism,” Traditio 35 (1979): 78 — 88; and J. Wytzes. Der letzte Kampf des Heidentum in Rom (1977)

328-41. Note, however, the short-lived, ineffective nature of the revival as presented in Al. Cameron, ‘Paganism and Literature in Late Fourth Century Rome,” in Christianisme et formes littéraires de l’antiquité tardive en occident, Entretiens Hardt, no. 23 (1977) 1-40. See

also O’Donnell, Traditio 35 (1979): 45-76, who describes the lack of unity within the pagan party. 14 For aes of Rome, see W. Wroth, Western and Provincial Byzantine Coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths and Lombards and of the Empires of Thessalonica, Nicaea and Trebizond in the British

Museum (1911) 99-100 and 101-5, nos. 1-33. For aes Ravenna, see ibid. 106-7, nos. 34-40. For coins struck on the initiative of the Senate, see F. F. Kraus, Die Miinzen Odovacars und des Ostgotenreiches in Italien (1928) 56-57; E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire 11

NOTES TO PAGES 97-98 205 (1949) 48; A. Chastagnol, Le Sénat romain sous le regne d'Odoacre (1966) 53; and D. M. Metcalf, The Origins of the Anastasian Coinage Reform (1969) 8-12. See criticisms by W. Hahn, Moneta Imperii Byzantini I (1973) 79.

15 For the continuity in letters and education, see Marrou, L’Education 318-50; M. L. W. Laistner, Christianity and Pagan Culture in the Later Roman Empire (1951); and Dodds, Pagan and Christian 116-31. For the classical values and tastes of the Antiochene upper class, see Liebeschuetz, Antioch 11 — 14, and R. L. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century (1983) 18-21. For the persistence of traditional values in the West, see Matthews, Western Aristocracies 1-32. For the solidarity of the upper class vis-a-vis the lower classes of any faith, see MacMullen, ERO 189-91 and RSR 15-27; and

P. Brown, ‘Town, Village and Holy Man: The Case of Syria,” in Society and the Holy

156-57. 16 CILIX.417 and Dessau, ILS 751 and 755. 17. Julian Ep. 369.9, and cf. Amm. Mar. 21.16.17 and Lib. Ep. 1200. See Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism 99-101, for translation and full discussion. For evidence of Julian’s concern for cities, see his oration to Constantius II in 357 (Pan. 1.21d; 42d- 43a) and his restoration of Nicomedia (Amm. Mar. 22.9.4—5, and cf. Lib. Ep. 35.2).

18 See Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism 50-51, for the impact of his Athenian experience on Julian. For the persistence of traditional values among the Athenian aristocracy, see Millar, JRS 59 (1969): 21-29. 19 See P. Graindor, ‘‘Pamprépios (?) et Théagenes,’’ Byzantion 4 (1927-28): 474-75, andG. Fowden, ‘The Pagan Holy Man in Late Antiquity,’’ JHS 102 (1982): 44 and 48 — 51, for the

patronage of pagan, aristocratic Neoplatonists. For Iamblichus’s reconstruction of the walls of Athens, see A. E. Raubitschek, “Iamblichos at Athens,’’ Hesperia 33 (1964): 63-68, and Jones, PLRE 45] —52. See A. Frantz, ‘‘From Paganism to Christianity in the Temples of Athens,” DOP 19 (1965): 190-94, and Jones, PLRE, 11 545, for the patronage of

the prefect Herculius (408-12) and other aristocrats. 20 For the return of dismissed officials to their cities, see Juliani imperatoris epistulae, ed. Bidez and Cumont, 89-90, no. 75; Amm. Mar. 22.4.1—2; and Lib. Or. 2.58 and 18.135. See discussion in Bidez, Julien 238-41; S. Mazzarino, Aspetti 186-87; Liebeschuetz, Antioch 12-13; R. Browning, The Emperor Julian (1976) 126; and Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism 97-98. For the temporary effect of Julian’s reforms, see Lib. Or. 48.4; and cf. 2.33, Lib. Ep. 851, and the discussion in Liebeschuetz, Antioch 178-81.

21 See Mazzarino, Aspetti 325-29, and Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism 103-9, for discussion and documentation. 22 See Bidez, Julien 236-41, and cf. F. Dvornik, ‘‘The Emperor Julian’s Reactionary Ideas on Kingship,”’ in Late Classical and Medieval Studies Presented in Honour of A. M. Friend (1955)

71-81, andG. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (1978) 66-78. See, however, comments of P. Brown, ‘‘The Last Pagan Emperor: Review of Robert Browning’s The Emperor Julian,”’ Times Literary Supplement (London), April 8, 1977, 426 ( = Society and the Holy 98-100). Contrast Julian’s Hellenic outlook with the attitudes of the Balkan soldier-emperors; see A. Alfoldi, A Conflict of Ideas in the Late Roman Empire: The Clash between the Senate and Valentinian I, trans. H. Mattingly (1952) 3-27 and 96-124.

206 NOTES TO PAGES 98-100 23 See Julian Or. 6.262a-—c, for the emperor as the pure logos of the Platonic One. See , discussion in Brown, Society and the Holy 101-2, and Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism 109-14 and 162 - 84. Note that the universalist outlook sprang from the pagan appeals of the third century; see Turcan, ANRW II.16.2, 1064-73. 24 Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism 121.

25 Harmand, Le Patronate 421-40. See also Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 328-35; Jones, GC 183-91; and MacMullen, PRE 128-30. 26 See Petit, Libanius 352-58 and Liebeschuetz, Antioch 170-74. 27 See Jones, LRE 377-90 and 563-606, and R. MacMullen, ‘Imperial Bureaucrats in the Roman Provinces,’’ HSCPh 68 (1964) 305-16.

28 For estimates that the army doubled to 600,000, see J. Szilagyi, ‘“Les Variations des centres de préponderance militaire dans les provinces frontiéres de l’empire romain,”’ Acta

Antiqua 2 (1953): 117-217, and Jones, LRE 679-86. For an increase to 500,000, see A. Sergé, ‘‘Essays on Byzantine Economic History I: The Annona Civica and the Annona Militaris,’’ Byzantion 16 (1942-44): 431-33. For more sober estimates, see R. Grosse, Rémische Militargeschichte von Gallienus bis zum Beginn der byzantinische Themenverfassung (1920) 253; D. van Berchem, L’Armée de Dioclétien et la réforme constantinenne (1952) 75-88

and 113-15; D. Hoffmann, Das spatromische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum I (1969) 2, with reservations on 187, 199, and in ibid. II 75-76 n. 738; and Duncan-Jones, Chiron 8 (1978): 541-60.

29 See MacMullen, JRS 54 (1964): 49-53. For the late nobility’s need for display and honor, see R. MacMullen, ‘Some Pictures in Ammianus Marcellinus,’’ Art Bulletin 46 (1964): 435-55, and Brown, World of Late Antiquity 40. For the assimilation of civic councillors into the Senate of Constantinople, see Dagron, Naissance d'une capitale Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 a 45] (1974) 64-68, and cf. Jones, GC 197-200 and 207-10; P. Petit, ‘Les Sénateurs de Constantinople dans |’oeuvre de Libanius,”’ AC 26 (1957): 347-82, and Libanius 294-95; andT. Kotula, Les Curies municipales en Afrique romaine (1968) 133. Forthe

resentment of civic councils toward Constantinople, see the case of Alexandria in N. H. Baynes, ‘“Alexandria and Constantinople: A Study in Ecclesiastical Diplomacy,” Byzantine Studies and Other Essays 97 —115. Cf. the views of the pagan aristocracy of Rome towards the Christian imperial court and Senate; see A. Alfo6ldi, The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome, trans. H. Mattingly (1948) 110-23.

30 See Dagron, Naissance d'une capitale 164-90. 31 See MacCormack, Art and Ceremony 55-61, for the evolution of the ceremony of accession and the belief of the eternal presence out of the third-century adventus. 32. ~=For the crucial role of the Hippodrome, see Dagron, Naissance d'une capitale 320-47. For the role of the circus factions as populus Romanus, see ibid. 279 —- 319 and 348 — 64, and Al. Cameron, Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium (Oxford, 1976) 157-92.

, For the relationship between architecture and imperial ceremony, see R. Krautheimer, Three Christian Capitals: Topography and Politics (1983) 47-67.

33 Dessau, ILS 6090 = CIL Supp. 6866 = Abbott and Johnson, no. 515. Cf. Dessau ILS 6091, for Constantine’s elevation of the Phrygian village of Orcistus to urban rank.

NOTES TO PAGES 100-102 207 34 Majorian Nov. 7 (458) in P. Meyer, ed., Codex Theodosianus, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1905); translation from Jones, LRE, p. 748.

35 See R. MacMullen, ‘‘The Emperor’s Largesse,”’ Latomus 21 (1962): 154-66; MacMullen, RGRC 97-100 and 119-20; and Millar, ERW 420-34. Contrast the favored position of Nicaea and Nicomedia to other cities in Asia Minor; see Vermeule, Rom. Imp. Art 7-10 and

328-35. 36 For Constantine’s confiscation of pagan treasuries and lands, see Euseb. Vita Const. 3.54 and Laud. Const. 8; Lib. Or. 30.6.37 and 52.8; Julian Or. 7.228b; and Anon. De rebus bellicis 2.1.

37 Euseb. Vita Const. 3.58. 38 See Lib. Or. 18.157 and 62.8. See discussion in Liebeschuetz, Antioch 12-13, and Mac-

| Mullen, PRE 129-30.

39 A. Deleage, La Capitation du bas-empire (1945) 23-42, 145-47, and 254-59; Jones, LRE 448-62; and MacMullen, RGRC 164-72. 40 See Petit, Libanius 321-58; Jones, LRE 740-52; and§. Dill, Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire (1899) 253-81.

41 For statistics and discussion, see Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism 103-4. See also Jones, LRE 734-63. For imperial coercion of decurions, see P. Lambrechts, ‘‘Le Probleme du dirigisme d’état du IV¢ siécle,’’ AC 18 (1949): 109 — 26; Petit, Libanius 45 — 62;

Bowman, Town Councils 47-52 and 117-27; and Liebeschuetz, Antioch 167-86. 42 For the extent of corruption, see Jones, LRE 391-410, and G. de Ste Croix, ‘Suffragium: From Vote to Patronage,” British Journal of Sociology 5 (1954): 33-48. For the haphazard enforcement of imperial laws by Constantius II, see Lib. Or. 18.147 and Petit, Libanius 283 — 84. For the priority of imperial over civic needs, see C. E. Van Sickle, ‘‘Diocletian and

the Decline of the Roman Municipalities,” JRS 28 (1938): 12-15, and Garnsey, ANRW

II.1, 230-41. 43 For complaints of corruption and the demoralization in Antioch’s council, see Lib. Ep. 202 —3; 247; 293; and 741. See also CTh 12.1.14 (376) and CIG 441 1la—b and 4412. Forthe

loss of self-respect among decurions, see Petit, Libanius 284-94; Jones, GC 207-10; and Liebeschuetz, Antioch 101 —5. For the financial decline of the cities, see Jones, GC 204-6, and J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, ‘The Finances of Antioch in the Fourth Century A.D.,’’ BZ 52 (1959): 356, and Antioch 154-55.

44 See MacMullen, SCLRE 112-18. 45 Lib. Or. 47.13-17. For the exercise of patronage in villages by soldiers, see P. Brown, ‘‘The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity,”’ JRS 61 (1971): 85 — 86 (= Society and

the Holy 116-20), and Wilken, John Chrysostom 53-54. For patronage by generals in

Antioch, see Liebeschuetz, Antioch 114-18. 46 See Liebeschuetz, Antioch 105-14 and 126-44, for the patronage given by the prefect of the East and imperial honorati.

208 NOTES TO PAGES 102-3 47 See ibid. 186-92. 48 See Lib. Or. 39.10. 49 See Jones, LRE 543-44, and Liebeschuetz, Antioch 174-86.

50 For decurions serving in Antioch, see Liebeschuetz, Antioch 41-51; for Synesius, see Bregman, Synesius 42 —-46 and 174-76; and for Romanianus, see Brown, Augustine 21 and 90.

51 For favorable responses to the restoration of paganism, see the cases of Emesa (Julian Or. 12.357c~—d and Theodoret Hist. eccl. 3.7.5); Gaza (Jones, CERP? 280); Hierapolis (Julian Ep. 98.401b); Apamea (Lib. Ep. 1351.3, 1391.1, and Or. 48.14); Seleucia (Lib. Ep. 1361.3); and Athens (Lib. Or. 18.114). For the opposition by Antioch, Caesarea Mazaca, and Constantia, see Julian Ep. 78; Soz. Hist. eccl. 2.5.7-9 and 5.3.4-—8; and Jones, CERP? 280. For

Julian’s clash with the Antiochenes, see Browning, Julian 144-58; Bowersock, Julian 94-105; and Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism 216-22. 52 Amm. Mar. 21.5.2 and Lib. Or. 18.126. See Bidez, Julian 225-35, and Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism 110-12 and 183-84. 53 For the Christianization of cities in late fourth and early fifth centuries, see Liebeschuetz, Antioch 261-65; Wilken, John Chrysostom 24-34; and cf. MacMullen, PRE 131-37. For imperial pressure to Christianize Athens in the early fifth century, see Frantz, DOP 19 (1965): 194-205. Note, however, the ineffectiveness of the law of Theodosius II to demolish temples; see F. W. Dreichmann, “‘Frithchristliche Kirchen in antiken Heiligtumen,’”’ JDAI 54 (1939): 103-36. 54 See G. Dagron, “‘Le Christianisme dans la ville byzantine,”” DOP 31 (1977): 11-19. For construction of Christian architecture in later fifth century, see Claude, Byzantinische Stadt 15—106. For the growth of Christian public ceremonies and holidays, see Av. Cameron, ‘Images of Authority,”” P & P 84 (1979): 15-19. For the role of the cult of icons, see Brown, EHR 88 (1973): 17-18 ( = Society and the Holy 275-76). 55 For the descent of Cappadocian fathers from decurional families, see T. A. Kopecek, ‘’The Social Class of the Cappadocian Fathers,’’ Church History 42 (1973): 453-66, and ‘‘Curial Displacements and Flights,’’ Historia 23 (1974): 319-42. See also A. H. M. Jones, ‘‘St. John Chrysostom’s Parentage and Education,” HTR 46 (1953): 171-73; Jones, LRE 920 29; and Wilken, John Chrysostom 5-10.

56 See Greg. Naz. Or. 18.11-112 = Migne, PG 35.997b-1000b. See also M. M. HauserMeury, Prosopographie zu den Schriften Gregors von Nazianz (1960) 88-90.

57 See Wilken, John Chrysostom 104-06. 58 For Constantine’s expansion of the competence of episcopal courts, see Jones, LRE 90 91. For the power and patronage of bishops in eastern cities, see B. Fowden, ‘‘Bishops and Temples in the Eastern Roman Empire,” JTS, n.s., 29 (1978): 53-78; J. B. Segal, Edessa, “The Blessed City” (1970) 127-36; and R. MacMullen, ‘‘The Power of Bishops Outside of the Church,” in The Role of the Christian Bishop in Ancient Society, 35th colloquy, 1979, Center

NOTES TO PAGES 103-5 209 for Hermeneutical Studies, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley (1980) 25-28. See Claude, Byzantinische Stadt 121-29, for the role of the episcopacy in late fifth century. 39 See Brown Society and the Holy 158-61; see also Brown, JRS 61 (1971): 88— 93 (= Society and

the Holy 122-34). 60 Brown, JRS 61 (1971): 90 ( = Society and the Holy 127).

61 Brown, JRS 61 (1971): 94-95 ( = Society and the Holy 137-40). 62 See M. Waelkens, ‘Phrygian Votive and Tombstones as Sources of Social and Economic Life in Roman Antiquity,” Ancient Society 8 (1977): 277-315, and Robert, ‘Bull. épigr.” (1978), no. 466. For the survival of local Phrygian cults, see Lane, CMRDM III 17-66, and T. Drew-Bear, “‘Local Cults in Graeco-Roman Phrygia,’’ GRBS 17 (1976): 247-68. Cf. the

survival of the Phrygian language into third century; see MAMA V xxviii and xliv, and Price, Rituals 95-98. 63 For pagan elements and the peculiar Phrygian origins of Montanism, see P. de Labriolle, La Crise montaniste (1913) 279-82, and W. Scheplern, Der Montanismus und die phrygischen

Kulte (1929) 105-6, 112, 123-28, and 159-60. For Montanism and Tertullian, see T. D. Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (1971) 77-90 and 129-42. For the spread of Montanism, see Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution (1967) 287-94.

64 See Robert, A travers 393-408.

65 See MacMullen, PRE 122-30. 66 See Av. Cameron, P @ P 84 (1979): 31-35, and cf. Claude, Byzantinische Stadt 130-62. 67 See G. Ostrogorsky, ‘Byzantine Cities in the Early Middle Ages,’”’ DOP 13 (1959): 45-66; cf. Lemerle, RH 211 (1954): 303-8, and Foss, EHR 90 (1975): 721-47.

68 Euseb. Tric. or. 16.4. 69 Theodoret Hist. rel. 6.1168 = Migne, PG LXXXII.1360c.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, F. F., and A. C. Johnson. Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire. Princeton, N.J., 1926. Akarca, A. Les Monnaies grecques de Mylasa. Paris, 1959. Alfoldi, A. ‘‘Die Hauptereignisse der Jahren 253-261 n. Chr. im Orient im Spiegel der Miinz-

pragung.” Berytus 4 (1937): 41-68. ————.. ‘‘Die r6émische Mtinzpragung und die historischen Ereignisse im Osten zwischen 260

und 270 n. Chr.” Berytus 5 (1938): 47-91. ———. Studien zur Geschichte der Weltkrise des 3 Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Darmstadt, 1967. ———., and E. Alfdldi. Die Kontorniat-Medallion. Berlin, 1976. Alféldi, M. R. Die constantinische Goldpragung: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Bedeutung fir Kaiserpolitik und Hofkunst. Mainz, 1963.

Alféldy, G. ‘‘The Crisis of the Third Century as Seen by Contemporaries.’’ Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 15 (1974): 89-111. Athanassiadi-Fowden, P. Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography. Oxford, 1981. Aulock, H. von. ‘‘Kleinasiatische Munzstatten. I: Die vermeintliche Stadt Sebaste in Paphlagonien; II: Korynai in Ionien; III: Aizanoi.’’ Jahrbuch fiir Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 18 (1968): 43-48. ———.. ‘‘Kleinasiatische Mtinzstatten. IV: Kolbasa; V: Die Homonoia-Miinzen von Mytilene,”’ Jahrbuch fiir Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 19 (1969): 79-88. ———.. ‘‘Kleinasiatische Mtinzstatten. VI: Die romische Kolonie Komama in Pisidien; VII: Berichtigung: Korynai in Ionien.”’ Jahrbuch fiir Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 20 (1970):

151-59. ———. “’Kleinasiatische Mtinzstatten. VIII: Die romische Kolonie Olbasa; IX: Die romische Kolonie Germa in Kleinasien.”’ Jahrbuch fir Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 21 (1971): 15-23. ———.. “‘Kleinasiatische Miuinzstatten. X: Parlais in Pisidien; XI: Nochmals zur romischen Kolonie Olbasa.”’ Jahrbuch fiir Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 23 (1973): 7-18. ———. Miinzen und Stadte Lykaoniens. Tubingen, 1976. ————.. Miinzen und Stadte Phrygiens, Vol. 1. Tubingen, 1980.

———.. Miinzen und Stddte Pisidiens, Vols. 1-2. Tubingen, 1977-79. ——.. Die Miinzpragung des Gordian III und Tranquillina in Lykien. Tubingen, 1974. ———.. “Die Munzpragung der kilikischen Stadt Mopsos.”’ Archdologischer Anzeiger 78 (1963):

cols. 231-78. ——_——.. ‘Die romische Kolonie Germa in Galatien und ihre Munzpragung.”’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, Abteilung Istanbul 18 (1968): 221-37. ———.. ‘‘Die rémische Kolonie Lystra und ihre Munzen.”’ Chiron 2 (1972): 509-18.

211

212 BIBLIOGRAPHY Babelon, E. ‘‘Le Faux Prophete Alexandre d’Abonotichos.’’ Revue numismatique 4, 4 (1900): 1 —30.

——. Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines. 2 parts in 9 vols. Paris, 1901-32. ———., ed. Inventaire sommaire de la Collection Waddington acquisé par l'état en 1897 pour le Départment des médailles et antiques de la Bibliotheque nationale. Paris, 1897. Baldus, H. R. MON(eta) URB(is) ANTIOXIA: Rom und Antiochia als Pragestatten syrischer Tetradrach-

men des Philippus Arabs. Frankfurt am Main, 1969. ——. ‘‘Neue Miinzen des Uranius Antoninus (Nachtrag II).”’ Jahrbuch fiir Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 27 (1977): 69-74.

—_—. ‘Die reformierten Tetradrachmen des Uranius Antoninus im Lichte eines neuen Fundes mit Nachtragen zur ibrigen Miinzpragung dieses ‘Kaisers’.’’ Chiron 5 (1975): 443 84. ——.. Uranius Antoninus, Mitnzpragung und Geschichte. Bonn, 1971.

———. ‘‘Zum Rechtsstatus syrischer Pragungen der 1 Halfte des 3 Jahrhunderts n. Chr. mit einem Exkurs zu K. Krafts Deutung des S(enatus) C(onsulto).”’ Chiron 3 (1973): 441-50. Baramki, D. C. The Coin Collection of the American University of Beirut Museum: Palestine and Phoenicia.

Beirut, 1974. Barnes, T. D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, Mass., 1981. ——_——. The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge, Mass., 1982. Bastien, P., and H. Huvelin. ‘’Trésor d’antoniniani en Syrie. La Victoria Parthica de Valérien. Les Emissions d’Aurélien a Antioch et Tripolis.’” Revue numismatique 6, 11 (1969): 231-70. Bastien, P., and C. Metzger. La Trésor de Beaurains (dit d’Arras). Numismatique romaine 10.

Wetteren, Belgium, 1977. Baydur, N. ‘‘Die Miinzen von Attaleia in Pamphylien.’’ Jahrbuch fiir Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 25 (1975): 33-72 and 26 (1976): 37-78. Bean, G. E. Side Kitaberleri: The Inscriptions of Side. Turk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan 5, 20. Ankara, 1965. Bell, H. W. Sardis XI: The Coins, Part I: 1910-1914. Leiden, 1916. Bellinger, A. R. Catalogue of Coins Found at Corinth, 1925. New Haven, 1930. —_—. Coins from Jerash, 1928 - 1934. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 81. New York, 1938. ——. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report VI: The Coins. New Haven, 1949. —_——. ‘Greek Mints under the Roman Empire.” In Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly, edited by R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland, pp. 137-48. Oxford, 1956. ———. ‘‘The Late Bronze of Alexandria Troas.’’ American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes 8

(1958): 25-52. —_——. ‘‘The Numismatic Evidence from Dura.”’ Berytus 8 (1943): 61-71. —. The Syrian Tetradrachms of Caracalla and Macrinus. Numismatic Studies 3. New York, 1940.

——.. Troy: The Coins. Supplementary Monograph No. 2. Excavations conducted by the University of Cincinnati, 1932-38. Princeton, N.J., 1961. Bellinger, A. R., and M. A. Berlincourt. Victory as a Coin Type. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 149. New York, 1962. Bernhart, M. ‘‘Dionysos und seine Familie auf griechischen Munzen.” Jahrbuch fiir Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 1 (1949): 9-176. —_——. ‘‘Erasionen.”’ In Festschrift Heinrich Bitchenau am 20 April 1922 60 Jahre alt, edited by B.

Pick, pp. 1-8. Munich, 1922. Besly, E., and R. Bland. The Cunetio Treasure: Roman Coinage of the Third Century A.D. London, 1983. Bidez, J. La Vie de l’empereur Julien. Paris, 1930. Birley, A. R. Marcus Aurelius. Boston, 1966. ———. Septimius Severus: The African Emperor. New York, 1972.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 213 Blanchet, A. ‘‘“Monnaies provinciales de |’empire romain trouvées en Gaule.’’ Numismatische Zeitschrift 46 (1913): 193-202. Bloesch, H. ‘’Caracalla in Aigeai.”” In Congresso internazionale di numismatica II, atti, Roma, 1961,

pp. 307-12. Rome, 1965. Blois, L. de. ‘‘Odaenathus and the Roman-Persian War of 252-264 A.D.’ Talanta 6 (1975):

7-23.

Blum, G. ‘““Numismatique d’Antinoos.’’ Journal international d’archéologie numismatique 16

(1914): 33-70. Bolin, S. State and Currency in the Roman Empire to 300 A.D. Stockholm, 1958. Bosch, C. E. Die kleinasiatische Minzen der romischen Kaiserzeit. Vol. 1. 2. Stuttgart, 1935.

———.. ‘‘Miuinzen Gordians I aus Kleinasien.’’ Anadolu Arastirmalari 1 (1955-59): 203-5. ———.. Studien zur Geschichte Pamphyliens. Ankara, 1957. Bosch, E. Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ankara in Alterum. Turk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan 7,

46. Ankara, 1967. Boulanger, A. Aelius Aristide et la sophistique dans la province d’Asie au IF siécle de notre ere. Paris,

1968. Bowersock, G. W. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford, 1969. ————.. Julian the Apostate. Cambridge, Mass., 1978. Bowie, E. L. “Greeks and Their Past in the Second Sophistic.’’ Past and Present 46 (1970): 3-41. Bowman, A. K. The Town Councils of Roman Egypt. American Studies in Papyrology 11. Toronto, 1971. Bregman, J. Synesius of Cyrene: Philosopher-Bishop. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1982.

Brenot, C., and H.-G. Pflaum. ‘“Les Emissions orientales de la fin du III siécle aprés J.-C. a la lumiere de deux trésors découverts en Syrie.”’ Revue numismatique 6, 7 (1965): 134— 205. Brilliant, R. Gesture and Rank in Roman Art. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 14. New Haven, 1963. Brommer, F. ‘‘Die kleinasiatischen Mitinzen mit Hephaistos.”’ Chiron 2 (1972): 531-44. Broughton, T. R. S. ‘““Roman Asia Minor.” In An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, edited by T.

Frank, vol. 4, pp. 499-950. Baltimore, 1938. Brown, P. R. L. “‘Approaches to the Religious Crisis of the Third Century.”’ English Historical Review 83 (1968): 542-58. ————. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967. ———.. “‘A Dark Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy.” English Historical Review

88 (1973): 1-34. —_——.. ‘‘The Diffusion of Manichaeism in the Roman Empire.”’ Journal of Roman Studies 59

(1969): 92-103. ———.. ‘‘The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity.” Journal of Roman Studies 61

(1971): 80-101. ———. Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1982.

Browning, R. The Emperor Julian. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1976. Bruhl, A. ‘‘Le Souvenir d’Alexandre le Grand et les Romains.”’ Mélanges d’archéologie et d'histoire de l’Ecole francaise de Rome 47 (1930): 202-21. Buchholz, H. C. Methymna: Archdaologische Beitrage zur Topographie und Geschichte von Nordios Lesbos

mit einem Beitrag uber die methymnatschen Miinzen von Peter Robert Franke. Mainz, 1975. Burnett, A. M. ‘‘The Authority to Coin in the Late Republic and the Early Empire.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 7, 17 (1977): 37-63. Bussagli, M. ‘The Frontal Representation of the Divine Chariot.” East and West 6 (1955): 9-25. Buttrey, T. V., Jr., with A. Johnston, K. M. MacKenzie, and M. L. Bates. Greek, Roman, and Islamic Coins from Sardis. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis monograph 7. Cambridge, Mass., 1981.

214 BIBLIOGRAPHY Callu, J.-P. ‘“Approches numismatiques de I’histoire du III* siécle (238 a 311).”’ In Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt Il. 2, pp. 594-613. Berlin, 1975. —_—. La Politique monétaire des empereurs romains de 238 a 311. Paris, 1969.

Caltabiano, M. C. “‘Contromarche di rivalutazione su serie monetali di Stratonicea di eta severiano.”’ Atti della Accademia peloritana 24] —42 (1971-72): 263-95. ———.. ‘“‘Contromarche microasiatiche di eta imperiale.’’ Quaderni ticinesi 6 (1977): 239-55. Carrington, P. ‘‘The Heroic Age of Phrygia in Ancient Literature and Art.’’ Anatolian Studies 27

(1977): 117-31. Carson, R. A. C. ‘‘The Date of the Capture of Valerian.’’ In Actes du 9° congres international de numismatique, Berne, 1979: I Numismatique antique, pp. 461-65. Bern, 1982. ——. ‘The Hama Hoard and the Eastern Mints of Valerian and Gallienus.”’ Berytus 17 (1967):

123-42. ————. ‘The Inflation of the Third Century and Its Monetary Influence in the Near East.’ In Proceedings of the International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem, 27-31 December 1968, edited by

A. Kindler and C. H. V. Sutherland, pp. 231-50. Jerusalem, 1967. ————.. ‘Mints in the Mid-—Third Century.” In Scripta Nummaria Romana: Essays Presented to

Humphrey Sutherland, edited by R. A. G. Carson and C. M. Kraay, pp. 63-74. London, 1978. ——. The Principal Coins of the Romans. Vols. 1-3. London, 1978-81. ———.. ‘System and Product in the Roman Mint.” In Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold

Mattingly, edited by R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland, pp. 227-39. Oxford, 1956. Castelin, K. O. The Coinage of Rhesaena in Mesopotamia. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 108.

New York, 1946. Charlesworth, M. P. ‘‘Pietas and Victoria: The Emperor and the Citizen.”’ Journal of Roman Studies

33 (1943): 1-10. ———.. “’Providentia and Aeternitas.”’ Harvard Theological Review 29 (1936): 107-32. ——.. ‘Some Observations on Ruler Cult, Especially in Rome.”’ Harvard Theological Review 28

(1935): 5-44. ———. ‘’The Virtues of the Roman Emperor: Propaganda and the Creation of Belief.’’ Proceedings of the British Academy 23 (1937): 105-34. Chaumont, M. L. ‘“‘Conquétes sassanides et propagande mazdéene (III®°™* siécle).’’ Historia 22

(1973): 664-709. Cohen, H. Description historique des monnaites frappées sous l’empire romain communement appellées

meédailles imperiales. Vols. 1-8. 2nd ed. Paris, 1880-92. Cox, D. H. Coins from the Excavations at Curium, 1932-1953. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 145. New York, 1959. ———.. A Tarsus Coin Collection in the Adana Museum. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 92. New York, 1941. Crawford, M. Coinage of the Roman Republic. Vols. 1-2. Cambridge, 1974. ———.. ‘Finance, Coinage and Money from the Severans to Constantine.’”’ In Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt II. 2, pp. 560-93. Berlin, 1975. ————. ‘Roman Imperial Coin Types and the Formation of Public Opinion.’’ In Studies in Numismatic Method Presented to Philip Grierson, edited by C. N. L. Brooke, B. H. I. H. Stewart, J. G.

Pollard, and T. R. Volk, pp. 47-64. Cambridge, Mass., 1983. Dagron, G. Naissance d’une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 a 451. Paris, 1974. Dattari, G. Monete imperiale greche: Numi augustorum alexandrini. Cairo, 1901. Deiniger, J. Die Provinziallandtage der romischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis zum Ende des dritten

Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Berlin, 1965. Delbrueck, R. Die Miinzbildnisse von Maximinus bis Carinus. Berlin, 1940. ———.. ‘‘Uranius of Emesa.”’ Numismatic Chronicle 6, 8 (1948): 11-29. Dembski, G. Katalog der antiken Miinzen Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien A. Griechen 1. Hispanien und

die romischen Provinzen Galliens. Vienna, 1979.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 215 Dodds, E. R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus

Aurelius to Constantine. Cambridge, 1965. Downey, G. A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton, N.J., 1961.

Drew-Bear, T. “The City of Temenouthyrai in Phrygia.” Chiron 9 (1979): 275-302. ———.. ‘Local Cults in Graeco-Roman Phrygia.”’ Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 17 (1976):

247-68. ———. “‘Representations of Temples on the Greek Imperial Coins.’’ American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes 19 (1974): 27-63. Duke, T. T. “The Festival Chronology of Laodicea ad Lycum.” In Studies Presented to David Moore

Robinson, edited by G. E. Mylonas, vol. 2, pp. 851-57. St. Louis, 1951. Eddy, S. K. The Minting of Antoniniani A.D. 238 - 249 and the Smyrna Hoard. Numismatic Notes and

Monographs 156. New York, 1967. Edwards, K. M. Corinth: Results of the Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies

at Athens. Vol. VI, The Coins, 1896-1929. Cambridge, Mass., 1933. Elks, K. J. ‘The Eastern Mints of Valerian and Gallienus: The Evidence of Two New Hoards from Western Turkey.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 7, 15 (1975): 91-109. Ensslin, W. ““Gottkaiser und Kaiser von Gottes Gnaden.”’ Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaft, philologische-historische Klasse 6 (1943): 1-134. ————. ‘’Zu den Kriegen des Sassaniden Schapur I.” Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaft, philologische-historische Klasse 5 (1947): 1-115.

Fears, J. R. Princeps a diis electus: The Divine Election as a Political Concept at Rome. American Academy at Rome, Papers and Monographs 26. Rome, 1977. Février, J. G. Essai sur l'histoire politique et économique de Palmyre. Paris, 1931.

Forni, G. “IEPA e BEOC CVNKAHTOC: Un capitolo dimentiaco nella storia del Senato Romano.” Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 8, 5 (1954): 49-168. Forrer, L. The Weber Collection: Greek Coins. Vols 1-3. London, 1922-29. Foss, C. Ephesus after Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzantine and Turkish City. Cambridge, 1978. Franke, P. R. Kleinasien zur Romerzeit: Griechisches Leben im Spiegel der Miinzen. Munich, 1968. ——_——., W. Leschhorn, and A. U. Stylow. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland: Sammlung

von Aulock Index. Berlin, 1981. Frend, W. H.C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of Conflict from the Macabees to

Donatus. Oxford, 1967. Fritze, H. von. Die antiken Miinzen Mysiens. Berlin, 1913. ——. Die Miinzen von Pergamon. Berlin, 1910. ———.. ‘‘Sestos: Die Menas-Inschrift und das Munzwesen der Stadt.’’ Nomisma 1 (1907): 1-13. Gaebler, H. ‘‘Das KotvovBovAov éAevGepov in Tarsos und Anazarbos.”’ Zeitschrift fiir Numismatik

39 (1929): 313-31. Gagé, J. ‘‘Comment Sapor a-t-il de Valérien?”’ Syria 42 (1965): 343-88. ————. La Montée des Sassanides et l'heure de Palmyre. Paris, 1964.

————.. ‘‘Les Perses a Antioche et les courses d’hippodrome au milieu du III* siécle aprés Jesus-Christ, a propos du ‘transfuge’ syrien Mariades.’’ Bulletin de la Faculté des lettres de Strasbourg 31 (1952-53): 301-24. Gallazzi, C. ‘‘La titolatura di Vaballato come riflesso della politica di Palmira.’’ Quaderni ticinesi 4

(1975): 249-65. Gallwey, H. D. “‘A Hoard of Third-Century Antoniniani from Southern Spain.’’ Numismatic

Chronicle 7, 2 (1962): 335-406. ,

Gardner, P. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Peloponnesus. London, 1887.

Garnsey, P. D. A. ‘Aspects of the Decline of the Urban Aristocracy in the Empire.” In Aufstieg und Niedergang der rémischen Welt II. 1, pp. 229-52. Berlin, 1974.

216 BIBLIOGRAPHY ———.. Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford, 1970.

Gesche, H. ‘’Kaiser Gordian III mit dem Pfeil in Edessa.”’ Jahrbuch fiir Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 19 (1969): 47-77. Gillard, F. D. ‘“Notes on the Coinage of Julian the Apostate.” Journal of Roman Studies 59 (1969):

135-42. Gillespie, J. U. “KOINON ID’ TOAEQN: A Study of the Coinage of the ‘Ionian League.’ ”’ Revue belge de numismatique et sigillographie 102 (1956): 31-53 and 105 (1959): 211-13. Gnecchi, F. I medaglioni romani. Vols. 1-3. Milan, 1912. Goldman, H. Excavations of Gozlukule Tarsus. Vol. 1. Princeton, N.J., 1950. Goodman, M. State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-212. Totowa, N.J., 1983. Gough, M. ‘’Anazarbus.”’ Anatolian Studies 2 (1952): 85-150. Graindor, P. Un Milliardaire antique: Hérode Atticus et sa familie. Cairo, 1930. Grant, M. ‘‘Apollonia-Mordiaeum under Tiberius.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 6, 9 (1949): 150-56. ———. Aspects of the Principate of Tiberius. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 116. New York, 1950. —. From Imperium to Auctoritas: A Historical Study of Aes Coinage in the Roman Empire 49 B.C.-A.D. 14, Cambridge, 1946. ——_. ‘’Phrygian Metropolis in the Early Principate.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 6, 9 (1949): 15765.

Uppsala, 1941. }

————.. The Six Main Aes Coinages of Augustus: Controversial Studies. Edinburgh, 1953.

Gren, E. Kleinasien und der Ostbalkan in der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung der rémischen Kaiserzeit. Grose, S. W. Fitzwilliam Museum: Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Greek Coins. Vols. 1-3.

Cambridge, 1923-29. Grueber, H. A. Catalogue of Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum. Vols. 1-3. London,

1910.

Harl, K. W. ‘Caracalla or Elagabalus: The Imperial Imago at the Civic Mint of Magnesia ad

| Maeandrum.” American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes 26 (1981): 163-84. ——_——. ‘The Coinage of Neapolis, in Samaria, A.D. 244-253." American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes 29 (1984): 61-98. Head, B. V. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Caria, Cos, Rhodes etc. London, 1897. ———. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Corinth, Colonies of Corinth. London, 1889. ———. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Ionia. London, 1892. ———. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Lydia. London, 1901. —. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Macedonia. London, 1897. ———. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Phrygia. London, 1906. ———. Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1911. —_—. History of the Coinage of Ephesus. London, 1880. ———, and P. Gardner. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Thrace. London, 1877. Hertzfelder, H. ‘‘The Cistophori of Hadrian.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 5, 16:(1936): 1-29. Hill, G. F. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persia. London, 1922. ———. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Cyprus. London, 1904. ———. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Lycaonia, Isauria and Cilicia. London, 1900. ———. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Lycia, Pamphylia and Pisidia. London, 1897. ———. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Palestine. London, 1914. —— . Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Phoenicia. London, 1910. ———. ‘‘The Coinage of Pisidian Antioch.’ Numismatic Chronicle 4, 14 (1914): 299-313. ———. ‘‘The Mints of Roman Arabia and Mesopotamia.” Journal of Roman Studies 6 (1916):

149-69.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 217 ———. “Some Coins of Southern Asia Minor.”’ In Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsey, edited by W. H. Buckler and W. W. Calder, pp. 205-24. Manchester, 1923. Homo, L. ‘‘L’Empereur Gallien et la crise de l’Empire.”’ Revue historique 113 (1913): 1-22 and

225-67. —_——. Essai sur le regne de l’empereur Aurélien. Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d’Athénes et de

Rome 89. Paris, 1904. Honigmann, E., and A. Maricq. ‘“Recherches sur les Res Gestae Divi Saporis.’’ Mémoires de l’'Academte Royale de Belgique 8, 47 (1953): 1-204. Howgego, C. J. Greek Imperial Countermarks: Studies in the Provincial Coinages of the Roman Empire.

Royal Numismatic Society, special publication 17. London, 1985. Imhoof-Blumer, F. ‘‘Antike griechische Muinzen.”’ Revue suisse de numismatique 19 (1913): 1134. ———.. “’Beitrage zur Erklarung griechischen Miinztypen.”’ Nomisma 5 (1910): 25-42. ————.. ‘’Coin-Types of Some Kilikian Cities.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 18 (1898): 168-81. ———. Griechische Miinzen: Neue Beitrage und Untersuchungen. Munich, 1890. ———.. ‘Griechische Mtinzen aus dem Museum in Klagenfurt und anderen Sammlungen.”’ Numismatische Zeitschrift 16 (1884): 227-300.

——.. ““Griechischen Miinzen in der Grossherz6g]. Badischen Sammlung in Carlsruhe.”’ Zeitschrift fur Numismatik 7 (1890): 1-30. ——.. ‘‘Karische Miinzen.”’ Numismatische Zeitschrift 45 (1912): 193-203. —_——. Kleinasiatische Miinzen. Vols. 1-2. Vienna, 1901-2. —_——. Lydische Stadtmiinzen. Geneva, 1897.

——. Monnaies grecques. Paris, 1883.

——.. ‘Die Pragorte der Abbaiter Epikteter, Grimenothyriten und Temenothyriten.”’ In Festschrift fur Otto Benndorf zum seinem 60 Geburtstage, edited by K. Masner, pp. 201 —8. Vienna,

1898.

——.. “Zur griechischen Miinzkunde,”’ Revue suisse de numismatique 6 (1898): 1-48. ———.. ‘Zur griechischen und romischen Miinzkunde.”’ Revue suisse de numismatique 13 (1905):

161-272 and 14 (1908): 1-211. —_—, ed. Die antiken Miinzen Nord-Griechenlands. Vols. 1-4. Berlin, 1898-1935. ———, and P. Gardner. Ancient Coins Illustrating Lost Masterpieces of Greek Art: A Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias. Chicago, 1964. Inan, J., and E. Rosenbaum. Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor. London, 1966. Ingholt, H. ‘Inscriptions and Sculptures from Palmyra.”’ Berytus 3 (1936): 83-125. ——.. ‘Varia Tadmorea.”’ In Palmyre: Bilan et perspectives. Colloque de Strasbourg (18-20 Octobre 1973), pp. 101-37. Strasbourg, 1976. Johnston, A. ‘Caracalla or Elagabalus? A Case of Unnecessarily Mistaken Identity.’’ American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes 27 (1982): 97-148. ———.. ‘‘Hierapolis Revisited.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 144 (1984): 52-80. ———.. ‘‘New Problems for Old: Konrad Kraft on Die-sharing in Asia Minor.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 7, 14 (1974): 203-7. Jones, A. H. M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1971. —————. The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian. Oxford, 1966. ——_—. The Later Roman Empire, 284-602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Study. Vols. 1 —3.

Oxford, 1964. ———. ‘‘Numismatics and History.’’ In Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly, edited by R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland, pp. 13-33. Oxford, 1956. Jones, C. P. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Cambridge, Mass., 1978.

218 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1956.

Jones, N. F. ‘‘The Autonomous Wreathed Tetradrachms of Magnesia-on-Maeander.”’ American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes 24 (1979): 63-110. Jones, T. B. ‘‘A Numismatic Riddle: The So-called Greek Imperials.’’ Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107 (1963): 308-47.

Kadman, L. The Coins of Aelia Capitolina. Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium 1. Jerusalem, ———.. The Coins of Akko Ptolemais. Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium 4. Jerusalem, 1961. ————. The Coins of Caesarea Maritima. Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium 2. Jerusalem, 1957. Kantorowicz, E. H. ‘‘Gods in Uniform.’’ Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 105

(1961): 368-96. ———.. ‘‘Oriens Augusti— Lever du roi.’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 (1963): 117-77.

Kent, J. P. C. ‘““An Introduction to the Coinage of Julian the Apostate (A.D. 360-363).”’ Numismatic Chronicle 6, 20 (1959): 109-17. ——. Roman Coins. With photographs by M. and A. Hirmer. New York, 1978. Kienast, D. ‘‘Die Homonoiavertrage in der romischen Kaiserzeit.”” Jahrbuch fur Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 14 (1964): 51-64. Klimowsky, E. W. ‘‘The Monetary Function of City Coins.”’ In Proceedings of the International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem, 27-31 December 1963, edited by A. Kindler and C. H. V.

Sutherland, pp. 129-79. Jerusalem, 1967. Kraay, C. M. ‘’Notes on the Early Imperial Tetradrachms of Syria.’’ Revue numismatique 6, 7 (1965): 58-68. Kraft, K. Das System der kaiserzeitlichen Minzpragung in Kleinasien. Berlin, 1972.

Kroll, J. H. ‘The Eleusis Hoard of Athenian Imperial Coins and Some Deposits from the Athenian Agora.”’ Hesperia 42 (1973): 312-33. Krzyzanowska, A. Monnaies coloniales d'Antioche de Pisidie. Warsaw, 1970. Kubitschek, W. “‘Bostra.”” Numismatische Zeitschrift 49 (1916): 182-94. —__——. “Ev kodetyaucg opoig KiAKiwv.”” Numismatische Zeitschrift 27 (1895): 87-100. ———.. ‘Ninica Claudiopolis.’’ Numismatische Zeitschrift 34 (1902): 1-27.

——. Rundschau itber ein Quinquennium der antiken Numismatik (1890-1894). Vienna, 1895. Kunisz, A. ‘“East and Central European Finds of Autonomous Coins from the Roman Empire Period.’’ Wiadomosct Numizatyche, special issue 2 (1973): 27-39. Lane, E. N. Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Dei Menis. Vols. 1-4. Leiden, 1975-78. Laumonier, A. Les Cultes indigenes en Carte. Paris, 1958. Levante, E. ‘‘The Coinage of Alexandria Kat’issou in Cilicia.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 7, 11 (1971):

93-102. Levi, A. C. Barbarians on Roman Imperial Coins and Sculpture. Numismatic Notes and Monographs

123. New York, 1952. Levick, B. ‘’Caracalla’s Path.’’ In Hommages a Marcel Renard, edited by J. Bibauw, II, pp. 426-46.

Brussels, 1969. —__—.’’The Coinage of Pisidian Antioch in the Third Century A.D.” Numismatic Chronicle 7, 6

(1966): 47-59. —. Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor. Oxford, 1967.

Oxford, 1972. |

Lewis, N. Life in Egypt under Roman Rule. Oxford, 1983. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire. Lopuszanski, G. Le Date de la capture de Valérien et la chronologie des empereurs gaulois. Cahiers de

l‘Institute d’études polonaises en Belgique 9. Brussels, 1951. L’Orange, H.-P. ‘‘Sol Invictus Imperator: Ein Beitrag zur Apotheose.” Symbolae Osloenses 14

(1953): 86-114. —_———.. Studies on the Iconography of Cosmic Kingship in the Ancient World. Oslo, 1953.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 219 MacCormack, S. Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1981. MacDonald, D. J. ‘‘Aphrodisias and Currency in the East, A.D. 259-305.” American Journal of Archaeology 78 (1974): 279-86. ———. Coins from Aphrodisias. British Archaeological Reports, supplementary series 9. Oxford, 1976. MacDonald, G. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, University of Glasgow. Vols. 1-3.

Glasgow, 1899-1905. ————. Coin Types, Their Origin and Development. Glasgow, 1905.

————. ‘The Pseudo-Autonomous Coinage of Antioch.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 4, 4 (1904):

105-35. MacMullen, R. Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest and Alienation in the Empire. Cambridge,

Mass., 1966. ———. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven, 1981. ———. Roman Government's Response to Crisis, A.D. 235-337. New Haven, 1976. —. Roman Social Relations 50 B.C. to A.D. 284. New Haven, 1974. ———. Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire. Cambridge, Mass., 1967. Magie, D. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the Third Century after Christ. Vols. 1-2. Princeton, N.J., 1950. Mansel, A. M. Die Ruinen von Side. Berlin, 1963. Maricq, A. ‘Classica et Orientalia V: Res gestae Divi Saporis.”’ Syria 35 (1958): 295-360. Markl, A. ‘‘Das Provinzialcourant unter Kaiser Claudius II Gothicus.’’ Numismatische Zeitschrift

32 (1900): 149-83. —_——. ‘Die Reichsmiinzstatten unter Regierung des Quintillus und ihre Emissionen.”’ Numismatische Zeitschrift 22 (1890): 10-24. Marrou, H. I. Histoire de l'éducation dans l’antiquité. 6th ed. Paris, 1965. Matthews, J. F. Western Aristocracies and the Imperial Court, A.D. 364-425. Oxford, 1975. Mattingly, H. ‘“The Coinage of Macrianus II and Quietus.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 6, 14 (1954):

53-61. ———. ‘‘The Palmyrene Princes and the Mints of Antioch and Alexandria.’’ Numismatic Chron-

icle 5, 16 (1936): 89-114. ——. Roman Coins from the Earliest Times to the Fall of the Western Empire. 2nd ed. London, 1960.

———. et al. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vols. 1-6. London, 1923-62. ——. et al. The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vols. 1-9. London, 1923-81. Maurice, J. Numismatique constantienne: Iconographie et chronologie, déscription historique des émis-

sions moneétaires. Vols. 1-3. Paris, 1908-12. Mazza, M. Lotte sociali e restaurazione autoritaria nel III secolo d. C. 2nd ed. Catania, 1973.

Meliu, A. ‘‘La Cirenaica romana e le monete provinciali di Traiano, Adriano e Marco Aurelio.” Rassegna numismatica 32 (1935): 182-90. Mellor, R. BEA PQMH: The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World. Gottingen, 1975.

Menadier, K. ‘‘Die Miinzen und das Mtinzwesen bei den Scriptores Historiae Augustae.” Zeitschrift fir Numismatik 31 (1914): 1-144. Merten, E. W. Zwei Herrscherfeste in der Historia Augusta: Untersuchungen zu den Pompae der Kaiser

Gallienus und Aurelianus. Bonn, 1968. Meshorer, Y. ‘‘Sepphoris and Rome.”’ In Greek Numismatics and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of

Margaret Thompson, edited by O. Merkholm and N. Waggoner, pp. 159-71. Wetteren, Belgium, 1979. Metcalf, W. E. ‘‘The Antioch Hoard of Antoniniani and the Eastern Coinage of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian.”’ American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes 22 (1977): 71-94. ———.. The Cistophori of Hadrian. Numismatic Studies 15. New York, 1980. ——_——. ‘‘Hadrian, Iovis Olympius.’’ Mnemosyne 4, 27 (1974): 59-67. ———.. ‘‘The Overstriking of Hadrian’s Cistophori.’’ In Actes du 8° congrés international de numismatique, New York-Washington, Septembre 1973; pp. 347-53. Paris, 1976.

220 BIBLIOGRAPHY ———.. ‘The Tell Kalak Hoard and Trajan’s Arabian Mint.”’ American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes 20 (1975): 39-108. Milik, J. T. Recherches d’épigraphie proche-orientale, I: Dédicaces faites par des dieux (Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr) et des thiases sémitiques a l’époque romaine. Paris, 1972. Millar, F. The Emperor and the Roman World (31 B.C.-A.D. 337). Ithaca, N.Y., 1977. ———. ‘‘Paul of Samosata, Zenobia, and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance in Third Century Syria.” Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971): 1-17. ——. ‘’P. Herennius Dexippus: The Greek World and the Third Century Invasions.”’ Journal of Roman Studies 59 (1969): 12-29. ——.. A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford, 1964. Milne, J. G. Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins in the Ashmolean Museum. Supplement by C. M. Kraay. London, 1971. ———. ‘The Coinage of Antioch in Pisidia after A.D. 250.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 6, 7 (1947):

97-107.

——. Kolophon and its Coinage: A Study. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 96. New York, 194]. Mionnet, T. E. Déscription des médailles antiques, grecques et romaines. Vols. 1-7 and supplement

vols. 1-9. Paris, 1806-37. Mitchell, S. ‘““Iconium and Ninica: Two Double Communities in Roman Asia Minor.” Historia 28

(1979): 409-38.

Moretti, L. Iscrizionit agonistiche greche. Rome, 1953. | Morey, C. R. Dusares and the Coin-Types of Bostra: Catalogue of the Coinage of Bostra. Appendix to div.

II, sect. A, part 4 of Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1904-5 and 1909. Leiden, n.d. Mowat, R. “’Martelage et Abrasion des monnaies sous l’empire romain.”’ Revue numismatique 4,

5 (1901): 443-71 and 4, 6 (1902): 286-90 and 464-67. Miller, H. ‘‘Claudius Basilo und seine Verwandtschaft.” Chiron 10 (1980): 457-84. Miller, L., et al. Numismatique de l’ancienne Afrique. Vols. 1-3 with supplement. Copenhagen,

1860-74. Munsterberg, R. Die Beamtennamen auf den griechischen Miinzen. Vienna, 1914.

———. ‘‘Die Beamtennamen auf den griechischen Mtinzen.”” Numismatische Zeitschrift 60 (1927): 42-105. ———. ‘‘Damnatio Memoriae.”’ Monatsblatt der numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien 11 (1918):

32-37. ———. ‘Die Kaisernamen der r6émischen Kolonialmiinzen.’’ Numismatische Zeitschrift 59

(1926): 51-70. ———.. ‘Die Miinzen der Sophisten.’’ Numismatische Zeitschrift 48 (1915): 119-24. ———. ‘Die romischen Kaisernamen der griechischen Mtinzen.”’ Numismatische Zeitschrift 59

(1926): 1-50. —_———. ‘Uber die Namen der rémischen Kaiser auf den griechischen Miinzen.’”’ Numismatische

Zeitschrift 58 (1925): 37-48. Naster, P. La Collection Lucien de Hirsch: Catalogue des monnaies grecques. Brussels, 1959. Nock, A. D. Conversion: The Old and New Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo.

Oxford, 1933. ———. ‘The Emperor’s Divine Comes.”’ Journal of Roman Studies 37 (1947): 102-16. ———. “> pvvaoc 8edc.”” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 41 (1930): 1-62. Noe, S. P. A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 78. New York, 1937. Norr, D. Imperium und Polis in hohen Prinzipatzeit. Minchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und

antiken Rechtsgeschichte 50. Munich, 1966.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 221 Oikonomides, M. K. He Nomismatokia tes Nikopoleos. Athens, 1975.

Oliver, J. H. ‘The Civilizing Power: A Study of the Panathenaic Discourse of Aelius Aristides Against the Background of Literature and Cultural Conflict.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s., 58 (1968): 1-223. ———-. Marcus Aurelius: Aspects of Civic and Cultural Policy in the East. Hesperia supplement 13.

Princeton, N.J., 1970. ————.. ‘The Ruling Power: A Study of the Roman Empire in the Second Century after Christ through the Roman Oration of Aelius Aristides.’” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s., 43 (1953): 872-1003. Olmstead, A. T. ‘’The Mid-Third Century of the Christian Era.”’ Classical Philology 37 (1942):

241-62 and 398-420.

Palm, J. Rom, Romertum und Imperium in der griechischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit. Acta Reg. Societatis

Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 57. Lund, 1959. Papen, von. ‘’Die Spiele von Hierapolis.”’ Zeitschrift fiir Numismatik 26 (1908): 161-82. Pekary, T. ‘“‘Bemerkungen zur Chronologie des Jahrzehnts 250-260 n. Chr.”’ Historia 11 (1962): 123-28. Petit, P. Libanius et la vie municipale a Antioche au IV’ siécle apres J.-C. Paris, 1955.

Phillips, E. D. ‘“Three Greek Writers on the Roman Empire.” Classica et Mediaevalia 18 (1957):

102-19. Picard, G. C. Les Trophées romains: Contribution a l'histoire de la religion et de l’art triomphal de Rome.

Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d’Athénes et de Rome 187. Paris, 1957. Pick, B. ‘‘Die Neokorie-Tempel von Pergamon und der Asclepios Phyromachos,” In Festschrift Walter Judeich zum 70 Geburtstag, edited by J. Freunden, pp. 28-44. Weimar, 1929. ———-. ‘‘Die tempeltragenden Gottheiten und die Darstellung der Neokorie auf den Mtinzen.”’ Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archdologischen Instituts 7 (1904): 1-41. Poole, R. S. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Alexandria and the Nomes. London, 1892.

Price, M. J. ‘‘Countermarks at Prusias ad Hypium.”’ Numismatic Chronicle 7, 7 (1967): 37-42. ———.. ‘‘The Lost Year: Greek Light on a Problem of Roman Chronology.” Numismatic Chronicle

7, 13 (1973): 75-86. —_——, and B. L. Trell. Coins and Their Cities: Architecture on the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome and

Palestine. London, 1977. Price, S. R. F. ‘“Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult.”’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 104 (1984): 79-95. ———.. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge, 1984. Ramsay, W. M. The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia: Being an Essay of the Local History of Phrygia from

the Earliest Times to the Turkish Conquest. Vol. 1, parts 1-2. Oxford, 1895-97. ———.. The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. London, 1890. ———.. The Social Basis of Roman Power in Asia Minor. Aberdeen, 1941.

Regling, K. ‘“Hektor auf Mtinzen von Stektorion.”’ Klio 8 (1908): 489-92. ———.. Die Miinzen von Priene. Berlin, 1927. ———. Nysa ad Maeandrum. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts Erganzungsheft 10.

Berlin, 1913. ——.. “‘Zur griechischen Mtinzkunde III.” Zeitschrift fur Numismatik 24 (1904): 129-44. Rey-Coquais, J.-P. ‘‘Syrie romaine, de Pompée a Dioclétien.”’ Journal of Roman Studies 68 (1978):

44-73. Reynolds, J. Aphrodisias and Rome: Documents from the Excavations of the Theatre of Aphrodisias Conducted by Professor Kenan T. Erim, Together with Some Related Texts. Journal of Roman Studies,

monograph 1. London, 1982.

222 BIBLIOGRAPHY Robert, L. A travers l’Asie mineure: Poétes et prosateurs, monnaies grecques, voyages et géographie. Paris,

1980. —— .. “‘AITH2AMENO>%: sur les monnaies,”’ Hellenica 11-12 (1960): 53-62. ———. ‘‘Les Boules dans les types monétaires agonistiques.’’ Hellenica 7 (1949): 93-104. ———.. ‘‘Le Culte de Caligula a Milet et la province d’Asie.”’ Hellenica 7 (1949): 206-38. —_——.. ‘‘De Cilicie a Messine et a Plymouth avec deux inscriptions grecques errantes.”’ Journal des savants (1973): 161-211. ———.. ‘Deux concours grecques a Rome.”’ Comptes rendus de l'Academie des inscriptions et belles-

lettres (1970): 6-27. ———.. ‘‘Documents d’Asie mineure.”’ Bulletin de correspondance hellenique 101 (1977): 43-132. ———. ‘‘Documents d’Asie mineure.”’ Bulletin de correspondance hellenique 102 (1978): 395—543. ———~. Documents de l'Asie mineure méridionale: Inscriptions, monnaties et géographie. Paris, 1966. ———.. Etudes anatoliennes. Recherches sur les inscriptions grecques de l’'Asie mineure. Paris, 1937.

——. Etudes épigraphiques et philologiques. Paris, 1938. ———.. Etudes de numismatique grecque. Paris, 1951. ——_——. Les Gladiateurs dans l'Orient grec. Paris, 1940.

———.. ‘Inscription agonistique de Smyrna.” Hellenica 7 (1949): 105-13. ———.. ‘Inscription agonistique d’Ancyra concours d’Ancyra.”’ Hellenica 11-12 (1960): 35068. ———.. ‘Inscriptions et institutions agonistiques.’”’ Eos 48 (1957): 229-38. —— . ‘‘Laodicée du Lycos: Les Inscriptions.’”’ In Laodicée du Lycos. Campagnes 1961-1968: Le Nympheée, edited by J. DesGagniers et al., pp. 247-239. Paris, 1969. ——. ‘‘Lettres d’Hadrien 4a la ville d’Hadrianopolis-Stratonicée en l’an 127.’’ Hellenica 6

(1948): 80-84. —_——.. ‘‘Monnaies grecques de l’é€poque imperiale II: Une Féte a Sardes.’’ Revue numismatique

6, 18 (1976): 49-56. ————. Monnaies antiques en Troade. Paris, 1966. ———. Monnaies grecques: Types, legendes, magistrats monétaires et géographie. Paris, 1967. —_——. ‘‘Les Monétaires et un decrét hellenistique de Sestos.’’ Revue numismatique 6, 15 (1973):

43-53. ——. ‘‘Nonnos et les monnaies d’Akmonia de Phrygie.”’ Journal des savants (1975): 153-92. —_——. ‘‘Notes de numismatique et d’épigraphie grecques.’’ Revue archéologique 1 (1939): 52-

6l. —_—_——. ‘‘Une Nouvelle Inscription grecque de Sardes: Réglement de |’autorité perse relatif a un culte de Zeus.’’ Comptes rendus de l'Academie des inscriptions et belles-lettres (1975): 597-619.

—_—. Opera Minora Selecta. Vols. 1-4. Amsterdam, 1969-74. —_—. ‘Recherches épigraphiques VI: Inscriptions d’Atheénes.”’ Revue des études anciennes 62 (1960): 316-24. —_——. ‘Sur des inscriptions d’Ephése.”” Revue de philologie 51 (1977): 7-14.

—__—. “Sur des inscriptions d’Ephése: Fétes, athletes, empereurs, épigrammes.”” Revue de philologie 41 (1967): 7-84. —_—_—. ‘Sur les types de monnaies imperiales d’Asie Mineure.”’ In Centennial Publication of the

American Numismatic Society, edited by H. Ingholt, pp. 577-84. New York, 1958. ———. ‘Sur une monnaie de Synnada, TPONIEY>.” Hellenica 7 (1949): 74-81. —_——. ‘La Titulature de la ville de Sardes.”’ Hellenica 1 (1940): 56-59. —_——. Villes d’Asie mineure: Etudes de géographie ancienne. 2nd ed. Paris, 1962.

—_—_—. ‘‘Villes et monnaies de Lycie.”’ Hellenica 10 (1955): 188-222. ——, and A. Dupont-Sommer. La Déesse de Hierapolis Castabala (Cilicie). Paris, 1964. —_———, and J. Robert. La Carie: Histoire et géographie historique avec le recueil des inscriptions antiques. .

Vol. 2. Paris, 1954.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 223 Robinson, E. S. G. ‘‘Coins of Lycia and Pamphylia.”’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 34 (1914): 36-46. Rosenberger, M. City-Coins of Palestine. Jerusalem, 1975. ——. City-Coins of Palestine. Jerusalem, 1977. ———.. The Coinage of Eastern Palestine and Legionary Countermarks, Bar-Kochba Overstrucks. Jeru-

salem, 1978. ———.. The Rosenberger Israel Collection. Jerusalem, 1972.

Rostovizeff, M. “AQPEA CITOY TAPCQ.” Numismatic Chronicle 3, 20 (1900): 96-107. ———.. ‘Res gestae divi Saporis and Dura.” Berytus 8 (1943): 17-60. ———.. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Vols. 1-2. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1957. Rouvier, J. Numismatique des villes de Phénicie. Athens, 1904. Russell, D. A., and N. G. Wilson, eds. and trans. Menander Rhetor. Oxford, 1981. Ryberg, I. S. Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art. American Academy in Rome, Memoirs 22. Rome, 1955. Sahin, M. C. Die Inschriften von Stratonikeia. Vols. 1-2. Bonn, 1981-82. Salama, P. ‘“L’Empereur Macrin Parthicus Maximus.” Revue des études anciennes 46 (1964): 33452.

Salamon, M. ‘‘The Chronology of Gothic Incursions into Asia Minor in the IJIrd Century A.D.” Eos 59 (1971): 109-39. Sammlung Walter Niggler. Auktion 10/3 —4/1965. Vols. 1-2. Basel, 1965. Saulcy, L. F. de. Numismatique de la Terre Sainte. Paris, 1874. Sch6énert-Geiss, E. ‘Das Ende der Provinzialpragung in Thrakien und Mosien.” Klio 50 (1968):

251-56.

——. Die Miinzpragung von Byzantion. Vols. 1—2. Berlin, 1972. —_——. Die Miinzpragung von Perinthos. Vols. 1-2. Berlin, 1965. Schultz, S. Die Miinzpragung von Magnesia am Mdander in der rimischen Kaiserzeit. Hildesheim, 1975. Sear, D. R. Greek Imperial Coins and their Values: The Local Coinages of the Roman Empire. London, 1982. Seston, W. Dioclétien et la tétrarchie, I: Guerres et réformes (284-305). Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d’Athénes et de Rome 162. Paris, 1946. Seyrig, H. ‘‘Antiquités syriennes 21: Sur quelques sculptures palmyreniennes.”’ Syria 18 (1937):

31-53.

———.. “‘Antiquités syriennes 25: Sur quelques monnaies provinciales de Syrie et de Cilicie.”’ Syria 20 (1939): 39-42. ————.. “‘Antiquités syriennes 40: Sur une idole hierapolitaine.”’ Syria 26 (1949): 17-28. ———. ‘‘Antiquités syriennes 52: Le Phare de Laodicée.”’ Syria 29 (1952): 54-59. ———.. “Antiquités syriennes 55: Monnaies péloponnesiennes en Syrie.’’ Syria 33 (1956):

249-59.

———.. ‘‘Antiquités syriennes 67: Monnaies contremarquées en Syrie.”’ Syria 35 (1958): 18797. ———.. “‘Antiquités syriennes 76: Caractéres de l'histoire d’Emese.” Syria 36 (1959): 184-92. ——.. “‘Antiquités syriennes 89: Les Dieux armés et les Arabes en Syrie.’’ Syria 47 (1970):

77-112.

: ———.. ‘‘Antiquites syriennes 93: Bel de Palmyre.”’ Syria 48 (1971): 85-114. ———. “‘Antiquités syriennes 94: Quatres images sculptées du Musée d’Alep.”’ Syria 48 (1971):

115-20.

———.. “‘Le Monnayage de Ptolemais en Phénicie, VII. Tetradrachmes provinciaux.’’ Revue numismatique 6, 4 (1962): 46-47. ——. ‘Nouveaux monuments de Baalbek et de la Beqaa.”’ Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 16 (1961): 109-35.

224 ~ BIBLIOGRAPHY ——. ‘‘Palmyra and the East.”’ Journal of Roman Studies 40 (1950): 1-7. ——. ‘’Poids antiques de la Syrie et de la Phénicie sous la domination grecque et romaine.” Bulletin de Musée de Beyrouth 8 (1949): 37-79. —— . ‘Uranin Antonin: Une Question d’authenticité.”” Revue numismatique 4, 1 (1958): 5157.

Shear, J. P. ‘‘Athenian Imperial Coinage.” Hesperia 5 (1936): 285-332. Sherwin-White, A. N. The Roman Citizenship. 2nd ed. rev. Oxford, 1973. Shiel, N. ‘‘The Coinage of Saloninus as Augustus.’’ American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes 24

(1979): 117-22. Smallwood, E. M. The Jews under the Roman Empire. Leiden, 1976. Solari, A. ‘‘La politica orientale del principato palmireno.”’ Philologus 92 (1937): 239-43. Spijkerman, A. The Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia. Edited by M. Piccirillo. Jerusalem, 1978. Starr, C. G. ‘“Naval Activity in Greek Imperial Issues.”’ Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 46

(1967): 51-57. Strack, P. L. Untersuchungen zur romischen Reichspragung des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Vols. 1-3.

Stuttgart, 1931-37. Stuart, M. ‘‘How Were Imperial Portraits Distributed Throughout the Roman Empire?” American Journal of Archaeology 43 (1939): 600-17. Sutherland, C. H. V. Coinage and Roman Imperial Policy 31 B.C.-68 A.D. London, 1958. ——. The Emperor and the Coinage: Julio-Claudian Studies. London, 1976. —_——. ‘Flexibility in the Reformed Coinage of Diocletian.’’ In Essays in Roman Coinage Presented

to Harold Mattingly, edited by R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland, pp. 174-89. Oxford, 1956. —_——. ‘‘The Intelligibility of Roman Imperial Coin Types.” Journal of Roman Studies 49 (1959):

46-55. —_——. ‘The Pattern of Monetary Development in Phoenicia and Palestine during the Early Empire.”’ In Proceedings of the International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem, 27-31 December. 1963, edited by A. Kindler and C. H. V. Sutherland, pp. 88-105. Jerusalem, 1967. —_—. ‘‘The Symbolism of the Early Aes Coinage under Augustus.” Revue numismatique 6, 7

(1965): 94-109. —_——, and R. A. G. Carson. The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 1. Rev. ed. London, 1984. ———., and C. M. Kraay. Catalogue of Coins of the Roman Empire in the Ashmolean Museum, I: Augustus (31 B.C.-A.D. 14). Oxford, 1975.

——, with N. Olcay and K. E. Merrington. The Cistophori of Augustus. Royal Numismatic Society, special publication 5. London, 1970. Svoronos, J. N. Numismatique de la Crete antique. Macon, 1890. Swift, E. H. ‘“Imagines in Imperial Portraiture.’’ American Journal of Archaeology 2, 27 (1923):

286-301. Swift, L. J. ‘’The Anonymous Encomium of Philip the Arab.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 7

(1966): 267-89. Sydenham, E. A. The Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia. London, 1933. ————. Coinage of the Roman Republic. London, 1952. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland: Sammlung von Aulock. Berlin, 1957-68. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum.

Copenhagen, 1942-69. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, The United States of America: The Collection of the American Numismatic

Society. Fascs. 1-4 and 6. New York, 1969-81. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Vol. IV. Fitzwilliam Museum: Leake and General Collections. London,

1940-58.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 225 Taeger, F. Charisma: Studien zur Geschichte des antiken Herrscherkultes. Vols. 1-2. Stuttgart, 1957 —60. The Thomas Olive Mabbott Collection, Part 1: The Greek Coins. H. Holtzer and H. Schulman Auction.

New York, 1969. Thompson, H. A. ‘Athenian Twilight: A.D. 267-600.” Journal of Roman Studies 49 (1959):

61-72. Thompson, M. The Athenian Agora: Coins from the Roman Through the Venetian Period. Vol. 2.

Princeton, N.J., 1954. Toynbee, J. M. C. “Greek Imperial Medallions.” Journal of Roman Studies 34 (1944): 65-73. ————.. ‘‘The Picture-Language in Roman Art and Coinage.” In Essays in Roman Coinage Pre-

sented to Harold Mattingly, edited by R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland, pp. 205-26. Oxford, 1956. ———. Roman Medallions. Numismatic Studies 5. New York, 1944. Trillmich, W. Familienpropaganda der Kaiser Caligula und Claudius: Agrippina Maior und Antonia Augusta auf Minzen. Berlin, 1978. Tyler, P. The Persian Wars of the 3rd Century A.D. and Roman Imperial Monetary Policy, A.D. 253-68.

Historia Einzelschriften 23. Wiesbaden, 1975. Turcan, R. ‘Le Culte imperial au III* siecle.”’ In Aufstieg und Niedergang der rémischen Welt II. 16. 2,

pp. 997-1084. Berlin, 1978. Valdenburg, V. ‘“La Théorie monarchique de Dion Chrysostome.”’ Revue des études grecques 40

(1927): 142-62. Van Sickle, C. E. ‘‘The Changing Bases of Roman Power in the Third Century A.D.” L’Antiquité classique 8 (1939): 153-70. —__——. ‘‘Particularism in the Roman Empire during the Military Anarchy.”’ American Journal of Philology 51 (1930): 343-57.

Vermeule, C. C. ‘‘Eastern Influences in Roman Numismatic Art A.D. 200-400.” Berytus 12

(1952-53): 85-99. ————. Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor. Cambridge, Mass., 1968.

Vogt, J. Die alexandrinischen Miinzen. Vols. 1-2. Stuttgart, 1924. Waage, D. B. Antioch-on-the-Orontes. Vol. IV, part 2, Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Crusaders’ Coins.

Princeton, N.J., 1952. Waddington, W. H. ‘Inscriptions de Tarse.”’ Bulletin de correspondance hellenique 7 (1883): 28092. —_———., E. Babelon, and T. Reinach. Recueil general des monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure. Parts 1 —4.

Paris, 1904-12, and 2nd edition of part 1, Paris, 1925. Walker, D. R. The Metrology of Roman Silver Coinage. Vols. 1-3. British Archaeological Reports,

supplementary series 5, 22, and 40. Oxford, 1976-78. Walser, G., and T. Pekary. Die Krise des romischen Reichs, Bericht iiber die Forschungen zur Geschichte

des 3 Jahrhunderts (193-284 n. Chr.) von 1939 bis 1959. Berlin, 1962. Weber, L. ‘‘The Coins of Hierapolis in Phrygia.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 4, 13 (1913): 1-30 and

133-61. —_—. ‘Zur Miinzpragung des phrygischen Hierapolis.” In XAPITE2: Friedrich Leo zum sechzigsten Geburtstag, edited by E. Bruhn, pp. 466-90. Berlin, 1911. Weiss, P. ‘Die Abkurzungen IB und IT auf den spatkaiserzeitlichen Munzen von Tarsos und Anazarbos.”’ Chiron 9 (1979): 545-52. —_——. ‘Ein agonistisches Bema und die isopythischen Spiele von Side.”’ Chiron 11 (1981):

315-46.

226 BIBLIOGRAPHY ———. “Ein Altar fur Gordian III, die alteren Gordiane und die Severer aus Aigeai (Kilikien).”’ Chiron 12 (1982): 191-205. ———.. ‘Zwei Miinzen von Nikaia und Ilion.” Chiron 10 (1980): 485-91. West, L., and A. C. Johnson. Currency in Roman and Byzantine Egypt. Princeton, N.J., 1944. Woodward, A. M. ‘The Cistophoric Series and Its Place in the Roman Coinage.” In Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly, edited by R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland,

pp. 149-73. Oxford, 1956. ———. ’’A Hoard of Imperial Coins from Tarsus.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 5, 5 (1925): 301-35. ———.. ‘The Neocorate of Aegeae and Anazarbus in Cilicia.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 6, 3 (1973):

5-10.

———. ‘Notes on the Augustan Cistophori.’’ Numismatic Chronicle 6, 12 (1952): 19-32. —.. ‘Sparta and Asia Minor under the Roman Empire.” In Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson, edited by G. E. Mylonas, vol. 2, pp. 868-83. St. Louis, 1951. Wroth, W. ‘‘Asklepios and the Coins of Pergamum.”’ Numismatic Chronicle 3, 2 (1882): 1-51. ———.. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Galatia, Cappadocia and Syria. London, 1889. ———.. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Mysia. London, 1892.

—. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Pontus, Paphlagonia, Bithynia, and the Kingdom of the Bosporus. London, 1889. ———. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Troas, Aeolis and Lesbos. London, 1894. Wruck, W. Die syrische Provinzialpragung von Augustus bis Trajan. Stuttgart, 1931.

Ziegler, P. ‘“Miinzen Kilikiens als Zeugnis kaiserlicher Getreidespenden.” Jahrbuch fur Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 27 (1977): 29-67.

INDEX

Abgar X: reverse type, pl. 20.7 agonothetes. See magistrates Abonouteichus, Paphlagonia, 23-24; coins of, agora: on coins, 56, pl. 23.6

23, pl. 9.6 Agrippina II: coins of and obverse portrait, pl. 4.2

Acamas, hero: on coins, pl. 9.3 Aktia, imperial games at: on coins, 68-70, pl. Acmoneia, Phrygia, 25, 65; coins of, 65, pl. 22.7 29.2,5-7

Adana, Cilicia: coins of, 41 Alabanda, Caria: coins of, 22, 41, 49, pl. 20.2 } adlocutio: on imperial coins, 37; on civic coins, 55, Alexander of Abonouteichus, 23-24, 104

pl. 23.6 Alexander the Great: founder, 14, pl. 9.2; his cui-

Adramyteum, Mysia: coins of, pl. 22.2 rass worn by emperors, 40, 155n19; associated

Adrianea, 69, 70, pl. 29.7 with Dionysus, 48; associated with emperors, adventus: in imperial art, 52-53, 100; on civic 48, 56, 60, 76; on medallions, 150n31; obcoins, 53-54, 70, pl. 21.11, pl. 22. 1-9, pl. verse portrait, pl. 5.1; reverse type, pl. 9.2, pl.

23.1-4; Caracalla at Pergamum, 55-57, pl. 33.7 23.1-4; naval, 56, 169n39, pl. 21.11 Alexandria, Egypt, 93, 113; local coinage, 10, 95,

Aegeae, Cilicia: imperial patronage, 51, 60, 113, 203n2 196n56; Aesclepieion, 60-61, 174n81; coins Alexandria Troas: coins of, 56, 77, pl. 25.6, pl.

of, 40, 59, 60-62, 196n56, pl. 25.8 31.4

aegis: worn by Caracalla, pl. 14.5 Alinda, Caria: coins of, 41, 58, 78, pl. 26.3, pl.

Aelia Capitolina, Judaea: coins of, 54 32.9-10

Aelius Aristides: on polis, 3; on Rome, 5, 72, 73, alliance: between Rome and polis, 40, 72-73, 74, 88, 89; on Smyrna, 23, 72; on emperor, 39, 88; 81-82, 94, 190nn.106-—7, 194n41 on victory, 42, 43, 44, 49; on Roman army, 49; allies: cities as muoty, dtAoc Kat obvupayos

on gods, 54; on festivals, 64 ‘Pwyatwv, 74, 81-82, pl. 36.1-6

Aemilian: coins of, 34, 112, 149n29 altar: of Zeus, 14, pl. 7.6-—7; on coins, 53,57-58,

Aeneas: on coins, 74, pl. 30.13-14 pl. 21.1, pl. 29.6. See also sacrifice

aes. See bronze currency Amasia, Pontus: coins of, pl. 15.2-3

aeternitas, 36, 100, 163n89 Amastris, Paphlagonia: coins of, pl. 14.8 aeternu(m) benefic(ium): on coins, imperial grants Amazon: on coins, 79, pl. 34.8 of grain, 62, 175n89, pl. 27.2. See also dorea Amblada, Pisidia: coins of, 80, pl. 34.5, pl. 35.7

Aezanis, Phrygia, 67, 81 Amisus, Pontus: coins of, pl. 2.7

Africa: civic coinages, 9, 21; as personification, Amorium, Phrygia: coins of, 47, 48, 82, pl. 18.3,

pl. 1.6 pl. 19.1, pl. 32.8, pl. 36.7

Aglibol, 54, 79 Anazarbus, Cilicia: arch at, 45; imperial patronagones themikoi (aywvec @gutKot): named on civic age of, 45, 68, 196n56; coins of, 45, 66, 68, pl.

coins, 63-64, pl. 28.7-8 20.8

agonistic coinage, 14, 52, 63-70; types selected Ancaeus, hero: on coins, 78, pl. 33.3 by victors, 32; coins, pl. 27.7—9, pl. 28.1-8, Ancyra, Galatia, 50, 89, 94; coins of, 49, 50-51,

pl. 29.1-11 69, 80, pl. 28.6

227

228 INDEX Ancyra, Phrygia: coins of, pl. 30.1 pl. 6.2, pl. 7.5, pl. 31.9; as Leukophyrene, 59; Anemurium, Cilicia: coins of, pl. 33.5 as Pergaia, 59; as huntress, 65, 80, pl. 6.1, pl.

Annia Faustina: coins of, 72 35.4, pl. 35.6; as Anaitis, pl. 26.8; as Eleuth-

Antinous: coins of, 24, 29 era, pl. 5.2

Antiochia: on coins, 58, pl. 26.9 Artemision: sacked by Goths, 90; on coins, 14, 36,

Antiochia ad Maeandrum, Caria: coins of, pl. 7.8, pl. 7.5

pl. 14.9 Arycanda, Lycia: coins of, 46, pl. 18.4, pl. 35.3

Antiochia ad Orontem, Syria: boule, 4; fall, 5, 91, as, 7, pl. 1.7. See also bronze currency 109-12; coinages, 12, 17,22, 128n2, 133n45; Asclepeia, 57, pl. 28.6 loss of coinage rights, 24; reaction to Julian’s Asclepieion, 55-56, 60-62, pl. 24.2 -3, pl. 24.6,

coin types, 34; Palmyrene rule, 93, 202n92; pl. 25.8 late civic life, 100, 102; imperial mint, 111- Asclepius, 23; cult at Pergamum, 24, 55-57; at

12; coins of, pl. 2.8-10, pl. 3.5—6; medallion, Ancyra, 56-57; at Aegeae, 60-61, 173-

pl. 11.9 74n78; on coins, 55-57, pl. 8.2, pl. 12.5-6,

Antiochia ad Pisidiam, 15, 50, 92; botched coins, pl. 23.2-5, pl. 23.8, pl. 24.1, pl. 27.7

35; coins of, 50, 58-59, 92, pl. 21.4, pl. 21.9, Asia, province of: visit of Hadrian, 53; currencies, pl. 30.8 10, 24, 26, 29, 30, 50-51 antoninianus, 7, 20, pl. 1.8; iconography, 36-37, Asia Minor: Persian invasion of, 5, 9, 90-92;

40, 59-60, 203n4 currency, 10, 15, 17, 27; Gothic invasion of,

Antoninus Pius: honored at Lounda, 28, 31-32; 90; Palmyrene rule, 93-94; holy men in,

as dynastic symbol, 35, 37; coins of, pl. 9.6 103-4 Apamea, Phrygia: coins of, pl. 9.8 Aspendus, Pamphylia: coins of, 74, 82, pl. 11.7,

Aphrodisias, Caria: letters of, 2, 4,22, 23,42-43, pl. 36.2

64, 67-68, 81, 87; currency, 17; festivals, 29, assarion, 13, pl. 3.1-—4. See also bronze currency 67-68; cult statue on coins, 36, pl. 8.6; mone- assembly. See demos tary edict at, 95; coins of, 16, 42, 59, 67, 69, pl. Assus, Troas: oath to Caligula, 38, 39, 46

8.6, pl. 15.7 Astarte: on coins, 14; sacred cart, 47, pl. 18.5-6

Aphrodite: on coins, 36, 59, pl. 8.6 Athena: on coins, 43, 73, 78, pl. 3.1, pl. 8.1, pl. Apollo: Lairbenus, 27, 68-69, 72, pl. 29.1; 15.5, pl. 33.2, pl. 33.4

Smintheus, 56, pl. 25.6; Tyrimnaeus, 56, 58, Athens: boule, 4; currency, 17, 24, 27; imperial 66, pl. 8.1, pl. 22.8, pl. 27.8; at Side, 65; at patronage of, 22, 24, 38; visit of Hadrian, 53; Perinthus, 68; intercessions of, 89, 110; on Panhellenion, 76-77; sack, 89; late pagan ar-

coins, 32, 56, 58-59, 66, 72, pl. 8.1, pl. 20.5, istocracy, 97-98, 102 pl. 22.8, pl. 25.6, pl. 26.7, pl. 27.8, pl. 29.1, pl. athletes: rewarded with coins, 28; named on

31.10, pl. 33.1; lyre of, on coins, pl. 2.2 coins, 29, 32, 52; status, 62-63; guild, 63; as Apollodotus of Lounda, moneyer, 28, 31 coin type, 14, 15, pl. 28.5-—8, pl. 29.5 Apollonia, Pisidia: coins of, pl. 5.1 Attaleia, Pamphylia: coin of, 15, pl. 28.1

Appia, Phrygia: coins of, pl. 31.7 Augousteia, 69-70, pl. 29.7

aquila. See legion, standards of Augustan History. See Scriptores Historiae Augustae

Aquileia, 39, 75; coins of, pl. 14.10 Augustus: currency system, 7, 18; as dynastic Aquilia Severa: coins of, pl. 34.2 symbol, 37; his temples, 55, 60; restores tem-

Arabia Petraea, 10, 89, 93, 104 ples, 61; relief to Tralles, 62; and Aktia, 68;

Aradus, Phoenicia: coins of, pl. 13.2 coins of, pl. 2.1-2, pl. 2.4, pl. 2.8, pl. 3.5; obarch, triumphal, 2, 45; at Lepcis Magna, 41; at verse portrait, pl. 2.1-—2, pl. 2.8, pl. 3.5; re-

Thessalonica, 48, 55 verse type, pl. 2.4

archon. See magistrates Aurelian, 6; end of civic coinage, 11, 20; and Sol Ares: on coins, 43, 50, 78, pl. 15.6 Invictus, 37, 79, 94; triumph, 44; associated Ariassus, Pisidia: coins of, pl. 13.4 with Dionysus, 48; games, 65, 68, pl. 27.7; as

Ariel: on coins, pl. 34.1 censor, 75; defeats Palmyra, 93-94, 202n92; army, Roman, 4-6, 8, 90, 99, 191n7, 206n28; as coins of, 65, pl. 27.7 stimulus for civic coinage, 18-19; compre- Aurelius Phoebus, moneyer, 29, 75 hension of coin types, 32; praised on imperial aureus, 7, 13, 17, 32, pl. 1.1, pl. 14.1

| coins, 37, 153n51; Greek perceptions of, 49 51, 88

Artemidorus, moneyer, 32 Baal: on coins, 14; Bel of Dura, 79; Baalshamin, Artemis, on coins: as Ephesia, 32, 36, 48, 54, 59, 79

INDEX 229 baetyl: on coins, 14, pl. 9.1 Cadmus: on coins, pl. 31.6, pl. 33.6 Bagis, Lydia: coins of, 43, pl. 15.6 Caesarea Maritima, Palestine: coins of, 74 Balbinus: coins of, 34, 51, 75, 149n28, 166n117 Caesarea Mazaca, Cappadocia: silver coinages, Balkans: Gothic invasion, 6, 90; coinage of, 10, 18, pl. 2.3—5; Gothic attack, 90; fall, 91, 110;

18, 60 Christianized, 102

barbarians: invasions, 5, 7, 90-92; as coin type, Caligula: oath of Assus, 38; as neos Helios, 46; dam-

32, 37, 42-44; comprehension of coin types, natio memoriae, 150-51n34; as Alexander the 33, 147nn.12-13. See also Germans; Par- Great, 155n19; coins of and portrait, pl. 2.4

thians; Persians Capitoline Games, 68, 69, pl. 29.8

Bargasa, Caria: coins of, pl. 16.8 Caracalla: Parthian War, 5, 18, 39, 54; debase-

Baris, Pisidia: coins of, pl. 17.2 ment of coinage, 7; civic mints under, 19; as basileus ( Baovi€ve): emperor as, 33, 39, 56; tyrant, 24; law on imago, 34; damnatio memoriae BaatiEedovtos 0 KOGMOG EvTLXEL ON coins, 39, of Geta, 35, pl. 12.2—4, pl. 16.2; as Alexander

56, 154n6, 169n34 the Great, 40, 56, pl. 14.3 —4; as Helios, 41, 46,

Bilbilis, Spain: coins with name of Sejanus erased, 61; letters to Aphrodisias, 42-43, 67-68; at

150n34 Pergamum, 55-56, 60-61, pl. 23.1-5, pl.

bishop: power of in cities, 8, 84, 102-3 23.7-8, pl. 24.1-—3, pl. 24.6; visit to the East,

Bithynia: coins of, 10, 14, 36, 39, 76 56-57, 60-61, 65-66; letter to Aezanis, 67; Bithynium-Claudiopolis, Bithynia: coins of, pl. grants of Aktia, 68; Philadelphian games, 69,

14.2 pl. 12.2; honored at Tacina, 71; at Diocae-

Blaundus, Lydia: coins of, pl. 32.6 sarea, 81

blunders, on coins: blundered legends, 15, 16, 35, —coins of, pl. 1.5, pl. 1.7-8, pl. 4.4, pl. 6.3, pl. pl. 10.1, pl. 10.3-6, pl. 10.11 -—13; improvised 7.5, pl. 8.3, pl. 10.2, pl. 10.11, pl. 11.1—-2, pl. portraits, 15, 35, pl. 10.1, pl. 10.7-10; blun- 12.3, pl. 13.8, pl. 14.3—4, pl. 16.1-2, pl. 17.4,

dered reverse types, 15-16 pl. 17.7, pl. 18.2-3, pl. 18.9, pl. 19.1-3, pl.

boar, on coins, 47, 78, 80, pl. 17.5, pl. 25.4, pl. 20.2 -—3, pl. 21.10-11, pl. 22.5, pl. 22.7-8, pl.

33.3, pl. 35.6 23.1-8, pl. 24.1-3, pl. 24.6, pl. 25.1, pl.

Bostra, Arabia Petraea: 76, 79, 93, 180n144; 25.3-4, pl. 25.7, pl. 26.1-2, pl. 26.5-8, pl.

coins of, 69, 77 27.1, pl. 27.4, pl. 29.1, pl. 30.6, pl. 30.13, pl.

boule, 4, 87, 98, 102; regulates civic coinage, 16, 32.4, pl. 32.8, pl. 33.4, pl. 33.9, pl. 34.7, pl. 18, 25, 27; obverse type, 26, 77, pl. 31.2; re- 35.1, pl. 35.7, pl. 36.1

verse type, 77, pl. 26.5, pl. 31.5 — obverse portrait, 40, 41, 61, 66, pl. 1.5, pl.

bouleutai: activities, 3, 4, 25, 87; greeting adventus, 1.7-8, pl. 4.4, pl. 10.2, pl. 10.11, pl. 11.1-2, 55-56; loss of power, 85, 87, 99. See also de- pl. 12.4, pl. 13.8, pl. 14.4-5, pl. 16.1-2, pl.

curions; magistrates; notables 19.1-—3; reverse type, 41-43, 45, 47-48, 49,

bouleuteric class, 4, 85 50,54-57, 59, 66, 169n34, 170nn.48—49, pl. bouleuterion: on coins, 56, 77, pl. 23.5, pl. 31.4 1.1, pl. 12.2, pl. 15.3, pl. 16.1-2, pl. 17.4, pl.

bridge: on coins, 14, 62, pl. 7.8, pl. 27.3 17.7, pl. 18.2—3, pl. 18.9, pl. 19.1-3, pl. bronze currency: imperial, 7, 32, pl. 1.5—7; civic, 20.2-3, pl. 21.10-11, pl. 22.5, pl. 22.7-8, pl. 9—11, 17-20; value of civic aes, 18, pl. 3.1-6; 23.1-8, pl. 24.1-3, pl. 24.1—3, pl. 25.7, pl.

reasons for minting, 19; profits from, 19, 26; 26.1, pl. 26.6-8 end of civic aes, 20, 94-95; countermarking, Carallia, Cilicia: coins of, pl. 11.7 20; distribution at festivals, 28; proposed recall Carrhae, Mesopotamia, 91, 109

in Lycia, 29 Carthage: imperial mint, 96, 203n6; as personifi-

bull: symbol of divine kingship, 34; on coins of cation, 96

Julian, 34, 96, 204nn.8~9; as victim on coins, carts. See chariots and carts 57, pl. 24.2-—5; altar of Zeus, pl. 7.6; carrying Cassius Dio: on currency, 18; on petitions, 23; on off Europa, pl. 9.4; slain by Mithras, pl. 9.5; coin types, 33; on imago, 34; on third-century with vexillum, pl. 21.6; ploughing pomerium, pl. crisis, 48, 85-86

21.8-9 Ceramus, Caria: coins of, pl. 10.1

bureaucracy: growth of imperial, 3, 5, 6-9, 98- Ceretapa, Phrygia: coins of, 58, pl. 10.11, pl. 26.4

102; language of, 32 chariots and carts, in civic processions, 46-48,

bust, imperial: on agonistic table, pl. 12.2; deco- 80

rating wreath of office, pl. 29.4 chariots and carts, on coins, 45-48, 80; trium-

Byzantium, Thrace: loss of coinage, 24; sack, 90, phal quadriga on civic coins, 45-47, pl. 2.3,

92, 195n50, 196n53 pl. 17.5-8, pl. 18.9, pl. 19.1 -3; elephant qua-

230 INDEX chariots and carts, (continued) Clazomenae, Ionia: coins of, pl. 11.2 driga of Dionysus, 46, 48, 80, pl. 35.8; Com- Clodius Albinus: coins of, 34, 67, 149n27 modus in solar biga, 46, pl. 18.1; frontal depic- coins: medium for political values, 2, 13-15, 20,

tions, 46-47, 162n80, pl. 18.9, pl. 19.1-3; 25, 31-33, 135n5, 145-46n3; profits from, solar quadriga, 46-48, 80, 162n81, pl. 18.7- 19, 26; recall and restriking, 29, 35, 144n69, 8; frontal consular quadriga, 47, 162n82, pl. 150n34; comprehension of types, 31-37, 19.5; consular quadriga with elephants, 47- 147nn.12-14, 148n21; reflection of ceremo48, 80, 163nn.89-90, 163-64n92, 164n94, nial, 33, 70 pl. 18.3; Gordian IJ] and Tranquillina in solar coins, civic or Greek imperial: description, 10,

quadriga, 47, pl. 18.4; biga of Hecate, 47, pl. 12-14 19.4; Caracalla in Cybele’s lion quadriga, 47 - —economic role, 17, 19-20; profits of, 19, 26; 48, pl. 18.2; Severus Alexander and Astarte’s regulation of coin values, 10, 26, 27; imperial cart, 47-48, pl. 18.5; emperors in solar char- regulation, 18; circulation patterns, 9-10, 12,

iots, 47-48, pl. 18.1, pl. 18.4, pl. 18.9; qua- 17-18, 20, 28, 64-65, 84-86; reasons for driga of Cybele, 47-48, pl. 18.2; Nike in tri- coining, 18-19, 63-64; pattern of mint activumphal quadriga, 49, pl. 20.8; serpent bigae, ity, 19, 39, 63-64, 107; countermarking, 20; 62, pl. 8.4; panther quadriga of Dionysus, pl. proposed recall in Lycia, 29, 69n144; distribu35.9; cart of Artemis Ephesia, pl. 4.5; stag qua- tions, 28, 144n66; end of, 20, 94-95, 107; driga of Artemis, 80, pl. 35.6; cart of Astarte, failure to revive, 96-97 47-48, pl. 18.5-—6; Zeus in biga, 80, pl. 35.7; —constitutional aspects: reflecting civic values,

Hector in quadriga, pl. 33.8 13-14, 20, 22, 25-26, 77; as symbol of au-

Chios: coins of, pl. 6.7 tonomy, 2] -25; moneyers, 21-29; eponyms Christianity and Christians, 7-9, 104; persecu- and formulae, 26-28; role of emperor, 18, tions, 7, 37, 88; support of emperors, 7, 100—- 23-24; decree of Sestos, 26-27; liturgists, 27, 101; criticism of pagan coin types, 34; Apolo- 142n56; magistrates, 28; reflecting values of

gists, 83, 86, 104; hierarchy, 102-3; holy notables, 28, 31-32, 145-46n3, 146nn.5—7;

men, 104-5 donors, 29; Opramoas’s proposed recall, 29,

Chrysanthia, pl. 28.5 69n144 Cibyra, Phrygia, 47, 72, 74; coins of, 47, 74, pl. —technical production: manufacture, 15-16,

12.1, pl. 19.4, pl. 30.6, pl. 31.8, pl. 31.10 32, 40; ‘‘workshops,”’ 15-16, pl. 6.1 —8; blunCilbiani Inferiores (Nicaea): coins of, 47, pl. 18.9 dered coins, 16-17; output, 19, 107 Cilicia: currency, 10, 41, 51, 74; arches, 45; loy- messages on: varieties, 10-14; styles, 13, 15;

alty to Macrinus, 45, 51, 61-62; agonistic new, 20; impact, 20, 25, 28; reflection of

coinages, 63-64, 160n68; personified on values of notables, 28-31, 145-46n3, coins, 66, pl. 29.3; crown of ciliciarches, 66, pl. 146nn.5—7; conventions, 31-32; reflecting

29.4 ceremonial, 33-34, 70; comprehension by

cistophori: circulation, 17-18; iconography, 50- audiences, 32, 34-36, 147nn.12-14,

51, pl. 2.1 148n21; piety on, 36, 132n5; new views of

city: classical city, 1 — 3; petitions to emperor, 5,9, emperor, 38-63; agonistic messages, 63 — 70; 22-24; minting coins, 10, 12-14; coins as messages on Rome, 72~75; of polis, 75 — 82; as

sign of autonomy, 21-27; punishment of, source, 83-84, 86, 88 24-25; patriotism, 25, 45, 66; philanthropy of coins, imperial: currency system, 7, pl. 1-8; denotables, 29-30, 101-2; oikoumene, 39, 72; basement and inflation, 7, 19-20, 34, 94; ciradventus into, 55-57; patronage of emperor, culation in East, 17; as army pay, 19; mints in

60-62, 87-88; sacred games, 63 — 66; decline, East, 20, 59-60, 94-95, 172-73n7]1, 85-88, 92-102: numbers in fourth century, 203nn.2, 4; messages, 32, 36-37, 96; reforms 87; self-defense of, 90-91, 190nn.106-7, of Diocletian, 95-96 194n41; reaction to Palmyra, 93, 202n92; re- coins, league: 12, 27, 29. See also koinon ception of Aurelian, 93 -94; reforms of Julian, coins, provincial, 12; silver coinages, 17-18 97-99, 208n51; imperial legislation on, 101; colonia: coins of, 3, 9, 10, 12-13; honor legions,

Christianization, 102-5. See also polis 49-50

city-gate: as coin type, 14; point of receiving ad- Colossae, Phrygia: coins of, 47, 80, pl. 18.7, pl.

ventus, 54-55, 168n29, pl. 23.2-—3 35.6

Claudius Candidus Julianus, moneyer, 24 Colybrassus, Cilicia: coins of, pl. 3.1, pl. 28.9 Claudius II Gothicus, 6, 90, 93; coins of, 82, pl. combat, scenes of on coins: emperor in, 32, 37,

31.5, pl. 33.7, pl. 36.6 42-44,51, pl. 15.5-7, pl. 16.1-8; heroes and

INDEX _— 231 combat (continued) Delphi, 22, 72

gods in, 78-80, pl. 32.3-9, pl. 33.1-10, pl. Demeter: on coins, pl. 2.7, pl. 8.4

34.3-4, pl. 35.1-3, pl. 35.5 demiourgos: emperor as, 66, pl. 19.3; personifica-

Commodus: as tyrant, 24; damnatio memoriae, 35, tion Demiourgia, 66; crown of office, pl. 29.4 150n35; memory restored, 35, 69; hailed as demos: powers of, 4, 25, 27; approval of coinage,

basileus, 39, 56, 154n6, 169n34; Komodeia, 16, 21, 25-27; personification, 25, 72, 77; 69; coins of, pl. 15.5, pl. 17.6, pl. 22.2-3, pl. greeting adventus, 55-56; obverse portrait, 72, 24.4, pl. 26.4, pl. 33.8; obverse portrait, 41, 77, pl. 31.1; reverse type, 77, pl. 31.5 66, 157n31, pl. 15.5; reverse type, 42-43, denarius, 7, 13, 17, pl. 1.3; value in East, 18-19; 44-—46, 50, 53-54, 58, pl. 15.5, pl. 17.6, pl. inflation of, 19-20; messages on, 32

18.1, pl. 22.2-3, pl. 24.4 denominations, of coins: imperial, 7, pl. 1.1-8;

concordia: Augustorum, 41, 58; Bostrenorum, 77 local, 12-13, 16-18, pl. 2.1-11, pl. 3.1-6; Constantine I ‘the Great’’: coin types, 34, 96; impact of inflation, 20; ‘‘festival’’ aes, 28, solar imagery of, 46-47; adventus, 55; vs. pa- 144n66; varying messages on, 32 ganism, 61, 85, 174n81; benefactor of church, De rebus bellicis: on coinage, 34 85, 100-101, 102; founds Constantinople, 99 Dexippus, 78, 83, 91

Constantinople, 9, 99-100 Diadumenian, 35, 150n31; coins of, pl. 34.10 Constantius I Chlorus: coins of, 96; Arras medal- Didius Julianus: coins of, 34, 149n27

lion, 168n29, 169n39 Didyma, Ionia, 54, 89

Constantius II, 56, 101; medallion of, pl. 19.5 Didymeia, 70 Constantius Gallus: medallion of, pl. 11.9 die, of coins, 15, 40, 77; sharing by cities, 16, pl.

Corinth: currency of, 17 6.1-8

Corybantes: on coins, pl. 34.7 Diocaesarea (Sepphoris), Galilee: coins of, 24, 81,

Cotiaeum, Phrygia: coins of, 47 189n98, pl. 36.1

countermarks: as value marks, 20, pl. 3.3-4; Dio Chrysostom: on polis, 3, 21, 25, 54, 89; on honoring emperors, 35, 150-51nn.33—-34, service, 87; on Zeus’s bull, 34, 96; on Roman

154nn.38—- 39, pl. 12.7-8 army, 49; on Heracles, 74

Cragus, Lycia: coins of, pl. 2.2 Diocletian, 2, 6, 8, 9; pagan appeals, 8, 96; curCremna, Pisidia: coins of, 40-41, 50, 65, pl. 13.6, rency reforms, 20, 94, 95, 99, 203nn.2 —3; as

pl. 27.7 huntsman, 44; in triumph, 45; as deus praesens,

Crete: coinage of, 17; Gothic attack, 90 48, 54; associated with Dionysus, 48; adventus,

crown. See prize crown 55-56; founding of Tymandus, 87, 100; coins

Ctesicles, notable, 31 of, pl. 11.6

Cyaneae, Lycia: coins of, pl. 13.3, pl. 35.2 Dionyseia, 53, 70 Cybele: her processions, 46-48, 80, 163n85; on Dionysus: in imperial art, 46, 47-48; associated coins, 14, 32, 80; Caracalla in her lion qua- with elephants, 48, 80; on coins, 14, 74, 80, pl.

driga, 47, pl. 18.2 8.5, pl. 26.2, pl. 34.7, pl. 35.8-9

Cyme, Mysia: coins of, pl. 6.6, pl. 8.2 Docimeum, Phrygia: coins of, 50, pl. 21.3 Cyzicus, Mysia: as imperial mint, 59-60, 94,111, Domitia: coins of and obverse portrait of, pl. 12.1 113; civic coins of, pl. 14.3, pl. 14.5, pl. 21.10, Domitian: petitioned on coins, 24; damnatio me-

pl. 26.1 moriae, 35, 15in34, pl. 12.1; victories honored, 42, 67; Capitoline games, 68; coins of, pl.

Dalissandus, Lycaonia: coins of, 16 2.3, pl. 2.6, pl. 12.1, pl. 12.8; obverse portrait,

Damas, moneyer, 32 pl. 2.3, pl. 2.6, pl. 12.1, pl. 12.8; reverse type,

Damascus, Coele-Syria: coins of, 74, pl. 30.12 pl. 2.3

damnatio memoriae, 34-35, 150-51nn.33 —36, pl. donatio (grant of sacred games): on coins, 65,

12.1-6, pl. 16.2 166n2, pl. 27.7

decurions, 1-3, 5-6, 8; control of civic coins, 9, donors: importance of, 3, 4, 5, 28; of coins, 28,

21; reforms of Julian, 97-98; decline, 98- 29-30, 32, 145-46n3; of games, 64-65; of 102; on coins, pl. 31.6. See also bouleutai; boule; oil, pl. 28.9; decline of, 87, 99

magistrates dorea (Owpéa): grant of grain, 61-62, 174-

deification: of Antinous, 24, 29; of Constantine, 75n88; grant of bridge, 62, 175n90, pl. 27.3; 33; divine honors to emperors, 33 — 34, 38; of grant of sacred games, 65, 117nn.113, 115, pl.

Commodus, 34, 69, pl. 28.4; consecration 27.9

Marinus, 74 9.3, pl. 22.6

coins, 37; associated with elephants, 48; of Dorylaeum, Phrygia: walls of, 89; coins of, 65, pl.

232 INDEX Dorylaeus, hero: on coins, pl. 9.3 — at sacrifice: as pontifex maximus, 42,57-58, pl. drachma, 13, 17-19, pl. 2.2—5, pl. 2.7, pl. 2.10 1.3, pl. 25.1; before standards, 50, pl. 21.7, pl.

dupondius, 7, pl. 1.6, pl. 15.1 21.10; before temples, 57-58, 60-61, pl. Dura-Europos, Syria: currency of, 17-18; gods 24.2-3, pl. 24.5, pl. 25.5; with boar as victim, of, 79; fall, 91, 110-11 pl. 25.4; crowned by Nike, 58, pl. 20.3, pl.

Dusareia, 69 25.2-3; with god, 58-60, 74, pl. 23.7-8, pl. Dusares: on coins, 14, 69, 180n144 24.1-3, pl. 25.5-9, pl. 26.2-3, pl. 26.6, pl.

| 26.9, pl. 27.8

eagle: on reverse, pl. 2.9, pl. 4.2, pl. 13.6, pl. 21.1, —seated, 48, pl. 20.5-7

pl. 22.7, pl. 25.5, pl. 32.3 — shaking hand of colleague, 40-42, pl. 15.1-4

ecumenical games, 63, pl. 28.1, pl. 28.3, pl. 29.8 —standing, 48-49, pl. 20.1-4 Edessa, Mesopotamia, 6, 89, 91; coins of, pl. 20.7 —in triumphal quadriga, 42, 48, pl. 2.3, pl. Egypt: town life, 2, 4, 85, 87; coinage of, 10, 95; 17.5-8, pl. 18.1-5, pl. 18.9, pl. 19.1—3, pl.

revolt of 260-61, 92, 113; Palmyrene rule, 19.5

93, 202n94 engraving: styles of, 14-15; blunders, 16-17;

Elaea, Aeolis: coins of, 53-54, pl. 12.5, pl. 22.3 stereotyped designs, 32, 36; agonistic designs, Elagabalus: divine guises, 47; grants of neocorate, 63-64; coins, pl. 4.1-5, pl. 5.1-4, pl. 6.1-8,

61, 62, pl. 27.6; of Pythia, 66, pl. 27.8; of pl. 11.1-9 Aktia, 67-68, 72; punishes Tyre, 67; Diocae- Enmonidea, 70 sarea, 81; damnatio memoriae, 150n33; coins of, Ephesus, Ionia, 16, 21, 22, 89, 90; coins of, 14,

pl. 9.4, pl. 13.1, pl. 18.6, pl. 19.4, pl. 21.5, pl. 36, 41, 48, 51, 54, 57, 59, 61, 80, pl. 2.1, pl. 27.2, pl. 27.6, pl. 27.8, pl. 29.4, pl. 35.5; ob- 4.5, pl. 6.1, pl. 7.1, pl. 7.5, pl. 20.10, pl. 27.6,

verse portraits, 40, 66, pl. 13.1, pl. 19.4; re- pl. 35.4

verse type, 42, 59, 66, pl. 27.8 epinician games, 45, 62, 67-68 elephants: for Dionysus’s quadriga, 46, 58, 80, pl. eponym: on coins, 26-30, 32, 143nn.60-61. See

35.8; for quadriga of divi, 48, 163n89; for tri- also formulae; magistrates

umphal quadriga, 48, 162n80, 163- Erythrae, Ionia: coins of, pl. 6.8

64nn.92-93, pl. 18.3 Etenna, Pisidia: coins of, pl. 3.2

Emesa, Coele-Syria, 78, 90, 92; coins of, 90 “eternal lords, to our’’ (€l¢ @LWVATODG KvpLoUs):

emperor: relations with cities, 5, 9, 22-24, 68, on coins, 56, 66, 169n34 76—77, 97—98, 100; as benefactor of cities, ethnic, of city: on coins, 13, 16, 21, 23-24, 26 22-24, 60-62, 64, pl. 27.1-9; piety of, 33- Eucarpeia, Phrygia: coins of, pl. 10.7-8 34, 60-62, 76-77; Greek perceptions of, 38- Eumenia, Phrygia: coins of, 24 39; as benefactor of church, 100-101; need eunomia: rule of law, 3, 25, 82 for dynastic legitimacy, 37, 40, 68, pl. 12.2, pl. Europa: on coins, pl. 9.4

13.5-8, pl. 15.1-4 Eusebius: on coin types, 33; on Constantine, 100;

emperor as coin type on empire, 104; on fall of Antioch, 111 —adlocutio, 55, pl. 23.5-6

—in adventus, 52-54, 70, pl. 2.11, pl. 22.1-9, pl. “faithful” (mtotH): civic title on coins, 62,

23.1-4 176n95, 189, 100. See also alliance; allies

— with civic gods: in combat, 43 -44, pl. 15.5-6; festivals: importance of, 2, 3, 14, 28, 33-34, 64-

receiving statuettes from, 48, 58-59, pl. 65, 70, 100; civic and imperial, 44-46, 6823.2-—5, pl. 26.6—7; seated before god, 48, pl. 70, 100; stimulus for coinage, 19, 28, 144n66;

20.5; received by, 55-57, pl. 22.7-9, pl. named on coins, 13-14, 22, 45, 68-70, pl. 23.1-—4; as sacrifice with, 57-58, pl. 23.7-8, 27.7, pl. 28.1-9, pl. 29.1-11. See also agonistic pl. 24.1 -3, pl. 25.5-8, pl. 26.2—3, pl. 26.9, pl. coinage; games 27.8; shaking hands of, 58-59, pl. 26.3-5, pl. “first city of Asia’ (mpwtn tHG Actas): disputed 26.9, pl. 27.8; saluting, 58, pl. 23.5, pl. 23.7, civic title, 21, 22, pl. 7.1-2 pl. 26.1-2; statuette of Helios-Caracalla held formulae: on civic coins, 24-29 by Thalassa and Ge, 59, pl. 26.8; crowning —denoting civic minting authorities: Qutn-

tyche, 81, pl. 31.7 GAUEVOD, 23-24, 139n28, 144n70; avednKe,

—as equestrian victor, 32, 37, 42-44, 159n58, 29, 144n70; dia, 27, 142n57; ELOaYyeL-

pl. 15.5-7, pl. 26.8 Aavtoc, 24, 139n32; Ent, 28, 143n60; Ezt-

—as founder, 49, pl. 21.8-9 weAnOevtoc, 27, 147nn.57-59; exapacev/ —as huntsman, 44, pl. 17.1-4 yopacac, 27; mapa, 143nn.60-61; Zep, —as pacator orbis, 44, 48, pl. 25.1 143n60; mpovonoauévov, 27, 142n57; wndt-

— profectio, 44, pl. 16.8 Gaplevov, 29

INDEX 233 —denoting imperial authority: €dwKev, 24, 24.1-3, pl. 25.5-8, pl. 26.2-3, pl. 26.9, pl. 140n34; Indulgentia Avg. Moneta, 134n46; tussu 27.8; saluted by emperor, 58, pl. 23.5, pl. 23.7, Aug(usti), 134n46; permissus, 134n46. See also pl. 26.1 -—3; shaking hand of emperor, 58-59,

eponyms; magistrates pl. 26.3-5, pl. 26.9, pl. 27.8; investing em-

frontal depictions: on coins, 47, 162nn.80- 82, peror with cult objects, 58-61, pl. 23.2—5, pl.

pl. 18.3, pl. 18.7-9, pl. 19.1-5 26.6—7; Thalassa and Ge holding Helios-Caracalla, 59, pl. 26.8; and games, 64, pl. 27.8, pl.

Galerius, 8, 95; arch of, 48, 55 29.1-2, pl. 29.5; greeting each other, 77, pl.

Gallieneia, 69, 70 6.1, pl. 12.6, pl. 30.6, pl. 31.5, pl. 31.8—-9, pl.

Gallienus, 86, 90, 92, 109; as Sol, 46; coins for 36.2; in militant guises, 77-80, pl. 32.2-11, Odenathus, 38; Aktia and Capitoline games, pl. 33.1-5, pl. 34.1-2, pl. 35.1-4, pl. 35.6; in 69; hailed ‘‘eternal lord,” 169n34; coins of, processions, 80, pl. 35.6-—10; crowned by em35, 58, 69, 82, 169n34, pl. 5.4, pl. 10.4-6, pl. peror, 81, pl. 31.7; at sacrifice, pl. 2.1, pl. 7.7, 10.10, pl. 14.3, pl. 14.9, pl. 16.4, pl. 16.8, pl. pl. 29.10 21.1, pl. 25.2, pl. 29.11, pl. 31.6, pl. 35.10; Gordian I and II: coins of, 34, 149n28 obverse portraits, 35, 40, pl. 5.4, pl. 10.4-6, Gordian III: letters to Aphrodisias, 23; associated pl. 10.10, pl. 14.3, pl. 14.9; reverse type, 44, with Dionysus, 48; Persian War, 65; grant of

58, pl. 16.4, pl. 16.8, pl. 25.2 Pythia, 65; grant of Aktia and Capitoline

games: importance of, 2, 3,63-—64, 66; named on games, 69; law of, 87; coins of, pl. 6.1-2, pl.

civic coins, 28, 29, 63-65, pl. 27.7-9, pl. 8.6, pl. 9.1, pl. 9.3, pl. 9.5, pl. 11.4, pl. 13.2, pl. 28.1-9, pl. 29.1-—11; dynastic games, 45, 52, 13.5, pl. 17.8, pl. 18.8, pl. 20.7, pl. 20.11, pl. 69, 70; multiple games, 70, pl. 29.2, pl. 29.7, 21.3, pl. 21.7-9, pl. 25.5, pl. 26.9, pl. 29.6, pl. pl. 29.11. See also agonistic coinage; festivals 30.8, pl. 32.7, pl. 33.2, pl. 33.6, pl. 34.6, pl.

Ge (earth): on coins, 59, pl. 26.8 34.9, pl. 35.2-—3; obverse portraits, 40, pl.

Gerasa, Decapolis, 18 6.1—2, pl. 11.4, pl. 13.2, pl. 13.5, pl. 33.2; re-

Germa, Galatia: coins of, 50, 78 verse type, 42, 44, 58, pl. 15.4, pl. 17.8, pl. Germanicopolis, Paphlagonia: coins of, pl. 32.4 18.4, pl. 20.7, pl. 21.7-9, pl. 25.5, pl. 26.9 Germans, 5, 6, 39, 82; as defeated foes, on coins, Gordianeia, 69

33, 43, pl. 15.5, pl. 16.2; as captives, on coins, Gordus-Julia, Lydia: coins of, 75, pl. 8.7, pl. 30.3 54, pl. 20.1, pl. 22.1, pl. 22.3, pl. 23.1, pl. 24.4 Gorgoneion: worn by emperor, 40, 79, pl. 14.5-6

Germe, Lydia: coins of, 32, pl. 32.2 Goths, 6, 87, 89-90, 194n45, 195n48, 195gerousia, 26; honored on coins, 29, 77, 144n72; 96n50, 196nn.51, 53

obverse portrait, 77, pl. 31.3 governor, Roman: name and portrait on civic

Geta: damnatio memoriae, 35, 151n36, pl. 12.2-4, coins, 14, 129n10, 134n46; role in civic coin-

pl. 16.2; as basileus, 39; Philadelphian games, age, 18, 22-23 69; honored at Tacina, 71; as ‘‘eternal lord,” grammateus. See magistrates 169n34; coins of, pl. 1.3, pl. 10.1, pl. 12.3-4, Greece: currency of, 10, 17; German attacks, 39, pl. 16.2, pl. 20.5, pl. 34.4-—5; obverse portraits, 90 40, 41, 61, pl. 1.3, pl. 10.1, pl. 12.3-4, pl. 14.1, pl. 16.2; reverse type, 41-42, 45, 54, 66, pl. 1.1, pl. 1.3, pl. 12.2, pl. 15.3, pl. 16.2, pl. Hadrian: visit to East, 19, 52—54, 62; benefactor

17.7 of Athens, 19, 53, 76-77; petition to, from

Glycon, serpent god, 23, 104; on coins, 23, pl. 9.6 Stratonicea, 24; cistophori, 50-51; benefactor

gods: as protectors of city, 13-14, 52-53, 64- of Thyatira, 60; coins of, pl. 2.7, pl. 17.1-2; 65, 89, pl. 8.1-—7; as coin type, 16-17, 23, 32, obverse portrait, pl. 2.7; reverse type, 44, pl.

77; as protectors of emperor, 37, 43, 52-53, 17.1-2 58-60, pl. 15.5-6; revered by emperors, 54- Hadrianotherae, Mysia: coins of, 44, pl. 17.1, pl.

55, 56-57; as patrons of games, 64, pl. 27.8, : 22.4 pl. 29.1-2, pl. 29.5; new perceptions of, 76- hand, two right clasped: on coins, 41, 82, pl.

79; obverse portrait, 77, pl. 31.9 36.4-8

—on reverses of coins: cult statues, 13-14, 35- hand, upraised right: of emperor on coins, 40, 36, pl. 7.5-8, pl. 8.1—7; mystery gods, 14, pl. 155n14, pl. 14.1-3, pl. 19.5; of Sol Invictus, 9.5-—7; as allies of emperor, 43, pl. 15.5-6; 40, pl. 1.8; gesture of victory, 43-44, pl. 16.7; emperor seated before, 48, pl. 20.5; receiving of adventus, 53, pl. 22.1-—9, pl. 23.1-4; as sa-

adventus, 55-57, pl. 22.7-9, pl. 23.1-4; at Jute to gods, 55-56, pl. 23.1-4, pl. 23.6, pl. sacrifice with emperor, 57-58, pl. 23.7-8, pl. 26.1-2

238 INR handshake (dextrarum iunctio), on coins: between imago laureata. See portrait, imperial

emperors, 41-42, pl. 15.1—4; between em- inflation, 7-10, 19-20, 94, 95 peror and god, 58-59, pl. 26.3-5, pl. 27.8; inscriptions: as source, 2—3, 24, 28, 31, 71-72, between gods, 80, pl. 5.1, pl. 29.10, pl. 31.5, 145 —-46n3; formulae of, 32 pl. 31.10, pl. 36.2; between Cadmus and de- Jonopolis. See Abonouteichus

curions, pl. 31.6 Isaura, Isauria: triumphal arch, 45; coins of, 59, Hecate: shrine at Lagina, 27, 36, 64; on coins, 47, pl. 26.7

pl. 19.4, pl. 31.10 Isauria: personified, 66, pl. 29.3

Hector: on coins, 78-79, pl. 33.8—10 ‘‘iselastic’’ games: named on coins, 63, pl. 29.8 Heliopolis, Coele-Syria: coins of, 69, pl. 29.8 Isinda, Pisidia: coins of, 80, pl. 3.4, pl. 13.1, pl.

Helios: in imperial art, 46, pl. 13.1—2; interces- 35.1 sion for Aurelian, 37, 94; in Julian’s theology,

97-98; on coins, 47, 59, 80, 161n72, pl. 7.2, Jotapian, 92, 199n75

pl. 13.5, pl. 18.7-8 Julia Domna: as nea thea Hera, 71, 157n33; mater

Heraclea, 68 castrorum, 157n30; coins of, 40, pl. 1.4, pl. 7.6, Heraclea Pontica, Bithynia: coins of, 92, pl. 32.7 pl. 8.4, pl. 12.7, pl. 13.7, pl. 21.1, pl. 21.6, pl. Heracles: in imperial art, 37, 78-79; associated 24.5, pl. 34.5; obverse portrait, 40, pl. 1.4, pl. with Maximianus, 44, 78, 96; associated with 12.7, pl. 13.7; reverse type, pl. 1.1 Caracalla, 56; associated with Commodus, Julia Maesa: coins of, 62, 72 157n31; his labors, 78, pl. 32.2—11; on coins, Julia Mamaea: coins of, pl. 4.5, pl. 7.3; obverse 14, 58, 78, pl. 4.4, pl. 26.3 —4, pl. 32.1-11, pl. portrait, pl. 7.3

33.7 Julian the Apostate: restores paganism, 8-9, 61,

Hercules. See Heracles 97-99; on sacral kingship, 33; pagan coin Herennia Etruscilla: coins of and portrait, 41-42, types, 33 —34, 96; cities, 97-99, 101; response

pl. 13.6 to his reforms, 102-3

Herennius Etruscus, 81, 89-90; coins of, 41; ob- Julia Paula: reverse type, 42 verse portrait, 41, 157n29; reverse type, 42, pl. Julia Severa, moneyer, 65

13.6 Julia Soaemias: coins of, 72

Hermes: on coins, 37, 81, 153n55, pl. 35.10 Juliopolis, Bithynia: coins of, 50 hero, on coins, 13-14, 74, 78, 80; Aeneas, 74, pl. Jupiter: on imperial coins, 37, 60, 96, 153n55; of

30.13-—14; at sacrifice, 80, pl. 9.3, pl. 34.9- Doliche, 79; Hammon, 93 10; shaking hand of boule, 77, 186n58; in com- Justin IJ: outrage over his coin types, 34, 148n21

bat, 77-80, pl. 32.2-11, pl. 33.3-10, pl. 34.3-—4, pl. 35.5; in militant dress, 79-80, pl. Kaisareia, 69, 70, pl. 29.7 34.3-10, pl. 35.1 -—3; Alexander the Great, pl. koinon: coinages of, 12, 61; Panhellenion, 76-77; 9.2; greeting adventus, pl. 22.9; Cadmus greet- of Lycia, 3, 4, 29, 31, 144n69; of Ionia, 27; of

ing decurions, pl. 31.6 | Lesbos, 58 Herulians, 6, 78, 90 Komodeia, 69, pl. 28.4

Hierapolis, Phrygia, 27, 68-69; coins of, 15, 63, Kore: on coins, pl. 8.7 69, 72, 74, pl. 29.1, pl. 29.5, pl. 31.1-3 homonoia: personification of, on coins, 41-42; of Lacedaemon, hero: on coins, pl. 34.10 Augusti, 41, 158n35; coinages, 77, pl. 5.1, pl. Lagina, 27, 36, 64, 87

6.1, pl. 31.9-10 Lampsacus, Mysia: coins of, pl. 16.7

Hostilian: coins of, 41-42; reverse type, pl. 13.6 Laodicea ad Lycum, Phrygia, 4, 30; coins of, 47, hunt, scenes of, on coins: emperor at, 44, pl. 56, 59, 61, 67, 82, pl. 4.1—2, pl. 12.7, pl. 18.2, 17.1-—4; heroes and gods at, 80, pl. 23.3, pl. pl. 23.6, pl. 26.8, pl. 28.3, pl. 36.8

35.1, pl. 35.4, pl. 35.6 Laodicea ad Mare, Syria: coins of, 18, 62

Hygieia: on coins, pl. 8.2, pl. 12.6 legends, on coins, 9, 12-14; blunders, 15, 35; Hypaepa, Lydia: coins of, pl. 10.12, pl. 26.6 eponyms, 24-30; conventions, 32; new appeals, 36-37, 40, 56; agonistic, 63

Iasus, Caria: coins of, 47 legions: on imperial coins, 37; standards of, on

30.12 Letoeia, pl. 29.11

Iconium, Lycaonia: coins of, 50, pl. 21.8, pl. civic coins, 49-51, 53, pl. 21.1-11 Ulium, Troas: coins of, 78-79, pl. 30.14, pl. 33.8- Leucas, Coele-Syria: coins of, 47

10 Leucippus, hero: on coins, 80, pl. 35.5

ee

INDEX 235 Libanius, 85, 97, 101-2, 109, 110 Mariades, 91, 109-10

lions, on coins: in imperial hunt, 44, 47, pl. 17.3- Marinus, divus: coins of, 74 4; with Africa, pl. 1.6; in Cybele’s quadriga, 47, masses: reaction to civic appeals, 21; comprehen-

pl. 17.8; in Hecate’s biga, 47, pl. 19.4; Ne- sion of coin types, 32, 34, 36, 147n14,

mean, 78, pl. 32.2, pl. 32.9 148n21; reaction to triumph, 44-45; attitude

literati: on polis and Rome, 2,4-—5, 71-72; 74; as to games, 66-67; perception of Persians, 91;

leaders, 22-23; on civic service, 22-23, 25, in Constantinople, 100

30, 76-77; on kingship, 33-34, 39; on de- mater castrorum; 41, 157n30

cline of polis, 85; limits as source, 86 Maximianus: as huntsman, 44; in triumph, 45; liturgy and liturgists, 4; of coins, 26-30 adventus, 55-56; imitation of Hercules, 78;

Lounda, Phrygia, 28, 31 founding of Tymandus, 87, 100; in Africa, 96, Lycaonia: coins of, 50; personified, 66, pl. 29.3 203n6; coins of, 96, pl. 14.10

Lycia, 3, 4, 29, 72, 73 Maximinus, 78; damnatio memoriae, 151n36, pl. 12.5-6; coins of, 58, pl. 11.7, pl. 12.5-6, pl.

M. Claudius Valerianus, moneyer, 24 20.6, pl. 33.5; obverse type, pl. 20.6; obMacrianus II, 90, 92-93, 111-13; coins of, 34, verse portrait, pl. 11.7, pl. 12.5-6; reverse

150n29, 200n77 type, 58

Macrinus: punishes Pergamum, 24; Parthian vic- Maximus: damnatio memoriae, 151n36; obverse

tory, 45,51, 68; honored in Cilicia, 45, 62, 68; type, pl. 20.6; reverse type, 58 coins of, 45, 51, 62; reverse type, 57 medallions, 47, 96, pl. 11.9, pl. 19.5; emperor in

Madaha, Arabia Petraea: coins of, 47 quadriga, 47, pl. 19.5; Arras medallion, Maeonia, Lydia: coins of, 45, pl. 8.4, pl. 17.7, pl. 162nn.80, 82, 164n93, 167n12, 168n29;

35.9 naval adventus, 169n39; emperor at sacrifice,

Magistrates, 4-5; as eponyms, 13-14, 29-30; 170—71nn.51, 56; emperor shaking hand of regulation of civic coins, 16, 18, 21, 24-25, god, 171n56 28; patriotism of, 21; social standing, 29-30; Melgart: identified with Heracles, 68; coins of, as donors of coins, 32; depicted on coins, 55, 14; baetyl, pl. 9.1

pl. 23.3 Men: on coins, pl. 8.3

— offices named on coins: agonthetes, 64, 66, Menander Rhetor: on victory, 42; on adventus,

143n61; archiprytanis, 143n60; archon, 28; 54-55, 63; on autonomy, 85 grammateus, 29; hipparchos, 143n60; logistes, Menas, moneyer, 26-27 134n46, 141n45, 143n60; nomothetes, 143n60; Mesopotamia: coinages of, 10, 51, 62 panegyriarchos, 64, 143n61; prytanis, 143n60; Methymna, Lesbos: coins of, pl. 11.3 stephanophoros, 143nn.60, 63; strategos, 24, 28, Metropolis, Ionia: coins of, 77, 79, pl. 34.6

31; tamias, 143n60 Midaeum, Phrygia: coins of, pl. 6.3

—honorifics on coins: archiereus and hiereus, 24, Miletus, Ionia: coins of, 32, 69, 70, pl. 20.5 29, 32, 146n7; archiater, 24, 145n77: asiarches, Mithras, 14, 58; on coins, 14, pl. 9.5 29; hippikos (eques), 29; rhetor, 25, 28; ‘’of sen- moneychangers (trapezitai), 10, 18, 19 atorial lineage,’”’ 29, 75; sophist, 29-30. See Mopsus, Cilicia: coins of, 62, pl. 27.3

also decurions; eponyms Moschion, moneyer, 27

Magnesia ad Maeandrum, Ionia: titles, 22, pl. 7.3; Mostene, Lydia: coins of, pl. 35.10 decree on coinage, 26 —27; coins of, 59, 70, 80, Mygdon, hero: on coins, 79

pl. 7.3, pl. 35.5 Mylasa, Caria: coins of, 29 16.4, pl. 20.9 mystery cults, 8-9, pl. 9.5, pl. 9.7 Malakbel, 54, 79 mystical games, 65, pl. 27.9 Magnesia sub Sipylum, Lydia: coins of, 43, pl. Myra, Lycia, 4; coins of, pl. 5.2

Mallus, Cilicia: coins of, 75, pl. 15.4, pl. 30.11 myth: as coin type, 14, 78, 80; Leucippus, 80, pl.

Marcomanii, 5, 39, 82 35.5; Europa, pl. 9.4; Mithras, pl. 9.5; HeraMarcus Aurelius: German Wars, 5, 37, 53; Par- cles, pl. 32.2-—11; Apollo slaying Python, pl. thian War, 5-6, 14, 16, 39, 49, 53; petitions 33.1; Athena slaying monster, pl. 33.2; Anto, 23; epinician games, 29, 67; Battle of Rain caeus, pl. 33.4; Perseus, pl. 33.5 —6; Hector, pl.

Miracle, 39, 153n55; coins of, pl. 8.7, pl. 33.8-—9; Corybantes, pl. 34.7 15.1-—2, pl. 22.1, pl. 31.10; reverse type, 41, Mytilene, Lesbos: coins of, 53, 58, pl. 16.2, pl.

53, 54, 58, 59, pl. 15.12, pl. 17.5, pl. 22.1, pl. 17.6, pl. 26.5, pl. 31.9 26.4

236 INDEX . Neapolis, Ionia: coins of, pl. 16.2 coins of, 41-42, pl. 13.4, pl. 30.4; obverse Neapolis, Samaria: loss of coinage, 24; coins of, portrait, 41, pl. 13.4; reverse type, 42

4] Otreus, hero: on coins, 79, pl. 34.4

Nemesis: on coins, pl. 3.4, pl. 6.4, pl. 9.2 Otrus, Phrygia: coins of, 74, 79, pl. 30.13, pl. 34.4 Neocaesarea, Pontus: coins of, 69, 113, pl. 29.6

neot: honored on coins, 29, 77, 144n72 paganism: decline, 7-8, 104; revivals, 2, 95-96, neokoros: title on coins, 21, pl. 5.3, pl. 7.2, pl. 99; antipagan legislation, 100-10] 27.4—-6; title and temples, 61, 171n56; neo- Palestine: coinages of, 10, 42; Palmyrene rule, 93

corate temples, pl. 27.4-6, pl. 28.3 Palmyra, Syria: empire of, 6, 93-94; Hadrian’s

Neoplatonism, 7, 33-34 visit, 54; gods of, 76, 79; defeat of Shapur, 91 Nero, 65, 67, 68; selects coin types, 33; damnatio Pamphylia: coinages of, 10, 15, 63-64; Gothic

memoriae, 35, 150-51n34; coins of and ob- attack, 90 verse portraits, pl. 2.5, pl. 2.10, pl. 4.1 Panamara, 27, 36, 64, 87, 89

Nicaea, Bithynia, 22, 39, 89, 92; coins of, 41, 42, panegyriarchos. See magistrates

49,50, 56, 66, 69-70, 74, 80, 92, pl. 12.2, pl. Panemoteichus, Pisidia: coins of, pl. 5.4

21.11, pl. 28.4, pl. 35.8 panther: on coins, 47, 80, pl. 8.5, pl. 35.9

Nicomedia, Bithynia, 22, 95; coins of, 35, 43, 50, Parthians, 5, 19; as defeated foe, on coins, 42 —43,

59, pl. 10.9-10, pl. 16.5-6, pl. 25.5 pl. 15.6-7, pl. 16.1, pl. 20.2; as captives, on

Nicopolis, Epirus, 90; coins of, 68 coins, pl. 22.4

Nike: crowning emperor or god, 45, 55, 58, pl. Parthian Wars: of Verus, 14, 16, 39, 41; of Trajan, 17.7-8, pl. 20.3, pl. 22.3, pl. 23.1, pl. 25.2-3, 18, 27; of Caracalla, 18, 39, 55, 61-62, 81; of pl. 25.7, pl. 29.1, pl. 34.2; as statuette, 47, 49, Septimius Severus, 39; of Macrinus, 45, 51, 68

56, 59, 73-74, 79, 81, pl. 8.3, pl. 18.2, pl. patriotism, civic, 21-22; on coins, 25, 76-82; 19.1, pl. 19.3, pl. 20.2, pl. 20.7, pl. 23.5, pl. hailed by literati, 30; example of Ctesicles, 31; 30.4—5, pl. 34.8; as coin legend, 49, 164n98; in games, 63, 66-67; linked to Rome, 71-72; reverse type, 49, 164n98, pl. 2.5, pl. 20.8-11 decline, 83, 91, 98; in third century, 85-87; Ninica-Claudiopolis, Cilicia: coins of, pl. 3.3 Christian version, 103-4

Nisibis, Mesopotamia, 9] Pergamum, Mysia: titles, 22; loss of coinage, 24;

Noah: on coins, pl. 9.8 visit of Caracalla, 55-58; temples, 59, 73; ‘noblest of Caesars’ (enupavyatatoc Kaicap), coins of, 14,42,55-61, 73, pl. 7.6, pl. 12.4, pl.

41, 157n29 12.6, pl. 17.4, pl. 22.1, pl. 23.1-5, pl. 23.7-8,

notables, Greek: control of city, 4, 8-9, 11; values pl. 24.1-4, pl. 24.6, pl. 26.2 on coins, 20, 28-32, 36, 145-—46n3; patrio- Perge, Pamphylia: coins of, 15, 50, 59, pl. 5.3, pl. tism, 21, 25; coins as medium of, 36-37; new 21.2, pl. 28.2 views of emperor, 39-49, 53-62; new views Perinthus, Thrace: coins of, 68, pl. 14.6, pl. 29.2 of army, 49-51; sponsoring games, 63-70; Perseus: on coins, 23, 78, pl. 33.4-5 views of Rome, 71-75; views of polis, 72, 75- Persians, 5-6, 19, 82, 87, 89; invasion of, 90-91, 81, 84; entering Senate, 75; response to crisis, 104; sack of Antioch, 90, 109-12; as defeated 86, 88, 91-92; later views, 98-99; decline, foe, on coins, 37, 42-44, pl. 16.3—5, pl. 16.7 101-2. See also bouleutai; boule; decurions; Persian Wars: of Valerian I, 5-6, 22, 62, 69-70,

magistrates 109-13; of Severus Alexander, 62; of Gordian

nummus, 95, 203n3, pl. 11.6, pl. 14.10 III, 65-66, 69

Nysa, Phrygia: coins of, 26, 35, 70, pl. 10.5 personifications: in imperial art, 36, 39-40, 53; on civic coins, 13, 25-26, 66, pl. 29.3, pl. Odenathus, 6,91, 196n51, 200n82; reputed coins 29.10 of, 33, 200n84; rank of, 93, 200-201n83, Pertinax: coins of, 34, 149n27

201n86 Pescennius Niger, 24, 45, 67; coins of, 34, 149n27

Olympia: victors named on coins, 29, 32; festival Philadelphia, Lydia, 22; coins of, 27, 47, 65, 74,

and games, 64, 68-69; festival named on 78, pl. 9.7, pl. 16.1, pl. 19.2, pl. 32.3 coins, 68, 70, pl. 29.2, pl. 29.7, pl. 29.9-—10; as Philadelphian games, 66, 69, pl. 12.2

personification, pl. 29.10 Philip I: grants Pythia, 65; grants Aktia, 69; petiOpramoas, notable, 3-4; proposed recoining, 29, tion to, 85; oration to, 89; coins of, 65, pl. 9.2,

69n144 pl. 21.4, pl. 22.6, pl. 31.7, pl. 32.2, pl. 33.3;

oratory, 22-23, 54, 55-56, 87 reverse type, 42, 73-74, pl. 22.6, pl. 31.7 Otacilia Severa: as mater castrorum, 41, 157n30; Philip IJ: coins of, 16, pl. 31.7

INDEX 237 Philippopolis, Arabia: coins of, 73-74, pl. 30.4 19.4, pl. 35.6-—10; civic influencing triumph,

Philippopolis, Thrace, 90-91 46-48, pl. 18.1-5 Philomelium, Phrygia: coins of, 74, pl. 11.5, pl. profectio, 43, pl. 16.8

30.7 Prostanna, Pisidia: coins of, pl. 28.7

philopatris and philotimos: defined, 3; decline, 8, Prusa, Bithynia, 21; coins of, pl. 25.4 85, 87, 98, 101, 103-4; on civic coins, 21, Prusias ad Hypium, Bithynia: coins of, 35, pl. 12.8

28-29, 32, 76-77, 146n3; importance, 86; Pseudo-Aristides, 87, 192n22

philotimia praised, 24, 27 Pupienus: coins of, 34, 51, 75, 149n28, 166n117 Phocaea, Ionia: coins of, 30, pl. 20.6, pl. 30.10 Pythia, 64, 68; personified, pl. 29.10

Phoenicia: coinages of, 10, 18 Pythian festival and coins: at Hierapolis, 15, 72, Plautilla: obverse portrait, 40, 157n33, pl. 10.12, 68-69, pl. 29.1; at Side, 65, pl. 28.6; at An-

pl. 13.8; reverse type, 41 cyra, 65-66, pl. 28.6; at Thyatira, 66, pl. 27.8; Pliny the Elder: on coins, 33 at Perinthus, 68, pl. 29.2; at Tralles, 66, pl. Plutarch: on polis, 3, 22,25, 30,54; on autonomy, 29.9-10; at Tripolis, pl. 29.11 85, 89

polis: defined, 3, 5, 25; reflected on coins, 21, 23, Quadi, 5, 37, 39 28, 30; emperor as defender of, 42; gods as Quietus, 90, 92, 111-13; coins of, 34, 150n29,

protectors of, 53-54; festivals, 63-68, 70; 200n77 emotional force of, 76-77; new images of, 77-82, 86; decline of, 84, 88, 98-99, 104-5. Rabbath-Moba, Arabia Petraea: coins of, pl. 34.1

See also city radiate crown, on coins: as denominational mark, reverse type, pl. 2.10 59, 92, pl. 13.1-2, pl. 13.5, pl. 18.2, pl. 18.4,

Poppaea: coins of and obverse portrait, pl. 2.10; 7,pl. 1.6, pl. 1.8; as imperial crown, 40, 47, 48,

portraits, on coins: varieties, 13, 129n9; styles, pl. 19.4, pl. 26.8; as solar crown, 40, 48, pl. 15-16; personifications, 25,77, pl. 31.1-—3; of 1.8, pl. 7.2, pl. 9.7, pl. 13.5, pl. 18.7-8

gods, 77, pl. 31.9; of proconsul, 27 Rhesanea, Mesopotamia: coins of, 49 portrait, imperial, on coins: stylized, 15-16, pl. river gods: on coins, 36, pl. 7.8, pl. 22.7 5.4, pl. 11.1-9; reverence of, 34-35, 38-39, Roma: on imperial coins, 36; sixth-century aes, 62; blunders, 15, 35, pl. 10.1 - 13; damnatio me- 97; cult in East, 55, 73, 75; temples, 73, pl. moriae, 35, pl. 12.1-—8; multiple portraits, 40, 24.6, pl. 27.4; obverse type, 13, 73, 82, pl. pl. 1.1, pl. 5.4, pl. 12.1, pl. 12.3 -4, pl. 13.5-8, 30.1-3, pl. 36.7-8; reverse type, 56, 72-74, pl. 16.2; empress in lunar guise, 40, pl. 13.3- pl. 8.2, pl. 23.5, pl. 30.4-6, pl. 32.2, pl. 36.2 5; emperor with upraised right hand, 40, ‘Roman People,”’ 71; on imperial coins, 96; on

155n14, pl. 14.1-3, pl. 19.5; militant por- civic coins, 74, pl. 30.9 traits, 40, 155nl14, 155-56nn.20-22, pl. Rome: viewed by Greeks, 5, 30, 38, 44-45, 71, 14.4-10; radiate, 40, pl. 1.6, pl. 1.8, pl. 13.1- 72-73, 74, 88; as imperial mint, 14-15, 16, 2, pl. 13.5, pl. 19.4; as Heracles, 41, 157n31; as 18, pl. 1.1-8, pl. 14.1, pl. 15.1; portrayed on Asclepius, 60-61, 173-—74n78, pl. 25.8; as de- imperial coins, 36; late pagan aristocracy in,

muiourgos, 66, pl. 19.3 96-97; ‘‘pseudo-coins,’’ 96; late civic aes, 97

priests, on coins: named, 24, 29, 32, 146n7; Romulus and Remus: on coins, 72, 74, 97, pl. emblems on imperial coins, pl. 1.5; at sacri- 30.12 fice, 57, pl. 24.4; Caracalla as priest, 57, pl.

24.2 -3 sacred games: imperial grants, 64, 68-70, 166n2; prize crown, on coins, pl. 27.7, pl. 28.5; on altar, Pythia at Side, 65; grant to Cremna, 65, pl. pl. 29.6; on table, pl. 12.2, pl. 27.9, pl. 28.2-4, 27.7; Isopythia at Ancyra, 65-66, pl. 28.6; pl. 29.1, pl. 29.7-—9; above Elagabalus and Pythia at Tralles, 66, pl. 29.9-—10; Pythia at Apollo, 66, pl. 27.8; athlete with, pl. 29.5; Thyatira, 66, pl. 29.8; loss by Tyre, 68; status

above athletes, pl. 28.7 named on coins, pl. 27.7, pl. 28.1-—2

prize objects, on coins, 14, 64; bags on tables, pl. sacrifice, scenes of, on coins: emperor at, 42, 57-

28,2 58, 60, 170n48, 170n49, 171n51, pl. 1.3, pl.

prize wreath, pl. 29.11; on table, pl. 209.9; above 25.1, pl. 25.4; emperor before standards, 50,

temples, pl. 27.4-5 pl. 21.7, pl. 21.10; priest at, 57, pl. 24.4; em-

processions: in imperial cult, 34; triumph, 44- peror before temples, 57-58, 60-61, pl.

45, pl. 17.5-8, pl. 18.9, pl. 19.1 -—3; in civic 24.2-3, pl. 24.5, pl. 25.8; emperor crowned worship, 34-35, 52, 80, pl. 4.5, pl. 18.7-8, pl. by Nike, 58, pl. 20.3, pl. 25.2-3; emperor and

238

sacrifice (continued) 29.10, pl. 32.3, pl. 32.5, pl. 32.9-10, pl. 33.10, god at, 58-60, 74, pl. 23.7—8, pl. 24.1—3, pl. pl. 34.1; obverse portraits, 40, 66, pl. 1.1-2, 25.5-9, pl. 26.2~-3, pl. 26.6, pl. 26.9, pl. 27.8; pl. 1.6, pl. 12.3, pl. 13.7, pl. 15.6-7; reverse suppliant before altar, 80, pl. 35.5; gods at, pl. type, 41-43, 44, 45, 58, pl. 15.6-7, pl. 17.3, 2.1, pl. 7.7, pl. 29.10; heroes at, pl. 9.3, pl. pl. 17.7, pl. 20.5, pl. 22.4, pl. 26.3, pl. 26.5

34.9-10 Serapis: on civic coins, 14, 16, 50, 56, pl. 6.1, pl.

Sagalassus, Pisidia: coins of, 81-82, pl. 31.5, pl. 26.1; influencing imperial art, 40; on

33.7, pl. 34.10, pl. 36.5-6 ‘“‘pseudo-coins,”’ 96 saints, 89, 103-4 serpent, on coins: Glycon, 23, pl. 9.6; of Ascle-

Salonina: coins of, 17, pl. 3.2, pl. 5.4, pl. 10.13, pl. pius, 57, 170n43, pl. 8.2, pl. 23.7; slain by 27.9, pl. 36.3—4; obverse portrait, 17, pl. 3.2, Hadrian, pl. 17.2; Python slain by Apollo, pl.

pl. 5.4, pl. 10.13 33.1; slain by Athena, 78, pl. 33.2; slain by

Saloninus: coins of, 41, 157n29 heroes, 80, pl. 33.6, pl. 35.1; in biga, 62, pl. 8.4 Samos, Ionia: coins of, 78, pl. 10.13, pl. 22.9, pl. Servenius Capito, moneyer, 65

33.3, pl. 34.3 sestertius, 7, 32, pl. 1.5

Samosata, Mesopotamia, 6, 90, 91 Sestos, Thrace, 26-27

Sampsigeramus, 90, 92, 110, 112, 172n71, “seventh city of Asia,” 22, pl. 7.3

199n76 Severeia, 45, 69, 70, pl. 29.7

Sardes, Lydia, 2, 17; coins of, 43, 68, pl. 7.7, pl. Severus Alexander: as Antoninus, 35, 150n31;

14.4, pl. 27.5, pl. 28.5 associated with Dionysus, 48; visits Aegeae,

S.C.: on civic coins, 74, 183n25; on Antiochene 60-61, 173—74n68; at Tarsus, 62; restores

coins, 13, 128n2, pl. 3.5-6 Tyre, 68; respects Senate, 75; coins of, 40, 43, Scriptores Historiae Augustae (S.H.A.): on coin types, 47-48, 59, 60-61, 68, pl. 3.3, pl. 7.2, pl. 7.7,

33~35, 150n30; on Sol’s intercession, 37; on pl. 9.8, pl. 11.3, pl. 14.2, pl. 14.6-7, pl. 16.3, Hadrian’s hunt, 44; on divine guises of em- pl. 16.7, pl. 18.5, pl. 20.8, pl. 25.8, pl. 29.2, pl. perors, 46, 47; views of third century, 86; on 30.5; obverse portraits, 40, 60-61, 66, 78, pl. Odenathus, 93; on sack of Antioch, 110, 112 3.3, pl. 11.3, pl. 14.2, pl. 14.6-7, pl. 25.8; re-

Sebaste, Phrygia: coins of, pl. 33.4 verse type, 43, 47-48, 60-61, pl. 16.3, pl.

Sebasteia, 69 16.7, pl. 18.5, pl. 26.8 Sebastiopolis, Pontus: coins of, pl. 32.5 Shapur I: invasions, 5, 90-91; capture of ValerSelene: on coins, 59, pl. 7.2; headdress worn by ian, 5, 112—13, 197n58; defeat by Odenathus,

empress, 40, pl. 13.3-5 33, 93, 200n82; sack of Antioch, 90, 109-12

Seleucia ad Calycadnum, Cilicia: coins of, 78, 81, ships, on coins: Noah’s ark, pl. 9.8; naval adventus,

pl. 4.4, pl. 13.5, pl. 20.11, pl. 33.2, pl. 34.7 56, 169n39, pl. 21.11; cargo ships, 61-62, Senate, Roman: composition, 4—5; grants neo- 175n88, pl. 27.1; prow, 79, pl. 34.3-4 koros, 61, pl. 27.6, pl. 28.3; symbolic role, 75, Siblia, Phrygia: coins of, pl. 8.3

88; bastion of paganism, 96-97; on civic Side, Pamphylia: coins of, 15, 65, 82, pl. 7.4, pl. coins, 71, 72, 75; obverse portrait (hiera syn- 27.9, pl. 33.1, pl. 36.3 kletos), 13,72, 74, pl. 30.10; as SACRA SINATVS, Sidon, Phoenicia: coins of, 47-48, 62, pl. 9.4, pl.

75, pl. 30.11; abbreviations S.C., $.R., $.P.Q.R. 14.7, pl. 18.5-6, pl. 21.5, pl. 27.2 on coins, 74, pl. 30.7—8; “senatorial lineage,” signa. See legions, standards of

29, 75 Silandus, Lydia: coins of, 43, pl. 15.5, pl. 16.3

Sepphoris. See Diocaesarea Sillyum, Pamphylia: coins of, 82, pl. 36.4

Septimius Severus: wars of, 5, 39, 42; debase- silver coinage: imperial, 7, 17, 19-20, pl. 1.3-4,

ment, 7; punishes cities, 24; rehabilitates pl. 1.8; provincial and civic, 10, 12-13, 17Commodus, 35, 69; arches of, 41, 45; dynastic 19, pl. 2.1-11, pl. 4.4 plans, 41-42, 44, 69, pl. 12.2; letters to Singara, Mesopotamia: coins of, 49 Aphrodisias, 42-43, 67-68; letters to Ae- Sinope, Pontus: coins of, 113 zanis, 67, 81; solar imagery, 46; cistophori, 51; Siocharax, Phrygia: coins of, 25 grants Aktia, 68; honored at Tacina, 71; hailed Smyrna, Ionia, 16, 23, 30, 72; titles of, 21-22; basileus, 39, 154n6, 169n34; coins of, 39, 40, temples, 73; coins of, 42, 60, 73, 79, pl. 6.5, pl.

42-43, 45, 51, 58, 65, pl. 1.1-2, pl. 2.9, pl. 7.2, pl. 9.2, pl. 11.1, pl. 18.1, pl. 20.3, pl. 25.3, 7.1, pl. 7.6, pl. 8.1, pl. 8.5, pl. 12.2 -3, pl. 13.7, pl. 27.4, pl. 34.8 pl. 15.3, pl. 15.6—7, pl. 17.3, pl. 20.9, pl. 22.3, soldiers, 3; stimulus for civic coinage, 18-19; pl. 24.5, pl. 26.3, pl. 26.6, pl. 27.5, pl. 29.3, pl. comprehension of coin types, 32; as patrons,

INDEX 239 102; on coins, 48, 49-51, pl. 22.2, pl. 23.1, pl. imperial cult temples on coins, 42, 57, 61, 73,

23.4 158n44, pl. 7.1, pl. 20.4, pl. 21.2, pl. 24.6, pl.

Sol Invictus: on imperial coins, 37, 79, pl. 1.8; in 27.5-—6, pl. 28.3; miniature neocorate temimperial art, 40, 46, 79; intercession for Aure- ples, pl. 29.2; of gods, 14, 57, 59-61, 73, pl.

lian, 37, 94 5.2, pl. 7.5, pl. 24.2-3, pl. 24.6, pl. 25.5, pl.

sophists: named on coins, 29 — 30; Second Sophis- 25.8, pl. 27.4, pl. 28.9, pl. 30.5, pl. 32.1

tic, 2, 23, 25, 30, 76, 83, 88 Termessus Maior, Pisidia: coins of, pl. 20.4

S.P.Q.R., on coins, 74, pl. 30.7 Termessus Minor, Lycia, 82 S.R., on coins, 74, pl. 30.8 tetradrachma, 13, 17, 18-19, pl. 2.6, pl. 2.8-9, stag, on coins, 77, 78, 80, pl. 32.3, pl. 32.7—8, pl. pl. 2.11, pl. 4.4

35.4, pl. 35.6 Tetrarchy: iconography, 15, 37, 48, 96

statues: of civic gods, 13, 29, 34-36, 46, 52, 55- Thalassa (Sea): on coins, 59, pl. 26.8 56, 59, pl. 5.2, pl. 8.6—7, pl. 23.4, pl. 23.7-8, Theodorus, moneyer, 27 pl. 24.1, pl. 25.6-7, pl. 26.2—9; aniconic, 14, Theogamia, 70 pl. 8.7, pl. 9.1, pl. 32.1; of emperor, 28, 31- Thessalonica, Macedon, 89, 90; arch of, 48, 55 32, 58-59, pl. 26.9; statuettes offered to em- Thyatira, Lydia, 60, 69; coins of, 56, 58, 66, pl. peror, 48, 55, 58-59, pl. 22.8, pl. 23.2-3, pl. 8.1, pl. 22.8, pl. 25.7, pl. 27.8, pl. 30.5 23.5, pl. 26.6, pl. 26.9; Helios-Caracalla statu- Tiberius Claudius Aristeas, moneyer, 28 ette held by Ge and Thalassa, 59, pl. 26.8 Tiberius Claudius Attalus, sophist and moneyer,

Stectorium, Phrygia: coins of, 79 29-30, 143n60, 145n78 strategos. See magistrates Tiberius Claudius Zelus, moneyer, 29

Stratonicea, Caria, 16, 28, 36; coins of, 29, 35, 40, titles, civic: rivalries over, 21-22, 45, 78; on

41,57, pl. 12.3, pl. 13.7-8, pl. 24.5 coins, 13, 21-22, 26,45, 61, 62, 73, pl. 7.1-3, Stratonicea-Hadrianopolis, Lydia: coins of, 24 pl. 20.11, pl. 28.1-2, pl. 30.7-8, pl. 32.1, pl. style, on coins: on civic, 9, 13-16, 35: ““Roman” 36.1-—6; neokoros, 61; imperial cognomina, 24, style, 15, pl. 4.1—3; linear style, 14-15, 40, pl. 62, 175n93, 176n97

5.2-4, pl. 11.1-9, pl. 32.1 titles, imperial: use on coins, 13, 37, 41; blunders,

Suetonius: on coins, 33-34 15, 32, 35, 150n32, pl. 10.5-6, pl. 10.11 -13;

Syedra, Cilicia: coins of, pl. 28.8 divine titles, 41, 60-61, 156n27, 157nn.31, Synnada, Phrygia: coins of, 30, 74, 82, pl. 17.8, 33, 173 -74n78, pl. 13.8, pl. 25.8

pl. 30.9, pl. 32.1 Tius, Bithynia: coins of, pl. 17.5

synnaos, 59, 171n58, pl. 26.3, pl. 26.9 Tlos, Lycia: coins of, pl. 34.9

Syria: coinages of, 10, 17, 61-62, 133n45; Per- Trajan: Parthian War, 18, 21, 42; charter to Sepsian invasions, 90-91; Palmyrene rule, 93- phoris, 24; adventus, 53; temple in Pergamum,

94; in fourth century, 101-2; rise of holy 55, 60; as Alexander the Great, 76; letter from

men, 103-5 Pliny, 87; coins countermarked in his honor, 35, pl. 12.8; coins of, 21, 42, 53, 159n45, pl.

Tabae, Caria: coins of, pl. 10.3 2.11, pl. 3.6, pl. 4.3, pl. 20.1; obverse portraits, table, on agonistic coins, 64, 66, pl. 12.2, pl. 27.9, pl. 2.11, pl. 3.6, pl. 4.3; reverse type, pl. 20.1

pl. 28.2—4, pl. 29.1, pl. 29.7, pl. 29.9 Trajan Decius, 9, 87, 89-90, 91; letter to Aphro-

Tacina, Phrygia, 71 disias, 23, 81; coins of divi, 37; dynastic plans, ' Tacitus, emperor, 25, 69, 75, 90; coins of, 25, 69 40-42; Aktia, 69; coins of, 37, 40-42, 69, pl.

Tacitus, historian, 33, 67 7.8, pl. 9.7, pl. 16.5, pl. 22.9, pl. 26.2, pl. 30.7,

Takitea, 69 pl. 31.8, pl. 33.1; obverse portraits, pl. 11.5; Tarsus, Cilicia, 15, 45, 62; coins of, 35, 40-41, reverse type, 40-41, pl. 13.6, pl. 16.5, pl. 22.9,

45,47, 51, 61-62, 66-67, 69-70, 78, pl. 2.6, pl. 26.2 pl. 9.5, pl. 17.3, pl. 19.3, pl. 22.5, pl. 25.1, pl. Trajanopolis, Phrygia: coins of, pl. 4.3

27.1, pl. 29.3-4, pl. 29.1 Tralles, Lydia, 62, 66; coins of, 26, 47, 74, 80, pl. Tavium, Galatia: coins of, pl. 21.1 10.6, pl. 18.8, pl. 29.9-10 taxation, 5, 6, 7-8, 19, 22, 85, 92, 98, 191n7 Tranquillina: coins of, 42, 46, 69, pl. 5.2, pl. 7.4,

Telesphorus, on coins, 16, 57, pl. 23.7-8 pl. 13.3, pl. 13.5, pl. 15.4, pl. 18.4, pl. 34.3, pl. Temenothyrae, Phrygia: coins of, 58, pl. 25.2, pl. 35.4; obverse portrait, 40, pl. 5.2, pl. 13.3, pl.

32.11 13.5; reverse type, 42, 46, pl. 15.4, pl. 18.4

Temnus, Aeolis: coins of, pl. 6.4 Trebonianus Gallus, 109-10, 112; coins of, 35,

temple, 2,27, 28,55, 60-61; as coin type, 14, 61; pl. 10.7, pl. 14.8, pl. 25.6, pl. 31.4; obverse

i |

Trebonianus Gallus (continued) Vaballathus, 6, 93, 201n89, 202n94

portrait, 35, pl. 10.7, pl. 14.8; reverse type, pl. Valerian I: defeat and capture, 6, 90, 109-13,

25.6 196-97n56, 197nn.5-7; letter to, 22;

Treveri, 100; coins of, pl. 11.6 “Roman victory’’ on coins, 49; mint at CyTripolis, Lydia: coins of, 27, pl. 10.4, pl. 20.1, pl. zicus, 59; at Aegeae, 59; bridge over Pyramus,

29.11, pl. 30.2 62, pl. 27.3; Aktia and Capitoline games, 69 —

Triptolemus, on coins, 62 70; Latin historians’ view of, 86; coins of, 43, triumph, on coins: emperor in quadriga, 44-45, 58-59, 60, 69, 70, pl. 3.4, pl. 5.3-4, pl. 8.2, pl. pl. 17.5-8, pl. 19.1-—3, pl. 19.5; emperor in 10.3, pl. 10.9, pl. 11.8, pl. 16.7, pl. 20.10, pl. divine vehicles, 46-48, pl. 18.1-5; Nike in 25.2, pl. 27.3, pl. 29.7-9, pl. 30.12, pl. 32.11,

quadriga, 49, pl. 20.8 pl. 36.5; obverse portraits, 35, pl. 3.4, pl. 5.3-

‘“triumph-bearer of Romans” (‘Pwyatwv 4, pl. 10.3, pl. 11.8, pl. 36.5; reverse type, 43, Tponatogmopos), 45, 68, 161n69, 179n134 58, 59-60, pl. 16.6, pl. 25.2

trophy, on coins, 164n100, 186n59, pl. 20.1, pl. Valerian II: coins of, 74, 82, pl. 3.1, pl. 5.4, pl. 20.4, pl. 20.9, pl. 22.3 —4, pl. 23.1, pl. 24.4, pl. 36.2; obverse portrait, pl. 3.1, pl. 5.4

34.2 Valerianeia, 69, 70

Tyana, Cappadocia, 94 Verus, Lucius: epinician games, 29, 67; Parthian

tyche, on coins: obverse portrait, 16, 77; reverse War, 39, 49; coins of, 41, 42, 54, 59, pl. 15.5;

type, 48, 53, 56, 58-59, 66, 74, 75, 77, 81- reverse type, 41, 42, 45, 59, pl. 15.1-2, pl. 82, pl. 2.6, pl. 2.8, pl. 2.11, pl. 3.3, pl. 5.1, pl. 15.5

5.3-4, pl. 6.2, pl. 6.5-6, pl. 13.5, pl. 22.8, pl. vexilla. See legions, standards of 23.2, pl. 23.5, pl. 26.6, pl. 26.9, pl. 29.2 -3, pl. Victoria: on coins, 42, 51, 53, pl. 2.2 30.6, pl. 31.7, pl. 31.9, pl. 36.2, pl. 34.2, pl. Volusian: coins of, 34, 43, pl. 10.8; obverse por-

34.10 trait, 35, pl. 10.8; reverse type, 43

Tymandus, Pisidia, 87, 100 types, of coins: evolution, 9, 13-16, 20; selection

by civic government, 23, 26, 32; comprehen- wreath. See prize wreath sion of, 32-36, 147nn.12-14, 148n21; agonistic, 63 -64; as source for third century, 83 —

84, 88; obverse types on civic coins, 13, 15, Zenobia, 6, 93-94, 202nn.89, 94 34-35, 40, 72; reverse types, 13, 23, 32, 36- Zeus: Casius, 54; Philus, 57, pl. 24.6; Laodikeus,

37, 39-59, 64-65, 96 67; Troius, 72; Olympios, 76; Boulaios, pl. Typhron, notable, 71-72 31.9; in Julian’s theology, 96-98; shrine at

Tyre, Phoenicia: coins of, 18, 50, 68, pl. 2.11, pl. Panamara, 27, 36, 57, 64, pl. 24.5; altar at 9.1, pl. 21.6, pl. 31.6, pl. 33.6, pl. 34.2 Pergamum, 14, pl. 7.6; altar at Sardes, pl. 7.7; obverse portrait, 72, pl. 31.9; reverse type, 14,

Uranius Antoninus. See Sampsigeramus 77,80, pl. 4.1, pl. 4.3, pl. 6.3, pl. 7.7, pl. 8.1, pl. urn, on agonistic coins, 14, 64, 66, pl. 12.2, pl. 35.7; as bull, pl. 9.4

28.3, pl. 28.6-—7 Zosimus, moneyer, 27

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1 THE IMPERIAL COINAGE SYSTEM 1.1 Septimius Severus, Rome mint, 202, aureus. BMCRE V 231, no. 380, pl. 37.6 = Hill 697. 1.2 Septimius Severus, Rome mint, 194, gold quinarius. BMCRE V 30, no. 62, pl. 7.2 = Hill 73.

1.3 Geta, Rome mint, 205, denarius. BMCRE V 242, no. 442, pl. 38.19 = Hill 769. 1.4 Julia Domna, Rome mint, 207, silver quinarius. BMCRE V 162, no. 40, pl. 27.20. 1.5 Caracalla, Rome mint, 196, sestertius. BMCRE V 150, no. 612, pl. 26.6 = Hill 242. 1.6 Septimius Severus, Rome mint, 194, dupondius. BMCRE V 130, no. 523, pl]. 22.10 = Hill 133.

1.7. Caracalla, Rome Mint, 213, as. BMCRE V 412, no. 259, pl. 61.7 = Hill 1376.

1.8 Caracalla, Rome mint, 215, antoninianus. BMCRE V 456, no. 138, pl. 71.2.

Plate 2 SILVER COINAGES OF THE ROMAN EAST 2.1 Ephesus, Ionia, Augustus, ca. 28 B.C., cistophorus. Sutherland, Cistophori of Augustus 41, no. 24.

2.2 Cragus, Lycia, Augustus, drachma. SNGvAulock 4312. 2.3 Caesarea, Cappadocia, Domitian, didrachma. SNGvAulock 6369 = Sydenham, Caesarea, no. 50.

2.4 Caesarea, Cappadocia, Caligula, 37-38, drachma. RIC I? 113, no. 60, pl. 15 = BMCRE I 162, no. 105 = Sydenham, Caesarea, no. 51. 2.5 Caesarea, Cappadocia, Nero, hemidrachma. SNGvAulock 6359 = Sydenham, Caesarea, no. 83. 2.6 Tarsus, Cilicia, Domitian, tetradrachma. BMCLycaonia 186, no. 144 = Sear 865.

2.7 Amisus, Pontus, Hadrian, drachma. BMCPontus 22, no. 91, pl. iv.10.

241

242 LIST OF PLATES 2.8 Antiochia, Syria, Augustus, ] B.C.—A.D. 1, tetradrachma. BMCGalatia 168, no. 146 = Sear 106. 2.9 Antiochia, Syria, Septimius Severus, tetradrachma. BMCGalatia 193, no. 351, pl. xxiii. 7.

2.10 Antiochia, Syria, Nero and Poppaea, ca. 62-65, drachma. Wruck, no. 49 = Sear 663. 2.11 Tyre, Phoenicia, Trajan, 112, tetradrachma. BMCPhoenicia 302, no. 29, pl. xxxvi.9.

Plate 3 VALUES AND VALUATION MARKS ON AES 3.1 Colybrassus, Cilicia, Valerian II. BMCLycaonia 63, no. 13, pl. xi.7. 3.2 Etenna, Pisidia, Salonina. Kraft, pl. 112.63 = von Aulock, MSP II 95, no. 678 = BMCLycia 222, no. 11.

3.3. Ninica-Claudiopolis, Cilicia, Severus Alexander. BMCLycaonia 117, no. 5, pl. xxi. 3. 3.4 Isinda, Pisidia, Valerian I. Von Aulock, MSPI 99, no. 935 = Berlin = KI. M. 1 374, no. 6.

3.5 Antiochia, Syria, Augustus. RIC I? 84, no. 528, pl. 10.

3.6 Antiochia, Syria, Trajan. Wruck, no. 190 = Sear 1078.

Plate 4 CHANGING STYLES OF LOCAL COINAGE 4.1 Laodicea ad Lycum, Phrygia, Nero. BMCPhrygia 304, no. 164, pl. xxxvii.3. 4.2 Laodicea ad Lycum, Phrygia, Agrippina II]. BMCPhrygia 305, no. 174, pl. xxxvii.4.

4.3 Trajanopolis, Phrygia, Trajan. BMCPhrygia 427, no. 19, pl. 1.8. 4.4 Seleucia ad Calycadnum, Cilicia, Caracalla, tetradrachma. BMCLycaonia 134, no. 29, pl. Xxiv.1.

4.5 Ephesus, Ionia, Julia Mamaea. SNGvAulock 1911 = Kraft, pl. 15.50a.

Plate 5 CHANGING STYLES OF LOCAL COINAGE (continued) 5.1 Apollonia, Pisidia-Lycia homonoia, Alexander the Great, ca. 214-17. Von Aulock, MSP II 54, no. 24.

5.2 Myra, Lycia, Tranquillina. Von Aulock, MGTL 70, no. 181. 5.3 Perge, Pamphylia, Valerian I. BMCLycia 138, no. 98 = Kraft, pl. 112.67. 5.4 Panemoteichus, Pisidia, Gallienus, Valerian IJ, and Salonina. Von Aulock, MSP1 117, no. 1147.

Plate 6 THE TECHNIQUES OF PRODUCTION 6.1 Ephesus, Ionia-Alexandria, Egypt homonoid, Gordian III. Kraft, pl. 17.64a = Berlin. 6.2 Neapolis, Ionia, Gordian III. Kraft, pl. 17.64c = SNGCop 452.

LIST OF PLATES 243 6.3 Midaeum, Phrygia, Caracalla. BMCPhrygia 336, no. 8, pl. xxxix.5. 6.4 Temnus, Aeolis, Synkletos, ca. 244-53. Kraft, pl. 10.76a = BMCTroas 144, no. 142.

6.5 Smyrna, Ionia, Synkletos, ca. 244-53. Kraft, pl. 10.76g = Oxford. 6.6 Cyme, Aeolis, Synkletos, ca. 244-53. Kraft, pl. 10.76h = Boston.

6.7 Chios, Ionia, Synkletos, ca. 244-53. Kraft, pl. 10.76d = Munich. 6.8 Erythrae, Ionia, Synkletos, ca. 244-53. Kraft, pl. 10.76e = Waddington 1676.

Plate 7 CIVIC PRIDE AND PIETY 7.1 Ephesus, Ionia, Septimius Severus. Kraft, pl. 62.4a = Paris. 7.2 Smyrna, Ionia, Severus Alexander. SNGvAulock 2225.

7.3 Magnesia ad Maeandrum, Ionia, Julia Mamaea. Schultz, Magnesia 94, no. 305, pl. 22. 7.4 Side, Pamphylia, Tranquillina. Antike Miinzen (Bank Leu), Auc. 28 (1981), no 539.

7.5 Ephesus, Ionia, Caracalla. Kraft, pl. 63.9a = Vienna. 7.6 Pergamum, Mysia, Septimius Severus and Julia Domna. BMCMysia 152, no. 315, pl. xxx. 7. 7.7 Sardes, Lydia, Severus Alexander. BMCLydia 267, no. 178, pl. xxvii.11. 7.8 Antiochia ad Maeandrum, Caria, Trajan Decius. SNGvAulock 8058.

Plate 8 CIVIC PRIDE AND PIETY (continued) | 8.1 Thyatira, Lydia, Septimius Severus. SNGvAulock 3221 = Kraft, pl. 65.11b.

8.2 Cyme, Aeolis, Valerian I. Kraft, pl. 7.48a = Vienna. 8.3 Siblia, Phrygia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 3956 = Kraft, pl. 82.46b.

8.4 Maeonia, Lydia, Julia Domna. Kraft, pl. 79.21d = BMCLydia 134, no. 46. 8.5 Dionysopolis, Phrygia, Septimius Severus. Kraft, pl. 77.7 = Paris. 8.6 Aphrodisias, Caria, Gordian III. SNGvAulock 2461. 8.7. Gordus-Julia, Lydia, Marcus Aurelius. BMCLydia 93, no. 24, pl. x.3.

Plate 9 CIVIC PRIDE AND PIETY (continued) 9.1 Tyre, Phoenicia, Gordian III. BMCPhoenicia 281, no. 429, pl. xxxiii.14. 9.2 Smyrna, Ionia, Philip I. SNGvAulock 2231.

9.3 Dorylaeum Phrygia, Gordian III. BMCPhrygia 197, no. 13, pl. xxv.7. 9.4 Sidon, Phoenicia, Elagabalus. BMCPhoenicia 182, no. 229, pl. xxiv.1.

ag SOF PLATES 9.5 Tarsus, Cilicia, Gordian III. BMCLycaonia 213, no. 258, pl. xxxvii.4.

9.6 Abonouteichus, Paphlagonia, Antoninus Pius. BMCPontus 83, no. 1, pl. xix.1. 9.7 Philadelphia, Lydia, Trajan Decius. SNGvAulock 3085 = Kraft, pl. 23.121b. 9.8 Apamea, Phrygia, Severus Alexander. SNGvAulock 3506.

Plate 10 BLUNDERED IMPERIAL PORTRAITS AND NAMES 10.1 Ceramus, Caria, Geta. SNGvAulock 2582. 10.2 Cnidus, Caria, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 8113. 10.3 Tabae, Caria, Valerian I. SNGvAulock 2728. 10.4 =‘Tripolis, Lydia, Gallienus. SNGvAulock 3326 = Kraft, pl. 54.43a.

10.5 Nysa, Lydia, Gallienus. SNGvAulock 3056 = Kraft, pl. 25.142. 10.6 __ Tralles, Lydia, Gallienus. SNGvAulock 3298 = Kraft, pl. 25.143.

10.7 Eucarpeia, Phrygia, Trebonianus Gallus. BMCPhrygia 209, no. 30, pl. xxvi.11. 10.8 Eucarpeia, Phrygia, Volusian. BMCPhrygia 210, no. 31, pl. xxvi.12. 10.9 Nicomedia, Bithynia, Valerian I. SNGvAulock 7140 = Kraft, pl. 106.95. 10.10 Nicomedia, Bithynia, Gallienus. SNGvAulock 7148 = Kraft, pl. 107.102. 10.11 Ceretapa, Phrygia, Caracalla. Von Aulock, MSPh I 127, no. 508. 10.12 Hypaepa, Lydia, Plautilla. Kraft, pl. 71.67 = BMCLydia 116, no. 47.

10.13 Samos, Ionia, Salonina. Kraft, pl. 27.154 = BMClonia 396, no. 389.

Plate 11 THE CHANGING IMPERIAL IMAGO 11.1 Smyrna, Ionia, Caracalla. Kraft, pl. 1.7 = Paris. 11.2 Clazomenae, Ionia, Caracalla. Kraft, pl. 1.5 = Berlin. 11.3 Methymna, Lesbos, Severus Alexander. Kraft, pl. 49.11 = Vienna. 11.4 Lysias, Phrygia, Gordian II]. BMCPhrygia 332, no. 9, pl. xxxviii.8. 11.5 Philomelium, Phrygia, Trajan Decius. SNGvAulock 3930. 11.6 Diocletian, Treveri mint, 302-3,nummus. M@M Auc. 61 (1982), no. 674 = RIC VI 196, no. 519a. 11.7. Aspendus, Pamphylia, Maximinus. Kraft, pl. 109.17 = SNGvAulock 4593.

11.8 Carallia, Cilicia, Valerian I. Kraft, pl. 112.65 = BMCLycaonia 48, no. 8.

11.9 Constantius Gallus, Antioch mint, 350-54, gold 4% solidi medallion. Antike Minzen (Bank Leu), Auc. 28 (1981), no. 580.

LIST OF PLATES 245 Plate 12 DAMNATIO MEMORIAE 12.1 Cibyra, Phrygia, Domitian and Domitia. SNGvAulock 3731. 12.2 Nicaea, Bithynia, Septimius Severus. BMCPontus 162, no. 63, pl. xxxiii.2. 12.3 Stratonicea, Caria, Septimius Severus and Geta. SNGvAulock 8162. 12.4 Pergamum, Mysia, Caracalla and Geta. SNGvAulock 7515. 12.5 Elaea, Aeolis, Maximinus. Kl.M. 1 47, no. 3 (Imhoof-Blumer) = K. W. Har] Collection. 12.6 Pergamum, Mysia, Maximinus. SNGvAulock 7517. 12.7. Laodicea ad Lycum, Phrygia, Julia Domna. BMCPhrygia 313, no. 215, pl. xxxvii.10.

12.8 Prusias, Bithynia, Domitian. NC 7, no. 7 (1967), pl. iii.2.

Plate 13 THE IMPERIAL PORTRAITS 13.1 Isinda, Pisidia, Elagabalus. Von Aulock, MSP I 92, no. 815. 13.2 Aradus, Phoenicia, Gordian III. BMCPhoenicia 50, no. 388, pl. vi.11.

13.3 Cyaneae, Lycia, Tranquillina. Von Aulock, MGTL 64, no. 98. 13.4 Ariassus, Pisidia, Otacilia Severa. Von Aulock, MSP I 75, no. 483. 13.5 Seleucia ad Calycadnum, Cilicia, Gordian III and Tranquillina. BMCLycaonia 139, no. 47, pl. xxiv.6.

13.6 Cremna, Pisidia, Herennia Etruscilla. SNGvAulock 5112. 13.7 Stratonicea, Caria, Septimius Severus and Julia Domna. SNGvAulock 2674. 13.8 Stratonicea, Caria, Caracalla and Plautilla. SNGvAulock 2693.

Plate 14 THE MILITANT IMPERIAL PORTRAIT 14,1 Geta, Rome mint, 199, aureus. BMCRE V 199, no. 244, pl. 32.18 = Hill 442. 14.2 Bithynium, Bithynia, Severus Alexander. SNGvAulock 326 = Kraft, pl. 101.20. 14,3 Cyzicus, Mysia, Gallienus. SNGvAulock 7388. 14.4 Sardes, Lydia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 3158 = Kraft, pl. 70.54. 14.5 Cyzicus, Mysia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 7379.

14.6 Perinthus, Thrace, Severus Alexander. Schonert-Geiss, Perinthos, no. 784. 14.7 Sidon, Phoenicia, Severus Alexander. BMCPhoenicia 196, no. 309, pl. xxxv.7. 14.8 Amastris, Paphlagonia, Trebonianus Gallus. SNGvAulock 6817 = Kraft, pl. 107.106a. 14.9 Antiochia ad Maeandrum, Caria, Gallienus. SNGvAulock 2430. 14.10 Maximianus, Aquileia mint, 306-7, nummus. Mé M Auc. 61 (1982), no. 1005 = RIC VI 322, no. 76a.

246 LIST OF PLATES Plate 15 IMPERIAL CONCORD 15.1 Marcus Aurelius, Rome mint, 161, dupondius. Antike Miinzen (Bank Leu), Auc. 28 (1981), no. 461 = BMCRE IV 520, no. 852.

15.2 Amasia, Pontus, Marcus Aurelius. BMCPontus 6, no. 3, pl. 1.14. 15.3 Amasia, Pontus, Septimius Severus. RGA I?. 1 36, no. 58 = Sear 2155. 15.4 Mallus, Cilicia, Tranquillina. SNGvAulock 5726.

Plate 15 THE CONQUERING EMPEROR 15.5 Silandus, Lydia, Commodus. SNGvAulock 3175. 15.6 Bagis, Lydia, Septimius Severus. BMCLydia 35, no. 25, pl. iv.8. 15.7. Aphrodisias, Caria, Septimius Severus. SNGvAulock 2458.

Plate 16 THE CONQUERING EMPEROR (continued) 16.1 Philadelphia, Lydia, Caracalla. Kraft pl. 29.6b = Paris. 16.2 Mytilene, Lesbos, Caracalla and Geta. SNGvAulock 7755. 16.3 Silandus, Lydia, Severus Alexander. SNGvAulock 3181.

16.4 Magnesia sub Sipylum, Lydia, Gallienus. Kraft, pl. 8.53a = Munich. 16.5 Nicomedia, Bithynia, Trajan Decius. SNGvAulock 7130 = Kraft, pl. 104.65. 16.6 Nicomedia, Bithynia, Valerian I. SNGvAulock 7137.

16.7. Lampsacus, Mysia, Severus Alexander. Kraft, pl. 49.12 = ANS. 16.8 Bargasa, Caria, Gallienus. SNGvAulock 2512.

Plate 17 THE IMPERIAL HUNTSMAN 17.1 Hadrianotherae, Mysia, Hadrian. SNGvAulock 7245. 17.2 Baris, Pisidia, Hadrian. SNGvAulock 5009. 17.3 Tarsus, Cilicia, Septimius Severus. SNGvAulock 6000.

17.4 Pergamum, Mysia, Caracalla. Von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. vii.9 = Gotha.

Plate 17 THE EMPEROR IN TRIUMPH 17.5 Tius, Bithynia, Lucius Verus. SNGvAulock 948.

17.6 Mytilene, Lesbos, Commodus. Kraft, pl. 88.14b = Munich. 17.7. Maeonia, Lydia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 3020.

17.8 Synnada, Phrygia, Gordian II. SNGvAulock 3990.

LIST OF PLATES 247 Plate 18 THE EMPEROR IN TRIUMPH (continued) 18.1 Smyrna, Ionia, Commodus. Kraft, pl. 90.5 = Paris. 18.2 Laodicea ad Lycum, Phrygia, Caracalla. BMCPhrygia 315, no. 225, pl. xxxvii.11. 18.3 Amorium, Phrygia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 3415.

18.4 Arycanda, Lycia, Tranquillina. SNGvAulock 4278 = Kraft, pl. 109.30 = von Aulock, MGTL 59, no. 47.

18.5 Sidon, Phoenicia, Severus Alexander. BMCPhoenicia 199, no. 323, pl. xxv.11. 18.6 Sidon, Phoenicia, Elagabalus. BMCPhoenicia 186, no. 255, pl. xxiv.8.

18.7 Colossae, Phrygia, Demos, ca. 180-92. SNGvAulock 3765. 18.8 Tralles, Lydia, Gordian III. BMCLydia 355, no. 170, pl. xxxvii.8. 18.9 Cilbiani Inferiores, Lydia, Caracalla. BMCLydia 67, no. 16, pl. vii.10.

Plate 19 THE EMPEROR IN TRIUMPH (continued) 19.1 Amorium, Phrygia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 3414. 19.2 Philadelphia, Lydia, Caracalla. Johnston, Sardis 41, no. 178, with permission of Harvard University Press.

19.3. Tarsus, Cilicia, Caracalla. BMCLycaonia, 197, no. 191, pl. xxxv.8. | 19.4 Cibyra, Phrygia, Elagabalus. BMCPhrygia 141, no. 61, pl. xvii.7.

19.5 Constantius II, Antioch, 337-61, gold medallion. Brilliant, Gesture and Rank, fig. 4.45a—b = Bernhart, pl. 81.6.

Plate 20 EMPEROR AND NIKE 20.1 Tripolis, Lydia, Trajan. SNGvAulock 3318.

20.2 Alabanda, Caria, Caracalla. Paris. 20.3 Smyrna, Ionia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 8006.

20.4 Termessus Maior, Pisidia, Zeus, 253-60. SNGvAulock 5357. 20.5 Miletus, Ionia, Geta. SNGvAulock 2111. 20.6 Phocaea, Ionia, Maximinus and Maximus. Kraft, pl. 4.29a = BMClonia 225, no. 153. 20.7 Edessa, Mesopotamia, Gordian III. JNG 19 (1969), pl. 3.3. 20.8 Anazarbus, Cilicia, Severus Alexander. SNGvAulock 5496.

20.9 Magnesia sub Sipylum, Lydia, Septimius Severus. Kraft, pl. 67.36 = Berlin. 20.10 Ephesus, Ionia, Valerian I. SNGvAulock 1924 = Kraft, pl. 27.157a. 20.11 Seleucia ad Calycadnum, Cilicia, Gordian III. BMCLycaonia 138, no. 45, pl. xxiv.5.

248 LIST OF PLATES Plate 21 THE ROMAN LEGIONS , 21.1 Tavium, Galatia, Julia Domna. BMCGalatia 27, no. 15, pl. v.11. 21.2 Perge, Pamphylia, Gallienus. SNGvAulock 8524.

21.3 Docimeium, Phrygia, Gordian III. BMCPhrygia 194, no. 33, pl. xxiv.11. 21.4 Antiochia, Pisidia, Philip I. BMCLycia 196, no. 112, pl. xxxii.8.

21.5 Sidon, Phoenicia, Elagabalus. Oxford = Sear 3115. | 21.6 Tyre, Phoenicia, Julia Domna. BMCPhoenicia 270, no. 371, pl. xxxii.9. 21.7 Antiochia, Pisidia, Gordian III. BMCLycia 191, no. 87, pl. xxxii.5.

21.8 Iconium, Lycaonia, Gordian III. Von Aulock, MSL 82, no. 320. 21.9 Antiochia, Pisidia, Gordian III. SNGvAulock 4954.

21.10 Cyzicus, Mysia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 1277. , 21.11 Nicaea, Bithynia, Caracalla. Kraft, pl. 100.3 = Munich.

Plate 22 THE ADVENTUS | 22.1 Pergamum, Mysia, Marcus Aurelius. BMCMysia 147, no. 289, pl. xxix.6. 22.2 Adramyteum, Mysia, Commodus. SNGvAulock 7199. 22.3 Elaea, Aeolis, Commodus. SNGvAulock 7687. 22.4 Hadrianotherae, Mysia, Septimius Severus. SNGvAulock 7246 = Kraft, pl. 64.7. 22.5 Tarsus, Cilicia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 6007. 22.6 Dorylaeum, Phrygia, Philip I. SNGvAulock 8359. 22.7. Acmoneia, Phrygia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 3377.

22.8 Thyatira, Lydia, Caracalla. BMCLydia 309, no. 94, pl. xxxi.8.

22.9 Samos, Ionia, Trajan Decius. Kraft, pl. 23.119b = Berlin.

Plate 23 CARACALLA’S VISIT TO PERGAMUM 23.1 Pergamum, Mysia, Caracalla. Paris = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. vii.7. 23.2 Pergamum, Mysia, Caracalla. BMCMysia 154, no. 319, pl. xxxi.l. 23.3 Pergamum, Mysia, Caracalla. Paris = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. vii.15. 23.4 Pergamum, Mysia, Caracalla. Munich = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. vii.14. 23.5 Pergamum, Mysia, Caracalla. Munich = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. vii.12. 23.6 Laodicea ad Lycum, Phrygia, Caracalla. Niggler II, no. 639. 23.7 Pergamum, Mysia, Caracalla. BM = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. vili.5. 23.8 Pergamum, Mysia, Caracalla. Paris = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. viii.4.

eee

LIST OF PLATES 249

Plate 24 CARACALLA’S VISIT TO PERGAMUM (continued)

24.1 Pergamum, Mysia, Caracalla. BMCMysia 155, no. 322, pl. xxxi.4 = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. viii.2.

24.2 Pergamum, Mysia, Caracalla. Munich = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. viii.7.

24.3 Pergamum, Mysia, Caracalla. Berlin = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. viii.9. 24.4 Pergamum, Mysia, Commodus. Vienna = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. vii.16. 24.5 Stratonicea, Caria, Septimius Severus and Julia Domna. SNGvAulock 2666.

24.6 Pergamum, Mysia, Caracalla. BMCMysia 156, no. 327, pl. xxxii.1 = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. viii.16.

Plate 25 THE EMPEROR AT SACRIFICE 25.1 Tarsus, Cilicia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 6017.

25.2 Temenothryae, Phrygia, Valerian and Gallienus. BMCPhrygia 415, no. 34, pl. xlviii.6. 25.3 Smyrna, Ionia, Caracalla. Kraft, pl. 74.2d = BMClonia 288, no. 402. 25.4 Prusa, Bithynia, Caracalla. BMCPontus 197, no. 25, pl. xxxv.7. 25.5 Nicomedia, Bithynia, Gordian III. SNGvAulock 7120.

25.6 Alexandria Troas, Trebonianus Gallus. BMCTroas 28, no. 149, pl. vi.10.

25.7 Thyatira, Lydia, Caracalla. Kraft, pl. 41.13 = Munich. 25.8 Aegeae, Cilicia, Severus Alexander. Chiron 12 (1982), pl. 5.6.

Plate 26 THE EMPEROR AND THE CIVIC GODS 26.1 Cyzicus, Mysia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 7379.

26.2 Pergamum, Mysia, Trajan Decius. Munich = von Fritze, Pergamon, pl. iv.22.

26.3 Alinda, Caria, Septimius Severus and Caracalla. Oxford. 26.4 Ceretapa, Phrygia, Commodus. Von Aulock, MSPhI 125, no. 492 = Waddington 5800.

26.5 Mytilene, Lesbos, Caracalla. Kraft pl. 66.23 = Munich. 26.6 Hypaepa, Lydia, Septimius Severus. Kraft, pl. 72.72 = Berlin. 26.7 Isaura, Isauria, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 5410. 26.8 Laodicea ad Lycum, Phrygia, Caracalla. BMCPhrygia 316, no. 227, pl. xxxvii.12. 26.9 Antiochia, Pisidia, Gordian III. SNGvAulock 4951.

Plate 27 EMPERORS AS PATRONS OF CITIES

27.1 Tarsus, Cilicia, Caracalla. JNG 27 (1977), pl. 3.2. | 27.2 Sidon, Phoenicia, Elagabalus. BMCPhoenicia 190, no. 274, pl. xxiv.15.

250 LIST OF PLATES 27.3 Mopsus, Cilicia, Valerian I. SNGvAulock 5747.

27.4 Smyrna, Ionia, Caracalla. Kraft, pl. 2.13b = SNGvAulock 2224. 27.5 Sardes, Lydia, Septimius Severus. Kraft, pl. 68.44b = Paris. 27.6 Ephesus, Ionia, Elagabalus. Kraft, pl. 13.27aa = BMClIonia 92, no. 306. 27.7 Cremna, Pisidia, Aurelian. SNGvAulock 5122.

27.8 Thyatira, Lydia, Elagabalus. BMCLydia 312, no. 112, pl. xxxii.2.

27.9 Side, Pamphylia, Salonina. SNGvAulock 4856. .

Plate 28 FESTIVALS AND GAMES 28.1 Attaleia, Pamphylia, Valerian II. SNGvAulock 4633. 28.2 Perge, Pamphylia, Valerian I. SNGvAulock 4757. 28.3 Laodicea ad Lycum, Phrygia, Demos, ca. 221-22. SNGvAulock 8414. 28.4 Nicaea, Bithynia, Commodus. SNGvAulock 7030. 28.5 Sardes, Lydia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 3160 = Kraft, pl. 29.1.

28.6 Ancyra, Galatia, Caracalla. BMCGalatia 12, no. 22, pl. ii.13. 28.7. Prostanna, Pisidia, Gordian III. SNGvAulock 8619 = von Aulock, MSP II 150, no. 1816. 28.8 Syedra, Cilicia, Valerian I. SNGvAulock 5905. 28.9 Colybrassus, Cilicia, Valerian I. SNGvAulock 5665.

Plate 29 FESTIVALS AND GAMES (continued) 29.1 Hierapolis, Phrygia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 8382.

29.2 Perinthus, Thrace, Severus Alexander. Schonert-Geiss, Perinthos, no. 784. 29.3 Tarsus, Cilicia, Septimius Severus. SNGvAulock 6001. 29.4 Tarsus, Cilicia, Elagabalus. SNGvAulock 6023.

29.5 Hierapolis, Phrygia, Demos, ca. 221-22. SNGvAulock 3636. 29.6 Neocaesarea, Pontus, Gordian III. SNGvAulock 6761. 29.7‘: Tarsus, Cilicia, Valerian I. SNGvAulock 6077.

29.8 Heliopolis, Coele-Syria, Valerian I. BMCGalatia 294, no. 27, pl. xxxvi.8. 29.9 Tralles, Lydia, Valerian I. SNGvAulock 3297. 29.10 Tralles, Lydia, Septimius Severus. SNGvAulock 3289 = Kraft, pl. 62.2b. 29.11 Tripolis, Lydia, Gallienus. SNGvAulock 3326 = Kraft, pl. 54.43a.

LIST OF PLATES 251 Plate 30 ROMAN ORIGINS 30.1 Ancyra, Phrygia, Thea Rome. SNGvAulock 8326. 30.2 Tripolis, Lydia, Thea Rome, ca. 200-260. BMCLydia 366, no. 20, pl. xxxix.2.

30.3 Gordus-Julia, Lydia, Thea Rome, ca. 138-61. BMCLydia 90, no. 1, pl. x.1. 30.4 Philippopolis, Arabia, Otacilia Severa. BMCArabia 43, no. 9, pl. vi.17. 30.5 Thyatira, Lydia, Severus Alexander. BMCLydia 315, no. 124, pl. xxxii.5. 30.6 Cibyra, Phrygia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 3737 = Kraft, pl. 75.8f. 30.7. Philomelium, Phrygia, Trajan Decius. SNGvAulock 3930. 30.8 Antiochia, Pisidia, Gordian Ill. SNGvAulock 4963. 30.9 Synnada, Phrygia, Synkletos, ca. 250--60. BMCPhrygia 394, no. 15, pl. xlvi.6.

30.10 Phocaea, Ionia, Synkletos. Kraft, pl. 9.68a = Berlin. 30.11 Mallus, Cilicia, Sacra Sinatus, 249-51. BMCLycaonia 101, no. 30, pl. xvii.11. 30.12 Iconium, Lycaonia, Valerian I. Von Aulock, MSL 84, no. 352. 30.13 Otrus, Phrygia, Caracalla. Von Aulock, MSPh I 146, no. 787. 30.14 Ilium, Troas, Tyche, ca. 200-260. SNGvAulock 1525.

Plate 31 CIVIC GOVERNMENT AT WORK 31.1 Hierapolis, Phrygia, Demos, ca. 200-250. SNGvAulock 3635. 31.2 Hierapolis, Phrygia, Boule, ca. 200-250. SNGvAulock 3639. 31.3 Hierapolis, Phrygia, Gerousia, ca. 200-250. BMCPhrygia 241, no. 79, pl. xxx.9. 31.4 Alexandria Troas, Trebonianus Gallus. BMCTroas 27, no. 145, pl. vi.7. 31.5 Sagalassus, Pisidia, Claudius II. SNGvAulock 8632. 31.6 Tyre, Phoenicia, Gallienus. BMCPhoenicia 293, no. 488, pl. xxxv.1.

31.7 Appia, Phrygia, Philip I and II. BMCPhrygia 108, no. 9, pl. xiii.6. 31.8 Cibyra, Phrygia, Trajan Decius. SNGvAulock 3754.

31.9 Mytilene, Lesbos, in homonoia with Pergamum and Ephesus, Zeus, 253-60. JNG 19 (1969): 87, no. 28, pl. 8.15. 31.10 Cibyra, Phrygia—Hierapolis homonoia, Marcus Aurelius. BMCPhrygia 149, no. 95, pl. li.4.

Plate 32 HEROES OF THE POLIS: HERACLES

32.1 Synnada, Phrygia, Heracles, ca. 250-60. SNGvAulock 8447. | 32.2 Philadelphia, Lydia, Philip I. SNGvAulock 8242 = Kraft, pl. 21.100.

252 LIST OF PLATES 32.3 Germe, Lydia, Septimius Severus. SNGvAulock 7226 = Kraft, pl. 66.29a.

32.4 Germanicopolis, Paphlagonia, Caracalla. RGA I?. 1 186, no. 55 = Kraft, pl. 98.26. 32.5 Sebastiopolis, Pontus, Septimius Severus. SNGvAulock 6777.

32.6 Blaundus, Lydia, Caracalla. BMCLydia 55, no. 83, pl. vi.3. , 32.7 Heraclea Pontica, Bithynia, Gordian III. SNGvAulock 6961. 32.8 Amorium, Phrygia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 3416. 32.9 Alinda, Caria, Septimius Severus. SNGvAulock 2408. 32.10 Alinda, Caria, Septimius Severus. SNGvAulock 8053.

32.11 Temenothyrae, Phrygia, Valerian I. BMCPhrygia 415, no. 33, pl. xlviii.5.

Plate 33 HEROES OF THE POLIS IN COMBAT 33.1 Side, Pamphylia, Trajan Decius. SNGvAulock 4834. 33.2 Seleucia ad Calycadnum, Cilicia, Gordian III. SNGvAulock 5842.

33.3 Samos, Ionia, Philip I. Kraft, pl. 21.99 = Berlin. 33.4 Sebaste, Phrygia, Caracalla. Kraft, pl. 81.40g = BMCPhrygia 375, no. 34, pl. xliii.11. 33.5 Anemurium, Cilicia, Maximinus. SNGvAulock 5521. 33.6 Tyre, Phoenicia, Gordian III. BMCPhoenicia 280, no. 425, pl. xxxiii.12. 33.7 Sagalassus, Pisidia, Claudius II]. BMCLycia 250, no. 50, pl. xxxviii.11.

33.8 Ilium, Troas, Commodus. BMCTroas 66, no. 61, pl. xii.14. 33.9 Ilium, Troas, Caracalla. BMCTroas 70, no. 92, pl. xiii.9. 33.10 [lium, Troas, Septimius Severus. BMCTroas 68, no. 75, pl. xili.4.

Plate 34 CIVIC GODS IN UNIFORM 34.1 Rabbath Moba, Arabia, Septimius Severus. BMCArabia 44, no. 2, pl. vii.1. 34.2 Tyre, Phoenicia, Aquilia Severa. BMCPhoenicia 279, no. 416, pl. xxxiii.9. 34.3 Samos, Ionia, Tranquillina. SNGvAulock 2318.

34.4 Otrus, Phrygia, Geta. Von Aulock, MSPh I 149, no. 836. 34.5 Amblada, Pisidia, Geta. Von Aulock, MSP I 61, no. 137.

34.6 Metropolis, Ionia, Gordian III. Kraft, pl. 17.66b = Boston. 34.7 Seleucia ad Calycadnum, Cilicia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 5831.

34.8 Smyrna, Ionia, Julia Domna. Kraft, pl. 1.le = Vienna. 34.9 Tlos, Lycia, Gordian III. Von Aulock, MGTL 82, no. 316. 34.10 Sagalassus, Pisidia, Diadumenian. BMCLycia 244, no. 25, pl. xxxviii.5.

LIST OF PLATES 253 Plate 35 CIVIC GODS IN UNIFORM (continued) 35.1 Isinda, Pisidia, Caracalla. Von Aulock, MSP I 91, no. 804. 35.2 Cyaneae, Lycia, Gordian III. Von Aulock, MGTL 63, no. 84 = BMCLycia 57, no. 6. 35.3 Arycanda, Lycia, Gordian III. Von Aulock, MGTL 58, no. 29.

35.4 Ephesus, Ionia, Tranquillina. Kraft, pl. 20.91 = Winterthur. 35.5 Magnesia ad Maeandrum, Ionia, Caracella (misattributed to Elagabalus). Kraft, pl. 13.29 = Berlin.

35.6 Colossae, Phrygia, Septimius Severus. SNGvAulock 3770 = Kraft, pl. 77.3. } 35.7. Amblada, Pisidia, Caracalla. SNGvAulock 4903 = Kraft, pl. 70. 59d = von Aulock, MSP I 60, no. 136.

35.8 Nicaea, Bithynia, Gordian III. SNGvAulock 656 = Kraft, pl. 102. 39a. 35.9 Maeonia, Lydia, Septimius Severus. SNGvAulock 8236. 35.10 Mostene, Lydia, Gallienus. Kraft, pl. 8. 53b = von Aulock Collection.

Plate 36 FAITHFUL FRIENDS AND ALLIES OF THE ROMANS 36.1 Diocaesarea, Galilee, Caracalla. Meshorer, Greek Numismatics and Archaeology 168, no. 1, pl. 18.8.

36.2 Aspendus, Pamphylia, Valerian II. Weber III.7327, pl. 262. 36.3 Side, Pamphylia, Salonina. SNGvAulock 4853.

36.4 Sillyum, Pamphylia, Salonina. ANS. 36.5 Sagalassus, Pisidia, Valerian I. SNGvAulock 5200. 36.6 Sagalassus, Pisidia, Claudius II. SNGvAulock 5209.

36.7. Amorium, Phrygia, Thea Rome, ca. 200-250. SNGvAulock 3396. 36.8 Laodicea ad Lycum, Phrygia, Thea Rome, ca. 200-250. BMCPhrygia 298, no. 123, pl. XXXV1.4.

PLATES

Plate 1

THE IMPERIAL COINAGE SYSTEM On the eve of the third century, Roman currency consisted of two denominations in gold, two in silver, and three in base metal, which were exchangeable at rates fixed by imperial fiat: (1.1) aureus of Septimius Severus, 202, with Julia Domna, Caracalla, and Geta on reverse; (1.2) gold quinarius of Septimius Severus, 194; (1.3) silver denarius of Caracalla, 205; (1.4) silver quinarius of Julia Domna, 207; (1.5) sestertius of Caracalla, 196; (1.6) dupondius of

Septimius Severus, 194 (note the radiate obverse portrait, which indicates ‘ denominational value); and (1.7) as of Caracalla, 213. In 215, Caracalla introduced the inflated ‘‘double denarius,’’ or antoninianus, which undermined the imperial currency system within fifty years (1.8).

1.1 1.2 1.3 PORE in ee a en GS Ass ant.

ARS i .SN ae Ry&c iay. “ ye -fS55 PAY, ASA fas o2 rE4!ey i eZ ‘Wee «: *f i,i a) A ne SH A) &ai' ;A4 iE , res &: w ® si Ry i i t ay i Caw na SF Vaasa) . yy Vata «AR

“S od SS a> i ‘3 “

~ ay Sh ec SVL ue . \ = 9 = ey %, el ey

1.4 1.5 1.6 Pi FAN sivue GR wes ;NRO) ae ; : i”SON . ae ate= SER

* ~~ a Soe Ring Comat dg egy as cline: Aerie ap eh. 4

= RES ae EGA ee eS een

4 = ee Patb= te itJIT, i feorSa .:; o“i)Reng Sergi) AES) ie ce | Se eee ¥ ii SRR on YRS EyeKF .SASS * | a .SY Z =VMAS ; 4EL5AS GO Fe,| ee- ey .

|NRwee Be J 1.8 wht hy: Potes HahPe sysPAks VES.

cS ED RS& SS a ChEST ® ea 4A| rh! fee >SES cMFRS ae i\ae Pes Leechs US3cathes vee2"eya Wee } > oA « } 2h ' a. ySh‘ 8\

Plate 2

. ; Ear a ce Ree a es Ped

SILVER COINAGES OF THE ROMAN EAST Eastern silver coinages were denominated in drachmae. The cistophorus circulated in western Asia Minor: (2.1) cistophorus of Augustus, Ephesus, and (2.2) drachma of Augustus, struck by Cragus, a member of the Lycian League, whose currency was related to the cistophoric standard. In eastern Asia Minor, Caesarea Mazaca used a separate weight standard: (2.3) didrachma of Domitian, (2.4) drachma of Caligula, and (2.5) hemidrachma of Nero. Compare related currencies of Tarsus, tetradrachma of Domitian (2.6), and Amisus, drachma of Hadrian (2.7). In Roman Syria, Antioch coined a range of denominations: (2.8) tetradrachma of Augustus; (2.9) tetradrachma of Septimius Severus; and (2.10) drachma of Nero. Compare related tetradrachma of Trajan from Tyre (2.11).

2.2 2.3 a2.1 ea a a sos en ag * + i orn eo . ee. ° a has ie ma LimriP Sa we: x Se Lae (Nth he OS en aR = aos te ' Puya> a " yer Lha* . . tos We ee i flee OS) sig! Me oiipSe

sh ATs tS a, iS 4 ma ALe ot ‘eS Jag oS ; at Mh . es 4) % we e-—

2.4 2.5 2.6 Sm ar Ry aS : mo. Ze," NG, LD: xgow gyseSi~_ PTE

ee veCet “Care i: aeS 7 Re “fi ZsCo ~_Lo .oe > ae . -< oS ok Cees Vs a ee and ch ee = : a- ae — —— y ~~: oe Sete SOT eae &san, “¢ ~~ iS ,.: = SS, y SSeS ee = a=. “

2.7 2.8 2.9 Gx~Ln SE at Ti.hb is eS4Ug 7 “sin, De

a.

je, a| Bee bes ie~3u—= . aes ‘feie2Tay fois Maps v| A 2J7aae “ a. Fe pe =: = SO tay) ing i P ~ ae F AF oe ntat ‘ f=- “\Noe: a-b Sw i =_ ~, 40'See . Se +t, etati Sc, Ss J ¢/ ie airy " ww a M Ny beat > ay a ett (Fr rf “- -Pt :

2.10 2.11 : ‘j 2= .sch Se r_% & at a > =, a += , a aRES) 3 t= eos == Oe a= -— < NN “ r.% = Pe y

Plate 3 VALUES AND VALUATION MARKS ON AES The exact values of civic bronze denominations are obscure, but in principle all local aes were calculated in terms of the assarion (= Roman as), reckoned at sixteen to eighteen to the drachma. Cities of southern Asia Minor in the mid—third century included valuation marks on their coins: (3.1) Valerian II, from Colybrassus, with IA (= ten assaria), and (3.2) Salonina, from Etenna, with IA (= ten assaria). Other coins were countermarked with valuation marks: (3.3) Severus Alexander, from Ninica-Claudiopolis, with A (= four assaria), and (3.4) Valerian I, from Isinda, with E (= five assaria).

3.1 3.2 f- p> Y ¥ SS —

~~~-Se. Ae i Pyj »t aASS aa ayy! ee. 4"any :. |, wt. Ay S aA SF att 3S SS AW

Lipeeiae fay. wy at=BL hte: (as Sh) amidtict VZAAL Ue)

Paes a ~Wows Ws i .Wee >=

Same = Bi Teh LF Qa ees ae Deere bite

3.3 3.4 ET 7>.id aweSos ss ghee xy . Ras

fe , _— :aae ‘ 1. ~x ~C.. xees a 5ifnaa7;Cote Ry iBes 2a“ i& iA ;Hste..le;4;2Sy aaa, a ee " a - Le ‘7b Se

The “’S. C.”’ series of Antioch, which circulated throughout greater Roman Syria, closely approximated Roman middle-sized aes (dupondius and as), and these Syrian coins may have been called by the Roman names: (3.5) coin of Augustus with Latin obverse legends, and (3.6) coin of Trajan with Greek obverse legends.

3.5 3.6 iN Ce , nk ssl,

peibnialie age eee ee eminent Ri he ee i

Rc ee Oia Re") breve

Seresy Wisg ~ WE

% r rag. a : ¥ Ps. cei a e ss / \= 4 f

Plate 4 CHANGING STYLES OF LOCAL COINAGE Numerous styles of engraving appear on local coins. Fine Roman styles continue in use well into the third century. Bronze coins of Nero (4.1) and Agrippina (4.2) from Laodicea ad Lycum are typical of the first century — struck on dumpy flans with angular letter forms and in styles closely imitating contemporary imperial denarii. Fine Roman style on a coin of Trajan from Trajanopolis is matched with wider, thinner flans of the second and third centuries (4.3).

4.1 4.2 4.3 Ps Viet peepie ‘=: 1@> OP 3ye ‘ fyte< 7 4 -OO rf dmLB aA

. ede A) , ). i. #,

4 J ‘ } 4) | f t a 1.3 “pe ; r F- rt a F ' t : ‘ iv’ ‘Vo 755

Wider flans, new styles, and more ambitious subjects characterize local coins from the mid-—second century on. A baroque style with overblown musculature and full-bodied figures on the reverse is common on Severan coins. Note fussy presentation of Caracalla’s portrait and Heracles on tetradrachma of Seleucia ad Calycadnum (4.4). A strong sense of motion and full-bodied figures characterize the sacred procession on a coin of Julia Mamaea from Ephesus (4.5).

4.4 4.5 —, .— cao le . ; *ct: : ~otis aT.

Hi: Lge rm—~ seeRit) A te iSAGAS SAPnf; iy od pe ;MIPS SaSaeed ES eySar A, ee eee ee

2D Lae |3) SBS SS Me, ie Ad // ee.POR ee eeSSS + Fol aes ee Sa

ogee =~ tae Mew VES

Plate 5 CHANGING STYLES OF LOCAL COINAGE (continued) (5.1) Inspiration from the Hellenistic past is seen on a bronze coin of Pisidian Apollonia in the early third century. The portrait of Alexander the Great (reputed founder of the city) is based directly upon those on his silver tetradrachmae.

5.1

& bs —* ~S < ‘«S : »

-wT eeLh by&.- -me+.\\.

ES LER

5.2 5.3 S22 ual hac me Pe ae Ba

Linear, abstract styles gained favor from the late Severan age on. Note the typical wiry letter forms; elongated, abstract portraits; and simplified reverse designs on coins of Tranquillina from Myra in Lycia (5.2) and of Valerian from Perge in Pamphylia (5.3).

. ay? »* ) “~he Nh - YY as \) : . ey _

ey , Fare

*,: = alxa,Ra QRS DS

(5.4) A bizarre composite coin from Panemoteichus in Pisidia combines an obverse with childish linear portraits of Gallienus, Valerian II, and Salonina with a much more naturalistic reverse.

5.4

oa~“SS Vt Nee R: 7 a |.a FUN A —:

)-A,ha ~”- — ieMAT "\ vale ~ ..)ina,>ain‘ aoem _-Am

fe RE IW \5 = 55 SCO marats Ts >; ee —

5 x fon Shee te - ‘ren TES .«\,eee. 4 vs ‘\ : yy' = \~

Plate 6

SELIG, SSRN REN ET eB USE IS Toa RAs na eR Rg eC ne THE TECHNIQUES OF PRODUCTION The emergence of “workshops” or schools of engraving at the end of the second century resulted in the spread of stereotyped designs and nonclassical styles. Compare coins of Gordian III from Ephesus (6.1) and Neapolis (6.2), which share the same obverse die, but note also the close similarity in the drapery, pose, and style of the reverse figures cut by an engraver of the workshop “Ephesus.” (6.3) Coin of Caracalla from Midaeum was struck from standardized dies cut by a ‘Nicene’ engraver and designed for a smaller denomination.

—. ta,

6.2 6.3 a6.1 ee a ee aa a ee as eA x \e > A 4 Y + iy yo: a YANT PRG x. “S rr ‘a3>aeDy) ifYeos eek S =} ff: ¥ je SASS eS A \ ™~ £C Veer ae es. 2% > “a a. * “7 . 4 en”. “ef *: :7 — om e“ay=AVS —s ‘we —Beip: Vy . utSe, Tfi

,“Na WAS tee —.; . ee

yates tan = - : »y _—— | ye, »* r . wa * we Sat es | \= aaa || =.¢ vit 3 } \\ a : ~ “1 z ; ty if 4 . ‘ \‘ ia ty, \ , he P 4 5 > i . we ve i ‘eb SXY NSE . NAN = *) "angage'

peaks oe ¥ _ . a?) “ je . ~ ~ Sa) 3 ‘ ~~. " | fe Ye ’ \ GES ike. We = ~~ x, ii % Jia aA’ RS \Sai Sa A1ps~~ SUP I ore a Se q AM \) pyre Nabeds

Stereotyped obverse die for Hiera Synkletos was cut by a ‘“‘Smyrnan” engraver and used between 244 and 260 by seven different cities including (6.4) Temnus, (6.5) Smyrna, (6.6) Cyme, (6.7) Chios, and (6.8) Erythrae. Compare also the stereotyped reverse types for Tyche (6.5—6) and Sibyl (6.7-8).

6.4 6.5 6.6

cE ARS STARA SCTE GST EEN SERS PE CRA FEC FG RSS Ene gv SN NC eg

: a. Se. LEAS aa 5% ~ " ty we i W . ‘ats “) 2 . Se . = “SASW x aS, ISS SEAS) 0 ASRS. AGEN os KES

‘Ave t ir + ok *¥ -—“—Ria ~ b“Sy . . Os. > RES a. Se ay eee ' eeQe ( NE ~~oN %\ =\UN o. We . : dA Sty *Ce wt) rs s\,) SF NS s AN bse Neh. .* A > o aa

, kiy . ~—- ——, ee ‘ =» A ies \ SS ~< AY

; PH AL _ ~~ SS We SA at s fob. a: ~~4 7} & wi a = | a.os ||ws! ’ ~ RA be: = a be. | —-» eh a 1‘ ~ aa : + , . ot 1 cou ot a Fahey te i Wiis “ ~ A : “A Wes s AAS Ae ae

=A,—

Plate 7 CIVIC PRIDE AND PIETY Ranks, titles, and privileges inspired many boasts on coins. Ephesus proclaims itself ‘‘first of Asia’’ and depicts imperial cult temples on a coin of Septimius Severus (7.1). Rival Smyrna calls itself ‘first of Asia and third neocorate of the Augusti”’ (7.2), and Magnesia ad Maeandrum hails itself as ‘‘seventh city of Asia” (7.3). Side is ‘‘most illustrious and distinguished” on a coin of Tranquillina.

7.1 WEP? Iles: 7.4

‘ . i= ah , . ‘hs ; wn, “Ajo nSMs ren: TAN Pxkinne re > ae MA ne AE PAGE iris x ine >ie aks ~s -

xAa X=«} haneg ~~ }| a. mre ideas eae TP . ato»epaae. | av ‘ *"~< Py>,*SAN a t.hy hc AR: et SY =4:

SOS, t. e. ss eansvAY NE a)f {hn ee STAe Akte: ye RRR est PS Ber ice be, oe) dS 1a aj “ES 9A then ) Sy SR as ~ eh. ‘Ne. %Sh !7es oe SN Ach =.: =a=Rh a \s Thea? Ne) te eh Nee RL Vek aS ; Yor * ‘ . +) are ~* .™ A, 4 e : | BS: ake} . . oe Sy\ asks, : haual aSmee ta: xX » .a“ws = XS :s5;~ The: ;k—att Tiny

Ses SAS a AS I eto

14.7 14.8 14.9 14.10 — ! =. pAaace ge ~~ is Ste gt , Moa rag . “oe * . — “ 7 . ¥ \ fer ALS Gees Gow eT ey . = =~ i. es \ } 1 Te es a . ¢. a Ga Ne & ey YAS

SS ~ , a SEN

Plate 17 THE IMPERIAL HUNTSMAN Hadrian was the first imperial huntsman on local coins. (17.1) Boar hunt on a coin of Hadrianotherae, where Cassius Dio and the Augustan History record hunts of Hadrian. (17.2) Hadrian slays serpent at Baris. More symbolic are lion hunt of Septimius Severus at Tarsus (17.3) and Caracalla’s hunt at Pergamum (17.4).

17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4

Rete at ~) ‘Cee ogee SY) ee >,“Uh RAYS eS &» . i a hete ESene ae oN

iz t ye Vy i 1 a | A et : NS . . x, ONS 5 ASS EE Ts

+ ee Sk ye. fa. Sai Ws a ee eet ed Tee Be, Ke. ee as ae ¥ | No ae " xX SSS ; aeVie ASTER ¥ |— SSS\yaAe eae{.~ \cel. “Sets Sey ea

NEA Sa ‘Calter Sy Lee Ee en ee Sere “Reh ke Se

SAC

S peat hie Taal | ir! M

Ne ~~ e = 2

THE EMPEROR IN TRIUMPH From the 180s on, triumphal processions become common on local coins. (17.5) Early depiction of imperial colleagues Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius on a coin from Tius, ca. 161-66. (17.6) Young Commodus in triumph over the Germans on a coin from Mytilene, ca. 177-80. (17.7) Joint triumph of Septimius Severus (receiving Nike), Caracalla, and Geta for victory over Parthians on a coin from Maeonia, ca. 198-200. (17.8) Anticipated triumph of Gordian III over Persians on a coin from Synnada.

17.5 17.6 Re fezf LG a. atts Oe _ Get LE TEA SES fe Sy aS See Ks —% — RN

Se Sigel alge i. ~ ~~. | i. a ~ ~\i 7Po thle Ewa par iSFAN ao 75Sng va! tn, UTj OF a: aia Mee nd wxee % + ae =, MePa Pe7 ‘ “— >\% Z rh _F He Se 4 et ' “\ . f a2)4 = Me actin “ef “*| =aNN Xs REE os % oP -aTO ni.2a Ve wht ateTANSSS Seeees Ss EGE Siisaenee MSTA —. ee “iris aS - VS MATTE ghey z 2). ™ s x ; a % Sh ‘eat

a a I a a eee 17.8

seek ah Sy iS :>) ping Ste Sake rahe ees

aS LA aS

3SiN i Be .» iSbe »Ty‘\ , oe > ont a A}— £; ENN

\ ‘i ™~\

SONVEAPAIS

ana ise

Plate 18 THE EMPEROR IN TRIUMPH (continued) Imperial triumphs were assimilated into civic religious processions. (18.1) Commodus as Smyrnan Helios drives solar biga. (18.2) Caracalla drives lion cart of Cybele at Laodicea ad Lycum. (18.3) Caracalla was the first living emperor shown in elephant quadriga of Dionysus on a coin of Amorium. (18.4) Gordian III and Tranquillina as Lycian solar and lunar gods on a coin from Arycanda. (18.5) Severus Alexander salutes sacred cart of Sidonian Astarte, which is also seen on a coin of Elagabalus (18.6).

18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 > “ es ae, a YS — eel: Bie Pm EON aes Se Mess ( ad ek td Iieie A th Tae frien ee! rate Ce 4 Sy) yl BERS RYERSS Onc A a 4 4 bie S \ iy oe dees a 9 ‘ A its . Re #4 rhoey j mF 4 i See SP) Ne You.wis: | Vex Le WT =\) eres) (2 S42aBega GAA Sy ABU: \ioe Waa et Bee 1marea ey: PRS ‘aR UH Sy CLD ; ay . SrA Sy a Wai. SOESTUAT TS EET SR BiotSY cerry

18.5 18.6

(Ra Groner S Seyene: PAT ATE ee

SSS EVE es 2

geio.t

Plate 23 CARACALLA’S VISIT TO PERGAMUM The visit of Caracalla inspired a remarkable commemorative series. His adventus is variously interpreted: typical militant advent (23.1); Pergamum’s tyche offers cult statuette of Asclepius to the emperor (23.2); magistrates offer cult statuette before city gate (23.3); Caracalla’s entrance into the city proper, suggested by Asclepius surmounting column (23.4); Caracalla on platform (within agora) addresses unseen populace, tyche (left) presents Asclepius, and Roma (right) holds Nike (23.5). Compare this incident to scene of Caracalla addressing populace on contemporary coin of Laodicea ad Lycum (23.6). Caracalla then visits the sacred grove, saluting oracular serpent of Asclepius and cult statue of Telesphorus (23.7). He also greets Asclepius and Telesphorus (23.8).

23.1 23.2 23.3 Wg r ym a * IEE me SS ee A $a 3

. ¥ Pe “ey —_ “ae Pr. “ — s ~~ i oo a ¥, ' ‘ i alk wt ee

io .es a Ve A = fom Ee me herve ihe Wien ~ thdee | aesABec ’at-.AS ‘oa. Pid “*a - tae +Aa ~~

A ay ot(i.OeNets Tapes. WE eu] | PRUE \ Te VX: ay )eeSch : to Lave . “ =| Sess eras AFA (BP YR. ae OVE CeeS Ed how een. 2 a tas

Y/R ON a eee Ai bb, SS yids

Plate 27 EMPERORS AS PATRONS OF CITIES Cargo ship carries grain, a gift from Caracalla, to Tarsus (27.1). AETERNV(m) BENEFIC(ium) and store of grain on Sidonian coin of Elagabalus (27.2). Valerian’s bridge to Mopsus, note AQPEA (gift) inscribed between arches (27.3). Smyrna, rival of Pergamum, hails her temples to Tiberius, Roma, and

Hadrian on a coin of 214-15 (27.4). Imperial cult temples and games (indicated by prize wreaths) on Sardian coin of Septimius Severus (27.5). Ephesian coin of ca. 221 proclaims her four neocorate temples ‘‘these temples

| =e :

by resolution of the Senate”’ (27.6). Gift of sacred games (DONATIO) from Aurelian to Cremna (27.7). Apollo Tyrimnaeus and Elagabalus shake hands,

honoring gift of Pythian games (note prize wreath and inscription above) (27.8). Grant of ‘mystical’ games (AQPEA) by Valerian to Side (27.9).

27.1 27.2 27.3

ges SAS Feat PS NS = a 2 oN aeSwat - a, a ee ¥ \% he x a. PAA 9-arcs Ra! “ _ baton: ERY. Netae sree

ats => ; at - 7 ‘& we ott Py 5 ae anes : oo, ee> Ate Eseas GoASS B\SS Gen fio) =e Fe sek in: TN OANS Qe ESET Se oS eee > xia eS=

Sees = QS >. pn Sasa .

27.4 PAT IES 27.6 a a . tes ee, a

a BES

ERD IS 4)"5 wears A ”re 4" : : ~*~) a5 + %LN F P » Sah 4 5 AAD pak> ™ — RS aeabe ae tie =f ¢4idja(°C; ae engFCn Skee

fee as. : a. ae cs cheat Meer Ss Gisccss 4 eg Wetter Sget © nny oes Lee! me Te AP Aaaf WA TEEAL Se :ay “LA ail 8: ‘SSS wT Pa baswy =] oF ee ayoes "Ae‘ \0 (ej

ae ry fnAPToe ce, tate LISS a

magr vi ve

Plate 28 FESTIVALS AND GAMES After 180, many cities employed standard types to proclaim sacred, dynastic, and local festivals. (28.1) A typical epigraphic design proclaims the ‘sacred oecumenical Olympia of Attaleia.’’ Prize crowns on tables proclaim: asylos and sacred games of Perge (28.2); ‘temples and oecumenical games by resolution of the Senate,”’ granted to Laodicea by Elagabalus (28.3); and Nicaea’s Komodeia (28.4). Prize crown from Sardes for the Chrysanthia held during Caracalla’s visit in 214-15 (28.5). Athletes commemorate Isopythian Asclepeia of Ancyra in 214-15 (28.6); Themetic games of Prostanna (28.7), and Themetic games of Sydera (28.8). Athletes’ oil basin on coin of Colybrassus is honored as donation by the gymnasiarch (28.9).

28.1 28.2 28.3

Psi = =- ¢- veNETS Sea Qa bees FTERO: x SELES ACIS EEA TL SAT ANGORA

NOAM ee Re LS eSibs SS Wisse SS EE “lb se.‘BMV ut TaN WiisAR Ose ‘ TU &

Sag VEN SRO TRUE

- i> |AS Ni gatemn EN ‘“% ia 8we io -~.7Z -; : |' Spiia] oo § «\ REE OPA ERET fs v1 Hl ae WINES 4 ath . — . SSS . SeteLL 43#F FFs

ting

28.7 28.8 28.9 —- 2 Tt e.. ae a. “ey m

SRSANE “CSRS .SAR WA “Seo Py ae Sk X a | > ae {is a = AS ¥ Bo . rt ‘ Ld = VE : “hi a4 Re : — ts 4 7 . — } vs Sos SS : ta he 23} Bs S| itsat . oon |Sop i : =} ctNs 5 iSARS 1A Ned ah Wits Sy Seen Wharey 4% CoE NEARS ‘4 ‘ Wa = = ‘ Ps es tS . . oor 4 = at SS —s Sen en —

Plate 29 FESTIVALS AND GAMES (continued) (29.1) Apollo Citharoedes receiving Nike and prize wreath marked Pythia indicates Hierapolis had adopted Greek musical contests. (29.2) Tyche of Perinthus holding neocorate temples in honor of Aktia and Pythia. Coins hail Tarsus’s presidency over regional games: (29.3) three provinces offer wreaths to the city tyche; and (29.4) crowns of demiourgos (left) and Ciliciarches (right,

decorated with imperial busts) are badges of presiding magistrates. Coveted imperial grants: (29.5) Aktia of Hierapolis, (29.6) Aktia of Neocaesarea, (29.7) Severeia Olympia Adrianeia Kaisarea Augousteia Aktia of Tarsus, and (29.8) Capitoline games of Heliopolis. (29.9) Olympian wreath and Pythian prize wreath from Tralles. (29.10) Synodoi of Olympia and Pythia greeting each other; from Tralles. (29.11) Local Letoeia and sacred Pythia on coin of Lydian Tripolis.

29.1 29.2 29.3 a 7 + — be wz Vs Laat. ee Cu ft/h= ody HE aN ans koht brat. ;Peek SEA \ Peace se,ee Wieon SEN Avie Taba te me \S SNe “ae TS A) Oeiohere SNS

a 2 Se a ee gk Bec, Te Se TE

om \ Fa aes.. |$a,eaIeFs oem aS oN iv| qi‘ ReaON |oF a Pane o/h) FP ln Re. Week ne s\\ ri bine ne ee LFF |p tye; ee} ; ip: a for Bk aa Vig reie.lt | :ab ond ar§etron PeSs a mS 4: ie) ve aah |Say | iim & Lsig, a -Py eh) Awae. ELE ES \WA3 Pe se fee AS a ee Na pAsneh or et ee.) eee eva a Oags

SaaS ey C7—f Lisee ae_pt 20h) hel eee g he: bey eX ag LS fe

29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 ae ee bene ¢ ae \—%, a Seas xine

ome eK The Be ocont NY « tos “4 ™“ nS % a: TO

aa Satawae (a? PS RaeAY Che‘ere, se} S12 aeAL ih Yoptrostoe \ foal a >. GREE el |

Ss —— - NAAR tse

+DS AE7Sy bes: a UU: = athe omitted a&.\ AN G8r = fy NOR nee4Co at > »ds oor Bsa ba SPA BND TAL ATA Sor. ats ht “de >

29.8 29.9 29.10 29.11

yy et “t= ek oN vy B. _=pes ‘fsx.=Pehya,Eig, oss iahfoe Bohae SAI. hae (tes Ao ea ; ; de 74\‘ee a Aare FRE’ te| €5 ms? “aoe) RYsn et fae otbeak :Ws 1 th Ane ate hedy' be

Pere, % 3 ie — + ty © s he: e BN .or% 3 Frey ie -*. 7" Ee be sm + OOéiil—. alba puss eAS | pug taWhe - Seeos ‘ « oo oYFSS , ‘ ‘‘5) Ge ’ tyFee ai 'fyesSENSES e id Se AS Se SES * mtics

Fain = eset, AR ay F oe ‘ 2 : oe . we lt oot min mL ie . I ms % » &Xi i, ‘Lai ie fol De ' Sy " . \=' ea Ke SAN te‘tsSS S:eR ‘ag AAS Mi ae % 1 iM : iy ™ * Be OS a a | L =~ =. un, who? Se aon AEN >

aaVENT 3” N A ege hs

Plate 30 ROMAN ORIGINS The draped portrait of Roma as a civic goddess, as at Ancyra (30.1), gave way to martial portraits on later coins; here from Tripolis (30.2) and from GordusJulia (30.3). Roma Nikephoros from Philippopolis is a typical militant guise (30.4). Roma seated in her temple at Thyatira (30.5). Coin dated 200/1 depicts Cibyra’s tyche and Roma shaking hands as allies (30.6). Latin initials honor Roman Senate and people at Greek Philomelium (30.7) and at the Roman colony of Pisidian Antioch (30.8). Synnada honors Roman Senate on obverse and ‘‘Roman people” on reverse (30.9). Typical portrait of Synkletos, the personified Roman Senate, from Phocaea (30.10). SACRA SINATVS of

Mallus (30.11). Wolf and twins at Iconium (30.12). Aeneas fleeing Troy at Otrus (30.13) and Ilium (30.14).

30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 30.5

hy - os448 | = aon Lb eBBE + 15534A? ay Aap ah (> we Ver8Poe yf, me ' fj SS Py gv an 4| SSge a aes 4 Ae ; i ~\ Pe “\ .EL

—— cy eait. i a Ss oemere “~ ; ALT F(=4) 4f , OF hire . nape

tt — ah"

30.6 30.7 30.8 30.9

wy Sh ¥ a. ‘t SEA oe (¥ . ?) SHEE RES APRAS ero ee : irae o~\, arQoaSEN a ol ‘gts Fe ce

aSolah S A ee key iy

oe i } \ A a Aka \" ~ AND Warne cn ..

RiNAS Pe Ya 2~~ i‘NS NEAL Lic) )BEATS yey bame| ail 5 ae! al t: WN in | OL vy" AS. ~TeRS Foe Oconee Sa sea “SLA vee Se

Syvem Ser bay , wae ‘oh>nA \ .\s~. Se! 4 SR 7

30.10 30.11 30.12 30.13 30.14

a a . Coy = rie r ‘yo or a ic ss, ’oa, ,eiee od :: .bat tee"(E; ~*~yfifoA>mya ° ~~ crYo i> Fd aeoe 8)fe FfBr oeP5=

eS RANKS j ei ‘%. ai Oe al tee ~~ > a, a ‘ iy opt aes Sy ai “= es % ae aS

31.5 31.6 31.7 31.8 ey ie Ay ao” @ > F

itt x Sis Pa Fi, : : ie ra mite? > a ie 5 Quy we —— a eke wt Bech, & "a * _ mA f ( 7? > < ’iY : ‘ a ‘ Rare y sa Ag % a ee y ey A po : (ae - eS al Bs + acy Was A.Rha ea i“SS = =le iB ii te!) SoS SPW | —tGF i 9 \Pang ee hw SANS ® ) -ahNE eh ifs * Thar VE Rs BP Bhs iY PO SRe 24 RS ey

Sy aee oe PRT ‘AA Sy ASN \ Bi om} Ry \ NS Y fh “See .Yi RNS ne fin a | yy aie tdeB, , « ugh Se Re OP LN™pS: coef twigs a) 4 \)

wet yY“3%&aN Me PreBee UR — jyy .| va. f éFie F| ie AU aNE we*=e wh : mer ii Te | ay } « we 6A eee ‘7% \ . an 2 TR ae es oe a) dae ro 1 ;;

AYy OO} yy UnStee Shirk Ee A] Aes Oe Ane irae EL Ba “fd pret\ =e

— — aon Wa oe tba ; /

Plate 32 HEROES OF THE POLIS: HERACLES Heracles was the most popular hero celebrated on late civic coins and his labors were often compared symbolically to the emperor's deeds. (32.1) Cubist portrait of Heracles as founder of the Synnadans; reverse proclaims their Dorian and Ionian ancestry. Heracles as victor at Philadelphia (32.2) and Germe (32.3); Heracles slays Hydra at Germanicopolis (32.4) and Sebastiopolis (32.5); he battles Geryon at Blaundus (32.6); he wrestles the Arcadian hind at Heraclea Pontica (32.7) and Amorium (32.8); he is locked in combat with Nemean lion at Alinda (32.9); and he seeks the Apples of the Hesperides at Alinda (32.10) and Temenothyrae (32.11).

32.1 32.2 32.3 Le CaN Aa ES RR {3 BEALS 73 = VS ep > (=neSAN x‘4“4 = |'sete I"Pe atFae NWEMAL: (co wh Se = = bs ce yes %: | “9 ‘. 4.\: SAB se “= c~ be * ‘ ~* SoM . es. ~to* VSR = \Saimen Vey As eat aes 4Sh

Ss thee * , oa. “Be: —_— IN . _.ne hs: x & *: thoS. ; es “3 . ay qte hg :Tha RE aea: Wopak ae Seat mi + a

32.4 32.5 32.6 32.7 net a aE p>. Te Sy

LP ra anMS Ye aSY ‘ aS.ie: 3>: 7Mg 47>ASS . ,* ry3 Le tap LANG 7) ;ot,; ANY, ery} hee AL: Sa NY OME ull: ca ©.CNRS Ue “preailma rer fee =-

“7 - 47-8; —s : t te ‘

ef“2 ee by % ; Sg ie y A 3a —~ j : -. wi, ke STE ‘% =>a >

32.8 32.9 32.10 32.11

SUR as: Ry SEAS td CUR. ay: FCN aes > tay, AY Qt a 4 qs i ; ONE 7 S4 AS ‘ys ‘beef Nip bate RDSo A,2S An: ta eSANY: + ‘a ME Rene 2% Ses “A ona : OA” ue £, | OY by Stes * : 4 Pa Yen Noa ~ ; lpgeee ig hy 4 pikes 3 ' iS by mE : ah Se aL —=— Ea ay = ' ¥ Vee da AP. 2 Vee ey Pe SSS oeaaoe See ms 3 eS Bk es fe: . Sie * AS ef a a|es “— enes Ay eh ED) Li (oe = Athy eS WE caehes, ASUAN MBe ie) :“—eq iy et MEAP ey Pa.tk9)re | iS4esTe Sy|a5 a oh ARS By Se eee “a~aN 2h : rhe VS ‘wet Se :; N Ue | iy ‘

te Ss ode4ie, ee ks nS e ae tleSFVee

Plate 33 HEROES OF THE POLIS IN COMBAT The mythological combats of gods and heroes gained popularity on later civic coins: (33.1) Apollo slays Python on coin of Side; (33.2) Athena slays serpentfooted monster at Seleucia ad Calycadnum; (33.3) Samian Ancaeus spears boar; (33.4) Perseus, aided by Athena, slays Medusa, from Sebaste in Phrygia; (33.5) Perseus holds Medusa’s head, from Anemurium; (33.6) Cadmus at Tyre slays serpent; (33.7) Heracles helps mounted Alexander the Great defeat Sagalassians; and Hector on coins of Ilium (33.8) drives quadriga, (33.9) fires Achaean ships, and (33.10) slays Patrocles.

33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 eae Ge ee = —

i Et AN be ee ‘a Me ONS ae oO . “~ ~

RP7*SEA INK 4& ae A Ria we NY Ne . . aTie ee |a, a=} :GOR, + WN ec ME Se AY xs i Se

SES Cee Sem seesS Wie —— wee ne Wins Ma Lae BS ¥y =

e , WR m Se at 2-4 ) ~e Ff Ras NENAS SORE0! Ava} ss Saee i goan SRiaei SY eS) ) *ages, ea SAE _ Sh Hey » iT ese 5 te ee KE‘oy “ ~*~ - . aur viple OPThe ae |DD St ou)! ee ge uy |‘

33.5 33.6 33.7 33.8

«take tefimLetting ee ghee Nes oth |Was tO 5 NN Nal om fghicntrsmt Fe mci | VA frye Fit’ de AEE jAU ar “2+a«aeTS ay i" a :~~ e775 4 xe/,FS ie A te aaS, PS -’ :7.- rea wsai44aeia =®5zi eee : ae