Private Associations in the Pontic Greek Cities (6th Century BC-3rd Century AD): Volume 35 (Colloquia Antiqua) [1 ed.] 9789042947184, 9042947187

Citation preview

Private Associations in the Pontic Greek Cities (6th century BC–3rd century AD)

By Annamária-Izabella Pázsint

PEETERS

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS IN THE PONTIC GREEK CITIES (6TH CENTURY BC–3RD CENTURY AD)

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA Supplements to the Journal ANCIENT WEST & EAST

SERIES EDITOR

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE (UK) EDITORIAL BOARD

A. Avram (†) (Romania/France), Sir John Boardman (UK), J. Hargrave (UK), M. Kazanski (France), A. Mehl (Germany), A. Podossinov (Russia), N. Theodossiev (Bulgaria), J. Wiesehöfer (Germany) ADVISORY BOARD

S. Atasoy (Turkey), L. Ballesteros Pastor (Spain), S. Burstein (USA), J. Carter (USA), B. d’Agostino (Italy), J. de Boer (The Netherlands), A. Domínguez (Spain), O. Doonan (USA), A. Kuhrt (UK), J.-P. Morel (France), M. Pearce (UK), D. Potts (USA), A. Rathje (Denmark), R. Rollinger (Austria), A. Snodgrass (UK), M. Sommer (Germany), M. Tiverios (Greece), C. Ulf (Austria), J. Vela Tejada (Spain)

Colloquia Antiqua is a refereed publication

For proposals and editorial and other matters, please contact the Series Editor: Prof. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze The Gallery Spa Road Llandrindod Wells Powys LD1 5ER UK E-mail: [email protected]

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA ————— 35 —————

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS IN THE PONTIC GREEK CITIES (6TH CENTURY BC–3RD CENTURY AD)

By

ANNAMÁRIA-IZABELLA PÁZSINT

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2022

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-4718-4 eISBN 978-90-429-4719-1 D/2022/0602/121 © 2022, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage or retrieval devices or systems, without prior written permission from the publisher, except the quotation of brief passages for review purposes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Series Editor’s Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XIII

List of Figures and Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XIX

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

CHAPTER 1: TERMINOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ancient Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lexical and Semantic Variety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Formation of the Ancient Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modern Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions Based on the Type of Initiative (Private vs Public) and on the Non-coercive Nature (Voluntary vs Non-voluntary) of Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classification and Naming Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notable Absences from the List of Pontic Associations . . . . . . . . . Dubia et Delenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 11 11 13 15

15 17 18 20 21 25

CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF THE SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geographical and Chronological Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Epigraphic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iconographic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27 27 28 28 30 31 38

CHAPTER 3: PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE SOUTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amisus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 39 39

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sinope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amastris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41 43 46

CHAPTER 4: PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apollonia Pontica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Odessus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dionysopolis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bizone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Callatis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tomis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Histria/Istros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47 47 47 49 52 60 61 73 85 97

CHAPTER 5: PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Olbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chersonesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theodosia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cimmericum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Panticapaeum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Myrmecium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tanais . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phanagoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hermonassa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gorgippia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99 99 99 101 102 102 103 109 110 118 119 120 125

CHAPTER 6: PARALLEL LIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences and Similarities between the Pontic Associations . . . . Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Functioning of Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ποντικοί in Associations beyond the Pontic Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . References to Other Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brief Comparison with the Associations of the Propontis. . . . Mapping of the Pontic Associations at the Level of the Ancient World. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

127 127 127 127 135 147 151 151 154

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VII

End of a Phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

156 157

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

159

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

163

APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Catalogue of Epigraphic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Southern Shore of the Black Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Western Shore of the Black Sea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northern Shore of the Black Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ποντικοί in Associations outside the Greek Cities of the Black Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Catalogue of Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

173 173 173 174 178

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

313

FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

329

INDEXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Epigraphic Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Members of the Imperial/Royal Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toponyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gods, Goddesses and their Epicleses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

371 371 371 377 384 384 386

184 185

SERIES EDITOR’S PREFACE

This book is based on the author’s PhD thesis, submitted at Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, in 2019. It has been revised, expanded and translated into English. The focus of the study is upon the private associations found in Black Sea Greek cities from the 6th century BC to the 3rd century AD. The author has painstakingly researched more than 200 inscriptions which record over a hundred associations. Of course, the number and quality of the inscriptions varies considerably from place to place and period to period. The eastern Black Sea is absent entirely because practically no Greek or any other inscriptions have been found there so far. Thus reflects the fact that Colchian Black Sea Greek colonies have either not been located or, if located, cannot be excavated because they lie beneath modern cities. This is a work of social history. It is mainly a study of recorded associations and a list of their members. Prosopography is a field of study that has already featured in volumes published in Colloquia Antiqua, notably volume 5, L. Mihailescu-Bîrliba’s Ex Toto Orbe Romano. Immigration into Roman Dacia (2011), and volume 8, A. Avram’s Prosopographia Ponti Euxini Externa (2013); thus it is not alien to our list. The manuscript was brought to us by Prof. Alexandru Avram, a member of our Editorial Board, with a very strong recommendation to publish it. I am most grateful to him for this. I have learnt a lot from reading this work. Dr Pázsint has proved to be a very collaborative and efficient author, always answering queries and doing so promptly. I should like to thank Dr James Hargrave for his help in polishing the manuscript for publication and, as ever, Mr Bert Verrept at Peeters for his handling the production stages of the volume. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze Series Editor

FOREWORD

This work is the revised and translated version of my doctoral thesis on private associations from the Pontic Greek cities (6th century BC–3rd century AD), defended on September 7th, 2019 at Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. The research topic (suggested by Assist. Prof. Ligia Ruscu, BabeșBolyai University) has not been previously tackled from the perspective I took, which provides a glimpse at a fragment of Pontic social history across several centuries. Both the thesis and the current work would not have been possible without the help of several people to whom I give my most profound and sincere gratitude, above all Ligia Ruscu and Prof. Ioan Piso (Babeș-Bolyai University), my coordinators, for their constant guidance, support and encouragements over the years. Besides them, my gratitude goes also to the remaining members of the doctoral committee, Prof. Mădălina Dana (Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University), Prof. Radu Ardevan (Babeș-Bolyai University) and Prof. Lucrețiu MihăilescuBîrliba (Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Iași), as well as to Dr Rada Varga (Babeș-Bolyai University), for their very useful comments and suggestions, for reviewing the thesis and/or the draft of the book. Of course, all remaining shortcomings are my own. The undertaking and completion of the thesis (and hence this book) was possible thanks to the financial and other support received from various institutions: Babeș-Bolyai University, especially through the POSDRU/187/1.5/S/155383, financed the project; the British Institute at Ankara, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest, the Fondation Hardt (Vandœuvres), the Commission for Ancient History and Epigraphy of the German Archaeological Institute, as well as the Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie, provided opportunities to work in their specialist libraries and gave me the opportunity of interacting with specialists in the field. I thank them all. My gratitude goes as well as to the Series Editor and Editorial Board of Colloquia Antiqua for accepting my manuscript and for all of their work. I would like to express my gratitude especially to Prof. Tsetskhladze for his help, to Prof. Avram for having recommended my work, and to Dr Hargrave for refining the writing. Finally, I would like to thank my family, colleagues and friends for being continuously supportive along the way and curious towards my scientific endeavours. Annamária-Izabella Pázsint

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AE Agora XVI AGRW AvH BCH BGU VII

CAPInv. CCET I CCET IV CIG CIL CIMRM CIRB EKM 1. Berou Fayoum II FDelphes III.1 GIBM IV GRA I

L’Année Épigraphique. A.G. Woodhead, The Athenian Agora. XVI: Inscriptions. The Decrees (Princeton 1997). R.S. Ascough, P.A. Harland and J.S. Kloppenborg, Associations in the Greco-Roman World. A Sourcebook (Waco, TX 2012). C. Humann, C. Cichorius, W. Judeich and F. Winter (eds.), Altertümer von Hierapolis (Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Ergänzungsheft 4) (Berlin 1898). Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. P. Viereck and F. Zucker (eds.), Papyri, Ostraka und Wachstafeln aus Philadelphia im Fayûm (Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Griechische Urkunden, VII) (Berlin 1926). Copenhagen Associations Project Inventory. Z. Gočeva and M. Oppermann, Corpus Cultus Equitis Thracii. 1: Monumenta Orae Ponti Euxini Bulgariae (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 74.1) (Leiden 1979). N. Hampartumian, Corpus Cultus Equitis Thracii. 4: Moesia Inferior (Romanian section) and Dacia (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 74.4) (Leiden 1979). A. Boechk, J. Franz, E. Curtius and A. Kirchhoff, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (Berlin 1828–77). Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin 1863– ). M.J. Vermaseren, Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae, 2 vols. (The Hague 1956; 1960). V.V. Struve (ed.), Corpus inscriptionum regni Bosporani (Moscow/ Leningrad 1965). L. Gounaropoulou and M.B. Hatzopoulos, Epigraphes katō Makedonias (metaxy tou Vermiou orous kai tou Axiou potamou). Teuchos A: Epigraphes Veroias (Athens 1998). É. Bernand, Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum. II: La ‘Méris’ de Thémistos (Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire. Bibliothèque d’étude 79) (Paris 1981). É. Bourguet (ed.), Fouilles de Delphes. III: Épigraphie. Fasc. 1: Inscriptions de l’entrée du sanctuaire au trésor des Athéniens (Paris 1929). F.H. Marshall, The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum. 4: Supplementary and Miscellaneous Inscriptions (Oxford 1916). J.S. Kloppenborg and R.S. Ascough (eds.), Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentary. 1: Achaia, Central

XIV

IApameia IByzantion IDelos IDR I IEphesos II IEphesos VI IEphesos VII.2 IErythrai IG II2 IG V.1 IG IX.12 IG X.2.1 IG X.2.1 Suppl. IG XI.4 IG XII.1 IG XII.4

IG XII.8 Suppl. IG XIV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Greece, Macedonia, Thrace (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 181) (Berlin/New York 2011). T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Apameia (Bithynien) und Pylai (IGSK 32) (Bonn 1987). A. Łajtar, Die Inschriften von Byzantion (IGSK 58) (Bonn 2004). P. Roussel and M. Launey (eds.), Inscriptions de Délos. 4 [6]: nos. 1497–2219 (Paris 1937). I.I. Russu (ed.), Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae. I. Introducere istorică și epigrafică. Diplomele militare. Tăblițele cerate (Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae minoris antiquae) (Bucharest 1975). C. Börker and R. Merkelbach (eds.), Die Inschriften von Ephesos. II: Nr. 101–599 (Repertorium) (IGSK 12) (Bonn 1979). R. Merkelbach and J. Nollé (eds.), Die Inschriften von Ephesos. VI: Nr. 2001–2958 (Repertorium) (IGSK 16) (Bonn 1980). R. Meriç, R. Merkelbach, J. Nollé and S. Șahin (eds.), Die Inschriften von Ephesos. VII.2: Nr. 3501–5115 (Repertorium) (IGSK 17.2) (Bonn 1981). D.F. McCabe, Erythrai Inscriptions: Texts and List (Princeton 1986). J. Kirchner (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae. II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, Parts I, 1–2, Decrees and Sacred Laws (nos. 1–1369), 2nd ed. (Berlin 1913–16). W. Kolbe (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae. V.1: Inscriptiones Laconiae et Messeniae (Berlin 1913). G. Klaffenbach (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae. IX.1: 1. Inscriptiones Aetoliae; 2. Inscriptiones Acarnaniae; 3. Inscriptiones Locridis occidentalis, 2nd ed. (Berlin 1932–68). C. Edson (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae. X: Inscriptiones Epiri, Macedoniae, Thraciae, Scythiae. II.1: Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae (Berlin 1972). P.M. Nigdelis, Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae: Tituli inter a. MCMLX et MMXV reperti. Supplementum primum (Berlin 2017). P. Roussel (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae. XI: Inscriptiones Deli. 4: nos. 510–1349 (Berlin 1914). F.H. von Gaertringen (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae. XII: Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegai praeter Delum. 1: Inscriptions Rhodi, Chalces, Carpathi cum Saro, Casi (Berlin 1895). D. Bosnakis and K. Hallof (eds.), Inscriptiones Graecae. XII: Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegai praeter Delum. 4: Inscriptions Coi, Calymnae, Insularum Milesiarum. II: Inscriptiones Coi insulae: catalogi, dedicationes, tituli honoraria, termini (nos. 424–1239) (Berlin/New York 2012). F.H. von Gaertringen (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae. XII: Supplementum. Addenda to IG XII.2–3, 5 and 7–9 (Berlin 1939). G. Kaibel, Inscriptiones Graecae. XIV: Inscriptiones Siciliae et Italiae, additis Galliae, Hispaniae, Britanniae, Germaniae inscriptionibus (Berlin 1890).

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

IGB I2 IGB II IGB III.1 IGB V IGDOlbia IGladiateurs IGLS XIII.1 IGRR IGSK IGUR IIlion IKyzikos ILindos II ILS IMilet IMT Kyz Kapu Dağ IMT Kyz PropInseln IMT Kyz PropKüste IOlbia IosPE I2 IPergamon

XV

G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. I: Inscriptiones orae Ponti Euxini, 2nd ed. (Series Epigraphica 10) (Sofia 1970). G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. II: Inscriptiones inter Danubium et Haemum repertae (Series Epigraphica 5) (Sofia 1958). G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. III: Inscriptiones inter Haemum et Rhodopem repertae. Fasc. I: Territorium Philippopolis (Series Epigraphica 6) (Sofia 1961). G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. V: Inscriptiones novae, addenda et corrigenda (Sofia 1997). L. Dubois, Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont (Hautes Études du Monde Gréco-Romain 22) (Geneva 1996). L. Robert, Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études 278) (Amsterdam 1971). M. Sartre (ed.), Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. XIII.1: Bostra (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 113) (Paris 1982). R. Cagnat, with J.F. Toutain, P. Joguet and G. Lafaye, Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes, 4 vols. in 3 (Paris 1902–27). Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien. L. Moretti, Inscriptiones graecae Urbis Romae, 2 vols. in 5 (Studi pubblicati dall’Instituto italiano per la storia antica 47) (Rome 1968–73). P. Frisch, Die Inschriften von Ilion (IGSK 3) (Bonn 1975). E. Schwertheim (ed.), Die Inschriften von Kyzikos und Umgebung. I: Grabtexte (IGSK 18) (Bonn 1980). C. Blinkenberg, Lindos, Fouilles et recherches, 1902–1914. 2: Inscriptions. 2 vols. (Copenhagen/Berlin 1941). H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae selectae (Berlin 1962). P. Hermann, Inschriften von Milet. 2: Inschriften n. 407–1019 (Milet VI.2) (Berlin/New York 1998). M. Barth and J. Stauber (eds.), Inschriften Mysia & Troas: Mysia, «Kyzikene, Kapu Dağ», nos. 1401–1856 (Munich 1996). M. Barth and J. Stauber (eds.), Inschriften Mysia & Troas: Mysia, «Kyzikene, PropInseln», nos. 1301–1394 (Munich 1996). M. Barth and J. Stauber (eds.), Inschriften Mysia & Troas: Mysia, «Kyzikene, Propontisküste», nos. 1860–2010 (Munich 1996). T.N. Knipovich and E.I. Levi, Inscriptiones Olbiae (1917–1965) (Leningrad 1968). V.V. Latyshev, Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae. Inscriptiones Tyriae, Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae, 2nd ed. (Petrograd 1916). M. Fränkel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon. 2: nos. 251–1334 (Altertumer von Pergamon 8.1) (Berlin 1890–95).

XVI

IPerinthos-Herakleia

IPrusa ad Olympum ISelge ISinope ISM I ISM II ISM III ISM VI.2

IThespiai IThracAeg

LGPN IV LSCG ΜΑΜΑ ΙΙΙ

PIR2 PMich V 245 PPEE RE

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

M.H. Sayar, Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Umgebung. Geschichte, Testimonien, griechische und lateinische Inschriften (Denkschriften 269; Veröffentlichungen der Kleinasiatischen Komission 9) (Vienna 1998). T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Prusa ad Olympum, 2 vols. (IGSK 39–40) (Bonn 1991–93). J. Nollé and F. Schindler, Die Inschriften von Selge (IGSK 37) (Bonn 1991). D.H. French, The Inscriptions of Sinope (IGSK 64) (Bonn 2004). D.M. Pippidi, Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae. I: Inscriptiones Histriae et vicinia (Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae minoris antiquae) (Bucharest 1983). I. Stoian, Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae. II: Tomis et territorium (Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae minoris antiquae) (Bucharest 1987). A. Avram, inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae. III: Callatis et territorium (Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae minoris antiquae) (Bucharest 1999). A. Avram, M. Bărbulescu and L. Buzoianu, Inscriptions de Scythie Mineure. VI.2: Suppléments. Tomis et son territoire (Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae minoris antiquae) (Bucharest/ Paris 2018). P. Roesch, Les Inscriptions de Thespies, Fasc. I–XII, Concordances (Lyons 2007–09). L.D. Loukopoulou, M.-G. Parissaki, S. Psoma and A. Zournatzi, Epigraphes tēs Thrakēs tou Aigaiou: metaxy tōn potamōn Nestou kai Hevrou (Nomoi Xanthēs, Rhodopēs kai Hevrou) = Inscriptiones antiquae partis Thraciae quae ad ora maris Aegaei sita est (Praefecturae Xanthes, Rhodopes et Hebri) (Athens 2005). P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews (eds.), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. IV: Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Regions of the Black Sea (Oxford 2005). F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques (École française d’Athènes. Travaux et mémoires des anciens membres étrangers de l’école et de divers savants 11) (Paris 1969). J. Keil and A. Wilhelm, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua. III: Denkmäler aus dem rauhen Kilikien (Publications of the American Society for Archaeological Research in Asia Minor 3) (Manchester 1931). L. Petersen (ed.), Prosopographia Imperii Romani Saec. I. II. III (N, O), 2nd ed. (Berlin 1987). E. Mullett Husselman, A.E.R. Boak and W.F. Edgerton, P. Mich. V 245 (Ann Arbor 1944). A. Avram, Prosopographia Ponti Euxini Externa (Colloquia Antiqua 8) (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA 2013). Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart 1894–1972).

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

REG RICIS RICIS Suppl. I SEG StudPontica III TAM III.1 TAM IV.1

TAM V.3 ZPE

XVII

Revue des Études Grecques. L. Bricault and J. Leclant, Recueil des inscriptions concernant les cultes isiaques (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 31) (Paris 2005). L. Bricault, Recueil des inscriptions concernant les cultes isiaques, Suppl. I (Bibliotheca Isiaca I) (Bordeaux 2008). Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (Leiden/Amsterdam 1923– ). J.G.C. Anderson, F. Cumont and H. Grégoire, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines du Pont et de l’Arménie, Fasc. 1 (Studia Pontica III) (Brussels 1910). R. Heberdey (ed.), Tituli Asiae Minoris. III: Tituli Pisidiae linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti. 1: Tituli Termessi et agri Termessensis (Vienna 1941). F.K. Dörner (ed.), Tituli Asiae Minoris. IV: Tituli Bithyniae linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti. 1: Paeninsula Bithynica praeter Chalcedonem. Nicomedia et ager Nicomedensis cum septentrionali meridianoque litore sinus Astaceni et cum lacu Sumonensi (Vienna 1978). G. Petzl, Tituli Asiae Minoris. V: Tituli Lydiae linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti. 3: Philadelpheia et Ager Philadelphenus (Vienna 2007). Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

LIST OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Cover. Funerary inscription of Μᾶρκος Ἀντώνιος Μαρκιανός from Tomis: Bărbulescu and Câteia 2007, 245–53 = AE 2007, 1231 = SEG 57, 680). Image kindly provided by the © National History and Archaeology Museum Constanța, where the monument is deposited (inventory no. 35804). Fig. 1. Map showing attestations of private associations in the Pontic Greek cities (L. Bruckner and A. Pușcașu). Fig. 2.

Geographical distribution of the terminology.

Fig. 3.

Chronological distribution of inscriptions.

Fig. 4.

Geographical distribution of inscriptions.

Fig. 5.

Geographical distribution of associations.

Fig. 6.

Types of inscription.

Fig. 7.

Types of inscription per city.

Fig. 8.

Types of material.

Fig. 9.

Royal and civic offices held by members.

Fig. 10. Geographical distribution of members. Fig. 11. Distribution of the members’ onomastics. Fig. 12. Representation of the members of the three associations that are interconnected. Fig. 13. The family of Σκύθης son of Θεογένης. Fig. 14. (Honorific) titles granted to members. Fig. 15. The family of Διονύσιος and its involvement in the Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων. Fig. 16. The family of Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 780). Fig. 17. Bearers of non-Imperial nomina. Fig. 18. Bearers of praenomina and nomina. Fig. 19. Bearers of fragmentary nomina. Fig. 20. Correspondence between personal names and patronymics at Panticapaeum. Fig. 21. Geographical distribution of the members with duo and tria nomina. Fig. 22. Iulii.

XX

LIST OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 23. Claudii. Fig. 24. Flavii. Fig. 25. Cocceii. Fig. 26. Ulpii. Fig. 27. Aelii. Fig. 28. Aurelii. Fig. 29. Women inside associations. Fig. 30. Associative officials. Fig. 31. Distribution of the associations with an occupational component.

INTRODUCTION

In the last century, ancient social history began to command more attention. Research focused on various areas and timeframes. One of the fields to have received special attention in recent decades, though analysis of it began in the 18th century, is the phenomenon of (private) associations and their ramifications. Approaching such a subject brings new insights on the structure and modus operandi of society and the marks it leaves across the centuries in the Greek and Roman worlds. Research of it in respect of the Pontus Euxinus has been scanty (see below), leaving room for more investigation. To that end, this work investigates the associations found in the Greek cities of the Black Sea between the 6th century BC and the 3rd century AD (Fig. 1). My approach is that of an ancient social history, and will take into consideration players, practices and impact. I ignore the history of religion. Such an approach is useful for understanding Pontic society and the way it functioned at the smaller scale of associations, and the impact of these on local society. First, to definitions. Briefly the ‘associative phenomenon’ may be defined as the process of emergence of ‘private associations’,1 i.e. organised groups of individuals who used a distinct name to label themselves, who gathered as a result of a private initiative, based on the free will of the participants. These individuals gathered around a common activity (social, cultic, funerary), had a well-defined organisational structure (internal hierarchy, regulations, regular meetings) and a space (for reunion, worship), all of which ensured the durability of the initiative. They identified themselves through a specific terminology which represented them in society and through which they were identified in society.2 The private associations distinguished themselves from the official structures of the polis/empire/kingdom (even though they sometimes imitated them3), they had byelaws (even though they did not enjoy legal personality4), regulations (rarely attested), and they carried out specific activities which, however, were not in opposition to those of the polis/empire/kingdom. In view 1

On the concept of private and voluntary, see below Chapter 1 on terminology. For a similar definition of the private associations, see, among others, Harland 2013; Gabrielsen and Thomsen 2015. 3 Arnaoutoglou 2018, 250–51. 4 Harrison 1968, 242; Harrison 1971, 22. 2

2

INTRODUCTION

of their objectives, the associations fall into a wide variety of categories (from a juridical, social and ethnic perspective). In this context a new identity emerged, that of the member,5 though hierarchies were not absent. The role most ascribed to associations was that of offering compensation for the lack of involvement in civic life of some lower (juridical and social) categories, also of women. But this perspective has been enriched, bringing forward the complex roles the associations could have had at a local and even regional level. Associations were, as J.S. Kloppenborg labels them, an environment where relations between different social categories were mediated.6 As such, my intention is to address the phenomenon of Pontic associations in order to understand how they evolved in an area that was not characterised by political or economic uniformity, and to map this at a wider level in the ancient world. The starting hypothesis is that the phenomenon was fragmentary across the Pontic area and was relatively marginal in manifestation when compared with other parts of the ancient world. By addressing such an issue, the subject provides a glimpse at a segment of local Pontic society, how the associations functioned, intertwined with the social tissue, their role and impact, and their relationship(s) with the authorities; and it brings new insights to the history of the Pontic world. Moreover, even though the research is not undertaken from the perspective of the ‘history of religion’, it will approach the ‘personal’ religious spectrum of the Black Sea. It will provide an understanding of the development of the associative phenomenon in cities which evolved differently but shared the same geographical space and had a common colonial origin. I have eschewed modern frontiers because to use them would fragment the area even more and such an approach seems irrelevant. Yet we must keep in mind the lack of a political, economic or social uniformity of the cities across the centuries. Since the area is enclosed, it is worth approaching it as such, in order to see how the phenomenon evolved here. However, to obtain viable results, the topic will be approached at three levels: locally, then regionally (each shore) and last of all globally (at the Pontic level), and this from a diachronic perspective over a substantial period of time (6th century BC–3rd century AD).

5 6

Gabrielsen and Thomsen 2015, 16. Kloppenborg 1996, 27.

INTRODUCTION

3

BRIEF HISTORY OF RESEARCH7 The subject lies at the junction of various fields of study: social history, the history of religion and juridical studies. As such it has been approached from multiple perspectives. The first works to analyse associations (especially from a juridical perspective) were published at the beginning of the 18th century,8 but it is only at the end of the 19th century9 that the topic became more popular, thanks largely to the publication of epigraphic corpora. If once it was approached from a more general perspective, latterly the focus has narrowed to specific subjects and themes, and to a variety of geographical areas; thus, some works concentrate on associations from a specific geographical area,10 others on specific types of association,11 yet others on particular aspects.12 Since the 20th century, these associations have been regularly under the scrutiny of scholars, both in monographs and numerous papers. Most of the research has been on the Roman period, due to the quality and quantity of sources, but the associations of Classical and Hellenistic times have not been neglected. From a geographical perspective, especially for those periods, Athens,13 Delos14 and Rhodes15 have been meticulously studied and published. Study of these poleis was favoured by the richness of the sources, as well as the wide variety of associations and their evolution over time. For the Greek world, F. de Coulanges16 was among the first to address the topic; the pioneers who set the grounds of the research were P. Foucart,17 E. Ziebarth18 and F. Poland,19 and later M.N. Tod20 and W.S. Ferguson.21 7 This section draws heavily on Pázsint 2018 and 2019, and Varga and Pázsint 2021, as do some paragraphs later in the volume. 8 Heinecke 1747. 9 Platner 1709; Foucart 1864; 1873; Liebenam 1890; Waltzing 1890; 1892; 1895–1900; 1898; Bourguet 1894; Liebenam 1894; Poland 1895; Tournon 1895; Demoulin 1899; Drerup 1899; Martin Saint-Leon 1899. 10 Zavoikina 2013a. 11 Velissaropoulos 1980; Koester 1999; Jaccottet 2003; Petzl and Schwertheim 2006; etc. 12 Harland 1996; 2000; 2003; 2007; 2012; 2015; van Nijf 1997; 2003. 13 Tod 1906–07; Elter 1916; Ferguson 1944; Calhoun 1964; Geagan 1972; Jones 1995; Baslez 1996; 2004; Leiwo 1997; Arnaoutoglou 1998; 2003; 2011a; 2015; Le Guen 2007; Ismard 2010; Steinhauer 2014; Thomsen 2014; etc. 14 Picard 1920; 1921; Bruneau 1978; Meyer 1988; McLean 1996; 1999; Hasenohr 2001; Trümper 2006; 2011; Baslez 2013; etc. 15 Wescher 1864; Engelmann 1970; Gabrielsen 1994. 16 de Coulanges 1864 II, chapter X. 17 Foucart 1864; 1873. 18 Ziebarth 1896; 1907. 19 Poland 1895; 1909; 1911. 20 Tod 1932. 21 Ferguson 1944.

4

INTRODUCTION

Foucart offered a general perspective on religious associations, focusing on the epigraphic evidence from Attica (but not exclusively), trying to understand the role of associations in the evolution of the history of religion. Overall, his orientation was towards understanding the associative phenomenon through its cultic component, leaving room for approaches from a social point of view. E. Ziebarth concentrated foremost on the institutional side of the associations, F. Poland on structural and religious aspects. For the Latin West, the first studies were those of E. Platner,22 J.G. Heinecke,23 T. Mommsen,24 W. Liebenam25 and J.P. Waltzing,26 followed by the work of F.M. de Robertis27 and later F.M. Ausbüttel.28 For the 20th century, most representative are the works of R. MacMullen,29 G. Alföldy30 and A.P. Torri.31 Their approaches varied. Some examined the organisational aspects of associations; others sought to understand the manner in which the associations fitted into the lives of the Roman cities, as well as their social role. In recent decades, research on associations has started to bloom, and the more ‘traditional’ approaches have been displaced by new ones, influenced as well by new methodologies. One approach worthy of mention is that of N.F. Jones,32 who asks whether the Athenian associations were a response to democracy. Among associations, he included not only ‘religious’ ones but also the demes, the phratries, the tribes and the philosophical schools; all of these are interpreted as bodies which had a compensatory role in areas where democracy was failing, having a role in maintaining it. The social function of the associations was underlined for both the Greek and Roman worlds by authors such as MacMullen,33 N. Tran34 or N.R.E. Fisher.35 To sum up the function, I quote MacMullen, who wrote with respect to the members of associations: ‘Friends liked to get together of an evening to eat, drink, and be merry. Moralists grumbled that they ate too much, to the point of

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Platner 1709. Heinecke 1747. Mommsen 1843. Liebenam 1890. Waltzing 1895–1900. de Robertis 1955; 1973. Ausbüttel 1982. MacMullen 1974. Alföldy 1958; 1966. Torri 1938; 1941. Jones 1999. MacMullen 1974. Tran 2006. Fisher 1988a; 1988b.

INTRODUCTION

5

inflating the prices in the food markets; worse, that they drank too much…’36 As such, the associations are seen through their function as creators of social opportunities and status for members. The social function was intrinsically linked to the formation of associations and lay at the core of their existence. The terminology (both ancient and modern) has also raised interest. Even though the ancient terminology is discussed in general by most authors, some papers are concerned exclusively with clarifying specific terms or expressions. Among them are F. Poland, who wrote a series of articles in Pauly-Wissowa (RE),37 and O. Masson38 and M. Polito.39 Not only did the ancient terminology raise interest, so too has the modern one used for its interpretation (for instance, ‘private’ or ‘voluntary’40), adapting ancient concepts to explain them in modern terms. All of these works bring forward the diversity and complexity of the ancient terms, seeking to explain their meaning and to equate them to our modern understanding. Other authors focused on specific types. The Dionysiac associations have received extensive coverage in various monographs, such as those of A. Sharnina,41 B. Le Guen,42 M. Slavova,43 A. Schäfer,44 S. Aneziri,45 A.-F. Jaccottet46 and S. Psoma.47 These vary from addressing the association per se, the Dionysiac procession and the corresponding space, but likewise Dionysiac artistic associations (which raised the attention of specialists beginning in the 19th century48). Yet others focused on ‘professional’ associations, as such: besides the works of Waltzing are those of É. Martin Saint-Leon,49 A. Calderini,50 O. van Nijf,51 G. Mennella, G. Apicella,52 I. Dittmann-Schöne,53 C. Zimmermann,54 F. Diosono,55 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

MacMullen 1974, 76. Poland 1931; 1932a; 1932b; 1934a; 1934b. Masson 1987. Polito 2004. On these concepts see, Ismard 2010. Sharnina 1987. Le Guen 2001. Slavova 2002. Schäfer 2002; 2007. Aneziri 2003. Jaccottet 2003. Psoma 2009. Lüders 1873. Martin Saint-Leon 1899. Calderini 1934. van Nijf 1997. Menella and Apicella 2000. Dittmann-Schöne 2001. Zimmermann 2002. Diosono 2007.

6

INTRODUCTION

J. Liu,56 K. Verboven57 and I. Arnaoutoglou.58 Globally, they show the variety of professional associations, as well as the difference in importance, influence and social capital which they had at a local level, and the place they held in the social hierarchies of the cities. Numerous studies examine associations from specific cities, an approach which probably offers the highest degree of coverage. Athens benefited from most of the attention, with authors such as Arnaoutoglou,59 J. Steinhauer60 or P. Ismard61 writing monographs on the topic, though from different perspectives (offering an approach on the structure and social position,62 ‘[seeing the city] depuis une échelle médiane [that of the associations]’63; as opposed to seeing it as catalyst for the emergence of communal life;64 offering a ‘synchronic comparative perspective of a group of cults’65). Beyond Athens, Thessalonica,66 Rhodes67 and Delos68 were just some of the Greek cities which, unsurprisingly, attracted the attention of scholars. These cities had an exceptional role in ancient history, thus it is unsurprising that the associative phenomenon is remarkable in manifestation, offering a complementary view of certain social groups, their integration, and society at large. Concerning the physical structures belonging to associations, the works of F. Poland,69 A. Avram (for Callatis),70 P. Richardson,71 R.S. Ascough,72 M. Trümper (for Delos)73 and I. Nielsen74 are of interest, shedding light on various aspects, from the gathering of a corpus and the analysis of buildings, to the expansion of the number of members based on architectural evolution, etc. For the Latin West, among representative works is that of B. Bollmann,75 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Liu 2009. Verboven 2011. Arnaoutoglou 2011b; 2016. Arnaoutoglou 2003. Steinhauer 2014. Ismard 2010. Arnaoutoglou 2003, 89–112, 145–64. Ismard 2010, 34. Ismard 2010, 35. Steinhauer 2014, 16. Nigdelis 2010. Wescher 1864; Engelmann 1970; Gabrielsen 1994; Maillot 2009; 2015. Picard 1920; Bruneau 1978; McLean 1996; 1999; Hasenohr 2001; Baslez 2013. Poland 1909, 453–87. Avram 2002. Richardson 2003. Ascough 2007. Trümper 2006; 2011. Nielsen 2006; 2014. Bollmann 1998.

INTRODUCTION

7

who concentrates on the headquarters of the associations in Italy; those from Ostia have been intensely analysed.76 The correlation of epigraphic sources with archaeological ones (with a focus on architecture) was made at a larger scale, especially by Nielsen,77 who published a comprehensive monograph on the cultic architecture of the associations, showing how architecture could be used to interpret the functions of associations. A similar objective, applied to a narrower geographical area, may be found in the work of P. Gros, who starts from archaeological evidence to reconstruct the architectural setting of associations in meridional Gaul.78 The architecture of associations from Delos has been intensely studied by C. Picard,79 H. Meyer80 and, more recently, M. Trümper.81 All these works point to the grounding of the associative phenomenon, and the desire for durability among members. The existence of such complex buildings as, for example, those in Delos, shows not only the importance of the associations, but also their economic role and welfare. Of course, not all associations could afford to own such a place, be it designed for cultic (sanctuaries) or social activities (assembly halls). Thus some came together in civic sanctuaries. Other research has examined the involvement and role of women: M.D. Saavedra-Guerrero,82 A.-F. Jaccottet83 and E. Hemelrijk, for instance.84 As these studies indicate, female participation was generally low, women being attested especially in associations in which cult-related activity was strong – mostly in Dionysiac associations in which, however, they did not occupy a leading position. In terms of the empire as a whole, only two associations might have had an exclusively female membership.85 Approaching collegia as historiographical concepts, we should note the work of Tran on 19th-century French scholarship,86 that of J.S. Perry87 on Italian researchers, and finally that of M. Dissen, who tried to apply this to German scholarship regarding Roman collegia.88

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Meiggs 1960; Hermansen 1981; Egelhaaf-Gaiser 2002. Nielsen 2014. Gros 1997. Picard 1920; 1921. Meyer 1988. Trümper 2006; 2011. Saavedra-Guerrero 1991. Jaccottet 2003. Hemelrijk 2008; 2012. Jaccottet 2003 I, 75. Tran 2001. Perry 2006. Dissen 2009.

8

INTRODUCTION

Amongst published works there are corpora and commentaries whose main goal is the collection of sources from a specific geographical area, their translation and commentary. If most monographs gather the corresponding corpus of inscriptions, the efforts of P.A. Harland, in contrast, had the goal of extensive publication of several corpora that covered an extended geographical area. To these initiatives must be add the University of Copenhagen’s Copenhagen Associations Project, which undertook research on the private associations of the Classical, Hellenistic and Roman world (ca. 500 BC–ca. AD 300), from Italy up to India. It united a permanent team of researchers with guest researchers who concentrated on specific areas, to compile a uniform inventory on associations, available on line,89 and organised other academic activities and symposia. The associations of the Black Sea Greek cities have been researched especially by Avram, a member of the Danish project, but also by L. Ruscu,90 while A. Robu focused mostly on the phenomenon in the cities of the Propontis.91 Their contributions vary from reinterpreting some inscriptions to research on meeting venues and the reconstruction of the associative experience of some individuals with cosmopolitan views. For the early 19th century, besides monographs which addressed in a unifying manner the associations from the entire Greek world, we have only a few articles which tried to synthesise information on the associations from the northern Black Sea.92 Most of the information derived from newly published inscriptions related to the associations,93 which the editors contextualised. Besides the publications of Y. Ustinova, and some of other scholars,94 those of N.V. Zavoikina95 complete the outlook on the associations coming from the Bosporus. Zavoikina’s interest culminated in a monograph, which covers the topic from the 1st to the 3rd century AD.96 Its main contribution lies in the interpretation of the associations in relation to the monarchy and monarchical power,97 the second half of the volume;98 the first part contains a geographical epigraphic interpretation.99 The appendices include an epigraphic corpus with corresponding texts, and a complete list 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

According to www.copenhagenassociations.saxo.ku.dk/about_the_project. Ruscu 2014. Robu 2016. Pomyalovski 1888; Novosadski 1928. von Stern 1902. Kalashnik 1972; Saprykin and Chevelev 1996; Yailenko 2002; Saprykin 2009. Zavoikina 2003; 2004; 2007; Gabelko et al. 2006. Zavoikina 2013a. The relation between the associations and the king, Sauromates II, is discussed by Saprykin

2009. 98 99

Zavoikina 2013a, 133–230. Zavoikina 2013a, 25–132.

INTRODUCTION

9

of the citizens of Tanais (570).100 The key points are: a) the categorisation of associations into religious, age-based, comradeship-based/fraternal and professional; b) the interpretation of associations as keepers and promoters of the values of the polis. Apart from her works, synthesised in the aforementioned volume, most publications about associations are of new inscriptions, which contextualise the topic.101 Against this historiographic backcloth, a comprehensive work on the private associations of the Pontic world seems meet and just; it will bring a regional perspective to this phenomenon in a peripheral area of the Greek world. Certainly, the work of Zavoikina has made an important contribution for the northern Pontic area, but my intention here is to examine all of the Pontic shores. As to the available sources (see especially Chapter 2), they are mostly epigraphic, but there are some iconographic representations, while the literary sources are extremely scarce. Though I rely mostly on inscriptions, these sometimes fail to provide comprehensive detail, due mainly to the laconic character of the text or its fragmentary state. Inscriptions vary qualitatively and quantitatively from association to association, and from city to city. Considering historiographical trends, existing approaches and the type of evidence provided by the sources, my work focuses on understanding associations in their local and then regional contexts, especially on reconstructing not only the associative universe of the area, but also the profile of members who were part of it, since they were at its origin. Moreover, attention will likewise be paid to relationships both within and outwith associations, i.e. between the associations and their benefactors, or with various members of the local elite or even the authorities. This will point towards the place that the association, as a group, had in the social hierarchy of the city, and the social capital which it could provide to its members. In some cases, these networks will be analysed as well with the help of new methodologies, specifically social network analysis, which can sometimes offer new in-depth perspectives on the sample, though we must remain aware of the fact that the sources render only fragments of the society. My work is divided into six chapters which try to address the local, regional and global levels. As such, in order to understand this phenomenon, we must first distinguish the self-defining labels used to identify these structures, but also the modern terms and concepts used to translate and understand these ancient realities; this is the goal of the first chapter, which will look as well into terms which have been excluded, as well as some others which are not 100 101

Zavoikina 2013a, 268–85. Gabelko et al. 2006; Zavoikina 2013b; 2014.

10

INTRODUCTION

attested in the Pontic area. Considering the three levels of approach, the following chapter (2) provides an introduction to the overall data; this quantitative analysis of the sources allows a quick and basic mapping of the phenomenon, which in turn permits a better contextualisation at a local and regional level. In Chapters 3–5, we lean closer to the phenomenon at a local and regional level. The sources are complex and diverse. In order to provide a clear-cut view of local characteristics and evolution, each chapter addresses a particular region, further divided city by city and diachronically within each, taking into account their varied manifestation and the disparity of the traces left. This local mapping enables specific local attributes to be drawn and corroborated in order to attain a global picture of the Pontic associative phenomenon. It is useful to address these three levels step by step in order to structure the information at a local level, and secondly to see more clearly the differences and similarities between manifestations of the phenomenon. The work includes a Glossary with the most common ancient terms used in inscriptions (for naming associations, offices, titles), which provides a better understanding and allows a greater fluidity in the main text. The Glossary is complementary to the first chapter on terminology. An important part is represented likewise by the two appendices which provide a catalogue of inscriptions and one of members, each organised first by region and then by geographical location. The latter should be used especially to complement Chapters 3–5, but the catalogue represents in itself a valuable tool for the identification of the people behind the phenomenon. Overall, the study contributes to the social history of the Pontic area and, through this, to a wider understanding of the local population.

CHAPTER 1

TERMINOLOGY

This chapter focuses on the ancient and modern terminology used to designate the associations from the Greek cities of the Black Sea. As such, on the one part, it will discuss terms such as δοῦμος/dumus, θίασος, κοινόν, οἶκος, σπεῖρα, σύνοδος, and on the other, those like ‘private association’ and ‘voluntary association’. It intends to offer a perspective on the lexical and semantic variety (both ancient and modern) used to label and self-represent the associations, to establish classification and naming criteria, to discuss the composition of these names, to bring into discussion those terms which are attested in other parts of the Greek world but not in the area under consideration and, finally, to discuss the dubia et delenda category in which fall those names which do not point towards private associations. Overall, it illustrates the specific terminological characteristics of the associations from the Black Sea. Complementary to this is the Glossary at the end of the book, which includes relevant definitions. ANCIENT TERMINOLOGY Lexical and Semantic Variety In general, for the Classical period, epigraphic and literary references to associations are rather scarce. A fragment from the Digesta (47. 22. 4) indicates that, early on, Solon had apparently issued a law on associations (ex lege Solonis), and among the terms used to denominate them were: φράτερες, ὀργέωνες, θιασῶται – including, therefore, public structures. The frequency of attestation (and the terminological variety) of associations increases with the Hellenistic period in both literary and epigraphic sources, but their heyday was during the Roman period, when attestations are the most numerous. As such, in the Greek metropoleis, but also in the Pontic milieu, we encounter a great variety of terms used to express the modern term ‘association’, and we have, on the one hand, specific terms such as δοῦμος/dumus, θίασος, κοινόν, οἶκος, σπεῖρα, σύνοδος, and on the other derivatives from the specific terms, or composed terms, but which render the same meaning of association.

12

CHAPTER 1

As we can see from Fig. 2, of the numerous types of names which are attested by epigraphic and literary evidence, associations from the Black Sea area comprise many of these: there are 91 such variations. Latin West Compared with the terminology used in the Black Sea area and in the Greek East, the terminology used in the Latin West was less varied, the most common term being collegium. The emergence of the first collegia was due, according to Plutarch (Num. 17), to Numa Pompilius, but except for this testimony we lack further evidence to support the theory. The associations expanded in all provinces of the empire, and their presence is evident until the Tetrarchy. The concept of collegium denominates either ‘the official Roman sacerdotal colleges and sacred sodalities on the one hand (collegium pontificum, Augures, XV viri sacris faciundis, VII viri epulones), and private associations on the other. The distinctions between the two types are both legal and social.’1 In comparison with the Latin part of the empire, the Pontus had only two: an otherwise unnamed collegium dendrophorum and a collegium whose members were grouped around the Thracian Rider, both coming from Romanera Tomis. As in the case of the associations from the Greek East, the internal organisation of the collegia was inspired by the municipal one, these having as officials magistrates (magistri/quinquennales, curatores, quaestores, decuriones).2 The internal hierarchy was much more predictable, uniform and constant, whereas the Greek associations had more varied positions over time. Membership was usually granted in both cases to all juridical and social categories;3 however, based on the type of association, specific membership requirements could be imposed (for example, the associations devoted to Theos Hypsistos at Tanais gathered only men, the Ἀριστοπυλεῖται were exclusively courtiers, etc.). Associations from the West played a more important municipal, even provincial, role through their contribution to the economy, or to the protection of the state (collegia annonaria, collegia fabrum) than those from the Greek East. With some exceptions, most Pontic associations had but a minor role at a local level when compared with other parts of the Greek (i.e. Mainland Greece, Asia Minor) and Roman worlds (Rome, Gaul).

1 2 3

Kloppenborg 1996, 16. Kloppenborg 1996, 26. For a discussion on the membership of Roman collegia, see Kloppenborg 1996.

TERMINOLOGY

13

Formation of the Ancient Terminology Overall, there is a wide terminological variety used for labelling the associations from the Pontic area, reflecting their diverse manner of formation and composition. When the sources do not record a common noun for naming an association, they record names which either derive from main terms or compound multiple specific terms, indicators of the associations’ characteristic, yielding composite or non-composite names (and/or derivative). The terminology can be classified based on the composing elements which form their building blocks: these names include significant criteria of self-representation and identification of the associations. However, to follow F. Poland,4 the names of associations do not indicate with certitude their functions. The terminology is formed through: 1. The sole use of a specific term which makes reference to the meaning of group, association: δοῦμος/dumus, θίασος, κοινόν, οἶκος, οργεών, σύνοδος, σπεῖρα. The specific term is often accompanied by other terms which specify the characteristics of the associations: a. The term is accompanied by a proper noun in the genitive or dative and by an epithet. This version is attested only once, at Tomis, the association being gathered around a woman who exceptionally gives the name of the association: Πασοῦς ἱερὸς θίασος. b. The term is accompanied by the personal name of the individual around which the members are gathered: θίασος περὶ ρέα Μενέστρατον Ἀρδαράκου, θίασος περὶ Ζώπρον ἱερέα. c. The term is accompanied by another which points to the common profession of the members: θέασος ναυκλήρων, θυμελικὴ σύνοδος, κοινὸν ναυτικῶν, οἶκος τῶν ναυκλήρων, σύνοδος τῶν στεφανηπλόκων. To these it is possible to add terms which specify geographical origin: οἶκος τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων; or where the association is based: οἶκος τῶν ἐν Τόμει ναυκλήρων. d. The term is accompanied by another which illustrates the manner in which the members see themselves: θίεσος ἀδελφῶν. e. The term is accompanied by an indicator of the members’ juridical status: σπεῖρα Ῥωμαίων. f. The term is accompanied by an indicator of geographical origin: Ἀσιανῶν σπεῖρα, σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν, Σύνοδος μυστικῆς Ταρσέων; to which age details can be added: Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος. 4 Poland 1909, 6: ‘Der Name einer Gennossenschaft braucht aber doch nicht ihren Zweck anzudeuten’.

14

CHAPTER 1

In the case of the Ἀσιανῶν σπεῖρα, the term Ἀσιανῶν was given several explanations: it was interpreted by some as an indicator of residents originating from Asia Minor (M. Sayar),5 or from the province of Asia (P. Frisch, A. Geißen),6 while A.-F. Jaccottet7 interprets it as a reference to the Dyionisiac convictions of the members of the association. Based on other examples from our corpus, I opt to see it as an indicator of the geographical origin of the members, the association being therefore founded by immigrants coming from the area of Asia Minor. g. The term is accompanied by another, derived from the name of the god worshipped: [σπεῖρα] Διονυσι[αστῶν]. To these, further details can be added regarding the age of the worshippers: σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων. The terms are mostly derivatives or are accompanied by other terms which specify their characteristics: a. From the term θίασος the common noun (plural) θιασῖται derives (with its versions: θιασῶται, θιεσεῖται, θιεσῖται, θεασεῖται), which points to the membership of this type of association. This term, in turn, can be used along with another which either specifies the god/hero worshipped: Βορεικοὶ θιασῖται, [῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται; or points to another category of members: θιασεῖται [---] μύσται. b. From the term σύνοδος the common noun (plural) συνοδεῖται derives, which is, however, rarely attested (four times). There are several common nouns (in plural) which do not derive from a specific term, and in this case: a. They illustrate the way in which the members see themselves, as well as some of the fundamental principles: εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι. b. They indicate their affiliation to a certain celebration: ἐρανισταί, ναῦται, νεομηνιασταί. c. They indicate the common profession practised by the members: ῥωποπῶλαι, τέκτωνες; in certain cases, specifying the person around which they are grouped: φαμιλία μονομάχων τῶν περὶ Καλύδωνα. d. They indicate the members’ belonging to a certain category: ἀριστοπυλεῖται. e. They indicate the affiliation of the members to their identity as worshippers: θρησκευταί, μύσται, ὀργεῶνες, τεμενῖται.

2.

3.

5 6 7

Sayar 1998, 236. Frisch and Geißen 1980, 194. Jaccottet 2003 II, 107–10, no. 53.

TERMINOLOGY

f.

g.

h.

i.

15

They indicate the affiliation of the members to their identity as cult personnel: δενδροφόροι, ὀρφικοί, παστοφόροι, ὑμνῳδοί. In the case of ὑμνῳδοί, other terms can be added (νέοι/νεώτεροι, πρεσβύτεροι) for distinguishing the different types of association, based on the age categories of members (young, elderly). They derive from the name of the main god around which the association was formed. Among the associations formed in this way are Ἀθηνεαστής, Ἀττιαστής, Βακχεαστής, Ἡρακλειασταί, Ποσειδονιασταί, Ταυρεασταί, Ταῦροι. As it arisess from the epigraphic corpus, this manner of formation of a name is specific only for the associations on the western shore of the Black Sea. They express the idea of group formed around a person: οἱ περὶ [---], οἱ παιρὶ {περὶ} εἱερέα Τ(ίτον) Αἴ(λιον) Μινίκιον, [---] οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα, [---] οἱ περὶ τὸν γραμματέα, τῶν περὶ συναγωγοὺς Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου, οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος, [---] οἱ περὶ τὸν γυμν[άσιον], οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ [---]. They derive from a common activity which brings together the members: θοινᾶται (θοινεῖται, θυνεῖται), φιλοκύνηγοι; in addition, the personal name of the individual around which the members are gathered is attested – τοὶ σύσσιτοι8 τοὶ Τιμώνακτος, θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος, θοινῆται οἱ περὶ εἱερέα Ἡρακλέοντα Πύρσου – or the name of the deity worshipped: θοινᾶται τᾶς Δάματρος τᾶς Χθονίας. MODERN TERMINOLOGY

Definitions Based on the Type of Initiative (Private vs Public) and on the Non-coercive Nature (Voluntary vs Non-voluntary) of Associations9 While the ancient terminology has been mostly translated by using the term ‘association’, its character has been explained based either on the type of initiative (private10 as opposed to public) or on the non-coercive nature of 8 These types of association are rarely attested in the Greek world: besides the current example from Callatis there are just two more, one from 4th-century BC Thespiai (IThespiai 323 = CAPInv. 981) and one from 1st-century BC Lindus (ILindos II, 292 = CAPInv. 1064). Reference to σύσσιτοι is also made in Dig. 47. 22. 4, according to which the agreement between σύσσιτοι was cosidered vaild if it did not oppose the laws of the city. 9 See the discussion of Ismard 2010 on the inadequate use of these modern concepts. 10 On the public and private framework of the Greek religion, see Dasen and Piérart 2005.

16

CHAPTER 1

associations (voluntary as opposed to the non-voluntary nature implied by specific regulations imposed by the authorities). In this context, the concept of ‘voluntary associations’ emerged, favoured by authors such as R.S. Ascough,11 B. Eckhardt,12 P.M. Nigdelis13 and S.G. Wilson.14 The concept of voluntary and non-voluntary is used to define the principle on which the adhesion of members was made, as well as the lack of control exerted from the outside/authorities on the internal development.15 The term implies the idea of choice, which does not apply with respect to links to structures such as the family. However, this does not mean that the voluntary aspect was the only important one, because not all associations were open to all categories of individual (for example, some associations did not include women, others did not include certain professional categories, while joining others implied the need to worship specific gods). Secondly, we encounter the concept of ‘private associations’, used mostly by I.N. Arnaoutoglou,16 Eckhardt17 and V. Gabrielsen.18 The accent here is on the character of the associations (as explained by Gabrielsen and C.A. Thomsen, they function in the private sphere [τὸν ἴδιον] and not the public [δημόσιον] or sacred [ἱερόν]19) in which the interference of the state is not so strong. Due to its amalgam of public and private characteristics, the associative milieu has been considered as a ‘fourth space’.20 In the words of P. Ismard, we understand the ancient terminology of associations as defining: ‘en effet un espace intermédiaire entre la sphère familiale et celle du public ou de l’État – ou, pour le dire en termes grecs, entre l’oikos et la polis, tous deux pourtant identifiés par Aristote comme des koinôniai.’21 Nevertheless, the private nature of some associations is questionable (see below Chapter 4 for Callatis22 and Chapter 5 for Panticapaeum23 and Tanais24), and not infrequently the overlap between the public and the private sphere occurs through the members, the benefactors or the authorities. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Ascough 1997; 2000; 2002; 2006. Eckhardt 2014. Nigdelis 2010. Wilson 1996, 1. Harland 2003, 28. Arnaoutoglou 2003. Eckhardt 2016. Gabrielsen and Thomsen 2015, 9. Gabrielsen and Thomsen 2015, 9. Gabrielsen and Thomsen 2015, 15–16. Ismard 2010, 15. Βακχικὸς θίασος. Ἀριστοπυλεῖται. Θιασεῖται.

TERMINOLOGY

17

Classification and Naming Criteria If the names of private and voluntary associations refer to their more general character, being defined in opposition to the official structures of the state, in the corresponding literature there are differentiations between associations, made according to specific criteria, generally from an external perspective. The typology of associations varies; some of the first authors, for instance T. Mommsen, J.P. Waltzing and E. Kornemann, classified them based on their main objective or their primary function. Three categories resulted: religious,25 professional26 and funerary.27 Classification based on function does not take into consideration that association often had a religious core,28 which was seconded by other components, even though they do not result from the names29 or from the texts.30 As such, this criterion lacks precision, since neither the names nor functions describe with precision their core. More recently, several authors (among them J.S. Kloppenborg, N.F. Jones and P.A. Harland) have instead classified associations based on various membership criteria. Thus, Kloppenborg, focused on linkages, identifying associations having common domestic connections, or embodying a common occupation or a common cult.31 Next, chronologically, Jones defined the associations through their links to the public or private space, their voluntary or non-voluntary character, their temporary or permanent character and, finally, their expressive or instrumental character.32 Kloppenborg’s approach was developed further by Harland, who in turn focused on the existing social network types and not on the functions of associations; as such he classified associations in terms of common domestic connections, a common ethnicity or geographical origin, common territorial connections, a common occupation, or a common cult.33 All of these categorisations and approaches are valid, they just dealt with different characteristics of the data. I have chosen to use the term ‘private associations’ because it renders best, in my opinion, the ancient realities. In respect of the typology of associations, I have opted for Harland’s, focused on types of social network and not on function, the latter being complex and multiple in each association. Nonetheless, because of the type of inscriptions, 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Mommsen 1843, 87–93; Waltzing 1895, 3–48. Waltzing 1895, 161–94. Waltzing 1895–1900 I, 32–56, 114–54; Kornemann 1900a, 386–403. Poland 1909, 5. Scheid 2003; Frölich and Hamon 2013, 18. Poland 1909, 5. Kloppenborg 1996, 23–26. Jones 1999, 30–33. Harland 2003, 29; 2013, 19–43.

18

CHAPTER 1

I have added another category, that of associations whose social networks are given a convivial frame (ἐρανισταί, θοινᾶται/θοινῆται, φιλοκύνηγοι). Finally, by ‘professional associations’, I understand those which have an occupational component; the religious component, though unmentioned, was certainly there, but the expression underlines the fact that these associations had a common core given by the common occupations practised by the members. NOTABLE ABSENCES FROM THE LIST OF PONTIC ASSOCIATIONS The terminological variety is not as large as it is in other Greek cities; for example, associations formed for the worship of a certain sovereign, or of a representative of the elite (for instance, at Thyateira there are the Ἰουλιασταί, individuals who gathered in an association to celebrate Gaius Iulius Xenon, son of Apollonides, ‘hero and εὐεργέτης’, who had the position of great priest of Caesar Augustus and of the goddess Roma) are absent.34 No collegium veteranorum is attested in the area, which is, however, to be expected as there are no military settlements there, but also because there are very few attestations of such a collegium in both the Greek East and the Latin West. Another term not attested in this area is ἐργασία, with the meaning of work, used to denominate associations which have an occupational component; the term is accompanied each time by another one which brings clarity to the type of work carried out by members. It was used mostly in Asia Minor, whence most of the occupational associations came.35 To these can be added συνέδριον, which has the meaning of reunion,36 but also of association; besides this, the term can describe the meetings of the city council. Among notable absences stands the term τέχνη, which implies the meaning of craft, generally accompanied by another term which specifies the occupation. Τεχνίτης is a general term which, without additional information, cannot be understood either as associative or occupational.37 The use of the term as denominator of an occupational association is more frequent in other parts of the Greek world (15 in total). Among examples are τέχνῃ τῶν βυρσ[έων],38 τέχνῃ τῶν γναφέων,39 ἱερᾷ τέχνῃ τῶν λευκουργῶν,40 ἱερᾷ τέχνῃ τῶν 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Robert and Robert 1966, 421. See Dittmann-Schöne 2001. RE s.v. Συνέδριον. Le Guen 2001, 103. IGB III.1, 908 = CAPInv. 583. IGB V, 5585 = CAPInv. 541. IKyzikos I, 409 = IMT Kyz PropInseln 1346 = CAPInv. 1168.

TERMINOLOGY

19

λ[ευκουργῶν]/λ[ιθοξόων],41 τέχνη ἡ τῶν λιθουργῶν,42 τέχνῃ τῶν καπήλων,43 τέχνη ἡ τῶν μακελλαρίων,44 τέχνη τῶν σακκοφόρων,45 τέχνῃ τῶν συροποιῶν,46 etc. Compared with Asia Minor, we see that the occupational associations are fewer, and less diverse47 and prestigious.48 The terminology corresponding to occupational associations from the Pontic area seem less sophisticated than that of other Roman provinces and cities such as Lugdunum (nautae Ararici,49 nautae Rhodanici,50 vinarii Lugduni consistentes51), Ostia (olearii ex Baetica,52 navicularii Misuenses,53 navicularii Karthaginienses54) and Puteoli (οἱ ἐν Ποτιόλοις κατοικοῦντες55), where there are attestations of a very wide variety of types of association, uniting foreign residents, and some implying trans-local links (corpus splendidissimum mercatorum Cisalpinorum et Transalpinorum56),57 due to the existence of less powerful and impactful (from an economic point of view) occupational associations. Unlike in the Greek city of Thessalonica,58 terms such as συνήθεια59 (guild), συνήθεις (club),60 συνκλίται (companions),61 as well as κολλήγιον,62 are not attested in the Pontic area. The terminology and types of association in the Pontic area are not as varied as in the Latin West and the Greek East, relying on two of the most common terms, θίασος and σύνοδος.

41

IKyzikos I, 97 = IMT Kyz PropInseln 1342 = CAPInv. 1169. IPerinthos-Herakleia 131 = IGRR I, 607 = CAPInv. 526. 43 IGB III.1, 917 = CAPInv. 585. 44 IPerinthos-Herakleia 117 = SEG 48, 939 = CAPInv. 532. 45 IPerinthos-Herakleia 58 = Waltzing 1899 III, 75, no. 207 = CAPInv. 687. 46 IGB III.1, 916 = CAPInv. 584. 47 Dittmann-Schöne 2001; Ritti 1995; Arnaoutoglou 2011b; 2016. 48 In Miletus, an association of aurarii had seat reservations in the local theatre: Roueché 1995, 37–38, nos. 3–6; van Nijf 1997, 209–40. 49 CIL XII, 3316. 50 CIL XIII, 1966. 51 CIL XIII, 1911. 52 CIL VI, 1625b = CIL VI, 31834b = AE 1987, 138. 53 CIL XIV, 4549.10 = AE 1913, 90. 54 CIL XIV, 4549.18 = AE 1913, 207. 55 IG XIV, 830 = SEG 49, 1366. 56 CIL XIII 2029 = ILS 7279. 57 See Verboven 2009. 58 Nigdelis 2010. 59 IG X.2.1, 291 = AGRW 55 = GRA I, 79 = CAPInv. 786. 60 IG X.2.1, 982 = CAPInv. 789. 61 IG X.2.1, 58 = RICIS 113/530 = SEG 47, 971 = AGRW 47 = CAPInv. 707; IG X.2.1, 70 = AGRW 48 = GRA I, 74 = CAPInv. 721; IG X.2.1, 68 = AGRW 51 = CAPInv. 721. 62 Nigdelis 2010, 42, no. 40. 42

20

CHAPTER 1

DUBIA ET DELENDA This category includes terminology which makes reference to groups of individuals, groups that do not appear to have had (at least with any certainty) the characteristics of an association. Among them I include cives Romani consistentes,63 ἱερονεικῶν τὸ ἄμφοδον64 and φράτορες.65 Several of the 18 inscriptions that attest the cives Romani consistentes at Istros, Tomis and Callatis66 have been excluded. The communities of cives Romani consistentes do not represent an association due to juridical status and to organisation,67 having ‘an intermediary status between a collegium and a structure with municipal status’,68 being a ‘quasi-community’,69 but an autonomous group. Their organisation is based on holding Roman citizenship, and their existence continued even after the edict of Caracalla from AD 212 (for example, cives Romani et Lai/Bessiconsistentes). The terminology ἱερονεικῶν τὸ ἄμφοδον does not provide in itself enough evidence to conclude whether its character is private (i.e. pointing to an association of residents) or public (an administrative subdivision of the urban population),70 and since examples from other areas do not provide further

63 Istros: cives Romani et Lai consistentes: ISM I, 343 = AE 1927, 62 = AE 2012, 1276; cives Romani et Lai consistentes: ISM I, 344 = AE 2012, 276 = AE 1950, 237; cives Romani et Lai consistentes: ISM I, 345 = AE 1950, 238 = AE 2012, 1276; cives Romani et Lai consistentes: ISM I, 346 = AE 1924, 148 = AE 2012, 1276; cives Romani et Lai consistentes: ISM I, 347 = AE 1927, 64 = AE 2012, 1276; cives Romani et Lai consistentes: ISM I, 349 = AE 1934, 166 = AE 2012, 1276; veterani et cives Romani consistentes: ISM I, 138; veterani et cives Romani consistentes: CIL III, 14442 = AE 2007, 118; (veterani et) cives Romani et Bessi consistentes: ISM I, 324 = AE 1919, 13 = AE 1950, 236 = AE 2012, 1276; (veterani et) cives Romani et Bessi consistentes: ISM I, 326 = AE 1924, 142 = AE 2012, 1276; (veterani et) cives Romani et Bessi consistentes: ISM I, 327 = AE 1956, 211 = AE 1984, 802 = AE 2012, 1276; (veterani et) cives Romani et Bessi consistentes: ISM I, 328 = AE 1924, 143 = AE 2012, 1276; (veterani et) cives Romani et Bessi consistentes: ISM I, 330 = AE 1924, 144 = AE 2012, 1276; (veterani et) cives Romani et Bessi consistentes: ISM I, 331 = AE 1924, 145 = AE 2012, 1276; (veterani et) cives Romani et Bessi consistentes: ISM I, 332 = AE 1924, 146 = AE 2012, 1276; Callatis: cives Romani consistentes (qui negotiantur?): ISM III, 83 = AE 1964, 250; Tomis: cives Romani et Lai consistentes: ISM II, 141 = CIL III, 7533 = AE 1960, 360; veterani et cives Romani consistentes: CIL III, 14441 = AE 2007, 118. 64 Marek 1993, 172, no. 56 = SEG 30, 1449 = CAPInv. 762. 65 Marek 1993, 155, no. 1 = Poland 1909, 439A = CAPInv. 645. 66 The communities of cives Romani consistentes from Scythia Minor were analysed by Avram 2007; these are attested in peregrine cities with the status of civitas foederata (Callatis), civilian settlements near military settlements, canabae, vici (the latter were accompanied by veterans, or the Bessi and Lai). 67 Bourigault 2011. 68 Kornemann 1900b, 1195. For Carnuntum, see Piso 2005, 182–83. 69 Vittinghoff 1971. 70 See van Nijf 1997, 182.

TERMINOLOGY

21

evidence71 I have not included the inscription in the corpus. Among the names which do not point to an association we find that of φράτρα, attested at Abonouteichos,72 which most probably referred to a subdivision of the population. CHARACTERISTICS The terminology used for self-representation in both the private and public spheres offers us, through its diversity and complexity, a global image of the manner in which individuals represented their reality, as well as the local characteristics of the associations. As such, the analysis of the terminology gives us clues to some of the most important and ‘valued’ constitutive elements of the associations. These elements vary from association to association and in general the terminology is built around the name of a god, but also around a common occupation (κοινὸν ναυτικῶν,73 οἶκος τῶν ναυκλήρων,74 οἶκος τῶν ἐν Τόμει ναυκλήρων,75 ῥωποπῶλαι,76 σύνοδος τῶν στεφανηπλόκων,77 θυμελικὴ σύνοδος78) or the common origin of the members (οἶκος τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων,79 σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν,80 Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος81). However, this does not mean that these elements represented the main function of the association. They also point to the role that the members had in some cults (ὑμνῳδοί νεώτεροι82/πρεσβύτεροι,83 παστοφόροι,84 τεμενῖται85), or the activity around which they gathered (φιλοκύνηγοι,86 θοινεῖται,87 θυνεῖται,88 σύσσιτοι89). 71

Jones 1987, 303, 336. Marek 1993, 155, no. 1 = Poland 1909, 439A = CAPInv. 645. 73 Solomonik 1984, 87, no. 436 = SEG 38, 749.8 = CAPInv. 1263. 74 ISM II, 132 = Poland 1909, E 24B = CIL III, 7532 = ILS 4069 = CCET IV, 48 = CAPInv. 578. 75 ISM II, 60 = IGRR I, 610 = Poland 1909, E 24A = AGRW 81 = CAPInv. 1199. 76 Hirschfeld 1888, no. 38 = Kalinka 1933, no. 32 = Robert 1937, 260–61 = Marek 1993, 167, no. 36. 77 ISinope 117 = Doublet 1889, 304, no. 7 = CAPInv. 545. 78 ISM II, 70 = IGRR I, 633 = Poland 1909, Δ 76 = ISM VI.2, 70 = CAPInv. 1197. 79 ISM II, 153 = IGRR I, 604 = RICIS 618/1005 = SEG 47, 1040 = Poland 1909, E 25 = AGRW 82 = ISM VI.2, 153 = CAPInv. 1206. 80 ISM III, 72 = SEG 24, 1037 = CAPInv. 1164. 81 IosPE II, 39 = IGRR I, 883 = CIRB 44 = CAPInv. 1266. 82 IGB I2, 17 = IGB V, 5009; Avram 2018a. 83 ISM I, 100 = SEG 17, 342 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 133–36, no. 65 = CAPInv. 1218. 84 ISM II, 98 = SEG 24, 1054 = ISM VI.2, 98 = CAPInv. 1202. 85 IMilet 796 = SEG 45, 1607 = PPEE 213. 86 ISM III, 74 = CAPInv. 1183. 87 IGB I2, 78(3) = CAPInv. 1469. 88 IGB I2, 77 = IGB V, 5033 = AE 1928, 146 = AGRW 79 = CAPInv. 1153. 89 ISM III, 255 = SEG 27, 386 = CAPInv. 1185. 72

22

CHAPTER 1

The names can reflect the social networks of the associations, networks which sometimes involved the local elite and represented for the association a source of prestige. For example, the name of the association οἱ παιρὶ {περὶ} εἱερέα Τ[ίτον] Αἴ[λιον] Μινίκιον90 from Callatis makes known openly to the reader of the inscription the fact that the association benefited from the support and involvement of a ποντάρχης. A similar case is that of the association of Εὑρησιβιάδαι91 in Olbia, which apparently reunited the members of the local elite, these belonging most probably to only two local prominent families. In this case, the terminology denotes the exclusivism of the association and maybe the formation criteria. Similar are the case of the attestations of a Πασοῦς ἱερὸς θίασος,92 or of an association organised τῶν περὶ συναγωγοὺς Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου.93 Sometimes the names offer supplementary details of the associative universe of a specific city: up to the discovery in September 2017 of an inscription at Istros,94 the existence of an association of ὑμνῳδοί νεώτεροι was only presumed based on the attestation of an association of ὑμνῳδοί πρεσβύτεροι;95 on the other hand, at Dionysopolis, based on an attestation of an association of ὑμνῳδοί νεώτεροι,96 we can presume the existence of an association of ὑμνῳδοί πρεσβύτεροι. As illustrated by the synthetic table (Fig. 2) on the geographical distribution of the terminology, there are 91 possible versions (taking into account cases where there are only phonetical differences). Of these, the term σύνοδος, along with its versions (σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν, θυμελικὴ σύνοδος,97 Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος, σύνοδος τῶν στεφανηπλόκων), is attested most often (49 times). Its derivative form, συνοδεῖται, which denominates the members of a σύνοδος, occurs rarely (four times); the names θιασῖται (and its variants θιασεῖται, θιασεῖται [---] μύσται, Βορεικοὶ θιασῖται, [῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται, θιασῶται, θιεσεῖται, θιεσῖται, θεασεῖται) is attested in 24 cases, while the core version θίασος along with its specific variants (ἱερὸς θίασος, θέασος 90

ISM III, 70 = CAPInv. 1163. IGDOlbia 11 = IOlbia 71 = SEG 18, 304 = Robert and Robert 1959, 270 = Stolba 2013 = CAPInv. 1257. 92 ISM II, 120 = Poland 1909, B 106 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 129–30, no. 62 = AGRW 80 = ISM VI.2, 120 = CAPInv. 1204. 93 ISM II, 125 = SEG 34, 695 = CAPInv. 1203. 94 Avram 2018a. 95 ISM I, 100 = SEG 17, 342 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 133–36, no. 65 = CAPInv. 1218; ISM I, 167 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 130–31, no. 63 = CAPInv. 1218; ISM I, 208 + ISM I, 221 = SEG 32, 694 = CAPInv. 1218; Suceveanu 2007, 149, no. 6 = Avram 2015, 130–31, no. 5 = CAPInv. 1218. 96 IGB I2, 17 = IGB V, 5009. 97 A similar association (ἡ ἱερὰ θυμελικὴ σύνοδος) is attested in Ionia, at Erythrae: IErythrai 60 = CAPInv. 1766. 91

TERMINOLOGY

23

ναυκλήρων, θίεσος, θίεσος ἀδελφῶν) is attested only 15 times. Nevertheless, in some cases the high frequency can be due equally to the fragmentary character of the inscriptions. Besides these names, there are more ‘classical’ ones, such as κοινóν (seven), οἶκος (four) and σπεῖρα (three), which are attested in several cities, albeit more rarely. As to the representativeness of names based on networks, those based on occupational or geographical networks are few in number, as is the variety of names as well. The most varied associations (in both name and formation) are, unsurprisingly, those whose networks have at their base a common cult. As such, at Dionysopolis and Istros a non-composite nomenclature is characteristic, the name resulting from a common noun, in genitive (singular/plural), derived from the name of the main god around which the association was formed. As examples: Ἀθηνεαστής,98 Ἀττιαστής,99 Βακχεαστής,100 Ἡρακλειασταί,101 Ποσειδονιασταί102 and Ταυρεασταί.103 The terminology attested at Amastris and Dionysopolis points to the preference for a specific god, in these cases Dionysus, while at Olbia it is Apollo (Boreas,104 Neomenios105). At Callatis, in one example the terminology specifies the fact that the θιασεῖται could have been μύσται,106 but not necessarily (another inscription, this time from Byzantium, makes the distinction between μύσται καὶ θιασεῖται107). The difference between μύσται καὶ θιασεῖται was explained in several ways: M.P. Nilsson regards it as possible that the differentiation was based on the higher rank of the μύσται to the θιασεῖται,108 Jaccottet that the association could have had several sections, μύσται being the general term used to designate the association, while θιασεῖται designated only one of its components.109 As briefly mentioned above, there are associations whose membership criteria are based on age, these being attested at Istros and Dionysopolis (ὑμνοδοί πρεσβύτεροι/νεώτεροι; Ἀσιανῶν σπεῖρα πρεσβ(υτέρων?).

98

Sharankov 2013, 45, 59 = SEG 60, 778 = CAPInv. 1246. Sharankov 2013, 57–58 = SEG 60, 768 = CAPInv. 1157. 100 IGB I2, 20 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 106–07, no. 52 = CAPInv. 1118. 101 ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112 = CAPInv. 1209. 102 ISM I, 143. 103 ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112 = CAPInv. 1209; ISM I, 60 = CAPInv. 1210; ISM I, 61 = SEG 2, 451; Avram 2014, no. 2 = CAPInv. 1210. 104 IGDOlbia 95 = SEG 42, 709.1 = CAPInv. 1258. 105 IGDOlbia 96abcd = CAPInv. 1261. 106 ISM III, 47 = Poland 1909, B 95 = CAPInv. 1186. 107 IByzantion 39 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 88, no. 42 = CAPInv. 317. 108 Nilsson 1934, 18. 109 Jaccottet 2003 II, 89, no. 42. 99

24

CHAPTER 1

In the cases of Chersonesus, Hermonassa, Cimmericum, Myrmecium, Sinope and Theodosia, there are only a few attestations, therefore characteristics cannot be defined. Since the cities with more numerous inscriptions are few, but also because the inscriptions come from a relatively close timeframe (2nd century–3rd century AD) and are sometimes fragmentary, we cannot trace an evolution of the terminology. The Classical period is underrepresented, just like the Hellenistic. Terminological differences can be noted only at a phonetic level, for example at Callatis. Northern Shore of the Black Sea The variety of names is not large, but there is a wider complexity. The most varied terminology comes from Panticapaeum and Tanais, cities which along with Gorgippia have the most inscriptions. From a statistical point of view, the commonest attestations are those of θιασῖται (with its variants), as well as of συνοδεῖται and σύνοδος. However, in the case of the inscriptions which attest θιασῖται and συνοδεῖται, the terminology does not indicate that the accent is on the members but rather that the type of inscriptions (catalogues, dedications) or their conservation (fragmentary) led to the preservation of this formula only. Compared with other cities, Tanais distinguishes itself through the variety of names used to point to the associations whose members worship Theos Hypsistos: 1) ἡ σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον καὶ ἱερέα [---] καὶ συναγωγὸν; 2) ἡ σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα [---] καὶ ἱερέα [---] καὶ συναγωγὸν; 3) εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον; 4) θίεσος τῶν ἀδελφῶν τῶν περὶ ἱερέα [---].110 The names constructed around the terminology of familial belonging111 (θίεσος ἀδελφῶν,112 εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι113) are specific for Tanais, but are encountered as well at Panticapaeum. The third version is less common, being explained as a manner of designating the new members,114 or those whose fathers were not part of associations,115 but the category does not seem to follow these criteria.116

110

Classification made by Ustinova 1999, 185. For other classifications, see Chapter 5. As regards the familial terminology, see especially Harland 2005; 2007. 112 CIRB 1284 = IosPE II, 453 = CAPInv. 1324. 113 CIRB 1281 = IosPE II, 449 = IGRR I, 918 = CAPInv. 1323; CIRB 1283 = IGRR I, 920 = IosPE II, 452 = AGRW 92 = CAPInv. 1323; CIRB 1286 = IosPE II, 456 = CAPInv. 1323. 114 Poland 1909, 284; Schürer 1897, 207. 115 Zhebelev 1940. 116 Zavoikina 2013a, 95–98, 120–27. 111

TERMINOLOGY

25

CONCLUDING REMARKS The names through which the members identified themselves were the ‘classic’ ones, but they lacked the complexity and diversity found in areas such as Mainland Greece or Asia Minor. This is because the phenomenon of associations is less prevalent in the Pontic area than in these regions. The particular characteristics of the phenomenon in the Pontus, as well as the formation of associations based on specific types of relations or members’ social status, were what directly influenced the names, which were a manner of self-representation. In this case, one of the main functions of the associations (the religious) was that which predominates in the terminology. Due to the low number of attestations of associations over time, as well as to the fragmentary character of the inscriptions, we cannot trace an evolution which is not bound to phonetic aspects. In comparison with other parts of the ancient world, the terms used and the ways of formation were limited and more basic.

CHAPTER 2

OVERVIEW OF THE SOURCES

This chapter aims to analyse the data on associations from a quantitative point of view, in order to identify specific trends regarding their flourishing and evolution. It will discuss such aspects as the geographical and chronological distribution of inscriptions and associations, the available sources (and their types) as well as the language used, the iconography of the monuments and the materials used. All these provide raw data on the traces left by the associations, as well as some qualitative insights on their functioning. Quantitative analyses of members are included in the corresponding chapters where it is more relevant. GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK My study concerns the Greek cities of the Black Sea coast, founded by Ionians and Dorians or, exceptionally, by Greeks from the area. An exception is made for Cimmericum, Myrmecium and Tanais, even though their particular status (polis or rural settlement) is uncertain, as is their colonial origin. Myrmecium was probably of Ionian origin; its sole attested inscription might actually pertain to the territory of Panticapaeum,1 being an example of pierre errante. Tanais, despite it was founded by Bosporan Greeks (κτίσμα τῶν τὸν Βόσπορον ἐχόντων Ἑλλήνων: Strabo 11. 2. 3), has been included since it was an important local settlement and it can bring a new perspective on associative life. The timeframe covers broadly the period of associative activity, starting with the 6th century BC and ending in the 3rd century AD. As Fig. 3 reveals, most of the epigraphic attestations of associations come from the Roman period, especially from the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. There are few inscriptions from the Classical or Hellenistic periods, and these are mostly attested on the western shore, as well as in the cities located in other parts of the Greek world where Ποντικοί joined associations (in these latter cities, inscriptions from the

1

Zavoikina 2013a, 129.

28

CHAPTER 2

Classical and Hellenistic periods predominate). The flourishing of the phenomenon in the Roman period was due to the pax Romana, the establishment of provinces in these regions and their relative prosperity. This in turn led to a greater variety of associations, which in the Classical and Hellenistic periods were more oriented towards gathering around a specific cult. As far as possible, each chapter approaches the associative phenomenon from a chronological perspective, in order to discern its evolution over time. SOURCES Epigraphic The available source from which we can reconstruct the Pontic associative universe are mostly epigraphic: 215,2 205 of which attest associations in the cities of the Black Sea coast, while the other ten attest Ποντικοί who are members in associations beyond the Black Sea. Their inclusion is made in order to map the trajectory of these Pontic men and women in the external associative milieu. The 215 inscriptions record 124 associations,3 114 from the Pontic area, ten from outside. The main problem is the poor state of preservation: in many cases the inscriptions are fragmentary, through which we can reconstruct only glimpses of the associative life in the area. Furthermore, some are laconic and cannot be linked to other sources. From a geographical perspective (see Figs. 4 and 5), most of the inscriptions (but not most of the associations) come from cities located on the northern shore of the Black Sea (108, recording 37 associations), chiefly from Panticapaeum (39), Tanais (32) and Gorgippia (18). From a chronological perspective, among northern cities only Olbia has associative inscriptions from the Classical period, while Panticapaeum yields evidence of Hellenistic associations, but even there most data comes from the Roman period. As such, the northern associations are quite active and prone to record evidence of their activities, and over a wide timespan. The northern inscriptions are followed in number by those from the western shore, mostly Tomis (26), Istros (25) and Callatis (21). Here too, the number of inscriptions from the Classical and Hellenistic periods is rather low; mostly 2 One of the inscription from Istros (ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112) records four associations: Ἡρακλειασταί, Ταυρεασταί, Τέκτονες, Ὑμνῳδοί. 3 The attribution of inscriptions to specific associations has followed closely the categorisation proposed by the Copenhagen Associations Project Inventory, with some slight differences.

OVERVIEW OF THE SOURCES

29

from Istros and Callatis come some associations attested in several inscriptions. This shore presents, however, the highest number of associations (70), which points to a more diverse and well-established associative life. The Pontic coast of Asia Minor provides the fewest inscriptions (seven), which corresponds as well to the number of associations (there is no evidence coming from Heraclea Pontica, Tium or Trapezus), while in the east (Colchis), in poleis such as Dioscurias, Gyneos and Phasis the associative life has not yet been documented. The type of inscription (see Figs. 6 and 7) reveals some of the most common activities practised by associations, from the worship of gods and burial of members to the honouring of members/benefactors, their participation in contests, their financial contributions for the benefit of the association, and less frequently their internal regulations. The most numerous type of monument records dedications to gods (73 of 215), which is a reflection of the members’ piety towards their tutelary god or, less frequently, towards other individuals. This ratio points not only to the most important activity of the association, but also to the stance (of worshippers) in which the members chose to be represented. A significant percentage of the monuments record funerary inscriptions (48, of which 34 come from Phanagoria), followed closely by alba (40), lists which give the personal names of the members of associations but which can record their positions inside the association, even their civic office (in the case of a member of the elite) and the god worshipped. Honorary inscriptions follow (17), dedicated either to members or to various members of the elite who acted as benefactors of the associations (these, of course, are richer in content). One of the least represented categories is that of decrees (14). To analyse the types of inscription shows that associations were keener on immortalising their piety, which was of course at the core of most of them; but as the numbers indicate, especially in some cities/areas, the funerary role of associations was more prominent (Phanagoria, Panticapaeum). Most of the details on the structure and on the associative framework come to us through the numerous catalogues which render the ‘official’ identity of the associations. Insights into associative life are provided in addition by the less numerous regulations – one γραφή,4 two leges sacrae,5 one νομός,6 and one συμμερισμός7 – but also through the attestation of ἔκδικοι, νομοφύλακες and the numerous παραφιλάγαθοι and φιλάγαθοι, which points to a rather 4 5 6 7

SEG 36, 700 = Saprykin 1986 = CAPInv. 1310. CIRB 1005 = IosPE II, 342; SEG 36, 703 = SEG 40, 624 = CAPInv. 1311. ISM III, 36 = SEG 45, 902 = CAPInv. 1186. ISM III, 47 = LSCG 90 = CAPInv. 1186.

30

CHAPTER 2

organised internal structure based on specific regulations meant to ensure the durability of associations. The type of inscription can be somewhat restrictive in reconstructing associative life and, with some exceptions at Istros, Callatis, Tomis, Panticapaeum, Gorgippia and Tanais, associations are mostly attested through a single inscription, which is why we have a predilection towards dedications/funerary monuments, showing at the same time the potency of associations (or lack thereof). As expected, most of the inscriptions are in Greek: of the 215, only three are in Latin (all from Tomis), plus a bilingual inscription from Callatis8 (only its opening part is in Latin, being a dedicatory formula for the imperial House). Taking into account the area which this study addresses, as well as the timeframe and the historical evolution of the cities, in which the Greek stratum maintains its primacy even after the Roman conquest, their manner of manifestation remains a Greek one. From a linguistic point of view, note the use of the Doric dialect in the Megarian colony of Callatis.9 Literary In general, references to associative life in ancient literary sources are scarce, and they are focused mostly on Athens, Rome and imperial legislation.10 From the 2nd century BC to the 5th century AD, the involvement of Rome in the restriction of some associations is attested11 through a Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus (186 BC),12 a decree during the time of Cicero (64 BC: Asconius Pis. 8), a decree from the time of Caesar (46–47 BC: Suetonius Iulius 42), another from the time of Octavian (the so called Lex Iulia de collegiis 21 BC: Suetonius Augustus 32. 1),13 the correspondence between Trajan and Pliny the Younger (AD 110: Ep. 10. 33–34), an edict in the time 8 In this case, we are dealing with the phenomenon of code-switching, a socio-linguistic phenomenon which implies the alternative use of a text in two or more languages: Curcă 2011, 74. The sole formula in Latin is the opening one, which is addressed to the imperial House (pro salute Imperatoris Caesaris Marci Antonii Gordiani/Augusti et Sabiniae Tranquilli-/nae Augustae) – the insertion of Latin lexemes in the text being a way of recognising the Latin language as the official language of the empire: Curcă 2011, 74, 77. 9 See the introductory study of Avram in ISM III, pp. 152–62. 10 For a complete overview of the literary sources, see AGRW, pp. 241–75; Harland 2013, 142–56. 11 Cotter 1996. 12 CIL I, 581 = CIL X, 104 = AE 2000, 25 = AE 2005, 121 = AE 2006, 21 = AE 2011, 88 = AE 2014, 24. 13 The content is possibly reflected also in CIL VI, 2193 = CIL VI, 4416 = AE 1999, 173.

OVERVIEW OF THE SOURCES

31

of Constantinus (18th September AD 315: Codex Theodosianus 14. 8. 1–2) and another during that of Honorius and Theodosius II (30th August AD 415: Codex Theodosianus 16. 10. 8. 2). Explicit mention of our research area appears only superficially in the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Trajan. On the one hand it confirms the presence of ἔρανοι at Amisus (Ep. 10. 92–93); on the other it confirms the ban on associations in Pontus et Bithynia. During his term as governor, apparently a petition by the citizens14 of Amisus was forwarded to him concerning the right to establish associations. Pliny then wrote to Trajan in order to ask him whether or not these associations were to be allowed. Trajan answered that, considering Amisus’ status as a free city, they should be provided that their functioning respected city laws.15 Behind this we may presume that first came a request addressed to the local authorities from private individuals who wished to form an association. These authorities, in turn, addressed it to Pliny. Overall, this correspondence shows aspects which epigraphy is less prone to record, such as the likely request for official approval from the local or provincial authorities. Here we are dealing with a civitas libera, but from the same correspondence we know that in other cities the functioning of ἑταιρείαι was banned by Trajan (post edictum meum, quo secundum mandata tua hetaerias esse vetueram: Ep. 10. 96. 7), even though, as the evidence shows, only temporarily;16 also that Trajan refused the formation of a collegium fabrorum, this time in Nicomedia, in order to avoid potential troubles (Ep. 10. 34). Iconographic The representations on the monuments render a non-textual communication which sends a particular message on behalf of the associations or about the associations (for example, the low social status of the members through the reuse of monuments, see below). Artistic representations in connection with private cult associations are, at the larger scale of the Roman empire and of the Bosporan kingdom, rather poor. A small number of monuments point to the specific activities of the associations, among which are three well-known examples from the East:

14 15 16

Arnaoutoglou 2002, 38–39; but Cotter (1996, 82) sees the city as initiator. van Nijf 1997, 21, no. 84; Cotter 1996. van Nijf 1997, 21; Arnaoutoglou 2002.

32

CHAPTER 2

Panormos, near Cyzicus (one),17 and Triglia (two).18 The iconography of these three portrays the three basic activities of the associations, frequently mentioned in the text of the inscriptions: the worship of gods through offerings, sacrifices and banquets.19 Other examples, such as a fresco from Pompeii, reveal more difficult episodes in the life of associations: in this case the fight between the inhabitants of Pompeii and those of Nuceria, in which the associations took part.20 Data is not very abundant with respect to the types of monument or their iconography. Most are steles made of various materials; rarer are monuments such as altars, architraves, statues and vessels; even rarer are a sarcophagus, a ring, a sacred table, a mirror, a tablet or a frontlet. Monuments were made mostly of marble and limestone. Exceptionally, other materials were used: clay, bronze, bone and gold (see Fig. 8). Reliefs were rarely represented on these monuments, but they are present at Panticapaeum. Except for Panticapaeum, motifs are quite varied, and they usually depict various gods connected with the association, or the honoured/deceased person (rendered either in a more personal settings, or in typical funerary settings: the funerary feast, the horseman). From Dionysopolis we have two steles with reliefs, one ring with engraved design and one statue, each pertaining to different associations. The earliest of these, from the 3rd century BC, is a statue of Pan playing the syrinx, a monument belonging to the Βακχεασταί.21 Next, chronologically (2nd–3rd century AD), is very uncommon: a bronze elliptical ring which has a large circular bezel with an engraved design; it depicts the bust of Athena wearing a crested helmet and aegis, and the inscribed text mentions the association: συνόδον (μ)υστικῆς Ταρσέων.22 Considering the object, we might assume that Athena was, if not the tutelary goddess, at least an important goddess for the associations. To my knowledge, this is the only ring which mentions the existence of an association in the ancient world. The two other monuments date to the 3rd century: one is a relief representing Attis near a tree and holding a syrinx with his right hand – this scene being represented on a marble stele recording the members of the Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας;23 the other,

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

GIBM IV, 1007 = AGRW 110 = CAPInv. 1007. See Harland 2013, 46–48, figs. 10–12. IApameia 33; IApameia 35 = GRA I, 99 = AGRW 95. See Harland 2013, 45–48, figs. 10–12. See Harland 2013, 145, fig. 42. IGB I2, 20 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 106–07, no. 52 = CAPInv. 1118. Marshall 1907, 218, no. 1421, pl. XXXIII = Poland 1909, B 87. Sharankov 2013, 57–58 = SEG 60, 768 = CAPInv. 1157.

OVERVIEW OF THE SOURCES

33

which depicts the Pontic Mother of Gods with two persons on each side, pertains to the association of the Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς θεᾶς Πον[τία]ς.24 At Odessus, both the inscriptions mentioning Θοινεῖται25/Θυνεῖται26 come from the 2nd/3rd century AD and the reliefs have representations of the Thracian Rider, which is an indicator of the type of association since its name is not specific. A similar scene is attested twice at Tomis.27 Besides them, a funerary inscription which records a ὑμνῳδός28 has a representation of a horseman, which is to be understood as the stance of the deceased. The same motif is attested twice at Phanagoria.29 At Panticapaeum, of 39 inscriptions, 14 have representations: one is a golden frontlet in the form of a tabula ansata (this the sole golden item of a member of a Pontic association),30 another is a statue-base which had a relief with two unidentifiable busts on it (the text was a dedication to Zeus Soter, Hera Soteira and to king Teiranos and queen Ailia), 11 are steles which have reliefs with recurring scenes (three types of scene), while another has a representation of Aphrodite Urania of Apatouron. On the funerary reliefs from Panticapaeum (and in some cases from Phanagoria as well), we can identify the following recurring reliefs: scenes of horsemen (one31 or two32 on the same relief – Panticapaeum and Phanagoria, assigned by P.-A. Kreuz to the Reiter category [852–1045]33), warriors leaning on a column (Panticapaeum, assigned by Kreuz to the Stehender Krieger category [813–851]34),35 young men sitting (Panticapaeum),36 busts of men37 (specific for Hellenistic and Roman funerary art38) and representations of gods 24

Sharankov 2013, 55–57 = SEG 60, 767 = SEG 63, 523 = CAPInv. 1156. IGB I2, 78(3) = CAPInv. 1469. 26 IGB I2, 77 = IGB V, 5033 = AE 1928, 146 = CCET I, 31 = AGRW 79 = CAPInv. 1153. 27 ISM II, 125 = SEG 34, 695 = CAPInv. 1203; ISM II, 129 = CIL III, 7532 = ILS 4069 = CCET IV, 48 = CAPInv. 1205. 28 IGB I2, 160 = IGB V, 5044 = IGB V, 5045. 29 CIRB 987 = IosPE II, 365 = Kreuz 2012, 514, no. 148 = CAPInv. 1301; Gabelko et al. 2006 = SEG 57, 740 = CAPInv. 1301. 30 Matsulevich 1941, 62–67 = AE 2015, 1264 = SEG 55, 863 = CAPInv. 1290. 31 CIRB 84 = IosPE II, 60 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 87 = IosPE IV, 208 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 91 = CAPInv. 1281; Gabelko et al. 2006 = SEG 57, 740 = CAPInv. 1301. 32 CIRB 78 = IosPE II, 65 = CAPInv. 1299; CIRB 83 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 84 = IosPE II, 60 = CAPInv. 1285. 33 Kreuz 2012, 254–84, 802–91. 34 Kreuz 2012, 243–53, 785–802. 35 CIRB 81 = IosPE II, 61 = CAPInv. 1281. This monument has another (later) representation ‘Sub titulo caput humanum, cuius nasus phalli formam habet (incisum)’; CIRB 85 = IosPE II, 61 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 88 = CAPInv. 1281. 36 CIRB 80 = IosPE II, 62 = CAPInv. 1281. 37 CIRB 76 = CAPInv. 1270. 38 Muratov 2017, 181. 25

34

CHAPTER 2

(Panticapaeum);39 additionally, in a few cases,40 the monuments contain representations of the tamga41 sign.42 The representations of horsemen and warriors, frequently encountered at Panticapaeum, have been interpreted as depicting members of the associations who were also warriors,43 but objections to this suggestion have rightly been raised by scholars such as N.I. Novosadski and L.A. Matsulevich, asserting that these reliefs actually represent a common funerary theme found across the Bosporus:44 the heroisation of the deceased, which ‘reflected Bosporan cultural and ethnographic realities and beliefs’.45 At Panticapaeum, the representations of horsemen (which reflects the transition to immortality46) have three variations, included by N.V. Zavoikina in the following typologies:47 in one, the horseman is armed with a dagger and a bow, and is accompanied by another horseman;48 in another, the horseman is armed with his dagger and bow, but next to him is a servant who brings a drinking vessel to him, while a third figure, another horseman, appears on a pedestal49 (specific for the Bosporus, and indicating in these complex compositions another family member who died previously50); and finally, there is a simpler version which renders the horseman only with a dagger and a bow.51 Other examples from Panticapaeum cannot be included in this category because they are too fragmentary52 and only some parts of the horses are identifiable. Phanagoria presents an even simpler version (however, this may be due to the state of preservation of the monument), where the horseman is rendered only with his bow.53 As mentioned above, the category of ‘young warriors’54 in a mourning posture is common on the associative monuments (in the Bosporus there are 39

CIRB 75 = IosPE II, 19 = GRA I 94 = AGRW 85 = CAPInv. 1269. CIRB 82 = IosPE IV, 209 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 83 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 87 = IosPE IV, 208 = CAPInv. 1285. 41 For the tamga sign see, among others Drachuk 1970; 1972; Lebedinsky 2011; Manassero 2013. 42 An earlier version of this and following paragraphs was first published in Pázsint 2019. 43 Shkorpil 1908, 42 apud Zavoikina 2013a, 45. 44 Novosadski 1928, 67–68; Matsulevich 1941, 76–77 apud Zavoikina 2013a, 45–46. 45 Muratov 2017, 184. 46 Zavoikina 2013a, 48. 47 See Zavoikina 2013a, 46–47. 48 CIRB 78 = IosPE II, 65 = CAPInv. 1299; CIRB 84 = IosPE II, 60 = CAPInv. 1285. 49 CIRB 83 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 90 = IosPE IV, 210 = CAPInv. 1281. 50 Muratov 2017, 180–81. 51 CIRB 91 = CAPInv. 1281. 52 CIRB 85 = IosPE II, 61 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 87 = IosPE IV, 208 = CAPInv. 1285. 53 Gabelko et al. 2006. 54 See Zavoikina 2013a, 47; Kreuz 2012, 243–53, 785–802. 40

OVERVIEW OF THE SOURCES

35

about 80 monuments with such iconography55). They are depicted as young men (beardless) standing, and leaning with the left hand on a column56 (which was interpreted as separating the living world from the dead57), the relief including different weapons (sword, oval shield). These scenes are not limited to the monuments of associations; they appear in general on funerary monuments from the Bosporan kingdom, and they may offer information about the social status of the individuals and their age group (young, adult), representing a metaphoric image of the death of the individual.58 However, in some cases, as with the funerary monument of Ὀμψαλάκος from Phanagoria,59 the text seems to have been added later (the iconography is anyway poorly rendered, the anatomical skills of the sculptor being modest60), and, according to the editors, the monument was perhaps re-used for this funerary purpose, the members of the association being probably of low social status.61 Due to the popularity of the scenes, the possible existence of ‘pattern books’ for sculptors has been considered.62 Representations of gods are the least numerous category, and we mention here the inscription from Panticapaeum, dedicated to Aphrodite Urania of Apatouron,63 whose relief depicts the goddess riding a swan and holding a sceptre; above, two Nikai are depicted (one pouring a libation, and the other burning incense), while to the right there is an Eros.64 Since the inscription mentions also the royal family (king Pairisades IV, queen Kamasarye II and her husband Argotas), three crowns are represented, one under each name. With respect to the iconography, Aphrodite depicted on a swan might have been an Attic influence and import of the 5th century BC.65 The goddess was among the most important deities worshipped in the Bosporan area,66 the royal family worshipping her from an early time.67

Kreuz 2012, 243. CIRB 80 = IosPE II, 62 = CAPInv. 1281; CIRB 81 = IosPE II, 61 = CAPInv. 1281; CIRB 88 = CAPInv. 1281. 57 Zavoikina 2013a, 50. 58 Zavoikina 2013a, 50. 59 Gabelko et al. 2006. 60 Gabelko et al. 2006, 336. 61 Gabelko et al. 2006, 336. 62 Muratov 2017, 180. 63 CIRB 75 = IosPE II, 19 = GRA I, 94 = AGRW 85 = CAPInv. 1269. 64 See Ustinova 1999, 47. 65 Ustinova 1999, 47, citing Valdgauer 1922. 66 Ustinova 1998; 1999, 29–176. 67 Ustinova 1999, 48. 55 56

36

CHAPTER 2

Moreover, some monuments from Panticapaeum bear a representation of the tamga sign, a Sarmatian symbol, usually ‘an identity mark composed by lines, circles, and geometrical shapes arranged in various ways’,68 which indicated personal or clan property; royal tamgas indicated state authority.69 In one case, there are two signs depicted on a horseman (‘in equi pectore et in femore posteriore signa, quae dicuntus ‘tamga’, exarata sunt’ – CIRB 83), while in the remaining two they are the sole iconographic representations.70 Where it appears on the horseman, we can see an incorporation of Greek motifs with indigenous ones, which leads to an original iconographic pattern. Tanais provides us with some particular representations. A stele71 sparked a debate on the identity of the god depicted: the relief has a representation of a horseman ‘dressed in a Sarmatian way’,72 with a rhyton, an altar, and a tree behind the altar. Based also on the text, the god was assumed to be either the river god Tanais73 or king Sauromates I,74 or even Theos Hypsistos.75 That final possibility was advanced by Y. Ustinova, based on the existing analogies for his representation (from Thrace, Lydia, Pisidia)76 and on an inexplicit mention of his name in the text. Since representations of him are rather exceptional, and since associations which worshipped river gods seem to be absent,77 it is difficult to be certain. In some associative inscriptions from Tanais that mention Theos Hypsistos, we find representations of eagles (present also in monuments in other areas that mention him).78 As shown by Ustinova, they do not necessarily point to a certain ‘affiliation of Theos Hypsistos with Zeus or Sabazius’79 since they might not even be ‘attributes of a specific divinity’,80 but rather might be explained as ‘symbols of glory and victory’.81

Manassero 2013, 60. Muratov 2017, 189–90. 70 On the role of the sign in the Bosporan kingdom, see more recently Muratov 2017, 187–90. 71 CIRB 1259 = SEG 43, 516 = CAPInv. 1322. 72 Ustinova 1999, 193. 73 Knipovich 1949, 118; Ivantchik 2008, 64–65. 74 Arsenyeva et al. 1996, 69 apud Ustinova 1999, 193. 75 Ustinova 1999, 194–95, who supports the idea of Salač 1955, 223. 76 Ustinova 1999, 195. 77 Avram 2015, 125. 78 See for example an inscription from Beroe: EKM 1. Beroe 26 = SEG 35, 714 = AGRW 36 = CAPInv. 477; EKM 1. Beroe 28 = AGRW 38 = CAPInv. 477; Edessa: SEG 46, 744 = GRA I, 65 = CAPInv. 473. 79 Ustinova 1999, 275. 80 Ustinova 1999, 275. 81 Ustinova 1999, 276. 68 69

OVERVIEW OF THE SOURCES

37

The low number of more significant iconographical representations of inscriptions of cult associations is, however, a general characteristic of the iconography of private cult associations from the ancient world. Overall, for the northern associations we see the use of Greek motifs (horsemen, Aphrodite as a swan), non-Greek ones (tamga sign), as well as a combination which are used (if onomastics can be considered as safe enough evidence) by Greeks and nonGreeks. Despite the fact that the funerary inscriptions are second in number to dedications, there is but a sole representation of the funerary banquet – and that from an inscription from Tomis.82 Funerary inscriptions are either rendered on monuments composed only of text, or, as discussed above, they make reference to the deceased in the stance of hero. From Tomis there are three statue-bases which record honorific inscriptions for its members or imperial family members, or dedications (Hestia). Of the ten inscriptions recording Ποντικοί in associations outside the Greek cities of the Black Sea, four have representations of various scenes: recumbent Heracles with incised crown (4th–3rd century BC) – the dedication was made to Pancrates but it was found in the sanctuary of Pancrates, Heracles and Palaimon;83 a female head (3rd century BC) – probably the person honoured;84 Aphrodite along with the honoured person and a female, as well as an altar with a pillar behind (2nd century BC);85 and a ship with a man at its helm (1st century AD) – representing the deceased and his profession.86 The reliefs are of course in connection with the types of inscription (but some were later re-used: i.e. at Phanagoria); as such, considering the predominance of dedications made to gods, and of alba, the scenes mostly depict gods. Even though there are only a couple of representations on monuments, they allow us to reconstruct some of the specific activities of the associations: the worshipping of gods, the honouring of members, as well as their commemoration. These scenes are not as complex and varied as, for example, can be found in the Latin West, or even in the nearby Propontis, but they still provide a glimpse into the day to day lives of associations and their members, and their self-representational priorities as a group.

82 Bărbulescu and Câteia 2007 = AE 2007, 1231 = SEG 57, 680 = Avram 2008a, 695, no. 369 = CAPInv. 1256. 83 SEG 41, 171 = CAPInv. 314. 84 SEG 56, 203 = CAPInv. 284. 85 Robert and Robert 1942, 329 = AGRW 39 = CAPInv. 228. 86 Voutiras 1992; AE 1992, 1522 = SEG 42, 625 = AGRW 49 = GRA I, 75 = IG X.2.1 Suppl. 1354 = CAPInv. 757.

38

CHAPTER 2

CONCLUDING REMARKS Based on quantitative analysis, we can say that in the Pontic area the associative phenomenon, despite its early emergence, was a characteristic of the Roman period (in some cases, of course, we are influenced by the archaeological research). It spread mostly on the western and northern shores of the Black Sea, and in the important local settlements we see, as expected, a higher density of associations, as well as a greater longevity of some and a more solid character through the reference to regulations or enforcing officials. Those associations which had prestige at a local or regional level, as well as stronger social capital, were ones that included members of the elite or of the royal/ provincial administration (see Fig. 9), or at least honoured them, a fact which shows the need of approval and visibility. The same needs, as well as those of self-representation, are what influenced the type of inscription erected by the associations. The quantitative data show, for example in the case of Phanagoria, the modest character of the associations and their orientation towards the more basic and practical needs of their members (burial), while other associations, for example in Gorgippia, have a more complex scope and manner of manifestation, not to mention the membership and their dynamics with the authorities. As will emerge from the ensuing chapters, these associations had a different evolution, influenced by the role of the city at a local or regional level, and the historical characteristics and development of the cities/regions.

CHAPTER 3

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE SOUTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

INTRODUCTION The evidence from the southern shore comprises seven inscriptions, two of which are dedications, one is of an unknown nature, one is honorific and the other three are funerary, covering a timeframe from the 1st century AD up to the 3rd century AD (some inscriptions being, however, non-datable). Considering these unfortunate premises, the existing data is not representative, leaving us unable to identify any characteristics or trends in this region, but rather casting very fragmentary or indirect glimpses on the associations in this area. Nevertheless, the local associations in Amisus, Sinope and Amastris are considered in order to map the phenomenon. AMISUS Amisus is recorded in the sources as either an apoikia of the Phocaeans or a Milesian foundation;1 its resources being especially ‘Amisene iron [---], its lands productive of olives [---], some local silver from the Pontic Mountains and the overland routes across the so-called isthmus of Asia [---]’.2 The sparse archaeological investigations lead inevitably to scant evidence about associations: an inscription and a literary reference in the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Trajan (see above Chapter 2). The inscription dates to AD 209/210 and it attests a φαμιλία μονομάχων τῶν περὶ Καλύδωνα,3 i.e. a group of gladiators who could have had a servile origin. Its belonging to the category of private associations is debatable since it lacks, for example, an internal hierarchy and its specific activities were much more limited. Its inclusion in the category of private associations is because 1 2 3

Avram et al. 2004b, 954. Avram et al. 2004b, 954. StudPontica III, 2 = IGladiateurs 78 = CAPInv. 735.

40

CHAPTER 3

it groups individuals who share a common occupation. The terminology indicates that the group was headed by a certain Καλύδων, who was, most likely, the trainer of the gladiators. The personal names and the individuality of the gladiators are missing, being ‘lost’ in the collective term φαμιλία μονομάχων, and reunited under the same lanista τῶν περὶ Καλύδωνα. Similar ‘families of gladiators’ (mentioned only as φαμιλία, but referring to groups of gladiators) are attested at Maroneia4 and Adada.5 Our inscription, although it points to a common grave of gladiators, probably commemorated a munus, and therefore it was not funerary because it had the opening formula ἀγαθῆ τύχη.6 The monument unfortunately does not have any representation on it, even though various reliefs are characteristic for such inscriptions (gladiators). T. Wiedemann believes that these groups could, after retirement, have had the role of guardians/protectors of some persons;7 however, our inscription does not allow us to make such suppositions. What is certain is the fact that the φαμιλία μονομάχων from Amisus took part in the games organised (within the imperial cult) by the ποντάρχης Μᾶρκος Ἰούλιος Ἰουλιανός, along with his wife, Συσστήλια Κύριλλα, the two being therefore the ‘employers’ of the gladiators. As mentioned in Chapter 2, a brief reference in the correspondence between Trajan and Pliny records the existence at Amisus of ἑταιρεῖαι, offering moreover a snippet on the procedures in place for forming such associations (initial request to the local authorities, their passing this on to the governor, his address to the emperor). Despite my decision to take into consideration only the Greek cities located on the shore of the Black Sea, especially on account of the correspondence between Trajan and Pliny and the fact that one cannot isolate the evolution of these cities from that of their corresponding province (Pontus et Bithynia), I will try to briefly contextualise the associative phenomenon from these three cities at the wider level of the province.8 Notwithstanding many of the local particularities and characteristics of the phenomenon remain imperceptible, a perspective from a provincial level could offer us some glimpses at possible local realities, especially when we consider that the letter to Trajan is very

4

IThracAeg E 167 = CAPInv. 1750. IGRR III, 372 = CAPInv. 383. 6 Robert 1971, 57. 7 Wiedemann 1992, 123. 8 The comprehensive study of Giannakopoulos (2016) on the groups and associations in Pontus et Bithynia is extremely significant and comprehensive. Thus, here I shall just mention briefly some important aspects. 5

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE SOUTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

41

revealing regarding the complex dynamics, at a provincial level, between the associations and the authorities. At the level of the province, the associations were well represented, and while not all, some of them were eager to make themselves known and be seen in the public sphere, choosing to exhibit specific behaviours (philo-imperial) and networks (access to the civic elite), which provided them with valuable social capital. However, as N. Giannakopoulos underlines, in the case of the province of Pontus et Bithynia, an ‘inherent contradiction marked the presence of associations in the civic sphere’.9 This contradiction concerns the integration of the associations through chosen networks which included members of the elite – an aspect which had both advantages and disadvantages from the point of view of the authorities.10 It appears from the correspondence between Trajan and Pliny that, due to their local role, the associations were considered as possible factors of turbulence, and therefore a major issue for the provincial authorities (as had happened previously since the existence of associations). But as Giannakopoulos explains,11 this was the result of the contacts which they established (and exhibited), and which made them possible influential players at a local level. In this context, albeit only one of many possibilities, it is not unlikely, for example, for Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Ῥουφωνιανός (no. 5) – the προστάτης διὰ βίου (and the honorand) of the (important) association of ναύκληροι at Amastris – to have been himself a respectable member of the elite, who was in turn interested in the benefits which resulted from having such an association in his network (visibility in the public sphere, the capacity as benefactor but to a smaller community, which was less costly, as well as possible support, etc.). The same dynamics might potentially have existed between Λούκιος Κορνήλιος Ῥοῦφος (no. 2) and the σύνοδος τῶν στεφανηπλόκων at Sinope – though his young age (25 years), as well as the type of inscription dedicated to him by the members (funerary) do not favour such an interpretation. SINOPE Sinope is one of the earliest Milesian colonies in the Black Sea area (Xenophon Anabasis 6. 1. 15; Diodorus Siculus 14. 31. 2; Strabo 12. 545), its foundation being around the middle of the 7th century BC.12 The city owed its prosperity 9

Giannakopoulos 2016, 383. Giannakopoulos 2016. 11 Giannakopoulos 2016, 378–83. 12 Ivantchik 1997, 41–45; 1998, 307–12; Barat 2010, 25. 10

42

CHAPTER 3

to its position and its harbour, which connected the Euphrates with the Black Sea (Herodotus 1. 72, 2. 34). Among the exported goods were red sulphate, labelled as red Sinopean earth (μίλτος Σινωπική).13 The sparseness of the sources arises from the paucity of archaeological research: there is only one campaign, from 1951 to 1953, carried out by a Turkish-German team,14 and an urban prospection during 1960–1970 by A. Bryer and D. Winfield.15 Evidence with respect to the associative phenomenon is extremely scarce, as at Bizone, Sinope, Cimmericum, Myrmecium and Theodosia, providing, however, the least information at the local level. The sole attested association is a 1st–2nd-century BC σύνοδος τῶν στεφανηπλόκων, i.e. an association of wreath makers. This type of association is not attested elsewhere in the Greek world, but in the Roman world its equivalent, the socii coronarii, is attested at Rome.16 From our area, there is at Callatis,17 in an association devoted to Dionysus, a member whose profession is that of στεφαναπλόκος, but no other information comes out on the occupation. Both ‘independent’ professionals and those grouped in associations produced wreaths, used for the honouring of individuals, gods or heroes, therefore the individual from Callatis was only a professional, not a member of such an association. At Sinope, a funerary inscription was set up by the members for a young man of 25 years, Λούκιος Κορνήλιος Ῥοῦφος (no. 2), who might or might not have been a member. No other members are mentioned, and no other details are given. Considering the evidence, we should discuss briefly the ναύκληροι which are not explicitly mentioned as part of an association. Usually, this occupational category gathered around associations, but there could have been exceptions: the reference to ναύκληροι, alone or along with other similar professionals, does not guarantee the existence of an association if specific terms for associations are not attested.18 At Sinope, even though the city had an important economic role in the Imperial period, there are no attested associations of shippers/ship-owners, but there are individuals from this area with this occupation:19 the ship-owners Γάϊος Ἰούλιος Εὐτυχιανός20 and Λούκιος Κορνήλιος Ποντιανός,21 both of whom have dual citizenship, Sinopean and Chersonesian, as well as the Roman citizenship, which, overall, indicates a 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Stillwell 1976, 842. Barat 2010, 32. Barat 2010, 39. CIL VI, 169 = ILS 3682; CIL VI, 4414; CIL VI, 4415. ISM III, 35 = AGRW 73 = CAPInv. 1186. Véllissaropoulos 1980, 100. IosPE I2, 364 = IosPE IV, 72; IosPE I2, 697. IosPE I2, 364. IosPE I2, 697.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE SOUTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

43

great mobility of this socio-professional category.22 This indirect evidence does not exclude the existence of such an association, which most probably existed. Outside Sinope (but still within the area of research) there are other such cases: for example, that of two brothers from Nicomedia, Ἀσκληπιάδης son of Μηνόφιλος (he has dual citizenship: Νεικομηδεύς ὁ καὶ Ἀζανείτης) and Μηνόφιλος son of Μηνόφιλος,23 who are attested at Istros as ἔμτοροι.24 In this case, the funerary inscription mentions only their profession, with no clues to the possible existence of an association or their belonging to it. Generally, when the ἔμτοροι form an association, they form it along with the ναύκληροι, but even such occurrences are very few.25 AMASTRIS Amastris was the result of a συνοικισμός (300–290 BC: Strabo 12. 3. 10) of four poleis: Tium, Sesamos, Kromna and Cytorus,26 and after a period in which it was part of the Pontic kingdom, the city fell under Roman domination in 70 BC. The city was considered by the Roman administration as a naval base of first importance during Trajan’s Parthian Wars and an important location on commercial routes,27 being known for its harbour and its trade (Strabo 12. 3. 9). Given the existing corpus of inscriptions for Amastris, it is not surprising that the private associations are underrepresented here (however, of the southernshore cities, it has most inscriptions and associations), their timeframe is uncertain (with one exception), and in some cases even their authenticity as private associations is questionable. Of the five attested inscriptions, two record associations pertaining to the world of trade (οἶκος τῶν ναυκλήρων,28 possibly ῥωποπῶλαι29), two are probably Dionysiac associations (μύσται30) and one is probably an association of ἑταῖροι.31 22

Dana 2013, 62. ISM I, 356 = SEG 49, 1009. 24 Dana 2012, 253, 266; Güney 2014, 609. 25 Athens: IG II2, 1012 = AGRW 5 = GRA I, 42 = CAPInv. 290; Delos: IDelos 1519 = CAPInv. 12; IDelos 1520 = CAPInv. 9. 26 Avram et al. 2004b, 926; Dana 2013, 48. 27 Bounegru and Bounegru 2007, 194; Bounegru 2008, 75. 28 Mendel 1901, 36, no. 184 = AGRW 94 = CAPInv. 578. 29 Marek 1993, 167, no. 36. 30 SEG 35, 1320 = Marek 1993, 165, no. 28 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 143–44, no. 72; CIG 3.4152c = Marek 1993, 167, no. 35. 31 Marek 1993, 172–73, no. 57 = SEG 35, 1337 = CAPInv. 736. 23

44

CHAPTER 3

Considering the location of Amastris, and its commercial role, it is not surprising to identify associations with an occupational component, especially such as the οἶκος τῶν ναυκλήρων. Associations having this name, οἶκος τῶν ναυκλήρων, are attested at Tomis32 and Nicomedia,33 which is to be explained through their harbours, positioned at strategic locations which mediate the trade between East and West. Such associations of ship-owners and/or navigators are recorded early on, the first evidence coming from the first half of the 4th century BC,34 but for our area the information comes only from the 1st–2nd centuries AD. The ancient term ναύκληρος can be understood in multiple ways: as a professional who has the quality of owner of a ship and is also a merchant (Herodotus 1. 5, 4. 152; Euripides Fr. 417; Aristophanes Birds 595; Thucydides 1. 137; Xenophon Mem. 3. 9. 11; etc.), or in general that of commander (Philostratus VS 2. 26. 2). Thus, the individual could have been not only the owner of the ship (especially in the Classical period), but also an agent for the owner, or even the owner of the transported goods and the representative of the owner of goods;35 in this case a ναῦλον was charged (goods, requested price for the transport of goods, the price paid for the transport of passengers) for the service provided.36 Based on the onomastics, the association under discussion might have come from the 2nd or 3rd century AD and is recorded through a sole honorific inscription, dedicated to its president. The honorand, Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Ῥουφωνιανός (no. 5), was a προστάτης διὰ βίου and was honoured for his virtue (ἀρετή) by the shippers, with no details of his contribution to the association. A προστάτης normally denoted a high official of an association,37 but according to I. Dittmann-Schöne,38 the term could point to a patronus who was not a member – a status which is not excluded when we consider that associations in Pontus et Bithynia had various benefactors (sometimes members of the elite) who were not members. Besides the fact that the beneficiary was a Roman citizen (obtaining citizenship early on), whose membership of the elite is uncertain, no additional information on him can be traced. To the category of associations with an occupational component could possibly be added an association, that of the ῥωποπῶλαι for which we have no dating 32 ISM II, 60 = IGRR I, 610 = AGRW 81 = ISM VI.2, 60 = CAPInv. 1199; ISM II, 132 = CIL III, 7532 = ILS 4069 = CCET IV, 48 = ISM VI.2, 132 = CAPInv. 1199. 33 TAM IV.1, 33 = CAPInv. 125. 34 Vélissaropoulos 1980, 122; Bounegru 2008, 66. 35 Bounegru 2008, 52–53. 36 Adams 2018, 201. 37 Poland 1909, 363–65. 38 Dittmann-Schöne 2001, 35, no. 112.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE SOUTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

45

elements.39 Its character is uncertain because the inscription is fragmentary, and there is evidence only for the letters ῥωποπώ[---], which might make it possible for the word to indicate only a professional, or a group of such professionals who are not necessarily gathered in an association. However, associations of such type can be found at Perinthus-Heraclea40 and at Philippopolis; therefore, the fragmentary word might indicate an association.41 As the name seems to indicate, we might be dealing with an association of merchants who were in charge of the selling/re-selling of small-ware. The association was modest when compared with that of the ναύκληροι, being moreover attested only through a funerary monument (fragmentary, and now lost). Since the inscription is funerary, we can find no information on the internal framework of the possible association, nor on its members, and we are provided only with information on one of the basic activities of associations: that of ensuring a funeral for its members. The sole fragmentary personal name that is readable is that of [Κα]σπεριανός (no. 3), an extremely rare personal name, which is epigraphically attested only once more, at Amisus.42 Associative life is enriched by two possible Dionysiac inscriptions of μύσται, one uncertainly dated to the 1st or 2nd century AD, while the other is undated. The Dionysiac associations have a varied terminology, being identified through terms such as θίασος, κοινόν, σπεῖρα,43 while the worshippers are labelled through terms such as βακχεασταί, θιασεῖται, μύσται (which might make reference to both initiates or members of an association44), μυσταρχικός, ὑμνῳδοί, the accent being on the different characteristics of the respective association, or on the role which the members have within them. In our case, the two possible associations which make reference to μύσται are relatively poor in information regarding their internal practices and characteristics. One of the inscriptions is a dedication of an altar by a μύστης (ignotus son of Ἀγαθοκλῆς – no. 6) to Dionysus,45 while the other (undated) inscription connects a μυσταρχικός with the gerusia.46 In this context I. Lévy considered that the gerusia had its mysteries, but was not in charge of the public cult.47 Both 39 Hirschfeld 1888, no. 38 = Kalinka 1933, no. 32 = Robert 1937, 260–61 = Marek 1993, 167, no. 36. 40 IPerinthos-Herakleia 59 = CAPInv. 543. 41 Robert and Robert 1967, 509, no. 375. 42 Κασπεριανός son of Ζώη: SEG 37, 1091. The form Casperius is more frequently attested (see Salomies 2016, 38, n. 66). 43 Dana 2011, 78. 44 Poland 1909, 36. 45 SEG 35, 1320 = Marek 1993, 165, no. 28 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 143–44, no. 72. 46 CIG 3.4152c = Marek 1993, 167, no. 35. 47 Lévy 1895, 235–36.

46

CHAPTER 3

inscriptions pertain only possibly to a single association, since their character is so laconic – and the first is more of a private nature. It is just as likely for them to have been initiated into rites connected with the public cult of Dionysus.48 Nor does the group of ἑταῖροι attested by the funerary inscription from Amastris record with certitude an association: it might even be a reference to a political group.49 Its uncertain integration into the category of private associations is due to the fragmentary state of the inscription and its laconic character. The sarcophagus of Χρηστίων (no. 4) has two wreaths on it, representing a symbolic crowning of his tomb by his fellow ἑταῖροι. Attestations of ἑταῖροι are recorded at Callatis, and elsewhere outside our area of research, where their belonging to the category of associations is only a possibility. *

*

*

At Amastris, except for the association of ναύκληροι, the others are only possible attestations of associations, which does not leave much room for interpretation. What is certain is that such associations must have existed in view of the city’s economic role, even though we cannot tell their real extent and local impact. CONCLUDING REMARKS Due to the state of archaeological research, these cities on the southern shore have provided very little information about the associative phenomenon, which does not leave much room for identifying characteristics or providing overall perspective. Nonetheless, when looked at from a provincial perspective, the phenomenon can be seen to be well rooted in the area. What the sources provide is only a snatched view of the ancient reality. While the datable evidence comes from the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, it is strongly underrepresented. However, we notice that the associations are different, and some have an occupational component; one is common for maritime areas, while the others are less frequently encountered in the ancient world. Only seven members are mentioned, each attested in a specific association, being either a deceased member, or the honorand. Their local role can only be presumed, and this mostly in the case of the association of ναύκληροι. Only new epigraphic evidence can help us reconstruct with more clarity the characteristics, role and impact of associations on the southern shore of the Black Sea. 48 49

Jaccottet 2003 II, 143. Poland 1909, 54.

CHAPTER 4

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

INTRODUCTION In the western Pontic area, Greeks (mostly Milesians) established themselves from the last quarter of the 7th century BC, experiencing a period of autonomy; later, in the 1st century AD, the area became part of the province of Moesia Inferior. The western shore provides some of the richest evidence, both in terms of inscriptions (90) and associations (70), though they are distributed unevenly. On this coast, associations were present from the 4th century BC up to the 3rd century AD. However, there is not a strong chronological continuity at the local level, even though in some cities like Callatis and Istros, where the associative phenomenon is well rooted, we notice a chronological coherence, with some associations being attested over several decades. The latter is especially the case at Istros, and Callatis, while at Tomis the associations are more numerous, but they are generally attested only once (with one exception), and especially in the 2nd–3rd centuries AD (again with one exception, which dates back to the 1st century BC). As for the members (see Fig. 10 for their geographical distribution and Fig. 11 for the distribution of members’ onomastics), a large percentage (42.20%) of the total number (837 of 1983) comes from this area, at a significant difference from the members from the northern shore (1124, or 56.68%). As in the previous chapter, the associative phenomenon will be analysed city by city, association by association, in order to understand their particular features and specific at a local and then regional level. APOLLONIA PONTICA The city was colonised by Miletus at the end of the 7th century BC,1 and its presumed founder was the philosopher Anaximandros, a theory since rejected 1

Nedev et al. 2003, 95.

48

CHAPTER 4

in terms of chronology.2 As to religious life, the cults of Apollo Ietros, Ge Chtonia,3 Artemis Pythia4 and Aphrodite are attested. In line with the state of archaeological research, not many inscriptions have been identified pertaining to Apollonia Pontica, and in this context, it is not surprising to find so few references to associations. The sole associative attestation is of a Bacchic θίασος from the 2nd–3rd century AD, through a listing of members with their corresponding positions.5 A similar internal hierarchy is attested in a chronologically and geographically close area, at Cillae,6 therefore the two associations might have been in contact with each other.7 The association was one involving mysteries, formed around Dionysus Bakcheus,8 gathering 35 members, among whom only one held an administrative office (ἔκδικος), the other offices being religious ones which are specific for the association: λικναφόρος (1), βουκόλος (1), κρατηρίαος (1), ἀρχιμύσ[της] (1), γάλλαρος (17), ἀρχιβασσάρα (1), κισταφόρος (1).9 Of these positions, that of κρατηρίαρχος has not been previously attested. The numeric representativeness of the inscription and members is low; however, there are three families mentioned in this inscription, which probably records an association of Μύσται: that of Ἡρόφιλος (Γενε[---] – no. 14 and Κοδρᾶτος – no. 24), Κορνοῦτος (Ἀπελλῆς – no. 10 and Κορνοῦτος – no. 25) and Τελεσφόρος (Ἀσκληπιόδοτος – no. 12 and Τρηστίσσιμος – no. 36). Among the members are two of the 16 women who were part of associations in the Pontic area. From an onomastic perspective, the association contained three members who bore names derived from that of the god worshipped: Διονύσις (no. 16), Διονυσόδωρος (no. 17) and Βακχίς (no. 13) (maybe also Κάρπος as epithet of the god, no. 23); however, the popularity of the theophoric name does not permit correlation of the two aspects. Still, from an onomastic point of view, there are meaningful associations between the personal names and patronymics of some members: one of the members was named Ἀσκληπιόδοτος (no. 12), his patronymic being Τελεσφόρος. The joining of these two personal names from the same theophoric family might indicate in this case worship of the 2

Avram et al. 2004b, 930. IGB I2, 398. 4 SEG 3, 557. 5 IGB I2, 401 = CIG 2052 = Poland 1909, B 73 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 94, no. 46 = SEG 53, 645bis = CAPInv. 1116. 6 IGB III.1, 1517 = IGB V, 5550. 7 Jaccottet 2003 II, 101, no. 49; Chiekova 2008, 86. 8 IGB I2, 401 = CIG 2052. 9 For these positions, see the Glossary and Shopova 2003. 3

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

49

respective god, or at least the cherishing of their qualities. The onomastic is Greek (mostly theophoric personal names) with only five Latin personal names, and one Lallname. One member, a certain Τάτος Γάϊος son of Νέανδρος (no. 33), had a double zero morph personal name, by joining a Lallname and a Latin praenomen used as personal name. This practice does not show the granting of citizenship but the spread of Roman culture10 and is common for provincials. The other three Latin personal names are rather common: Κοδρᾶτος, Κορνοῦτος, Τέρτιος and Τρηστίσσιμος (this personal name derives from life circumstances, which were generally meant to be auspicious, but in this case, it rather attracts pity). Of the four members who bore a Latin personal name, only one had a Latin patronymic, which does not point to an eagerness of ‘becoming Roman’ by adopting the Roman naming system and representing oneself as part of this community. *

*

*

At Apollonia Pontica, the phenomenon is not well attested, even though it is rooted in the area as a phenomenon characteristic of the Roman period, with an orientation towards associations with an occupational component and Dionysiac associations. Considering the role of the city, its harbour and trade,11 occupational associations might have existed here as well, but so far there is no evidence of this. ODESSUS Odessus was a Milesian colony founded in the 6th century BC,12 whose tutelary deity was Apollo,13 but other gods such as Theos Megas Odressiton (Darzalas) – the god of fertility, and the protector of the city – as well as Demeter, Hermes, the Cabiri, Aphrodite, the Thracian Rider, Artemis Phosphoros, Heros Perkos, Dionysus, the Nymphs, Athena, Nike, Attis, Eros, Heracles and Cybele are attested.14 Six inscriptions, three non-datable and three from the 2nd–3rd centuries AD, attest cultic associations with different names, four of which worship the Hero Manimazos also with the epiclesis Karabasmos (Karabazmos),15 the name under 10

McLean 2002, 114. Nedev et al. 2003, 140. 12 Minchev 2003, 213; Avram et al. 2004b, 936. 13 Chiekova 2008, 49–52. 14 Minchev 2003, 255–58. 15 Epithet of Thracian origin: Gočeva 1996, 126. For the epithets of the Thracian Rider, see Gočeva 1992; Chiekova 2008, 246–48. 11

50

CHAPTER 4

which the Thracian Rider was worshipped at a local level. Hero Karabasmos (Karabazmos) had a chthonic character and was worshipped until the Late Roman period (a sanctuary dedicated to him was in place near Odessus16).17 Most of the inscriptions are dedications on behalf of the members of the association to the deity, the internal hierarchy recording only a ἱερεύς and two ἐπιμέλεται. Greek personal names predominate, to which some Thracian personal names are added, but they possibly hide Hellenised Thracians. Besides these, a brief funerary inscription attests a ὑμνῳδός,18 who died κοῦρος ἥρως (iuvenis mortuus, in iuventute mortuus).19 His age, however, does not necessarily point to the ὑμνῳδοί being grouped by age, as at Dionysopolis and Istros (see below). Finally, a fragmentary inscription makes reference to the members of an association, grouped around a secretary.20 The associations at Odessus reflect the historical evolution of the city and its pantheon; besides the local version of the Thracian Rider, there is only an association of ὑμνῳδοί, which was probably involved as well in the organisation of/participation in artistic competitions, be they athletic or musical. They could have sung hymns in a public cult or at civic festivities,21 taking part, as the associations of athletes and actors, in different competitions (sacred or otherwise). The terminology of some of these associations points to one important activity: banqueting. One of the associations is named Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος,22 and the other Θυνεῖται Ἑρμᾶντος οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Επταικενθον Ἀσιατικοῦ.23 The nomenclature itself makes reference to the act of banqueting, in addition specifying the official (ἱερεύς in both cases) around whom the members of the associations gathered. The hierarchy of these two associations ws quite simplistic, consisting of a ἱερεύς, followed by an ἐπιμελητής (the steward usually in charge of setting up the monuments of the association) and finally by regular members: θοινεῖται/ θυνεῖται. At Odessus, despite the evidence for fishing, there are no associations related to this activity, though the name of one association (the θυνεῖται) was interpreted in the AGRW24 as naming the tuna fishermen (most probably it was 16

Gočeva 1996, 126. These deities were not necessarily the tutelary gods of the associations; they might only have been worshipped by the association. 18 IGB I2, 160 = IGB V, 5044 = IGB V, 5045 = Conrad 2004, 144, no. 66. 19 IGB I2, p. 174. 20 IGB V, 5076 = CCET I 9. 21 Harland 2013, 59. 22 IGB I2, 78(3) = CAPInv. 1469. 23 IGB I2, 77 = IGB V, 5033 = AE 1928, 146 = CCET I 31 = AGRW 79 = CAPInv. 1153. 24 AGRW 79. 17

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

51

an orthographic mistake, from the word θοινεῖται, meaning the banqueters grouped around Ἑρμᾶς: no. 65). Additionally, at Odessus, there is evidence for three similar and non-datable types of association: κοινωνοί25 (associations of partners) grouped around (οἱ περί) different officials (ἱερεύς, γραμματεύς), or around a specific individual (probably the leader) whose position is not mentioned (Μένανδρος son of Ἀπολλώνιος – no. 74). Two of the inscriptions are dedications to Hero Karabasmos, while one is a fragmentary list recording the members of the associations, which may actually represent a dedication to the same god as well. In the case of the Θυνεῖται Ἑρμᾶντος οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Επταικενθον Ἀσιατικοῦ26 and of the Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος,27 we notice the existence of an inexplicitly mentioned position of ‘priest of the feast’, which is mentioned as such in associations from Dionysopolis28 and Callatis.29 From an onomastic perspective, most of the members (in total there were 39) bore Greek personal names, some of which might hide Thracians eager for integration,30 such as Ἕλλην son of Ἀρπάλης (no. 62) or Πιε[---] (no. 77). The existence of family members is possible in the association of Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος, where we have attestations of several very likely family members, among them the sons of Ἀρτεμίδωρος (Αἰαντίδης – no. 45, Ζωπυρίων – no. 69, Ἡρότειμος – no. 70, Καλλισθένης – no. 73); the sons of Μένανδρος (Αἰαντίδης – no. 46 and Ἀπελλᾶς – no. 50), and fathers and sons (Ἀντίφιλος son of Ἀγαθήνωρ – no. 48 and Ἀγαθήνωρ son of Ἀντίφιλος – no. 43; and maybe Ἕλλην son of Ἀρπάλης – no. 62 and Μένιππος son of Ἕλλην – no. 75). The presence of family members cannot be confirmed in other associations, on either onomastic grounds or explicit mention of filiation (which is absent). The internal hierarchy of these associations can be reconstructed only in very general terms since only a few officials are mentioned. However, in the case of Θυνεῖται Ἑρμᾶντος οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Επταικενθον Ἀσιατικοῦ, there is reference to two ἐπιμέλεται – officials who are very rarely attested in the Black Sea area (identifiable only at Panticapaeum), and who were responsible for the setting up of monuments. 25

An association bearing a similar terminology is attested at Cilicia: SEG 20, 92. IGB I2, 77 = IGB V, 5033 = AE 1928, 146 = CCET I 31 = AGRW 79 = CAPInv. 1153. 27 IGB I2, 78(3) = CAPInv. 1469. 28 Sharankov 2013, 55–57 = SEG 60, 767 = SEG 63, 523 = CAPInv. 1156. 29 ISM III, 40 = CAPInv. 1158; ISM III, 41 = SEG 18, 287 = CAPInv. 1158; ISM III, 66 = CAPInv. 1159; ISM III, 68A = AGRW 75 = CAPInv. 1161. 30 CAPInv. 1469 (Avram). 26

52

CHAPTER 4

*

*

*

The associative life of Odessus is not coherent, but rather fragmentary and sparse, with only two more-or-less datable inscriptions. As to the outlook which they provide on associative matters, although we cannot assess its amplitude, we can identify a certain dynamism, through orientations towards the celebration of the imperial cult, or rather its convivial character, which is less attested in the Black Sea. The members’ profile points to a Greek or a Hellenised substratum. DIONYSOPOLIS Dionysopolis (initially named Krounoi) was most likely a Milesian colony31 and among the gods worshipped were Apollo,32 Dionysus33 (the main god, named the founder of the city), Demeter,34 Cybele35 and Theos Megas;36 some of these were worshipped inside private associations. There are ten inscriptions attesting ten associations, which record a relatively high number of members (122). From a chronological perspective, there is no continuity: there are two associations from the Hellenistic period, and the rest are from the 2nd or mostly 3rd century AD. The earliest, from the 3rd century BC, is an association of Βακχεασταὶ οἱ περὶ Ἐράτωνα Δημοφίλου,37 attested through a single dedication (of its priest) made in the name of the association, which is located on a marble statue representing Pan playing the syrinx. The exact reason for this dedication is unknown. From the inscription we can deduce that Ἐράτων son of Δημόφιλος (no. 94) was either the leader of the association, or its founder, since the members are grouped around him (as the terminology indicates). Except for him, and the priest of the association – Ἀπολλώνιος son of Δημοφῶν (no. 85), who made the dedication – there are no other members attested. Nonetheless, it is highly likely that he was the dedicator (still in the Hellenistic period; same personal name and patronymic) of a statue base of the Pontic Mother of Gods, the god having the epiclesis καθαρή.38 Furthermore, might this individual, based on 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Avram et al. 2004b, 932. Cheikova 2008, 64–67. Chiekova 2008, 108–11. Chiekova 2008, 124–25. Chiekova 2008, 135–36. Chiekova 2008, 189. IGB I2, 20 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 106–07, no. 52 = CAPInv. 1118. Sharankov 2013, 50.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

53

the onomastics, be related to Δημοφῶν son of Μῦς (a life-long priest of the Pontic Mother of Gods) and [Μῦς] son of Δημοφῶν (attested on a list found in the temple of the goddess, which might have recorded members of an association39)? Considering the dating of the inscriptions and the rather rare attestation of the personal name Δημοφῶν at Dionysopolis,40 there is a possibility for it to be so, even though Ἀπολλώνιος does not appear to worship Cybele. If this hypothesis is correct, then we would have the involvement of multiple family members in the religious life of the city – probably an important and respectable local family. From the 2nd–3rd century AD, the associative phenomenon is attested again, this time more intensely and in a typologically more varied form. We have an inscription which attests an Ἀθηνεαστής,41 the member of an association worshipping the goddess Athena. This type of association is attested nowhere else in the ancient world. The marble monument is an altar dedicated to Heracles (found in the temple42 of the Pontic Mother of Gods43) by Δημοσθένης Νεικομηδεύς (no. 89). There is no further evidence on this association, and considering the origin of the individual (Nicomedia), it is not unlikely for him to have been part of an association in his native city. Why he was present at Dionysopolis is unknown, like the length of his stay and the reason for the dedication to Heracles.44 Also from the 2nd–3rd century, a very laconic text brings forward another distinctive association, that of a σύνοδος μυστικῆς Ταρσέων,45 whose members apparently came from Tarsus in Cilicia. Despite its sententious informational content, what is extraordinary is the medium on which the association is recorded: a bronze ring with a representation of the goddess Athena. The object is singular for this area, and its use remains uncertain. Unfortunately, we have no further information on the association or its members; we know only that they gathered based on a common geographical origin and that they were worshippers of Dionysus.

39

Sharankov 2013, 52 = SEG 63, 522. LGPN IV, 94. 41 Sharankov 2013, 45, 59 = SEG 60, 778 = CAPInv. 1246. 42 The temple was used for the worshipping of other gods, such as: Heracles, Poseidon Asphaleus, Thracian Rider: Lazarenko et al. 2013, 58–59. 43 Lazarenko et al. 2013, 47–50: the epithet of the goddess was ‘an indication of the goddess’s function as protector of sailors added to her usual role as patron of the city’ (p. 49). 44 The joining of these two deities (Cybele and Heracles) is known through other examples as well. Worship of Heracles might be connected to his sometimes being ‘worshipped as the male counterpart of the Mother of Gods, as seen elsewhere [---]’: Sharankov 2013, 59. 45 Marshall 1907, 218, no. 1421, pl. XXXIII = Poland 1909, B 87. 40

54

CHAPTER 4

Even though some decades separate them, it might have been possible for the previous association to have been in contact with another association worshipping Dionysus, which was also grouped on the basis of the common geographical origin46 of the members (Ἀσιανοί47). This latter association, from the 3rd century AD, is an Ἀσιανῶν σπεῖρα πρεσβ(υτέρων?).48 Considering its name, members gathered based either on their common origin, Asia Minor, or on the god worshipped (Dionysus).49 The association is likely to have been further arranged, just like the ὑμνῳδοί, according to age criteria, since the word πρεσβ(υτέρων?) seems to be implied by the abbreviation. If this were so, we might go further and even presume the existence of an Ἀσιανῶν σπεῖρα νεωτέρων. The text is a dedication of Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος Κουρης son of Ἑστιαῖος (no. 157) as ἱερονόμος, (which might refer to the civic cult of Dionysus, or only to an associative office50) to the association, the introductory formula being addressed to the emperor Severus Alexander. The figure of Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος Κουρης son of Ἑστιαῖος, who was a member of the elite (occupying the office of πρῶτος ἄρχων of the city51), connects this association with another, that of Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας, in which he was a priest. This latter52 was active around AD 215-235 and was dedicated to Attis, the acolyte of Cybele. Its members (11) were, as the name indicates, ἱερόδουλοι (temple-servants) of the Pontic Mother of Gods, and most importantly, besides Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος Κουρης son of Ἑστιαῖος (no. 157), there was another member, Αὐρήλιος Ἑρμῆς (no. 134), active in other important local associations. As we can see from the Fig. 12, three associations were interconnected through overlapping members: green marks individuals who were part of the Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς θεᾶς Πον[τία]ς (most of them), pink the members of the Ἄττεις [---], orange those of both, while grey marks the member who was part of the Ἄττεις [---] and of the Ἀσιανῶν σπεῖρα πρεσβ(υτέρων?). The overlap is not impressive in number, but tangible. 46 According to Jaccottet (2003 II, 109, no. 53), the name might not necessarily point to the origin of the members, but to the ‘specificity of the cult’. 47 Jaccottet (2003 II, 109, no. 53) sees a source of prestige in the use of this terminology, which bound the association to the origin of the rites. 48 IGB I2, 23 = Robert and Robert 1952, 160–61, no. 100 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 107, no. 53 = AGRW 71 = CAPInv. 1152. 49 The groups under the name of Ἀσιανοί usually denote Dionysiac associations: Jaccottet 2003 II, 52–53, nos. 19–20. They very likely did not point to the geographical origin of the members, but rather to the characteristics of the Dionysiac cult: Jaccottet 2003 II, 53, no. 20. 50 For Ilium, see Jaccottet 2003 II, 171, no. 90. 51 Sharankov 2013, 33, 57. 52 Sharankov 2013, 57–58 = SEG 60, 768 = CAPInv. 1157.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

55

Thus the Νεομηνιασταί53 probably came from a close chronological timeframe, and, as in Odessus, it celebrated the first day of the month. In it, Αὐρήλιος Ἑρμῆς (no. 134), who was an αὐλητής, is recorded with his nomen – its mention only here is surprising, considering that he must have received citizenship before the monument of the previous association was erected. Might it be connected to the fact that the Νεομηνιασταί was a more prestigious association? His presence points to the role of music inside associations, which results from the existence of ὑμνῳδοί and their officials. Such possible members might have existed among the ὑμνῳδοί, as well as in the association devoted to Isis, or in the associations of banqueters. This monument renders the goddess surrounded by four individuals, probably the members of the association who are mentioned in the first part of the text (two of whom were father and son), and who were in charge of erecting it.54 In total, the Νεομηνιασταί records 85 members, 13 of whom were added after the first inscription. This is the highest membership of any Black Sea associations, and exhibits the largest number of members in such an association bearing the imperial nomen Αὐρήλιος (57), which dates the inscription after AD 212.55 Besides this, there is only one other imperial nomen, Ἰούλιος. The personal names and cognomina of the individuals are mostly Greek, but some are Thracian – Δαλήτραλις (no. 124) – or Latin: Αὐρήλιος son of ignotus (no. 88), Κορτιανός son of Πολύξενος (no. 101), Κούαρτος (no. 102), Αὐδασιανός (no. 119), Ἰουβεντιός? (no. 153), Κλαύδιος (no. 156), Μαρκιανός (no. 159), Ῥοῦφος (no. 170). Nonetheless, even members with Latin duo/tria nomina, such as those previously mentioned, are probably Romanised Greeks and Thracians, considering their cognomina and that most also bear a patronymic (mostly Greek), in the Greek ‘way’, as well as their place of origin and the specifics of the association. As mentioned, many of the individuals having a duo/tria nomina still record their patronymic. This is not surprising since in this association alone there are four individuals with the same nomen and cognomen, Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλείδης (nos. 139–142), to which other examples of homonymy may be added: Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλέων (nos. 143–144), Αὐρήλιος Θεογένης (nos. 147–148), Αὐρήλιος Θεόδωρος (nos. 149–150). The Roman onomastic system was adapted to the structure of the Greek system; as such the patronymic follows the cognomen.

53 Sharankov 2013, 55–57 = SEG 60, 767 = SEG 63, 523 = CAPInv. 1156. I thank Dr N. Sharankov for sending me the text of the inscription. As it is in print, the present book does not include it, therefore there are some gaps in my reading of the inscription. 54 Sharankov 2013, 55. 55 Sharankov 2013, 55.

56

CHAPTER 4

The association seems to have played an important role at a local level, and this is reflected also in its members who were part of the elite. As such, Πυθοκλῆς son of Ἄττας, priest of the feast (no. 109), was the father of Αὐρήλιος Θεόμνηστος,56 a πρῶτος ἄρχων of the city.57 Unlike his son, Πυθοκλῆς follows the Greek onomastic system, not the Roman, despite the fact that the inscription is set after AD 212. The family clearly belongs to the local elite, and while the father exhibits his Greekness, the son, probably due to his position, wanted to express his devotion and appreciation for Roman values, and his belonging to the Roman community. Another example has been previously mentioned, that of Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος Κουρης son of Ἑστιαῖος (no. 157), who was also a πρῶτος ἄρχων of the city, and at the same time part of two associations, in one of which he had the important position of priest and in the other he was mentioned as ἱερονόμος (possibly in the civic cult); both associations were very important local ones, dedicated to the main gods, Dionysus and Cybele. Besides them, Ἰούλιος Ἀλέξανδρος (no. 174) was probably a member of the elite as well, since he was the sole member from the associations from Dionysopolis to bear the imperial nomen Ἰούλιος, which points to his having acquired Roman citizenship early on and not, like fellow members, under Caracalla. Considering the great number of Aurelii, the association probably had only a few members of the higher social levels. In view of the importance of deities in Dionysopolis, it is not surprising to find members of the elite attested in this private setting, and in leading positions. The adherence of members of the elite to such associations brought advantages on both sides, mostly resulting in increased social capital and visibility in the public sphere. The same association exhibited the involvement of family members, which is attested in many other cities, for example at Olbia and Tanais. As such, of the ten inscriptions and associations which record 122 members, this is one of the two that provide evidence for possible kinship. The previously mentioned Πυθοκλῆς son of Ἄττας was possibly the brother of Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλέων son of Ἄττας (no. 143). In the non-associative inscription which mentions the son of Πυθοκλῆς,58 there is a certain Αὐρήλιος Ποσειδώνιος son of Ἄττας (νεώτερος) and an Αὐρήλιος Ἄττας son of Ἀντίπατρος. It appears from these that, from the same decade, there are two different patronymics for Ἄττας – the father of Πυθοκλῆς and of Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλέων, and Ἄττας (νεώτερος) the father of Αὐρήλιος Ποσειδώνιος; besides these there is the personal name Ἄττας used as a cognomen. Most probably these belonged to three distinct 56 57 58

IGB I2, 14 = IGB V, 5007. For this office, see Ruscu 2015. IGB I2, 14 = IGB V, 5007.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

57

families. Another family was that of Ἡρακλέων, three of whose sons were active in the association: Αὐρήλιος Διοκλῆς (no. 127), Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλέων (no. 144) and Αὐρήλιος Θεόδωρος (no. 150). The personal name Σειλανός is attested in two associations (Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς θεᾶς Πον[τία]ς and the Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας) as patronymic for Πιαιτραλις (no. 108), Αὐρήλιος Γλαῦκος (no. 123), Αὐρήλιος Ῥοῦφος (no. 170); but it appears as cognomina as well: Αὐρήλιος Σειλανός (no. 171) and Αὐρήλιος Σειλανός (no. 172). In this example, we might have two distinct families or several generations involved. Other certain family relations can be identified in Ἕρμιππος’s family: Αὐρήλιος Διονύσιος (no. 128) and Αὐρήλιος Θεογένης (no. 147); Μητρόδωρος’s family: Αὐρήλιος Γλαῦκος (no. 122) and Αὐρήλιος Ἰουβεντιός? (no. 153); Πολύξενος’s family: Κορτιανός (no. 101), Αὐρήλιος Μενεκράτης (no. 160) and Αὐρήλιος Νουμήνης (no. 162 – the sole bearer of a cognomen related to the type of association). All three patronymics are exclusively attested in these associations. To this example might be added Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος Κουρης son of Ἑστιαῖος, who was probably the father of Αὐρήλιος Εὐάγριος son of Κούρης (no. 135), both members in the association of Νεομηνιασταί. The similarities between the Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς θεᾶς Πον[τία]ς and the Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας are not only related to the members and their activities, but also to the offices they held:59 priests, the officials in charge of the feasts ἱερεὺς τῆς θύνης and a πατὴρ τῆς θύνης, the αὐλητής and, of course, regular members. However, the Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας also had also a θεόφορος, and the Νεομηνιασταί mentioned two of their φιλότιμοι (which most probably had existed in the other association). These similarities should not cause surprise when we consider that both associations worshipped a common god. Moreover, these two associations seem to have practised the cult of the god in the same temple of the Pontic Mother of Gods. According to the reconstructions,60 the temple’s plan was rectangular; it had two columns in antae, comprising a naos (7.10 × 7.10 m), a pronaos (7.30 × 2.50 m) and an aedicule.61 Besides the reference to the temple, we have evidence for tables62 (also at Callatis), which were positioned in front of the god’s statue and were destined for sacrifices – however, these might not be directly connected to the two associations. Such tables were one of the most important elements of the Greek cult,63 59 60 61 62 63

Sharankov 2013, 51. Lazarenko et al. 2013, 10. Lazarenko et al. 2013, 10. Lazarenko et al. 2013, 31, 39. Dow and Gill 1965, 109.

58

CHAPTER 4

but they could be used as well by the members who took part in the monthly banquet64 and for the consumption of the offerings.65 These two associations are among the few which record evidence for physical and material space, i.e. the buildings they used. These were not only necessary for the internal life of the associations, they also helped anchor them in the physical and symbolic space of the city. Usually, physical and material space can be reconstructed based on archaeological and epigraphic evidence, the latter more common for the Black Sea area. Dionysopolis, Tomis and Callatis have yielded archaeological evidence (temples and objects), but various epigraphic sources provide data from other cities as well, such as Istros and Gorgippia. Another important category of associations is contemporary with the previous two, namely that of ὑμνῳδοί;66 they are attested through two inscriptions, one of which was possibly devoted to Dionysus67 (ὑμνῳδοί νεώτεροι68), while the other recorded imperial ὑμνῳδοί (ὑμνοῦσι τοὺς Σεβαστούς).69 The ὑμνῳδοί νεώτεροι70 dates to the reign of Elagabal, being mentioned in a dedication by a certain Θεόδωρος son of Δημήτριος (no. 98) – their φιλότιμος and εὐεργέτης. The dedication is inscribed on a large fragment (h. 0.65 m, l. 2.30 m), which makes it possible for it to have belonged to a cultic building,71 or even to have been the association’s seat, therefore perhaps a ὑμνῳδεῖον (as the one, for example, in Pergamum72). The association might have been either a branch of a Dionysiac one, or be independent.73 The other association recorded the imperial ὑμνῳδοί who took part in religious ceremonies inside the cult, part of the imperial cult celebrations, worshipping the emperor and the imperial dynasty here the ὑμνῳδοί appear in connection with the members of the Pentapolis Council.74 The imperial ὑμνῳδοί had an official character in view of their primary function (worship and celebration of the emperor and dynasty), which ensured their durability, even if there is no further evidence on them. 64

Dow and Gill 1965, 109. ISM III, p. 383 (Avram). 66 On ὑμνῳδοί see, among others, Poland 1909, 46–49; Pippidi 1967b, 451; Belayche 2013, 30–35; etc. 67 Pippidi 1967b, 455. 68 IGB I2, 17 = IGB V, 5009. 69 IGB I2, 15(3) = IGB V, 5007. 70 Pippidi 1967b, 454–55. 71 Bottez 2009, 73. 72 IGRR IV, 353 = IPergamon 374 = AGRW 117 = GRA I, 111 = CAPInv. 1653. 73 Pippidi 1967b, 155. 74 Bottez 2009, 69. 65

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

59

The latest attestation of an association comes from a fragmentary inscription of the second half of the 3rd century.75 Its classification as an association is possible due to the offices mentioned (ἄρχ[ι--], ἀρχιγάλλος, γραμματεύς, ἱερεύς76) and to the specific formula used (ἡ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα). The association was probably one involving mysteries and, through the presence of the office of ἀρχιγάλλος we may assume it to have been devoted to Cybele. The text of the inscription starts with a dedication addressed to the emperor Gordian III and his wife; next it records the members of the association, in total (including the officials) 16. Not much can be said about the members; considering the date of the inscription, all of them had benefited already from the edict of Caracalla, but only two of them displayed their Roman citizenship through the use of their nomen: Αὐρήλιος Μαρκιανός (no. 158) and Αὐρήλιος Νουμήνιος (no. 163). But the former mentions also his patronymic, Ἡφαιστόδ[ημος?]. Besides them, the naming of another member, Αὐρήλιος son of Αὐρήλιος (no. 87), points to the misuse of the Roman system, and its adaptation to the Greek (the use of a nomen as a cognomen), while the other members (who have readable personal names) bear Greek personal names. Even though the members did not value the display of Roman citizenship, they did find it important to make this dedication to the imperial family. Our sample does not contain many dedications to emperors, so this instance of it must be underlined. It might arise from the members’ desire to exhibit their philo-imperialism and gain some social capital, or at least display their involvement in imperial practices and the imperial order. *

*

*

Overall, at Dionysopolis two gods seem to have been worshipped Dionysus and Cybele, which is reflected in the types of association formed. Both types seem to have included, if not among their members at least among their benefactors, members of the elite. With the coming of the Romans (Dionysopolis became part of Moesia Inferior in the 1st century AD) we notice on the one hand a desire of some members to belong to the Roman community, while others, even after the edict of Caracalla, seemed prouder of their Greekness. Nonetheless, the coming of the Romans is certainly to be seen in the associative sphere, where the imperial ὑμνῳδοί emerge for the worship of the emperor, a necessary statement on behalf of the elite and the city. A specific feature is family involvement in the 2nd–3rd centuries AD, with various entanglements, 75

IGB I2, 22(2) = CAPInv. 1119. Additionally, there is a specification of a πατέρα, but since the inscription is so fragmentary, we cannot tell whether it denotes a position inside the association or a filiation. 76

60

CHAPTER 4

as well as the presence of important members of the elite inside more than one association. They were involved because it made them visible in the public space and thus became a source of prestige, but it also led to the extension of their networks. Their membership had a positive impact on the associations through the networks which they brought into play, their reputation, trust in which was extended to trust in the association, as well through the likely financial contributions. As we shall see below, at a regional level, the associations from Dionysopolis and Istros were similar in profile, mostly through the popularity of associations worshipping Dionysus and through their involvement in the imperial cult. Another similarity between the associations of these two cities consists in the terminology used to name some of them. More precisely, the names derive from a common noun, in genitive singular or plural, derived from the name of the main god around which the members were gathered (such as the Ἀθηνεαστής, Ἀττιαστής, Βακχεασταί).77 BIZONE Located close to Dionysopolis is Bizone, which was most probably founded by Miletus or, if not, was a secondary foundation by a Milesian colony from the western Black Sea.78 The only associative inscription from the area dates to the 1st–2nd century AD and attests a series of priests and a benefactor of an association devoted either to Dionysus Taurus or, as at Istros, to Poseidon Taurus.79 The likelihood that the association was for Dionysus Taurus is shown in the mysteries, where Dionysus takes the shape of a bull and is dismembered,80 but also by Bizone’s proximity to Dionysopolis;81 at the same time, the epiclesis Taurus was also used for Poseidon: attested twice, at Istros and Tomis (see below). As in the case of Olbia (see below), almost half of the members mentioned seem to have belonged to the same family (based on the patronymic) (see Fig. 13), all of them priests in the associations. Obviously, since with one exception all members of the association were priests, the position was not held simultaneously. Since the inscription is a catalogue, it was probably meant to record these priests of the association, which shows a possible chronological continuity if we rely on the familial component and on the number of priests attested. 77 78 79 80 81

IGB I2, 20 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 106–07, no. 52 = CAPInv. 1118. Avram et al. 2004b, 932. IGB I2, pp. 38–39; Chiekova 2008, 111. Chiekova 2008, 111. Chiekova 2008, 111.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

61

Nonetheless, one of the family members, Σκύθης son of Θεογένης (no. 210), was not only priest but also εὐεργέτης of the association; for unknown reasons, the same status was held also by Ποσιδώνιος son of Μόσσχος (no. 208). The onomastics point us to a mostly Greek substratum: only one personal names is Latin Πρόκλος (no. 209), that of a member of the family of priests, while his two brothers have theophoric Greek names (one personal name and one patronymic were derived from the name of Poseidon). *

*

*

Yet again, the associative phenomenon proves to be elusive. The epigraphical evidence from Bizone is much too frail to support conclusions. Nevertheless, considering the area, it is no surprise to find an association devoted to Dionysus, most probably was active for a longer period of time; joining it was a family affair, probably part of the family cult.82 From the character of the inscription, it is impossible to tell what other offices the associations might have had, besides that of ἱερεύς, especially considering the many possible in Dionysiac associations. CALLATIS The city was founded in the 6th century BC by Heraclea Pontica,83 thus is one of the few Megarian cities in the Black Sea. The main gods were Zeus Polieus and Athena Polias,84 but Dionysus was worshipped from early on, including inside private associations, with two Megarian epicleses: Bakcheus and Dasyllius.85 The inscriptions (21) attest 12 associations, from the 4th century BC to the 3rd century AD, in which 156 individuals were active. The texts of the inscriptions record decrees or dedications and exceptionally a sacred regulation, and their context offer us information on the nature of relations with the civic sphere and its representatives, on the organisation of the cult, on specific cultic buildings, and finance. At Callatis we have one of the earliest attestations of associative life, as well as sustained chronological continuity throughout the entire period. The earliest attestation, from the 4th century BC, is that of τοὶ σύσσιτοι τοὶ Τιμώνακτος,86 82

Chiekova 2008, 111. For the discussion on the foundation versions, see ISM III, pp. 9–11 (Avram); Avram et al. 2004b, 934. 84 Avram et al. 2004b, 934; Chiekova 2008. 85 Chiekova 2008, 88. 86 ISM III, 255 = CAPInv. 1185. 83

62

CHAPTER 4

recording a confraternity of military origin grouped around a certain Τιμῶναξ87 (the leader and possibly founder of the association – no. 319). The verse inscription is recorded on a kantharos and it represents a dedication on behalf of the members to one of them, a certain Ναυκασάμας (no. 300)88 – who in turn (on the same object) thanks the members for the gift. Both the name of the association and the object on which the text was inscribed point to the organisation of symposia, one of the activities carried out by associations.89 As the object was discovered in a tomb, it had previously been assumed that it was a funerary offering;90 however, it was probably only a gift on behalf of comrades, as suggested by W.M. Calder.91 Outside the Pontic area there are two analogous associations, one at Thespiai in the 4th century BC (τοὶ σύσσιτοι92) and one at Lindus (Παναθηναιστᾶν συστρατευσαμένων συσκάνων κοινόν93) in the 1st century BC. Remarkable is the continuity of a θίασος devoted to Dionysus (with the Megarian epicleses Bakcheus and Dasyllius), which is attested from the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD through nine inscriptions, most of them decrees (but also a dedication and a sacred regulation). This Dionysiac association from Callatis has been the subject of several comprehensive papers, especially by A. Avram,94 A.-F. Jaccottet,95 and D. Chiekova,96 thus what follows will bring no new information. Nevertheless, the evidence on this association will be addressed since it is the most generous from Callatis and even from the western shore. Considering the type of association, and the importance of Dionysus’ cult at the local level,97 it is reasonable to assume that we are dealing with the same association throughout, which has maintained its local role and position, and which was especially active in the Hellenistic and early Imperial period. The association is one of the best represented from the western shore, providing valuable information on internal functioning and structure, on its relationship with members of the elite, and automatically its place in society (including the physical space), its finances and even the corresponding built space. 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

The personal name is attested at Callatis only through this inscription: LGPN IV, 333. Semitic name: Ștefan 1977, 27–29. ISM III, pp. 551–52 (Avram). Ștefan 1977, 31. Calder 1979, 313. IThespiai 323. ILindos II, 292 = CAPInv. 1064. Avram 1995; 2002; ISM III, pp. 97–100 (Avram). Jaccottet 2003. Chiekova 2007, 275–78; 2008, 88–104. ISM III, pp. 97–99 (Avram); Chiekova 2008, 88–104.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

63

What is especially significant is the entanglement of the private and public elements,98 reflected through the use by the association of the forms of public decrees (the text mentions the corresponding βασιλεύς, gives the personal name of the Assembly president and adheres to the formulae of the public decrees99); the obtention of benefactions on behalf of the local εὐεργέται (Ἀρίστων I son of Ἀρίστων and his son Ἀρίστων II), who manifest their goodwill towards the city as well; exceptionally, this private cult is in liaison with the civic cult of Athena, with the priestess of the latter100 dedicating an ἄντρον to the members of the association;101 the practice of subscription is identical to public subscriptions; and the association used the local theatre for one of its important festivals, perhaps open to non-members, which theatre in turn had a public use as well. This evidence was interpreted by D.M. Pippidi102 and Avram103 as pointing to the less common public character which this association had at Callatis. Thus, the association was connected to the public sphere through formal aspects, through civic representatives or members of the elite, and through shared public space. Its private character is given however, by the type of organisation, the internal structure and the existing internal regulations, as well as by the specific celebrations and the ownership of physical space. Over its lifespan, 38 members are known, perhaps not an impressive number but the types of inscription (mostly decrees) are ones that record less information on members. Nevertheless, at least one (an album) provides a longer list of members, among whom we can identify relatives as well, yet again fathers and sons – Ἀπολλόδοτος son of ignotus (no. 221) and Ἀσκλαπιόδωρος son of Ἀπολλόδοτος (no. 231), Διονύσιος son of Καλχάδων (no. 248) and Καλχάδων104 son of Διονύσιος (no. 284) – or brothers: Ἀπολλώνυμος son of Σάτυρος (no. 225) and Εὐφραῖος son of Σάτυρος (no. 256), Ἁρμαγένης son of Δαμοφῶν (no. 228) and Ἡρέας son of Δαμοφῶν (no. 264), Προμαθίων son of Προμαθίων (no. 310) and Σῖμος son of Προμαθίων (no. 316). Δαμάτριος son of Δαμάτριος (no. 242) and Διόδωρος son of Δαμάτριος (no. 245) were probably unrelated: the personal name was popular and they are attested several centuries apart. One of the 98

ISM III, pp. 98–100 (Avram). Similarly, Bérard 1986. ISM III, p. 98 (Avram). 100 Pippidi (1964, 157–58) supposes that she was the daughter of a member of the elite (attested as benefactor). 101 ISM III, 80 = SEG 24, 1034 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 127–29, no. 61 = CAPInv. 1186. 102 Pippidi 1975. 103 ISM III, pp. 98–100 and 403–04 (Avram). 104 Personal name of Megarian origin coming from a toponym. This is the sole attestation of the personal name: LGPN IV, 185. In the same inscription, there are several more Megarian personal names, such as Προμαθίων, Πυθίων (from the epiclesis of Apollo) and Ἡρέας. 99

64

CHAPTER 4

members, Ναύτιμος son of Πασιάδας (no. 301), is attested in a proxeny decree from Olbia,105 where he is mentioned as Καλλατιανός and where, due to his benevolence towards the city and its citizens (who had been at Callatis), he and his descendants received the proxenia, politeia, asylia, the decree being transcribed on a (marble?) stele.106 As to internal hierarchy, we have very few offices mentioned, but we know that at the head of the association was a ἱερεύς (mentioned only during Tiberius’ reign), and besides him there were some members who presided at the reunions of the association, while others were in charge of more specific activities, such as supervising the construction of the temple, and the lending of the common fund. Besides these there was a craftsman in the association at some point, who was a producer of crowns (στεφαναπλόκος), a practical occupation considering the needs of associations when honouring their members or benefactors (but possibly not a sole occupation). Internal life was structured through the decrees,107 as well as through sacred regulations,108 laws109 and decisions,110 all reinforcing the profile of the associations and helping their longevity. With respect to the built space, this association has left us significant attestations of cultic architecture111 from the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD and record specific cult buildings, but we can associate the activity of the θίασος with the local theatre, where the members carried out some of their festivities. The earliest evidence is for a 3rd-century BC temple (ναός),112 which had a vaulted corridor leading to vaulted chambers (described in another inscription as a μύχος113), and which seems to have imitated a Dionysiac cave. For the erection of the temple, a subscription was organised, the members contributing unevenly, some even through their labour. Directly proportional to 105

IosPE I2, 27. Cojocaru 2016, 82–83, no. 58 (30). 107 ISM III, 35 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 110–16, no. 54 = AGRW 73 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 36 = SEG 45, 902 = Poland 1909, B 94 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 116, no. 55 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 42 = Poland 1909, B 93 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 118–19, no. 56 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 43 = Poland 1909, B 92 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 119–20, no. 57 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 44 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 120–23, no. 58 = AGRW 74 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 45 = SEG 27, 384 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 123–24, no. 59 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 46 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 125–26, no. 60 = CAPInv. 1186. 108 ISM III, 47 = Poland 1909, B 95 = LSCG 90 = CAPInv. 1186. 109 ISM III, 36 = SEG 45, 902 = Poland 1909, B 94 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 116, no. 55 = CAPInv. 1186. 110 ISM III, 42 = Poland 1909, B 93 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 118–19, no. 56 = CAPInv. 1186. 111 Pippidi 1964; ISM III, p. 100 (Avram). 112 ISM III, 35 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 110–16, no. 54 = AGRW 73 = CAPInv. 1186. 113 ISM III, 44 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 120–23, no. 58 = AGRW 74 = CAPInv. 1186. 106

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

65

their contribution was the honouring of the contributors by the association: some of them were granted στέφανος φιλοτιμίας διὰ βίου, while others only στέφανος ἀποδοχᾶ τᾶι τριετηρίδι διὰ βίου, but both categories received the right to inscribe their name on the monument which recorded the subscription; additionally, the members of the commission in charge of supervising the works had the right to wear a crown every two years, during the association’s festivities. Also from the 3rd century BC, another inscription114 of this association indicates that the members increased the treasury through another subscription, and that this common fund (τὸ κοινὸν διάφορον) was lent by one of them (Βίκων son of Διοσκουρίδης – no. 238) in the name of the association, in order to obtain further capital. This was probably a more general solution for obtaining income, and therefore was not destined specifically for the building of this temple. Nonetheless, we find that a νόμος was in place regarding such lending (maybe a maritime one, as suggested by Avram115), and that in case of external circumstances leading to the loss of the fund, the person in charge of managing the fund was exempted from debt. Despite this law, the text says that Βίκων was ready to pay not only the lost fund, but also the interest which was due. Returning to the temple, later, during the reign of Tiberius, a courtyard was added which had a precinct and a vestibule at the entrance (now a ἱερόν),116 through the financial support of Φιλεῖνος son of Φιλεῖνος (no. 321).117 For his generosity, his personal name was to be inscribed on the vestibule and a crown (εἰς τὸ κατ᾽ ἀΐδιον)118 was granted to him for eternity. The decree was supposed to be placed in the sanctuary of the god, the costs being supported by the same otherwise unknown benefactor. Next, dating to the 2nd century BC, there is another building, a Δασυλλιεῖον,119 a sanctuary which takes its name after the epiclesis Dasyllius, and which was probably located outside of the city. The text further adds information on the sacred regulation in place that specifies when sacrifices should be brought to the god, what type of sacrifice, how the distribution of the sacrifice was to be made, and who was allowed to be present (no women or children). Concerning members, a difference seems to be drawn between them (νεόβακχοι – initiated 114 ISM III, 36 = SEG 45, 902 = Poland 1909, B 94 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 116, no. 55 = CAPInv. 1186. 115 ISM III, p. 305 (Avram). 116 ISM III, 46 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 125–26, no. 60 = CAPInv. 1186. 117 The personal name is attested at Callatis only through this inscription: LGPN IV, 344. 118 Such crowns are granted also in: ISM III, 42 = Poland 1909, B 93 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 118–19, no. 56 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 44 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 120–23, no. 58 = AGRW 74 = CAPInv. 1186. 119 ISM III, 47 = Poland 1909, B 95 = LSCG 90 = CAPInv. 1186.

66

CHAPTER 4

more recently – and μύσται), probably based on the level of initiation, pointing as well to the existence of mysteries. Finally, in the 1st century AD, there is another cult place, the ἄντρον (cave),120 dedicated by the priestess of Athena to Dionysus and the members of the association. This is likely to have imitated a cave. The priestess herself was probably not a member of the association. As to her status, she probably came from an elite family, considering the religious office she held, as well as the gift she made to the association.121 In view of this, Pippidi suggests that the priestess might have belonged to one of the earliest families of the city, her father being Ἀπολλώνιος son of ignotus, a benefactor of the city, and the founder of the gerusia.122 Nevertheless, as Avram notes, without further evidence it is impossible to tell whether this is the same person or a possible case of homonymy, due to the uncertain patronymic of Ἀπολλώνιος and to the frequency of this personal name/patronymic.123 From the 3rd century BC comes the association of Θοινᾶται124 (banqueters). Despite the common name, this is not the same as the associations attested a couple of centuries later at Callatis. There are two more associations (but from different times) bearing similar names, which points to the prominent convivial component: Θοινᾶται τᾶς Δάματρος τᾶς Χθονίας125 and Θοινῆται οἱ περὶ εἱερέα Ἡρακλέοντα Πύρσου.126 The former gathered its members around Demeter Chtonia, the latter around Heracles Alexikakos. First chronologically is the association of Θοινᾶται. The inscription is extremely fragmentary, however, and only five personal names (some of the members) are legible, plus the first four letters of the name of the association (reconstructed based on the three existing analogies). Thus, we can say nothing more about the association or the god it worshipped. Two other inscriptions127 attesting θοινᾶται come from the 1st century BC and they possibly record the same association of participants in banquets who worship Demeter Chtonia; both are honorific decrees for a local benefactor and are placed in the fanum concordiae.128 The honorand in both is a wellknown member of the elite, who was a benefactor of this association, that of

120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

ISM III, 80 = SEG 24, 1034 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 127–29, no. 61 = CAPInv. 1186. Pippidi 1964, 157–58. ISM III, 31 = SEG 1, 327 = SEG 24, 1029. ISM III, p. 276 (Avram). ISM III, 66 = CAPInv. 1159. ISM III, 40 = CAPInv. 1158; ISM III, 41 = SEG 18, 287 = CAPInv. 1158. ISM III, 68A = AGRW 75 = CAPInv. 1161. ISM III, 40 = CAPInv. 1158; ISM III, 41 = SEG 18, 287 = CAPInv. 1158. ISM III, p. 316 (Avram).

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

67

the Βακχικὸς θίασος, and of the people: Ἀρίστων son of Ἀρίστων129 (his homonymous son was equally a benefactor, continuing the familial tradition). The association seems in this case to be ‘competing’ with the city for the generosity of this benefactor and his family, who have expressed their benevolence in a lavish manner. Ἀρίστων was, according to Avram,130 the Callatian ambassador who obtained from the Roman authorities the grant of civitas foederata status. The latest such inscription (1st century AD) is on a table (possibly a sacred table on which the sacrifices were laid); it records the participants in banquets (Θοινῆται οἱ περὶ εἱερέα Ἡρακλέοντα Πύρσου131) to worship Heracles Alexikakos (a rarely attested epiclesis132). Since the public cult of Heracles was well represented at Callatis, his worship with this epiclesis was done in a private setting, that of the associative milieu.133 The members of this association identified themselves through one of their activities, and the specific activities are revealed by one of the inscriptions being placed on a table: sacrifices brought to gods, as well as banquets for men in which the social component was extremely important. Unfortunately, little can be said about the members, since we have only the name of the priest of the association, around which they gathered. On the table, there is a later inscription, dating to the 3rd century AD, which reads just βασιλεύς, referring to the share of the βασιλεύς.134 Nonetheless, it shows that the object maintained its original use over the centuries.135 In the 1st century BC, we have a possible association based on confraternity, the οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος;136 behind it Avram believes that there might be an association gathered around the gymnasium,137 and in this case we could see the interest of individuals in resultant educational and social component. The inscription records only a list of fragmentary male names, counting at least six members. The remaining six associations date to the 2nd–3rd centuries AD (especially the 3rd) and are rather diverse: four lack a specific name, but the formula οἱ περί/παιρί (as well as the internal hierarchy) points to them being associations. 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137

Attested also in other inscriptions from Callatis: ISM III, 42–45. ISM III, pp. 50–54 (Avram). ISM III, 68A = AGRW 75 = CAPInv. 1161. ISM III, p. 382 (Avram). ISM III, p. 383 (Avram). ISM III, p. 383 (Avram). ISM III, p. 384 (Avram). ISM III, 69 = CAPInv. 1162. ISM III, p. 385 (Avram).

68

CHAPTER 4

Dating to the 2nd century AD, there is the association Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου,138 which exhibits, like the previously mentioned associations from Dionysopolis (see above) and Panticapaeum (see Chapter 5 below), geographical criteria for its formation and recruitment of members. It is not surprising to find here an association composed of residents of Heraclea Pontica (the mother-colony of Callatis139), but it is a singular example in this area. Besides this group, Callatis was home to another individual140 originating from Heraclea Pontica, but he does not state his belonging to an association. Considering the name, Σάτυρος the son of Σάτυρος (no. 314) was probably the leader or the founder of the association which counted 38 members (besides him) and was the most numerous association from Callatis after the Φιλοκύνηγοι (see below). Besides the possible leader, the inscription mentions only a common administrative office, that of γραμματεύς, in the person of Ἀλέξανδρος son of Ἡρακλέων (no. 216). The group worshipped Heracles Pharangeites,141 the epiclesis of Heracles being in this case a toponym and referring to a mythical place near Heraclea Pontica where Heracles descended to Hades (Apollonius Rhodius 2. 353–356). In this association as well, based on onomastics and taking into account the common origin of the members, several families can be identified, the main relationship types being between father and son and between brothers; more rarely genealogical trees can be extended to a further generation, to include the presence of grandparents and grandsons. Among these, we can possibly trace the family of the leader Σάτυρος son of Σάτυρος,142 which takes us to Heraclea Pontica, Callatis and Tauric Chersonesus. As such, an honorific inscription143 from AD 130 is dedicated to Θρασυμήδης Θρασυμήδους τοῦ Σατύρου ἀνὴρ τᾶς ματροπόλιος ‘Ηρακλέας in Tauric Chersonesus; while our current inscription mentions an individual named Θρασυμήδης son of Σάτυρος (no. 278) – possibly the son of the leader of the association, just like Θεαγένης (no. 275) and Ἀνδρόνεικος (no. 219).144 Based on personal names, Σάτυρος son of Σάτυρος could have been the father of Θρασυμήδης son of Σάτυρος from Tauric Chersonesus, or his brother, i.e. the grandfather or the uncle of the honorand Θρασυμήδης son of Θρασυμήδης.145 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145

ISM III, 72 = SEG 24, 1037 = CAPInv. 1164. Corsten 2006, 124–25. ISM III, 177 = SEG 24, 1043. Chirica 1998, 722–23. Corsten 2007, 133–34. IosPE I2, 357. Corsten 2007, 133–34. Corsten 2007, 134.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

69

We can identify several more families, but limited to the associative context: the sons of Τίτος: Ἀλέξανδρος (no. 218), Ἰουλιανός (no. 279), Νίγερ (no. 302) – in this case the father was not a member. Ἥλιος son of Κερεάλις (no. 263) and his son, Κερεάλις son of Ἥλιος (no. 286), were both members, and in the same association there are two more homonymous persons, Ἥλιος son of Ἥλιος (no. 260) and Ἥλιος son of Ἥλιος (no. 261), who could have belonged to the family (at least one of them). Further on, we have the father and son Ἀρτεμίδωρος son of Διονύσιος (no. 230) and Ἀρτεμίδωρος son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 229). From an onomastic perspective, we notice that Roman cognomina are rarely used, and in some cases they are used in the Greek ‘way’, common for the provincials, with the praenomen or nomen used as a personal name (Ἀντώνιος, Γάϊος, Κόϊντος, Μᾶρκος) to look more ‘Roman’. In other examples, such as that of Ῥησιανός (no. 312) the son of Σάτριος, we notice a more limited approach to the naming system, the individual being given his father’s name Ῥήσιος Σάτριος (no. 341), to which an ending (-ιανός/-ianus) was added for differentiation. The name of the father is a little surprising. While it might have been wrongly recorded (as suggested by Avram146) and could therefore actually have been Ῥήσιος son of Σάτριος, it is more likely, as T. Corsten notes, that Ῥήσιος was used as nomen and Σάτριος as cognomen,147 while the naming of the son is derived from it, but in the Greek system, through the use of a personal name (Latinised and derived from his father’s) and a patronymic. As such, Ῥήσιος Σάτριος, along with Καικίλιος Τίμων (no. 334) and Τερέντιος Φίλων (no. 342), either had Roman citizenship or they used the Roman naming system to appear Roman.148 Only one other member appears to have had and displayed his Roman citizenship, which his family seems to have obtained early on: Φλάβιος Ἡρακλέων (no. 339). Still from an onomastic perspective, the use of personal names/cognomina (five) and patronymics (two) which are theophoric and derived from the name of Heracles should be remarked. Chronologically, the association οἱ παιρὶ {περὶ} εἱερέα Τ(ίτον) Αἴ(λιον) Μινίκιον149 comes next, dating to some period between AD 161 and AD 180. The dedication is on a sacred table, mentioning four of the members, all of them probably belonging to the elite. Their social and juridical status can be assumed from two of the members, Τίτος Αἴλιος Μινίκιος (no. 332) – around 146 147 148 149

ISM III, pp. 389–90 (Avram). Corsten 2006, 124–25. Corsten 2006, 124–25. ISM III, 70 = CAPInv. 1163.

70

CHAPTER 4

which the association is grouped – and Τίτος Αἴλιος Μινίκιος Πουδενς (no. 333). Both came from the family of Minicii,150 and the former was very probably one of the ποντάρχης τῆς Πενταπόλεως (Τίτος Αἴλιος Μινίκιος Ἀθαναίων – πρῶτος ποντάρχης151 καὶ ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ ἄρξας τῆς Ἑξαπόλεως; or his son Τίτος Αἴλιος Μινίκιος Μοσχίων152). Based on the nomen, the family seems to have obtained citizenship from the governor of Moesia Inferior, L. Minicius Natalis Quadronius Verus,153 and the onomastic points to the existence of another branch of this family at Istros (see below), also belonging to the elite. At Istros, the ποντάρχης ἀπὸ πατρὸς Τίτος Αἴλιος Μιν[---]154 was the lifelong priest of the association of [Ποσειδωνιασταί]. Over several decades, two other possible members of the Minicii family are attested at Callatis, who were part of the οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι:155 Μινίκιος Ἀθανέων and Μινίκιος Τρύφων. This latter association had a strong convivial component and took its name from its leader/founder Πόπλιος Οὐαλέριος Χάρης (no. 338); the members (44) were amateur hunters (φιλοκύνηγοι), which was interpreted as ‘spectacles with amateur hunters carried out in the amphitheatre at the main civic or cultic celebrations’.156 The inscription is the sole bilingual and is dedicated for the wellbeing of the emperor Gordianus and of his wife Sabinia Tranquillina, the monument (ὁ ταλαμῶν for ὁ τελαμών = ἡ στήλην,157 to which we add an ἄρκυς158) being a gift on behalf of a beneficiarius consularis (βενεφικιάριος ὑπατικοῦ) – Ἑρέννιος Ἀπολινάρις – to his fellow members. The inscription mentions two categories of individuals, one represented by members of the elite who were probably at the top of the hierarchy, while the second category is represented by the more regular members.159 Some of the members of this association seem to have been related, and the editors of the inscription see the possibility of them being not only respectable members of the association, but even of the city.160 Among the identifiable family relations are the sons of Ἡρέων (Ἡρέων Παννόνιος – no. 272, Θεόδωρος – no. 277 and Ὑγιαίνων – 150

Ruscu 2004, 910–11; Avram et al. 2004a, 359. Avram et al. 2004a, 361. 152 ISM III, 99 = SEG 49, 1016; ISM III, 100 = IGRR I 651. 153 Ruscu 2004, 911; Avram et al. 2004a, 359. 154 Ruscu 2004, 910–11; Avram et al. 2004a, 359. 155 ISM III, 74 = Sauciuc-Săveanu and Rădulescu 1968 = Pippidi 1972 = CAPInv. 1183. 156 Pippidi 1972, 147. 157 Sauciuc-Săveanu and Rădulescu 1968, 312. 158 Pippidi 1972, 143. He believes that the benefactor either dedicated a hunting net to the association, or a representation of it. 159 Sauciuc-Săveanu and Rădulescu 1968, 313; Pippidi 1972, 143. 160 Sauciuc-Săveanu and Rădulescu 1968, 313. 151

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

71

no. 320), the sons of Ἰταλικός (Διονυσόδωρος – no. 250 and Ἡρέων – no. 273) and the son of Θεόδωρος – no. 276 (Ἀσκληπιάδης – no. 232). In this latter case both son and father were members. Here is another example of an association whose members were directly connected to the local elite, or were part of it. Besides the leader, the hierarchy included typical offices such as that of ἱερεύς, γραμματεύς, and the rarer office of ἔκδικος, also labelled as φιλότιμος κάλλιστος for unknown services provided to the association. As an analogy from the Hellenistic and Roman periods, in other parts of the ancient world there are associations which had a strong convivial component, like that from Callatis: at Philippi there is another association of amateur hunters,161 while at Philippopolis there is an association of hunters (κυνηγῶν κοινόν),162 and similar examples might come from vicus Trullensium163 and Nicopolis ad Istrum,164 where the terms φιλοκύνηγος and συνκυνηγός are attested. Even further away, at Ephesus,165 Hierapolis,166 Miletus167 and Termessus168 we find weapon amateurs – of gladiatorial shows (φιλόπλοι). Even based only on these previous examples of the associations of Callatis, we see that here, though the evidence is not quantitatively rich, from a qualitative point of view it provides much information on associative life, which seems to have been rooted here and was an important vehicle for acquiring social capital. Two other associations date to a similar timeframe (2nd–3rd centuries AD). Their names are fragmentary: there is left only the collective plural οἱ περὶ [---]: οἱ περὶ [---]169 and οἱ περὶ [---].170 The former catches the eye because one of its members was given the honorific title (κοινοσώστης = saviour of the koinon) (see Fig. 14 for titles granted to members)171 and, according to Avram,172 might have been the ποντάρχης, and probably the person around whom the members were gathered. Moreover, the inscription is a dedication to the emperor Septimius Severus and the imperial family on behalf of the members. The only name legible is that of Βειτράσις son of Πάρις (no. 237), 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172

SEG 3, 499. IGB III.1, 894. IGB II, 508 = IGB V, 5184. IGB II, 702. IEphesos VII.2, 3559. Ritti 2006, 48–52, no. 1. IMilet 403. TAM III.1, 400. ISM III, 73A+B = SEG 46, 900 = IGRR I, 650 = AE 1996, 1351b = CAPInv. 1165. ISM III, 105 = SEG 24, 1036 = CAPInv. 1184. Avram 1992–94; 2019. I thank Prof. Avram for the bibliographical reference. ISM III, p. 391 (Avram).

72

CHAPTER 4

who acted as ἔκδικος, but two secretaries are mentioned, as well as a γυμνασιάρχης. The other fragmentary inscription, in which the collective plural οἱ περὶ [---] points to an association dating back to the 3rd century AD,173 is a building inscription. We lack further information on the type of edifice which was built, but it is one of the few epigraphic references to built space. As previously seen, from both Callatis and Dionysopolis, references to built space or to objects are very scarce, though they are provided by both epigraphic and archaeological sources. Only three of its members are known to us: the προστάτης (ignotus son of Διοσκουρίδης – no. 346), around whom the association gathered, and two others (Ἀπολλώνιος son of [---]κος – no. 224 and Δομίτιος son of Ἡρακλέων – no. 253), these being responsible for the building of the edifice. A final fragmentary inscription,174 dating to some stage between AD 198 and 211, points only partially to some of the characteristics of the associations. As such, the name of the god around which the [Θρη]σκευταί175 were organised is missing, and except for the opening part dedicated to the Severans (the names were erased following damnatio memoriae) and to the name of the association following the reference to Callatians, no further details of the association are available, but considering the usual content of associative inscriptions, a list of officials and maybe other regular members is to be presumed. *

*

*

At Callatis the associative phenomenon was well rooted, from the early 3rd century BC up to the 3rd century AD, recording a variety of associations which have chronological continuity. If in the early period there is an interest in the most representative gods, such as Dionysus, Demeter and Heracles, with the passage of time the religious component is less evident and the associations start to be grouped around a common origin, a specific member or a shared passion. Familial involvement is a common characteristic, which shows an interest in membership, possibly for the gain in social capital that it could bring. Most importantly, we see members of the elite joining associations, or even leading them, this being an indicator of the local importance of associations. Moreover, in the Roman period, some of them express their philoimperialism by dedicating the opening part of the inscription to the emperor and the imperial dynasty, even though belonging to the Roman community is 173

ISM III, 105 = SEG 24, 1036 = CAPInv. 1184. ISM III, 260 = CAPInv. 1160. 175 The term derives from the noun θρησκεία (cult, piety) and it denominated the worshippers of a specific god. Robert 1946, 132–33. 174

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

73

rarely expressed through adoption of the Roman naming system. Specific for Callatis is the Dionysiac association, which is the sole association from the Black Sea area with such longevity, given by a solid structure and regulations, as well as by mixing its private character with a public one. TOMIS Tomis was a Milesian colony founded in the 6th century BC,176 located between Istros and Callatis. Its prosperity and importance during the Roman period177 left a mark on the associative phenomenon. Although the phenomenon is attested from the 2nd century BC to the 3rd/4th century AD, it flourished most in Roman times, especially the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. The variety of associations is the greatest of any in the research area (25 associations, attested through 26 inscriptions) and among the gods they worshipped are Attis, Cybele, Dionysus, Isis, Sarapis, Hestia, Hecate and the Thracian Rider. Considering the high representativeness of the phenomenon, as well as the frequent dedications and catalogues, it is somewhat surprising that in total there are only 229 members (fifth from top for Black Sea poleis), the most numerous association being the Δενδροφόροι, with 38 members. The earliest association, Πασοῦς ἱερὸς θίασος,178 dates from the 1st century BC and this already implies some distinctiveness not identifiable in the other Black Sea poleis in any period: as the terminology indicates, the association takes its name from the personal name of a woman, Πασώ (no. 471), who was probably the founder. Unfortunately, due to the type of inscription, the founder aside, we know of only one other member, an ignotus son of Πάρμις (no. 576), who consecrated the statue as a result of having possibly obtained the priesthood (μυστικὸν ἐμι βακχοῖσι λαχὼν στέφος), thus being probably the leader of the association. From the text we may infer that the owner of the shop in which the statue was made. Also mentioned is the name of the sculptor, a certain Ἑρμαγένης, who might or might not have been a member of the association. His juridical status is unknown179 (was he a slave, a freedman, or a free worker in this workshop?). On the wider membership of the association, we may assume that

176

Avram et al. 2004b, 940; Buzoianu and Bărbulescu 2012, 11. Buzoianu and Bărbulescu 2012, 42. 178 ISM II, 120 = Poland 1909, B 106 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 129–30, no. 62 = AGRW 80 = ISM VI.2, 120 = CAPInv. 1204. 179 Jaccottet 2003 II, 130. 177

74

CHAPTER 4

since the founder was female, the association was open to both sexes, with women able to undertake leading offices in Dionysiac associations.180 The versified dedication was inscribed on an architrave and it records the dedication of a statue to Dionysus. The architrave is another example of built space pertaining to associations, probably that of a cultic building of the god of which we know nothing more. What can be said about the association is that it practised certain initiation rituals (ἀρχαίη [---] τελετή). After this, there is a chronological gap of several centuries until the resurgence of the phenomenon in the 2nd century AD. From approximately AD 125–150, there is the following testimony of a cultic association worshipping Hecate Soteira.181 The marble funerary stele182 (with representation of the funerary banquet) was erected for Μᾶρκος Ἀντώνιος Μαρκιανός (no. 508), πατὴρ νόμιμος and ἱερεύς, who lived for 49 years. What catches the attention is the title πατὴρ νόμιμος, which is attested in only two other cases: one at Sidon,183 where Flavius Gerontios, πατὴρ νόμιμος, dedicated a statue to the goddess Hecate, and another one at Aquileia.184 The fact that Μᾶρκος was a priest and a ‘father who observes the customs’ points, according to Avram,185 to the functionality of the former office and the honorific character of the title, which here was undertaken by the same person. The title could have been granted to a former priest who occupied the leading position.186 Her characteristics and attributes make Hecate a not very popular goddess: there is only one other association, at Philippopolis, in which she might have been worshipped.187 Probably contemporary is another association (name absent),188 which dates to AD 138. It made a dedication to Zeus and Hera for the health of Antoninus Pius and the governor of Moesia Inferior, M. Antonius Hiberus. Zeus and Hera were not necessarily the tutelary gods of the association, being probably connected to the worship of Antoninus. The inscription is fragmentary, but it records at least eight members, one of whom was a φιλότιμος. Three of the members definitely held Roman citizenship, two bearing the nomen Φλάουιος and one that of Αἴλιος (a new Roman citizen, the first from Tomis with this nomen189). Among them is an honourable local character, Φλάουιος Φαῖδρος 180

Dana 2011, 80. Bărbulescu and Câteia 2007 = AE 2007, 1231 = SEG 57, 680 = Avram 2008a, 695, no. 369 = CAPInv. 1256. 182 Conrad 2004, 47, 63, 160–61, no. 132. 183 SEG 52, 1591–1593. 184 CIL V, 764 = ILS 4251 = CIMRM I 263, no. 739. 185 Avram 2015, 128. 186 Avram 2015, 128. 187 IGB III.1, 1518 = Jaccottet 2003 II, no. 48 = CAPInv. 650. 188 Bărbulescu et al. 2014 = CAPInv. 1818. 189 Bărbulescu et al. 2014, 425. 181

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

75

(no. 559), a ποντάρχης and υἱὸς τῆς πόλεως, the father of Τίτος Φλάουιος Ποσειδώνιος (ποντάρχης, ἀρχιερεύς, υἱὸς τοῦ Πόντου, ἀγωνοθέτης of Antinoos).190 The association was a respectable local one, probably actively involved in the imperial cult, considering the social and juridical status of some of its members, as well as their dedication to Antoninus Pius and the current governor. A couple of decades later, in AD 160, an inscription191 points to the even wider variety of associations in Tomis, when an Οἶκος τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων192 is attested. The inscription represents a dedication to Sarapis and the σύνναοι θεοί (Isis, Anubis, Harpocrates), to which the emperor Antoninus Pius and M. Aurelius Verus Caesar are added as sign of loyalty. The dedicator of the inscription, Καρπίων son of Ἀνουβίων (no. 435), offered an altar to the association, whose regular members are not mentioned. Besides the dedicator, only two (possibly three) priests are named: Κορνοῦτος Σαραπίων (no. 439), Πολύμνις Λογγῖνος (no. 474) and ignotus son of Ἀρ[---] (no. 567). In this example, as the terminology indicates, membership was granted based on a common origin, a common religious option and a common occupation, here that of merchant/trader/shipper. Conversely, it also implies exclusion based on origin. As for their common origin, Alexandria, this does not mean that the members shared a common ethnicity: at the end of the 2nd century AD Alexandria was cosmopolitan, which is reflected in the personal names of the members of the association. This is similar to the situation in Rhodes193 but different from that at Delos,194 where the foreigners grouped according to their ethnicity, worshipping their specific gods. A temple of Sarapis (ἱερὸν τοῦ Σαράπιδος) might have been identified archaeologically through some architectural fragments,195 thus it is tempting to consider it as a place of worship used by the association as well. Also from the same period, two inscriptions196 record, most probably, the same association of sea merchants/shippers: the Οἶκος τῶν ἐν Τόμει ναυκλήρων.197 Unfortunately, despite these, information on the association and its members is rather sparse. We know the names of only two of its members: 190

ISM II, 52 = SEG 24, 1052. ISM II, 153 = IGRR I, 604 = RICIS 618/1005 = SEG 47, 1040 = Poland 1909, E 25 = AGRW 82 = ISM VI.2, 153 = CAPInv. 1206. 192 Avram 2006; Bounegru 2006, 43–51, 135; Tacheva-Hitova 1983, 12–13, no. 17. 193 Maillot 2015. 194 Baslez 2013. 195 Covacef 2005–06, 167. 196 ISM II, 60 = IGRR I, 610 = Poland 1909, E 24 A = AGRW 81 = ISM VI.2, 60 = CAPInv. 1199; ISM II, 132 = Poland 1909, E 24 B = CIL III, 7532 = ILS 4069 = CCET IV, 48 = ISM VI.2, 132 = CAPInv. 1199. 197 Bounegru 2006, 43–51, 135. 191

76

CHAPTER 4

Τίτος son of Τίτος νεώτερος (no. 489) and Φιλοκλῆς son of Χρῆστος (no. 492), both acting as φιλότιμοι. While the former, in the name of the association, consecrated a statue to M. Aurelius Verus Caesar, the latter consecrated a statue of Hestia. Nevertheless, this does not mean that Hestia was the tutelary goddess of the association; the goddess was probably worshipped in a more specific context. The consecration of a statue to M. Aurelius Verus Caesar, as well as the previous dedication to the emperor by the other οἶκος, can be seen as evidence of the involvement of the associations in the imperial cult, probably as a need to show loyalty, to develop specific networks and to ensure the longevity of the associations. Even though the profile of the members is unclear, the terminology suggests that the association gathered the ναύκληροι who were active in Tomis and who had different origins (however not all of the ναύκληροι attested at Tomis were members of associations). The terminology of the associations (which is discussed in the Glossary) points not only to a built space, but also to the idea of belonging, which was a central point of private associations, reinforced as well through titles like ἀδελφός, μήτηρ, πατήρ: the associations were not only ‘cités en miniature’198 but also families in miniature. From the other attestations, only at Delos was the term used definitely for an architectural structure: there the Ποσειδονιασταί from Berytus honoured Μάρκος Μινάτιος son of Σέξτος, a local banker, for granting the money needed to complete the association’s building, an οἶκος.199 The existence of such associations in a harbour city like Tomis is not surprising. The οἶκος-type of association could be encountered at Amastris and Nicomedia, both harbour cities in strategic positions which mediated trade between the East and the West. Tomis was an important distribution commercial centre for goods passing into the interior, it had stable relations with Bithynia and especially with Nicomedia, a commercial pillar of Asia Minor, which, along with Nicaea and Prusa, was its main commercial partner.200 The flourishing life of Tomis in the 2nd century AD is visible as well through the existence, at some time between AD 150 and 180, of a Θυμελικὴ σύνοδος.201 The term θυμελικός involves a musical or theatrical competition, and the inscription mentions the πανηγύρεις, annual festival during which the association performed.202 At Tomis, the existence of a theatre is confirmed, 198 199 200

2010. 201 202

Baslez 1988. IDelos 1520 = AGRW 224. Bounegru 2014, 13. This is to ne noted also through their presence at Tomis: Bounegru ISM II, 70 = IGRR I, 633 = Poland 1909, Δ 76 = ISM VI.2, 70 = CAPInv. 1197. Dana 2011, 80.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

77

and it is here that the association performed.203 As the inscription is honorific, we know only that [Ἄτταλ]ος son of Εὐμένης (no. 382 – see below at Istros) presided with generosity over the festival, acting as benefactor of the association. Thus he was not an actual member, most certainly only an external benefactor; his career was a civic one. No other details of the association and its members come out; nevertheless some general aspects on the association emerge, such as its participation in festivals and interaction with the local elite. Certainly, considering the type of association, admission was according to specific ‘artistic’ and occupational criteria. At the same time, it is not certain that all actors joined such associations, though is seems more plausible for them to have done so. A roughly contemporary epigram204 is relevant: it attests a successful actor, Εὐέλπιος son of Σῶσος from Byzantium, who settled at Tomis, but the direct evidence does not indicate his membership of the actors’ association. Relatively contemporary is the attestation of [Μύσται?].205 The existence of the association results from an honorific inscription which was dedicated by none other than the Council and the People to the leader of the association (μυστάρχης), Μᾶρκος Κοκκήϊος Χρυσόγονος (no. 535). The reason for such an honour is not mentioned, but considering other cases, we might imagine that the honorand also acted as benefactor in the public sphere. Nevertheless, it is uncommon for the benefactions not to be mentioned; in this case, perhaps the honorand was not among those whose liberalities were of great significance for the city. The sole mention of his associative tenure does raise some questions about his profile: was he a well-known local figure, maybe leading a very important association devoted to Cybele? Or was he a rather less important character from Tomis? We are dealing with an association involving mysteries, thus the deity worshipped might have been not only Cybele but also Dionysus (both frequently attested at Tomis) or Isis. As to the onomastics, he was a Roman citizen who displayed his juridical status, obtained early, but probably he was not related to the other Cocceii attested in Latin inscriptions at Tomis (active in agriculture and trade,206 or in the military field207). His Greek cognomen derives from the noun χρυσός (gold), from the category of personal names that point to precious goods, which could be seen as a good wish and hope for social ascent (see below two other examples at Istros). The profile of the other members remains obscure: were they from a similar juridical 203 204 205 206 207

ISM II, 4 = SEG 9, 908. Avram and Jones 2011, 133. ISM II, 90 = SEG 24, 1050 = ISM VI.2, 90 = CAPInv. 1198. ISM II, 181. ISM II, 260.

78

CHAPTER 4

and social background to their leader, or not? Further questions, such as the longevity of the association and its role at a local level, remain unknown as well. It is not surprising that the associative landscape included an association of imperial Ὑμνῳδοί,208 possibly from the reign of Septimius Severus and Caracalla. The inscription is extremely fragmentary and we know only that it was dedicated to the emperors, the ‘sacred army and Senate’. Considering the important role of Tomis during the Imperial period, the presence of such an association, which took part in the worship of the emperor and the dynasty, was to be expected. Another unsurprising trend is the emergence of an association worshipping Cybele (a very popular goddess at Tomis209), that of Δενδροφόροι, attested through two inscriptions.210 One is a dedication of the members to Septimius Severus, the imperial family and C. Ovinius Tertullus,211 governor of Moesia Inferior, and this as a thanksgiving for a gift (δωρεά) the association received from them. Unfortunately, we do not know what privilege the association received. The second (one of the few Latin inscriptions) is the dedication of an altar, this time by one of the members, Caius Antonius Eutyches (no. 507), archidendrophorus, to Attis. The association had at least 38 members, of whom five were also members of a Histrian association (see below), and at least two members were women. At the head of the association was probably Νάνα daughter of Θεάδων (no. 464), a μήτηρ δενδροφόρων. Besides her, the hierarchy includes one ἱερεύς, one πατήρ, an ἀρχιραβδουχῖσα and three ἀρχιδενδροφόροι. The names of members on the dedication to the emperor were not inscribed at the same time, but probably not at a great distance.212 Among these, fewer than half (18) held Roman citizenship (such as Πουπλία Αἰλία Ὀλυμπία, the ἀρχιραβδουχῖσα – no. 499), while most did not. Caius Antonius Eutyches (no. 507) for instance was, considering his cognomen, probably a freedman; I. Stoian considers that he might have been the freedman of C. Antonius Fronto,213 a veteran of the legio XIII Gemina and a landowner. Besides a cultic role with the annual celebration of Cybele, their possible professional activity is not clear, but we know 208

ISM II, 89 = Bottez 2009, 238, no. 37 = ISM VI.2, 89. Chiekova 2008, 130–33. 210 ISM II, 83 = IGRR I, 614 = SEG 27, 399 = Tacheva-Hitova 1983, 93–94, no. 48 = ISM VI.2, 83 = CAPInv. 1201; ISM II, 119 = CIL III, 763 = ILS 4116 = Tacheva-Hitova 1983, 92–93, no. 47 = ISM VI.2, 119 = CAPInv. 1201. 211 PIR2 O 191; Stein 1940, 84–86; Boteva 1996, 242; Zelazowksi 2009, 143. 212 ISM II, p. 110 (Stoian). 213 ISM II, 190 = CIL III 7545. 209

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

79

that the members of such an association could have been exploiters or suppliers of wood, for construction or heating.214 The privileges granted by the emperor, as well as worship of the emperor, the dynasty and the governor, point to a reciprocity between them, though it was of course asymmetric in terms of benefits. Besides the privilege(s) obtained, the association gained visibility in society and through this a steadier social status, whereby it was able to attract other benefactors.215 All could be a token of, or contribute to, its longevity. The 2nd–3rd centuries were the most prolific for associations; several types were recorded, from cultic to those unclassifiable for the paucity of information. Among the former, one makes a dedication to the Thracian Rider (Heros et Dominus).216 The inscription was discovered at Cumpăna in Tomitan territory (but pertained to the city217); the individuals were Romanised Orientals, all their cities of origin being mentioned: Abonouteichos (two), Caesarea (one), Heraclea (one), Mazaca (one), Nicomedia (two, Perinthus (one) and Tium (three). At the head of the association was a woman, Menia Iuliane from Tium, who acted as mater Romanorum of the members. Considering this aspect, the association was probably devoted to another deity, perhaps Cybele, certainly not to the Thracian Rider. Why they made this dedication to the latter is unknown. Many other foreigners are attested at Tomis, from near (Callatis218) and far (Alexandria,219 Athens, Sidon,220 etc.).221 The same terminology of mater (and pater), for the officials of an association, was used as well in a dumus222 (the Latin version is extremely rare) whose officials dedicated an altar to an unmentioned god. The inscription, found in Tomitan territory (Mihail Kogălniceanu), is fragmentary and it records with certainty only three members: the officials and a vixillarius (sic!) who was in charge of erecting the monument. From the fragmentary upper part of the inscription comes the term Augusti, which could have indicated that among the dedicators of the altar was another person, maybe a libertus Augusti or a procurator Augusti. While the officials Flavia Nona (no. 550) and Aurelius 214

Verboven 2016, 178. Harland 2015, 8. 216 ISM II, 129 = CIL III, 7532 = ILS 4069 = CCET IV, 48 = CAPInv. 1205. 217 Bărbulescu and Buzoianu 2013, 196, no. 8. 218 ISM II, 312. 219 ISM II, 153 = IGRR I, 604 = RICIS 618/1005 = SEG 47, 1040 = Poland 1909, E 25 = AGRW 82 = ISM VI.2, 153 = CAPInv. 1206. 220 ISM II, 290. 221 Buzoianu and Bărbulescu 2012, 58–59. 222 ISM II, 160 = AE 1964, 230 = Tacheva-Hitova 1983, 78–80, no. 14 = ISM VI.2, 160 = CAPInv. 1207. 215

80

CHAPTER 4

Valerianus (no. 509) were Roman citizens, the other, Dionus (no. 404), might have been a slave.223 Also unclear, and much debated, was the goddess worshipped by the association, which has been identified as either Cybele224 or the Iranian Anahita,225 based on the terminology used for denoting the association and its officials. Arguments in favour of Cybele focus mostly on the spread of her worship in this area, especially at Tomis, whereas those in support of Anahita dwell on the possibility that the goddess was imported from Asia Minor directly by its worshippers,226 which would mean that the members were incomers from Asia Minor. The same period yields further associations, but the fragmentary state of the inscriptions leaves many details and the names unknown. One such association227 provides only the fragmentary names of three of its members, along with the office of γραμματεύς which is held by one of the members, [---]ος Λονγεῖνος. There is more information on the members of another,228 recorded on an otherwise unforthcoming inscription found at Cumpăna: 19 members, all of whom had either an honorific title (φιλότειμοι, 13) or had specific associative offices like γυμνασίαρχοι (two), νομοφύλαξ, ἱεροκῆρυξ, or ἔκγδικος. Therefore, it seems that the list comprises only (some of) the officials of the associations and its numerous benefactors, who could have obtained this title after leaving a specific office inside the association. The last three mentioned offices are rarely attested in the Pontic area and their occurrence in a 3rdcentury AD associative inscription (Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου),229 from Tomis, led its editor to assume that the two inscriptions might record the same association. Even though this is tempting, the common existence of just four offices (three of which are rarer) cannot sustain this argument. Not even one member appears in both inscriptions, but it would be tempting to see a generational connection between the two, since there are some common personal names and patronymics in both and both inscriptions have family members involved. Nevertheless, these arguments are not solid enough and could apply to other examples of associations as well. Returning to the inscription, the last line begins with the letters κοινο[---], which might have come from κοινο[σώστης], an honorific title encountered also at Callatis (see above). Based on the similarity of the internal hierarchy and on the reference 223 224 225 226 227 228 229

ISM II, p. 190 (Stoian). See the review of Tacheva-Hitova 1983, 79. Pippidi 1967a; 1988, 43–45; Ruscu 2013, 29–30. Ruscu 2013, 30. ISM II, 16 = ISM VI.2, 16 = CAPInv 1187. ISM II, 17 = ISM VI.2, 17 = CAPInv. 1188. ISM II, 125 = SEG 34, 695 = CAPInv. 1203.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

81

to a κοινοσώστης, another inscription may be closer,230 but, yet again, certainty that it records the same association fails for the same criteria mentioned above. There are four other fragmentary inscriptions231 which make reference to some associative office. All have members who have both Greek and Roman names and patronymics, the holders of Roman citizenship being very few (three). One inscription232 has among members a certain Ἀννιανος son of Πρίσκος (no. 564), who, according to the editor, might have been the father of Αὐρήλιος Πρίσκος Ἀννιανος,233 the well-known Oriental who was established at Tomis, where he had an impressive career. Worthy of mention is the attestation of another possible κοινοσώστης,234 as well as the likely presence of three ποντάρχαι in another association,235 which imply a higher social standing of the members and of the associations themselves. With three exceptions, most of the 3rd-century AD associations provide just glimpses of information because of the fragmentary character of the inscriptions. All three associations are cultic, and one of them is a Σπεῖρα Ῥωμαίων,236 mentioned on a statue base. The honorific inscription specifies the name of the priest of the association, Βιτάλιος (no. 389) – whose patronymic was probably in the damaged part of the inscription. The individual honoured by the association with ‘busts and statues’ is unknown, as are the reasons, likewise the identity of the other members. If, in general, the term Σπεῖρα is used particularly to denote associations devoted to Dionysus, in this case we cannot be certain whether it is so based solely on the terminology. The ethnic component (Ῥωμαῖοι) around which the members seem to have gathered is uncommon, but there are various other associations based on a common origin. The next cultic association was devoted to Isis.237 Two of its members are mentioned, but the inscription is fragmentary, therefore we cannot dive deep into their profile. According to the recent reading of Avram,238 the inscription records a μήτηρ παστοφόρων and not a πατὴρ τῶν παστοφόρων: an ignota 230

ISM II, 19 = SEG 24, 1055 = ISM VI.2, 19 = CAPInv. 1190. ISM II, 18 = SEG 24, 1088 = ISM VI.2, 18 = CAPInv. 1189; ISM II, 19 = SEG 24, 1055 = ISM VI.2, 19 = CAPInv. 1190; ISM II, 23 = SEG 24, 1057 = ISM VI.2, 23 = CAPInv. 1191; ISM II, 25 = ISM VI.2, 25 = CAPInv. 1192. 232 ISM II, 18 = SEG 24, 1088 = ISM VI.2, 18 = CAPInv. 1189. 233 ISM II, 97 = SEG 36, 690. 234 ISM II, 19 = SEG 24, 1055 = ISM VI.2 19 = CAPInv. 1190. 235 ISM II, 25 = ISM VI.2, 25 = CAPInv. 1192. 236 ISM II, 100 = IGRR I, 638 = Poland 1909, B 103 = ISM VI.2, 100 = CAPInv. 1200. 237 ISM II, 98 = SEG 24, 1054 = Tacheva-Hitova 1983, 13–14, no. 18 = Avram 2018b = ISM VI.2, 98 = CAPInv. 1202. 238 Avram 2018b. 231

82

CHAPTER 4

(no. 566) wife of a certain [---]κράτης son of an ignotus (no. 566). Having a woman, or a man (in the upper part of the fragmentary inscription a πατὴρ τῶν παστοφόρων could have been mentioned239) and a woman at the head of associations devoted to goddesses is not uncommon. The association mentions a προστάτης [τοῦ θιάσου] (other suggested versions: κοινοῦ, συνόδου240) and the existence of παστοφόροι is understood through the title of the honorand, while the ἱεροναῦται are explicitly named, these two being most probably two different and specialised associations.241 The ἱεροναῦται were in charge, during the navigium Isidi ceremony, of the nautical procession.242 Besides the navigium Isidi, the charmosyna were also celebrated at Tomis by the worshippers of Isis.243 The associative phenomenon is enriched through the above-mentioned Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου,244 a cultic association whose members (at least 27) worshipped the Hero (Thracian Rider), but in this case as well it might not be the tutelary god. Considering the fact that the association had a priestess (Βουτίς daughter of Ἡρόξενος – no. 390), we may presume that the tutelary deity could have been one of the goddesses attested at Tomis. The dedication records in the first part those members who held various offices (συναγω[γεύς], ἱέρεια, γραμματεύς, νομοφύλαξ, ἔκδικος, ἱεροκῆρυξ), or acted as φιλότιμοι (one was a φιλότιμος διὰ βίου), while in the second we find the regular members (συναγόμενοι). The deity gathers worshippers of very different backgrounds, their personal names being Greek, Egyptian, Roman and Thracian, which certainly reflects, at least in part, their ethnicity. Not many of the dedications made by associations for gods record such a high number of members; some mention only the most important officials. As is especially common in those cases where the number of recorded members is high, there are many relatives involved. The person around whom the members gathered was Ἡρόξενος son of Διοσκουρίδης (no. 414), who was the father of the priestess of the association, Βουτίς daughter of Ἡρόξενος (no. 390), and of the ἔκδικος of the association, Πάπας son of Ἡρόξενος (no. 470). Therefore, it proceeds that family members played an important role in the life of the association. Another well-represented family might be that of a certain Λυσίμαχος, the patronymic is held by five of the members, who were probably brothers (considering that, besides this inscription, the personal name is attested 239 240 241 242 243 244

Avram 2018b, 125. Avram 2018b, 123. Avram 2018b, 124. RICIS 618/1007 commentary. ISM II, 7 = SEG 24, 1053. ISM II, 125 = SEG 34, 695 = CAPInv. 1203.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

83

only once more at Tomis):245 Ἀκορνίων (no. 369), Δαμᾶς (no. 394), Δημήτριος (no. 400), Νουμήνιος (no. 467) and Τειμόθεος (no. 488). Another possible example of brothers is that of Δῖος (no. 405) and Μαγνίων (no. 445), who share the patronymic Ἀοταῖος, which is attested only through this inscription. One last example246 is that of Γαληνός (no. 391) and Ἥλιος (no. 410), both sons of an Ἄττας. The other four fragmentary inscriptions can be included in the corpus based on different attested officials that point to the existence of associations. All are lists comprising members of the association and their respective offices. One of the inscriptions247 was set up for unknown purposes, but except for one member (Ἑρμογένης son of Μᾶρκος – no. 408), who was both a benefactor and a γυμνασίαρχος, the other eight members are all priests, possibly former priests since in all likelihood they did not hold the office at the same time. The personal names of the members are mostly Greek, while the patronymics are both Roman and Greek. Based on the patronymic, we might presume that at the head of the association were members coming from certain families, since some of the members seem to be related: Ἑρμογένης (no. 408) and Διονύσιος (no. 402) were possibly the sons of the same Μᾶρκος, while ignotus (no. 571) and Διονύσις (no. 403) were possibly the sons of the same Ἑστιαῖος, and Βαλεριανός (no. 387) and Ποσειδώνις (no. 480) were possibly the sons of the same Βαλέριος. Another such inscription248 can be considered relevant for the associative phenomenon only because of the reference to a προστάτης – Αὐρήλιος Σευῆρος (no. 512). Besides him, there were at least eight more members, all Roman citizens, some of whom might have been related as well. The richest inscription249 in this category is one which records at least 57 individuals, 16 of them holding Roman citizenship. Some of the members occupy specific associative offices: φιλότιμοι (seven), ἀρχιερεῖς? (possibly five) and βιβλιοφύλαξ (one). But based only on them it is impossible to say more about the type of association to which they belonged. The office of βιβλιοφύλαξ is the only one attested for the Pontic world in an associative milieu, but very rarely. It is uncertain whether the abbreviations ἀρ[---] and ἀρχ[---] come from ἀρχιερεύς or not, but it is uncommon to have such an 245

ISM II, 28. Due to the fact that the personal name/patronymic Ἀσκληπιάδης is very common, we are reluctant to state that Ἀσκληπιάδης son of ignotus (no. 380) was related to Ἀρτεμίδωρος son of Ἀσκληπιάδης (no. 378). 247 ISM II, 26 = ISM VI.2, 26 = CAPInv. 1193. 248 ISM II, 27 = SEG 9, 909 = ISM VI.2, 27 = CAPInv. 1194. 249 ISM II, 31 = SEG 33, 584 = ISM VI.2, 31 = CAPInv. 1195. 246

84

CHAPTER 4

abbreviation for a term which is normally recorded in full. Furthermore, the use of two abbreviations for the same term seems, if not maladroit, at least bizarre and improvised. Moreover, usually the person who was an ἀρχιερεύς appeared among the first members and not, as in this case, in a rather secondary order. From an onomastic point of view, the list records both Greek and Roman personal names/cognomina and patronymics, some of them repeating themselves quite often (the name Μᾶρκος Τερεν[τιανός?] is attested at least three times), which in some cases could point to the existence of relatives (for example, Ἰούλιος Λονγεῖνος and Ἰούλιος Λονγεῖνος νεώτερος). Attention is drawn to the attestation of two infrequent personal names, derived from the inauspicious name Hephaestus: Ἡφαιστίων (no. 415) and Ἡφαιστόδωρος (no. 416 – as personal name and patronymic). The last inscription250 is the most fragmentary of all, the sole evidence for an association being the reference to a priest. Not much can be said of the association itself or its members, the preserved patronymics being mostly Roman. *

*

*

At Tomis, the associative phenomenon has a more singular character given by the existence of associations of foreigners, by occupational associations, as well as by the presence of women even as founders and leaders of associations. The associations are very varied and mostly cultic, worshipping popular (Cybele, Thracian Rider) and less popular gods/goddesses (Hecate). The cosmopolitan character of Tomis is reflected in the extremely varied types of association, but also in the origin of the members, mentioned explicitly or deducible through the anthroponyms and patronymics involved. There is an intense presence of Roman anthroponyms compared with Callatis for example, where we find a certain ‘conservatism’ given by its status as a civita foederata. The presence of Roman citizens inside associations is not so high despite the importance of Tomis in the Roman period; the Iulii predominate (17 of 25), followed by the Aurelii (nine of 86), Flavii (eight of 17) and Aelii (four of 22). The same cosmopolitan character and regional importance is reflected in the presence of Histrian citizens in one of the most important local association. As a general tendency, on the one hand there is compliance in worshipping the emperor and the imperial dynasty (by the Ὑμνῳδοί, but also by different associations which have a lesser – but still important – contribution to this 250

ISM II, 34 = ISM VI.2, 34 = CAPInv. 1196.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

85

activity), and on the other a tendency towards worshipping gods specific to the area (Dionysus, Cybele, the Thracian Rider) or brought by immigrants (Isis, Anahita). Especially in the 2nd century we notice association support for imperial ideology and legitimacy through the dedications made by them to various emperors, which ensured the visibility of the association and possibly its longevity. The imperial connections, as well as those with the elite, increased their social capital and, in some cases, strengthened their finances, but it is impossible accurately to estimate the contributions. While there are no clear-cut differences over time with respect to the associative phenomenon, the available evidence indicates an increase in associations of immigrants and of the gods worshipped. HISTRIA/ISTROS The polis of Histria/Istros, located on the western shore of the Black Sea, was founded in the 7th century BC by Milesians;251 in the 1st century AD it came under Roman rule as part of the province of Moesia Inferior, later of the province of Scythia. The main cults attested are those of Zeus Polieus, Apollo Ietros, Leto and Aphrodite.252 The harbour was active in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, but also before.253 In terms of the local economy, agriculture was one of the main activities,254 as well as animal husbandry,255 fishing in the Delta256 (which provided salted fish, or species such as sturgeon),257 artisanal production258 and trade – oriented towards the East.259 As at Callatis (and Tomis – see above), the associative phenomenon is wellrepresented. Remarkably, there is only one association, the Ταυρεασταί (attested through four inscriptions), which dates back to the 2nd century BC. At Istros, 15 associations are recorded in 25 inscriptions, from the 2nd century BC to the 3rd century AD (but none in the 1st century BC or the 1st century AD). Overall, these associations had 248 members, the second largest number after Tanais. The deities worshipped include Heracles, Poseidon, Poseidon

251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259

Avram et al. 2004b, 933. Avram et al. 2004b, 933; Chiekova 2008, 16–24, 159–62, 177, 217–20. Suceveanu and Barnea 1991, 91. Pippidi 1967b, 120–66; Suceveanu and Barnea 1991, 77–79. ISM II, p. 20 (Pippidi). Pippidi 1967b, 349–85. ISM II, p. 19 (Pippidi). Suceveanu and Barnea 1991, 85. Suceveanu and Barnea 1991, 91.

86

CHAPTER 4

Taurus, the most popular being Dionysus, who is attested through the highest number of inscriptions and over two centuries. As mentioned, the sole association from the 2nd century BC is that of Ταυρεασταί,260 an association which gathers the worshippers of Poseidon Taurus.261 The association enjoyed longevity, continuing up to the 2nd century AD, and all four inscriptions are honorific decrees, three on behalf of the association (one is fragmentary) and another which only mentions the association.262 The inscriptions attest the celebration, during the month of Ταυρεών, of the association annual festivity, the Ταυρέα,263 during which the coronation of the association’s benefactors took place (one of whom might have received a golden crown). In the 2nd century AD, the association is attested in an honorific decree dedicated to Ἄβα,264 daughter of Ἑκαταῖος (son of Εὐξενίδης) and wife of Ἡράκων son of Ἀριστόμαχος,265 both men being priests of Dionysus Carpophorus at Istros. The inscription lists her benefactions as well as the fact that she expressed goodwill towards the Council, the gerusia, some professional categories (physicians, teachers) and some private associations (as well as the Ταυρεασταί, it mentions the Τέκτονες and the Ὑμνῳδοί). Nevertheless, the liberalities granted on behalf of the benefactress point to the place of these associations in Histrian society, since in the Roman period the public banquets reflected the internal hierarchy of the society.266 The benefactress did exactly this, her liberalities were civic but they were not collective, nor egalitarian.267 In this system, the Ταυρεασταί belonged to the first category, receiving money just like the members of the Council, the gerusia, the physicians, the teachers and some special guests. Except for this long-lasting association, the associative phenomenon resurfaces only in the 2nd century AD, when the evidence is richer. In addition to associations which can with certainty be categorised as such, there are others whose status is only probable or even uncertain, due to the lack of specific details.

260 ISM I, 60 = CAPInv. 1210; ISM I, 61 = SEG 2, 451 = CAPInv. 1210; Avram 2014, no. 2 = CAPInv. 1201; ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112 = CAPInv. 1210. 261 Chiekova 2008, 212–13. 262 It is the decree in honour of Ἄβα, the association being among the three associations which were the beneficiaries of her liberalities. 263 Chiekova 2008, 212. 264 ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112. 265 On the decree and the benefactress, see Popescu 1960; ISM II, pp. 152–56 (Pippidi); van Nijf 1997, 149–50, 156–88, 251–52; Pázsint 2017b. 266 van Nijf 1997, 149–56. 267 van Nijf 1997, 157; Dana 2011, 77; Pázsint 2017a, 54–55.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

87

The association of the Τέκτονες268 is attested in the decree for Ἄβα. The name of this occupational association is formed through a collective plural derived from the name of a shared occupation (builders). Its inclusion among Ἄβα’s beneficiaries probably arose from the role its members had in the cult of Attis (as δενδροφόροι involved in the arbor intrat ceremony269), the pair of Cybele (whose priestess was Ἄβα). The association came in the second category of beneficiaries, receiving the same as members of the tribes, the Ὑμνῳδοί,270 owners of houses located along the Sacred Way, as well as the Ἡρακλειασταί271 – a distribution of wine ‘according to the deeds of those who at some point had high dignities’. The brief mention of the association gives no further insight to its membership, local role or internal organisation, etc. Except for Callatis, Heracles is rarely attested in the cities of the western Black Sea.272 Of the Histrian associations, the best represented is the Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων, active in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD and attested through a dozen inscriptions. The name under which it appears is not uniform: Ὑμνῳδοί, Ὑμνῳδοί πρεσβύτεροι οἱ περὶ τὸν μέγαν θεὸν Διόνυσον, Ὑμνῳδοί πρεσβύτεροι περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον, Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων. Considering the terminology and the ‘specificity’, the link of the Ὑμνῳδοί with the Σπεῖρα has been questioned by Pippidi273 and Jaccottet,274 who wondered whether they were a special department of the Σπεῖρα, or a separate association connected to it through shared goals. The evidence points more to the Ὑμνῳδοί being an integral part of the Σπεῖρα. What stands out with this association is its longevity, which was certainly influenced by the social and juridical status of its members, as well as the networks that they created and their importance in the imperial cult. The personalised connections with the local and provincial authorities275 certainly represented a guarantor of longevity through official submission and participation in political discourse. Worshipping the emperor and associating with the authorities was a clear statement of its contribution to the imperial construct and an advertisement of its place in the local community. 268

ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112 = CAPInv. 1208. ISM II, p. 155 (Pippidi). 270 ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112 = CAPInv. 1218. 271 ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112 = CAPInv. 1209. 272 Chiekova 2008, 229. 273 Pippidi 1962, 186. 274 Jaccottet 2003 II, 135. 275 ISM I, 99 = SEG 19, 477 = SEG 24, 1120 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 131–33, no. 64 = CAPInv. 1218 is a dedication of the association on behalf of the emperor Elagabal, Iulia Maesa, two praefecti praetorio, the Senate, the imperial armies, the governor of the province, as well as the Council and people of Istros. 269

88

CHAPTER 4

At the same time, the associations offered the elite the possibility of acting and being seen as benefactors even though at a smaller scale than that of the city. With about 97 members, this was the second most numerous Pontic association after the Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον from Tanais (see Chapter 5 below). Based on the existing inscriptions, we can reconstruct the internal hierarchy, which included offices such as ἀρχιερεύς, and ἀρχιέρεια, several ἱερεῖς (who probably became honorary members – φιλότιμοι – when leaving the office276), a πατήρ, followed by more administrative positions, such as προστάται, γραμματεῖς (one διὰ βίου), εὐθύνοι, but also ἀρχιμύσται and various officials in charge of the contests. While not all activities are clear, the specification of an ἀγωνοθέτης, of ἱερονεῖκαι, as well as of the ἀγῶνα χορῶν and the κατὰ πάντων point to sacred contests (dance, chorus). Furthermore, there are various specialised officials mentioned: at the head we can find various προστάται (this office being specific to the artistic hierarchy, and not the mystic one277), followed by musicians such as μεσόχορος (conductor of the chorus), μούσαρχος (poetic instructor) and χοροστάτης (leader of the chorus). Uncertain is the identity of the authors of the hymns: were they persons from outside who were paid for their activity, or were they members of the association?278 At least the Dionysiac ὑμνῳδοί took part in competitions as well, which at Istros were probably organised in the local theatre.279 Through agonistic inscriptions there is evidence of the winners (ἱερονεῖκαι) of sacred competitions (ἱερὸς ἀγῶν), including inscriptions which confirm their victory (a vase, a στιβάς – a place of reunion). The competitions were probably organised at the level of the western κοινόν,280 this being supported through the involvement of the ποντάρχαι as προστάται. This association provides many remarkable aspects. While at Dionysopolis (see above) and Tanais (see Chapter 5 below) we find members who joined different associations from the same city, at Istros five members of this Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων joined the association of [Δενδροφόροι] from Tomis. The involvement of the five (Ἄνδρων son of Λονγείνος – no. 612; Ἀχιλλεύς son of Ἀχιλλᾶς – no. 625; Ἱλαρίων son of Λούκιος – no. 665; Αὐρήλιος Ἀλέξανδρος son of Ηλεις (Ηλις) – no. 753; and Αὐρήλιος Ποντικός son of Ἑ[ρμοδώρος] – no. 767) has already been discussed comprehensively, and explained through the local importance of the two cults 276

As the inscription ISM I, 207 = SEG 19, 480 = CAPInv. 1218 seems to point. Pippidi 1967b, 458. 278 Pippidi 1967b, 459–60. 279 Pippidi 1967b, 463. For evidence on the existence of theatres in the Pontic area, see Dana 2011, map no. 3. 280 Avram 2018a, 147. 277

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

89

(Dionysus, Cybele) in the two cities.281 In the case of two such members, Αὐρήλιος Ἀλέξανδρος and Αὐρήλιος Ποντικός, we notice the granting of Roman citizenship: initially, at Istros they are attested without nomina; later at Tomis they appear with the nomina. The granting of Roman citizenship can possibly be observed for another member (this time attested only at Istros), Αἰλιανός son of Ηλεις (Ηλις) (no. 600), who in AD 161–169 is a μούσαρχος in the Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων; a couple of decades later, in AD 222–224, it might be he who is attested as Αὐρήλιος Αἰλιανός son of Ηλεις (Ηλις) in the same association. Nevertheless, it is not impossible that they were different persons – in this case relatives, as the name indicates. Less probable is the example of Πολύτειμος son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 720) from the same Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων, who, considering the chronology as well as his rare personal name, might be the same as Οὔλπιος Πολύτειμος (no. 790), but after the receipt of citizenship. At the same time, we might be just dealing with a different individual. There are not many Roman citizens in this association (about 13%), the Aurelii predominate (nine), followed by the Flavii (two), the Ulpii (one) and lastly the Aelii (one). Another significant feature of this association is that it provides fertile ground for the identification of kinship relations over the decades, even across a century. Among family members, it is common to identify a generation (for example brothers), but mainly two (brothers and fathers). Some are attested in different inscriptions, or even in different associations. Moreover, some members were even part of, or related to members of, the gerusia.282 As such, from the Σπεῖρα 11 of the 19 προστάται of the association were members of the gerusia: Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος (πρῶτος ποντάρχης, υἱὸς τῆς πόλεως), Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Καλλίστρατος, Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Πραίσης, Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Δημήτριος,283 Διογένης son of Κάρπος, Ἀρτεμίδωρος son of Κάρπος, Ἡρόδωρος son of Κάρπος, Καλλίστρατος son of Κάρπος,284 Αἴλιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος son of Διοσκουρίδης, Πόπλιος Αἴλιος [Ἀρτεμίδωρος] son of Φαιδρίας and Κάρπος son of Ἀπολλόδωρος (see Fig. 15).285 Other members, such as Διονύσιος son of Μοιρόδωρος, Χαιρήμων son of Παπίας, Πωλλίων son of Μέμνων, Θεοκλῆς son of ignotus and Αὐρήλιος Γρήγορος son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 758), were either members of the gerusia or were related to some of them, as the patronymics indicate. In the latter example, our individual 281 282 283 284 285

Ruscu 2014. ISM I, 193 = SEG 1, 330. ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112 = CAPInv. 1218. ISM I, 201 = SEG 2, 457 = SEG 18, 297. ISM I, 137 = SEG 27, 369.

90

CHAPTER 4

was probably a relative of the gerusiastes Ἀρτεμίδωρος son of Γρήγορος.286 As L. Ruscu has noted, if Αὐρήλιος Γρήγορος’ office of ἀγωνοθέτης was a civic one, it may indicate that being part of the gerusia ‘served as a steppingstone for the next generation to ascend into the ruling elite’.287 Another significant example is that of Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος, who was most probably related to Οὔλπιος Δημήτριος, βουλευτής288 and maybe even to members of the gerusia: Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Εὐξενίδης son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος, Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Δημήτριος son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος (see Fig. 16).289 If the gerusia ‘served the purpose of being an outlet to the activities, the ambitions and the thirst for prestige of people who did not belong to the councillor class and who could not very well reconcile themselves with just belonging to the demotai’,290 belonging to both the gerusia and this association, or only to this association, had a similar motivation and desired outcome. Other significant examples of individuals in higher placed positions who were also connected to the association (or to other Histrian associations) are those of ποντάρχαι, some of whom are attested with their relatives. At Istros there are five ποντάρχαι attested in connection with associations, among them, from the middle of the 2nd century AD: Τίτος Κομινίος Εὐξενίδης291 (no. 774 – προστάτης inside the Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων) and Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 780) πρῶτος ποντάρχης,292 υἱὸς τῆς πόλεως,293 but also a συναγωγεύς294 of the gerusia, a worshipper of Mithras295 and member of the Σπεῖρα; his family belonged to the local elite.296 From the beginning of the 3rd century AD there are the ποντάρχαι Βίρριος Λέων (no. 769), a former priest of the [Ποσειδωνιασταί] and Ἑκαταῖος son of Εὐξενίδης (no. 648) – προστάτης of the Ὑμνῳδοί νεώτεροι οἱ περὶ τὸν μέγαν θεὸν Διόνυσον. From the same association of [Ποσειδωνιασταί] there is a ποντάρχης ἀπὸ πατρὸς, Τίτος Αἴλιος Μιν[---] (no. 746), who was a ἱερεὺς διὰ βίου. The familial provincial interconnectivity of the latter is discussed under Callatis, and even though the Histrian branch of his family is unknown, the text suggests 286

ISM I, 193 = SEG 1, 330. Ruscu 2014, 483. 288 ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112 = CAPInv. 1218. 289 ISM I, 193 = SEG 1, 330. Musielak 1993, 104 = Ruscu 2014, 479. 290 Ruscu 2014, 482. 291 Maybe related to Τίτος Κομινίος Κλαυδιανός ῾Ερμάφιλος (pontarch himself) and Ἄτταλος son of Εὐμένης from Tomis: Ruscu 2004. 292 On this title, see Avram et al. 2004a, 361; Maurer 2014. 293 On this title, see Giannakopoulos 2008. 294 ISM I, 193 = SEG 1, 330. 295 ISM I, 137 = SEG 27, 369. 296 Musielak 1993. 287

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

91

that among his relatives there were other ποντάρχαι, the family members being probably representatives of the 3rd-century elite. Another example begs attention. It includes another case of familial provincial interconnectivity of individuals of high social and juridical status, some of whom were members of associations. Τίτος Κομινίος Εὐξενίδης, a ποντάρχης (no. 774), who is attested in the Σπεῖρα at Istros, was related to two individuals from Tomis: Τίτος Κομινίος Κλαυδιανός Ἑρμάφιλος297 (σοφιστής, ποντάρχης, ἀγωνοθέτης, ἀρχιερεύς, ἱερεύς of the emperors) and [Ἄτταλ]ος son of Εὐμένης298 (no. 382), who was an ἄρχων, ἀγορανόμος, πανηγυριάρχης and φιλότιμος and ταμίας in the Θυμελικὴ σύνοδος.299 The link is the uncommon nomen (Cominius) shared by two of them, which is rarely attested in this area,300 and by their attestation in different cities (which makes less likely the hypothesis that they were freedmen301). As such, they probably received citizenship from someone who had received it himself, either from the governor, T. Cominius Proculus,302 or from the former legatus legionis of the legio V Macedonica, M. Cominius Secundus.303 Both branches of the family were part of the local elite, Τίτος Κομινίος Κλαυδιανός Ἑρμάφιλος leaving Tomis for Istros.304 The Tomis branch is interesting to examine, since one of the brothers, [Ἄτταλ]ος, does not have/exhibit a gentilicium, which suggests that from this branch only Τίτος Κομινίος Κλαυδιανός Ἑρμάφιλος received Roman citizenship, occupying a prestigious place in the political life of the province. The difference in status has been explained thus: their mother might have been married to a Roman citizen, Κομινίος, and then to a peregrine by the cognomen Εὐμένης.305 In comparison with his brother, and the above-mentioned relative from Istros, [Ἄτταλ]ος held more modest offices in the municipal structures, and he is named as φιλάδελφος, this ‘quality’ preceding the offices, which points to the distance (with regard to the prestige) between him and his brother.306 Moreover, it also indicates that for [Ἄτταλ]ος, this kinship connection was

297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306

ISM II, 69. Ruscu 2004. ISM II, 70 = IGRR I, 633 = Poland 1909, Δ 76 = ISM VI.2, 70 = CAPInv. 1197. Ruscu 2004, 910. Ruscu 2004, 907–08. Ruscu 2004, 909–10. Dana 2011, 249. Ruscu 2004, 910. Ruscu 2004, 907. Puech 2002, 297.

92

CHAPTER 4

a source of prestige307 and legitimacy of his position in the civic space.308 In addition to his civic offices, he was also a member of one of the local associations. The two brothers were part of the educated elite in Tomis and occupied their offices through belonging to an affluent family.309 Besides the more exceptional examples presented above and connected to the γερουσιασταί or the ποντάρχαι, several other kinship relations can be identified in the Σπεῖρα: Αὐρήλιος Ἀριστοκράτης (no. 755) and Αὐρήλιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 756), the sons of Ἀριστοκράτης (both priests); and Αὐρήλιος Ἀλέξανδρος (no. 753), Αὐρήλιος Αἰλιανός (no. 752), Αὐρήλιος Ηλεις (Ηλις) (no. 763), Αὐρήλιος Σατουρνεῖλος (no. 768), the sons of Ηλεις (Ηλις). Other kinship connections can be identified: Δημήτριος son of Δομετιανός (no. 635 – μούσαρχος), whose brother was Κοκκήϊος son of Δομετιανός (no. 686 – μεσόχορος). Another example of kinship is that between Ἀχιλλεύς son of Ἀχιλλάς (no. 625) and his step-brother, Χρυσάων son of Ἀχιλλᾶς (no. 496). While the former was a member of both the Σπεῖρα and the Δενδροφόροι at Tomis, the latter was a member of only the Δενδροφόροι. This is one of the few cases of adoption, the latter being the natural son of a certain Γαῦκος. These specific examples illustrate on the one hand the high interconnectivity between members of this association (which is second only to the association Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον from Tanais), and on the other it shows that the association attracted either demotai eager for more social status, or even some members of the local elite (as members and/or benefactors), certainly linked to the most important local families.310 The Ὑμνῳδοί not only celebrated Dionysus, they had a role in the imperial cult, which can be further connected with the fact that members of the gerusia (actively engaged in the imperial cult), or their relatives, were involved in the association.311 This is both an indicator of the social component of the association, its importance at the local level and/or of the strategic networks which were developed by it. The association and its members benefited not only directly (financially) as a result of these networks with the elite, but also indirectly, through their association with them in the public space (through dedications of inscriptions, statues). The most valuable external relationship that an association could have was that which connected it to the local/provincial or even imperial political structure, via the ποντάρχαι and the governors. This type of reciprocal but uneven relationship points not only to the place which the 307 308 309 310 311

Dana Dana Dana Dana Dana

2011, 2011, 2011, 2011, 2011,

33. 249. 249. 83. 82.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

93

association occupied in society, but also to its desired projection of social status, and the relative calm which defines the relationship between the two partners. Avram sheds even more light on the role of the association and its relations with the elite: The catalogi being rather rare at the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd century, we are poorly informed about the Histrian elite during this period. Nevertheless, the presence of personalities like M. Ulpius Artemidorus among the prostatai of the association in the early years of its activity invites us to suppose that this Σπεῖρα was rather attractive for the Histrian elite. Since the competitions organized by this private associations were, as it seems, open to non-members, the Σπεῖρα was of some help to the city’s officials: it organised, at least partially, contests which would normally have been staged by the city’s authorities.312

This opinion is strengthened by the following inscription from AD 215 which attests the Ὑμνῳδοί νεώτεροι οἱ περὶ τὸν μέγαν θεὸν Διόνυσον.313 The inscription is a dedication by the winners in a musical contest, made on their behalf to Caracalla, Iulia Domna as well as C. Iulius Quintillianus, the then governor of Moesia Inferior. It is important that the leader of the association (through the office of προστάτης) was a ποντάρχης Ἑκαταῖος son of Εὐξενίδης (no. 648); the number of winners (members) is, however, unknown. In a similar vein can be interpreted an association devoted to Poseidon Heliconius, contemporary to the Σπεῖρα.314 It can be labelled as Ποσειδονιασταί (the term is not explicitly mentioned).315 The inscription represents a dedication on behalf of the ἱερεὺς διὰ βίου of the association, none other than the ποντάρχης ἀπὸ πατρὸς Τίτος Αἴλιος Μιν[---] (no. 746), a relative of the ποντάρχαι from Callatis. The text records the consecration of the god’s statue; all its members (mentioned as συνμύσται) are Roman citizens (a status mostly obtained under Caracalla), their naming system being a mixture of the Greek and the Latin, with the use of a praenomen (in one case), nomen and cognomen (mostly Greek) plus an indication of the patronymic as well. As well as the leader, two former priests are mentioned, one of whom also with the duty of ποντάρχης – Βίρριος Λέων (no. 769). Considering the use of the term συνμύσται, the cult probably implied mysteries,316 but no further aspects can be detailed. Associations explicitly labelled as Ποσειδονιασταί are attested

312 313 314 315 316

Avram 2015, 133. Avram 2018a = CAPInv. 1994. With the same epiclesis is attested in an inscription from Tomis: Chiekova 2008, 214. ISM I, 143. Chiekova 2008, 212.

94

CHAPTER 4

at Delos317 and Thasos318 in the 2nd–1st century BC, which makes it possible for the Istrian association to be identified as such. If above we have clear-cut examples of associations, from the 2nd and 3rd centuries there are more doubtful cases. From the 2nd century AD there are five such which, due to the fragmentary state of the inscription, have unidentifiable names, and not much can be said of them or their members. One,319 for example, might not even be classified, with certainty, as association, and this because the name is missing, and we have only a list of at least 13 individuals, four of whom are priests, two are priestesses and one is a φιλότειμος. Only one of the personal names is readable, while there are five readable patronymics. Similar to this is another fragmentary inscription320 from the 3rd century AD, which records two φιλότιμοι and a γυμνασιάρχης, only one patronymic being legible. The reference to a γυμνασιάρχης, in this association and in others as well (be they from Istros or another polis) shows the existence of γυμνασία – at Istros among the scant evidence of built space used by the associations (along with the theatre, and the στιβάς – the banqueting hall321). The other three inscriptions also record associations of unknown character, but they can be classified as such because there are several offices which are specific to associations. One of these322 records at least 27 members, of whom one was a γραμματεύς – this being the office pointing to the existence of an association. Noticeable in this association is the personal name of Χρυσιανός son of Χρύσης (no. 737) which derives from the noun χρυσός (gold); it belongs to a category of personal names which point to precious goods and could be seen as a good wish and hope for social ascent. Considering the patronymic, the personal name seems to come from a familial tradition, resulted in this case by adding the suffix -ιανός to the patronymic. Another inscription323 records at least nine members, of whom we have an indefinite number of προστάται. This is among the few inscriptions which uses terminology expressing the act of foundation: κτίσιν from the noun κτίσις. But we do not know whether the text refers to a cult place or not. The last one324 records at least six members, one of whom is female – Μαξιμίνα Σίσι (the 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324

IDelos 1751 = CAPInv. 891 and possibly also IDelos 1752–1758. IG XII.8 Suppl. 366 = CAPInv. 1991 and maybe also IG XII.8 Suppl. 367. ISM I, 195 = CAPInv. 1221. ISM I, 223 = CAPInv. 1223. ISM I, 167 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 130–31, no. 63 = CAPInv. 1218. ISM I, 197 = SEG 24, 1118 = CAPInv. 1222. ISM I, 227 = SEG 32, 684 = CAPInv. 1224. ISM I, 229 = CAPInv. 1225.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

95

only one with a patronymic). As officials there is a priest, a censor and two φιλότειμοι. Based on the low quality of the writing, on the lack of patronymics and on the existence of two Thracian names (one as personal name and one as patronymic), it may be presumed that this was an association whose members had low social status, even, as suggested by Pippidi in the commentary, slaves. Except for the woman (and possibly the last individual), whose importance is unknown, the other members mentioned were officials of the association. More regular members, who did not hold an office, certainly existed. Complementary to these are four more inscriptions which record associations with less certainty, these being lists of individuals who could have been members. In these cases, besides the personal names, there is no further evidence, no reference to offices or specific activities which would make it possible for them to be associative inscriptions. No qualitative information can be deduced from the four inscriptions, which record about eight,325 11 (this one recording members of the same family Αἰσχρίων son of Αἰσχρίων Τελέστου – no. 604 and Ἀθηνάδης son of Αἰσχρίων – no. 597),326 14327 and 21328 individuals, some having and exhibiting Roman citizenship, while others not. In the latter association, despite the existence of Roman citizens, some of them were probably Greeks, not Romans. As such, Greek origin is revealed by a common cognomen and by the Greek cognomen of their relatives. One such example is that of Φούλβιος Δέκμος (no. 802), most probably a Greek considering the Greek name of one of his relative Φούλβιος Τελέσφορος (no. 803), who was active in the contemporary Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων (nevertheless they might have obtained citizenship from the same person). A similar example comes from the same two associations where there is the attestation of Μέσσιος Κορνήλιος (no. 777) and [Μέ]σσιος Ἡρακλᾶς (no. 776). Their kinship with Messia Pudentilla329 from Buteridava might be possible according to Pippidi, but remains only a hypothesis. Due to the type of evidence, these last four inscriptions are less likely to be relevant to the understanding of the Histrian associative phenomenon. *

325 326 327 328 329

ISM ISM ISM ISM ISM

I, I, I, I, I,

*

218 = SEG 24, 1119. 200 = SEG 27, 368. 211. 201 = SEG 2, 457 = SEG 18, 297. 360.

*

96

CHAPTER 4

The existence of a 3rd-century BC association, which was active over several centuries, supports the assumption that the lack of associative inscriptions from the Hellenistic and Early Roman period probably has contextual archaeological reasons, though the fact that almost half of the inscriptions from Istros are from the BC period does raise some doubts. Unfortunately, the lacuna cannot be filled in, but beginning with the 2nd century AD the resurrection of the associative phenomenon in inscriptions is noticeable, which is, of course, also due to the pax Romana and the benefits it brought to the Roman provinces. The incomplete perspective provided by the sources is visible, for example, when comparing two of the attested associations: the Ταυρεασταί and the prolific Σπεῖρα. While the former is attested over a long period of time, the latter’s activity seems to have been specific only for the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Nevertheless, it is the Σπεῖρα which leaves the richest evidence, both from a quantitative and qualitative point of view. Considering the decree for Ἄβα, which presents a hierarchy of associations, the Ταυρεασταί seems to have had a higher status in Histrian society than the Σπεῖρα, but unfortunately the available evidence on the former is fragmentary. The associative phenomenon at Istros is multifaceted. If on the one hand there are associations with members of lesser social position, which probably fulfilled a more basic role both for their members and in society, on the other hand, there are associations that seem to have played a bigger role for their members and for the elite with whom they interacted, showing a larger picture of the society and its modus operandi. From the good numerical representativeness of the inscriptions and associations, we can sense the greater diversity of associations; there are smaller associations of lesser importance, while at the same time there are well-rooted associations which had considerable social capital in the city. In this sense, the decree for Ἄβα is revealing, since it points to the current social hierarchy in Istros in the 2nd century AD, in which the associations themselves, along with different categories of people, had a specific and explicit place. The variety of associations is reflected as well in the varied social and juridical status of their members. All categories are represented, from the lower, middling and upper echelons. With respect to juridical categories, of the 63 bearers of duo/tria nomina, only 18 are attested after AD 212, which points to the granting of Roman citizenship under different conditions and their display of this status and belonging to the Roman community. Of Greek poleis, Histrian associations have the most Roman citizens, both overall and as a proportion of membership (31.81%). This is explained not only through the dates of the inscriptions, it is also because some associations, like the Σπεῖρα, involved persons commonly of higher social status and sometimes belonging to, or connected with, the local elite.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

97

CONCLUDING REMARKS The associative phenomenon is richly recorded in the western Black Sea, even though focused especially on Greek cities with a long historical evolution, such as Istros, Tomis and Callatis, where the emergence of associations took place early, from the Classical period, and continued up to the 3rd century AD. While not all of the poleis have received equal attention archaeologically, leading to variable quantitative and qualitative evidence, that evidence is still sufficiently widespread to be representative. A significant difference consists in the types of association which developed locally, which was influenced by the local pantheon, the evolution of the cities (politically and economically) over time and their regional role, but also the dynamics of the population. For example, the cosmopolitan character of a city like Tomis is reflected in the types of association: we have not only associations of foreigners, but also associations oriented towards trade, others worshipping Egyptian deities (which are not attested elsewhere in associations from the Black Sea) or the imperial dynasty. As shown by the examples from Dionysopolis (Σύνοδος μυστικῆς Ταρσέων), Callatis (Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν) and Tomis (Οἶκος τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων) (and further on Panticapaeum, Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος – see below), some memberships were restricted individuals who shared a common origin, this being a criterion for integration. The evidence from the western Black Sea is richer than from elsewhere, but it still focuses on some of the most important cities, where besides chronological continuity of the associative phenomenon we notice other facets of it, including the local role and position in society of the associations (especially at Istros), their interaction with the authorities (especially at Istros and Tomis), and the social capital which they had for attracting new members or benefactors. With their integration into the Roman imperial arrangements, associations of ὑμνῳδοί emerge inside cities such as Odessus, Dionysopolis, Tomis and Istros, who make dedications for the emperors and take part in the celebration of the imperial cult. But dedications are made also by other associations, thereby expressing their submissiveness and their absorption of the imperial ideology, which in some cases could bring them certain benefits. The social and juridical status of members varied from one association to another; overall, the number of Roman citizens was low, representing about 10% of the total, of whom half received citizenship under Caracalla, or had a non-imperial nomen (see Fig. 17 for all bearers of non-imperial nomina, Fig. 18 for bearers of praenomina and nomina, and Fig. 19 for bearers of fragmentary nomina) which makes the number even less. We can intuit that about 5% of the individuals were part of the local elite, in some cases attested only as benefactors of the

98

CHAPTER 4

associations, their membership uncertain. Acting as benefactor for an association was a manner of expressing goodwill and generosity at a smaller scale, being recognised for this quality in the civic sphere where monuments were erected. This led to a mutual but unequal exchange between the two players, nevertheless both of them increased their social capital. Rarer are the instances where an individual granted his benefactions to both the city and various associations which implied a higher social capital obtained by the association. All in all, the associative phenomenon of the western Black Sea was vibrant and eclectic, peaking during the 2nd–3rd centuries AD, when the pax Romana led to favourable developments in the region.

CHAPTER 5

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

INTRODUCTION As on the western shore, the associative phenomenon is very well represented on the northern. Most of the inscriptions from the Pontic area come from here (108), but not the most associations (37), many of which are mentioned in several inscriptions, especially at Tanais, the stronghold of the phenomenon. On the northern shore, associations were especially common during the Roman period, with very few attestations from the Classical and Hellenistic periods. There is no visible continuity of specific associations beyond some decades. As most inscriptions are lists of names, the area provides the largest sample of individuals belonging to associations (as mentioned in Chapter 2, 1124 individuals from a total number of 1983 or 56.68% come from the northern shore). The ethnic, religious and political dynamism of this area provides a different outlook on the phenomenon, which is visible in the types of association formed and their interaction with local and royal power. OLBIA Miletus was mother-city of Olbia, founded around 600 BC,1 with Apollo as the city’s tutelary god. Here, associations are very poorly represented, only by five inscriptions from between the 6th and 4th centuries BC. Olbia is, nevertheless, the sole city where the evidence comes exclusively from the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Apollo was worshipped inside two associations (Βορεικοὶ θιασῖται2 and Νεομηνιασταί3) with the epicleses Boreas4 and Neomenios. These two examples aside, the deity is identifiable only in the

1 2 3 4

Avram et al. 2004b, 938. IGDolbia 95 = SEG 42, 709.1 = CAPInv. 1258. IGDOlbia 96a–d = CAPInv. 1261. Panait-Bîrzescu 2012.

100

CHAPTER 5

case of the Ὀρφικοί,5 the two remaining associations ([῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται Θιασῖται6 and an unnamed one7) being more silent regarding which god they worshipped. Chronologically, the first attestation (6th century BC) is represented by five graffiti fragments from cups with the names Νεομηνιασταί, i.e. worshippers of Apollo Neomenios. The name of the members derives from the god’s epiclesis and from the custom of celebrating the new moon on the first day of the month, similar associations being those of Ἐνανιασταί (celebrating the ninth day),8 or Δεκαδισταί (celebrating the tenth).9 Besides the brief text naming members we have no further evidence of this group, but we know that Apollo was worshipped early on in private communities as well. Later, in the 4th/3rd century BC, Apollo was worshipped in a smaller community, that of the Βορεικοὶ θιασῖται,10 in this case with the local epiclesis (Boreas11). The evidence is provided by two concentric inscriptions on the bottom of an Attic black-glazed vessel, the inscription from the inside being Orphic in nature and the external one mentioning five of the members, three of whom were probably brothers, sons of Σωκράτης: Δημήτριος (no. 846), Ποσιδώνιος (no. 863), Φίλων (no. 865). Dionysus was also worshipped at Olbia inside private communities from early on. Three bone tablets12 (5th century BC) inscribed with orphic formulas, with a binary character (the terms used are antagonistic)13 record orphism in Olbia, which explicitly worshipped Dionysus. This epigraphic evidence can be connected with a fragment from Herodotus (4. 78–80), from which we find that Skyles, the Scythian king was killed by his people because he wanted to be initiated into the mysteries of Dionysus at Olbia. Further possible evidence for orphism inside private groups is provided by a 500 BC bronze mirror,14 which has an inscription on its side and was found in a necropolis. The cultic and associative character is given on the one part by the fact that mirrors were considered as cultic objects in the orphic environment,15 and on the other by the ritual Bacchic acclamations εὐαί (erroneously εἰαί) inscribed on it; the 5

IGDOlbia 94a–c = SEG 28, 659–661 = CAPInv. 1328. IGDOlbia 11 = IOlbia 71 = SEG 18, 304 = Robert and Robert 1959, 270 = Stolba 2013 = Porucznik 2018 = CAPInv. 1257. 7 IGDOlbia 92 = SEG 50, 699.1. 8 IG XI.4, 1228; IG XII.4, 551. 9 IG XI.4, 1227; IG XII.4, 551; IPrusa ad Olympum 48. 10 IGDOlbia 95 = SEG 42, 709.1 = CAPInv. 1258. 11 With this epiclesis the god was worshipped at Olbia on two other graffiti: IGDOlbia 83a and 83b. 12 IGDOlbia 94abc = SEG 28, 659–661 = CAPInv. 1328. 13 Ferrari 2016, 3. 14 IGDOlbia 92 = SEG 50, 699.1. 15 Vinogradov and Kryzhitskii 1995, 104–05. 6

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

101

object was probably given to the deceased (father and daughter, initiated16) on behalf of the members;17 the god worshipped was Dionysus (possibly Zagreus).18 From a similar timeframe (the 4th century BC) come the [῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται,19 an association worshipping a local hero Εὑρησίβιος. The inscription is located on the pediment of a statue of Zeus Soter and records the priests of the association who came from two (related?) families.20 Seven of the members were the sons of Λεωκράτης and four others the sons or nephews of Λεωπρέπης.21 Εὑρησίβιος22 became a local hero (the popularity of the name is specific only for Olbia23), whose political activity is uncertain but possibly connected with the avoidance of tyranny, which could explain the emergence of the cult of Zeus Eleutherius.24 The inscription makes reference to the existence of priests and regular members, but it records only the priests, who most probably did not hold office at the same time.25 *

*

*

Olbia provides some of the earliest evidence from the Black Sea area of associations, but it is very limited in time. The associations worshipped popular local gods such as Apollo and Dionysus. Besides this, as we have seen in one case, the members were grouped around a representative local hero, which is not attested elsewhere in the Pontic area, with members having kinship connections. CHERSONESUS The city was founded in the 5th century BC by colonists from Heraclea Pontica and Delos.26 Evidence of associations comes only much later, in the 1st century AD. A graffito on an amphora records the name of a professional association, a κοινὸν ναυτικῶν,27 on which we have no further details. Considering 16

Chiekova 2008, 72. Alexieva 2007; Ferrari 2016, 3. 18 Rozanova 1968, 248–51. The epiclesis is not accepted unanimously in the literature: Bilde 2008, 31. 19 IGDOlbia 11 = IOlbia 71 = SEG 18, 304 = Robert and Robert 1959, 270 = Stolba 2013 = Porucznik 2018 = CAPInv. 1257. 20 Stolba 2013, 298. 21 Stolba 2013. 22 IGDOlbia 8 = SEG 42, 714; IGDOlbia 10 = SEG 31, 702; IGDOlbia 12. 23 Stolba 2013, 298. 24 Porucznik 2018. 25 Stolba 2013, 300. 26 Avram et al. 2004b, 942. 27 Solomonik 1984, 87, no. 436 = SEG 38, 749.8 = CAPInv. 1263. 17

102

CHAPTER 5

the fishing industry specific to the city and its location, it is not surprising that such an association was active here. Due to its profile, the association could have grouped, for example, foreigners. The second reference to an association comes centuries later, in the 2nd–3rd century AD, when the existence of a Θίασος28 can be inferred through the reference to its leader, a certain Δημοκράτης son of Ἀριστογένης (no. 866). The individual was a remarkable citizen who was a local πρόεδρος and ἄρχων and was honoured for his actions. No conclusions about the characteristics of associations can be drawn from such scant evidence. THEODOSIA The city was a Milesian colony founded in the 6th century BC29 and its evidence on associations is poor and uncertain. A 3rd-century AD catalogue30 records in all likelihood 36 members of an association, members who were inscribed in it by two different lapicidae.31 E. von Stern supposes that, based on some personal names, this association was related to another one from Tanais.32 All attested names are recorded with their patronymics, and Greek personal names and patronymics predominate, but there are also Latin, Thracian and Iranian names. The specific nature of this possible association remains unknown, as well as its name, while its connection with the association of Tanais remains a hypothesis. CIMMERICUM Strabo considered Cimmericum a πολίχνιον but writes that it might have been a πόλις.33 Here as well evidence is scant, limited to a 3rd-century AD funerary inscription34 which mentions Εὐδᾶς, the deceased (no. 903 – without patronymic), Παιρίσαλος son of Κοσοῦς (no. 904), the member who was responsible for the monument, and οἱ λοιποὶ συνοδεῖται. Similar to this inscription are funerary ones from Phanagoria which are dedicated to members of an association. The association could therefore have been on a smaller scale and oriented towards ensuring a grave to its members. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

IosPE I2, 425 = CIG 2099 = Poland 1909, B 109 = CAPInv. 1262. Avram et al. 2004b, 952. von Stern 1902 = CIRB 947 = IosPE IV, 468. von Stern 1902. von Stern 1902, 35. Avram et al. 2004b, 946. CIRB 946 = Kreuz 2012, 490, no. 66 = CAPInv. 1302.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

103

PANTICAPAEUM The city was a colony of Miletus, founded in the 6th century BC, later becoming capital of the Bosporan kingdom,35 with its greatest territorial extent under Pairisades I (344/43–311/10).36 Here, the activity of associations is very well represented: 39 inscriptions record 11 associations, but only 242 members, which is a relatively low number compared, for example, with Gorgippia where inscriptions are fewer. This proportion is due largely to most inscriptions being of a funerary nature; only five are not (three dedications,37 two honorific inscriptions). From a chronological point of view there is no continuity, the earliest attestation coming from the 2nd century BC, after which the next comes in the 1st century AD. The 2nd century AD is best represented (through 23 inscriptions), but the phenomenon continuing up to the end of the 3rd century AD. The sole Hellenistic inscription38 is among the few dedications, this one to Aphrodite Urania of Apatouron. The toponym has not been identified for certain, but we know from Strabo (11. 2. 10) that it was located on the opposite side of Panticapaeum, on the Asian shore of the Cimmerian Bosporus (Pliny the Elder NH 6. 6. 18). The relief on the monument has been discussed above (Chapter 2), being among the few with iconographical representations from the Pontic area (the northern shore has the most numerous iconographical representations). As its leading official, the association had a συναγωγός (Θεόκριτος son of Δημήτριος – no. 987), followed by six regular members (οἱ θιασῖται), all recorded with patronymics (some fragmentary). From the 1st century AD there were four associations, two of them continuing to the 3rd century. One of these is the Θιεσεῖται,39 which in AD 82 made a dedication to Zeus and Hera Soteres, deities which were most certainly not the tutelary gods of the association. After the dedicatory part, a list of 19 personal names (all with patronymics) follows, i.e. the members of the association. Among them are only three officials: a συναγωγός, a φιλάγαθος and an ἐπιμελητής. In this case the leadership of the association lacks a ἱερεύς, the hierarchy being simpler.

35

Müller 2012. Avram et al. 2004b, 949. 37 Ustinova (1999, 196) includes only two dedications, excluding the possible association devoted to Theos Hypsistos (see below). 38 CIRB 75 = IosPE II, 19 = AGRW 85 = CAPInv. 1269. 39 CIRB 76 = CAPInv. 1270. 36

104

CHAPTER 5

Familial involvement can be spotted inside the association, but only in two cases with certainty: the brothers Ἡρακλείδης (no. 980) and Στράτων (no. 1077) as sons of Ἡρακλείδης, but also the brothers Ἀθήναιος (no. 906) and Καλοῦς (no. 1006), the sons of Ἀθήναιος, who were all regular members. As a curiosity regarding the latter pair, a few decades later we have at Tanais a case of two brothers with the same personal names (Ἀθήναιος – no. 1159, Καλοῦς – no. 1366) and a very similar patronymic (Ἀθήνιος). Due to temporal and spatial distance, and the slight difference in the patronymic, this is most likely only a case of homonymy. The family tree of our members from Panticapaeum can be extended with a female named Ἀρέτη, attested in the 1st century AD as wife of Ἀθήναιος.40 Since the personal name Ἀθήναιος is attested only six times at Panticapaeum,41 and this only in these two 1st-century AD inscriptions, it is tempting to see a kinship connection between the woman and the members of the association: she could have been the mother of the two brothers, or the wife of one of them. The 1st century AD brings forward also a much rarer funerary verse inscription,42 dedicated for a member of the association: Λυσίμαχος son of Γάστεις (no. 1017). The inscription labels the other members as ἥλικες οἱ θιέσου, i.e. as comrades of the same age within the association. This suggests that the association included members of different ages. Another 1st-century AD inscription,43 very laconic in nature, is also funerary. The συνοδεῖται set up a tombstone to Δάφνος son of Ψυχαρίων (no. 946) who was an ἐπὶ τῆς αὐλῆς. Despite the fact that no further information on the association is provided, since a royal official was a member (see Fig. 9 for the royal and civic offices held by members), we presume that the association was a respectable local one, especially as it was in charge of setting up the man’s tombstone. Continuity during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD is encountered in the case of the Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα,44 which attests a series of tomb40

CIRB 357 = IosPE II, 219. LGPN IV, 9. 42 CIRB 137 = IosPE IV, 317 = GVI 1316 = Kreuz 2012, 486, no. 53 = CAPInv. 1289. 43 CIRB 78 = IosPE II, 65 = Kreuz 2012, 866, no. 995 = CAPInv. 1299. 44 CIRB 82 = IosPE IV, 209 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 83 = Kreuz 2012, 877, 1018 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 84 = IosPE II, 60 = von Kieseritzky and Watzinger 1909, 648 = Kreuz 2012, 876, no. 1017 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 85 = Kreuz 2012, 814, no. 882 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 86 = IosPE IV, 469 = von Kieseritzky and Watzinger 1909, 50a = Kreuz 2012, 501, no. 105 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 87 = IosPE IV, 208 = von Kieseritzky and Watzinger 1909, 593 = Kreuz 2012, 814, no. 883 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 89 = Kreuz 2012, 502, no. 107 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 93 = IosPE IV, 212 = Kreuz 2012, 488, no. 59 = CAPInv. 1285; CIRB 107 = IosPE II, 64 = CAPInv. 1285; Saprykin 2009 = SEG 59, 845 = CAPInv. 1285. 41

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

105

stones set up for some of its members. From the character of the inscriptions, it appears that the main goal of the association was to of ensure a funeral for its members. Ten inscriptions can be attributed to this association due to the very similar formula and hierarchy, which has a συναγωγός at its head, a γραμματεύς, a φιλάγαθος and a παραφιλάγαθος. There are 32 attested members, many of whom appear without patronymic. Therefore, we can identify only two relatives inside the association: Ἄρατος – without patronymic – (no. 920) was a παραφιλάγαθος and ignotus son of Ἄρατος (no. 1127) was the regular member for whom the tombstone was set up. This is the sole inscription from Panticapaeum where this personal name is registered.45 The 2nd century AD was also a flourishing time for association, when we have more singular types. One is the Κοινὸν τῶν θιασιτῶν,46 mentioned in an honorific inscription set up by the association for one of its members, Ἰούλιος Καλλισθένης (no. 1109). He was a παραφιλάγαθος διὰ βίου, this being the only time when such an official held the office for life. The character was certainly a main figure in the association considering he was among the few who had Roman citizenship, but also the fact that he held this office for life and that a golden frontlet was the object by which he was honoured. The unusual object points also to the fact that the association was wealthy enough for such gifts. Considering all these aspects, it is not excluded that this inscription actually pertains to one of the contemporary associations, the Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα (see above), or the Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (see below), both of which set up tombstones for their members. Another 2nd-century AD honorific inscription mentions the Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος47 and points (just like the examples from Gorgippia and Tanais) to the connections which the associations had with the royal court. The association granted honours to the king, Tiberius Iulius Sauromates I, who is mentioned as κτίστης (not of the association) καὶ εὐεργέτης. The inscription is valuable also for providing further evidence of the existence of youth inside associations (previous evidence came from the reference to two or three family generations, but also of the offices of γυμνασιάρχης and νεανισκάρχης and the organisation of associations based on age). In this particular case, the name of the association specifies the origin and age group of the members, these being the main criteria on which membership was granted. J. and L. Robert consider that the association was not based at Panticapaeum but Nicaea.48 45 46 47 48

LGPN IV, 40. Matsulevich 1941, 62–67 = AE 2015, 1264 = SEG 55, 863 = CAPInv. 1290. IosPE II, 39 = IGRR I, 883 = CIRB 44 = CAPInv. 1266. Robert and Robert 1969, 486.

106

CHAPTER 5

Continuity during the 2nd and 3rd centuries is encountered in the case of the Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα,49 attested through no fewer than 12 inscriptions which too can be attributed to the same association due to the formula and internal hierarchy. The association has left traces only through the tombstone set up for some of its 45 members. Patronymics are rarely mentioned, therefore kinship connections are rare as well; we can assume with a high degree of certainty that the παραφιλάγαθος Ἀθηνῆς, the son of Τρύφων (no. 907), was related to the συναγωγός Τρύφων son of Τρύφων (no. 1085), and maybe also to the φιλάγαθος Τρύφων (no. 1086), the family members acting as officials in the association. Besides them, possible fathers and sons were Μαστοῦς son of Μαστοῦς (no. 1026) and Μαστοῦς son of Μαστοῦς (no. 1027) for both of whom the association set up tombstones. As to hierarchy, at the head of the association was a ἱερεύς, as the name indicates, the members being grouped around him. Next was a συναγωγός, while as a secretary, instead of the more common γραμματεύς, the association had a πραγματᾶς – very rarely attested. These were followed by a φιλάγαθος and a παραφιλάγαθος. Significant is the sole presence of a γυμνασιάρχης50 (but no νεανισκάρχης), which indicates the existence of youth inside the association. Very intense activity during the 3rd century AD had the Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα attested through no less than nine inscriptions51 naming 39 members. Here, the hierarchy is different from the previous associations: at the head we have a ἱερεύς (two of those attested are Roman citizens), followed by a πατήρ συνόδου, a συναγωγός, a φιλάγαθος, a παραφιλάγαθος and, finally, by a γυμνασιάρχης and a νεανισκάρχης, which points again to the existence of children or youth inside the association. Among the members there is a royal official, an ἐπὶ τῆς αὐλῆς: Ἰούλιος Σαμβίων (no. 1111) who was the πατήρ συνόδου. 49 CIRB 79a = IosPE II, 63a = AGRW 87 = Kreuz 2012, 954, no. 1178 = CAPInv. 1281; CIRB 80 = IosPE II, 62 = von Kieseritzky and Watzinger 1909, 454 = Kreuz 2012, 792, no. 830 = CAPInv. 1281; CIRB 81 = IosPE II, 61 = von Kieseritzky and Watzinger 1909, 455 = Kreuz 2012, 792, no. 831 = CAPInv. 1281; CIRB 88 = Kreuz 2012, 791, no. 828 = CAPInv. 1281; CIRB 90 = IosPE IV, 210 = von Kieseritzky and Watzinger 1909, 629a = Kreuz 2012, 870–71, no. 1004 = CAPInv. 1281; CIRB 91 = Kreuz 2012, 808, no. 868 = CAPInv. 1281; CIRB 92 = Kreuz 2012, 953, no. 1176 = CAPInv. 1281; CIRB 94 = CAPInv. 1281; CIRB 102 = CAPInv. 1281; CIRB 106 = SEG 2, 486 = CAPInv. 1281; CIRB 108 = CAPInv. 1281; CIRB 101 = Kreuz 2012, 956–57, no. 1188 = CAPInv. 1281. 50 CIRB 90 = IosPE IV, 210 = von Kieseritzky and Watzinger 1909, 629a = Kreuz 2012, 870–71, no. 1004 = CAPInv. 1281. 51 CIRB 96 = SEG 2, 485 = Kreuz 2012, 544, no. 253 = CAPInv. 1296; CIRB 97 = Kreuz 2012, 489, no. 62 = CAPInv. 1296; CIRB 98 = CAPInv. 1296; CIRB 99 = Kreuz 2012, 514, no. 147 = CAPInv. 1296; CIRB 100 = Kreuz 2012, 544, no. 254 = CAPInv. 1296; CIRB 95 = CAPInv. 1296; CIRB 103 = IosPE IV, 211 = Kreuz 2012, 513, no. 146 = CAPInv. 1296; CIRB 104 = AGRW 88 = CAPInv. 1296; CIRB 105 = IosPE IV, 207 + addenda, p. 294 = CAPInv. 1296.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

107

In the 3rd century AD the phenomenon adapted to the local context, and a more particular type of association emerged, the Ἀριστοπυλεῖται,52 i.e. one that gathered courtiers. It is attested only once, making a dedication consisting of a statue to Zeus and Hera Soteres as well as to king Teiranos and queen Ailia. Among its officials is a ἱερεύς, an ἀρχιγραμματεύς, a γραμματεύς and about 15 ἐπιμενιεύσαντες – the internal hierarchy is unique through the presence of the ἀρχιγραμματεύς along with the γραμματεύς, as well as the unusual ἐπιμενιεύσαντες (presidents of sessions). Considering the type of association, it is clearly understood that royal officials were part of it, along with military officials, such as πρίν λοχαγός (who was the priest of the association), λοχαγός, ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων, ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς Θεοδοσίας, χειλιάρχης καὶ ἐπ[ὶ] τῶν Ἀσπουργιανῶν, πρὶν πολειτάρχης, πολειτάρχης. The singular nature of the association and of its members connects it to the royal court, the association gathering the local elite. Among the members we find only one Roman citizen, Ἰούλιος Χόφαρνος (no. 1112), but the total number of members is an impressive 91, which points to the desirability of membership. Even though the membership was so numerous and the environment indicates that family members acted as royal officials, we can identify clear family relationships in only some cases, and this because some of the patronymics were very common (Ἀγαθοῦς, Ἀλέξανδρος, Δημήτριος, Διονύσιος, Θεόφιλος, Μενέστρατος). Nevertheless, the following brothers can be identified: Στρατόνεικος (no. 1078), [---]ους (no. 1120) and ignotus (no. 1126) as sons of Ἀρδαρίσκος; Ἄρδαρος (no. 922) and [---]ων (no. 1123) as sons of Εὔϊος, probably related to Εὔϊος son of Μενέστρατος (no. 963); Μαρκιανός (no. 1023) and Ψυχαρίων as sons of Πατέριος (no. 1106); Ἀρδάρακος (no. 921), Ματι[---] (no. 1029), Ῥαδάμιος? (no. 1066), [---]λειος (no. 1117), [---]ς (no. 1122) as sons of Σαμβίων; as well as Ἡρακλείδης (no. 981), Παπίας (no. 1053) and Χόφαρνος (no. 1103) as sons of Χόφαρνος. In total, there are 51 Greek personal names and only 17 Iranian; the proportion is similar in the case of the patronymics (see Fig. 20 for the correspondence between personal names and patronymics at Panticapaeum): 47 Greek personal names and 13 Iranian. Worthy of mention is the presence of some quite rare personal names, some of which are attested within the ancient world only through this inscription: Βαδά[κ]ης, Βάνας, Βίων, Δάδος, Εὔϊος, Θαίβα[ς?], Ἰώδας, Κοτίους, Λάζενος, Λειμανός, Λυσικράτης, Μόσχας, Πάγας, Πάπων, Περσίων and Τιτίους; as well as a few patronymics: Βαρδάνης, Γοσαμφλίας, Πανκλεῖς, Σακλῆς and Σόγος.

52

CIRB 36 = CAPInv. 1264.

108

CHAPTER 5

As in other northern cities, the associations at Panticapaeum fulfilled multiple functions: social, religious and funerary;53 their particular feature is their organisation by age categories.54 Some associations left traces especially of their funerary role, but it is highly probable that their members also gathered for cultic activities; the god worshipped, according to Y. Ustinova, is most likely Theos Hypsistos.55 But this hypothesis cannot be taken for granted just with the information at hand. Due to the preponderance of funerary inscriptions, evidence of built space is extremely scarce: at Panticapaeum, the sole reference we have is indirect, through mention of γυμνασίαρχοι, which implies the existence of γυμνασία. Funerary inscriptions have a relatively uniform and similar formulary irrespective of the association: the introductory part mentions the name of the association (mostly a σύνοδος), followed by the officials (without dwelling further on the characteristics of the offices), followed next by the formula καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ συνοδεῖται and finally by the personal name of the deceased. As in Gorgippia, the internal hierarchy of the Panticapaean associations includes a ἱερεύς as a leader, and/or a συναγωγός, a φιλάγαθος, a παραφιλάγαθος (not attested at Gorgippia), a πραγματᾶς (not attested at Gorgippia), sometimes an ἐπιμελητής followed by the regular members (οἱ λοιποὶ θειασεῖται/ συνοδεῖται). As regards members, at Panticapaeum their number is not so high when we consider the great number of inscriptions, but they were mostly individuals from the medium and upper echelons of the society, and even a few Roman citizens, which is extremely rare in the north. One individual has a praenomen and cognomen; five have duo nomina: Ἰούλιος Ζενόδωρος (no. 1108; AD 221), Ἰούλιος Καλλισθένης (no. 1109; 2nd century AD), Ἰούλιος Χόφαρνος (no. 1112; AD 275–279), Ἰούλιος Νεικηφόρος (no. 1110; AD 221), Ἰούλιος Σαμβίων (no. 1111; AD 214); and one has a tria nomina (Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἐπιτυγχάνων – no. 1113). In these cases, we speak of Hellenised families who were part of the local elite,56 all of them holding offices inside the associations, but why they were granted Roman citizenship remains unknown. To these may be added individuals who bear the praenomen Γάϊος (twice as a personal name, once as a patronymic). *

53 54 55 56

Zavoikina 2013a, 67. Zavoikina 2013a, 62–63. Ustinova 1999, 200–01. Matsulevich 1941, 71–79.

*

*

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

109

As with Phanagoria, we notice at Panticapaeum the preponderance of the funerary character of most inscriptions, which points to the fact that joining an association was mostly a manner of ensuring a tombstone for its members. Certainly, other particularities exist, such as the possible presence of an association devoted to Theos Hypsistos – which is specific only for Tanais – and, most importantly, the existence of a unique association formed by courtiers. In the case of the latter, the principles of the organisation are both restrictive and distinctive, gathering only royal officials, a capital criterion of eligibility. No similar association is attested in the Black Sea area. The presence of elite members is attested in many associations, identifiable through members’ holding various royal offices, the same members sometimes holding important offices in associations. The presence of younger members inside some associations is identifiable through specific offices and through explicit mention, as in the case of the Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος. Overall, at Panticapaeum the funerary component of associative life was highly placed: the few dedications and honorific inscriptions point to an orientation towards ensuring members a tombstone, including the elite. While at Phanagoria members belonged especially to the lower classes, at Panticapaeum they were drawn mostly from the middling and upper echelons of society (royal officials, Roman citizens), which suggests that at least some of these associations which left mostly funerary inscriptions were probably remarkable local ones. MYRMECIUM The settlement is located in the Cimmerian Bosporus, probably founded by the Ionians in the 6th century BC; its polis status is uncertain.57 As at Theodosia and Cimmericum, there is only one inscription of associative character and, in this case, it might even have come from the territory of Panticapaeum,58 being possibly an example of pierre errante. The inscription is a list (maybe a funerary monument) comprising about ten members whose personal names are missing; only two of the patronymics are legible (and Greek). What allows this inscription to be classified as pertaining to an association is the reference to a νεανισκάρχης, which suggests an association grouped by age categories. Considering that this office is more frequently attested at Panticapaeum, it would not be impossible for the inscription to originate there, leaving Myrmecium with no other evidence of associations. 57 58

Avram et al. 2004b, 947. Zavoikina 2013a, 129.

110

CHAPTER 5

TANAIS The city was founded by Greeks from the Bosporus (Strabo 11. 2. 3: κτίσμα τῶν τὸν Βόσπορον ἐχότων Ἑλλήνων) in the 3rd century BC.59 Associations were very widespread here (32 inscriptions), first attested in an inscription from the 2nd century BC, followed by a gap until the 1st century AD, whence there is a continuity up to AD 244. Among the early classifications of the associations is one by D.B. Shelov,60 who makes a distinction based on the names and proposes the following categories: θιασῶται and συνοδῖται (with terminological variations) and the εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι (which are specific to the first three decades of the 3rd century AD). Ustinova in turn proposes a categorisation based on name. As such we have 1) ἡ σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον καὶ ἱερέα [---] καὶ συναγωγὸν; 2) ἡ σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα [---] καὶ ἱερέα [---] καὶ συναγωγὸν; 3) εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον; and 4) θίεσος τῶν ἀδελφῶν τῶν περὶ ἱερέα [---].61 The associations of ἀδελφοί (specific to the 3rd century AD) came to the attention of scholars, several interpretations being given to the specific terminology: by some it has been considered that into this category fall those members whose parents were not members of associations,62 but more probable is the opinion that through the familial language we should understand the ‘adoption’ of the members by the god around which the members gather.63 Even though the terminology points to the fictive belonging to a family, as Shelov demonstrates,64 at least in the second decade of the 3rd century, there is also a real familial component in associations (through the involvement of a large percentage of Tanais’ citizens in them65), which is one of the characteristics of associations from Tanais. An important contribution to the classification of inscriptions was made also by N.V. Zavoikina,66 who stressed the existence of associations grouped by age criteria (young and adults),67 and on the other side the existence of associations whose cultic component predominated.68 The emergence at Tanais of 59

Shelov 1970, 15–25; Müller 2010, 37. Shelov 1972, 275. 61 Ustinova 1999, 185. 62 Zhebelev 1940. 63 Shelov 1972, 274. 64 Shelov 1972, 277–78. 65 Shelov 1972 believes that it might involve all citizens; Zavoikina 2004, 165–68; 2013a, 97 as well. 66 Zavoikina 2007; 2013a, 93–132. 67 Zavoikina 2013a, 129. 68 Zavoikina 2013a, 128. 60

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

111

associations based on age is earlier than the attestation of Iranian names. Thus, Ustinova’s hypothesis69 that they were an Iranian influence seems to fall. The differences between age-grouped associations and those of adoptive brothers consists in the more complicated structure of the first, as well as in a greater number of members and in the development of hierarchical relations.70 Based on the grouping of the inscriptions, five associations can be identified at Tanais: the Θιασεῖται (three inscriptions), the (Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται (one inscription), the Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον (22 inscriptions), the Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον (5 inscriptions) and an association whose name is unknown (attested through 1 inscription). The god worshipped was Theos Hypsistos. One of the earliest inscriptions does not specify the name (CIRB 1259), but from its characteristics and in terms of the associative phenomenon at Tanais, it may be supposed that we are dealing with Theos Hypsistos and not with the river god Tanais.71 The cult of Theos Hypsistos (‘the Highest God’) is highly debated,72 being attested as well in other parts of the ancient world, such as the Mediterranean islands and Asia Minor. Two opposing views dominate the discussion: one sees the cult as a unified one (E. Schürer, S. Mitchell); the other, the opposite (N. Belayche). In the Bosporan kingdom this god was especially present at Tanais, its worship not exclusive to associations. The earliest attestation is that of Θιασεῖται in the 2nd century BC, when three inscriptions (an honorific inscription, a dedication and an honorific decree, all of them from the same workshop73) record the activity of the 11 members mentioned. The honorific inscription74 is fragmentary, and no personal name has been preserved; we can reconstruct the existence of maybe a priest, probably of a πατήρ συνόδου, certainly of a φιλάγαθος and of a νεωκόρος. The latter office is rather uncommon, being attested only once more, in 2nd-century AD Hermonassa,75 where it is placed at the head of the association, not as at Tanais in the last position. The next inscription76 is also rather fragmentary but, according to the editors, from the fragment Τανάεϊ, it might be a dedication on behalf of the association to a god, Tanais, maybe the river god Tanais.77 But, 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

Ustinova 1999, 280–82. Zavoikina 2013a, 127. Ustinova 1999, 192–95. Schürer 1897, 200–25; Ustinova 1999; Mitchell 1999; 2010; Belayche 2011; etc. SEG 58, 782–784, commentary. Ivantchik 2008, 94–95, no. 1 = SEG 58, 782 = Zavoikina 2013a, 98–101 = CAPInv. 1321. CIRB 1054 = IosPE IV, 421 = CAPInv. 1304. Ivantchik 2008, 96–100, no. 2 = SEG 58, 783 = Zavoikina 2013a, 98–101 = CAPInv. 1321. Ivantchik 2008, 96–100, no. 2.

112

CHAPTER 5

according to A. Avram,78 the fragment Τανάεϊ might come from [ἐν] Τανάεϊ – an opinion I share. Some of the names are illegible, but besides them there are Greek and Iranian names, attesting the involvement of both the Greek and non-Greek population inside such associations, this being a manner of ‘integrating the non-Greek population of Tanais, which probably did not have citizenship; this function accounts for the importance of thiasoi in the epigraphical records of Tanais’.79 Worthy of mention is the fact that a Ἑλληνάρχης was probably attested as a member inside the association. The last inscription80 is an extremely fragmentary honorific decree which, due to its origin, was considered to have pertained to an association. The proposed restoration of the opening lines ([---ἔ]δοξε το[ῖς θιασεῖταις ---]) might even point to a non-private association,81 or for the decree to have been civic and not associative.82 These three inscriptions can be considered to record the same association, based on their chronology and their origins in the same workshop. The first two have a common name, while the third, fragmentary, leave no traces of it (but the editors restore the same terminology as in the previous two). Due to the types of inscription and their fragmentary state, only the first one provides information on the internal hierarchy, which is particular. Obviously, considering that the information they provide is very scanty, we cannot be certain whether the three inscriptions record the same association or not, but, based on the evidence adduced above, I am inclined to believe that they do. After several centuries of silence, the next evidence on associations comes from AD 104, when a dedication is made by 17 members83 of the (Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται to Τάναϊς.84 The dedication mentions the celebration of the day of Tanais, the deity being interpreted as an eponymous god Tanais,85 as the river god Tanais86 or as Theos Hypsistos.87 In this latter scenario, the inscription would belong to the frequently attested association devoted to Theos Hypsistos, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, which is highly possible considering the chronology as well as the matching of the internal

78

Avram 2015, 125. SEG 58, 783, commentary. 80 Ivantchik 2008, 100–03, no. 3 = SEG 45, 1020 + SEG 45, 1021 = SEG 58, 784 = Zavoikina 2013a, 98–101 = CAPInv. 1321. 81 Avram 2015, 125–26. 82 SEG 58, 784, commentary. 83 Most of them (12) bear Greek personal names, and Greek patronymics (14). 84 CIRB 1259 = AGRW 90 = CAPInv. 1322. 85 Arsenyeva et al. 1996, 69 apud Ustinova 1999, 193. 86 Knipovich 1949, 118. 87 Ustinova 1999, 194–95. 79

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

113

hierarchy. At the head of the association is a ἱερεύς, followed by a συναγωγός, a φιλάγαθος and a παραφιλάγαθος. During the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, about 22 inscriptions record one or several associations devoted to Theos Hypsistos. In this work, they have been grouped under the same association Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, following the principles of the CAPInventory, but it is not clear whether the inscriptions pertained to one or more associations. Whatever the position, they certainly attest worship of Theos Hypsistos by associations in Tanais, even though not all of them state the name of the god. Ustinova pronounces herself against their being only one association because there are not many individuals attested in the contemporary inscriptions.88 Avram leaves the answer more open to other alternatives and, in the complete commentary that he provides in CAPInventory no. 1324, he offers as evidence the example of Χόφραζμος son of Φοργάβακος (no. 1580), who was a ἱερεύς and later a πρεσβευτής. Regarding this example, he rightly observes: But an alternative explanation also remains possible, i.e. that the annual office of a ἱερεύς could be reiterated. In the same year (AD 225) and in the same month (Pereitios) we have two different catalogues of θιασῶται, one (CIRB 1279) with the same Chophrasmos Phorgabakou as ἱερεύς, the other one (CIRB 1280) with another ἱερεύς. Moreover, all staff (συναγωγός, φιλάγαθος, παραφιλάγαθος, γυμνασιάρχης, νεανισκάρχης) differs, as well as the list of ordinary members. We can suppose that CIRB 1280 presents the staff issued just after the new elections (which would imply that the elections took place during this month). The lack of prosopographical connections between the two lists might be explained through different classes of age: CIRB 1280 could be seen as a list of young people, insofar the νεανισκάρχης is strangely mentioned before the γυμνασιάρχης. Whatever it would be, it remains extremely difficult to decide between one single and more simultaneous associations worshipping Theos Hypsistos.

The internal hierarchy of the association, is very similar across the inscriptions: at the top there was a ἱερεύς, at least 11 being identified, followed invariably by a πατὴρ συνόδου, or a συναγωγός, a φιλάγαθος, a παραφιλάγαθος, a γυμνασιάρχης, a νεανισκάρχης, a γραμματεύς and the regular members – the θιασῶται (θιασεῖται, θιασῖται) and συνοδεῖται (συνοδῖται). As discussed in the glossary, the offices of γυμνασιάρχης and νεανισκάρχης were probably associative, not civic magistracies. These indicate the presence inside the association of both adults and children, which is further confirmed by the presence of family members. The offices attested inside this association apply as well to other associations in Tanais, but also for certain associations from Panticapaeum (see above). 88

Ustinova 1999, 188.

114

CHAPTER 5

These inscriptions record the most members from all northern associations, about 516.89 There are several matters to be addressed: first, despite the high number of members, there are not so many individuals holding civic offices, but members of the elite are present, there are possibly two ἑλληνάρχαι90 (certain is the attestation of only one) and one στρατιώτης. A particular feature of Tanais, which is attested in this association, is the presence of the offices of ἑλληνάρχης and ἄρχων Ταναειτῶν, both magistracies being attested together,91 their holders recorded in associations from the 2nd century AD. V. Gaidukevich,92 C. Müller,93 A. Ivantchik and S.R. Tokhtasev,94 etc. explain these offices from the perspective of the division of the city into two political bodies: the Greek polis, at the head of which there was the ἑλληνάρχης, and the Tanaitai from the chora, at whose head were ἄρχοντες, while a πρεσβευτής of the king supervised the administrative apparatus.95 M. Vitale countered this.96 These two officials are attested by inscriptions corresponding to this (these) association(s) (once the ἑλληνάρχης, once the ἄρχων Ταναειτῶν, five times the πρεσβευτής). Among the officials a πρεσβευτής draws attention: Χόφραζμος son of Φοργάβακος (no. 1580),97 who was ἄρχων of the Tanaitai,98 and an example of social mobility at Tanais. He was a representative of the Iranian community and had an impressive career at Tanais due to his fortune, being attested also as priest of an association, acting as an εὐεργέτης of the city, and then entering in the royal administration as representative of the local nobility as a πρεσβευτής (AD 238–239).99 Members of the association include his sons Εὔνων (no. 1301) and Σαυάνων (no. 1494 – who was a νεανισκάρχης). These family members are representatives of a new aristocracy with no Greek origins, but which became Hellenised; the fact that Χόφραζμος held a position inside the association represents a step in his career, which culminated with the royal 89 Zavoikina (2013a, 268–85, annex no. 2) identifies about 570 citizens at Tanais and most of them are members of the association(s). 90 In CIRB 1262 = IosPE II, 443 = IGRR I, 915 = CAPInv. 1324. Zavoikina (2013a, 107) restores the ending [---]άρχην as [Ἑλλην]άρχην. 91 CIRB 1237 = SEG 30, 987. 92 Gaidukevič 1971, 363–64. 93 Müller 2010, 37–39. 94 Ivantchik and Tokhtasev 2011. 95 Ivantchik and Tokhtasev 2011, 168. 96 Vitale 2013. 97 Besides the two associative inscriptions in which he is recorded (CIRB 1278 = IosPE II, 446 = CAPInv. 1324; CIRB 1279 = IosPE II, 447 = CAPInv. 1324), he is mentioned in other inscriptions as well: CIRB 1245 = IosPE II, 430; CIRB 1246 = IosPE II, 431bis; CIRB 1248 = IosPE II, 431; CIRB 1250 = IosPE II, 434; CIRB 1252 = IosPE II, 435. 98 Zavoikina 2014, 331. 99 Shelov 1972, 262–63; Zavoikina 2013b, 250–52.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

115

office of πρεσβευτής.100 Besides royal officials, we find a representative of the military milieu inside an association, at Gorgippia, more precisely a στρατιώτης: Οὐαλέριος (no. 1447). He appears without a patronymic, but he was probably a citizen. Moreover, in the next century (AD 225), an individual by the name of Ἀσκληπιάδης son of Οὐαλέριος (no. 1210) was a member of the association as well, acting as φιλάγαθος. Probably his brother, a certain Δάδας son of Οὐαλέριος (no. 1249) was a regular member of the same association, but attested on a list dated three years later (AD 228). Neither here nor at Tanais, nor in general, does the evidence seem to indicate an involution of the offices held by members. On the contrary, in some cases we notice promotions. This is the situation of Ἀντίμαχος son of Πασίων (no. 1173) who is mentioned in an inscription as θιασώτης (AD 220);101 five years later he is attested as φιλάγαθος.102 Another case is that of Εὔϊος son of Ῥόδων, initially a simple θιασώτης (AD 173–211),103 later a παραφιλάγαθος (AD 220).104 Since this/these association(s) have so many members, they reflect a great part of the overall onomastic (and probably ethnic) situation in Tanais. There are 177 bearers of Greek personal names and 161 of Iranian, with 228 holders of Greek patronymics and only 97 holders of Iranian personal names. When it comes to matching them, there are 99 individuals who bear a Greek personal name and patronymic, 73 individuals who bear an Iranian personal name and a Greek patronymic, 28 individuals who bear a Greek personal name and an Iranian patronymic, and 50 individuals who bear Iranian personal names and patronymics. Considering the predominance of alba and the high number of members, familial involvement in associations from Tanais, and in this association in particular, is high as well. There are individuals with the same patronymic either in the same inscription or in different ones from a close or more distant timeframe (where it is more difficult to identify possible kinship connections). Less common patronymics obviously bring more certainty to recoinstructing kinship connections between members. Such are the cases of Ἀλέξανδρος (no. 1164) and Ὀρστόμηχος (no. 1445) the sons of Ἀβδάρακος; Ἀμάρθαστος (no. 1169) and [---]ων (no. 1618) the sons of Ἀμάρθαστος; Ἀντωνεῖνος (no. 1177) and Αὐρήλιος (no. 1229) the sons of Ἀντωνεῖνος; Εὔνων (no. 1297) and Ἰασανδάνακος (no. 1349) the sons of Ἀστήρ; Ἀφθείμακος (no. 1225) and Φιλώτας (no. 1554) the sons of Ἄψαχος; 100 101 102 103 104

Zavoikina 2013b, 261. CIRB 1278 = IosPE II, CIRB 1279 = IosPE II, CIRB 1277 = IosPE II, CIRB 1278 = IosPE II,

446 447 445 446

= CAPInv. 1324. = CAPInv. 1324. = IGRR I, 917 = AGRW 91 = CAPInv. 1324. = CAPInv. 1324.

116

CHAPTER 5

Ἀχαιμένης (no. 1230), Δάδας (no. 1247) the sons of Θεάγγελος possibly related to an ignotus (no. 1641) from another inscription, etc. As mentioned by Ustinova, the association(s) possibly included almost all the civic body, certainly most of the free men.105 The existence of νεανισκάρχαι also indicates younger members, not only adults. It follows that membership included individuals from both the lower and upper echelons of society, information reinforced by the various offices held by some individuals.106 Still focused on onomastics, a series of inscriptions most likely attest the same individual: Ὀδίαρδος Δημητρίου (no. 1433), whose name is recorded fragmentarily as Ὀ[---] Δημητρίου and maybe also as Ὀδίαρδος son of ignotus (no. 1434). Overlap more than homonymy is recorded in two inscriptions a decade apart: they mention Μένυλλος son of Χρύσιππος (nos. 1400, 1401). Both this personal name and the patronymic are rarely attested at Tanais.107 Homonymy is probably to be preferred to overlap in the case of three instances of Ἡρακλείδης son of Ἄττας (nos. 1321–1323), despite the closeness in date (AD 173–211; AD 210–234) of the two inscriptions which attest the person, because of the popularity of this personal name.108 If these inscriptions record the same association, it is certainly a most impressive thanks to its longevity and the large number of members, who were both adults and younger (another specific feature). Moreover, it seems to have embraced a large section of the population, even though not necessarily the ‘entire civic community’,109 which makes it unique for both Tanais and for the Pontic associative world. From AD 220, another fragmentary inscription110 possibly records an association whose name is missing. The text can be included only on the grounds that it mentions the name of Νιβλόβωρος son of Δοσυμοξαρθος111 (no. 1427), who was also a member of the Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, and that it contains the expression [---Τ]ανάει. Nevertheless, since Νιβλόβωρος was an ἄρχων Ταναειτῶν the inscription might not necessarily be an associative one. Besides Νιβλόβωρος there is only one more legible name: Διόφαντος son of Νεόπολος (no. 1275), who is attested in two more inscriptions112 (in one along with the abovementioned Νιβλόβωρος and other officials of Tanais113), this 105

Ustinova 1999, 184. Shelov 1972, 276–78. 107 Personal name: LGPN IV, 231; patronymic: LGPN IV, 359. 108 At Tanais recorded 22 times: LGPN IV, 154. 109 Ustinova 1999, 184. 110 Ivantchik and Ilyashenko 2018, no. 4. 111 Ivantchik and Ilyashenko 2018, 707: the name contains the word xšaθra-, which means power, royalty. 112 CIRB 1245 = IosPE II, 430; Ivantchik and Ilyashenko 2018, 699–701, no. 2. 113 CIRB 1245 = IosPE II, 430. 106

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

117

time non-associative, from which we know that he was an ἀρχιτέκτων. In our catalogue of members from Tanais there is a homonymous person (no. 1274) who, despite the rarity of the patronymic,114 was probably a different individual because the inscription is dated much earlier, to somewhere between AD 100 and 150. Nevertheless, the two might have been relatives. Ivantchik and S.M. Ilyashenko, the editors of the inscription, believe that this represents further evidence for an association worshipping the river god Tanais, but the remarks of Avram apply here too – that a restoration as [ἐν] Τανάεϊ cannot be excluded, especially since the inscription is so fragmentary. Another very intensely attested association is that of the Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, for which we have five inscriptions (four from near Tanais and one from Tanais itself115), active in the 3rd century AD. As the name indicates, this cultic association certainly worshipped Theos Hypsistos, the members (at least 52) seeing themselves as relatives. The only officials mentioned are the πρεσβύτεροι, at least 11, many of them attested in the same inscription, which indicates simultaneous holding of the office. It is surprising that no other offices are attested, all other members being considered as εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοί. As indicated above, at least 18 members116 were also part of the Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον. Of these, Σωζομενός son of Στύρανος (no. 1519) and Φούρτας son of Ἀγαθοῦς (no. 1561) appear in the two inscriptions of AD 228: in the month of Loos they are attested among the θιασῶται and in the following month of Gorpiaios they are part of the εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοί. Nevertheless, there are also instances in which the reverse order applies: members who were first part of the εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοί and then of the θιασῶται. Probably, as Ustinova117 suggests, membership of the εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοί was much more exclusive and important, they being the ones acting as πρεσβύτεροι. A specific onomastic practice can be identified at the scale of families; as such, in one of the inscriptions of the Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον118 there is an individual named Ἀλεξίων (no. 1166) – thus bearing a diminutive personal name derived from Ἀλέξανδρος) whose patronymic is Πάτροκλος. Considering the association, we might presume a conscious choice of the value of the personal names by the family. * 114 115 116 117 118

*

*

Attested only three times at Tanais, in the LGPN IV, 247 it appears only once. CIRB 1286 = IosPE II, 456 = CAPInv. 1323. Zavoikina 2013a, 125–26, table 1. Ustinova 1999, 186–87. CIRB 1283 = IGRR I, 920 = IosPE II, 452 = AGRW 92 = CAPInv. 1323.

118

CHAPTER 5

The evidence from Tanais is the richest, both in terms of quantity and quality, although it does raise some questions about the membership of these associations. A large part of the inscriptions record worship by associations of Theos Hypsistos, which is not surprising considering that Tanais was the stronghold of the cult. No other god (unless Tanais were a river deity) was worshipped inside the associations from Tanais. On this account, there were no women involved in associations, but younger members seem to have joined some of them along with adults, which is supported both through the reference to νεανισκάρχαι and through the existence of family links from more than one generation. The duality of the Greek and Iranian communities is extremely visible in Tanais at the level of the associations. The local elite engaged in associations and was part of both communities. From an onomastic (and ethnic) perspective, at Tanais there are 210 Greek119 and 174 Iranian personal names, and 255 Greek and 107 Iranian patronymics, comprising 117 individuals with Greek personal names and patronymics, 32 with Greek personal names and Iranian patronymics, 54 with Iranian personal names and patronymics, and 77 with Iranian personal names and Greek patronymics. Latin, Thracian or Lallnamen personal names and patronymics are quite marginal and we can identify some peculiarities: for example, the adding of the Latin suffix -ιανός to Iranian names (a case of ἅπαξ εἰρημένα), as in the case of the personal name Ἀρδινδίανος (no. 1195); the use of the praenomen Γάϊος as a personal name (no. 1239). PHANAGORIA Phanagoria was founded by colonists from Teos in the middle of the 6th century BC,120 becoming the largest Greek city on the Taman peninsula. Seven inscriptions record three private associations, from the 1st century AD to the 3rd century AD, comprising 22 members. Of these, one (Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα) is attested throughout the timespan. While there is evidence of the worship of a goddess (Aphrodite Urania), most of the inscriptions are tombstones erected for members of the associations, this being one of the basic advantages of membership.

119 Some of the most frequent Greek personal names are: Δημήτριος (14), Ἡρακλείδες (14), Μενέστρατος (11), Στρατόνεικος (11), Τρύφων (8). 120 Avram et al. 2004b, 950–51.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

119

One of the earliest (2nd century AD) and rarest pieces of evidence is a lex sacra, describing the ceremony of a goddess (ἡ θεά) which probably referred to Aphrodite Urania, the tutelary goddess of the Bosporan kingdom who had a sanctuary at Phanagoria.121 The very fragmentary inscription points to cultic regulations regarding sacrifices and it mentions the use of lamps, oil and incense. During the same period a Θίασος was active, but not much can be said about it; the inscription is funerary and very concise, mentioning only the name of the deceased member (Μοκκοῦς son of Λεύκιος – no. 1706), that of the priest around whom the members gathered (Κύνων son of Ἀγαθοῦς – no. 1704) and the φιλάγαθος (Ἠζοῦς – no. 1701) of the association. Considering the low quality of the monument, as well as the writing errors,122 the association was a modest one, having modest funds for such initiatives. Moreover, the φιλάγαθος seems not to have been a citizen. Even though in funerary inscriptions not many of the members are named, it does seem that the internal hierarchy was much simpler than those associations of greater membership.123 The longest lived association was the Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα, which is attested through a series of five funerary inscriptions dedicated to the deceased members. Aspects such as the writing of the personal names without patronymics, as well as the reuse of monuments, or the low quality of the monuments and deficient Greek language skills suggest that the association grouped individuals of low social and juridical status. The internal hierarchy was more complex than the previous association but not significantly so: besides the ἱερεύς, the ἱερομάστωρ, γραμματεύς and φιλάγαθος were attested. At Phanagoria, the associations seem to have been modest, their equally modest funds being used mostly to finance the erection of members’ (low quality) tombstones. HERMONASSA The settlement was founded in the 6th century BC, the origin of the colonists being a matter of debate.124 Despite the fact that Apollo Ietros was the patron of the city,125 he was not worshipped inside private associations. Two 2ndcentury AD inscriptions126 record the same association devoted to Aphrodite 121 122 123 124 125 126

Ustinova 1999, 131. Voroshilova and Zavoikina 2016, 31. Voroshilova and Zavoikina 2016, 31. Avram et al. 2004b, 945. Avram et al. 2004b, 945. CIRB 1054 = IosPE IV, 421 = CAPInv. 1304; CIRB 1055 = CAPInv. 1304.

120

CHAPTER 5

Urania:127 one is a list of names,128 recording those who contributed to the erection of the monument, while the other is a votive inscription129 dedicated to the goddess, and mentioned among its members is a royal official (ἐπὶ τῆς αὐλῆς) Βάγης son of Σωσίπατρος (no. 1717) who was also the leader of the association (νακόρος/νεωκόρος – an office attested only once more at Tanais130). Its membership encourages the assumption of a connection between the association and the royal court, as well as the possibility of its members belonging to the upper strata of society.131 Besides the leader, other officials are mentioned, such as the ἱερεύς, the γραμματεύς, the ἱερομάστωρ and the φιλάγαθος. The last two offices are less common, while that of ἱερομάστωρ is specific for Hermonassa and Phanagoria and is probably specific to the cult of Aphrodite Urania;132 that of φιλάγαθος is found in more cities, but exclusively from this northern area. Of the 13 attested members, only two seem to be related: Καλοῦς son of Μυρῖνος (no. 1721) and Μυρῖνος son of Μυρῖνος (no. 1723), the patronymic being attested at Hermonassa only in this inscription.133 GORGIPPIA The city, named after the brother of the Bosporan king Satyrus I,134 was colonised by neighbouring cities.135 Its location in the eastern part of the Cimmerian Bosporus gave it an important commercial role, which is reflected in the types of association that emerged. Seven associations are attested here through 18 inscriptions from the 1st to the 3rd century AD, recording a total of 242 members. The earliest evidence, from the 1st/2nd century AD, is a fragmentary lex sacra (ἱερὸς νόμος)136 which, considering the reference to a συναγωγός, belonged to a cult association. The law prescribes aspects connected to the cult and to the cultic practices.137 According to R.C.T. Parker, such leges sacrae ‘were not 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137

Ustinova 1999, 130–31; Zavoikina 2013a, 82–83. CIRB 1054 = IosPE IV, 421 = CAPInv. 1304. CIRB 1055 = CAPInv. 1304. Ivantchik 2008, 94–95, no. 1 = SEG 58, 782 = Zavoikina 2013a, 98–101 = CAPInv. 1321. Zavoikina 2013a, 82–83. Ustinova 1999, 198. LGPN IV, 244. Avram et al. 2004b, 944; Müller 2010, 35. Avram et al. 2004b, 944. SEG 36, 703 = SEG 40, 624 = CAPInv. 1311. Lupu 2005, 5–6.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

121

different from other laws or decrees except for the subject’.138 In this particular case, reference is made to the manner in which the treasury of the association was to be used. S.Y. Saprykin suggests that the association might have used the funds under the supervision of the βουλή and with the approval of the appropriation of the funds by decree.139 Two other associations date to the 2nd century AD; one of them140 is attested through two fragments of an inscription of an unknown nature. The readable part of the text gives the extremely fragmentary names of some members, among whom there are also two officials, a συναγωγός and a φροντιστής. Taking into account similar hierarchies from this area, it is very likely that the association also had a priest, who was at its head. If the previous 2nd-century AD inscriptions attested the existence of associations, another contemporary inscription141 is less likely to do so. This was found in the vicinity of Gorgippia (to which it probably pertained) and while the opening part is missing, the rest of the text records a list of individuals (with patronymics) who made a dedication to Theos Hypsistos. An argument favouring the hypothesis that the inscription does not record an association is that no other association outside Tanais worshipped this god. Another argument would be that no associative office142 is mentioned (only one person was a royal official, a λοχαγός), which is uncommon for a dedication made by an association: one would expect at least a reference to the leading office, but other offices are to be expected especially in a list that contains so many individuals. In favour of its recording an association is the high number of individuals mentioned, which is especially common in the association devoted to Theos Hypsistos at Tanais. Some of the personal names and patronymics are fragmentary or missing, which is why the identification of relatives is not possible. There were four more associations dating to the 2nd–3rd centuries AD. One, which groups its members around a goddess (Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]),143 is attested through three inscriptions which record two fragmentary lists of members and a decision of the association. The identity of the goddess is under debate: while V.P. Yailenko believes that the name could be Σαυα,144 examination of the inscription causes Avram to believe that only the word Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ 138

Parker 2004, 58. Saprykin 1990. 140 CIRB 1132 + 1162 = CAPInv. 1312. 141 CIRB 1231 = IosPE IV, 436 = CAPInv. 1309. 142 Nevertheless, these offices could have been mentioned in the opening part of the inscription which is missing. 143 SEG 3, 607 = IGRR I, 893 = CIRB 1136 + CIRB 77 = CAPInv. 1317; CIRB 1156 A + CIRB 1182 A = CAPInv. 1317; CIRB 1156 B + CIRB 1182 B = CAPInv. 1317. 144 Yailenko 2010, 643–44. 139

122

CHAPTER 5

can be read and that this was probably the epiclesis of a goddess, maybe a local one.145 There were over 40 members inside this association, and at the head of it there was a ἱερεύς who was a royal official (λοχαγός): ignotus son of Ἀγαθοῦς Βοχόρου – no. 1907. The offices of συναγωγός and φροντιστής are also attested, but except for these, all the other individuals mentioned were regular members inside the association. Unfortunately, many of the personal names and patronymics are fragmentary, which is why we cannot tell if there were relatives involved in the association. The legible personal names are mostly Greek, but some are Iranian. Here again, the existence of a royal official at the head of the association points to some strong connection with the court, which makes us believe that the members themselves were part of the medium or upper stratum of the society. The best represented from Gorgippia is the Θέασος ναυκλήρων,146 which is no surprise considering that Gorgippia was a harbour city and an important commercial centre.147 One of the inscriptions mentions construction-work pertaining to the association, viz. the restoration/dedication of a temple and of sacred statues (ἀγάλματα) to Poseidon, a god associated par excellence with traders and merchants; therefore, Poseidon was probably the tutelary god in this case. The association was connected to king Sauromates II and to the local elite. The king apparently granted the association the equivalent of 1000 artabai (Persian measure of capacity). The text of the inscription regarding this benefaction has received various interpretations:148 the 1000 artabai offered by the king to the association represented an act of benefaction so that the king himself became a member (maybe honorific);149 or the amount was a tax exemption on the export of 1000 artabai.150 Whatever the real meaning, it is clear that the king acted as benefactor of the association, which was organised based on this common occupation. There were at least 133 members of this association, some of whom are remarkable individuals in Bosporan society: Ἀθηνόδωρος son of Σέλευκος (ἱερεύς) and Μοιρόδωρος son of Νεοκλῆς (συναγωγός) who were also royal

145

Avram’s commentary in CAPInv. 1317. Nine inscriptions record its activity: CIRB 1135 = CAPInv. 1310; SEG 29, 707 = CAPInv. 1310; CIRB 1230 = IGRR I, 912 = IosPE IV, 433 = Poland 1909, B 120 K = CAPInv. 1310; CIRB 1130 = CAPInv. 1310; CIRB 1131 = CAPInv. 1310; SEG 36, 705 = CAPInv. 1310; CIRB 1134 = AGRW 84 = CAPInv. 1310; SEG 36, 700 = Saprykin 1986 = CAPInv. 1310; CIRB 1129 = IosPE IV, 434 = CAPInv. 1310. 147 Harland 2014, 16. 148 For a comprehensive perspective, see Harland 2014, 17. 149 Minns 1913, 655. 150 Zavoikina 2013a, 86. 146

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

123

officials (the former was a πρῶτον ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας and the latter was ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς Γοργιππείας). Around AD 177 or 187, Νεοκλῆς son of Μοιρόδωρος (or Ἀθηνόδωρος) occupied the same position of ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς Γοργιππείας, while later on during the reign of Sauromates II, Μοιρόδωρος son of Νεοκλῆς (mentioned in our inscription) acted as ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς Γοργιππείας.151 This office, held by prosperous citizens of Gorgippia, is attested in six inscriptions.152 Moreover, we find other local officials as members, namely three ὀρφανοφύλακες,153 a λοχαγός, a πρῶτον ἐπὶ τῆς βα[σ]ιλείας and an ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς Θεοδοσίας, and as representatives of the military three στρατηγοί. The offices held inside the association by royal officials were the most important ones (ἱερεύς, συναγωγός). This situation is not unique within the area; other examples come from Panticapaeum and Tanais. As such, the involvement of royal officials was due to royal interest in maritime trade.154 Regarding the internal hierarchy, there are some local peculiarities; besides the previously mentioned offices there are three φροντισταί, two ἐνκυκλίων οἰκονόμοι (administrators of taxes), three ἱερῶν οἰκονόμοι (administrators of the sacred affairs) and two οἰκονόμοι (administrators). For the entire Black Sea area, the offices of οἰκονόμοι (in its three versions) are attested only here at Gorgippia; their position implied the management of finance, probably with a similar task to the ταμίας. This feature derives from the profile of the association, which had a very strong occupational component. The very strong internal organisation given by its structure and by the existence of at least a γραφή (here with the sense of a normative act,155 recording a decision of the association156) was meant to ensure its longevity and financial success. Nevertheless, these were mediated also through the connections that the associations had with the elite and royal officials, its local importance being a guarantor of its longevity.

151

Treister 2003, 74. Treister 2003, 74. 153 In one of the inscriptions (CIRB 1130 = CAPInv. 1310) the word is fragmentary [ὀρφανο]φύλαξ, but the reconstruction is probably correct, being probably a civic office. Other restorations such as: γαζοφύλαξ (Panticapaeum), νομοφύλαξ (Chersonesus) are not attested at Gorgippia, therefore it is less likely for these to have been used in the inscription. Etymologically, the word means the tutor of an orphan (Xenophon Vect. 2. 7) and is mentioned in the context of the Peloponnesian War (Fitzgerald 2016, 38–39). Except for Gorgippia, the office is not epigraphically attested elsewhere, this was either a civic office (whose holders were at Gorgippia also members of associations) or a specific associative office. In the latter case, another inscription could be added: CIRB 1161. 154 Zavoikina 2013a, 86–87. 155 Bailly 1935, 418. 156 SEG 36, 700 = Saprykin 1986 = CAPInv. 1310. 152

124

CHAPTER 5

Considering the high number of members, familial relations can be spotted here based on patronymic; some patronymics (Ἀθηνόδωρος, Νουμήνιος, Πόθος, Σύμμαχος, Φαρνάκης, Φαρνακίων) are common in the area, thus excluded from the sample lest they be misleading and unrepresentative. Other patronymics, combined with the moment of attestation, provide more grounds for reconstructing family trees: Κοσσοῦς (no. 1792) and Φαρνάκης (no. 1861) were probably the sons of the same ῎Ερως; two ignoti (no. 1913, no. 1914) were the sons of Δυνάτων; Κοθίνας (no. 1789), Νουμήνιος (no. 1811) and Πόθος (no. 1829) were the sons of Ἄττας; Ἀθηνόδωρος (no. 1733) and Μοιρόδωρος (no. 1802) were the sons of Γάϊος; Διονύσιος (no. 1765) and Σύμμαχος (no. 1855) were the sons of Ζαζζοῦς; Πόθος (no. 1832) and ignotus (no. 1935) were the sons of Τειμόθεος; while Ἀθηνόδωρος (no. 1738) and Μυρίσκος (no. 1805) were the sons of Χρῆστος. Contemporary to the above is a group of Θιασῖται,157 attested through two inscriptions. Despite its fragmentary state, we can trace the existence at the head of the association of a συναγωγός (not a ἱερεύς), who is followed by regular members inscribed with their patronymics (both personal names and patronymics are fragmentary). Based on such scarce evidence, not much else can be said of the associations or its members. Of a more uncertain nature is another 2nd–3rd-century fragmentary inscription158 which records a list of names. The reason for including it in the corpus is the reference to a ἱερεύς, but surprisingly the official is not inscribed first, only in a rather secondary position, which is quite uncommon. In this inscription, not all the personal names and patronymics are legible, some personal names are probably missing. *

*

*

Like Istros, Tomis, Callatis, Dionysopolis and Tanais, Gorgippia had at least two associations which played a very important locale role and were connected to the royal court through their members. The number of members was very high, with a preponderance of Greek, followed by Iranian, personal names. While the existence of the phenomenon is limited in time, its intensity provides a glimpse into associative life at Gorgippia, which was influenced especially by the economic role of the city.

157 158

SEG 36, 704 = CAPInv. 1313; CIRB 1133 = CAPInv. 1313. CIRB 1191 = IosPE II, 410 = CAPInv. 1308.

PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS ON THE NORTHERN SHORE OF THE BLACK SEA

125

CONCLUDING REMARKS From a chronological point of view, for the northern Black Sea (with some exceptions) the associative phenomenon is characteristic of the 2nd–3rd centuries AD, with only isolated cases from the Classical and Hellenistic periods. There was a predominance of associations devoted to Theos Hypsistos (Tanais), Poseidon (Gorgippia), Zeus and Hera Soteres (Panticapaeum), Aphrodite Urania (Panticapaeum). Funerary monuments are found at neither Gorgippia nor Tanais, while they predominate at Phanagoria. Specific to Panticapaeum and Tanais are associations organised on age criteria, which probably had a cultic component, their activities focusing on the social and educational side.159 At Hermonassa, Cimmericum, Myrmecium and Theodosia the associative phenomenon is very poorly represented. This reflects the importance of the settlements and the extent of archaeological excavation. The associative phenomenon manifests itself differently, depending on the economic (Gorgippia), political (Tanais, Gorgippia) or cultic characteristics of the cities. On the one hand are associations oriented towards self-representation and development of connections with the royal court, which points to the interconnectivity and interdependence of the private and public spheres, on the other there are associations whose main goal was to ensure a more basic need – graves for its members (Phanagoria). Specific to the phenomenon on the northern shore is the non-involvement of women, but the presence of youths and family members. The absence of women is not surprising, considering their rare presence on inscriptions compared with men (reflected in associative inscriptions too), but also their role in society and the ‘masculine’ character of the associative phenomenon, especially when dealing with occupational associations, or with the associations devoted to Theos Hypsistos. The associations from Tanais certainly stand out from the rest due to the very numerous epigraphic attestations and number of members, who appear to be in the most part citizens and who belong to both the upper and lower echelons of the society. Here these associations also had a role in the inclusion of the Iranian population. Representative of the region are also close and positive relations between the associations with the highest social capital and the Bosporan kings, noticeable at Gorgippia, Panticapaeum and Tanais.

159

Zavoikina 2013a, 132.

CHAPTER 6

PARALLEL LIVES

INTRODUCTION The goal of this chapter is, first, to look at the differences and similarities between Pontic associations, and then to look farther away, first at the Ποντικοί who are attested in associations outside the Pontic area, and then to other associations from the Greek and Roman world. In an attempt to understand the associative phenomenon at a Pontic level, to compare and contrast Pontic associations is mandatory, while addressing the Ποντικοί in external associations, as well as other associations from beyond our area, will bring evidence on other aspects of associative life. This will provide context to the Pontic associations within the ancient world. DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE PONTIC ASSOCIATIONS As mentioned in Chapter 2, the associations and their corresponding inscriptions are not of course evenly distributed, which is a result not only of the state of the research, but also of the spread of the associative phenomenon and the evolution of the regions. This aspect influences in turn the impact which it has at a regional level and the visible local role of the associations. Differences and similarities are to be noticed especially through the profile of the individuals (through their belonging to a certain social and juridical status, sex and age category) who joined the associations, and through their functioning (specific internal hierarchy, imitation of the polis’ practices, finance, longevity, their local role and the specific attributes of some associations, etc.). Members Their social and juridical status will tell us more about the differences and similarities between associations. Relevant to this comparison is also an evaluation of the presence of women and children, because this is an important differentiating factor in Pontic associative life. Most members are registered in

128

CHAPTER 6

associations in the northern cities, especially Tanais. Their names are mostly Greek, which does not necessarily point to their ethnicity, even though we can largely consider it as such. Social and Juridical Status The social status of members is relatively hard to establish in most cases since there is insufficient evidence to reconstruct it. Private associations offered the individuals with a lower social status an alternative to the restrictions of the polis,1 but this did not mean that the members of the associations came only from this social background2 since one of the defining characteristics of the associations was the social diversity of members, though not entirely: there are associations composed of only citizens, and at the opposite end of only persons with a lower juridical and social status. Thus, associations could be heterogeneous, comprising representatives of different social categories, but on the other side they could be homogeneous, including representatives of a certain social category. From the few existing internal regulations, no particular social or juridical status was required to join an association, but such barriers certainly existed and are visible in some associations. Only a few associations were as inclusive as, for example, a well-known association from Philadelphia.3 The prosopographical data are at two extremes: on the one hand, noncitizens of lower social status, slaves and possible freedmen; on the other, citizens and representatives of the elite who have the local or/and the Roman citizenship (relevant before AD 212). If the first category can be identified through the lack of a patronymic, the quality of the monuments, the type and characteristics of the association, and possibly indirectly through the occupations practised, the second can be identified through the individuals’ belonging to a certain family, as well as through the local, regional or provincial offices held. In between are the majority of members, whose profiles remain in the most part unknown, among these we include after AD 212 the beneficiaries of Caracalla’s edict who lose themselves in the mass of new citizens. Some of the members of the Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων, those of the Ἡρακλειασταί and Τέκτονες are part of a middling social class (as discussed above – see especially Chapter 4), while the Ταυρεασταί are part of the upper social class in the society of Istros.

1 2 3

Kloppenborg 1996, 17–18; Ascough 2003, 25; etc. Ascough 2003, 25. TAM V.3, 1359 = AGRW 121 = CAPInv. 348.

PARALLEL LIVES

129

Among possible slaves, at Istros there is Ἀλέξανδρος (no. 608) who appears without patronymic, but also the members (except one: Μαξιμίνα daughter of Σίσυς) of an association from Istros4 who have no patronymics. Γερμανός (no. 241) might also have been a slave: he is the sole person in an association from Callatis mentioned without a patronymic and bearing a Latin personal name, in a context in which the Callatians were not eager to exhibit their ‘Romanity’ onomastically. Dionus (no. 496) was very likely a slave5 due to his personal name and lack of patronymic; he was a vexillarius in an association from Tomis, who had as colleague either an imperial freedman or procurator, but we do not know of which emperor.6 Caius Antonius Eutyches (no. 599) was probably a freedman from Tomis, his cognomen being frequently attested among slaves. Except for Tanais, where it is assumed that most of the members were citizens, at Panticapaeum and Phanagoria there were both citizens and non-citizens from both the Iranian and Greek communities, and from both a lower and higher social category. In the latter city, there are mostly funerary inscriptions, in many the personal name not followed by a patronymic, which could point to the lack of citizenship and a lower social status.7 Lower social and juridical status is noticeable also through the modest quality of the monuments, as well as through the attestation of a collective funerary monument.8 In other cases, such as that of Μενέστρατος son of Ἀρδάρακος (no. 1705) still from Phanagoria, the lower origin is betrayed by the use of a name specific to the nobility, which was used by the inhabitants as a manner of integration, the holding of a position inside an association allowing the development of social networks.9 Also, probably from a lower category is [Κα]σπεριανός (no. 1), due to his being part of the association of Ῥωποπῶλαι from Amastris. Albeit profession is not always an indicator of social and juridical status, in this example we can assume a lower origin of the member based on it. On the other hand, there are also members of associations from the upper echelon of society, holding local and/or the Roman citizenship, forming part of the local, regional or provincial elite, and especially identifiable through the civic/royal offices they held. 4

ISM I, 229 = CAPInv. 1225. ISM II, p. 190 (Stoian). 6 ISM II, pp. 189–90 (Stoian). 7 In the case of Σωσίας (no. 1075), member of an association from Panticapaeum, we are dealing with a freedman, his status indicated in another funerary inscription erected for his former master Στρατόνικος son of Ζήνων (CIRB 145 = SEG 51, 988). 8 CIRB 987 = IosPE II, 365 = Kreuz 2012, 514, no. 148 = CAPInv. 1301; Zavoikina 2013a, 271–72. 9 Zavoikina 2013a, 271–72. 5

130

CHAPTER 6

The presence of Roman citizens in associations is invariable across the Pontic cities. Only Amastris, Dionysopolis, Istros, Tomis, Callatis and Panticapaeum provide evidence, which, given the historical context and the dataset, is not surprising. Of the 1983 individuals who are epigraphically attested as members of associations, only a small number held duo or tria nomina (210, or 10.59%), and most of them bear the imperial nomen Aurelius (84), receiving therefore Roman citizenship with the edict of Caracalla, making the sample less revealing. Out of the 210 individuals, only 74 are holders of tria nomina, 131 are holders of duo nomina and five appear only with a praenomen and a cognomen (attested at Istros, Panticapaeum and Tomis). Among the holders of duo and tria nomina (see Fig. 21 for the geographical distribution of members with these) we indeed find members of the elite, sometimes (as discussed in previous chapters) even city or royal officials (Βίρριος Λέων – no. 769, Τίτος Κομινίος Εὐξενίδης – no. 774, Ἑρέννιος Ἀπολινάρις – no. 335, Ἰούλιος Σαμβίων – no. 1111, Ἰούλιος Χόφαρνος – no. 1112, Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος – no. 780, Τίτος Αἴλιος Μιν[---] – no. 746, Τίτος Αἴλιος Μινίκιος – no. 332), but some of them might have only an honorific role. The geographical representativeness of the holders of Roman citizenship must be seen in relation to the connections which the cities had with Rome, but also in relation to the numeric representativeness of the associations in each city. As such, it is no surprise that in cities such as Istros (25 of 215 inscriptions; 248 of 1983 members), Tomis (26 of 215; 229 of 1983) and Dioysopolis (ten of 215; 122 of 1983) the number of citizens is the highest, considering also that the number of inscriptions attesting associations is high as well. The numeric representativeness of the associations and members is not directly proportional to that of Roman citizens in the northern Black Sea: the Bosporan kingdom was a client state outside the empire (with the brief exception of AD 63–68), something which is also reflected in the associative milieu. Despite Panticapaeum’s yielding one of the highest number of associative inscriptions (39 out of 215 overall) and of members (242 out of 1983), there are only five bearers of duo nomina: Ἰούλιος Ζενόδωρος (no. 1108), Ἰούλιος Καλλισθένης (no. 1109), Ἰούλιος Νεικηφόρος (no. 1110), Ἰούλιος Σαμβίων (no. 1111) and Ἰούλιος Χόφαρνος (no. 1112); Ἰούλιος being the nomen taken by the Bosporan dynasts. Other cities, such as Tanais or Gorgippia, have no Roman citizens among the members of associations. At Dionysopolis, Roman citizens appear in only two inscriptions, one of the Νεομηνιασταί and the other of the Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας. Even though the former association began in AD 212, it records also individuals without nomen and from the total number of members only one has a nomen other than Αὐρήλιος, namely Ἰούλιος, who therefore belonged to a family which received citizenship earlier.

PARALLEL LIVES

131

Cities such as Amastris and Panticapaeum have very few attestations of Roman citizens. At Istros, the Iulii (one – see Fig. 22 for their geographical distribution in the Pontic associations) and the Claudii (two – see Fig. 23 for their geographical distribution in the Pontic associations) are very rarely attested, but so are also the Flavii (six – see Fig. 24 or their geographical distribution in the Pontic associations), while the Cocceii are not attested at all (see Fig. 25 for their geographical distribution in the Pontic associations). The Ulpii (14 – see Fig. 26 for their geographical distribution in the Pontic associations), the Aelii (13 – see Fig. 27 for their geographical distribution in the Pontic associations) and the Aurelii (17 – see Fig. 28 for their geographical distribution in the Pontic associations) being the most numerous at Istros; while Tomis yields the Iulii (17), Aelii (seven), Aurelii (six), Flavii (one), Cocceii (one) and Claudii (one). It is only at Istros that the evolution of the juridical status of three individuals can be traced, first recorded without Roman citizenship and some years later with it: Αὐρήλιος Ἀλέξανδρος (no. 753), Αὐρήλιος Ποντικός (no. 767), Οὔλπιος Πολύτειμος (no. 790). Dionysopolis and Callatis provide opposite trends in the appropriation of Roman-ness after AD 212. If at Dionysopolis the display of duo nomina is widespread thenceforth, at Callatis its display is much narrower: in the association Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/Φιλοκύνηγοι10 from Callatis, which is dated to AD 238–244, there are only eight individuals (from 41) who display their holding of the Roman citizenship, despite the date. At Dionysopolis on the other hand, there is only one individual with the nomen Iulius, all other holders of the Roman citizenship bearing the nomen Aurelius, thus being new citizens. For individuals from Istros and Tomis, belonging to the community of Roman citizens was an important matter, which was not the case, for example, for folk from Callatis. At Istros, of the 65 holders of citizenship, about 23 are attested after AD 212. Istros therefore records the most numerous cases of duo and tria nomina (30.95% taken together), which is to be understood not only through the dating of the inscriptions, but also because the inscriptions record the hymn-singers, who mostly belonged to the upper-medium echelon of society and even to the local elite. At Tomis, most of the inscriptions which attest Roman citizens date to the 2nd–3rd centuries AD, leaving us unable to be certain whether they were granted citizenship before or after Caracalla. Finally, a few onomastic particularities of the holders of duo and tria nomina: the existence of duo nomina formed out of two gentilicia to which a cognomen is added. According to I. Kajanto, in these cases it is possible for one of the nomina to be inherited from the mother, the other from the father,11 10 11

Sauciuc-Săveanu and Rădulescu 1968 = Pippidi 1972 = ISM III, 74 = CAPInv. 1183. Kajanto 1966, 37.

132

CHAPTER 6

but it is not necessarily a rule. At Tomis, there are two cases in which the individuals bear the nomina Αὐρήλιος Ἰούλιος along with a cognomen: Αὐρήλιος Ἰούλιος Ἵστιος (no. 522) and Αὐρήλιος Ἰούλιος Χρυσόγονος (no. 532). This indicates that they were granted the Roman citizenship before the edict of Caracalla, being possibly also a way of expressing their loyalty towards the emperor.12 Holders of double gentilicia are attested among soldiers (as well as among civilians) in the time of Caracalla, Elagabal and Severus Alexander.13 Another particular feature, which is however common for provincials,14 is the misuse of the onomastic system, through the lack of a nomen: Πούπλιος Ἰουλιανός (no. 1114), Μᾶρκος Τερεν[τιανός?] × 3 (nos. 540–542), Σητώνιος Ῥεστιτοῦτος (no. 795). The number of Roman citizens is relatively low when compared with the number of members, and half of them are individuals who received the Roman citizenship only under Caracalla. This means that only about half had a privileged social status in their community, in some cases being attested as benefactors of the association. Not surprising, considering that they came within the province of Moesia Inferior, is the increased presence of Roman citizens in Dionysopolis, Callatis, Tomis and Istros. At Amastris, the low number of citizens is certainly also connected to the very small number of inscriptions, while at Panticapaeum the low number of citizens is connected to its relationship with Rome, some of the attested Roman citizens being respectable local officials. Women With respect to the gender representativeness, of the 1983 individuals, there are only 16 identifiable women (see Fig. 29), less than 1% of the members. There are many instances where the personal name of a member is unknown, thus their sex cannot be established, but overall, the involvement of women was probably little higher than suggested by the data. The involvement of women could be identified also in those cases where the name of the association is feminine, as for example αἱ βάκχαι, but such formula never occurs in the Pontic area. The women come mostly from the cities of the western Black Sea: Apollonia Pontica (two), Istros (four), Tomis (seven), Callatis (one?), Olbia (one), external (one). The example from Callatis is uncertain due to the fact that the woman, 12 13 14

Gilliam 1986, 304. Gilliam 1986, 301–02. Russu 1958, 49.

PARALLEL LIVES

133

an ignota daughter of Ἀπολλώνιος (no. 343), was the priestess of Athena and was possibly only a benefactress and not a member of the Βακχικὸς θίασος.15 This distribution is not surprising, considering the number of inscriptions/ associations in the respective cities, as well as the types of association in which women were active. The presence of women is most numerous at Tomis. This is because of the gods worshipped inside the associations, Cybele and Dionysus, which permits them even to be founders (which is exceptional) and leaders of some associations. Except at Olbia, no women are attested inside associations from the northern Black Sea, due to the character of the associations and their worship of Theos Hypsistos. Even though they are underrepresented, almost all the women mentioned held religious offices – ἀρχιβασσάρα, ἀρχιέρεια, ἀρχιραβδουχῖσα, κισταφόρος, ἱέρεια (3), mater dumi, mater Romanorum, μήτηρ δενδροφόρων, μήτηρ παστοφόρων, to which we add the honorific title of benefactress granted to Βακχίς daughter of Φίλτος (no. 1973), also a member, and to Ἄβα daughter of Ἑκαταῖος (son of Εὐξενίδης), wife of Ἡράκων son of Ἀριστόμαχος, who was not a member. In cases where women hold these positions, the associations most likely worshipped goddesses or gods whose cults implied mysteries, which made possible their involvement. As previously mentioned, the most extraordinary example is that of Πασώ (no. 563), who was most likely the founder of a Dionysiac association which took its name from her, a singular case for the region. Since she was the founder, it is reasonable to assume that other women could take part in the associations, though it is neither certain nor mandatory. From a different perspective, we have the example of Ἄβα16 daughter of Ἑκαταῖος (son of Εὐξενίδης), wife of Ἡράκων son of Ἀριστόμαχος,17 who was not a member of an association but only an external benefactress. She was honoured first of all as a member of a distinguished family and for her generosity towards the Histrian people. From a juridical point of view, only three of the women have Roman citizenship – Πουπλία Αἰλία Ὀλυμπία (no. 591), Flavia Nona (no. 642) and Menia Iuliane (no. 629); Βακχίς daughter of Φίλτος (no. 1971) is labelled in the inscription as Καλλατιανή, relocating to Athens (see below on Ποντικοί in associations outside the Pontic area). Considering the fact that ignota daughter of Ἀπολλώνιος (no. 820) was the priestess of Athena,18 we may safely assume that she belonged to a well-off 15

ISM III, 80 = SEG 24, 1034 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 127–29, no. 61 = CAPInv. 1186. ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112. 17 About the decree and the benefactress, see Popescu 1960; ISM I, pp. 152–56 (Pippidi); van Nijf 1997, 149–50, 156–88, 251–52; Pázsint 2017b. 18 Most probably she was not a member of the association, only a benefactress. 16

134

CHAPTER 6

local family, part of the upper stratum of society in Callatis. A similar interpretation could be given regarding ignota daughter of ignotus (no. 812) who was an ἀρχιέρεια in the very important Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων; but also regarding Νάνα daughter of Θεάδων (no. 556) who was the μήτηρ δενδροφόρων of the Δενδροφόροι at Tomis. Nevertheless, the representativeness of women remains limited and specific to the bigger cities, and their role is either modest or exceptional: for example, none of them received public honours. Their involvement is a global reflection of their position in the public sphere. Children and Younger Individuals Some cities are marked out by children and/or youths joining associations. This can be identified either through an explicit statement of the age group (Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος, νεώτεροι), through the existence of offices implying the presence of youth (νεανισκάρχαι, γυμνασιάρχαι), both providing definite evidence of membership, or through the familial involvement (fathers and sons) of members (less reliable since we do not know the age of family members). Thus, their involvement is defnite at Panticapaeum (Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος, Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα, Ἀριστοπυλεῖται, ?), Myrmecium and Tanais (Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον); and based on familial involvement possibly also at Dionysopolis, Callatis and Istros. At Panticapaeum, besides the Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος, which includes in its name the age criteria imposed for membership, a Θίεσος implies different age categories, since the members who commemorate their companion are mentioned as ἥλικες οἱ θιέσου. Other explicit evidence of the existence of younger members is provided by the office of νεανισκάρχης, which is attested 15 times in the Pontic associations: twice at Panticapaeum, once at Myrmecium and a dozen times at Tanais (see Fig. 30). As mentioned in the Glossary, the office had a civic equivalent, these officials being in charge of the νεανίσκοι. These three cities excepted, the officials are not attested elsewhere in the associative milieu, but they are present in civic settings, where they have even responsibilities connected to military patrol of the frontiers.19 As we can see from these examples, children or younger members were either grouped in a special association based on age (Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος), were part of an association which had different age categories (Θίεσος and the associations which had the offices of νεανισκάρχαι, γυμνασιάρχαι) and/or 19

Chankowski 2010, 354–56.

PARALLEL LIVES

135

joined various associations in which we can identify their fathers (for example, Πυθοκλῆς son of Ἄττας – no. 109 was the father of Αὐρήλιος Θεόμνηστος – no. 151), or some of their relatives (mostly brothers). In total, their presence is rather limited. The profile of members was quite varied in matters of social and juridical status, sex and age. Differences are to be observed from one association to another (especially regarding status and age), and more rarely from region to region (the absence of women in the northern associations). Especially in the north, associations composed of individuals from the lower, middling and upper strata of society may be identified, while on the western and northern Black Sea we can identify with more clarity associations composed of individuals from only the lower or upper stratum (for example, the Ἀριστοπυλεῖται at Panticapaeum, the Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων at Istros). Yet again, the similarities are visible at the more general level, while the differences are the ones at the core. Functioning of Associations How associations functioned – their internal hierarchy, finances, imitation of the practices of the polis, longevity and local role – as well as the existence of specific associations, all provide glimpses of the larger scale differences and similarities between associations (but only glimpses considering the imbalanced evidence, as well as the nature of the inscriptions at hand). Offices These are varied. Associative offices are mentioned 434 times,20 some members, albeit rarely (13 instances), holding more than one during their lifetime. In total, there are 75 offices, which can be grouped into cultic, administrative and technical, and many of them are copies of civic offices. Indeed, as mentioned in Chapters 4 and 5 and the Glossary, there are some, the ἀγωνοθέτης, γυμνασιάρχης and νεανισκάρχης, who could actually be city not association officials; but based on the context it is more likely that they were associative. Besides them, the βιβλιοφύλαξ, ἔκδικος, ἐπιμελητής, οἰκονόμος, νομοφύλαξ, πραγματᾶς, and ταμίας have a civic correspondent, which points yet again to imitation by the associations. 20 As evidence shows, cities like Amisus, Sinope, Bizone and Chersonesus do not provide evidence on the internal hierarchy of their corresponding associations.

136

CHAPTER 6

Some of the offices vary only slightly from others, as is the case of γραμματεύς and γραμματεὺς διὰ βίου, οἰκονόμος, ἐνκυκλίων οἰκονόμος and ἱερῶν οἰκονόμος, παραφιλάγαθος and παραφιλάγαθος διὰ βίου; προστάτης and προστάτης διὰ βίου, προστάτης τοῦ θιάσου, etc. There are also lexical varieties for the same office: γυμνασιάρχης and γυμνασίαρχος, ἔκγδικος and ἔκδικος, συναγωγεύς and συναγωγός. Often, it is impossible to reconstruct the complete internal hierarchy because of the type of inscription, which sometimes mention only some of the members. For example, in the case of the associations of ναύκληροι from Tomis, besides the position of ἱερεύς and the honorific title of φιλότιμος there is no other mention of the internal hierarchy, which was certainly more complex and reflected also the occupational component of the association. We cannot exclude the possibility that these associations, just like that of Θέασος ναυκλήρων from Gorgippia, had the office of οἰκονόμος. Overall, the type of association, the god worshipped and the representative activities were the three main elements which influenced the internal hierarchy. Nevertheless, there are some ‘standard’ offices, both cultic and administrative, which are widespread across most Pontic associations. Within the cultic category of offices, that of ἱερεύς is very often attested (87 times from 434), this being most commonly the leader of the association. The administrative office of γραμματεύς (26) is very widespread across almost all the Pontic associations. Considering this official’s duty (among others, in charge of decrees), it is not surprising that it is mentioned so often. But except for these offices, the associative hierarchy usually has local variations. For example, the office of προστάτης is frequently attested at Istros, with only seven more attestations at Amastris, Callatis and Tomis, and none in the north. Despite the existence of multiple Dionysiac associations, local varieties of the internal hierarchy still existed, depending on the specifics of the association. As such, the possible Μύσται from Apollonia Pontica have a unique hierarchy, including offices reclaimed by the mysteries and ceremonies performed (ἀρχιβασσάρα, ἀρχιμύστης, βουκόλος, γάλλαρος, κισταφόρος, κρατηρίαος, λικναφόρος, ἔκδικος) and unknown elsewhere in the Pontic associative world. At Istros, the activity of the hymn-singers implied the existence of more technical staff inside the association, such as the μεσόχορος, the μούσαρχος and the χοροστάτης, which are specific to this association. Nevertheless, the use of music was probably more generalised due to the activity of banqueting and honouring of the gods which most associations undertook. For example, at Dionysopolis there is the attestation of an αὐλητής.

PARALLEL LIVES

137

Simpler hierarchies are to be found at Hermonassa and Phanagoria, where one association from each city has only the basic offices of ἱερεύς, φιλάγαθος, γραμματεύς and sometimes the ἱερομάστωρ (an official attested only here). More complex hierarchies are provided by the inscriptions from Tanais and Panticapaeum, which give us the most comprehensive examples of the internal hierarchy. The Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον from Tanais had a very refined internal structure, led by a ἱερεύς, followed invariably by a πατὴρ συνόδου, or a συναγωγός, then by a φιλάγαθος, a παραφιλάγαθος (both of these offices are specific to the northern associations, especially at Tanais and Panticapaeum), a γυμνασιάρχης, a νεανισκάρχης, a γραμματεύς and the regular members: the θιασῶται (θιασεῖται, θιασῖται) and συνοδεῖται (συνοδῖται). Similar is the association Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα, from Panticapaeum, which had a ἱερεύς at the head, as the title denominates, then a συναγωγός, a πραγματᾶς instead of the γραμματεύς, a φιλάγαθος and a παραφιλάγαθος as well as a γυμνασιάρχης (but no νεανισκάρχης, which is somewhat surprising considering that in the north they are almost always attested together). The Θέασος ναυκλήρων from Gorgippia had a customised internal structure which, besides the office of ἱερεύς, has a συναγωγός, a φροντιστής and an οἰκονόμος (with its variants: ἱερῶν οἰκονόμος, ἐνκυκλίων οἰκονόμος), offices which are adapted to account for the occupational component of the association. As we can see, the internal hierarchy of associations has many variations, even among those associations that worshipped the same god (i.e. Dionysus, Theos Hypsistos). While it is possible that some associations had a more complex hierarchy, absent from funerary texts, it is noticeable that some associations are structurally much less developed than others, lacking in detailed offices for their smooth functioning and durability. Finally, among the members there were also 46 who held royal, military or civil office, to which can be added the Ἀριστοπυλεῖται, courtiers (about 91), who formed an association and were all royal officials, some with more specific roles in the royal administration. If we consider the total number of members (1983), the percentage of individuals who simultaneously held royal, military or civic office is low. This evidence comes mostly from the northern Black Sea, while fewer than half the cases are from western, showing in these cases the positive dynamics between the representatives of the local authority and the associations. Despite the presence of common offices, internal hierarchies differ when examined more closely. More general similarities existed at a regional level, especially in the north. These hierarchical specifics are mostly the result of the association’s profile, while the presence of the civic/military/royal officials points to their positive relationship with the authorities.

138

CHAPTER 6

Imitation of the Practices of the Polis Another common aspect of associations in general and of Pontic ones in particular is that they were ‘cities in miniature’,21 imitating sometimes closely the practices of the city, its structure and its honorific and religious practices, but also the language used and the procedures, which ensured their stability, existence and growth. As previously mentioned, some offices imitated civic ones, but the imitation does not stop there, the religious practices of the cities are to be found inside associations, though on a smaller scale: well-established cultic practices, the sacrifices brought to the gods, the votive dedications made to them, etc. are at the core of associative life. Honorific practices coincided as well: the city sought to stimulate, obtain and reward euergetic behaviour and so did the associations, in order to attract benefactors for advantage (mostly financial). This behaviour was common for the interaction between two or multiple players in the ancient world. The networks which the associations formed are in direct connection with the honorific practices because through them they extended their social circle and made themselves more visible.22 There are 19 honorific inscriptions (Amastris, Dionysopolis, Istros, Tomis, Chersonesus, Panticapaeum, Tanais, External) which point to the benefactors of the associations, who are mostly representatives of the elite (whether members or not), who operated not only as ‘benefactors but also as agents, mediating the access to a more extended patronage network’.23 Moreover, the involvement of the elite made the distinction between private and public more fluid and less traceable. Nine inscriptions make reference to the imperial/royal house, as sign of loyalty towards them, some being dedications made by the associations to them. The written immortalisation of the relationship between the associations and the authorities had as its goal not only an expression of gratitude but also an increase in the prestige of the associations through the relationships in which they were engaged. Only in a few cases is there a more concrete relationship between the imperial/royal authorities and the associations. The patronage in this type of relationship involved reciprocity, usually in services, but also asymmetry in power, status and impact, the concept being structured around the ‘moral economy’,24 whose main beneficiaries were, of course, the members of the associations. If on the one part the associations were given various gifts (i.e. money, goods), the benefactors were rewarded 21 22 23 24

Le Guen 2001, 81. Harland 2015, 8. van Nijf 1997, 77. van Nijf 1997, 76.

PARALLEL LIVES

139

with loyalty and through honours (monuments, statues, crowns) and honorific titles,25 offices for life, and through the publicity which grew around them and the visibility they had in the public space through the monuments which mention them. All these rewards were symbolic, and indirectly proportional to the benefactions obtained by the associations. Except most probably for the association of ναύκληροι from Gorgippia, it is impossible to ascertain whether the benefactors had a financial interest in the activities of the occupational associations; they do not seem to take a profit from the lucrative activity of the associations, and they did not mediate different economic activities. Likewise, we cannot identify clearly a political interest in including associations in the personal networks of these benefactors, which they might have had in other parts of the ancient world (such as Pontus et Bithynia26). Exception for cases in which representatives of the elite were members or benefactors, and those in which they were honoured, it seems that, with a few exceptions (at Istros, Tomis, Callatis, Panticapaeum, Tanais), the stakes were not so high for various individuals to act as benefactors of associations, i.e. a connection with an association was not particularly profitable.27 Nevertheless, the benefactions of associations increased in the Imperial period, as underlined by A. Avram: ‘As in other cities of the western Black Sea coast or Asia Minor, benefactors of the imperial period seem to demonstrate their generosity through private foundations, professional or cult associations rather than by assuming offices in the boards of the city.’28 But all in all, some associations did dispose of a considerable social capital and in some cases they could even ‘compete’ with the cities for obtaining benefactions, for example, at Istros,29 where both associations and civic institutions become the beneficiaries of Ἄβα’s liberality. Another aspect which is imitated by some of the Pontic associations is the formulary of the decrees: if a city decree starts with dating through the ruling emperor, followed by the formula Ἔδοξε τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι, which 25 In total, such titles are mentioned 65 times, of which five were granted by the city (δημοσώστης, κοινοσώστης, υἱὸς τῆς πόλεως). The most common title was that of φιλότιμος (44), with its variants: φιλότιμος διὰ βίου (one), φιλότιμος κάλλιστος (one), δισφιλότιμος (one). As mentioned in the Glossary (see below), the title was given to a benefactor or donor of an association, similar to the title εὐεργέτης which is less explicitly stated, but can be deduced from the text. 26 See Giannakopoulos 2016. 27 This is understandable when one takes the example of the Ῥωποπῶλαι from Amastris, that of the Σπεῖρα Ῥωμαίων from Tomis, or of the Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα from Phanagoria, etc. 28 Avram 2015, 133. 29 ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112.

140

CHAPTER 6

points to the entity responsible for the decision, three associations (the Βακχικὸς θίασος from Callatis, the Θιασεῖται from Tanais and the Ἐρανισταί from Piraeus) use the formula Ἔδοξε τοῖς θιασίταις. As Avram pointed out, this usage makes us wonder whether the association was private or public.30 Next, as in the civic decrees, those of associations contain information on the reasons why an individual was being honoured, as well as the honours granted and sometimes specific stipulations regarding them. In the process of rewarding and attracting benefactors, the associations use concepts and expressions found in city decrees, as an example from Istros illustrates: ‘so that others as well crave to gain glory’.31 More visible and active associations followed the pattern of the city in attracting and honouring their benefactors, which is a common aspect of these associations. Other associations, such as those mentioned from Callatis, Tanais and Piraeus, were closer in their use of civic practices, which even questions their private nature. Finance Finance is another aspect which implies both similarities and dissimilarities in Pontic associative life. Only some of the associations provide information on this matter but, depending on the longevity and importance of the association, we may presume similar means of collecting funds. The financial needs of the associations involved costs related to the built space which they used (erection and maintenance of a reunion place, temple) and to their defining activities (erection of votive, funerary and honorific monuments, dedications of statues, sacrifices, aid brought to members, banquets).32 While some of these activities, which demanded a stable common fund, were at the core of their existence (the cultic ones), others (erection of honorific decrees and dedications as inscriptions, granting of honorific titles) were needed to secure the longevity of the association: they made the associations visible and ensured the accumulation of social capital. A significant amount of the common fund (especially at Phanagoria and Panticapaeum) could be disbursed for funerary purposes (purchase of lots for members’ graves, erection of funerary inscriptions). This primary funerary role is identified only at Phanagoria.

30 31 32

Avram 2015, 125. ISM I, 60 = CAPInv. 1210. See, among others, Harland 2013, passim; Liu 2016, 211.

PARALLEL LIVES

141

Generally speaking, the funds came from33 entrance fees, various other fees, subscriptions and penalties,34 investment of the common fund,35 the benefactions of various individuals, from loans36 or funds granted to the associations for the exploitation of goods or land-plots.37 In the Pontic area, we have evidence of subscriptions, investment of the common fund and benefactions. The entrance fee was the most common method of collecting funds; as such, we might imply its use here as well, although no explicit reference is made to it. But other methods, such as the granting of loans, are not attested in our area, being relatively rare. Subscriptions (εἰσφοραί) are recorded once, at Callatis,38 and as in the case of the city, they were a manner of collecting money for exceptional initiatives.39 The inscription attesting the subscription from Callatis presents in detail the construction of a temple dedicated to Dionysus, which was made with a modest budget and by the physical labour of the members. Besides the contributors’ names, the amount resulted from the subscription is recorded (between 378 and 432 drachms40), as well as the number of voluntary working days (between 756 and 864 – which corresponds, according to Avram, to about 25–28 workers).41 The use of the common fund for financial investments is attested only once, also at Callatis.42 Apparently, for reasons beyond the power of the investee, Βίκων son of Διοσκουρίδης (no. 715), the investment was lost and even though the internal regulation cancelled the payment of the debt (ὀφείλημα), the amount was repaid by Βίκων, as well as interest. Avram rightly suggests that the sum could have been used for a maritime transport which might have become stranded following human or natural factors.43 If these methods are attested only at Callatis, certainly more widespread were the benefactions made by members or external benefactors, although what shape these benefactions took is rarely specified. In general, in the case 33 34 35

For a discussion on this topic, see Liu 2016, 209–10. Liu 2016, 210. ISM III, 36 = SEG 45, 902 = Poland 1909, B 94 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 116, no. 55 = CAPInv.

1186. 36

Foucart 1873, 42–44; Poland 1909, 453–98. Harland 2015, 8–10. 38 ISM III, 35 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 110–16, no. 54 = AGRW 73 = CAPInv. 1186. 39 Migeotte 2013, 126. 40 ISM III, p. 295 (Avram): ‘ce chiffre est moins que modeste et se situe vers la limite inférieure des sommes révélées par les documents concernant les souscriptions’. 41 See the commentary of ISM III, 35 and Avram 2002. 42 ISM III, 36 = SEG 45, 902 = Poland 1909, B 94 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 116, no. 55 = CAPInv. 1186. 43 ISM III, p. 305 (Avram). 37

142

CHAPTER 6

of buildings (places of reunions, temples), as the examples from other areas show, they could have been offered (in total or part) by a benefactor, who might have given the association an amount of money, or offered the plot, or even decorated the place.44 From the Pontic area we have three examples, from Istros, Tomis and Gorgippia. The inscription honouring Ἄβα at Istros (see above Chapter 4) mentions the fact that the Ταυρεασταί were handed a distribution of money, while the Τέκτονες, the Ὑμνῳδοί and the Ἡρακλειασταί all received a distribution of wine. At Tomis, the association devoted to Cybele received a ‘gift’ on behalf of the emperor and of the governor of the province, of which we have no further details. At Gorgippia, the ναύκληροι were granted the equivalent of 1000 artabai by king Tiberius Iulius Sauromates II45 for the building of the temple of Poseidon. The exchange between the two players was reciprocal but not equal in terms of benefit. These examples show that those associations which had important social capital also enjoyed increased finance because their members were well-off, which in turn attracted the financial good-will of rich individuals from outside the associations.46 In cities where there were multiple associations (with a different local importance) in simultaneous existence, all reliant upon the donations of external benefactors,47 competition could surge between them, or even between them and the city.48 An example comes from the honorific inscription dedicated to Ἄβα, as benefactress of several associations, but also of the city and its institution. Her benefactions were granted according to the social hierarchy to which each category belonged at Istros.49 Fines were another source of income and could be applied to members for the infringement of internal regulations (as exemplified by inscriptions from other areas, i.e. Tebtunis50), or through the desecration by third parties of some graves whose integrity was ensured by the association (as at PerinthusHeraclea). Unfortunately, in Pontic associative life, the collection and management of finance dwells mostly on assumptions and analogies that we can bring from other areas. The examples at hand are rather limited and poor in detail, but they do show the different ways in which the treasury of an association could be set up, pointing also to differences in the wealth of associations. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

van Nijf 1997, 107. CIRB 1134 = AGRW 84 = CAPInv. 1310. Verboven 2016, 210. van Nijf 1997, 73–128. Harland 2013, 119–39. van Nijf 1997, 157. PMich V, 245 = AGRW 302.

PARALLEL LIVES

143

Longevity and Local Role Even though longevity was probably a characteristic desired for an association by its founders and members, what it meant exactly for each association is rarely discernible. Longevity was influenced by the social and juridical status of the members, the available finance, as well as by the networks which the associations developed. Despite the fact that there are numerous associations attested in the Pontic area, most of them are recorded through only a couple of inscriptions, and sometimes only by one, often dependent on archaeological investigation. Whatever the intention, an association might have existed only for a generation and then vanished. Nevertheless, chronological continuity can be noticed in some associations from the western and northern Black Sea from the multiple attestations of inscriptions throughout the years; it can also be assumed based on the importance and local role of the associations, or on the type of association. From the western coast, the most representative case of continuity is that of the Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων, which is supported directly through the dating of the inscriptions, but also indirectly by its importance and role at the local level, as well as the existence among its members of representatives of the elite and, in general, individuals of higher social status. Their involvement in the imperial cult is another aspect which supported its important local role and, at the same time, helped to guarantee its longevity. Also, from Istros, the inscriptions point to a continuity over the centuries of the Ταυρεασταί, otherwise supported through its inclusion in the first category of Ἄβα’s beneficiaries. The Ἡρακλειασταί, the Τέκτονες and the Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων belonged to the second category of Ἄβα’s beneficiaries at Istros, which indirectly implies their importance there, increasing the possibilities of them having had a longer lifespan despite a paucity of inscriptions. At Tomis, the importance of the cult of Cybele was a guarantor of the longevity of the Δενδροφόροι, which is supported also through the interaction that members had with the provincial governor and the emperor, as well as by their social and juridical status. The case of the Βακχικὸς θίασος at Callatis is similar, which is the most long-lasting of the Pontic associations, from the 3rd century BC to at least the 1st century AD. Moving to the northern shore, despite the fact that the Κοινὸν ναυτικῶν from Chersonesus is attested only through a ceramic fragment with a graffito, considering the importance of the commercial activities, the association was certainly active and probably left other traces. Nevertheless, based solely on the evidence, we cannot tell what its actual role was, its longevity, nor if it was a local association (and who were its members) or one whose members were

144

CHAPTER 6

only temporarily in the area. From Panticapaeum (Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα, Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα, Ἀριστοπυλεῖται), Tanais (Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον) and Gorgippia (Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος], Θέασος ναυκλήρων) the evidence is richer for more long-lasting associations, supported mostly through the dating of inscriptions, as well as through the involvement of the local elite and the positive interaction with the authorities. At the other end of the spectrum are associations from Phanagoria such as the Θίασος περὶ ἱερ[έ]α Κύνων Ἀγαθοῦ. These were focused chiefly on ensuring a tomb for their members, and considering their lower social status, the associations could easily have dissolved for lack of funds. The Pontic inscriptions do not record how these associations were dissolved, dissolution being either an internal decision, for lack of members, lack of funds to carry on, etc., or an external one coming from the authorities, if the associations were considered to be dangerous (see an analogy in Chapter 2). But we must keep in mind that if there was always an official dissolution, the chance of this major event in the ‘life’ of an association being immortalised in stone is scant, especially if the dissolution happened for financial reasons. Unlikely, but not impossible. A wax tablet originating from Alburnus Maior in Dacia,51 dated February 9th, AD 167, records a libellus which the magister of the association (Artemidorus son of Apollonius) and the two quaestores (Valerius son of Nicon, Offas son of Menophilus) filed, mentioning the deplorable state of the association: the association was dissolved (ne putet se collegium habere), with only 17 of its 54 members still at Alburnus Maior, even the second magister (Iulius son of Iulius) manifesting a lack of interest in it, and the association itself lacking funds. The longevity of an association was influenced by the financial possibilities of the members and by the social networks of benefactors which it built and which could ensure at least partially its needs, especially financial ones. In the case of the more important associations, such as those mentioned from Istros, Tomis, Callatis, Panticapaeum, Tanais and Gorgippia, the possibility of receiving significant external funds was significant, directly proportional with their local role, which leads in turn to a lower chance of dissolution. At the other end, smaller associations, whose members had a modest status and means, and whose social networks were less developed, had a higher predisposition to dissolution, considering that their main funding came from their members’ contributions or through third-party benefactors. Such a fate might 51

ILS 7215a = IDR I, 31.

PARALLEL LIVES

145

befall the Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα organised around Ὀμψάλακος (no. 1709) at Phanagoria, for example: the profile of the members and the characteristics of the monuments both point towards a modest financial capacity. Local Specificities: the Case of Occupational Associations Another major variable is the local existence of specific associations. Here, I focus on occupational associations, which are underrepresented overall. When examining the archaeological evidence and the epigraphical attestations which record the complexity of commercial exchanges, as well as the variety of goods produced and traded in these areas, there is little to prove the existence of associations with an occupational component. But when we look for comparison at the Greek cities from the Propontis, where there is a higher number of associations with an occupational component, we cannot but ask ourselves: how representative is our sample? How far is it constrained by the want of archaeological discoveries, and how well does it reflect associative activity in the study area? The answers must be incomplete, but in our area, even in those cities which have been more intensely researched, the associative phenomenon does not manifest itself as intensely as in the Propontis or in Asia Minor. Its intensity is also linked to the social and economic characteristics of the area. As Fig. 31 shows, occupational associations are present mostly (unsurprisingly) in the important economic centres of the regions, cities with harbours, which record associations largely involved in transport or trade, fewer in production and only one in entertainment. We may only conjecture the existence of a more flourishing associative life in places where the economic life of the Pontic region itself flourished. For example, we would expect more occupational associations at Tomis, maybe involved in production, or in commercial activities such as those undertaken by the porters at Cyzicus (τὸ ἱερώτατον συνέδριον τῶν σακκοφόρων οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ μετρητοῦ52). Or, considering the archaeological evidence for fishing (fishing equipment, watch towers, fish remains, processing instruments, transport equipment, representations on coins, terracotta53) in some of the Greek cities of the Black Sea, we would have expected an association such as the τὸ ἱερώτατον συνέδριον τῶν ἁλιέων54 from Cyzicus to have existed there as well.

52 53 54

IMT Kyz Kapu Dağ 1584 = CAPInv. 1173. Højte 2005, 133–34. IMT Kyz Kapu Dağ 1826 = IKyzikos I, 260 = CAPInv. 1170.

146

CHAPTER 6

With the exception of the Θέασος ναυκλήρων from Gorgippia, the other occupational associations do not provide evidence of the membership of relatives, but this is due to the type of inscription and their laconic character. Membership of relatives (especially fathers and sons, brothers) inside occupational associations is explained through the often-shared occupation of family members. We cannot tell whether the admission/transmission of membership was automatic for family members, but such membership was certainly a desirable status for the representatives of various professions. As in other associations, the grouping of professionals had as an advantage for its members the availability of some networks (especially needed in longer distance mobility), but also their larger visibility at a local level, and a more active role. Considering the low family membership in non-occupational associations, we may presume that the membership was not transmitted automatically, but probably the accession of family members was eased by the influence of their kin. Despite the thin evidence, a predominance of associations involved in trade is noticeable, and not surprising for the area. Other types of association are rather marginal in terms of representativeness and significance. *

*

*

To conclude, we can see that the similarities between associations are connected more to their general principles of incorporation, activity and functioning, while the dissimilarities reside at their core, each association having specificities which distinguishes it at a local and regional level, from membership conditions influenced by sex, age, origin and social and juridical status, to its interaction with the elite and authorities. Cities like Sinope, Amisus, Apollonia Pontica, Bizone, Chersonesus, Theodosia, Cimmericum, Myrmecium, Hermonassa have yielded little evidence on the associative phenomenon, thus more local specific attributes cannot be discussed. We are better placed with the wider regional context. The attestation of occupational associations at Sinope and Amisus can be seen as a reflection of the intense presence of occupational associations in Asia Minor. Similarly, the presence at Chersonesus of a Κοινὸν ναυτικῶν is to be understood through the regional importance of trade and transport for the area. Next, even though poorly recorded, the worship of Aphrodite Urania in a private association at Hermonassa comes as no surprise when the central place of the goddess there is considered. The intense worship of Dionysus on the western shore is reflected also in private settings such as those of the associations; worship is recorded not only in the bigger urban centres such as Dionysopolis and Istros, but also at Apollonia Pontica and Bizone, although more modestly. Through these

PARALLEL LIVES

147

sometimes singular examples, we can see that regional influences were present also at a smaller scale. Locally, some associations were pre-eminent, such as the Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων at Istros, the Δενδροφόροι at Tomis, the Βακχικὸς θίασος at Callatis, the Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα, the Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα, Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα at Panticapaeum, the Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, the Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον at Tanais or the Θέασος ναυκλήρων at Gorgippia. All of these disposed of an increased social capital which increased their local role and ensured their longevity. At a regional level, we notice the pre-eminence of a particular city in terms of the intensity of associative life, quantitative (number of inscriptions, associations and members) but also qualitative (in terms of the intensity and versatility of associative life). In the western Black Sea, this role is undertaken by Tomis, though Istros follows closely. The status of Tomis as metropolis of the western shore certainly influenced the intensity of its associative life: dynamic cultural and economic life of the city was reflected by the variety of associations, varied both in gods worshipped and in membership (criteria). In the north, Tanais was the stronghold of associative life, but Panticapaeum and Gorgippia come to the fore as well in other particular aspects. Besides the quantitative, Tanais stands out through the sole worship of Theos Hypsistos, as well as by the large-scale and broad membership of associations, not common for other cities of the northern or western Black Sea, and certainly less for the southern shore. If it did engage the entire civic community (which is unlikely), then, as underlined by Y. Ustinova: ‘these corporations cannot be classified as regular private cult associations of the classical world, which have never embraced the entire civic community’.55 ΠΟΝΤΙΚΟΙ IN ASSOCIATIONS BEYOND THE PONTIC AREA When discussing the associative life of individuals from the Pontic world, it seems relevant to include also the Ποντικοί who were members of associations in other parts of the Greek world. As mentioned in Chapter 2, there are ten inscriptions recording ten associations which have Ποντικοί as their members. Of the 1983 members of associations, 15 had joined associations in other parts of the Greek world. These are attested in the big urban centres such as Athens (four) and its surroundings Marousi (one), Piraeus (three); Ialysus (six); 55

Ustinova 1999, 184.

148

CHAPTER 6

Miletus (one); and Thessalonica (one). All the attestations are from the Hellenistic period. The reasons behind their presence is mostly unknown; in a single case, that of the character from Amastris, who is recorded at Thessalonica – Ἀθηνίων son of Πραξιτέλης (no. 1969)56 – we can suppose that his occupation of ναύκληρος took him so far from home as a transporter of goods, maybe even the owner of the ship and/or its cargo, or even a merchant (the position and role of this occupational category is not clearly defined, but all of these instances may fall within it). We see four members established not in Athens but nearby, where μέτοικοι were much more present, and organised associations pursued more basic goals. Moreover, one of the associations of ἔρανισταί57 shared a common sanctuary with two other local associations58 (which did not include foreigners among their members). Of the ten associations, four gathered together individuals with a very varied origin, all of them foreigners in the city in which the associations are to be found. Unfortunately, we cannot tell if they relocated to those cities permanently or temporarily; both are likely. Among the inscriptions, some attest only immigrants, others citizens (Athenians) along with immigrants, and yet others attest non-citizens along with immigrants. Most are dedications made to various deities, such as Agathe Theos, Agathe Tyche, Aphrodite Epiteuxidia, Apollo, Heracles, Hermes, Pancrates, Palaimon, ‘Theoi’ and the Cabiri, but we have also a collective funerary inscription of a group of immigrants, as well as honorific inscriptions. Of the 15 Ποντικοί, five were officials of the associations (ἐπιμελητής,59 γραμματεύς, ἀγωνοθέτης, ταμίας, ἱερεύς) and three were granted honorific titles (φιλότιμος, εὐεργέτης). The honorific inscriptions draw attention through the details they offer. One is dedicated to a Heraclean, Μῆνις son of Μνησίθεος (no. 1981), who continued to manifest εὔνοια towards the members of the association, financing some of the construction works for the temple of Zeus Labraundos, as well as by occupying several positions inside associations, reasons for which he was given a crown, and an εἰκών of him was placed in the temple ‘there where it would be considered fit’.60 The text of the inscription offers indications too regarding the placement of the decree (in the temple of the god). Similar honours were offered to Κτησιφῶν (no. 1979)

56

Voutiras 1992; Nigdelis 2010. SEG 41, 171 = CAPInv. 314. 58 SEG 41, 81; SEG 41, 82; SEG 41, 83. 59 The person in question holds the position both within the cult of Cybele and within the association. 60 IG II2, 1271 = PPEE 1413 = CAPInv. 264. 57

PARALLEL LIVES

149

from Chersonesus, who was given a gold crown,61 while Βακχίς daughter of Φίλτος (no. 1971)62 and Σεραπίων son of Ποσειδεώνιος (no. 1983)63 were granted crowns, on behalf of the members, following their generosity towards the associations, as well as following their activities inside them. The honorific inscription dedicated to Σεραπίων makes known various organisational aspects (the existence of ‘regular assemblies’, the approval of the decrees by the ‘sacrificing associates’), as well as the numerous reasons for which he was honoured (sacrifices made to the gods, services provided to the gods from his own money, etc.); he was granted a crown and a λημνίσκος (‘in compliance with the ancestral customs’). The complex text mentions the fact that the secretary and the overseer had to announce the crowning and other honours after the libations which took place in the temple; if the two officials failed to announce the crowning or did not grant the crown, they were to be fined 50 drachms. Finally, it specified the placement of the inscription in the temple. A funerary inscription from Thessalonica is the sole attestation of the term δοῦμος (for an association which had an occupational component); it was dedicated to the Amastrian Ἀθηνίων son of Πραξιτέλης (no. 1969), member of a δοῦμος worshipping Aphrodite Epiteuxidia.64 The epithet of the goddess is attested for the first time and it derives from the word ἐπίτευξις (success),65 which could be a reference to the financial gain that a navigator/merchant might have obtained through this profession. The onomastics of the members (the president and secretary of the association are the descendant and freedmen of Roman negotiatores) points to them being Roman citizens, thus, at the end of the 1st century AD, belonging to a privileged social category. By joining local associations, we might presume that the 15 individuals have integrated into the environment. Ten were from Heraclea (uncertainly Heraclea Pontica), concentrated at Athens (six) and on Rhodes (four). The greatest number of Heracleans identified in the Mediterranean area are attested in Athens (618), hence the unsurprising presence of the six.66 The chances of identifying members of associations among them were high. Representativeness was low, with only about 1% of the Heracleans being attested in private associations. 61 ISelge T 48 = SEG 39, 737 = PPEE 344 = PPEE 1910 = PPEE 1921 = PPEE 1924 = CAPInv. 2115. 62 SEG 56, 203 = CAPInv. 284; PPEE 2163; Pázsint 2017a, 53. 63 Kyparissis and Peek 1941, no. 4 = Robert and Robert 1942, 329 = AGRW 39 = PPEE 1525 = CAPInv. 228. 64 Voutiras 1992; AE 1992, 1522 = SEG 42, 625 = AGRW 49 = GRA I, 75 = IG X.2.1 Suppl. 1354 = CAPInv. 757. 65 Voutiras 1992, 91. 66 Osborne and Byrne 1996, 72–98.

150

CHAPTER 6

From the entire dataset we have one woman, at Athens. Βακχίς Καλλατιανή, daughter of Φίλτος (no. 1971),67 who is the beneficiary of a titulum honorarium dating to the (second half) of the 3rd century BC,68 which mentions her position of epimeletria (granted to women beginning with this period69) of the deity Agathe Theos at Athens.70 A decretum thiasotarum records that the position was granted to her following the decision of the Council, the priest and the president of the association. Her attributes during her year in office included preparing the throne of the goddess, the sacrificial meal and lighting the torch. According to D. Knoepfler, her position corresponds, within other associations, to that of priestess, which she could not hold because there was already a priest.71 In the association, she was probably the first women to be epimeletria,72 acting with great generosity in favour of the association. Unfortunately, the epigraphic sources yield no other information about her, her arrival in Athens and her stay there. However, Knoepfler suggests that she and her family might have left Callatis during the troublesome period of the 3rd century BC.73 Moreover, considering her personal name and place of origin, she might have been a worshipper of Dionysus; at Callatis private associations devoted to him already existed during her lifetime.74 From this example, we see that women were able to hold various offices in private associations, even abroad (though it is very rare), if they were well placed financially but had no citizenship. Five of the 15 members of an association from Ialysus,75 where most of the members were foreigners, were Heracleans. The inscription records the dedication of a common grave by the members of the association, recording not only fund-raising for the funerals (which touched 1000 drachms) but also the practice of a common burial, which points to a rather modest association. In four of the ten associations, all members were attested with an indicator of origin. Three of the four corresponding patronymics are absent and the only identifying element besides the personal name is origin. This might indicate that the four were of servile origin. The number of Pontics abroad is rather low. However, even though in their cities of origin the proof of Hellenistic associations is absent or slight, once 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

SEG 56, 203 = CAPInv. 284; PPEE 2163; Pázsint 2017a, 53. Knoepfler 2016, 205. Knoepfler 2016, 203. Knoepfler 2016. Knoepfler 2016, 204. Knoepfler 2016, 205. Knoepfler 2016, 206. Knoepfler 2016, 207. SEG 39, 737 = ISelge T48 = CAPInv. 2115.

PARALLEL LIVES

151

they move they join local associations. Considering that most of these associations consisted of immigrants, their attraction, besides the need to integrate and belonging, had more practical aspects, such as burial (sometimes even common burials), common meals, especially keeping in mind that four of the associations are ἔρανοι. As we have seen, there are a few cases in which citizenship and origin was not an issue if the individuals were well placed financially. However, the associations which were joined were not prestigious local associations, indicating the limits of participation. REFERENCES TO OTHER AREAS Brief Comparison with the Associations of the Propontis The Propontis, an area of communication between the Black Sea and the Aegean through the two straits (the Thracian Bosporus and the Dardanelles), also experienced the emergence of the associative phenomenon. The position of the Propontic cities, between the Pontic and Mediterranean worlds, gives reasons for briefly comparing the phenomenon and observing its specific features. It was characteristic for the period from the 1st century BC until the 3rd century AD and is well represented at Perinthus-Heraclea and Cyzicus (each 14 associations), but the evidence from Nicomedia (eight associations) and Byzantium (five associations) is also generous. Chalcedon is the least represented (two associations); the other cities yield no evidence of associations. Conforming to the economic importance of the Propontis, what is noticeable is the quantity of private associations with a strong occupational component. These are much rarer in the Pontus (some attestations at Gorgippia and Tomis) and of lesser local and regional significance (with the exception of Gorgippia). Thus, there were about 25 associations with an occupational component, including Ναῦται Ἡρακλεῶται, Νέοι αὐράριοι, Συναγωγὴ τῶν κουρέων, Τέχνη ἡ τῶν μακελλαρίων etc. The Propontic occupational associations gather either those with a shared occupation from the respective city, or professionals who originate from a specific geographical location (close or distant), which is mentioned in the name. The associations illuminate better the local labour divisions, which in the Pontic area is much harder to discern based on the epigraphic evidence. As in the case of Rhodes, the economic prosperity of cities such as Cyzicus and Perinthus-Heraclea is reflected in the existence of associations such as the Πραγματευόμενοι ἐν τῇ πόλει Ῥωμαῖοι (Cyzicus), Ἀλεξανδρεῖς οἱ πραγματευόμενοι ἐν Περίνθῳ (Perinthus-Heraclea), Νέοι αὐράριοι (Perinthus-

152

CHAPTER 6

Heraclea), but also much smaller and lesser important ones such as the Συναγωγὴ ῥωποπωλῶν (Perinthus-Heraclea). It is not surprising to find associations of σακκοφόροι at Cyzicus, Panormos and Perinthus-Heraclea, nor that of ναύκληροι at Nicomedia (probably also at Cyzicus and PerinthusHeraclea despite the lack of epigraphic evidence). Another difference exhibited by associations from Cyzicus and PerinthusHeraclea is that they appear as guarantors of the integrity of tombs and receivers of fines, which gives the impression that they had a legal personality (though they did not). As we know, some funerary monuments contain interdictions against the violation of tombs, or the selling of the plot, the deceased relying on organisations or institutions to act as guarantors of their inviolability,76 but also as responsible for the commemoration of their memory. In these two Propontic cities, some associations undertake exactly these roles of guarantors and managers of the deceased’s memory. At Perinthus-Heraclea,77 four different associations appear as guarantors of the inviolability of some graves, and beneficiaries of the fines that result from violation. Two inscriptions are fragmentary,78 but the other two79 provide information which sheds light on the relationship between the deceased and the continuing members of the association. In the first, the deceased named the association as ‘his’, μου σπείρῃ,80 suggesting membership; in the second, the deceased had made his own sarcophagus: he was a stonemason,81 the occupation around which the association in charge of the management of his memory was formed, thus probably a member himself. Nevertheless, it was not unknown for nonmembers to name associations as guarantors of their tombs, which might be connected, as O.M. van Nijf points out, to mutual benefit: while the associations were granted local authority, the deceased was included in a wider social circle than that of the family,82 desiring to earn social capital even in the afterlife.83 76

Sayar 1998, 254–55. IPerinthos-Herakleia 117 = SEG 48, 939 = CAPInv. 532; IPerinthos-Herakleia 118 = CAPInv. 533; IPerinthos-Herakleia 131 = IGRR I, 807 = CAPInv. 526; IPerinthos-Herakleia 146 = SEG 48, 934 = CAPInv. 710. 78 IPerinthos-Herakleia 117 = SEG 48, 939 = CAPInv. 532; IPerinthos-Herakleia 118 = CAPInv. 533. 79 IPerinthos-Herakleia 131 = IGRR I, 807 = CAPInv. 526; IPerinthos-Herakleia 146 = SEG 48, 934 = CAPInv. 710. 80 IPerinthos-Herakleia 146 = SEG 48, 934 = CAPInv. 710. 81 IPerinthos-Herakleia 131 = IGRR I, 807 = CAPInv. 526. 82 van Nijf 1997, 66. 83 Arnaoutoglou 2016, 289. 77

PARALLEL LIVES

153

But what happened if a tomb were violated? The associations were responsible for denouncing the deed to the authorities and claiming the fines which would arise. Unfortunately, there is no evidence of this in practice. However, associations were seldom chosen for such role. In examples from Smyrna, Cyzicus and Hierapolis, the imperial fiscus was responsible for this, along with the city, the council and the gerusia, as well as some temples.84 By comparison, associations were much smaller players. At Cyzicus, the fines varied between 500 and 50,000 denarii, at Perinthus-Heraclea between 500 and 3,000,000.85 Of some 50 funerary inscriptions from Perinthus-Heraclea which mention fines against the violation of tombs, only four mention the associations as receivers of them, the amount varying between 500 and 2500 denarii. To fines payable in money should be added those payable in precious metals86 such as gold87 and silver.88 Similar to the examples from Perinthus-Heraclea are those in this area from Cyzicus89 and from other areas (Ephesus,90 Hierapolis,91 Ilium92). Unlike other cases,93 the associations from Perinthus-Heraclea are mentioned only as beneficiaries of fines, not as responsible for commemorative practices. The associative life of the Propontis seems to have been engaging and vivid despite the poor evidence to hand. In comparison with the Pontic associations, the Propontic ones have mostly an occupational profile, but not exclusively (i.e. the Dionysiac associations at Byzantium), the associations being involved in trade, transport and production. Distinctive also is the role of the association in the Propontis as guarantor of the integrity of tombs and receiver of fines, which is not traceable in the Pontic world.

84

van Nijf 1997, 57. Sayar 1998, 254–55. 86 IPerinthos-Herakleia 177; IPerinthos-Herakleia 179 = SEG 16, 417; IPerinthos-Herakleia 181 = SEG 48, 949. 87 IPerinthos-Herakleia 187, 196, 198. 88 IPerinthos-Herakleia 178, 183, 198; IPerinthos-Herakleia 284 = SEG 48, 951. 89 IMT Kyz Kapu Dağ 1801 = IKyzikos I, 211 = AGRW 112; IMT Kyz Kapu Dağ 1826 = IKyzikos I, 260 = CAPInv. 1170; IMT Kyz Kapu Dağ 1584 = CAPInv. 1173; IMT Kyz PropKüste 1937 = IKyzikos I, 291 = AGRW 111; IMT Kyz PropInseln 1346 = IKyzikos I, 409; IMT Kyz PropInseln 1342 = IKyzikos I, 97. 90 IEphesos VI, 2212, 2226, 2446. 91 Arnaoutoglou 2016, 289–93. 92 IIlion 171. 93 For example, at Hierapolis: AvH 133, 227, 342 = CAPInv. 143. 85

154

CHAPTER 6

Mapping of the Pontic Associations at the Level of the Ancient World Certainly, comparison with the Western Latin provinces, Mainland Greece or Asia Minor in respect of the associative phenomenon is not ‘favourable’, nor realistic for more peripheral areas such as the Black Sea. The following addresses just some aspects of associative life which are not to be found in the Pontus, in order to map the phenomenon at a more global level. Several generic examples will be provided, without any intention at (unfeasibly) exhaustive coverage. First of all, the intensity of the phenomenon, as well as its geographical and chronological spread are lower, but the differences lie (among others) in the role of the associations at a local level, their impact on society, and the networks which they created and on which they relied. In the Western Provinces, we even find evidence for trans-local associations which had a key role in the regional economy; such is the case, for example, of the corpus splendidissimum mercatorum Cisalpinorum et Transalpinorum.94 Other instances, coming for example from Ephesus, point to the local power of some associations, as for example that of bakers (ἀρτοκόποι),95 who were considered as having produced unrest in society by stopping work, and taking part in strikes.96 At Philadelphia, associations gathered around a certain occupation could even impose restrictive practices on certain public contracts, insisting on the inclusion of family members and apprentices97 to the exclusion of others and, in effect, seizing power; a foretaste of mediaeval trade guilds. This was the case, according to J. Liu, with an association of weavers98 which most likely ‘used the structure to its own economic advantage, to the exclusion of the other practitioners in the same trade’.99 None of these complex aspects can be found with regard to the Pontic associations, even though some of the northern associations had indeed a more intricate and complex dynamics at a local level, especially with regard to the authorities. In the Western Provinces, occupational associations were much more active, and locally important, not least because various individuals involved in several interconnected professions were active in more than one association. Some examples: M. Sennius Metilus was a negotiator corporis splendidissimi Cisalpinorum 94

CIL XIII, 2029 = ILS 7279. On it, see especially Verboven 2009. IEphesos II, 215 = SEG 4, 512 = SEG 28, 863 = CAPInv. 1595. 96 Dittmann-Schöne 2001, 70–72. 97 Liu 2016, 214. 98 BGU VII, 1572 = AGRW 296. 99 Liu 2016, 214. As Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X) would remark: ‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.’ 95

PARALLEL LIVES

155

et Transalpinorum, eiusdem corporis praef(ectus);100 another individual, Attalus, was a negotiator seplasiarius, nauta Rhodanicus and a coporatus inter centonarios Lugduni consistente.101 To these we might add those of a father and son from Lugdunum: C. Primius Secundus and M. Primius Secundianus were both part of the ordo Augustalium. The former was a sevir Augustalis of Lugdunum, but he was also patronus of the fabri tignuarii Lugduni consistentes, and he was probably a native Celt (due to the cognomen used as a gentilicium).102 He was involved in two different economic sectors, the construction industry and the transport industry. His son, was also active in more than one sector: transport (nauta Rhodanicus Arare navigantis), trade (negotiator murarius) and construction (inter fabro tignuarios – maybe not practising the profession). Nevertheless, their involvement (as well as of others) in such different domains has been explained through the fact that they might have been slave owners who used a servile work force.103 In the Pontic area, even if some associations are attested through several inscriptions (especially at Gorgippia, Tanais, but also Istros), the details of associative life remain in many cases scarce. While we have some fragmentary mentions of internal regulations (mostly connected to the cult), in other cities information is more abundant and is connected to various procedures, the election of members and service, but also their behaviour: for example, at Mesogeia, members had to refrain from any trouble or fights.104 One of the famous inscriptions of the Iobbachoi from Athens records probably the most comprehensive set of procedures of an association: conditions of admission, which was made through application, the obligations of members, their banning and behaviour, penalties, etc.105 Neither these regulations nor the fragmentary ones from the Pontic area seem to indicate that the polis, emperor or ruler imposed such regulations on the associations. The regulations were, however, a key factor in the longevity of the association. Unfortunately, except for the sources presented in Chapter 2 and which apply to Asia Minor, we have no evidence of how the associative was life regulated by the authorities to prevent them from becoming dangerous. Nevertheless, since in the case of some associations, especially in the northern Black Sea, there is positive interaction with the authorities (royal, imperial), it may be assumed that these associations were not perceived as a threat, on the contrary. 100 101 102 103 104 105

CIL XIII, 2029. AE 1982, 702. Verboven 2009, 164. Tran 2013, 1008–09. IG II2, 1369 = GRA I, 49 = AGRW 8 = CAPInv. 308. IG II2, 1368 = GRA I, 51 = AGRW 7 = CAPInv. 339.

156

CHAPTER 6

The example of the οι προβατοκτηνοτρόφοι ἐκ Νείλου πόλεως from Soknopaiou Nesos in Egypt,106 brings forward another aspect absent from Pontic associative life: the financial contribution of associations for external purposes unconnected with the internal associative life: the members of an association from Egypt, along with their wives and children (who might not have been members of the association), contributed to the construction of the wall of a temple. All these facets of associative life are missing in the Pontic area, the inscriptions recording more ‘basic’ information on the associations; however, the inscriptions demonstrate especially the soundness and possibly longevity of the associations, as well as their importance at a local level. END OF A PHENOMENON As mentioned above (Chapter 2), the earliest associations are attested in the 6th century BC, though this is rather exceptional for the area; in most cities, between the earliest attestation of associations and the following one there is a gap, sometimes of one or two centuries, before their rooting in polis life (Dionysopolis, Istros, Tomis, Panticapaeum, Tanais), or before the following and sometimes last attestation (Olbia). The Classical and Hellenistic period are barely represented, and only in the most important cities (like Istros, Callatis). Once Roman rule was established, the development of associations was favoured by the pax romana: there is a period of prosperity and society at large faced transformations which favoured their emergence. After flourishing in the second half of the 2nd century and first half of the 3rd century AD, associations in the Pontic world become sparser, vanishing at the end of the 3rd century as the phenomenon evolved. As evidence from Panticapaeum shows, new forms of association, such as the Ἀριστοπυλεῖται, emerge. This association grouped courtiers. Its formation criteria, based on the holding of a royal office, points to exclusivism and indicates membership confined to a privileged social status. Certainly, the organisation of associations based on social status was also common previously, but here we see the appropriation of a private practice in a smaller public context. This is the last attestation of the associative phenomenon in the Pontic area, and evidence for it diminishes from the end of the 3rd century AD.

106

Fayoum II, 73 = SEG 26, 1750 = CAPInv. 1244.

PARALLEL LIVES

157

Other areas do provide further evidence of it, especially Egypt, where associations are extremely well attested also in the 4th–6th centuries AD thanks to papyrological source. But during the 4th century AD examples of associations come also from Puteoli (collegium Decatressium,107 Pabonenses108), Hypaipa (ἐριοπώλαι,109 λίνυφοι110) and other places both in Asia Minor and farther away in Arabia (ἀσκοποιοί,111 χαλκατόποι,112 χρυσοχόοι113) and Palaestina (χρυσοχόοι114), mostly of associations grouped around a common profession. At the beginning of the Byzantine period, a new type of association appeared, one which gathered individuals worshipping a certain saint. Such is the case at Corycus in Cilicia of the τὸ φιλιακὸν τῆς ἁγίας Χαριτίνης115 and of the τὸ φιλιακὸν τῆς Θεωτώκου Κωρύκου.116 In the Pontic area, after the 3rd century AD, we have no further evidence of associations, a consequence of the tumultuous political context and the political, religious and social transformations. As mentioned above, occupational associations tended still to develop after the 3rd century AD, but in the Pontic area there is no evidence of them. This is also due, to some extent, to the epigraphical habits of the period, many fewer inscriptions coming from the 4th century onwards, but is also connected to the advent of Christianity, even though Christian communities resembled other associations.117 CONCLUDING REMARKS This chapter shows that while the core elements which led to the foundation and organisation of associations were roughly common throughout the Pontic and the ancient world, local and regional specificities were important elements which distinguished them. Expanding our area of focus shows that the associative phenomenon was much poorer and more marginal than in other parts of the ancient world, with fewer associations that enjoyed a significant local role.

107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117

CIL X, 1697 = CAPInv. 1094. AE 1983, 197 = CAPInv. 1091. IEphesos VII.2, 3803d = CAPInv. 417. IEphesos VII.2, 3803d = CAPInv. 417. IGLS XIII.1, 9158–9160 = CAPInv. 587. IGLS XIII.1, 9156 = CAPInv. 588. IGLS XIII.1, 9161 = CAPInv. 589. Schwabe and Lifshitz 1967, 21, no. 61 = CAPInv. 664. ΜΑΜΑ ΙΙΙ, 580a; MAMA III, 788 = CAPInv. 1776. ΜΑΜΑ ΙΙΙ, 780ab = CAPInv. 1777. Eckhardt 2018, 311.

158

CHAPTER 6

At a Pontic level, the associative phenomenon is fragmentary, lacking also uniformity, and rather marginal compared with other parts of the ancient world. Overall, the evidence focuses on the big urban centres and is especially prolific for the 2nd–3rd centuries AD, which coincides with a period of relative prosperity under the influence of the Romans. The associative phenomenon is a Greek one. It manifests itself differently depending on the economic (Gorgippia, Tomis), political (Tanais, Gorgippia, Istros, Tomis) and cultic characteristics of a city, which influences the variety of associations. There are associations oriented towards self-representation and the development of networks with the authorities (royal, imperial, provincial), which indicates the interconnectivity and interdependence of the private and public spheres (Gorgippia, Panticapaeum), but there are others whose main concern was the provision of a grave for their members (Phanagoria). Nevertheless, some core common principles for the ancient world at large come to the fore: for example, upward social mobility, favoured by associative membership, as well as the involvement of those individuals who were excluded from the political scene.

CONCLUSIONS

At the conclusion of this research, two directions are traceable: the first is that the associative phenomenon in the Pontic area had a fragmentary character and was influenced by the political, social and economic evolution of the region, with a couple of cities on the western and northern shores pre-eminent; the second that it had, overall, a relatively marginal role when compared with other parts of the ancient world (due not only to the state of research, but also to local characteristics). The private character of the associations is signified by the chosen members, by the structure and internal regulations, by the specific activities. But these interfere with the public sphere through the imitation of the decree formularies, through the language used, through the honorific practices implemented, through the existing offices, etc. In all of these aspects, associations were ‘cities in miniature’. Even though they had a private character, they did not enjoy full autonomy, having to observe the civic normative framework to avoid dissolution, as evidence from other area indicates. Because of the type of sources, we lack details regarding the incorporation of the associations (action which most probably needed approval) and their dissolution. The Pontic associations have a minor role compared with those of Rome, Pompeii or Ephesus, which produced local disorders, followed by the intervention of the authorities. While literary sources for the area are almost non-existent, epigraphic sources vary in number and content, influenced also by the state of research of the cities. Thus, the associative phenomenon is not uniform and must be understood through fragmented source material, some reflecting with certitude the specifics of it at a local level (for example, at Phanagoria, where most of the inscriptions are funerary), others illustrating probably just the state of the research (Sinope). Local characteristics (economic, occupational, cultic, political) were reflected in the types of association, their denomination (through which they self-represent themselves), their role and their importance at a local level. With a few exceptions, represented by some of the associations from the great urban centres (Istros, Tomis, Panticapaeum), the local role of most associations was relatively restrained, even unimportant, which is reflected through the types of inscription left behind (funerary vs honorific), as well as through their content (attestation of a collective funerary monument vs attestation of the honours brought to a benefactor, member of the elite, for the liberalities

160

CONCLUSIONS

granted to the association), or through the quality of the monuments (re-used monuments, or more expensive monuments, carefully and neatly inscribed), these having a role in the self-representation of the associations. The lack of uniformity of the associations is a characteristic feature and it does not result only from their denomination (which can vary even for the same association, for example at Istros), but also from the specific features of the associations, of the gods worshipped, of the internal functions, of the membership. Probably the sole uniform aspect is given by the ‘plurivalence’ of the functions fulfilled (social, funerary, cultic), though sometimes these are not recorded in inscriptions. The details result only from particular analysis, city by city, association by association, but the fragmentary and truncated character of the sources limits how far the roles of particular association can be identified. In some cases, all components are attested, in other only some, sufficient or insufficient for understanding the role of the association. Among the best represented associations are Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων from Istros, Δενδροφόροι from Tomis, Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον from Tanais and Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα from Panticapaeum. All these had an important role in society for their members, through links with individuals from outside the associations and even through corresponding activities (i.e. at Istros). In other cases, their role remains unknown due to singular and/or fragmentary attestations (Cimmericum, Myrmecium, Sinope, Theodosia). On the other hand, even though settlements such as Amastris and Chersonesus have yielded few inscriptions, their content reflects the economic characteristics of the city and the diversity of the associative landscape. Members of associations were varied, and in general the connection brought individuals an enhancement of social status (especially in the case of associations in which members of the elite were involved, or the associations which benefited from their largesse), though it did not represent (except a possible instance from Istros) a step for upward social mobility. On the other hand, membership could also be an illustration of an individual’s social status (the priests of Heuresebios at Olbia, the hymn singers at Istros, the Δενδροφόροι at Tomis, the Ἀριστοπυλεῖται at Panticapaeum, etc.). All associations can be considered as social aggregators, the associations offering a feeling of belonging and ‘integration’ but also one of ‘segregation’ through the membership criteria. The associative phenomenon was specific to the great urban centres, in which the diversity of associations and statuses is manifest and directly proportional to the attestations. Istros illustrates this best due to the numerical

CONCLUSIONS

161

representativeness of the inscriptions, but also to the types of association: here there are prestigious associations such as the Ταυρεασταί or the Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων, but we encounter also smaller associations – in this sense, the decree in honour of Ἄβα, daughter of Ἑκαταῖος (son of Εὐξενίδης) and wife of Ἡράκων son of Ἀριστόμαχος is illustrative for the classification of the associations mentioned in terms of the role played at a local level. It is here, in the urban centres, that we identify a presence over the centuries of the phenomenon of associations, generally very underrepresented during the Classical and Hellenistic periods, when there were associations worshipping important local gods (such as Dionysus). The coming of the Romans, which brought a period of relative calm and prosperity, as well as a military presence, also impacted on the evidence, pointing to a richer associative experience both in terms of numbers and intensity, but also regarding the manifestation and representation of associations and their role at a local level. Compared with cities such as Athens, Delos, Ephesus, Cyzicus, Pompeii, Rhodes, Rome and Miletus, the Pontic associative phenomenon is peripheral, both as to manifestation and representation, the quantity and quality of the sources being inferior, and to the local role and involvements of the associations ‘corporately’ and of their members ‘individually’. The difference is noticeable once inscriptions which attest Pontics outwith their homelands are brought into consideration. Even though some Pontic cities have not received the intense archaeological research of the great centres of the Greek and Roman world, these inscriptions reflect the differences in the importance of these cities, reflected also in the types of association and their activities.

GLOSSARY

This glossary contains explanations of those terms which designate associations, their regular members or specific offices within them (priestly, secular, offices related to games/competitions). Besides these offices, some members of the associations, or their benefactors, held also civic/royal offices or were granted honorary titles by the associations due to their good will. Ἀγωνοθέτης is an official responsible for organising competitions. As in the case of the γυμνασιάρχαι and νεανισκάρχαι, this position had also a civic equivalent. Ἀθηνεαστής is a ἅπαξ εἰρημένα1 derived from the name of the goddess Athena,2 denominating here a member of an association worshipping her. The suffix of the term -ιαστής is the one which makes reference to the quality of member. Ἀριστοπυλεῖται is another ἅπαξ εἰρημένα, this time derived from the word πύλαι (royal palace). The term is a collective name designating the courtiers who are part of the association, being attested only once, at Panticapaeum. Some of its members held high military or civil offices, being therefore related (as the name already indicates) to the royal court. Ἀρχιβασσάρα is the chief/leader of the βασσάραι (foxes, here with the meaning of bacchants), being used in the hierarchy of some mystery associations devoted to Dionysus. It is one of the few positions which could be held by women. As in the case of the following terms, it is a compound noun: ἀρχι- indicates the leadership inside the association and -βασσάρα specifies the type of position. Ἀρχιβούκολος is the chief/leader of the βουκόλοι (herdsmen), an official in the cult of Dionysus. The office is attested in four other cities: Abdera,3 Pergamum,4 Perinthus-Heraclea5 and Sardis.6 Ἀρχιγάλλος is the chief/leader of an association devoted to Cybele in Dionysopolis, the γάλλοι being, in this case, the members of the association. Ἀρχιερεύς is the chief priest of an association. There are five possible attestations in an association from Tomis. However, considering the fragmentary state of the inscription, and the uncommon order of the officials, it is very likely for the inscription not to record this office. Ἀρχιμύστης is the chief in a group of initiates who performed mysteries. Ἀρχιραβδουχῖσα is the chief bearer of rods, position present in an association of δενδροφόροι worshipping Cybele at Tomis. 1

Slavova 2016, 488. Poland 1909, 57–62. 3 IThracAeg E18 = Jaccottet 2003 II, no. 25 = GRA I, 83 = AGRW 60 = CAPInv. 738. 4 SEG 40, 1135 = Jaccottet 2003 II, no. 92 = CAPInv. 927; SEG 40, 1136 = Jaccottet 2003 II, no. 93 = CAPInv. 927; IPergamon 485 = Jaccottet 2003 II, no. 94 = AGRW 115 = CAPInv. 927; IPergamon 488 = Jaccottet 2003 II, no. 96 = CAPInv. 927. 5 IPerinthos-Herakleia 57 = Jaccottet 2003 II, no. 36 = GRA I, 88 = AGRW 65 = CAPInv. 720. 6 de Hoz 1999, 15.24 = CAPInv. 811. 2

164

GLOSSARY

Αὐλητής is an aulos player, who was member in the association Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς from Dionysopolis. Ἀττιαστής is another ἅπαξ εἰρημένα,7 through which is designated a member of the cult of Attis in the temple of Cybele at Dionysopolis. As in the previous cases, the suffix -ιαστής makes reference to a member of the association. Βακχεαστής belongs to the same category of ἅπαξ εἰρημένα,8 being used to designate the members of a Dionysiac association from Dionysopolis; the denomination is theophoric, from the epiclesis of Dionysus. Βυβλιοφύλαξ is an official responsible for keeping the archive, being attested only once, in an association from Tomis. Γραμματεύς was the secretary of an association who, based on its civil equivalent, was in charge of writing the decrees of the association. In some associations, there might have been several such officials occupying this position at the same time. ➢ ἀρχιγραμματεύς is the rare office of chief secretary,9 which is attested in an inscription from Panticapaeum. Its specific role is unclear, as too is whether the individual had to serve first as γραμματεύς to be eligible for this position, or not. ➢ γραμματεὺς διὰ βίου is a secretary who was granted a lifetime tenure of the office (due to unknown circumstances). This office is attested only at Istros. Γυμνασιάρχης was the member of an association who was in charge of the games, or who was responsible for the education of the young men in the gymnasium. There are 19 cases, 11 of them from Tanais. The term of δενδροφόροι (Athenaeus 14. 621b) denominates the followers of the goddess Cybele and comes from the ritual of carrying a sacred tree during a religious procession.10 The term δοῦμος/dumus, which has the meaning of confraternity and reunion place, designates a type of religious associations encountered mostly in Asia Minor, but also in Thracia and as in our example, in Moesia Inferior. The origin of the term might be Phrygian or Lydian, being attested beginning with the 6th century BC. M. Polito sees in it the Phrygian meaning of religious association worshipping Magna Mater.11 J. and L. Robert rightly state regarding the gods associated to this type of association that: Il nous paraît que dans son pays d’origine le doumos peut être lié à Cybèle, mais se trouve aussi dans le culte de divinités tout à fait différentes. Nous croyons que le mot n’a en lui-même aucune ‘spécialisation’ en relation avec tel culte, métroaque ou autre; il nous semble être l’équivalent indigène de συμβίωσις.12

7

Slavova 2016, 488. Slavova 2016, 488. 9 The position is attested in seven other cases, mostly in athletic associations. Erythrae: IErythrai 416; FDelphes III.1, 466; Sparta: IG V.1, 669; Rome: IGUR II, 404; Kassiopi: IG IX.12 4 845. 10 Chiekova 2008, 132. 11 Polito 2004, 44–49. 12 Robert and Robert 1968, 436. 8

GLOSSARY

165

In our corpus, the term is attested twice, once in the territory of Tomis (association worshipping Cybele,13 or Anahita14) and once at Thessalonica (but attesting a Pontic man). The Latin version is very rarely attested, once in our example from Tomis and once more at Novae.15 Ἔκδικος is a term which denominates that member of an association who had the authority of punishing/vindicating those deeds which contravene the regulations of the association. Ἐπιμελητής is the steward, an official of the association who was usually in charge of setting up the monuments. Ἐρανισταί are the members of an ἔρανος,16 a type of association specific for the Classical and Hellenistic Greece (especially Attica). The term initially designated the act of mutual aid, contribution to a common meal or financial aid, but beginning with the Classical period it started to designate also an association. The term is attested only with respect to the Pontic men present in Athens. Ἑταῖροι is a collective name which can have several meanings, such as companions, members of political groups, but also members of an association;17 these being based on the idea of confraternity. The term is attested also in the Pontic area, once at Callatis (οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος) and once at Amastris (οἱ ἑταῖροι), however in both cases we cannot be certain that they formed an association. Εὔθυνος is the censor of an association in charge of revising the accounts, as well as of ensuring the compliance with the rules. Ἡρακλειασταί derives from the proper noun Heracles, being used to label the worshippers of Heracles at Istros. Θεόφορος is the official in charge of bearing the image of the deity, being attested only once, in the association of Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας from Dionysopolis. The term θίασος is characteristic for the associations who have a strong religious component, describing an association which is gathered at least around a god.18 Among all the terms used in the inscriptions to designate an association, this is the most frequent over the entire timeframe and in most cities, being one of the general and allencompassing terms. In the inscriptions from the Pontic area, the term is encountered in three phonetical versions: θέασος, θίασος and θίεσος. The derived terms which point to the members of a θίασος are also attested in different phonetical versions (the rendering of ι with ει, the rendering of ι with ε), depending on the area of origin of the inscriptions, and on the period: θεασεῖται, θιασεῖται, θιασῖται, θιασῶται (Aristophanes Frogs 327; Isaeus 9. 30; Aristotle EN 1160 a 19), θιεσεῖται. As such, at Callatis the version θιασεῖται19

13

Vulpe 1964, 411. Pippidi 1967a. 15 Tacheva-Hitova 1983, 73–74, no. 4. 16 Vondeling 1961; Maier 1969; Arnaoutoglou 2003, 70–88; Faraguna 2012. 17 Poland 1909, 54. 18 RE s.v. θίασος. 19 ISM III, 43 = Poland 1909, B 92 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 119–20, no. 57; ISM III, 44 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 120–23, no. 58 = AGRW 74; ISM III, 46 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 125–26, no. 60; ISM III, 80 = SEG 24, 1034 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 127–29, no. 61; ISM III, 47 = Poland 1909, B 95. 14

166

GLOSSARY

is attested during the reign of Tiberius, and the version θιασῖται (the replacement of ει with ι) is attested in the 3rd century AD.20 The term θοινῆται is attested also as θοινᾶται (with α instead of η) θοινεῖται and θυνεῖται and it denominates the participants in banquets, this category being present at Callatis and Dionysopolis. The term derives from the verb θοινάω, with the meaning of celebrating, banqueting (Hesiod Sc. 212; Homer Odyssey 4. 36), referring to the participants in banquets, respectively to the activity of one of the members. Θρησκευταί (Ptolemy Tetrabiblos 159) labels the worshippers of a god, being the Greek equivalent of the Latin cultores.21 In this case, due to the fragmentary character of the inscription, the name of the god is missing, as well as of its worshippers. Initially, the term designated only the worshippers of Egyptian gods, but with time other divinities were worshipped as well (Aphrodite of Paphos,22 Zeus Hypsistos23).24 The term derives from the word θρησκεία,25 which easily undertook the meaning of cult regulation and then the cult itself.26 Θυνεῖται are the members of an association who worship Hero Manimazos at Odessus, the city where he also had a sanctuary.27 It was probably written with an orthographic mistake from θοινῆται, meaning therefore ‘the participants’ in a banquet. Ἱεροκήρυξ was a sacred herald, member of a religious association, attested in three associations from Tomis, and in four other associations from Lycia (Σεβαστὴ πλατεία),28 Maroneia (οἱ θεραπεθταὶ τοῦ θεοῦ),29 Rhodes (Ἁλιαδᾶν καὶ Ἁλιαστᾶν κοινόν)30 and Thasos (οἱ Σαραπιασταί).31 Ἱερεύς is one of the most common priestly offices of the associations, attested in our area 97 times. ➢ ἱερεὺς διὰ βίου is a priest who was granted a lifetime tenure of the office, due to unknown circumstances. Such an example is attested only at Istros. ➢ ἱερεὺς τῆς θύνης is the priest of the feast in the association Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς from Dionysopolis. ➢ ἱερασάμενος is a term which designates the former priests of the association of Ποσειδωνιασταί. Ἱερομάστωρ is a rare office attested only at Hermonassa (once) and Phanagoria (three times), being maybe specific in the associations of Aphrodite’s worshippers. Based on the meaning, the office may be held by a member who is responsible for performing the sacrifices.32

20

ISM III, 35 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 110–16, no. 54 = AGRW 73. Foschia 2004, 20. 22 IG X.2, 1 299. 23 SEG 53, 596.2. 24 Foschia 2004, 20. 25 Van Herten 1934, 2–27, 95–96. 26 Foschia 2004. 27 Gočeva 1996, 126. 28 Petersen and Luschan 1889, 45, no. 83, and 46, no. 84; Heberdey and Kalinka 1897, 15, nos. 48–50. 29 IThracAeg E 212 = RICIS 114/210 = SEG 55, 745. 30 IG XII.1, 155. 31 IG XII.8 Suppl. 365. 32 Gabelko et al. 2006, 342. 21

GLOSSARY

167

Ἱεροναῦται are the members of an association worshipping Isis. This collective name is attested only at Tomis and it probably derives from the maritime celebrations33 specific for the cult. Κισταφόρος is an office typical for the Dionysiac associations, the term having two components: the first makes reference to the κίστη (sacred basket) which contained the mystic objects, while the second to the activity of carrying it. It is attested only once, at Apollonia Pontica. The term κοινόν has, in a broader sense, the meaning of common, community. When it is used with its political meaning, it refers to federations of cities,34 but it can also denominate a private association. This type of association is more rarely attested, and when it is, then it is mostly accompanied by another term which specifies its characteristics (κοινὸν ναυτικῶν, κοινὸν τῶν θιασιτῶν). There are only four associations from the Pontic area which use this term, even though it is among the first ones to denominate the concept of association. ➢ Derived from this term is that of κοινωνοί (companions) which is followed either by the personal name of the person around which the members are grouped (κοινωνοὶ οἱ περὶ Μένανδρον Ἀπολλωνίου), or by the office held by that person (κοινωνοὶ οἱ περὶ τὸν γραμματέα, κοινωνοὶ οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα). Κρατηρίαρχος is an official of the banquet in Dionysiac association, being in charge of the wine distribution. Such an official is attested only once: at Apollonia Pontica. Λικναφόρος is a member of a Dionysiac association (Apollonia Pontica) in charge of carrying the λίκνον. Μεσόχορος is a member of an association who was the leader of the choir, the term replacing in the Imperial period that of coryphaeus. Three such officials come from Istros, among the σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων. Μούσαρχος is the poetic instructor of an association, the office being rarely attested. Both examples come from the above mentioned σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων. Μύσται is a term which labels the initiates of mystery cults as well as the members of certain associations;35 in our area, they are attested at Amastris, Dionysopolis and Chersonesus (one of the inscriptions is not specific enough in order for us to understand if the initiated person was or was not part of an association36). Νεομηνιαστής is a term which comes from the celebration of the New Moon and it denominates a worshipper of Cybele. Νεανισκάρχης is an official in charge of the youth, attested in associations from Myrmecium, Panticapaeum and Tanais. Its presence implies the existence of youth among the members, as well as activities in the gymnasium. Just as in the case of the γυμνασιάρχαι, this position (attested 15 times) had a civic equivalent. Νεωκόρος is the custodian of a temple, rarely attested (Hermonassa, Tanais) among associations.

33 34 35 36

RICIS 618/1007. Poland 1909, 163–67. Poland 1909, 36. At Amastris: Marek 1985, 135–36, no. 7 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 143–44, no. 72.

168

GLOSSARY

Νεώτερος is a member of an association composed of younger members, as opposed to the older members (πρεσβύτεροι). These age-based denominations are specific for Dionysiac associations at Istros and Dionysopolis. Besides these, there is another association at Panticapaeum which reunites younger individuals originating from Nicaea (Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος). Νομοφύλαξ is a member of an association responsible for guarding the laws of the associations.37 The office is attested at Tomis three times, but it is present also in associations coming from Athens (οἶκος).38 39 Οἰκονόμος is an official in charge of the funds, being attested at Gorgippia in the occupational association Θέασος ναυκλήρων. It is attested twice under this denomination and five more times with further information on the duties. ➢ ἐνκυκλίων οἰκονόμος designates the administrator of taxes and is attested twice. ➢ ἱερῶν οἰκονόμος designates the administrator of the taxes for sacred affairs of the association and is attested three times. The term οἶκος is used mostly to designate those associations which have also an occupational component, defining not only the place of reunion of the associations, but also the associations themselves.40 The term is, in this case, specific for the associations of ship-owners and/or sailors, and is attested at Amastris, Tomis and Nicomedia. Such a denomination usually indicates that the association had a building in which they gathered.41 Ὀρφικοί is a collective name designating the members of an Orphic society from Olbia who worship Dionysus. Παραφιλάγαθος is the assistant of the φιλάγαθος (who watched over the integrity of the members). The office is conferred to members of associations from Panticapaeum, Phanagoria and Tanais. ➢ παραφιλάγαθος διὰ βίου is an assistant of the φιλάγαθος who was granted, at Panticapaeum, a lifetime tenure for unknown reasons. Πατήρ is one of the leaders of an association,42 the terminology expressing along with that of μήτηρ and ἀδελφός the idea of familial belonging inside associations. The term is attested especially on the northern shore (as well as on the western), and in some cases, as in the following, it is accompanied by another one which specifies its character or the type of association: ➢ pater dumi (Tomis); ➢ πατέρα συνόδου (Gorgippia, Panticapaeum, Tanais); ➢ πατὴρ νόμιμος (Tomis); ➢ πατὴρ τῆς θύνης (Dionysopolis); ➢ πατὴρ τῶν παστοϕόρων (Tomis). The office of πραγματᾶς is attested only at Panticapaeum by four inscriptions, its exact role inside the association being unclear.

37 38 39 40 41 42

Poland 1909, 404. Agora XVI, 324 = SEG 21, 535. IG X.2.1 Suppl. 1363 = SEG 56, 763. Robert 1969, 7–9; Bounegru 2008, 72. Vélissaropoulos 1980, 104–06. Poland 1909, 371–73.

GLOSSARY

169

Οἱ περὶ [---] is a formula denoting the idea of gathering around a specific person. Usually, this formula follows a specific term but in some inscriptions the term is missing due to the fragmentary character of the inscription. Ὀργεῶνες denotes the members of an association who practised the rites (ὄργια) of a specific god or hero; the term is exclusively attested in Attica and is one of the earliest denominations of associations.43 As particularity, this type of association was in general composed of citizens,44 with the exception of some which are composed of immigrants (Thracians who worship Bendis).45 Ποσειδονιασταί belongs to the same category of denominations which derive from a personal noun of theophoric origin (Poseidon), naming (indirectly) the worshippers of Poseidon at Istros who are grouped in an association. Προστάτης is an ambiguous term which denotes the president, protector/patron of an association. ➢ προστάτης διὰ βίου is an official who was granted the position for life. ➢ προστάτης τοῦ θιάσου specifies the fact that the official was that of an association. Ῥωποπῶλαι is a collective name derived from the name of an occupation. In this case, the association gathers the small-ware dealers from Amastris; such an association is attested also at Perinthus-Heraclea46 and Philippopolis.47 The term σπεῖρα is more rarely attested and has the meaning of corporation, usually designating a Dionysiac association. In one of our examples from Tomis (Σπεῖρα Ῥωμαίων), the terminology does not point to a Dionysiac association, but according to A. Suceveanu and A. Barnea48 to a possible association of merchants. Συναγωγός is a leading official attested in associations from Gorgippia, Panticapaeum, and Tanais. In these cities, the office comes mostly second after that of the ἱερεύς, and at Tanais sometimes third, after the πατὴρ συνόδου. The denomination of certain associations from Panticapaeum involves the reference to this position: Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα καὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα. At Tomis συναγωγέυς is the president in two associations devoted to the Thracian Rider. The term σύνοδος mostly designates the assembly of a θίασος. Beginning with the 1st century BC, the term starts to designate religious associations as well.49 Συνοδεῖται are the regular members of an association labelled as σύνοδος. They are attested mostly on the northern shore of the Black Sea. Σύσσιτοι is a collective name meaning messmates, being a confraternity similar to that of οἱ ἑταῖροι. At Callatis,50 its character of private association is supported not only by the terminology (οἱ σύσσιτοι οἱ Τιμώνακτος), but also by the existence of

43

Jones 1999, 249–68; Arnaoutoglou 2003, 31–60. van Nijf 1997, 8. 45 IG II2, 1283 = LSCG 46 = AGRW 18. See Arnaoutoglou 2015. 46 IPerinthos-Herakleia 59 = CAPInv. 543. 47 IGB V, 5464 = CAPInv. 686. 48 Suceveanu and Barnea 1991, 41. 49 Véllissaropoulos 1980, 96. 50 The term is also attested at Thespiai: IThespiai 323 = CAPInv. 981; and Lindus: ILindos II, 292 = CAPInv. 1064. 44

170

GLOSSARY

a hierarchy (Τιμῶναξ being probably the leader/founder) and of specific activities (in this case symposia, since the inscription is written on a cantharus). Ταμίας was the treasurer of an association; this position had a civic equivalent. Ταυρεασταί is a theophoric collective name, derived from the deity Poseidon Taurus. The association is attested at Istros from the Hellenistic and up to the Roman times. Ταῦροι is a theophoric collective name present at Bizone and denominating an association of worshippers of Dionysus (most probably) or Poseidon. Τέκτονες is a collective name derived from the name of an occupation. In this case the association gathers the carpenters from Istros. Τεμενῖται are the members of an association developed around a precinct and they are attested mostly at Miletus,51 but also in Mylasa.52 The divinities worshipped by these associations are varied (Zeus and Aphrodite, Demeter Carpophorus, and in this case: Agathe Tyche, Apollo, Hermes),53 but Apollo is attested recurrently.54 In the inscriptions which attest Pontic men,55 only immigrants appear as members, their origin being stated; this is how we find out that a certain Νικηφόρος Ἀπολλωνίου from Amastris, a ‘Thracian’ (Θρᾷξ), belonged in the 2nd century BC at Miletus. Φαμιλία μονομάχων describes a group of gladiators who formed an association56 at Amisus. This association was gathered around a person named Καλύδων (who was probably the lanista) and took part in games which were organised by the ποντάρχης Μ. Ἰούλιος Ἰουλιανός and his wife Σησστύλλια Κύριλλα. Similar examples of denominations are attested at Stobi,57 Maroneia58 and maybe Adada.59 Φιλοκύνηγοι (Diodorus Siculus 4. 45) is a collective name, formed from a denomination which points to a shared passion (hunting).60 Similarly to this example from Callatis, there is at Thessalonica an association of φιλοπαικτόρων, individuals who were fans of theatre shows, but also another one which grouped the fans of sports from the arena.61 Φιλότιμος/φιλότειμος is an honorary title which translates as ‘love of honour’ (Plato Republic 549a), person eager of honour, being given to a benefactor or a donor of an association.62 ➢ δισφιλότιμος indicates that the individual acted twice as donor; ➢ φιλότιμος διὰ βίου indicates that the title was granted for life; ➢ φιλότιμος κάλλιστος underlines the qualities of the benefactor (noble/excellent), by using one of the most valued ones. Φροντιστής is an official of two associations from Gorgippia (Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος] and Θέασος ναυκλήρων), his exact role inside the association being unclear. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

Hermann 1980; Günther 1995 = SEG 45, 1606, 1607. Blümel 2004, no. 15 = SEG 54, 1107 = Carbon 2013. Carbon 2013, 28. Lemma SEG 45, 1607; Carbon 2013, 28. IMilet 796 = SEG 45, 1607 = PPEE 213. For associations of gladiators, see Wiedemann 1992, 117–18. SEG 47, 954 = CAPInv. 510. IThracAeg E 167 = CAPInv. 1750. IGRR III, 372 = CAPInv. 383. Pippidi 1972. Nigdelis 2010, 19. Bărbulescu and Buzoianu 2014, 145.

GLOSSARY

171

Χοροστάτης is the leader of the choire, being attested only once, in the association Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων from Istros. The individual who had this role (Αὐρήλιος Ηλεις (Ηλις)) was also a μεσόχορος. Ὑμνῳδοί is a collective name which designates the singers of sacred hymns devoted to a specific god (Dionysus), or to the emperor and the imperial house.63 The members took part in sacred competitions and from our area of interest they are attested at Odessus, Dionysopolis and Istros. As for those at Istros, while D.M. Pippidi64 and A.-F. Jaccottet65 see the ὑμνῳδοί either as a department of the Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων or a different one, A. Avram66 believes that they were either a department of the σπεῖρα or they represented the σπεῖρα itself. Their character has been described as both private and official, private as a result of the initiative of the civic elite, and official due especially to the worship of emperors.

63 64 65 66

Pippidi 1967b, 450–53. Pippidi 1962, 86. Jaccottet 2003 II, 135. Avram, CAPInv. 1218.

Select Bibliography ISinope 128 = CAPInv. 545.

CIG 3.4152c = Marek 1993, 167, no. 35. Marek 1993, 172–73, no. 57 = SEG 35, 1337 = CAPInv. 736. Mendel 1901, 36, no. 184 = AGRW 94 = CAPInv. 578. Hirschfeld 1888, no. 38 = Kalinka 1933, no. 32 = Robert 1937, 260–61 = Marek 1993, 167, no. 36.

Association

Σύνοδος τῶν στεφανηπλόκων

Association

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

Ἑταῖροι

Οἶκος τῶν ναυκλήρων

Ῥωποπῶλαι?

No.

2.

No.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Amastris Marek 1985, 165, no. 28 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 143–44, no. 72 = SEG 35, 1320.

Select Bibliography

StudPontica III, 2 = Robert 1971, 130, no. 78 = CAPInv. 735.

Φαμιλία μονομάχων τῶν περὶ Καλύδωνα

Sinope

Select Bibliography

Association

1.

Amisus

No.

Southern Shore of the Black Sea

1. Catalogue of Epigraphic Sources

APPENDICES

?

2nd–3rd c. AD

?

?

AD 95/195

Dating

1st–2nd c. AD

Dating

AD 209/210

Dating

?

IGB I2, 79(2) = CCET I 34. IGB V, 5076 = CCET I 9. IGB I2, 289 = IGB V, 5082. IGB I2, 160 = IGB V, 5044 = IGB V, 5045 = Conrad, 2004, 144, no. 66.

Select Bibliography Sharankov 2013, 45, 59 = SEG 60, 778 = CAPInv. 1246. Sharankov 2013, 57–58 = SEG 60, 768 = CAPInv. 1157. IGB I2, 20 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 106–07, no. 52 = CAPInv. 1118. Sharankov 2013, 55–57 = SEG 60, 767 = SEG 63, 523 = CAPInv. 1156.

IGB I2, 23 = Robert and Robert 1952, 160–61, no. 100 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 107, no. 53 = AGRW 71 = AD 222–235 CAPInv. 1152. Marshall 1907, 218, no. 1421, pl. XXXIII = Poland 1909, B 87.

Κοινωνοὶ οἱ περὶ Μένανδρον Ἀπολλωνίου

[--- κοινωνοὶ?] οἱ περὶ τὸν γραμματέα

[--- κοινωνοὶ?] οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα

Ὑμνῳδοί

Association

Ἀθηνεαστής

Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας

Βακχεασταί οἱ περὶ Ἐράτωνα Δημοφίλου

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Ἀσιανῶν σπεῖρα πρεσβ(υτέρων?)

Σύνοδος μυστικῆς Ταρσέων

3.

4.

5.

6.

No.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Dionysopolis

2nd/3rd c. AD

Θυνεῖται Ἑρμᾶντος οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Επταικενθον IGB I2, 77 = IGB V, 5033 = AE 1928, 146 = CCET I 31 = AGRW 79 = CAPInv. 1153. Ἀσιατικοῦ

2.

Dating

IGB I2, 78(3) = CAPInv. 1469.

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 212–250

3rd c. BC

AD 215–235

2nd–3rd c. AD

Dating

?

?

?

2nd/3rd c. AD

Select Bibliography

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

No.

IGB I2, 401 = CIG 2052 = Poland 1909, B 73 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 94, no. 46 = CAPInv. 1116.

Odessus

Dating 2nd–3rd c. AD

Select Bibliography

Association

[Μύσται?]

1.

Apollonia Pontica

1.

Association

No.

Western Shore of the Black Sea

AD 198–211 AD 161–180

Select Bibliography IGB I2, 6.

Select Bibliography ISM III, 69 = CAPInv. 1162. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 8. ISM III, 66 = CAPInv. 1159. 1. ISM III, 40 = CAPInv. 1158; 2. ISM III, 41 = SEG 18, 287 = CAPInv. 1158. ISM III, 68A = AGRW 75 = CAPInv. 1161. ISM III, 260 = CAPInv. 1160.

?

?

Association

Ταῦροι

Association

Ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Θοινᾶται

Θοινᾶται τᾶς Δάματρος τᾶς Χθονίας

Θοινῆται οἱ περὶ εἱερέα Ἡρακλέοντα Πύρσου

[Θρη]σκευταί

Οἱ παιρὶ {περὶ} εἱερέα Τ(ίτον) Αἴ(λιον) Μινίκιον ISM III, 70 = CAPInv. 1163.

9.

10.

No.

1.

No.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

ISM III, 35 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 110–16, no. 54 = AGRW 73 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 36 = SEG 45, 902 = Poland 1909, B 94 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 116, no. 55 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 47 = Poland 1909, B 95 = LSCG 90 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 42 = Poland 1909, B 93 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 118–19, no. 56 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 44 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 120–23, no. 58 = AGRW 74 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 45 = SEG 27, 384 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 123–24, no. 59 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 46 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 125–26, no. 60 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 43 = Poland 1909, B 92 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 119–20, no. 57 = CAPInv. 1186; ISM III, 80 = SEG 24, 1034 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 127–29, no. 61 = CAPInv. 1186.

Callatis

3rd c. BC; 3rd c. BC; 2nd c. BC; 1st c. BC; AD 12–15; AD 15; AD 14–37; 1st c. AD; 1st c. AD.

1st c. AD

1st c. BC

3rd c. BC

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1st c. AD

Dating

1st–2nd c. AD

Dating

AD 241–244

IGB I2, 22(2) = CAPInv. 1119.

Bizone

4th–3rd c. BC

Sharankov 2013, 52 = SEG 63, 522.

AD 218–222

IGB I2, 17 = IGB V, 5009.

Ὑμνῳδοί νεώτεροι

8.

post AD 212

IGB I2, 15(3) = IGB V, 5007.

Ὑμνῳδοί

7.

Τοὶ σύσσιτοι τοὶ Τιμώνακτος

Association Δενδροφόροι

12.

No.

Tomis

ISM II, 90 = SEG 24, 1050 = ISM VI.2, 90 = CAPInv. 1198.

ISM II, 89 = ISM VI.2, 89.

[Μύσται?]

11.

12.

3rd c. AD

ISM II, 100 = IGRR I, 638 = Poland 1909, B 103 = ISM VI.2, 100 = CAPInv. 1200. ISM II, 70 = IGRR I, 633 = Poland 1909, Δ 76 = ISM VI.2, 70 = CAPInv. 1197.

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου ISM II, 125 = SEG 34, 695 = CAPInv. 1203.

8.

Σπεῖρα Ῥωμαίων

Παστοφόροι

7.

Θυμελικὴ σύνοδος Ὑμνῳδοί

ISM II, 98 = SEG 24, 1054 = Avram 2018b = ISM VI.2, 98 = CAPInv. 1202.

Πασοῦς ἱερὸς θίασος

6.

9.

ISM II, 120 = Poland 1909, B 106 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 129–30, no. 62 = AGRW 80 = ISM VI.2, 120 = 1st c. BC CAPInv. 1204. 3rd c. AD

1. ISM II, 60 = IGRR I, 610 = Poland 1909, E 24 A = AGRW 81 = ISM VI.2, 60 = CAPInv. 1199; 2. ISM II, 132 = Poland 1909, E 24 B = CIL III, 7532 = ILS 4069 = CCET IV, 48 = ISM VI.2, 132 = CAPInv. 1199.

Οἶκος τῶν ἐν Τόμει ναυκλήρων

5.

10.

ISM II, 153 = IGRR I, 604 = RICIS 618/1005 = SEG 47, 1040 = Poland 1909, E 25 = AGRW 82 = AD 160 ISM VI.2, 153 = CAPInv. 1206.

Οἶκος τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων

4.

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–212

AD 150–180

3rd c. AD

1. AD 139–161; 2. 2nd c. AD.

3rd c. AD

ISM II, 98 = SEG 24, 1054 = Avram 2018b = ISM VI.2, 98 = CAPInv. 1202.

Θίασος?/῾Ιεροναῦται

2nd–3rd c. AD

ISM II, 160 = AE 1964, 230 = ISM VI.2, 160 = CAPInv. 1207.

Dumus

1. 2nd c. AD; 2. AD 198–201.

Dating

3.

1. ISM II, 119 = CIL III, 763 = ILS 4116 = ISM VI.2, 119 = CAPInv. 1201; 2. ISM II, 83 = IGRR I, 614 = SEG 27, 399 = ISM VI.2, 83 = CAPInv. 1201.

Select Bibliography

2.

1.

4th c. BC

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύ- ISM III, 72 = SEG 24, 1037 = CAPInv. 1164. ρου

11. ISM III, 255 = SEG 27, 386 = CAPInv. 1185.

2nd c. AD

ISM III, 73A+B = SEG 46, 900 = IGRR I, 650 = AE 1996, 1351b = CAPInv. 1165.

AD 199–211

ISM III, 105 = SEG 24, 1036 = CAPInv. 1184.

Οἱ περὶ [---]

Οἱ περὶ [---]

9.

10.

3rd c. AD

Dating AD 238–244

Select Bibliography

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύ- Sauciuc-Săveanu and Rădulescu 1968 = Pippidi 1972 = ISM III, 74 = CAPInv. 1183. νηγοι

Association

8.

No.

Callatis

ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112 = CAPInv. 1209. ISM I, 143. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

?

?

?

Association Ἡρακλειασταί

Ποσειδωνιασταί

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

23.

24.

25.

No.

2.

3.

1.

?

22.

ISM I, 167 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 130–31, no. 63 = CAPInv. 1218; ISM I, 196 = SEG 24, 1117 = CAPInv. 1218; ISM I, 207 = SEG 19, 480 = CAPInv. 1218; ISM I, 208 + ISM I, 221 = SEG 32, 694 = CAPInv. 1218; ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112 = CAPInv. 1218; ISM I, 98 = SEG 19, 485 = CAPInv. 1218; ISM I, 412 = CAPInv. 1218; ISM I, 199 = SEG 19, 478 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 136–37, no. 66 = CAPInv. 1218; Suceveanu 2007, 149, no. 6 = Avram 2015, 130–31, no. 5 = CAPInv. 1218; ISM I, 99 = SEG 19, 477 = SEG 24, 1120 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 131–33, no. 64 = CAPInv. 1218; ISM I, 100 = SEG 17, 342 = Jaccottet 2003 II, 133–36, no. 65 = CAPInv. 1218.

Select Bibliography

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

AD 161–169; 2nd c. AD; 2nd c. AD; 2nd c. AD; 2nd c. AD; 2nd–3rd c. AD; 2nd–3rd c. AD; 2nd–3rd c. AD; 2nd–3rd c. AD; AD 218/219; AD 222–224.

AD 212–250

2nd c. AD

Dating

2nd c. AD

Bărbulescu and Câteia 2007 = AE 2007, 1231 = SEG 57, 680 = Avram 2008a, 695, no. 369 = CAPInv. 1256.

Istros

2nd/3rd c. AD

AD 138

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

ISM II, 129 = CIL III, 7532 = ILS 4069 = CCET IV, 48 = CAPInv. 1205.

Bărbulescu, Buzoianu and Băjenaru 2014 = CAPInv. 1818.

ISM II, 25 = ISM VI.2, 25 = CAPInv. 1192.

ISM II, 23 = SEG 24, 1057 = ISM VI.2, 23 = CAPInv. 1191.

ISM II, 19 = SEG 24, 1055 = ISM VI.2, 19 = CAPInv. 1190.

ISM II, 18 = SEG 24, 1088 = ISM VI.2, 18 = CAPInv. 1189.

ISM II, 17 = ISM VI.2, 17 = CAPInv. 1188.

?

?

18.

ISM II, 16 = ISM VI.2, 16 = CAPInv. 1187.

21.

?

17.

ISM II, 34 = ISM VI.2, 34 = CAPInv. 1196.

?

?

16.

ISM II, 31 = SEG 33, 584 = ISM VI.2, 31 = CAPInv. 1195.

?

?

15.

ISM II, 26 = ISM VI.2, 26 = CAPInv. 1193. ISM II, 27 = SEG 9, 909 = ISM VI.2, 27 = CAPInv. 1194.

19.

?

20.

?

13.

14.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

?

4.

5.

IGDOlbia 92 = SEG 50, 699.1.

IGDOlbia 96abcd = CAPInv. 1261. IGDOlbia 94abc = SEG 28, 659–661 = CAPInv. 1328.

Νεομηνιασταί

Ὀρφικοί

3.

IGDOlbia 11 = IOlbia 71 = SEG 18, 304 = Robert and Robert 1959, 270 = Stolba 2013 = Porucznik 4th c. BC 2018 = CAPInv. 1257.

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

2.

Dating

IGDOlbia 95 = SEG 42, 709.1 = CAPInv. 1258.

6th–5th c. BC

6th c. BC

6th c. BC

4th–3rd c. BC

Select Bibliography

Βορεικοὶ θιασῖται

Olbia

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 215

Association

ISM I, 218 = SEG 24, 1119.

ISM I, 211.

ISM I, 201 = SEG 2, 457 = SEG 18, 297.

ISM I, 200 = SEG 27, 368.

ISM I, 197 = SEG 24, 1118 = CAPInv. 1222.

ISM I, 195 = CAPInv. 1221.

ISM I, 229 = CAPInv. 1225.

ISM I, 227 = SEG 32, 684 = CAPInv. 1224.

2nd c. BC; 2nd c. BC; 2nd c. BC; 2nd c. AD. 2nd c. AD

1. 2. 3. 4.

Dating

1.

No.

Northern Shore of the Black Sea

?

8.

ISM I, 223 = CAPInv. 1223.

?

7.

ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112 = CAPInv. 1208.

Ὑμνῳδοί νεώτεροι οἱ περὶ τὸν μέγαν θεὸν Διόνυσον Avram 2018a = CAPInv. 1994.

ISM I, 60 = CAPInv. 1210; ISM I, 61 = SEG 2, 451 = CAPInv. 1210; Avram 2014, no. 2 = CAPInv. 1210; ISM I, 57 = SEG 18, 293 = SEG 24, 1112 = CAPInv. 1210.

6.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Select Bibliography

Τέκτονες

Association Ταυρεασταί

5.

4.

No.

Istros

CIRB 946 = Kreuz 2012, 490, no. 66 = CAPInv. 1302.

Συνοδεῖται

1.

No.

Matsulevich 1941 = AE 2015, 1264 = SEG 55, 863 = CAPInv. 1290. IosPE II, 39 = IGRR I, 883 = CIRB 44 = CAPInv. 1266. SEG 46, 958 = CAPInv. 1326. CIRB 78 = IosPE II, 65 = Kreuz 2012, 866, no. 995 = CAPInv. 1299.

Κοινὸν τῶν θιασιτῶν

Συνοδεῖται

Συνοδεῖται

6.

7.

CIRB 137 = IosPE IV, 317 = GVI 1316 = Kreuz 2012, 486, no. 53 = CAPInv. 1289.

Θίεσος

3.

Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος

CIRB 76 = CAPInv. 1270.

Θιεσεῖται

2.

5.

CIRB 75 = IosPE II, 19 = AGRW 85 = CAPInv. 1269.

Θιασῖται

4.

Select Bibliography

Association

1.

Panticapaeum

Select Bibliography

Cimmericum

von Stern 1902 = CIRB 947 = IosPE IV, 468.

Select Bibliography

Association

?

Association

No.

1.

No.

Theodosia

IosPE I 425 = CIG 2099 = Poland 1909, B 109 = CAPInv. 1262. Solomonik 1984, 87, no. 436 = SEG 38, 749.8 = CAPInv. 1263.

Κοινὸν ναυτικῶν

1.

2

Select Bibliography

2.

Association

Θίασος

No.

Chersonesus

1st c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 117

2nd c. AD

1st c. AD

AD 82

2nd c. BC

Dating

2nd c. AD

Dating

3rd c. AD

Dating

1st c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

Dating

CIRB CIRB CIRB CIRB CIRB

96 = SEG 2, 485 = Kreuz 2012, 544, no. 253 = CAPInv. 1296; 97 = Kreuz 2012, 489, no. 62 = CAPInv. 1296; 98 = CAPInv. 1296; 99 = Kreuz 2012, 514, no. 147 = CAPInv. 1296; 100 = Kreuz 2012, 544, no. 254 = CAPInv. 1296;

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

10.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. CIRB 82 = IosPE IV, 209 = CAPInv. 1285; 1. 2. CIRB 83 = Kreuz 2012, 877, 1018 = CAPInv. 1285; 2. 3. CIRB 84 = IosPE II, 60 = von Kieseritzky and Watzinger 1909, 648 = Kreuz 2012, 876, no. 1017 3. = CAPInv. 1285; 4. CIRB 85 = Kreuz 2012, 814, no. 882 = CAPInv. 1285; 4. 5. CIRB 86 = IosPE IV, 469 = von Kieseritzky and Watzinger 1909, 50a = Kreuz 2012, 501, no. 105 5. = CAPInv. 1285; 6. CIRB 87 = IosPE IV, 208 = von Kieseritzky and Watzinger 1909, 593 = Kreuz 2012, 814, no. 883 6. = CAPInv. 1285; 7. CIRB 89 = Kreuz 2012, 502, no. 107 = CAPInv. 1285; 7. 8. CIRB 93 = IosPE IV, 212 = Kreuz 2012, 488, no. 59 = CAPInv. 1285; 8. 9. CIRB 107 = IosPE II, 64 = CAPInv. 1285; 9. 10. Saprykin 2009 = SEG 59, 845 = CAPInv. 1285. 10.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

9.

AD 204; AD 210; AD 214; AD 221; AD 221;

2nd c. AD; 2nd c. AD; 2nd c. AD; 2nd c. AD.

2nd c. AD;

2nd c. AD; 2nd c. AD;

1st c. AD; 2nd c. AD; 2nd c. AD;

1. CIRB 79a = IosPE II, 63a = AGRW 87 = Kreuz 2012, 954, no. 1178 = CAPInv. 1281; 1. 2nd c. AD; 2. CIRB 80 = IosPE II, 62 = von Kieseritzky and Carl Watzinger 1909, 454 = Kreuz 2012, 792, 2. 2nd c. AD; no. 830 = CAPInv. 1281; 3. CIRB 81 = IosPE II, 61 = von Kieseritzky and Watzinger 1909, 455 = Kreuz 2012, 792, no. 831 3. 2nd c. AD; = CAPInv. 1281; 4. CIRB 88 = Kreuz 2012, 791, no. 828 = CAPInv. 1281; 4. 2nd c. AD; 5. CIRB 90 = IosPE IV, 210 = von Kieseritzky and Watzinger 1909, 629a = Kreuz 2012, 870–71, 5. 2nd c. AD; no. 1004 = CAPInv. 1281; 6. CIRB 91 = Kreuz 2012, 808, no. 868 = CAPInv. 1281; 6. 2nd c. AD; 7. CIRB 92 = Kreuz 2012, 953, no. 1176 = CAPInv. 1281; 7. 2nd c. AD; 8. CIRB 94 = CAPInv. 1281; 8. 2nd c. AD; 9. CIRB 102 = CAPInv. 1281; 9. 2nd c. AD; 10. CIRB 106 = SEG 2, 486 = CAPInv. 1281; 10. 2nd c. AD; 11. CIRB 108 = CAPInv. 1281; 11. 2nd c. AD; 12. CIRB 101 = Kreuz 2012, 956–57, no. 1188 = CAPInv. 1281. 12. 3rd c. AD.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Dating

Select Bibliography

Association

8.

No.

Panticapaeum

Myrmecium

3rd c. AD; 3rd c. AD; 3rd c. AD; 3rd c. AD.

2nd c. BC 1. Ivantchik 2008, 96–100, no. 2 = SEG 58, 783 = Zavoikina 2013a, 98–101 = CAPInv. 1321; 2. Ivantchik 2008, 94–95, no. 1 = SEG 58, 782 = Zavoikina 2013a, 98–101 = CAPInv. 1321; 3. Ivantchik 2008, 100–03, no. 3 = SEG 45, 1020 + SEG 45, 1021 = SEG 58, 784 = Zavoykina 2013a, 98–101 = CAPInv. 1321. CIRB 1259 = AGRW 90 = CAPInv. 1322. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Θιασεῖται

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

3.

4.

CIRB CIRB CIRB CIRB CIRB CIRB CIRB CIRB

1265 = IosPE IV, 449 = CAPInv. 1324; 1261 = IGRR I, 915 = IosPE II, 437 = CAPInv. 1324; 1260a = IosPE II, 439 = IGRR I, 916 = CAPInv. 1324; 1260 = IosPE II, 438 = IGRR I, 916 = CAPInv. 1324; 1266 = IosPE II, 449 = CAPInv. 1324; 1262 = IosPE II, 443 = IGRR I, 915 = CAPInv. 1324; 1263 = IosPE II, 441 = CAPInv. 1324; 1264 = IosPE II, 442 = CAPInv. 1324;

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

AD 123; AD 132–154; AD 154–171; AD 155; 2nd c. AD; 2nd c. AD; 2nd c. AD; 2nd c. AD;

AD 104

AD 210–230; AD 211–227/233–235; AD 220–230; AD 225–227; AD 228.

2.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

CIRB 1292 = CAPInv. 1323; CIRB 1281 = IosPE II, 449 = IGRR I, 918 = CAPInv. 1323; CIRB 1286 = IosPE II, 456 = CAPInv. 1323; CIRB 1285 = IosPE II, 450 = IGRR I, 919 = CAPInv. 1323; CIRB 1283 = IGRR I, 920 = IosPE II, 452 = AGRW 92 = CAPInv. 1323.

Select Bibliography

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Dating

3rd c. AD

Dating

AD 275–279

6. 7. 8. 9.

Association

Tanais

CIRB 870 = IosPE II, 58 = CAPInv. 1318.

Select Bibliography

CIRB 36 = CAPInv. 1264.

CIRB 95 = CAPInv. 1296; CIRB 103 = IosPE IV, 211 = Kreuz 2012, 513, no. 146 = CAPInv. 1296; CIRB 104 = AGRW 88 = CAPInv. 1296; CIRB 105 = IosPE IV, 207 + addenda, p. 294 = CAPInv. 1296.

1.

No.

?

Association

No.

1.

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

11.

6. 7. 8. 9.

Voroshilova and Zavoykina 2016. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

?

2.

3.

CIRB 1005 = IosPE II, 342.

CIRB 987 = IosPE II, 365 = Kreuz 2012, 514, no. 148 = CAPInv. 1301; Gabelko, Zavoikina and Shavyrina 2006 = SEG 57, 740 = CAPInv. 1301; Yailenko 2002 = SEG 57, 739B = CAPInv. 1301; CIRB 988 = CAPInv. 1301; CIRB 1016 = Kreuz 2012, 515, no. 151 = CAPInv. 1301.

Select Bibliography

Θίασος περὶ ἱερ[έ]α Κύνων Ἀγαθοῦ

Phanagoria

Ivantchik and Ilyashenko 2018, no. 4.

Association

1324; 1324; 1324; 1324; 1324; 1324;

IGRR I, 921 = CAPInv. 1324; CAPInv. 1324; CAPInv. 1324.

CAPInv. CAPInv. CAPInv. CAPInv. CAPInv. CAPInv.

CAPInv. 1324; IGRR I, 917 = AGRW 91 = CAPInv. 1324;

1st c. AD; 1st c. AD; 2nd–3rd c. AD; 3rd c. AD; 3rd c. AD. 2nd c. AD

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2nd c. AD

Dating

AD 220

2nd c. AD; 2nd c. AD; AD 173–211; AD 209; AD 220; AD 225; AD 225; AD 228; AD 230; AD 244; 3rd c. AD; 3rd c. AD; 3rd c. AD; 3rd c. AD.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

CAPInv. 1324; IosPE II, 440 = IosPE II, 445 = CAPInv. 1324; IosPE II, 446 = IosPE II, 447 = IosPE II, 448 = IosPE II, 451 = IosPE II, 453 = IosPE II, 454 = CAPInv. 1324; IosPE II, 455 = IosPE II, 460 = IosPE II, 463 =

Dating

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

CIRB 1267 CIRB 1268 CIRB 1277 CIRB 1276 CIRB 1278 CIRB 1279 CIRB 1280 CIRB 1282 CIRB 1284 CIRB 1287 CIRB 1289 CIRB 1288 CIRB 1290 CIRB 1291

Select Bibliography

1.

?

Association

No.

5.

No.

Tanais

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. SEG 36, 704 = CAPInv. 1313; 2. CIRB 1133 = CAPInv. 1313.

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θιασῖται

?

?

?

4.

5.

6.

7.

2nd c. AD 1st/2nd c. AD

SEG 36, 703 = SEG 40, 624 = CAPInv. 1311.

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 173–211

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

Dating

2nd c. AD

Dating

CIRB 1231 = IosPE IV, 436 = CAPInv. 1309.

CIRB 1191 = IosPE II, 410 = CAPInv. 1308.

CIRB 1135 = CAPInv. 1310; SEG 29, 707 = CAPInv. 1310; CIRB 1230 = IGRR I, 912 = IosPE IV, 433 = Poland 1909, B 120 K = CAPInv. 1310; CIRB 1130 = CAPInv. 1310; CIRB 1131 = CAPInv. 1310; SEG 36, 705 = CAPInv. 1310; CIRB 1134 = AGRW 84 = CAPInv. 1310; SEG 36, 700 = Saprykin 1986 = CAPInv. 1310; CIRB 1129 = IosPE IV, 434 = CAPInv. 1310.

CIRB 1132 + 1162 = CAPInv. 1312.

Θεασεῖται

2.

Gorgippia 1. SEG 3, 607 = IGRR I, 893 = CIRB 1136 + CIRB 77 = CAPInv. 1317; 2. CIRB 1156 A + CIRB 1182 A = CAPInv. 1317; 3. CIRB 1156 B + CIRB 1182 B = CAPInv. 1317.

Select Bibliography

3.

Association

No.

1. CIRB 1054 = IosPE IV, 421 = CAPInv. 1304; 2. CIRB 1055 = CAPInv. 1304.

Select Bibliography

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

1.

1.

Association

No.

Hermonassa

IG II2 1271 = PPEE 1413 = CAPInv. 264.

ISelge T 48 = SEG 39, 737 = Avram 2008b = PPEE 344 = PPEE 1910 = PPEE 1921 = PPEE 1924 185 BC = CAPInv. 2115.

Θιασῶται [Θίασος]

Κοινόν

6.

7.

52–51 BC

10.

190–189 BC

IMilet 796 = SEG 45, 1607 = PPEE 213.

Τεμενῖται

9.

3rd c. BC

SEG 56, 203 = PPEE 2163 = CAPInv. 284.

Kyparissis and Peek 1941, no. 4 = Robert and Robert 1942, 329 = AGRW 39 = PPEE 1525 = 138/137 BC CAPInv. 228.

Κοινὸν τῶν θιασωτῶν

Ὀργεών

8.

298–297 BC

281–280 BC

SEG 37, 103 = PPEE 290 = CAPInv. 690. IG II2 1273 = SEG 28, 108 = SEG 39, 152 = SEG 44, 58 = PPEE 1338 = CAPInv. 265.

300–299 BC

102–101 BC

Ἐρανισταί [Ἔρανος]

SEG 41, 171 = PPEE 1174 = PPEE 1347.

Ἐρανισταί [Ἔρανος]

3.

Θιασῶται [Θίασος]

IG II2 1335 = PPEE 1269 = CAPInv. 353.

Ἐρανισταί [Ἔρανος]

2.

Dating AD 90–91

4.

Voutiras 1992 = AE 1992, 1522 = SEG 42, 625 = AGRW 49 = CAPInv. 757.

Δοῦμος

5.

Select Bibliography

Association

External

1.

No.

Ποντικοί in Associations outside the Greek Cities of the Black Sea

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ignotus

Ἀλέξανδρος

Ἀλέξανδρος

Ἀπελλῆς

Ἀπολλώνις

Ἀσκληπιόδοτος

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Τελεσφόρος

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Κορνοῦτος

Ἀρισταίνετος

ignotus

Ἀγαθοκλῆς

ignotus

Relations1

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

?

gr.

?

On.

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

Οἶκος τῶν ναυκλήρων

Ἑταῖροι –

γάλλαρος

γάλλαρος

κρατηρίαος

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus [Dionysus]

μύστης

–

μυσταρχικός

προστάτης διὰ βίου

–

Ῥωποπῶλαι?

Divinity

–

[***lanista]

Position2

Σύνοδος τῶν στεφανηπλόκων

Φαμιλία μονομάχων τῶν περὶ Καλύδωνα

Association

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

?

dedication

honorific

funerary

funerary

funerary

dedication

Type inscr.

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

?

AD 95/ 195

2nd–3rd c. AD

Imp.

?

1st–2nd c. AD

AD 209/210

Dating

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Amastris

Amastris

Amastris

Amastris

Amastris

Sinope

Amisus

Origin

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

4

3

5

1

1

Corpus

2

This column records the patronymics of the members, with the following exception: in the case of a woman (no. 658 ignota) the name of the husband is recorded. In this column, besides the associative offices, recorded were also the civic/royal/military offices (marked with *), the granted titles (marked with **), as well as the occupations – when they are specified and differ from the occupational profile of the association (marked with ***). In square brackets were recorded those titles which are not explicitly mentioned but which one can deduce from the text (for example: [εὐεργέτης]).

1

?

ignotus

6.

?

gr.

lat.

Χρηστίων

gr.

[Κα]σπεριανός

3.

Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Ῥουφωνιανός

lat.

Λούκιος Κορνήλιος Ῥοῦφος

2.

4.

gr.

Καλύδων

1.

5.

On.

Person

Nr.

2. Catalogue of Members

On.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

lat.

gr.

gr.

Person

Βακχίς

Γενε[---]

Δημήτρις

Διονύσις

Διονυσόδωρος

Ἔξοχος

Ἑρμόδωρος

Ζώπυρος

Ἡρακλείδης

Καρνεάδης

Κάρπος

Κοδρᾶτος

Κορνοῦτος

Λουκίσανδρος

Ὀνήσιμος

Nr.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

Πωλίων

Ἀπολλώνιος

Κορνοῦτος

Ἡρόφιλος

Ἀλέξανδρος

Ἡρα[---]

Πάπας

῞Ερμος

῎Ελος?

Ἑρμάφιλος

Ἡρακλείδες

Κάσιος

Πρότειμος

Ἡρόφιλος

Μύρων

Relations1

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

On.

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

Association

Divinity

γάλλαρος

γάλλαρος

γάλλαρος

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

γάλλαρος γάλλαρος

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

γάλλαρος

γάλλαρος

γάλλαρος

γάλλαρος

γάλλαρος

κισταφόρος

Position2

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

Dating

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

Origin

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Corpus

gr.

gr.

Lal. Νέανδρος

lat.

gr.

lat.

?

gr.

gr.

Ποσειδώνις

Σωζομενός

Τάτος Γάϊος

Τέρτιος

Τηλέμαχος

Τρηστίσσιμος

Φα[---]

Φιλότειμος

Χρήστη

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

?

?

?

gr.

Πολύξενος

30.

ignotus

gr.

gr.

gr.

Ἄνδρων

[---]δωρος

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Σάτυρος

ignotus

ignotus

Τελεσφόρος

Πασ[---]

Χρῦσος?

ignotus

Ἑστιαῖος

Ἀπολλώνιος

Ἀπολλώνιος

?

Πια[---]ων

29.

Ἁρποκράτης

gr.

Πεῖος

28.

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

[Μύσται?]

Dionysus Bakcheus Dionysus Bakcheus

βουκόλος

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

Dionysus Bakcheus

λικναφόρος

ἀρχιβασσάρα

γάλλαρος

ἔκδικος

ἀρχιμύσ[της]

γάλλαρος

γάλλαρος

γάλλαρος

γάλλαρος

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

Apollonia Pontica

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

On.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Person

Ἀγαθήνωρ

Ἀγαθήνωρ

Αἰαντίδης

Αἰαντίδης

Αἰσχρίων

Ἀντίφιλος

Ἀντίφιλος

Ἀπελλᾶς

Ἀπολλώνιος

Ἀπολλώνιος

Nr.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

Θεμιστᾶς

Ἀπολλώνιος

Μένανδρος

Ζωπυρίων

Ἀγαθήνωρ

Ξένανδρος

Μένανδρος

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Μητρόδωρος

Ἀντίφιλος

Relations1

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

On.

Κοινωνοὶ οἱ περὶ Μένανδρον Ἀπολλωνίου

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Hero Karabazmos

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Karabasmos

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Karabasmos

Divinity

Hero Karabasmos

Position2

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Association

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

?

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

Dating

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Origin

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Δημ[---]

Διονύσιος

Ἐλευσείνιος

Ἕλλην

Ἕλλην

Ἐπταίκενθος

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

gr.

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

56.

Ἀστέας

gr.

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

55.

57.

gr.

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

54.

58.

gr.

Ἀπολλώνιος

53.

Ἀσιατικός

Χαιρέας

Ἀρπάλης

Ἐλευσείνιος

Ἐπικράτης

ignotus

Ἡρακλείδες

Νουμήνιος

Ἱερώνυμος

Δημήτριος

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

ignotus

gr.

gr.

trc.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

Θυνεῖται Ἑρμᾶντος οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Επταικενθον Ἀσιατικοῦ

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

[--- κοινωνοὶ?] οἱ περὶ τὸν γραμματέα

[--- κοινωνοὶ?] οἱ περὶ τὸν γραμματέα

Ὑμνῳδοί

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Κοινωνοὶ οἱ περὶ Μένανδρον Ἀπολλωνίου

[--- κοινωνοὶ?] οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα

ἱερεύς

γραμματεύς

ὑμνῳδός

ἱερεύς

Hero Manimazos

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Karabasmos

[Thracian Rider?]

[Thracian Rider?]

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Karabazmos

Hero Karabazmos

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue?

catalogue?

funerary

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

?

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

?

?

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

2

1

1

1

1

4

4

6

1

1

3

5

On.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Person

Ἑρμᾶς

Ζῆνις

Ζωΐλος

Ζωπυρίων

Ζωπυρίων

Ἡρότειμος

Θεόδορος

Θεόδοτος

Καλλισθένης

Μένανδρος

Μένιππος

Nr.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

Ἕλλην

Ἀπολλώνιος

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Ἡράκων

Θεόδορος

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Ἀντίπατρος

Ἑρμαφίλος

Ποσιδώνιος

Relations1

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

On.

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Κοινωνοὶ οἱ περὶ Μένανδρον Ἀπολλωνίου

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Θυνεῖται Ἑρμᾶντος οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Επταικενθον Ἀσιατικοῦ

Κοινωνοὶ οἱ περὶ Μένανδρον Ἀπολλωνίου

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Karabazmos

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Manimazos

Hero Karabazmos

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Karabasmos

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Hero Karabasmos

Hero Manimazos

Hero Manimazos

Divinity

Hero Karabasmos

ἐπιμελητής

ἐπιμελητής

Position2

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

Θυνεῖται Ἑρμᾶντος οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Επταικενθον Ἀσιατικοῦ

Θυνεῖται Ἑρμᾶντος οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Επταικενθον Ἀσιατικοῦ

Association

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

2nd–3rd c. AD

?

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

?

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

Dating

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Origin

1

3

1

2

3

1

1

1

1

2

2

Corpus

?

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Πιε[---]

Φιλόξενος

[---]ληνος

ignotus

ignotus

Ἀγαθήνωρ

Ἀλκείδης

Αἴολος

Ἀπολλώνιος

Ἄττας

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

lat.

lat.

gr.

Αὐρήλιος

Αὐρήλιος

Δημοσθένης

87.

88.

89.

?

?

gr.

Νουμήνιος

76.

lat. gr.

Σεκοῦνδος

Ξένων

ignotus

Αὐρήλιος

Διόδωρος

Δημοφῶν

Δημήτριος

Σιληνός

?

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Ἀνθρωπίων

Ἐράτων

gr.

gr.

Φιλόξενος

Ζῆνις

Ἀθηνεαστής

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

?

?

Βακχεασταί

?

?

?

Κοινωνοὶ οἱ περὶ Μένανδρον Ἀπολλωνίου

[--- κοινωνοὶ?] οἱ περὶ τὸν γραμματέα

[--- κοινωνοὶ?] οἱ περὶ τὸν γραμματέα

Κοινωνοὶ οἱ περὶ Μένανδρον Ἀπολλωνίου

[--- κοινωνοὶ?] οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

Heracles

Pontic Mother of Gods

?

[Pontic Mother of Gods?]

Bakcheus

[Pontic Mother of Gods?]

[Pontic Mother of Gods?]

[Pontic Mother of Gods?]

Hero Karabazmos

[Thracian Rider?]

[Thracian Rider?]

Hero Karabazmos

Hero Karabazmos

Hero Karabasmos

dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue?

catalogue?

dedication

dedication

dedication

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 212–250

AD 241–244

4th–3rd c. BC

3rd c. BC

4th–3rd c. BC

4th–3rd c. BC

4th–3rd c. BC

?

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

?

?

2nd–3rd AD

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

Odessus

1

4

10

9

3

9

9

9

3

4

4

3

5

1

lat.

gr.

102. Κούαρτος

103. Μενεκράτης

gr.

gr.

Θεόδωρος

Ἰσίδω[ρος?]

98.

99.

gr.

gr.

Θεογένης

97.

lat.

gr.

Ἡρακλέων

96.

100. Καλόκαρος

gr.

Ἥλις

95.

101. Κορτιανός

gr.

gr.

Διονυσόδωρος

gr.

Διονύσιππος?

92.

Ἐράτων

gr.

Διονύσιος

91.

93.

gr.

Διογένης

90.

94.

On.

Person

Nr.

Διοσκουρίδης

Πολύξενος

Σπε[---]

ignotus

Δημήτριος

Θεόπομπος

Ἡρακλέων

Z[---]

Δημόφιλος

ignotus

Ζενόδοτος

Ἀθανεων

Θαῆς

Relations1

gr.

gr.

?

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

On.

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

?

?

Ὑμνῳδοί νεώτεροι

?

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

?

Βακχεασταί

?

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Association

founder? leader?

Position2

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

?

?

[Dionysus?]

[Pontic Mother of Gods?]

Pontic Mother of Gods

?

Bakcheus

?

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Divinity

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

honorific

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 241–244

AD 241–244

AD 218–222

4th–3rd c. BC

AD 212–250

AD 241–244

3rd c. BC

AD 241–244

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

Dating

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Origin

4

4

4

10

10

8

9

4

10

3

10

4

4

4

Corpus

trc.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

108. Πιαιτραλις

109. Πυθοκλῆς

110. Σιλανός

111. Σιληνός

112. Φίλων

113. Αὐρήλιος Ἀνδρικίων

114. Αὐρήλιος Ἀντίπατρος

115. Αὐρήλιος Ἀπήμων

Νείκιος

Ἀρίστων

Δη[---]

Αἴολος

Μεγακρέων

Ἀνθρωπίων

Ἄττας

Σειλανός

Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας

?

?

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

?

?

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Lal.? Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

gr.

? gr.

Μελ[---]

Παράμυ[θος/ρος]

gr.

gr.

106. Νεικηφόρος

107. [Παρ]αμυρος

?

ignotus

gr.

gr.

105. Μητρόδωρος

Ἁγήμων

gr.

104. Μενεκρέων

πατήρ

ἱερεὺς τῆς θύνης

θεόφορος, πατὴρ τῆς θύνης

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

[Pontic Mother of Gods?]

[Pontic Mother of Gods?]

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

?

?

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

4th–3rd c. BC

4th–3rd c. BC

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 215–235

AD 241–244

AD 241–244

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

4

4

4

9

9

4

4

2

10

10

4

4

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

trc.

gr.

117. Αὐρήλιος Ἀσκληπιάδης

118. Αὐρήλιος Ἀσκληπ[ιάδης?]

119. Αὐρήλιος Αὐδασιανός

120. Αὐρήλιος Αὐτοκράτης

121. Αὐρήλιος Γέρων

122. Αὐρήλιος Γλαῦκος

123. Αὐρήλιος Γλαῦκος

124. Αὐρήλιος Δαλήτραλις

125. Αὐρήλιος Δημήτριος

On.

gr.

Person

116. Αὐρήλιος Ἀριστομένης

Nr.

[---]νανδρος

Βακης

Σειλανός

Μητρόδωρος

Ἀσκληπιάδης

Σωσίπατρος

Φιλόξηνος

[Μ]ᾶρκος

ignotus

ignotus

Relations1

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

?

?

On.

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Divinity

Pontic Mother of Gods

Position2

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Association

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

Dating

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Origin

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

126. Αὐρήλιος Διδυμᾶς

127. Αὐρήλιος Διοκλῆς

128. Αὐρήλιος Διονύσιος

129. Αὐρήλιος Διονυσόδωρος

130. Αὐρήλιος Διονυσόδωρος

131. Αὐρήλιος Διονυσόδωρος

132. Αὐρήλιος Διοσκουρίδης

133. Αὐρήλιος Δίων

134. Αὐρήλιος Ἑρμῆς

135. Αὐρήλιος Εὐάγριος

Κούρης

Δάδας

Διονύσιος

Ζήνων

Δάδας?

Ἕρμιππος

Ἡρακλέων

Ἠλεις

gr.

gr.

trc.

gr.

gr.

trc.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας, Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

αὐλητής

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

AD 212–250

AD 215–235

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

4

2, 4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

137. Αὐρήλιος Ἠλεις?

138. Αὐρήλιος Ἡραίων

139. Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλείδης

140. Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλείδης

141. Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλείδης

142. Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλείδης

143. Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλέων

144. Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλέων

145. Αὐρήλιος ῾Ηφ[---]

On.

gr.

Person

136. Αὐρήλιος Ζήνων

Nr.

Ἡρακλέων

Ἄττας

Σειλανός

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Association

gr.

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Lal.? Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

gr.

lat.

gr.

Θίαῆς

Σατορνῖλος

gr.

gr.

gr.

dac.

On.

Διονύσιππος?

Ἀνδρικίων

Ἕρμόδωρος

Ζουκης

Relations1

Position2

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Divinity

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

Dating

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Origin

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

lat.

146. Αὐρήλιος Θεαγένης

147. Αὐρήλιος Θεογένης

148. Αὐρήλιος Θεογένης?

149. Αὐρήλιος Θεόδωρος

150. Αὐρήλιος Θεόδωρος

151. Αὐρήλιος Θεόμνηστος

152. Αὐρήλιος Θεό[---]

153. Αὐρήλιος Ἰουβεντιός?

154. Αὐρήλιος Καλλικράτης

155. Αὐρήλιος Κεραίων

156. Αὐρήλιος Κλαύδιος

Ιούλιος

Διδυμᾶς

Ν[---]

Μητρόδωρος

ignotus

Πυθοκλῆς

Ἡρακλέων

Διοσκουρίδης

Μαρκιανός

Ἕρμιππος

Μενεκρέων

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

On.

Lal. Θεόδωρος

Lal. Χρύσιππος

Lal. Ἄπφος?

165. Αὐρήλιος Παππας

166. Αὐρήλιος Παππας

167. Αὐρήλιος Πάππος

Γλυκωνιανός?

Πολύξενος

gr.

gr.

162. Αὐρήλιος Νουμήνης

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Ἡρακλειδι[---]

gr.

gr.

161. Αὐρήλιος Μητρόδωρος

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

On.

Πολύξενος

163. Αὐρήλιος Νουμήνιος

gr.

160. Αὐρήλιος Μενεκράτης

ignotus

Ἡφαιστόδ[ημος?]

Ἑστιαῖος

Relations1

164. Αὐρήλιος Ὀλυμπικός

lat.

lat.

158. Αὐρήλιος Μαρκιανός

159. Αὐρήλιος Μαρκιανός

gr.

Person

157. Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος Κουρης

Nr.

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

?

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

?

Ἀσιανῶν σπεῖρα et Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας

Association

ἱερονόμος, ἱερεύς

Position2

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

?

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

?

Dionysus, Pontic Mother of Gods

Divinity

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

Type inscr.

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 241–244

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 241–244

AD 215–235

Dating

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Origin

4

4

4

4

10

4

4

4

4

10

2, 5

Corpus

gr.

?

178. [Μῦς?]

179. ignotus

?

175. [---]ης

?

gr.

174. Ιούλιος Ἀλέξανδρος

?

?

173. Αὐρήλιος [---]κιας

176. [---]θις

gr.

172. Αὐρήλιος Σειλανός

177. [---]ωζης

?

[---]ης

gr.

?

gr.

Δημοφῶν

[---]νιος

? gr.

Λάμυρ[ος?]

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

Φανερός

[---]ιος

Γλαῦκος

Σειλανός

Σειλανός

gr.

171. Αὐρήλιος Σειλανός

Σειλανός

lat.

gr.

170. Αὐρήλιος Ῥοῦφος

Θεαγένης

?

gr.

Lal. ignotus

169. Αὐρήλιος Ποσιδώνιος

168. Αὐρήλιος Πάππος

Pontic Mother of Gods

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

?

?

?

[Pontic Mother of Gods?]

γραμματεύς

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

?

?

?

?

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

AD 212–250

4th–3rd c. BC

AD 241–244

AD 241–244

AD 241–244

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

4

9

10

10

10

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

On.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Person

180. ignotus

181. ignotus

182. ignotus

183. ignotus

184. ignotus

185. ignotus

186. ignotus

187. ignotus

188. ignotus

189. ignotus

Nr.

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

[---]ωρος

[---]ων

[---]ρος

[---]πιών

Relations1

?

?

?

?

?

?

gr.

?

?

gr.

On.

Pontic Mother of Gods Pontic Mother of Gods Pontic Mother of Gods Pontic Mother of Gods Pontic Mother of Gods Pontic Mother of Gods Pontic Mother of Gods Pontic Mother of Gods Pontic Mother of Gods

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Divinity

Pontic Mother of Gods

Position2

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Association

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

Dating

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Origin

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

190. ignotus

191. ignotus

192. ignotus

193. ignotus

194. ignotus

195. ignotus

196. ignotus

197. ignotus

198. ignotus

199. ignotus

200. ignotus

201. ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Pontic Mother of Gods Pontic Mother of Gods Pontic Mother of Gods Pontic Mother of Gods Pontic Mother of Gods

Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας ?

?

Pontic Mother of Gods

Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας

?

Pontic Mother of Gods

Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας

ἀρχιγάλλος

Pontic Mother of Gods

Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας

γραμματεύς

Pontic Mother of Gods

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

?

Pontic Mother of Gods

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

AD 241–244

AD 241–244

AD 215–235

AD 215–235

AD 215–235

AD 215–235

AD 215–235

AD 215–235

AD 215–235

AD 215–235

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

10

10

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

4

4

?

?

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

202. ignotus

204. Θεάγης

205. Θεογένης

206. Μιν[---]

207. Πολέμαρχος

208. Ποσιδώνιος

209. Πρόκλος

210. Σκύθης

On.

Person

203. ignotus

Nr.

gr.

gr.

Θεογένης

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

On.

Σκύθης

Μόσσχος

Ποσείδεος

Ἀπολλώνιος

Σκύθης

Σκύθης

ignotus

Relations1

Ταῦροι

Ταῦροι

Ταῦροι

Ταῦροι

Ταῦροι

Ταῦροι

Ταῦροι

?

?

Association

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς, **εὐεργέτης

ἱερεύς

**εὐεργέτης

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

Dionysus Taurus/ Poseidon Taurus?

Dionysus Taurus/ Poseidon Taurus?

Dionysus Taurus/ Poseidon Taurus?

Dionysus Taurus/ Poseidon Taurus?

Dionysus Taurus/ Poseidon Taurus?

Dionysus Taurus/ Poseidon Taurus?

Dionysus Taurus/ Poseidon Taurus?

? ?

ἄρχ[ι--] ἱερεύς

Divinity

Position2

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 241–244

AD 241–244

Dating

Bizone

Bizone

Bizone

Bizone

Bizone

Bizone

Bizone

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Origin

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

10

10

Corpus

gr.

gr.

dac.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

211. Χρύσιπος

212. Ἁγήμων

213. Ἀθανέων Βουκκης

214. Αἰμίλιος

215. Ἀλέξανδρος

216. Ἀλέξανδρος

217. Ἀλέξανδρος

218. Ἀλέξανδρος

219. Ἀνδρόνεικος

220. Ἀντώνιος

221. Ἀπολλόδοτος

222. Ἀπολλώνιος

223. Ἀπολλώνιος

Σῖμος

Ἀπολλώνιος

ignotus

Μακεδών

Σάτυρος

Τίτος

Μάξιμος

Ἡρακλέων

Ἀλέξανδρος

Αἰμιλιανός

Πυθίων

Δαίσιος

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

lat.

lat.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Ταῦροι

γραμματεύς

ἱερεύς

dedication

dedication

decree

catalogue

dedication

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

decree

decree

decree

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

Dionysus

Dionysus Taurus/ Poseidon Taurus?

3rd c. BC

3rd c. BC

3rd c. BC

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

3rd c. BC

2nd–3rd c. AD

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Bizone

2

2

2

11

11

11

8

11

11

8

8

2

1

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

233. Ἀσκληπιάδης

234. Ἀσκληπιάδης

235. Ἀσκληπιάδης Ἰούλιος

236. Ἁφαιστίων

237. Βειτράσις

gr.

230. Ἀρτεμίδωρος

gr.

gr.

229. Ἀρτεμίδωρος

gr.

gr.

228. Ἁρμαγένης

231. Ἀσκλαπιόδωρος

gr.

227. Ἀρίστων

232. Ἀσκληπιάδης

gr.

gr.

225. Ἀπολλώνυμος

gr.

224. Ἀπολλώνιος

226. Ἀρίστων

On.

Person

Nr.

Πάρις

Σκύθας

Ὑγιαίνων

Ἱερώνυμος

Θεόδωρος

Ἀπολλόδοτος

Διονύσιος

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Δαμοφῶν

ignotus

Εὐπρέπης

Σάτυρος

[---]κος

Relations1

gr.

etn.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

?

On.

Οἱ περὶ [---]

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Θοινᾶται

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Οἱ περὶ [---]

Association

ἔκδικος

Position2

decree

dedication

dedication

decree

building inscription

Type inscr.

?

Dionysus

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

Dionysus

dedication

decree

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

decree

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Dionysus

?

[Artemis?]

Dionysus

?

Divinity

AD 199–211

3rd c. BC

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

3rd c. BC

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. BC

3rd c. BC

AD 238–244

3rd c. BC

3rd c. AD

Dating

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Origin

10

2

8

8

8

8

2

11

11

2

3

8

2

9

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

249. Διονύσιος

251. Διόφαντος

gr.

248. Διονύσιος

250. Διονυσόδωρος

gr.

247. Διονύσιος

gr.

Δαμάτριος

gr.

gr.

245. Διόδωρος

246. Διονύσιος

lat.

Λούκιος

gr.

Ἀνδρόμαχος

Ἰταλικός

Καλχάδων

Καλλίστρατος

Διονύσιος

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Διονύσιος

244. Δημήτριος

Δαμάτριος

lat.

gr.

lat.

241. Γερμανός

Κόϊντος

gr.

gr.

lat.

240. Γάϊος

Ἀγήνωρ

gr.

242. Δαμάτριος

lat.

239. Γάϊος

Διοσκουρίδης

243. Δαμοσθένης

gr.

238. Βίκων

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Βακχικὸς θίασος

οἰκοδομησεῖν τὸν ναόν

**φιλότιμος, **φιλόδοξος

decree

decree

decree

dedication

decree

dedication

decree

decree

dedication

dedication

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

Dionysus

Dionysus

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

Dionysus

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Dionysus

Dionysus

–

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Dionysus

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

3rd c. BC

3rd c. BC

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

AD 12–15

2nd c. AD

3rd c. BC

3rd c. BC

1st c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. BC

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

11

8

2

2

8

8

2

11

2

2

1

11

11

2

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

261. Ἥλιος

262. Ἥλιος

263. Ἥλιος

264. Ἡρέας

ir.

260. Ἥλιος

gr.

Πρωτόπολις

Φαρνάκης

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

256. Εὐφραῖος

257. Ζώπυρος

258. Ζώπυρος

gr.

255. Εὐτυχιανός

259. Ἡλιόδωρος

gr.

Ἑστιαῖος

gr.

Δαμοφῶν

Κερεάλις

Σίννος

Ἥλιος

Ἥλιος

Σάτυρος

Ἀπολλοφάνης

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

254. Εὔβουλος

Ἡρακλέων

Ἀριστοκλῆς

On.

gr.

Relations1

lat.

On.

252. Δίων

Person

253. Δομίτιος

Nr.

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ [---]

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Association

Position2

building inscription

decree

Type inscr.

dedication

decree

decree

decree

dedication

Dionysus

decree

dedication Heracles Pharangeites

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

[Artemis?]

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

?

Dionysus

Divinity

3rd c. BC

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

3rd c. BC

3rd c. BC

3rd c. BC

AD 238–244

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. BC

Dating

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Origin

2

11

11

11

11

8

2

2

2

8

11

9

2

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

265. Ἡράκληος

266. Ἡρακλείδης Ὀπεραῖος

267. Ἡρακλέων

268. Ἡρακλέων

269. Ἡρακλέων

270. Ἡρακλέων

271. Ἡρακλέων

272. Ἡρέων Παννόνιος

273. Ἡρέων

274. Ἡρέων

275. Θεαγένης

Σάτυρος

Νουμήνιος

Ἰταλικός

Ἡρέων

Χρυσόγονος

Πύρσος

Κορνήλιος

Ἡράκληος

Γάϊος

Διονύσιος

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

lat.

gr.

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Θοινῆται οἱ περὶ εἱερέα Ἡρακλέοντα Πύρσου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

εἱερέα

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Heracles Alexikakos

[Artemis?]

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

2nd c. AD

1st c. AD

AD 238–244

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

2nd c. AD

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

11

8

8

8

11

5

8

11

11

8

11

gr.

283. Καλλίστρατος

lat.

gr.

282. Καλλίνεικος Βάλης

286. Κερεάλις

gr.

281. Καλανδίων

gr.

lat.

280. Ἰούλιος

gr.

lat.

279. Ἰουλιανός

284. Καλχάδων

gr.

278. [Θρα]συ[μ]ήδης

285. Κάρπος

gr.

277. Θεόδωρος

On.

gr.

Person

276. Θεόδωρος

Nr.

Ἥλιος

Σύντροφος

Διονύσιος

Καλλίστρατος

Φλάβιος

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

lat.

gr.

Σάτυρος

Τίτος

gr.

gr.

On.

Ἡρέων

Ἀσκληπιάδης

Relations1

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

ἔκδικος, **φιλότιμος κάλλιστος

dedication

dedication

decree dedication

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

Dionysus

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

dedication

[Artemis?]

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

Divinity

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

γραμματεύς

Position2

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Association

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

3rd c. BC

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

Dating

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Origin

11

8

2

11

8

8

8

11

11

8

8

Corpus

gr.

lat.

301. Ναύτιμος

gr.

gr.

296. Μενίσκος

297. Μένων

302. Νίγερ

gr.

295. Μενέφρων

sem.

gr.

294. Μᾶτρις

300. Ναυκασάμας

gr.

Ἱκέσιος

lat.

293. Μᾶρκος

gr.

lat.

292. Μᾶρκος

gr.

lat.

291. Λύκειος

298. Μῆνις

gr.

Ἀρίστων

gr.

290. Λαμπαδίων

299. Μοσχίων

gr.

gr.

Τίτος

Πασιάδας

ignotus

Ἡρακλείδες

Θεόφιλος

ignotus

Ἀντώνιος

Λεύκιος

ignotus

lat.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

?

lat.

gr.

?

gr.

Μῖκος

lat.

288. Κρατῖνος

289. Κριτόβουλος

Πύρσος

gr.

Σινους

lat.

287. Κόϊντος

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Τοὶ σύσσιτοι τοὶ Τιμώνακτος

Οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Θοινᾶται

dedication

decree

decree

dedication

dedication

decree

dedication

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Dionysus

–

Dionysus

–

Dionysus

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

?

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

dedication

dedication

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

?

[Artemis?]

decree decree

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

ἱερεύς

Dionysus

Dionysus

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Θοινᾶται

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

2nd c. AD

3rd c. BC

4th c. BC

1st c. AD

3rd c. BC

1st c. AD

3rd c. BC

2nd c. AD

3rd c. BC

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. BC

AD 238–244

3rd c. BC

3rd c. BC

2nd c. AD

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

11

2

21

1

2

1

2

11

3

11

11

3

8

2

2

11

gr.

gr.

Ὄλυμπος

Σωτήριχος

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Ἡρακλείδης

Προμαθίων

lat.

309. Πομπηϊανός

gr.

gr.? Διόδωρος

313. Ῥόνοικος

314. Σάτυρος

trc.

312. Ῥησιανός

Σάτυρος

Σάτριος

Ῥηγεῖνος

gr.

lat.

310. Προμαθίων

311. Ῥηγιλλιανός

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

308. Πανχάρις

Διονύσιος

gr.

gr.

306. Ὄλυμπος

307. Παννόνιος

gr.

305. Ὄλυμπος

Νουμήνιος

Ἱεροκλῆς

On.

gr.

Relations1

gr.

On.

303. Νοσσίων

Person

304. Νουμήνιος

Nr.

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Θοινᾶται τᾶς Δάματρος τᾶς Χθονίας

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Association

Position2

decree

decree

Type inscr.

decree

dedication

decree

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

Dionysus

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

Dionysus

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Demeter Chtonia

Dionysus

Divinity

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

3rd c. BC

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

3rd c. BC

2nd c. AD

1st c. BC

3rd c. BC

Dating

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Origin

11

8

11

8

2

8

8

8

2

11

4

2

Corpus

lat.

gr.

gr.

328. [---]καλος

329. Αἴλιος Ἀρχίας

gr.

324. Φίλων

327. Φρόντων

gr.

323. Φιλουμενός

?

gr.

322. Φίλιππος

lat.

gr.

321. Φιλεῖνος

326. Φρόντων

gr.

320. Ὑγιαίνων

325. Φίλ[---]

gr.

gr.

318. Σωσίβιος

319. Τιμῶναξ

gr.

gr.

316. Σῖμος

gr.

317. Σωκράτης

315. Σεραπίων Ζώσιμος

gr.

?

Σ[---]

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Καλλίστρατος

Διόφαντος

ignotus

Διοσκουρίδης

Μένιος

Ἀπολλώνιος

Φιλεῖνος

Ἡρέων

Πρωτόμαχος

Προμαθίων

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Θοινᾶται

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Θοινᾶται

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Τοὶ σύσσιτοι τοὶ Τιμώνακτος

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

ἱερεύς

**[εὐεργέτης]

founder?

γραμματεύς

decree

decree

dedication

dedication

decree

dedication

decree

dedication

dedication

decree

[Artemis?]

?

[Artemis?]

dedication

dedication

dedication

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

?

Dionysus

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

Dionysus

Dionysus

[Artemis?]

Dionysus

[Artemis?]

Dionysus

[Artemis?]

AD 238–244

3rd c. BC

AD 238–244

2nd c. AD

3rd c. BC

1st c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. BC

AD 14–37

AD 238–244

4th c. BC

3rd c. BC

AD 238–244

3rd c. BC

AD 238–244

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

8

3

8

11

3

2

11

2

2

8

21

2

8

2

8

lat.

lat.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

331. Αἴλιος Ἰουλιανός

332. Τίτος Αἴλιος Μινίκιος

333. Τίτος Αἴλιος Μινίκιος Ποῦδενς

334. Καικίλιος Τίμων

335. Ἑρέννιος Ἀπολινάρις

336. Μινίκιος Ἀθανέων

337. Μινίκιος Τρύφων

338. Πόπλιος Οὐαλέριος Χάρης

339. Φλάβιος Ἡρακλέων

On.

gr.

Person

330. Αἴλιος Ἡφαιστόδωρος

Nr.

Relations1 On.

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ παιρὶ {περὶ} εἱερέα Τ(ίτον) Αἴ(λιον) Μινίκιον

Οἱ παιρὶ {περὶ} εἱερέα Τ(ίτον) Αἴ(λιον) Μινίκιον

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Association

*βενεφικιάριος ὑπατικοῦ

*ποντάρχης τῆς Πενταπόλεως, ἱερεύς

Position2

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

?

?

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

Divinity

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

2nd c. AD

AD 161–180

AD 161–180

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

Dating

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Origin

11

8

8

8

8

11

7

7

8

8

Corpus

gr.

trc.

gr.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

340. Φλάβιος Ἡφαιστίων

341. Ῥήσιος Σάτριος

342. Τερέντιος Φίλων

343. ignota

344. ignotus

345. ignotus

346. ignotus

347. ignotus

348. ignotus

349. ignotus

350. ignotus

351. ignotus

352. ignotus

353. ignotus

gr.

gr. gr.

Δαμάτριος

Διοσκουρίδης

Μόνιμος

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

?

?

?

?

?

gr.

gr.

Ἀπολλώνιος

[---]αιών

gr.

Ἀπολλώνιος

– – – – – Dionysus

Οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος Οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος Οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος Οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος Οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος Βακχικὸς θίασος

?

?

–

Dionysus Bakcheus

decree

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

building inscription

dedication

dedication

dedication

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

–

προστάτης

γραμματεύς

ἱέρεια (Athena)

dedication

Heracles dedication Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

Οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος

Οἱ περὶ [---]

Οἱ παιρὶ {περὶ} εἱερέα Τ(ίτον) Αἴ(λιον) Μινίκιον

Οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

3rd c. BC

1st c. AD

1st c. AD

1st c. AD

1st c. AD

1st c. AD

1st c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 161–180

1st c. AD

1st c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

9

7

1

2

11

11

8

?

?

?

?

?

gr.

gr.

363. ignotus

364. ignotus

365. ignotus

366. ignotus

367. ignotus

368. Ἄκεσις

369. Ἀκορνίων

gr.

?

362. ignotus

372. Ἀλέξανδρος

?

361. ignotus

gr.

?

360. ignotus

gr.

?

359. ignotus

371. Ἀλέξανδρος

?

358. ignotus

370. Ἀλέξανδρος

?

?

356. ignotus

357. ignotus

?

?

354. ignotus

On.

Person

355. ignotus

Nr.

Ῥ[---]

Ἡρακλείδες

Ἀλέξανδρος

Λυσίμαχος

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

Relations1

– – –

Οἱ περὶ [---] Οἱ περὶ [---] Οἱ περὶ [---]

? ?

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

?

?

?

?

?

γυμνασίαρχος

ἀρχιδενδροφόρος

?

?

Cybele

Hero

Δενδροφόροι

Zeus, Hera

? Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

νομοφύλαξ

?

*φίλ[αρχος?]

Οἱ παιρὶ {περὶ} εἱερέα Τ(ίτον) Αἴ(λιον) Μινίκιον

– ?

[---] καὶ γραμματεύς

Οἱ περὶ [---] Οἱ παιρὶ {περὶ} εἱερέα Τ(ίτον) Αἴ(λιον) Μινίκιον

–

Οἱ περὶ [---]

[---] καὶ γυμνασίαρχος

–

Οἱ περὶ [---]

? [---] καὶ γραμματεύς

–

?

?

–

–

Οἱ περὶ [---]

Οἱ περὶ [---]

Dionysus

Βακχικὸς θίασος *ποντάρχης? **κοινοσώστης

Dionysus Dionysus

Divinity

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Position2

Βακχικὸς θίασος

Association

Οἱ περὶ [---]

?

?

?

?

On.

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

decree

decree

decree

Type inscr.

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

AD 138

AD 161–180

AD 161–180

AD 199–211

AD 199–211

AD 199–211

AD 199–211

AD 199–211

AD 199–211

AD 199–211

AD 199–211

AD 199–211

3rd c. BC

3rd c. BC

3rd c. BC

Dating

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Origin

21

18

1

8

23

7

7

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

2

2

2

Corpus

Ῥοῦφος

gr.

lat.

trc.

388. Βασιλίσκος

389. Βιτάλιος

390. Βουτίς

gr.

lat.

Ἡρόξενος

Ἀλέξανδρος gr.

gr.

lat.

Ἀθηνάδης

lat.

386. Αὐρήλιος

387. Βαλεριανός

Βαλέριος

gr.

Ἀλέξανδρος

lat.

gr.

lat.

Lal.? Λούκιος

384. Ἄττας

385. Αὐρήλιος

Lal.? Διοσκουρίδης

? gr.

ignotus

?

gr.

gr.

?

lat.

?

?

gr.

Εὐμένης

ignotus

Τείμων

Ἀσκληπιάδης

Ἰ[---]

Γάιος

ignotus

ignotus

383. Ἄττας

gr.

gr.

382. [Ἄτταλ]ος

gr.

378. Ἀρτεμίδωρος

381. Ἀσκληπιόδωρος

gr.

377. Ἀρίσταρχος

gr.

gr.

376. Ἀρείβαλος

gr.

gr.

375. Ἀπολλώνιος

380. Ἀσκληπιάδης

gr.

379. Ἀρτεμίδωρος

gr.

373. Ἀντίγονος

374. Ἀντίγονος

?

**φιλότιμος

?

*ἄρχων, *ἀγορανόμος, *πανηγυριάρχης, **φιλότιμος, *ταμίας

ἱερεύς ἱέρεια

Σπεῖρα Ῥωμαίων Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

Δενδροφόροι

?

Δενδροφόροι ἱερεύς

**φιλότιμος

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου Δενδροφόροι

γυμνασίαρχος

?

Θυμελικὴ σύνοδος

?

Hero

Dionysus?

Cybele

?

Cybele

Cybele

Hero

?

–

?

? Hero

?

Hero

Isis

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

Θίασος?/῾Ιεροναῦται

Hero

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

? Zeus, Hera

προστάτης τοῦ θιάσου

**φιλότιμος

?

?

catalogue

dedication

honorific

dedication

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

honorific

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

dedication

honorific

dedication

dedication

catalogue

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 150–180

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 138

2nd–3rd c. AD

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

8

9

1

13

1

1

8

18

10

14

8

21

8

3

8

23

20

18

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

404. Dionus

405. Δῖος

406. Διοσκουρίδης

407. Ἐπίστρατος

408. Ἑρμογένης

409. Ἑρμόδωρος

gr.

400. Δημήτριος

gr.

gr.

403. Διονύσις

gr.

398. Δημήτρις

399. Δημήτριος Θεόδωρος

gr.

gr.

gr.

396. Δημήτρις

397. Δημήτρις

gr.

ignotus

gr.

395. Δημῶναξ

402. Διονύσιος

gr.

Ἀμφιονίδης

Πάπας

gr.

401. Διονύσιος

gr.

Δημῶναξ

trc.

394. Δαμᾶς

Θεοδότος

Μᾶρκος

Ἐπίστρατος

Διοσκουρίδης

Ἀοταῖος

Ἑστιαῖος

Μᾶρκος

Δώτιος

Λυσίμαχος

Θεόδωρος

Λυσίμαχος

Ἑστιαῖος

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

un.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

393. Δάδας

Διονύσιος

trc.

On.

trc.

Ἄττας

Relations1

392. Δάδας

On.

gr.

Person

391. Γαληνός

Nr.

Δενδροφόροι

?

?

?

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

Dumus

?

?

Δενδροφόροι

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

?

Δενδροφόροι

?

Δενδροφόροι

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

?

?

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

Association

**φιλότιμος, γυμνασίαρχος

**φιλότιμος

νομοφύλαξ

ἱεροκῆρυξ

vixillarius (sic!)

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

**φιλότιμος

**φιλότιμος

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

Position2

Cybele

?

?

?

Hero

[Cybele?/ Anahita?]

?

?

Cybele

Hero

?

Cybele

?

Cybele

Hero

Hero

?

?

Hero

Divinity

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

Type inscr.

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 199–201

3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

Dating

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Origin

1

13

18

18

8

2

13

13

1

8

21

13

13

1

8

8

18

13

8

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

425. Θεόδωρος

427. Θεόδωρος

428. Θεόδωρος

429. Θρασυμήδης

430. Θρασυμήδης

431. Ἵλαρος

432. Ἰουλιανός

gr.

424. Θεόδωρος

426. Θεόδωρος

gr.

423. Θεόδωρος

gr.

419. Θεόδοτος

gr.

gr.

418. Θεόδοτος

422. Θεόδωρος

un.

Κουθίας

gr.

417. Θάλλος

gr.

gr.

416. Ἡφαιστόδωρος

gr.

gr.

415. Ἡφαιστίων

420. Θεάδων

gr.

414. Ἡρόξενος

421. Θεόδωρος

lat.

Μάγνος

gr.

Θρασυμήδης

Ἀπολλώνιος

Χρύσωμαχος

Θρασυμήδης

ignotus

Ῥοῦφος

Ποντιανός

Νεικόστροτος

Κυρήνιος

Θεόδωρος

Ἑστιαῖος

Ἐπικράτης

Κάλος

Ἀγάθων

Ἡφαιστόδωρος

Ἡρακλ[-ᾶς/-είδες]

Διοσκουρίδης

Θεοδότος

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

413. Ἡρακλείδης

Ἡρακλᾶς

Τόμος

gr.

gr.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

?

?

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

?

?

?

Lal.? Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

412. Ἡρακλᾶς

Ἄττας

411. Ἡρακλᾶς

gr.

410. Ἥλιος

**φιλότιμος

**φιλότιμος, ἀρχιερεύς?

**φιλότιμος

ἀρχιερεύς?

**φιλότιμος

ἀρχιερεύς?

**φιλότιμος διὰ βίου

συναγω[γεύς?]

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Hero

?

?

Hero

?

?

?

Hero

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

15

18

15

15

21

15

15

15

15

21

15

15

18

15

15

8

15

15

8

15

15

15

8

lat.

lat.

lat.

lat.

lat.

lat.

450. Μάρκιος

451. Μάρκιος

452. Μάρκιος

453. Μᾶρκος

454. Μᾶρκος

?

lat.

444. Λο[---]

445. Μαγνίων

lat.

lat.

lat.

442. Λονγεῖνος

443. Λονγεῖνος

449. Μαρκιανός

gr.

448. Μαρκιανός

lat.

Μεσσαλεῖνος

gr.

440. Λέων

441. Λέων

lat.

lat.

439. Κορνοῦτος Σαραπίων

lat.

gr.

438. Κρήσκης

446. Μάγνος

? un.

Ἀοταῖος

gr.

447. Μακρεῖνος

?

lat.

436. Κλημεντιανός

437. Κρήσκης

ignotus

Μᾶρκος

Διονύσιος

Διονύσιος

Διονύσιος

ignotus

ignotus

Προ[---]

Οὐάλης

ignotus

Ἐπίστρατος

ignotus

Κάθιος

Ἀνουβίων

?

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

?

?

lat.

?

gr.

?

?

gr.

eg.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

?

?

?

Οἶκος τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων

?

?

?

Οἶκος τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων

?

gr.

?

lat.

Association

435. Καρπίων

ignotus

Ἰουλιανός

On.

lat.

Relations1

lat.

On.

433. Ἰουλιανός

Person

434. Ἰοῦστος

Nr.

ἀρχιερεύς?

**φιλότιμος

νομοφύλαξ

**φιλότιμος

ἱερεύς

**δημοσώστης

**φιλότιμος

**φιλότιμος

ἱεροκῆρυξ

Position2

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Hero

?

?

?

?

?

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Sarapis, dedication Synnaoi theoi

?

?

?

Sarapis, dedication Synnaoi theoi

?

?

Divinity

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 160

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 160

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

Dating

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Origin

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

21

8

15

15

18

20

18

4

20

18

14

4

20

15

Corpus

?

gr.

gr.

475. Ποντικός

476. Ποσειδώνιος

Πάπας

Ἀλέξανδρος

ignotus

gr.

gr.

473. Πολλίων

474. Πολύμνις Λογγῖνος

Πολλίων

Ἡρόξενος

gr.

gr.

470. Πάπας

Ἀντώνιος

gr.

gr.

469. Πάπας

Οὐάλης

471. Πασώ

lat.

468. Οὐάλης

Λυσίμαχος

Μᾶρκος

Ἐπίστρατος

472. Πολλίων

gr.

gr.

466. Νεικόστρατος

467. Νουμήνιος

lat.

465. Νατάλιος

gr.

gr.

?

?

gr.

gr.

lat.

lat.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

Δ[---]

?

?

lat.

?

Lal. Θεάδων

gr.

463. Μύρων

464. Νάνα

gr.

462. Μύρων

ignotus

ignotus

Μα[---]

? ?

?

lat.

461. Μόδεστος Ποντικός

ignotus

ignotus

Χρ[---]

gr.

lat.

458. Μάξιμος

lat.

lat.

457. Μᾶρκος

460. Μεσσαλεῖνος

lat.

459. Μητρόδωρος

lat.

455. Μᾶρκος

456. Μᾶρκος

?

Δενδροφόροι

?

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

Οἶκος τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

founder?

Πασοῦς ἱερὸς θίασος Δενδροφόροι

ἔκδικος

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

**φιλότιμος

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

dedication

dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

?

Hero

catalogue

dedication

Sarapis, dedication Synnaoi theoi

Cybele

Cybele

Dionysus

Hero

Hero

?

Hero

?

Cybele **φιλότιμος

?

Cybele

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Δενδροφόροι

**φιλότιμος

μήτηρ δενδροφόρων

? ?

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

?

Δενδροφόροι

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 160

AD 198–201

AD 198–201

1st c. BC

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

13

8

4

1

1

6

8

8

18

8

1

18

1

15

15

15

21

21

15

16

15

15

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

484. Σεκούνδος

485. Σεραπίων

486. Σεραπίων

487. Ταυρικός

488. Τειμόθεος

489. Τίτος

490. Τούρβων

491. Φιδίας

492. Φιλοκλῆς

493. Φιλώτας

494. Χρῆστος

gr.

481. Ποσιδώνιος

lat.

gr.

483. Σεκούνδος

gr.

479. Ποσιδώνιος

480. Ποσειδώνις

482. Σκειπίων

gr.

gr.

On.

477. Ποσειδώνιος Πωπώνιος

Person

478. Ποσειδώνιος Πωπώνιος?

Nr.

Ἥλιος

Εὔβουλος

Χρῆστος

Διονύσιος

Δ[ιονύσιος]

Τίτος νεώτερος

Λυσίμαχος

Σεραπίων

Δάδας

Ἐπικράτης

Δημήτριος

Ποντικός

Δάης

Βαλέριος

ignotus

Relations1

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

trc.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

?

On.

?

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

Οἶκος τῶν ἐν Τόμει ναυκλήρων

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

Δενδροφόροι

Οἶκος τῶν ἐν Τόμει ναυκλήρων

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

?

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

?

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

Δενδροφόροι

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

?

?

Δενδροφόροι

Δενδροφόροι

Association

?

Hero

γραμματεύς **φιλότιμος

Hestia

Hero

Cybele

–

Hero

?

Hero

?

Hero

Hero

Cybele

Hero

?

?

Cybele

Cybele

Divinity

**φιλότιμος

**φιλότιμος

**φιλότιμος

ἱεροκῆρυξ

**φιλότιμος

?

ἱερεύς

**εὐεργέτης

Position2

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

honorific

dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

AD 139–161

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

AD 198–201

Dating

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Origin

18

8

5

8

1

5

8

15

8

18

8

8

1

8

13

20

1

1

Corpus

gr.

lat.

gr.

lat.

513. Αὐρήλιος Ὑγεῖνος

514. Αὐρήλιος Φρόντων

lat.

510. Aurelius Vitus

512. Αὐρήλιος Σευῆρος

lat.

509. Aurelius Valerianus

511. Αὐρήλιος Σεραπόδωρος

gr.

lat.

507. Caius Antonius Eutyches

lat.

506. Lucius Antonius Capito

508. Μᾶρκος Ἀντώνιος Μαρκιανός

?

?

504. Τίτος Αἴλιος [---]

lat.

503. Titus Ailius Pompeius

505. Αἴλιος [---]

gr.

502. Πούπλιος Αἴλιος Ἑρμέρως

gr.

499. Πουπλία Αἰλία Ὀλυμπία

gr.

gr.

498. Χρύσης

lat.

gr.

497. Χρύσης

500. Αἴλιος Ἀσκληπιάδης

gr.

496. Χρυσάων

501. Titus Ailius Barbario

gr.

495. Χρῆστος

Ποσειδώνιος

Χρύσης

Διονύσιος

(nat.) Γαῦκος, (ad.) Ἀχιλλᾶς

Νικίας

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

Δενδροφόροι

?

Δενδροφόροι

?

Dumus

?

[Δενδροφόροι]

?

?

?

?

Δενδροφόροι

?

?

Δενδροφόροι

?

?

Δενδροφόροι

Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

προστάτης

pater dumi

πατὴρ νόμιμος, ἱερεύς

archidendrophorus

ἔκγδικος

ἀρχιραβδουχῖσα

**φιλότιμος

**φιλότιμος

**φιλότιμος

?

Cybele

?

Cybele

Heros et Dominus

[Cybele?/ Anahita?]

Hecate Soteira

Attis

Heros et Dominus

?

Zeus, Hera

Heros et Dominus

Cybele

Heros et Dominus

?

Cybele

?

?

Cybele

Hero

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

funerary

dedication

dedication

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 138

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

17

1

14

1

24

2

25

1

24

17

23

24

1

24

18

1

18

18

1

8

gr.

lat.

lat.

gr.

529. Ἰούλιος Ποσειδώνιος

530. Ἰούλιος Φαυστεινιανός

531. Ἰούλιος Φλάβιος

532. Αὐρήλιος Ἰούλιος Χρυσόγονος

lat.

lat.

lat.

527. Ἰούλιος Νιγρεῖνος

528. Ἰούλιος Πακκατιανός

536. Caius Licinius Clemens

gr.

gr.

?

lat.

525. Ἰούλιος Λονγεῖνος νεώτερος

526. Γάϊος Ἰούλιος Νεικύλας

535. Μᾶρκος Κοκκήϊος Χρυσόγονος

? ?

lat.

524. Ἰούλιος Λονγεῖνος

gr.

? ?

lat.

523. Ἰούλιος Κρίσπος

lat.

?

gr.

533. [---] Ἰούλις Θεόδουλος

?

lat.

521. Ἰούλιος Ἰουλιανός

522. Αὐρήλιος Ἰούλιος Ἵστιος

534. Καλπούρνιος Φῆλιξ

?

gr.

gr.

519. Ἰούλιος Ἡρακλείδης

520. Ἰούλιος Ἡρακλείδης

?

?

[Μύσται?]

?

?

Δενδροφόροι

?

?

?

Δενδροφόροι

Δενδροφόροι

?

gr.

?

Δενδροφόροι

Association

gr.

lat.

On.

517. Ἰούλιος Ἐπίκτητος

Relations1

518. Ἰούλιος Ἐπίκτητος

gr.

lat.

On.

515. Αὐ․[—]ων Ἡλεις

Person

516. Caius Gabinius Modestus

Nr.

μυστάρχης

**κοινοσώστης

**φιλότιμος

Position2

Heros et Dominus

[Dionysus?]

?

?

Cybele

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Cybele

?

?

Cybele

?

?

Heros et Dominus

Cybele

Divinity

dedication

honorific

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

Dating

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Origin

24

12

14

15

1

15

15

15

15

15

21

15

15

15

1

15

21

1

15

15

24

1

Corpus

lat.

gr.

gr.

552. Τίτος Φλάουιος Εὐτύχης

553. Τίτος Φλάουιος Θαλάσσιος

557. Τίτος Φλάουιος Σαλλούστιος

gr.

551. Τίτος Φλάουιος Εὐτύχης

lat.

lat.

550. Flavia Nona

556. Τίτος Φλάουιος Σαλβιανός

Cybele

Δενδροφόροι

lat.

549. Papirius Celer

gr.

lat.

548. Fabius Paulinus

gr.

lat.

547. Vettius Ponticus

554. Φλάβιος Ἵστιος

Cybele Cybele

Δενδροφόροι Δενδροφόροι

lat.

546. Οὐαλέριος Σευῆρος νεώτερος

555. Φλάουιος Με[---]

Cybele

Δενδροφόροι

gr.

mater dumi

lat.

544. Οὐαλέριος Ἰουλιανός ?

Δενδροφόροι

Δενδροφόροι

?

Dumus

?

?

?

?

?

?

Cybele

Cybele

Zeus, Hera

[Cybele?/ Anahita?]

Heros et Dominus

Heros et Dominus

Heros et Dominus

?

?

?

?

545. Οὐαλέριος Πρεῖσκος

?

lat.

?

?

Heros et Dominus

?

Heros et Dominus

lat.

?

mater Romanorum

542. Μᾶρκος Τερεν[τιανός?]

?

?

?

?

?

543. Οὐαλέριος Δημήτριος

lat.

lat.

540. Μᾶρκος Τερεν[τιανός?]

541. Μᾶρκος Τερεν[τιανός?]

lat.

lat.

538. Μούννιος Λονγεῖνος

539. Cludius Secundus

lat.

537. Menia Iuliane

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

dedication

AD 198–201

AD 198–201

AD 138

AD 198–201

AD 198–201

AD 198–201

AD 198–201

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

1

1

23

1

1

1

1

2

24

24

24

14

14

14

14

15

15

15

24

15

24

?

?

579. ignotus

[---]λος

gr. gr.

Φαῖδρος

Φινίων

576. ignotus

?

?

?

574. ignotus

575. ignotus

?

lat.

Μᾶρκος

577. ignotus

gr.

Θεόδωρος

578. ignotus

?

573. ignotus

gr.

Ἑστιαῖος

gr.

?

572. ignotus

gr.

Διοσκουρίδης

Πάρμις

?

571. ignotus

gr.

Διονύσιος

?

?

570. ignotus

trc.

Δάδας

lat.

?

lat.

?

568. ignotus

569. ignotus

?

Ἀρ[---]

Οὐαλέριανος

?

567. ignotus

gr.

gr.

[---]κράτης (husband)

Πρίσκος

Οὐαλέριανος

?

?

565. [---]σιος

566. ignota

lat.

564. Ἀννιανος

lat.

Ἰουλιανός

?

lat.

562. [---]ος

563. [---]ος Λονγεῖνος

?

Αὐξα[---]

?

?

560. [---]άτορος

561. [---]ος

On.

gr.

Relations1

gr.

On.

558. Φλάβιος Σύμφορος

Person

559. Φλάουιος Φαῖδρος

Nr.

?

?

?

Πασοῦς ἱερὸς θίασος

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Οἶκος τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων

honorific

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

? ?

ἀρχιερεύς?

?

Dionysus

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Sarapis, dedication Synnaoi theoi

Isis

?

?

?

?

?

?

Zeus, Hera

Cybele

Divinity

**φιλότιμος

[ἱερεύς], ***owner of the shop?

**φιλότιμος

*ποντάρχης

ἱερεύς

συναγωγεύς

ἔκδικος

ἱερεύς?

ἱερεύς μήτηρ παστοφόρων

?

γραμματεύς

**φιλότιμος

Position2

Θίασος?/῾Ιεροναῦται

?

?

?

?

?

?

Δενδροφόροι

Association

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

1st c. BC

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd AD

AD 160

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 138

AD 198–201

Dating

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Origin

15

19

15

6

16

16

19

22

13

20

15

19

4

3

16

19

17

16

16

15

23

1

Corpus

[---]μος

gr.

gr.

lat.

lat.

lat.

598. Ἀθηνάδης

599. Ἀθηνάδης

600. Αἰλιανός

601. Αἴλιος

602. Αἴλιος

?

?

?

?

594. ignotus

595. ignotus

gr.

?

593. ignotus

596. ignotus

?

597. Ἀθηνάδης

?

?

Σω[---]

Μαρτεῖνος

Ηλεις (Ηλις)

Μόνιμος

Δαμάτριος

Αἰσχρίων

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus ?

?

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

?

?

?

?

592. ignotus

?

591. ignotus

ignotus

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

? ?

?

ignotus

? ?

589. ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

[---]νος

590. ignotus

?

588. ignotus

?

585. ignotus

?

?

584. ignotus

?

?

583. ignotus

586. ignotus

?

582. ignotus

587. ignotus

?

?

580. ignotus

581. ignotus

?

?

*ποντάρχης

μούσαρχος

**φιλότιμος, βιβλιοφύλαξ

**φιλότιμος

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Zeus, Hera

Zeus, Hera

Zeus, Hera

?

?

?

?

γραμματεύς *ποντάρχης

?

γραμματεύς **κοινο[σώστης]?

? ?

**φιλότιμος

?

προστάτης **δισφιλότιμος

?

?

**φιλότιμος

**φιλότιμος

? ?

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 161–169

2nd c. AD

AD 222–224

2nd c. AD

AD 138

AD 138

AD 138

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

3

11

3

14

3

12

23

23

23

15

15

22

22

22

18

21

20

20

20

19

22

21

15

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

615. Ἀπολλώνιος

616. Ἀπφοῦς

617. Ἀραβιανός

618. Ἀριστίδης

619. Ἀρτεμίδωρος

620. Ἀρτεμίδωρος

621. Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Κάρπος

Ε[---]

Ἀντιγένης

Ἀραβιανός

Ἀπφοῦς

gr.

?

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Ἀσκληπιόδωρος

gr.

gr.

612. Ἄνδρων

613. Ἀντίοχος

?

gr.

611. Ἀμω[---]

614. Ἀπολλώνιος

lat.

Λονγείνος

gr.

gr. ?

lat.

gr.

gr.

lat.

On.

609. Ἀλέξανδρος

ignotus

Λούκιος

Κόρινθος

Αἰσχρίων Τελέστου

Αἰλιανος

Relations1

610. Ἀλέξανδρος

gr.

lat.

606. Ἀκυλενός Λουκίφερ

gr.

gr.

605. Αἰσχρίων

607. Ἀλέξανδρος

gr.

608. Ἀλέξανδρος

lat.

On.

603. Αἰμίλιος

Person

604. Αἰσχρίων

Nr.

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

?

?, Δενδροφόροι

?

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

Association

προστάτης

**φιλότιμος

εὔθυνος

ἱερεύς

Position2

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

?

?, Cybele

?

?

?

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

Divinity

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue, dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 218/219

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD, AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Dating

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros, Tomis

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Origin

3

8

14

3

11

3

9

12

11

11, 1

8

9

9

3

11

3

3

12

11

Corpus

lat.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

628. Βάρβαρος

629. Γαῦκος

630. Γαῦκος

631. Γλύκων

632. Γλύκων

633. Γλύκων

634. Δημήτριος

635. Δημήτριος

636. Δημοκράτης

637. Δημοσθένης

638. Δημοχάρης

639. Διογένης

640. Διογένης

gr.

625. Ἀχιλλεύς

lat.

gr.

624. Ἀρτεμίδωρος

626. Βαλεντεῖνος

gr.

623. Ἀρτεμίδωρος

627. Βαλέριος

gr.

622. Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Ζωίλος

῎Απφος

Γρήγορος

ignotus

Θεαγένης

Δομετιανός

Δαμάτριος

Πίστος

Γλύκων

Γλύκων

Πρόκλος

Γαῦκος

Τειμύλος

Ἥλιος

Κάστος

Ἀχιλλᾶς

ignotus

Φαῖδρος

Μαρκιανός

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

?

gr.

lat.

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων, Δενδροφόροι

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

εὔθυνος

μούσαρχος

πατήρ

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

?

?

Dionysus, Cybele

?

Dionysus

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

AD 161–169

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 222–224

AD 222–224

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 198–201, AD 218/219, AD 222–224

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 222–224

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros, Tomis

Istros

Istros

Istros

3

14

12

13

13

3

3

3, 13

3

3, 13

3

11

114

11

11

3, 1

8

14

3

gr.

gr.

651. Εὐξενίδης

656. Ἥλις

gr.

650. Εὐάρεστος

gr.

gr.

649. Ἑρμόδωρος

655. Ἡλιόδωρος

gr.

648. Ἑκαταῖος

gr.

lat.

647. Δομέτις

654. Ἡγησαγόρας

gr.

646. Διονυττᾶς

gr.

gr.

645. Διονύσιος

trc.

gr.

644. Διονύσιος

653. Ζιπᾶς

gr.

643. Διονύσιος

652. Εὐξείνιος

gr.

642. Διονύσιος

On.

gr.

Person

641. Διογένης

Nr.

Νουμήνιος

Ἡλιόδωρος

ignotus

Διοκκῆς

ΛΙ[---]

Εὐ[---]

Οὔλπιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Εὐξενίδης

Λούκιος

Πίστος

ignotus

Π[---]

Μοιρόδωρος

Αἰσχρίων

Κάρπος

Relations1

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

?

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

?

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

On.

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Ὑμνῳδοί νεώτεροι οἱ περὶ τὸν μέγαν θεὸν Διόνυσον

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Association

ἱερεύς

*ποντάρχης, προστάτης

προστάτης

προστάτης

Position2

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

?

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Divinity

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

dedication

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

Type inscr.

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 161–169

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 215

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 222–224

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Dating

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Origin

3, 13

3

8

3

8

8

13

3

6

3, 13

3, 14

8

3

3

14

3

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

672. Καλλέας

673. Καλλίνεικος

674. Καλλίστρατος

lat.

669. Ἰούλιος

671. Καλανδίων

lat.

668. Ἰουλιανός

670. Ἱππόλοχος

lat.

667. Ἰουλιανός

gr.

663. Θεόφιλος

lat.

gr.

662. Θεοκλῆς

666. Ἰνγένους

gr.

661. Θεόδωρος

gr.

gr.

660. Ἡρόδωρος

gr.

gr.

659. Ἡράκων

664. Θεόφιλος

gr.

658. Ἡρακλείδης

665. Ἱλαρίων

gr.

657. Ἡρακλείδης

Κάρπος

Ἡρακλιανός

Δορυφόρος

Γλύκων

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

Ἀλέξανδρος

Σίννος

Λούκιος

Ἀλέξανδρος

ignotus

Νεικήρατος

Κάρπος

Δημήτριος

Λ[---]

Ἥλιος

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

?

?

gr.

lat.

lat.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Cybele

προστάτης

προστάτης

προστάτης

Dionysus

?, Δενδροφόροι

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

2nd c. AD

AD 222–224

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 198–202

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd–3rd AD, AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros, Tomis

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

3, 13

3

3, 13

11

8

3

13

3

3

15, 1

9

3

3

3, 13

3

14

14

3

lat. lat.

Κοΐντος

Ῥωμανός

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

lat.

681. Κερκίων

682. Κησέρνιος

683. Κλείτων

684. Κοΐντος

gr. gr.

Ἄνδρων

Ἡρακλείδης

lat.

gr.

trc.

trc.

lat.

gr.

lat.

lat.

688. Κόρος

689. Κουθιούρας

690. Λίλλεις

691. Λούκιος

692. Λυσίμαχος

693. Μακρεῖνος

694. Μακρεῖνος

Γαῦκος

Ἀλέξανδρος

Θεόδωρος

Φαρνάκης

Μᾶρκος

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

lat.

lat.

687. Κορβούλων

Δομετιανός

lat.

lat.

685. Κοΐντος

lat.

gr.

gr.

686. Κοκκήϊος

ignotus

Ῥωμανός

Κόρινθος

Εὔνοστος

lat.

lat.

gr.

680. Κερκᾶς

Τερτιος

Πονπήιος

Νυμφιδιανός

gr.

lat.

lat.

677. Κάστος

Ἀπολλόδωρος

gr.

lat.

gr.

676. Κάρπος

Κάρπος

On.

678. Κάστος

gr.

675. Καλπούρνιος

Relations1

679. Κάστος

On.

Person

Nr.

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Association

**φιλότιμος

μεσόχορος

προστάτης

προστάτης

Position2

?

Dionysus

?

?

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

?

?

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Divinity

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

dedication

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

Type inscr.

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 161–169

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Dating

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Origin

11, 13

3

11

11

15

9

3

3, 13

3

13

3, 13

13

11

14

14

11

11

11

3

3

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Lal. Ἀναξιμένης

Πίστος

lat.

gr.

Lal. Ἀνθᾶς

697. Μαξιμίνα

698. Μάξιμος

699. Μειδίας

700. Μεννύλος

701. Μοιρόδωρος

702. Μόνιμος

703. Μόνιμος

704. Μόνιμος

705. Νείκανδρος

706. Νεικήρατος

707. Νεικίας ὁ καὶ Μάρκος

708. Νεῖλων

709. Νεῖλων

710. Νουμήνις

711. Πανκράτης

712. Πάπας

713. Πάπας

714. Παπίας

Μάγνος

Ζεισκεαγις

Θεόδωρος

Συνέκδημος

Ξενοχάρης

Οὐαλέριος

Ἕρμιππος

Νείκιππος

ignotus

Πίστος

Ἀπελλᾶς

Ἡγησαγόρας

Χρύσιον

ignotus

Μόνιμος

Σίσυς

Διονυττᾶς, son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος

lat.

lat.

695. Μαρκιανός

696. Μᾶρκος

?

gr.

gr.

dac.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

trc.

gr.

lat.

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

γραμματεὺς διὰ βίου

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 198–202

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 222–224

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 198–202

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 161–169

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

3, 13

3, 13

3

12

3, 13

11

11

15

3

12

13

12

3

12

3, 13

3

14

9

3

14

lat. gr.

Κόϊντος

Ἀπρωνιανος

lat.

724. Ῥωμανός

lat.

gr.

gr.

730. Τέρτις

731. Φίλιππος

732. Φίλιππος

lat.

Λεπίδους

gr.

gr.

728. Σωσίας

729. Τειμοκλῆς

?

Πατης

?

Φίλιππος

῾Ιερόνομος

Διονύσιος

Ἀνθᾶς

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

727. Σουσουλων

Κάστος

gr.

lat.

725. Σεραπίων

gr.

726. Σουλπικιανός

Φοῖβος

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

Μέμνων

Ἑρμόδωρος

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

gr.

gr.

723. Ῥοῦφος

gr.

720. Πολύτειμος

Διόδοτος

Γρήγορος

gr.

gr.

719. Πολύστρατος

gr.

gr.

gr.

718. Πολυαίνετος

Γλύκων

lat.

gr.

On.

721. Ποντικός

gr.

717. Πίστος

Παῦλος

Πωλλίων

Relations1

722. Πωλλίων

gr.

lat.

715. Παρθενοπαῖος

On.

Person

716. Παῦλος

Nr.

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

?

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

?

?

Dionysus

προστάτης

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

?

Divinity

Dionysus

προστάτης

Position2

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

Association

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Dating

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Origin

3

13

3

3, 13

10

12

11

11

3

3

3

11

3

3, 13

12

3

11

11

Corpus

gr.

lat.

lat.

lat.

lat.

745. Αἴλιος Εὔτυχος

746. Τίτος Αἴλιος Μιν[---]

747. Μᾶρκος Αἴλιος Νίγερ

748. Μᾶρκος Αἴλιος Οὐαλέριανος

749. Αἴλιος Ῥοῦφος

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

742. Πόπλιος Αἴλιος Ἑρμερινός

743. Αἴλιος Ἑρμῆς

gr.

741. Αἴλιος Ἐλευθερίων

744. Αἴλιος Ἑρμογένης

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

gr.

740. Πόπλιος Αἴλιος Ἑκαταίος

Διοσκουρίδης gr.

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Dionysus

Dionysus

μεσόχορος, προστάτης

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Poseidon Heliconius

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

ἱερεὺς διὰ βίου, *ποντάρχης ἀπὸ πατρός

ἀρχιερεύς

προστάτης

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων,?

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων,?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

?

739. Αἴλιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Νέστωρ

Χρύσης

Παπίας

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

736. Χαιρήμων

Ξενοχάρης

Ζουρης

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

gr.

gr.

735. Χαιρέας

?

737. Χρυσιανός

gr.

734. Χαιρέας

ignotus

738. Χρυσίων

lat.

733. Φλάβιος

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic, catalogue

dedication

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic, catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 212–250

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 222–224

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 198–202

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

3

3

3, 13

2

3

3

13

3

11

3

3

3, 13

11

3

11

12

3

gr.

lat.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

751. Πόπλιος Αἴλιος [Ἀρτεμίδωρος]

752. Αὐρήλιος Αἰλιανός

753. Αὐρήλιος Ἀλέξανδρος

754. Αὐρήλιος Ἄμανδος

755. Αὐρήλιος Ἀριστοκράτης

756. Αὐρήλιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος

757. Αὐρήλιος Βίκτορ

758. Αὐρήλιος Γρήγορος

759. Αὐρήλιος Διογένης

760. Αὐρήλιος Διονύσιος

761. Αὐρήλιος Διονυσόδωρος

762. Αὐρήλιος Ἑρμάφιλος

763. Αὐρήλιος Ηλεις (Ηλις)

On.

gr.

Person

750. Αἴλιος Τειμοθῆς

Nr.

Ηλεις (Ηλις)

Διονύσιος

Διονύσιος

Τρύφων

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Κάστος

Ἀριστοκράτης

Ἀριστοκράτης

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Ηλεις (Ηλις)

Ηλεις (Ηλις)

Φαιδρίας

Relations1

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

On.

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων, Δενδροφόροι

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Association

μεσόχορος, χοροστάτης

προστάτης

ἱερασάμενος

ἀγωνοθέτης

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

ἀρχιδενδροφόρος

προστάτης

Position2

Dionysus

Poseidon Heliconius

Poseidon Heliconius

Dionysus

Poseidon Heliconius

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus, Cybele

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Divinity

agonistic

dedication

dedication

agonistic

dedication

agonistic

dedication

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

dedication, agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

Type inscr.

AD 222–224

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 222–224

AD 212–250

AD 222–224

AD 218/219

AD 222–224

AD 222–224

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201, AD 222–224

AD 222–224

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Dating

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros, Tomis

Istros

Istros

Istros

Origin

3

2

2

3

2

3

3

3

3

15

3, 1

3

3

3

Corpus

lat.

lat.

gr.

778. Γάϊος Οὐαλέριος Οὐάλης

779. Γάϊος Οὐαλέριος Πρόκλος

780. Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος gr.

?

gr.

lat.

776. [Μέ]σσιος Ἡρακλᾶς

lat.

775. Λούκιος Βρουτιος

777. Μέσσιος Κορνήλιος

?

gr.

774. Τίτος Κομινίος Εὐξενίδης

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων,?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

?

lat.

lat.

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

lat.

Σέξτος

gr.

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων, Δενδροφόροι

773. Ἰούλιος Μάσκμος

gr.

769. Βίρριος Λέων

Ηλεις (Ηλις)

gr.

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

772. Ἰούλιος Γεμελλεῖνος

gr.

768. Αὐρήλιος Σατουρνεῖλος

Ἑ[ρμοδώρος]

lat.

?

gr.

gr.

767. Αὐρήλιος Ποντικός

Κρατίνος

gr.

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

lat.

gr.

766. Αὐρήλιος Ποντιανός

Ἀσκληπιάδης

gr.

771. Κλαύδιος Σέξτος

lat.

765. Αὐρήλιος Οὔλπιος

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

770. Κλαύδιος Δημήτρις

lat.

764. Αὐρήλιος Μαρκιανός

*πρῶτος ποντάρχης, **υἱὸς τῆς πόλεως, προστάτης

γραμματεύς

*ποντάρχης, προστάτης

*ποντάρχης, ἱερασάμενος

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Poseidon Heliconius

Dionysus

Dionysus, Cybele

Poseidon Heliconius

Poseidon Heliconius

agonistic, dedication

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic, catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

agonistic

dedication, agonistic

dedication

catalogue

dedication

2nd c. AD, AD 222–224

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 212–250

AD 222–224

AD 198–201, AD 222–224

AD 212–250

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 212–250

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros, Tomis

Istros

Istros

Istros

3

3

13

3, 13

13

11

3

3

15

15

15

2

3

3, 1

2

15

2

agonistic

?

lat.

gr.

lat.

796. Φλάουιος Ἁδριανός

797. Φλάουιος Διογένης

798. Φλάουιος Ἰουκουνδος

?

?

lat.

794. Μᾶρκος Σαιτ[---]

lat.

793. [---] Οὔλπιος [---]

795. Σητώνιος Ῥεστιτοῦτος

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

lat.

792. Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Σαβεινιανος

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

gr.

lat.

790. Οὔλπιος Πολύτειμος

791. Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Πραίσης

προστάτης

προστάτης

προστάτης

catalogue

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

? Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

lat.

lat.

788. Οὔλπιος Μᾶρκος νεώτερος

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

dedication

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

789. Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Οὐαλέριανος

Dionysus

Dionysus

gr.

προστάτης

προστάτης

787. Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Καλλίστρατος

?

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

agonistic

catalogue

Type inscr.

lat.

gr.

? Dionysus

Divinity

? προστάτης

Position2

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Association

lat.

gr.

784. Οὔλπιος Ἡλιόδωρος

Αρτεμᾶς

On.

785. Οὔλπιος Ἰανουάρις

gr.

783. Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Δημήτριος

Relations1

786. Οὔλπιος Ἰγγένης

?

lat.

On.

781. Οὔλπιος Ἀττι[---]

Person

782. Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Γερμανικος

Nr.

AD 218/219

AD 222–224

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 198–202

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

Dating

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Origin

3

3

14

3, 13

13

3

3

3

13

3

14

3

14

13

13

3

3

8

Corpus

?

?

?

?

815. ignotus

816. ignotus

817. ignotus

?

812. ignota

?

?

811. [---]ς

813. ignota

?

814. ignota

gr.

809. [---]τογένης

810. [---]ς

gr. gr. gr.

Ἀθηνάδης

Ἀλέξανδρος

Ἀρτεμίδωρος

? ?

ignotus

ignotus

?

lat.

Ῥοῦφος

ignotus

gr. gr.

Μοιρόδωρος

Φίλιππος

lat.

?

808. [---]νος

Γερμανός

?

807. [---]ισιας

gr.

?

806. [---]ιος

gr.

?

805. [---]νικον

Πεισίθεος

?

804. [---]ς Ἐπαφρόδιτος

Χρυσίων

gr.

gr.

lat.

802. Φούλβιος Δέκμος

803. Φούλβιος Τελέσφορος

Ἀνθεστήριος

?

lat.

801. Φλάουιος Σεουῆρος

Ὑμνῳδοί νεώτεροι οἱ περὶ τὸν μέγαν θεὸν Διόνυσον

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

ἀγωνοθέτης

προστάτης

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

? ?

ἱέρεια ἱέρεια

?

?

Dionysus

ἀρχιέρεια

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Dionysus

Poseidon Taurus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

**[εὐεργέτης]

προστάτης

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Ταυρεασταί

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

? Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

lat.

800. Τίτος Φλάουιος Οὔλπιος

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

lat.

799. Φλάουιος Λονγεινιανός

dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

honorific

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

agonistic

AD 215

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 198–202

AD 222–224

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. BC

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 218/219

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 222–224

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

6

10

3

10

10

3

3

13

13

3

13

13

4

13

3

13

3

15

3

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

825. ignotus

826. ignotus

827. ignotus

828. ignotus

829. ignotus

830. ignotus

831. ignotus

832. ignotus

833. ignotus

?

?

?

822. ignotus

823. ignotus

?

821. ignotus

824. ignotus

?

?

819. ignotus

?

818. ignotus

820. ignotus

On.

Person

Nr.

gr.

Ξένανδρος

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

?

?

?

?

gr.

gr.

Ῥογᾶτος

[---]ος

gr. gr.

Μέμνων

Μενεκράτης

gr. lat.

gr.

Καλλικλῆς

Κάλλιστος

lat.

Ἰουκοῦνδος

Λούκιος

gr. gr.

Δημοσθένης

Διογένης

trc.

On.

Δάδας

Relations1

Dionysus Dionysus

ἱερεύς ἀγωνοθέτης προστάτης **[εὐεργέτης]

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων Ταυρεασταί

Poseidon Taurus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Dionysus

Ὑμνῳδοί νεώτεροι οἱ περὶ τὸν μέγαν θεὸν Διόνυσον

?

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

?

Dionysus

Divinity

Dionysus

ἀρχιμύστης

Position2

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Association

honorific

agonistic

agonistic

?

agonistic

?

dedication

agonistic

catalogue

?

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

Type inscr.

2nd c. BC

AD 222–224

AD 222–224

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–202

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 215

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 198–202

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 198–202

Dating

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Origin

4

3

3

3

3

3

6

3

10

3

10

3

3

7

10

3

Corpus

?

?

?

?

?

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

839. ignotus

840. ignotus

841. ignotus

842. ignotus

843. ignotus

844. ignotus

845. Ἀρρενείδης

846. Δημήτριος

847. Δημώνασσα

848. Εὐμένης

849. Εὑρησίβιος

850. Εὑρησίβιος

851. Ἡραγόρης

852. Ἡροσῶν

?

?

837. ignotus

838. ignotus

?

?

835. ignotus

836. ignotus

?

834. ignotus

Φιλόξενος gr.

gr.

gr.

Λεωκράτης

Πραξαγόρας

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Εὑρησίβιος

Λεωκράτης

Λήναιος

Σωκράτης

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

[ἀρχιμ]ύστης

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Βορεικοὶ θιασῖται

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

?

Βορεικοὶ θιασῖται

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

?

Apollo Boreas

Zeus Soter

Zeus Soter

Zeus Soter

Zeus Soter

Dionysus [Zagreus?]

Apollo Boreas

Zeus Soter

Dionysus

?

**φιλότιμος

?

γυμνασιάρχης

**φιλότιμος

?

?

? ?

ἱερεύς ἱερεύς **φιλότιμος

? ?

ἱερεύς ἱερεύς

Dionysus

γραμματεύς

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

orphic + catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

funerary

orphic + catalogue

dedication

unknown

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

4th/3rd c. BC

4th c. BC

4th c. BC

4th c. BC

4th c. BC

ca. 500 BC

4th/3rd c. BC

4th c. BC

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

1

2

2

2

2

5

1

2

3

7

7

7

10

10

10

10

10

10

3

On.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Person

853. Καλλίνικος

854. Λήναιος

855. Λεωκράτης

856. Λεωπρέπης

857. Πολύδημος

858. Πολυκράτης

859. Πολυμήδης

860. Πολυμέδων

861. Πολύστρατος

862. Πολύχαρμος

863. Ποσιδώνιος

864. Συρίσκος

865. Φίλων

866. Δημοκράτης

867. Ἀγαθοῦς

868. Ἀρίστων

Nr.

Δαμᾶς

Αὐτόνομος

Ἀριστογένης

Σωκράτης

Εὑρησίβιος

Σωκράτης

Λεωκράτης

Λεωκράτης

Λεωκράτης

Λεωκράτης

Λεωκράτης

Λεωκράτης

Εὑρησίβιος

Ἱ[---]

Δήμοκλος

Φιλόνικος

Relations1

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

On.

?

?

Θίασος

Βορεικοὶ θιασῖται

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

Βορεικοὶ θιασῖται

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

Apollo Boreas

Zeus Soter

Apollo Boreas

Zeus Soter

Zeus Soter

Zeus Soter

Zeus Soter

Zeus Soter

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

Zeus Soter

Zeus Soter

Dionysus [Zagreus?]

Apollo Boreas

Divinity

Zeus Soter

*πρόεδρος, *ἄρχων

Position2

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

[῾Ι]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

?

Βορεικοὶ θιασῖται

Association

catalogue

catalogue

honorific

orphic + catalogue

dedication

orphic + catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

funerary

orphic + catalogue

Type inscr.

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

4th/3rd c. BC

4th c. BC

4th/3rd c. BC

4th c. BC

4th c. BC

4th c. BC

4th c. BC

4th c. BC

4th c. BC

4th c. BC

4th c. BC

ca. 500 BC

4th/3rd c. BC

Dating

Theodosia

Theodosia

Chersonesus

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Olbia

Origin

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

5

1

Corpus

gr.

ir.

lat.

gr.

891. Ποτηγοῦς

892. Ῥαδάμειστος

893. Ῥοῦφος

894. Τρύφων

883. Ἥλιος

gr.

gr.

882. Εὐροψάτιος

gr.

gr.

881. Εὔοδος

890. Πόθος

gr.

880. Εὔμ[ηλος?]

889. Πόθος

gr.

879. Εὐκράτης

gr.

gr.

878. Εὔδαμος

888. Πάτειρος

gr.

877. Ἔρως

gr.

gr.

876. Δροῦσος

887. Πάππος

lat.

875. Δημήτριος

gr.

gr.

874. Δημήτριος

886. Πάππος

gr.

873. Δημήτριος

?

gr.

872. Δαδοῦς

gr.

trc.

871. Δάδας

885. Μήνιος

trc.

870. Δάδας

884. Θ[---]

gr.

trc.

869. Ἀχαιμένης

Δαδαῖος

Ῥοῦφος

Δάδας

Ἀπαντε[---]

ignotus

Ψυχαρίων

Θεόφιλος

ignotus

ignotus

Τόκων

Θεώνυμος

Ποσίδεος

Χαρίτων

Δημήτριος

Ἀθηνόδωρος

Πάππος

Δάδας

Δημήτριος

Ἀτήθυος

ignotus

Ψυχαρίων

Καρδίους

Τειμοκρέτης

Εὐχάριστος

Ἀπολλώνιος

Ὀμψάλακος ir.

gr.

lat.

trc.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

?

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Lal.

trc.

gr.

ir.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

906. Ἀθήναιος

907. Ἀθηνῆς

908. Ἀθήνιος

909. Αἴλιος

910. Ἀλέξανδρος

911. Ἄλκιμος

912. Ἄλκιμος

?

902. ignotus

gr.

gr.

901. Ψυχαρίων

905. Ἀγαθόπους

gr.

900. Χωνδίακος

gr.

gr.

899. Χρύσιππος

trc.

gr.

898. Χρηστοῦς

904. Παιρίσαλος

gr.

897. Φορμίων

903. Εὐδᾶς

ir.

gr.

896. Φίδας

On.

Person

895. Φαρνακίων

Nr.

ignotus

Ἀντώνιος

Ἀλέξανδρος

Βιοσ[---]

Τρύφων

Ἀθήναιος

?

lat.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

ir.

?

Θερωνα[---]

Κοσοῦς

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

On.

Ἀπολλώνιος

Ἀσκληπᾶς

Χρύσιππος

Νουμήνιος

Ἄρδαρος

Φάδσιος

Παπίας

Relations1

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Συνοδεῖται

Συνοδεῖται

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Association

ἐπιμήνιος

*πρὶν ἐπ[ὶ] [τῆς π] ινακ(ίδος?)

παραφιλάγαθος

φιλάγαθος

Position2

funerary

funerary

dedication

funerary

funerary

funerary

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

Zeus, Hera

–

Divinity

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 82

AD 204

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

Dating

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Cimmericum

Cimmericum

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Theodosia

Origin

11

11

11

11

8

8

2

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

ir.

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

917. Ἀντισθένης

918. Ἀντισθένης

919. Ἀράθης

920. Ἄρατος

921. Ἀρδάρακος

922. Ἄρδαρος

923. Ἄρδαρος

924. [Ἀ]ρι[σ]τ[ίω]ν

925. Ἀριστίων

926. Ἀριστόδημος

927. Ἀρίστων

Καλλισθένης

Θεότειμος gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Πανκλεῖς

gr.

sem.

gr.

Πόθος

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Θιεσεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

dedication

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

Θιεσεῖται

Θιεσεῖται

Zeus, Hera

Zeus, Hera

dedication

dedication

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

ἐπιμήνιος

Zeus, Hera Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

παραφιλάγαθος

ἐπιμήνιος

φιλάγαθος

πατήρ

φιλάγαθος

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Lal. Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

gr.

gr.

Θεόφιλος

Εὔϊος

Σαμβίων

Πάππος

Ποσείδεος

Ἡρακλείδης

gr.

Χαρίτων

gr.

915. Ἀντίμαχος

916. Ἀντισθένης

Ἀλέξανδρος

gr.

Παπίας

gr.

?

914. Ἀντᾶς

[---]

?

913. Ἀνιτ[---]

AD 82

AD 82

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 221

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

AD 210

AD 275–279

AD 204

AD 275–279

AD 82

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

2

2

11

11

10

11

11

9

10

11

10

11

2

11

11

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

lat.

933. Ἀχαιμένης

934. Βαδά[κ]ης

935. Βάνας?

936. Βαρβαρίων

937. Βάρ[βαρ]ος

938. Βασιλείδης

939. Βασιλίσκος

940. Βίων

941. Γάϊος

942. Γάϊος

Lal. Τρύφων

931. Ἄττας

932. Ἀχαιμένης

gr.

930. Ἀρίστων

Κάλος

Φούρτας

Βίων

Φίλιππος

Θεόφιλος

Μεύακος

ir.?

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

Μενέστρατος

Δημήτριος

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

On.

Γάϊος

Ἀγαθοκλῆς

Πε[---]

gr.

Relations1

gr.

On.

928. Ἀρίστων

Person

929. Ἀρίστων

Nr.

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θιεσεῖται

Association

νεανισκάρχης

παραφιλάγαθος

πραγματᾶς

συναγωγός

Position2

dedication

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

dedication

Type inscr.

funerary

–

–

funerary

funerary

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus, Hera

–

–

–

–

Zeus, Hera

Divinity

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Origin

3rd c. AD

Panticapaeum

2nd–3rd c. AD Panticapaeum

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 82

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 82

Dating

10

8

11

11

8

11

11

11

11

2

9

9

8

8

2

Corpus

trc.

trc.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

943. Δάδας

944. Δάδας

945. Δάδος

946. Δάφνος

947. Δημήτριος

948. Δημήτριος

949. Δημήτριος

950. Δημήτριος

951. Δη[μήτριος]

952. Δημοφῶν Ἰούλιος

953. Διαγόρας

954. Διονύσιος

955. Διονύσιος

956. Διονυσόδωρος

957. Διόφαντος

Διόφαντος

Σώστρατος

ignotus

Μύρμηξ

Μακάριος

Τιράνιος

ignotus

ignotus

Δημήτριος

Ψυχαρίων

Στράτων

Ἀντίμαχος

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Θιεσεῖται

Θιεσεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Συνοδεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

νεώτερος

παραφιλάγαθος

ἱερεύς

γραμματεύς

ἱερεύς

*ἐπὶ τῆς αὐλῆς

φιλάγαθος

γυμνασιάρχης

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

Zeus, Hera

Zeus, Hera

dedication

dedication

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

AD 82

AD 82

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

1st c. AD, 2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

1st c. AD

AD 275–279

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

2

2

11

8

11

9

8

11

11

9

8

7

11

10

10

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

959. Ἑρμῆς

960. Ἑρμογένης

961. Ἔρως

962. Ἔρως

963. Εὔϊος

964. Εὔμαχος

965. Εὑρήμων

966. Εὑρήμων

967. Εὑ[---]

968. Ζήνων

969. Ζήνων

970. Ζοτουμᾶς

971. Ἥδιστος

972. Ἡδύβιος

On.

gr.

Person

958. Ἐκατᾶς

Nr.

Λάμαχος

?

Μενέστρατος

ignotus

Εὔμαχος

Μενέστρατος

Ῥαδάμασις

Ἀντισθένης

Relations1

gr.

?

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

On.

Θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Association

συναγωγός

ἐπιμήνιος

ἐπιμήνιος

φιλάγαθος

φιλάγαθος

παραφιλάγαθος

*πρὶν ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων

φιλάγαθος

συναγωγός

ἱερεύς

συναγωγός

Position2

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

Type inscr.

funerary

funerary

funerary

Zeus, Hera

–

–

dedication

funerary

funerary

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

–

–

Divinity

AD 82

AD 100–150

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

Dating

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Origin

2

9

11

11

11

8

8

9

11

11

9

9

8

10

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

983. Θεαγένης

984. Θαίβα[ς?]

985. Θεαγένης

986. Θ[ε]οδόσιος

987. Θεόκριτος

988. Θεόμνηστος

gr.

979. Ἡρακλείδης

982. Ἥρᾶς

?

978. Ἠλπ[---]

gr.

gr.

977. Ἥλις

gr.

gr.

976. Ἠλίτας

980. Ἡρακλείδης

gr.

975. Ἥλιος Παυλῖνος

981. Ἡρακλείδης

gr.

gr.

973. Ἥδυγένης

974. Ἥλιος

Δημήτριος

Σι․υαρ[— —]

ignotus

Μενέστρατος

Πόθος

Χόφαρνος

Ἡρακλείδης

Ἀγαθοῦς

ignotus

Θου[---]

Δικυλ[---]

gr.

?

?

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

Σύνοδος

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Θιασῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Θιεσεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

γραμματεύς

συναγωγός

παραφιλάγαθος

πραγματᾶς

συναγωγός

παραφιλάγαθος

ἱερεύς

–

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

dedication

funerary

funerary

funerary

dedication

–

Aphrodite Urania

funerary

dedication

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus, Hera

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus, Hera

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

2nd c. AD

2nd c. BC

AD 275–279

AD 82

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 82

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 221

AD 275–279

AD 100–150

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

9

1

11

2

11

9

8

11

2

8

11

8

8

10

11

On.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

?

ir.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Person

989. Θεότειμος

990. Θεόφιλος

991. Θεόφιλος

992. Ἱέρακος

993. Ἱε[---]

994. Ἰλαρίων

995. Ἰσλ[---]

996. Ἰώδας

997. Ἰούλιος

998. Καίσιος Φλέγων

999. Καλλισθένης

1000. Καλλισθένης

1001. Καλλισθένης

1002. Κάλλιστος

Nr.

Βάθυλλος

ignotus

Νίκων

Καλλισθένης

Βαρδάνης

Δημήτριος

[---]

Ἑμι[---]

Relations1

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

?

?

On.

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Association

ἱερεύς

φιλάγαθος

φιλάγαθος

ἱερεύς

παραφιλάγαθος

Position2

funerary

Type inscr.

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

–

funerary

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

Divinity

AD 214

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 214

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

1st c. AD

Dating

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Origin

10

11

11

10

9

8

11

11

8

11

9

8

11

9

Corpus

gr. lat.

Ῥόδων

Κοΐντος

ir.

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

1010. Κοτίους

1011. Λάζενος

1012. Λειμανός

1013. Λειμανός

1014. Λόγων

1015. Λούκιος

1016. Λυσικράτης

1017. Λυσίμαχος

1018. Λυσίμαχος

Χαρίτων

Γάστεις

ignotus

Φίδας

Ἐν[---]

῞Ηλιος

Ἀπολλωνίδης

gr.

ir.

?

ir.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

1009. Κοσσοῦς

Βάκχιος

lat.

gr.

1008. Κέσστιος

Ἀθήναιος

?

gr.

ignotus

gr.

gr.

1005. Καλλίστρατος

gr.

1006. Καλοῦς

gr.

1004. Καλλίστρατος

Κάλλιστος

1007. Καλοῦς

gr.

1003. Κάλλιστος

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίεσος

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θιεσεῖται

Θιασῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

γυμνασίαρχος

ἐπιμήνιος

*πολειτάρχης

συναγωγός

νεώτερος

funerary

funerary

funerary

dedication

dedication

funerary

funerary

funerary

dedication

funerary

–

–

funerary

funerary

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus, Hera

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

φιλάγαθος φιλάγαθος

–

Zeus, Hera

Aphrodite Urania

–

–

ἱερεύς

φιλάγαθος

πατήρ συνόδου

2nd c. AD

1st c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 82

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 204

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 82

2nd c. BC

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

8

3

11

2

8

11

10

11

11

9

8

8

2

1

9

10

Person

Relations1

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

?

?

ir.

gr.

1024. Μάσταρος

1025. Μαστοῦς

1026. Μαστοῦς

1027. Μαστοῦς

1028. Μαστ[---]

1029. Ματι[---]

1030. Μήθακος

1031. Μενέστρατος

ignotus

Τρύφων

Σαμβίων

Μαστοῦς

Μαστοῦς

Ἀντίμαχος

?

gr.

sem.

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Πατέριος

Τειμόλαος

gr.

lat.

1022. Μακάριος

1023. Μαρκιανός

gr.

Φιδάνους

gr.

gr.

1021. Μακάριος

Ἑρμογένης

gr.

On.

gr.

paph. Καλλισθένης

On.

1020. Μακάριος

1019. Μάης

Nr.

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Θιεσεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Association

συναγωγός

συναγωγός

ἐπιμήνιος

συναγωγός

ἐπιμήνιος

συναγωγός

συναγωγός

Position2

funerary

funerary

Type inscr.

dedication

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

–

–

funerary

funerary

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus, Hera

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

Divinity

AD 221

AD 214, 3rd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 221

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 82

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Dating

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Origin

10

10

11

11

8

8

10

9

11

2

11

9

9

Corpus

gr.

gr.

?

1040. Μύρων

1041. Νεο[---]

1042. Νι[---]

ir.

gr.

1039. Μόσχας

1046. Παι․ίρδαλος

ir.

1038. Μοκκοῦς

?

gr.

1037. Μίκας

1045. Πάγας?

gr.

gr.

gr.

1035. Μήνιος

1036. Μήνιος

lat.

gr.

1034. Μενέστρατος

1044. Οὐαλέρις

gr.

1033. Μενέστρατος

1043. Νυμφόδωρος

gr.

1032. Μενέστρατος

Δι[---]

Διονύσιος

Νεικόστρατος

Νυμφόδωρος

Καλοῦς

ignotus

ignotus

Διονύσιος

Μήνιος

Βράδακος

Μενέστρατος

Ζήνων

Γοσαμφλίας

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

?

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

ir.

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Θιεσεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Θιεσεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

ἐπιμήνιος

συναγωγός

συναγωγός

συναγωγός

γραμματεύς

*ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς Θεοδοσίας

funerary

funerary

dedication

funerary

funerary

dedication

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

Zeus, Hera

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

Zeus, Hera

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

3rd c. AD

AD 82

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 82

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

11

11

10

2

11

11

8

11

11

8

9

2

11

11

11

Lal. Πάννυχος

Lal. Θ[---]

Lal. Παπίας?

Lal. Χόφαρνος

Lal. ignotus

Lal. Ἀρδάρακος

1050. Πάπας

1051. Παπίας

1052. Παπίας

1053. Παπίας

1054. Παπίας

1055. Πάππος

gr.

gr.

trc.

?

1057. Πασίων

1058. Πασίων

1059. Πάτεις

1060. Πα[---]

Πασίων

Πασίων

Θεόφιλος

Lal. Δημήτριος Μαστοῦ

1049. Πάπας

gr.

gr.

1048. Παντάγαθος

1056. Πάπων

gr.

1047. Παντάγαθος

Relations1

On.

Person

Nr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

?

ir.

Lal.

?

gr.

gr.

On.

συναγωγός

παραφιλάγαθος

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

φιλάγαθος

ἐπιμελητής

ἱερεύς

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θιεσεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Θιασῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

dedication

dedication

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

Type inscr.

funerary

dedication

–

–

Zeus, Hera

funerary

funerary

funerary

dedication

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

Aphrodite Urania

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Aphrodite Urania

Θιασῖται

–

–

–

–

Divinity

Aphrodite Urania

ἱερεύς

φιλάγαθος

ἱερεύς

Position2

Θιασῖται

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Association

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 82

AD 275–279

3rd c. AD

2nd c. BC

AD 275–279

2nd c. BC

2nd c. BC

3rd c. AD

1st c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Dating

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Origin

9

8

8

2

11

10

1

11

1

1

10

9

9

8

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

1076. Στράτων

Ἀ[---]

Στρατόνικος son of Ζήνων

Σειτάλκης

1075. Σωσίας

Ἔρως

1074. Σωσίας

ir.

trc.

lat.

1068. Ῥοῦφος

1069. Σαῖος

Λυσίστρατος

1073. Σειτάλκης

gr.

1067. Ῥό[δ]ων

Σαμβίων

ir.?

ir.

1066. Ῥαδάμιος?

1072. Σαργόνιος

gr.

1065. Πυρρήν

ignotus

sem.

gr.

1064. [Π]οσ[ειδώνιος]?

Μηνᾶς

1071. Σαμβίων

gr.

1063. Πόθος

Κοσοῦς

sem. Βάγης

gr.

1062. Ποθίσκος

Περσίων

1070. Σαμβίων

gr.

1061. Περσίων

?

trc.

ir.

gr.

gr.

sem.

?

gr.

ir.

gr.

Θιασῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Συνοδεῖται

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θιεσεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Συνοδεῖται

Θιασῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

νεανισκάρχης

πατήρ συνόδου

συναγωγός

συναγωγός

γυμνασιάρχης

φιλάγαθος funerary

funerary

dedication

Aphrodite Urania

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Zeus, Hera

dedication

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

dedication

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

Aphrodite Urania

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

2nd c. BC

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 221

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 204

2nd c. AD

AD 82

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

2nd c. BC

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

1

9

6

10

8

9

10

8

2

11

11

6

1

11

8

11

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

ir.

1079. Στρατόνεικος

1080. Σύμφορος

1081. Τειμόθεος

1082. Τιτίους

1083. Τίτος

1084. Τόκων

1085. Τρύφων

1086. Τρύφων

1087. Ὑγινιανός?

1088. Φαδίναμος

1089. Φαδίους

1090. Φαδίους

On.

1077. Στράτων

Person

1078. Στρατόνεικος

Nr.

Πάμφιλος

Δημήτριος

[---]

Τρύφων

Φιλάδελφος

Κόσσων

Μύρων

Πάππος

Φίλιππος

Τόκων

Ἀρδαρίσκος

Ἡρακλείδης

Relations1

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Θιεσεῖται

Association

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

dac.

gr.

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Lal. Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

On.

φιλάγαθος

φιλάγαθος

συναγωγός

συναγωγός

φιλάγαθος

**ἀδελφός

Position2

dedication

Type inscr.

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

–

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus, Hera

Divinity

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 210

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 82

Dating

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Origin

11

11

11

10

8

8

9

8

11

10

10

8

11

2

Corpus

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

1091. Φάννης

1092. Φάννης

1093. Φαρνάκης

1094. Φιάντης?

1095. Φιδάνους

1096. Φίδας

1097. Φιλάγαθος

1098. Φίλιστος

1099. Φιλόξενος

1100. Φιλώτας

1101. Χαρίτων

1102. Χαρίτων

1103. Χόφαρνος

1104. Χρύσης

ir.

gr.

Νεικηφόρος

Χόφαρνος

gr.

?

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

Μήνιος

ignotus

Θεάγγελος

ignotus

Σακλῆς

Ἀγαθοῦς

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

συναγωγός

*λοχαγός

ἱερεύς

παραφιλάγαθος

συναγωγός

παραφιλάγαθος

πατήρ

*πρὶν πολειτάρχης

πραγματᾶς

*χειλιάρχης καὶ ἐπ[ὶ] τῶν Ἀσπουργιανῶν

ἀρχιγραμματεύς

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

–

funerary

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

3rd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

8

11

11

8

10

9

9

11

10

11

11

8

11

11

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

sem.

ir.

gr.

lat.

?

gr.

?

1106. Ψυχαρίων

1107. Ψυχαρίων

1108. Ἰούλιος Ζενόδωρος

1109. Ἰούλιος Καλλισθένης

1110. Ἰούλιος Νεικηφόρος

1111. Ἰούλιος Σαμβίων

1112. Ἰούλιος Χόφαρνος

1113. Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἐπιτυγχάνων

1114. Πούπλιος Ἰουλιανός

1115. [---]ις

1116. [---]κράτης

1117. [---]λειος

On.

gr.

Person

1105. Ψυχαρίων

Nr.

? gr. sem.

Δημήτριος

Σαμβίων

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

On.

[---]ις

Ἀφροδίσιος

Σόγος

Πατέριος

῾Ηρακλείδας

Relations1

ἐπιμήνιος

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

ἱερεύς

*πρίν λοχαγός; ἱερεύς

πατήρ συνόδου; *ἐπὶ τῆς αὐλῆς

ἱερεύς

παραφιλάγαθος διὰ βίου

φιλάγαθος

*ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων

Position2

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Κοινὸν τῶν θιασιτῶν

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Association

Type inscr.

funerary

funerary

honorific

funerary

funerary

honorific

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Divinity

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 204

AD 117

AD 275–279

AD 214

AD 221

2nd c. AD

AD 221

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

Dating

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Origin

11

11

11

10

5

11

10

10

4

10

11

11

11

Corpus

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

1118. [---]ος

1119. [---]ος

1120. [---]ους

1121. [---]ους

1122. [---]ς

1123. [---]ων

1124. [---]ρ[---]

1125. ignotus

1126. ignotus

1127. ignotus

1128. ignotus

1129. ignotus

1130. ignotus

1131. ignotus

gr. gr. ir. ? sem. gr. ? ir. ir. gr. trc.

gr.

gr. gr.

Ἀγαθοῦς

Πάππος

Ἀρδαρίσκος

Λυνδ[---]

Σαμβίων

Εὔϊος

Φι[---]

Ἀρδάρακος

Ἀρδαρίσκος

Ἄρατος

Δάδας

Διονύσιος

῾Ερμῆς

Εὐάρεστος

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

ἐπιμήνιος

πατήρ συνόδου

φιλάγαθος

ἐπιμήνιος

ἐπιμήνιος

ἐπιμήνιος

ἐπιμήνιος

funerary

funerary

funerary

–

funerary

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

–

–

–

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

Zeus Soter, dedication Hera Soteira

3rd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 221

AD 221

2nd c. AD

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

AD 275–279

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

10

11

10

10

9

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

On.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Person

1132. ignotus

1133. ignotus

1134. ignotus

1135. ignotus

1136. ignotus

1137. ignotus

1138. ignotus

1139. ignotus

1140. ignotus

1141. ignotus

1142. ignotus

1143. ignotus

Nr.

ignotus

?

?

gr.

Πόθος

ignotus

ir.

On.

Ζάβαργος

Relations1

φιλάγαθος παραφιλάγαθος παραφιλάγαθος πατήρ συνόδου

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

–

–

–

–

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

–

–

–

–

–

παραφιλάγαθος

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

–

–

Divinity

–

ἱερεύς

Position2

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Association

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

Type inscr.

Origin

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 221

AD 221

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 221

AD 210

2nd c. AD

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

2nd–3rd c. AD Panticapaeum

Dating

8

10

10

10

10

8

9

9

10

10

8

8

Corpus

?

1148. Κ[---]

gr.

gr.

1160. Ἀθηνόδωρος

sem. Δημήτριος

1157. Ἀζαρίων

1159. Ἀθήνιος

gr.

1156. Ἀγαθοῦς

ir.

gr.

1155. Ἀγαθήμερος

1158. Ἄζος

ir.

1154. Ἀβρόζεος

Μηνόφιλος

Ἀθήνιος

Ὀχωδίακος

Μενέστρατος

Πόπλιος

Ἀρίστων

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

?

?

ignotus

?

1153. ignotus

?

? gr.

Π[---]

Χρηστίων

?

?

1151. ignotus

?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

?

?

? gr.

Ἀτ[---]

?

νεανισκάρχης

παραφιλάγαθος

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα ?

–

φιλάγαθος

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

–

–

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

Ἡγήσιππος

?

?

ignotus

ignotus

1152. ignotus

?

?

1147. Ἐ[---]

?

?

1146. ignotus

1149. ignotus

?

1145. ignotus

1150. ignotus

?

1144. ignotus

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

funerary

funerary

funerary

AD 155

2nd c. AD

AD 225

AD 220, AD 244

2nd c. AD

AD 228

AD 225

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Myrmecium

Myrmecium

Myrmecium

Myrmecium

Myrmecium

Myrmecium

Myrmecium

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

4

4

4

4

4

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

9

9

8

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

1165. Ἀλέξανδρος

1166. Ἀλεξίων

1167. Ἀλφοῦς

1168. Ἀμαρδίακος

1169. Ἀμάρθαστος

1170. Ἀνδρομένης

1171. Ἀντίμαχος

1172. Ἀντίμαχος

1173. Ἀντίμαχος

ir.? Βαλώδις

1163. Ἀθιάγας

1164. Ἀλέξανδρος

gr.

1162. Ἀθηνόδωρος

Πασίων

Κίμβρος

Ἀντίμαχος

Τρύφων

Ἀμάρθαστος

Μενέστρατος

Π[---]

Πάτροκλος

Σόγος

Ἀβδάρακος

ignotus

Φαζίναμος

gr.

1161. Ἀθηνόδωρος

Relations1

On.

Person

Nr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

?

gr.

ir.

ir.

ir.

?

ir.

On.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

φιλάγαθος

νεανισκάρχης

Position2

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Theos dedication [Hypsistos?]

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Divinity

AD 220, AD 225

AD 225

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 155

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 228

AD 227–234, AD 244

AD 244

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 211–227/ 233–235, AD 225–227, AD 228

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

4

4

4

4

1, 4

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

1174. Ἀντίμαχος

1175. Ἀντίμαχος

1176. Ἀντισθένης

1177. Ἀντωνεῖνος

1178. Ἀπολλώνιος

1179. Ἀπολλώνιος

1180. Ἀράθης

1181. Ἀραούηβος

1182. Ἀρδάρακος

1183. Ἀρδάρακος

1184. Ἀρδάρακος

1185. Ἀρδάρακος

1186. Ἀρδάρακος

1187. Ἀρδαρίσκος

1188. Ἄρδαρος

Ἀγαθοκλῆς

Ψυχαρίων

Τρύφων

Συνέγδημος

Πόπλιος

Ὀδίαρδος

Ζια[---]ος

[---]δυλλος

Φιδανους

ignotus

Ἀπολλώνιος

Ἀντωνεῖνος

Μεύακος

ignotus

ignotus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

ir.

?

gr.

ir.

?

gr.

lat.

ir.

?

?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

?

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Θιασεῖται

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

συναγωγός

πατήρ συνόδου

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication?

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 220

AD 173–211

AD 225

AD 220

AD 173–211

AD 225

AD 220

2nd c. BC

AD 220

AD 228

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 132–154

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

2

4

4

4

4

4

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

1190. Ἄρδαρος

1191. Ἄρδαρος

1192. Ἄρδαρος

1193. Ἄρδαρος

1194. Ἄρδαρος

1195. Ἀρδινδίανος

1196. Ἀρδόναστος

1197. Ἀριστόδημος

1198. Ἀριστόδημος

1199. Ἀρίστων

1200. Ἀρίστων

1201. Ἀρίστων

On.

ir.

Person

1189. Ἄρδαρος

Nr.

Μενέστρατος

Θεότειμος

Δείος

Ἔρως

Δάδας

Σώφρονος

Χρύσιππος

ignotus

Πάππος

Νείκιος

Μύρων

Μαστοῦς

Ἀρίστων

Relations1

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

trc.

gr.

gr.

?

Lal.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

On.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον (Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

πρεσβύτερος

νεανισκάρχης

φιλάγαθος

Position2

Theos Hypsistos

?

Tanais?

Theos Hypsistos Theos Hypsistos ?

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

Theos Hypsistos Theos Hypsistos ?

?

Divinity

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

Dating

AD 225, AD 228

2nd c. AD

AD 104

2nd c. AD

AD 228

AD 225

AD 225–227, AD 225

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 155

AD 225

AD 123

Origin

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

1, 4

4

3

4

4

4

1, 4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Lal. Ἡρακλείδης

1204. Ἀρίστων

1205. Ἀρνάκης

1206. Ἀρσοάρακος

1207. Ἀρτεμίδωρος

1208. Ἄσανδρος

1209. Ἀσκλᾶς

1210. Ἀσκληπιάδης

1211. Ἀσκληπιάδης

1212. Ἀσπάνδανος

1213. Ἀστήρ

1214. Ἀσ[τί]ας

1215. Ἀτάρβας

1216. Ἄττας

Ζάβαργος

Λ[---]

ignotus

Λειμανός

ignotus

Οὐαλέριος

Ἡρακλείδης

Θαύμαστος

ignotus

Δάδας

Ἀπατούριος

[---]ικράτος

Φαζίναμος

gr.

1203. Ἀρίστων

Π[---]

gr.

1202. Ἀρίστων

gr.

ir.

?

?

gr.

?

lat.

gr.

gr.

?

trc.

gr.

gr.

ir.

?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Θιασεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

**φῖλος

φιλάγαθος

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos/ Tanais

?

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

Theos Hypsistos

?

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication?

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

AD 173–211

AD 155

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 225

AD 209

AD 225

AD 228

AD 220, AD 225

2nd c. BC

AD 244

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 225

2nd c. AD

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

4

2

4

4

4

4

4

Lal. Νε[---]ος

ir.? Ἀμαίακος

ir.? Καλλισθένης

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

1219. Ἀττίας

1220. Αὔασκις

1221. Αὔασκις

1222. Αὐβαδαγος

1223. Αὐράζακος

1224. Αὐράζακος

1225. Ἀφθείμακος

1226. Ἀφθείμακος

1227. Ἀφροδείσιος

1228. Ἀφροδείσιος

1229. Αὐρήλιος

1230. Ἀχαιμένης

Θεάγγελος

Ἀντωνεῖνος

Χρυσέρως

Αἰσχίνης

Διο[---]

Ἄψαχος

Ῥόδων

Ἀρίστων

ignotus

Lal. Διόφαντος

Relations1

1218. Ἀττίας

On.

Lal. Ὀρτυγᾶς

Person

1217. Ἄττας

Nr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

?

ir.

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

ir.

?

gr.

gr.

On.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Theos dedication [Hypsistos?]

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Tanais?

?

Divinity

Theos Hypsistos

πρεσβύτερος

Position2

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

AD 155

AD 228

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 220

AD 220

AD 244

3rd c. AD

AD 225

AD 225

AD 244

AD 220–230

AD 104

2nd c. AD

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

3

4

Corpus

ir.

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

lat.

lat.

gr.

lat.

ir.

ir.

ir.

gr.

1231. Βαγδόσαυος

1232. Βάγδοχος

1233. Βαλώδις

1234. Βασιλείδης

1235. Βασιλείδης

1236. Βάσσος

1237. Βελλικός

1238. Βοΐδας

1239. Γάϊος

1240. Γάος

1241. Γάος

1242. Γοδόσανος

1243. Γοργίας

Φαρνακίων

Ἀροάσιος

Ζῆθος

Χαρίτων

Ἀπολλώνιος

Ζωρθῖνος

Βάσσος

Θεόνεικος

Δορύλαος

Δημήτριος

Σύμφορος

Σαυαίωσος

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

συναγωγός

γυμνασιάρχης

γυμνασιάρχης

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Tanais?

Tanais?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

AD 220

AD 244

AD 225

AD 211–227/ 233–235.

AD 104

AD 104

AD 225

AD 220

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 211–227/ 233–235, AD 225, AD 209

AD 225

AD 228

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

4

1

3

3

4

4

4

4

1, 4

4

4

On.

?

ir.

trc.

trc.

trc.

trc.

trc.

trc.

trc.

ir.

ir.

ir.

gr.

Person

1244. Γο[---]

1245. Γώσακος

1246. Δάδας

1247. Δάδας

1248. Δάδας

1249. Δάδας

1250. Δάδας

1251. Δάδας

1252. Δάδας

1253. Δαλόσακος

1254. [Δαλ]όσακο[ς]?

1255. Δαναράζμακος

1256. Δημήτριος

Nr.

Ἀγαθόδωρος

Μήνιος

ignotus

Σύμφορος

Χοδιάκιος

Πάππος

Πάππος

Οὐαλέριος

Θεόνεικος

Θεάγγελος

Δάδας

Ἄσπακος

[---]νακος

Relations1

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

ir.

Lal.

Lal.

lat.

gr.

gr.

trc.

ir.

?

On.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Tanais?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Divinity

Theos Hypsistos

Position2

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

2nd c. AD

AD 225, AD 230

AD 220

AD 225, AD 228

AD 228

AD 220

AD 244

AD 228

AD 104

AD 155

AD 155

AD 220, AD 225

AD 230

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

4

4

1, 4

1

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

4

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

1257. Δημήτριος

1258. Δημήτριος

1259. Δημήτριος

1260. Δημήτριος

1261. Δημήτριος

1262. Δημήτριος

1263. Δημήτριος

1264. Δημήτριος

1265. Δημήτριος

1266. Δημήτριος

1267. Δείος

1268. Δίαιος

1269. [Διο]νύσ[ιος]

1270. Διονύσιος

1271. Διονύσιος

Σόγος ir.

ir.

?

Ξ[---]

Πάτεις

un.

?

?

?

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Κερδωνάκος?

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

Χαρίτων

Φαζίναμος

Ἡρακλείδης

Δημήτριος

Ἀντίμαχος

Ἀπολλώνιος

Ἀπολλώνιος

Ἀπατούριος

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Θιασεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

φιλάγαθος

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos φιλάγαθος

ἱερεύς, ἐπιμελητής

νεανισκάρχης

?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication?

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

AD 228

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 220

AD 173–211

2nd c. BC

AD 209

AD 225

AD 220

AD 155

AD 220

AD 228

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

1

4

4

4

4

4

2

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

1273. Διόφαντος

1274. Διόφαντος

1275. Διόφαντος

1276. Δόμνος

1277. Δούλας

1278. Δροῦσος

1279. Δυνάτων

1280. Ἐπάγαθος

1281. Ἑρμῆς

1282. Ἑρμῆς

1283. Ἔρως

1284. Ἔρως

1285. Ἔρως

On.

gr.

Person

1272. Διόφαντος

Nr.

Ὀχωδίακος

Μηνόφιλος

Ζηνόβιος

Ἀστέρ

Ἀθηνόδωρος

Πεισίθεος

Δημήτριος

Πασίων

Τρύφων

Σέλευκος

Νεόπολος

Νεόπολος

Διονύσιος

Δείος

Relations1

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

On.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

παραφιλάγαθος

***ἀρχιτέκτων

Position2

Theos Hypsistos

?

Tanais?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

?

Tanais?

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Divinity

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 104

AD 225

AD 228

AD 244

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 244

2nd c. AD

AD 220

2nd c. AD

AD 228

AD 173–211

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

4

1

4

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

1286. Ἔρως

1287. Ἔρως

1288. Ἔρως

1289. Ἔρως

1290. Ἑστιαῖος

1291. Εὔϊος

1292. Εὔϊος

1293. Εὔϊος

1294. Εὔϊος

1295. [Εὐκ?]ράτης

1296. Εὐνόϊκος

1297. Εὔνων

1298. Εὔνων

1299. Εὔνων

1300. Εὔνων

Συνέκδημος

Μενέστρατος

Εὔνων

Ἀστήρ

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Ψυχαρίων

Εὐνόϊκος

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

?

?

gr.

gr.

ignotus

Τρύφων

Ῥόδων

Διόδωρος

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

Φίλων

Παρθενοκλῆς

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Θιασεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

φιλάγαθος

παραφιλάγαθος

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Tanais?

?

?

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

?

?

?

Theos Hypsistos

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication?

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

AD 228

2nd c. AD

AD 230

AD 244

AD 220 AD 209

AD 104

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211, AD 220

2nd c. AD

2nd c. BC

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 155

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

4

2

4

4

4

4

On.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

Person

1301. Εὔνων

1302. Εὔπορος

1303. Εὐπρέπης

1304. Εὐρήμων

1305. Εὐσχήμων

1306. Εὐτύχης

1307. Εὐτύχης

1308. Εὐτύχης

1309. Εὐτυχιανός

1310. Εὐτυχιανός

1311. Ε[---]

Nr.

Θεαγένης

Μ[---]

Γοργίας

ignotus

Θεαγένης

Ἀντίμαχος

Μηνόφιλος

Κόδρος

Σύμφορος

Μακάριος

Χόφραζμος

Relations1

gr.

?

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

On.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

πρεσβύτερος, φιλάγαθος

συναγωγός

παραφιλάγαθος

Position2

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Tanais?

Theos Hypsistos

Divinity

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

AD 228

AD 228

AD 228

AD 225

AD 228

AD 225, AD 228

AD 220–230, AD 228, AD 209

2nd c. AD

AD 225

AD 104

AD 230

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

1

1

4

1

1, 4

1, 4

4

4

3

4

Corpus

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

gr.

ir.? Ἀρδονάγαρος

Ἄττας

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

1314. Ζηνιαρ[---]

1315. [Ζήνω?]ν

1316. Ζήνων

1317. Ζωρθίνης

1318. Ζωρθῖνος?

1319. Ἡγήσιππος

1320. Ἠθιόχακος

1321. Ἡρακλείδης

1322. Ἡρακλείδης

1323. Ἡρακλείδης

1324. Ἡρακλείδης

Ἐπίγονος

Ἄττας

Ἄττας

Μενέστρατος

Βελλικός

Φαζίναμος

gr.

Lal.?

Lal.?

Lal.?

ir.

gr.

lat.

ir.

gr.

gr.

Φάννης

Φάννης

?

gr.

gr.

ignotus

Ζῆθος

gr.

1313. Ζῆθος

Χαρίτων

ir.

1312. Ζάβαργος

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

ἱερεύς

νεανισκάρχης

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 225–227

AD 244

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 220, AD 209

AD 220

AD 155

AD 211–227/ 233–235

AD 225, AD 228

AD 220

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

4

1

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

1, 4

4

On.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Person

1325. Ἡρακλείδης

1326. Ἡρακλείδης ὁ καὶ Αὔναμος

1327. Ἡρακλείδης

1328. Ἡρακλείδης

1329. Ἡρακλείδης

1330. Ἡρακλείδης

1331. Ἡρακλείδης

1332. Ἡρακλείδης

1333. Ἡρακλείδης

1334. Ἡρόξενος

1335. Θάλαμος

1336. Θεαγένης

1337. Θεαγένης

Nr.

Μακάριος

Κάσανδρος

Πιτοφαρνάκης

Βασιλείδης

ignotus

ignotus

Σεύθης

Πάππος

Πάβας

Μενίδωρος

Μαρκεανος

Ἡρακλείδης

Ἡρακλείδης

Relations1

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

?

?

trc.

Lal.

ir.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

On.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

συναγωγός

πρεσβύτερος

παραφιλάγαθος

πρεσβύτερος

συναγωγός

γυμνασιάρχης

Position2

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Tanais?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Divinity

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

AD 228

2nd c. AD

AD 220

AD 220–230, AD 220

AD 123

AD 155

2nd c. AD

AD 220–230

AD 104

AD 228

AD 225

AD 228

AD 225

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

4

4

1, 4

4

4

4

1

3

4

4

4

4

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

?

ir.

ir.

ir.

1338. Θεαγένης

1339. Θεάνγελος

1340. Θεότειμος

1341. Θέων

1342. Θε[---]ος

1343. Θιάβωγος

1344. Θιάγαρος

1345. Θιάρμακος

1346. Θίμβρος

1347. Θώραξ

1348. Ἰαρδο[---]

1349. Ἰασανδάνακος

1350. Ἰασανδάνακος

1351. Ἰασανδάνακος

Χοζ[---]

Ἰαύακος

Ἀστήρ

Ἡρακλείδης

Γάστεις

Δείος

Χρύσιππος

?

ir.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Σιώμαχος

Ἀντισθένης

?

ir.

gr.

?

gr.

[---]ακος

Φαζίναμος

Ψυχαρίων

ignotus

Μητροφάνης

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

γυμνασιάρχης

φιλάγαθος

dedication

dedication

dedication

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Tanais?

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Theos dedication [Hypsistos?]

Theos Hypsistos

?

Tanais?

AD 220

AD 244

AD 244

AD 173–211

AD 104

2nd c. AD

AD 244

AD 220

AD 244

AD 220

3rd c. AD, AD 244

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 104

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

?

lat.

lat.

lat.

lat.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

1353. Ἰοδασα[---]

1354. Ἰουλιάδης

1355. Ἰουλιάδης

1356. Ἰουλιάδης

1357. Ἰούλιος

1358. Ἰραύαδις

1359. Ἴργανος

1360. Ἰταλόρασπος

1361. Καδάνακος

1362. Καλλιγένης

1363. Καλλιγένης

1364. Καλλισθένης ὁ καὶ Θυλόγανος

1365. Καλλιστίων

On.

ir.

Person

1352. Ἰζίακος

Nr.

Ἡγήσιππος

Πάππος

Μύρων

Θεόνεικος

Ναύαγος

Ἡρακλείδης

Χόμευος

Δημήτριος

Ῥάλχαδος

ignotus

Σ[---]

Ἡρακλείδης

[Γ?]άιος

Ἀρχάθιος

Relations1

gr.

Lal.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

un.

gr.

un.

?

?

gr.

lat.

ir.

On.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

ἱερεύς

πρεσβύτερος

ἱερεύς

παραφιλάγαθος

νεανισκάρχης

Position2

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Tanais?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Divinity

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

2nd c. AD

AD 225

AD 228

AD 104

AD 220

AD 220

AD 244

AD 225

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 225

AD 155

2nd c. AD

AD 244

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

4

1

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.? ignotus

1368. Κοσσοῦς

1369. Κοσσοῦς

1370. Κόφαρνος

1371. Κόφαρνος

1372. Κυράθων

ir.? Ἀρδάρακος

ir.? Στρατόνεικος

1377. Λογῶζις?

1378. Λώβεις

ir.

gr.

1376. Λόγος

1379. Μάδακος

gr.

1375. Λίμνακος

Μενέστρατος

Χοδιάκιος

Πόπλιος

Φίδας

gr.

1374. Λειμανός

Διόφαντος

?

1373. Κ?[---]

ignotus

ignotus

Ἡρακλείδης

Γάϊος

Δάδας

gr.

1367. Καρδιοῦς

Ἀθήνιος

gr.

1366. Καλοῦς

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

lat.

ir.

gr.

?

?

?

gr.

lat.

trc.

gr.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

ἱερεύς

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

AD 228

AD 244

AD 225

AD 228

AD 244

AD 173–211

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 230

AD 211–227/ 233–235, AD 244

2nd c. AD

AD 228

AD 173–211

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

4

1

4

Person

Σαμβατίων

Relations1

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

1383. Μακάριος

1384. Μακάριος

1385. Μακάριος

1386. Μακάριος

1387. Μάρδαυος

1388. Μάσταρος

1389. Μαστοῦς

1390. Μαστοῦς

1391. Μαστοῦς

1392. Μέγις

Μέγις

Πόπλιος

Παπίας

Ο[---]

Ἀριστόνεικος

Ζάρανδος

Νέρων

Μαστοῦς

Μακάριος

Βαστάκας

Ἀχαιμένης

paph. Σάλας

ir.

On.

1382. Μακάριος

1381. Μάης

1380. Μάδωϊς

Nr.

ir.

lat.

gr.

?

gr.

ir.

gr.

ir.

gr.

ir.

gr.

trc.

sem.

On.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

γυμνασιάρχης

νεανισκάρχης

Position2

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

dedication

Theos Hypsistos

?

Tanais?

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Theos dedication [Hypsistos?]

Theos Hypsistos

Theos dedication [Hypsistos?]

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Divinity

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 104

AD 228

2nd c. AD

AD 228

3rd c. AD, AD 244

AD 244

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 220, AD 228

AD 228

AD 225

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

4

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

1393. Μενέστρατος

1394. Μενέστρατος

1395. Μενέστρατος

1396. Μενέστρατος

1397. Μενέστρατος

1398. Μενέστρατος

1399. Μένυλλος

1400. Μένυλλος

1401. Μένυλλος

1402. Μήθακος

1403. Μηνᾶς

1404. Μήνιος

1405. Μήνιος

1406. Μηνόφιλος

Ἀγαθόδωρος

ignotus

Ἑρμῆς

Νεοκλῆς

Στρατόνεικος

Χρύσιππος

Χρύσιππος

Φαρνάκης

ignotus

Χρύσιππος

Μενέστρατος

Λυκίσκος

Ζωρθῖνος

Ἑρμῆς

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

?

gr.

gr.

lat.

ir.

gr.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

?

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 225–227, AD 225

AD 244

AD 228

AD 230

AD 220

AD 244

2nd c. AD

AD 230

AD 155

AD 173–211

AD 225

AD 244

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

1, 4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

On.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

ir.

ir.

ir.

trc.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Person

1407. Μηνόφιλος

1408. Μηνόφιλος

1409. Μητροφάνης

1410. Μιαι[---]ηδος

1411. Μίδαχος

1412. Μίδαχος

1413. Μίδαχος?

1414. Μό[κκος?]

1415. Μυρεῖνος

1416. Μυρεῖνος

1417. Μύρμηξ

1418. Μύρμηξ

1419. Μύρων

Nr.

Οὐαρᾶς

ignotus

Φαδίναμος

Μυρεῖνος

Μαστοῦς

Πάππος

ignotus

Θιάγαρος

Ἄρδαρος

Ἀντίμαχος

Ἀλέξανδρος

Χρηστίων

Μοσχᾶς

Relations1

ir.

?

ir.

gr.

ir.

Lal.

?

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

On.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

γυμνασιάρχης

Position2

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

?

Theos Hypsistos

dedication

dedication

Theos dedication [Hypsistos?]

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Tanais?

?

Theos Hypsistos

Divinity

AD 123

AD 211–227/ 233–235

3rd c. AD

AD 155

AD 228

AD 225

AD 173–211

AD 220

AD 225

AD 225

AD 104

2nd c. AD

AD 225

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

1

4

4

1

4

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

Corpus

ir.

1432. Ὀαροζβάλακος

ir.? Ἡρακλείδης

1428. Νίγοσας

gr.

ir.

1427. Νιβλόβωρος

1431. Ξένων

gr.

1426. Νεικόστρατος

?

gr.

1425. Νεικόστρατος

1430. Ν[---]

ir.

1424. Ναύακος

gr.

ir.

1423. Ναύακος

1429. Νυμφέρως

ir.

1422. Νάβαζος

Καταλλ[---]

Ἔρως

[---]πος

Ὀχωζίακος

Δοσυμοξαρθος

Νεικόστρατος

Ἀράθης

Στοσάρακος

Μεύακος

Κίμβρος

Μ[---]

?

1421. Μ[---]

ignotus

gr.

1420. Μύρων

gr.

gr.

?

ir.

gr.

ir.

gr.

ir.

ir.

ir.

gr.

?

?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον,?

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

ἱερεύς

συναγωγός

πρεσβύτερος

πατήρ συνόδου, *ἄρχων Ταναειτῶν

φιλάγαθος

παραφιλάγαθος

πρεσβύτερος

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

?

Tanais?

Theos Hypsistos

dedication

dedication

dedication

Theos dedication [Hypsistos?]

Theos Hypsistos

Tanais?/ Theos Hypsistos

Tanais?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

2nd c. AD

AD 104

AD 228

3rd c. AD, AD 244

AD 228

AD 220/ AD 228

AD 104

AD 228

AD 244

AD 225

AD 225

AD 228

AD 173–211

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

3

4

4

1

4, 5

3

4

4

4

4

1

4

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

1435. Ὀξαρδῶζις

1436. Ὀξαρδῶζις

1437. Ὀμψάλακος

1438. Ὀμψάλακος

1439. Ὀμψάλακος

1440. Ὀμψάλακος

1441. Ὀμψάλακος

1442. Ὀμψάλακος

1443. Ὀξύμακος

1444. Ὀσμάρακος

1445. Ὀρστόμηχος

Ἀβδάρακος

Ἀμαίακος

ignotus

Φίδας

Φαζίναμος

Τρύφων

Οὔργιος

Ὀμψάλακος

Θεόφιλος

Σίρανος

Εὐβάρνακης

ir.? ignotus

Relations1

1434. Ὀδίαρδος

On.

ir.? Δημήτριος

Person

1433. Ὀδίαρδος

Nr.

ir.

ir.

?

ir.

ir.

gr.

un.

ir.

gr.

gr.

ir.

?

gr.

On.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Divinity

? συναγωγός

Position2

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

AD 244

AD 225

AD 225

AD 155

AD 225–227, AD 228

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 225

AD 220

AD 211–227/ 233–235

AD 225

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

4

4

4

1

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

4

Corpus

?

lat.

un.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

?

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

1446. Ὀσσι[---]ος

1447. Οὐαλέριος

1448. Οὐανουνόβαρος

1449. Οὐαράζακος

1450. Οὐαστόβαλος

1451. Οὐροάστιρος

1452. Οὔστανος

1453. Οὔστανος

1454. Ὀχωζίακος

1455. Ὀχωζίακος

1456. Ο[---]δος

1457. Ξάρθανος

1458. Ξηγόδις

1459. Ξιαμφώκανος

1460. Πάναυχος

Ἄρδαρος

Ἀντίμαχος

Ἀχαιμένης

Ἀσκληπιάδης

Δημήτριος

Πόπλιος

Δημήτριος

Δούλας

Ζήνων

Σόρχακος

Στρατόνεικος

Ἡροφάνης

Μενέστρατος

ignotus

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

*στρατιώτης

Theos Hypsistos

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

AD 225

AD 225

AD 220, 3rd c. AD

AD 244

AD 220

AD 244

AD 228

AD 225

AD 220

AD 228

AD 228

AD 228

AD 244

2nd c. AD

AD 220

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

gr.

gr.

Lal. Ὀξαρδῶζις

Lal. Δαΐσκος

1462. Παντάγαθος

1463. Παντάγαθος

1464. Παπίας

1465. Πάππος

lat.

lat.

1474. Πόπλιος

Lal. Χρῆστος

1471. Πάπας

1473. Πόπλιος

gr.

1470. Πατέρους

lat.

ir.

1469. Πάτεις

1472. Πόπλιος

gr.

1468. Πασίων

ignotus

Χαρίτων

Δημήτριος

Γόκων

Ἄλκιμος

Πόπλιος

Στρατόνεικος

gr.

1467. Πασίφιλος

Καρδιοῦς

gr.

1466. Παρθενοκλῆς

Στρατόνεικος

Λίβανος

Ἔρως

gr.

1461. Πάνκαρπος

Relations1

On.

Person

Nr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

micr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

gr.

lat.

gr.

On.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

Position2

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

?

Divinity

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

AD 173–211

AD 132–154

AD 228

3rd c. AD, AD 228, AD 244

2nd c. AD

AD 220

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 228

2nd c. AD

AD 228

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

Ψυχαρίων

sem. [---]άκος

ir.

1484. Σαβώδακος

Θαύμαστος

1489. Σαμβατίων

gr.

1483. Ῥόδων

Σύμφορος

sem. Σάκδεος

ir.

1482. Ῥωδίγασος

Ῥάσσογος

1488. Σαμβατίων

ir.

1481. Ῥαχοίσακος

Εὐνόϊκος

sem. Γοργίας

ir.

1480. Ῥαχοίσακος

Φίλων

1487. Σαμβατίων

ir.

1479. Ῥαδάμειστος

Φαδίναμος

sem. Ἀτα[χαίης]?

ir.

1478. Ῥαδάμειστος

Τρύφων

1486. Σαμβατίων

ir.

1477. Ῥαδάμειστος

ignotus

sem. Ἀσμ[---]

gr.

1476. Ποντικός

[---κ]ος

1485. Σαμβατίων

gr.

1475. Πολυείδ[ης]

?

ir.?

gr.

?

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

?

?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

συναγωγός

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

AD 220

AD 228

AD 220

AD 220

AD 225

AD 228

AD 225

AD 225

AD 225

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 220

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Person

Relations1

ir.

ir.

ir.

1502. Σοζίρσαυος

1503. Σούσας

ir.? Μάνδασος

1498. Σιαγοῦς

1501. Σιώμαχος

gr.

1497. Σέλευκος

ir.

ir.

1496. Σείμεικος

1500. Σιαύνανσος

ir.

1495. Σαύνασ[---?]

ir.

ir.

1494. Σαυάνων

1499. Σιαύακος

ir.

1493. Σάσας

Πάβας

Ἀσκληπιάδης

Θαύμαστος

Εὐάριστος

Ἀμαείακος

Σέλευκος

Βωροβάρακος

ignotus

Χόφραζμος

Σάσας

Δάδας

ir.

1492. Σάρακος

ignotus

?

sem. Ἐλπιδίων

On.

1491. Σανα[---]

1490. Σαμβίων

Nr.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

gr.

ir.

?

ir.

ir.

trc.

?

gr.

On.

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

νεανισκάρχης

φιλάγαθος

Position2

Tanais?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Divinity

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

AD 104

AD 228

AD 244

AD 228

AD 225

AD 244

2nd c. AD

AD 244

AD 225, AD 230

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 244

AD 220

AD 228

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

Corpus

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.? Πι[---]

1506. Στοσάρακος

1507. Στρατόνεικος

1508. Στρατόνεικος

1509. Στρατόνεικος

1510. Στύρανος

1511. Στύρανος

1512. Σύμμαχος

1513. Σύμμαχος

1514. Σύμφορος

1515. Σύμφορος

1516. Σύμφορος

1517. Συνέκδημος

1518. Σφάνος

Ἀρ[---]

Χο[---]

Καλλισθένης

Δημήτριος

Σα[---]

Θαύμαστος

ignotus

Πηριο[---]

Μοκκοῦς

Καρδιοῦς

Ζήνων

Φίδας

Μήσακος

ir.

1505. Στοσάρακος

Ὀχωδίακος

ir.

1504. Στόρμαις

?

?

?

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

?

?

ir.

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

ir.

Θιασεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

παραφιλάγαθος

πρεσβύτερος

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

dedication?

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

2nd c. BC

AD 155

AD 225

AD 225

AD 225

AD 173–211

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 228

AD 220–230, AD 228

AD 228

AD 244

AD 225

AD 211–227/ 233–235

AD 225

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

2

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

4

4

4

1

4

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

1520. Σωτηρικός

1521. Σ[---]

1522. Τρύφων

1523. Τρύφων

1524. Τρύφων

1525. Ὑ[ψι]κράτης

1526. Φαζίναμος

1527. Φαζίναμος

1528. Φαζίναμος

1529. Φαζίους

1530. Φαζίους

1531. Φαζίους

On.

gr.

Person

1519. Σωζομενός

Nr.

Πάππος

Οὐαρᾶς

Δούλας

Φαζίναμος

Καλλιστίων

Ἀρ[---]δάμος

Ε[---]

Ψυχαρίων

Φάννης

Ἀνδρομένης

Πόπλιος

Στύρανος

Relations1

Lal.

ir.

gr.

ir.

gr.

?

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

ir.

On.

γυμνασιάρχης

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

παραφιλάγαθος, γυμνασίαρχος

πρεσβύτερος

Position2

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος

Association

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Divinity

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

AD 244

AD 228

AD 244

AD 228

AD 211–227/ 233–235, 3rd c. AD

AD 220

2nd c. AD

AD 228

AD 244

AD 173–211

AD 210–230

AD 225, AD 228

AD 228

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

4

4

4

1

4

4

4

4

4

1

4

1

Corpus

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

1532. Φαζίους

1533. Φαδιαρόαζος

1534. Φαδί[ναμ]ος

1535. Φαδιους

1536. Φαλδάρανος

1537. Φάννης

1538. Φάννης

1539. Φάννης

1540. Φάννης

1541. Φάννης

1542. Φάννης

1543. Φάννης

1544. Φαρνάκης

1545. Φαρνάκης

Ἡρακλείδης

Δάδας

ignotus

[---]ικος

Φάννης

Στρατόνεικος

Στρατόνεικος

gr.

trc.

?

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

trc.

?

Ἀμ[---]ράζμο

Δάδας

gr.

gr.

?

lat.

ir.

Ἀπολλώνιος

Φιλήμων

Η[---]

Πόπλιος

Φαζίους

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

γυμνασιάρχης

νεανισκάρχης

ἱερεύς

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

AD 220

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 225

AD 225

AD 155

AD 244

AD 220

AD 225–227

AD 173–211, AD 220

AD 228

2nd c. AD

AD 228

AD 244

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

4

1

4

4

4

un.

ir.

?

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.? [---]οδάστος

Εὔϊος

ir.

1549. Φαρνόξαρθος

1550. Φαῦχος

1551. Φηδάνακος

1552. Φίδοσ[---]

1553. Φίλιππος

1554. Φιλώτας

1555. Φόδακος

1556. Φό[ρ]β[ας]?

1557. Φορήρανος

ir.

ir.

1548. Φαρνόξαρθος

Σα[---]

Ἄψαχος

ignotus

ignotus

Εὔνων

Πόπλιος

Ταῦρεος

Ἡρακλείδης

Φαρνάκης

ir.

Θεότειμος

Relations1

1547. Φαρνάκης

On.

ir.

Person

1546. Φαρνάκης

Nr.

ir.

?

?

ir.

?

?

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

ir.

gr.

On.

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

πρεσβύτερος

παραφιλάγαθος

Position2

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Divinity

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

AD 225–227, AD 225

AD 220

AD 211–227/ 233–235

AD 244

AD 173–211

AD 225

AD 244

AD 225

AD 220–230, AD 228

AD 220

AD 225–227

2nd c. AD

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

1, 4

4

1

4

4

4

4

4

1, 4

4

1

4

Corpus

ir.

gr.

ir.

ir.

?

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

1558. Φορίαυος

1559. Φόρος

1560. Φόσακος

1561. Φούρτας

1562. Φο[---]

1563. Χανσαβόγαζος

1564. Χάραξστος

1565. Χάραξστος

1566. Χαρζαβόγαδος

1567. Χαρίξενος

1568. Χαρίτων

1569. Χαρίτων

1570. Χαρίτων

1571. Χαύχακος

Στρατόνεικος

ignotus

Μακάριος

Δημήτριος

Τρύφων

Δημήτριος

Φαρνάκης

Ὀμράσμακος

Χωδόνακος

ignotus

Ἀγαθοῦς

Φόσακος

ignotus

Ἀντισθένης

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

ir.

?

gr.

ir.

?

gr.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

νεανισκάρχης

παραφιλάγαθος

παραφιλάγαθος

παραφιλάγαθος

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Theos dedication [Hypsistos?]

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

AD 244

AD 173–211

AD 220

AD 244

2nd c. AD

AD 244

AD 220

AD 225

AD 225, AD 230

3rd c. AD

AD 228

AD 228

AD 228

AD 225

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

1, 4

1

4

4

On.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

Person

1572. Χοάργαρος

1573. Χοαροφάδιος

1574. Χόμενος

1575. Χόμενος

1576. Χορούαθος

1577. Χόφαρνος

1578. Χόφαρνος

1579. Χόφαρνος

1580. Χόφραζμος

1581. Χρηστίων

1582. Χ[---]ιος

1583. Ψυχαρίων

1584. Ψυχαρίων

Nr.

Φιδανους

Τρύφων

Ἀθηνόδωρος

ignotus

Φοργάβακος

Στρατόνεικος

Ἀ[---]

Ἄττας

ignotus

Μακάριος

Ἀθηνόδωρος

ignotus

[---]άμος

Relations1

ir.

gr.

gr.

?

ir.

gr.

?

Lal.?

?

gr.

gr.

?

?

On.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον, Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

συναγωγός

ἱερεύς, πρεσβευτής

πατήρ συνόδου

Position2

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Divinity

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

AD 225, AD 225–227

AD 211–227/ 233–235, AD 225

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 220, AD 225

AD 225

AD 209

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 244

AD 228

AD 220

AD 220

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

1, 4

1, 4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

?

?

?

?

?

?

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

ir.

?

ir.

?

1585. Ω[---]

1586. [---]ακος

1587. [---]ανος

1588. [---]αρος

1589. [---]άτης

1590. [---]ατος

1591. [---]αυάρθακος

1592. [---]βανζος

1593. [---]βράδεος

1594. [---]δαστος

1595. [---ό]δαστος

1596. [---]δίβαλος

1597. [---]είσμ[α]κος

1598. [---]ιον

gr. gr. ir. ? gr. gr. ?

ir. gr. ir.

Μύρων

Τειμοκράτης

Ζεύακος

Βλευ[---]

Λειμανός

Δούλας

Χαρ[---]

Φαρνάκης

Ἀντίμαχος

Φοργάβακος

ir.

Φόσακος

?

gr.

Χαρίτων

[---]αρος

?

[---]ακος

νεανισκάρχης

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

παραφιλάγαθος

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

AD 173–211

AD 220

AD 173–211

AD 211–227/ 233–235

AD 244

AD 220

AD 220

AD 225

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 211–227/ 233–235

AD 155

AD 228

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

4

1

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

4

4

?

?

?

gr.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

1600. [---]κος

1601. [---]κος

1602. [---]κος

1603. [---]κράτης

1604. [---]νος

1605. [---]νος

1606. [---]νους

1607. [---]ος

1608. [---]ος

1609. [---]ος

1610. [---]ους

1611. [---]ους

1612. [---]ουσκος

On.

?

Person

1599. [---]ισανος

Nr.

gr. ? un. gr. Lal. gr. ir. gr. gr.

Σάροργος

Θαμοῦς

Ἀρίστων

Πάππος

Φίλωτος

Ζοτομᾶς

Καλλιγένης

Στρατόνεικος

ir.

Σιαύακος

Ἡρακλείδης

trc.

Σεύθης

?

ir.

Ἄμβουστος

ignotus

?

On.

ignotus

Relations1

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

?

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Divinity

Theos Hypsistos

γραμματεύς

Position2

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

2nd c. AD

AD 228

2nd c. AD

AD 155

AD 155

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 123

AD 225

AD 228

AD 220

2nd c. AD

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

?

?

?

?

gr.

?

?

gr.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

1613. [---]ς

1614. [---]ς

1615. [---]ς

1616. [---]σιαυ-/ασκις

1617. [---]φανης

1618. [---]ων

1619. [---]ων

1620. [---όδ]ωρος

1621. ignotus

1622. ignotus

1623. ignotus

1624. ignotus

1625. ignotus

1626. ignotus

1627. ignotus

gr. gr. gr. ir. ir. ir. ir. gr. gr. ir. gr. gr. gr. ir. gr.

Ἀντισθένης

Μύρων

Χρυσίων

Ἀμαίακος

Φαρνάκης

Ἀμάρθαστος

Ζάβαργος

Νεικίας

Ἀλέξανδρος

Ἀρδάρακος

Ἀριστόδημος

Ἀσκληπιάδης

Ἀσκληπιάδης

Ἀταμάζας

Γλύκων

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

?

dedication

Theos dedication [Hypsistos?]

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

Theos Hypsistos

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

πατήρ συνόδου

νεανισκάρχης

Theos Hypsistos

?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 220

AD 220

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 225

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 155

2nd c. AD

AD 244

AD 154–171

AD 220

2nd c. AD

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

On.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Person

1628. ignotus

1629. ignotus

1630. ignotus

1631. ignotus

1632. ignotus

1633. ignotus

1634. ignotus

1635. ignotus

1636. ignotus

1637. ignotus

1638. ignotus

1639. ignotus

1640. ignotus

1641. ignotus

Nr.

trc. trc. trc. trc. gr. gr. gr. gr. gr. gr. gr. gr. gr. gr.

Δάδας

Δάδας

Δάδας

Δημήτριος

Δημήτριος

Διόφαντος

Ἑρμογένης

Ἔρως

Εὐνόϊκος

Εὐνόϊκος

Εὑρήμων

Ἡρακλείδης

Θεάγγελος

On.

Δάδας

Relations1

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

φιλάγαθος

παραφιλάγαθος

παραφιλάγαθος

?

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

?

Theos Hypsistos

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

?

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Divinity

Theos Hypsistos

γραμματεύς

φιλάγαθος

Position2

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 228

AD 220

AD 154–171

2nd c. AD

AD 225

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 154–171

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 230

AD 154–171

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

1642. ignotus

1643. ignotus

1644. ignotus

1645. ignotus

1646. ignotus

1647. ignotus

1648. ignotus

1649. ignotus

1650. ignotus

1651. ignotus

1652. ignotus

1653. ignotus

1654. ignotus

1655. ignotus

1656. ignotus

gr. gr. ir. gr. gr. gr. gr. Lal. Lal. gr. lat. ir. gr. gr. gr.

Κίνωλος

Κόνων

Μαστοῦς

Μενεστράτης

Μενέστρατος

Μενέστρατος

Μενέστρατος

Πάππος

Πάππος

Πασίων

Πόπλιος

Σαῖος

Σαῦρος

Στρατόνεικος

Σύμφορος

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Θιασεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

γυμνασιάρχης

φιλάγαθος

γυμνασιάρχης

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

?

?

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

–

Theos Hypsistos

–

?

dedication

dedication

dedication?

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

AD 225

AD 225

2nd c. BC

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 220

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 154–171

AD 154–171

3rd c. AD

AD 173–211

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

2

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

On.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Person

1657. ignotus

1658. ignotus

1659. ignotus

1660. ignotus

1661. ignotus

1662. ignotus

1663. ignotus

1664. ignotus

1665. ignotus

1666. ignotus

1667. ignotus

1668. ignotus

1669. ignotus

1670. ignotus

Nr.

ir. gr. gr. ir.

Φίδας

Χαρίτων

Χρηστίων

Χορόαθος

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

[---]μος

[---]κος

[---]δωρος

[---]ακος

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

ir.

Φίδας

[---]αβαρδ[---]

gr.

On.

Σωσίβιος

Relations1

Theos Hypsistos – –

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

παραφιλάγαθος

Theos Hypsistos

–

Θιασεῖται

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

Divinity

?

*Ἑλληνάρχης?

συναγωγός

Position2

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Association

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

honorific decree

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 230

AD 155

2nd c. BC

AD 225

AD 225

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 155

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Dating

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

4

4

4

4

4

2

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

?

?

?

?

1675. ignotus

1676. ignotus

1677. ignotus

1678. ignotus

?

?

?

?

?

?

1681. ignotus

1682. ignotus

1683. ignotus

1684. ignotus

1685. ignotus

1686. ignotus

?

?

1674. ignotus

?

?

1673. ignotus

1679. ignotus

?

1672. ignotus

1680. ignotus

?

1671. ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

ἱερεύς πατήρ συνόδου φιλάγαθος νεωκόρος συναγωγός φιλάγαθος ἱερεύς πατήρ συνόδου

Θιασεῖται Θιασεῖται Θιασεῖται Θιασεῖται Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

?

?

Theos Hypsistos

Theos Hypsistos

?

?

?

?

Theos Hypsistos Theos Hypsistos

συναγωγός

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos Hypsistos

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

*Ἑλληνάρχης?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

honorific

honorific

honorific

honorific

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Theos dedication [Hypsistos?]

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον Theos Hypsistos

Theos dedication [Hypsistos?]

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

πρεσβύτερος

Theos dedication [Hypsistos?]

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Theos dedication [Hypsistos?]

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 155

AD 155

2nd c. BC

2nd c. BC

2nd c. BC

2nd c. BC

AD 154–171

AD 154–171

AD 154–171

AD 225–227

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

4

4

4

4

2

2

2

2

4

4

4

1

4

4

4

4

On.

?

?

?

?

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

trc.

trc.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Person

1687. ignotus

1688. ignotus

1689. ignotus

1690. ignotus

1691. ignotus

1692. Ἀγαθοῦς

1693. Ἀουαινων

1694. Βασιλίσκος

1695. Δάδας

1696. Δάδας

1697. Διονύσιος

1698. Διονύσιος

1699. Ἑρμῆς

1700. Ζώπυρος

Nr.

Ἥλιος

Νουμήνιος

Καλλίων

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

Relations1

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

?

?

?

?

On.

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

ἱερεύς

ἱερομάστωρ

ἱερομάστωρ

νεανισκάρχης

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

ἱερεύς

?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

*[Ἑλλην]άρχης?

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

?

?

γραμματεύς

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Divinity

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Position2

Association

?

?

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

1st c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

1st c. AD

3rd c. AD

1st c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Dating

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Tanais

Origin

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

gr.

gr.

1711. Πάλος

1712. Πόθος

gr.

un.

1710. Ὀρτυκᾶς

1715. Ἀπολλώνιος

?

ir.

1709. Ὀμψάλακος

?

gr.

1708. Νουμήνιος

gr.

gr.

1707. Νεοπτόλεμος

1713. ignotus

ir.

1706. Μοκκοῦς

1714. Ἄγαθος

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

gr.

Χρυσαλίσκος

Πολεμοκράτης

ignotus

Νεικολ[---]

Σαμβίων

Λεύκιος

Ἀρδάρακος

gr

gr.

?

?

sem.

gr.

ir.

gr.

1705. Μενέστρατος

Ἀγαθοῦς

?

1704. Κύνων

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ἱερ[έ]α Κύνων Ἀγαθοῦ

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ἱερ[έ]α Κύνων Ἀγαθοῦ

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

Θίασος περὶ ρέα τὸν δεῖνα

gr.

gr.

1703. Κράτιππος

Ἀριστόνεικος

gr.

1702. Ἡρακλείδης

Θίασος περὶ ἱερ[έ]α Κύνων Ἀγαθοῦ

ir.

1701. Ἠζοῦς

ἱερομάστωρ

γραμματεύς

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

φιλάγαθος

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

γραμματεύς

φιλάγαθος

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

–

?

–

?

?

–

catalogue

catalogue

regulations

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

funerary

AD 123–133

AD 123–133

2nd c. AD

1st c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

1st c. AD

1st c. AD

1st c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Hermonassa

Hermonassa

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

Phanagoria

1

1

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

2

1

On.

gr.

ir.

trc.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

?

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Person

1716. Ἀρισταγόρας

1717. Βάγης

1718. Δάδας

1719. Δημοκράτης

1720. Ἰούλιος

1721. Καλοῦς

1722. Μέγης

1723. Μυρῖνος

1724. Στράτων

1725. ignotus

1726. ignotus

1727. Ἀβαζίων

1728. Ἀγαθοῦς

1729. Ἀγαθοῦς

1730. Ἀγαθοῦς

Nr.

ir. gr.

Φαρνακίων

gr.

?

Ψυχαρίων

Ζήνων

ignotus

?

gr.

Ἠλίττας

ignotus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

trc.

gr.

gr.

gr.

On.

Ὀνησίδωρος

Μυρῖνος

Μηνᾶς

Μυρῖνος

Ἔρως

Δάδας

Ἀπολλώνιος

Σωσίπατρος

Ἀγαθοῦς

Relations1

?

?

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος] πατέρα συνόδου

?

?

-saua

-saua

?

ἱερεύς

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Divinity

?

ἱερεύς

φιλάγαθος

νεωκόρος, *ἐπί τἠς αὐλῆς

Position2

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

Association

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 123–133

AD 123–133

AD 123–133

AD 123–133

AD 123–133

2nd c. AD

AD 123–133

AD 123–133

AD 123–133

AD 123–133

Dating

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Hermonassa

Hermonassa

Hermonassa

Hermonassa

Hermonassa

Hermonassa

Hermonassa

Hermonassa

Hermonassa

Hermonassa

Hermonassa

Origin

6

6

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Corpus

gr.

Πό[θος]

ignotus

?

gr.

gr.

ir.

?

ir.

1747. Ἀπ[---]

1748. Ἀπολλώνιος?

1749. Ἀριστίων?

1750. Ἄρδαρος

1751. Ἀρ[---]

1752. Ἀσποῦργος

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

gr.

gr.

1745. Ἀλέ[ξανδρος?]

?

?

gr.

?

?

?

?

?

gr.

Νουμήνιος

Πόθος

?

?

?

?

gr.

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

Πανταλέων

1746. Ἀλέξανδρος?

gr.

gr.

gr.

1742. Ἀθηνόδωρος

1743. [Ἀλ]έξανδρος

gr.

1741. Ἀθηνόδωρος

1744. Ἀλέξανδρος

gr.

1740. Ἀθηνόδωρος

gr.

Χρῆστος

gr.

gr.

1738. Ἀθηνόδωρος

gr.

1739. [Ἀθη]νόδωρος

gr.

Σέλευκος

gr.

1737. Ἀθηνόδωρος

gr. gr.

1736. Ἀθηνόδωρος

Διονύσιος?

Νεοκλῆς

gr.

lat.

gr.

Γάϊος

? ?

1734. Ἀθηνόδωρος

gr.

1733. Ἀθηνόδωρος

ignotus

ignotus

1735. Ἀθηνόδωρος

gr.

gr.

1731. Ἀγαθοῦς

1732. Ἀγαθοῦς

συναγωγός

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεασεῖται

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θιασῖται

ἐνκυκλίων οἰκονόμος

συναγωγός

catalogue

catalogue

unknown

?

Poseidon

?

?

Poseidon

?

-saua

-saua

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

[Poseidon?] catalogue?

-saua

?

dedication

dedication, decision

dedication

dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue?

Poseidon

dedication dedication

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

ἱερεύς, *πρῶτον ἐπὶ τῆς βα[σ]ιλείας

Poseidon

Poseidon

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 229–231

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

ca. AD 200

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

3

3

6

6

3

2

1

1

6

3

3

3

1

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

6

On.

?

Lal. ignotus

ir.

ir.

Χαδικ[---]

?

?

?

gr.

1769. Ἐπ[---]

1770. Ἐπ[---]

1771. Ἑρμ[---]

1772. Ἔρως

gr.

gr.

1767. Διονύσιος

1768. Διόφαντος

gr.

Σύμμαχος

gr.

Ἀχ[---]

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

?

?

?

?

?

ir.

gr.

1766. Δι[ονύσιος?]

Δημήτριος

Ζαζζοῦς

gr.

?

gr.

ignotus

? ?

1764. Δημήτριος

trc.

1763. Δάδας

ignotus

ignotus

?

?

?

1765. Διονύσιος

ir.

gr.

1761. Γαδίκιος

1762. Γοργίας

ignotus

ir.

1760. Γάγανος

ignotus

sem. ignotus

1759. Βόχορος

1758. Βάγης

?

Lal. ignotus

1757. Ἄττας

?

ir.

1756. Ἄττας

Δάζεις

ignotus

ir.

ir.

?

On.

1754. Ἀταμάζας

ignotus

Relations1

1755. Ἀταμάζας

ir.

Person

1753. Ἀτακούας

Nr.

?

Θεασεῖται

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

?

-saua

Poseidon

?

-saua

?

Poseidon

Poseidon

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

-saua

?

-saua

Divinity

-saua

ἐνκυκλίων οἰκονόμος

Position2

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

?

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

?

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Association

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue?

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

Type inscr.

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

Dating

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Origin

6

2

1

3

3

3

3

3

6

1

6

3

3

3

3

1

5

1

6

1

Corpus

ir.

ir.

?

lat.

lat.

1792. Κοσσοῦς

1793. Κοσσοῦς

1794. Λυ[---]

1795. Λυκίσκος

1796. Λυκίσκος

ir.

?

1788. Κο[---]

1791. Κοσσοῦς Ἄττας

?

1787. Κο[---]

ir.

gr.

gr.

lat.

1785. Ἰουλιανός

1786. Κέρδων

1789. Κοθίνας

gr.

1784. Ἰατροκλῆς

1790. Κόνος

un.

un.

1782. Θχήτλεις

1783. Θχήτλεις

gr.

1781. Ἡρακλ[είδης]

ignotus

ir.

ir.

ir.

1779. Ζαζζοῦς

gr.

1777. Εὔμαχος

1778. Ζαζζοῦς

1780. Ζέφο

Ἀπολλώνιος

gr.

1776. Εὐάριστος

Νουμήνιος

Φαρνάκης

Πόθος

ignotus

Σύμμαχος

῎Ερως

Κοσσοῦς

ignotus

Ἄττας

ignotus

[---]τοκος

Φ[---]

ignotus

ignotus

Νίχεκος

Ἀθηνόδωρος

ignotus

ignotus

Γλυκαρίων

ignotus

ignotus

gr.

gr.

1774. Ἔρως

Ν[---]

1775. Ἔρως

gr.

1773. Ἔρως

ir.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

ir.

?

Lal.

?

?

?

?

?

gr.

gr.

?

?

?

gr.

gr.

?

?

gr.

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεασεῖται

?

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

?

?

?

φροντιστής

ἱερῶν οἰκονόμος

-saua

Poseidon

Poseidon

?

?

-saua

?

?

?

Poseidon

Θέασος ναυκλήρων Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Poseidon

?

Poseidon

Poseidon

-saua

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

decision

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

decision

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

3

3

1

3

3

3

3

3

2

5

6

3

1

6

6

6

3

3

6

3

6

3

3

1

ignotus

gr.

gr.

1808. Νεόκας

1809. Νεοκλῆς

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

1812. [Νουμή]νιος

1813. Νουμήνιος

1814. Νουμήνιος

1815. Νουμήνιος

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

1806. Μυ[ρίσκος?]

1807. Ν[---]ον

1810. Νεοκλῆς

gr.

Ἀθη[---]

Λ[---]

gr.

1805. Μυρίσκος

1811. Νουμήνιος

?

Θυο[---]

gr.

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

Ἄττας

ignotus

Χρῆστος

ignotus

?

?

?

?

Lal.

?

?

?

gr.

?

gr.

lat.

1804. Μοιρόδωρος

Γάϊος

Νεοκλῆς

gr.

gr.

ir.

1802. Μοιρόδωρος

Ἀταμάζας

1803. Μοιρόδωρος

gr.

1801. Μοιρόδωρος

?

gr.

ignotus

Σύμμ[---]

ir.

gr.

1799. Μάστακος

1800. Μενέστρατος

? gr.

ignotus

Ἀθηνόδωρος

On.

?

Relations1

gr.

On.

1797. Μα[---]

Person

1798. Μακάριος

Nr.

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Poseidon

-saua

-saua

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue?

dedication

catalogue?

dedication

catalogue

dedication

dedication, decision

catalogue

dedication, decision

catalogue

dedication

dedication

catalogue

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Poseidon

Poseidon

Poseidon

-saua

Poseidon

Poseidon

Poseidon

?

Divinity

[Poseidon?] catalogue?

*ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς Θεοδοσίας

συναγωγός, φροντιστής *ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς Γοργιππείας

*στρατηγός

Position2

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Association

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

ca. AD 200

AD 229–231

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

Dating

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Origin

3

1

1

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

1

3

3

3

3

3

3

6

Corpus

ignotus

gr.

1831. Πόθος

gr.

gr.

gr.

1838. Πόθος

1839. Πόθος?

gr.

1836. Πόθος?

1837. Πόθο[ς]

gr.

gr.

1834. Πόθος

1835. Πόθος

gr.

gr.

1830. [Π]όθος

gr.

gr.

1829. Πόθος

1832. Πόθος

gr.

1833. Πόθος

?

Lal. ignotus

1827. Παπί[ας]

1828. Ποθίσκος

Τειμόθεος

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

Φαρνακίων

Φαρνάκης

?

?

?

?

?

ir.

ir.

gr.

?

Lal.

Πά[πας?]

Σ[---]

Lal.

?

ir.

Ἄττας

ignotus

?

Lal. Φαρνάκης

Lal. ignotus

1825. Πάπας

1826. Πάπας

ir. ir.

gr.

?

gr.

ir.

gr.

?

Lal. Σιαβά[---]

Πόθος

? ?

1823. Πάνυχος

ignotus

Χρηστίων

Φαρνάκης

Ἀθηνόδωρος

ignotus

ignotus

1824. Πάπας

gr.

gr.

1821. Πανταλέων

1822. Πανταλέων

gr.

gr.

gr.

1818. Παντακλῆς

1819. Πανταλέων

?

1820. Πανταλέων

gr.

1816. Νυμφαγόρας

1817. Ο[---]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

*στρατηγός

-saua

-saua

Poseidon

?

Poseidon

?

?

Poseidon

?

Poseidon

Poseidon

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue?

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue?

dedication

catalogue

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

AD 173–211

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 173–211

ca. AD 200

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

ca. AD 200

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

3

5

1

3

1

3

3

6

3

3

3

3

3

6

6

3

3

3

5

6

3

3

3

3

ignotus

?

lat. ir. Lal. ir.

Σατορνεῖλος

Σεαβά[---]

Πάπας

Ἀττακόας

?

lat.

ir.

ir.

1847. Σατορνεῖλος

1848. Σεάσας

1849. Σιά[σας?]

gr.

gr.

gr.

ir.

ir.

ir.

1857. Τειμόθεος

1858. Τ[ειμόθεος?]

1859. Τρύφων?

1860. Φαρνάκης?

1861. Φαρνάκης

1862. Φαρνάκης

ir.

Ζαζζοῦς

gr.

gr.

1855. Σύμμαχος

1856. Τειμόθεος

?

ignotus

trc.

trc.

1853. Σπαρτακίων

1854. Σπάρτακος

Εὐχάριστος

῎Ερως

Γάστεις

ignotus

ignotus

Φάννας

Μοιρόδωρος

Σύμμαχος

gr.

gr.

ir.

?

?

ir.

gr.

gr.

gr.

trc.

1852. Σπαρτοκίων

Ἀγαθοῦς

ir.

gr.

1850. Σκόζος

?

1851. Σωσίπατρος

ignotus

?

ir.

1846. Σατ[---]

Κοδόρας

ignotus

gr.

gr.

1844. Σαρμάτας

gr.

?

gr.

?

On.

1845. Σαρμάτας

sem. Ἀγαθοῦς

1843. Σαμβατίων

1842. Σ[---]

?

ignotus

Ψυχαρίων

gr.

1840. Πόθος

1841. Σ[---]

Relations1

On.

Person

Nr.

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεασεῖται

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

?

Association

*[ὀρφανο]φύλαξ

Position2

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

-saua

-saua

?

Poseidon

-saua

?

Poseidon

Poseidon

?

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue?

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

decision

dedication

dedication

dedication

[Poseidon?] catalogue?

?

?

Divinity

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd–3rd c. AD

ca. AD 200

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 229–231

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Dating

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Origin

1

3

3

5

3

1

3

3

2

3

3

1

3

3

3

6

3

3

3

6

3

6

6

Corpus

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

1882. Χρηστίων

1884. Χρηστίων

1885. Χρηστοῦς

gr.

1881. Χρηστίων

1883. Χρηστίων

gr.

gr.

1879. Χρηστίων

gr.

1878. Χρηστίων

1880. Χρηστίων

gr.

1877. Χρηστίων

ignotus

?

1874. Χ[---]

gr.

gr.

1873. Φιλοδέσποτος

gr.

ir.

1872. Φαρνακίων

1875. Χόλκος

ir.

1871. Φαρνακίων

1876. Χρηστίων

ignotus

ir.

1870. Φαρνακίων

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

Πόθος

Πάπας

Κομίνικος

Γαδίκιος

Φαρνάκης

ignotus

Σύμμ[---]

Πόθος

Π[---]

Νουμήνιος

Θάμφλας?

ir.

ir.

1867. Φαρνακίων

?

?

?

?

?

?

gr.

ir.

gr.

ir.

?

?

ir.

?

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

un.

?

ir.

Φαρνακίων

ignotus

ir.

ir.

1866. Φαρνάκης

1868. Φαρνακίων

ir.

1865. [Φα]ρνάκης

gr. ir.

Νουμήνιος

Φαρνάκης?

1869. Φαρνακίων

ir.

ir.

1863. Φαρνάκης

1864. Φαρνάκης

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Θιασῖται

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

ἱερῶν οἰκονόμος

?

-saua

-saua

Poseidon

Poseidon

?

-saua

?

Poseidon

?

?

Poseidon

dedication

catalogue

catalogue?

dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue? dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

decision

catalogue

dedication

dedication

catalogue?

dedication

dedication

unknown

decision

catalogue

dedication

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD, AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

3

6

1

3

3

1

3

3

3

3

3

6

3

3

1

6

3

3

3

6

4

3

3

?

?

?

1905. [---ω]ν

1906. ignotus

1907. ignotus

?

1902. [---]ς

?

?

?

gr.

1900. [---κ]ράτης

1901. [---]ς

1903. [---]ων

?

1899. [---]ους

1904. [---]ων

?

?

1897. [---]ος

?

?

1895. [---]ος

1896. [---]ος

1898. [---]ους

?

?

1893. [---]ορικος

gr.

1892. [---]όδωρος

1894. [---]ος

?

gr.

1890. [---]κος

? gr. gr. gr. gr.

Μ[---]

Πανταλέων

Ἀγαθοῦς

Ἀγαθοῦς Βοχόρου

Lal.

Πάππος

Πόθος

gr. gr.

[---κ]ράτης

?

Χρ[---]

Πανταλέων

? gr.

[---]ος

? ir.

Μο[---]

Φαρνακίων

Χαρίτων

? gr.

[---]ορικος

?

Σ[---]

῾Ερμόδωρος

? ir.

ignotus

Βάγης

ir.

1891. [---]όδωρος

gr.

Χαρίτων

Φαρνάκίων

?

?

1888. [---]ας

1889. [---]κης

gr. ?

Μυρίσκος

ignotus

On.

ir.

Relations1

gr.

On.

1886. Χοραγοῦς

Person

1887. Χρυσόγονος

Nr.

Poseidon

?

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

?

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Θιασῖται

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

?

?

-saua

?

-saua

?

?

Poseidon

?

?

-saua

?

?

?

Poseidon

Θέασος ναυκλήρων Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

?

?

?

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

unknown

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

unknown

catalogue

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

Θιασῖται ?

Divinity

catalogue?

ἱερεύς, *λοχαγός

Position2

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Association

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

Dating

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Origin

1

6

1

3

6

6

3

6

4

1

6

6

6

3

3

6

6

4

3

3

3

3

Corpus

?

?

?

1928. ignotus

1929. ignotus

1930. ignotus

?

?

1926. ignotus

1927. ignotus

?

?

1924. ignotus

1925. ignotus

?

?

1922. ignotus

1923. ignotus

?

?

1920. ignotus

1921. ignotus

?

?

?

1917. ignotus

1918. ignotus

?

1916. ignotus

1919. ignotus

?

?

?

1913. ignotus

1914. ignotus

?

1912. ignotus

1915. ignotus

?

?

1910. ignotus

1911. ignotus

?

?

1908. ignotus

1909. ignotus

Lal. Lal. gr.

Πάππος

Πάππος

Ποθίσκος

gr. gr.

Πάπιος?

Πάπιος?

gr. gr.

Νουμήνιος

Νουμήνιος

gr. gr.

Νεοκλῆς

Νουμήνιος

gr. gr.

Μοιρόδωρος

Νεοκλῆς

gr. gr.

gr.

Ζήνων

Καλλισθένης

gr.

Ἔρως

Κοτίων

gr. gr.

Δυνάτων

Ἐπαφρόδειτος

ir.

ir.

Ἀσποῦργος

[Δ]υνάτων

gr. gr.

[Ἀ]θηνόδωρος

Ἀπολλώνιος

gr. gr.

Ἀθηνόδωρος

Ἀθηνόδωρος

Θέασος ναυκλήρων ?

?

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θιασῖται

Θεασεῖται

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

dedication

catalogue

dedication

decision

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

?

?

?

?

-saua

Poseidon

Poseidon

?

dedication

dedication

catalogue

unknown

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

[Poseidon?] catalogue?

?

-saua

-saua

Poseidon

decision

catalogue

dedication

dedication

Poseidon

-saua

dedication dedication

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

*στρατηγός

Poseidon Poseidon

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 229–231

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

3

6

6

3

4

2

1

3

3

6

3

6

3

3

3

1

1

3

3

3

1

6

3

?

?

?

1951. ignotus

1952. ignotus

1953. ignotus

?

?

1949. ignotus

1950. ignotus

?

?

1947. ignotus

1948. ignotus

?

?

1945. ignotus

?

1944. ignotus

1946. ignotus

?

?

1942. ignotus

1943. ignotus

?

?

1940. ignotus

?

1939. ignotus

1941. ignotus

?

?

1937. ignotus

1938. ignotus

?

?

?

1934. ignotus

1935. ignotus

?

1933. ignotus

1936. ignotus

?

?

1931. ignotus

On.

Person

1932. ignotus

Nr.

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

[---]ωρος

[---]ωρος

[---]τος

[---]κος

[---]ιος

?

?

?

?

?

gr.

gr.

?

?

?

?

ir.

Φαρνακίων

[---]είνος

ir. ir.

Φαρνακίων

ir.

Φαρνακίων

Φαρνακίων

ir. ir.

ir.

Τειμόθεος

Φαρνάκης?

Φαρνακίων

gr.

Σύμμαχος

Φαρνακίων

? gr.

Σαβα[---]

gr. gr.

Πόθος?

On.

Πόθος

Relations1

lex sacra

dedication

dedication

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue?

catalogue

dedication

Type inscr.

συναγωγός?

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Poseidon

? Poseidon

οἰκονόμος

Θεασεῖται Θέασος ναυκλήρων

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

[ἱερεύς?] φροντιστής

Θεασεῖται Θεασεῖται

?

dedication ?

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

ἱερεύς, φροντιστής

?

?

-saua

[Poseidon?] catalogue?

?

?

?

-saua

Poseidon

?

-saua

Divinity

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

*λοχαγός

Position2

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

?

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

?

?

?

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεασεῖται

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Association

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 229–231

1st/2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

Dating

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Origin

3

3

2

2

2

3

3

6

6

1

3

7

6

6

1

3

2

3

3

3

3

1

3

Corpus

?

?

1958. ignotus

1959. ignotus

?

?

?

?

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

1964. ignotus

1966. ignotus

1967. ignotus

1968. ignotus

1969. Ἀθηνίων

1970. Ἀσκλαπιάδας

1971. Βακχίς

1963. ignotus

1965. ignotus

?

?

1962. ignotus

?

?

1957. ignotus

?

?

1956. ignotus

1960. ignotus

?

1955. ignotus

1961. ignotus

?

1954. ignotus

Φίλτος

Πραξιτέλης

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

ignotus

gr.

gr.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Κοινόν τῶν θιασωτῶν

Κοινόν

Δοῦμος Ἀφροδίτης Ἐπιτευξξιδίας

?

**φιλότιμος

Agathe Thea

Cabiri

honorific

dedication

funerary

catalogue

catalogue ἱερεύς

catalogue? catalogue?

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

συναγωγός?

catalogue

*ὀρφανοφύλαξ

Θέασος ναυκλήρων Θέασος ναυκλήρων

dedication catalogue?

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

*ὀρφανοφύλαξ ἱερῶν οἰκονόμος

Θέασος ναυκλήρων Θέασος ναυκλήρων

dedication dedication

οἰκονόμος

Aphrodite Epiteuxidia

decision unknown

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

Θιασεῖται

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

*λοχαγός συναγωγός

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

-saua

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

-saua -saua

φροντιστής

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

-saua

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

συναγωγός

Θεᾶς Α.ΣΑΥΑΣ θί[ασος]

3rd c. BC

185 BC

AD 90–91

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

AD 173–211

ExternalAthens

ExternalRhodos

ExternalThessalonica

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

Gorgippia

8

7

1

5

1

1

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

3

1

1

1

1

On.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Person

1972. Δημόφιλος

1973. Ζήνων

1974. Ζώβιος

1975. Κεφαλίων

1976. Κόνων

1977. Κτησιφῶν

1978. Μενεκλῆς

1979. Μῆνις

1980. Μόνιμος

1981. Νικηφόρος

1982. Πατρᾶς

1983. Σεραπίων

Nr.

Ποσειδεώνιος

Ἀπολλόνιος

Δημήτριος

Μνησίθεος

Relations1

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

On.

Ὀργεών

Κοινόν

Τεμενῖται

Ἐρανισταί

Θιασῶται

Κοινόν

Κοινόν

Ἐρανισταί

Θιασῶται

Ἐρανισταί

Κοινόν

Ἐρανισταί

Association

ἀγωνοθέτης

**εὐεργέτης, ταμίας, ἱερεύς

**εὐεργέτης

γραμματεύς

ἱερεύς

ἐπιμελητής

Position2

Cabiri

Agathe Tyche, Apollo, Hermes

Theoi

Cabiri

Cabiri

Pancrates, Heracles, Palaimon

Cabiri

Pancrates, Heracles, Palaimon

Divinity

honorific

dedication

catalogue

?

honorific

dedication

dedication

dedication

honorific

catalogue

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

138/137 BC

185 BC

190–189 BC

52/1 BC

298/297 BC

185 BC

185 BC

300/299 BC

281/280 BC

102/101 BC

185 BC

300/299 BC

Dating

ExternalAthens

ExternalRhodos

ExternalMiletus

ExternalMarousi

ExternalPiraeus

ExternalRhodos

ExternalRhodos

ExternalAthens

ExternalPiraeus

ExternalPiraeus

ExternalRhodos

ExternalAthens

Origin

9

7

10

4

6

7

7

3

5

2

7

3

Corpus

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, C. 2018: ‘Nile River Transport under the Romans’. In Wilson, A. and Bowman, A.K. (eds.), Trade, Commerce, and the State in the Roman World (Oxford), 175–210. Alexieva, M. 2007: ‘Orphic-Dionysian Religiousness: To the Interpretation of the Bronze Ritual Mirror from Olbia Pontica/ the Hermitage no. 16964’. In XIII Congressus internationalis epigraphiae Graecae et Latinae, Oxford 2007 (http:// ciegl.classics.ox.ac.uk/html/webposters/1_Alexieva.pdf 2007), 1–11. Alfőldy, G. 1958: ‘Collegium-Organisationen in Intercisa’. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 6, 177–98. —. 1966: ‘Zur Inschrift des collegium centonariorum von Solva’. Historia 15, 433–44. Aneziri, S. 2003: Die Vereine der dionysischen Techniten im Kontext der hellenistischen Gesellschaft: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte, Organisation und Wirkung der hellenistischen Technitenvereine (Stuttgart). Arnaoutoglou, I.N. 1998: ‘Between Koinon and Idion: Legal and Social Dimensions of Religious Associations in Ancient Athens’. In Cartledge, P., Millett, P. and von Reden, S. (eds.), Kosmos: Essays in Order, Conflict, and Community in Classical Athens (Cambridge/New York), 68–83. —. 2002: ‘Roman Law and Collegia in Asia Minor’. Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité 49, 27–44. —. 2003: Thysias Heneka Kai Synousias: Private Religious Associations in Hellenistic Athens (Athens). —. 2011a: ‘Status and Identity in Private Religious Associations in Hellenistic Athens’. In van Nijf, O.M. and Alston, R. (eds.), Political Culture in the Greek City after the Classical Age (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA), 27–48. —. 2011b: ‘Craftsmen Associations in Roman Lydia. A Tale of Two Cities?’. Ancient Society 41, 257–90. —. 2015: ‘Cult associations and politics. Worshipping Bendis in Classical and Hellenistic Athens’. In Gabrielsen and Thomsen 2015, 25–56. —. 2016: ‘Hierapolis and its Professional Associations. A Comparative Analysis’. In Wilson, A. and Flohr, M. (eds.), Urban Craftsmen and Traders in the Roman World (Oxford), 278–300. —. 2018: ‘Isiastai Sarapiastai. Isiac Cult Associations in the Eastern Mediterranean’. In Gasparini, V. and Veymiers, R. (eds.), Individuals and Materials in the GrecoRoman Cults of Isis. Agents, Images, and Practices (Leiden/Boston), 248–79. Arsenyeva, T.M., Böttger, B. and Vinogradov, Y.G. 1996: ‘Novye issledovaniya v Tanaise’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3, 54–72. Ascough, R.S. 1997: ‘Translocal Relationships among Voluntary Associations and Early Christianity’. Journal of Early Christian Studies 5, 223–41. —. 2000: ‘The Thessalonian Christian Community as a Professional Voluntary Association’. Journal of Biblical Literature 119, 311–28. —. 2002: ‘Greco-Roman Philosophic, Religious, and Voluntary Associations’. In Longenecker, R.N. (ed.), Community Formation in the Early Church and the Church Today (Peabody), 3–19.

314

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. 2003: Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians and 1 Thessalonians (Tübingen). —. 2006: ‘Voluntary Associations and the Formation of Pauline Churches: Addressing the Objections’. In Gutsfeld, A. and Koch, D.-A. (eds.), Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (Tübingen), 149–83. —. 2007: ‘A Place to Stand, A Place to Grow: Architectural and Epigraphic Evidence for Expansion in Greco-Roman Associations’. In Crook, Z.A. and Harland, P.A. (eds.), Identity and Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean: Jews, Christians and Others. Festschrift for Stephen G. Wilson (Sheffield), 76–98. Ausbüttel, F.M. 1982: Untersuchungen zu den Vereinen im Westen des römischen Reiches (Kallmünz). Avram, A. 1992–94: ‘Ein neues griechisches Wort: κοινοσώστης’. Studii Clasice 28–30, 121–23. —. 1995: ‘Un règlement sacré de Callatis’. BCH 119, 235–52. —. 2002: ‘Der dionysische thiasos in Kallatis: Organisation, Repräsentation, Funktion’. In Egelhaaf-Gaiser, U. and Schäfer, A. (eds.), Religiöse Vereine in der römischen Antike: Untersuchungen zu Organisation, Ritual und Raumordnung (Tübingen), 69–80. —. 2006: ‘Une inscription de Tomis redécouverte à Caen’. In Mihailescu-Bîrliba, L. and Bounegru, O. (eds.), Studia historiae et religionis daco-romanae. In honorem Silvii Sanie (Bucharest), 277–83. —. 2007: ‘Les ciues Romani consistentes de Scythie mineure: État de la question’. In Compatangelo-Soussignan, R. and Schwentzel, C.-G. (eds.), Étrangers dans la cité romaine (Actes du Colloque de Valenciennes, 14–15 octobre 2005, ‘“Habiter une autre patrie”: des incolae de la République aux peuples fédérés du Bas-Empire’) (Rennes), 91–109. —. 2008a: ‘Bulletin épigraphique (Thrace, Dacie, Pont)’. REG 121, 686–725. —. 2008b: ‘Remarques sur la prosopographie externe des Héracléotes du Pont’. In Karayotov, I. (ed.), Bulgaria Medii Aevi VI–VII. Mesemvria Pontica International Seminar. Nesebar, May 28–31. Studia in honorem Professoris Vasil Gyuselev (Burgas), 87–114. —. 2014: ‘Inscriptions d’Istros’. Dacia n.s. 58, 271–84. —. 2015: ‘Newly Published Documents Concerning Cult Associations in the Black Sea: Some Remarks’. In Gabrielsen and Thomsen 2015, 122–35. —. 2018a: ‘Eine neue Inschrift der dionysischen Speira von Histria’. Gephyra 16, 143–54. —. 2018b: ‘Sur les Pastophores de Tomis’. In Popescu, M., Achim, I. and MateiPopescu, F. (eds.), La Dacie et l’Empire Romain (Bucharest), 121–26. —. 2019: ‘Notes épigraphiques (IX)’. Pontica 52, Suppl. VI, 211–24. Avram, A., Bărbulescu, M. and Ionescu, M. 2004a: ‘À propos des pontarques du Pont Gauche’. Ancient West and East 3.2, 354–64. Avram, A., Hind, J. and Tsetskhladze, G. 2004b: ‘The Black Sea Area’. In Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford), 924–73. Avram, A. and Jones, C.P. 2011: ‘An Actor from Byzantium in a New Epigram from Tomis’. ZPE 178, 126–34. Bailly, A. 1935: Dictionnaire grec-français (Paris). Barat, C. 2010: ‘La ville de Sinope, réflexions historiques et archéologiques’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 16.1–2, 25–64.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

315

Bărbulescu, M. and Buzoianu, L. 2013: ‘Teritoriul Tomisului în epoca romană timpurie în lumina documentelor epigrafice. I’. In Panait-Bîrzescu et al. 2013, 174–202. —. 2014: ‘Éducation, culture et religion à la lumière de deux inscriptions inédites de Tomis et de son territoire’. In Cojocaru, V. and Schuler, C. (eds.), Die Außenbeziehungen pontischer und kleinasiatischer Städte in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit (Akten einer deutsch-rumänischen Tagung in Constanța, 20–24 September 2010) (Stuttgart), 141–60. Bărbulescu, M., Buzoianu, L. and Băjenaru, C. 2014: ‘Inscripţii din Tomis şi împrejurimi aflate în colecţia Muzeului de Istorie Naţională şi Arheologie Constanţa’. Pontica 47, 417–38. Bărbulescu, M. and Câteia, A. 2007: ‘Pater Nomimos în cultul Hecatei la Tomis’. Pontica 40, 245–53. Baslez, M.F. 1988: ‘Les communautés d’orientaux dans la cité grecque: Formes de sociabilité et modèles associatifs’. In Lonis, R. (ed.), L’Étranger dans le monde grec (Actes du colloque organisé par l’Institut d’études anciennes, Nancy, mai 1987) (Nancy), 139–58. —. 1996: ‘Les immigrés orientaux en Grèce: tolérance et intolérance de la cité’. Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 7, 39–50. —. 2004: ‘Les notables entre eux. Recherches sur les associations d’Athènes à l’époque romaine’. In Follet, S. (ed.), L’Hellénisme d’époque romaine. Nouveaux documents, nouvelles approches (Ier s. a.C.–IIIe s. p.C.) (Actes du colloque international à la mémoire de Louis Robert, Paris 7–8 juillet 2000) (Paris), 105–20. —. 2013: ‘Les associations à Délos: depuis les débuts de l’indépendance (fin du IVe siècle) à la période de la colonie athénienne (milieu du IIe siècle)’. In Frölich and Hamon 2013, 227–50. Belayche, N. 2011: ‘Hypsistos. A Way of Exalting the Gods in Graeco-Roman Polytheism’. In North, J.A. and Price, S.R.F. (eds.), The Religious History of the Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews and Christians (Oxford), 139–74. —. 2013: ‘L’évolution des formes rituelles: hymnes et mystèria’. In Bricault, L. and Bonnet, C. (eds.), Panthée. Religious transformations in the Graeco-Roman Empire (Leiden/Boston), 15–40. Bérard, C. 1986: ‘Bacchos au cœur de la cité: Le thiase dionysiaque dans l’espace politique’. In de Cazanove, O. (ed.), L’Association dionysiaque dans les sociétés anciennes (Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’École française de Rome, 24–25 mai 1984) (Paris), 13–30. Bilde, P.G. 2008: ‘Some Reflections on Eschatological Currents, Diasporic Experience, and Group Identity in the Northwestern Black Sea Region’. In Bilde, P.G. and Petersen, J.H. (eds.), Meetings of Cultures in the Black Sea Region: Between Conflict and Coexistence (Aarhus), 29–45. Blümel, W. 2004: ‘Neue Inschriften aus Karien II’. Epigraphica Anatolica 37, 1–42. Bollmann, B. 1998: Römische Vereinshäuser – Untersuchungen zu den Scholae der römischen Berufs-, Kult- und Augustalen-Kollegien in Italien (Mainz). Boteva, D. 1996: ‘Legati Augusti pro praetore Moesiae Inferioris A.D. 193–217/218’. ZPE 110, 239–47. Bottez, V. 2009: Cultul imperial în provincia Moesia Inferior (sec. I–III p. Chr.) (Bucharest). Bounegru, O. 2006: Trafiquants et navigateurs sur le Bas-Danube et dans le Pont Gauche à l’époque romaine (Wiesbaden).

316

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. 2008: Comerț și navigatori la Pontul Stîng și Dunărea de Jos (sec. 1–3 p. Chr.) (Iași). —. 2010: ‘Armateurs et marchands de Nicomédie dans la Mediterranée à l’époque romaine’. Classica et Christiana 5.2, 287–98. —. 2014: ‘Emporoi et nauclères dans les ports de la Méditerranée orientale. Structures institutionnelles et images publiques des commerçants et des armateurs’. In Eck, W. and Funke, P. (eds.), Öffentlichkeit – Monument – Text: Akten. XIV Congressus Internationalis Epigraphiae Graecae et Latinae, 27–31 Augusti MMXII (Berlin/ Boston), 433–35. Bounegru, O. and Bounegru, A. 2007: ‘Οἶκος τῶν ναυκλήρων. The Shipowners Organisation in the Pontic and Aegean Area’. In Mayer Olivé, M., Baratta, G. and Guzmán Almagro, A. (eds.), XII Congressus Internationalis Epigraphiae Graecae et Latinae: provinciae Imperii Romani inscriptionibus descriptae (Barcelona), 191–97. Bourguet, É. 1894: ‘Décret des Orgéons d’Amynos’. BCH 18, 491–92. Bourigault, M. 2011: ‘Le droit des autres: les ciues Romani consistentes’. In Maffi, A. and Gagliardi, L. (eds.), I diritti degli altri in Grecia e a Roma (Sankt Augustin), 78–87. Bruneau, P. 1978: ‘Les cultes de l’établissement des Poseidoniastes de Bérytos à Délos’. In de Boer, M.B. and Edridge, T.A. (eds.), Hommages à Maarten J. Vermaseren: Recueil d’études offert par les auteurs de la série Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain (Leiden), 160–90. Buzoianu, L. and Bărbulescu, M. 2012: Tomis: Comentariu istoric și arheologic/ Tomis: Historical and Archaeological Commentary (Constanța). Calder, W.M. 1979: ‘A Note on the Fourth Century Graffito from Kallatis’. Dacia n.s. 23, 313. Calderini, A. 1934: Le Associazioni Professionali in Roma Antica: Conferenza detta all’Associazione per lo sviluppo dell’alta cultura (Milan). Calhoun, G.M. 1964: Athenian Clubs in Politics and Litigation (Austin). Carbon, J.-M. 2013: ‘Dolphin-Pillars’. Epigraphica Anatolica 46, 27–34. Chankowski, A.S. 2010: L’éphébie hellénistique. Étude d’une institution civique dans les cités grecques des îles de la Mer Égée et de l’Asie Mineure (Paris). Chiekova, D. 2007: ‘Quelques aspects institutionnels et rituels du culte bachique dans les cités du Pont Gauche’. In Mayer Olivé, M., Baratta, G. and Guzmán Almagro, A. (eds.), XII Congressus Internationalis Epigraphiae Graecae et Latinae: provinciae Imperii Romani inscriptionibus descriptae (Barcelona), 275–80. —. 2008: Cultes et vie religieuse des cités grecques du Pont gauche (VIIe–Ier siècles avant J.-C.) (Bern). Chirica, É. 1998: ‘Le culte d’Héraclès Pharangeitès à Héraclée du Pont’. REG 111, 722–31. Cojocaru, V. 2016: Instituția proxeniei în spațiul pontic: Die Proxenie im Schwartzmeerraum (Cluj-Napoca). Conrad, S. 2004: Die Grabstelen aus Moesia Inferior (Leipzig). Corsten, T. 2006: ‘Prosopographische und onomastische Notizen II’. Epigraphica Anatolica 39, 121–32. —. 2007: ‘Prosopographische und onomastische Notizen III’. Gephyra 4, 133–34. Cotter, W. 1996: ‘The Collegia and the Roman Law. State Restrictions on Voluntary Associations, 64 BCE–200 CE’. In Kloppenborg and Wilson 1996, 74–89.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

317

Covacef, Z. 2005–06: ‘Templele Tomisului’. Peuce n.s. 3–4, 159–72. Curcă, R. 2011: ‘The bilingual inscriptions of Moesia Inferior: the historiographic framework’. Classica et Christiana 6.1, 71–80. Dana, M. 2011: Culture et mobilité dans le Pont-Euxin. Approche régionale de la vie culturelle des cités grecques (Bordeaux). —. 2012: ‘Pontiques et étrangers dans les cités de la mer Noire: le rôle des citoyennetés multiples dans l’essor d’une culture régionale’. In Heller, A. and Pont, A.-V. (eds.), Patrie d’origine et patries électives: les citoyennetés multiples dans le monde grec d’époque romaine (Actes du colloque international de Tours, 6–7 novembre 2009) (Bordeaux), 249–66. —. 2013: ‘Ἔχω δὲ πατρίδας νῦν δύω (CIRB 134): relaţii şi reţele între cetăţile greceşti din sudul Mării Negre şi vecinii lor pontici’. In Panait-Bîrzescu et al. 2013, 45–86. Dasen, V. and Piérart, M. (eds.) 2005: Ιδία καὶ δημοσία: les cadres ‘privés’ et ‘publics’ de la religion grecque antique (Actes du IX colloque du Centre International d’Étude de la Religion Grecque Antique, tenu à Fribourg du 8 au 10 septembre 2003) (Liège). de Coulanges, N.D.F. 1864: La cité antique (Paris). de Hoz, M.P. 1999: Die Lydische Kulte im Lichte der griechischen Inschriften (Bonn). de Robertis, F.M. 1955: Il fenomeno associativo nel mondo romano. Dai collegi della Repubblica alle corporazioni del Basso Impero (Naples). —. 1973: Storia delle corporazioni e del regime associativo nel mondo romano (Bari). Demoulin, H. 1899: ‘Encore les collegia iuvenum’. Le Musée Belge. Revue de philologie classique 3, 177–92. Diosono, F. 2007: Collegia. Le associazioni professionali nel mondo Romano (Rome). Dissen, M. 2009: Römische Kollegien und deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart). Dittmann-Schöne, I. 2001: Der Berufsvereinen in den Städten des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasiens (Regensburg). Doublet, G. 1889: ‘Inscriptions de Paphlagonie’. BCH 13, 293–319. Dow, S. and Gill, D.H. 1965: ‘The Greek Cult Table’. American Journal of Archaeology 69, 103–14. Drachuk, V.S. 1970: ‘Zagadochnye znaki severnogo Prichernomorya’. Archeologia (Warsaw) 21, 23–52. —. 1972: ‘Untersuchungen zu den tamgaartigen Zeichen aus dem nordpontischen Randgebiet der antiken Welt’. Zeitschrift für Archäologie 6, 190–227. Drerup, E. 1899: ‘Ein antikes Vereinsstatut’. Neue Jahrbücher für das Klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Literatur 3, 356–70. Eckhardt, B. 2014: ‘Graeco-Roman Voluntary Associations, Systems Theory and Societal Evolution. Preliminary Perspectives’. CAS Sofia Working Papers 6 (online publication: www.ceeol.com). —. 2016: ‘Romanization and Isomorphic Change in Phrygia: The Case of Private Associations’. Journal of Roman Studies 106, 1–25. —. 2018: ‘Who Thought that Early Christians Formed Associations’. Mnemosyne 71, 298–314. Egelhaaf-Gaiser, U. 2002: ‘Religionsästhetik und Raumordnung am Beispiel der Vereinsgebäude von Ostia’. In Egelhaaf-Gaiser, U. and Schäfer, A. (eds.), Religiöse

318

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vereine in der römischen Antike. Untersuchungen zu Organisation, Ritual und Raumordnung (Tübingen), 123–72. Elter, A. 1916: ‘Die Statuten des Vereins der Jobacchen in Athen’. Ostergruss der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn an ihre Angehörigen im Felde, 87–94. Engelmann, H. 1970: ‘Ehreninschrift eines Rhodischen Vereins’. ZPE 6, 279–82. Faraguna, M. 2012: ‘Diritto, economia, società. Riflessioni su eranos tra età omerica e mondo ellenistico’. In Legras, B. (ed.), Transferts culturels et droits dans le monde grec et hellénistique. Actes du colloque international (Paris), 129–53. Ferguson, W.S. 1944: ‘The Attic Orgeones and the Cult of Heroes’. Harvard Theological Review 37, 61–140. Ferrari, F. 2016: ‘Orphics at Olbia’. In Colesanti, G. and Lulli, L. (eds.), Submerged Literature in Ancient Greek Culture 2: Case Studies (Berlin/Boston), 177–86. Fisher, N.F. 1988a: ‘Greek Associations, Symposia, and Clubs’. In Grant, M. and Kitzinger, R. (eds.), Civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean. Greece and Rome (New York), 1167–97. —. 1988b: ‘Roman Associations, Dinner Parties, and Clubs’. In Grant, M. and Kitzinger, R. (eds.), Civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean. Greece and Rome (New York), 1199–1225. Fitzgerald, J.T. 2016: ‘Orphans in Mediterranean Antiquity and Early Christianity’. Acta Theologica 23, 29–48. Foschia, L. 2004: ‘Le nom du culte et ses dérivés à l’époque impériale’. In Follet, S. (ed.), L’hellénisme d’époque romaine. Nouveaux documents, nouvelles approches (Ier s. a. C.–IIIe s. p. C.) (Paris), 15–35. Foucart, P. 1864: ‘Un décret des thiasotes’. Revue archéologique 10, 399–405. —. 1873: Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs: Thiases, èranes, orgéons, avec le texte des inscriptions relatives à ces associations (Paris). Frisch, P. and Geißen, A. 1980: ‘Grabstele für einen Provocator’. ZPE 39, 193–95. Fröhlich, P. and Hamon, P. (eds.) 2013: Groupes et associations dans les cités grecques (IIIe siècle av. J.-C.–IIe siècle ap. J.-C.) (Actes de la table ronde de Paris, INHA, 19–20 juin 2009) (Geneva). Gabelko, O.L., Zavoikina, N.V. and Shavyrina, T.G. 2006: ‘Stela Ompsalaka i fiasy Fanagorii v pervye veka n.e.’. Antichnyi mir i Arkheologiya 12, 334–44. Gabrielsen, V. 1994: ‘The Rhodian Associations Honouring Dionysodoros from Alexandria’. Classica et mediaevalia 45, 137–60. Gabrielsen, V. and Thomsen, C.A. (eds.) 2015: Private Associations and the Public Sphere (Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 9–11 September 2010) (Copenhagen). Gaidukevič, V.F. 1971: Das Bosporanische Reich (Berlin). Geagan, D.J. 1972: ‘Hadrian and the Athenian Dionysiac Technitai’. Transactions of the American Philological Association 103, 133–62. Giannakopoulos, N. 2008: ‘Remarks on the Honorary Titles υἱὸς βουλῆς, υἱὸς δήμου and υἱὸς πόλεως in Roman Asia Minor’. In Rizakis, A.D. and Camia, F. (eds.), Pathways to Power. Civic Elites in the Eastern Part of the Roman Empire (Athens), 251–68. —. 2016: ‘Groups and Associations in Bithynia and Pontus: Interaction with Prominent Statesmen and Provincial Governors’. In Tamker, B., Akdoğu Arca, E.N. and Gökalp Özdil, N. (eds.), Vir Doctus Anatolicus: Studies in Memory of Sencer Șahin (Istanbul), 364–87.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

319

Gilliam, J.F. 1986: Roman Army Papers (Amsterdam). Gočeva, Z. 1992: ‘Les épithètes du Cavalier thrace’. Linguistique balkanique 35, 155–80. —. 1996: ‘Organization of Religious Life in Odessos’. Kernos 9, 121–27. Gros, P. 1997: ‘Maisons ou sièges de corporations? Les traces archéologiques du phénomène associatif dans la Gaule romaine méridionale’. Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 213–41. Güney, H. 2014: ‘The Economic Activities of Roman Nicomedia and Connectivity between the Propontic and the Pontic World’. In Cojocaru, V., Coșkun, A. and Dana, M. (eds.), Interconnectivity in the Mediterranean and Pontic World during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Cluj-Napoca), 605–24. Günther, W. 1995: ‘Zwei neue Temenitenverzeichnisse aus Milet’. Chiron 25, 43–53. Harland, P.A. 1996: ‘Honours and Worship: Emperors, Imperial Cults and Associations at Ephesus (First to Third Centuries C.E.)’. Studies in Religion 25, 319–34. —. 2000: ‘Honouring the Emperor or Assailing the Beast: Participation in Civic Life Among Associations (Jewish, Christian and Other) in Asia Minor and the Apocalypse of John’. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 77, 99–121. —. 2003: ‘Imperial Cults within Local Cultural Life: Associations in Roman Asia’. Ancient History Bulletin 17, 85–107. —. 2005: ‘Familial Dimensions of Group Identity: “Brothers” (ἀδελφοί) in Associations of the Greek East’. Journal of Biblical Literature 124, 491–513. —. 2007: ‘Familial Dimensions of Group Identity (II): “Mothers” and “Fathers” in Associations and Synagogues of the Greek World’. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 38, 57–79. —. 2012: ‘Banqueting Values in the Associations: Rhetoric and Reality’. In Smith, D.E. and Taussig, H.W. (eds.), Meals in the Early Christian World: Social Formation, Experimentation, and Conflict at the Table (New York), 73–85. —. 2013: Associations, Synagogues and Congregations. Claiming a Place in the Ancient Mediterranean Society (Kitchener, ON). —. 2014: Greco-Roman Associations. Texts, Translations, and Commentary. II. North Coast of the Black Sea, Asia Minor (Berlin). —. 2015: ‘Associations and the Economics of Group Life. A Preliminary Case Study of Asia Minor and the Aegean Islands’. Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 80, 1–37. Harrison, A.R.W. 1968–71: The Law of Athens (Oxford). Hasenohr, C. 2001: ‘Les monuments des collèges italiens à Délos’. In Marc, J.-Y. and Moretti, J.-C. (eds.), Constructions publiques et programmes édilitaires en Grèce entre le IIe siècle av. J.-C. et le Ier siècle après J.-C. (Actes du colloque international organisé à l’École française d’Athènes et le CNRS, Athènes 14–17 Mai 1995) (Paris), 329–48. Heberdey, R. and Kalinka, E. 1897: Bericht über zwei Reisen im südwestlichen Kleinasien, ausgeführt im Auftrage der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Vienna). Heinecke, J.C. 1747: De collegiis et corporibus opificum (Magdeburg). Hemelrijk, E. 2008: ‘Patronesses and Mothers of Roman Collegia’. Classical Antiquity 27, 115–62. —. 2012: ‘Fictive Motherhood and Female Authority in Roman Cities’. Eugesta: Journal of Gender Studies in Antiquity 2, 201–20. Hermann, P. 1980: ‘Urkunden milesischer Temenitai’. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 30, 223–39. Hermansen, G. 1981: Ostia: Aspects of Roman City Life (Edmonton).

320

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hirschfeld, G. 1888: Inschriften aus dem Norden Kleinasiens besonders aus Bithynien und Paphlagonien (Berlin). Højte, J.M. 2005: ‘The Archaeological Evidence for Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region’. In Bekker-Nielsen, T.J. (ed.), Ancient Fishing and Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region (Aarhus), 133–66. Ismard, P. 2010: La cité des réseaux: Athènes et ses associations, VIe–Ier siècle av. J.-C. (Paris). Ivantchik, A. 1997: ‘Les légendes de fondation de Sinope du Pont’. REA 99, 33–45. —. 1998: ‘Die Gründung von Sinope und die Probleme der Anfangsphase der griechischen Kolonisation des Schwarzmeergebietes’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (Stuttgart), 297–330. —. 2008: ‘Greeks and Iranians in the Cimmerian Bosporus in the Second/First Century BC. New Epigraphic Data from Tanais’. In Darbandi, S.M.R.D. and Zournatzi, A. (eds.), Ancient Greece and Ancient Iran. Cross-cultural Encounters (Athens), 96–100. Ivantchik, A. and Ilyashenko, S.M. 2018: ‘Novye nadpisi iz Tanaisa’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3, 693–710. Ivantchik, A. and Tokhtasev, S.R. 2011: ‘Queen Dynamis and Tanais’. In PapuciWładyka, E., Vickers, M., Bodzek, J., and Braund, D. (eds.), Pontika 2008: Recent Research on the Northern and Eastern Black Sea in Ancient Times (Oxford), 163–73. Jaccottet, A.-F. 2003: Choisir Dionysos: les associations dionysiaques ou la face cachée du Dionysisme, 2 vols. (Zürich). Jones, N.F. 1987: Public Organization in Ancient Greece. A Documentary Study (Philadelphia). —. 1995: ‘The Athenian Phylai as Associations. Disposition, Function, and Purpose’. Hesperia 64, 503–42. —. 1999: The Associations of Classical Athens: The Response to Democracy (New York). Kajanto, I. 1966: Supernomina. A Study in Latin Epigraphy (Helsinki). Kalashnik, Y.P. 1972: ‘Nadpis fiasa iz Gorgippii’. Soobshcheniya Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 35, 50–52. Kalinka, E. 1933: ‘Aus Bithynien und Umgegend’. Die Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 28, 44–111. von Kieseritzky, G. and Watzinger, C. 1909: Griechische Grabreliefs aus Südrussland (Berlin). Kloppenborg, J.S. 1996: ‘Collegia and Thiasoi. Issues in Function, Taxonomy and Membership’. In Kloppenborg and Wilson 1996, 16–30. Kloppenborg, J.S. and Wilson, S.G. (eds.) 1996: Voluntary Associations in the GraecoRoman World (London/New York). Knipovich, T.N. 1949: Tanais (Moscow). Knoepfler, D. 2016: ‘Une femme de Callatis à Athènes dans un nouveau décret d’association religieuse au IIIe siècle av. J.-C.’. In Robu, A. and Bîrzescu, I. (eds.), Mégarika: Nouvelles recherches sur Mégare et les cités de la Propontide et du Pont-Euxin: Archéologie, épigraphie, histoire (Paris), 197–215. Koester, H. 1999: ‘Associations of the Egyptian Cult in Asia Minor’. In Scherrer, P., Taeuber, H. and Thür, H. (eds.), Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Vienna), 315–18.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

321

Kornemann, E. 1900a: ‘Collegium’. RE 4.1, 380–480. —. 1900b: ‘Conventus’. RE 4.1, 1173–1200. Kreuz, P.-A. 2012: Die Grabreliefs aus dem Bosporanischen Reich (Leuven/Paris/ Walpole, MA). Kyparissis, N. and Peek, W. 1941: ‘Attische Urkunden’. Athenische Mitteilungen 66, 218–39. Lazarenko, I., Mircheva, E., Encheva, R., Stoyanova, D. and Sharankov, N. 2013: The Temple of the Pontic Mother of Gods in Dionysopolis (Varna). Le Guen, B. 2001: Les associations de technites dionysiaques à l’époque hellénistique, 2 vols. (Nancy/Paris). —. 2007: ‘L’association des technites d’Athènes ou les ressorts d’une cohabitation réussie’. In Couvenhes, J.-C. (ed.), Individus, groupes et politique à Athènes de Solon à Mithridate (Tours), 339–64. Lebedinsky, I. 2011: Les Tamgas. Une ‘héraldique’ des steppes (Paris). Leiwo, M. 1997: ‘Religion, or Other Reasons? Private Associations in Athens’. In Frösén, J. (ed.), Early Hellenistic Athens: Symptoms of a Change (Helsinki), 103–17. Lévy, I. 1895: ‘Études sur la vie municipale de l’Asie Mineure. Sous les Antonins’. REG 8, 203–50. Liebenam, W. 1890: Zur Geschichte und Organisation des römischen Vereinswesens: Drei Untersuchungen (Leipzig). —. 1894: ‘Aus dem Vereinswesen im römischen Reiche’. Zeitschrift für Kulturgeschichte 4, 112–38. Liu, J. 2009: Collegia Centonariorum: The Guilds of Textile Dealers in the Roman West (Leiden/Boston). —. 2016: ‘Group Membership, Trust Networks, and Social Capital: A Critical Analysis’. In Verboven, K. and Laes, C. (eds.), Work, Labour, and Professions in the Roman World (Leiden/Boston), 203–26. Lüders, O. 1873: Die dionysischen Künstler (Berlin). Lupu, E. 2005: Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents (Leiden/Boston). McLean, B.H. 1996: ‘The Place of Cult in Voluntary Associations and Christian Churches on Delos’. In Kloppenborg, J.S. and Wilson, S.G. (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (London/New York), 186–225. —. 1999: ‘Hierarchically Organized Associations on Delos’. In Atti XI Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina, Roma, 18–24 settembre 1997 (Rome), 361–70. —. 2002: An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C.–A.D. 337) (Ann Arbor). MacMullen, R. 1974: Roman Social Relations 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (New Haven/London). Maier, G. 1969: Eranos als Kreditinstitut (Erlangen). Maillot, S. 2009: ‘Une association de sculpteurs à Rhodes au IIe siècle av. J.-C.: un cercle d’intégration à la société rhodienne’. In Bodiou, L., Mehl, V., Oulhen, J., Prost, F. and Wilgaux, J. (eds.), Chemin faisant. Mythes, cultes et société en Grèce ancienne. Mélanges en l’honneur de Pierre Brulé (Rennes), 39–58. —. 2015: ‘Foreigners’ associations and the Rhodian state’. In Gabrielsen and Thomsen 2015, 136–82.

322

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manassero, N. 2013: ‘Tamgas, A Code of the Steppes. Identity Marks and Writing among the Ancient Iranians’. The Silk Road Journal 11, 60–69. Marek, C. 1985: ‘Katalog der Inschriften im Museum vom Amasra. Mit Anhang: Die Inschriften von Amastris und die angebliche Pompeianische Ära der Stadt’. Epigraphica Anatolica 6, 133–36. —. 1993: Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord-Galatia (Tübingen). Marshall, F.H. 1907: Catalogue of the Fingerrings, Greek, Etruscans, and Roman, in the Department of Antiquities, British Museum (London). Martin Saint-Leon, É. 1899: Les anciennes corporations de métiers et les syndicales professionnels (Paris). Masson, O. 1987: ‘Le mot doumos, « confrérie », dans les textes et les inscriptions’. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 41, 145–52. Matsulevich, L.A. 1941: ‘Kto byl Kallisfen, nazvannyi v nadpisi otkrytoi v Kerch v 1894 g.’. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 7, 61–80. Maurer, K. 2014: ‘Der Pontarch des westpontischen Koinons’. Dacia n.s. 58, 141–88. Meiggs, R. 1960: Roman Ostia (Oxford). Mendel, G. 1901: ‘Inscriptions de Bithynie [II]’. BCH 25, 5–92. Mennella, G. and Apicella, G. 2000: Le corporazioni professionali nell’Italia romana: un aggiornamento al Walzing (Naples). Meyer, H. 1988: ‘Zur Chronologie des Poseidoniastenhauses in Delos’. Athenische Mitteilungen 103, 203–20. Migeotte, L. 2013: ‘Les souscriptions publiques dans les associations privées’. In Fröhlich and Hamon 2009, 113–28. Minchev, A. 2003: ‘Odessos’. In Grammenos, D.V. and Petropoulos, E.K. (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea 2, 2 vols. (Oxford), 209–78. Minns, E.H. 1913: Scythians and Greeks (Cambridge). Mitchell, S. 1999: ‘The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans and Jews, and Christians’. In Athanassiadi, P. and Frede, M. (eds.), Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (Oxford), 81–148. —. 2010: ‘Further Thoughts on the Cult of Theos Hypsistos’. In Mitchell, S. and Van Nuffelen, P. (eds.), One God. Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire (Cambridge), 167–208. Mommsen, T. 1843: De collegiis et sodaliciis Romanorum, accedit inscription lanuvina (Kiel). Müller, C. 2010: D’Olbia à Tanaïs. Territoires et réseaux d’échanges dans la mer Noire septentrionale aux époques classique et hellénistique (Bordeaux). —. 2012: ‘Panticapée, polis et capitale: la place des cités dans le royaume du Bosphore de Spartokos I à Mithridate VI’. In Feyel, C., Fournier, J., Graslin-Thomé, L. and Kirbihler, F. (eds.), Communautés locales et pouvoir central dans l’Orient hellénistique et romain (Nancy), 139–59. Muratov, M. 2017: ‘The Language(s) of Images in the Arts of the Bosporan Kingdom’. In Kozlovskaya, V. (ed.), The Northern Black Sea in Antiquity. Networks, Connectivity, and Cultural Interactions (Cambridge), 169–91. Musielak, M. 1993: ‘Prosopographia Histriaca im 2. Jh.: Artemidoros, der Sohn des Herodoros und M. Ulpius Artemidoros, der Pontarch’. In Mrozewicz, L. and Ilski, K. (eds.), Prosopographica (Poznań), 109–14. Nedev, D., Panayotova, K. and Gyuzelev, M. 2003: ‘Apollonia Pontica (end of the 7th–1st centuries BC)’. In Grammenos, D.V. and Petropoulos, E.K. (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, 2 vols. (Thessalonica), 95–155.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

323

Nielsen, I. 2006: ‘Vorbilder für Räumlichkeiten der religiösen Vereine hellenistischer und römischer Zeit’. In Nielsen, I. (ed.), Zwischen Kult und Gesellschaft. Kosmopolitische Zentren des antiken Mittelmeerraums als Aktionsraum von Kultvereinen und Religionsgemeinschaften (Akten eines Symposiums des Archäologischen Instituts der Universität Hamburg, 12–14 Oktober 2005) (Augsburg), 31–46. —. 2014: Housing the Chosen. The Architectural Context of Mystery Groups and Religious Associations in the Ancient World (Turnhout). Nigdelis, P. 2010: ‘Voluntary Associations in Roman Thessalonike. In Search of Identity and Support in a Cosmopolitan Society’. In Nasrallah, L., Bakirtzis, C. and Friesen, S. (eds.), From Roman to Early Christian Thessalonike. Studies in Religion and Archaeology (Cambridge, MA/London), 13–47. Nilsson, M.P. 1934: ‘En marge de la grande inscription bacchique du Metropolitan Museum’. Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 10, 1–18. Novosadski, N.I. 1928: ‘Bosporskiye fiasy’. Trudy sektzii arkheologii RANION, 55–70. Osborne, M.J. and Byrne, S.G. 1996: The Foreign Residents of Athens. An Annex to the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names: Attica (Leuven). Panait-Bîrzescu, F. 2012: ‘Cultul lui Apollo în coloniile grecești din Marea Neagră’. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie 63.1–2, 165–70. Panait-Bîrzescu, F., Bîrzescu, I., Matei-Popescu, F. and Robu, A. (eds.) 2013: Poleis în Marea Neagră. Relații interpontice și producții locale (Bucharest). Parker, R.C.T. 2004: ‘What Are the Sacred Laws?’. In Harris, E.M. and Rubinstein, L. (eds.), The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece (London), 57–70. Pázsint, A.-I. 2017a: ‘Between οἶκος and πόλις: The Life of Women in Histria, Tomis, and Kallatis (3rd Century BC–3rd Century AD)’. Ephemeris Napocensis 27, 49–70. —. 2017b: ‘It’s a Man’s World: A Gender Perspective on the Private Associations from the Black Sea Area (3rd Century BC–3rd Century AD)’. In Bajnok, D. (ed.), Alia Miscellanea Antiquitatum (Proceedings of the Second Croatian–Hungarian PhD Conference on Ancient History and Archaeology) (Budapest/Debrecen), 159–73. —. 2018. ‘Cult Associations on the Northern Shore of the Black Sea: Three Centuries of Research’. Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica 24.2, 303–19. —. 2019. ‘Cult Associations in the Black Sea Area: A Comparative Study (3rd c. BC– 3rd c. AD)’. In Cojocaru, V., Ruscu, L., Castelli, T. and Pázsint, A.-I. (eds.), Advances in Ancient Black Sea Studies: Historiography, Archaeology and Religion (Cluj-Napoca), 563–86. Perry, J.S. 2006: The Roman Collegia: The Modern Evolution of an Ancient Concept (Leiden/Boston). Petersen, E.A.H. and von Luschan, F. 1889: Reisen im südwestlichen Kleinasien. II: Reisen in Lykien, Milyas und Kibyratis (Vienna). Petzl, G. and Schwertheim, E. 2006: Hadrian und die dionysischen Künstler: Drei in Alexandria Troas neugefundene Briefe des Kaisers an die Künstler-Vereinigung (Bonn). Picard, C. 1920: ‘Fouilles de Délos (1910): Observations sur la société des Poseidoniastes de Bérytos et sur son histoire’. BCH 44, 263–311. —. 1921: Délos 6: L’établissement des Poseidoniastes de Bérytos (Paris). Pippidi, D.M. 1962: Epigraphische Beiträge zur Geschichte Histrias in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit (Berlin). —. 1964: ‘Sur la diffusion des cultes égyptiens en Scythie Mineure’. Studii Clasice 88, 151–58.

324

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. 1967a: ‘Cybèle ou Anaïtis?’. Studii Clasice 9, 226–28. —. 1967b: Contribuții la istoria veche a României (Bucharest). —. 1972: ‘Pe marginea unei inscripții bilingve din Callatis’. Studii Clasice 14, 141–48. —. 1975: ‘Histria aux Ier–IIIe siècles’. Dacia n.s. 19, 141–50. —. 1988: Studii de istorie și epigrafie (Bucharest). Piso, I. 2005: An der Nordgrenze des Römischen Reiches. Ausgewählte Studien (Stuttgart). Platner, E. 1709: De collegiis opificum (Leipzig). Poland, F. 1895: De collegiis artificum dionysiacorum (Dresden). —. 1909: Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig). —. 1911: ‘Zum Griechischen Vereinswesen’. Philologus 70, 520–28. —. 1931: ‘Συμμορια’. RE 2.7, 1361–68. —. 1932a: ‘Συναγωγέυς’. RE 2.4, 1316–22. —. 1932b: ‘Συνέδριον’. RE 2.4, 1333–53. —. 1934a: ‘Σύνοδος’. RE 5.2, 1415–34. —. 1934b: ‘Technitai’. RE 5.2, 2473–2558. Polito, M. 2004: Il δοῦμος. Un associazone sacra in zone di contratto (Naples). Pomyalovski, I.V. 1888: ‘O tanaitskikh kollegiyakh’. Trudy VI Arkheologicheskago siezda (Odessa), 24–28. Popescu, E. 1960: ‘The Histrian Decree for Aba’. Dacia 4, 273–96. Porucznik, J. 2018: ‘Heuresibios Son of Syriskos and the Question of Tyranny in Olbia Pontike (Fifth–Fourth Century BC)’. Annual of the British School at Athens 113, 399–414. Psoma, S. 2009: ‘Profitable Networks: Coinages, Panegyris and Dionysiac Artists’. In Malkin, I., Constantakopoulou, C. and Panagopoulou, K. (eds.), Greek and Roman Networks in the Mediterranean (London/New York), 230–48. Puech, B. 2002: Orateurs et sophistes grecs dans les inscriptions d’époque impériale (Paris). Richardson, P. 2003: ‘An Architectural Case for Synagogues as Associations’. In Olson, B. and Zetterholm, M. (eds.), The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins Until 200 C.E. (Papers Presented at an International Conference at Lund University October 14–17, 2001) (Stockholm), 90–117. Ritti, T. 1995: ‘Associazioni di mestiere a Hierapolis di Frigia’. In Giannattasio, B.M. (ed.), Atti VII giornata archeologica: Viaggi e commerci nell’antichità (Genoa), 65–83. —. 2006: An Epigraphic Guide to Hierapolis (Istanbul). Robert, L. 1937: Études Anatoliennes (Paris). —. 1946: ‘Contributions à un lexique épigraphique’. Hellenica 2, 123–41. —. 1969: ‘Deux décrets d’une association à Athenes’. Archaiologikē Ephēmeris, 7–14. —. 1971: Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec (Amsterdam). Robert, J. and Robert, L. 1942: ‘Bulletin Épigraphique’. REG 55/261–263, 321–65. —. 1952: ‘Bulletin Épigraphique’. REG 65/304–305, 124–202. —. 1959: ‘Bulletin Épigraphique’. REG 72/339–343, 149–283. —. 1966: ‘Bulletin Épigraphique’. REG 79/374–375, 335–449. —. 1967: ‘Bulletin Épigraphique’. REG 80/379–383, 453–573. —. 1968: ‘Bulletin Épigraphique’. REG 81/386–388, 420–549. —. 1969: ‘Bulletin Épigraphique’. REG 82/391–393, 424–540. Robu, A. 2016: ‘Associations dionysiaques, communautés rurales et cultes à Byzance à l’époque impériale’. Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 15, 251–66.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

325

Roueché, C. 1995: ‘Aurarii in the auditoria’. ZPE 105, 37–50. Rozanova, N.P. 1968: Antichnaya istoriya i kultura Sredizemnomorya i Pricernomorya (Leningrad). Ruscu, L. 2004: ‘Families at Histria, Tomis and Callatis: Two Prosopographical Notes’. In Ruscu, L., Ciongradi, C., Ardevan, R., Roman, C. and Găzdac, C. (eds.), Orbis antiquus. Studia in honorem Ioannis Pisonis (Cluj-Napoca), 907–11. —. 2013: ‘Relațiile apoikiilor vest-pontice cu vecinii lor greci și barbari în epocile elenistică și romană’. In Panait-Bîrzescu et al. 2013, 11–44. —. 2014: ‘On Cult Associations at Istros and Tomis’. Ephemeris Napocensis 24, 139–53. —. 2015: ‘The Office of the Protos Archon in Bithynia and Thrace’. Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology 2.4, 5–9. Russu, I.I. 1958: ‘Despre populaţia istriana în sec. II e.n. în legătură cu un ‘catalogus’ fragmentar’. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie 9.2, 39–60. Saavedra-Guerrero, M.D. 1991: La mujer y las asociaciones en el Imperio Romano (Santander). Salač, A. 1955: ‘Pri ustye Tikhogo Dona’. In Prazska universita moskovska universite. Sbornik k vyroci 1755–1955 (Prague), 213–30. Salomies, O. 2016: ‘Les gentilices romains en Asie Mineure’. In Bru, H., Labarre, G. and Tirologos, G. (eds.), Espaces et territoires des colonies romains d’Orient (Besançon), 25–44. Saprykin, S.Y. 1986: ‘Iz epigrafiki Gorgippii’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 1, 62–75. —. 1990: ‘Lex sacra iz Gorgippii’. In Tacheva, M. and Boyadzhiev, D. (eds.), Studia in honorem Borisi Gerov (Sofia), 203–13. —. 2009: ‘Savromat II i fiasy Bospora’. Drevnosti Bospora 13, 328–47. Saprykin, S.Y. and Chevelev, O.D. 1996: ‘Fragment grecheskoi nadpisi iz Pantikapeya: k voprosu ob organizachii bosporskikh religioznykh soyuzov’. Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya 2, 161–67. Sauciuc-Săveanu, T. and Rădulescu, A. 1968: ‘Inscripția lui Herennios Apollinarios din Callatis’. Pontica 1, 307–17. Sayar, M.H. 1998: Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Umgebung. Geschichte, Testimonien, griechische und lateinische Inschriften (Vienna). Schäfer, A. 2002: ‘Raumnutzung und Raumwahrnehmung im Vereinslokal der Iobakchen von Athen’. In Egelhaaf-Gaiser, U. and Schäfer, A. (eds.), Religiöse Vereine in der römischen Antike. Untersuchungen zu Organisation, Ritual und Raumordnung (Tübingen), 173–200. —. 2006: ‘L’associazionismo dionisiaco come fenomeno urbano dell’epoca imperiale romana’. In Bonnet, C., Rüpke, J. and Scarpi, P. (eds.), Religions orientales – culti misterici. Neue Perspektiven – nouvelles perspectives – prospettive nuove (Stuttgart), 53–64. —. 2007: ‘Dionysische Gruppen als ein städtisches Phänomen der römischen Kaiserzeit’. In Rüpke, J. (ed.), Gruppenreligionen im römischen Reich: Sozialformen, Grenzziehungen und Leistungen (Tübingen), 161–80. Scheid, J. 2003: ‘Communauté et communauté. Réflexions sur quelques ambiguïtés d’après l’exemple des thiases de l’Égypte romaine’. In Belayche, N. and. Mimouni, S.C. (eds.), Les communautés religieuses dans le monde Gréco-Romain: Essais de définition (Turnhout), 61–74. Schürer, E. 1897: Die Juden im bosporanischen Reiche und die Genossenschaften der σεβόμενοι θεόν ὕψιστον ebendaselbst (Göttingen).

326

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schwabe, M. and Lifshitz, B. 1967: Beth Shearim (Jerusalem). Sharankov, N. 2013: ‘Inscriptions’. In Lazarenko, I., Mircheva, E., Encheva, R., Stoyanova, D. and Sharankov, N., The Temple of the Pontic Mother of Gods in Dionysopolis (Varna), 47–64. Sharnina, A.B. 1987: ‘Soyuzy tekhnitov Dionisa v ellinisticheskikh polisakh’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 2, 102–17. Shelov, D.B. 1970: Tanais i Nizhnii Don v III–I vv. do n.e. (Moscow). —. 1972: Tanais i Nizhnii Don v pervye veka nashei ery (Moscow). Shkorpil, V.V. 1908: ‘Bosporskiye nadpisi, naydennye v 1907 g.’. Izvestiya Arkheologicheskoi Komissii 27, 42–45. Shopova, I. 2003: ‘A Note on the Thracian Orphism in Roman Thrace’. Thracia 15 (In honorem annorum LXX Alexander Fol), 651–56. Slavova, M. 2002: ‘Mistery Clubs in Bulgarian Lands in Antiquity: Greek Epigraphical Evidence’. Opuscula Atheniensia 27, 137–49. —. 2016: ‘Ἅπαξ εἰρημένα and Other Lexical Rarities in the Greek Inscriptions on the Bulgarian Coast of the Black Sea in Antiquity’. In Slavova, M. and Sharankov, N. (eds.), Monuments and Texts in Antiquity and Beyond (Sofia), 488–511. Solomonik, E.I. 1984: Graffiti is khory Khersonesa (Kiev). Ștefan, A. 1977: ‘Graffite callatien du IVe siècle av. n.è.’. In Pippidi, D.M. and Popescu, E. (eds.), Epigraphica. Travaux dédiés au 7e Congres d’épigraphie grecque et latine, Constantza, 9–15 septembre 1977 (Bucharest), 25–32. Stein, A. 1940: Die Legaten von Moesien (Budapest). Steinhauer, J. 2014: Religious Associations in the Postclassical Polis (Stuttgart). von Stern, E.R. 1902: ‘Nadpis religioznogo Obshectva iz Feodosii’. ZIOOID 24, 29–35. Stillwell, R., MacDonald, W.L. and McAllister, M.H. (eds.) 1976: The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (Princeton). Stolba, V.F. 2013: ‘A Prosopographical Note on IOlbia 11’. Mnemosyne 66, 293–302. Suceveanu, A. 2007: ‘Inscriptions’. In Milosevic, G., Bounegru, O., Mușețeanu, C. and Poenaru Bordea, G. (eds.), Histria XIII: La basilique épiscopale (Bucharest). Suceveanu, A. and Barnea, A. 1991: La Dobroudja Romaine (Bucharest). Tacheva-Hitova, M. 1983: Eastern Cults in Moesia Inferior and Thracia (5th century BC–4th century AD) (Leiden). Thomsen, C.A. 2014: ‘The Eranistai of Classical Athens’. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 55, 154–75. Tod, M.N. 1906–07: ‘A Statute of an Attic Thiasos’. Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 13, 328–38. —. 1932: ‘Clubs and Societies in the Greek World’. In Tod, M.N., Sidelights on Greek History. Three Lectures on the Light Thrown by Greek Inscriptions on the Life and Thought of the Ancient World (Oxford), 71–96. Torri, A.P. 1938: ‘Le corporazioni ostiensi’. Urbe 3(9), 1–8. —. 1941: Le corporazioni romane. Cenno storico giuridico economico (Rome). Tournon, E. 1895: De la personnalité civile des sociétés et des associations (Bordeaux). Tran, N. 2001: ‘Le collège, la communauté et le politique sous le Haut-Empire romain. Historiographie du droit à la fin du XIXe siècle, « tradition sociologique » et quelques recherches contemporaines’. Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 12, 181–98. —. 2006: Les membres des associations romaines. Le rang social des collegiati en Italie et en Gaule, sous le Haut-Empire (Rome).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

327

—. 2013: ‘Les statuts de travail des esclaves et des affranchies dans les grands ports du monde romain (Ier siècle av. J.-C.–IIe siècle apr. J.-C.)’. Annales Histoire Sciences Sociales 68.4, 999–1026. Treister, M. 2003: ‘The Date and Significance of Tomb II at Gorgippia (1975 Excavations)’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 9.1–2, 43–85. Trümper, M. 2006: ‘Negotiating Religious and Ethnic Identity: The Case of Clubhouses in Late Hellenistic Delos’. In Nielsen, I. (ed.), Zwischen Kult und Gesellschaft. Kosmopolitische Zentren des antiken Mittelmeerraumes als Aktionsraum von Kultvereinen und Religionsgemeinschaften (Akten eines Symposiums des Archäologischen Instituts der Universität Hamburg, 12–14 Oktober 2005) (Augsburg), 113–40. —. 2011: ‘Where the Non-Delians Met in Delos. The Meeting-places of Foreign Associations and Ethnic Communities in Late Hellenistic Delos’. In van Nijf, O.M. and Alston, R. (eds.), Political Culture in the Greek City After the Classical Age (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA), 49–100. Ustinova, Y. 1998: ‘Aphrodite Ourania of the Bosporus. The Great Goddess of a Frontier Pantheon’. Kernos 11, 209–26. —. 1999: The Supreme Gods of the Bosporan Kingdom: Celestial Aphrodite and the Most High God (Leiden/Boston). Valdgauer, O.F. 1922: ‘Afrodita Urania i Afrodita Pandemos’. Izvestiia Rossiiskoi Akademii Istorii Materialnoi Kultury 2, 209–27. van Herten, J.C.A. 1934: Θρησκεία Εὐλάεια Ικέτης. Bijdrage tot de kennis der religieuze terminologie in het Grieksch (Amsterdam). van Nijf, O.M. 1997: The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East (Amsterdam). —. 2003: ‘Les élites comme patrons des associations professionnelles dans l’Orient romain’. In Cébeillac-Gervasoni, M. and Lamoine, L. (eds.), Les élites et leurs facettes. Les élites locales dans le monde hellénistique et romain (Paris), 307–21. Varga, R. and Pázsint, A.-I. 2021: ‘Labour Migration in the Roman World: The Case of Craftsmen’. In Cojocaru, V. and Pázsint, A.-I. (eds.), Migration and Identity in Eurasia from the Ancient Times to the Middle Ages (Cluj-Napoca), 115–38. Vélissaropoulos, J. 1980: Les Nauclères grecs. Recherches sur les institutions maritimes en Grèce et dans l’Orient hellénisé (Geneva/Paris). Verboven, K. 2009: ‘Resident Aliens and Translocal Merchant Collegia in the Roman Empire’. In Hekster, O. and Kaizer, T. (eds.), Frontiers in the Roman World (Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire) (Leiden/Boston), 335–48. —. 2011: ‘Professional Collegia: Guilds or Social Clubs?’. Ancient Society 41, 187–95. —. 2016: ‘Guilds and the Organisation of Urban Populations During the Principate’. In Verboven, K. and Laes, C. (eds.), Work, Labour, and Professions in the Roman World (Leiden/Boston), 173–202. Vinogradov, Y.G. and Kryzhitskii, I.D. 1995: Olbia. Eine altgriechische Stadt im nordwestlichen Schwarzmeerraum (Leiden/New York/Cologne). Vitale, M. 2013: ‘Archonten, Hellenarchen und Königliche Statthalter im Regnum Bosporanum (Tanais)’. ZPE 184, 211–18. Vittinghoff, F. 1971: ‘Die rechtliche Stellung der canabae legionis und die Herkunftsangabe castris’. Chiron 1, 299–318. Vondeling, J. 1961: Eranos (Groningen).

328

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Voroshilova, O. and Zavoikina, N.V. 2016: ‘Nadgrobie fiasota Mokka, syna levkiya, iz Fanagorii’. In Zavoikin, A.A. (ed.), Fanagoriya: Rezultaty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii, vol. 4 (= Materialy po arkheologii i istorii Fanagorii, vol. 2) (Moscow), 24–33. Voutiras, E. 1992: ‘Berufs- und Kultverein: ein ΔΟΥΜΟΣ in Thessalonike’. ZPE 90, 87–96. Vulpe, R. 1964: ‘Inscription latine de Scythie Mineure concernant un dumus de Cybèle’. In Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für griechische und lateinische Epigraphik, Wien, 17. bis 22. September 1962 (Vienna), 411–20. Waltzing, J.P. 1890: ‘Une inscription du Collegium Negotiantium Corariorum de la ville de Rome’. Revue de l’Instruction Publique en Belgique 33, 9–20. —. 1892: L’épigraphie latine et les corporations professionnelles de l’Empire romain (Ghent). —. 1895–1900: Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains depuis les origines jusqu’à la chute de l’empire d’occident (Leuven). —. 1898: ‘Les collèges funéraires chez les romains’. Le Musée Belge. Revue de philologie classique 2, 281–94. Wescher, C. 1864: ‘Inscriptions de l’île de Rhodes relatives à des sociétés religieuses’. Revue archéologique 10, 460–73. Wiedemann, T.E.J. 1992: Emperors and Gladiators (London). Wilson, S.G. 1996: ‘Voluntary Associations: An Overview’. In Kloppenborg and Wilson 1996, 1–15. Yailenko, V.P. 2002: ‘Opistograf iz Fanagorii so stroitelnoi nadpisyu i epitafiey fiasota’. Problemy Istorii, Filologii, Kultury 12, 229–42. —. 2010: Tysiacheletnii Bosporskii Reikh (Moscow). Zavoikina, N.V. 2003: ‘Chastnye soobshchestva Pantikapeya v I–III vv. n.e.’. Drevnosti Bospora 6, 120–37. —. 2004: ‘Ταναεῖται v istorii Bosporskogo carstva’. Drevnosti Bospora 7, 163–98. —. 2007: ‘Chastnye soobshchestva Tanaisa (104–244 gg. n.e.)’. Problemy Istorii, Filologii, Kultury 17, 299–315. —. 2013a: Bosporskie fiasy: Mezhdu polisom i monarkhiei (Moscow). —. 2013b: ‘Iz istorii bosporskoi elity II–III vv n.e. Yulii Menestrat i Khofrazm, syn Fargobaka’. Problemy Istorii, Filologii, Kultury 40.2, 250–62. —. 2014: ‘Polis and Monarchy in the Bosporan Kingdom in the 1st–3rd centuries AD’. In Povalahev, N. (ed.), Phanagoreia und daruber hinaus… Festschrift für Vladimir Kuznetzov (Göttingen), 317–43. Żelazowski, J. 2009: ‘L’attività dei governatori nella Mesia Inferiore (86–275) secondo le iscrizioni’. Palamedes 4, 131–46. Zhebelev, S.A. 1940: ‘Tanaidskie bratya-priemyshi’. Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Istorii Materialnoy Kultury 5, 47–49. Ziebarth, E.G.L. 1896: Das griechische Vereinswesen (Stuttgart). —. 1907: ‘Ἔρανος’. RE 6.1, 328–30. Zimmermann, C. 2002: Handwerkervereine im Griechischen Osten des Imperium Romanum (Mainz/Bonn).

FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1. Map showing attestations of private associations in the Pontic Greek cities (L. Bruckner and A. Pușcașu).

1

Βακχεασταί

1

1

Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας

Θεασεῖται

Ἡρακλειασταί

Ἔρανισταί [Ἔρανος]

Οἱ ἑταῖροι οἱ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος

Ἑταῖροι

Εἰσποιητοὶ ἀδελφοὶ σεβόμενοι Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Δενδροφόροι

1

1

Ἀσιανῶν σπεῖρα πρεσβ(υτέρων?)

Ἀριστοπυλεῖται

Ἀθηνεαστής

Δοῦμος

Dumus

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

1

1

1

1

1

[Μύσται?]

2

1

Sin. Ama. A.P. Od. Dion. B. Ca. Tom.

[Collegium dendrophorum]

Ami.

1

1

I.

Ol. Ch. Theod.

Ci.

1

Pantic.

4

3

3

1

M. Tan. Phanag. H. G. External

3

1

3

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

T.

1

Θιασῖται

1

1

1

Θοινᾶται

Πασοῦς ἱερὸς θίασος

Θίεσος ἀδελφῶν

1

1

Θίασος περὶ Ζώπρον ἱερέα

Θίεσος

1

Θίασος περὶ ρέα Μενέστρατον Ἀρδαράκου

Θίασος

1

2

Θέασος ναυκλήρων 2

2

1

1

1

1

4

Θέασος

[Ἱ]ερεῖς Εὑρησιβ[ίου καὶ θι]ασῖται

[Θιασῖται?]

1

Θιεσῖται

1

1

1

1

Θιεσεῖται

5

1

Θιασεῖται [---] μύσται

Θιασῶται

2

Θιασεῖται

Βορεικοὶ θιασῖται

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

3

1

8

1

1

1

[Θρη]σκευταί

1 1

[--- κοινωνοὶ?] οἱ περὶ τὸν γραμματέα

[--- κοινωνοὶ?] οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα

2 1

Οἱ περὶ [---]

Οἱ παιρὶ {περὶ} εἱερέα Τ(ίτον) Αἴ(λιον) Μινίκιον

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς θεᾶς Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταί

1

Κοινωνοὶ οἱ περὶ Μένανδρον Ἀπολλωνίου

Κοινὸν τῶν θιασιτῶν

Κοινὸν ναυτικῶν

Κοινόν

Ἱεροναῦται

1

Θοινῆται οἱ περὶ εἱερέα Ἡρακλέοντα Πύρσου

1

1

Θοινᾶται τᾶς Δάματρος τᾶς Χθονίας

Θοινεῖται οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Νουμήνιον Ζήνιδος

1

1

Sin. Ama. A.P. Od. Dion. B. Ca. Tom.

Θοινᾶται τᾶς [Δάματρος τᾶς Χθονίας]

Ami.

I.

1

1

Ol. Ch. Theod.

Ci.

1

Pantic.

1

1

M. Tan. Phanag. H. G. External

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

T.

Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος

Θυμελικὴ σύνοδος

Θεᾶς Ἀφροδείτης σύνοδος

Σύνοδος

Συνοδεῖται

[Σπεῖρα] Διονυσι[αστῶν]

Σπεῖρα Ῥωμαίων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Ῥωποπῶλαι?

Ὀρφικοί

Ὀργεών

1

1

1

1

Οἶκος τῶν ναυκλήρων

1

1

Οἶκος τῶν ἐν Τόμει ναυκλήρων

1

1

1

Οἶκος τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Ἑρμᾶντος οἱ περὶ τὸν ἱερέα Επταικενθον Ἀσιατικοῦ

(Οἱ) περὶ ρέα Ξένων Ἔρωτος θιεσεῖται

1

1

1

1

1

3 1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

Τεμενῖται

Τέκτονες

Ταῦροι

Ταυρεασταί

Τοὶ σύσσιτοι τοὶ Τιμώνακτος

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος μυστικῆς Ταρσέων

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

1

1 4

1

8

3

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ τὸν δεῖνα

1

7

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

Σύνοδος ἡ τῶν στεφανηπλόκων

6

1

M. Tan. Phanag. H. G. External

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα καὶ συναγωγὸν τὸν δεῖνα

1

Pantic.

6

Ci.

4

Ol. Ch. Theod.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα

1

I.

4

1

Sin. Ama. A.P. Od. Dion. B. Ca. Tom.

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ Θεὸν Ὕψιστον

Σύνοδος ἡ περὶ [---]

Ami.

1

1

1

4

1

8

1

1

1

3

7

6

10

4

1

T.

1

5

1

6

1

21

13 26

28

5

1 2

1

1 1

Fig. 2. Geographical distribution of the terminology.

10

Total

1

2

?

13

2

Ὑμνῳδοί πρεσβύτεροι περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον

1

1

Ὑμνῳδοί πρεσβύτεροι οἱ περὶ τὸν μέγαν θεὸν Διόνυσον

Φαμιλία μονομάχων τῶν περὶ Καλύδωνα

1

1

2

Ὑμνῳδοί πρεσβύτεροι vel νεώτεροι οἱ περὶ τὸν μέγαν θεὸν Διόνυσον

Ὑμνῳδοί νεώτεροι

1

1

Ὑμνῳδοί 1

1

Τῶν περὶ συναγωγοὺς Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου

39

1

1

32

9

7

1 2

18

9 10

218

50

1

2

1

1

1

5

1

A m is Si us A po A no llo m pe ni as a tr Po is n D Od tica io e ny ss so us po Bi lis zo C ne al la To tis m Is is tr C O os he l rs bia Th one C eo sus im d Pa me osia nt ri i c M cap um yr ae m um ec iu m T Ph an an ai H a s er go m ri o G na a or ss gi a Ex ppi te a rn al 6t hc ? en 6t htu ry 5t h BC ce nt u ry 4t h BC ce 4t nt hu 3r ry d BC ce nt ur 3r dc y B C en 2n tury dc BC en tu ry 1s BC tc en tu ry 1s tc BC e 1s t-2 ntu ry nd A ce D nt u 2n ry dc A D 2n en dtu 3r ry d A ce D nt ur 3r y d A ce D nt ur y A D

336

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

61 41

6

1

1 2

5 1

6

1 2 3

21

1 7 12

5

2

5

10

1

1

1

Fig. 4. Geographical distribution of inscriptions. 56

15 4

Fig. 3. Chronological distribution of inscriptions.

39

26 25 32 18

7 10

2

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

lb u Bu m ild C on ing tr ib ut io n D ec r D ed ee ic at io Fu n ne ra ry G ra ph H Hon e on or orif i ifi cd c ec Le ree x sa cr a O rp R eg hic ul at io n U nk s no w n

m isu S s A po A ino llo m pe ni as a tr Po is n O D d tica io e ny ss so us po Bi lis zo C ne al la To tis m Is is tr C O os he l rs bia Th one C eo sus im d Pa me osia nt ri i c M cap um yr ae m um ec iu m T Ph an an ai H a s er go m ri G ona a or ss gi a Ex ppi te a rn al

A 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

A

tic

go no s

A

FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

1 1

5

5 6

1

10

1

1

12

40

15

1 5 2

12

1

1

Fig. 6. Types of inscription.

337

25 11

1 1

2

1

5 3

2

7

17

2

10

1

Fig. 5. Geographical distribution of associations.

Types of inscription

74 48

9

338

FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

A

m is Si us no A po A pe llo ma ni str aP is on ti D Ode ca io s ny su so s po Bi lis zo C ne al la t To is m i Is s tr o C O s he lb rs ia o Th nes e C od us im o Pa me sia nt ric ic u M ap m yr ae m um ec iu Ta m Ph n a ai H nag s er o m ria o G nas or sa gi p Ex pia te rn al

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Agonistic

Album

Building

Contribution

Decree

Dedication

Funerary

Graphe

Honorific

Honorific decree

Lex sacra

Orphic

Regulations

Unknown

Fig. 7. Types of inscription per city.

Types of material

200 150 100 50 0

143 55 8

Fig. 8. Types of material.

n ow nk n U

M ar bl e

ne Li

m

es to

ol

d

1 G

la y C

ze Br on

ne Bo

5

2

1

*ἀγορανόμος *ἄρχων *βενεφικιάριος ὑπατικοῦ *Ἑλληνάρχης *ἐπὶ τἠς αὐλῆς *ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς Θεοδοσίας *ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων *πρὶν ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων *λοχαγός *πρίν λοχαγός *ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς Γοργιππείας *ὀρφανοφύλαξ *πανηγυριάρχης *πολειτάρχης *πρὶν πολειτάρχης *ποντάρχης *ποντάρχης ἀπὸ πατρός *ποντάρχης τῆς Πενταπόλεως *πρῶτος ποντάρχης *πρεσβευτής *πρὶν ἐπ[ὶ] [τῆς π]ινακ(ίδος?) *πρόεδρος *πρῶτον ἐπὶ τῆς βα[σ]ιλείας *στρατηγός *στρατιώτης *ταμίας *φίλαρχος *χειλιάρχης καὶ ἐπ[ὶ] τῶν Ἀσπουργιανῶν Total 7

1

3

1

5

1

3 1

2

1

1

1 12

1

1 1

2 1 2 1 1 1

Fig. 9. Royal and civic offices held by members.

4

1

1

1

1

1 1

5

1

1

2

1

Callatis Tomis Istros Chersonesus Panticapaeum Tanais

1

1

11

1 3

1 3

3

1 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 4 1 1 3 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 47

Hermonassa Gorgippia Total

340

538

248

242 156 5

1 35 8

242

229

122 7 39 21

13

2

1

22 1

36

15

A po

A m as llo A tris ni mi a su Po s n Bi tica zo C Ca ne he ll C rso atis im n e D me sus io ri ny cu s m G opo o H rg lis er ip m pi on a a M I ssa yr st m ro ec s O ium de ss Pa u nt Ol s ic bi a Ph pa a an eum ag o Si ria no T pe Th an eo ais do s To ia Ex mi te s rn al

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 10. Geographical distribution of members.

Dac. Amisus

Gr.

Ir.

Lalln.

Paph.

Sem. Thrc. Frag.

Unc.

1 1

Amastris

2

Apollonia Pontica

24

Odessus

35

Dionysopolis

77

Bizone

1

1

2

5

1

4

6

35

4

10

6 1

T. 1

Sinope

Callatis

Lat.

2

1 23

1

39 122

1

8

2

26

156

Tomis

117

3

68

3

38

229

Istros

134

2

65

3

44

248

Olbia

21

Chersonesus

103

4 29

21

1

Theodosia

27

Cimmericum

1 2

2

3

1

Panticapaeum

145

36

1 30

8

1

11

3

4

Myrmecium

2 40

242

7

Tanais

210

174

Phanagoria

14

3

Hermonassa

8

1

Gorgippia

97

34

External

15

T.

2

1

1038

7

1

15

7

1 6

4

2

7

8

114

2

538

2

2

1

22

1

2

4

93

2

242

13 15

244

31

2

206

13

33

Fig. 11. Distribution of the members’ onomastics.

410

5

1983

FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 12. Representation of the members of the three associations that are interconnected.

Fig. 13. The family of Σκύθης son of Θεογένης.

341

1

45

Total

8

5

1

2

Istros

1

1

Panticapaeum

Fig. 14. (Honorific) titles granted to members.

1

**δισφιλότιμος 4

1

2

1

38

**φιλότιμος κάλλιστος

1

1

2

**φιλότιμος διὰ βίου

**φιλότιμος

**φῖλος

**φιλόδοξος

**υἱὸς τῆς πόλεως

1

1

**κοινοσώστης

**εὐεργέτης

Tomis

1

2

Callatis

**δημοσώστης

**ἀδελφός

Bizone

1

1

Tanais

3

1

2

External

64

1

1

1

45

1

1

1

3

8

1

1

Total

342 FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 15. The family of Διονύσιος and its involvement in the Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων.

FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

343

Fig. 16. The family of Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 780).

344 FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

335

334

336

337

338

341

342

506

507

508

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

No. No. cat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

trc.

gr.

Μινίκιος Ἀθανέων

Μινίκιος Τρύφων

Πόπλιος Οὐαλέριος Χάρης

Ῥήσιος Σάτριος

Τερέντιος Φίλων

gr.

lat.

Caius Antonius Eutyches

Μᾶρκος Ἀντώνιος Μαρκιανός

lat.

gr.

Καικίλιος Τίμων

Lucius Antonius Capito

gr.

On. Relations On.

Ἑρέννιος Ἀπολινάρις

Person

?

[Δενδροφόροι]

?

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Attis Hecate Soteira

archidendrophorus πατὴρ νόμιμος, ἱερεύς

Heros et Dominus

Heracles Pharangeites

Heracles Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

[Artemis?]

Heracles Pharangeites

[Artemis?]

Divinity

[Artemis?]

*βενεφικιάριος ὑπατικοῦ

Position

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Association

Funerary

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

2nd c. AD

AD 238–244

Dating

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Origin

25

1

24

11

11

8

8

8

11

8

Corpus

516

534

536

537

538

543

544

545

546

549

547

548

769

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

No. No. cat.

lat.

lat.

gr.

lat.

Οὐαλέριος Δημήτριος

Οὐαλέριος Ἰουλιανός

Οὐαλέριος Πρεῖσκος

Οὐαλέριος Σευῆρος νεώτερος

lat.

gr.

Βίρριος Λέων

lat.

Fabius Paulinus

Vettius Ponticus

lat.

lat.

Μούννιος Λονγεῖνος

Papirius Celer

lat.

Menia Iuliane

lat.

lat.

Καλπούρνιος Φῆλιξ

Caius Licinius Clemens

lat.

On. Relations On.

Caius Gabinius Modestus

Person

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Association

*ποντάρχης, ἱερασάμενος

mater Romanorum

**κοινοσώστης

Position

Poseidon Heliconius

Heros et Dominus

Heros et Dominus

Heros et Dominus

?

?

?

?

?

Heros et Dominus

Heros et Dominus

?

Heros et Dominus

Divinity

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

dedication

catalogue

dedication

Type inscr.

AD 212–250

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

Dating

Istros

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Origin

2

24

24

24

14

14

14

14

15

24

24

14

24

Corpus

774

776

777

778

779

795

802

803

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

gr.

lat.

lat.

lat.

lat.

lat.

gr.

Μέσσιος Κορνήλιος

Γάϊος Οὐαλέριος Οὐάλης

Γάϊος Οὐαλέριος Πρόκλος

Σητώνιος Ῥεστιτοῦτος

Φούλβιος Δέκμος

Φούλβιος Τελέσφορος

gr.

[Μέ]σσιος Ἡρακλᾶς

Τίτος Κομινίος Εὐξενίδης

Fig. 17. Bearers of non-Imperial nomina.

agonistic

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

agonistic catalogue

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

agonistic

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

agonistic, catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

Dionysus

Dionysus

*ποντάρχης, προστάτης Dionysus

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

3

13

3, 13

3

13

3, 13

13

3

541

542

775

1114

2.

3.

4.

5.

515

794

804

1.

2.

3.

No. No. cat.

540

1.

No. No. cat.

lat.

lat.

lat.

Μᾶρκος Τερεν[τιανός?]

Λούκιος Βρουτιος

Πούπλιος Ἰουλιανός

gr.

?

?

Αὐ․[—]ων Ἡλεις

Μᾶρκος Σαιτ[---]

[---]ς Ἐπαφρόδιτος

γραμματεύς

Position

Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν ἱερεύς δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

?

?

?

?

Association

-

?

?

?

?

Divinity

Position

Cybele

Divinity

Fig. 19. Bearers of fragmentary nomina.

?

?

Δενδροφόροι

Association

Fig. 18. Bearers of praenomina and nomina.

On. Relations On.

lat.

Μᾶρκος Τερεν[τιανός?]

Person

lat.

On. Relations On.

Μᾶρκος Τερεν[τιανός?]

Person

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

Type inscr.

funerary

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 198–201

Dating

AD 204

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

Dating

Istros

Istros

Tomis

Origin

Panticapaeum

Istros

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Origin

13

13

1

Corpus

10

11

15

15

15

Corpus

349

FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Personal name

Patronymic

Occurences

?

?

7

?

gr.

12

?

ir.

4

gr.

sem.

3

gr.

trc.

1

gr.

?

19

gr.

gr.

69

gr.

ir.

10

gr.

Lal.

1

gr.

lat.

2

ir.

?

4

ir.

gr.

13

ir.

ir.

3

ir.

Lal.

1

ir.

sem.

2

Lal.

?

2

Lal.

gr.

3

Lal.

ir.

2

Lal.

Lal.

1

lat.

?

1

lat.

dac.

1

lat.

gr.

4

lat.

ir.?

1 1

lat.

lat.

paph.

gr.

1

sem.

ir.

1

trc.

gr.

1

trc.

trc.

1

Fig. 20. Correspondence between personal names and patronymics at Panticapaeum.

Duo nomina

Tria nomina

Praenomen + cognomen

Total

Amastris

-

1

-

1

Dionysopolis

62

-

-

62

3

11

-

14

Tomis

Callatis

19

39

3

61

Istros

45

19

1

65

Panticapaeum Total

2

4

1

7

131

74

5

210

Fig. 21. Geographical distribution of the members with duo and tria nomina.

174

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

No. No. cat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

lat.

lat.

lat.

gr.

lat.

lat.

gr.

Ἰούλιος Ἐπίκτητος

Ἰούλιος Ἐπίκτητος

Ἰούλιος Ἡρακλείδης

Ἰούλιος Ἡρακλείδης

Ἰούλιος Ἰουλιανός

Αὐρήλιος Ἰούλιος Ἵστιος

Ἰούλιος Κρίσπος

Ἰούλιος Λονγεῖνος

Ἰούλιος Λονγεῖνος νεώτερος

Γάϊος Ἰούλιος Νεικύλας

Ἰούλιος Νιγρεῖνος

Ἰούλιος Πακκατιανός

Ἰούλιος Ποσειδώνιος

On.

Ἰούλιος Ἀλέξανδρος

Person

[---]ιος

Relations ?

On.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Δενδροφόροι

?

?

Δενδροφόροι

?

?

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Association

Position

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Cybele

?

?

Cybele

?

?

Pontic Mother of Gods

Divinity

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

AD 212–250

Dating

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Dionysopolis

Origin

15

15

15

21

15

15

15

1

15

21

1

15

15

4

Corpus

530

531

532

533

772

1108

1109

1110

1111

1112

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

lat.

lat.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

sem.

ir.

Ἰούλιος Φαυστεινιανός

Ἰούλιος Φλάβιος

Αὐρήλιος Ἰούλιος Χρυσόγονος

[---] Ἰούλις Θεόδουλος

Ἰούλιος Γεμελλεῖνος

Ἰούλιος Ζενόδωρος

Ἰούλιος Καλλισθένης

Ἰούλιος Νεικηφόρος

Ἰούλιος Σαμβίων

Ἰούλιος Χόφαρνος

Ἀφροδίσιος

Fig. 22. Iulii.

gr. Ἀριστοπυλεῖται *πρίν λοχαγός; ἱερεύς

Zeus Soter, Hera Soteira

-

πατήρ συνόδου; Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα *ἐπὶ τῆς αὐλῆς (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

-

τῶν παραφιλάγαθος διὰ βίου

ἱερεύς Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα

Κοινὸν θιασιτῶν

dedication

funerary

funerary

honorific

funerary

catalogue

φιλάγαθος Σύνοδος περὶ ἱερέα τὸν δεῖνα (καὶ) πατέρα (συνόδου) τὸν δεῖνα -

?

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

**φιλότιμος

Cybele

?

?

?

?

Δενδροφόροι

?

?

AD 275–279

AD 214

AD 221

2nd c. AD

AD 221

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

3rd c. AD

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Panticapaeum

Istros

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

11

10

10

4

10

15

15

1

15

15

770

771

2.

3.

339

340

551

552

553

554

555

550

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

No. No. cat.

539

1.

No. No. cat.

lat.

Κλαύδιος Σέξτος

lat.

gr.

Φλάουιος Με[---]

lat.

gr.

Φλάβιος Ἵστιος

Flavia Nona

Δενδροφόροι

gr.

Τίτος Φλάουιος Θαλάσσιος

Dumus

?

Δενδροφόροι

Δενδροφόροι

Τίτος Φλάουιος Εὐτύχης gr.

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι Δενδροφόροι

gr.

Φλάβιος Ἡφαιστίων

Association

Divinity

mater dumi

[Cybele?/ Anahita?]

Zeus, Hera

Cybele

Cybele

Cybele

Cybele

[Artemis?]

Heracles Pharangeites

Divinity

Heros et Dominus

Position

Fig. 23. Claudii.

Position

Σύνοδος Ἡρακλεωτῶν τῶν περὶ Σάτυρον Σατύρου

?

?

?

Association

Τίτος Φλάουιος Εὐτύχης gr.

gr.

Φλάβιος Ἡρακλέων

On. Relations On.

gr. Σέξτος

Person

lat.

Κλαύδιος Δημήτρις

On. Relations On.

Cludius Secundus

Person

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

Type inscr.

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 138

AD 198–201

AD 198–201

AD 198–201

AD 198–201

AD 238–244

2nd c. AD

Dating

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

Dating

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Callatis

Callatis

Origin

Istros

Istros

Tomis

Origin

2

23

1

1

1

1

8

11

Corpus

15

15

24

Corpus

557

558

559

796

797

798

799

800

801

1113

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

1.

535

No. No. cat.

556

9.

lat.

Φλάουιος Λονγεινιανός

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν προστάτης πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν προστάτης πρεσβυτέρων

Person

Μᾶρκος Κοκκήϊος Χρυσόγονος

gr.

On. Relations On. [Μύσται?]

Position μυστάρχης

Fig. 25. Cocceii.

Association

Fig. 24. Flavii.

Νεικαιέων νέων σύνοδος

gr.

lat.

Φλάουιος Ἰουκουνδος

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν προστάτης πρεσβυτέρων

Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἐπιτυγχάνων

gr.

Φλάουιος Διογένης

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

lat.

Φλάουιος Ἁδριανός

?

?

gr.

Φλάουιος Φαῖδρος

Δενδροφόροι

lat.

gr.

Φλάβιος Σύμφορος

Δενδροφόροι

Φλάουιος Σεουῆρος

lat.

Τίτος Φλάουιος Σαλλούστιος

Δενδροφόροι

Τίτος Φλάουιος Οὔλπιος lat.

lat.

Τίτος Φλάουιος Σαλβιανός

[Dionysus?]

Divinity

-

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Zeus, Hera

Cybele

Cybele

Cybele

honorific

Type inscr.

honorific

dedication

catalogue

agonistic

dedication

agonistic

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

2nd–3rd c. AD

Dating

AD 117

AD 218/219

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 222–224

AD 218/219

AD 222–224

2nd c. AD

AD 138

AD 198–201

AD 198–201

AD 198–201

Tomis

Origin

Panticapaeum

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

12

Corpus

5

3

15

3

3

3

14

23

1

1

1

781

782

783

784

785

786

787

788

789

790

791

792

793

3.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

780

2.

4.

5

1.

No. No. cat.

?

lat.

gr.

gr.

lat.

lat.

gr.

lat.

lat.

gr.

lat.

lat.

lat.

Οὔλπιος Ἀττι[---]

Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Δημήτριος

Οὔλπιος Ἡλιόδωρος

Οὔλπιος Ἰανουάρις

Οὔλπιος Ἰγγένης

Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Καλλίστρατος

Οὔλπιος Μᾶρκος νεώτερος

Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Οὐαλέριανος

Οὔλπιος Πολύτειμος

Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Πραίσης

Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Σαβεινιανος

[---] Οὔλπιος [---]

gr.

Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Γερμανικος

lat.

On.

Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Ῥουφωνιανός

Person

Αρτεμᾶς

Relations

Position

Οἶκος τῶν ναυκλήρων προστάτης διὰ βίου

Association

Fig. 26. Ulpii.

Dionysus

Dionysus

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν προστάτης πρεσβυτέρων Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

-

Divinity

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν προστάτης πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

?

gr. Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν προστάτης πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν προστάτης πρεσβυτέρων

?

gr. Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν *πρῶτος ποντάρχης, πρεσβυτέρων υἱὸς τῆς πόλεως, προστάτης

On.

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic, dedication

honorific

Type inscr.

AD 198–202

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD

2nd c. AD, AD 222–224

2nd–3rd c. AD

Dating

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Amastris

Origin

3

3

3

13

3

14

3

14

13

13

3

3

8

3

4

Corpus

329

330

331

332

333

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

No. No. cat.

lat.

lat.

gr.

gr.

Τίτος Αἴλιος Μινίκιος

Τίτος Αἴλιος Μινίκιος Πουδενς

Πουπλία Αἰλία Ὀλυμπία

Αἴλιος Ἀσκληπιάδης

Association

?

?

?

?

Αἴλιος [---]

Δενδροφόροι

?

?

Δενδροφόροι

Οἱ παιρὶ {περὶ} εἱερέα Τ(ίτον) Αἴ(λιον) Μινίκιον

Οἱ παιρὶ {περὶ} εἱερέα Τ(ίτον) Αἴ(λιον) Μινίκιον

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Οἱ περὶ Π(όπλιον) Οὐαλέρ(ιον) Χάρητα/ Φιλοκύνηγοι

Τίτος Αἴλιος [---]

On.

?

Relations

Titus Ailius Pompeius lat.

gr.

lat.

Αἴλιος Ἰουλιανός

Πούπλιος Αἴλιος Ἑρμέρως

gr.

Αἴλιος Ἡφαιστόδωρος

lat.

gr.

Αἴλιος Ἀρχίας

Titus Ailius Barbario

On.

Person

ἔκγδικος

ἀρχιραβδουχῖσα

*ποντάρχης τῆς Πενταπόλεως, ἱερεύς

Position

?

Zeus, Hera

Heros et Dominus

Cybele

Heros et Dominus

?

Cybele

?

?

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

[Artemis?]

Divinity

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

Type inscr.

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 138

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

AD 161–180

AD 161–180

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

AD 238–244

Dating

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Callatis

Origin

17

23

24

1

24

18

1

7

7

8

8

8

Corpus

739

740

741

743

742

744

745

746

747

748

749

750

751

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

No. No. cat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

lat.

lat.

lat.

gr.

gr. Φαιδρίας

Πόπλιος Αἴλιος Ἑκαταίος

Αἴλιος Ἐλευθερίων

Αἴλιος Ἑρμῆς

Πόπλιος Αἴλιος Ἑρμερινός

Αἴλιος Ἑρμογένης

Αἴλιος Εὔτυχος

Τίτος Αἴλιος Μιν[---]

Μᾶρκος Αἴλιος Νίγερ

Μᾶρκος Αἴλιος Οὐαλέριανος

Αἴλιος Ῥοῦφος

Αἴλιος Τειμοθῆς

Πόπλιος Αἴλιος [Ἀρτεμίδωρος]

Relations

gr. Διοσκουρίδης

On.

Αἴλιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Person

gr.

gr.

On.

Position

ἱερεὺς διὰ βίου, *ποντάρχης ἀπὸ πατρός

Dionysus

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν προστάτης πρεσβυτέρων

Fig. 27. Aelii.

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Poseidon Heliconius

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

Dionysus

Dionysus

Divinity

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν μεσόχορος, πρεσβυτέρων προστάτης

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ?

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν ἀρχιερεύς πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Association

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic, catalogue

dedication

agonistic

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

catalogue

agonistic

agonistic

Type inscr.

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 212–250

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 222–224

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

2nd c. AD

Dating

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Origin

3

3

3

3

3, 13

2

3

3

3

13

11

3

3

Corpus

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

No. No. cat.

gr. Ἀρίστων

gr. Νείκιος

gr. ignotus

gr. ignotus

gr. [Μ]ᾶρκος

lat. Φιλόξηνος

gr. Σωσίπατρος

gr. Ἀσκληπιάδης

gr. Μητρόδωρος

gr. Σειλανός

Αὐρήλιος Ἀντίπατρος

Αὐρήλιος Ἀπήμων

Αὐρήλιος Ἀριστομένης

Αὐρήλιος Ἀσκληπιάδης

Αὐρήλιος Ἀσκληπ[ιάδης?]

Αὐρήλιος Αὐδασιανός

Αὐρήλιος Αὐτοκράτης

Αὐρήλιος Γέρων

Αὐρήλιος Γλαῦκος

Αὐρήλιος Γλαῦκος

Relations

gr. Δη[---]

On.

Αὐρήλιος Ἀνδρικίων

Person

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

?

?

gr.

gr.

?

On.

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Association

Position

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Divinity

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

Dating

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Origin

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

No. No. cat.

gr.

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

gr. Δάδας

Αὐρήλιος Δίων trc.

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

gr. Διονύσιος

Αὐρήλιος Διοσκουρίδης gr.

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Association

Αὐρήλιος Διονυσόδωρος gr.

gr.

gr. Ἕρμιππος

Αὐρήλιος Διονύσιος

gr.

Αὐρήλιος Διονυσόδωρος gr. Ζήνων

gr. Ἡρακλέων

Αὐρήλιος Διοκλῆς

gr.

trc.

gr. Ἠλεις

Αὐρήλιος Διδυμᾶς

gr.

gr.

On.

Αὐρήλιος Διονυσόδωρος gr. Δάδας?

gr. [---]νανδρος

Αὐρήλιος Δημήτριος

Relations

trc. Βακης

On.

Αὐρήλιος Δαλήτραλις

Person

Position

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Divinity

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

Dating

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Origin

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

gr.

gr. Κούρης

gr. Ζουκης

gr. Ἕρμόδωρος

gr. Ἀνδρικίων

gr. Διονύσιππος?

gr. Θίαῆς

gr. Σατορνῖλος

gr. Σειλανός

gr. Ἄττας

Αὐρήλιος Ἑρμῆς

Αὐρήλιος Εὐάγριος

Αὐρήλιος Ζήνων

Αὐρήλιος Ἠλεις?

Αὐρήλιος Ἡραίων

Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλείδης

Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλείδης

Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλείδης

Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλείδης

Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλέων

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας, Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Lal.? Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

dac. Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

gr.

gr.

αὐλητής

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 215–235

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

2, 4

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

No. No. cat.

gr.

gr. Μενεκρέων

gr. Ἕρμιππος

gr. Μαρκιανός

gr. Διοσκουρίδης

gr. Ἡρακλέων

gr. Πυθοκλῆς

gr. ignotus

lat. Μητρόδωρος

Αὐρήλιος Ἡφ[---]

Αὐρήλιος Θεαγένης

Αὐρήλιος Θεογένης

Αὐρήλιος Θεογένης ?

Αὐρήλιος Θεόδωρος

Αὐρήλιος Θεόδωρος

Αὐρήλιος Θεόμνηστος

Αὐρήλιος Θεό[---]

Αὐρήλιος Ἰουβεντιός?

Relations

gr. Ἡρακλέων

On.

Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλέων

Person

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

On.

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Association

Position

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Divinity

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

Dating

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Origin

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

lat.

lat. Ἰούλιος

gr. Ἑστιαῖος

lat. Ἡφαιστόδ[ημος?]

lat. ignotus

gr. Πολύξενος

gr. Ἡρακλειδι[---]

gr. Πολύξενος

gr.

gr. Γλυκωνιανός?

Αὐρήλιος Κλαύδιος

Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος Κουρης

Αὐρήλιος Μαρκιανός

Αὐρήλιος Μαρκιανός

Αὐρήλιος Μενεκράτης

Αὐρήλιος Μητρόδωρος

Αὐρήλιος Νουμήνης

Αὐρήλιος Νουμήνιος

Αὐρήλιος Ὀλυμπικός gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr. Διδυμᾶς

Αὐρήλιος Κεραίων

gr.

gr. Ν[---]

Αὐρήλιος Καλλικράτης

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

?

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

?

Ἀσιανῶν σπεῖρα et Ἄττεις οἱ κὲ Ἀτιαστὲ εἱαιρόδουλοι Μητρὸς θεᾶς Ποντίας

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

ἱερονόμος, ἱερεύς

Pontic Mother of Gods

?

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

?

Dionysus, Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

AD 212–250

AD 241–244

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 241–244

AD 215–235

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

4

10

4

4

4

4

10

2, 5

4

4

4

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

509

510

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

No. No. cat.

Lal. ignotus

gr. Θεαγένης

lat. Σειλανός

gr. Σειλανός

gr. Σειλανός

Γλαῦκος

Αὐρήλιος Πάππος

Αὐρήλιος Ποσιδώνιος

Αὐρήλιος Ῥοῦφος

Αὐρήλιος Σειλανός

Αὐρήλιος Σειλανός

Αὐρήλιος [---]κιας

Aurelius Vitus

Aurelius Valerianus

Lal. Ἄπφος?

Αὐρήλιος Πάππος

lat.

lat.

?

Lal. Χρύσιππος

Αὐρήλιος Παππας

Relations

Lal. Θεόδωρος

On.

Αὐρήλιος Παππας

Person

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

?

gr.

gr.

gr.

On.

?

Dumus

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Νεομηνιασταὶ Μητρὸς Θεῶν Πον[τία]ς

Association

pater dumi

Position

Heros et Dominus

[Cybele?/ Anahita?]

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Pontic Mother of Gods

Divinity

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

Dating

Tomis

Tomis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Dionysopolis

Origin

24

2

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Corpus

511

512

513

514

752

754

755

756

757

758

759

760

761

762

763

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

gr. Ἀριστοκράτης

lat. Κάστος

gr. Ἀρτεμίδωρος

gr. Τρύφων

gr. Διονύσιος

Αὐρήλιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Αὐρήλιος Βίκτορ

Αὐρήλιος Γρήγορος

Αὐρήλιος Διογένης

Αὐρήλιος Διονύσιος

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

gr.

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

?

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

gr. Ηλεις (Ηλις)

gr. Ἀριστοκράτης

Αὐρήλιος Ἀριστοκράτης

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

Αὐρήλιος Ηλεις (Ηλις)

lat. Ἀρτεμίδωρος

Αὐρήλιος Ἄμανδος

gr.

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

lat. Ηλεις (Ηλις)

Αὐρήλιος Αἰλιανός

?

gr. Διονύσιος

lat.

Αὐρήλιος Φρόντων

Δενδροφόροι

?

Αὐρήλιος Ἑρμάφιλος

gr.

Αὐρήλιος Ὑγεῖνος

Δενδροφόροι

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

lat.

Αὐρήλιος Σευῆρος

gr.

Αὐρήλιος Διονυσόδωρος gr.

gr. Ποσειδώνιος

Αὐρήλιος Σεραπόδωρος

μεσόχορος, χοροστάτης

προστάτης

ἱερασάμενος

ἀγωνοθέτης

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

ἱερεύς

προστάτης

Dionysus

Poseidon Heliconius

Poseidon Heliconius

Dionysus

Poseidon Heliconius

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

Dionysus

?

Cybele

?

Cybele

agonistic

dedication

dedication

agonistic

dedication

agonistic

dedication

agonistic

agonistic

catalogue

agonistic

catalogue

dedication

catalogue

dedication

AD 222–224

AD 212–250

AD 212–250

AD 222–224

AD 212–250

AD 222–224

AD 218/219

AD 222–224

AD 222–224

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 222–224

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

3

2

2

3

2

3

3

3

3

15

3

17

1

14

1

765

766

768

753

767

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

764

79.

No. No. cat.

lat. Ἀσκληπιάδης

gr. Κρατίνος

gr. Ηλεις (Ηλις)

gr. Ηλεις (Ηλις)

gr. Ἑ[ρμοδώρος]

Αὐρήλιος Οὔλπιος

Αὐρήλιος Ποντιανός

Αὐρήλιος Σατουρνεῖλος

Αὐρήλιος Ἀλέξανδρος

Αὐρήλιος Ποντικός

Relations

lat. Ἀρτεμίδωρος

On.

Αὐρήλιος Μαρκιανός

Person

gr.

gr.

gr.

lat.

gr.

gr.

On.

Position

ἀρχιδενδροφόρος

Fig. 28. Aurelii.

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων, Δενδροφόροι

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων, Δενδροφόροι

Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν πρεσβυτέρων

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

?

[Ποσειδωνιασταί]

Association

Dionysus, Cybele

Dionysus, Cybele

Dionysus

Poseidon Heliconius

Poseidon Heliconius

Divinity

dedication, agonistic

dedication, agonistic

agonistic

dedication

catalogue

dedication

Type inscr.

AD 198–201, AD 222–224

AD 198–201, AD 222–224

AD 222–224

AD 212–250

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 212–250

Dating

Istros, Tomis

Istros, Tomis

Istros

Istros

Istros

Istros

Origin

3, 1

3, 1

3

2

15

2

Corpus

13

39

343

390

464

471

499

550

537

566

697 812

813

814 847

1971

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12.

13.

14. 15.

16.

No. No. cat.

gr.

gr.

Πασώ

Πουπλία Αἰλία Ὀλυμπία Flavia Nona

? gr.

gr.

ignota Δημώνασσα

Βακχίς

?

lat. ?

Μαξιμίνα ignota

ignota

?

lat.

ignota

Menia Iuliane

Lal. Θεάδων

Νάνα

gr. [Μύσται ?]

?

Dumus

Δενδροφόροι

Πασοῦς ἱερὸς θίασος

gr. Τῶν περὶ συναγω[γεὺς?] Ἡρόξενον Διοσκουρίδου gr. Δενδροφόροι

Φίλτος

? ? Dionysus [Zagreus?] Agathe Thea

ἱέρεια ἱέρεια

**φιλότιμος

? Dionysus

[Cybele?/ Anahita?] Heros et Dominus Isis

Cybele

Dionysus

Cybele

Dionysus Bakcheus Dionysus Bakcheus Dionysus Bakcheus Hero

Divinity

ἀρχιέρεια

mater Romanorum μήτηρ παστοφόρων

mater dumi

ἀρχιραβδουχῖσα

μήτηρ δενδροφόρων founder?

ἱέρεια

ἱέρεια (Athena)

ἀρχιβασσάρα

κισταφόρος

Position

Fig. 29. Women inside associations.

gr. Κοινόν τῶν θιασωτῶν

[---]κράτης gr. Θίασος?/῾Ιεροναῦται (husband) Σίσυς trc. ? [ignotus – ? Σπεῖρα Διονυσιαστῶν father] πρεσβυτέρων [ignotus – ? ? father] ignotus ? ? Λήναιος gr. ?

Ἡρόξενος

trc.

Βουτίς

lat.

Association

gr. [Μύσται ?]

On.

Ἀπολλώνιος gr. Βακχικὸς θίασος

Σάτυρος

?

gr.

Χρήστη

Μύρων

Relations

ignota

gr.

On.

Βακχίς

Person

honorific

catalogue funerary

catalogue

catalogue agonistic

honorific

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

dedication

catalogue

catalogue

Type inscr.

3rd c. BC

2nd c. AD ca. 500 BC

2nd c. AD

3rd c. AD AD 198–202

3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

AD 198–201

1st c. BC

AD 198–201

3rd c. AD

1st c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

2nd–3rd c. AD

Dating

ExternalAthens

Istros Olbia

Istros

Istros Istros

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Apollonia Pontica Apollonia Pontica Callatis

Origin

8

10 5

10

9 3

3

24

2

1

6

1

8

2

1

1

Corpus

1

6

2

ἔκγδικος/ἔκδικος

2

1

εἱερέα

ἐπιμήνιος

ἐπιμελητής

1

γυμνασίαρχος 3

3

1

2 1

4

γυμνασιάρχης

2

1

1

γραμματεὺς διὰ βίου

1

γάλλαρος

γραμματεύς

1

17

βουκόλος

βιβλιοφύλαξ

αὐλητής

ἀρχιραβδουχῖσα

2

1

ἀρχιμύστης

1 5

ἀρχιερεύς

1

3

ἀρχιέρεια

2

1

1

archidendrophorus

1

1

1

ἀρχιδενδροφόρος

ἀρχιγραμματεύς

ἀρχιγάλλος

ἀρχιβασσάρα

ἄρχ[ι--]

ἀγωνοθέτης

15

1

1

2

3

1

1

10

3

1

1

1

1

1

Amastris Apollonia Odessus Dionysopolis Bizone Callatis Tomis Istros Panticapaeum Myrmecium Tanais Phanagoria Hermonassa Gorgippia External Pontica

15

4

6

1

6

13

1

24

17

1

1

1

1

3

6

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

4

Total

1

1

κρατηρίαος

λικναφόρος

6

3

1

mater Romanorum

1

μύστης

νεωκόρος

νεανισκάρχης

1

μυσταρχικός

μυστάρχης 1

1

μήτηρ παστοφόρων

μούσαρχος

1

mater dumi

3

1

1

1

μήτηρ δενδροφόρων

μεσόχορος

1

κισταφόρος

ἱερονόμος

ἱερομάστωρ

ἱεροκῆρυξ

ἱερεὺς τῆς θύνης

3

2

3

1

10

14

3

ἱερεύς

ἱερεὺς διὰ βίου

2 2

1

2

ἱέρεια

1

ἱερασάμενος

θεόφορος

εὔθυνος

2

18

1

1

12

11

2

5

1

1

2

3

1

2

15

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

3

3

1

1

79

3

2

1

2

1

1

2

συναγωγεύς

συναγωγός

1

προστάτης τοῦ θιάσου

προστάτης διὰ βίου

προστάτης

πρεσβύτερος

πραγματᾶς 2

1 1

πατὴρ νόμιμος

πατὴρ τῆς θύνης

1

pater dumi

26

22

3

2

5

πατέρα συνόδου/ πατήρ συνόδου

1

1

1

παραφιλάγαθος διὰ βίου

πατήρ

15

16

1

12

1

6

7

1

3

ἱερῶν οἰκονόμος

παραφιλάγαθος

2

ἐνκυκλίων οἰκονόμος

2

2

1

3

οἰκονόμος

οἰκοδομησεῖν τὸν ναόν

νομοφύλαξ

νεώτερος

Amastris Apollonia Odessus Dionysopolis Bizone Callatis Tomis Istros Panticapaeum Myrmecium Tanais Phanagoria Hermonassa Gorgippia External Pontica

41

2

1

1

29

1

3

1

1

1

4

12

1

32

3

2

2

1

3

2

Total

24

7

13

6

59

115

22

Fig. 30. Associative officials.

59

1 16

?

Total

1

1

founder?

1

1

vixillarius (sic!)

founder/leader?

1

3

1

χοροστάτης

φροντιστής

φιλάγαθος

ὑμνῳδός

ταμίας

1

88

15

10

1

6

1

22

4

5

1

434

1

1

2

1

1

4

39

1

1

-

Cybele, Attis

Ῥωποπῶλαι?

Δενδροφόροι?

-

AD 150–180

2nd c. AD; AD 199–201

2nd–3rd c. AD

1st c. AD

2nd c. AD

AD 139–161

Gorgippia

Chersonesus

Istros

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Tomis

Amastris

Amastris

Thessalonica (but person was from Amastris)

Sinope

Origin

Fig. 31. Distribution of the associations with an occupational component.

Poseidon

-

Hestia

Τέκτονες

Θέασος ναυκλήρων

2nd–3rd c. AD ?

Sarapis, Synnaoi theoi AD 160

Κοινὸν ναυτικῶν

Οἶκος τῶν ἐν Τόμει ναυκλήρων

Οἶκος τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων

-

-

Οἶκος τῶν ναυκλήρων

Θυμελικὴ σύνοδος

1st–2nd c. AD

Dating

Aphrodite Epiteuxidia AD 90–91

Σύνοδος ἡ τῶν στεφανηπλόκων

Δοῦμος

Divinty

Association

3

2

5

5

4

10

1

5

4

1

1

No. SE

370 FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

INDEXES

Literary Sources Apollonius Rhodius 2. 353–356: 68 Aristophanes Birds 595: 44 Aristophanes Frogs 327: 165 Aristotle EN 1160 a 19: 165 Asconius Pis. 8: 30 Athenaeus 14. 621b: 164 Codex Theodosianus 14. 8. 1–2: 31 Codex Theodosianus 16. 10. 8. 2: 31 Digesta 47. 22. 4: 11, 15 Diodorus Siculus 4. 45: 170 Diodorus Siculus 14. 31. 2: 41 Euripides Fr. 417: 44 Herodotus 1. 72, 2. 34: 42 Herodotus 1. 5, 4. 152: 44 Herodotus 4. 78–80: 100 Hesiod Sc. 212: 166 Homer Odyssey 4. 36: 166 Isaeus 9. 30: 165 Philostratus VS 2. 26. 2: 44 Plato Republic 549a: 170 Pliny the Elder NH 6. 6. 18: 103 Pliny the Younger Ep. 10. 33–34: 30, 31 Pliny the Younger Ep. 10. 92–93: 31 Pliny the Younger Ep. 10. 96. 7: 31 Plutarch Num. 17: 12 Ptolemy Tetrabiblos 159: 166 Strabo 11. 2. 3: 27, 110 Strabo 11. 2. 10: 103 Strabo 12. 3. 9: 43 Strabo 12. 3. 10: 43 Strabo 12. 545: 41 Suetonius Augustus 32. 1: 30 Thucydides 1. 137: 44 Xenophon Anabasis 6. 1. 15: 41 Xenophon Mem. 3. 9. 11: 44 Xenophon Vect. 2. 7: 123 Epigraphic Sources AE 1913, 90: 19

AE 1913, 207: 19 AE 1919, 13: 20 AE 1924, 142: 20 AE 1924, 143: 20 AE 1924, 144: 20 AE 1924, 145: 20 AE 1924, 146: 20 AE 1924, 148: 20 AE 1927, 62: 20 AE 1927, 64: 20 AE 1928, 146: 21, 33, 50, 51 AE 1934, 166: 20 AE 1950, 236: 20 AE 1950, 237: 20 AE 1950, 238: 20 AE 1956, 211: 20 AE 1960, 360: 20 AE 1964, 230: 79 AE 1964, 250: 20 AE 1982, 702: 155 AE 1983, 197: 157 AE 1984, 802: 20 AE 1987, 138: 19 AE 1992, 1522: 37, 149 AE 1996, 1351b: 71 AE 1999, 173: 30 AE 2000, 25: 30 AE 2005, 121: 30 AE 2006, 21: 30 AE 2007, 118: 20 AE 2007, 1231: 37, 74 AE 2011, 88: 30 AE 2012, 1276: 20 AE 2014, 24: 30 AE 2015, 1264: 33, 105 Agora XVI, 324: 168 AvH 133: 153 AvH 227: 153 AvH 342: 153 BGU VII, 1572: 154 CCET I, 9: 50 CCET I, 31: 33, 50, 51

372 CCET IV, 48: 21, 44, 75, 79 CIG 3.4152c: 43, 45 CIG 2052: 45, 48 CIG 2099: 102 CIL I, 581: 30 CIL III, 763: 78 CIL III, 7532: 21, 33, 44, 75, 79 CIL III, 7533: 20 CIL III, 7545: 78 CIL III, 14441: 20 CIL III, 14442: 20 CIL V, 764: 74 CIL VI, 169: 42 CIL VI, 1625b: 19 CIL VI, 2193: 30 CIL VI, 4414: 42 CIL VI, 4415: 42 CIL VI, 4416: 30 CIL VI, 31834b: 19 CIL X, 104: 30 CIL X, 1697: 157 CIL XII, 3316: 19 CIL XIII, 1911: 19 CIL XIII, 1966: 19 CIL XIII, 2029: 19, 154, 155 CIL XIV, 4549.10: 19 CIL XIV, 4549.18: 19 CIMRM I, 739: 74 CIRB 36: 107 CIRB 44: 21, 105 CIRB 75: 34, 35, 103 CIRB 76: 33, 103 CIRB 77: 121 CIRB 78: 33, 34, 104 CIRB 79a: 106 CIRB 80: 35, 106 CIRB 81: 33, 35, 106 CIRB 82: 34, 104 CIRB 83: 33, 34, 36, 104 CIRB 84: 33, 34, 104 CIRB 85: 33, 34, 104 CIRB 86: 104 CIRB 87: 33, 34, 104 CIRB 88: 33, 35, 106 CIRB 89: 104 CIRB 90: 34, 106 CIRB 91: 35, 106 CIRB 92: 106

INDEXES

CIRB 93: 104 CIRB 94: 106 CIRB 95: 106 CIRB 96: 106 CIRB 97: 106 CIRB 98: 106 CIRB 99: 106 CIRB 100: 106 CIRB 101: 106 CIRB 102: 106 CIRB 103: 106 CIRB 104: 106 CIRB 105: 106 CIRB 106: 106 CIRB 107: 104 CIRB 108: 106 CIRB 137: 104 CIRB 145: 129 CIRB 357: 104 CIRB 946: 102 CIRB 947: 102 CIRB 987: 33, 129 CIRB 1005: 29 CIRB 1054: 111, 119, 120 CIRB 1055: 119, 120 CIRB 1129: 122 CIRB 1130: 122, 123 CIBR 1131: 122 CIRB 1132: 121 CIRB 1133: 124 CIRB 1134: 122, 142 CIRB 1135: 122 CIRB 1136: 121 CIRB 1156A: 121 CIRB 1156B: 121 CIRB 1161: 123 CIRB 1162: 121 CIRB 1182A: 121 CIRB 1182B: 121 CIRB 1191: 124 CIRB 1230: 122 CIRB 1231: 121 CIRB 1237: 114 CIRB 1245: 114, 115 CIRB 1246: 114 CIRB 1248: 114 CIRB 1250: 114 CIRB 1252: 114

INDEXES

CIRB 1259: 36, 111, 112 CIRB 1262: 114 CIRB 1277: 115 CIRB 1278: 114, 115 CIRB 1279: 113–15 CIRB 1280: 113 CIRB 1281: 24 CIRB 1283: 24, 117 CIRB 1284: 24 CIRB 1286: 24, 117 EKM 1. Beroe 26: 36 EKM 1. Beroe 28: 36 Fayoum II, 73: 156 FDelphes III.1, 466: 164 GIMB IV, 1007: 32 GVI 1316: 104 IApameia 33: 32 IApameia 35: 32 IByzantion 39: 23 IDelos 1519: 43 IDelos 1520: 43, 76 IDelos 1751: 94 IDelos 1752: 94 IDelos 1753: 94 IDelos 1754: 94 IDelos 1755: 94 IDelos 1756: 94 IDelos 1757: 94 IDelos 1758: 94 IDR I, 31: 144 IEphesos II, 215: 154 IEphesos VI, 2212: 153 IEphesos VI, 2226: 153 IEphesos VI, 2446: 153 IEphesos VI.2, 3803d: 157 IEphesos VII.2, 3559: 71 IErythrai 60: 22 IErythrai 416: 164 IG II2, 1012: 43 IG II2, 1271: 148 IG II2, 1283: 169 IG II2, 1368: 155 IG II2, 1369: 155 IG V.1, 669: 164 IG IX.12, 4 845: 164 IG X.2.1, 58: 19 IG X.2.1, 68: 19 IG X.2.1, 70: 19

IG X.2.1, 291: 19 IG X.2.1, 299: 166 IG X.2.1, 982: 19 IG X.2.1 Suppl. 1354: 37, 149 IG X.2.1 Suppl. 1363: 168 IG XI.4, 1227: 100 IG XI.4, 1228: 100 IG XII.1, 155: 166 IG XII.4, 551: 100 IG XII.8 Suppl. 365: 166 IG XII.8 Suppl. 366: 94 IG XII.8 Suppl. 367: 94 IG XIV, 830: 19 IGB I2, 14: 57 IGB I2, 15(3): 58 IGB I2, 17: 21, 22, 58 IGB I2, 20: 23, 32, 54, 60 IGB I2, 22(2): 58 IGB I2, 23: 48 IGB I2, 60: 33 IGB I2, 77: 21, 32, 50, 51 IGB I2, 78(3): 21, 32, 50, 51 IGB I2, 160: 50 IGB I2, 398: 48 IGB I2, 401: 48 IGB II, 508: 71 IGB II, 702: 71 IGB III.1, 894: 71 IGB III.1, 908: 18 IGB III.1, 916: 19 IGB III.1, 917: 19 IGB III.1, 1517: 48 IGB III.1, 1518: 74 IGB V, 5007: 57, 58 IGB V, 5009: 21, 22, 58 IGB V, 5033: 21, 32, 50, 51 IGB V, 5044: 33, 50 IGB V, 5045: 33, 50 IGB V, 5076: 50 IGB V, 5184: 71 IGB V, 5464: 169 IGB V, 5550: 43 IGB V, 5585: 18 IGDOlbia 8: 101 IGDOlbia 10: 101 IGDOlbia 11: 22, 100, 101 IGDOlbia 12: 101 IGDOlbia 83a: 100

373

374 IGDOlbia 83b: 100 IGDOlbia 92: 100 IGDOlbia 94a–c: 100 IGDOlbia 95: 23, 99, 100 IGDOlbia 96abcd: 23, 99 IGladiateurs 78: 39 IGLS XIII.1, 9156: 157 IGLS XIII.1, 9158: 157 IGLS XIII.1, 9159: 157 IGLS XIII.1, 9160: 157 IGLS XIII.1, 9161: 157 IGRR I, 604: 21, 75, 79 IGRR I, 607: 19 IGRR I, 610: 21, 44, 75 IGRR I, 614: 78 IGRR I, 633: 21, 76, 91 IGRR I, 638: 81 IGRR I, 650: 71 IGRR I, 651: 70 IGRR I, 807: 152 IGRR I, 883: 21, 105 IGRR I, 893: 121 IGRR I, 912: 122 IGRR I, 915: 114 IGRR I, 918: 24 IGRR I, 920: 24, 117 IGRR III, 372: 40, 170 IGRR IV, 353: 58 IGUR II, 404: 164 IIlion 171: 153 IKyzikos I, 97: 19, 153 IKyzikos I, 211: 153 IKyzikos I, 260: 145, 153 IKyzikos I, 291: 153 IKyzikos I, 409: 18, 153 ILindos II, 292: 15, 62, 169 ILS 3682: 42 ILS 4069: 21, 33, 43, 75, 79 ILS 4116: 78 ILS 4251: 74 ILS 7215a: 144 ILS 7279: 19, 154 IMilet 403: 71 IMilet 796: 21, 170 IMT Kyz Kapu Dağ 1584: 145, 153 IMT Kyz Kapu Dağ 1801: 153 IMT Kyz Kapu Dağ 1826: 145, 153 IMT Kyz PropInseln 1342: 19, 153

INDEXES

IMT Kyz PropInseln 1346: 18, 153 IMT Kyz PropKüste 1937: 153 IOlbia 71: 22, 100, 101 IosPE I2, 27: 64 IosPE I2, 357: 68 IosPE I2, 364: 42 IosPE I2, 425: 102 IosPE I2, 697: 42 IosPE II, 19: 34, 35, 103 IosPE II, 39: 21, 105 IosPE II, 60: 33, 34, 104 IosPE II, 61: 33–35, 106 IosPE II, 62: 35, 106 IosPE II, 63: 106 IosPE II, 64: 104 IosPE II, 65: 33, 34, 104 IosPE II, 219: 104 IosPE II, 342: 29 IosPE II, 365: 33 IosPE II, 410: 124 IosPE II, 430: 114, 115 IosPE II, 431: 114 IosPE II, 431bis: 114 IosPE II, 434: 114 IosPE II, 435: 114 IosPE II, 443: 114 IosPE II, 445: 115 IosPE II, 446: 114, 115 IosPE II, 447: 114, 115 IosPE II, 449: 24 IosPE II, 452: 24, 117 IosPE II, 453: 24 IosPE II, 456: 24, 117 IosPE IV, 72: 42 IosPE IV, 207 + addenda, p. 294: 106 IosPE IV, 208: 33, 34, 104 IosPE IV, 209: 34, 104 IosPE IV, 210: 34, 106 IosPE IV, 212: 104 IosPE IV, 317: 104 IosPE IV, 421: 111, 119, 120 IosPE IV, 433: 122 IosPE IV, 434: 122 IosPE IV, 436: 121 IosPE IV, 468: 102 IosPE IV, 469: 104 IPergamon 374: 58 IPergamon 488: 163

INDEXES

IPerinthos-Herakleia 57: 163 IPerinthos-Herakleia 58: 19 IPerinthos-Herakleia 59: 45, 169 IPerinthos-Herakleia 117: 19, 152 IPerinthos-Herakleia 118: 152 IPerinthos-Herakleia 131: 19, 152 IPerinthos-Herakleia 146: 152 IPerinthos-Herakleia 177: 153 IPerinthos-Herakleia 178: 153 IPerinthos-Herakleia 179: 153 IPerinthos-Herakleia 181: 153 IPerinthos-Herakleia 183: 153 IPerinthos-Herakleia 187: 153 IPerinthos-Herakleia 196: 153 IPerinthos-Herakleia 198: 153 IPerinthos-Herakleia 284: 153 IPrusa ad Olympum 48: 100 ISelge T 48: 149, 150 ISinope 117: 21 ISM I, 6: 23 ISM I, 57: 23, 28, 86, 87, 89, 90, 133, 139 ISM I, 60: 23, 86, 140 ISM I, 61: 86 ISM I, 99: 87 ISM I, 100: 21, 22 ISM I, 137: 89, 90 ISM I, 138: 20 ISM I, 143: 23, 93 ISM I, 167: 22, 94 ISM I, 193: 89, 90 ISM I, 195: 94 ISM I, 200: 95 ISM I, 201: 89, 95 ISM I, 207: 88 ISM I, 208: 22 ISM I, 211: 95 ISM I, 218: 95 ISM I, 221: 22 ISM I, 223: 94 ISM I, 227: 94 ISM I, 229: 94, 129 ISM I, 324: 20 ISM I, 326: 20 ISM I, 327: 20 ISM I, 328: 20 ISM I, 330: 20 ISM I, 331: 20 ISM I, 332: 20

ISM I, 343: 20 ISM I, 344: 20 ISM I, 345: 20 ISM I, 346: 20 ISM I, 347: 20 ISM I, 349: 20 ISM I, 356: 43 ISM I, 360: 95 ISM II, 4: 77 ISM II, 7: 82 ISM II, 16: 80 ISM II, 17: 80 ISM II, 18: 81 ISM II, 19: 81 ISM II, 23: 81 ISM II, 25: 81 ISM II, 26: 83 ISM II, 27: 83 ISM II, 28: 83 ISM II, 31: 83 ISM II, 34: 84 ISM II, 52: 75 ISM II, 60: 21, 44, 75 ISM II, 69: 91 ISM II, 70: 21, 76, 91 ISM II, 83: 78 ISM II, 89: 78 ISM II, 90: 77 ISM II, 97: 81 ISM II, 98: 21, 81 ISM II, 100: 81 ISM II, 119: 78 ISM II, 120: 22, 73 ISM II, 125: 22, 33, 80, 82 ISM II, 129: 33, 79 ISM II, 132: 21, 44, 75 ISM II, 141: 20 ISM II, 153: 21, 75, 79 ISM II, 160: 79 ISM II, 181: 77 ISM II, 190: 78 ISM II, 260: 77 ISM II, 290: 79 ISM II, 312: 79 ISM III, 31: 66 ISM III, 35: 64, 141, 166 ISM III, 36: 29, 64, 65, 141 ISM III, 40: 51, 66

375

376 ISM III, 41: 51, 66 ISM III, 42: 64, 65, 67 ISM III, 43: 64, 67, 165 ISM III, 44: 64, 65, 67, 165 ISM III, 45: 64, 67 ISM III, 46: 64, 65, 165 ISM III, 47: 23, 29, 64, 65, 165 ISM III, 66: 51, 66 ISM III, 68A: 51, 66, 67 ISM III, 69: 67 ISM III, 70: 22, 69 ISM III, 72: 21, 68 ISM III, 73A+B: 71 ISM III, 74: 21, 70, 131 ISM III, 80: 63, 66, 133, 165 ISM III, 83: 20 ISM III, 99: 70 ISM III, 100: 70 ISM III, 105: 71, 72 ISM III, 177: 68 ISM III, 255: 21, 61 ISM III, 260: 72 ISM VI.2, 16: 80 ISM VI.2, 17: 80 ISM VI.2, 18: 81 ISM VI.2, 19: 81 ISM VI.2, 23: 81 ISM VI.2, 25: 81 ISM VI.2, 26: 83 ISM VI.2, 27: 83 ISM VI.2, 31: 83 ISM VI.2, 34: 84 ISM VI.2, 60: 44, 75 ISM VI.2, 70: 21, 76, 91 ISM VI.2, 83: 78 ISM VI.2, 89: 78 ISM VI.2, 90: 77 ISM VI.2, 98: 21, 81 ISM VI.2, 100: 81 ISM VI.2, 119: 78 ISM VI.2, 120: 22, 73 ISM VI.2, 132: 43, 75 ISM VI.2, 153: 21, 75, 79 ISM VI.2, 160: 79 IThespiai 323: 15, 62, 169 IThracAeg E 18: 163 IThracAeg E 167: 40, 170 IThracAeg E 212: 166

INDEXES

PMich V, 245: 142 MAMA III, 580a: 157 MAMA III, 780ab: 157 MAMA III, 788: 157 RICIS 113/530: 19 RICIS 114/210: 166 RICIS 618/1005: 21, 75, 79, 82 RICIS 618/1007: 167 SEG 1, 327: 66 SEG 1, 330: 89, 90 SEG 2, 451: 23, 86 SEG 2, 457: 89, 95 SEG 2, 485: 106 SEG 2, 486: 106 SEG 3, 499: 71 SEG 3, 557: 48 SEG 3, 607: 121 SEG 4, 512: 154 SEG 9, 908: 77 SEG 9, 909: 83 SEG 16, 417: 153 SEG 17, 342: 21, 22 SEG 18, 287: 51, 66 SEG 18, 293: 23, 28, 86, 87, 89, 90, 133, 139 SEG 18, 297: 89, 95 SEG 18, 304: 22, 100, 101 SEG 19, 477: 87 SEG 19, 480: 88 SEG 20, 92: 51 SEG 21, 535: 168 SEG 24, 1029: 66 SEG 24, 1034: 63, 66, 133, 165 SEG 24, 1036: 71, 72 SEG 24, 1037: 21, 68 SEG 24, 1043: 68 SEG 24, 1050: 77 SEG 24, 1052: 75 SEG 24, 1053: 82 SEG 24, 1054: 21, 81 SEG 24, 1055: 81 SEG 24, 1057: 81 SEG 24, 1088: 81 SEG 24, 1112: 23, 28, 86, 87, 89, 90, 133, 139 SEG 24, 1118: 94 SEG 24, 1119: 95 SEG 24, 1120: 87

INDEXES

SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG SEG

26, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 28, 28, 28, 28, 29, 30, 30, 31, 32, 32, 34, 35, 35, 35, 36, 36, 36, 36, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 40, 40, 41, 41, 41, 42, 42, 42, 43, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 46, 46, 47, 47, 47,

1750: 156 368: 95 369: 89, 90 384: 64 386: 21 399: 78 659: 100 660: 100 661: 100 863: 154 707: 122 987: 114 1449: 20 702: 101 684: 94 694: 22 695: 22, 33, 80, 82 714: 36 1320: 43, 45 1337: 43 690: 81 700: 28, 122, 123 703: 29, 120 704: 124 705: 122 1091: 45 749.8: 21, 101 737: 149, 150 624: 29, 120 1135: 163 1136: 163 81: 148 83: 148 171: 37, 148 625: 37, 149 709.1: 23, 99, 100 714: 101 516: 36 902: 29, 64, 65, 141 1020: 112 1021: 112 1606: 170 1607: 21, 170 744: 36 900: 71 954: 170 971: 19 1040: 21, 75, 79

377

SEG 48, 934: 152 SEG 48, 939: 19, 152 SEG 48, 951: 153 SEG 49, 949: 153 SEG 49, 1009: 43 SEG 49, 1016: 70 SEG 49, 1366: 19 SEG 50, 699.1: 100 SEG 51, 988: 129 SEG 52, 1591: 74 SEG 52, 1592: 74 SEG 52, 1593: 74 SEG 53, 596.2: 166 SEG 53, 645bis: 48 SEG 54, 1107: 170 SEG 55, 745: 166 SEG 55, 863: 33, 105 SEG 56, 203: 37, 149, 150 SEG 56, 763: 168 SEG 57, 680: 37, 74 SEG 57, 740: 33 SEG 58, 782: 111, 120 SEG 58, 783: 111, 112 SEG 58, 784: 111, 112 SEG 59, 845: 104 SEG 60, 767: 33, 51, 55 SEG 60, 768: 23, 32, 54 SEG 60, 778: 23, 53 SEG 63, 522: 53 SEG 63, 523: 32, 51, 55 StudPontica III, 2: 39 TAM III.1, 400: 71 TAM V.3, 1359: 128 Persons Ἄβα daughter of Ἑκαταῖος: 86, 87, 96, 133, 139, 142, 143, 161 Ἀγαθήνωρ son of Ἀντίφιλος (no. 43): 51 Ἀθηνάδης son of Αἰσχρίων (no. 597): 95 Ἀθήναιος son of Ἀθήναιος (no. 906): 104 Ἀθηνῆς son of Τρύφων (no. 907): 106 Ἀθήνιος son of Ἀθήνιος (no. 1159): 104 Ἀθηνίων son of Πραξιτέλης (no. 1969): 148, 149

378

INDEXES

Ἀθηνόδωρος son of Γάϊος (no. 1733): 124 Ἀθηνόδωρος son of Σέλευκος (no. 1737): 122 Ἀθηνόδωρος son of Χρῆστος (no. 1738): 124 Αἰαντίδης son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 45): 51 Αἰαντίδης son of Μένανδρος (no. 46): 51 Αἰλιανός son of Ηλεις (Ηλις) (no. 600): 89 Πόπλιος Αἴλιος [Ἀρτεμίδωρος] son of Φαιδρίας (no. 751): 89 Αἴλιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος son of Διοσκουρίδης (no. 739): 89 Τίτος Αἴλιος Μιν[---] (no. 746): 70, 90, 93, 130 Τίτος Αἴλιος Μινίκιος (no. 332): 15, 22, 69, 130 Τίτος Αἴλιος Μινίκιος Ἀθαναίων: 70 Τίτος Αἴλιος Μινίκιος Μοσχίων: 70 Τίτος Αἴλιος Μινίκιος Πουδενς (no. 333): 70 Πουπλία Αἰλία Ὀλυμπία (no. 499): 78, 133 Αἰσχρίων son of Αἰσχρίων Τελέστου (no. 604): 95 Ἀκορνίων (no. 369): 83 Ἀλέξανδρος (no. 608): 129 Ἀλέξανδρος son of Ἀβδάρακος (no. 1164): 115 Ἀλέξανδρος son of Ἡρακλέων (no. 216): 68 Ἀλέξανδρος son of Τίτος (no. 218): 69 Ἀλεξίων son of Πάτροκλος (no. 1166): 117 Ἀμάρθαστος son of Ἀμάρθαστος (no. 1169): 115 Ἀνδρόνεικος son of Σάτυρος (no. 219): 68 Ἄνδρων son of Λονγείνος (no. 612): 88 Ἀννιανός son of Πρίσκος (no. 564): 81 Ἀντίμαχος son of Πασίων (no. 1173): 115 Ἀντίφιλος son of Ἀγαθήνωρ (no. 48): 51 Ἀντωνεῖνος son of Ἀντωνεῖνος (no. 1177): 115

Caius Antonius Eutyches (no. 507): 78, 129 Marcus Antonius Hiberus: 74 Μᾶρκος Ἀντώνιος Μαρκιανός (no. 508): 74 Caius Antonius Fronto: 78 Ἀπελλᾶς son of Μένανδρος (no. 50): 51 Ἀπελλῆς son of Κορνοῦτος (no. 10): 48 Ἀπολλόδοτος son of ignotus (no. 221): 63 Ἀπολλώνιος son of [---]κος (no. 224): 72 Ἀπολλώνιος son of Δημοφῶν (no. 85): 52, 53 Ἀπολλώνιος son of ignotus: 66 Ἀπολλώνυμος son of Σάτυρος (no. 225): 63 Ἄρατος (no. 920): 105 Ἀρδάρακος son of Σαμβίων (no. 921): 107 Ἄρδαρος son of Εὔϊος (no. 922): 107 Ἀρδινδίανος son of Χρύσιππος (no. 1195): 118 Ἀρέτη: 104 Ἀρίστων son of Ἀρίστων: 63, 67 Ἁρμαγένης son of Δαμοφῶν (no. 228): 63 Artemidorus son of Apollonius: 144 Ἀρτεμίδωρος son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 229): 69 Ἀρτεμίδωρος son of Ἀσκληπιάδης (no. 378): 83 Ἀρτεμίδωρος son of Γρήγορος: 90 Ἀρτεμίδωρος son of Διονύσιος (no. 230): 69 Ἀρτεμίδωρος son of Κάρπος (no. 621): 89 Ἀσκλαπιόδωρος son of Ἀπολλόδοτος (no. 231): 63 Ἀσκληπιάδης son of Θεόδωρος (no. 232): 71 Ἀσκληπιάδης son of Μηνόφιλος: 43 Ἀσκληπιάδης son of Οὐαλέριος (no. 1210): 115 Ἀσκληπιάδης son of ignotus (no. 380): 83 Ἀσκληπιόδοτος son of Τελεσφόρος (no. 12): 48 [Ἄτταλ]ος son of Εὐμένης (no. 382): 77, 90, 91

INDEXES

Αὐδασιανός son of Φιλόξηνος (no. 119): 55 Αὐρήλιος son of Ἀντωνεῖνος (no. 1229): 115 Αὐρήλιος son of Αὐρήλιος (no. 87): 59 Αὐρήλιος son of ignotus (no. 88): 55 Αὐρήλιος Αἰλιανός son of Ηλεις (Ηλις) (no. 752): 89, 92 Αὐρήλιος Ἀλέξανδρος son of Ηλεις (Ηλις) (no. 753): 88, 89, 92, 131 Αὐρήλιος Ἀριστοκράτης son of Ἀριστοκράτης (no. 755): 92 Αὐρήλιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος son of Ἀριστοκράτης (no. 756): 92 Αὐρήλιος Ἄττας son of Ἀντίπατρος: 56 Αὐρήλιος Γλαῦκος son of Μητρόδωρος (no. 122): 57 Αὐρήλιος Γλαῦκος son of Σειλανός (no. 123): 57 Αὐρήλιος Γρήγορος son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 758): 89 Αὐρήλιος Δαλήτραλις son of Βακης (no. 124): 55 Αὐρήλιος Διοκλῆς son of Ἡρακλέων (no. 127): 56 Αὐρήλιος Διονύσιος son of Ἕρμιππος (no. 128): 57 Αὐρήλιος Ἑρμῆς (no. 134): 54, 55 Αὐρήλιος Εὐάγριος son of Κούρης (no. 135): 57 Αὐρήλιος Ηλεις (Ηλις) son of Ηλεις (Ηλις) (no. 763): 92, 171 Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλείδης (nos. 139–142): 55 Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλέων son of Ἄττας (no. 143): 55, 56 Αὐρήλιος Ἡρακλέων son of Ἡρακλέων (no. 144): 55, 56 Αὐρήλιος Θεογένης son of Ἕρμιππος (no. 147): 55, 57 Αὐρήλιος Θεογένης son of Μαρκιανός (no. 148): 55 Αὐρήλιος Θεόδωρος son of Διοσκουρίδης (no. 149): 55 Αὐρήλιος Θεόδωρος son of Ἡρακλέων (no. 150): 55, 56 Αὐρήλιος Θεόμνηστος son of Πυθοκλῆς (no. 151): 56, 135 Αὐρήλιος Ἰουβεντιός? son of Μητρόδωρος (no. 153): 55, 57

379

Αὐρήλιος Κλαύδιος son of Ἰούλιος (no. 156): 55 Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος Κούρης son of Ἑστιαῖος (no. 157): 54, 56, 57 Αὐρήλιος Μαρκιανός (no. 159): 55 Αὐρήλιος Μαρκιανός son of Ἡφαιστόδ[ημος?] (no. 158): 59 Αὐρήλιος Μενεκράτης son of Πολύξενος (no. 160): 57 Αὐρήλιος Νουμήνης son of Πολύξενος (no. 162): 57 Αὐρήλιος Νουμήνιος (no. 163): 59 Αὐρήλιος Ποντικός son of Ἑ[ρμόδωρος] (no. 767): 88, 89, 131 Αὐρήλιος Ποσειδώνιος son of Ἄττας (νεώτερος): 56 Αὐρήλιος Πρίσκος Ἀννιανός: 81 Αὐρήλιος Ῥοῦφος son of Σειλανός (no. 170): 55, 57 Αὐρήλιος Σατουρνεῖλος son of Ηλεις (Ηλις) (no. 768): 92 Αὐρήλιος Σειλανός son of Σειλανός (no. 171): 57 Αὐρήλιος Σειλανός son of Σειλανός (no. 172): 57 Αὐρήλιος Σευῆρος (no. 512): 83 Aurelius Valerianus (no. 509): 80 Αὐρήλιος Ἰούλιος Χρυσόγονος (no. 532): 132 Ἀφθείμακος son of Ἄψαχος (no. 1225): 115 Ἀχαιμένης son of Θεάγγελος (no. 1230): 116 Ἀχιλλεύς son of Ἀχιλλᾶς (no. 625): 88, 92 Βάγης son of Σωσίπατρος (no. 1717): 120 Βαδά[κ]ης son of Μενέστρατος (no. 934): 107 Βακχίς daughter of Μύρων (no. 13): 48 Βακχίς daughter of Φίλτος (no. 1971): 133, 149, 150 Βαλεριανός son of Βαλέριος (no. 387): 83 Βάνας son of Δημήτριος (no. 935): 107 Βειτράσις son of Πάρις (no. 237): 71 Βίκων son of Διοσκουρίδης (no. 238): 65

380

INDEXES

Βίρριος Λέων (no. 769): 90, 93, 130 Βίων son of Βίων (no. 940): 107 Βουτίς daughter of Ἡρόξενος (no. 390): 82 Γάϊος (no. 942): 108 Γάϊος son of Φούρτας (no. 941): 108 Γάϊος son of Χαρίτων (no. 1239): 118 Γαληνός son of Ἄττας (no. 391): 83 Γενε[---] son of Ἡρόφιλος (no. 14): 48 Γερμανός (no. 241): 129 Δάδας son of Θεάγγελος (no. 1247): 116 Δάδας son of Οὐαλέριος (no. 1249): 115 Δάδος son of Στράτων (no. 945): 107 Δαμᾶς son of Λυσίμαχος (no. 394): 83 Δαμάτριος son of Δαμάτριος (no. 242): 63 Δάφνος son of Ψυχαρίων (no. 946): 104 Δημήτριος son of Δομετιανός (no. 635): 92 Δημήτριος son of Λυσίμαχος (no. 400): 83 Δημήτριος son of Σωκράτης (no. 846): 100 Δημοκράτης son of Ἀριστογένης (no. 866): 102 Δημοσθένης Νεικομηδεύς (no. 89): 53 Δημοφῶν son of Μῦς: 53 Διογένης son of Κάρπος (no. 641): 89 Διόδωρος son of Δαμάτριος (no. 245): 63 Dionus (no. 404): 80 Διονύσιος son of Ζαζζοῦς (no. 1765): 124 Διονύσιος son of Καλχάδων (no. 248): 63 Διονύσιος son of Μᾶρκος (no. 402): 83 Διονύσιος son of Μοιρόδωρος (no. 643): 89 Διονύσις son of Ἑστιαῖος (no. 403): 83 Διονύσις son of Κάσιος (no. 16): 48 Διονυσόδωρος son of Ἡρακλείδες (no. 17): 48 Διονυσόδωρος son of Ἰταλικός (no. 250): 71 Δῖος son of Ἀοταῖος (no. 405): 83 Διόφαντος son of Νεόπολος (no. 1275): 116 Δομίτιος son of Ἡρακλέων (no. 253): 72

Ἑκαταῖος son of Εὐξενίδης (no. 648): 90, 93 Ἕλλην son of Ἀρπάλης (no. 62): 51 Ἐπταίκενθος son of Ἀσιατικός (no. 64): 50, 51 Ἐράτων son of Δημόφιλος (no. 94): 52 Ἑρέννιος Ἀπολινάρις (no. 335): 70, 130 Ἑρμαγένης: 73 Ἑρμᾶς (no. 65): 50, 51 Ἑρμογένης son of Μᾶρκος (no. 408): 83 Εὐδᾶς (no. 903): 102 Εὐέλπιος son of Σῶσος: 77 Εὔϊος: 107 Εὔϊος son of Μενέστρατος (no. 963): 107 Εὔϊος son of Ῥόδων (no. 1292): 115 Εὔνων son of Ἀστήρ (no. 1297): 115 Εὑρησίβιος: 14, 22, 100, 101 Εὐφραῖος son of Σάτυρος (no. 256): 63 Ζωπυρίων son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 69): 51 Ζώπυρος (no. 1700): 13 Ἠζοῦς (no. 1701): 119 Ἥλιος son of Ἄττας (no. 410): 83 Ἥλιος son of Ἥλιος (no. 260): 69 Ἥλιος son of Ἥλιος (no. 261): 69 Ἥλιος son of Κερεάλις (no. 263): 69 Ἡρακλείδης son of Ἄττας (nos. 1321– 1323): 116 Ἡρακλείδης son of Ἡρακλείδης (no. 980): 104 Ἡρακλείδης son of Χόφαρνος (no. 981): 107 Ἡρακλέων son of Πύρσος (no. 270): 15, 66, 67 Ἡράκων son of Ἀριστόμαχος: 86, 133, 161 Ἡρέας: 63 Ἡρέας son of Δαμοφῶν (no. 264): 63 Ἡρέων Παννόνιος son of Ἡρέων (no. 272): 70 Ἡρέων son of Ἰταλικός (no. 273): 71 Ἡρόδωρος son of Κάρπος (no. 660): 89 Ἡρόξενος son of Διοσκουρίδης (no. 414): 22, 80, 82

INDEXES

Ἡρότειμος son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 70): 51 Ἡφαιστίων son of Ἡρακλ[-ᾶς/-είδες] (no. 415): 84 Ἡφαιστόδωρος son of Ἡφαιστόδωρος (no. 416): 84 Θαίβα[ς?] son of Μενέστρατος (no. 984): 107 Θεαγένης son of Σάτυρος (no. 275): 68 Θεόδωρος son of Ἀσκληπιάδης (no. 276): 71 Θεόδωρος son of Δημήτριος (no. 98): 58 Θεόδωρος son of Ἡρέων (no. 277): 70 Θεοκλῆς son of ignotus (no. 662): 89 Θεόκριτος son of Δημήτριος (no. 987): 103 Θεόφιλος: 107 Θρασυμήδης son of Θρασυμήδης (no. 429): 68 Θρασυμήδης son of Σάτυρος (no. 278): 68 Ἰασανδάνακος son of Ἀστήρ (no. 1349): 115 Ἱλαρίων son of Λούκιος (no. 665): 88 Ἰουλιανός son of Τίτος (no. 279): 69 Πούπλιος Ἰουλιανός (no. 1114): 132 Ἰούλιος Ἀλέξανδρος (no. 174): 56 Γάϊος Ἰούλιος Εὐτυχιανός (no. 255): 42 Ἰούλιος Ζενόδωρος (no. 1108): 108, 130 Μᾶρκος Ἰούλιος Ἰουλιανός: 40, 170 Αὐρήλιος Ἰούλιος Ἵστιος (no. 522): 132 Ἰούλιος Καλλισθένης (no. 1109): 105, 108, 130 Ἰούλιος Λονγεῖνος (no. 524): 84 Ἰούλιος Λονγεῖνος νεώτερος (no. 525): 84 Ἰούλιος Νεικηφόρος (no. 1110): 108 Caius Iulius Quintillianus: 93 Ἰούλιος Σαμβίων (no. 1111): 106, 108, 130 Gaius Iulius Xenon son of Apollonides: 18 Ἰούλιος Χόφαρνος son of Ἀφροδίσιος (no. 1112): 107, 108, 130 Ἰώδας son of Βαρδάνης (no. 996): 107 Καικίλιος Τίμων (no. 334): 69

381

Καλλισθένης son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 73): 51 Καλλίστρατος son of Κάρπος (no. 674): 89 Καλοῦς son of Ἀθήναιος (no. 1006): 104 Καλοῦς son of Ἀθήνιος (no. 1366): 104 Καλοῦς son of Μυρῖνος (no. 1721): 120 Καλύδων (no. 1): 14, 39, 40, 170 Καλχάδων son of Διονύσιος (no. 284): 63 Καρπίων son of Ἀνουβίων (no. 435): 75 Κάρπος son of Ἀλέξανδρος (no. 23): 48 Κάρπος son of Ἀπολλόδωρος (no. 676): 89 [Κα]σπεριανός son of ignotus (no. 3): 45, 129 Casperius: 45 Κερεάλις son of Ἥλιος (no. 286): 69 Κοδρᾶτος son of Ἡρόφιλος (no. 24): 48 Κοθίνας son of Ἄττας (no. 1789): 124 Κοκκήϊος son of Δομετιανός (no. 686): 92 Μᾶρκος Κοκκήϊος Χρυσόγονος (no. 535): 77 Τίτος Κομινίος Κλαυδιανός Ἑρμάφιλος: 90, 91 Τίτος Κομινίος Εὐξενίδης (no. 774): 90, 91, 130 Titus Cominius Proculus: 91 Marcus Cominius Secundus: 91 Λούκιος Κορνήλιος Ποντιανός: 42 Λούκιος Κορνήλιος Ῥοῦφος (no. 2): 41, 42 Κορνοῦτος Σαραπίων (no. 439): 75 Κορνοῦτος son of Κορνοῦτος (no. 25): 48 Κορτιανός son of Πολύξενος (no. 101): 55, 57 Κοσσοῦς son of ῎Ερως (no. 1792): 124 Κοτίους: 107 Κούαρτος (no. 102): 55 Κύνων son of Ἀγαθοῦς (no. 1704): 119, 144 Λάζενος son of Ἐν[---] (no. 1011): 107 Λειμανός: 107 Λεωκράτης: 101 Λεωπρέπης: 101

382

INDEXES

Λυσικράτης son of ignotus (no. 1016): 107 Λυσίμαχος: 82 Λυσίμαχος son of Γάστεις (no. 1017): 104

Νουμήνιος son of Ἄττας (no. 1811): 124 Νουμήνιος son of Ζῆνις (no. 76): 15, 50, 51 Νουμήνιος son of Λυσίμαχος (no. 467): 83

Μαγνίων son of Ἀοταῖος (no. 445): 83 Μαξιμῖνα daughter of Σίσυς (no. 697): 94, 129 Μαρκιανός son of Πατέριος (no. 1023): 107 Μαστοῦς son of Μαστοῦς (no. 1026): 106 Μαστοῦς son of Μαστοῦς (no. 1027): 106 Ματι[---] son of Σαμβίων (no. 1029): 107 Μένανδρος son of Ἀπολλώνιος (no. 74): 51, 167 Μενέστρατος son of Ἀρδάρακος (no. 1705): 129 Menia Iuliane (no. 537): 79, 133 Μένιππος son of Ἕλλην (no. 75): 51 Μένυλλος son of Χρύσιππος (nos. 1400, 1401): 116 Messia Pudentilla: 95 [Μέ]σσιος Ἡρακλᾶς (no. 776): 95 Μέσσιος Κορνήλιος (no. 777): 95 Μηνόφιλος son of Μηνόφιλος: 43 Μᾶρκος Μινάτιος son of Σέξτος: 76 L. Minicius Natalis Quadronius Verus: 70 Μοιρόδωρος son of Γάϊος (no. 1802): 124 Μοιρόδωρος son of Νεοκλῆς (no. 1803): 122, 123 Μοκκοῦς son of Λεύκιος (no. 1706): 119 Μοσχᾶς: 107 Μυρῖνος son of Μυρῖνος (no. 1723): 120 Μυρίσκος son of Χρῆστος (no. 1805): 124

Ξένων son of Ἔρως (no. 1431): 112

Νάνα daughter of Θεάδων (no. 464): 78, 134 Ναυκασάμας (no. 300): 62 Ναύτιμος son of Πασιάδας (no. 301): 63 Νεοκλῆς son of Μοιρόδωρος: 123 Νιβλόβωρος son of Δοσυμόξαρθος (no. 1427): 116 Νίγερ son of Τίτος (no. 302): 69 Νικηφόρος son of Ἀπολλώνιος (no. 1981): 170

Ὀ[---] Δημητρίου: 116 Ὀδίαρδος Δημητρίου (no. 1433): 116 Ὀδίαρδος son of ignotus (no. 1434): 116 Ὀμψάλακος (no. 1709): 35, 145 Ὀρστόμηχος son of Ἀβδάρακος (no. 1445): 115 Οὐαλέριος (no. 1447): 115 Valerius son of Nicon: 144 Πόπλιος Οὐαλέριος Χάρης (no. 338): 70, 130 Caius Ovinius Tertullus: 78 Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 780): 89, 90, 93, 130 Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Δημήτριος son of Ἀρτεμᾶς (no. 783): 89, 90 Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Δημήτριος son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος: 90 Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Εὐξενίδης son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος: 90 Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Καλλίστρατος (no. 787): 89 Οὔλπιος Πολύτειμος (no. 790): 89, 131 Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Πραίσης (no. 791): 89 Μᾶρκος Οὔλπιος Ῥουφωνιανός (no. 5): 41, 44 Offas son of Menophilus: 144 Πάγας son of Διονύσιος (no. 1045): 107 Παιρίσαλος son of Κοσοῦς (no. 904): 102 Pancrates: 37, 148 Πάπας son of Ἡρόξενος (no. 470): 82 Παπίας son of Χόφαρνος (no. 1053): 107 Πάπων son of Θεόφιλος (no. 1056): 107 Πασώ (no. 471): 13, 22, 73, 133 Πάτροκλος: 117 Περσίων son of Περσίων (no. 1061): 107 Πιαιτραλις son of Σειλανός (no. 108): 57 Πιε[---] (no. 77): 51 Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus: 30, 31

INDEXES

383

Πόθος son of Ἄττας (no. 1829): 124 Πόθος son of Τειμόθεος (no. 1832): 124 Πολύμνις Λογγῖνος (no. 474): 75 Πολύτειμος son of Ἀρτεμίδωρος (no. 720): 89 Ποσειδώνις son of Βαλέριος (no. 480): 83 Ποσιδώνιος son of Μόσσχος (no. 208): 60 Ποσιδώνιος son of Σωκράτης (no. 863): 100 Marcus Primius Secundianus: 155 Caius Primius Secundus: 155 Πρόκλος son of Σκύθης (no. 209): 61 Προμαθίων: 63 Προμαθίων son of Προμαθίων (no. 310): 63 Πυθίων: 63 Πυθοκλῆς son of Ἄττας (no. 109): 55, 56, 135 Πωλλίων son of Μέμνων (no. 722): 89

Τάτος Γάϊος son of Νέανδρος (no. 33): 49 Τειμόθεος son of Λυσίμαχος (no. 488): 83 Μᾶρκος Τερεν[τιανός?] (no. 540): 84, 132 Μᾶρκος Τερεν[τιανός?] (no. 541): 84, 132 Μᾶρκος Τερεν[τιανός?] (no. 542): 84, 132 Τερέντιος Φίλων (no. 342): 69 Τιμῶναξ (no. 319): 15, 61, 62, 169, 170 Τιτίους son of Μύρων (no. 1082): 107 Τίτος son of Τίτος νεώτερος (no. 489): 76 Τρηστίσσιμος son of Τελεσφόρος (no. 36): 48 Τρύφων (no. 1086): 106 Τρύφων son of Τρύφων (no. 1085): 106

Ῥαδάμιος? son of Σαμβίων (no. 1066): 107 Ῥησιανός son of Σάτριος (no. 312): 69 Αὐρήλιος Ῥοῦφος son of Σειλανός (no. 170): 55

Φαρνάκης son of ῎Ερως (no. 1861): 124 Φιλεῖνος son of Φιλεῖνος (no. 321): 65 Φιλοκλῆς son of Χρῆστος (no. 492): 76 Φίλων son of Σωκράτης (no. 865): 100 Φιλώτας son of Ἄψαχος (no. 1554): 115 Φλάβιος Ἡρακλέων (no. 339): 69 Flavius Gerontios: 74 Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἐπιτυγχάνων (no. 1113): 108 Τίτος Φλάουιος Ποσειδώνιος: 75 Φλάουιος Φαῖδρος (no. 559): 74 Flavia Nona (no. 550): 79, 133 Φούλβιος Δέκμος (no. 802): 95 Φούλβιος Τελεσφόρος (no. 803): 95 Φούρτας son of Ἀγαθοῦς (no. 1561): 117

Σάτυρος son of Σάτυρος (no. 314): 68 Σειλανός: 56 Marcus Sennius Metilus: 154 Σεραπίων son of Ποσειδεώνιος (no. 1983): 149 Σητώνιος Ῥεστιτοῦτος (no. 795): 132 Σῖμος son of Προμαθίων (no. 316): 63 Σκύθης son of Θεογένης (no. 210): 60 Στρατόνεικος son of Ἀρδαρίσκος (no. 1078): 107 Στρατόνικος son of Ζήνων: 129 Στράτων son of Ἡρακλείδης (no. 1077): 104 Σύμμαχος son of Ζαζζοῦς (no. 1855): 124 Συσστήλια Κύριλλα: 40, 170 Σωζομενός son of Στύρανος (no. 1519): 117 Σωσίας son of Στρατόνικος (no. 1075): 129

Ὑγιαίνων son of Ἡρέων (no. 320): 71

Χαιρήμων son of Παπίας (no. 736): 89 Χόφαρνος son of Χόφαρνος (no. 1103): 107 Χόφραζμος son of Φοργάβακος (no. 1580): 113, 114 Χρηστίων (no. 4): 46 Χρυσάων son of Ἀχιλλᾶς (no. 496): 92 Χρυσιανός son of Χρύσης (no. 737): 94 Ψυχαρίων son of Πατέριος (no. 1106): 107

384

INDEXES

[---]λειος son of Σαμβίων (no. 1117): 107 [---]ος Λονγεῖνος (no. 563): 80 [---]ους son of Ἀρδαρίσκος (no. 1120): 107 [---]ς son of Σαμβίων (no. 1122): 107 [---]ων son of Ἀμάρθαστος (no. 1618): 115 [---]ων son of Εὔϊος (no. 1123): 107 ignota wife of [---]κράτης (no. 566): 82 ignota daughter of Ἀπολλώνιος (no. 343): 133 ignota daughter of ignotus (no. 812): 134 ignotus son of Ἀγαθοκλῆς (no. 6): 45 ignotus son of Ἀγαθοῦς Βοχόρου (no. 1907): 122 ignotus son of Ἀρ[---] (no. 567): 75 ignotus son of Ἀρδαρίσκος (no. 1126): 107 ignotus son of Ἄρατος (no. 1127): 105 ignotus son of Διοσκουρίδης (no. 346): 72 ignotus son of Δυνάτων (no. 1913): 124 ignotus son of Δυνάτων (no. 1914): 124 ignotus son of Ἑστιαῖος (no. 571): 83 ignotus son of Πάρμις (no. 576): 73 ignotus son of Τειμόθεος (no. 1935): 124 Members of the Imperial/Royal Family Imperial Family Augustus: 18, 30 Tiberius: 64, 65 Trajan: 30, 31, 39–41, 43 Antoninus Pius: 74, 75 Marcus Aurelius: 75, 76 Iulia Maesa: 87 Septimius Severus: 71, 78 Iulia Domna: 93 Caracalla: 56, 59, 78, 93, 97, 128, 130, 132 Elagabalus: 58, 87 Severus Alexander: 54 Gordian III: 30, 59, 70 Furia Sabinia Tranquillina: 30, 70 Constantine the Great: 31 Honorius: 31 Theodosius II: 31

Royal Family Skyles: 100 Satyros I: 120 Pairisades I: 103 Kamasarye II Philoteknos: 35 Argotas: 35 Pairisades IV: 35 Tiberius Iulius Sauromates I: 36, 105 Tiberius Iulius Sauromates II: 122, 123, 142 Teiranos: 33, 107 Ailia: 33, 107 Toponyms Abdera: 163 Abonouteichos: 21, 79 Adada: 40, 170 Aegean (Sea): 151 Alburnus Maior: 144 Alexandria: 75, 79 Amastris: 23, 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, 76, 129– 32, 136, 138, 160, 165, 167–69 Amisus: 31, 39, 40, 45, 135, 139, 146, 170 Apatouron: 35, 103 Apollonia Pontica: 47–49, 132, 136, 146, 167 Aquileia: 74 Arabia: 157 Asia Minor: 12, 14, 18, 19, 25, 29, 54, 76, 80, 111, 139, 145, 146, 155, 157, 164 Athens: 3, 6, 30, 79, 133, 134, 147–50, 155, 161, 165, 168 Attica: 4, 165, 169 Beroe: 36 Berytus: 76 Bithynia: 76 Bizone: 42, 60, 61, 135, 146, 170 Black Sea/Pontus Euxinus: 1, 8, 11, 12, 15, 24, 25, 27, 28, 37–42, 46, 47, 51, 52, 55, 58, 60, 61, 73, 85, 87, 97–99, 101, 109, 123, 125, 130, 132, 133, 135, 137, 139, 143, 145, 147, 151, 154, 155, 169 Bosporan kingdom: 31, 35, 36, 103, 111, 119, 130 Bosporus: 8, 34, 110 Cimmerian Bosporus: 103, 109, 120

INDEXES

Thracian Bosporus: 151 Byzantium: 23, 77, 151, 153 Caesarea: 79 Calchedon: 151 Callatis: 6, 15, 16, 20, 22–24, 28, 29, 30, 42, 46, 47, 51, 57, 58, 61–68, 70–73, 79, 80, 84, 85, 87, 90, 93, 97, 124, 129–32, 134, 136, 139–41, 143, 144, 147, 150, 156, 165, 166, 169, 170 Carnuntum: 20 Tauric Chersonesus: 24, 68, 101, 123, 135, 138, 143, 146, 149, 160, 167 Cilicia: 51, 53, 157 Cillae: 48 Cimmericum: 24, 27, 42, 102, 109, 125, 146, 160 Colchis: 29 Corycus: 157 Cumpăna: 79, 80 Cytorus: 43 Cyzicus: 32, 145, 151, 152, 153, 161 Dacia: 144 Dardanelles: 151 Delos: 3, 6, 7, 75, 76, 94, 101, 161 (Danube) Delta: 85 Dionysopolis: 22, 23, 32, 50–53, 56, 58–60, 68, 72, 97, 124, 130–32, 134, 136, 138, 146, 156, 163–68, 171 Dioscurias: 29 Edessa: 36 Egypt: 156, 157 Ephesus: 71, 153, 154, 159, 161 Erythrae: 22, 164 Gaul: 7, 12 Gorgippia: 24, 28, 30, 38, 58, 103, 105, 108, 115, 120–25, 130, 136, 137, 139, 142, 144, 146, 147, 151, 155, 158, 169 Greece: 12, 25, 154, 165, 168, 170 Gyneos: 29 Heraclea Pontica: 29, 61, 68, 79, 101, 149 Hermonassa: 24, 111, 119, 120, 125, 137, 146, 166, 167 Hierapolis: 71, 153 Hypaipa: 157 Ialysus: 147, 150 Ilium: 54, 153 India: 8 Ionia: 22

385

Istros: 20, 23, 28–30, 47, 50, 58, 60, 70, 73, 77, 85–91, 94, 96, 97, 124, 128– 32, 134–36, 138–40, 142–44, 146, 147, 155, 156, 158–60, 164–71 Italy: 7, 8 Kassiopi: 164 Kromna: 43 Krounoi: 45 Lindus: 15, 62, 169 Lugdunum: 19, 155 Lycia: 166 Lydia: 36 Maroneia: 40, 166, 170 Marousi: 147 Mazaca: 79 Mediterranean: 111, 149, 151 Mesogeia: 155 Mihail Kogălniceanu: 79 Miletus: 19, 47, 60, 71, 99, 103, 148, 161, 170 Moesia Inferior: 47, 59, 70, 74, 78, 85, 132, 164 Mylasa: 170 Myrmecium: 24, 27, 42, 109, 125, 134, 146, 160, 167 Nicaea: 76, 105, 168 Nicomedia: 31, 43, 44, 53, 76, 79, 151, 152, 168 Nicopolis ad Istrum: 71 Novae: 165 Nuceria: 32 Odessus: 33, 49–52, 55, 97, 166, 171 Olbia: 22, 23, 28, 56, 60, 64, 99–101, 132, 156, 160, 168 Ostia: 7, 19 Palestina: 157 Panormos: 32, 152 Panticapaeum: 16, 24, 28–30, 32–36, 51, 68, 103–05, 107–09, 113, 123, 125, 129–32, 134, 135, 137–40, 144, 147, 156, 158–60, 163, 164, 167–69 Pergamum: 58, 163 Perinthus-Heraclea: 45, 79, 142, 151, 152, 153, 163, 169 Phanagoria: 29, 33–35, 37, 38, 102, 109, 118–20, 125, 129, 137, 139, 140, 144, 145, 158, 159, 166, 168 Phasis: 29 Philadelphia: 128, 154

386

INDEXES

Philippi: 71 Philippopolis: 45, 71, 74, 169 Piraeus: 140, 147 Pisidia: 36 Pompeii: 32, 159, 161 Pontic kingdom: 43 Pontus et Bithynia: 30, 40, 41, 44, 139 Propontis: 8, 37, 145, 151, 153 Prusa: 76 Puteoli: 19, 157 Rhodes: 3, 6, 75, 149, 151, 161, 166 Roman empire: 7, 12, 30, 31, 130 Rome: 12, 30, 42, 132, 159, 161 Sardis: 163 Scythia Minor: 20, 85 Sesamos: 43 Sidon: 74, 79 Sinope: 24, 39, 41–43, 135, 146, 159, 160 Smyrna: 153 Soknopaiou Nesos: 156 Stobi: 170 Taman peninsula: 118 Tanais: 9, 12, 16, 24, 27, 28, 30, 36, 56, 85, 88, 92, 102, 104, 105, 109–18, 120, 121, 123–25, 129, 130, 134, 137– 40, 144, 147, 155, 156, 158, 160, 164, 167, 168 Tarsus: 53 Tebtunis: 142 Teos: 118 Termessus: 71 Thasos: 94, 166 Theodosia: 24, 42, 102, 109, 125, 146, 160 Thespiai: 15, 62, 169 Thessalonica: 6, 19, 148, 149, 165, 168, 170 Thrace: 36, 164 Thyateira: 18 Tium: 29, 43, 79 Tomis: 12, 20, 28, 30, 33, 37, 44, 47, 58, 60, 73–85, 88, 89, 91, 92, 97, 124, 129– 32, 134, 136, 138, 139, 142–45, 147, 151, 156, 158–60, 163–169 Trapezus: 29 Triglia: 32 Vicus Trullensium: 71

Gods, Goddesses and their Epicleses Agathe Theos: 148, 150 Agathe Tyche: 148, 170 Anahita: 80, 85, 165 Anubis: 75 Aphrodite: 35, 37, 48, 49, 85, 166, 170 Aphrodite Epiteuxidia: 148, 149 Aphrodite Ourania: 118–20, 125, 146 Aphrodite Ourania of Apatouron: 33, 35, 103 Aphrodite of Paphos: 166 Apollo: 49, 52, 63, 99–101, 148, 170 Apollo Boreas: 23, 99, 100 Apollo Ietros: 48, 85, 119 Apollo Neomenios: 23, 99, 100 Artemis Phosphoros: 49 Artemis Pythia: 48 Athena: 32, 49, 53, 63, 66, 133, 163 Athena Polias: 61 Attis: 32, 49, 54, 73, 87, 164 Bendis: 169 Cabiri: 49, 148 Cybele: 49, 52–54, 56, 59, 73, 77–80, 84, 85, 87, 89, 133, 142, 143, 148, 163–65, 167 Demeter: 49, 52, 72 Demeter Carpophorus: 170 Demeter Chtonia: 15, 66 Dionysus: 23, 45, 46, 49, 52–54, 56, 58–62, 66, 72–74, 77, 81, 85–87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 100, 101, 133, 137, 141, 146, 150, 161, 163, 164, 168, 170, 171 Dionysus Bakcheus: 48, 61, 62 Dionysus Carpophorus: 86 Dionysus Dasyllius: 61, 62, 65 Dionysus Taurus: 60 Dionysus Zagreus: 101 Eros: 35, 49 Ge Chtonia: 48 Harpocrates: 75 Hecate: 73, 74, 84 Hephaestus: 84 Hera: 74 Hera Soteira: 33, 74, 103, 107, 125 Heracles: 37, 49, 53, 68, 69, 72, 85, 148, 165 Heracles Alexikakos: 66, 67

INDEXES

Heracles Pharangeites: 68 Hermes: 49, 148, 170 Hero: 82 Hero Karabasmos (Karabazmos): 49, 50, 51 Hero Manimazos: 49, 166 Heros et Dominus: 79 Heros Perkos: 49 Hestia: 37, 73, 76 Isis: 73, 75, 81, 82, 85, 167 Leto: 85 Magna Mater: 164 Mithras: 90 Nike: 35, 49 Nymphs: 49 Palaimon: 37, 148 Pan: 32, 52 Pontic Mother of Gods: 32, 33, 52–54, 57, 130, 164–66 Poseidon: 61, 85, 122, 125, 142, 169, 170 Poseidon Asphaleus: 53 Poseidon Heliconius: 93

387

Poseidon Taurus: 60, 86, 170 Roma: 18 Sabazius: 36 Sarapis: 73, 75 Tanais: 36, 111, 112 Thea: 119 Thea A.saua: 121, 144, 170 Theoi: 148 Theos Hypsistos: 12, 24, 36, 88, 92, 103, 108–13, 116–18, 121, 125, 133, 134, 137, 144, 147, 160 Theos Megas: 52 Theos Megas Odressiton (Darzalas): 49 Thracian Rider: 12, 33, 49, 50, 53, 73, 79, 82, 84, 85, 169 Zeus: 36, 74, 170 Zeus Eleutherius: 101 Zeus Hypsistos: 166 Zeus Labraundos: 148 Zeus Polieus: 61, 85 Zeus Soter: 33, 101, 103, 107, 125

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA 1. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), The Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the First Millennium BC. 2. H. GENZ and D.P. MIELKE (eds.), Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. 3. S.A. KOVALENKO, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. Coins of the Black Sea Region. Part I: Ancient Coins from the Northern Black Sea Littoral. 4. A. HERMARY and G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (eds.), From the Pillars of Hercules to the Footsteps of the Argonauts. 5. L. MIHAILESCU-BÎRLIBA, Ex Toto Orbe Romano: Immigration into Roman Dacia. With Prosopographical Observations on the Population of Dacia. 6. P.-A. KREUZ, Die Grabreliefs aus dem Bosporanischen Reich. 7. F. DE ANGELIS (ed.), Regionalism and Globalism in Antiquity: Exploring Their Limits. 8. A. AVRAM, Prosopographia Ponti Euxini Externa. 9. Y.N. YOUSSEF and S. MOAWAD (eds.), From Old Cairo to the New World. Coptic Studies Presented to Gawdat Gabra on the Occasion of his SixtyFifth Birthday. 10. R. ROLLINGER and K. SCHNEGG (eds.), Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten: vom Denkmodell zum Fallbeispiel. 11. S.A. KOVALENKO, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. Coins of the Black Sea Region. Part II: Ancient Coins of the Black Sea Littoral. 12. A.V. PODOSSINOV (ed.), The Periphery of the Classical World in Ancient Geography and Cartography. 13. A.M. MADDEN, Corpus of Byzantine Church Mosaic Pavements from Israel and the Palestinian Territories. 14. A. PETROVA, Funerary Reliefs from the West Pontic Area (6th–1st Centuries BC). 15. A. FANTALKIN and O. TAL, Tell Qudadi: An Iron Age IIB Fortress on the Central Mediterranean Coast of Israel (with References to Earlier and Later Periods). 16. C.M. DRAYCOTT and M. STAMATOPOULOU (eds.), Dining and Death: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the ‘Funerary Banquet’ in Ancient Art, Burial and Belief. 17. M.-P. DE HOZ, J.P. SÁNCHEZ HERNÁNDEZ and C. MOLINA VALERO (eds.), Between Tarhuntas and Zeus Polieus: Cultural Crossroads in the Temples and Cults of Graeco-Roman Anatolia.

390

AUTEURSNAAM

18. M. MANOLEDAKIS, G.R. TSETSKHLADZE and I. XYDOPOULOS (eds.), Essays on the Archaeology and Ancient History of the Black Sea Littoral. 19. R.G. GÜRTEKIN DEMIR, H. CEVIZOĞLU, Y. POLAT and G. POLAT (eds.), Archaic and Classical Western Anatolia: New Perspectives in Ceramic Studies. 20. C. KÖRNER, Die zyprischen Königtümer im Schatten der Großreiche des Vorderen Orients. Studien zu den zyprischen Monarchien vom 8. bis zum 4. Jh. v. Chr. 21. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Pessinus and Its Regional Setting. Volume 1. 22. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Pessinus and Its Regional Setting. Volume 2: Work in 2009–2013. 23. I. MOGA, Religious Excitement in Ancient Anatolia. Cult and Devotional Forms for Solar and Lunar Gods. 24. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Phrygia in Antiquity: From the Bronze Age to the Byzantine Period. 25. L. MIHAILESCU-BÎRLIBA (ed.), Limes, Economy and Society in the Lower Danubian Roman Provinces. 26. M. COSTANZI and M. DANA (eds.), Une autre façon d’être grec: interactions et productions des Grecs en milieu colonial/Another Way of Being Greek: Interactions and Cultural Innovations of the Greeks in a Colonial Milieu. 27. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Ionians in the West and East. 28. G.R. TSETSKHLADZE (ed.), Archaeology and History of Urartu (Biainili). 29. M.-P. DE HOZ, J.L. GARCÍA ALONSO and L.A. GUICHARD ROMERO (eds.), Greek Paideia and Local Tradition in the Graeco-Roman East. 30. A.V. BELOUSOV, Defixiones Olbiae Ponticae (DefOlb). 31. J. PORUCZNIK, Cultural Identity within the Northern Black Sea Region in Antiquity. (De)constructing Past Identities. 32. M.G. ABRAMZON and V.D. KUZNETSOV, Coin Hoards Volume XI: Greek Hoards, The Cimmerian Bosporus. 33. A. COŞKUN (ed.), Galatian Victories and Other Studies into the Agency and Identity of the Galatians in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. 34. V.D. KUZNETSOV and M.G. ABRAMZON, The Beginning of Coinage in the Cimmerian Bosporus (a Hoard from Phanagoria).

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706