The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Ankara (Ancyra)

Citation preview

The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Ankara (Ancyra) Vol. 2 Late Roman, Byzantine and Other Texts Edited by Stephen Mitchell and David French †

1

Table of Contents Preface and acknowledgments 1 Ankara in Late Antiquity and Byzantium 2 Bibliography 3 Inscriptions of Late Roman and Byzantine Ankara (315 bis–504) 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

The fortifications of Late Roman and Byzantine Ankara (315 bis–328) Imperial inscriptions from Constantine to Arcadius (329–333) Building in Late Roman Ankara (334–346 bis) Exempla Biblica (347–349) Funerary inscriptions from the late third to the early fifth centuries (350–364) Large funerary monuments of the late fifth and sixth centuries (365–423) Small funerary monuments of the late fifth and sixth centuries (424–496) Middle Byzantine inscriptions in the imperial temple and other churches (497–504)

4 Further inscriptions of the second and third centuries (505–545) 5 Ancyrans abroad 5.1 5.2 5.3

Inscriptions for Ancyrans and Galatians in Athens (A1–A73; Gal. 1–Gal. 11) Other Greek inscriptions for Ancyrans outside Ankara (G1–G17) Latin inscriptions for Ancyrans outside Ankara (L1–L21)

6 Addenda and corrigenda to I. Ankara 1 7 Epigraphic indexes 7.1 7.2 7.3

7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7

7.8 7.9 7.10

Personal names 7.1.1 Greek 7.1.2 Latin Geographical names Rulers, officials and military units 7.3.1 Emperors 7.3.2 High officials 7.3.3 Governors of Galatia (Prima) 7.3.4 Civic aristocracy 7.3.5 Military units Professions Festivals and contests Biblical, ecclesiastical and liturgical Funerary 7.7.1 Imprecations and fines 7.7.2 Funerary prayers 7.7.3 Burial Dates and chronology General vocabulary 7.9.1 Greek 7.9.2 Latin Phonetic features, vocalisation and graphic confusion 7.10.1 Greek 7.10.2 Latin

8 Concordance of publications

2

Figures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

18th Century Dutch Painting of Ankara in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam Map of Ancient Ancyra Plan of Ankara Citadel Inscriptions 324-326 Known only to God Sixth-century grave cover in Ankara Kale

Figure credits: Arslan, M.: 477-483. Atesoğulları, S.: 392, 486-87, 490-96, 512. DAI Istanbul: 377, 429, 429a, 489, 505, I. Ankara 1, 108, I. Ankara 1, 162. Domaszewski (1885): 334. Görkay, K.: Fig. 2, 333, 520. Kadıoğlu, M.: Fig. 2, 344, 536. Mango, C.: 348, 363. Mongeri, G.: 315 bis. Peschlow, U.: Fig. 3, 316, 502. Varinlioğlu, E.: 427, 439, 452, 459, 462. Macpherson archive: 378, 424, 430, 436, 440, 443, 446. Perrot (1872): 324. Rijksmuseum Amsterdam: Fig. 1. Wiener Scheden: 504. All other illustrations are by S. Mitchell.

3

4

Preface and Acknowledgements The second volume of Greek and Latin inscriptions of Ankara appears six years after its predecessor. Most of the texts date from the Late Roman and Byzantine periods between the late third and the tenth centuries, but we have added a further batch of inscriptions of the Imperial period, which had been excluded from volume one, or came to light after its completion, and some significant addenda and corrigenda to the inscriptions published in volume one. We have also added a chapter to include inscriptions from other parts of the ancient world which refer to Ancyrans or to the city of Ancyra. In addition to the debts which we acknowledged in the preface to volume one, we have other colleagues to thank for their help in preparing volume two. The staff of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations at Ankara have continued to provide practical support. Stephen Mitchell completed his work on the museum collections in September 2014 and would like to thank the Museum’s assistant director Halil Demirdelen, Mehmet Akalın in charge of the collection at the Roman Baths, Aynur Talaakar at the Akkale depot, and Nilgün Sinan at depot D in the museum itself, for their help. Above all he is grateful to Melih Arslan, museum director from 2011 to 2013, who has provided information and photographs of several inscriptions that have come to light in recent years at Ankara, including texts that had not been recorded since the nineteenth century. Kutalmıș Görkay and Musa Kadıoğlu of Ankara University have again supplied invaluable details about inscriptions they have recorded as well as unpublished information from archival material relating to the archaeology of Roman Ankara. Mitchell is also indebted to Dr Sedat Bornovalı of Nisantaşı University for providing the photograph of 315 bis, derived from a virtually inaccessible publication of the Italian architect Giulio Mongeri. Mitchell completed part of the work on this volume between April and July 2012 as a guest professor at the University of Cologne, by invitation of Professor Walter Ameling, supported by a grant from the Alfred Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach Foundation, and has drawn on advice and suggestions made by Walter Ameling, Jürgen Hammerstaedt and Gregor Staab. All scholars working on the Greek inscriptions of Late Antiquity and the Byzantine period owe an immeasurable debt to Professor Denis Feissel (Collège de France), whose own work has placed the epigraphic study of these periods on an entirely new footing. This will be clear from our innumerable citations of his work. Mitchell was privileged to present the unique ‘theological’ inscriptions from Ankara (347-349) at Feissel’s seminar in Paris in January 2012, and preparation and discussion during that seminar made a large contribution to the reconstruction of these difficult texts. We have also benefited from specific suggestions made by Jean Gascou, Jürgen Hammerstaedt, Constantin Klein and Vadim Wittkowsky. Denis Feissel himself read a draft of the whole manuscript and made many corrections and improvements. Professor Urs Peschlow (Mainz) has made vital contributions to the final preparation of the work. During his stay in Cologne, Mitchell was advised by Hansgerd Hellenkemper that it would be valuable to contact Professor Peschlow, who was working intensively on the archaeological and architectural remains of late Roman and Byzantine Ankara. This new contact led to another intensive and fruitful exchange of information, and has been especially valuable for interpreting the inscriptions relating 5

to Ankara’s fortifications and to the chronological development of the city between the late Roman and middle Byzantine periods. Peschlow’s study of the architectural and archaeological remains of ancient Ankara (Peschlow 2015) has appeared in time for cross references to it to be included in the present volume. We hope that our collaboration will help to integrate the archaeological and historical study of late Roman and Byzantine Ankara. It is a tragedy that Professor Peschlow became severely ill and died of cancer in March 2018, and thus was unable to see this volume in its final form, although he contributed so much to the final stages of its evolution. Most of the photographs in this volume were taken by Mitchell, helped by Oya Dinler in 2010. We have used Ender Varinlioğlu’s photographs of funerary tiles housed in the METU Museum and those taken by Saner Ateşoğulları of several of the funerary tiles in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. We have also obtained illustrations to complete our own records from the archive of I. W. Macpherson (which was given to Mitchell in the early 1980s but is now deposited at the Museum of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge University), from the archive of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut at Istanbul, now digitally available on the University of Cologne’s Arachne web-site (http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/drupal), and from colleagues who have recorded inscriptions in Ankara: Cyril Mango, Melih Arslan, Kutalmıș Görkay, Musa Kadıoğlu, and Urs Peschlow. The last three also made available their maps of ancient Ankara and the Ankara citadel. The preparation of the final text has benefitted from close scrutiny and a critical reading by Rudolf Haensch and Christof Schuler at the Kommission für Epigraphik und Alte Geschichte in Munich, and by Dr Filippo Battistoni and Isabelle Mossong for the Vestigia Redaktion. Both the format and the contents of the manuscript have been greatly improved by their comments and suggestions. We are privileged that the volume appears in the series Vestigia. David French died at the age of eighty-three on 19 March 2017. His own direct contribution to this second volume of the Ankara corpus had been smaller than to its predecessor, as he devoted most of his time between 2011 and 2016 to producing ten volumes of inscriptions and commentary in the series Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor, which have appeared as on-line publications of the British Institute at Ankara, a project which had dominated the second half of his academic career. He was, however, able to read and comment on the entire manuscript in the autumn of 2016. I would simply conclude with the remark that it has also been an extraordinary privilege for me to have collaborated in publishing Ankara’s inscriptions with a great archaeologist and scholar who made the city his home for almost half his life. Berlin, April 2018

Stephen Mitchell

6

1 Ankara in Late Antiquity and Byzantium This second volume of inscriptions from ancient Ancyra contains texts which mostly date between the end of the third and the tenth century. During the early part of late antiquity Ankara was a large and flourishing city of the eastern Roman Empire. It was the most important military and political centre on the land route from Constantinople to Antioch, the imperial power hubs of the eastern Roman empire. The bulk of the inscriptions collected in this volume date between the third and sixth centuries. The city was captured by the Sassanians in 622 and probably suffered serious damage at their hands. From the middle of the seventh century Ankara was exposed to Arab raids and attacks, which continued until 838, when the city fell to the forces of the Abbasid caliph al Mu‘tasim. The events of this period are only reported briefly in Greek and Arab chronicles, and cannot be confirmed by epigraphic or archaeological documentation. The construction of the citadel in 859 by the emperor Michael III and his spatharocandidatus Basil marked a crucial turning point in Ankara’s history and transformed it into the most powerful fortress of northern Anatolia. Inscriptions recorded in the church that occupied the former imperial temple and the church of St Clement are evidence that the city became more secure and prosperous in the ninth and tenth centuries. Late Roman and Byzantine Ankara is the subject of an influential and important study published in 1977 by Clive Foss. He supplemented this extensive synthesis, based on the literary and the archaeological evidence, with a closely documented but shorter account translated into German in 1985 for the Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, and these two studies have laid the framework for modern understanding of the post-Roman city.1 Foss’s work was preceded by Marcel Restle’s article ‘Ankyra’ for the Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst in 1966 and supplemented by Klaus Belke’s invaluable documentation of Ankara’s history compiled for the Tabula Imperii Byzantini in 1984.2 Wolfram Brandes has offered a modern summary of the evidence from the seventh to ninth centuries,3 and Paul Wittek surveyed the later Byzantine and Seljuk periods in an article written in the early 1930s.4 Critical episodes in the city’s late Roman and Byzantine history have been the subject of special studies.5 Much information about the antiquities, natural resources and economic life of ancient Ankara can be gathered from accounts of travellers to the Ottoman city between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, and these have been extensively used by Semavi Eyice, the Turkish byzantinist, in his commentary on an 18th century Dutch painting of an eastern city, which he was able to identify as Ankara (Fig. 1), and also from a brief history of the city written by two American scholars who were based in Ankara for many

1

Foss 1977; Foss 1985, reprinted 2001. Restle 1966; TIB IV, 126-30. 3 Brandes in Peschlow 2015 I, 259-68. 4 Wittek 1932. 5 The persecutions, Mitchell 1982; Julian and the situation of pagans and Christians in the later fourth century, Mitchell 1993 II, 88-95; the building of the citadel by Michael III, Grégoire 1927/28 and 1929/30. 2

7

years.6 A recent large-scale survey of Ankara’s history from its origins to the present day makes use of some of this detailed scholarly work.7 [Insert Figure 1 around here] The archaeology of post-Roman Ankara owes most to Père de Jerphanion’s remarkable work in the 1920s, which was carried out during the years when Ankara was being rebuilt as Turkey’s modern capital. Jerphanion wrote comprehensive accounts based on his own field work of the citadel fortifications and the Church of St Clement, and also published many newly discovered inscriptions.8 Ernest Mamboury produced a very detailed and informative guide book to Ankara in 1934,9 and observations on the transformation of the temple of Augustus into a church form an important part of Krencker and Schede’s publication of the imperial temple.10 During the 1930s and early 1940s excavations by members of the German Archaeological Institute led to the discovery of a section of a Roman street and late Roman chamber tombs,11 and Turkish archaeologists undertook the large scale clearance of the main city bath building, which was in use through late antiquity.12 Thereafter, with the exception of Nezih Fıratlı’s excellent but neglected study of Ankara’s ancient aqueducts,13 little new archaeological work was done in the city until the 1990s, when archaeologists from the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations undertook a number of rescue excavations which have thrown light on the streets and fortifications of the Roman city. The results have been accounted for both in Susan Cooke’s unpublished Bilkent University MA thesis,14 and in Görkay and Kadıoğlu’s recent study of the archaeology of the Roman city.15 A sixth-century cemetery can now be added to these discoveries.16 Urs Peschlow’s study of the remains of the Roman and Byzantine city now provides a full critical appraisal of Ankara’s archaeology, especially regarding the architecture and buildings.17 Since H. Grégoire’s ground-breaking studies in the late 1920s of the inscriptions related to the Byzantine citadel,18 Ankara’s late Roman and Byzantine inscriptions have received relatively little attention. E. Bosch’s collection of sources for the history of Ankara in antiquity was not concerned with the period after Constantine, and the later texts have not been gathered or considered as a whole, although many 6

Eyice 1970; Cross – Leiser 2000; see also Eyice 1996. Aydın et al. 2005, 103-29. 8 Jerphanion 1928. 9 Mamboury 1934; cf. Mamboury 1949. 10 Krencker – Schede 1936. 11 Dalman – Schneider – Bittel 1932; Akok – Pençe 1941. 12 Akok 1955. 13 Fıratlı 1951. 14 Cooke 1998. 15 Görkay – Kadıoğlu – Mitchell 2011. 16 Arslan – Aydın 2010. 17 Peschlow 2015. 18 Grégoire 1927/28 and 1929/30; note also his contribution to Krencker – Schede 1936, 59-60. 7

8

are cited in Foss’s historical surveys. Moreover, a much larger number of inscriptions from the period between 300 and 600, compared with those of the early empire, has remained unpublished, and this volume accordingly contains a higher proportion of new material than its predecessor did.19 The majority of these texts are funerary, and their most important contribution is to throw light on the Ankara’s social and cultural history, above all its characteristics as a Christian community in the eastern Roman empire. A smaller number of public inscriptions, relating to the city fortifications, to Roman emperors and to local benefactors, illuminates Ankara’s secular civic history and its place within the political and administrative structures of the empire. Ankara and imperial politics in the fourth century After the tetrarchic period Ankara became one of the most significant eastern power centres of the later Roman empire. The reason for this lay primarily in its geographical location. The city occupied a mid point on the overland route from Constantinople to Antioch, and was also the hub of a network of major roads that ran north to Paphlagonia and the Black Sea, north-east towards the Pontic provinces and the upper Armenian frontier, south-east to Caesarea in Cappadocia and the Euphrates, as well as south towards Lycaonia and the Taurus regions, and south-west towards Phrygia and the old province of Asia. Many of these roads were documented in the ancient itineraries. They can be traced on the ground, and they have produced a rich crop of Roman milestones.20 These routes carried heavy military traffic, which is abundantly documented for the second and third centuries by the large number of Roman military inscriptions, the majority in Latin, that have been found at Ankara.21 There can be no doubt that the volume of military units, officials, and individual or small groups of soldiers passing through the city in the fourth century was at least as great as it had been in the second or third centuries. but the number of military inscriptions was sharply reduced. Only one late Roman inscription from Ankara explicitly mentions a soldier, the fifth or sixth century epitaph of Tarasis, who came from the Tauric regions of southern Asia Minor and was described as being a member of the ‘first cohort of infantrymen’ (385), a unit which may have been stationed at Ankara at this period.22

19

10% of the texts in volume 1 were unpublished (31 from 315), compared with 55% of the Late Roman and Byzantine inscriptions in volume 2 (105 from 190). 20 See Mitchell 1993 I, 124-36; I. Ankara 1, p. 6. The milestones are now fully documented in the fascicles of David French’s Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor 3 (RRMAM), published on-line by the British Institute at Ankara. RRMAM 3.2 contains the milestones of Galatia; see also the itinerary on papyrus published by Noordegraaf 1938 (= SB 26, 16607). 21 See I. Ankara 1, 22-27. 22 This excludes the gravestone of very uncertain date set up by the protector Ursinus for his infant son (359). Ursinus might be a soldier, but may also be classified as one of the protectores who formed part of sixth-century land-owning class.

9

The city in the fourth century was the capital of Galatia, later Galatia Prima, identified in the Verona list of provinces of 314.23 In 313 Constantine and Licinius, building on the work of the tetrarchs, had developed the administrative structure of the empire, dividing it into twelve dioceses, each comprising several provinces, under the control of a vicarius of the praetorian prefect,24 and a number of sources show that Ancyra now became the seat for the vicarius of Pontica.25 Pontica at this date comprised the provinces of Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Galatia, Diospontus (later renamed Helenopontus), Pontus Polemoniacus, Cappadocia and Armenia Minor.26 Galatia itself was subdivided when the western province of Galatia Salutaris, including the Phrygian region around Pessinus and Amorium, was created around 399.27 The inscriptions which throw most light on the strategic and political importance of the city in the fourth century are the texts that relate to emperors. These are headed by the three dedications for Constantine which were erected respectively by his praetorian prefect, Fl. Constantius (329 and 330), and the vicarius of the diocese of Pontica, Lucilius Crispus (331), almost certainly in October/November 324 soon after Constantine’s final victory over Licinius, when he became sole ruler of the empire. All three monuments involved the use of existing statue bases that had to be re-inscribed, and it is likely that they had previously supported statues of Licinius himself or of rulers of the tetrarchic period. They do not show that Constantine visited in Ankara in person at the time, but the fact that two of them were put up by the praetorian prefect for the East, Constantine’s most senior civilian official in the territories formerly ruled by Licinius, underlines Ankara’s predominant position among the cities in the interior of Asia Minor. It was at exactly this time that Constantine reached an initial decision to hold the first ecumenical Church Council at Ancyra, before the location was switched to Nicaea (331 comm.). Constantine is likely to have passed though Ankara in the early part of his career when he served as a military commander in the east, being attached to the officer circle around Galerius during the invasion of Persia in 297/8,28 and to that around Diocletian during the imperial visit to Egypt in 301/2.29 During this period he must have spent considerable periods of time in the imperial headquarters at Antioch. However, Constantine stated himself that he had been in Nicomedia at the moment in February 303 when Diocletian issued his first edict of persecution against the Christians,30 and the normal route between Antioch and Nicomedia passed through Ankara. It is also possible that in the thirteen years of Constantine’s monarchy from 324 until his death in spring 337, during which he

23

Barnes 1982, 201-3. Zuckermann 2002. 25 Foss 1977, 33-4 n. 19; and inscription 433 comm. 26 See the map in Mitchell 1988, 107. 27 See Foss 1977, 33 n. 18; Belke in TIB IV, 55-56 n. 70; Mitchell 1993 II, 160. 28 Constantine, Oratio ad sanctos 16.2, p. 177, 1-4, in the edition of I. A. Heikel, Eusebius’ Werke I (Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller 7, Lepizig 1902), 151-92. 29 Eusebius, VC 1. 19. For Constantine’s service under Galerius and Diocletian, see Barnes 2011, 51-6. 30 Oratio ad sanctos 25.2, p. 190, 24-9. 24

10

was mostly resident in Nicomedia and Constantinople, he visited cities further east, including both Ancyra and Antioch. At the time of Constantine’s death, Constantius, the emperor’s second son by his marriage to Fausta, was resident in Antioch, which served as one of the bases for his campaigns on the eastern frontier against the Sassanians during the next thirteen years. Constantius shared imperial power with Constantine II and Constans until 340, and with Constans for a further decade. In this period Constantius probably visited Constantinople in 337, 342, 343 and 349, before transferring to the western part of the empire after Constans had been replaced and killed by the usurper Magnentius in 350. Constantius only returned to the East in 359/60 when he initiated new campaigns against the Sassanians from Cappadocia and Mesopotamia.31 Each of these journeys is likely to have taken him through Ankara, but his actual presence in the city is attested for another year, 347, by a constitution in the Theodosian Code, CTh XI.36.8, which reads Impp. Constantius et Constans A(ugusti). Theodoro consulari Syriae Coeles in fiscalibus debitis nullius provocationem tua gravitas censeat admittendam. Nec enim commodum publicum fas est diuturna frustratione suspendi, nec eludendi licentiam callidis fraudatoribus relaxari. Dat. viii. id. Mart. Ancyrae, Rufino et Eusebio coss. The emperors Constantius and Constans to Theodorus, consularis of Coele Syria: let your Gravity give judgement that no right of appeal should be permitted in the matter of debts to the fiscus. For it is not right that the public benefit should be suspended by eternal frustration, and licence to evade payment should not be extended to clever fraudsters. Issued on 8 March at Ancyra in the consulships of Rufinus and Eusebius. One other item of evidence attests Constantius’ presence in Ankara, the first speech of the orator Themistius, addressed to the emperor on the subject of philanthropia, which was published under a heading which read: οὗτος εἴρηται ἐν Ἀγκύρᾳ τῆς Γαλατίας, ὅτε πρῶτον συνέτυχε τῷ βασιλεῖ, νέος ὢν ἔτι, διόπερ οὐδὲ πάνυ κρατεῖ τῆς ἰδέας, ‘this speech was delivered in Galatian Ancyra, when he first met the emperor while a young man, and therefore he is not fully in control of the topic’. The date of this speech is uncertain, and arguments have been put forward for 350, when Constantius made his move to the West against Magnentius, and for other dates in the 340s when Constantius is likely to have passed through the city, but there are good reasons based on the content of and omissions from the speech itself to support the view that it was delivered at the time of the imperial decision recorded in the Codex Theodosianus in early 347.32

31

Barnes 1993, 219-24. See Vanderspoel 1995, 73-7; the force of his arguments is acknowledged by Heather – Moncur 2001, 69-71, although they leave open the possibility of a date late in 350; Barnes 1993, 313 n. 21 argues for 347, or another date in the 340s on 32

11

Julian’s stay in the city in June 362 was recorded by Ammianus Marcellinus, and is also documented by a dedicatory inscription in Latin put up by his praetorian prefect Saturninius Secundus Salutius (332). There is also hagiographical evidence that linked the emperor to Ankara.33 He may have published three surviving legal rulings in the city, as their issue dates fall within the two-week period that he is believed to have spent in Ankara, but none of the constitutions is said specifically to have been formulated and issued in Ancyra.34 In the summer of 362 Julian travelled from Constantinople through Asia Minor to Antioch. His journey took him across the Bosporus to Chalcedon, Libyssa, Nicomedia, Nicaea and as far as the borders of Gallograecia, Galatia, which lay a short way east of the small Bithynian city of Juliopolis. Thus far he had followed the main military highway across Asia Minor, but he now turned off the road to the right, dextrorsus itinere declinato, so as to visit Pessinus, where he wished to see the shrine of the Magna Mater. He then returned to Ankara: Venerato igitur numine, hostiisque litato et votis, Ancyram rediit; eumque exinde progredientem ulterius multitudo inquietabat, pars violenter erepta, reddi sibi poscentium, alii querentes consortiis se curialium addictos iniuste, non nulli sine respectu periculi agentes ad usque rabiem, ut adversarios suos laesae maiestatis criminibus illigarent. ‘after worshipping the divinity [at Pessinus] and soliciting her favour by sacrifices and prayers Julian returned to Ankara. As he was leaving the place he was beset by a huge mob. Some demanded the return of property of which they had been forcibly deprived; others complained that they had been unfairly conscripted into the local council; a number showed such insane disregard for their own safety as to level charges of high treason against their opponents.’35 The judicial business that Ammianus refers to in this passage occupied several days, and it is likely that the emperor spent the second half of June 362 in the city. Several constitutions which were later included in the Codex Theodosianus might have been issued during this stay in Ankara,36 but the evidence for these is not completely secure. CTh XV.1.3, was addressed to Secundus, his praetorian prefect, on 29 June, with instructions that provincial governors should not undertake any new buildings before completing projects that had been started by their predecessors, unless the building was a temple. The issuer and receiver of the law, Julian and Secundus, are certain, but the subscript contains an erroneous date, the grounds that the speech contains no detectable allusions to the western situation after the death of Constans at the beginning of 350. 33 See 332 comm.; Ammianus Marcellinus 22.9.2-5. For the hagiographical sources see Foss 1977, 39-41. 34 CTh VIII.5.13; XIII.3.5; XV.1.3. 35 Ammianus Marcellinus 22.9.8, trans. Hamilton. For the journey see French, RRMAM I and Bringmann, forthcoming. 36 Foss 1977, 39 n. 40, followed by Mitchell 1993 II, 89.

12

dat. III Kal. Iul. Constantino A. VII et Constantio Caes. Conss., a reference to 326 not 362. If the calendar as well as the consular date is wrongly linked to this constitution, it may not have been issued in Ankara. CTh VIII.5.13 was addressed to Claudius Mamertinus, the praetorian prefect of Illyricum since 361. It authorised provincial governors, without reference to vicarii, to issue permits for the cursus publicus in cases where this was to enable the delivery of payments to the state treasury (the office of the a largitionibus). It was received by Mamertinus on 20 June 362, acc. xii Kal. Iul. Mamertino et Nevitta conss. We do not know where Mamertinus was located at this time, although the normal headquarters of the praetorian prefect of Illyricum were either at Thessalonica or at Sirmium. However, the constitution bears the hallmarks of being drafted in Constantinople, since the comes sacrarum largitionum and other treasury officials, whose offices were located there, are quoted as having provided advice about the law. The third constitution, issued on 17 June and received in Spoleto in Italy on 26 July 362, was the famous decision about teachers: Magistros studiorum doctoresque excellere oportet moribus primum, deinde facundia. Sed quia singulis civitatibus adesse ipse non possum, iubeo, quisque docere vult, non repente nec temere prosiliat ad hoc munus sed iudicio ordinis probatus decretum curialium mereatur optimorum conspirante consensu. Hoc enim decretum ad me tractandum referetur, ut altiore quodam honore nostro iudicio studiis civitatum accedant. Dat. XV Kal. Iul., acc. IIII Kal. Augustas Spoletio Mamertino et Nevitta conss. ‘Professors and teachers ought to be outstanding in the first place for their moral qualities, and then for their eloquence. Since I am unable to be present in person in every individual city, I give instructions that whoever wishes to be a teacher, should not leap at this suddenly or without forethought but, authorized by the judgement of the council, should earn by merit a decree of the council-members, with the unanimous consent of the best people. Let this decree be referred for me to handle, so that (candidates) may take charge of education in the cities by our decision, a loftier honour.’ (CTh XIII.3.5). This edict is universally linked to Julian’s famous pronouncement, which is included among his letters but which lacks an addressee, in which he argued that Christians should not be permitted to teach the works of pagan classical writers.37 The decision recorded in the Theodosian Code made no explicit mention of Christians, and clearly did not refer exclusively to them. Julian’s ‘letter’ appears to have been an additional explanation, designed to provide guidance to decision makers, i.e. the city councils, when they were faced with taking a decision about Christian candidates. This clarification need not necessarily have been provided in Ankara. In fact, it is perhaps more likely to have been issued at Antioch, which Julian reached by the beginning of August. Julian’s decision to exclude Christian teachers was thought to be objectionable by prominent pagan intellectuals at 37

Julian, ep. 61c Bidez; ep. 35 in Wright’s Loeb edition.

13

Antioch, notably by Ammianus Marcellinus, who was a serving officer with Julian’s troops there, and by Libanius, the most prominent pagan teacher of the period. Libanius’ many speeches in praise of Julian pointedly made no mention of the advice to ban Christian teachers, not least because such a ban would have forced Christian pupils to seek instruction only from their co-religionists, and this would have removed many of his own clientele.38 Julian’s successor Jovian reached Ankara from Antioch, having passed through the small town of Aspona near the Galatian frontier with Cappadocia, in December 363, and was appointed to the consulship in the city on 1 January 364, in partnership with his young son Varronianus: Post quae, ut videbatur expedire, disposita apud Aspuna Galatiae municipium breve, Gallicani milites viso principe (mss. visi principi) ingressique consistorium, post audita gratanter, quae pertulerant, munerati redire iubentur ad signa. Et cum introisset Ancyram imperator, paratis ad pompam pro tempore necessariis, consulatum iniit adhibito in societatem trabeae Varroniano filio suo admodum parvulo, cuius vagitus pertinaciter reluctantis, ne in curuli sella veheretur ex more, id quod mox accidit portendebat; ‘After these matters had been arranged in the appropriate manner at Aspuna, a small town in Galatia, soldiers from Gaul, after spotting the emperor, entered his audience chamber and, after the message which they conveyed was accepted with thanks, were instructed to return, rewarded, to their standards. When the emperor entered Ancyra, after all necessary preparations had been made for the ceremonial procession, he entered the consulship, while his son Varronianus, who was very young, was introduced as a companion of the robe of office. The latter’s bawling, as he struggled to avoid being carried on the curule chair in the customary fashion, was a portent of events that were soon to occur.’ (Ammianus Marcellinus 25.10.10-11). Themistius, who had probably travelled from Constantinople, delivered another speech on this occasion, much of it devoted to the theme of religious tolerance.39 38

Wiemer 1995; for recent discussion of Julian’s ‘school law’, see McLynn 2014. Themistius or. 5; commentary and translation by Heather – Moncur 2001, 14973; see further Vanderspoel 1995, 137-54. Libanius asked to be given a copy of the speech at Ancyra (ep. 1193.5). Socrates HE 3.26 credibly reports that the speech was reprised at Constantinople (Vanderspoel 1995, 153-4). It also appears that a law which at least in part rescinded Julian’s interdict on unsuitable teachers was issued during Jovian’s stay at Ankara: Impp. Valentinianus et Valens aa. ad Mamertinum praefectum praetorio. si qui erudiendis adulescentibus vita pariter et facundia idoneus erit, vel novum instituat auditorium vel repetat intermissum. dat. iii Id. Ian. divo Ioviano et Varroniano conss. ‘The emperors Valentinianus and Valens Augusti to Mamertinus, praetorian prefect. If anyone is suitably qualified by his conduct and eloquence to instruct the young, he may either set up a new 39

14

Jovian’s reign was abruptly curtailed as he died in bizarre circumstances en route to the capital at the Galatian-Bithynian border town of Dadastana, allegedly suffocated by the fumes of a brazier in the night of 17 February 364.40 His successor in turn was the Pannonian officer Valentinian, a trusted associate of Jovian, who had been left behind with other senior officials at Ancyra as commander of a regiment of Scutarii, while the emperor undertook the journey to Constantinople. Valentinian was summoned to join the army and acclaimed Augustus at Nicaea about ten days after Jovian’s death: Quo itidem spreto quia procul agebat, ut aptus ad id quod quaerebatur atque conveniens Valentinianus nulla discordante sententia numinis adspiratione caelestis electus est, agens scholam Scutariorum secundam relictusque apud Ancyram, postea secuturus ut ordinatum est. ‘(While Ianuarius) was dismissed because he was in active service a long way away, Valentinian was elected unanimously and with the approval of the heavenly power as being well suited for the requirements and conveniently at hand. He was commanding the Schola II Scutariorum and had been left behind at Ancyra, with instructions to follow according to orders.’ (Ammianus Marcellinus 26.1.5). On 28 March 364 Valentinian’s brother Valens was also raised to the rank of Augustus in Constantinople, giving the empire the security of two adult rulers, with Valentinian taking charge in the West, Valens in the East. Valens’ position was immediately put to the test by the rebellion of Procopius, who was distantly related to the family of Constantine, and many of whose supporters were from Constantinople itself. Valens used the province of Galatia and its capital Ancyra as his own base during the winter of 365/6, and the struggle with Procopius took place in the disputed middle ground of Bithynia, Phrygia and the Hellespontine region.41 On 18 January 366 Valens’ third child was born, his first son. An obvious explanation of the boy’s name, Valentinianus Galates, is that the birth to Valens’ wife Domnica took place in Ankara. Like Varronianus, Valentinianus Galates survived to be nominated as an infant consul in January 369, but he died soon after in early childhood. The award of the consulship was marked by another panegyric from Themistius.42 Ankara must accordingly have served not only as a military headquarters for the campaign against Procopius, but for a brief period as a residence for the imperial family. Among Procopius’ commanders was an Ancyran school hall, or re-open one that has been closed. Issued on 11 January in the consulship of the divinized Jovian and Varronianus.’ (CTh XIII.3.6). 40 Ammianus Marcellinus 25.10.12-13; cf. Philostorgius HE 8.8; there were other versions of Jovian’s death. 41 Ammianus Marcellinus 26.7.2 and 13 for Galatia; 26.8.4 for Ancyra. For the revolt see Matthews 1989, 191-203 and Lenski 2003, 68-84. 42 PLRE I, 381; Themistius, or. 9, 127a-128d, discussed by Vanderspoel 1995, 171-3. He deduces both from the circumstances and from the content of the speech, which argued that the two emperors in the West (Valentinian I and Gratian) should be complemented by a similar pair in the East, that Valentinianus Galates would soon have been raised to the status of Augustus, had he survived.

15

citizen, Hyperechius, one of Libanius’ protégés, who was frequently mentioned in the the orator’s letters between 359 and 364.43 Like Constantius before him, Valens certainly travelled frequently between Constantinople and Antioch, passing through Ancyra. One of his legal decisions, emphasizing the obligations of the members of the local curial order to fulfil their municipal obligations, was issued there on 13 July 371.44 However, after his death on the battlefield of Adrianople in 378, imperial journeys in the east became a rarity. Theodosius I is not known to have travelled east of Constantinople. His elder son Arcadius, who had been made Augustus in 383 and became sole ruler of the East at the age of 18 in 395, earned the reputation of being virtually invisible even to the citizens of Constantinople.45 However, it is a striking fact that Arcadius made summer visits to Ankara in 397, 398 and 405, and Claudian alleges that these sojourns were virtual holidays, organised by Eutropius, his magister cubiculi.46 But Eutropius was deposed in August 399 and executed later that year, and so cannot have been responsible for Arcadius’ presence in Ankara five years later. It is more likely that these visits - and there may have been others that have not been documented - served the serious purpose of representing imperial power outside Constantinople, even if the emperor no longer made appearances in the more important city of Syrian Antioch. Arcadius’ visits in any event would have confirmed Ankara’s status as an imperial residence, and the local impact of his rulership is now documented by a monumental Christian votive text set up by Arcadius on his own and his co-emperor Honorius’ behalf between 395 and 402 (333). Arcadius is the last Roman emperor who is known for certain to have visited Ankara until the epochal visit of Michael III in 859. No further imperial journeys or residences are attested in the fifth or early sixth century, as the eastern rulers were for the most part confined to Constantinople or its immediate environs. Justinian made a single recorded visit to Galatia in 563 shortly before his death, when he stayed at the sanctuary of St Michael at Germia, a remarkable testimony to the importance of this major pilgrimage centre as well as to Justinian’s 43

Ammianus Marcellinus 26.8.5; Foss 1977, 43-4; Mitchell 1993 II, 87-8. CTh XII.1.76, 13 July 371: Idem aaa. ad Modestum praefectum praetorio. Ex omnibus domibus producti qui origine sunt curiali, ad subeundam publicorum munerum functionem protrahantur, quippe cum occultatoribus talium praeter iacturam existimationis etiam rerum discrimen incumbat, si ulterius progressi utilitatem publicam privatis studiis et patrociniis postponant. Dat. iii Id. Iul. Ancyrae Gratiano a. ii et Probo conss.; ‘The same Augusti to Modestus, praetorian prefect. The offspring of all households of curule origin should be subject to fulfilling the function of providing public services, especially as those who conceal such matters will suffer not only a loss of reputation but also a substantive penalty, if, having acted on their own account, they put the benefit of the public behind their own interests and patronage. Issued on 13 June at Ancyra in the consulships of Gratian Augustus II and Probus.’ 45 Note the anecdote in Socrates HE VI.23 that people ran to catch a rare glimpse of him when he was reported to be praying in a local church. 46 Claudian, In Eutropium II, 97-102, cf. 427-8; see 333 comm. 44

16

religiosity in the later years of his life.47 A boundary stone from the territory of a settlement called Vocondianai, found a few kilometres south of Germia, indicates that this place lay on the estate of a guest-house (ξενών) belonging to Justinian’s famous general Belisarius, and it is plausible that this establishment provided the necessary hospitality for the emperor’s visit.48 However, this evidently extraordinary journey, perhaps in search of a cure from the healing waters of Germia as well as to seek the blessing of the archangel, was a striking exception to the general pattern of imperial behaviour in the later fifth and sixth centuries. Ecclesiastical disputes and church councils Ancyra and its bishops had significant roles to play in fourth-century Church history, and the city was dominated by two figures, Marcellus and Basil. Although Marcellus was not named in the apparently Montanist life of St Theodotus, which reproduced authentic details of the impact of the persecution of Maximinus in 311/12 on the city,49 he seems already to have been a leader, presumably the bishop, of the Christian community at Ankara around 314, when he presided over a council which dealt with the aftermath of the persecutions and with other matters of church discipline.50 He was certainly bishop of the city in 325 at the time of the Council of Nicaea at which he was an important player, and a prominent opponent of Arius. When the Council of Constantinople of 336 re-instated Arius into the Church, Marcellus found himself on the wrong side of the argument, and was deposed from the episcopal see at Ancyra to make way for Basil.51 A year later Marcellus was allowed to return by the terms of the amnesty for exiled bishops

47

For Germia see Niewöhner et al. 2013; Justinian’s visit was noted by Theophanes, Chron. (de Boor) 240; see Mango – Scott 1997, 353: ‘Justinian, in fulfilment of a vow, visited Myriangeloi, otherwise known as Germia, a city in Galatia.’ 48 Walser 2013, 582-5 no. 35: [† ὅ]ροι Οὐ|κωνδιαν|ῶν δια[φε]|ρουσῶν τ[ῷ] | εὐαγῖ ξεν[ῶνι] | Βιλισαρίου [τοῦ] | ἐνδοξ. | κ(αὶ) τῆς περὶ [. . .]. The Vandal king Gelimer, whom Belisarius had defeated and captured, was given lands and permitted to settle in Galatia after Justinian’s Vandal triumph in Constantinople in 534: βασιλεύς τε Ἰουστινιανὸς καὶ ἡ βασιλὶς Θεοδώρα . . . Γελίµερι χωρία οὐκ εὐκαταφρόνητα ἐν Γαλατίᾳ δόντες ὁµοῦ τοῖς ξυγγενέσιν ἐνταῦθα οἰκεῖν συνεχώρησαν, ‘the emperor Justinian and the empress Theodora granted Gelimer property in Galatia which was not at all contemptible, allowing him to live with his relatives there’ (Procopius, Bell. 4.9.13). Perhaps the estate was also in this region. 49 Edition by Franchi de’ Cavalieri 1901. Its historical content has been discussed by Grégoire – Orgels 1951, Mitchell 1982, Elm 1994, 52-9 and Barnes 2010, 15659. 50 See C. H. Turner, Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima I. Oxford 1899, 30, 50, 51; English translations of the canons of the council are accessible on-line at https://sites.google.com/site/canonsoc/home/-canons-of-theparticular-councils/council-of-ancyra-314. 51 Sozomen HE 2.33.

17

which had been decreed by Constantius.52 Hilarius of Poitiers records that this led to violent scenes. Houses were burned down, while Marcellus in person is said to have dragged priests, no doubt belonging to Basil’s faction, into the forum and in full public view profaned the sacred host that they carried round their necks; consecrated virgins were said to have been stripped of their vestments and publicly humiliated.53 Shortly afterwards Marcellus appears to have been exiled again, perhaps following a decision by a council held at Antioch in 338.54 He may not have been able to return until 361, when Julian’s famous amnesty allowed all exiled bishops to come back to their cities. He was still alive in Ankara in 371 surrounded by a small group of fellow-worshippers.55 Marcellus’ theological views were condemned as a version of the Sabellian heresy; his theological enemies alleged that by subsuming the identity of Christ into that of God the Father he denied Christ’s independent divinity. He was thus regarded as heretical both by Arians and by followers of Nicene orthodoxy.56 Basil succeeded Marcellus and served as bishop, probably without interruption from 339 until his death in 364. He was already a substantial theological figure by the time of the Council of Sirmium in 351, and played a crucial part in the controversies of the later 350s. Basil was closely associated with the emperor Constantius and may have been a member of the imperial entourage during the

52

Athanasius, Hist. Ar. I. 8.; Socrates HE 2.26 dates this reinstatement to the period after the Council of Serdica of 343, but this is not supported by contemporary evidence. 53 Hilarius Pict. fr.III. 9 (PL X, 669; Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiae Latinae 65, 55): Fuere namque et in Ancyra provinciae Galatiae, post reditum Marcelli haeretici, domorum incendia et genera diversa bellorum. Nudi ab ipso ad forum trahebantur presbyteri, et, quod cum luctu lacrimisque dicendum, consecratum Domini corpus ad sacerdotum colla suspensum palam publiceque profanabat, virgines sanctissimas Deo Christoque dicatas publice in foro, media in civitate, concurrentibus populis, abstractis vestibus, horrenda foeditate nudabat; ‘After the return of the heretic Marcellus houses were also set on fire and various sorts of conflict arose at Ancyra in the province of Galatia. Priests were dragged naked by the man himself into the forum, and, a matter to be spoken of with lamentation and grieving, he publicly in everyone’s presence profaned the consecrated body of the Lord, as it was hung around the necks of the clergy. As people rushed together in the middle of the city, he exposed the most holy virgins, devoted to God and to Christ, publicly in the forum, by stripping them of their vestments.’ The same episode was referred to by Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 33, quoting the letter which Julius, bishop of Rome, sent to the followers of Eusebius in Antioch. 54 Barnes 1993, 57 citing E. Schwartz, Gesammelte Schriften III, 291-2. 55 Epiphanius Panarion 72.11 gives the names of Marcellus’ clerical followers: οἱ ἀπὸ Ἀγκύρας τῆς Γαλατίας πρεσβύτεροι, Φωτεινός, Εὐστάθιος, ἕτερος Φωτεινός, Σιγέριος καὶ διάκονος Ὑγῖνος καὶ ὑποδιάκονος Ἡρακλείδης καὶ ἀναγνώστης Ἐλπίδιος καὶ προστάτης Κυριακός. Photinus and Marcellus were labelled AncyroGalatai by Athanasius, Syn. 26.6.1 (Opitz 1935, 253,1). 56 Hanson 1988, 217-35; Barnes 1993, 92-3; Parvis 2006.

18

emperor’s famous visit to Rome in 357.57 In 358 he organized opposition to the views of Aëtius, which denied any likeness between Father and Son and were threatening to become the established theology of the church at Antioch, by summoning a council of bishops to mark the consecration of a new church at Ancyra.58 Here he and the twelve bishops who attended this small council were able to formulate the basis for a new credal formula, arguing that the Son was of similar essence, homoioousios, to the Father. This provided the foundation for the drafting of the Homoian creed, which was pushed through the western synod of Ariminum and the eastern synod of Seleuceia in 359 to be confirmed as the new imperial orthodoxy by a council at Constantinople in January 360.59 Nevertheless, Basil’s high-handed behavior laid him open to a series of charges which were brought against him during the council and led to him being deposed and exiled for these crimes.60 If his enemies’ charges carry any credence, his behaviour towards ecclesiastical rivals may have been at least as arbitrary and extreme as Marcellus’ in 337. Nothing is known of Basil after the charges were brought and he may have died shortly afterwards. By 370 Ankara had a new bishop, Athanasius.61 The prominence of Marcellus and Basil of Ancyra between the 320s and the 360s in the theological controversies about the nature of Christ is an indication of the city’s importance in this period. As church leaders they were responsible for the appointment of numerous subordinate clergy in their own sees, and played a big role in appointing bishops of smaller cities in Pontica and elsewhere. One of Marcellus’ deacons was Photinus, who became bishop of Sirmium in Pannonia, and was identified himself as another prominent heretical figure, who promoted a strongly monist theology, representing an extreme version of Marcellus’ position. He was deposed at the Council of Sirmium in 351 after his views had been subjected to cross examination in a disputation with a group of Arian bishops, who were led, understandably, by Photinus’ fellow-citizen Basil. The Photinian debate was observed by high-ranking senators and imperial officials, and recorded by a team of stenographers drawn from the emperor’s staff.62 It is interesting, however, that two of the priests who attended worship in the early 370s at Ankara with the aged Marcellus also carried the name Photinus, doubtless in recognition of Photinus’ standing and to show that they still adhered to a version of his theology (see footnote 55).

57

Barnes 1993, 283 n. 56 interpreting Marius Victorinus, Adversus Arium 1. 28. 22-42. 58 Sozomen HE 4.13; Epiphanius Pan. 73. 2-11. 59 Hanson 1988, 348-86; Barnes 1993, 139-49. 60 Sozomen HE 4. 24; see Barnes 1996 for an analysis. Six of the nine charges related to Church matters, but two involved the secular authorities and one concerned Basil’s conduct as a judge acting in a civil case. 61 Socrates HE 3.25.18. 62 Socrates HE 2. 2.3; 29. 130; Sozomen HE 4.6; Barnes 1993, 109. Epiphanius Pan. 71.1 provides the fullest details.

19

Ankara in the fourth century was also notorious for home-grown heresies.63 There had been Montanists in the city since the end of the second century. Several passages by fourth and early fifth century patristic writers decried the influence of these Montanist groups.64 The most eloquent is a highly rhetorical passage of Jerome in the preface to book II of his commentary on Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, which was inspired by Paul’s famous address to the ἀνόητοι Γαλάται (Gal. 3.1): Scit mecum qui vidit Anchiram metropolim Galatiae civitatem, quot nunc usque schismatibus dilacerata sit, quot dogmatum varietatibus constuprata. Omitto Cataphrygas, Ophitas, Borboritas et Manichaeos; nota enim iam haec humanae calamitatis vocabula sunt. Quis umquam Passaloryncitas, et Ascodrobos, et Artotyritas, et caetera magis portenta quam nomina in aliqua parte Romani orbis audivit? Antiquae stultitiae usque hodie manent vestigia. ‘Anyone knows what I mean who has seen the extent to which the city of Ancyra, metropolis of Galatia, has been utterly torn apart by schisms, and fouled by all manner of false dogmas. I pass over the Cataphryges, the Ophitae, the Borboritae and the Manichaeans in silence, for these are already well-known appellations of human calamity. But who ever heard of Passaloryncitae, Ascodrobi, Artotyritae and others, monstrosities rather than names, in any other part of the Roman world? Traces of their ancient stupidity remain until today.’ Jerome, Comm. in ep. ad Gal. II.3 praef. One Ankara gravestone, probably of the early sixth century, records the death of a Montanist apostolos from Pepuza, the sect’s Phrygian heartland (411).65 There was also a Novatian community in Ankara, whose church was closed down by the orthodox bishop Leontios in the reign of Arcadius around the turn of the fourth and fifth centuries.66 From an epigraphic perspective it is obvious from this summary review of Ankara’s fourth and early fifth century history that only the five texts relating to emperors provide a direct indication of the city’s standing within the eastern empire, and none of the surviving documents is informative about Ankara’s role during a highly contested period of ecclesiastical politics. The overwhelming majority of the inscriptions are funerary texts which provide a very different approach to Ancyran history in late antiquity. 63

For an overview of the rich and complex evidence, see Hofmann, forthcoming. Mitchell 1993 II, 93-4 and Mitchell forthcoming a) for the general picture; Mitchell 1982 and 2005 for Montanists. 65 Another late fifth or sixth century gravestone (378) has also been assigned to the Montanists but without good grounds. 66 Sozomen, HE 8.1. 64

20

The chronology of Ankara’s late Roman inscriptions As was the case with texts of the imperial period, published in volume one, the chronological distribution of these inscriptions is uneven. It is essential to evaluate the incidence and survival rate of inscriptions from different periods during the long time span from c. 300 to c. 1000, before these texts can be profitably used in combination with other forms of evidence as a source of historical information. It is harder to establish reliable dating criteria for inscriptions from the period between 300 and 600 than for those of the early Roman empire. About sixty (c. 19%) of the 314 inscriptions published in volume 1 contained information that allowed them be dated to within a year or two (see I. Ankara 1 p. 7-9). The proportion of exactly dateable texts in volume 2 is much smaller. The three imperial dedications to Constantine can be placed in 324 (329-331), the inscription for Julian in 362 (332), and the acclamation of Arcadius and Honorius between 395 and 402 (333). There is then a gap of more than half a millennium until the five inscriptions built into the south wall and towers of Ankara’s Byzantine citadel, which hailed its construction by the emperor Michael III and his protospatharius Basil in 859 (324-328). One funerary inscription is dated to the year 509 of the era of Ancyra, which began in 25 BC, and should be placed in 484 (365). Four other funerary texts which are dated by the day of the month and an indiction also mention a weekday, and this in principle allows the calendar date to be narrowed down, if not fixed. Inscription 411 could date to 465, 510, 555 or 600, and we would place it in 510; inscription 394 apparently belongs to 564; and the fragmentary inscription 414 to 424, 469, 514 or 569, of which the later dates seem more plausible. 502 is a middle Byzantine example which provides similar details, which imply that the text, on a pillar of the chirch of St Clement, should be placed in 976, 1027 or 1066, most probably the earliest of these dates. However these apparent fixed points are also highly uncertain. The reading of the indiction year in two of the inscriptions (394 and 414) is open to question, and in any case it appears that documents from late antiquity which recorded the coincidence of a weekday, a date in the month and an indiction year made mistakes in one case out of three.67 In the middle Byzantine period dating from the era of the Creation, which was calculated to have occurred in 5509/8 BC, became commonplace, and era dates are recorded in Ankara’s later inscriptions. One was the inscription which dates the construction of Ankara citadel by Michael III in 859, creation era 6367 (324). Funerary texts carved on the south wall of the old imperial temple, after its conversion for use as a church, appear to belong to creation era 6333 = AD 825 (497), creation era 6342 = AD 834 (498), and creation era 6505 = AD 997 (499). As noted, there are also arguments for dating the only funerary text in the St Clement Church to 976 (502). With these exceptions the only late Roman or Byzantine inscriptions from Ankara that can be accurately dated are the rare imperial texts.

67

Worp 1991. For the dating of late Roman inscriptions from Asia Minor in general, see Mitchell 2017b, 279-81, and from Galatia, see Mitchell, forthcoming a).

21

In consequence it is all the more important, but also more difficult, to establish an approximate chronology for the remainder, representing about 90% of the total number of texts. A significant category is formed by the inscriptions that relate to Ankara’s Late Roman fortifications. Inscription 315 bis appears to show that the walls were built in 277, and 316-319 belong to the same date. Three more building inscriptions were put up in the late third or early fourth century (320-322), and one in the reign of Justinian (323). There is a heterogeneous bunch of texts that documents other building activity, including two public inscriptions concerned with secular buildings, which probably date to the first half of the fifth century (334, 335), and a small number concerned with church building, or fixtures for churches, which might theoretically be placed at any period in the span from the fourth to the seventh centuries (338-343). Two sixth-century inscriptions served as boundary stones and related to asylum rights allocated to specific churches by Justinian (346, 346 bis). Three lengthy inscriptions, based on biblical exempla which advocated virtuous and charitable conduct as the essential condition for Christian salvation, are unique to Ankara and are best dated in the sixth century, perhaps to the second half (347-349). Apart from indeterminate fragments and some of the addenda to volume 1 (which date to the second and third centuries) all the other texts in this volume are funerary. Funerary practice from the third to the fifth century The Ankara epitaphs have been organized into three groups. The first consists of the inscriptions which should date to the early part of late antiquity, between c. 250 and 450. All but four of the fifteen texts in this section (350-364) are explicitly Christian. Two of the apparently non-Christian texts (351 and 364) are fragmentary small-scale grave monuments put up by Aurelii, and should probably be placed between 212 and the end of the third century. The other funerary inscriptions that lack Christian features are in verse, the epitaph of Leontius (362): [τ]ιµήεις µακάρεσ(σ)ι Λεόντιος [ἠδὲ βροτοῖσι], perhaps set up for a governor of Galatia in the second half of the fourth century, and the fragmentary verse epitaph 361, probably for a young woman.68 The remainder are identified as Christian by a range of criteria. 350 and 360 placed a small cross respectively at the beginning and end of the text, while 356, which may be fifth rather than late third or fourth century, supplemented the cross with the use of the widespread Christian grave formula ἐνθάδε κεῖται and was set up for his wife by a man with the typical Christian name Theodoulos. 358 for Gorgonia and 354 were preceded by a crudely engraved chi-rho sign, the Constantinianum. The same symbol was placed at the end of the anonymous gravestone 355.69 353, a small piece of broken marble wall cladding engraved by Aurelia Menandria as an epitaph for her three-year old son Alypios and his seven-year old sister Martha, shows its Christianity by the children’s nomenclature. Three of these epitaphs ended with invocatory formulas 68

The apparent allusion to pagan gods in 362 could be a conventional poetic element and is insufficient to establish beyond question that Leontios was not a Christian. The religion of 361 cannot be determined. 69 The superimposed chi-rho symbol already appeared on the gravestone of a third-century bishop from Phrygian Eumeneia: Αὐρ. Γλυκωνίδης ΧΡ ἐπίσκοπος (Buckler – Calder – Cox 1926, 73-4 no. 200; SEG 6, 201).

22

to the Christian God designed to protect the tomb from interference. 352 threatened that anyone who damaged the monument would be despised by God now and for eternity, κατάπθονον ἤτω πρὸς Θ(εὸ)ν καὶ νῦν καὶ ἰς τὸν αἰῶνα; 358 admonished potential tomb-robbers that they would have to deal with ‘God and his Christ’, ἔχῃ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν κὲ πρὸς τὸν Χρειστὸν αὐτοῦ; and the protector Ursinus invoked a similar threat that whoever disturbed the tomb of his newly-baptized son Paulus would reckon with God, ἕξι πρὸς Θεόν (359). Close or exact parallels for all these formulae appear on Christian funerary texts from the third century onwards, above all in Phrygia, Lycaonia and adjacent regions of central Asia Minor, but also in other parts of the Greek-speaking eastern Roman empire.70 A common feature of most of these texts is that they contained elements which were also found in pagan epitaphs of the middle and later Roman empire. These include the Aurelius names, which were most commonly used between 212 and c. 260, but appear to have remained current especially in central Anatolia until the mid-fourth century (350-353, 364), the consolatory tags εὐθύµει, εὐθένει· οὐδὶς ἀθάτος, which occur on the gravestone of the anonymous eighteen-year old (355), and the raised hands demanding divine justice and vengeance for a premature or violent death, which were a widespread feature of pagan epitaphs of Syria and Asia Minor in the second and third centuries (357). In the Ankara case, the hands of imprecation were placed on a text where Christian beliefs were made particularly explicit. The dead woman, Sophokleia, was described as λάτρις δὲ Θεοῦ ζῶντο[ς], servant of the living God, an expression that conveys the same sense as the widely used phrase δοῦλος / δούλη τοῦ Θεοῦ which occurs in later texts (see 356 comm.). Moreover, references to the living God were also found on third or fourth century texts, most notably in a version of the formula which concluded many epitaphs from the south Phrygian city of Eumenia.71 The term not only reflected New Testament usage,72 but also, in its Anatolian context, distinguished the Christian God from the ubiquitous false gods of paganism. It was not only God but the Christian community as a whole which was truly alive, in the sense of enjoying eternal life after death. The phrase πὰν ζῶσιν of another Ankara epitaph (354), although not readily paralleled, no doubt alluded to this blessed life of the Christian community, and Sophokleia’s epitaph also embodied the core concept of Christian belief in resurrection (357). References to mortal death as sleep before Christian awakening (κοίµησις) and to bodily resurrection (ἀνάστασις) were found in Christian epitaphs from the third century onwards (see 347 comm.), and both ideas were combined in 358, which may date to the fourth or early fifth century. The appeal or the address to the passer-by, which recurs in 355, 357, 358 and 359, was also a very common topos of pagan epitaphs, which owed its origin and continued use to the fact that most ancient necropoleis were placed along roads leading into or out of settlements. In the third and fourth centuries most Christian burials at Ankara took place in traditional civic burial 70

See in general Feissel 1980a. See Buckler – Calder – Cox 1926, 56-7 no. 175, 58 no. 177, 59-60 no. 179, 80-2 no. 204, 82-3 no. 205, 83 no. 206, 84 no. 208; SGO 3, 180: 16/06/03; BCH 17, 241 no. 1. Τhese ended with the clause ἔσται αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν ζῶντα θεόν. 72 2Cor. 3.3; Rom. 9.26; 1Tim. 3.15; Heb. 3.12; 10.31; 12.22; Rev. 7.2. 71

23

grounds, and were presumably interspersed with pagan family burials. The christogram that was crudely carved on a lintel slab is best interpreted as a later marker added to a built tomb, perhaps a hypogaeum resembling the two examples excavated near Ankara railway station.73 It indicated that the family had now become Christian (354). The archaeological evidence for Ankara’s Roman cemeteries is very limited. Jerphanion noted ruined burial chambers and other graves at the extreme north end of the railway station, and this observation appears to be confirmed by the discovery of seven built tombs, which were partially excavated in 1939 about 400 metres north-west of the railway station.74 They included at least two hypogaea, certainly belonging to wealthy families, which were marked as Christian by prominent painted christograms. The construction technique and the style of the frescoes suggest that both of them can reasonably be dated to the fourth century. 75 A single chamber tomb from the city’s north necropolis, which was uncovered during construction work in Çankırı Kapı Sokak, and which contained a re-used inscription of the third century, may also belong to this period.76 Grave monuments of the late fifth and sixth centuries The remaining funerary texts have been organised into two groups, respectively including the larger and smaller grave monuments that should probably be dated to the later fifth or sixth century. Most of these inscriptions conformed to a repetitive pattern. The first element was an introductory phrase corresponding to the Latin formula hic iacet, in normalized spellings ἐνθάδε κατάκειται, ἐνθάδε κεῖται, ἔνθα κατάκειται, and ἔνθα κεῖται, or to hic requiescit, which appeared frequently at Ankara in the form ἐνθάδε κεκοίµηται.77 This was followed by the name of the deceased, very often accompanied by the phrase ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ, and by another descriptor such as ὁ πάντων φίλος. The more elaborate inscriptions closed with a reference to the date by indiction year and day of the month at which the deceased’s earthly life had ended. Shorter texts often omitted this information. The dating formula was usually abbreviated and the details are sometimes hard to read and decipher. The reference to the indiction was rendered in full on one inscription (374) but usually shortened to ἰνδ. and sometimes further to ἰ(ν)δ. The normal rendering of the month was the abbreviation µη. or simply µ. followed by the month’s name in the genitive. According to classical Greek usage the abbreviation should be resolved as µηνός, in apposition to the month name, but in the few examples where the word was written out in full, the dative form µηνί occurs (374, 417, 504). The day of the month was generally indicated by a numeral, and a weekday was specified in four cases (394, 411, 414, 502). To avoid

73

See Peschlow 2015 I, 118-22 Jerphanion 1928, 225; Bittel – Schneider 1940, 595; Özgüç 1946, 620f. 75 See the introduction to Ch. 3.6 for details, and Peschlow 2015 I, 123-4. 76 Görkay – Kadıoğlu – Mitchell 2011, 239-40. 77 For the appearance of these phrases in the middle or at the end of Christian inscriptions, see 356 comm. 74

24

excessive repetition these resolutions have not usually been expanded in the apparatus to the Greek texts presented in this volume. As was usual in inscriptions and papyri of late antiquity, abbreviations within Greek texts at Ankara became increasingly common.78 Clerical offices, professions and honorific adjectives, such as λαµπρ(ότατος) in the secular hierarchy, and θεοφιλ(έστατος) in ecclesiastical contexts, were especially likely to appear in short forms. In extended texts, notably the three long theological inscriptions, the practice was largely confined to the nomina sacra: Θ(εό)ς, Κ(ύριο)ς, Ἰ(ησοῦς) Χ(ριστός). Abbreviations are rarely found in the verse texts, since these reproduced the metrical pattern of the original composition. The shortened form of the ἐνθάδε κατάκειται formula, ἐνθάδε κεῖται, occurred widely in pagan verse epitaphs because it made up the last two feet of a dactylic pentameter or hexameter, but it was much less common in prose funerary texts before it became standardized in Christian usage. There are two examples on the prose epitaphs of the second and third centuries at Ankara, those of Sergianus Longus a cavalryman, and of the brother Quintus and Lucius Valerius Valens, also mounted soldiers, all of whom served in the same unit, the cohors I Augusta Cyrenaica, which was largely recruited from Lycaonia and Isauria.79 Sergianus probably came from central Anatolia, and the two brothers were from the north Lycaonian city of Savatra. The region was one of the strongholds of early Christianity in Anatolia, and it is at least conceivable that the soldiers buried at Ankara were Christians.80 The notion that the dead were lying in repose, or sleeping, mirrored the Christian belief in resurrection. This belief had a growing impact on burial practice, and was expressed not only in the simplified and standardized epitaphs of the fifth and sixth century, but also in the manner and location of burial. The most usual format of the larger gravestones at Ankara in the late fifth and sixth centuries was a rectangular slab of marble, limestone or andesite, up to 1.70 in length and 0.75 in width, but rarely more than fifteen centimetres thick.81 The inscription was normally carved in a tabula ansata at the bottom of the slab. The field above might be occupied by a large cross, or several smaller crosses. But it could also be 78

Avi-Yonah 1940. I. Ankara 1, 184 and 185. 80 For Christians from Asia Minor serving in Roman units before the fourth century, see Drew-Bear 1981, 139-41, citing MAMA VI 358 from Phrygian Acmonia, a mid-third century Christian grave monument set up by Γάϊος καὶ Μηνόφιλος ἀπὸ σστρατειῶν, and MAMA I, 170 the sarcophagus of M. Iulius Eugenius, later bishop of Laodicea Catacecaumene, who had served on the staff of the governor of Pisidia, στρατευσάµενος ἐν τῇ κατὰ Πισιδίαν ἡγεµονικῇ τάξι, and was tortured during the persecution of Maximinus Daia. Drew-Bear 2009 has published another inscription for a Christian soldier of the later third century. 81 Most of the series of large rectangular grave covers of fifth or sixth century date were re-used, cut from the high rectangular bomoi which filled the public areas and cemeteries of the pagan city or from ashlar building blocks. Sometimes, as in 409, traces of this earlier use are detectable. 79

25

left blank or divided into panels culminating in a triangular pediment at the top. Apart from the crosses the only other form of decoration that appears on these tombstones was a rosette in a circle. The most significant feature of this design was the placing of the inscription at the bottom of the stone. This demonstrates that these slabs did not stand upright in the cemetery but served as horizontal grave covers. The inscription carried the essential message of the gravestone. If the stones had been placed upright a reader would have been obliged to crouch down or stoop to his knees to see what the text said. That would have been absurd. The stones must have been laid flat, so that the positioning of the inscription was optimal for a reader standing at the foot of the grave. Twenty-six of these larger funerary inscriptions used the burial formula ἐνθάδε κεκοίµηται, thus outnumbering the ten that began ἐνθάδε κατάκειται by a proportion of almost three to one. On the tiles and small monuments, the numbers are quite different: there are three or four examples of ἐνθάδε κεκοίµηται against forty-seven of ἐνθάδε κατάκειται.82 It is not easy to see an explanation for the Ancyran preference for the less usual formula, which translates the Latin hic requiescit,83 but its use may not simply have been a matter of imitative habit, but reflect a general instruction, or at least an expressed preference, by the senior clergy of the Ankara church. All these burials are likely to have been on consecrated ground in churchyard cemeteries, and all the examples for which findspots have been recorded lay outside the late Roman city walls. Intra-mural burial is not so far attested in late Roman Ankara. In physical terms the burial of a body in an extended supine position, beneath an ornate inscribed covering, represented the sleep of death that preceded resurrection, and the burial formula ἐνθάδε κεκοίµηται expressed this notion precisely.84 The more generic phrase ἐνθάδε κατάκειται could be applied to single inhumations, to multiple burials inside burial chambers, and to other interments. It appears that the burial grounds south-west of Ankara which have produced funerary texts of the second and third centuries as well as the fourth-century hypogaea, continued to be used in the fifth and sixth centuries. In 1929 K. O. Dalman noted Christian graves, including one of the large late fifth or sixthcentury grave monuments, in an ancient necropolis a short distance to the southeast of the railway station,85 and four large gravestones of this period had already

82

ἐνθάδε κεκοίµηται occurs only once in Galatia outside Ankara, at Germia (Walser 2013, 58 no. 37). 83 The Latin verb requiescit occurs on a Christian Latin gravestone of Ankara, apparently of pre-Constantinian date, I. Ankara 1, 68. 84 ἐνθάδε καθεύδη, the first words of the epitaph of the prominent and devout hegoumene Stephania (378), expressed the point even more clearly. This also was one of the large sixth-century grave monuments. 85 Dalman – Schneider – Bittel 1932, 250 recorded 397 and the earlier inscription for Ti. Cl. Tertullus (I. Ankara 1, 249). Dalman also noted that a large number of Christian graves, presumably cists, were found during the excavation of the pebbly deposits in this area.

26

been noted by Anderson in the same area.86 A significant number of the large grave covers of the fifth and sixth century may come from this south-west necropolis, which appears to have extended across the whole area of the railway station as far as the centre of the Maltepe district, on the east slopes of the hill where the Anıt Kabir, the mausoleum of Atatürk, was completed in 1953. In 2009 another part of this necropolis was uncovered during rescue work on the site of the architecture faculty of Gazi University. The excavation revealed the south-west corner of an enclosure made of brick, with an entrance in the west wall. Three interior rooms could be identified, the first two of which contained at least fifty-nine identifiable burials, with assorted but much damaged grave goods. These chambers also contained seven inscriptions or inscribed fragments, all to be classified among the small fifth and sixth-century grave monuments, six of them funerary tiles, the only examples to have been found in situ in Ankara.87 Architectural fragments were also found in a third room, which contained no skeletal remains, and their presence may indicate that the cemetery had a church or a chapel attached to it. These finds suggest that burials in the sixth century continued to be concentrated outside the city, although funerary practice had changed. It is likely that the large inscribed and decorated grave slabs of the type collected in chapter 3.7 were placed above cist graves of the type reported by Dalman, or as coverings for low rectangular tombs probably of brick or rubble and mortar construction. The small inscribed tiles or inscriptions carved on broken marble fragments may generally have formed part of tomb covers inside enclosed vaulted structures, like the recently excavated cemetery in Maltepe. The only burials at Ankara connected to intra-mural churches are those at the temple-church (497-501), and the epitaph of Kale in the St Clement Church (502), all dated to the middle Byzantine period. Churches, clergy and Christian institutions The funerary epigraphy of Ankara unsurprisingly implies that there were significant numbers of Christians in the third-century city, that numbers grew substantially in the fourth and early fifth century, and that by the later fifth and sixth centuries the population was exclusively Christian. However, by its nature almost all the evidence relates to burials and burial practice. It remains to be seen how far the physical and material aspects of the city and its institutions were transformed by Christianity during these centuries. Most of the epigraphic evidence for public buildings relates to the city fortifications, and it is significant that none of the building inscriptions of the third or fourth centuries (316-322) displays any Christian symbol, even though the latest of these may have dated to 86

377, 380, 390 and 403 were copied by Anderson ‘near the railway station’. Perhaps 371, found thirty minutes from the centre of Ankara in a cemetery at a location called Haci Abdul Pasha Çiftlik, also came from this area. 87 477-483. See Arslan – Aydin 2010, and ch. 3.5 introduction; further discussion in Peschlow 2015 I, 121-2.

27

the post-Constantinian period. By contrast, an inscription, which was probably placed above a city gate in the Justinianic period, conveyed an emphatic Christian message, describing Ankara as a city belonging to the Virgin Mary, and framing the words with crosses at the beginning and end of each line of the text (323). A major transformation had taken place between the earlier group and this text. Documents that were previously secular now became rigorously and explicitly Christian. Inscriptions for lay city benefactors were already prefaced by the symbol of the cross during the first half of the fifth century (335 comm.). There is no evidence for church building before 358, when Basil consecrated a new church, doubtless in the city centre, on the occasion of the synod of bishops who first formulated the Homoean creed.88 The middle years of the fourth century were notable for the consecration of major churches at other important imperial cities, for instance the great church at Antioch in 341, the Basilica Nova at Milan probably in or before 350, and pehaps the newly excavated church at Laodicea on the Lycus, which may have been built and consecrated on the occasion of the midfourth-century Council of Laodicea.89 Basil’s initiative fits into this pattern. At Ankara the apparently Montanist life of St Theodotus, perhaps written in the 360s, also mentions churches of the patriarchs and the fathers,90 and a Novatian church was seized by the city’s orthodox bishop Leontius, before he moved to become bishop of Constantinople in 403.91 Otherwise church building during the fourth century remains completely undocumented. By the 420s the Historia Lausiaca of Palladius, one of the key texts for the fifth-century Christian history of Ankara, referred not only to the city’s main cathedral church, but also to monastic and charitable establishments, including a hospice for travellers (xenodocheion), and a hospital (nosokomeion).92 Palladius’ near contemporary, St Nilus, also mentioned a Church of St Plato, Ankara’s most prominent martyred saint.93 The emergence and development of monastic institutions and their influence on the wider church was a notable development of the later fourth and early fifth centuries across Asia Minor.94 Leontius, the bishop of Ancyra who forced the Novatian church to close, had previously been a hermit in the Egyptian desert, and one of his fellows was Prapidius, who was to take charge of St Basil’s famous xenodocheion at Caesarea in Cappadocia.95 Palladius himself, who became bishop 88

See above n. 50. Şimşek 2015. The council of Laodicea has been variously dated between c. 340 and c. 380; see Huttner 2013, 294-6. 90 Mitchell 1982. 91 Sozomen HE VIII.1. 92 Palladius, Hist. Laus. 68 (main church and nosokomeion), 67 (xenodocheion). See Foss 1977, 52-5 with further references to the hagiographical literature and his list of ecclesiastical buildings on p. 61; Mitchell 1993 II, 110-1 and 114; and Mitchell forthcoming a) on Palladius. 93 Nilus ep. II, 178. For the name Plato in Ancyran nomenclature see the index, and below n. 126. 94 Destephen 2010a. 95 Sozomen HE 6.34.7: εὐδοκιµώτατος δὲ ὧν ἐπυθόµην τότε ἐγένοντο ἐνθάδε µοναχοὶ Λεόντιος ὁ τὴν ἐν Ἀγκύρᾳ ὕστερον ἐπιτροπεύσας καὶ Πραπίδιος. 89

28

of Aspona, a small town on the Galatian-Cappadocian border, and Nilus had also spent years of ascetic retreat in Egypt before emerging as influential figures of the Galatian church. Their influence can be seen on the behaviour of Ankara’s elite, especially on their female followers. Magna, who was the dedicatee of a work by Nilus on the renunciation of worldly possessions, founded a monastery for 2000 virgin nuns. The figure may be exaggerated but their numbers were evidently substantial.96 The first major impetus behind a growing monastic movement in central Asia Minor can be traced back to the middle of the fourth century, in particular to the example set by St Basil and his elder sister Macrina, but the full influence of this development on society at large first became apparent in the early part of the fifth century, when its impact is revealed by the stories of Palladius and the letters of St Nilus.97 The picture of widespread philanthropic action in Ankara under Theodosius II that is painted by Palladius is reinforced by a further source, the letter that was purportedly sent by the emperor Julian to the pagan high priest of Galatia, Arsacius, encouraging him to promote pagan philanthropic institutions which would compete with the offerings of the Christians, and promising an imperial subsidy to make this possible.98 Peter Van Nuffelen has shown that the letter is a forgery, probably of the mid-fifth century, and that its recommendations, rather than being a record of pagan action in the 360s, reflected Christian charitable practices in the age of Theodosius II. Some of these developments are reflected in Ankara’s epigraphy. There are late fifth or sixth-century gravestones for a hegumenos and priest, Leontius (371) and a hegumene Stephania (378), who would have been in charge of monasteries.99 96

Mitchell 1993 II, 109 and 114. See further Mitchell forthcoming a). 98 [Julian], ep. 22 (Wright, Loeb edition; 84 Bidez), 430b-c: ξενοδοκεῖα καθ̓ ἑκάστην πόλιν κατάστησον πυκνά, ἵν᾽ ἀπολαύσωσιν οἱ ξένοι τῆς παρ᾽ ἡµῶν φιλανθρωπίας, οὐ τῶν ἡµετέρων µόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλων ὅστις ἂν δεηθῇ χρηµάτων. ὅθεν δὲ εὐπορήσεις, ἐπινενόηταί µοι τέως. ἑκάστου γὰρ ἐνιαυτοῦ τρισµυρίους µοδίους κατὰ πᾶσαν τὴν Γαλατίαν ἐκέλευσα δοθῆναι σίτου καὶ ἑξακισµυρίους οἴνου ξέστας: ὧν τὸ µὲν πέµπτον εἰς τοὺς πένητας τοὺς τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ὑπηρετουµένους ἀναλίσκεσθαί φηµι χρῆναι, τὰ δὲ ἄλλα τοῖς ξένοις καὶ τοῖς µεταιτοῦσιν ἐπινέµεσθαι παῤ ἡµῶν. αἰσχρὸν γάρ, εἰ τῶν µὲν Ἰουδαίων οὐδεὶς µεταιτεῖ, τρέφουσι δὲ οἱ δυσσεβεῖς Γαλιλαῖοι πρὸς τοῖς ἑαυτῶν καὶ τοὺς ἡµετέρους, οἱ δὲ ἡµέτεροι τῆς παρ᾽ ἡµῶν ἐπικουρίας ἐνδεεῖς φαίνονται. ‘In every city establish frequent hostels in order that strangers may profit by our benevolence; I do not mean for our own people only, but for others also who are in need of money. I have but now made a plan by which you may be well provided for this; for I have given directions that 30,000 modii of corn shall be assigned every year for the whole of Galatia, and 60,000 pints of wine. I order that one-fifth of this be used for the poor who serve the priests, and the remainder be distributed by us to strangers and beggars. For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galilaeans support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us᾽(trans. Wright). For the date see Van Nuffelen 2002. 99 Other monasteries and convents at Ankara are recorded in literary sources; see Foss 1977, 61. 97

29

Another inscription of the same period marked the grave of Elpidius, a deacon attached to the poor-house (ptocheion) of the east Galatian city of Tavium (376). A later text, perhaps of the ninth century, carved on the interior wall of the temple of Augustus after it had been converted into a church, commemorated the ἡγούµενος Hyphatius (500). The later fifth and sixth-century Ankara inscriptions also reveal a full range of clergy, including a bishop,100 a country bishop (χωρεπίσκοπος, 339), a leading priest (πρωτοπρεσβύτερος, 368), about eleven priests (πρεσβύτεροι), including those attached to the churches of the Archangels and of the Saints,101 a deacon (διάκονος, 339), a subdeacon (ὑποδιάκονος, 377), a church-warden (παραµουνάριος, 379), and a grave-digger (κοπιάτης, 380).102 Society at Ankara Compared with around eighteen inscriptions which mention members of the clergy, a smaller number of the Ankara funerary texts names secular professions. These include a goldsmith who also owned camels (384), a silversmith who was also priest of the Church of the Saints (375), a linen-merchant (383), a marble worker (424), an official attached to the staff of the vicarius (433), and an infantryman (385). This tiny sample is in no way indicative of the range of professions and trades that would have been practised in the late Roman city, but it does at least evoke aspects of a vigorous urban economy that included textile production, construction work, fine metalwork and jewellery, and the transport of goods, as well as professional activity dependent on imperial administration. There is no mention of any profession involving food production, manufacture or sale, which doubtless made up the bulk of commercial activity in the city. Ottoman Ankara was famous for its textiles, which was especially based on the breeding of Angora goats for their fine wool (tiftik). A mid-fourth century source, the Expositio Totius Mundi confirms that fine clothing was Ankara’s most conspicuous item of trade, and the sobriquet Kalokokis, given to an Ancyran citizen of the fifth or sixth century (403), derived from the Greek word κόκκος, used for the crimson textile dye which came from the oak tree, quercus coccifera.103 Textile manufacture and trade, based on the province’s wool production, was the most important source of wealth in Ottoman Ankara, as may be seen from the 18th century painting of the city, which combines its topography with detailed and graphic representation of the cloth trade (see fig. 1). Upper-class Ancyrans of the fourth century, notably the members of the city council, did not aver to a profession and doubtless derived most of their income from the land. The clearest case in the correspondence of Libanius, the richest source of information about the fourth-century Galatian élite,104 was that of Maximus, who by 361 had retired from the city to supervise his country estates 100

416, for Olympius, ἐπίσκοπος Ιουατνων, bishop of Ivatna, a place that is not otherwise attested. 101 369-372 (of the Archangels), 373-375 (of the Saints), 381, 477, 479, 487. 102 For the wider context, see the study of Hübner 2005. 103 Exp. tot. mundi 41, negotiatur vestem plurimum; see Mitchell 1993 I, 146, and 403 comm. 104 Petit 1957, especially 129-33.

30

and enjoy the pleasures of hunting.105 During his active years he had been a champion of rhetoric and education, sponsored agones, and paid for public buildings, notably a nymphaeum.106 His wealth was in due course inherited by his son Hyperechius, who was to be killed when fighting for the cause of the usurper Procopius in 366. The richest Ancyrans may have owned property not only in Galatia but also in other provinces, as was the case with Aetius, who had an estate in Phoenicia.107 Τhe correspondence of Libanius shows that Ancyra was a significant educational centre in the fourth century. He himself spent two extended spells in the city, taught a large number of Ancyrans and claimed to value his Galatian students above all others: τοσαύτη παρ᾽ ἐµοὶ µνήµη τῶν ἐκ τούτου κρατῆρος πεπτωκότων, ἄλλως τε καὶ Γαλατῶν οἵς ἀεί τι παρ᾽ ἐµοῦ πλέον (Libanius ep. 358).108 The head of the Ancyran council at the time of Julian’s visit in June 362 seems to have been Bosporius, who undertook an embassy to Julian’s successor Jovian at the end of the following year.109 Some sixty years later Palladius told the story of the devout Bosporia, surely a direct descendant of Bosporius, who lived with her husband Verus, a former comes of the emperor, on their country estates and provided food for the poor in times of famine. In the pious spirit of the age of Theodosius II the couple disinherited their four sons, leaving only enough wealth in the family to provide dowries for their two daughters, while the rest of their estate passed to the church.110 It is hazardous to generalise from two examples, but the contrast between the behaviour of Maximus in the mid-fourth century and that of Verus and Bosporia in the second quarter of the fifth century is instructive, and it is certain that the ethos of many leading city families had changed over a period of two or three generations. Wealthy individuals in the fifth century, especially women, were choosing to give their money to the church or to monastic institutions, and it may not have been unusual for children to be disinherited or relatively impoverished in this way. This transformation in social and family traditions appears to be reflected in the epigraphy. The funerary inscriptions of the later fifth and sixth centuries only rarely mentioned other family members, and the exceptions were usually the tombs of young children buried by a parent.111 Instead the texts emphasized two non-familial relationships, by the phrases πάντων φίλος and δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ. The former occurs twenty-two times, and the latter seventy-six times on the late-fifth or sixth century tombstones, approximately 20% and 65% of the totals. The 105

Libanius, ep. 298. Libanius, ep. 1230 107 PLRE I, s.v. Aetius 2; Libanius, ep. 733, a testimonial to Aetius from Libanius’ Antiochene friend Obodianus; Foss 1977, 45. 108 See Mitchell forthcoming a) modifying Mitchell 1993 II, 84-8. 109 Libanius, ep. 756, 1444; see Foss 1977, 45. 110 Palladius, Hist. Laus. 96; Foss 1977, 52; Mitchell 1993 II, 109. See also inscription 360 for a married Christian woman who led a life of pious virtue. 111 As in the cases of Phocas, young son of the priest Georgios (373), Anthusa, daughter of the priest Longinus (381), the infant Nepion (?) buried by his parents (426), and Eupodi(u)s, son of Glykera (442). Ioannia, wife of Isidorus, seems to have been buried in a grave shared with her husband (395). Theodora (366) is an exception. 106

31

gravestones from other parts of Galatia displayed the δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ formula in a similar percentage of cases, but πάντων φίλος was much commoner at Ankara than elsewhere.112 These statistics call for some discussion. The use of the formula δοῦλος / δούλη τοῦ Θεοῦ (with occasional variations) was evidently standard across all communities in Galatia at this period. At the moment of death the majority of Christians humbled themselves and were presented as God’s slaves. The phrase was used both by clergy and lay persons. The concept can be traced back to third-century texts, notably in the common occurrence of Theodoulos and Theodoule as personal names used by Christians (see 356 comm.) but came to the foreground in sixth-century funerary epigraphy.113 The usage at Ancyra and in the other Galatian communities contrasts with the pattern that has been observed in the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, covering most of the late Roman Near East, which has recently been studied by Rudolf Haensch. There the term appears in 75 of around 1000 building foundation inscriptions and in most cases designated the person responsible for initiating (and often for financing) the building of a church. A small minority of these were themselves members of the clergy, but most were laity, and by definition persons of substance in their communities. Thus, paradoxically, this ‘humility formula’ came to serve as a way of drawing attention to the donor’s status as a pious benefactor (Haensch 2015). The Galatian examples, all from funerary texts rather than building inscriptions, undoubtedly draw attention to the subject’s piety, but not in such a way as to assert their social status. The relationship of servitude to God seems rather to efface the connections that linked men and women to their families. Only two of the simple prose epitaphs from Ankara evoked an affective tie between the dead and living persons, the gravestones of Plato, who may have been involved in the dyeing industry, who was described as ὁ παρὰ Θεοῦ κὲ ἀνθρώποις ποθητός (403), and of Ioannia, ἡ ἐν τῇ ἀστάτῳ ζώῃ γνησίως Ἰσιδώρῳ συνβιώσασα µ(έχρ)ι θανάτο (395). The latter formula pointedly contrasted the unstable and temporary nature of Ioannia’s marriage to Isidoros with the eternity that lay before her after death. The paramount memory that might be evoked by a life was that of piety, usually an attribute of members of the clergy. The phrase ὁ τῆς εὐλαβ(οῦς) µνήµης was twice applied to priests (370, 372), ὁ τῆς θεοφιλ(οῦς) µνήµης to a protopresbyteros, and the term θεοφιλεστάτη to a hegoumene. The dead person described as ὁ τῆς µακαρίας µνήµης may also have been a cleric (428). Τhe much commoner phrase πάντων φίλος was found on up to 20% of the Ankara gravestones. Twelve of these received large grave monuments, and they comprised a presbyteros and hegoumenos (374), two presbyteroi (374 and 375), a gravedigger (378), a linen-merchant (383), a goldsmith and camel-owner (384) and six others (391, 397, 398, 401, 408, 409). The remainder were commemorated by small monuments, usually tiles (430, 433, 442, 449, 454?, 455, 465, 470, 478, 490, 491, 493). Being a ‘friend of everyone’ might simply imply that a person was a valued member of the entire Christian community, but it seems likely that the essential point was for a friend of all to be a friend of the poor, and thus committed to an ethic of charity and poor relief. The first occurrences of this terminology in inscriptions are to be found in later second century epitaphs from Isauria, among 112 113

See Mitchell forthcoming a), Tafel 1. See 356 comm.

32

the earliest Christian inscriptions of Asia Minor.114 The three extraordinary inscriptions from Ankara which urged everyone to follow a life devoted to charitable good works, following examples set by great figures of the Old Testament and of Biblical tradition (347-349), were designed to instil and reinforce devout behaviour and charitable conduct. They imply that the community aimed to maintain standards of exceptional piety, continuing the examples set by leading members of the laity, whose charitable works were extolled in the Lausiac History of Palladius and who received the ethical guidance of the letters of St Nilus. It is of course inconceivable that wealth distinctions were really eradicated by this Christian ideology. The life of Theodore of Sykeon’s account of conditions of the later sixth century makes clear that the cities of central Asia Minor were still at least partly dominated by leading families with landed estates in the countryside.115 These included major property-owners from the imperial and senatorial aristocracy of Constantinople, who were specifically attested in an important sixth-century document from Hadrianopolis in Honorias, north-west of Ancyra.116 The text of the saint’s life mentions protectores and ktetores at Ankara. This terminology suggests a distinction between men who owed their status and wealth to military service for the Roman state and hereditary local land-owners.117 The texts of Ankara’s sixth-century funerary inscriptions provide no direct evidence for the wealth and social position of the deceased, but the larger grave covers, mostly made of marble or high quality limestone and designed to cover a single burial, were clearly designed for and used by the more prominent members of society, including all but one of the clergy, and most of those with named professions.118 Additionally three more extended funerary texts appear to have 114

MAMA VIII 162 (Dorla); Swoboda – Keil – Kroll 1935, 77 no. 162 and 83 no. 207 (Isaura). 115 Mitchell 1993 II, 127. 116 Feissel – Kaygusuz 1985, which was reprinted with an important correction in Feissel 2010, 223-50; (AE 1985, 816; SEG 35, 1360; Bull. ép. 1987, 474 [Feissel, Chron. 437]; Migliardi Zingale 1994, 196-8). Feissel 2010, 235 n. 28 convincingly alters the expansion of line 3, which reads µµγ. κ(αὶ) λλ. κτήτορ(σι), from µ(ε)γ(άλοις) κ(αὶ) λ(επτοῖς) κτήτορσι τo µ(ε)γ(αλοπρεπεστάτοις) κ(αὶ) λ(αµπροτάτοις) κτήτορσι, translating illustres/spectabiles and clarissimi. This makes clear that the landowners were from the élite, perhaps mainly resident in Constantinople. Note also Belisarius’s extensive property near Germia (see p. XXX n. 48). 117 Vita S. Theodori 45.1-4 for a group of protectores who brought Theodore to Ankara to end an outbreak of plague, 25 for the protector from Ancyra who married the saint’s mother, and 168 for an Ancyran ktetor, whose agent administered properties near Theodore’s village of Sykeon. Two protectores appear in the inscriptions, Limenius (336) and Ursinus (359). 118 The exceptions are 423 for a marble worker, carved on a piece of cladding doubtless from his own workshop, and two inscribed tiles: 433 for an official on the staff of the vicarius, and 477 for a priest who was buried in the recently excavated communal cemetery in Maltepe.

33

been carved on this type of monument: the poorly recorded verse inscription of 484 (365), the verse epitaphs in two versions for Lollianus (367), and the elaborate inscription for the devout Theodora (366). It is reasonable to assume that most of the other burials of this type were for the members of the upper class, who were wealthy enough to be able to claim an individual burial plot and to pay for a large decorated grave stone. Onomastics Naming practices in late Roman Ankara were eclectic and indicate the range and variety of influences to be found in a large provincial centre of the eastern empire. Celtic nomenclature, which was still an important part of Galatian onomastic culture in the mid-second century,119 had become extinct by the fourth century, although Celtic toponyms still survived and according to Jerome the Celtic language could still be heard spoken, at least in country districts. Regional patterns can, however, still be traced in the use of names in late Roman Asia Minor. Dadas, apparently in this case a woman’s name appearing in a third of early fourth century epitaph, is best interpreted as a Lallname which occurred especially in Phrygia (352). A soldier from an infantry regiment which was probably recruited from the Taurus region bore the name Tarasis, typical for Isaurians, and was certainly of south Anatolian origin. Isauria was the last region of central or western Anatolia where indigenous names survived under the Christian empire (385).120 On the other hand Ursinus, derived from ursus, Latin for a bear, was typical of the nomenclature of the militarized, mostly Latin-speaking society of the eastern Balkans, which produced soldiers and officers for the East Roman standing armies. The protector Ursinus at Ankara may be descended from this background (359). The Greek name Trophimos appears banal, but it was the most frequently occurring name of Roman and late Roman Phrygia, and therefore entirely characteristic for the apostolos from the Montanist centre of Pepuza, who was buried at Ankara (411). Apart from five gravestones for Aurelii (350-353, 364), and texts of the third or fourth century that name prominent officials, including provincial governors,121 none of the persons identified by the late Roman inscriptions of Ankara had the two or three names borne by holders of Roman citizenship in the preceding centuries. The same is true for all the Ancyrans of late antiquity named in literary sources, including the numerous Ancyran pupils and correspondents of Libanius,122 and the prominent church figures of the fourth century.123 119

The most recent discussion is by Coşkun 2013. Feissel 2012, 9-11. 121 Praetorian prefects: Fl. Constantius (329, 330), Saturninius Secundus (332); vicarius of Pontus: Lucilius Crispus (331); provincial governors: Aur. Dionysios Argaeinos (318, 319), Minicius Florentius (320), Florus (?) Hel… (321); a civic official: Ofellius Leontius (322). Inscriptions 506-543, which date to the second and third centuries but were not included in I. Ankara 1, have been excluded from this survey. 122 For Libanius’ Ancyran students, see Petit 1957, 118. 123 Compare the list of Marcellus’ followers cited p. XXX, n. 55. 120

34

Ancyrans of the second century had often used single Latin names.124 Latin or latinizing names continued to be used in modest numbers until the sixth century. Apart from Aquilina of Byzantium (386), the Ankara examples include Fortuna (445), Gaianes (439), Lollianus (367), Iulianus (377), Longina (494 ?), Longinus (381, 433), Lulianos and Lulia, which should be interpreted as popular versions of Iulianus and Iulia,125 Sancta (463), Severus (411, 465) and probably Severianus (477). Greek names inevitably predominated, although a significant proportion had the latinizing –ius/ios ending (often abbreviated to –is) which became especially prevalent after the third century: Alypius, Anastasius, Andragathius, Elpidius, Eugenius, Eupodius, Eutropius, Eutychius, Georgius, Leontius, Limenius, Patricius, Philastrius. Overtly Christian names were naturally favoured. The Theo- compounds form the biggest group: Theodora, Theodote, Theodotis, Theodoule and Theophania for women, Theodorakis, Theodoros, Theodoulos and Timotheus for men. From the Bible came Paulus (five times), Ioannes (five times), Stephanus (twice), Andreas, Ioannia, Maria (five times), Martha and Stephania (twice). The names Alypius (twice), Anastasius (five times) and Anastasia (twice), Cyriacus, Epiphania and Macaria were derived from central Christian concepts and virtues. The most popular saint’s name outside those found in the New Testament, was Platon (three times) alongside a Platonakis, and a female Platonis, named after Ancyra’s most famous martyr.126 Ananias (435), Conon (490), Cosmas (449), and Sisinnus (430) are also likely to have been named after saints. However, the secular world also provided onomastic inspiration. Girls were named after flowers, scents and sweet products: Anthia (425), Anthusa (381), Daphne (440), Glykera (442), Margarita (455), Melitine (457) and the more unusual Styrakis (466), named from the perfume which was produced from the liquidambar shrub. Nomenclature derived from pagan divinities was avoided for the most part, but two Ancyran girls were called Aphrodite (431) and Helene (417) respectively, presumably to evoke conventional female beauty. Moral qualities, represented by Sophia (406) and Sophrones (420), can be accommodated more easily with the prevailing Christian ethos.127 The name Synetos (467), ‘wise’, may be their masculine counterpart. Another group of names, also interestingly for women, related to office, status and power-holding in the Roman state: Hypatia (447), Lamprotate (451), and Sebaste (464), although the bearers of these names were all of modest status to judge by their unassuming tile grave monuments. The names Anicetus (383), Callinicus (339) and Karteria (396) embodied more generic qualities of martial prowess and 124

I. Ankara 1, pp. 18 and 160. See 393 comm. and 452. 126 For the life of St Platon, supposedly martyred in Ankara during the great persecution, see PG 115, 404-25, with further bibliography in Foss 1977, 33-5. 127 Compare the unusually elaborate funerary inscription for Theodora, who was praised for her sophrosyne (366). Styrakis was known as ἡ ὁλόκαλλος, no doubt in recognition of her virtue (466). 125

35

fortitude. The name Leontius (322, 362, 371), which was shared with the city’s bishop around 400 (see footnote 91), may have been chosen for the same reason. The Leo- derivatives Leonidas and Leonides had already been popular in second century Galatia.128 The practice of naming the deceased without reference to any relatives makes it unusually difficult to trace family relationships in the funerary epigraphy of the fifth and sixth centuries.129 Perhaps the Bosporus commemorated by a late fifth or sixth century tile (438) may have been linked in some way to Bosporius, leader of the Ancyra council around 362, or to his fifth-century descendant Bosporia (see above nn. 109-110). Since the name is unusual, a more confident link may be suggested between Agesilaus, Libanius’ host during two stays in Ankara in the 350s,130 and the Agesilaus who appears in a fragmentary fifth or sixth-century gravestone (382). The fifth- or sixth-century building inscription set up by the protector Limenius demonstrates that distinctive names continued to recur among close family, as his elder daughter was called Limenia, and his only son took his father’s name Limenius (338).

128

I. Ankara 1, 8 lines 35, 50 and 58, and 285. The name Leontius is twice attested in Christian inscriptions of north Galatia, RECAM II 158 and 171, and a disciple of St Theodore of Sykeon called Leontius was killed by the Persians around 623 (Vita S. Theodori 49). 129 See Destephen 2010b, 145-6. 130 Libanius, ep. 1444. Agesilaus’ two sons, Albanius and Strategius, were both pupils of Libanius; see Foss 1977, 44-5.

36

Fortress Ankara [Insert fig. 2 around here] After the middle of the third century Ankara became a walled city and a brief account of the late Roman and Byzantine fortifications will be found in chapter 3.1. The third-century defenses, which were enhanced and improved over the following centuries, enclosed the public buildings and presumably also most of the domestic housing areas of the earlier Roman city. In order to be strategically viable these fortifications must have included the acropolis of Ankara Kale. Their southern extent, however, remains wholly unknown.131 From the beginning of the fifth to the beginning of the seventh century there is no evidence on which to base a histoire événementielle of late Roman Ankara. A lengthy but damaged inscription refers to extensive rebuilding in the city, probably in the first half of the fifth century (334). The preceding destruction may have been due to otherwise undocumented hostilities - with Goths, Isaurians or other enemies - or to a natural disaster, such as a fire or an earthquake. Direct references in the life of Theodore of Sykeon make it likely that the first and greatest outbreak of the Great Plague struck Ankara in 542, and the pestilence probably recurred in the late 550s.132 It is conceivable, although unproven, that the multiple burials in the cemetery recently excavated on Maltepe were plague victims.133 An unprovenanced inscribed tile of the later fifth or sixth centuries records the death of a grieving woman, Nise, in the company of her mother and a group of unmarried contemporaries (492). This very unusual inscription might also document a mass burial in time of plague. But even if this could be assured, it reveals nothing about the plague’s long-term impact. The only major historical event that was related about the late Roman city was its fall to the Sassanian army under the command of Sharbaraz, probably in 622, which was documented by Greek and Syriac writers.134 Partial archaeological confirmation of this comes from a burnt destruction level in the main bath-house, dated by coins of the emperor Heraclius, but the implications of this are limited. Later coin finds on the site suggest that the bath house continued to be used, and there is no evidence for destruction elsewhere in the city at this date, however likely this is to have been.135 Subsequently between the seventh and ninth centuries Asia Minor was repeatedly subject to Arab raids and invasions, many of which followed the Roman and Byzantine roads across inland Anatolia and inevitably targeted Ankara. According to Arab sources the city was captured in 654, escaped after sieges in 776 and 797, but fell again to Caliph al-Mu’tasim in

131

See p. XXX and Peschlow 2015 I, 105-15. Vita S. Theodori 8 and 45. 133 Arslan – Aydin 2010. 134 Theophanes, Chron. (AD 619/20). The Syriac tradition dates the event to year 1 of the Hegira, AD 622/3. 135 See Foss 1977, 70-71; Peschlow 2015 I, 77-79 has drawn attention to the limitations of the archaeological evidence from the baths and argues that the burnt level in the bath house need not necessarily be connected with the Persian attack. 132

37

838.136 Meanwhile the Chronicle of Theophanes recorded that the emperor Nikephoros ‘founded’ the city in 804/5, which could but need not be interpreted as a reference to the repair or rebuilding of its fortifications.137 None of this activity can be archaeologically confirmed. Clive Foss has argued that the fall of Ankara to the forces of the Persian king marked a decisive break in its history.138 According to this hypothesis the city was now in ruins, and the wreckage of destroyed or abandoned buildings provided the building material from which the walls of Ankara Kale were constructed after the middle of the seventh century, perhaps precisely in the period 656-61. Paul Wittek and Marcel Restle had already used similar arguments to date the walls of Ankara Kale to the seventh century, and Foss’s reconstruction has been generally accepted. Thus the target of Arab attacks after the middle of the seventh century was no longer the old Roman city, but the new Byzantine citadel, which despite the supposed rebuilding of 804/5 proved vulnerable to the major campaign of the caliph al-Mu‘tasim.139 This disaster in turn led Michael III to undertake major reconstruction in 859, which is documented by a set of important inscriptions (324-8). However, the evidence in favour of this reconstruction is very slight. Small numbers of coins of the seventh to ninth centuries were recovered in the excavation of the bath-house, suggesting that it continued to be used at least at a modest level.140 Arab legends of the early ninth century appear to allude to the temple of Augustus and the so-called column of Julian, monuments of the late Roman city.141 This evidence suggests that the Roman city was not abandoned after the Persian destruction, but continued to be inhabited, and some of its outstanding monuments were still recognisable. In this volume we favour an alternative reconstruction, arguing that the inscriptions of 859 commemorated the original construction of the upper fortifications of Ankara Kale. In consequence the target of Arab attacks through the seventh and eighth centuries remained the old Roman city, which, though vulnerable, remained protected by the late Roman city wall. The fortifications were reinforced by Nikephoros in 804/5, but his measures proved insufficient to curb the attack of 838, which led in turn to Michael III’s radical decision to build the new citadel. Only then were the

136

Brooks 1898, 184-9 (654); Brooks 1900, 735 (776) and 741 (797); Marin 1951, 64-7 (838). 137 Theophanes, Chron. 6297, ed. Mango – Scott 1997, 660. 138 Foss 1975. 139 See Wittek 1932; Restle 1966; Foss 1977, 77-8. For further details see below p. xxx. 140 Foss 1977, 87; Arslan 1992; Peschlow 2015 I, 80. Lightfoot 2002, 233-5 also argues that the lower city of Ankara continued to be occupied after the seventh century. 141 Foss 1977, 77.

38

structures of Roman Ankara, including its cemeteries, systematically demolished or robbed out to provide building material for the new walls and towers.142 The building of the citadel initiated a new phase in Ankara’s history. At a date which cannot be determined another substantial fortification wall with towers and gates, the lower citadel or Dıs Kale, was built to enclose the area south and west of the upper citadel. Although there is no definitive evidence to support the hypothesis, all studies of Ankara’s Byzantine fortifications, including Peschlow’s new analysis (Peschlow 2015 I, 169-86), have reached the conclusion that the lower fortifications were built relatively soon after the upper citadel. It has been suggested that they might have been added as a reaction to an attack on Ankara by the Paulician rebels, who attacked Ancyra in 872 but may not have captured the city,143 but this is speculative. Dated inscriptions, perhaps from 825 (497) from 834 (498), perhaps 976 (502), and 997 (499), show that the church in the converted temple and the church of St Clement, which lay outside both sets of fortifications, were in use during the ninth and tenth centuries, and the temple church served as the burial place for the military commander of the the tourmarches, military commander of the Buccellarian Theme (501). The evidence speaks for a marked improvement in Ankara’s security and economic status during this period.144 [Insert fig. 3 around here]

142

This is the most natural interpretation of the inscriptions 324-328, which stressed the colossal ambition and engineering achievement of building the new citadel. See also Peschlow 2015 I, 255-8. 143 Genesius, On the Reigns of the Emperors (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 14, 86, 85-7), cited by W. Brandes in Peschlow 2015 I, 265 n. 68: δυσὶ δὲ χρόνοις παρελυσθεῖσιν ὁ Χρυσόχειρ ἐξῆλθεν σὺν τοῖς ἰδίοις στρατεύµασι µέχρις Ἀγκύρας τῆς πόλεως καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν Κοµµάτων, λαφυραγωγίαν ἑαυτῷ πολλὴν προσηκάµενος, καὶ ἐπάνεισιν, ‘two years later Chrysocheir made an expedition with his own forces as far as the city of Ancyra and the Kommata themselves, and withdrew, having acquired much booty for himself.’ 144 Foss 1977, 78-84.

39

2 Bibliography For a concise discussion of previous travellers and scholars who recorded and published inscriptions from Ankara, see I. Ankara 1, p. 39-45. All the dates in this book are AD unless otherwise indicated. Abbreviations Ala2004

Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity 2004 (http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/ala2004) AE Année Épigraphique Agora XVII Bradeen, D. W., The Athenian Agora. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. XVII: Inscriptions. The Funerary Monuments. Princeton 1974 AM Athenische Mitteilungen AEMÖ Archäologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Österreich-Ungarn AMMY Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Yıllığı Arch. Anz. Archäologischer Anzeiger AS Anatolian Studies BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Bull. ép. Bulletin épigraphique, published in REG CTh Codex Theodosianus, Mommsen, T. and Meyer, P. M. (eds.). Berlin 1905 CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum I (1828), II (1843), III (1853), IV (1859). Berlin CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum CJust Codex Justinianus DACL Dictionnaire d’Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie, 15 vols., Cabrol, F. and Leclercq, H. (eds.). Paris 1907-53 EA Epigraphica Anatolica EHR English Historical Review Feissel, Chron.Feissel, D., Chroniques d’épigraphie byzantine. Paris 2006 GIBM Greek Inscriptions of the British Museum GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies Grégoire, Recueil Grégoire, H., Recueil des inscriptions grecques chrétiennes d’Asie Mineure I. Paris 1922 I. Anazarbos Sayar, M. H., Die Inschriften von Anazarbos und Umgebung. Teil 1: Inschriften aus dem Stadtgebiet und der nächsten Umgebung der Stadt (IK 56). Bonn 2000 I. Ankara 1 Mitchell, S. and French, D. H., The Inscriptions of Ankara (Ancyra) I. From Augustus to the third century AD. Munich 2012 (Vestigia 62) IAph 2007 Reynolds, J., Roueché, Ch. and Bodard, G., Inscriptions of Aphrodisias (2007) (http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/iaph2007) I. Byzantion Łajtar, A., Die Inschriften von Byzantion (IK 58). Bonn, 2000 ICUR Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae I. Eph. AA. VV., Die Inschriften von Ephesos 1-8.2 (IK 11-17.4). Bonn 1979-84

40

I. Estremo Oriente

Canali de Rossi, F., Iscrizioni dello Estremo Oriente Greco. Un repertorio (IK 65). Bonn 2005 IG Inscriptiones Graecae IGBulg Mihailov, G., Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae, I, II, III.1, III.2, IV and V. Sofia 1959-1997 IGLN Inscriptions grecques et latines de Novae (Mésie inférieure). Bordeaux 1997 IGLS Inscriptions grecques et latines de Syrie IGRR Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes I (1901), III (1906) and IV (1927). Paris IGUR Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae I. Heraclea Pontica Jonnes, L. and Ameling, W., The inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica (IK 47). Bonn 1994 I. Ilion Frisch, P., Die Inschriften von Ilion (IK 3). Bonn 1975 I. Iznik Şahin, S., Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia) 1 (IK 9, 1979); 2.1 (IK 10.1, 1981), 2.2 (IK 10.2, 1982). Bonn IJO Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis I. Eastern Europe; Noy, D., Panayotov, A. and Bloedhorn, H. (eds.). Tübingen 2004 II. Kleinasien; Ameling, W. (ed.). Tübingen 2004 III. Syria and Cyprus; Noy, D. and Bloedhorn, H. (eds.). Tübingen 2004 IK Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien. Bonn I. Kalchedon Merkelbach, R., Die Inschriften von Kalchedon (IK 20). Bonn 1980 I. Klaudiupolis Becker-Berthau, F., Die Inschriften von Klaudiupolis (IK 31). Bonn 1986 ILBulg Gerov, B., Inscriptiones Latinae in Bulgaria repertae. Sofia 1989 ILS Dessau, H., Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae I. Pessinous Strubbe, J., Die Inschriften von Pessinous (IK 66). Bonn 2005 I. Philae Bernand, A., Les inscriptions grecques de Philae, 2 vols. Paris 1969 I. Philippi Pilhofer, P., Katalog der Inschriften von Philippi, 2. revised edition. Tübingen 2009 I. Prusias Ameling, W., Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium (IK 27). Bonn 1985 Iscr. agon. gr. L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche. Rome 1953 I. Scyth. Min. Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae, Bucharest II. Tomis et territorium; Stoian, I. (ed.). 1987 V. Capidava, Troesmis, Noviodunum; Dorutiu-Boila, E. (ed.). 1980 I. Smyrna Petzl, G., Die Inschriften von Smyrna 1 (IK 23, 1982), 2.1 (IK 24.1, 1987) and 2.2 (IK 24.2, 1990). Bonn I. Sultan Dag Jonnes, L., The Inscriptions of the Sultan Dagı. Part 1 (IK 62). Bonn 2002 I. Tyana Berges, D. and Nollé, J., Tyana. Archäologisch-historische Untersuchungen zum südwestlichen Kappadokien (IK 55), Bonn 2000 Ist. Mitt. Istanbuler Mitteilungen JIWE Noy, D., Jewish inscriptions of Western Europe II (Rome). Cambridge 1995 JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology JRS Journal of Roman Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies

41

LGPN LSA MAMA MEFRA Milet VI.3 Mon. Ant. New Docs Not. Episc. OB OMS PBSR PG PIR PL PLRE

PMZ RAC REG RECAM RIU RRMAM

Salona IV SEG SGO

Lexicon of Greek Personal Names I (1987); II (1994; second edition 2007); III.A (1997); III.B (2000); IV (2005); V.A (2010); V.B (2014). Oxford Last Statues of Antiquity (http://laststatues.classics.ox.ac.uk/) Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’École française de Rome; (since 1971 Mélanges de l'École française de Rome – Antiquité) Herrmann, P., Günther, W. and Ehrhardt, N., mit Beiträgen von D. Feissel und P. Weiss, Inschriften von Milet 3. Berlin 2006 Monumenti Antichi (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome) New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 10 vols. Sydney, 19762012 (vols. 1-5 by G. H. R. Horsley et al.; 6-10 by S. R. Llewellyn et al.) Darrouzès, H., Notitiae Episcopatuum Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. Paris 1981 (Géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire Byzantin I) Osborne, M. J. and Byrne, S. G., The Foreign Residents of Athens. An annex to the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names: Attica. (Studia Hellenistica 33). Leuven 1996 Robert, L., Opera Minora Selecta I-VII. Amsterdam Papers of the British School at Rome Patrologia Graeca Prosopographia Imperii Romani Patrologia Latina The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Cambridge I. A. D. 260-395; Jones, A. H. M., Martindale, J.R. and Morris, J. (eds.). 1971 II. A. D. 395-527; Jones, A. H. M., Martindale, J.R. and Morris, J. (eds.). 1980 Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit, Berlin 1999-2013 Abt. 1 (641-867), 6 vols Abt. 2 (867-1025), 8 vols Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum Revue des études grecques Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor, French, D. H. (ed.). London I: The Pilgrim’s Road (BIAA Monograph 3; BAR International Series 105; 1981)   II. 1-2: An Interim Catalogue of Milestones (BIAA Monograph 9; BAR International Series 392; 1988) III. 1-9: Roman Roads and Milestones, published by provinces (2012-16) IV.1 Notes on the Itineraria (2016) (http://biaa.ac.uk/publications/item/name/electronic-monographs) Gauthier, N., Marin, E. and Prévot, F. (eds.), Salona IV, Inscriptions de Salone chrétienne, IVe-VIIe siècles, Rome and Split 2010 Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Merkelbach, R. and Stauber, J., Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, 5 vols. Stuttgart 1998-2005

42

Sterrett, EJ

Sterrett, J. R. S., An Epigraphical Journey in Asia Minor during the summer of 1884. Boston 1888 (Papers of The American School of Classical Studies at Athens 2, 1883/84) Sterrett, WE Sterrett, J. R. S., The Wolfe expedition to Asia Minor during the summer of 1885. Boston 1888 (Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 3, 1884/85) SynaxCP Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae: Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris, Delehaye, H. (ed.). Brussels 1902 (repr. Louvain 1954) SB Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten Studia Pontica Anderson, J. G. C., Cumont, F. and Grégoire, H., Studia Pontica III.1. Brussels 1910 TAD Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi TAM Tituli Asiae Minoris TIB Tabula Imperii Byzantini IV. K. Belke, Galatien und Lykaonien.Vienna 1984 Tituli Aquincenses Kovács, P. and Szabó, Á., (eds.), Tituli Aquincenses I: Tituli Operum Publicorum et Honorarii et Sacri. Budapest 2009 TTAED Türk Tarih, Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi Zgusta, KP Zgusta, L., Kleinasiatische Personennamen. Prague 1964 ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik List of authors Akok 1955

Akok, M., Ankara şehri içinde rastlanan ilkçağ yerleşmesinden bazı izler ve üç araştırma yeri, Belleten 19/75, 1955, 309-29 Akok – Pençe 1941 Akok, M. and Pençe, N., Ankara istasyonunda bulunan Bizans devri mezarının nakli, Belleten 5/20, 1941, 617-22 Ameling 1985 Ameling, W., Lulia, ZPE 59, 1985, 185-6 Ameling forthcoming Ameling, W. (ed.), Die Christianisierung Kleinasiens in der Spätantike (Asia Minor Studien). Bonn forthcoming Amelotti – Migliardi Zingale 1985 Amelotti, M. and Migliardi Zingale, L., Le constituzioni giustinanee nei papiri e nelle epigrafi. Second edition, Milan 1985 Amigues 2007 Amigues, S., Le styrax et ses usages antiques. Journal des Savants, 2007, 2, 261-318 Anderson 1899 Anderson, J. G. C., Explorations in Galatia cis Halym, JHS 19, 1899, 52-134, 280-318 Anderson 1913 Anderson, J. G. C., Festivals of Men Askaenos in the Roman colonia at Antioch of Pisidia, JRS 3, 1913, 267-300 Andreiomenou 1968 Andreiomenou, A. K., Epigraphai Attikes-Eubioas, Arch. Delt. 23, 1968, 132-40 Anrich 1917 Anrich, G., Hagios Nikolaos. Der heilige Nikolaos in der griechischen Kirche, 2 vols. Berlin 1917 Arslan 1992 Arslan, M., Çankırıkapı kazısında bulunmuş olan şehir sikkeleri ışığında Ankara’nın önemi, Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Konferans 1991 Yıllığı, 1992, 35-87 Arslan – Aydın 2010 Arslan, M. and Aydın, M., Ankara Maltepe Kurtarma Kazısı, 19. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyomu, 2010, 305-26

43

Ateşoğulları 2006

Ateşoğulları, S., Ancyra/Engürü/Ankara’nın dış sur duvarı, in A. Erkanal-Öktü and E. Özgen (eds.), Hayat Erkanal’a Armağan. Kültürlerin Yansıması (Studies in honor of Hayat Erkanal. Cultural Reflections). Ankara 2006, 69-72 Avi-Yonah 1940 Avi-Yonah, M., Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions (The Near East, 200 B.C.—A.D. 1100). London 1940 Avram 2007 Avram, A., Some thoughts about the Black Sea and the slave trade before the Roman domination (6th-1st centuries BC), in V. Gabrielsen and J. Lund (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges, Aarhus 2007, 239-51 Aydın et al. 2005 Aydın, S., Emiroğlu, K., Türkoğlu, Ö. and Özsoy, E. D., Küçük Asya’nın Bin Yüzü: Ankara. Ankara 2005 Babinger 1923 Babinger, Fr., Hans Dernschwams Tagebuch einer Reise nach Konstantinopel und Kleinasien (1553/55). Nach der Urschrift im Fugger-Archiv, Munich and Leipzig 1923 Baillet 1926 Baillet, J., Inscriptions grecques et latines des tombeaux des rois ou syringes à Thèbes. Cairo 1926 Balla 1972 Balla, L., Kisázsiai legióveterán szarkofágja Szentendrén, Archaeologiai Értesítő 99 (1972), 228-31 Barbel 1941 Barbel, J., Christos Angelos. Die Anschauung von Christus als Bote und Engel in der gelehrten und volkstümlichen Literatur des christlichen Altertums (Theophaneia III). Bonn 1941 Barnes 1982 Barnes, T. D., The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge Mass. and London 1982 Barnes 1992 Barnes, T. D., Praetorian prefects 337-361, ZPE 94, 1992, 249-60, (repr. in From Eusebius to Augustine. London, 1994: ch. XIII) Barnes 1993 Barnes, T. D., Athanasius and Constantius. Theology and politics in the Constantinian Empire. Cambridge Mass. and London 1993 Barnes 1996 Barnes, T. D., The crimes of Basil of Ancyra, JTS 47, 1996, 55054 Barnes 2010 Barnes, T. D., Early Christian Hagiography and Roman History (Tria Corda. Jenaer Vorlesungen zu Judentum, Antike und Christentum, 5). Tübingen 2010 Barnes 2011 Barnes, T. D., Constantine. Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire. Malden, MA and Oxford 2011 Baslez 1989 Baslez, M.-F., Citoyens et non-citoyens dans l’Athènes impériale au Ier et au IIe siècles de notre ère, in S. Walker and Av. Cameron (eds.), The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire (BICS Suppl. 55). London 1989, 17-36 Battistoni – Rothenhöfer 2013 Battistoni, F. and Rothenhöfer, P., Inschriften aus dem Raum Keles und Orhaneli (Provinz Bursa, Türkei), EA 46, 2013, 101-165 Bauckham – Davila – Panayotov 2013 Bauckham, R., Davila, J. R. and Panayotov, A., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. More non-canonical scriptures. Grand Rapids 2013 Belayche 2005 Belayche, N., Hypsistos: une voie de l’exaltation des dieux dans le polythéisme gréco-romain, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 7, 34-55

44

Belley 1774

Belley, l’Abbé [Belleius], Observations sur l’histoire et sur les monuments de la ville d’Ancyre, en Galatie. Mémoires de littérature, tirés des registres de l’Académie royale des inscriptions et belles-lettres 37. Paris 1774, 391-418 Bent 1891 Bent, J. Th., A Joumey in Cilicia Tracheia, JHS 12, 1891, 206-24 Bequignon – Laumonier 1925 Bequignon, Y. and Laumonier, A., Fouilles de Téos (1924), BCH 49, 1925, 281-321. Bernard 1969 Bernard, É., Inscriptions métriques de l'Égypte gréco-romaine. Recherches sur la poésie épigrammatique des Grecs en Égypte. Paris 1969 Beševliev 1964 Beševliev, V., Spätgriechische und spätlateinische Inschriften aus Bulgarien. Berlin 1964 Bevan – Lehoux – Talbert 2013 Bevan, G., Lehoux, D. and Talbert, R. Reflectance transmission imaging of a ‘Byzantine’ portable sundial, ZPE 187, 2013, 221–29 Bittel 1942 Bittel, K., Kleinasiatische Studien. Istanbul 1942 Bittel – Schneider 1940 Bittel, K. and Schneider, A.-M., Archäologische Funde aus der Türkei im Jahre 1939, Arch. Anz., 1940, 554-96 Bittel – Schneider 1941 Bittel, K. and Schneider, A.-M., Archäologische Funde aus der Türkei, Arch. Anz., 1941, 285-94 Böttrich 2007 Böttrich, C., Melchisedek Naziraios. Beobachtungen zur apokryphen „Geschichte Melchisedeks“ (HistMelch), in J. Männchen (ed.), Mein Haus wird ein Bethaus für alle Völker genannt warden (Jes 56, 7). Judentum seit der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels in Geschichte, Literatur und Kult. Festschrift für Thomas Willi zum 65. Geburtstag. Neukirchen-Vluyn 2007, 17-38 Böttrich 2010 Böttrich, C., Weisheitliche, magische und legendarische Erzählungen: Geschichte Melchisedeks. Gütersloh 2010 Böttrich 2013 Böttrich, C., Die apokryphe „Geschichte Melchisedeks“ (HistMelch) als Teil der jüdisch-christlichen Melchisedektradition, in E. Tigchelaar, (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures (BEThL 270). Leuven 2013, 363-87 Bornovalı 2016 Bornovalı, S., Bir İtalyan Mimarın İlk Ankara Ziyareti: Giulio Mongeri – 1897 (An Italian Architect’s First Visit to Ankara: Giulio Mongeri – 1897), Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi (Journal of Ankara Studies) 4/2, 2016, 131-57 Bosch 1967 Bosch, E., Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ankara im Altertum (Turk. Hist. Soc., Publ. Ser. 7 no. 46). Ankara 1967 Bowersock 1969 Bowersock, G. W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford 1969 Breytenbach 2012 Breytenbach, C., Psalms LXX and the Christian Definition of Space: Examples based on Inscriptions from central Asia Minor, in J. Cook and H.-J. Stipp (eds.), Text-critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint. Leiden 2012, 381-94. Breytenbach 2013 Breytenbach, C., What's in the Name “Paul”? On Early Christian Inscriptions from Lycaonia, in P.-G. Klumbies and D. S. du Toit (eds.), Paulus – Werk und Wirkung. Festschrift für Andreas Lindemann zum 70. Geburtstag. Tübingen 2013, 463-77 Bringmann forthcoming Bringmann, K., Kaiser Julian auf der Reise durch

45

Kleinasien. Ein religiöser Erneuerer wird Zeuge einer sterbenden Relgion, in Ameling forthcoming Brooks 1898 Brooks, E. W., The Arabs in Asia Minor (641-750) from Arabic sources, JHS 18, 1898, 182-208 Brooks 1900 Brooks, E. W., Byzantines and Arabs in the time of the early Abbasids, EHR 15, 1900, 728-47 Broughton 1938 Broughton, T. R. L., Roman Asia Minor, in T. Frank (ed.), An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome IV. Baltimore 1938 Brubaker – Haldon 2011 Brubaker, L. and Haldon, J., Byzantium and the Iconoclast Era c. 650-850. A history. Cambridge 2011 Buckler – Calder – Cox 1926 Buckler, W. H., Calder, W. M. and Cox, C. W. M., Asia Minor 1924: III. Monuments from Central Phrygia, JRS 16, 1926, 53-94 Buckler – Calder – Cox 1928 Buckler, W. H., Calder, W. M. and Cox, C. W. M., Asia Minor 1924: V. Monuments from the Upper Tembris Valley, JRS 18, 1928, 21-40 Calder 1957 Calder, W. M., Review of Jalabert and Mouterde, Inscriptions de la Syrie IV, JHS 77, 1957, 337 Cameron 1976 Cameron, Al., The authenticity of the letters of St Nilus of Ancyra, GRBS 17, 1976, 181-96 Cameron 1978 Cameron, Av., The Theotokos in sixth-century Constantinople. A city finds its symbol, JTS 29, 1978, 79-108 Cameron 1979 Cameron, Av., The Virgin’s robe: an episode in the history of early seventh-century Constantinople, Byzantion 49, 1979, 42-56 Cameron ‒ Hall 1999 Cameron, Averil and Hall, S., Eusebius, Life of Constantine. Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Oxford 1999 Cassia 2009 Cassia, M., La piaga e la cura. Poveri e ammalati, medici e monachi nell’Anatolia rurale tardo antica. Rome 2009 Cassia 2011 Cassia, M., Fra atto evergetico e necessità difensiva: le mura di Cesarea in Cappadocia nel III secolo d. C., Mediterraneo Antico 14, 2011, 319-51 Chabot 1905 Chabot, J.-B., Le Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166-1199), III. Paris 1905 Chastagnol 1966 Chastagnol, A., Un gouverneur constantinien de Tripolitaine, Laenatius Romulus, praeses en 324-326, Latomus 25, 1966, 53952. (repr. in L’Italie et l’Afrique au Bas-Empire, études administratives et prosopograpiques. Scripta varia. Lille 1987, 279-96) Chausson 2002 Chausson, F., Une soeur de Constantin: Anastasia, in J.-M. Carrié and R. Lizzi-Testa (eds.) “Humana sapit.” Études d’antiquité tardive offerts à Lellia Cracco Ruggini. Turnhout 2002, 129-53 Choremi 2000-3 Choremi, E. A., Attikoi epitymbioi kioniskoi apo te bibliotheke Hadrianou, Horos 14-16 (2000-3), 177-88 Christof – Lafli 2014 Christof, E. and Lafli, E., Neue Transkriptions- und Übersetzungsvorschläge zu 43 Inschriften aus Hadrianopolis und seiner Chora in Paphlagonien, in H. Bru and G. Labarre (eds.), L’Anatolie des peuples, des cités et des cultures (II mill. av. J.-C. – Ve siècle ap. J.-C). Besançon 2014, vol. II, 127-70 Conti 2004 Conti, S., Die Inschriften Kaiser Iulians. Stuttgart 2004

46

Cooke 1998

Cooke, S.,The Monuments of Roman Ancyra reviewed (MA dissertation, Bilkent University). Ankara 1998 Corsten 2010 Corsten, T., Names in -ΙΑΝΟΣ in Asia Minor. A preliminary study, in R. W. V. Catling and F. Marchand (eds.), Onomatologos. Studies in Greek Personal Names presented to Elaine Matthews. Oxford 2010, 456-63 Coşkun 2013 Coşkun, A., Histoire par les noms in ancient Galatia, in R. Parker (ed.) Personal Names in Ancient Anatolia. Oxford 2013, 79–106 Cosson 1695 Cosson, D., Memoria Cossonia, hoc est D. Cossonii vita breviter descripta, ad Clarissimos & Amplissimos viros Petrum Cossonium Medicum et Joannem van der Bergh J. C. Cui annexa est nova editio monumenti Ancyrani priore Aug. Busbecquii et And. Schotti emendatior et auctior, cum notis Jac. Gronovii. Accedunt nonnullae inscriptiones ab eodem Cossonio collectae. Lugdunum Batavorum. Leiden 1695 Cross – Leiser 2000 Cross, T. M. and C. Leiser, A Brief History of Ankara. Vacaville, CA 2000 Cumont 1895 Cumont, F., Les inscriptions chrétiennes de l’Asie Mineure, MEFRA 15, 1895, 245-99 Cumont 1928 Cumont, F., Il sole vindice dei delitti, Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Ser. II, Memorie, I. 1, 1928, 65-80 Cumont 1933 Cumont, F., Deux monuments des cultes solaires, Syria 14, 1933, 381-95 Curbera 1996 Curbera, J. B., Two Greek Christian inscriptions from Spain, ZPE 110, 290-92 Çinici 2015 Çinici, D., The biography of Giulio Mongeri, an architect active in building the capital city Ankara, Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi (Journal of Ankara Studies) 3/1, 2015, 13-41 Dagron – Feissel 1987 Dagron, G. and Feissel, D., Inscriptions de Cilicie (Travaux et mémoires monographie 4). Paris 1987 Dain – Rouillard 1929/30 Dain, A. and Rouillard, G., Une inscription relative au droit d’asile conservée au Louvre, Byzantion 5, 1929/30, 315-26 Dalman 1933 Dalman, K. O., 1931’de Ankara’da Meydana Çıkarılan Asarı Attika, TTAED 1, 1933, 121-33 Dalman – Schneider – Bittel 1932 Dalman, K. O., Schneider, A. M. and Bittel, K., Archäologische Funde in Ankara 1931, Arch. Anz. 47, 1932, 233-61 Delehaye 1902 Delehaye, H., Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice Sirmondiano nunc Berolinensi, adiectis synaxariis selectis. Brussels 1902 Demirdelen 2000 Demirdelen, H., Balgat Roma mezarı, 10. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyomu [1999], 2000, 35-48. Denizli – Ateşoğulları – Esen 2003 Denizli, H., Ateşoğulları, S. and Esen, I., Ankara Roma Hamamı 2002 yılı kurtarma kazısı, AMMY 2002, 2003, 28-55 Destephen 2010a Destephen, S., Quatre études sur le monachisme asianique (IVeVIIe siècle), Journal des Savants 2010, 193-264

47

Destephen 2010b

Destephen, S., Familles d’Anatolie au miroir des MAMA, EA 43, 2010, 135-48 Destephen 2016 Destephen, S., Le voyage imperial dans l’Antiquité Tardive: Des Balkans au Proche-Orient, Paris 2016 Destephen – Métivier 2007 Destephen, S. and Métivier, S., Évêques et chorévêques en Asie Mineure aux IVe-Ve siècles, Topoi 15, 2007, 343-378 Dietz 1983 Dietz, K.-H., Caracalla, Fabius Cilo und die Urbaniciani, Chiron 13, 1983, 397-403 Di Segni 1995 Di Segni, L., The involvement of local, municipal and provincial authorities in urban building in late antique Palestine and Arabia, in J. H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East (JRA Suppl. 14). Ann Arbor 1995, 313-32 Di Segni 1999 Di Segni, L., Epigraphic documentation on building in the provinces of Palaestina and Arabia, 4th – 7th cent., in J. H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East II (JRA Suppl. 31). Portsmouth R.I. 1999, 149-78 Dobschütz 1900 Dobschütz, E. von, Der Briefwechsel zwischen Abgar und Jesus, Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie 43, 1900, 422-86 Dochhorn 2004 Dochhorn, J., Die Historia de Melchisedech (Hist Melch). Einführung, editorischer Vorbericht und Editiones praeliminares, Le Muséon 117, 2004, 7-48 Domaszewski 1885 Domaszewski, A. von, Inschriften aus Kleinasien, AEMÖ 9, 1885, 113-31 d’Orbeliani 1924 d’Orbeliani, R., Inscriptions and Monuments from Galatia, JHS 44, 1924, 24-44 Drew-Bear 1981 Drew-Bear, T., Les voyages d’Aurélius Gaius, soldat de Dioclétien, in La géographie administrative et politique d’Alexandre à Mahomet, Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 14-16 juin 1979. Leiden 1981, 93-141 Drew-Bear 2009 Drew-Bear, T., Un beneficiarius chrétien en Phrygie, in C. Wolff (ed.), L’armée romaine et la religion sous le Haut-Empire romain. Lyon 2009, 35-9 Drew-Bear 2012 Drew-Bear, T., Une inscription de Galatie mal comprise, in B. Cabouret et al., Visions de l’Occident romain. Hommages à Yann Le Bohec. II. Paris 2012, 787-91 Drew-Bear – Thomas – Yıldızturan 1999 Drew-Bear, T., Thomas, C. M. and Yıldızturan, M., Phrygian Votive Steles. Ankara 1999 Eck 2012 Eck, W., Review of I. Ankara 1, Bonner Jahrbücher 212, 2012, 470-77 Eck et al. 2015 Eck, W., Holder, P., Pangerl, A. and Weiß, P., Ein überraschendes Phänomen: neue Zeugen in zwei Diplomen für die Truppen von Moesia Inferior vom 11. Oktober 146, ZPE 195, 2015, 222-30 Elliott 1992 Elliott, T. G., Constantine’s Preparations for the Council of Nicaea, Journal of Religious History 17, 1992, 127-37 Elm 1994 Elm, S., Virgins of God. The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity. Oxford 1994 Elyıldırım – Yılmaz 2003 Elyıldırım, İ. and Yılmaz, S., Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Roma Hamamı açıkhava müzesinde bulunan

48

Bizans mezar odasının restorasyon ve konservasyon çalışması, AMMY 2002, 2003, 306-20 Eyice 1970 Eyice, S., ‘Ankara’nın eski bir resmi’, in Atatürk Konferansları 4, (Turkish Historical Society, publ. ser. 17.4) 1970, 61-124 Eyice 1991 Eyice, S., ‘Ankara’nın kaybolan bir eski eseri: Klemens kilisesi’, Ankara Dergisi 1/2, 1991, 5-12 Eyice 1996 Eyice, S., Bizans döneminde Ankara, Anadolu Araştırmaları 14, 1996, 243-64 Faraone 1991 Faraone, C., The agonistic context of early Greek binding spells, in C. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.), Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek magic and religion. New York 1991, 3-32 Farrington 1995 Farrington, A., The Roman Baths of Lycia. An architectural study (British Institute at Ankara Monograph 20). London 1995 Feissel 1977 Feissel, D., Notes d’épigraphie chrétienne II, BCH 101, 1977, 209-28 Feissel 1980a Feissel, D., Notes d'épigraphie chrétienne (IV). XI. Malédictions funéraires en Attique, BCH 104, 1980, 459-75 Feissel 1980b Feissel, D., Inscriptions byzantines de Ténos, BCH 104, 1980, 477-518 Feissel 1983 Feissel, D., Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de Macédoine du IIIe au VIe siècle (BCH Supplément VII). Paris 1983 Feissel 1984 Feissel, D., La Bible dans les inscriptions grecques, in C. Mondésert (ed.), Le monde grec ancien et la Bible. Paris 1984, 223-31 Feissel 1992 Feissel, D., Notes d’épigraphie chrétienne VIII, BCH 116, 1992, 383-407 Feissel 1998 Feissel, D., Gouverneurs et édifices dans les épigrammes de Smyrne au Bas-Empire, REG 111, 1998, 125-44 Feissel 2010 Feissel, D., Documents, droit, diplomatique de l’Empire romain tardif. Paris 2010 Feissel 2012 Feissel, D., Inscriptions of early Byzantium and the continuity of ancient onomastics, in J. K. Davies and J. J. Wilkes (eds.), Epigraphy and the Historical Sciences. Oxford 2012, 1-14 Feissel 2016 Feissel, D., Un nouveau duc syrien du VIe siècle aux environs d’Anasartha, Syria 93, 2016, 185-91 Feissel – Philippidis-Braat 1985 Feissel, D., Philippidis-Braat, A., Inventaires en vue d’un recueil des inscriptions historiques de Byzance. III. Inscriptions du Péloponnèse, Travaux et Mémoires 9, 1985, 267-395 Feissel – Kaygusuz 1985 Feissel, D. and Kaygusuz, I., Un mandement impérial du VIe siècle, Travaux et Mémoires 9, 1985, 397-419 (repr. in Feissel 2010, 223-50) Felle 2006 Felle, A., Biblia epigraphica: la sacra scrittura nella documentazione epigrafica dell’Orbis Christianus antiquus (IIIVIII secolo) (ICI Subsidia 5). Bari 2006 Ferrua 1994 Ferrua, A., Le iscrizioni antiche di Aquileia di G. B. Brusin, Rivista di archeologia cristiana 70, 1994, 161-80 Fıratlı 1951 Fıratlı, N., Ankara’nın ilkçağdaki su tesisatı, Belleten 15/59, 1951, 349-59

49

Fleuriot 1970

Fleuriot, L., Deux noms de Galates à Maronée, BCH 94, 1970, 667-8 Foss 1975 Foss, C., The Persians in Asia Minor and the end of Antiquity, EHR 90, 1975, 721-47 (reprinted in Foss 1990 ch. I) Foss 1977 Foss, C., Late antique and Byzantine Ankara, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31, 1977, 29-87 (reprinted in Foss 1990 ch. VI) Foss 1985 Foss, C., (tr. H. Brakmann) Ankyra, RAC Suppl. I ([1985] 2001), 447-66 Foss 1990 Foss, C., History and Archaeology of Byzantine Asia Minor. Variorum Reprints. Aldershot 1990 Foss – Winfield 1986 Foss, C. and Winfield, D., Byzantine Fortifications. An introduction. Pretoria 1986 Franchi de’ Cavalieri 1901 Franchi de’ Cavalieri P., I martirii di S. Teodoto e di S. Ariadne con un appendice sul testo originale del martirio. Rome 1901 French 1971 French, D., A sixteenth-century English merchant in Ankara, AS 22, 1971, 241-7 French 1992 French, D., Amasian notes 2, EA 20, 1992, 63-8 French 2003 French, D., Roman, Late Roman and Byzantine Inscriptions of Ancyra. Ankara 2003 French 2007 French, D., Inscriptions from Cappadocia II, EA 40, 2007, 67-108 Frend 1956 Frend, W. H. C., A third-century inscription relating to angareia in Phrygia, JRS 46, 1956, 46-56 Gager 1992 Gager, J. G. (ed.), Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from Antiquity and the Ancient World. Oxford/New York 1992 Gibson 1975 Gibson, E., A Unique Christian Epitaph from the Upper Tembris Valley, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrology 12.4, 1975, 151-7 Görkay 2006 Görkay, K., Ancyra’s unknown stadium, Ist. Mitt. 56, 2006, 24771 Görkay – Kadıoğlu – Mitchell 2011 Görkay, K., Kadıoğlu, M. and Mitchell, S., Roman Ancyra (trans. E. Keser-Kayaalp). Ankara 2011 Gounaropoulou ‒ Hatzopoulos 1998 Gounaropoulou, L. and Hatzopoulos, M., Epigraphes Kato Makedonias I. Athens 1998 Grandjean 1971 Grandjean, Y., Note sur une épigramme de Maronée, BCH 95, 1971, 283-94 Grégoire 1909 Grégoire, H., Notes épigraphiques, Revue de l’instruction publique en Belgique 53, 1909, 17 pp. Grégoire 1927/28 Grégoire, H., Inscriptions historiques byzantines. Ancyre et les Arabes sous Michel l’Ivrogne, Byzantion 4, 1927/28, 437-68 Grégoire 1929/30 Grégoire, H., Michel III et Basile le Macédonien dans les inscriptions d’Ancyre, Byzantion 5, 1929/30, 327-46 Grégoire – Orgels 1951 Grégoire, H. and Orgels, P., La passion de S. Théodote, œuvre du Pseudo-Nil, et son noyeau montaniste, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44, 1951, 165-84 Grierson 1973 Grierson, P., Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection III. Washington 1973 Grossi Gondi 1920 Grossi Gondi, F., Trattato di epigrafia cristiana latina e greca del mondo romano occidentale. Rome 1920

50

Grünewald 1990

Grünewald, T., Constantinus Maximus Augustus. Herrschaftspropaganda in der zeitgenössischen Überlieferung. (Historia Einzelschriften 64). Stuttgart 1990 Gruter 1707 Gruter, J. [Gruterus], Inscriptiones antiquae totius orbis Romani, in absolutissimum corpus redactae, olim auspiciis Ios. Scaligeri et Marci Velseri, industria autem et diligentia Iani Gruteri: Nunc curis secundis eiusdem Gruteri et notis Marquardi Gudii emendatae et tabulis aeneis a Boissardo confectus illustratae; denuo cura viri summi Ioannis Georgii Graevi recensitae. Accedunt adnotationum appendix et indices XXV.1. 1-2 and 2. 12. Amsterdam 1707 Grypeou – Spurling 2013 Grypeou, E. and Spurling, H., The Book of Genesis in Late Antiquity: encounters between Jewish and Christian exegesis. Leiden 2013 Habicht 1969 Habicht, C., Die Inschriften des Asklepieions. Altertümer von Pergamon VIII.3. Berlin 1969 Haensch 1997 Haensch, R., Capita Provinciarum: Statthaltersitze und Provinzialverwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz 1997 Haensch 2015 Haensch, R., Bescheidenheit ist eine Zier: Der Gebrauch der Demutsformel ῾δοῦλος Θεοῦ᾽ in den Kirchenbauinschriften der spätantiken Patriarchate Antiochia und Jerusalem, in A. B. Kuhn, Social Status and Prestige in the Graeco-Roman World. Stuttgart 2015, 315-39 Haldon 1997 Haldon, J., Byzantium in the Seventh century: transformation of a culture. Cambridge 1997 (revised edition) Halkin 1953 Halkin, F., Inscriptions grecques relatives à l'hagiographie, IX, Asie Mineure, Analecta Bollandiana 71, 1953, 74-99 Hamilton 1842 Hamilton, W. H., Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia, 2 vols. London 1842 Hansen 1996 Hansen, M. H., City-ethnics as evidence for polis identity, in M.H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub (eds.), More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis. Stuttgart 1996, 169-96 Hanson 1988 Hanson, R. P. C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian controversy 318-381 AD. Edinburgh 1988 Harper 2011 Harper, K., Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425, Cambridge 2011 Harrison 2003 Harrison, J. R., Paul’s Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 172). Tübingen 2003 Haspels 1971 Haspels, C. H. E, The Highlands of Phrygia. Princeton 1971 Hattenhauer – Bake 2012 Hattenhauer, H. and Bake, U. (eds.), Ein FuggerKaufmann im osmanischen Reich. Bericht von einer Reise nach Konstantinopel und Kleinasien 1553-1555 von Hans Dernschwam, mit einem epigraphischen Anhang von Patrick Breternitz und Werner Eck. Frankfurt am Main 2012 Heather – Moncur 2001 Heather, P. and Moncur, D., Politics, Philosophy and Empire in the Fourth Century. Select orations of Themistius. Liverpool 2001 Hofmann forthcoming Hofmann, D., ‘The hot-bed of heresies’. Häretische und

51

schismatische Bewegungen in Kleinasien, in Ameling (ed.), forthcoming Holder 1896 Holder, A., Altceltischer Sprachschatz I. Leipzig 1896 Holum 1982 Holum, K., Theodosian Empresses: women and imperial dominion in late antiquity. Berkeley 1982 Hübner 2005 Hübner, S., Der Klerus in der Gesellschaft des spätantiken Kleinasiens, Stuttgart 2005 Humann 1898 Humann, C., Altertümer von Hierapolis. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Ergänzungsheft. Berlin 1898 Huttner 2013 Huttner, U., Early Christianity in the Lycus Valley, Leiden 2013 Ivison 2000 Ivison, E., Urban renewal and imperial revival in Byzantium (730-1025), Byzantinische Forschungen 26, 2000, 1-45 Jacobs 2012 Jacobs, I., A tale of prosperity. Asia Minor in the Theodosian period, Byzantion 82, 2012, 113–64 Jacobs 2013 Jacobs, I., Aesthetic Maintenance of Civic Space. The classical city from the 4th to the 7th cent. AD. Leuven 2013 Jacopi 1936 Jacopi, G., Dalla Paflagonia alla Commagene : relazione sulla prima campagna esplorativa (settembre 1935-XIII - novembre 1935-XIV). Roma 1936 Jerome 1920 Jerome, F. J., Das geschichtliche Melchisedech-Bild und seine Bedeutung im Hebräerbriefe. Freiburg 1920 Jerphanion 1925 Jerphanion, G. de, Les églises rupestres de Cappadoce I. Paris 1925 Jerphanion 1928 Jerphanion, G. de, Mélanges d’archéologie anatolienne. Monuments préhelléniques, gréco-romains, byzantins et musulmans du Pont, de Cappadoce et de Galatie, Mélanges de l’Université St. Joseph 13, Beyrouth 1928 Jerphanion 1936 Jerphanion, G. de, Les églises rupestres de Cappadoce II. 1. Paris 1936 Jones 1964 Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire 284-602. A social, economic and administrative survey, 3 vols. Oxford 1964 (repr. in 2 vols. 1973) Jones 2009 Jones, C. P., New late antique epigrams from Stratonicea in Caria, EA 42, 2009, 145-51 Jones 2012 Jones, C. P., Inscriptions of Ancyra, JRA 25, 2012, 888-93 Kaibel 1878 Kaibel, G., Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibus conlecta. Berlin 1878 (repr. with a supplement, Hildesheim 1965) Kazarow 1931 Kazarow, G. I., Monuments de la Bulgarie septentrionale, JÖAI XXVII, 1931, Beibl., 115-24 Kaufmann 1917 Kaufmann, C. M., Handbuch der altchristlichen Epigraphik. Freiburg in Br. 1917 Keil 1953 Keil, J., Vertreter der Zweiten Sophistik in Ephesos, JÖAI 40, 1953, 5-26 Keil – Premerstein 1911 Keil, J. and Premerstein, A. von, Bericht über eine zweite Reise in Lydien. Vienna 1911 Kinneir 1818 Kinneir, J. M., Journey through Asia Minor, Armenia and Koordistan in the years 1813 and 1814; with remarks on the Marches of Alexander and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand. London 1818

52

Kiourtzian 1997

Kiourtzian, G., Le Psaume 131 et son usage funéraire dans la Grèce, les Balkans et la Cappadoce à la haute époque byzantine, Cahiers archéologiques 45, 1997, 31-39 Kirchhoff 1861 Kirchhoff, A., Inscriptiones Asianae Graecae et Latinae a Mordtmanno descriptae, Annali dell’Istituto 33, 1861, 182-89 Kolb 2000 Kolb, A., Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Römischen Reich. Berlin 2000 Körte 1900 Körte A., Kleinasiatische Studien VI, AM 25, 1900, 398-444 Koşay 1939 Koşay, H., Haberler. Ankara mabedindeki hafriyat 1939, Belleten 3, 1939, 463 Kramer 1978 Kramer, J., Vom Vulgärlatein zum Italienischen. Bemerkungen zu einer Stele aus Rom, ZPE 31, 1978, 291-4 Krencker – Schede 1936 Krencker, M., Schede, M., Der Tempel in Ankara. Berlin 1936 Kubińska 1994 Kubińska, J., L’évêque Firmianos de Zénonopolis et son aqueduc, Les études classiques 62, 1994, 169-75 Lambrino 1954 Lambrino, S., Q. Fuficius Cornutus, gouverneur de la Mésie Inférieure, Revue des études roumaines 2, 1954, 96-101 Laminger-Pascher 1992 Laminger-Pascher, G., Die kaiserzeitlichen Inschriften Lykaoniens. Faszikel I: Der Süden (Ergänzungsbände zu den Tituli Asiae Minoris 15). Vienna 1992 Laniado 2005 Laniado, A., La carrière d’un notable de Gaza d’après son oraison funèbre, in C. Saliou (ed.), Gaza dans l’antiquité tardive. Archéologie, rhétorique, histoire, Actes du colloque international de Poitiers, 6-7 mai 2004, Salerno 2005, 221-39 Laurent 1963 Laurent, V., Corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantin V: l’Église. Paris 1963 Laurent 1981 Laurent, V., Corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantin II. L’administration centrale. Paris 1981 Le Bas ‒ Waddington 1870 Le Bas, Ph. and Waddington, W. H., Voyage archéologique en Grèce et Asie Mineure 3. Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Asie Mineure. Part 5. Asia Minor. 1. Inscriptions grecques et latines. 2. Explication des inscriptions. Paris 1870 (reprint Hildeheim 1872 in 2 vols.) Lefebvre 1907 Lefebvre, G., Recueil des inscriptions gréco-chrétiennes d’Égypte. Cairo 1907 Lenski 2003 Lenski, N., Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century A.D. Berkeley, CA 2003 Le Quien 1740 Le Quien, M., Oriens Christianus 1. Paris 1740 (reprint Graz 1958) Leschhorn 1993 Leschhorn, W., Antike Ären. Zeitrechnung, Politik und Geschichte im Schwarzmeerraum und in Kleinasien nördlich des Tauros (Historia Einzelschriften 81). Stuttgart 1993 Lewin 1991 Lewin, A., Studi sulla città imperiale romana nell’oriente tardoantico. Como 1991 Lewis 2011 Lewis, D. M., Near Eastern slaves in classical Attica and the slave trade with Persian territories, Classical Quarterly 61, 2001, 91113

53

Lidov 2009

Lidov, A. M. (ed.), New Jerusalems. Hierotopy and iconography of sacred spaces. Moscow 2009 Liebeschuetz 2001 Liebeschuetz, W., The Decline and Fall of the Roman City, Oxford 2001 Lightfoot 2002 Lightfoot, C. S., Byzantine Anatolia: re-assessing the numismatic evidence, Revue numismatique 6e sér. 158, 2002, 229-39 Lilie 1976 Lilie, R., Die byzantinische Reaktion auf die Ausbreitung der Araber. Munich 1976 Lind 1955 Lind, L. R, Nine inscriptions and a Roman brick stamp in Kansas, AJA 59, 1955, 159-162 Macpherson 1958 Macpherson, I. W., New evidence for the Historical Geography of Galatia. Diss. Cambridge 1958 (unpublished) Magie 1950 Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor, 2 vols. Princeton 1950 Mamboury 1934 Mamboury, E., Ankara. Guide touristique. Ankara 1934 Mamboury 1949 Mamboury, E., Les parages du temple de Rome et d’Auguste à Ankara, TTAED 5, 1949, 96-102 Mango 1958 Mango, C., The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Cambridge, Mass. 1958 Mango 1995 Mango, C., Sépultures et épitaphes aristocratiques à Byzance, in Cavallo, G. and Mango, C. (eds.), Epigrafia Medievale Greca e Latina. Ideologia e Funzione. Atti del seminario di Erice (12–18 settembre 1991). Spoleto 1995, 99-117 Mango – Scott 1997 Mango, C. and Scott, R., The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813. Oxford 1997 Marek 1993 Marek, C., Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord-Galatia (Istanbuler Forschungen 39). Tübingen 1993 Marek 2000 Marek, C., Der Dank der Stadt an einen comes in Amisos unter Theodosios II, Chiron 30, 2000, 367-87 Marek 2003 Marek, C., Pontus et Bithynia. Die römischen Provinzen im Norden Kleinasiens. Mainz 2003 Marek 2004 Marek, C., Jesus und Abgar. Das Rätsel vom Beginn einer Legende, in T. Fuhrer, P. Michel and P. Stotz (eds.), Geschichten und ihre Geschichte, Basel 2004, 269-310 Marin 1951 Marin E., The Reign of al-Mu’tasim 833-842 (American Oriental Society 35). New Haven 1951 Markopoulos 1992 Markopoulos, A., An anonymous laudatory poem in honour of Basil I, DOP 46, 1992, 225-32 Masséglia 2013 Masséglia, J., Phrygians in relief: trends in self-representation, in P. Thonemann (ed.), Roman Phrygia. Culture and society, Oxford 2013, 94-123 Masson 1971 Masson, O., Quelques noms sémitiques en transcription grecque à Délos et à Rhenée, Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer, Paris 1971, 61-73 Masson 1981 Masson, O., Noms et surnoms de Grecs de Sicile, Sileno 7, 1981, 7-14. (reprinted in C. Dobias et L. Dubois (eds.), Onomastica Graeca Selecta. Université de Paris X-Nanterre, 1990 II, 379-86) Masson 1997 Masson, O., Nouvelles notes d’anthroponymie grecque, ZPE 119, 1997, 57–75

54

Matthews 1989

Matthews, J. F., The Roman Empire of Ammianus Marcellinus. London 1989 McLynn 2014 McLynn, N., Julian and the Christian professors, in C. Harrison, C. Humphries and I. Sandwell (eds.), Being Christian in Late Antiquity. A Festschrift for Gillian Clark. Oxford 2014 Mecella 2006 Mecella, L., Πάντα µὲν ἦν ἄναρχά τε καὶ ἀβοήθητα. Le città dell’oriente romano e le invasioni barbariche del III secolo d. C., Mediterraneo antico 9, 2006, 241-66 Meier 2003 Meier, M., Das Andere Zeitalter Justinians. Göttingen 2003 Meimaris 1986 Meimaris, I. E., Sacred Names, Saints, Martyrs and Church Officials in the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri pertaining to the Christian Church in Palestine (Meletemata 2). Athens 1986 Meimaris – Bakirtzis 1994 Meimaris, I. and Bakirtzis, C., Elenikes Epigraphes isteroromaikon kai palaiochristianikon chronon apo te dutike Thrake. Komotini 1994 Mendel 1914 Mendel, G., Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines et byzantines III (Musées Impériaux Ottomans). Istanbul 1914 Meyer-Plath – Schneider 1943 Meyer-Plath, B. and Schneider, A.M., Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel II. Berlin 1943 Migliardi Zingale 1994 Migliardi Zingale, L., Nuovi testi epigrafici, Legum Iustiniani Imperatoris Vocabularium (Subsidia IV). Turin 1994 Mihailov 1944 Mihailov, G., Griechische Epigramme aus bulgarischen Ländern, Jahrbuch der Universität des Heiligen Kliment von Ochrid in Sofia, historisch-philologische Fakultät 40 (1943/44), Sofia, 1944 Millar 2004 Millar, F., Christian emperors, Christian church and the Jews of the diaspora in the Greek East, AD 379-459, Journal of Jewish Studies, 2004, 55, 1-24 (repr. in Rome, the Greek World and the East vol. 3: The Greek World, the Jews and the East. Chapel Hill 2006, 457-86) Millar 2008 Millar, F., Rome, Constantinople and the Eastern Church under Justinian - two synods of CE 536, JRS 98, 2008, 62-82 Miltner 1937 Miltner, Fr. and H., Epigraphische Nachlese in Ankara. JÖAI 30, 1937, Beibl., 9-66 Mitchell 1977 Mitchell, S., R.E.C.A.M. Notes and Studies No. 1: Inscriptions of Ancyra, AS 27, 1977, 63-103 Mitchell 1982 Mitchell, S., The life of St Theodotus of Ancyra, AS 32, 1982, 93113 Mitchell 1988 Mitchell, S., Maximinus and the Christians in AD 212: a new Latin inscription, JRS 78, 1988 105-24 Mitchell 1993 Mitchell, S., Anatolia. Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, 2 vols. Oxford 1993 Mitchell 2005 Mitchell, S., An apostle to Ankara from the new Jerusalem. Montanists and Jews in late Roman Asia Minor, Scripta Classica Israelica 24, 2005, 207-23 Mitchell 2008 Mitchell, S., The Imperial Temple at Ankara and the Res Gestae of the Emperor Augustus. A historical guide. Ankara 2008 Mitchell 2010 Mitchell, S., Further thoughts on Theos Hypsistos, in S. Mitchell and P. Van Nuffelen (eds.), One God. Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire. Cambridge 2010, 167-208

55

Mitchell 2014a

Mitchell, S., Epigraphic display and the emergence of Christian identity in the epigraphy of rural Asia Minor, in W. Eck and P. Funke (eds.), Öffentlichkeit – Monument – Text. XIV Congressus Internationalis Epigraphiae Graecae et Latinae, Akten. Berlin 2014, 275-92 Mitchell 2014b Mitchell, S., The Trajanic Tondo from Roman Ankara: In search of the identity of a Roman masterpiece, Journal of Ankara Studies (Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi) 2, 2014, 1-10 Mitchell 2015 Mitchell, S., A History of the Later Roman Empire (second edition). Malden MA and Oxford 2015 Mitchell 2017a Mitchell, S., Two Galatian cults in Dacia, Gephyra 16, 2017, 1521 Mitchell 2017b Mitchell, S., The Christian epigraphy of Asia Minor in late antiquity, in K. Bolle, C. Machado and C. Witschel (eds.), The Epigraphic Cultures of Late Antiquity (Heidelberger Althistorische Beiträge Bd. 60). Stuttgart 2017, 271-86 Mitchell forthcoming a) Mitchell, S., Die Ausbreitung und Einbettung des Christentums in Galatien ab 325 n. Chr., in Ameling (ed.), forthcoming Mitchell forthcoming b) Mitchell, S., Dispelling Seleucid phantoms: Macedonians in Western Asia Minor from Alexander to the Attalids, in Erickson, K. (ed.), War within the Family. The first century of Seleucid Rule. Swansea forthcoming Mócsy 1964 Mócsy, A., Egy kisázsiai lovastiszt sírköve a Soproni Múzeumban, Archaeologiai Értesítő 91, 1964, 222-3 Mommsen 1872 Mommsen, T., Additamenta ad Corporis vol. III, Ephemeris Epigraphica II, 1872, 287-517 Mommsen 1884 Mommsen, T., Additamenta tertia ad Corporis vol. III, Ephemeris Epigraphica V, 1884, 1-104 Montfaucon 1708 Montfaucon, B. de [Montefalco], Palaeographica Graeca, sive de ortu et progressu literarum Græcarum, et de variis omnium sæculorum scriptionis Græcae generibus: itemque de abbreviationibus & de notis variarum Artium ac Disciplinarum. Additis figuris & schematibus ad fidem manuscriptorum codicum. Paris 1708 Mordtmann 1874 Mordtmann, J. H., Marmora Ancyrana. Diss. Berlin 1874 Motraye 1723 Motraye, A. de la, Travels through Europe, Asia into Parts of Africa, vols. 1-2. London 1723 Motraye 1727 Motraye, A. de la, Voyages en Europe, Asie et Afrique, vols. 1-2. The Hague 1727 Mouterde 1951-52 Mouterde, R., Antiquités de l'Hermon et de la Beqa', Mél. de l’Université Saint-Joseph 29, 1951-52, 19-89 Mouterde – Poidebard 1945 Mouterde, R. and Poidebard, A., Le limes de Chalcis. Organisation de la steppe en Haute Syrie romaine. Paris 1945 Muratori 1739-42 Muratori, L. A., Novus Thesaurus veterum inscriptionum, in praecipuis earundem collectionibus hactenus praetermissarum, collectore L. A. Muratorio 1-4. Milan 1739-42 Nicolas 1978 Nicolas, M., Le liquidambar de Turquie, in I. Başgöz and M. Glaser (eds.) Studies in Turkish Folklore in honor of Pertev Naili 56

Boratav (Indiana University Turkish Studies). Bloomington, Ind. 1978, 157-66 Niewöhner 2010 Niewöhner, P., Byzantinische Stadtmauern in Kleinasien. Vom Statussymbol zum Bollwerk gegen die Araber, in J. Lorentzen et al. (eds.), Neue Forschungen zu antiken Befestigungen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum und im Vorderen Orient (Byzas 10). Vienna 2010, 239-60 Niewöhner et al. 2013 Niewöhner, P. et al., Bronze age hüyüks, iron age hilltop forts, Roman poleis and Byzantine pilgrimage in Germia and its vicinity, AS 63, 2013, 97-136 Nollé 1988 Nollé, J., Epigraphische und numismatische Notizen, EA 12, 1988, 129-142 Nollé 1993 Nollé, J., Side im Altertum I. Bonn 1993 Nollé 2001 Nollé, J., Side im Altertum II. Bonn 2001 Nollé 2006 Nollé, J., Beiträge zur kleinasiatischen Münzkunde und Geschichte 5. An den Quellen des Mäanders: Gewässer, Mythen und Gottheiten von Kelainai – Apameia, Gephyra 3, 2006, 49– 131 Noordegraaf 1938 Noordegraaf, C., A geographical papyrus, Mnemosyne 6, 1938, 273-310 Ogden 1999 Ogden, D., Binding spells: curse tablets and voodoo dolls in the Greek and Roman worlds, in B. Ankerloo and S. Clark (eds.), Witchcraft and Magic in Europe. Ancient Greece and Rome. London 1999, 3-90 Öğüt – Şahin 1986 Öğüt, S. and Şahin, S., Katalog der bithynischen Inschriften im archäologischen Museum von Istanbul, EA 8, 1986, 109-28 Özgüç 1946 Özgüç, T., Untersuchungen über archäologische Funde in Anatolien, Belleten 10, 1946, 599-624 Özmen – Kocaefe 1999 Özmen, B. and Kocaefe, S., The seismicity and earthquake hazard of Ankara, International Workshop on Recent Earthquakes and Disaster Prevention Management (10-12 March, ODTU). Ankara 1999 Opitz 1935 Opitz, H. G., Athanasius Werke III.1. Berlin 1935 Oppenheim – Gaertringen 1914 Oppenheim, M. von and Gaertringen, H. von, Höhleninschriften von Edessa mit dem Briefe Jesu an Abgar, Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie zu Berlin 1914, 817-28 Orelli 1828 Orelli, J. K. von, Inscriptionum Latinarum selectorum amplissima collectio, ad illustrandam Romanae antiquitatis disciplinam accommodata 1, 2. Turin 1828 Osborne 1988 Osborne, M. J., Attic epitaphs – a supplement, Ancient Society 19, 1988, 5-60 Parkin 1992 Parkin, T. G., Demography and Ancient Society. Baltimore 1992 Parvis 2006 Parvis, S., Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy, New York 2006, 325-45 Peek 1955 Peek, W., Griechische Vers-Inschriften 1: Grab-Epigramme. Berlin 1955 Perdrizet 1922 Perdrizet, P., Negotium perambulans in tenebris. Études de démonologie gréco-orientale. Strasbourg 1922

57

Perrot – Guillaume – Delbet 1872

Perrot, G., Guillaume, E. and Delbet, J., Exploration archéologique de la Galatie et de la Bithynie, d’une partie de la Mysie, de la Phrygie, de la Cappadoce et du Pont exécutée en 1861 et publiée sous les auspices du Ministère de l’instruction publique 1, 2. Paris 1872 Peschlow 2015 Peschlow, U., Ankara. Die bauarchäologischen Hinterlassenschaften aus römischer und byzantinischer Zeit, I (Textband) and II (Tafelband), Vienna 2015 Peterson 1926 Peterson, E., ΕΙΣ ΘΕΟΣ. Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur antiken “Ein-Gott” Akklamation. Göttingen 1926 (repr. with additions and commentary by Christoph Markschies and others, Würzburg 2012) Petit 1957 Petit, P., Les étudiants de Libanius. Paris 1957 Petolescu 1996 Petolescu, C. C., Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae. Inscriptiones extra fines Daciae repertae. Bucharest 1996 Pflaum 1952 Pflaum, H.-G., La fortification de la ville d’Adraha d’Arabie (259/60 – 274/5) d’après des inscription récemment découvertes, Syria 29, 1952, 307-30 Picard 1920 Picard, Ch., Un texte nouveau de la correspondance entre Abgar d’Osroène et Jésus-Christ, gravé sur une porte de ville, à Philippes (Macédoine), BCH 44, 1920, 42-50 Popescu 1976 Popescu, E., Inscript̨ iile grecești și latine din secolele IV-XIII descoperite în România. Bucarest 1976 Porena 2003 Porena, P., Le origini della prefettura del pretorio tardoantica. Rome 2003 Preisigke 1925 Preisigke, F., Wörterbuch der Griechischen Papyrusurkunden: mit Einschluss der griechischen Inschriften, Aufschriften, Ostraka, Mumienschilder usw. aus Ägypten. Berlin 1925 Ramelli 2009 Ramelli, I., Possible historical traces in the Doctrina Addai, Hugoye, Journal of Syriac Studies 9 (2006), [publ. 2009], 51-127 Ramsay 1883 Ramsay, W. M., Inscriptions inédites de la Galatie et du Pont, BCH 7, 1883, 15-28 Ramsay 1897 Ramsay, W. M., The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia: Being an Essay of the Local History of Phrygia from the Earliest Times to the Turkish Conquest, Vol. 1,2: West and West-central Phrygia. Oxford 1897 Raubitschek – Davidson – Thompson 1943 Raubitschek, A., Davidson, G. R. and Thompson, D. B., Small Objects from the Pnyx I, Hesperia, Suppl. VII, 1943 Reddé 2000 Reddé, M., Legio VIII Augusta, in Y. Le Bohec (ed.), Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire. Lyon 2000, 119-126 Reinach 1890 Reinach, T., Inscriptions inédites d’Asie Mineure et de Syrie, recueillies par M. le Capitaine Callier (1830-1834), REG 3, 1890, 48-85 Reinartz 1964 Reinartz, M., Byzantinische Grabsteine in Alaca Hüyük, TAD 13.2, 1964, 118-21 Restle 1966 Restle, M., Ankyra, Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst I. Stuttgart 1966, 170-78

58

Rey-Coquais 2002 Rhoby 2014 de Ridder 1897 Rizakis 2011

Robert 1937 Robert 1939 Robert 1940 Robert 1948 Robert 1960 Robert 1963 Robert 1964a Robert 1964b Robert 1965 Robert 1973 Robert 1974 Robert 2007 Roes 1950 Roueché 1979 Roueché 1984 Roueché 1989 Roueché 1993 Roueché 2007

Rey-Coquais, J.-P., Noms de métiers dans les inscriptions de la Syrie antique, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 13, 2002, 247-64 Rhoby, A., Byzantinische Epigramme auf Stein (Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung 3.1). Vienna 2014 de Ridder, A., Inscriptions de Paros et de Naxos, BCH 21, 1897, 16-25 Rizakis, A. D., La diffusion des processus d’adaptation onomastique: les Aurelii dans les provinces orientales de l’empire, in M. Dondin-Payre (éd.), Les noms de personnes dans l’Empire romain. Transformations, adaptations, evolution. Paris 2011, 253-62 Robert, L., Études anatoliennes. Recherches sur les inscriptions grecques de l’Asie Mineure. Paris 1937 Robert, L., Inscriptions grecques d’Asie Mineure, Anatolian Studies presented to W. H. Buckler. Manchester 1939, 227-48 (= OMS I, 611-32) Robert, L., Hellenica I. Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques. Limoges 1940 Robert, L., Hellenica IV. Recueil d'épigraphie, de numismatique et d'antiquités grecques. Epigrammes du Bas-Empire. Paris 1948 Robert, L., Hellenica XI-XII. Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques. Paris 1960 Robert, L., Noms indigènes dans l’Asie Mineure gréco-romaine. Paris 1963 Robert, L., Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes. Paris 1964 Robert, L., Index des noms avec commentaires onomastiques, in N. Firatli et L. Robert, Stèles funéraires de Byzance. Paris 1964, 131-89 Robert, L., Hellenica XIII. Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques. Paris 1965 Robert, L., Sur des inscriptions de Délos, BCH Suppl. I. Études déliennes. Paris 1973, 435-66 (= Robert 2007, 471-99) Robert, L., Les inscriptions de Thessalonique, Rev. phil. 1974, 180-246 (= OMS V [1989], 267-333) Robert, L., Choix d’écrits, ed. D. Rousset. Paris 2007 Roes, A., Un bronze d’Asie Mineure au Musée Britannique, Syria 27, 1950, 221-8 Roueché, Ch., A new inscription from Aphrodisias and the title πατὴρ τῆς πόλεως, GRBS 20, 1979, 173-85 Roueché, Ch., Acclamations in the later Roman empire, Journal of Roman Studies 74, 1984, 181-99 Roueché, Ch., Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity (JRS Monograph 5). London 1989 (revised 2004 edition on-line http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/ala2004) Roueché, Ch., Performers and Partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and Late Roman Periods (JRS Monograph 6). London 1993 Roueché, Ch., Interpreting the signs. Anonymity and concealment in late antique inscriptions, in H. Amirav and R. B. ter Haar

59

Romeny (eds.), From Rome to Constantinople. Studies in honour of Averil Cameron. Leuven 2007, 221-35 Ruggeri 1997 Ruggeri, V., Guillaume de Jerphanion et la Turquie de jadis. Soveria Manelli 1997 Russell 1997 Russell, J., Two military inscriptions from southern Turkey, in E. Dabrowa (ed.), Donum Amicitiae. Studies in ancient history (Electrum 1). Kraków 1997, 175-91 Şahin 2008 Şahin, M. Ç., New inscriptions from Stratonikeia and its territory, EA 41, 2008, 53-81 Şahin 1991 Şahin S., Inschriften aus Seleukeia am Kalykadnos (Silifke), EA 17, 1991, 139-66 Şahin 1995 Şahin 1995, Bau einer Säulenstraße in Attaleia (Pamphylien) unter Tiberius - Caligula?, EA 25 (1995), 25-8 Sauciuc-Săveanu 1964 Sauciuc-Săveanu, Th., Pe marginea unei inscripţii funerare din Tomis, Studii si Cercetari de Istorie Veche 15, 1964, 137-8 Schaldach – Feustel 2012 Schaldach, K. and Feustel, O., Eine tragbare Sonnenuhr aus der Spätantike, Chronometrophilia 72, 2012, 71–82 Schallmayer et al. 1990 Schallmayer, E., Eibl, K., Ott, J., Preuss, G. and Wittkopf, E., Der römische Weihebezirk von Osterburken I: Corpus der griechischen und lateinischen Beneficiarier-Inschriften des Römischen Reiches. Stuttgart 1990 Schwartz 1959 Schwartz, E., Gesammelte Schriften 3. Berlin 1959 Seeck 1919 Seeck, O., Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr. Stuttgart 1919 Seferis 1973 Seferis, G., A Poet’s Journal 1945-1951 (English translation by A. Anagnostopoulos). Bloomington, Ind. 1973 Silvas 2005 Silvas, A., The Asketikon of Basil the Great. Oxford 2005 Şimşek 2015 Şimşek, C., Church of Laodikeia. Christianity in the Lykos Valley. Denizli 2015 Slabotsky 1977 Slabotsky, A., Some observations on SEG, 24, 1081, Studii Clasice 17, 1977, 117-38 Slusanschi 1988/89 Slusanschi, D., Tomitana Graeca, Pontica 21/22 (1988/89), 30511 Solin 1983 Solin, H., Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt. Eine ethno-demographische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustände, ANRW II.29.2, 1983, 587-789, 1222-49 Solin 2003 Solin, H., Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom I. Second edition, Berlin 2003 Stamiris 1942 Stamiris, G. A., Attische Grabinschriften, AM 67, 1942, 218-29 Stoian 1961 Stoian, I., Contribution à l'étude des tribus de Tomis, Studii clasice 3, 1961, 175-202 Stoian 1962 Stoian, I., Tomitana. Contribuţii epigrafice la istoria cetăţii Tomis, Bukarest 1962 Strobel 1980 Strobel, A., Das heilige Land der Montanisten. Eine religionsgeographische Untersuchung. Berlin and New York 1980 Sülüner 2005 Sülüner, S., The Citadel of Ankara. Aspects of visual documentation and analysis regarding material use (PhD thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara). Ankara 2005

60

Sulzberger 1925

Sulzberger, M., Le symbole de la croix et les monogrammes de Jésus chez les premiers chrétiens, Byzantion 2, 1925, 337-448 Swoboda – Keil – Kroll 1935 Swoboda, H., Keil, J., and Kroll, H., Denkmäler aus Lykaonien, Pamphylien und Isaurien. Prague 1935 Tabbernee 1997 Tabbernee, W., Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia. Epigraphic sources illustrating the history of Montanism (Patristic Monograph Series 16). Macon, Ga. 1997 Tabbernee 2007 Tabbernee, W., Fake Prophecy and Polluted Sacraments: ecclesiastical and imperial reactions to Montanism. Leiden 2007 Tabbernee 2011 Tabbernee, W., Prophets and Gravestones. An imaginative history of Montanists and other early Christians. Peabody, Mass. 2011 Tantillo 2014 Tantillo, I., Panegirici e altri ‘elogi’ nelle città tardoantiche, in G. Urso (ed.), Dicere laudes: elogio, comunicazione, creazione del consenso, Atti del convegno internazionale, Cividale del Friuli, 23-25 settembre 2010 (I convegni della Fondazione Niccolò Canussio, 10). Pisa 2014, 337-57 Temizsoy – Demirdelen 1999 Temizsoy, I. and Demirdelen, H., Balgat Roma mezarı, AMMY 1998, 1999, 24-52 Thomas – Witschel 1992 Thomas, E. and Witschel, C., Constructing reconstruction: claim and reality of Roman rebuilding inscriptions in the Latin West, PBSR 60, 1992, 135-77 Tinnefeld 2011 Tinnefeld, F., Review of Lidov 2009, Jahrbuch für Österreichische Byzantinistik 61, 2011, 270-2 Tjäder 1970 Tjäder, J.-O., Christ, Our Lord, born of the Virgin Mary (ΧΜΓ and VdN), Eranos 68, 1970, 148-90 Tocilescu 1896 Tocilescu, G., Neue Inschriften aus Rumänien, AEMÖ 19, 1896, 79-111 and 213-29 Tölle 1969 Tölle, R., Eine spätantike Reiseuhr, Arch. Anz. 1969, 309-17 Tournefort 1717a Tournefort, J. Pitton de, Relation d’un voyage du Levant fait par ordre du Roi, contenant l’histoire ancienne et moderne de plusieurs Isles de l’Archipel, de Constantinople, des Côtes de la Mer Noire, de l’Arménie, de la Georgie, des Frontières de Perse et de l’Asie Mineure. 1-2. Paris 1717 Tournefort 1717b Tournefort, J. Pitton de, Relation d’un voyage du Levant etc. 1-3. Lyon 1717 (a re-set print of the 1717 Paris edition) Tournefort 1718 Tournefort, J. Pitton de, Relation d’un voyage du Levant etc. 1-2. Amsterdam 1718 (a re-set print of the 1717 Paris edition) Treadgold 1995 Treadgold, W., Byzantium and its Army 284-1081. Stanford 1995 Trebilco 2002 Trebilco, P., The Christian and Jewish Eumeneian formula, Mediterraneo Antico 5, 2002, 63-97 Trypanis 1968 Trypanis, C. A., Fourteen Early Byzantine Cantica. Vienna 1968 Tuna – Buluç – Tezcan 2012 Tuna, N., Buluç, S. and Tezcan, B., ODTÜ Arkeoloji Müzesi – The METU Museum of Archaeology. Ankara 2012 Van Elderen 1972 Van Elderen, B., A new inscription relating to Christianity at Edessa, Calvin Theological Journal 7.1, 1972, 5-14 Van Nuffelen 2001 Van Nuffelen, P., Un monument de paix et de piété. Leuven 2001

61

Van Nuffelen 2002 Vanderspoel 1995 Vestergaard 2000 Waelkens 1977 Waelkens 1986 Wallner 2011 Walser 2013

Van Nuffelen, Deux fausses lettres de Julien l’Apostat (La lettre aux Juifs, Ep. 51 [Wright], et la lettre à Arsacius, Ep. 84 [Bidez]), Vigiliae Christianae 56, 2002, 131-50 Vanderspoel, J., Themistius and the Imperial Court. Oratory, civic duty and paideia from Constantius to Theodosius. Ann Arbor, Mi. 1995 Vestergaard, T., Milesian immigrants in late hellenistic and Roman Athens, in G. J. Oliver (ed.), The Epigraphy of Death. Liverpool 2000, 81-109 Waelkens, M., Phrygian votive and tombstones as sources of the social and economic life in Roman antiquity, Ancient Society 8, 1977, 277-315 Waelkens, M., Die Kleinasiatischen Türsteine. Mainz 1986 Wallner, C., Die Inschriften des Museums in Yozgat, Vienna 2011 Walser, V., Kaiserzeitliche und frühbyzantinische Inschriften aus der Region von Germia in Nordwestgalatien, Chiron 43, 2013, 527-619

Ward-Perkins 2015

Ward-Perkins, B., Four bases for Stratonikeia: a (failed) attempt to Christianize the statue habit, in A. Busine (ed.), Religious Practices and Christianization of the Late Antique City (4th-7th cent.). Leiden 2015, 179-87 Weigand 1932 Weigand, E., Review of Jerphanion 1928, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 32, 1932, 371-3 Welles 1938 Welles, C. B., The Inscriptions: Gerasa City of the Decapolis. American Schools of Oriental Research. New Haven, Conn. 1938 Wiegand 1908 Wiegand, T., Inschriften aus der Levante, AM 33, 1908, 145-60 Wiemer 1995 Wiemer, H.-U., Libanius und Julian (Vestigia 46). Munich 1995 Wilhelm 1937 Wilhelm, A., Akademieschriften zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde II. Leipzig 1937 Winter 2013 Winter, E., Zeitzeichen. Zur Entwicklung und Verwendung antiker Zeitmesser. Berlin 2013. Wittek 1932 Wittek, P., Zur Geschichte Ankaras im Mittelalter, Festschrift für Georg Jacob. Leipzig 1932, 329-54 Worp 1991 Worp, K., Remarks on weekdays in late antiquity occurring in documentary sources, Tyche 6, 1991, 221-30 Yegül 1992 Yegül, F., Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity. New York 1992 Zacos – Veglery 1972 Zacos, G., and Veglery, A., Byzantine Lead Seals 1. Basel 1972 Zuckerman 2002 Zuckermann, C., Sur la liste de Vérone et la province de Grande Arménie, la division de l’empire et la date de la création des diocèses, Travaux et Mémoires 14 (Mélanges Gilbert Dagron), 2002, 617-37

62

3 Inscriptions of Late Roman and Byzantine Ankara For the presentation of the inscriptions and the conventions that have been followed for the epigraphic texts, see the explanation provided in I. Ankara 1, 63-65. 3.1 The Fortifications of Late Roman and Byzantine Ankara The cityscape of modern Ankara is dominated by the magnificent fortifications of the citadel hill, especially by the closely spaced pentagonal towers of the western wall of the inner defences, the İç Kale, which rise east of Ulus and the centre of the Roman city, south-east of the temple of Augustus. These walls and towers, and the less massive fortifications of the outer enceinte, the Dış Kale, which enclosed a larger area on the western slopes of the citadel hill, belong to the Byzantine period. They were preceded by earlier, more extensive fortifications which defended the most important parts of the Roman city, including the hill where the temple stands, the large Roman bath-house of the early third century, and the grid of streets which stretched under the modern city through most of the Ulus area (see Görkay – Kadıoğlu – Mitchell 2011 and Peschlow 2015 I, 10515 for modern accounts of the archaeological remains). Excavations carried out on behalf of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations since 1990 have exposed important sections of this city wall. The better-known Byzantine fortifications have been the subject of several studies since they were first examined in detail by Père de Jerphanion in the 1920s. The results of these archaeological investigations need to be reviewed and related, as far as possible, to the inscriptions which are associated with Ankara’s fortifications. The Late Roman City Walls All the substantial archaeological traces of the late Roman city walls have been found in the north-west part of the Roman city around the edge of the large Roman bath and palaestra building complex. A forty-metre wall stretch running from north-west to southeast was excavated in 1947 beneath the site of hotel on the corner of Çankırı Caddesi and Çiçek Sokağı, to the north-east of the archaeological area (Akok 1955), and has been assigned to the late Roman circuit by Görkay and Kadıoğlu (Görkay – Kadıoğlu – Mitchell 2011, 207). Two further sections of wall, running from north to south to the south-west of the Roman baths, were identified in 1985, when the foundations of a printing house attached to the Turkish Prime Minister’s office were being excavated, and in 1999 during the construction of an office block and car park adjoining Maliye Meslek Sokak (the eastern continuation of Fuat Börekçi Caddesi). The results of the 1985 and 1999 excavations are summarized in Görkay – Kadıoğlu – Mitchell 2011, 209-11. Another section was excavated in 2002 in the area immediately south of the baths (Denizli – Ateşoğulları – Esen 2003; Ateşoğulları 2006). The foundations of these wall sections, which were about 2.60 metres thick, were largely made of re-used building material, including seats which probably came from a stadium, and it has been suggested that the imperial-period stadium was located in this part of the Roman city, perhaps running along the line of Maliye Meslek Sokak (I. Ankara 1, 54 comm.; Görkay 2006). The in-filling of the recently excavated wall sections comprised rubble and mortar opus caementicium (Görkay – Kadıoğlu – Mitchell 2011, 211-16). No finds from the excavations have been published which provide independent confirmation of a late Roman date, but the use of spolia and the construction technique strongly suggest the mid- or later third century, when the city’s public buildings were partly demolished to provide material for fortifications against barbarian threats from Rome’s Gothic and 63

Persian enemies, and they correspond with the epigraphic evidence for late third-century wall building that is presented in this chapter. The course of the rest of this third-century city wall remains almost entirely conjectural. The north-east section must have run from the excavated section found at the north-east side of the Roman baths to the northern foot of the citadel hill, certainly including the enclosure around the temple of Augustus. The citadel hill itself was surely included in the defences, although no remains either of the Roman city wall or of early imperial Roman buildings have yet been identified on the upper slopes of Ankara Kale. Görkay and Kadıoğlu suggest that the defences south of the citadel ran from the Atpazarı district as far as the Kurşunlu Camii before turning northwestwards. According to their reconstruction, the wall should have reached the modern Atatürk Bulvarı in the area of the main Ulus Post Office, and continued in the same direction across Cumhuriyet Caddesi as far as the intersection of Fuat Börekçi Caddesi and Rüzgarlı Caddesi, where it reached the wall section revealed by the recent excavations. Several inscribed bases were found close to the stretch of Atatürk Bulvarı roughly between the Ulus intersection and the Post Office, and were initially put on display along the boulevard, some of them perhaps close to their find spots (I. Ankara 1, 59, 65, 78, 82, 101, 117, 135, 187, 219, which was originally noted with I. Ankara 1, 29 in the foundations of the Ethnographic Museum, and 289). Note, however, that I. Ankara 1, 71, 148 and 268, which were also displayed in the same way along Atatürk Bulvarı, had previously been recorded in other parts of the city, respectively at the south gate of the Kale, the Temple of Augustus and the south-west corner of the Kale. Although their provenances were never properly recorded, Jerphanion correctly observed that some of these inscriptions may have been used as building material for a defensive wall: ‘Une partie de ces fragments avait été employée dans une construction, peut-être dans ce mur d’enceinte extérieure, vu encore par les voyageurs du XIXe siècle, et qui devait passer par là’ (Jerphanion 1928, 253). Jerphanion is here referring to the early seventeenth century Ottoman fortification, which is marked on the map of Roman Ancyra prepared by Görkay and Kadıoğlu, and which ran about 100 metres west of the boulevard (for the Ottoman wall see also Peschlow 2015 I, 251-5). This certainly included many spolia, including inscriptions (e.g. I. Ankara 1, 23, 36, 62, 69, 77, 79, and 87). The Ottoman wall may have been the source of the re-used inscribed blocks, but it is also possible that they derived from the late Roman city wall. One Ankara inscription, already published in the first volume of this corpus, has convincingly been associated with the late Roman city wall in all previous discussions. This is a damaged acephalous text, recorded by Busbescq’s party in 1555, first published in 1769, and regrettably never seen subsequently (I. Ankara 1, 120). The inscription reads

4

8

. . . . κὲ τοῦ Πολυείδου γυµνάσιον καθῃρηµένον ἐπισκευάσαντα κὲ συµπᾶν τὸ τεῖχος ἐν σιτοδείᾳ κὲ βαρβαρικα[ῖς] ἐφόδοις ἐκ θεµελίων εἰς τέλος ἀγαγόντα κὲ τὴν βουλογραφίαν ἐκ πολλοῦ κατ[αλε][λειµ]µένην µετὰ γου ἀκριβώ{σ}σαντα, [ἡ] βουλὴ κὲ ὁ δῆµος τῆς λαµπρ(ᾶς) µητροπόλ(εως) Ἀνκύρας κοινῷ δόγµατι

64

12

τὸν ἑαυτῶν ε[ὐεργέτην] κὲ τοὺ ἔθνους σωτῆρα.

‘… having built again the bath-house of the Polyeidon, which had been destroyed, and having brought the entire city wall from its foundations to completion during a foodshortage and barbarian attacks, and having carried out with exactitude a census of the council, which had been long neglected, the council and people of the famous metropolis Ankyra by a common resolution (honoured) their own benefactor and the province’s saviour.’ The barbarian invasions mentioned in the text were doubtless the Sassanian or the Gothic incursions which occurred during the third quarter of the third century. Sassanian attacks, which led to the capture of many cities in south-east Anatolia, occurred in AD 252 and 260, while Gothic raids affected central Anatolia in or soon after AD 262. The text honoured an unknown benefactor, no doubt an imperial official, who was responsible for building a defensive wall around Ankara from its foundations to completion, a major undertaking but one that was evidently accomplished in a short time in face of the perceived danger. The link between this inscription and Ankara’s third-century fortifications was already clearly seen and discussed by Bosch 1967, 353-5 no. 289, Foss 1977, 32, and Görkay – Kadıoğlu – Mitchell 2011, 205. In our commentary to I. Ankara 1, 120 we concluded that this inscription described the building of the extensive late Roman circuit, described above, which enclosed the central areas of the Roman city and should date to the 250s or 260s. In this volume we present several other third- or fourth-century inscriptions which certainly or probably refer to these fortifications. Five of the inscriptions (315 bis-319) relate closely to one another, and appear to refer to the original construction, which was also mentioned by the honorific statue base cited above (I. Ankara 1, 120), while four texts more probably indicate later additions and refurbishments (320-323). The poet Claudian also referred to the walls of Ancyra in 399 (In Eutrop. 2, 428, cited below in 333 comm.). 315 bis. Dedication to the emperor Gallienus in 267, probably from a city gate Location: Serving as a door lintel of a building on Ankara Kale. Description: ’Un blocco lungo cinque metri con un'iscrizione greca. Una sagoma consimile si trova sulla trabeazione ad attico dell'incantata a Tessalonica e data del 117128 ev. corrente’ (Mongeri). The photograph shows an entablature block, consisting of a three-fascia architrave below a ‘Pfeifenfries’ with broken projecting mouldings at the top. The block is broken at both ends. There is an inscribed imperial dedication in large letters on the upper fascia of the architrave, and the photograph suggests traces of illegible letters in the left-hand part of the middle fascia. The well formed monumental lettering includes lunate epsilon and sigma, and alpha with a straight bar. Omega has the classic not the lunate form. Dimensions: To judge by the figures in Mongeri’s photograph, the block was closer to three than to five metres long. Copy: Photograph taken by the Italian architect, Giulio Mongeri, in Ankara in 1897. 65

Publication: Bornovalı 2016, 150-51. This article concerns observations made by Giulio Mongeri, then aged twenty-four, during a stay in Ankara in 1897. Mongeri, from a Levantine family of Italian descent, subsequently became one of the main architects responsible for the design of public buildings in early Republican Ankara (Çinici 2015). [ - δηµαρχικῆς ἐξουσίας τ]ὸ · ιε´· αὐτοκράτορι τὸ γι´ ὑπάτωι τὸ ζ´ π̣(ατρὶ) π(ατρίδος) [ - ] [---] 1: The upper right quadrant of omicron can be seen at the left edge of the stone; Π or Η followed by Π at the line end. 2: the photograph seems to show unclear traces of a second line, in smaller letters, in the left-hand section of the second fascia.

Translation: … with tribunician power fifteen times, hailed imperator thirteen times, consul seven times, father of the fatherland, … Date: Between December 266 and December 267 (Gallienus, trib. pot. XV). Commentary: The only emperor whose imperial titles and offices correspond with the details of this text was Gallienus, who was consul for the seventh and last time in 266, hailed as imperator XII in 265 and imperator XV in 268, and held tribunician power for the fifteenth time for the year beginning on 16 December 266. This imperial dedication was doubtless carved in 267, and could be restored [Αὐτοκράτορι Καίσαρι Πουβλίῳ Λικιννίῳ Γαλλιηνῷ Εὐσεβεῖ Σεβαστῷ ἀρχιερεῖ µεγίστῳ δηµαρχικῆς ἐξουσίας τ]ὸ · ιε´· αὐτοκράτορι τὸ γι´ ὑπάτωι τὸ ζ´ π(ατρὶ) π(ατρίδος). For similar full titulature see the Latin imperial statue bases from Sabrata (IRT 50, 266: Im[p.] Caes. P. Licinio Gallieno / Pi Felici Aug. d. n. ponti/[fici maximo t]rib. pot. XIIII cos. / [VI designa]to VII p. p. procos.) and Lepcis Magna (IRT 456, 265: Imp.Caes. P. Licinio Gallieno Germanico Pio Fel. Aug pont. max. / Germanico max. trib. pot. XIII imp. XII cos. VI p. p. procos.) in Tripolitania. Major public construction of ornamental civic architecture was almost unheard of in imperial cities after the middle of the third century, and monumental buiding inscriptions from the later years of Gallienus’ reign can hardly relate to anything other than city fortifications. This entablature, like the smaller combined architrave and frieze block which carries inscription 316, must originally have been part of a public building in the city centre, which was demolished to provide building material for the city defences. The details of the carving are hard to make out in the old photograph but the deep cutting of the ‘Pfeifenfries’ would suit a late second or early third century date for the original construction. The dedicatory inscription was added when the block was re-used, almost certainly in close relation to a city gate. Inscriptions placed above the gateways of Roman defensive circuits in the third and fourth centuries invariably began with a dedication to the ruling emperor. The closest comparanda from Asia Minor for the fragment from Ankara are the dedication to Gallienus dated between 260 and 268 from Lamos (Adanda Kalesi) in Rugged Cilicia: Αὐτοκράτορι Καίσαρι Πουβλίῳ Λικιννίῳ | Γαλλιηνῷ Εὐσεβεῖ Σεβαστῷ | ἐπὶ Οὐοκωνίου Ζήνωνος τοῦ διασηµοτάτου | ἡγεµόνος καὶ ἐπὶ παιδείας τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος | τὸ ἔργον κατεσκεύασεν ἡ πόλις ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων | προνοίᾳ καὶ προστασίᾳ Μ. Αὐρ. Ταριανοῦ Ταµαννιος | τοῦ ἀξιολογωτάτου λογιστοῦ καὶ κτίστου τῆς ἰδίας πατρίδος (Mon. Ant. 23 (1914), 168 no. 116; SEG 20, 90), and the texts dated between 268 and 270 for Claudius 66

Gothicus, placed above the gateways of Bithynian Nicaea: Αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ Μᾶρκος Αὐρ. Κλαύδιος Εὐσεβὴς Εὐτυχὴς Σεβαστὸς ἀρχιερεὺς µέγιστος δηµαρχικῆς ἐξουσίας τὸ δεύτερον ὕπατος πατὴρ πατρίδος ἀνθύπατος τὰ τείχη τῇ λαµπροτάτῃ Νεικαίᾳ ἐπὶ Οὐελλ(είου) Μακρείνου τοῦ λαµπρ(οτάτου) ὑπατικοῦ πρεσβ(ευτοῦ) καὶ ἀντιστρατήγου τοῦ Σεβ(αστοῦ) καὶ Σαλλίου Ἀντωνίνου τοῦ λαµπρ(οτάτου) λογιστοῦ (I. Iznik 1, 11). Αὐτοκράτορι Καίσαρι Μ. Αὐρ. Κλαυδίῳ Εὐσεβεῖ Εὐτυχεῖ Σεβ(αστῷ), δηµαρχικῆς ἐξουσίας τὸ δεύτερον, ἀνθυπάτῳ, πατρὶ πατρίδος καὶ τῇ ἱερᾷ συνκλήτῳ καὶ τῷ δήµῳ τῷ Ῥωµαίων ἡ λαµπροτάτη καὶ µεγίστη καὶ ἀρίστη Νεικαιέων πόλις τὸ τεῖχος ἐπὶ τοῦ λαµπρ(οτάτου) ὑπατικοῦ Οὐελλείου Μακρείνου, πρεσβευτοῦ καὶ ἀντιστρατήγου τοῦ Σεβ. καὶ Σαλλίου Ἀντωνίνου τοῦ λαµπρ(οτάτου) λογιστοῦ (I. Iznik 1, 12). It is likely that the continuation of the Ankara text, which could have been on the smaller second fascia, where the photograph may show letter traces, referred to the dedicating body, probably the polis of Ancyra, and the imperial and civic officials responsible for overseeing the work. Variations on this pattern of dedication continued through the fourth century. The ruling emperors were similarly named on the Latin city gate dedication of Tropaeum Traiani to Constantine and Licinius between 315 and 317 (CIL III 13734; ILS 8938; Popescu 1976, 170: Romanae securitatis libertatisq. vindicibus / d. n. Fl. Val. Constantino et [[Liciniano / Licinio]] piis felicibus aeternis Aug. / quorum virtute et providentia edomitis / ubique barbarum gentium populis / ad confirmandam limitis tutelam etiam / Tropaeensium civitas auspicato a fundamentis / feliciter opere constructa est. / Petr. Annianus v. c. et Iul. Iulianus v. em. / praef. praet. numini eorum semper dicatisssimus), on the west gate of Aphrodisias to Constantius and Julian between 355 and 360 (Ala2004, 19: ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ · / ὑπὲρ ὑγιείας καὶ σωτηρίας [τύ]χης καὶ νίκης / καὶ αἰωνίου διαµονῆς τῶν δεσποτ̣ῶν ἡµῶν / Φλ. Ἰουλ. Κωνσταντίου εὐσεβοῦς ἀηττήτου Σεβαστοῦ καὶ / [[Φλ. Κλ. Ἰουλιανοῦ]] ἐπιφανεστάτου καὶ γενναιοτάτ[ο]υ Καίσαρος / Φλ. Κυιντ(ίλιος) Ἔρως Μονάξιος ὁ διασηµότατος ἡγεµὼν / καὶ ἀπὸ Κρηταρχῶν τὸν Π̣[ - c.8- - ἐκ θ]εµελίων τῇ λ[αµ]πρᾷ / καὶ συγγενεῖ Κρητῶν [µητροπόλει τῶν Ἀφροδεισιέων?] / κατεσκεύ[ασεν ]), and in the inscription marking the dedication of the walls of Diocaesareia in Rugged Cilicia to Honorius and Arcadius between 395 and 402 (MAMA III 71: ἐπὶ τῆς εὐτυχεστάτης βασιλείας τῶ[ν δ]εσποτῶν τῆς οἰκ[ουµέ]/νης Φλ. Ἀρκαδίου κὲ Φλ. Ὁνορίου τῶν ἐ[νίων] [Α]ὐγ(ούστων) τὸ πᾶν ἔργον / τὸ ὑπ[ὲρ] τ[ι]µῆς Διοκεσαρέων ἐγ θεµελίου ἐπικατεσσκευ[ά]σθη̣ / ἄρχο[ν]τος τοῦ λανπρ(οτάτου) κὴ θµασιοτάτου κόµητος πρ[ώτου τάγ]µ(ατος) / κὴ δουκ[ὸ]ς̣ [Ἰσαυρία] Φλ. Λεοντ[ίου]). In contrast, inscriptions relating to the construction of individual towers or specific wall sections often omitted to mention the emperors, as may be seen in the case of the Ankara inscriptions considered below.   316. Building inscription by a provincial governor for the third-century city wall Location: Built upside down into the sixth course of tower 2 of the west side of the İç Kale. Description: White marble architrave. ‘A complete section of architrave in grey limestone’ (d’Orbeliani). The stone appears to be complete at both ends, and there is no evidence, therefore, that there was more text at the end of the first or at the beginning of the second line, as has been assumed in previous editions, although an imperial dedication doubtless appeared on another stone placed above this text.

67

Dimensions: Height 0.72; width 2.30; tall and slim letters c. 0.07; the last two letters in line 1 are smaller than the rest. ‘Height 29 inches; length 7 feet 10 inches’ (d’Orbeliani). Copy: Tournefort 1701; d’Orbeliani 1916-20; Jerphanion 1925-27; SM 1977 and 20.06.2004. Publication: Montfaucon 1708, 164 no. 16: text from copy of Tournefort; (CIG III 4053: ‘ex schedis Tournefort’, reversing the order of the lines); d’Orbeliani 1924, 39 no. 57 and fig. 28; Jerphanion 1928, 232 no. 4 and fig. 24; (SEG 6, 65); Bosch 1967, 353 no. 290. [[ - - - - - c. 20 - - - - - ]] τοῦ λαµπρ. ἡγεµόνος ἀρξαµένου συνπληρώσαντος κὲ ἀφιερώσαντος τῇ µητροπόλι τὸ τεῖχος. (vac)

1: λαµπρ(οτάτου); ΜΠΡ and ΗΓ in ligature. The original surface of the stone is preserved at the beginning of this line before the erasure. The formula with the erased governor’s name in the genitive was accordingly indented from the left edge of the architrave; the restoration [[Αὐρ. Διονυσίου Ἀργαείνου]] would fit the space. 2: ΗΡ, ΝΤ, ΗΤ, and KΕ in ligature.

Translation: … the governor, vir clarissimus, who started, completed and dedicated the wall for the metropolis. Date: Third quarter of the third century, probably 267 (see 315a). Commentary: Re-used architraves were especially suitable for use as lintels above gateways, and this was a natural position for the dedicatory inscriptions of fortifications. Compare the examples from Aphrodisias, Ala2004, 19 (Constantius II) and especially Ala2004, 22 and 42, inscriptions probably of the 360s and the mid-fifth century respectively, carved on the two fasciae of a re-used architrave. This would have been a possible setting for this Ankara dedication, although the Ankara text cannot have been placed above a large gateway, on the scale of the city gates of Aphrodisias, as the span can hardly have exceeded two metres, half that of those at Aphrodisias. Moreover, if 323 from the sixth century was placed over one of Ankara’s city gates, it must originally have spanned a length of around four metres. Alternatively, as Urs Peschlow argues (Peschlow 2015 I, 115), 316 may simply have been placed in a prominent and visible section of the wall, for instance above a gateway, and perhaps formed part of a decorated course made from other architrave sections. Another uninscribed architrave was re-used alongside 316 in tower 2, and both might have been recovered from the same location in the thirdcentury fortifications before their re-use in the Byzantine walls. The name of the provincial governor was deliberately erased from this text, but apparently left intact on two other inscriptions (318, 319) which may have been attached to towers or other special features of the fortifications. However, if all the inscriptions discussed here (I. Ankara 1, 120; I. Ankara 2, 315a-319) relate to the same building programme, then the governor in question must have been Aur. Dionysius Argaeinus, whose names were not removed from 318 and 319. Although nothing else was inscribed on this block, the inscription cannot be regarded as complete. The inscription lacks the name of the person or body responsible for building the wall, and contains no reference itself to the ruling emperor. Both these omissions are resolved by proposing that the text of 316 was preceded on another block by the name and 68

titles of the ruling emperor, Gallienus (as may be inferred from inscription 315 bis), but who was in this case named in the nominative and thus made directly responsible for ordering the building of Ankara’s fortifications. The combination of two building texts, one set up on imperial instructions, the other taking the form of a dedication to the ruling emperor, is exactly paralleled by the documentation of wall building at Nicaea under Claudius Gothicus in 268-70 (the texts are cited in 315 bis comm.). 317. Building inscription from the third-century city wall Location: Not recorded. Description: ‘On a section of entablature’ (d’Orbeliani). Dimensions: Height 0.66; width 1.32; letters 0.08 (‘52 inches long by 26 inches wide. Letters: 3.25 inches high’, d’Orbeliani). Copy: d’Orbeliani 1915-18. Publication: d’Orbeliani 1924, 31 no. 23 and fig. 12; (SEG 6, 15). [ - - ] κὲ πλιρώσαντ. κὲ ἀφιερώσ[αντ. - - ] Restore πλιρώσαντ(ος) κὲ ἀφιερώσ[αντ(ος)], cf 316; -σαντ(ι), d’Orbeliani; -σαντ(α), SEG.

Translation: … and having completed and dedicated … Date: Third quarter of the third century, probably 267. Commentary: This fragmentary inscription was carved on a section of re-used architrave of similar dimensions to 316, and is likely also to have been placed above or close to a city gate. 318. Building inscription of Aurelius Dionysius Argaeinus Location: ‘Near the inner castle’ (Hamilton). The stone is built into a section of Byzantine wall on the east side of the main gate of the outer wall circuit of the Ankara citadel. It was located at the back of shop no. 6 (İnan Ticaret) in the Atpazar grain and dried-fruit market, but in 2017 the shops had been removed and the wall covered with cement. Description: ‘Marble block’ (Hamilton). A large white limestone block, broken on the right. The nature of the text suggests that the stone was a building block, set in a prominent position in the city wall. The letters are large but use cursive forms not only for epsilon and sigma, but also for alpha, delta, and lambda. Upsilon has a short cross bar at the top of the stem, rho has a small curl. Dimensions: Height (max.) 0.70; width (max.) 1.06; letters (line 1) 0.125, (lines 2-4) 0.115, (line 5) 0.08.

69

Copy: Hamilton 1836; Leonardi MS no. 100; SM 21.09.2005. Publication: Hamilton 1842, 1, 422, and 2, 421 no. 114; (CIG III 4051); Domaszewski 1885, 128 no. 96 (copy from the manuscript of Leonardi); (Bosch 1967, 355 no. 292).

4

ἐπὶ Αὐρηλ. ϟ Δι[ονυ]σίου Ἀργαείν[ου τοῦ] λαµπροτάτο[υ ἀρξα]µένου leaf κὲ leaf συνπ[ληρώ]vac σαντος. vac

1: Αὐρηλ(ίου) 2: ϹΙΟΥΑΕΓΛΕΙΝ, Hamilton. 3: ΛΑΜΠΟΤΟΤΟ, Hamilton; ΛΑΜΠΡΟΤΑΤ, Domaszewski. 5: ΘΗϹΑΝΤΟϹ, Hamilton.

Translation: Under the clarissimus Aurelius Dionysios Argaeinos, who started and completed (the work). Date: Third quarter of the third century, probably 267 (see 315a). 319. Building inscription of Aurelius Dionysius Argaeinus Location: ‘In einem Thurme der Festungsmauer’ (Domaszewski). Present whereabouts not known. Description & Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Leonardi MS no. 136. Publication: Domaszewski 1885, 128 no. 96 (from the copy of Leonardi); (Bosch 1967, 355 no. 293).

4

ἐπὶ Αὐρ. Δι[ο]νυσίου Ἀργαεί[νου τοῦ] λαµπροτ[ά]τ[ου] ἀρξαµένου κὲ [συν]πλρσα[ντο]ς.

5: ΠΛΙΕΡΟΣΛ . . . Σ, Domaszewski.

Translation: Under the most splendid Aurelius Dionysius Argaeinus, who started and completed (the work). Date: As 318. Commentary: Unless Leonardi erroneously included two versions of the same inscription in the manuscript which became available to Domaszewski, 318 and 319 appear to be separate texts. It was common for building inscriptions, which carried the same or similar

70

text, to be put up in different sections of the city wall. Examples of this occur in Arabia at Bostra, where multiple building texts documented construction in the later third, in the mid-fifth and in the mid-sixth century (IGLS XIII 9106 [269/60], 9108-9 [278/9, 282/3], 9115-6 [first half of fifth century], 9118 [441/2], 9310 [541/2], 9135-6 [Justinianic]), and at Adraha, where nine separate inscriptions relate to work carried out between 259/60 and 274/5 (Pflaum 1952). We cannot use the divergent line divisions as further evidence that 318 and 319 were different texts, as Leonardi’s copies were evidently unreliable (cf. I. Ankara 1, 88 comm.). However, 319 contains the participle ἀρξαµένου in its full form, in contrast with 318 where the first four letters are missing in all copies and on the preserved stone, and it is unlikely that this was an invention of Leonardi. His reading is confirmed by the more explicit text of 318. 318 and 319 indicate that Aurelius Dionysius Argaeinus completed the work on an unfinished building. Both inscriptions can therefore be compared with the re-used architrave blocks 316 and 317, which contained the formula συνπληρώσαντος καὶ ἀφιεροῦντος. The latter referred explicitly to the work of a governor, τοῦ λαµπρ(οτάτου) ἡγεµόνος, whose name was erased at the beginning of the first line. Although the governor’s name has been left intact on 318 and 319, it is likely that the stones refer to the same person, who had both started and completed the construction of the walls. The compound ἀποπληρόω conveyed a similar sense, for example in a sixth- or seventhcentury building inscription from Apri in Thrace †̣ ἕργµα κτισµάτον τῆσ[δε] οἰκοδοµῆς | ἀποπληρωθὲν τῇ συνδ[ροµῇ καὶ σ]π̣ουδῇ | Ἰουστίνου τοῦ [ἁγ]ιωτάτου ἡ[µ]ῶν ἐπισκόπου | καὶ Γεωργίο̣υ̣ [τοῦ] λαµπρο[τά]του κτήτωρος | µηνὶ Ἰουνίῳ ἰνδι(κτιῶνος) πέµ[π]της. † (SEG 48, 892 bis). Τhe simple verb πληρόω was also used; see texts from the Sardis synagogue (Robert 1964a, 39 n. 5), and three inscriptions from the region of Anazarbus (Dagron – Feissel 1987 nos. 113, 115 and 118). The last two inscriptions concern the completion of a vow (εὐχή), and both the simple and compound verbs implied the fulfilment of a promise to finish a task. Moreover 316 and 317 referred not only to the completion but to the dedication (ἀφιέρωσις) of the walls, and thus alluded to a specific religious ceremony, which probably took place at the city gates when the project was concluded. Bosch suggested that the participle ἀρξαµένου, which appears in three of the texts, was a reference to Ancyra’s chief magistrate, the archon. The verb ἄρχειν, in the active voice, could refer to a city magistracy or to the function of a provincial governor (which would be more appropriate to this context) but this meaning was almost invariably restricted to literary texts, and was not used on formal dedication inscriptions. The middle form of the verb, ἀρξαµένου does not refer to office holding, but should, as Gregor Staab (Köln, oral communication) has pointed out, be given its primary literal meaning, ‘having started’. The participle ἀρξαµένου was then connected both logically and syntactically by the copula κέ to the corresponding participle συνπληρώσαντος, and the phrase emphasizes that the entire work was achieved under the supervision of Aurelius Dionysius Argaeinus. The preposition ἐπί did not simply indicate the construction date, but emphasized that the governor took entire responsibility for the project of building Ankara’s fortifications. The honorific title λαµπρότατος/clarissimus was appropriate for a man of senatorial status, and Argaeinos, who is otherwise unattested, must have been the provincial governor of Galatia, although he has not been registered in PIR or PLRE. He may have been a native of Cappadocia and taken his last name from mount Argaeus. The date of his tenure can be set in 267, if the contemporaneity of inscriptions 315 bis-319 is accepted.

71

318 and 319 originally are likely to have been incorporated into significant parts of the fortification, probably into towers, and documented the same building programme as the dedicatory texts 316 and 317. In that case, the name erased in 327 must be that of Aur. Dionysius Argaeinus. If this were not the case 318/319 and 316 would effectively contradict one another, in that both assert that the governor responsible had begun and completed the construction, when this could only be possible in one case. Moreover, this argument also applies to the honorific inscription I. Ankara 1, 120. Although this statue base used different language, the expression συµπᾶν τὸ τεῖχος … ἐκ θεµελίων εἰς τέλος ἀγαγόντα is equivalent in content to the claim in the governor’s dedication, ἀρξαµένου, συνπληρώσαντος κὲ ἀφιερώσαντος τῇ µητροπόλι τὸ τεῖχος. The emphatic adjective συµπᾶν of I. Ankara 1, 120 conveyed the same message as the equally emphatic participle συνπληρώσαντος in 316. If these inscriptions referred to the activities of different persons, then one or other of them must have seriously misrepresented the factual situation. Edward Thomas and Christian Witschel have demonstrated that Latin inscriptions from the western empire often seriously exaggerated the extent of rebuilding programmes. Effectively all such inscriptions employed rhetorical strategies to convey the significance of the work undertaken and the donor’s generosity and engagement with the project, and rarely corresponded literally with the restorations that they describe (Thomas – Witschel 1992). It is therefore important to be cautious in adopting an over-literal reading to public and official texts of this sort. Nevertheless, it is striking that the lost statue base and the actual building inscriptions appear to use different language to describe a similar achievement, the construction from start to finish of Ankara’s fortifications, and it is therefore likely that all these inscriptions refer to the achievement of one and the same governor, who was responsible for building the entire city wall of Ankara in the third quarter of the third-century during the emergency caused by the threat of Persian or Gothic attacks on Asia Minor. An explanation is required to explain the erasure of the governor’s name in 316, but not in 318-319. Nothing can be said about I. Ankara 1, 120 as the beginning of the text is entirely lost. The likely reason is that 316 was placed in a very prominent position, probably above a city gate, which was known to and regularly seen by all passers-by, and therefore a priority for erasure, while 318 and 319, which stood at unknown locations in the circuit wall, were simply less visible and attracted less attention. Of course, we know nothing about the specific reason why Argaeinos suffered damnatio memoriae. City defences were built for the first time or refurbished in much of Asia Minor in the mid-third century (Magie 1950, 1566-8 n. 28). No systematic modern attempt has been made to collate and interpret all the archaeological evidence. In their study of Byzantine fortifications Foss and Winfield have drawn attention to walls that are probably connected with the Gothic invasions of Asia Minor at Miletus, Pergamum, Sardis and Phildelphia. All are relatively thin, show signs of hasty construction and usually but not always incorporated re-used material from public buildings and monuments (Foss – Winfield 1986, 125-9). Their observations have now been reviewed and updated by Peschlow (Peschlow 2015 I, 110-113). The foundation courses of the late Roman walls of Ankara, as far as these have been revealed by excavation, seem to have been similar in these respects. A collection of relevant inscriptions has been assembled by Ariel Lewin (Lewin 1991, 79-98; Mecella 2006, discussing the barbarian invasions in the east in the third century, deals only with Greece and the east Balkans, especially the evidence of Dexippus at Athens, and makes little use of epigraphic evidence). Several texts, like those at Ankara, indicate that the fortifications were built on the authority, and perhaps the

72

initiative, of the Roman authorities, something that might be expected in provincial capitals, although many of them show explicitly that the work was done with local resources and was supervised by local men. The third-century building inscriptions from Adanda and Nicaea, cited above in the commentary to 315 bis, indicate that the provincial governors, respectively of Cilicia and Pontus/Bithynia, operated in concert with a local curator. The same hierarchical combination appeared on three inscriptions built into a fortified tower at Olba in Cilicia (Bent 1891, 263 nos. 46-8 = IGRR III 849), which read ἐπὶ Πετρωνίου Φαυ[στ]είνου τοῦ λαµπροτάτου ὑπατικοῦ καὶ κτίστου (46), λογιστεύοντος Παπία Καπετωλείνου τοῦ κρατίστου (47), and ἐργεπόπτου Ἀντωνείνου Σεκούνδου τοῦ κρατίστου (48). The logistes was presumably responsible for logistics of the project, while the ergepoptes mentioned in the Olba text would have been the supervisor of the building itself. In Bostra in the later third century, the term used to denote oversight by a local official was ἐπισκοπεῖν; see IGLS 13.1.9108 (dated 278-9) ἐκ προνοίας Αὐρ. Πέτρου τοῦ δια[σηµοτάτου ἡµῶν] | ἡγεµ(όνος) ἐκτίσθη τὸ τεῖχος ἔτι ρογ´ ἐ[πισκοποῦντος] | Ἰουλ. Κυρίλλου, and 9105 ἐπὶ Αἰλίου [ -6/7- ]νος πρεσβ(ευτοῦ) Σεβαστ|οῦ [ἀν]τιστρατήγου ὁ πύργος ἐκτίσθη | ἐπισ[κοπο]ῦντος Ἰουλίου Φιλοκάλου. At Cappadocian Caesarea, while overall credit for building the walls was taken by an anonymous provincial governor (designated perfectissimus / διασηµότατος), direct supervision fell to the imperial procurator, Ulpius Draconianus: [ - - ] ὁ διασηµότατος | ἐποίει τὰ τίχη τῇ | µητροπόλι ἐπιστα|τοῦντος Οὐλπ(ίου) Δρακω|νι(αν)οῦ τοῦ κρα(τίστου) ἐπιτρόπου τοῦ Σεβ(αστοῦ) (French 2007, 967 no. 39 = SEG 57, 1712 = AE 2007, 1571; dated to the 260s by Cassia 2011). 320. Building inscription of Minucius Florentius Location: ‘Outside the wall of the inner Castle’ (Hamilton); in the fourteenth visible course of tower 5 in the west wall of the İç Kale. The stone was re-used next to another block with a tabula ansata, carrying a seven-line Greek inscription which can no longer be read. Description: A block of white marble. The inscription was cut inside a tabula ansata, the outline of which is formed by a simple relief moulding. The omega has vertical uprights with a small lambda-shaped figure between them. Dimensions: Not measurable (height c. 0.35; width c. 0.80). Copy: Hamilton 1836; Callier 1831; Humann 1882; SM 1972 and 20.06.2004. Publication: Hamilton 1842, 1, 422, and 2, 422 no. 120; (CIG III 4050); Domaszewski 1885, 119 no. 77: text from squeeze of Humann; Reinach 1890, 80 no. 58: based on Callier’s copy; (Bosch 1967, 354 no. 291).

4

Ἀγαθῇ Τύχῃ ἐπὶ τοῦ λαµπρ. ϟ ὑπατικοῦ Μινικ. ϟ Φλωρεντίου τὸ χρησιµώτατον ἔργον τῇ πόλι (leaf) γέγονεν. (leaf)

73

2: λαµπρ(οτάτου). 3: Μινικ(ίου) for Μινυκ(ίου).

Translation: To Good Fortune! Under the clarissimus consularis Minucius Florentius the most useful construction work has taken place for the city. Date: Late third or first half of fourth century. Commentary: Minucius Florentius is otherwise unknown, but the title ὑπατικός (consularis) shows that he must have been the provincial governor of Galatia. Bosch 1967, 354, assigns him to the second half of the third century, but a fourth century date is also possible. This block with its inscribed tabula would have been built into the structure to which it refers, probably a tower. Inscriptions 320 and 321 documented additions made to the city fortifications after the original construction phase which was concluded in 267. New towers might be added to the circuit not only to improve the defences, but also to emphasize Ankara’s prestige, which increased during the fourth century as the city became the focal point of Roman power in central Anatolia (see Jacobs 2012, 117-25; Niewöhner 2010; also 332 and 333 comm.). 321. Building inscription of Florus Hel… Location: The original find-spot is not recorded, but the stone was displayed at the Ankara Evi in the Hisar Park in 2004, and had probably been found nearby. It was brought to the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations between 2004 and 2010. Description: Pale limestone block, broken on the right. The inscription is cut in a tabula ansata, the outline of which is formed by a simple relief moulding. The letters were cut between heavily incised guide-lines. Dimensions: Height 0.40; width 0.51; thickness 0.31; letters: 0.020-25. Copy: SM 08.06.2004. Squeeze SM 26.08.2010. leaf Ἀγαθ[ῇ

4

Τύχῃ leaf ] ἐπὶ τοῦ λα[µπρ. ὑπατικ.] Φλώρoυ ΗΛ[ . . . . . . τὸ] χρησιµώτ[ατον ἔργον] τῇ πόλι γ[έγονεν].

2: λα[µπρ(οτάτου) ὑπατικ(οῦ)]. 3: Ἡλ[ιοδώρου] is a possible supplement.

Translation: To Good Fortune! Under the most splendid consularis Florus [ - - ] the most useful building work for the city has taken place. Date: Late third century or first half of fourth century. Commentary: This text resembles 320, but was set up by a different provincial governor. The appearance of the name is unexpected. Florus was normally a cognomen, not a

74

gentilicium, although by the fourth century the distinction was not always observed. Rudolf Haensch (per litt.) suggests the possibility that we should understand Φλ(άουιος) followed by another name. However, there is no sign of a mark of abbreviation after ΦΛ and the following letters ΩΡΟΥΗΛ are not easily restorable into a name. 322. Building inscription of Ofellius Leontius Location: ‘À la tour 3 du front ouest, à une hauteur de 5 m. environ’ (Jerphanion). The stone is built into tower 3 on the west side of the İç Kale, placed upside down in the middle section of this pentagonal tower, which was constructed almost entirely of rectangular blocks of limestone or Ankara andesite. However, this was at least its third phase of re-use. The inscription was added to a gravestone of the second or third century, when it was re-used in the construction of the city wall in the third or fourth century. The stone was re-used again as part of the upper circuit of the Byzantine fortifications in the mid-ninth century. Description: ‘Dalle de marbre ... ancienne stèle en form de porte ... Elle a été remployée (probablement au début de l’époque chrétienne), comme il ressort du fait que le texte n’est pas écrit dans le sens où la stèle primitive se présentait’ (Jerphanion). A white marble stele in the form of a door-stone with badly weathered top panels. There is a knocker in the top left, and a key-plate in the top right panel; the lower panels are blank. The inscription was carved in the lower left panel when the stone was rotated into a horizontal position and re-used as a building block. Dimensions: Not measurable (height c. 0.80; width c. 0.50). Copy: d’Orbeliani 1915-18; Jerphanion 1925-27; SM 1971, 20.04.2006; good photograph by Sülüner 2005, 115 fig. 17. Publication: d’Orbeliani 1924, 31 no. 26; Jerphanion 1928, 286 no. 59 and Fig. 57; (SEG 6, 25; Waelkens 1986, 300 no. 782). Ὀφελλ. · Λεοντ[ί]ου τοῦ κρ. · 1: Ὀφελλ(ίου). 2: ΤΟΥΤΟΥ, Jerphanion; κρ(ατίστου).

Translation: (Work of) Ofellius Leontius egregius. Date: Late third or first half of fourth century. Commentary: This text can be interpreted as a building inscription relating to the late Roman city wall. Ofellius Leontius should be an official responsible for the work, although he is not identified by title but by the status designation κράτιστος/egregius. The provincial governors of the preceding texts (316, 318-321) were designated as clarissimi, and it is likely that this inscription refers to a lesser official, perhaps a λογίστης, comparable to Papias, son of Capitolinus, commemorated on the tower inscription from Olba (IGRR III 849: cited in 319 comm.). Other curatores of the third century are mentioned in the building inscriptions relating to the fortifications of Lamos and Nicaea

75

(cited in 315 bis comm.), although the official at Lamos was called ἀξιολογώτατος, an informal mark of respect, and his counterpart at Nicaea received the more prestigious status adjective λαµπρότατος. The nomen Ofellius is attested in the family of M. Ulpius Ofellius Theodorus, leg. Aug. pro pr. of Cappadocia under the emperor Elagabalus, and probably of Asia Minor origin (PIR2 III no 560). Leontius was a popular name in fourthcentury Ankara. See 340, a verse inscription for a Leontius, who may be the governor of Galatia addressed by Libanius ep. 1267, dating to 364/5 (PLRE I Leontios 9). Leontius, friend of Maximus the Galatian governor in 363 (PLRE I Leontius 8), was another leading Ancyran citizen of the later fourth century. 323. Ankyra, city of the Theotokos Location: Boyacızade Restaurant, Kale Sokak. The architrave block was found at the site of the restaurant with many other pieces of ancient stonework. It seems too heavy to have been moved far from the place where it had been used in late antiquity, although originally this large architrave certainly came from a major Roman building in the lower city. The combined architrave and frieze blocks from the largest colonnaded streets of imperial Ankara measured between 66 and 73 cms high, and had only two fasciae (see I. Ankara 1, 33 and 34). This tri-fasciate architrave, 57 cms high without a frieze section incorporated in the block, came from a yet larger entablature. Description: Architrave block of hard, white limestone. Broken on left, complete on the right and at the back. The text is a later addition, inscribed in fine, well shaped letters on three fasciae. Elegant lunate epsilon and sigma; the upsilon has a cross-bar at the top of the stem. The crosses are cut with long serifs. Dimensions: Height 0.57 (fasciae 0.17, 0.14, 0.10); width 2.205; thickness 0.60; letters 0.12 (line 1), 0.10 (line 2), 0.08-0.09 (line 3). The break cut across the text of the inscription which was probably carved in the middle of the block, and its original length must have approached 4.50 metres. Copy: SM 21.09.2006 and squeeze 31.08.2010. [† Ἡ πό]λις † [† τῆς Ἁγίας] Θεοτόκου † [† Ἄγκ]υρα. † Translation: The city of the Holy Mother of God Ancyra. Date: Reign of Justinian, perhaps after 542. Commentary: This massive architrave, clearly taken from a public building of the second or third century, was re-used in a prominent position in late antiquity. If the inscription was centrally placed, the original span of the architrave would have been more than four metres. The nature and scale of the inscribed block surely indicate that it was positioned above one of the city gates of the late Roman fortifications. If the present location of the text is reasonably close to the point where it originally stood, it might have been placed over the eastern gateway of the late Roman city wall. The find spot is a few metres inside

76

the line of the Dış Kale, the outer wall of Ankara’s Byzantine fortifications, at the southwest corner of the citadel. Since the text is complete to the right and the words appear to have been placed symmetrically at the centre of the lintel, a longer text was missing in line 2 than in lines 1 and 3, and the inscription has been restored accordingly. The crosses at the line ends are very prominent, and would have been been balanced by counterparts at the start of each line. The symbol of the cross thus emphatically served as a protective talisman over the city gate. Jerphanion drew attention to the similar way in which crosses were prominently displayed in the towers of the south wall of the citadel, rebuilt by Michael III in 859 (see 325 comm.), and formed the centrepiece of the acclamations for Michael and his spatharocandidatus Basil on the south-west tower of the citadel (327, 328). Whereas the previous texts relating to the city walls contained no explicit indication that Ankara was a Christian city, and the city’s defences were a matter for imperial and civic responsibility, this inscription embodies the notion that the whole city was placed under the protective powers of the Virgin Mary. The verbal message was reinforced by the multiple crosses. There appears to have been no room even for a mention of the emperor, although an imperial inscription might have stood in a less prominent position at the gateway. This appears to be the only document from the late Roman empire which asserted expressis verbis that a whole city belonged to the Virgin. However, the idea can be understood as a logical extension of the idea conceived in Constantinople under Theodosius II, that the whole city became a single church (Socrates, HE 7.22.17; see Meier 2003, 494-6 for important observations). The cult of the Virgin Mary became a central feature of imperial Christianity in the eastern empire after the first Council of Ephesus in 431, which asserted the doctrinal status of Mary as Theotokos, mother of God, in consequence of the aggressive refutation and suppression of Nestorius’ ‘two-natures’ theology by Cyril of Alexandria. Mary’s status as Theotokos was confirmed by the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which established the orthodoxy of the eastern Church for the following century. Two famous studies by Averil Cameron have drawn attention to the significance of the cult of the Virgin as one of the eastern empire’s prime spiritual resources in the later sixth and seventh centuries (Cameron 1978 and 1979). Marian worship formed a central part of Justinian’s religious practice. The dissemination of the emperor’s ideology was illustrated by an edict dated 15 March 533 (CJ I.1.6), which reiterated Justinian’s own doctrinal position, which had been spelled out earlier in CJ I.1.5, probably dating to 527. Although the edict of 533 made no mention of Chalcedon, it stressed the unity of the divine person who was crucified and buried, anathematised the heresies of Nestorius, of Eutyches and of Apollinarios, and twice mentioned Mary as Theotokos. Copies were sent to Ephesus, Caesarea, Cyzicus, Amida, Trapezus, Jerusalem, Apamea, Iustinopolis, Theopolis (i. e. Syrian Antioch), Sebaste, Tarsus and Ankara itself. The text was reproduced in the Chronicon Paschale, which reports that it was posted at Constantinople and sent to Alexandria, Thessalonica and Rome, where it was immediately put on display by the local bishops (Millar 2008, 69). There was accordingly a strong imperial incentive for cities to promote the Marian cult, and the emperor particularly favoured and encouraged the foundation of churches dedicated to the Virgin. Procopius began his panegyric survey of the empire’s buildings

77

with the churches for the Theotokos that Justinian had built in Constantinople, precisely because this mirrored the emperor’s religious priorities: ἀρκτέον δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς Θεοτόκου Μαρίας νεών. τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ αὐτῷ βασιλεῖ ἐξεπιστάµεθα βουλοµένῳ εἶναι (Procopius, Aed. 1.3.1). The invocation of Mary as a source of protection, which reached its climax in the preservation of Constantinople from the siege of the Avars in 626 (Cameron 1979), also matched the main panegyric theme of Procopius’ Buildings, which showed how Justinian had protected the empire by putting up or refurbishing its fortifications (Aed. 1.1.11; 2.1.2; 6.7.17). Note also the ninth-century epigram in the Anthologia Palatina, with the lines τῆς εἰσόδου δ᾽ ὕπερθεν ὡς θεία πύλη / στηλογραφεῖται καὶ φύλαξ ἡ Παρθένος (Anth. Pal. I, 106 lines 8-9, quoted in 326 comm.). This was not merely a matter of religious rhetoric. Churches and other buildings dedicated to the Virgin were held to embody her protective powers. Mischa Meier, in a comprehensive analysis of the Marian cult under Justinian, draws attention to the remarks which conclude Procopius’ account of two churches dedicated to the Virgin, at Blachernae and at Pegae, which were located immediately outside the walls of Constantinople, respectively at the coast line and opposite the Golden Gate. These sites were chosen deliberately to provide divine reinforcement to the protection offered by the city walls: ταῦτα δὲ ἄµφω τὰ ἱερὰ πρὸ τοῦ τῆς πόλεως πεποίηται τείχους, τὸ µὲν ἀρχοµένου παρὰ τὴν τῆς θαλάσσης ἠϊόνα, τὸ δὲ ἄγχιστά πη τῶν Χρυσῶν καλουµένων Πυλῶν, ἃς δὴ ἀµφὶ τὸ τοῦ ἐρύµατος πέρας συµβαίνει εἶναι, ὅπως δὴ ἄµφω ἀκαταγώνιστα φυλακτήρια τῷ περιβόλῳ τῆς πόλεως εἶεν, ‘both these sanctuaries have been constructed in front of the city wall, one where it begins beside the sea shore, the other very close to the so-called Golden Gates, which happens to be near the end of the fortification wall, so that both could be insurmountable defences for the enclosure wall of the city’ (Procopius, Aed. 1.3.9). Procopius also observed that the emperor built a church of the Theotokos in the furthest reaches of the Libyan desert, an area where pagan practices were still embedded, at the twin ‘cities’ called Augila, ‘to be a guardian of the safety of the cities and of the true faith’ (Procopius, Aed. 6.2.20; see Meier 2003, 502-28, 570-86). A sixth century inscription from Philae in Upper Egypt made precisely the same link between the protection of the Theotokos and those of the walls of a fortified outpost in this frontier region: ἐπὶ τῆς ἐξου[σίας τοῦ κυρίου µου] τὰ πάντα µε[γαλοπρ(επεστάτου) κ(αὶ) ἐνδοξ(οτάτου)] κόµ(ιτος) τῶν καθ[οσιωµ(ένων) δοµ(εστίκων) κ(αὶ) τοῦ Θηβ(αϊκοῦ)] λιµ(ίτου) Φλ(αουίου) Μιχ[αηλίου καὶ τῇ προν]οίᾳ τῆς ἁγίας [παρθένου τῆς θεοτόκ(ου)] Μαρίας ἐπ[ῳκοδοµήθη τοῦτο τὸ µέρος] τοῦ τείχους ἐ[κ θεµελίων εἰς τέλος] σπουδῇ καὶ ἐπ[ιεικείᾳ τοῦ εὐλαβ(εστάτου)] καὶ ἁγιωτ(άτου) Ἄπα [ - - - - ἐπισκόπου] Φιλῶν· ἐγράφ[η µηνός(?) - - - - - - - - - ] τῆς πέντε κα[ὶ δεκάτης ἰνδ(ικτίωνος)] (I. Philae no. 220). Denis Feissel has also recently presented new readings and a fresh interpretation of an inscription set up in September 551 at Anasartha close to the eastern frontier of Syria I and part of the limes of Chalcis by Fredulf, a dux of Germanic, probably Frankish origin. The text starts with an invocation to the Theotokos to protect Fredulf, on the occasion of his erecting a τόπος, probably a fortified structure, to the glory of God and the Divine Word (Mouterde – Poidebard 1945, 190-191, no. 17, re-interpreted by Feissel 2016). Another close parallel is provided by one of a pair of inscriptions from Corinth, originally copied by Cyriac of Ancona in the first half of the fifteenth century, who reported that they stood above the gates of the ancient ramparts and fortress. The first of these read † φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸς | ἀληθινὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ | φυλάξη τὸν αὐτοκράτορα | Ἰουστινιανὸν καὶ τὸν | πιστὸν αὐτοῦ δοῦλον | Βικτωρῖνον ἅµα τοῖς | οἰκοῦσιν ἐν Ἑλάδι

78

τοὺς κ(α)τ(ὰ) Θεὼν | ζῶντας †. The second inscription invoked the Virgin Mary: † ἁγ(ία) Μαρία Θεοτόκε φύλαξον | τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ | φιλοχρίστου Ἰουστινιανοῦ | καὶ τὸν γνησίως | δουλεύοντα αὐτῷ | Βικτωρῖνον † σὺν τοῖς | οἰκοῦσιν ἐν Κορίνθῳ κ(ατὰ) Θεὼν † | ζῶντας † (IG IV.3, 1803 and 1802; Feissel 1977, 220-4; Feissel – Philippidis-Braat 1985, 279-81 nos. 16-17). The purpose of the inscription above the Ankara gate was to reinforce the physical defences of the walls with the divine protection of the Mother of God. Other epigraphic and literary texts from Ankara underline the city’s reputation for piety in the fifth and sixth centuries (see 347 comm.). Two funerary inscriptions of the later fifth or sixth centuries invoked the Virgin’s protection (363 and 365), and the cult of the Theotokos remained important through the Byzantine period in the city. The widespread phenomenon of invoking the protection of the Virgin Mary is attested in Ankara in the middle Byzantine period. An eighth-century lead seal called on the Virgin to assist a dioiketes of Galatia: Θεοτόκε βοήθει τῷ σῷ δούλῳ Θεοδώρῳ [δι]οικιτὶ Γαλατίας (Zacos and Veglery (1972) I.3, 3189), a seal invoked the Virgin’s protection for the spatharocandidatus Basil, who was responsible for building the citadel walls in 859 (see 324 comm.), and a seal of the early eleventh century appealed to the Theotokos to assist archbishop Theophilos: † Θ(εοτό)κε β(οή)θ(ει) Θεοφίλ(ῳ) [ἀρ]χεπισκ[όπ(ῳ)] Ἀγκ[ύ]ρ(ας) (Laurent 1963, 239-43 no. 338). A Glorious Labour. The Byzantine fortifications of Ankara The Byzantine fortifications of Ankara comprised two substantial wall circuits (see fig. 2). The imposing İç Kale occupies the top of the citadel hill, with nineteen closely spaced prow-shaped towers along the west, eight on the south side, including a massive courtyard gateway (the inner gate is today called the Zindan Kapı, and the outer gate the Parmak Kapı) between two projecting towers, and a large circular bastion at the south-east corner, and a further fifteen prow-shaped towers on the east side. These walls enclosed an area measuring about 350 x 150 metres. The very steep north slope of the citadel hill was protected by two slighter walls, which incorporated a keep, the Akkale, at the north-east corner of the circuit. This was also the highest point of the citadel, 970 m above sea level. The east stretch of the outer fortifications, the Dış Kale, including four or five rectangular towers, ran south-west from the large circular south-east bastion of the İç Kale. Immediately after the point where the wall line turned back to the north-west, there was a massive two-storey gateway, the Hisar Kapı, flanked by round towers, which still mark the entrance to Ankara’s Kale district. From here the wall ran first north-west and then north, interspersed with a further fourteen rectangular and circular towers, spaced at wider intervals than the upper circuit. There were smaller gateways in the west walls of the İç and Dış Kale, the latter flanked by a round tower, as well as one postern gate at the north end of the west wall, and two in the east citadel wall, which was common to the two circuits. The northern side of the outer fortifications, like those of the İç Kale, comprised less imposing walls, partly of a later date. The English traveller Hamilton, who visited Ankara in 1836, noted that the area enclosed by these fortifications accommodated a population of between 4000 and 5000 persons, mainly Armenians (Hamilton 1842 I, 423). Although these two defensive lines did not include all the major buildings of Byzantine Ankara, excluding among other structures the tenth-century Church of St Clement (see 505 comm.; Jerphanion 1928, 113-43; Weigand 1932, 372; Mango 1958, 182 n. 33; Eyice 79

1991; Peschlow 2015 I, 187-244), they demonstrate a major shift in the location of the city. The central part of Ankara now moved from the lower ground around Ulus and the imperial temple, which lay south of the big bend of the Ankara Çay, to the summit and the west and south slopes of the citadel hill. This new focus on a more defensible site persisted until the early republican period in the 1920s, when the main public buildings of the new Turkish capital were once again sited in the Ulus area. Ankara Kale has been the subject of repeated observations and descriptions by European travellers since the sixteenth century (Cross – Leiser 2000), but the most vivid impression of the Ottoman city, which occupied the site and still retained the appearance of its Byzantine predecessor, is given by an anonymous eighteenth-century Dutch painting now in the collection of the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. This was first identified as a representation of Ankara by Semavi Eyice, the Turkish Byzantinist, and was doubtless commissioned by the Dutch mercantile community which was active in the eighteenthcentury city (Eyice 1970; illustrated in fig. 1). All modern archaeological studies of Ankara Kale depend on the detailed survey carried out by the Jesuit scholar, Guillaume de Jerphanion, between 1925 and 1927 (Jerphanion 1928). Since this pioneering work, important observations and descriptions were added in the late 1920s and 1930s by Ernest Mamboury (Mamboury 1934), in the 1960-70s by Marcel Restle (Restle 1966) and Clive Foss (Foss 1977; Foss – Winfield 1986), and in a PhD dissertation for the Middle East Technical University by Sinan Sülüner (Sülüner 2005). All the earlier literature is now reviewed by Urs Peschlow (Peschlow 2015 I, 139-86). The lower parts of the towers, curtain walls and gates of the İç Kale are made from a thick core of mortared rubble and faced with re-used blocks of marble, basalt and andesite taken from the buildings of the Roman city. At the base the walls were around five metres thick and the lower sections, built entirely from re-used material, are around nine metres high, extending up to the second storey level. The upper sections of the fortifications above the re-used masonry added approximately five more metres to the height, and were faced with six bands of rubble and mortar and five bands of brick, usually in a pattern alternating five rows of shallow bricks with three courses of irregular mortared stonework. This pattern was repeated consistently around the west, south and east sides of the citadel. The upper section of the walls accommodated two defensive wall walks, the lower one roofed, the upper one along the crenellations, and the upper sections of the towers contained small chambers, the lower ones fitted with loop-holes for marksmen, the upper ones fitted with windows for defensive artillery. The highest proportion of marble or white limestone spolia can be seen on the south side, where the Byzantine inscriptions were located, and proportionally more andesite and basalt was used in the construction of the east-facing towers and curtain wall than on the west side, suggesting, as might be expected, that there was greater access to high quality marble and limestone building material in the direction which faced the centre of the Roman city (Sülüner 2005 usefully provides detailed figures based on a photogrammetric survey of the walls and towers). The whole of the İç Kale makes a unified impression on the modern observer. Apart from the south-east corner, all the towers of the citadel appear to have been constructed in the same way. The exception is the large south-east bastion and the two towers next to it on the east side, where the tower walls were much thicker. This appears to reflect a decision to thicken and reinforce the circuit at this relatively vulnerable point. Although the brick and rubble work in the upper sections of some of the walls and towers has collapsed or been badly damaged, and other parts have been repaired, often in the recent past, there is

80

no evidence for extensive rebuilding or a ground-up reconstruction of the defences at any other point. The outer fortifications were simpler. The wall was about 3.5 metres thick and had rectangular towers, which were placed at intervals of between 20 and 35 metres. The lower part was also faced with re-used masonry, although some sections were largely constructed of rubble and mortar, but the upper sections were made entirely of brick courses, with no alternating bands of rubble and mortar. The two fortifications came together at the south-east bastion, which formed the corner of the İç Kale. The outer wall abutted the bastion, but was not bonded in to it. Ankara was a key fortress city of Anatolia throughout late antiquity and became a prime target for Arab raids between the seventh and the ninth centuries (see now Brandes, in Peschlow 2015 I, 259-65). It was captured in 654 (Brooks 1898, 184-9), but appears to have survived attacks in 776 and 797 (Brooks 1900, 735 and 741), before falling again to the Abbasid caliph al-Mu‘tasim in 838 (Tabari, trans. Marin 1951, 64-7). Apart from the inscriptions discussed here, only two written sources of the Byzantine period make a possible reference to Ankara’s fortifications. One is an entry in the Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor for 804/5, stating that ‘in this year, because of an insurrection in Persia, the leader of the Arabs went to quell it. Taking this opportunity Nicephorus rebuilt (ἔκτισε) Ankara in Galatia, Thebasa and Andrasus’ (Mango – Scott 1997 p. 660, AM 6297). The other is a remark in the chronicle of Michael the Syrian, that the Arab forces of al-Mu‘tasim destroyed the city walls in 838: ‘sur l’ordre du roi, le mur d’Ancyre, qui était bâti en très grandes pierres de taille, fut détruit’ (trans. Chabot 1905 III, 95). Apart from Mamboury’s detailed guide to the city, which was published in 1933, all the archaeological studies of Ankara’s Byzantine fortifications have concluded that the outer fortifications were built later than those of the İç Kale, although there are significant variations in the various chronologies that have been proposed. There have been various proposals for the actual dates at which the Ankara kale fortifications were built, as may be seen from this this summary table: İç Kale Jerphanion 1928 Grégoire 1929/30 Wittek 1932 Mamboury 1933 Restle 1966 Foss 1977 Belke, TIB IV (1984) Foss/Winfield 1986 Peschlow 2015

İç Kale restored

620-9 859 641-68 (Constans II) 720-40 641-68 c. 655-61 859 641-68 859 c. 655-61 859 859

Dış Kale 859 859 641-68 804/5 or 859 804/-5 or 859 804/5 804/5 later 9th cent.

The majority view (Wittek, Restle, Foss, Belke), which has also been adopted in secondary studies (Brubaker – Haldon 2011, 540; Haldon 1997, 112-3; Ivison 2000), is that the inner Kale should be dated to the later part of the reign of Constans II (641-68). In this period Ankara, like other cities in Asia Minor, supposedly recovered from the Persian invasions of the early seventh century and prepared its defences against the new threat from the Arabs. There is broad agreement that the fortification of the İç Kale should be

81

later than 654, when the city reportedly fell to the Arabs. Restle, Foss, and Belke have also suggested that the outer fortifications should be dated to the early ninth century, on the basis of Theophanes’ report that Nicephorus built or ‘founded’ Ankara in 804/5. The stronghold nevertheless fell to al Mu’tasim in 838, and, according to the prevailing view, the upper defences were reconstructed by Michael III in 859. The arguments that underly this analysis, however, are not all convincing, and rely on vulnerable combinations of the literary, archaeological and epigraphic evidence. H. Grégoire, in his re-appraisal of the evidence following Jerphanion’s detailed archaeological account of the citadel, took the view that Michael III must have been responsible for constructing the citadel in its entirety (Grégoire 1929/30, 340-43). Although his understanding of the historical context of the inscriptions has been regarded as definitive, almost all subsequent studies have concluded or assumed that the fortifications themselves were of an earlier date. Jerphanion and Wittek argued that the inscriptions, despite their location on the south wall of the inner citadel, referred to the building of the outer fortifications. Restle, Belke and, with the fullest arguments, Foss have suggested that they document extensive reconstruction of the İç Kale, especially on the south side. This refurbishment included the construction of the south gate and southeast bastion, raising the height of the walls and towers, and adding a level of defensive chambers with large side embrasures, where artillery could be installed, above the earlier rooms in the towers. In his earlier study Foss suggested that this might have been contemporaneous with the building of the outer fortifications (Foss 1977, 79; Foss – Winfield 1986, 133-5, 143-5). Apart from the enlargement of the south-east bastion, which was extended to include the adjacent towers 1 and 2 along the east side of the citadel, and the possibility that towers 5, 7 and 9 on the east side, which do not follow the usual pentagonal ground plan, were also the result of later reconstruction, there is no archaeological or architectural evidence to suggest that the walls and towers of the İç Kale underwent major refurbishment after they were originally built. This applies not only to the very homogeneous west wall, but also to the towers, curtain walls and monumental gate of the south side, where the inscriptions of Michael III were located. Peschlow has accordingly argued in detail that the completion of the İç Kale should be dated in its entirety to 859, and that the outer fortifications were built somewhat later in the ninth century. A critical part of his demonstration are his compelling arguments that inscriptions 324-326 were displayed above one another on the curtain wall between towers 5 and 6 of the south wall, next to the main city gate (Peschlow 2015 I, 139-86, especially 159-65). They thus confronted all travellers who entered the city from this side. The content, as well as the location and imposing display of these texts, reinforce his conclusion that they document the construction of Ankara Kale in its entirety by Michael III in the mid-ninth century. 324. Building inscription of Michael III and the spatharocandidatus Basil Location: ‘Dans ce même mur au dessus des précédentes se trouvent deux pierres portant une inscription en lettres hautes d’environ 0.15 qui paraît avoir échappé à Hamilton’ (Perrot). Peschlow’s careful analysis demonstrates that the information provided by Hamilton and Perrot for the position of 325 and 324 is of decisive importance for understanding how these inscriptions were placed in relationship to one another, and shows how they fitted into the walls (Peschlow 2015, 139-86). Hamilton noted that 325 ran ‘along the top of the wall near the south gate of the inner wall’ (Hamilton 1842 II, 82

427), and Perrot noted that the shorter text 324, also for Michael III, was placed above it (Perrot – Guillaume – Delbet 1872, 241). Hamilton’s description suggests that 325 was near but not immediately above the south gate. The only suitable place appears to be in the same stretch of curtain where 326 (noted for the first time by Dernschwam in 1555 and still approximately in situ in 1971) was situated. Thus the two verse texts, carved in three and two long lines respectively, would have been placed above one another, with 326 below 325. 324 was placed above both of them. 324 and 325 vanished completely in the period between Perrot’s observations in 1861 and d’Orbeliani’s record of around 1916. By this date only the right-hand blocks of 326 were preserved. The photographs taken by Jerphanion in the mid 1920s and by SM in 1971 appear to show that they were relaid as a wall course close to their original position when the upper parts of the curtain were reconstructed. Fig 4 (on an adjacent landscape page) shows the original lay-out of the texts. They were carved on the curtain wall between the south gate, which was on the east side of tower 5, and tower 6 of the south wall. Description: Kirchhoff published 324 as two separate texts. Perrot recorded that the inscription was carved on two stones built into the wall. His very careful facsimile shows a two-line text, and it is clear that this faithfully reproduced its original appearance. The 15 cm high letters were larger than those of 326 (10-12 cms.), and this is consistent with the inscription’s placement higher in the wall. The lettering includes many abbreviations and cursive forms which may be noted on the facsimile. Dimensions: Letters c. 0.15 (Perrot). Line 1 is 33 letters long, line 2 37 letters long. The text is roughly a quarter the length of 325 and 326, and accordingly the original width of the inscription, extending across two stones, should have been around three metres. Copy: A. D. Mordtmann with H. Barth 1858; A. D. Mordtmann 1860; Perrot et al. 1861, read with a telescope. Publication: Kirchhoff 1861, 185 nos 26-7: 1858 copy of Mordtmann and Barth; Perrot – Guillaume – Delbet 1872, 1, 241 no. 137; Mordtmann 1874, 14: 1860 copy of A. D. Mordtmann; (Grégoire 1927/28, 444 no. 3) [Vienna Scheden 9, 15]. † εἰς δόξαν τοῦ φιλοχ. βασιλ. ἡµ. Μιχαὴλ ΗϹΚ ὑπουργήσαντ. Βασιλίο σπαθ. καν. µ. Ἰον. ιη´ ϟ ἔτ̣. ϟ ςτξζ´. Interpretations of this text depend on Perrot’s careful facsimile. 1: εἰς δόξαν τοῦ φιλοχ(ρίστου) βασιλ(έως) ἡµ(ῶν) Μιχαὴλ ΗϹΚ. Τhe significance of the letters at the end of the line is unclear; δεσπ(ότου)?. Grégoire. 2: σπαθ(αρο)καν(διδάτου), J. H. Mordtmann. The letter traces recorded by Perrot support the reading µ(ηνὶ). Ἰον(ίου) ιη´ ϟ ἔτ(ει) ϟ ϚΤΞΖ ´; µιουνιηϟευςς και, A. D. Mordtmann 1860; ὑπουργήσαντ(ος) Βασιλίο σπαθ(αρο)καν(διδάτου) µ(ηνὶ) Ἰο[υ]ν(ίου) ν(δικτίωνος) ζ´ ἔ(τους) ϚΤΞΖ ´, Grégoire.

Translation: For the glory of our Christ-loving king, Michael, supported by labour of the spatharocandidatus Basilios. On 18 June, in the year 6367. Date: ϚΤΞΖ´, 6367 since the Creation = 859. Commentary: This was the essential building inscription of the three texts placed in central positions on Byzantine Ankara’s south wall, and like the poem 326 it began in celebratory style with the word δόξα, glory. Glory here redounded to the achievement of 83

the emperor, whose commitment and energy had rescued Ankara and would now protect it from the Arabs. However, the leitmotif that ran through all three dedication inscriptions was ἔργον, hard labour. In 326 Christ is hailed as τὸν παντεργάτην, who had imbued the emperor with the physical strength to accomplish mighty deeds (verse 4). The emperor himself by constructing the fortifications had earned a unique description as εὐσεβούργῳ, a builder or architect of piety. In 325 he is the ruler whose labour made the city safe ([ν]εουργῶν, 325, 13). In 324 the focus is on the physical labour of building the new fortifications, largely from the ruins of old Ankara. The verbs ὑπουργέω, συνυπουργέω and the cognate nouns ὑπούργησις, ὑπουργία appropriately denoted the work of officials or of the labour force itself, who were carrying out a project under the instruction of a higher authority. An inscription recording the restoration of the Theodosian walls at Constantinople between 573 and 575, reads † ἀνανεώθη τὸ προτίχισµα τοῦ Θεοδοσιακοῦ τίχους ἐπὴ Ἰουστήνου καὶ Σοφίας τὸν εύσεβεστάτον ἡµὸν δεσποτὸν, δηὰ Νάρσου τοῦ ἐνδοξοτάτου σπαθαρήου καὶ σακαιλαρήου καὶ Στεφάνου ἐπηστήκοντος εἰς ὑπουργίαν, δούλ(ων) τὸν εὐσεβεστάτον δεσποτόν (Meyer-Plath – Schneider 1943, 132-3 no. 34). An edict of Justinian inscribed at Miletus refers to the [τ]ούς τε ὑπουργοὺς τῆς ἐπιχορίου τάξε[ως] (CIL III 13673; Milet VI.3, 1575). An epigram which commemorated the building of the fortifications of Attalea (Antalya) under Leo VI and Constantine VII between 910 and 912, ended with two verses in honour of the imperial official who had supervised the project: Εὐφήµιος δὲ τοῦ κράτους µυστόγραφος / θερµῶς ὑπουργῶν εὐφυὴς ἐπιστάτης (Rhoby 2014, 559-60 TR 25). Another verse text from the tenthcentury refers to the role played by an official called Basil the Goth, in erecting fortifications for the emperor Basil II and his younger brother Constantine in Thrace, ὑπουργεῖ δὲ τῷ Βασίλειος ὁ Γοῦτος (Rhoby 2014, 708-9 TR 97). The same terms naturally could be applied to church building, as may be seen in the foundation texts of a church of the Theotokos at Anazarbus in Cilicia, † ἐπληρώθη τὸ ἔργον τῆς Θεοτόκου ἐπὶ Στεφάνου ἐργολάβου ὑπουργήσι τῆς κώµης Σιφων ἔτους θχ´(Dagron – Feissel 1987, 193 no. 113 = SEG 28, 1260, the date is 590 ), on an inscription from a church at Miletus, † Ὁ Θ(εό)ς ὁ ζόντων κ(αὶ) τεθναιότων δεσπότης, µνήσθητι περιόντων κ(αὶ) µετὰ τὴν ἀποβίωσιν πάντων τῶν ὑπουρ̣γησάντων εἰς τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο κ(αὶ) Ἰωάννου Βενέτου υἱοῦ (Milet VI.3, 295 no. 1577), on a building inscription from Amorium, [Θε]όδωρος ἀρχιαναγν(ώστης) ὑπούργησεν εἰς τὸν … (SEG 60, 1426), on a text relating to a memorial church or chapel in a village on the territory of Aezani, ὑπὲρ µνήµης κ[ὲ] ἀναπαύσεως [τ]ῆς µακαριοτάτη[ς] Ἐπιφανίας διακονίσσης. ἐγένετο τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο συνυπουργησάντων πάντων ἰνδ(ικτίωνος) α´ ἔτους φιη´ ὑπὲρ εὐχῆς Μαρκέλλου κὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ οἰκοδόµων (Keil – Premerstein 1911, 89; AD 433) and on a restored mosaic inscription from Jordan (Feissel, Chron., 842). Basil, the spatharocandidatus, organised the enormous project of building Ankara’s new citadel on behalf of the ruler Michael III. He duly received an acclamation for this achievement alongside his emperor (328). A seal has been recorded invoking the protection of the Virgin for a spatharocandidatus named Basil, who was given the additional title of city prefect (ἔπαρχος): obv. Cruciform monogram Θεοτόκε βοήθει [τ]ῷ σῷ δούλῳ rev. †Βασιλει Ρ´ (?) σπαθαρκ(αν)διδ ´ Ϟ ἐπ[άρχῳ πόλ]εως (Laurent 1981, 550 no. 1004, dated to the ninth century). Two further seals have been noted, both identifying a spatharocandidatus Basil as strategos of the Bucellarian Theme (Brandes, in Peschlow 2015 I, 264). This was doubtless Michael III’s right-hand man. Between the eighth and eleventh centuries the title of spatharocandidatus denoted a middle-ranking official of the Byzantine court (Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium III

84

[1991], 1936). It was normal for officials such as these, who acted in the emperor’s personal service, to take responsibility for constructing fortifications undertaken by the imperial government (Ivison 2000, 12). Grégoire identified the spatharocandidatus of the Ankara inscriptions with Michael III’s successor, the future emperor Basil I. The entry for PMZ 1. Abt. I, 314 Basileios 953, questions the identification on the grounds that the emperor is not elsewhere attested as having previously held this rank, which was in any case only ninth in the status hierarchy (see Treadgold 1995, 121) and inferior to that of the protospatharios, and this is also the recent view of Wolfram Brandes (in Peschlow 2015 I, 264). However, the identification with the emperor still seems very likely. Basil’s service at Ankara will have been a major recommendation and a reason for his choice as Michael’s successor. 325. Verses celebrating the rescue of Ankara and its restoration by Michael III Location: ‘At the top of the wall near the south gate of the inner wall’ (Hamilton). Perrot, who used a telescope to read the text in 1861, noted that 326 and 325 were in the same wall as one another, beneath 324. Description: ‘Four stones placed in one line in the order which they are numbered … copied with a telescope’ (Hamilton). According to his copy blocks 1 and 2 were of approximately equal width, block 3 was more than twice as long, and block 4 much shorter, or only inscribed at its left-hand end (block 1: 1 27 letters, 2 30 letters, 3 28 letters; block 2: l 1 32 letters, 2 34 letters, 3 31 letters; block 3: 1 67 letters, 2 63 letters, 3 72 letters; block 4: 1 9 letters, 2 9 letters, 3 10 letters). Dimensions: Not recorded. Peschlow has observed that the number of letters in the two lines of 326 and the three lines of 325 is about the same (326: 1 146, 2 133 letters; 325: 1 143, 2 150, 3 145 letters), indicating that the inscriptions were of similar dimensions, each a little more than 12 metres long. Copy: Hamilton 1836; A. D. Mordtmann with H. Barth 1858; Perrot 1861. Publication: Hamilton 1842, 1, 423, and 2, 427 no. 136; (Le Bas – Waddington 1870, 2, 428 no. 1804; CIG IV 8795), Perrot – Guillaume – Delbet 1872, 1, 240 no. 137; Mordtmann 1874, 14: discussing the text of CIG IV 8795, on the basis of A. D. Mordtmann’s copy; (Grégoire 1927/28, 439 no. 2; Jerphanion 1928, 209, 300); Rhoby 2014, 540-3 TR 16 [Vienna Scheden 13].

4

8

12

[Π]έν[θει] φθαρεῖσα κ(αὶ) κλ̣ιθεῖσα πρὸς γόν[υ] [χ]ερσὶν Περ̣σ ̣ ικα̣ῖ̣ς̣ µιαιφόνος ἐκπάλαι νῦν ἐξεγείρου τῶν κακῶν ἀνειµένη ἀπαµφιάζ̣ου πενθικὴν ἀµορφίαν, δέχου στολισµὸν νυνφικ[ῆς ἀγλαΐας] | θεοστίβοις λίθ̣α̣ξιν ἐστιριγµένη· Θ(εο)ῦ [γ]ὰρ̣ οὕτως εὐνοεῖτα[ι] τὸ κράτος. Δίδου δὲ χέραν τῷ καλοῦντι προθυµῶς ἵνα πρὸς̣ ὕψ̣ος ἐµφανῶς ἀναστίσῃ σε τὴν πεσοῦσαν ἐν βαρά[θρ]ῳ κινδύνων | [χερὶ] κραταιᾷ Μιχαὴλ ὁ δεσπότης, [µέγ]ας βασιλεὺς ν[ικητ]ὴς στεφηφόρος 85

τὴν σὶν [ν]εουργῶν ἀσφαλῆ κατοικίαν, Ἄγκυρα τερπνή, παµφαεστάτη πόλις, πάση̣ς Γαλατῶν πατρίδος σὺ λαπρότις. 1: . ΕΝ . . . . . . ΦΘΑΡΕΙϹΑϹΚΑΙΘΕΙΣΑΙΠΡ, Hamilton; ΚΑΙΚΛΙΘΕΙΣΑΝΠΡΟΣΓΟΝ, A.D. Mordtmann; πρὸς π[έδῳ], CIG. 2: ΠΕΙϹΙΚΜΙΜΙΑΙΦΟΝΟΣ, Hamilton; µιαιφόνω̣ς, Jerphanion; µιαιφόνο(ι)ς, Grégoire, Rhoby. 3: ΕΙΡΟΥ, Hamilton; [ἀνεγεί]ρου, CIG; ἐξεγείρου, Perrot. 4: ΑΠΑΜΦΙΑΔΟΥ, Hamilton. 5: ΝΥΜΦΙΑϹ, Hamilton; ΝΥΜΦΙΚ, Perrot; rest. Grégoire. 6: ΕϹΤΙΡΙΓΜΕΝΗ, Hamilton. 7. ΘΥ ΑΒ, Hamilton; ΤΩϹΕΥΝΟΕΙΤΑ ΤΟΚΡΑΤΟϹ, Mordtmann, Perrot. 8: ΧΕΡΑΝ Hamilton; ΧΕΙΡΑΝ, Perrot; χέραν, Rhoby; χε(ῖ)ραν, priores. 9: ΠΡΟΕΥΞΟΕϹΜΦΑΝΩϹΑΝΑϹΤΙϹΕΗ, Hamilton; rest. Le Bas and Waddington, CIG. 10: rest. Le Bas and Waddington, CIG. 11: χερί ?, Rhoby. 13: ϹΙΝ, Hamilton. 15: ΠΑϹΑϹ, Hamilton.

Translation: Collapsed in sorrow and brought to your knees, stained with blood of old by the hands of the Persians, rise up now, rid of your troubles; throw off your shapeless mourning garb and receive the adornment of a bride’s radiance, reinforced by the stones on which God has trodden. For thus the power of God brings favour. Give your hand to him who calls eagerly, so that the ruler Michael, great King, victorious and bearing wreaths, may lift you up with his mighty hand in glory to the heights, when you have fallen into the abyss of dangers, building anew and making safe your settlement, fortunate Ancyra, all-gleaming city, you the glory of the whole country of the Galatians. Date: 859, see 324 comm. Commentary: This was a longer poem than 326 and formed fifteen dodecasyllable verses, divided into three inscribed lines after verses 5 and 10. Note the itacisms ἐστιριγµένη, ἀναστίσῃ, σίν and λαπρότις, and the accusative form χέραν (line 8). Grégoire thought that these verses were less classically correct than those of 326 and conjectured that 326 was the work of a metropolitan court poet, and 325 of a local writer. However, Grégoire exaggerated the poetic merits of 326 and there is little to choose between the quality of the two texts. Moreover, 325 was displayed more prominently in a higher position than its counterpart. There are also verbal and thematic echoes that linked the two compositions. The former emphasised the city’s devoutness and Christian credentials as a ‘New Sion’, the latter expressed the patriotic enthusiasm of a native Galatian for the newly resplendent capital of the Bucellarian Theme. Both addressed the emperor Michael in overlapping descriptions which evoked his power (325, 11; 326, 4) and his achievements as a mighty builder (325, 13: τὴν σὴν [ν]εουργῶν ἀσφαλῆ κατοικίαν; 326, 5: τῷ εὐσεβουργῷ καὶ πολιστῇ δεσπότῃ;). The imperial ἔργα were of course the fortifications that had been erected for the re-founded city. Inscription 325 envisaged Ankara first as a captured woman, bowed and bloodied, but now rescued from the depths of peril and raised up as a radiant bride by the victorious emperor. Both epigrams used enigmatic figurative language to refer to the physical nature of God’s protection. 326 mentions texts which God had produced, 325 alludes to the ‘stones trodden by God’, by which the city was supported: θεοστίβοις λίθαξιν ἐστιριγµένη. The rare word λίθαξ, used as an adjective, occurred as early as Homer, and gave an elevated tone to this line. θεοστίβης was used almost in its literal sense by Gregory of Nazianzus in an Easter sermon: ὁ µὲν τῆς ἁγίας γῆς καὶ θεοστιβοῦς ψαύειν µέλλων τὰ ὑποδήµατα λυέσθω (Or. in sacrum Pasch.), but was also used metaphorically in a passage of Theodore Studites, Hom. in nativitatem, 689D, referring to the Virgin Mary. The phrase in its current context would surely have evoked for contemporaries the 86

mass of masonry which had been transported and then erected with colossal effort to build the fortifications of the İç Kale. Divine protection was embodied in the crosses which were displayed on the towers of the south wall. Jerphanion drew attention to the sculpted crosses on towers 1, 2, 5 and 6 (Jerphanion 1928 pl. CI.2 and CII. 1-4). Tower 1 contained two very similar blocks each displaying a Latin cross within an aedicula, with acclamatory texts which summoned divine protection for the emperor Michael (327) and his spatharocandidatus Basil (328). These were placed directly above the artillery loopholes in these towers. A Maltese cross above a Latin cross was newly carved above the artillery loophole in tower 5 of the south wall, and there was a Latin cross above the corresponding loophole in tower 6. A Constantinianum, perhaps originally of an earlier period, was displayed on the large re-used block with the Latin inscription of the early Galatian governor Axius, which was also built into tower 5 close to the south gate (I. Ankara 1, 32). The reference to the city’s suffering at Persian hands, [χ]ερσὶν Περσικαῖς µιαιφόνος ἐκπάλαι, is problematic. We have adopted Hamilton’s reading µιαιφόνος as referring to Ankara being a victim of bloody slaughter, although in Homeric usage the adjective means bloodthirsty and applies to the agent of slaughter. This is an argument in favour of the emendation µιαιφόνο[ι]ς, which has been preferred by most editors. The identification of the Persians is a bigger problem. Grégoire interpreted the second verse of 325, χερσὶν Περσικαῖς µια(ι)φονὸς ἐκ πάλαι, as a reference to Ankara being sacked by the Arabs led by al-Mu‘tasim in 838 (Grégoire 1927/28, 443), and it would be natural for the text to refer to this recent disaster. However, it appears that generic references to the eastern enemies of the Byzantines as ‘Persians’, regardless of their actual ethnicity, do not occur before the Turkish attacks of the eleventh century (Rhoby 2014, 542). The adverb ἐκπάλαι, of old, also points to a much earlier event than the attack of 838, and this might indeed be the fall of Ankara to the Persians in 622. In that case we may infer that Ankara’s inhabitants in the mid ninth century were still scarred by the memory of a disaster that had occurred more than two centuries beforehand, although the material destruction caused by the Persians was not so catastrophic that Ankara’s citizens had to abandon the late Roman city for the new site on the citadel. However, it remains surprising that inscription 325 makes no direct allusion to the Arabs, who had occupied Ankara in 654 and threatened it on other occasions in the late eighth and early ninth centuries. 326. Verse inscription commemorating the refoundation of Ankara by Michael III Location: ‘In dem schlos an einem altten romischen gepew auswendig an der wandt des porticus seind zwo zeiln gestanden noch der lenge geschriben’ (Dernschwam, ed. Babinger 1923, 191); ‘In dem Schloss von Ankara standen an der Außenwand der Säulenhalle eines alten römischen Gebäudes zwei in langen Zeilen geschriebene Inschriftenzeilen’ (Dernschwam in the translation of Hattenhauer – Bake 2012, 252). The modern translation appears to misconstrue the sense of Dernschwam’s description, in which ‘porticus’ should refer to the enclosed double gateway to the citadel, the Parmak Kapı and the Zindan Kapı, not to a colonnaded portico. At all events Dernschwam must have seen the inscription in the city wall, in its original location. Subsequently it is clear that the upper courses of the fortification were damaged or demolished, and the exact positions of the long slabs of this big dedication inscription may have been adjusted when rebuilding took place. In 1555 the inscription, extending in two lines across several blocks, was intact and accurately copied by Dernschwam. Approximately 40% of the text 87

was carved on three blocks at the right-hand end of the inscription, so the full inscription may have extended over as many as seven blocks. In 1813 Kinneir copied the first, the propenultimate and penultimate blocks in the wall at the gate, next to a figured relief which has not survived and which no other traveller mentions. Hamilton copied the first two blocks of the text ‘on two stones inside the wall of the inner citadel’, and this remark suggests that these stones had fallen from or been removed from the wall when he made his copy. Perrot offered a reading of the two blocks at the right-hand end, which were then in situ in the wall, which was reproduced in CIG IV 8794. Jerphanion 1928, 282-3 noted that the inscription was written ‘sur deux longues lignes, probablement au-dessus de la porte C. L’extrémité droite sur trois pierres a été remployée dans la courtine voisine lors d’une réparation récente.’ His photograph shows these stones in the curtain between towers 5 and 6 of the south wall, but clearly not in their original position as they were placed above several uneven courses of rough stone, sloping upwards to the right, and surmounted by further layers of recent construction. In his discussion of the upper citadel’s date Jerphanion observed that blocks had been ‘réutilisés dans une réfection récente non loin de la porte C’ (Jerphanion 1928, 209). In 1971 the three blocks at the right end of the text remained in the position where Jerphanion had photographed them, but since then the modern rubble wall above the inscription has been removed and the entire top of the Byzantine wall has been reconstructed (see the photographs in French 2003, 196 no. 80, Rhoby 2014, 952 pl. LXXIII and LXXIV and Peschlow 2015 I, 160 n. 922 observes that the latest restoration occurred after 1980). In this reconstruction the propenultimate and penultimate blocks have been relocated to form the coping course of the wall, with an uninscribed block, of similar appearance and dimensions, placed to their right (see fig. 326d). This might be the last block but wrongly placed so that the inscription faces inwards and is no longer visible. Jerphanion’s observation that the blocks of the inscription had been moved from a position above the gate itself, which is in the east wall of the pentagonal tower that projects from the main curtain immediately to the left of the inscription’s current position, seems unlikely. Description: The inscription was complete when it was copied by Dernschwam in 1555. In 1971 sixty-two letters of the text in the upper and fifty-seven in the lower line were preserved in situ, carved on the last three blocks, of which the left-hand block is broken. These three blocks had been seen by Jerphanion in the 1920s, and d’Orbeliani’s facsimile drawing of 1916-18 also shows the text in this condition. The text of final block has become obscured since 1971, during the refurbishment of the top of the wall. The text was carved on a series of up to seven hard, coarse crystalline, white marble blocks. The total length of the three blocks that survived in 1971 was 5.37 metres. However, the original text would have extended about seven metres further to the left, and in total the original blocks carrying the inscription may have been between 12 and 12.5 metres long. A small fragment with the letters ΤΕΤ from verse 3 and ΑΘΕΙΑ from verse 8, accordingly from the left-hand portion of block 3, was recorded in 2005 in the garden of the Alaeddin Cami. The stone surface is worn, but the deeply cut letters are well preserved. Dimensions: Height 0.32; width of blocks from left to right 1.22 + 2.93 + 1.20 (total 5.37); depth c. 0.40. Fragment in the Alaeddin Camii garden: ht 0.34; width 0.45; depth 0.40. Letters: 0.10 - 0.12. Copy: Dernschwam April 1555; Kinneir 22.09.1813; Hamilton 1836; A. D. Mordtmann with H. Barth 1858; Perrot 1861; d’Orbeliani 1915-18; Jerphanion 1925-27; SM 1971 and 20.06.2004 (fragment at the Alaeddin Camii). 88

Publication: Cosson 1695, 147 XXVII: unknown copyist (referred to by Mordtmann 1874, 13); Gruter 1707, 2.1, 1161 no. 3: text from Dernschwam; Kinneir 1818, 72, and 543 nos. 11, 12 and 13; Hamilton 1842, 1, 422 and 2, 427 no. 137; (CIG III 4054: text of Kinneir 1818, no. 12 = ll. 4-5 & 9; Le Bas – Waddington 1870, 2, 428 no. 1803: text from Hamilton); Perrot – Guillaume – Delbet 1872, 1, 240 no. 137; Mordtmann 1874, 13: discussion of Perrot’s text, based on the copy of A. D. Mordtmann; (CIG IV 8794); d’Orbeliani 1924, 25 no.1; (Grégoire 1927/28, 437); Jerphanion 1928, 282 no. 55 with fig. 54 and Pl. CV no. 2, and 300-301; (SEG 6, 66); French 2003, 196 no. 80; Rhoby 2014, 537-40 TR15, and 952 pl. LXXIII and LXXIV [Vienna Scheden 14].

4

8

Δόξαν µεγίστην τοῦ Θεοῦ δεδορκότες ἔχοντες ὄµµα καὶ χέρας ἐπηρµένας ἄραντες εὐλογεῖτε τὸν παντεργάτην, τὸν ἰσχὺν ἐνδύοντα καὶ κράτος µέγα τῷ εὐσεβουργῷ κ̣(αὶ) πολιστῇ δεσπότῃ ἄνακτι πιστῷ Μιχαὴλ εὐεργέτῃ· οἱ εἰσίοντες τὴν πύλην καὶ τὴν πόλιν λαλεῖτε πάντα θεῖα δεδοξασµένα· πόλις Κυρίου χαῖρε, Σιὼν ἡ νέα, θεογράφοις πίναξιν ἐγγεγραµένη.

3: ΑΡΑΝΤΕϹ, Dernschwam; ᾄσαντες vel ἅπαντες, hesitanter Grégoire; ἅπαντες, Jerphanion, French; ᾄσαντες, Rhoby. 5: ΤΩΕΥΣΕ-Ω, Dernschwam; ΤΕΥϹΕΒΟΥΡΙ ΙΩΝΠΟΛΙϹΤΗ, Perrot; εὐσεβουργῷ, Jerphanion. 7: ΕΙϹΙΟΝΤΕϹ, lapis; CIG, Jerphanion; εἰσιδόντες, Grégoire 1927/28, 246; εἰσιόντες, Grégoire 1928/29, 346. 10: ἐγγεγραµένη, lapis, Jerphanion; ἐγγεγραµµένη, alii.

Translation: Having looked upon the greatest glory of God, and holding your gaze and hands raised up, with raised hands give praise to the accomplisher of everything, who gives strength and great might to the architect of piety and founder of the city, the faithful lord Michael, the benefactor. You who enter the gate and the city cry out all the glorious divine words: “Hail, city of the Lord, the new Sion, engraved upon the tablets which God has written”. Date: 859 (see 324). Commentary: The text is metrical and forms ten twelve-syllable verses. It is carved over two long lines, which break at the end of verse 5. The orthography, apart from χέρας in line 2, is classically orthodox and there are no itacisms in the text. The historical context of 326 was not correctly interpreted until Grégoire’s groundbreaking study of 1927/28. Grégoire saw that 324-326 were closely associated with one another and commemorated the construction of the citadel fortifications by an emperor Michael. 324 dated to the year 6367 (859) provided a chronological fixed point and enabled him to identify the ruler as Michael III during the period of his sole reign, which ran from 855 to 865. Grégoire argued that Ankara had been sacked during the Arab incursion of 838, which also resulted in the fall of Amorium, the capital of the Byzantine theme Anatolikon, and the capture both of its strategos Aetios (PMZ 1. Abt. 1, 33 no. 80) and of a eunuch and protospatharios called Georgios. The same Aetios was also responsible for building a church in western Galatia around this time, according to an 89

inscription copied at Sivrihisar near Pessinus: ἐκαλληεργήθη ὁ ναὸς τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου ὑπὸ Ἀετίο[υ] πρωτοσπαθαρίου κὲ στρατιγοῦ Ἀ[νατολικῶν] καὶ τῆς συµβίου αὐτοῦ ᾽Αµπελίας (CIG IV 8682). Grégoire identified Georgios with an anonymous eunuch, who according to Arab sources had been charged with organising the defence of Ancyra. The Roman military officers and officials who were made prisoners at Amorium were then supposedly taken back to Samarra, forced to renounce Christianity, and executed, thus passing into history as the forty-two martyrs of Amorium (Grégoire 1927/28, 443). The Arabic historian Tabari, referring to this episode, recorded that many of Ankara’s population lost faith in the emperor’s ability to defend them and fled to the mountains (Foss 1977, 78), while the Arab poet Husein Ibn al Dahhah boasted that ‘we spared nothing at Ankara and have ruined mighty Amorium’. Michael III’s achievement, during the major campaign that he initiated in 859-60, was to build Ankara’s new fortifications on the citadel and prevent the city falling again to the Arabs. The emperor and his protospatharios Basil, fully aware of the city’s strategic importance, turned Ankara into a virtually impregnable fortress. This was the fortress commemorated in iambic lines which was mentioned in the twelfth-century epic poem of Digenes Akritas, as τὸ περίφηµον καὶ µέγα κάστρον ἔτι, / τὸ δυνατόν τε καὶ κατωχυρωµένον / τὴν Ἄγκυραν (quoted by Grégoire 1929/30, 327-46, and Foss 1977, 81). Within a year of the appearance of Grégoire’s study, Jerphanion published the first, and still definitive, architectural study of Ankara’s Byzantine fortifications, including a fresh reading of 326, as well as inscriptions 327 and 328, newly discovered in the south-west tower of the citadel, with acclamations respectively for Michael III and his protospatharios Basil, which also commemorated the building of Ankara’s fortifications. Jerphanion argued that the inscriptions should be associated with ‘un renforcement de l’angle sud-est de la première enceinte et dans la construction de la seconde.’ He suggested that the building of the south-east bastion was later than that of the south gate and the wall associated with it: ‘Le renforcement de l’angle sud-est a suivi d’assez peu la construction primitive’. Grégoire argued against this interpretation, observing that inscriptions 327 and 328 both appeared to be contemporary with the south-west corner tower into which they were built (see 327 comm.), and that the physical scale of the inscription and the phraseology of 326, which referred to Michael as a city founder (πολιστῇ), and 325, which described him as constructing a new and secure settlement (τὴν σὴν νεουργῶν ἀσφαλῆ κατοικίαν), were appropriate to the wholesale rebuilding of Ankara’s citadel. These arguments have not lost their strength. We conclude that the upper citadel of Byzantine Ankara was constructed a novo in 859 in the reign of Michael III. This is the conclusion also reached by Urs Peschlow who rejects the communis opinio of other recent scholars that the citadel originated in the third quarter of the seventh century. The building of Ankara’s citadel by Michael III fits into a well-attested pattern. In 856/7, the emperor was responsible for major new fortifications at Smyrna, attested by an inscription which survives from one of its towers: † Πύργος Μιχαὴλ | µεγάλου βασι|λέως ἐν Χ(ριστ)ῷ Αὐ|τοκράτορος ἔτ. Ϛτξε ´ (I. Smyrna 846). Nicaea’s defences were upgraded in the following year in the same way, and as many as nine inscriptions have been noted on its towers. One of these, with the text † Πύργος Μι|χαὴλ µεγά|λου βασιλέ|ως ἐν Χ(ριστ)ῷ Αὐ|τοκράτορος | ἔτος ϚτξϚ ´ dates to 857-8 (I. Iznik 1, 460), and the walls contain eight more similar texts, although they lack the date at the end (I. Iznik 1, 461-68). Ankara’s turn came in the next year. These middle years of Michael’s reign were marked by major defensive and offensive attempts to take the initiative against the Arabs, and it is

90

during this period that the emperor was first addressed with the titles πιστὸς καὶ µέγας, both in the homilies of Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople (Mango 1958, 188 and 311), and on coins. These titles are echoed by the vocabulary of verses 4 (κράτος µέγα) and 6 (ἄνακτι πιστῷ) of 326. (Grierson 1973, 455, unconvincingly dates these miliaresia to the end of Michael’s reign in 866). Beyond identifying the historical context of this and the other relevant texts from Ankara, Grégoire offered little detailed comment on their content, except to observe that the two verse inscriptions, were work of good quality, and perhaps to be attributed to court poets. He compared the text of 326, which is metrically impeccable, with two poems, the first also commemorating the building of a city gate, preserved in the Palatine Anthology (Anth. Pal. I, 106 and 107). Both the texts in the Anthology, like 326, emphasized the visual presence of images of Christ. The opening of 326 is particularly reminiscent of Anth. Pal. I, 106, 5-9: ἰδοὺ γὰρ αὖθις Χριστὸς εἰκονισµένος / λάµπει πρὸς ὕψος τῆς καθέδρας τοῦ κράτους / καὶ τὰς σκοτεινὰς αἱρέσεις ἀνατρέπει. / τῆς εἰσόδου δ᾽ ὕπερθεν ὡς θεία πύλη / στηλογραφεῖται καὶ φύλαξ ἡ Παρθένος; ‘see again the image of Christ shines towards the height of the seat of power and overturns the heresies of darkness. And above the entrance the guardian Virgin Mary is carved as an image on a stele like a divine gateway’). Grégoire also noted the striking verbal parallel between the neologism εὐσεβουργῷ of 326 verse 5, and the last line of Anth. Pal. I, 106: καὶ τοῦ σοφουργοῦ Μιχαὴλ τὴν εἰκόνα. The adjective εὐσεβοῦργος itself appears in only one other passage of Byzantine literature, in the phrase τῆς εὐσεβουργοῦς παντελοῦς εὐποιίας, which occurs in a long poem attributed to Photius in praise of the emperor Basil I (Rhoby 2014, 540, citing Markopoulos 1992, 231). The first part of the poem invited those entering the city gate to raise their eyes and gaze on an image of Christ, whose universal efficacity (παντεργάτην) was matched by the pious accomplishments of the emperor (εὐσεβουργῷ). Δόξα was another key term. The initial injunction to view Christ’s glorious image, δόξαν µεγίστην τοῦ Θεοῦ δεδορκότες, was developed by the bidding to sing the praise of His glory, λαλεῖτε πάντα θεῖα δεδοξασµένα. The significance of δόξα had already been emphasized in the project’s foundation inscription (324). Grégoire’s observations perhaps exaggerate the quality of the verses. The verb εἰσείµι normally requires a following preposition (sc. εἰς) not a direct object, and the conjecture εἰσιδόντες, proposed by various editors, conforms better with classical Greek usage. But εἰσιδόντες itself is less appropriate than the participle of the simple verb (ἰδόντες), and there is no good reason to alter Dernschwam’s original reading. Apart from the non-classical usage of εἰσίοντες followed by a direct object, the phraseology both of χέρας ἐπηρµένας ἄραντες in lines 2-3, and of θεογράφοις πίναξιν ἐγγεγραµένη in line 12 involves clumsy verbal repetitions. However, subtlety and refinement of expression were doubtless less important than the text’s central message. The last couplet turned to Ankara itself and the divine protection that the city enjoyed. The city was strikingly hailed as a new Sion, a new Jerusalem. A passage of Procopius of Gaza elucidated the three meanings of Sion: it could refer to the actual city of Jerusalem, or to the community of the pious living on earth, or to the angelic city of those who dwelled in heaven, εἶπε δὲ Σιών· ἤδη προείρηται ὡς κατὰ τρόπους τρεῖς προσήκει νοεῖν τὴν Σιὼν· καὶ τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴµ ἢ αἰσθήσεως· ἢ κατὰ τὸ θεοσεβὲς τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ὄντα πολίτευµα· ἤ κατὰ τὴν ἐν οὐράνοις ἀνγελικὴν πολιτείαν, περὶ ἧς φησὶν ὁ Παῦλος· “ἡ δ᾽ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴµ, ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν” καὶ “οὐ γὰρ προσεληλύθατε Σιὼν ὄρει” (Procopius of Gaza, Comm. in Isaiam 562 [PG 87.2, 2476c]; for the theme see Lidov 2009, reviewed by

91

Tinnefeld 2011). It is noteworthy that the remarkable new theological texts from Ankara, published as 347-349 in this corpus, also repeatedly instructed the people of Ankara to conduct themselves like citizens of the Holy City, emulating the examples of charity to be found in stories from the Old Testament. It is not unreasonable to think that the concept of Ankara as a new embodiment of Sion directly stemmed from the pious environment which had led to the creation and dissemination of those unique texts. It is tempting to take this argument a step further and use it to explain the last verse of 326, θεογράφοις πίναξιν ἐγγεγραµένη. Foss has suggested that the line alluded to ‘pictures painted by God’, that is to icons or images with protective power (Foss 1977, 79). However, although the verb γράφειν could refer to painting as well as writing, the term πίναξ was more commonly used for a writing tablet than for a picture, and θεόγραφος should refer to scripture. A sermon which was spuriously attributed to John Chrysostom rhetorically alludes to καρτερίας θεόγραφοι πίνακες and appears to be the only other ancient text to contain the expression found in the Ankara inscription ([John Chrysostom.] in omnes sanctos 308 l. 8; however, a digital search in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae confirms that θεόγραφος νόµος, θεόγραφοι πλάκες, or θεόγραφα πυξία were phrases often used by patristic writers to refer to the tablets of the Law given by God to Moses, as, for instance, in a passage from the life of St Clement of Ochrid: τοιαῦτα δὲ καταλελοίποµεν ἡµῶν ὑποµνήµατα καὶ ἱερὰς βίβλους ἐν τῇ Ἀχρίδι καὶ τῆς ὑψηλῆς διανοίας ἐκείνου καὶ τῆς χειρὸς πονήµατα ἴδια, οὐχ ἧττον παρὰ τοῦ ἔθνους παντὸς σεβόµενα καὶ τιµώµενα ἢ καὶ αἱ Μωσαϊκαὶ θεόγραφοι πλάκες ἐκεῖναι (Demetrius Chomatenus, Vita Clem. Ochr. 8). The seventh-century court poet George of Pisidia described the inspired speech delivered by the emperor Heraclius on the eve of his Persian expedition as based on τῷ θεογράφῳ τύπῳ (Georg. Pisid, de exped. Persica 1, 150; 2, 86; cf. Bell. Avar. 3.67). Accordingly, it is much more likely that the allusion at Ankara is to written texts. This could be a reference to inscribed biblical texts, even perhaps specifically to the extraordinary quasibiblical texts 347-349 which are a unique feature of Ankara’s epigraphy. 327. Acclamation for Michael III Location: ‘Surmontant la meurtrière inférieure de la tour d’angle sud-ouest, face sudouest’ (Jerphanion). The stone is still in place above an artillery loophole in the southwest corner tower of the upper fortifications (Tower 1 of both the west and south walls). Description: ‘Sur une pierre ornée d’une croix … La pierre est remployée et nous croyons l’inscription postérieure à la croix et au remploi lui-même’ (Jerphanion). The Latin cross stands on a ball or small globe. It is framed by the representation of two columns on stepped bases with capitals supporting an arch or vault. Despite Jerphanion’s observation the inscription appears to be contemporary with the rest of the decoration. Broken-bar alpha; cursive epsilon, sigma and omega; omikron upsilon in ligature. Dimensions: Not recorded (height c. 0.50; width c. 0.75). Copy: d’Orbeliani 1915-18; Jerphanion 1925-27; SM 2008. Publication: d’Orbeliani 1924, 33 no. 32; Jerphanion 1928, 284 no. 56 and Pl. 101, 2. Μιχ-

πο-

92

8

4

αὴλ µεγάλου βασηλέως

Cross inside arch

λὰ τὰ ἔτη.

Μιχαὴλ µεγάλου βασηλέως πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη Translation: Many be the years of Michael, great king! Date: 859. Commentary: An acclamation of Michael III. Inscriptions 327 and 328 were both apotropaic, reinforcing the crucial corner tower with the divine strength of the cross, and laudatory of the emperor and his deputy, who had secured Ankara from its enemies. No doubt this acclamation, and the invocation of 328, were first proclaimed during a religious procession around the new citadel, when the work was dedicated to the glory of God. 328.

Acclamation of Basil, spatharocandidatus

Location: ‘À la meurtrière inférieure de la même tour [cf. 327]’. Placed above an artillery loophole on the south face of the corner tower 1 of the south wall. Description: ‘Sur une pierre ornée d’une croix semblable [cf. 327]’ (Jerphanion). The text was carved on either side of an aedicula or niche, flanked by two pilasters resting on stepped bases with simple capitals below the arch. Between them is a Latin cross placed on a small ball. Diamond-shaped theta; broken-bar alpha. The lettering to the left of the cross is now hard to read. Dimensions: Not recorded, but approximately the same size as 327. Copy: d’Orbeliani 1915-18; Jerphanion 1925-27; SM 2008. Publication: d’Orbeliani 1924, 32 no. 31 and Fig. 38; Jerphanion 1928, 285 no. 57, fig. 56 and pls. 100, 1 and 102, 2 [Vienna Scheden 225].

4

† Κε βοήθη το͂  σο͂ δούλο Βασηλήο

Cross inside arch

σπαθαροκανδιδάτο. †

8

12

† Κ(ύρι)ε βοήθη το͂  σο͂ δούλο Βασηλήο σπαθαροκανδιδάτο † Translation: Lord, help your slave, Basil, the spatharocandidatus!

93

Date: 859. Commentary: For Basil, see 324 comm.

94

Hier Datei: “Michael”

95

- 96 -

3.2 Imperial Inscriptions from Constantine to Arcadius Ankara’s situation on the main military road from Illyricum to Syria, which were the main cockpits of Roman military activity during the fourth century, was a primary reason why it became one of the most important cities of the eastern empire during this period. This development can be traced in the fourth-century imperial inscriptions, which reflect both Ankara’s military importance and the role that it served as an imperial administrative centre under Constantine, Julian and Arcadius. 329. Dedication to Constantine by Flavius Constantius Location: The inscription was rediscovered when ‘la Banque Agricole’, the Ziraat Bankası, was being built close to Ulus. Jerphanion suggested that it might have been used in a cemetery, but it could also have been a spolium used in the city wall of the lower city. The present whereabouts are not known. Description: ‘Bloc brisé’ (Jerphanion), with irregular and shallow lettering. Dimensions: No dimensions have been recorded apart from letter heights of 0.06-07. These suggest that the original block was about the same size as 330. Copy: Provided by an unknown person to A.D. Mordtmann 1858; Domaszewski 1882; Jerphanion 1925-27; Ramsay 1927 notebook. Publication: Mommsen 1872, 471 no. 1036: based on the copy given to A.D. Mordtmann; Mommsen 1884, 30 no. 55: from a photograph provided by Domaszewski; (CIL III 6751); Jerphanion 1928, 234 no. 7 and Fig. 27; (Bosch 1967, 367 no. 305; AE 2003, 64) [Vienna Scheden 31].

4

8

Clementissimo adque perpetuo Imperatori D. n. Co[ns]t[a]ntino maxi[mo] victori sem[p]er A[ugust]o Fl. Constantiu[s] v. c. praefectus pretorii pietati eius semper dicatis[sim]u[s].

1-3: ‘notre facsimile rend plus exactement [que CIL III 6751] l’aspect des premières lignes’, Jerphanion. 6: v(ir) c(larissimus); the first three letters were damaged when Jerphanion and Ramsay made their copies.

Translation: To the most merciful and enduring emperor, our Lord Constantinus, the greatest always victorious Augustus, Flavius Constantius, vir clarissimus, praetorian prefect, everlastingly devoted to his piety.

96

- 97 -

Date: October – November 324 (career of Fl. Constantius; political context). Commentary: Victor semper first appeared in the official titles of Constantine after the surrender of Licinius on 19 September and before the promotion of Constantius II to the rank of Caesar on 8 November 324. It was designed to replace the formula invictus, and not only conveyed the notion that the emperor, after the conclusion of the civil war with Licinius, was a definitive victor over his enemies, but also freed him from verbal association with the worship of Sol Invictus, and thus confirmed the unambiguously Christian ideology of his regime, which had become prominent during the final war with his co-ruler (Chastagnol 1966, 543-50; Grünewald 1990, 133-44). At the same time as advertising Constantine’s political programme, 329 and 330 expressed the thanks and the loyalty of a grateful and devoted recipient of office. Flavius Constantius, was Constantine’s first appointee to the post of praetorian prefect for the East after he became sole emperor (PLRE I, Fl. Constantius 5). A group of eight Constantinian constitutions show that he held the office between 324 and 327. Porena 2003, 382-97, discusses these imperial rulings which marked Constantius out as one of the most important figures in the reconfiguration of the eastern empire after the fall of Licinius. A Latin building inscription from Aqaba (Aela, Aelana) in Jordan, apparently refers to him as praetorian prefect for Oriens, either as co-recipient of a dedication with Constantine and the Caesars Crispus, Constantinus and Constantius (see AE 1989, 750), or himself as the dedicator of the building (Porena 2003, 393-6). Barnes 1982, 103, tentatively identifies him with the Constantius who undertook a diplomatic mission on Constantine’s behalf in 315 or 316, which was designed to persuade Licinius to promote Bassianus, who was married to Constantine’s half-sister Anastasia, to the rank of Caesar (Anon. Val. 14: post aliquantum deinde temporis Constantium Constantinus ad Licinium misit, persuadens ut Bassianus Caesar fieret, qui habebat alteram Constantini sororem Anastasiam, ut exemplo Maximiani inter Constantinum et Licinium Bassianus Italiam medius optineret; ‘then after a short time Constantine sent Constantius to Licinius, seeking to persuade him that Bassianus, who was married to Constatine’s half-sister Anastasia, should take control of Italy, between Constantine and Licinius, following the example of Maximianus’). In that case Flavius Constantius was already at least a trusted confidant of Constantine, and his name may indicate a family relationship. Barnes suggests that he may be identical with Iulius Constantius, the son of Constantius I and Theodora, and therefore Constantine’s half-brother, who was killed along with other members of the imperial household in the months after the death of Constantine in 337, but there is no ancient evidence that Iulius Constantius ever took the nomen Flavius (Barnes 2011, 212 n. 14). F. Chausson has argued that Flavius Constantinus might have been a full brother of the emperor, another son of the marriage between Constantius I and Helena (Chausson 2002, 138-145), but it is remarkable that the fact is not elsewhere attested. Flavius Constantius’ earliest dated action was to promulgate the lapidary edict of Constantine which nullified the actions of Licinius: remotis Licini tyranni constitutionibus et legibus omnes sciant veteris iuris et statutorum nostrorum observari debere sanctionem; ‘After the constitutions and laws of the tyrant Licinius have been put aside, let everyone be aware that the sanction of the old law and of our statutes should be observed’ (CTh XV.14.1, 16 December 324; the manuscripts give the date of publication as p(ro)p(ositum) XVII Kal. Iun. Crispo III et Constantio III Caess. conss., but Iun. should be emended to Ian). Flavius Constantius was for the most part resident at Antioch, and it was from there on 29 August 325 that he disseminated Constantine’s edict addressed to omnes provinciales, which allowed them to appeal to the praetorian prefect against culpable or negligent decisions that 97

- 98 had been perpetrated by provincial governors (CTh I.5.1). This was certainly a universal measure designed to offer redress to subjects who had suffered at the hands of Licinius’ appointees. A further law addressed to Constantius reversed a decision of Licinius that members of the praetorian prefect’s staff were liable to undertake civic magistracies and curial duties after they had completed their military service (CTh VIII.4.1; the date, reported as 28 April 315, has been corrupted). It is clear from these laws that the main task facing Flavius Constantius was to deal with the legal, administrative and political issues throughout the eastern provinces which followed from the overthrow of Licinius’ régime, and it is against this background that the two dedications to Constantine set up in Ankara should be interpreted. On the one hand, opponents of Licinius who had suffered various forms of punishment or demotion were to be restored to their previous positions or should receive compensation (Eusebius, VC II, 30-37). On the other, political reality demanded that prominent former supporters of Licinius should be pardoned and even promoted to influential positions, if this was helpful to the new régime. The prime example of this policy of reconciliation was Iulius Iulianus, Fl. Constantius’ predecessor as praetorian prefect for the East, who was appointed consul in 325 and whose daughter Basilina married Iulius Constantius, the step-brother of Constantius II, and was the mother of the future emperor Julian (Grünewald 1990, 134-44). Accordingly, the watch-words of the two Ankara dedications are clementia and pietas. The emphasis on clementia demonstrates that Constantine modelled his political actions on the way in which Julius Caesar had dealt with his enemies and political rivals after the civil wars of the early 40s BC. Grünewald aptly cites Cicero’s address to Caesar in the pro Marcello, pleading for the re-instatement of a former enemy: Et ceteros quidem omnis victores bellorum civilium iam ante aequitate et misericordia viceras: hodierno vero die te ipsum vicisti … nam cum ipsius victoriae condicione omnes victi occidissemus, clementiae tuae iudicio conservati sumus. Recte igitur unus invictus es, a quo etiam ipsius victoriae condicio visque devicta est; ‘moreover you had already previously surpassed all other victors in civil wars in fairness and mercy. But on this very day you have surpassed yourself … for when we ourselves had been vanquished and would all have perished according to the terms of victory itself, we have been preserved by the decision to show your clemency. Rightly therefore you alone are invincible, as you have overcome the terms and force of victory itself’ (Cicero, Pro Marcello 12; quoted by Grünewald 1990, 72). While a political policy dictated by clementia would have been applicable to the whole period during which Fl. Constantius was praetorian prefect in the East, it was particular relevant to the first weeks and months after the defeat of Licinius, and the Ankara dedications should be dated to this period. The most likely scenario is that Flavius Constantius was appointed to his office immediately after Licinius’s defeat at the battle of Chrysopolis, near Chalcedon, in late September 324. The victorious emperor Constantine himself proceeded to the Balkans, while his new praetorian prefect travelled across Asia Minor to take charge of the eastern dioeceses. His first recorded legal decision, surely promulgated at Antioch, was to announce Constantine’s edict reversing Licinius’ illegal actions on 16 December 324. We may thus assume that he passed through Ankara during October or November 324, and set up the inscriptions that publicised the political tenor of the new régime. The two Constantinian inscriptions that have been found at Ankara, although imposing in dimensions, were hastily produced. Jerphanion’s description of 329 mentions its irregular and shallow lettering; the base used for 330 had carried an earlier inscription which was erased to make way for the new text. Both bases had certainly previously supported imperial statues of the tetrarchic period or statues of Licinius himself,

98

- 99 which could now swiftly be modified into representations of Constantine. This must have happened more often than not when bases were re-dedicated in this period, as may be seen in the case of the contemporary dedication set up in Seleucia, the capital of the province of Isauria, Domino ac prin/cipi nostro be/atissimo Aug. / Fl. Constantinum Aur. Fortunatus v. p. / pr. pr. Is(auriae) d. n. m. q. / eius (Dagron – Feissel 1987, 22 no. 4; AE 1978, 815; AE 2005, 1535). This text, doubtless also compiled in haste in the autumn of 324, simply inserted the ungrammatical Constantinum, over an erasure where Licinius’ name had previously stood.

330. Dedication to the Aeterna Pietas of Constantine by Flavius Constantius Location: Brought from the garden of the İlköğretim Okulu at Ulus, 16.8.2002. Now in the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 42.1.02 Description: A large, rectangular block of hard, grey, white-veined marble. The top right corner has been cut back in an irregular quadrangular shape when the base was re-used as the anchoring stone for the wooden beam of an olive oil press, removing the ends of lines 1 and 2 of the inscription. The bottom right corner has also been cut back in a corresponding shape. There is a large trapezoidal slot cut into the top of the right-hand side of the block for attaching a press beam. The inscription begins c. 0.18 from the top and was cut on a flat surface prepared with a claw-tooth chisel. The lower part (c. 0.45 up from the base) was roughly dressed. The inscription was cut over an earlier, erased text. The surface and letters are slightly worn, but traces of red colouring remain in some of the letters. Dimensions: Height 1.26; width. 0.92; thickness 0.735; letters: (lines 1-3) 0.07, (lines 4-5) 0.06, (line 6) 0.055. Copy: DHF 11.10.2002; squeeze SM 24.08.2010. Publication: French 2003, 88 no. 04 (with photograph); (AE 2006, 1473).

4

Aeternae Pietatis ·Au[ctori] D. n. Constantino maxi[mo] victori semper Augusto Fl. Constantius v. c. praefectus praetorio numini eius semper (vac) dicatissimus. (vac)

1: rest. Feissel; Au[gusto], French, AE; Au[gusti], Clauss-Slaby Datenbank. 2: D(omino) n(ostro). 4: v(ir) c(larissimus); the final letter S was squashed tightly against the V to fit the stone.

Translation: For the promoter of eternal piety, our lord Constantinus, the greatest always victorious Augustus, Fl(avius) Constantius, vir clarissimus, praetorian prefect, everlastingly devoted to his divine numen. Date: October-November 324 (see 329 comm.). Commentary: The restoration au[ctori], suggested per litt. by Denis Feissel, avoids the

99

- 100 syntactical difficulties inherent in the proposals to read Au[gusto] or Au[gusti] and the awkward repetition of the word Augustus. Both the inscriptions set up by Flavius Constantius stressed the virtue of pietas. In 329 Flavius Constantius indicated that he was beholden to the emperor’s pietas. In 330 the word carried two connotations. Most obviously it highlighted Constantine’s religious devotion, in his case to the Christian God. At the same time pietas, in the sense of devotion to family members, underlay the connection between the emperor and the new praetorian prefect, to whom he may have been closely related. Aeterna Pietas was the dominant motif of 330, and served as a reminder that both during and immediately after the war with Licinius, Constantine claimed that religious devotion was the central factor of his military and political success. The theme is a key to Eusebius’ presentation of the events of AD 324-5 in the Vita Constantini. In VC I. 6 Eusebius explicitly established the link between pietas and Constantine’s victories over his enemies: καὶ οἱ µὲν οἷα πιστὸς καὶ ἀγαθὸς θεράπων τοῦτ᾽ ἔπραττε καὶ ἐκήρυττε, δοῦλον ἄντικρυς ἀποκαλῶν καὶ θεράποντα τοῦ παµβασιλέως ὁµολογῶν ἑαυτόν, θεὸς δ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐγγύθεν ἀµειβόµενος κύριον καθίστησι καὶ δεσπότην νικητήν τε µόνον ἐξ αἰῶνος αὐτοκρατόρων ἄµαχον καἰ ἀήττητον, εἰσαεὶ νικῶντα τροπαίοις τε τοῖς κατ᾽ ἐχθρῶν διὰ παντὸς φαιδρυνόµενον, βασιλέα τε τοσοῦτον, ὅσος οὐδεὶς ἀκοῇ τῶν πάλαι πρότερον µνηµονεύεται γενέσθαι· οὕτω µὲν θεοφιλῆ καὶ τρισµακάριον, οὕτω δ᾽εὐσεβῆ καὶ πανευδαίµονα, ὡς µετὰ πάσης µὲν ῥᾳστώνης πλειόνων ἢ οἱ ἔµπροσθεν κατασχεῖν ἐθνῶν, ἄλυπον δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἰς αὐτὴν καταλῆξαι τελευτήν. ‘As a loyal and good servant, he would perform this and announce it, openly calling himself a slave and confessing himself a servant of the all-sovereign, while God in recompense was close at hand to make him lord and despot, the only conqueror among the emperors of all time to remain irresistible and unconquered, ever-conquering and always brilliant with triumphs over enemies, so great an emperor as none remembers ever was before in reports of old, so God-beloved and thrice blessed, so truly pious and complete in happiness, that with utter ease he governed more nations than those before him, and kept his dominion unimpaired to the very end’ (trans. Cameron – Hall 1999, 69). 331. Dedication to Constantine as Aeternus Augustus by Lucilius Crispus Location: ‘Unearthed in 1910 together with a number of stelae, columns and other débris, whilst a new road was being cut through the Jewish cemetery’ (d’Orbeliani). Present whereabouts not known. Description: Cut on the left face of I. Ankara 1, 110, a statue base of the Severan period. d’Orbeliani described the whole monument as a square marble slab of good workmanship, with Greek and Latin inscriptions, but remarked of the later text that ‘the engraving is crude, much damaged and many letters are practically illegible.’ It seems that the top of the stone was broken, or that the first two or three lines of the text were illegible. Dimensions: 0.57 x 1.12 (22 1⁄2 x 44 inches, d’Orbeliani). Copy: d’Orbeliani 1915-18. Publication: d’Orbeliani 1924, 36 no. 45; (AE 1924, 89; LSA 2876) -------

100

- 101 -

4

Aeterno Aug. Lucil. Crispus v. p. a. v. praeff. praet. d. n. ma. eius.

Ulrich Gehn, compiler of the entry for the Last Statues of Antiquity project, correctly observes that the initial lines of this inscription, naming the emperor, are missing. 2: v(ir) p(erfectissimus) a(gens) v(ice) 3: praef(ectorum) praet(orio) d(evotus) n(umini) ma(iestatique).

Translation: … eternal Augustus, Lucilius Crispus, vir perfectissimus, acting vicarius in the role of the praetorian prefects, devoted to his divine numen and majesty. Date: Probably October/November 324. Commentary: Lucilius Crispus (PIR2 L 382; PLRE I, 233 Crispus 5) is attested with the title v(ir) p(erfectissimus) praeses prov(inciae) Isauriae at Seleucia on the Calycadnus on a pair of Latin dedications for two of the Caesars in 306-7, Constantine and Maximinus Daia, whose name was later erased (AE 1978, 814-5; Dagron – Feissel 1987, 20-21 nos. 2-3; Şahin 1991, 152-3). The Ankara text dates to a much later stage in his career, when he took the position of vicarius of the diocese of Pontica and erected this dedication in its capital city, Ancyra (see 433 comm. for Ankara as the seat of the vicarius of Pontica). Barnes noted that the dedication to a single Augustus strictly implies a date either between 324 and 327, or between 350 and 361 (as already suggested in PLRE I, 233), but that the period 311-313 might also be considered, in which case the inscription would refer to Maximinus Daia, who was Augustus from 311 to 313 (Barnes 1982, 142). However, no evidence is supplied to support this interpretation. Feissel also contested the view that 324-7 (Constantine) and 35061 (Constantius II) are the only possible dates for the text, with the argument that it was possible for an unnamed member of an imperial college to be addressed as aeterno Augusto without implying that he was the only ruler at the time. He cited a dedication from Numidia to Diocletian as aeterno Augusto (CIL VIII 18698), but this text is in fact identical to ILS 644 which Feissel had correctly produced as evidence for the usage Aeterni Augusti, referring to the two emperors Diocletian and Maximianus (Dagron – Feissel 1987, 21 n. 4). Since the inscriptions from Seleucia show that Lucilius Crispus was active near the beginning of the fourth century and rule out a mid-fourth century date, the Ankara dedication should be taken at face value and placed between 324 and 327. The titles and name of Constantine should be restored accordingly, compare CIL II 2203 (Córdoba): D. n. Imp. Caes. / Flav. Val. Constantino Max. / Pio Felici Aeterno Aug. Lucilius Crispus had evidently been appointed to be vicarius of Pontica after the fall of Licinius at the same time as Fl. Constantius became praetorian prefect. This dedication, like those of Fl. Constantius, was probably set up within a month of the victory over Licinius. The inscription, like those put up by the praetorian prefect, was carved on a re-used base, and the reportedly crude lettering shows the same signs of hasty production that may be observed on 329 and 330. The wording of the dedication Aeterno Augusto also linked the dedication thematically to 330 which was addressed Aeternae Pietatis auctori, and confirms that it conformed to the same political and propagandistic programme. The three Constantinian dedications from Ankara provide a secular context for the provisional decision taken by Constantine and his advisors to hold an ecumenical council at Ancyra to resolve the major divisions in the Church after the defeat of Licinius. In spring

101

- 102 325 a council of bishops which had assembled in Antioch issued a letter announcing that three followers of the Alexandrian priest Arius should be given an opportunity to remounce their heretical beliefs at a council to be held in Ankara. The wording of this letter, which is only preserved in a Syriac translation, implies that the decision to hold this council had been taken at an earlier date, probably at the end of the preceding year. Not long afterwards in the summer of 325 Constantine sent another letter to the bishops announcing a change of plan, that the council should be moved from Ankara to Nicaea (see Opitz 1935, no. 18 [letter of the bishops in Antioch] and 20 [Constantine’s letter]; cf Schwartz 1959, 134-55, and Elliott 1992, 134-6). The initial choice of Ankara must have been made virtually at the same moment as the setting up of the three inscriptions which praised the emperor’s clementia, aequitas and pietas. Following Constantine’s general instructions, the first plans for the ecumenical council were surely drawn up by Flavius Constantius, no doubt in consultation with Ankara’s energetic and influential bishop Marcellus (see p. XX). Marcellus was a veteran of the persecutions, notably the last phase during 311 and 312 under Maximinus Daia (Mitchell 1988). This was vividly illustrated by the Life of St Τheodotus of Ancyra, which described how Ancyra’s Christians had been hard hit by the measures of the Galatian governor Theoteknos (Mitchell 1982; Barnes 2010, 156-9 takes an overly sceptical view of the historical value of this life). Around 314, after the declaration of religious tolerance in Licinius’ half of the empire, Marcellus presided over a synod of twelve bishops from the region to decide how to deal with issues raised by those who had compromised with the persecuting regime (for an English translation of the canons of the council of Ancyra, see http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3802.htm). At the Council of Nicaea itself Marcellus demonstrated extremely conservative anti-Arian theological views, for which he was to pay a heavy price during his long career (Parvis 2006). 332. Dedication to Julian Location: Built into the wall beside the postern gate which is between the south-east bastion and tower 1 on the east side of the İç Kale. Description: A rectangular block of pale limestone. The upper half of the inscription could still be read in 1975, when the bottom half was covered by the roof beam of a house abutting the wall. The entire stone was seen by Cosson’s source, by Barth and Mordtmann, and by Jerphanion; the lower part was obscured when recorded by Tournefort, de la Motraye, and by SM 8.6.1975. The letters are mostly widely spaced. Dimensions: Height (of the visible part of the stone) 0.46; width 0.59; letters: (lines 1-2) 0.04, (line 3) 0.05, (others) 0.04. Copy: Cosson from an unknown source; Tournefort 1701 (up to line 7); de la Motraye 1703 (up to line 7); A. D. Mordtmann 1858 (with H. Barth) and 1859; Jerphanion 1925-27; SM 1975 (up to line 8). Publication: Cosson apud Cuperus f. 228 = f. 296 (CIL); Tournefort 1717a (Paris), 2, 456 = 1717b (Lyon), 3, 327 = 1718, 2, 182 (top r.); Motraye 1723, 1, 226 and 404 no. 2 = 1727, 1, 313: text from Tournefort; (Muratori 1739-42, 1, 263 no. 4; Belley 1774, 412; Orelli 1828, 1, 244 no. 1109; Le Bas – Waddington 1870, 2, 426 no. 1787 bis); CIL III 247: text from

102

- 103 Tournefort, with notes from Barth; (ILS 754); Jerphanion 1928, 234 no. 8; (Conti 2004, 73 no. 20; LSA 2846) [Vienna Scheden 32].

4

8

12

Domino totius orbis Iuliano · Augusto ex · Oceano Britannico vis per barbaras gentes strage resistentium patefactis adusque Tigridem una leaf aestate transvecto, Saturninius Secundus v. c. praef. praet. [d.] n. m. q. [eius].

3: VIS sc. viis, recognised by Tournefort; vi(i)s, Clauss-Slaby. 11: v(ir) c(larissimus); P ̣ṚẠẸF ̣, Jerphanion, noting that only the upper part of each letter was legible. 12: N Ṃ Q, Jerphanion; [d(evotus)] n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue).

Translation: For the master of the whole world, Iulianus Augustus, having traversed in a single season the span from the British Ocean to the river Tigris, when the roads were opened up through the barbarian races amid great slaughter of those who resisted; Saturninius Secundus, vir clarissimus, praetorian prefect, devoted to his divine spirit and majesty. Date: June 362. Commentary: This statue base for the emperor Julian was put up by his praetorian prefect Saturninius Secundus Salutius (PLRE I, 814-7). It must have been erected during Julian’s visit to Ancyra in June 362, for which see Ammianus Marcellinus 22.9.8 and Mitchell 1993 II, 88-91. The inscription’s emphasis on Julian’s barbarian foes during the year preceding his arrival in Ankara is also found in the panegyric speech of Claudius Mamertinus, delivered in Constantinople when he received the consulship from Julian in January 362. Julian’s rapid march from Augusta Raurica to Constantinople was naturally not represented as the first stage of a civil war against Constantius, but as an imperial journey, combined with military action, which brought security to the cities and provinces of Illyricum in the face of a barbarian threat. Compare especially Mamertinus’ passage, mitto cunctam barbariam adversus vindicem Romanae libertatis in arma commotam, gentesque recens victas et adversus iugum nuper impositum cervice dubia contumaces in redivivum furorem nefandis stimulis excitatas. Quae omnia obstinatam et immobilem principis maximi tandem vicere patientiam. Itaque cum in primo molimine oppressisset Alamanniam rebellantem, qui paulo ante inaudita regionum fluviorum montium nomina exercitu victore peragraverat, per ultima ferarum gentium regna, calcata regum capita supervolans, in medio Illyrici sinu improvisus apparuit, ‘I leave aside the barbarian world, united in arms, risen in its entirety against the defender of Roman liberty, the people recently conquered and restlessly chafing under their 103

- 104 newly imposed yoke, incited to a fresh climax of fury by criminal agitation. All these problems, however, finally wore down the resolute and unyielding patience of the greatest of princes. So it was that once he had put down the rebellious Alamanni, caught in the midst of their preparations for war, this prince of ours, who had but lately traversed at the head of a victorious army, regions, mountains and rivers of unknown name, passing through kingdoms at the end of the earh and inhabited by savage tribes, flying over the heads of rulers and spurning them beneath his feet, appeared suddenly and unexpectedly in the very midst of Illyria’, Pan. Lat. III (X), 6. 1-2 (translation Marna M. Morgan). Julian’s strategy, concisely explained by the emperor to his soldiers in the version recorded by Ammianus, was to occupy all Illyricum, which was largely stripped of its garrisons, as far as the extremities of Dacia, and this was accomplished by dividing his forces into three expeditionary forces, the first heading south to Italy, the second advancing through the middle of Raetia, and the third, led by himself, pushing south-eastward along the Danube (Amm. Marc. 21.5.6). In referring to Julian’s own part in this plan, Mamertinus’ speech, however, does reveal his twin objectives: ut uno eodemque tempore et componeret fidissimarum provinciarum statum et barbariam omnem admoto propius terrore percelleret, longissimo cursu Histrum placuit navigari, ‘so that he could, at one and the same time, assure the stability of the most loyal provinces and overawe the whole barbarian world by bringing terror closer to home, he decided to travel down the Danube by the longest route’ (Pan. Lat. III (X), 7.1). The claim that Julian had traversed the entire distance from the Ocean to the Tigris in a single season was a palpable exaggeration. As far as we know the emperor had never set foot in Britain, and the journey from Gaul, which began in April 361, did not bring Julian to the Tigris until he reached Ctesiphon in May 363. The Ankara dedication was set up precisely in the middle of this time span, many months before Julian launched his Persian campaign. The phrase ex Oceano … adusque Tigridem should not be read with hindsight as a reflection of Julian’s conquests, but as an evocation of the entire extent of the Roman Empire from the Atlantic to Mesopotamia, expressing Julian’s imperial aspirations, including his intention to reclaim control of the western parts of the Sassanian empire, which was the objective of the disastrous campaign of the following year. For a discussion of the relation of this text to imperial panegyrics of the fourth century, especially speeches and documents relating to Constantine, see Tantillo 2014, 343-8. At Ankara Julian will unquestionably have visited the temple of Augustus, paid homage to his mighty predecessor, and re-read the texts of the Res Gestae, carved on the temple walls, including Res Gestae 26, which laid out Augustus’ imperial ambitions more accurately than it described his actual conquests. This famous passage offered an archetype for Julian to follow, and is likely to have inspired the wording of Saturninius Secundus’ dedication: Omnium prov[inciarum populi Romani] quíbus finitimae fuerunt gentes quae n[on parerent imperio nost]ro fines auxi. Gallias et Hispanias provi‹n›cia[s item Germaniam qua inclu]dit Oceanus a Gadibus ad ostium Albis flum[inis pacavi. Alpes a re]gione ea quae proxima est Hadriano mari [ad Tuscum pacari fec]i nulli genti bello per iniuriam inlato. Cl[assis mea per Oceanum] ab ostio Rheni ad solis orientis regionem usque ad [fines Cimbroru]m navigavit, quo neque terra neque mari quisquam Romanus ante id tempus adit. Cimbrique et Charydes et Semnones eiusdem tractus alii Germanorum populi per legatos amicitiam meam et populi Romani petierunt. Meo iussu et au[s]picio ducti sunt

104

- 105 [duo] exercitus eodem fere tempore in Aethiopiam et in Ar[a]biam quae appel[latur] Eudaimon [maxim]aeque hostium gentis ut[riusque copiae]caesae sunt in acie et com[plur]a oppida capta. In Aethi[o]p[ia]m usque ad oppidum Nabata prevent[um] est cui proxima [e]st Me[r]oe. [In Ar]abiam usque in fines Sabaeorum pro[ces]sit exercitus ad oppidum Mariba. ‘I extended the territory of all those provinces of the Roman people which had neighbouring peoples who were not subject to our authority. I brought under control the Gallic and Spanish provinces, and similarly Germany, where Ocean forms a boundary from Cadiz to the mouth of the river Elbe. I brought the Alps under control from the region which is nearest the Adriatic Sea as far as the Tyrrhenian Sea, but attacked no people unjustly. My fleet navigated through Ocean from the mouth of the Rhine to the region of the rising sun as far as the territory of the Cimbri; no Roman before this time has ever approached this area by either land or sea, and the Cimbri and Charydes and Semnones and other Germanic peoples of the same region sent envoys to request my friendship and that of the Roman people. Under my command and auspices two armies were led at almost the same time into Aethiopia and Arabia which is called Fortunate, and substantial enemy forces of both peoples were slaughtered in battle and many towns captured. The army reached into Aethiopia as far as the town of Nabata, to which Meroe is nearest. The army advanced into Arabia as far as the territory of the Sabaei to the town of Mariba.’ (Trans. Alison Cooley). Several milestone texts from the Julio-Claudian period, which expressed the extent of Roman conquest and mastery of their western provinces, provide more succinct parallels for the inscription for Julian at Ankara. These include the Tiberian milestone from Baetica, Ti(berius) Caesar divi / Augusti f(ilius) di/vi Iuli nepos / Augustus pontifex max(imus) XXI co(n)s(ul) V imp(erator) / VIII tr(ibunicia) potest(ate) XXXVII / ab Iano Augusto / [ad] Baetem usque / ad Oceanum / LXXVIII (AE 1912, 11; Villarealejo, Baetica), and the two texts that have been recovered from the Claudian road between the Transpadana and the Danube: Ti. Claudius Drusi f. / Caesar Aug(ustus) Germa/nicus pontifex maxu/mus(!) tribunicia potesta/te VI cos. IV imp.XI p. p. / censor viam Claudiam / Augustam quam Drusus / pater Alpibus bello pate/factis derex[e]rat munit ab / Altino usque ad flumen / Danuvium m. p. CCCL (CIL V 8002 = ILS 208; Cesio, Venetia et Histria), and Ti. Claudius Caesar / Augustus German. / pont. max. trib. pot. VI / cos. desig. IIII imp. XI p. p. / viam Claudiam Augustam / quam Drusus pater Alpibus / bello patefactis derexserat / munit a flumine Pado a / flumen Danuvium per / m. p. CC[CL] (CIL XVII.4.1, 1; Rabland, Raetia). Much closer chronologically to the Ankara dedication is a remarkable milestone text dating to 354 found near Emona, which recorded that the emperor Constantius, provided with all details of his imperial genealogy, titulature, victory titles and office holding, constructed the entire road from the Adriatic to Sirmium: viis munitis, pontibus refectis recuperate republica quinarios miliares per Illyricum fecit ab Atrante ad flumen Savum millia passus CCCXLVI  (CIL III 3705; ILS 732). The two Claudian texts offer a particularly apt comparison with the Ankara dedication, in that both referred to the Alpine wars which had been necessary before the road linking the Transpadana with the Danube could be built, and both used the participle patefactis to express the notion of opening up new territory. The expression was used differently in the Ankara text to refer to the existing Roman roads, vi(i)s, which were now unblocked or opened up, as Julian’s forces laid waste barbarians who stood in their way, per barbaras gentes strage resistentium. Three surviving inscriptions were erected in honour of Julian’s praetorian prefect and all give his name in the form Saturninius Secundus: a statue base in Trajan’s Forum that

105

- 106 recorded his full career (CIL VI 764 = ILS 1255), a Greek text set up by the council of Pisidian Antioch to honour him as their saviour and benefactor (AE 1914, 125), and the Ankara text. Ammianus referred to him as praefectus Salutius praesens (Amm. Marc. 23.5.6), indicating that he was fulfilling the traditional function of a praetorian prefect, in charge of the troops and officials around the emperor, in contrast to his colleague Claudius Mamertinus, who at this time was specifically designated as per Italiam et Inlyricum praefectus praetorio (ILS 755). Barnes 1992 characterizes him as ‘an old-style prefect who accompanied Julian wherever he went’. 333. Votive of Arcadius and Honorius Location: Photographed around 2003 in a house on Ankara Kale which is now being converted into a Museum of Literature. From 2005 to 2012 the house, which had been confiscated from its owner, was closed and no access was possible. In 2013, during the conversion work, there was no trace of the inscription. Description: Rectangular bomos with mouldings on pediment and base, inscribed on the front panel. The upper part of the pediment appears to have been broken but had plain acroteria and a plain concave moulding linking it to the shaft. The plain base was also joined to the shaft by a concave moulding. There were evidently two inscriptions on the stone. The first, probably 11-12 lines long, extended for about three lines below the bottom of the second inscription. This was carved in larger letters over the partially erased earlier text. If the stone were available for inspection, the lower portion of the earlier text would probably be at least partially legible. This primary text was more thoroughly erased at the top than the bottom when the second inscription was carved over it. Broken-bar alpha; square epsilon and sigma; a slender ovoid omikron forming a point at the top and the bottom; cursive omega. Dimensions: Height c. 1.60; width c. 0.70; letters c. 0.08 Copy: Photograph by Prof. Kutalmış Görkay.

4

† εὐχῆς Ἀρκαδίου κὲ Ὁνωρίου.

Translation: For a vow of Arcadius and Honorius. Date: 395-402 (when Arcadius and Honorius were Augusti, but before Theodosius II was named Augustus). Commentary: This imposing inscription, carved on a large base, dates to the period of the joint rule of Arcadius and Honorius, the sons of Theodosius I, when the former controlled the eastern empire from Constantinople, and the latter the western empire from Milan or Ravenna, before Theodosius II was nominated as co-ruler in Constantinople in 402. Arcadius, the elder sibling, was the senior emperor and was named first, as he also was on other texts from the eastern part of the empire, for instance Beševliev 1964, 57 no. 86 (Odessos): (constantinanum) | τῶν δεσ|ποτῶν ἡ|µῶν Ἀρκα|δίου καὶ Ὁνωρή(ου) | Αὐγούστων.

106

- 107 -

The base, like most public monuments at this period, was re-used, and the inscription was carved over an earlier Greek text. Compare SEG 36, 1164 = I. Heraclea Pontica 6, which was reinscribed with a Greek heading and a Latin text for Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius between 383 and 392, and SEG 44, 908 (Mylasa), recut for Arcadius: τὸν µέγιστον καὶ θεο|φιλέστατον δεσπότην | ἡµῶν Φλ. Ἀρκάδιον | τὸν ἐώνιον Σεβαστὸν | ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆµος. No doubt the original inscription was one of the honorific texts for local dignitaries or imperial officials which were set up in second or third century Ankara. Arcadius, uniquely among rulers of the later empire, regularly visited Ankara (Destephen 2016, 84-7). Claudian’s invective poem against the eunuch Eutropius, Arcadius’ magister cubiculi, described the leisurely progress and return of the emperor’s court from Constantinople to Ancyra during the summer months: Mitior alternum Zephyri iam bruma teporem senserat et primi laxabant germina flores, iamque iter in gremio pacis sollemne parabant ad muros, Ancyra, tuos, auctore repertum Eutropio, pelagi ne taedia longa subirent, sed vaga lascivis flueret discursibus aestas: unde tamen tanta sublimes mole redibant, ceu vinctos traherent Medos Indumque bibissent. ‘Winter, becoming milder, had now felt the returning warmth of Zephyr and the earliest flowers had opened their buds when, in the lap of peace, they were preparing the ceremonial journey to your walls, Ancyra. It was Eutropius’ device that they would not suffer the lengthy tedium of a sea voyage, but a summer of roaming might glide by in pleasurable excursions. And they would return exalted by such an exertion as if they were dragging Persians in chains with them and had drunk the waters of the river Indus’ (Claudian, In Eutrop. II, 97-102). In another passage the poet ironically suggested that Ancyran triumphs allied to Byzantine indulgence broke Eutropius’ strength (In Eutrop. II, 427-8). During these periods of absence from the capital imperial laws were drafted on the road or in Ankara itself, and the evidence of these texts allows the dates of some of the imperial journeys and visits to be fixed (See Foss 1977, 51, citing Seeck, Regesten, 291, 293, 295, 309). In 397 the emperor left Constantinople after 23 June (CTh VI.26.10), passed through Nicomedia on 26 June (CTh VI.4.32) and remained in Ankara at least until 4 September (CTh VI.3.4; IX.14.3). He was back in Constantinople on 26 September (CTh IV.4.4). In 398 he was in Constantinople on 3 July (CTh XV.1.38), in Nicomedia on 6 July (CTh XI.62.9) and Nicaea on 8 July (CTh VIII.1.14). On 27 July a group of imperial constitutions dealing with matters of church discipline were issued at Mnizus, the small town which lay on the road to Constantinople west of Ankara, and which was in Ancyran territory (CTh IX.40.16.2, 45.3; XI.30.57; XVI.2.33; CJust I.4.7 the manuscripts read ‘Mediolani’, but the date shows that this must have been one of the Mnizus rulings). Since several imperial rulings were made on this occasion, Mnizus may have been the location of a country residence owned by the emperor. Arcadius was back in Constantinople by 11 October (CTh XV.1.39). In 399 and 400 the revolt of Tribigild and the subsequent mutiny of the magister militum Gainas would certainly have prevented the emperor from venturing out of Constantinople into the Anatolian interior, and no journeys are documented between 401 and 404. However, the earlier pattern was 107

- 108 resumed in 405, Arcadius was in Nicaea on 11 (CJust V.4.19) and 12 June (CTh II.33.4), and issued decisions at Ancyra on 10 (CTh VII.10.1) and 23 July (CTh I.9.3; VI.34), and on 12 August (CTh VI.30.18). He had returned to the capital by 13 November (CTh IV.6.6). No further journeys up country into Anatolia are attested before his death on 1 May 408. Neither Claudian nor the laws themselves provide a clear explanation why Ancyra became an imperial residence at this period. Claudian’s invective presents the excursions as an irrelevant distraction from more serious business, or as a spurious attempt to enhance the emperor’s prestige, as though he had won victories over foreign enemies. However, this cannot be the true explanation of a practice which continued after Eutropius’ fall from power and death in 399. Foss implies that the climate and humidity of Constantinople became intolerable in the early summer (Foss 1977, 50; cf. Destephen 2016, 87-90), but Constantinople provided an acceptable year-round residence for all other fifth and sixth century emperors, and Constantine, when he relocated the ecumenical council from Ancyra to Nicaea in 325, cited the excellent climate in the lower-lying Bithynian city as a reason for the move (Opitz 1935, 20). It is more likely that there were practical administrative reasons for the court’s summer visits. Ankara was more accessible than Constantinople for imperial subjects and petitioners travelling from east and south-east Anatolia or even from northern Syria. Ankara, moreover, had served as an imperial residence for both Jovian and Valens in the 360s (see p. XXX). Ammianus reported that Julian was besieged by urgent petitioners as he left Ankara in 362 (Amm. Marc. 22.9.8, cited in 332 comm.). The visits to Ankara will also have served as an opportunity to present the face of imperial power to subjects outside the capital, without exposing the emperor to the hazards of a visit to Antioch. These are the more likely reasons for the summer sojourns of Arcadius’ court at Ankara at the beginning of the fifth century. The inscription itself records a Christian vow or prayer made by the emperors, certainly during one of Arcadius’ visits to the city. The prominent cross at the head of the text is noteworthy. Overt Christian symbolism tended to be absent or muted in public epigraphy for fourth-century emperors and officials, but the cross became integral to most forms of public self-representation in the fifth century (see 335 comm.). The unadorned formula, consisting of the simple genitive εὐχῆς is unusual but should be understood as meaning that the erection of the base followed a prayer made by Arcadius in his own and his brother’s names, and it is likely that this took place in Ankara’s most important church. The inclusion of Honorius marks this out as a ceremony of public, imperial importance, but it is also striking that the inscription mentions no imperial titles. The two rulers were here presented as private secular individuals making their Christian vows. This is consistent with the reputation for devout Christian piety that became the norm at Constantinople after the death of Theodosius I and reached a high point in the court of Theodosius II (Holum 1982; Mitchell 2015, 114-6). Arcadius’ personal piety is repeatedly emphasized in the accounts of the church historians Socrates and Sozomen (Van Nuffelen 2001). The emphasis on Christian devotion in this text contrasts with the secular acclamations set up on an imperial estate in western Galatia for Honorius, [Ὅν]ορι Κ̣ύρ̣ ι[ε αεὶ ] | νεικᾷς· | νέε καλάνδ[ε] | τοῦ κυρίου· ἡ ο̣[ἰ]|κουµένη νῦ̣[ν] | εὐτυχεῖ, probably dating to January 393 when Honorius was made Augustus, anticipating his second consulship, which he took up in January 394 (Drew-Bear 2012, with AE 2014, 1591 [B. Salway] for the date). These acclamations related exclusively to the secular trappings of imperial power. During the period when the votive at Ankara was set up Arcadius and Honorius were named together as emperors on several milestones in western Asia Minor, from the neighbourhood

108

- 109 of Thyateira (TAM V.2, 874; RRMAM III.6, 137D), Halicarnassus (RRMAM III.5, 115A, 3) and Heraclea Salbace. The last two texts were cast in the format of acclamations: εἰς ἐῶνα Ἀρκάδιον Αὐγ. | εἰς ἐῶναν Ὁνώριον Αὐγ. | Ἡρακλίας µι. β´ (RRMAM III.5, 95A) and [εἰς ἐ]ῶνα | [Ἀρκά]δι[ον] Αὐγ. | εἰς ἐῶνα Φλ. Ὁ|[ν]ώριον Αὐγ. | µι. γ´ (RRMAM III.5, 96D).

109

- 110 -

3.3 Building in Late Roman Ankara 334. The restorer of the bath house ‘Polyeidon’ and other buildings Location: Seen in the outer wall of a house at 19 Derman Sokak (now re-named Taşcılar Sokak). The present whereabouts are not known. Description: A long stone, which was said to be difficult to read on account of the whitewash covering it. No dimensions were recorded. Copy: A. D. Mordtmann c. 1859 (lines 1-3), which was passed to his son, J. H. Mordtmann, and preserved in the archive of Inscriptiones Graecae at the Berlin Academy; Humann 1882. Publication: Domaszewski 1885, 115 no. 67: from the squeeze of Humann; (Bosch 1967, 369 no. 306; see also Foss 1977, 63-4). [ - ]σας καὶ τὰς τοῦ ὁλκοῦ καµάρας παρακιµένας τῷ Πολυείδῳ καὶ τοὺς ἐνβόλου[ς - ] [ - ] ἐρῆµον ἐστῶτα ὀροφώσας καὶ τὸν ὁλκὸν αὐτοῦ κατασκεύασας, περισώσας καὶ [ - ] [ - ] οἶκον τοῦ χιµερίου δηµοσίου λιγόντα αὐτὸς ἀνενέωσεν σὺν τῇ µαρµάρῳ Σ[ - ] [ - ]ΣΙ καὶ τῷ λοιπῷ κόσµῳ κατασκεύασας, καὶ τὴν στέγην ἅπασαν τοῦ πρὸ τοῦ παλατίου [ - ] [ - ἐ]πιµεληθεὶς, καὶ τοῦ δηµοσίου φρουρίου καὶ τοῦ ὑδραγωγίου καὶ ὑδρίου τοῦ [ - ] [ - τ]οῦ Θεοδότου ἄβατον οὖσαν αὐτὸς κατασκεύασεν, τὰς ἐν Διλιµνίᾳ καὶ [ - ] [κατ]ορθωσάµενος τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἕτερα κτίσµατα ἐν χρόνοις τῆς ὑπατίας [ - ] [ - ] σὺν τῶν πλιόνων ἔργων Ἰωάννου Εὐ[τυ]χικοῦ τὸ ἐπίκλην Ἀνατέλλον[τος - ]. The text published by Domaszewski and reproduced by Bosch is given above. This is an unusually lengthy and explicit inscription relating to the buildings of a late Roman city, and it is thus frustrating that neither the stone nor the squeeze has been available since Domaszewski’s 1885 edition. Foss 1977, 64 n. 146 rightly observes that ‘much work needs to be done on this inscription’, but any attempt to improve the edition entails considerable speculation. The following restoration is based on the assumption that two or three letters have been lost at the left, and between six and eight letters at the right edge.

[--------------------------------------------------------] [ . . . ]σας καὶ τὰς τοῦ ὁλκοῦ καµάρας παρακιµένας τῷ Πολυείδῳ καὶ τοὺς ἐνβόλο[υς, τόν τε οἶ][κον] ἐρῆµον ἐστῶτα ὀροφώσας καὶ τὸν ὁλκὸν αὐτοῦ κατασκεύασας, περισώσας καὶ [ἅπαντα] [τὸν] οἶκον τοῦ χιµερίου δηµοσίου λιγόντα αὐτὸς ἀνενέωσεν σὺν τῇ µαρµαρώσ[ι καὶ κερα]4 [µώ]σι καὶ τῷ λοιπῷ κόσµῳ, κατασκεύασας καὶ τὴν στέγην ἅπασαν τοῦ πρὸ τοῦ παλατίου [βαλαν][είου, ἐ]πιµεληθεὶς καὶ τοῦ δηµοσίου φρουρίου καὶ τοῦ ὑδραγωγίου καὶ ὑδρίου τοῦ [καλουµ][εν]οῦ Θεοδότου· ἄβατον οὖσαν αὐτὸς κατασκεύασεν, τὰς ἐν Διλιµνίᾳ και[νὰς µονὰς] [κατ]ορθωσάµενος τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἕτερα κτίσµατα ἐν χρόνοις τῆς ὑπατίας [ - c. 10 - - ] 8 [ . . ] σὺν τῶν πλιόνων ἔργων Ἰωάννου Εὐ[τυ]χικοῦ τὸ ἐπίκλην Ἀνατέλλον[τος]. 1: [κατασκεύα]σας or [ἀναστή]σας; final omikron upsilon in ligature, Mordtmann. 2-3: [τόν τε οἶ|κον] to agree with ἐρῆµον ἐστῶτα. 3: ΛΙΟΚΟΝ at the beginning, Mordtmann; 4: αὐτό?; µαρµάρῳ σ[κουτλώ]σι (Foss 1977, 63-4 n. 146) may be too short; µαρµαρώσ[ι καὶ κεραµώ]σι (roof tiling) or µαρµαρώσ[ι καὶ σκουτλώ]σι (marble wall cladding). 5-6: for the supplements [βαλανείου] and [καλουµέν]ου see comm. 7: , ad sensum cf

110

- 111 AS 1969, 136 no. 1: † ἐπὶ Φλ. Ἰουστίνου Ἀγούστου | κὲ Ἰουστινιανοῦ ὑ|πάτου Ἀππάλις | ὁ ἐνδοξοτ. τὴν ὁ|δὸν ἄβατον οὖσα(ν) | ἐκόσµησεν † (521, Korykos); Domaszewski might have been led by the repeated letter sequence ΟΔΟ to jump from Θεοδότου to ἄβατον when he transcribed the squeeze; και[νὰς µονάς], see comm. 8: Perhaps only a single imperial consular name at the line end. The line lengths of the restoration proposed above are 2: [3] + 58 + [9] = 70 letters; 3: [3] + 62 + [6] = 71 letters; 4: [3] + 58 + [8] = 69 letters; 5: [2] + 64 + [5] = 71 letters; 6: [5] + 60 + [6] = 71 letters; 7: [2] + 61 + [8] = 71 letters; 8: [3] + 56 + [?] = 59+ letters; 9: [2] + 51 + [3] = 56 letters.

Translation: … having set up the arches of the water-channel which lie alongside the ‘Polyeidon’ and the porticos, and having put a roof on the main chamber, which was deserted, and having set its water channel in order, having also preserved the entire main chamber of the winter public bath-house which was abandoned, he restored it having fitted it with the marble wall-cladding, roof tiles and the remaining décor, and having built the entire roof of the bathhouse in front of the palace, and having supervised the construction of the public prison and of the aqueduct and the fountain-house called ‘Theodotus’; he himself built the road which was impassable, having erected the city’s new way-stations in Dilimnia as well as other buildings in the consulate of - - , along with the numerous construction works of John Eutychikos, the restorer. Date: Probably first half of the fifth century (the format of the consular dating, ἐν χρόνοις τῆς ὑπατίας, and the name of the second benefactor, ‘John the restorer’, who may be identical with the man honoured by 335). Commentary: This inscription must have begun by naming the city’s benefactor and the surviving part preserves a list of the buildings which he had restored. The text’s compiler aimed at considerable variation in the list of participles and verbs that were used to describe this extensive reconstruction, but could not avoid some repetition: ὀροφώσας, κατασκεύασας, περισώσας, ἀνενέωσεν, κατασκεύασας, ἐπιµεληθείς, κατεσκεύασεν, κατορθωσάµενος. The last line states that these benefactions were accomplished ‘with the numerous works of John Eutychikos, the restorer’. This John is likely to be identical with ‘John the generous provider’, who is honoured in the following inscription (335), but appears not to have been the primary honorand of 334. Since the reference to John’s building work directly follows the consular dating formula and is introduced by the preposition σύν, it appears that the two benefactors were closely associated and undertook extensive reconstruction in the city at the same time as one another. All the work mentioned in lines 1-4 referred to the bath house called ‘Polyeidon’ and its water supply. This included putting up the adjacent aqueduct arches that carried the water conduit, τὰς τοῦ ὁλκοῦ καµάρας, and the colonnaded porticos or emboloi (cf. Bull. ép. 1973, 453 and Feissel, Chron. 782 and 859 for this meaning), which probably enclosed a palaestra, as well as re-roofing the main covered chamber of the building (if the supplement οἶκος is accepted in lines 2-3), and restoring the main enclosed room (oikos) of the winter public bath-house, which was in ruins (λιγόντα), including refitting the marble wall-cladding. For the meaning of χιµερίου δηµοσίου, see J. and L. Robert, Bull. ép. 1946/47, 207, and the comments of Feissel, Chron. 580 and 585, who points out that τὸ δηµόσιον was a term generally used to mean public baths. In an important discussion of a fifth-century inscription from Amisus, containing a prose encomium for a city benefactor, Christian Marek has collected the literary and epigraphic evidence which shows that spending on aqueducts, fountains and bath houses was the most important component of secular civic euergetism in the cities of the Roman East in late antiquity (Marek 2000, 372-9; see also 335 comm.). 111

- 112 -

This Ankara bath-house was also mentioned in I. Ankara 1, 120 (quoted in full on p. xxx), an inscription of c. 267, which refers to another anonymous benefactor who reconstructed the destroyed gymnasium of the Polyeidon, and also built Ankaras’s city walls at this period. The description of the restored features of the Polyeidon bath house is a strong argument for identifying it with the large gymnasium complex which now forms the archaeological park on Çankırı Caddesi. The bath building itself was placed to the west of a large palaestra (see Görkay – Kadıoğlu – Mitchell 2011, 179-90; and I. Ankara 1, 95 comm.). The entire complex extended over an area of 150 x 190 metres and was one of the largest in the eastern Roman Empire. Almost the entire bath section, including the extensive ambulacrum and changing rooms in the frigidarium, were heated by a hypocaust system, and this was doubtless a consequence of Ankara’s long cold winters. The excavation of the building complex by Turkish archaeologists between 1937 and 1944 only uncovered the northern part of the bathhouse itself at the hypocaust level, but these are likely to have been mirrored by a comparable suite of rooms to the south (Yegül 1992, 279; Peschlow 2015 II Abb. 118). It appears that the southern section of the structure, in contrast to the northern part, was systematically taken down, although neither the date nor the circumstances of this demolition can be established (Peschlow 2015 I, 67-9). As the northern section of the building appears to have contained all the normal rooms to be expected in a large public gymnasium (Yegül 1992, 414-23; with the comments of Peschlow 2015 I, 69-70), and appears at some stage in the building’s history to have operated in its own right as a complete bathhouse, there is a reasonable foundation for the argument that the demolished southern section was the winter bath house mentioned in the inscription (Peschlow 2015 II, 70 n. 341). In that case the demolition of the south section should be placed after the mid-fifth-century, when the inscription refers to its restoration. In a remarkable study the Turkish archaeologist Nezih Fıratlı traced the line of Ankara’s main aqueduct which crossed modern Ankara from the south-east, and identified its source on Elmadağ, about fifty kilometres outside the city (Fıratlı 1951). Many of the blocks for a pressurized water supply system have been collected and can be seen in the archaeological park alongside the palaestra, while others can be identified in the building material for the ninth-century Kale walls, especially at the south-east corner of the citadel (Peschlow 2015 I, 154-5, II, 298-9, 338, 340). The inscription implies that a section of this aqueduct was supported on arches (καµάραι), although no piers have been identified archaeologically. Line 5 of the inscription refers to a separate project involving a building that lay in front of the palation. The word palation, although not a technical term, could describe the residence of the Roman provincial governor. The only other surviving written source which provides information about the Roman administrative centre of the Galatian metropolis is the Life of St Theodotus, which was probably written in the 360s and referred to events that took place in AD 312/3 (Mitchell 1982; Elm 1994, 51-9; Barnes 2010, 156-9). Inscription 334 and the saint’s life shed light on one another, and they are in turn illuminated by Görkay and Kadıoğlu’s recent discussion of previously unpublished archaeological discoveries made at Ulus in the 1950s, which have also been analysed by Peschlow 2015 I, 97-100. For orientation in the following discussion note that the street system, both aqueducts, and the respective bath-houses that they supplied, as well as the building complex at Ulus, are indicated in the maps published in colour by Görkay – Kadıoğlu – Mitchell 2011, end papers, reproduced in I. Ankara 1, p. 37, and as fig. 3 in this volume.

112

- 113 Nilus, the author of the saint’s life, recounted that Theodotus told his well-meaning friends, who were advising him to save himself, that they should report to the authorities that he was standing in front of the gates of the praetorium: ἀλλὰ µᾶλλον εἰσελθόντες εἴπατε τοῖς ἄρχουσιν· Θεόδοτον ὃν κατηγοροῦσιν οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ πᾶσα ἡ πόλις πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν τοῦ πραιτωρίου ἕστηκεν (Life of St Theodotus, 22). It is reasonable to identify the palation of the inscription with the praetorium of the saint’s life (see Haensch 1997, 277 n.79). In 1954 excavation of the foundations of a large office block in Ulus revealed the presence of a substantial Roman structure. Unfortunately, no report of the excavation was published at the time of the discovery, no photographs have been preserved, and there is no record of finds associated with the structures. Knowledge of the remains therefore depends entirely on the ground plan, prepared by the architect Mahmut Akok and published by Musa Kadıoğlu in Görkay – Kadıoğlu – Mitchell 2011, 199-203. At the centre of the plan there appears to have been a substantial bath-house, including two north-south oriented rooms with apses at their south ends, each equipped with a hypocaust heating system. The adjacent area to the north apparently contained a large rectangular water-basin and an area enclosed by colonnades. To the south there was an irregular courtyard extending as far as a row of small rectangular rooms, which may have been designed to service the bath-house rather than a public function. The interpretation of the remains is made harder by the fact that the walls in the plan are certainly not all contemporary with one another, and very few entrances to the rooms can be identified, including in the central area of the apparent bath building. The lay-out of the bath may point to a second or third-century date (see Farrington 1995 for some suggestive comparative plans). The whole architectural complex lay south-west of and close to the intersection of the cardo and decumanus at the heart of Roman Ankara, where a government building (a praetorium, or a palation) might have been situated. The colonnaded area and water basin along the north side of the excavated area might have been part of a palation, and the adjacent central structure appears to belong to a bath for use by the palace’s inhabitants. This would provide some basis for restoring the word βαλανείου in lines 5-6 of the inscription, and for identifying this hypothetical bath building with the main structure excavated beneath the Ulus office block. The next building listed in the inscription, τὸ δηµόσιον φρούριον, provides some support for this interpretation, as the public prison, under military supervision, is likely to have been located near the city’s praetorium. The saint’s life included a vivid (and presumably largely invented) account of the martyr being tortured by the governor in the presence of a baying mob, before being taken down by soldiers or armed officiales (δορύφοροι) to the nearby prison (δεσµωτήριον, Life of St Theodotus, 28). The Ulus bath-house cannot have existed without a piped water supply, and Fıratlı traced a branch of the main aqueduct that ran alongside Posta Caddesi (renamed Şehit Teğmen Kalmaz Caddesi after 1974) and would potentially have been positioned to supply the bath building which has been revealed by the Ulus excavations. This branch of Ankara’s main water supply could be identified with the ὑδραγώγιον of line 6, which will also have supplied the nymphaeum mentioned by the inscription. The name Θεοδότου at the beginning of line 7 must be connected with this public fountain. Since there is insufficient space for a clause suggesting that the fountain had been built or restored by Theodotus, the solution proposed here is that the fountain was known as Theodoton, just as the gymnasium was named Polyeidon. Theodotus was a common name among Christians in late antiquity, attested at Ankara for the Christian martyr of AD 312/3, but also for another St Theodotus of the fifth century. It is not impossible that the fountain took its name from the early-fourth-century martyr, whose trial had taken place nearby.

113

- 114 Line 7 describes the restoration of a road section that had become impassable and other construction at Dilimnia. ‘Dilemna’ is mentioned in the Bordeaux Itinerary as a mutatio ten Roman miles south of Ankara on the ‘Pilgrims’ Road’ (RRMAM I, 25, 31 and 115). The two lakes which gave their name to the road station are identifiable with Mogan Göl and Eymir Göl, which lay on either side of the main Roman road running south from Ankara towards Lycaonia and Cappadocia (Mitchell 1982, 106; Belke in TIB IV, 158), and Dilimnia should be placed near Gölbaşı, which is around nineteen kilometres, or twelve Roman miles, from the ancient city centre. The Bordeaux itinerary shows that Dilimnia was a stopping point on this main road, and inns for travellers, whether private or official, would have been the main feature of the place. Accordingly in the inscription following the article τάς we could restore και[νὰς µόνας], new way-stations. The word µονή was used to translate the Latin mansio in inscriptions, papyri and literary texts from the third to the fifth centuries (Kolb 2000, 211 n. 9, 212 n. 14), including a fourth or fifth century papyrus which refers to τῶν ἀρχιστ[α]β[λ(ίτων) µον]ῆς κα[ινῆς] (SB XVI 12252). A reference to way stations would harmonise with the preceding mention of road building. If so, the section of the highway in need of repair was either at Gölbaşı itself, or in the pass three miles to the north, the Kepekliboğazı, which connected Dilimnia with Ancyra. In the 1860s Perrot and his colleagues noticed an exceptionally well preserved section of this road at Dikmen (Perrot – Guillaume – Delbet 1872 II, 279) and remains were noted by David French in the 1970s before they were obliterated by modern urban development. No archaeological traces of an ancient site have yet been reported at Gölbaşı/Dilimnia (RRMAM IV.1, 18). The most likely supplement at the end of line 8 is the name of a fifth-century emperor with an indication of the iteration of his consulship, in the form, for example, Θεοδοσίου Αὐγ. τὸ δ´. The inscription ended unexpectedly by naming another benefactor of the city, Ioannes Eutychikos. The second name is not otherwise attested and has the appearance of a nickname, meaning ‘associated with good fortune’, and presumably related to the good fortune that John had brought to the city. Alternatively, this may have been a patronymic, identifying John son of Eutychikos. John’s status as a benefactor is made especially clear by the further appellation Ἀνατέλλων. The verb ἀνατέλλω has the transitive meaning ‘make to rise up’ or ‘give birth to’, and the name had evidently been adopted to reflect John’s status as a new city founder. It is worth noting that the honorific acclamation inscription for John ‘the generous provider’ (335), which probably also relates to John Eutychikos, praised him for repairing a road that led to the city, and it is likely that the πλείονα ἔργα for which he was responsible were also concentrated on the highway and the way-station at Dilimnia. This, rather than the restoration work in the centre of Ankara itself, provided the specific link between the two benefactors. The largest question raised by this inscription remains unanswerable. What circumstances had caused such degradation to buildings in and around the city, that apparently large scale restoration was necessary? Public bath houses had lost their roofs and been deserted, aqueducts had collapsed, a road had become impassable. If the terms of the inscription in any way reflected architectural reality only three explanations seem plausible. Either the city had been devastated by warfare, or it had succumbed to a major earthquake, or buildings had been damaged by a major fire. There is no direct or indirect evidence for warfare at Ankara between the barbarian threats of the 260s, which led to the building of the city wall, and the Persian sack of 622. The incursion of the Huns into Asia Minor in 395 and the Gothic rebellion of Tribigild in Phrygia in 399 are not known to have affected Ankara, and the city was thought secure enough to have been a summer residence for the emperor Arcadius in 397-8 and in 405 (see 333 comm.). The wars fought by the emperor Zeno against his Isaurian challengers in the

114

- 115 480s, which were continued by his successor Anastasius during the 490s, also left Galatia untouched, as far as the evidence goes. Perhaps Ankara had been badly damaged by an earthquake, but this explanation poses its own puzzles. No earthquakes are attested by any sources of the Roman or Byzantine periods, and none of the surviving buildings of Roman or post-Roman Ancyra shows unequivocal signs of earthquake damage. Ankara, unlike the cities of Bithynia and Paphlagonia, which lay along the north Anatolian fault line, is not located in an area of major seismic activity, and the only impact caused by major shocks in modern times is reported to have been marginal damage to buildings at the time of the Kırşehir/Keskin earthquake of April 1938 and the Bolu/Gerede earthquake of February 1944. In each case the epicentres of these events were more than a hundred kilometres from Ankara (Özmen – Kocaefe 1999). Fire was a recurring threat to ancient cities, whether due to accident or arson, or as a devastating accompaniment to an earthquake, as occurred at Nicomedia in 358 (Ammianus Marcellinus 17.7.8). Traces of destruction by fire were identified in the hypocaust level of Ankara’s large bath house, but it is unclear how extensive the damage was and to what date it should be assigned. Peschlow 2015 I, 78 has thrown doubt on Foss’s argument (Foss 1975, 735; Foss 1977, 71), that the burning was a result of the Sassanian capture of Ankara in 622, but the original reports of the excavation are too approximate to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn. Furthermore, fire in the city centre could not have been the occasion of the restoration of the road station at Dilimnia, and vice versa. There remains a further possibility, that the inscription exaggerated the scale of the restoration work in the way that Latin inscriptions of the second and third centuries appear to attribute much more significant interventions by city benefactors than is archaeologically attested (Thomas – Witschel 1992). However, it seems unlikely that the explicit details of work on several different structures, inside and outside the city, the latter apparently carried out in cooperation with another benefactor, simply documented routine repair work to buildings that had merely suffered from neglect or the wear and tear of daily use. 335. Poem and acclamation in honour of Ioannes Location: Built high up in tower 2 on the east side of the İç Kale, and accessible from the roof of a house abutting the wall. Description: White marble stele with a triangular pediment containing a cross in high relief at the centre and rosettes at either side. The inscription is carved on the shaft. Dimensions: Height 1.09; width 0.46; uneven letters 0.025-0.035. Copy: SM 1975; squeeze SM 1975. Publication: Mitchell 1977, 91 no. 36 and Pl. 13a; (SEG 27, 847; Bull. ép. 1978, 494; SGO 3, 136: 15/02/01). † Ἀγαθῇ Τύχῃ. ἀτραπιτόν πρὸ π[ό]-

115

- 116 -

4

8

12

16

20

ληος ἀοίδιµος ἐνναετῆρ̣σιν (vac) δῖος Ἰωάννης τεῦξεν θρασυκάρδιος ἀνήρ, µήτιδι καὶ πραπίδεσσι κεκασµένος, οὗ διὰ βουλὰς Ἀγκυρί̣η κλέος εὕρε σὺν ἀντιθέοις (vac) πτολιήταις, ῥηϊδίως δ᾽ ἐσάωσεν ὁδοιπορέοντας ἅπαντας. † αὔξι Ἰωάννης ὁ εὐπάροχος τῆς πατρίδος.

4: ἐνναετηισιν, ed. pr., but the space is too wide for iota and we should read the dative plural form of ἐνναετήρ, attested in the sixth century poetry of Dioscorus of Aphrodito (see the on-line Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität). 10: correctly, J. and L. Robert in Bull. ép. 1978, 494. 11: Ἀγκύρ (vac) η, ed. pr. The squeeze shows a damaged iota in the gap and the Ionic form Ἀγκυρίη restores the correct metre.

Translation: With good fortune. The divine John, a man of stout heart, whose praises have been sung by the inhabitants, distinguished for his intelligence and thoughtfulness, built the roadway before the city, and through his counsels Ancyra with its godlike citizens found fame, and he easily brought all travellers to safety. May John flourish! the generous provider for his native city. Date: Probably first half of the fifth century (overt Christian symbolism; similarity to 334). Comments: This Christian inscription consists of a five-line hexameter verse text followed by an acclamation (ll. 18-20). The language of the verses, as usual, was derived from the vocabulary of Homer and the epic poets, and used epic Ionic word forms. The text began with the traditional appeal to good fortune, the words being placed immediately below the very prominent cross that was carved in the gable of the stele (compare Feissel 2012, 1). The visual effect resembles the first line of the large base set up at Amisus in 435, which placed the invocation Ἀγαθῇ † Τύχῃ in large letters before the text of a laudatory speech delivered in honour of the city benefactor Erythrios (Marek 2000). We may also compare the heading Ἀγαθῇ † Τύχῃ † carved on the upper moulding of the inscribed base set up for Flavius Palmatus, governor of the province of Caria, by Flavius Athenaios, ‘father’ of the city of Aphrodisias, probably in the late fifth or early sixth century (Roueché 1989, 102 no. 62), or † Ἀγαθῇ Τύχ[ῃ], which should be read as the first line of one of the inscriptions set up for the fifth-century city benefactor Maximus at Carian Stratonicaea (Şahin 2008, 59 n. 9, discussed further below). The text set up by the city of Metropolis in the Phrygian highlands, which honoured Dikaia, the wife of Epinikos, praetorian prefect of Oriens between 475 and 78, as τὴν εὐεργέτιν καὶ φιλότιµον, appeared beneath a prominent, centrally placed cross (Haspels 1971, 307 no. 29; ILS 8845b), and the same was doubtless the case on the statue-base for her

116

- 117 husband, although the stone is damaged at this point (Haspels 1971, 306 no. 28; ILS 8845a). The base set up at Ankara carrying the votive prayer of Arcadius and Honorius provides an early example of the practice in an explicitly ecclesiastical context (333 comm.). The acclamation in the sequence αὖξι followed by the name of the person acclaimed in the vocative takes a form well known in fourth and fifth century inscriptions. Examples mostly from Syria were listed in Peterson’s famous study of the Heis Theos formula (Peterson 1926 [new enlarged edition 2012], 181-3) and by Robert 1960, 23-24 in his discussion of a similar acclamation from the vicinity of Corinth. The standard modern treatment of the subject by Charlotte Roueché is concerned with the comprehensive collection of acclamations carved on columns in the agora of Aphrodisias, probably in the early sixth century, which were occcasioned by another city benefactor, Albinus (Roueché 1984). The αὖξι formula was twice repeated in acclamations that explicitly named Albinus as a ktistes: ΠΕΡΔΕ Ἀλβῖνε αὖξι ὁ κτίστης τῆς στοᾶς (6) and αὖξι Ἀλβῖνος ὁ κτίστης καὶ τούτου τοῦ ἔργου (15). The only meaning for εὐπάροχος cited in LSJ is the adjective ‘submissive’ used of a mare in Hippiatr. 14, a work on horse medicine. This cannot be the sense here, where the term is used as a noun to mean ‘the generous provider’. Παρόχη was used to mean financial contributions on contemporary inscriptions; see a fourth-century epitaph from eastern Phrygia, which recounted that Christ had ordained that mens’ souls should be placed in heaven on account of their generous provisions and good deeds, ψυχὰς δὲ τούτων Χριστὸς ἐν οὐράνῳ τάξε διὰ τὰς παροχὰς καὶ πολλὰς εὐποιείας (MAMA I 219), and on an inscription relating to a church building at Dorylaeum of the fifth or sixth century, † ἐκ τῶν παρόχων σου ἀρχάνγελε Ἰωάννης κὲ Κωνσταντῖνα ἐποίησ[αν] ὑπὲρ εὐχῆς κὲ σωτηρίας αὐτ[ῶ]ν κὲ τῆς συνγενίας αὐτ[ῶ]ν κὲ µνήµης κὲ | ἀναπαύσε[ως] (ΜΑΜΑ V 109). An acclamation would naturally be displayed in a prominent place, and since the verses for John concerned the road leading to the city, which he built for the safety and convenience of travellers, the inscription is likely to have been placed at one of the gates in the city walls. If this was the same road as the one mentioned by John’s fellow benefactor in 334, that is the road running south from Ankara to Dilimnia, this would have been on the south side of the late Roman wall circuit. The two inscriptions 334 and 335 appear to document euergetism by local civic leaders rather than by emperors, provincial governors, or other state officials, and did not involve the two commonest types of public buildings at this period, fortifications and churches. Several texts supply evidence for similar activities in other provincial cities in Asia Minor. A magnificent inscription comprising eight Ηomeric hexameters was carved in a circular marble floor which appears to have been part of a restored bath house at Seleuceia on the Calycadnus. The donor was Paulina, wife of the Isaurian Flavius Zeno, magister militum of Theodosius II between 447 and 451, and the lines included exactly the phrase used to describe John in the Ankara verses: τειρόµενον δάπεδόν µε χρόνων ὕπο πότνα γυναικῶν / πατρικία Ζήνωνος ἀρηϊφίλῳ παράκοιτις / Παυλῖνα πραπίδεσσι κεκασµένη ἠδὲ καὶ ἔργοις / προφρόνεως κόσµησε καὶ οὐκ ἀµέλησεν ἐµεῖο (Şahin 1991, 155-63 no. 3; SEG 41, 1408; SGO IV, 187). Two verse and two prose inscriptions from Stratonicaea in Caria, which certainly date from the fifth century, praised a city benefactor called Maximus, who had held all the civic offices (πανταρχήσαντα) and whose most conspicuous service had been to pay the urban transaction tax, the chrysargyron, on behalf of the city’s traders, who described themselves as persons ‘without wealth’, ἀκτέανοι (Ward-Perkins 2015). Although the benefits conferred by Maximus were essentially secular, all the texts displayed prominent crosses or Christian invocations and presented him as a pious Christian (Jones 2009; the benefactor’s name was not T(itus) 117

- 118 Maximus, as suggested by the first editor, M. Çetin Şahin, and C. P. Jones. The supposed tau which appears at the head of Jones 2009, 150 no. 4 is a cross; see Bull. ép. 2011, 712). The unusually lengthy prose text dated to 435 from Amisus reproduced a prose encomium of Erythrios, whose services had included grain distribution, the provision of public banquets, and the restoration of the city’s water supply to the bath house (Marek 2000; SEG 50, 1226). This provides an epigraphic parallel for the funerary oration commemorating a ‘father of the city’ and ἀστυνόµος of Gaza around 500, who was responsible for maintaining the city’s baths, porticos and theatres (see Laniado 2005 and Feissel, Chron. 831). A building inscription from Isaurian Zenonopolis, dated to 488, praised the city’s bishop Firmianus, who had rebuilt the aqueduct which led to the tetrastoon and the external water pool attached to the church of the martyred St Socrates (Kubińska 1994; SEG 44, 1222). This Asia Minor evidence complements the extensive epigraphic documentation for public building in the southern Levant in later antiquity, which has been assembled by L. Di Segni 1995 and 1999 (see Feissel, Chron. 831 and 832). The appearance of benefactor inscriptions of this type should also be considered alongside the evidence for dissemination of the title πατὴρ τῆς πόλεως to civic leaders who played an increasingly significant role in maintaining the facilities of city life, especially public finances and public building, after the middle of the fifth century (Roueché 1979 and 1989, 321-2; Feissel in Dagron – Feissel 1987, 215-20; Liebeschuetz 2001, index s.v. pater civitatis). The topic of civic building in the later Roman Empire of the East, treated from an archaeological viewpoint, is now the subject of a comprehensive synthesis by Ine Jacobs (2013). 336. Monumental building dedication Location: Copied in the cemetery at Vank, the Armenian monastery (Dernschwam). Description: ‘Auff dem begrebnus ligen an 3 ortten 3 grosse gewaldige ausgehaene weisse marmelstaine, derenn jedes auff einen wagen zu schwer ist, welche an einem stuk gestanden scheinen sein und mit grosse muehe zerprochen worden. Scheint uber eim gewaldigen palatio sein gestanden, seind noch etlich buchstaben zulesen gewesen’ (Dernschwam, ed. Babinger 1923, 227). ‘In saxo grandi ... haec tria frusta coniuncta fuisse eidem videntur. Et coniuncta praebet Dorns.’ (CIG). Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Belsus and Dernschwam 1555. Publication: Dernschwam, ed. Babinger 1923, 227; (Hattenhauer – Bake 2012, 406 no. 47); CIG III 4045 (“ex schedis Belsi et Dornsuami”); [Vienna Scheden 33].

4

--Ο-///ΤΟΡΙΚΑΙΣΑΡΙ Ν>ΣΙΟΑΝ ΝΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΚΑΟΙΕΡΟ

118

- 119 This text corresponds to Dernschwam’s copy; according to his description this combined text from the three blocks, but it is unclear which lettering belonged to which block. 5: ΚΑΟΙΕΡϹ, Belsus; καθιερώ[σαντο], καθιερω[θέντα], or similar.

Translation: For the Emperor Caesar … dedicated. Date: Perhaps third century, as the verb καθιερώ[σαντο] belongs in a pagan context and suggests a date before the fourth century. Commentary: W. Eck, in the appendix to Hattenhauer – Bake 2012, 406 no. 47, suggests reading (fr. 1) [Αὐτ]ο[κρά]τορι Καίσαρι [ - - ], (fr. 2) [ - - ]Ἰ[ω]άννου καὶ [ - - ], (fr. 3) [ - - ] κα[θ]ιέρ[ωσαν - ] but it is difficult to combine the name Ioannes, which would fit a Christian text of the fourth or fifth century with the restoration καθιέρωσαν appropriate to a pagan building dedication in the third century or earlier. 337.

Bronze gates

Location: ‘Near the south gate’ (Hamilton). Present whereabouts not known. Description & Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Hamilton 1836. Publication: Hamilton 1842, 1, 423, and 2, 422 no. 116; (CIG III 4052).

4

Ω[ - - - τάς] τε χαλκὰς πύλας καὶ τὸν κ[ό]σµον πάντα ΙϹ

Translation: … the bronze gates and the whole adornment … Date: Fourth or fifth century? Commentary: Bronze gates and elaborate décor would be appropriate for a public building designed to attract public admiration. 338. Votive of Limenius, protector Location: ‘Gefunden in der Nähe der Tabakhane’ (Fr. Miltner); now in the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 9038. Description: ‘Grabara aus grauem Kalkstein ... das Fussprofil ist fast ganz abgeschlagen, die linke obere Ecke fehlt’ (Fr. Miltner). Limestone stele: the base is broken, the back is rough, and the top flat; broken top left. The letters are now very worn (1971 and 2004): broken-bar alpha, square epsilon but lunate sigma, square omega. 119

- 120 -

Dimensions: Height 0.85, 0.51 (shaft); width (shaft) 0.38; thickness (shaft) 0.38; letters 0.0200.025. Copy: Fr. Miltner 1934; SM 1971 and 13.06.2004; squeeze SM 19.08.2010. Publication: Miltner 1937, 43 no. 47; (AE 1937, 96) [Vienna Scheden 314].

4

8

[ὑ]πὲρ εὐχῆς Λιµενίου [π]ρωτίκτορος κὲ τῆς συνβίου αὐτοῦ Κοιραδίας κ[ὲ] τῶν τέκνων αὐτῶ[ν] Λιµενίας κὲ Ἐπιφανί[ας] κὲ Λιµενίου κὲ πάντων τῶν διαφερόντων αὐτῷ κὲ ὑπὲρ ἀνα[λήψ]εως Δάφνου.

The underlined letters were no longer visible on the 2010 squeeze. 9: ΛΝΠ.ΕΩϹ, SM 2004.

Translation: Because of a vow of Limenius, the protector, and his wife, Koiradia, and their children, Limenia, Epiphania and Limenius and all their household, and for the recovery of Daphnus. Date: Later fifth or sixth century. Commentary: This stele was set up for an otherwise unknown protector Limenius (PLRE Ι, 510: Limenius 1) and his family. This was not funerary, as Miltner’s publication suggests, but a votive text. Protectores, according to the life of Theodore of Sykeon, were a conspicuous part of Ancyran society. Around the middle of the sixth century a protector from Ankara married the mother of St Theodore of Sykeon (Vita S. Theodori 25), and a group of protectores was responsible for bringing the saint to the city to put an end to an outbreak of plague, perhaps in the late 550s (Vita S. Theodori 45, 1-4). The title protector, like domesticus, originated in the military or political hierarchy of the imperial armies and the palace, and had evolved by the sixth century to denote leading city householders, who were more generically defined as ktetores, land-owners (see Mitchell 1993 II, 126). Another protector attested at Ankara was Ursinus, who erected a gravestone for his young son (359 comm.). The reading of the final line of this worn text is uncertain, but the most plausible restoration is ἀνα[λήψ]εως, referring to recovery from an illness; see LSJ s.v. ἀνάληψις II.2, and compare Feissel, Chron. 749 citing SEG 38, 1648 (ὑπὲρ ἀν[αλή]µψεως) on a mosaic from the Judaean Desert. The recovery from illness of Daphnus, whose relationship to Limenius is not clarified, probably provided the original motivation for the votive dedication. For the expression πάντων τῶν διαφερόντων αὐτῷ, meaning ‘all his possessions’ or more specifically ‘all his household’, see Wilhelm 1937, 604-9; cp. LSJ s.v. διαφέρω 3.8 and Preisigke 1925, s.v. διαφέρω 7. The use of the expression confirms that Limenius was a man of substance. Since the text was not carved on an architectural member such as a column, or inserted into a mosaic, it seems likely that it refers to an entire building, i.e. a chapel. Compare 363 which alludes to a chapel of the Virgin Mary being invoked to protect an Ancyran grave

120

- 121 of this period. Limenius could have built such a votive chapel either on his private property or in one of Ankara’s cemeteries. 339. Acclamation for a country bishop and clergy relating to church construction Location: ‘In coemeterio Surb Bogos,’ (J. H. Mordtmann); that is at the Vank monastery. Description & Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: A. D. Mordtmann with H. Barth 1858. Publication: Mordtmann 1874, 22 no. 11: text from A. D. Mordtmann.

4

Πωλὰ τὰ ἔτη τοῦ χωρεπισκόπου Καλινίκου καὶ παντὼς τοῦ κλήρου καὶ πάντων συνκαµνώντων εἰς τὸ ἔργον. Κύριε βοήθι Πατρίκιον τὼν διάκονα ὥτι συνέκαµνεν (vac) τῷ ἔργῳ.

3: Ϲ ΥΝΚΙ ΙΩΝ, Mordtmann; 5: ‘Mira constantia pro ο semper ω scribitur unde vs. 5 pro ΚΙ ΙΝ in lapide ΚΙωΝ extare suspicor’, Mordtmann; ΚΙΟΝ is also possible. ϹΥΝΕΚΛΙΜΕΝ copy, restored by J. H. Mordtmann.

Translation: Many be the years of the country-bishop Callinicus and all his clergy and all who worked together on the building! Lord help Patricius the deacon because he also worked on the building! Date: Fourth or fifth century. Commentary: This inscription acclaimed a country bishop and his clergy for their contribution to building a church and ended with a funerary prayer for the deacon Patricius. Another country-bishop in Galatia, is mentioned on an epitaph at Bağiçi (formerly Zivre), a village about forty-five kilometres due south of Ankara (Calder 1957, 337, republished in RECAM II 237). Chorepiscopi were widespread in central Anatolia in the fourth and fifth century, attested principally by inscriptions, the canons of church councils, and the correspondence of the Cappadocian fathers (Mitchell 1993 II, 69-70; Destephen – Métivier 2007). The verb κάµνω (here σύγκαµνω) referred specifically to physical labour, not merely to the financial donations or organisational activity of the clergy. Compare a fifth-century text from Brouzos in Phrygia, which reads † Κ(ύρι)ε βοήθη τοὺς καλõς κάµοντα(ς) τὸ ἔρ|γον τοῦ τηµήου Προδρόµου. † (MAMA XI 154), the mid-fourth century epitaph of Eugenios from Laodicea Catacecaumene, which begins Αὐ(ρηλία) Οὐαλεντίλλη κὲ Λεόντιος κὲ Κάτµαρος ἀνεστήσαµεν τὴν τίτλον ταύτην Εὐγενίῳ πρ(εσβυτέρῳ) πολλὰ καµόντος ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας τοῦ θε(ο)ῦ ἐκλησίας τῶν Καθαρῶν ζῶντες µνήµης χάριν (SGO 3, 82-84: 14/06/05), and the remark of Feissel, Chron. 647, discussing a prayer offered for those who had helped construct a church near Hama in Syria, καὶ καµόντων εἰς τὸν ἅγιον οἶκόν σου, ‘[ils] doivent être des ouvriers’. Note also the epitaph from Ankara for Iulianus, a sub-deacon, καλῶς καµών (377). It was a part of Christian belief that hard labour would be rewarded, but the idea gained more purchase in a local context from

121

- 122 the fact that the physical labour and strength of country-dwellers in Phrygia and Galatia were prized and celebrated in their votives and epitaphs (see Masséglia 2013, especially 104-8). 340. Votive of Patricianus. Location: Not recorded; in Depot 3 of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. No. 9082. Description: Squarish slab of Ankara andesite, broken right but nearly complete. There is a Latin cross carved in a recessed panel within an incised border which is arched at the top. The inscription is carved in between the arms of the cross. Broken-bar alphas; lunate epsilon and sigma, upsilon as in Latin V. Dimensions: Height 0.34; width 0.29; thickness 0.09; letters 0.02-0.045. Copy: SM 16.06.2004. ὑπὲρ εὐ4

8

Πετρ[ι]-

χῆς κιαν- ο[ῦ] ΑΠΑ vac ϹΕ Ο

2 (right): Πετρικιανο, copy, but the stone cutter may have intended Πατρικιανοῦ.

Translation: For a vow of Patricianus (?) … Date: Probably sixth century. Commentary: This stone appears to come from the fabric of a building. It is unclear whether the votive dedication of Patricius related to the whole structure or to part of the fabric. 340 bis is a very similar stone, but the inscription is no longer legible. 340 bis. Cross recording building in a church? Location: In the Akkale Depot of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 3112. Description: Rectangular slab of Ankara andesite, broken at the bottom left but nearly complete. There is a cross standing out in high relief in a recessed panel, arched at the top. There are traces of an inscription carved in between the arms of the cross including two alphas with broken cross bar in the top left segment. Dimensions: Height 0.30; width 0.25; thickness 0.15 (estimated). Copy: SM photo 24.09.2014.

122

- 123 Text not legible. Date: Probably sixth century. Commentary: This stone is included on the grounds of its close similarity to 340. 341. Monogram Location: Built into the curtain wall between WT 14 and 15 of the Iç Kale. The block with the inscription forms the right-hand edge of a rectangular arrow slit in the wall. Description: White marble block. Τhe monogram is placed half way up and to the left of the centre of the block, which has an indented but damaged margin on the left side. The surface where the monogram is cut is polished and smooth, but there is a hole for attaching another block and the surface on the right has been cut back to create an anathyrosis where this would have been placed. It appears probable that the monogram relates to this period of architectural use. The monogram is finely cut, and appears to be contemporary with the polished finish of the stone. Upsilon with a short crossbar, inside a pi, whose cross bar extends beyond the uprights at either end, with epsilon to the right and ligatured omikron upsilon on top. Dimensions: Height c. 0.50; width c. 0.65. The monogram appears c. 0.15 high. Copy: SM 20.07.1977; photograph 30.03.2016. See photograph. Date: Probably sixth century. Commentary: Monograms are especially characteristic of architecture in the first half of the sixth century, and this block may be part of a Justinianic church. The letters of the monogram certainly include ΠΥΕΟΥ and perhaps also Τ. 342. Font or basin from church Location: In the Terrace depot, Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 114.9.99. Description: A limestone column capital with a ‘Pfeifenfries’ supporting the abacus, which was subsequently hollowed out to form a small font or stoup for holy water. The inscription was cut around the rim of the basin. Dimensions: Not measured. Diameter c. 0.50. Copy: SM 2004; squeeze SM 31.08.2010. ΟΛΑ . ϹΜΟ . Χο ΠΕ

ΙΜ†/ΥϹΥ . . Ι . Ι ϹΑΧ. .Χ ΗΟϹΙΔΟΛΟΝΗ Ι Ϲ

It is not clear to us where this text begins.

Date: Fifth or sixth century?

123

- 124 -

Commentary: For another inscription round the rim of a small basin see MAMA XI 114 (Acmonia), reading † νικᾷ ἡ τύχη τοῦ Κυρ(ί)ου µου ΧΕΤΑΩ.

343. Christian Acclamation Location: At the rear of the Roman Baths. No inventory number. Description: Trapezoidal andesite base. The top surface is flat; on the front of the stone there is a large Maltese cross on a two-stepped plinth with the inscription between the arms of the cross. On the two lateral faces there is a step or ridge mid-way up from the base. Dimensions: Height 1.00; width 0.44 (top), 0.63 (bottom); thickness 0.38 (top), 0.44 (bottom). Copy: SM 2004; 15.9.2005; squeeze 2010. 2

ΙϹ NH

[ΧΡ] KA

Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς [Χρ(ιστὸς)] | νηκᾷ. Translation: Jesus Christ is victorious. Date: Perhaps early seventh century (resemblance to coins of Heraclius, representing cross on plinth). Commentary: This stone appears to have served as a base for a wooden pillar, and presumably stood inside or in the porch of a church. The motif of a cross placed on a plinth of two or three steps is most familiar from Heraclius’ coinage issued between 610 and 629 during his Sassanian wars. The coins depict the cross resting on a globe on the plinth, symbolizing the triumph of the Christian empire in its struggle with Persia (Mitchell 2015, 457-8). There is a very similar representation to the Ankara monument on a small marble relief from Adana, which depicts a cross on a two-stepped plinth, with the inscription ΙϹ ΧϹ | ΝΗ ΚΑ in capital letters above the arms of the cross, and the cursive text στ(αυ)ρὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ βοήθη Ἰω(άννου) ἁµαρτ(ω)λ(οῦ) below them (Dagron – Feissel 1987, 105 no. 61 with pl. XXVII; the grounds for their suggested date, ‘Xe-XIe s. au plus tôt’, are not clear). 344. Building fragment ? Location: From excavations in Ulus. Description: Small inscribed fragment of marble cladding, broken above, right and below. The letters have apices and nu has a decorative transverse bar. Copy: Photo provided by Prof. Musa Kadıoğlu. † ὁ τὸν . [ - ]

124

- 125 οὗτος [ - - ]. Date: Sixth century (lettering). Commentary: This text may have referred to the donor of the construction or its decoration. 345. Acclamation for Festus (?) Location: Built high up in a curtain wall of the İç Kale, together with other debris (d’Orbeliani); between towers 10 and 11 of the west wall, close to the angle with tower 10. Description: Two limestone fragments, possibly originally from the same stone, taking the form of a moulded door lintel, with a line of damaged text on each (d’Orbeliani); uneven lettering with lunate sigma, broken-bar alpha, lambda with right upright overlapping. Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: d’Orbeliani 1915-18; SM 20.06.04. Publication: d’Orbeliani 1924, 32 no. 30 and fig. 15; (SEG 6, 26) [Vienna Scheden 224]. Frag. 1 Frag. 2

ΦΕϹΤΟΥ ΠΟΛΛΑ Τ ΤΟΥΒΑ [ - ]

Frag. 1: Φέστου πολλὰ τ[ὰ ἔτη], SEG. Frag. 2: or ΡΟΥΒΑ, d’Orbeliani.

Translation: Many be the years of Festus (?). Date: Uncertain. Commentary: Perhaps an acclamation for Festus. 346. Boundary stone of a church of St Anicetus Location: Built into the wall above the north door of the Arslan Hane Türbesi. Description: A block of Ankara andesite. The surface of the stone is damaged above, but the block is complete to the right and left and broken below. The inscription is roughly cut in uneven lettering in a shallow depression with raised margins to the right and left, and indications of a margin at the top. Broken-bar alpha, square epsilon and sigma. Dimensions: Height 0.54; width 0.47; letters 0.02-0.04. Copy: SM 30.03.2016. [† ὅροι τοῦ ἁγ]-

125

- 126 -

4

8

ί̣ου κὲ ἐνδόξου µάρτυρος Ἀνικίτου κα[ὶ] τῖς περιοχῖς τοῦ κτίµ̣ατος διακιµένου [ἐ]ν̣ Λ̣Υ̣ΡΝΗΣ̣ . –––––––

2: Κ followed by a sign of abbreviation. 8: The second visible letter was probably Α, Λ or Δ, and the third must be Υ or Χ; ? [ἐ]ν [Λ]υρνησ[ῷ].

Translation: (Boundaries of the church of the holy and famous martyr Anicetus and the circumference of the property situated in Lyrnessos (?), … Date: Reign of Justinian. Commentary: This inscription closely resembles two Justinianic inscriptions recorded at Çiftlik, about sixty kilometres ENE of Ankara, which are now housed in the lapidarium at the Roman Baths. The almost identical texts from Çiftlik marked the boundaries of the territory attached to a church of St Michael, † ὅροι τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ ἐνδόξου ἀρχανγέλου Μιχαὴλ τῷ διακιµένῳ ἐν Κονκαρζτιακίτῳ χωρίῳ (RECAM II 207 and 208, with the corrections of Feissel, Chron. 152 no. 471). The appearance of the new inscription, which was unevenly carved in a recessed panel with raised margins, also resembles the Çiftlik stones, one of which was made of Ankara andesite, like the new Ankara text, the other of white limestone. Τhe lost bottom section of the new Ankara inscription presumably continued with a text that matched the Çiftlik stones: παρασχεθὲν παρὰ τοῦ εὐσεβεστάτου ἡµῶν δεσπότου Φλ. Ἰουστινιανοῦ τοῦ αἰωνίου Ἀγούστου καὶ αὐτοκράτορος πρὸς σωτηρίαν τῶν προσφευγόντων. All of them recorded asylum rights granted to churches by Justinian towards the middle of the sixth century. Similar Justinianic constitutions from Miletus, Pontus, Galatia and Syria published in Amelotti – Migliardi Zingale 1985 nos. 17 and 18, are discussed by Feissel, Chron. 352 no. 1167. Two more succinct examples of the genre have been recorded in Paphlagonia: an inscription from Pompeiopolis reading ὅροι | ἄσυλοι | τοῦ ἁγί|ου κ(αὶ) ἐν|δόξου | µεγαλο|µάρτυρ(ος) | Ἀνθ[ί]µου (BCH 13 (1889), 309 no. 18), and a stone from the nearby village of Araç with the text ὅροι τῶ|ν ἁγίω|ν κὲ ἐνδ|όξων κ|[α]λλινίκ|ων µαρ|τύρω|ν Ταρα|χίου, | Πρόβο|υ, | Ἀνδ|ρονί|κου (Marek 1993, Kat. Pompeopolis 69). The specific indication of the extended sanctuary area by the phrase τῆς περιοχῆς τοῦ κτήµατος is unique to the new text, but the word διακείµενος to indicate its topographic location replicates the Çiftlik terminology. The place name in the next line is only partially preserved. After the missing first letter there are two upright hastae which are consistent with the obvious restoration [ἐ]ν. The next traces seem to be the top of a triangular letter, and the branches of ypsilon or chi. The letters ΡΝΗ are certain, followed by a possible sigma. This would allow the restoration [ἐ]ν Λ̣υρ̣ νήσ̣(σ)ῳ, an Anatolian toponym, attested for the city in the Troad sacked by Achilles when he acquired his concubine Briseis (Homer Il. 2, 689-91). It is not unlikely that there was a homonymous place in Galatia near Ankara. A new reading of the second-century name list from Ancyra (I. Ankara 1, 9 line 6) indicates that one of the persons included was called Λύρνησος (see below p. XXX), and this unique personal name can be explained as being derived from the local toponym.

126

- 127 Saint Anicetus is previously unattested epigraphically, but should probably be identified with the victim of Diocletian’s persecution, whose martyrdom is recorded in the Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae for 12 August: ἄθλησις τῶν ἁγίων τοῦ Χριστοῦ µαρτύρων Φωτίου καὶ Ἀνικήτου. Οὕτοι ὑπῆρχον κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους Διοκλητιανοῦ τοῦ βασιλέως. ἦν δὲ ὁ ἅγιος Φώτιος ἀδελφιδοῦς τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀνικήτου. Undaunted by the tyrant Diocletian’s edicts in Nicomedia, Anicetus proclaimed himself to be Christian and was tortured and killed. The location of the martyrdom is not stated (Delehaye 1902, 886). 346 bis. Boundary of Church of St Michael and John the Baptist near Ancyra Location: Found during building work at Pursaklar, which was once a village and is now a city district, 14 kilometres NNE of central Ankara on the road to Esenboga Airport. Brought to the Roman Baths in 2010 or 2011. No inventory number. Description: Stele of reddish Ankara andesite, damaged on the lower right-hand side and broken at the bottom right. There is a triangular pediment containing a cross in relief; the inscription on the shaft is cut in the upper half of a shallow panel. The lines and the lettering are uneven. The omegas in lines 3, 4 and 11 have the form of a small omikron with a light mark underneath. All other omegas in the text are cursive. Omicron upsilon is in ligature except in line 1. The letters on the right-hand side of the inscription are worn, apparently by the effects of water abrasion, perhaps when the stone was used as a washboard. Dimensions: Height 1.75 (pediment 0.26; shaft 1.14; height of inscription at the top of the shaft 0.57; broken footing below shaft 0.35); width 0.53 (the frame round the inscription is 0.035 wide); thickness 0.23; letters 0.025. Copy: SM 31.10.2013.

4

8

12

† ὅροι τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ ἐνδ[ό]ξου ἀρχανγέλου Μιχα[ὴλ] καὶ πρωτοβαπτίστ. [Ἰω]άννου τῶν δι(α)κιµέ[νων] ἐν Ἀτοροιστοχωρ̣ί̣ῳ [πα]ρασχεθέντες παρὰ [τοῦ] εὐσεβεστάτου ἡµῶ[ν] δεσπότου ΦλϞ Ἰουστι[νι]ανοῦ τοῦ ἐωνίου Αὐγούσ[του] καὶ Αὐτοκράτορος πρὸς σωτηρίαν τῶν προσφευγώντων

3: πρωτοβαπτίστ(ου). 4: ΔΙΚΙΜϵ, cf. RECAM II 207 and 208 with Feissel, Chron. 152 no. 471. 5: ΓΝΑΤΟΡΟΙϹΤΟΧΩΙΙΟ, copy and photo. 8: sign of abbreviation above lambda.

Date: Reign of Justinian (527-65). Translation: Boundaries of (the church of) the holy and famous archangel Michael and the Protobaptist John situated in Atoroistochorion, granted by our most pious ruler Flavius Iustinianus, the eternal Augustus and Emperor for the safety of those who flee to sanctuary.

127

- 128 -

Commentary: This was a boundary stone marking the limits of the property of a Church of the Archangel Michael and John the Baptist which had been established by a decision of the emperor Justinian, so that the church offered a refuge to those seeking asylum. The text follows the same pattern as the two boundary stones recorded east of Ankara at the village of Çiftlik, near Kalecik (ancient Malos), published as RECAM II 207 and 208, and the more fragmentary Ancyran text 346. For the use of the term παρασχεθέντες for a grant of privileges by imperial rescript, see Feissel 1992, 393. Lines 4-5 of the new text can be restored by analogy with the two inscriptions from Çiftlik and 346. The positions of the respective churches lay on the village territories respectively of Atoroistochorion, Konkarztiakiton, and Lyrnessos (?), all of which are otherwise unattested. Atoroistochorion is evidently a Celtic Galatian toponym, meaning the village of Atoroistos. The name was evidently a transformed version of the anthroponym Ἀτεύριστος, probably representing contemporary pronunciation of the vowel sounds. Ateuristos is already attested among the Celtic groups that reached Asia Minor. Ateuristos, father of Brikkon, a resident of Apamea (perhaps the small city of Apamea-Myrleia on the south coast of the Sea of Marmara), is attested in an early second century BC verse epigram from Maronea in Thrace (SEG 38, 731; see Grandjean 1971). The form has been interpreted as a Greek adaption, ending in -ιστος, of the Celtic forms Ateuritus, Ateurita, and may have had the meaning ‘the rediscovered’ (Fleuriot 1970, 668).

128

- 129 3.4 Exempla Biblica in Ankara

The following group of texts is unique to Ankara. 347 and 348 present a selection of exempla from biblical or postbiblical texts as the basis for two lengthy inscriptions which encouraged listeners or readers to conduct virtuous, and specifically charitable lives, so that they might at the day of judgement be received into everlasting life. 349 also contains exhortations and biblical admonitions to virtuous conduct, taken from the Psalms, which would lead to eternal life. There appear to be no close parallels to these inscriptions in Greek epigraphy. There is no record of the locations or the circumstances in which any of the inscriptions was discovered. 348 has been part of the epigraphic collection at the Roman Baths since at least 1972, when it was first published. It appears to have been a re-used construction stone, and the inscription was probably originally inserted in the wall of a building, doubtless a church. 347 and 349 were noted in 2005 in one of the depots of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, and seem to have been recent accessions. 347 had been broken at the time of its discovery, perhaps by a mechanical digger at one of the building sites in central Ankara, and the recovered pieces were assembled and stuck together by the museum staff. Both 347 and 349 were carved on re-used slabs of marble wall-panelling, inscribed and then presumably reinstated as panelling, also probably on a church wall. The beginning of all three inscriptions is missing, or too fragmentary to be restored, and their texts give no clue about the authorities that put them up, the circumstances of their publication, or the locations where they were displayed. Answers to these questions have to be inferred from the contents of the inscriptions. These, however, are generalized and contain no allusions that seem specific to conditions in Ankara. Apart from the exhortations to charitable and righteous conduct which are common to all three texts, they are linked by a shared emphasis on Jerusalem, both as a historical location, and as a symbolic focal point of Christian piety. 347. Exhortation to charity Location: In the South Terrace depot of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations; no inventory number. Description: Slab of marble wall cladding, which appears to have been broken at the time of discovery and has been re-assembled from twenty-three pieces, with some pieces missing, by the museum staff. The top of the stone is broken, but the bottom is intact in the middle although damaged at the left-hand side, and accordingly the last preserved line can be treated as the end of the inscription. It appears that the bottom right corner from line 38 to the end of the text was already broken off before the inscription was carved, as the restoration of these lines is unavoidably shorter than those above them. The text of the lower lines was squeezed on to fill the entire surface of the stone. Lines were ruled across the stone to guide the stone cutter. These are 1.6 cms apart between lines 1 and 43, but only 1.1 cms apart in lines 44-45. For the lettering, see the photograph. Broken-bar alpha, cursive epsilon and sigma, omikron upsilon in ligature. Psi in lines 10 and 12 has the form of an upright cross, in line 20 it is a v dissected by a vertical line, and in line 41 it appears as an eta ligatured to the preceding mu. There are many other ligatures including ΗΜΩΝ, 129

- 130 ΗΝ, ΗΝΚ, ΝΠ, ΩΗΝ. The nomina sacra Κύριος, Χριστός and Θεός were usually abbreviated. The lettering was certainly originally highlighted with paint, and cross-bars completing letters such as epsilon and tau would have been finished in this way. Dimensions: Height 0.73; width 0.56; letters 0.012 (lines 1-38), becoming smaller in the final seven lines and reducing to 0.008, as the carver accommodated the text to fit the remaining available space. Copy: SM and Graham Oliver, August 2005; squeeze SM 31.08.2010.

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

[ - - -15- - - - - - ] κατέχοντες, καθὼς καὶ Ἰερο[υσαλὴµ ? παροικοῦν][τες - - -11- - - - κ]αὶ ἡ γῆ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα εἵστατα KA[ - - -15- - - ] [ - - - - -12- - - µακ]άριαι αἱ ψυχαὶ ἐκεῖναι ἑ ἀγωνισάµ̣[εναι κατὰ τὰ τῶν] Ἁγίων Γραφ̣[ῶν λ]εγόµενα. οὐ δώοµεν ὕπνον τοῖς ὀ̣[φθαλµοῖς ἡµῶν κ]αὶ τοῖς βλεφάρο[ις ἡ]µ̣ῶ̣ νυστ̣αγµὸν καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν τοῖς κροτ̣[άφοις ἕως οὗ εὕ]ροµεν τόπον τοῦ [ΚΥ, σκήνωµα] τοῦ Ω Ἰακὼβ· λέγοντε ο πρ[οφῆται, εἰ ἐκα]ταλίποµέν σοι, Ἰε[ρουσαλήµ, ἐπιλη]σθη ἡ δεξιὰ ἡµῶν, εἴ της [ - - -8- - κ]ολλιθίη ἡ γλῶσα τ̣[̣ ῷ λάρυγγι ἡ]µῶν, ἐὰν ἐκαταλίπο̣[µέν σε· καὶ οὗτοι πλη]ρῶντες τοὺς προ[φήτας καὶ µ]ετὰ τὴν συµπλήρωσι̣ν̣ [τέκνα εὑρίσκοντ]αι τοῦ Μελχισεδὲκ εἰσ[ελθόντες εἰς] τὸ ρος τῆς Ἁγίας Ἀναλήµψεω[ς· ὁ ΚϹ ἔφη, Ἀβραά]µ, ἀνέλθε ἐφ᾿ ἓν τῶν ὀρ[έων εἰς µ]έρος τῆς ἀνατολῆς καὶ εὑρῖς ἄνδρα διαιτ̣[ώµενον ἄνε]υ̣ πάσις χαρᾶς καὶ κόσµ[ου καὶ] περίκηρον αὐτὸν καὶ ὀνύχησον αὐτὸν καὶ ἄλιψον α̣ὐ-̣ τοῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν ἐλέου καὶ δὸς αὐτῷ στολὰς τρῖς καὶ ἄρτον καὶ οἶνον καὶ ἔχις λαβῖν πα̣ρ᾿ αὐτοῦ εὐλογίαν ὕνα ζήσεις εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. εἰ δὲ ὁρᾷται, πάντες οἱ φοβούµενοι τὸν Θεόν, πόσον πόθον ἔ̣σχ̣ εν Ἀβραὰµ ἐκ νεώτητος αὐτοῦ σπωδάζων εὐαρεστῆσε τοῦ Θεῷ, τοσοῦτον πόθον ἔ̣σ̣χ̣ε̣ν̣, ὅτι µονογενὸν ἔσχεν καὶ αὐτὸν µάχεραν ἐπίνιγκεν. σπωδάζων Ἀβραὰµ εὐαρεστῆσε τοῦ Θεῷ, καὶ οὕτως ἠρέσθι τοῦ ΘΩ, ἵνα ἐκ τοῦ Μελχισεδὲκ λάβι ὁ Ἀβραὰµ εὐλογίαν καὶ ζήσι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. καὶ οὗτοι οἱ σπουδάσαντες φυλακῆσε ἑαυτοὺς διὰ Χριστὸν οἱ κατοικῶντες εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλεῶν, εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῆς Ἁγίας Ἀναλήµψεως, τέκνα εὑρίσκονται τοῦ Μελχισεδὲκ περιµένοντες τὸν νυµφίον· ὁµοίους δὲ καὶ ὁ Σὴµ ἐπάρας τὴ̣ν ἠδίαν στολὴν ἐσκέπασεν τὸν πατέρα, εἴ της ἐστιν̣ ἡ Ἁγία τοῦ ΘΩ Χριστῶ πόλις, καὶ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ ε̣ὐ[̣ λογ]ί̣α̣ν̣ ἐ̣δ̣έ̣ξ̣ατο, ἀπ̣[ολαύων τὴν ἀ]τ̣ελεύτητον ζωὴν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ὁµ[οίως δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἀβραὰµ ἐδίδαξεν αὐτοὺ]ς τοὺς κατοικῶντας εἰς τὸ Ὄρος [τῆς Ἁγίας Ἀναλήµψεως καθήµ]ενο[ς πρὸ σ]κηνῆς αὐτοῦ ἐν{ε} ἐλευθερίᾳ κατα[δεξάµενος τρεῖς ἄνδρας] ὡ̣ς εἰσελθῖν̣ ἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ καὶ παρέστησεν [βούτυρον καἰ γάλα καὶ µετέδ]ωκεν αὐτοῖς πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν, ὧν ἔδωκεν αὐ[τῷ ὁ KϹ, καὶ παρ᾿ αὐτῶν εὐλογ]ίαν ἐδέξατο, τὸν Ἰὰκ, καὶ φίλος ΘΩ ἐκλίθι, ἀπολαύ[ων τὴν ἀτελεύτητον ζωὴ]ν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ὁοίους δὲ καὶ Ἰακὼβ σπωδάσας προ[σενέγκεν ἐδέσµατα τῷ] π̣ατρί, εἴ της ἐστιν ἡ Ἁγία τοῦ ΘΩ Χριστῶ πόλις, καὶ πα[ρ᾿ αὐτοῦ εὐλογίαν ἐδέ]ξατο καὶ ἄρτον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἀπολαύων τὴν ἀτελεύτη[τον ζωὴν εἰς τοὺς] α̣ἰῶνας· ὁµοίους δὲ καὶ οἱ Μάγοι σπωδάσαντες προσενέγκε [τὰ δῶρα εἰς τὴν Ἁγ]ί̣α̣ν̣ τῶ ΘΩ Χριστῶ πόλιν, οὕτως ὤντους ἐπιγγίλ̣ατο ὁ ΚϹ ἡµῶν ὁ [σκεπάζ]ων ἐφ᾿ ἱµᾶς εἰς τοὺς ἀγηράτους καὶ ἀτελευτήτους {ἰς τοὺς} α̣ἰ̣ῶν̣ ̣ας ἑ̣κα̣τὸ̣ ν πεντήκοντα κιλιάδας σῶσε ἐκ τ[οῦ ἔθνους ἐκείνου· ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ Αὔγα]ρος, ὁ κατέχων τῇ πόλι Αἰδέσις, δι᾽ ἐπιστ[ολῆς λόγον ἔπεµψεν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ ΘΥ ΧΥ] πόλιν καὶ διὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐκίνου, εἴ της πό[λις Ἁγία ἐστι τοῦ ΘΥ ΧΥ, περιετίχισεν ὥστ]ε ἀσάλευτον καὶ ἀνίκητον αὐτὴν ἀσ[φαλέστατα διαµεῖναι ἕως τῆς συντελε]ίας τῦ αἰῶνος τούτου· ὀφίλοµεν καὶ ἡ[µεῖς τὰ αὐτὰ διαπράττεσθαι καὶ µ]ηµῆσε τοὺς εἱσταµένους εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶ[ν Ἐλεῶν εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῆς ἐκκλησί]ας τῆς Ἁγίας Ἀναήµεως, ἵνα ἀξω[θῶµεν καὶ ἡµεῖς λαβεῖν εὐλο]γίαν, καθὼς Ἀβραὰµ ἐκ τοῦ Μελχισεδ[ὲκ· οὕτως καὶ ἡµεῖς εἰσέλθωµε][ν] εἰς ὴν ἀπαντὶν τοῦ ΚΥ ἡµῶν Εἰησοῦ Χ[ριστοῦ ὥστε ἐν τῇ δευτέρ]ᾳ παρουσίᾳ µετὰ χαρᾶς καὶ δόξης µε[γάλης ἐπαναστῆναι ἐν τῇ ἀνά]στασι τῶν δικαίων, ἵνα ἀξ̣ι̣α̣ωθ̣ ῶµεν [εὐλογίαν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λαβεῖν].

Ps. 131, 4-5 Ps. 136, 5-6

Athanasius Theol., Historia de Melchisedech (PG 28, 525-529) Gen. 22, 2-13 Gen. 14, 18 Gen. 9, 20-26 = 348, 2-4 Gen. 18, 1-6 Gen. 21, 1-3 Gen. 27, 1-30 = 348, 4–6 = 348, 9–11 = 348, 6–9

2: ? κα[τά . . .; κα[θώς . . . ; κα[ί . . . 3-4: ΔΩΓΟΜΕΝ lapis. 7: Perhaps εἴ της [ἐστι Σιών, κ]– or εἴ της [ἐστιν ἁγία, κ]-. 8-9: rest. DF; or [οὗτοι οἱ συµπλη]ρῶντες τοὺς προ[φήτας . . . 10: ϹΡΟΣ lapis; supplement suggested by Vadim Wittkowsky, cf PG 28, 525-529. 16: ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΙΜΟΝ lapis. 25: ΕΝΕΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΑ, lapis. 25-7: restored on the basis of the LXX text of Gen. 18.1-6. 28: ΙΑΣΑΚ lapis. 29: ΟΝΟΙΟΥΣ lapis. 3940: rest. DF. 41: ΑΝΑΧΗΜΗϹΩϹ. 43: rest. DF. Orthographic notes: 2: εἵσταται = ἵσταται. 3: ἑ = αἱ. 6: εὕροµεν = εὕρωµεν; λέγοντε = λέγονται. 7: ἐπιλησθίη = ἐπιλησθείη; εἴ της = εἴ τις. 8: κολλιθίη = κολληθείη; γλῶσα = γλῶσσα. 11: εὕρις = εὕρῃς. 12: πάσις = πάσης; περίκηρον =

130

- 131 περίκειρον; ἄλιψον = ἄλειψον. 13: ἐλέου = ἐλαίῳ (gen. for dat.); τρῖς = τρεῖς; ἔχις = ἔχεις; λαβῖν = λαβεῖν. 14: ὕνα = ἵνα; ζήσεις = ζήσῃς. 15: νεώτητος = νεότητος; σπωδάζων = σπουδάζων. 16: εὐαρεστῆσε = εὐαρεστῆσαι; τοῦ = τῷ (gen. for dat.). 17: µάχεραν = µάχαιραν; ἐπίνιγκεν = ἐπήνεγκεν; σπωδάζων = σπουδάζων; τοῦ = τῷ (gen. for dat.); εὐαρεστῆσε = εὐαρεστῆσαι. 18: ἠρέσθι = ἠρέσθη; τοῦ = τῷ; λάβι = λάβῃ; ζήσι = ζήσῃ. 19: φυλακῆσε = φυλακίσαι; κατοικῶντες = κατοικοῦντες. 20: Ἐλεῶν = Ἐλαιῶν. 21: ὁµοίους = ὁµοίως; ἠδίαν = ἰδίαν. 22: εἴ της = εἴ τις; Θεῶ = Θεοῦ; Χριστῶ = Χριστοῦ. 24: κατοικῶντας = κατοικοῦντας. 26: εἰσελθῖν = εἰσελθεῖν; ἰς = εἰς. 28: Θεῶ = Θεοῦ; ἐκλίθι = ἐκλήθη. 29: ὁµοίους = ὁµοίως; σπωδάσας = σπουδάσας. 30: εἴ της = εἴ τις; Θεῶ = Θεοῦ; Χριστῶ = Χριστοῦ. 32: ὁµοίους = ὁµοίως; σπωδάσαντες = σπουδάσαντες; προσενέγκε = προσενέγκαι. 33: τῶ Θεῶ = τοῦ Θεοῦ; Χριστῶ = Χριστοῦ ὤντους = ὄντως; ἐπιγγίλατο = ἐπηγγείλατο. 34: ἱµᾶς = ἡµᾶς; ἰς = εἰς. 35: κιλιάδας = χιλιάδας; σῶσε = σῶσαι. 36: πόλι = πόλει; Αἰδέσις = Ἐδέσσης. 37: ἐκίνου = ἐκείνου; εἴ της = εἴ τις. 39: τῦ = τοῦ; ὀφίλοµεν = ὀφείλοµεν. 40: µηµῆσε = µιµῆσαι; εἱσταµένους = ἱσταµένους. 43: ἀπαντίν = ἀπαντήν; Εἰησοῦ = Ἰησοῦ. 45: ἀναστάσι = ἀναστάσει.

Translation: … occupying …, just as those [? dwelling in] Jerusalem … and the earth endures for eternity … blessed are those souls that have fought the contest [according to] what has been said in the holy scriptures. We shall not grant sleep to our eyes or drowsiness to our eyelids and rest for our temples until we find the place of the [Lord, the tabernacle] of the God of Jacob. The [prophets] say, if we abandon you, Jerusalem, may our right hand be forgotten – if there is any [?holy city] – may our tongue stick in our gullet, if we abandon you. (Those who fulfil (the works of) the prophets after the fulfilment are discovered [to be the children] of Melchisedek, going up into the Mount of the Holy Assumption. [God said,] ‘Abraham, go up to one of the mountains to the eastern part, and you may find a man [living without] any grace and adornment, and cut his hair and trim his fingernails and anoint his head with olive oil, and give him three cloaks and bread and wine, and you may be able to receive a blessing from him so that you shall live for eternity.’ If it is seen, O all those who fear God, how great a desire had Abraham, eager to please God, he had so much desire that he took hold of his only-begotten son and raised a dagger against him. Abraham eager to please God was so pleasing to God, that Abraham received blessing from Melchisedek and shall live for eternity. And those who are eager to imprison themselves on account of Christ, those dwelling on the Mount of Olives, on the Mount of the Holy Assumption, are found to be children of Melchisedek, awaiting the bridegroom. Likewise also Shem having lifted up and set his own cloak on him protected his father – if there is a Holy City of the God Christ – and received a blessing from him, [enjoying] unending life for eternity. Likewise also Abraham [has instructed those] who dwell on the Mount of the Holy Assumption, sitting in front of his tent in the open air, [receiving three men] so that they enter into his house and he provided [milk and honey] and gave them a share of all the goods which the Lord had given him, and received a blessing from them, his (son) Isaac, and he was called beloved by God, enjoying unending life for eternity. Likewise also Jacob eager to bring food for his father – if there is any Holy City of the God Christ – and he received a blessing from him and bread from heaven, enjoying unending life for eternity.

131

- 132 -

Likewise also the Magi, eager to bring [their gifts to the Holy] City of God Christ, thus truly our Lord, [watching] over us for ageless and unending eternity, promised to save 150,000 persons from [that race]. [Likewise also] Abgar, the master of the city of Edessa, sent word through a letter [to the holy city of God Christ], and through that word – if there is [any Holy City of God Christ – he built a wall round] it so that it remained unshaken and unconquered most secure until the completion of this age. We ourselves ought also [to accomplish the same things] and to imitate those who ascend to the Mount of Olives, to the Mount of the Church of the Holy Assumption, so that [we too may also] be judged worthy [and we may receive] blessing just as Abraham did from Melchisedek. [Thus we ourselves should go up] to our meeting with our Lord Jesus Christ so that in the Second Coming with joy and great glory [we may rise up again in the Resurrection of the Just, so that we may be judged worthy [to receive blessing from Him]. Date: Middle or later sixth century. If the content of the text is understood literally, it should have been composed before the fall of Edessa to the Persians in 609 (see line 38). The orthography of the inscription, with prevalent itacisms and the abbreviated nomina sacra also suit a sixth century date. It is hazardous to make detailed comparisons of letter forms from other cities, but compare the lettering of the inscribed petition of a Phoenician community to the emperor Tiberius II (578-82), now preserved in the Louvre, which is neater but makes a very similar impression to this text (Dain – Rouillard 1929/30). Commentary: 347 and 348 are admonitory texts, virtual sermons. They challenged Christians to imitate the lives and conduct of great figures in Biblical or Christian history, so that by their piety and the exercise of charity they might secure divine blessing and salvation in the life to come. This purpose is stated explicitly in 347, 39-42, ὀφίλοµεν καὶ ἡ[µεῖς τὰ αὐτὰ διαπράττεσθαι καὶ µ]|ηµῆσε τοὺς εἱσταµένους εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶ[ν Ἐλεῶν εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῆς ἐκκλησί]|ας τῆς Ἁγίας Ἀναήµεως, ἵνα ἀξω[θῶµεν καὶ ἡµεῖς λαβεῖν εὐλο]|γίαν, and in the equivalent rendering of 348, 11-12: καὶ ὀφείλοµεν καὶ ἡµεῖς τὰ αὐτὰ διπρά|[ττεσθαι καὶ µιµῆσαι αὐτοὺς,] ἵν᾽ οἱ γονῖς ἡµῶν ἐκ τῆς αἰωνίας κρίσεως καὶ ἡµεῖς σωτηρίας τύχωµεν. There was a close affinity between 347 and 348 in purpose, content and wording, although they are not identical. The lettering of the two texts is similar. The prominent interlinear lines of 348 are replaced by much finer lines in 347. In both cases the inscription occupied the entire surface of the stone. In this association of ‘text and monument’, the text effectively comprised the entire monument. The significance of these stones was entirely contained in their verbal messages of moral exhortation. Neither inscription referred at all to the context in which it was produced. There was no mention of members of the clergy, monks or other persons or institutions attached to a specific local church. The inscriptions said nothing about the temporal circumstances of the secular community at Ankara. Instead they presented a series of scenes drawn largely from the world of the Old Testament and evoked the setting of both an earthly and heavenly Jerusalem. They achieved this effect by citing notable stories of charitable behaviour exhibited by the patriarchs of early Biblical

132

- 133 and apocryphal history, with the purpose of inspiring similar conduct in Christian Ankara. Four of these stories are common to both inscriptions. Most of the text 347 can be restored with reasonable confidence by comparing parallel passages in 348, and by identifying the exempla in their original forms in the Greek Septuagint and other Biblical or postbiblical sources. The first two lines of 347 are too fragmentary to be confidently reconstructed, but thereafter the sense, despite faulty syntax, emerges with reasonable clarity. a) ‘Blessed are the souls of those who live a life of struggle according to the holy scriptures’ (lines 3-4). b) ‘We shall not sleep until we find the Lord’s place, the tabernacle of Jacob’ (lines 4-6). c) ‘The prophets have said that our right hands should be cut off and our tongues cleave to our throat if we forget thee, Jerusalem’ (lines 6-8). d) ‘Those who fulfil the prophecies are identified as the children of Melchisedek, as they ascend the Mount of the Assumption (lines 8-10). e) ‘God said, Abraham, go up to that mountain, you will find a man living in squalor; attend to, anoint and feed him and you will receive his blessing of eternal life’ (lines 9-14). f) ‘All those who revere God understand how great was Abraham’s desire for the Lord from his youth, desire so great that he took a knife to his only-begotten son.’ (lines 14-17). g) ‘Abraham strove to please God, and such was God’s satisfaction that Abraham was blessed by Melchisedek and enjoyed eternal life’ (lines 17-19). h) ‘Those who suffered imprisonment on account of Christ, dwelling on the Mount of the Assumption, are identified as children of Melchisedek, awaiting the bridegroom’ (lines 1921). i) ‘In the same way Shem took off his own cloak and protected his father [Noah], and received his blessing, enjoying eternal life for ever’ (lines 21-24). j) ‘In the same way Abraham instructed those who dwell on the Mount of the Assumption, seated in front of his tent when he received three strangers as guests, and gave them food and drink and shared the good things with them, which the Lord provided, and received their blessing in the form of his son Isaac, and was called God’s friend, enjoying eternal life’ (lines 24-29). k) ‘In the same way Jacob eagerly gave food for his father, and received his blessing and bread from heaven, enjoying eternal life’ (lines 29-32). l) ‘In the same way the Magi eagerly brought gifts to the holy city, and the Lord truly promised them to save 150,000 people of their race’ (lines 32-35). m) ‘In the same way Abgar ruler of Edessa sent a letter to the holy city, and through the word of Christ fortified his city so that it should be unconquered for eternity’ (lines 35-39). n) ‘We ourselves should do the same and imitate those who stood on the Mount of Olives and the Church of the Assumption, so that we too may be deemed worthy of being blessed, as Abraham was by Melchisedek’ (lines 39-42). o) ‘Thus we too may come to encounter our Lord Jesus Christ, so that at the second coming in joy and great glory we shall be resurrected with the resurrection of the righteous, and may be judged worthy of receiving His blessing’ (lines 42-45). The thought sequence behind this sermon can be summarised as follows. We should live a life of holiness, following the guidance of scripture and the prophets, so as never to forget Jerusalem (a-c). By ascending the Mount of the Assumption we shall become children of Melchisedek (d, compare h). On God’s instruction Abraham brought Melchisedek out of the wilderness and tended him (e). Abraham’s offer to sacrifice his son and his devotion to

133

- 134 God was rewarded with the blessing of Melchisedek (f-g). By enduring punishment in Christ’s name and seeking sanctuary on the Mount of the Assumption, we become children of Melchisedek (h, cf. d). Just as Shem received blessings and achieved eternal life for protecting his father (i), and just as Abraham enjoyed the blessing of his son Isaac and eternal life as a reward for offering hospitality to strangers (j), and just as Jacob enjoyed blessing and eternal life for feeding his father (k), and just as the Magi saved their people as a reward for bringing gifts to the holy city (l), and just as Abgar saved his city Edessa in return for showing his faith in Christ (m), so we, by imitating those who have ascended the Mount of the Assumption, become worthy of being blessed, as Abraham was by Melchisedek (n). At the second coming of Christ we shall therefore be resurrected with the righteous and judged worthy of the Lord’s blessing (o). Jerusalem was named in an unknown context in the first line of the text, and the message of the prophets was that Jerusalem should never be forgotten. In lines 6-7 the inscription cited a passage from one of the most evocative and vivid poems from the book of Psalms, the song of the Israelites exiled to Mesopotamia: ‘by the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept as we remembered Sion’, and to their captors they sang the verses that are cited: ἐὰν ἐπιλάθωµαί σου, Ἰερουσαλὴµ, ἐπιλησθείη ἡ δεξιά µου· κολληθείη ἡ γλῶσσά µου τῷ λάρυγγί µου, ἐὰν µή σου µνησθῶ, ἐὰν µὴ προανατάξωµαι τὴν Ιερουσαληµ ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς εὐφροσύνης µου (Ps. 136, 5-6). Both the idea and the reality of Jerusalem pervade the entire composition, although the meaning of the term hovers ambiguously between the literal and the metaphorical, between the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem. The community that the inscription addresses would come to live virtuous lives when its members had ascended the slopes of the Mount of Olives (lines 10-11), which is explicitly identified as the site of the Church of the Assumption (lines 40-41). The Mountain thus became the Mount of the Ascension (line 24). The Mount of Olives itself was made the setting for the story told in the apocryphal Life of Melchisedech, according to which Abraham, encountering Melchisedek living in the wilderness, groomed, anointed and fed him with good things, thereby earning Melchisedek’s blessing. The blessing of Melchisedek was referred to in a brief passage of the book of Genesis: καὶ Μελχισεδὲκ βασιλεὺς Σαλὴµ ἐξήνεγκεν ἄρτους καὶ οἶνον· ἦν δὲ ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου. καὶ ηὐλόγησεν τὸν ῎Αβραµ καὶ εἶπεν, Εὐλογηµένος ῎Αβραµ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ὑψίστῳ, ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, καὶ εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος, ὃς παρέδωκεν τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποχειρίους σοι. καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντων (Gen. 14, 18-20). Abraham’s reception of the three strangers, located at the Oak of Mambre in the book of Genesis, is said to have taken place at the same spot (lines 24-27). Moreover, the Magi brought their gifts and Abgar sent his letter to the Holy City (lines 32-35, 35-39). The sermon not only envisaged that its hearers would relive the lives of the holiest figures of the Old Testament, but would also understand their home to be Jerusalem in an almost literal sense. From a later period we can compare the reference to Ancyra as νέα Σιών in the dedicatory verses relating to the refoundation of the city and the building of the citadel in the year 859 (326, 9 with comm.). The central section of the text of 347 is concerned not only with the person of Abraham but with the topographical location of his charitable acts, precisely on the Mount of Olives, the place of Christ’s Ascension. The inscription’s compiler deliberately altered the tradition to be found in other sources, the Life of Melchisedek which placed Abraham’s meeting with Melchisedek on Mount Tabor in northern Galilee, and Abraham’s hospitality offered to three strangers at the sacred Oak Tree of Mambre near Hebron. The Mount of the Ascension accordingly occupies a place of particular importance and requires further

134

- 135 comment. The main Gospel source for the ascension narrative is Luke 24, 50-53, which is continued and elaborated in Acts 1, 9. According to Luke’s Gospel the risen Christ appeared to the assembled disciples in Jerusalem and addressed them, reminding them that the events that had come to pass fulfilled what had been written in the law of Moses, in the works of the Prophets and the Psalms. These had foretold his passion and resurrection, and that repentance in Christ’s name would bring forgiveness to the sins of all the nations (Luke 24, 44-49). He then led the disciples to Bethany, raised his hands in blessing (εὐλογία), and as he did so he departed into Heaven. The company then returned to Jerusalem joyfully praising God (Luke 24, 50-53). The account in Acts states that after witnessing the ascension, the disciples returned to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, ἀπὸ ὄρους τοῦ καλουµένου Ἐλαιῶνος, which could be reached from Jerusalem in the course of the day of the Sabbath (Acts 1, 9-12). The resurrection narrative in Acts also lies behind the phrasing of 347, 40, which instructed the faithful to imitate those who stood on the Mount of Olives, [µ]ηµῆσε τοὺς εἱσταµένους εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶ[ν Ἐλεῶν]. This may echo the injunction of the two angelic figures who appeared to the disciples and bade them look up to heaven to the ascending Christ: ἄνδρες Γαλιλαῖοι, τί ἑστήκασατε βλέποντες εἰς τόν οὔρανον; (Acts 1. 11). The presumed site has been marked by a sequence of ecclesiastical buildings since the fourth century. By relocating the stories about Abraham to the place where Christ’s ascension to heaven occurred, the inscription’s text established a clear and explicit link between the Old and New Testament narratives and implicitly emphasized that true Christians were emulating not only the patriarchs, but also Christ’s apostles. The final chapter of Luke’s Gospel, recounting Christ’s encounter with the two disciples at Emmaus and his appearance to the eleven in Jerusalem before his final ascension, was the key narrative text in the New Testament regarding Christ’s ultimate resurrection, and its influence pervades the composition of 347. In particular, Christ’s words to the apostles in Luke 24, 43-49 form the programme around which much of 347 is constructed: (44) Εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς, Οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι µου οὓς ἐλάλησα πρὸς ὑµᾶς ἔτι ὢν σὺν ὑµῖν, ὅτι δεῖ πληρωθῆναι πάντα τὰ γεγραµµένα ἐν τῷ νόµῳ Μωϋσέως καὶ τοῖς προφήταις καὶ ψαλµοῖς περὶ ἐµοῦ. (45) τότε διήνοιξεν αὐτῶν τὸν νοῦν τοῦ συνιέναι τὰς γραφάς. (46) καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι Οὕτως γέγραπται παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡµέρᾳ, (47) καὶ κηρυχθῆναι ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόµατι αὐτοῦ µετάνοιαν καὶ ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτιῶν εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη – ἀρξάµενοι ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλήµ· (48) ὑµεῖς µάρτυρες τούτων. (49) καὶ [ἰδοὺ] ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πατρός µου ἐφ’ ὑµᾶς· ὑµεῖς δὲ καθίσατε ἐν τῇ πόλει ἕως οὗ ἐνδύσησθε ἐξ ὕψους δύναµιν. Inscription 347, 6-7 and 8-9 (and also 349, 10-11) specifically picked up Christ’s message in Luke 24, 44, which itself repeated what he had already made clear to Cleopas and his companion at Emmaus (Luke 24.27). This emphasized that redemption and resurrection embodied what had been written by the prophets of the Old Testament. Christ’s words ended with his emphatic endorsement that their mission, to spread the message that repentance and absolution from sins in His name, should begin at Jerusalem itself. Jerusalem was where the disciples would receive their heavenly power and inspiration. This truth was encoded into the core content of the inscription. Another echo of Luke’s narrative may be traced in 349, 7-9 (see comm.). The most insistent reminiscence of the sanctity and centrality of Jerusalem comes from the repetition of the phrase ἡ ἁγία τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ πόλις, which runs like a ritual refrain through the composition. In 347, 33 and 347, 36, and in the corresponding sections of 348, 1 and 7, the holy city was designated as the destination respectively of the gifts of the Magi and of Abgar’s letter, and thus formed part of the logical thought sequence. However, the other mentions of the holy city took the form of interjections. In 347, 7 a highly abbreviated

135

- 136 version, εἴ της [ἐστιν ἁγία] or εἴ της [ἐστι Σιών] was inserted into the quotation from Psalm 136. In 347, 22 εἴ της ἐστιν ἡ Ἁγία τοῦ Θ(ε)ῶ Χριστῶ πόλις (restored in 348, l 2-3) was inserted into the story of Shem. In 347, 30 and 348, 5 εἴ της ἐστιν ἡ Ἁγία τοῦ Θ(ε)ῶ Χριστῶ πόλις interrupted the story of Jacob bringing food to his father. In 347, 37, and the imprecation εἴ της πό[λις ἁγία ἐστι τοῦ ΘΥ ΧΥ], varied to [εἴ τις ἐστιν ἠ Ἁγία τοῦ ΘΥ ΧΥ πόλι]ς in 348, 8, was placed in the middle of the Abgar story, immediately after the more obviously intelligible reference to the holy city as the destination of the Abgar’s letter to Christ. Given the range of orthographic variation in the inscription between vowels and diphthongs that would have been pronounced in the same way as ‘I’, and the fact that η, ι, ει, and even οι and υ were virtually interchangeable with one another, there is some ambiguity about how the beginning of the clause εἴ της ἔστιν ἡ ἁγία τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ πόλις, should be construed. The first word might in theory be construed as ἤ meaning ‘or’, or as ἡ, the relative pronoun, combined with τις, to mean ‘whoever’ or ‘whatever’ (ἥτις). However, since in the passages where the spelling of the first word is secure (347, 6; 22; 30; 37) it was always written εἰ, the best option is to construe the clause as a conditional one, εἴ τις ἐστιν …, translated as ‘if there is any such thing as the holy city of the God Christ!’ Naturally the speaker did not expect this exclamation to be taken literally. The purpose was evidently not to cast any doubt on the reality of the holy city, but rather to express the sense that if the Holy City existed anywhere – as it surely did – it existed in this place, in the context of this event. Who could call that into question? As 347, 3 states explicitly, the inscription was based on scripture, [τὰ τῶν] Ἁγίων Γραφ̣[ῶν λ]εγόµενα. The whole text was constructed from a series of summaries, direct quotations or allusions drawn from two books of the Old Testament, Genesis and Psalms, from Luke and Matthew’s Gospel in the New Testament, and from apocryphal stories that related to iconic figures in Christian history, the Israelite priestly figure of Melchisedek, and Abgar, the famous ruler of Edessa, who was said to have been converted by a letter of Jesus Christ. The parallel inscription 348 also alludes to Luke’s Gospel. The book of Genesis and the Psalms were the best known and most frequently quoted Old Testament texts during late antiquity (see in general L. Jalabert, DACL III.2 (1914), 173156; Feissel 1984; Felle 2006; for Psalm citations in Asia Minor, see Breytenbach 2012). The Psalm citations in 347, like those of 349, were direct, if garbled quotations of the Greek text of the Septuagint. Despite the minor verbal discrepancies the two Psalm excerpts in 347 were clearly intended to be verbatim, or near-verbatim quotations of the originals, doubtless cited from the writer’s memory. Galatia’s sixth-century saint Theodore of Sykeon is said to have learned the Psalms by heart in his early teenage years (Life of Theodore of Sykeon 13), and we may assume that other pious men and women aspired to similar mastery, if not at such a precocious age. The Septuagint text of Psalm 131, quoted in 347, 4-6, runs µνήσθητι, Κύριε, τοῦ Δαυὶδ καὶ πάσης τῆς πραΰτητος αὐτοῦ, ὡς ὤµοσεν τῷ Κυρίῳ, ηὔξατο τῷ θεῷ Ιακώβ· εἰ εἰσελεύσοµαι εἰς σκήνωµα οἴκου µου, εἰ ἀναβήσοµαι ἐπὶ κλίνης στρωµνῆς µου, εἰ δώσω ὕπνον τοῖς ὀφθαλµοῖς µου καὶ τοῖς βλεφάροις µου νυσταγµὸν καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν τοῖς κροτάφοις µου, ἕως οὗ εὕρω τόπον τῷ κυρίῳ, σκήνωµα τῷ θεῷ Ιακώβ. The inscription’s version closely reproduced the last two verses, while adapting them to their new context, by switching from singular to plural and from conditional to indicative mood: οὐ δώοµεν ὕπνον τοῖς ὀ̣[φθαλµοῖς ἡµῶν κ]αὶ τοῖς βλεφάρο[ις ἡ]µῶ νυσταγµὸν καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν τοῖς κροτ[άφοις ἕως οὗ εὕ]ροµεν τόπον τοῦ [Κυρίου, σκήνωµα] τοῦ (ε)ῶ Ἰακώβ. Verse 14 of Psalm 131, αὕτη ἡ κατάπαυσις µου εἰς αἰῶνα

136

- 137 αἰῶνος, ὧδε κατοικήσω ὅτι ᾑρετισάµην αὐτήν, was frequently cited in Byzantine funerary inscriptions (Kiourtzian 1997; cf. Feissel, Chron. 1193). The famous passage from Psalm 136, here cited as a saying of the prophets, was more seriously garbled. In place of the received verses ἐὰν ἐπιλάθωµαί σου, Ἰερούσαληµ, ἐπιλησθείη ἡ δεξιά µου· κολληθείη ἡ γλῶσσά µου τῷ λάρυγγί µου, ἐὰν µή σου µνησθῶ, the inscription reads εἰ ἐκα]ταλίποµέν σοι, Ἰε[ρουσαλήµ, ἐπιλη]σθη ἡ δεξιὰ ἡµῶν, εἴ τής [–8– κ]ολλιθίη ἡ γλῶσα τ̣[ῷ λάρυγγι ἡ]µῶν, ἐὰν ἐκαταλίπο[µέν σε. Again there was a switch from singular to plural, but the first and last verbs were also altered, from ἐπιλανθάνοµαι and µνάοµαι in the original, to ἐγκαταλείπω in the inscription. If, as seems virtually certain, 348 and 347 were written by the same person, this word seems to have been a favourite of the compiler, as the vernacular form ἐγκαταλιµπάνω appeared in 348 in the phrase [ἐγκατ]αλυπάνοντες τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ θ(εο)ῦ Χριστοῦ πόλη (348, 13). This variant was also used in another text relative to Ancyra, the Life of St Theodotus 31, which recorded the beginning of the saint’s final prayer before his execution, Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ὁ ποιητὴς οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁ µὴ ἐγκαταλιµπάνων τοὺς ἐπὶ σοὶ πεποιθότας, εὐχαριστῶ σοι ὅτι ἐποιήσας µε ἄξιον πολίτην τῆς ἐπουρανίου σου πόλεως καὶ συµµέτοχον τῆς σῆς βασιλείας, ᾽Lord Jesus Christ, the maker of heaven and earth, who never abandons those who have suffered in Your name, I give thanks to you that you have made me a citizen of Your heavenly city and one who shares Your kingdom.’ The verb occurred in the Septuagint, almost invariably in imprecations to God not to abandon his people, and from there passed into liturgical use in the eastern Church (Feissel 1980b, 487). The popularity of the usage by literate churchmen doubtless derived from the fact that ἐγκαταλείπω was literally the last word uttered by Christ on the Cross, as rendered in Greek by the Gospels of Mark, ἐβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ µεγάλῃ· ελωι ελωι λεµα σαβαχθανι; ὅ ἐστιν µεθερµηνευόµενον· ὁ Θεός µου, ὁ Θεός µου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές µε; (Mark 15.34), and Matthew, ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ µεγάλῃ, Ηλι Ηλι Λεµα Σαβαχθανι; τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν, Θεέ µου, Θεέ µου ἱνατί µε ἐγκατέλιπες; (Matt. 27.46). No attempt was made to quote directly from any of the prose passages from the Old Testament cited in the inscription. Rather, the biblical narratives were summarized and adapted in a suitable form for the new context (for very detailed analysis of the reception of Genesis by Jews and Christians in late antiquity, see Grypeou – Spurling 2013). The focus within the book of Genesis was principally on the figures of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and it is noteworthy that the idea of assimilating these Old Testament figures into contemporary life appears in a sixth century funerary text from the neighbourhood of Yalova on the Sea of Marmara, which read: Κ(ύριο)ς ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ἀναπαύσας Ἀβραὰµ κὲ Ἰσαὰκ κὲ Ἰακώβ, ἀνάπαυσον τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν προαναπαυσαµένων πάντων κὲ τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ ἐνθάδε κατακιµένου. Χέρετε παροδῖτε (T. Corsten, I. Apamea/Phylai no. 133 = Öğüt – Şahin 1986, 124 no. 100: cited by Feissel, Chron. 410). In this context Vadim Wittkowsky has drawn our attention to chapter 11 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, a biblical text which is relevant to the evaluation of 347 and 348 in that it includes the most extensive references to Melchisedek in either the Old or the New Testament (Hebr. 5, 6-10; 7, 1-28). The author of the Hebrews offered an interpretation of Christ in the role of high priest, according to the order of Melchisedek (Hebr. 5, 6) and followed this by explaining that Melchisedek himself, like Christ, combined the roles of king and high priest when he received the tithe from Abraham (Hebr. 7. 1-10). Melchisedek thus appears as a forerunner of Christ, the same comparison that is implied by the location of Melchisedek’s life at the place of Christ’s ascension. The adjurations for Christians to

137

- 138 have faith in God are also set out in a long chapter which offers an instructive comparison with the Ankara inscriptions, in that a series of Old Testament figures are presented as exemplars to be emulated: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac with Jacob and Esau, Joseph, Moses, Raab and other great figures of the age of Prophets (Hebr. 11, 4-33). Just as the inscriptions urge Christians to charitable action, emulating a series of examples that are presented in a repetitive ritualistic series, introduced by the phrase ὁµοίως δὲ καί, so Hebr. 11 repeatedly introduced each example by the same repeated word, πίστει, ‘by faith’. The most famous example of Abraham’s charity was the hospitality which he offered to three strangers who appeared beside his tent at the Oak of Mambre, for it was this act that led the aged Sarah to conceive his child, Isaac. The Septuagint account of this story (Gen. 18. 1-10) runs as follows: Ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς τῇ δρυῒ τῇ Μαµβρη καθηµένου αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς θύρας τῆς σκηνῆς αὐτοῦ µεσηµβρίας. (2) ἀναβλέψας δὲ τοῖς ὀφθαλµοῖς αὐτοῦ εἶδεν, καὶ ἰδοὺ τρεῖς ἄνδρες εἱστήκεισαν ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἰδὼν προσέδραµεν εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς θύρας τῆς σκηνῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ προσεκύνησεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν (3) καὶ εἶπεν, Κύριε, εἰ ἄρα εὗρον χάριν ἐναντίον σου, µὴ παρέλθῃς τὸν παῖδά σου· (4 ) ληµφθήτω δὴ ὕδωρ, καὶ νιψάτωσαν τοὺς πόδας ὑµῶν, καὶ καταψύξατε ὑπὸ τὸ δένδρον· (5) καὶ λήµψοµαι ἄρτον, καὶ φάγεσθε, καὶ µετὰ τοῦτο παρελεύσεσθε εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν ὑµῶν, οὗ εἵνεκεν ἐξεκλίνατε πρὸς τὸν παῖδα ὑµῶν. καὶ εἶπαν, Οὕτως ποίησον, καθὼς εἴρηκας. (6) καὶ ἔσπευσεν Αβρααµ ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνὴν πρὸς Σαρραν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ, Σπεῦσον καὶ φύρασον τρία µέτρα σεµιδάλεως καὶ ποίησον ἐγκρυφίας. (7) καὶ εἰς τὰς βόας ἔδραµεν Αβρααµ καὶ ἔλαβεν µοσχάριον ἁπαλὸν καὶ καλὸν καὶ ἔδωκεν τῷ παιδί, καὶ ἐτάχυνεν τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτό. (8) ἔλαβεν δὲ βούτυρον καὶ γάλα καὶ τὸ µοσχάριον, ὃ ἐποίησεν, καὶ παρέθηκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἐφάγοσαν· αὐτὸς δὲ παρειστήκει αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ τὸ δένδρον. (9) εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτόν, Ποῦ Σαρρα ἡ γυνή σου; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Ἰδοὺ ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ. (10) εἶπεν δέ, Ἐπαναστρέφων ἥξω πρὸς σὲ κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον εἰς ὥρας, καὶ ἕξει υἱὸν Σαρρα ἡ γυνή σου. The birth of Isaac is subsequently recorded in Gen. 21. 1-3: καὶ Κύριος ἐπεσκέψατο τὴν Σαρραν, καθὰ εἶπεν, καὶ ἐποίησεν Κύριος τῇ Σαρρα, καθὰ ἐλάλησεν, (2) καὶ συλλαβοῦσα ἔτεκεν Σαρρα τῷ Αβρααµ υἱὸν εἰς τὸ γῆρας εἰς τὸν καιρόν, καθὰ ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ Κύριος. (3) καὶ ἐκάλεσεν Αβρααµ τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενοµένου αὐτῷ, ὃν ἔτεκεν αὐτῷ Σαρρα, Ισαακ. The whole episode was recalled in one of the most damaged sections of 347, but a comparison with Gen. 18. 1-6 enables the sense to be understood and some of the original wording to be restored in full: ὁµ[οίως δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἀβραὰµ ἐδίδαξεν αὐτοὺ]ς τοὺς κατοικῶντας εἰς τὸ Ὄρος | [τῆς Ἁγίας Ἀναλήµψεως καθήµ]ενο[ς πρὸ σ]κηνῆς αὐτοῦ ἐν{ε} ἐλευθερίᾳ κατα|[δεξάµενος τρεῖς ἄνδρας] ὡς εἰσελθῖν̣ ἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ καὶ παρέστησεν | [βούτυρον καἰ γάλα καὶ µετέδ]ωκεν αὐτοῖς πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν, ὧν ἔδωκεν αὐ|[τῷ ὁ K(ύριο)ς, καὶ παρ᾿ αὐτῶν εὐλογ]ίαν ἐδέξατο, τὸν Ἰὰκ, καὶ φίλος Θ(ε)ῶ ἐκλίθι, ἀπολαύ|[ων τὴν ἀτελεύτητον ζωὴ]ν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Feissel, Chron. 1015 has drawn attention to another epigraphic reference to the reward given to Abraham for his hospitality to the three strangers, in improving the reading of Ferrua 1994, 173-74 of a previously unpublished medalliοn known only from an 18th century copy among the papers of Marini at Udine. The text, which still poses problems, reads ἐφάνι το Ἀβραὰµ Θε(ὸς) τρις προσωποι [ = τρισὶ προσώποις or τριπρόσωπος] ἐν τὶ δρυῒ παλε τιµων (?) Υε(ὸς) τῆς φιλοξενίας µιστὸν τὸν Ἰσαὰκ ἀντιδὼς δι᾽ ἔλεον ὅνπερ καὶ τὴν νῦν δοξάζοµεν ὡς Θε(όν). It would have been difficult to omit the most famous of all the stories linked with Abraham, God’s command that he should show his obedience by sacrificing his son Isaac (Gen. 22).

138

- 139 The Genesis version concluded with God blessing Abraham for his piety, bestowing a benediction which would extend to all Abraham‘s descendants (Gen. 22.16-18). However, the Biblical narrative lacked the essential thematic link between this story and charitable action on the part of Abraham, and the compiler of the inscription found it necessary to manufacture a connection. In the Ankara version the εὐλογία after the rescue of Isaac was said to have been bestowed by Melchisedek (347, 18), and this connection was obviously inspired by another, unrelated passage, Gen. 14, 18-20, which described how Melchisedek, king of Salem and priest of the Highest God, pronounced that Abraham was blessed by God the founder of earth and heaven: καὶ Μελχισεδεκ βασιλεὺς Σαληµ ἐξήνεγκεν ἄρτους καὶ οἶνον· ἦν δὲ ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου. (19) καὶ ηὐλόγησεν τὸν Αβραµ καὶ εἶπεν, Εὐλογηµένος Αβραµ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ὑψίστῳ, ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, (20) καὶ εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος, ὃς παρέδωκεν τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποχειρίους σοι. καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντων. The Old Testament, however, supplied no narrative to explain why Melchisedek had blessed Abraham in the first place. This gap was filled, apocryphally, by a legend which is best known from the late fourth- or fifth-century Story of Melchisedek, a work which was attributed erroneously to Athanasius ([Athanasius], Historia de Melchisedech (PG 28, 525529, modern edition by Dochhorn 2004). There is a substantial modern literature on this brief text, including a discussion of the written Greek tradition by P. Piovanelli in Bauckham – Davila – Panayotov 2013, 63-81 and, above all, the comprehensive monograph of Böttrich 2010 and the briefer analyses of Böttrich 2007 and Böttrich 2013. Piovanelli suggests that the origins of the legend lay in the Christian tradition, while Böttrich argues that the story derived from a Jewish milieu, but was later taken over and integrated into popular Christian literature. For an earlier résumée of the Melchisedek traditions to be found in patristic writers, see Jerome 1920. The outlines of the episode describing the taming of Melchisedek, like other elements in the work as a whole, derived from Near Eastern sources, and recall in particular the early episodes of the Epic of Gilgamesh, in which Gilgamesh went out into the wilderness, where he encountered and eventually tamed the wild man Enkidu. The account by ps-Athanasius ran as follows: ἐµόνασεν ἐκεῖ ἔτη ἑπτά· γυµνὸς ὡς ἀπὸ γαστρὸς µητρὸς αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθεν· καὶ ἐγένοντο οἱ ὄνυχες αὐτοῦ σπιθαµήσιοι, καὶ αἱ τρίχες τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ἕως τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁ νῶτος αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο ὡσεὶ δέρµα χελώνης. Ἡ δὲ τροφὴ αὐτοῦ ἀκρόδρυα ἦν, καὶ ὁ ποτὸς αὐτοῦ δρόσος, ὃν ἔλειχε. Καὶ µετὰ τὰ ἑπτὰ ἔτη φωνὴ ἦλθε τῷ Ἀβραὰµ, λέγουσα, Ἀβραὰµ, Ἀβραάµ. Καὶ εἶπεν Ἀβραάµ· Ὁ Κύριός µου. Καὶ εἶπε· Στρῶσον τὸ ὑποζύγιόν σου, καὶ βάστασον ἱµάτια πολυτελῆ καὶ ξυρὸν, καὶ ἄνελθε ἐν τῷ ὄρει Θαβὼρ, καὶ κράξον τρεῖς φωνάς· Ἄνθρωπε τοῦ Θεοῦ· καὶ ἐλεύσεται ἄνθρωπος ἠγριωµένος. Μὴ φοβηθῇς οὖν αὐτόν· ἀλλὰ ξύρισον αὐτὸν, καὶ ὀνύχισον, καὶ ἀµφίασον αὐτὸν, καὶ εὐλογήθητι παρ’ αὐτοῦ. Καὶ ἐποίησεν Ἀβραὰµ καθὰ συνέταξεν αὐτῷ Κύριος, καὶ ἀνῆλθεν εἰς τὸ ὄρος Θαβὼρ, καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὰ δασέα τῆς ὕλης· καὶ ἔκραξε τρεῖς φωνάς· Ἄνθρωπε τοῦ Θεοῦ. Καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ Μελχισεδὲκ, καὶ εἶδεν Ἀβραὰµ, καὶ ἐφοβήθη. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Μελχισεδέκ· Μὴ φοβοῦ, ἀλλ’ εἶπέ· Τίς εἶ; καὶ τίνα ζητεῖς; Εἶπε δὲ Ἀβραάµ· Προσέταξέ µοι Κύριος ξυρῆσαί σε καὶ ὀνυχοκοπῆσαί σε, καὶ ἀµφιάσαι, καὶ εὐλογηθῆναι παρὰ σοῦ. Ὁ δὲ Μελχισεδὲκ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ὡς προσέταξέ σοι Κύριος, ποίησον. Καὶ ἐποίησεν Ἀβραὰµ, ὡς προσέταξεν αὐτῷ Κύριος. Καὶ κατελθὼν ὁ Μελχισεδὲκ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους Θαβὼρ µετὰ τρεῖς ἡµέρας, κέρας ἐλαίου λαβὼν, καὶ ἐπισφραγίσας τῷ ῥήµατι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ηὐλόγησε τὸν Ἀβραὰµ λέγων· Εὐλογηµένος εἶ τῷ Θεῷ τῷ ὑψίστῳ, καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν καλεῖται τὸ ὄνοµά σου τετελειωµένων, καὶ οὐκέτι λοιπὸν καλεῖται τὸ ὄνοµά σου Ἀβρὰµ, ἀλλ’ ἔσται τὸ ὄνοµά σου τέλειον, Ἀβραάµ.

139

- 140 ‘(Melchisedek) lived on his own there for seven years. He was naked as he had emerged from his mother’s womb. His nails were as long as a hand’s span, the hairs of his head reached down to his loins, and his back was like the shell of a tortoise. His food was acorns and his drink was the dew, which he licked up. After seven years a voice came to Abraham saying, “Abraham, Abraham”, and Abraham replied “My Lord”, and the voice said, “Saddle your animal, load up fine garments and a razor, go up to Mount Thabor, and let out three shouts, “Man of God”. A man who has become wild will come to you. Do not be afraid of him, but shave him and cut his nails and clothe him, and let yourself be blessed by him.” And Abraham did as the Lord had instructed him and went up to Mount Thabor, and stood in the undergrowth of the wood and cried out three times, “Man of God”. And Melchisedek came out and Abraham saw him and was afraid. Then Melchisedek said to him, “Do not be afraid, but tell me who you are and who are you looking for.” And Abraham said to him, “The Lord instructed me to shave you and cut your nails, and to clothe you and be blessed by you.” And Melchisedek replied, “Do as the Lord instructed you.” And Abraham did as the Lord had instructed him. And Melchisedek having come down from Mount Thabor three days later took a horn of olive oil, and, placing a seal on God’s word, blessed Abraham, saying, “You have been blessed by the Highest God, and in future your name shall be called among those who have been brought to perfection, and no longer in future will your name be called Abram, but you will have the perfected name, Abraham.’ The Life of Melchisedek signalled its own canonical origins by citing the phrase εὐλογηµένος εἶ τῷ Θεῷ τῷ ὑψίστῳ word for word from the brief Genesis account of the blessing of Abraham in Gen. 14.18, and by incorporating the odd account concerning the names Abram and Abraham from Gen. 17.5. A much later allusion to the story of the taming of Melchisedek, which appeared in an anonymous twelfth-century account of the holy places and sights of Jerusalem (PG 133, 980A), followed the inscription’s topography by placing the episode not on Mount Tabor in Galilee, but on the Mount of Olives: εἰς τὸ ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν ἐκάθετον ὀ Μελχισεδὲκ χρόνους ζ´· καὶ ἔπεµψεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Ἀβραὰµ, καὶ ἐνυχοκόπησέν τον καὶ ἐτριχοκόπησέν τον καὶ ἔδωκεν τὸν ἄρτον καὶ ἔφαγεν καὶ εὐλογήθη Ἀβραὰµ ἀπὸ τοῦ Μελχισεδέκ. There may also be a trace of this displacement from Tabor to the Mount of Olives in the ninth-century re-telling of Old Testament history known as the Palaea Historica, which located an earlier episode in the life of Melchisedek, the moment when he wished destruction on the impious city of Salem, on the Mount of Olives, although the meeting with Abraham occurred, as in the ps-Athanasius version, on Mount Tabor (see Palaea Historica 35, 4 and 38, 2 in the translation by William Adler, published in Bauckham – Davila – Panayotov 2013, 614-5, with discussion at 592-3, and Böttrich 2010, 8-9). The Ankara inscription now shows that a version of the story was already focused on Jerusalem in the sixth century. The influence of this version remained, however, restricted. Melchisedek’s refuge on Mount Tabor became a destination for pilgrims and was mentioned often in their accounts from the tenth century onwards (Böttrich 2010, 41-44), and apparently in Crusader times a chapel was erected on Mount Tabor above the cave where he was supposed to have lived (Böttrich 2010, 47 and 156-7 Abb. 31-33). The two other Genesis stories, which appear in both the Ankara texts (347, 21-3 = 348, 2-4; 347, 29-32 = 348, 4-6) were rooted in the canonical Old Testament. Neither provided an exemplum of unimpeachable virtue, but each served as another example of the blessings to be earned by an act of charity. Gen. 9, 20-26 described the story of the drunkenness of

140

- 141 Noah, and the blessing that he subsequently gave to Shem, who (with the unrewarded Japheth) had covered their naked father’s slumbering body with their cloaks: καὶ ἤρξατο Νωε ἄνθρωπος γεωργὸς γῆς καὶ ἐφύτευσεν ἀµπελῶνα. (21) καὶ ἔπιεν ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου καὶ ἐµεθύσθη καὶ ἐγυµνώθη ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ. (22) καὶ εἶδεν Χαµ ὁ πατὴρ Χανααν τὴν γύµνωσιν τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξελθὼν ἀνήγγειλεν τοῖς δυσὶν ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ ἔξω. (23) καὶ λαβόντες Σηµ καὶ Ιαφεθ τὸ ἱµάτιον ἐπέθεντο ἐπὶ τὰ δύο νῶτα αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ὀπισθοφανῶς καὶ συνεκάλυψαν τὴν γύµνωσιν τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν, καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτῶν ὀπισθοφανές, καὶ τὴν γύµνωσιν τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν οὐκ εἶδον. (24) ἐξένηψεν δὲ Νωε ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴνου καὶ ἔγνω ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ὁ νεώτερος, (25) καὶ εἶπεν, Ἐπικατάρατος Χανααν· παῖς οἰκέτης ἔσται τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ. (26) καὶ εἶπεν, Εὐλογητὸς κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Σηµ, καὶ ἔσται Χανααν παῖς αὐτοῦ. The story of Jacob’s blessing by his aged father Isaac involved a notorious deception played on his elder brother Esau. With the help of his mother Rebecca, he served the meat of a kid to his blind parent instead of the venison for which his brother Esau had gone hunting, and by wrapping the pelt of the animal round his smooth hands and neck presented himself to his father’s touch not as the smooth-skinned Jacob, but as the hairy Esau, rank with the smell of the hunt (Gen. 27, 6-10): Ρεβεκκα δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς Ιακωβ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν ἐλάσσω, Ἰδὲ ἐγὼ ἤκουσα τοῦ πατρός σου λαλοῦντος πρὸς Ησαυ τὸν ἀδελφόν σου λέγοντος, (7) Ἔνεγκόν µοι θήραν καὶ ποίησόν µοι ἐδέσµατα, καὶ φαγὼν εὐλογήσω σε ἐναντίον Kυρίου πρὸ τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν µε. (8) νῦν οὖν, υἱέ, ἄκουσόν µου, καθὰ ἐγώ σοι ἐντέλλοµαι, (9) καὶ πορευθεὶς εἰς τὰ πρόβατα λαβέ µοι ἐκεῖθεν δύο ἐρίφους ἁπαλοὺς καὶ καλούς, καὶ ποιήσω αὐτοὺς ἐδέσµατα τῷ πατρί σου, ὡς φιλεῖ, (10) καὶ εἰσοίσεις τῷ πατρί σου, καὶ φάγεται, ὅπως εὐλογήσῃ σε ὁ πατήρ σου πρὸ τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτόν … Gen. 27, 24-7: καὶ εἶπεν, Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός µου Ησαυ; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, Ἐγώ. (25) καὶ εἶπεν, Προσάγαγέ µοι, καὶ φάγοµαι ἀπὸ τῆς θήρας σου, τέκνον, ἵνα εὐλογήσῃ σε ἡ ψυχή µου. καὶ προσήγαγεν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἔφαγεν· καὶ εἰσήνεγκεν αὐτῷ οἶνον, καὶ ἔπιεν. (26) καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ισαακ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ, Ἔγγισόν µοι καὶ φίλησόν µε, τέκνον. (27) καὶ ἐγγίσας ἐφίλησεν αὐτόν, καὶ ὠσφράνθη τὴν ὀσµὴν τῶν ἱµατίων αὐτοῦ καὶ ηὐλόγησεν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπεν, Ἰδοὺ ὀσµὴ τοῦ υἱοῦ µου ὡς ὀσµὴ ἀγροῦ πλήρους, ὃν ηὐλόγησεν κύριος). Basil of Caesarea felt obliged to apologise for the story, by explaining that Jacob’s deception was justified by his superior intelligence (Basil, de spiritu sancto 20). The compiler of the Ankara inscription was as unembarrassed as the author of Genesis in presenting Jacob as the virtuous recipient of his father’s blessing, and henceforth lord over the inheritance that should rightfully have fallen to his elder brother. Two of the episodes cited in both 347 and 348 had their origins outside the Old Testament, the stories of Abgar of Edessa and of the Magi. The conversion of Abgar, ruler of Edessa, which resulted from his exchange of letters with Jesus Christ, was one of the most widespread non-canonical legends of early Christianity, whose origins were probably connected with the conversion of the Edessan king Abgar VIII to Christianity in the Severan period around 200. While the letters exchanged between Jesus and the king’s predecessor, the toparch Abgar, and the supposed circumstances in which Edessa was converted during Christ’s lifetime in 29/30, are certainly unhistorical, there are reasons to think that the region of Edessa had a Christian population before the end of the first century (Marek 2004; Ramelli 2009). The key sources for the correspondence are the account given by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. I. 13, written in the early years of the fourth century, and the Syriac translation found in the Doctrina Addai, a description of the conversion of Edessa, which is known from manuscripts which have been dated to the fifth and sixth centuries (Dobschütz 1900). Inscribed copies in Greek of both letters, all of which should also be dated to the

141

- 142 fifth or sixth centuries, have been recorded at Euchaita in Pontus (two copies, Studia Pontica III.1 nos. 211 and 226), at Ephesus (I. Eph. I no. 46), and at the eastern city gate of Philippi in Macedonia (Picard 1920; Feissel 1983 no. 222). Christ’s response, but not Abgar’s letter, was carved on the wall of a cavern at Edessa itself (Oppenheim – Gaetringen 1914; I. Estremo Oriente 28). Abgar had invited Christ to come to Edessa and heal the condition from which he was suffering, and by settling in the city thus avoid the troubles that were besetting him in Jerusalem. Christ’s reply famously began by blessing Abgar for his faith in believing in him without having seen him. He declined the Edessan invitation, but ended with a promise to send an apostle to cure the king and offer life to his people: ἀποστελῶ σοί τινα τῶν µαθητῶν µου, ἵνα ἰάσηταί σου τὸ πάθος καὶ ζωήν σοι καὶ τοῖς σὺν σοὶ παράσχηται (Eusebius I.13.10). All the later versions added a further sentence to the text, which stated Christ’s promise to protect the city from enemy attacks. In the Doctrina Addai the sentence ran, ‘I will send to thee one of my disciples, who will cure the disease which thou hast, and restore thee to health; and all who are with thee he will convert to everlasting life. Thy city shall be blessed, and no enemy shall again become master of it for ever’ (trans. G. Phillips). There are variations of phrasing, but not of sense between the inscribed Greek versions. Ephesus: ἀποστέλλω τινὰ τῶν µαθητῶ µου, ὅστις εἰάσεταί σου | τὸ πάθος καὶ ζωήν σοι παράσχῃ καὶ τοῖς σὺν σοὶ σιν καὶ τῇ πόλι τῇ σῇ µηδένα τῶν ἐχθρῶν τῶν σῶν ἐξουαν ταύτης ἔχιν ἢ σχῖν ποτέ. Philippi: [ἀποσ]τέλλω σ[οί τινα τῶν µαθητῶν µου ἵνα (?)] | [ζω]ὴ̣ν αἰών[ιον κ(αὶ) εἰρήνην κ(αὶ) σοὶ κ(αὶ) τοῖς] | [σ]ὺν σοὶ π[αράσχηται κ(αὶ) τῇ πό]λ̣ε̣ι̣ σο[υ - - ] | [ - - ] π̣ρὸς τὸ̣ [µηδένα τῶν ἐχθρῶ]ν σου [ἐξου|σίαν τ]α̣ύτ̣ ̣[ης ἔχειν ἢ σχεῖν π]ο̣τ̣[ε. †] Euchaita (Gurcu): ἀποστέλλω σοί τινα τῶν µαθητῶν µου ὃς ἰάσηταί σου τὸ [πά]θος καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιο̣ν | καὶ εἰρήνην καὶ σοὶ καὶ τοῖς σὺν σοὶ χαρίσηται καὶ τῇ πόλι σου πρὸς τῷ µηδένα τῶν | ἐθ[ρ]ῶν σου κατακυριεῦσαι αὐτῆς· ἀµήν. † Euchaita (Haci Köy): [ἀποστέλλω σοί τινα τῶ]ν̣ µαθητῶν µου ὃς ἰάση[ταί σου τὸ πάθος καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ εἰρήνην σοι χαρίσηται καὶ τῇ πόλει σου πρὸς τὸ | [µηδένα τῶν ἐχθρῶν κατα]κεῦσαι α̣τς ἅντα [χρόνον.] Edessa: ἀποστέλλω δέ σοι ἕνα τῶν µαθητῶν µου ὀνόµατι Θαδδαῖ|ον τὸν καὶ Θωµᾶν, ὅστις καὶ τὸ πάθος σου θεραπεύσει καὶ ζω|ὴν αἰώνιον καὶ εἰρήνην σοι παράσχοι καὶ τοῖς σύν σοι πᾶσι καὶ | τῇ πόλει σου ποιήσει τὸ ἱκανόν, πρὸς τὸ µηδένα τῶν ἐχθρῶν κα|τισχῦσαι αὐτὶν ἕος τῖς συντελείας τοῦ κόσµου. ἀµήν. † This additional sentence was already known to a late-fourth-century witness, the pilgrim Egeria, who travelled to Edessa around 385, and reported the story that during a Persian attack the city’s bishop, taking the sacred letter in his hand, had secured protection for the city by uttering the prayer, Domine Jesu, tu promiseras nobis, ne aliquis hostium ingrederetur civitatem istam (Peregrinatio Egeriae 19.9). It is not certain when the original letter was supplemented. Christian Marek has drawn attention to the fact that the city does not seem to have been captured during the mid-third century attacks by Shapur I, which could have provided the background for the historical allusion recorded by Egeria, but that episode pre-dated Eusebius and might already have

142

- 143 been reflected in the copy that he reproduced (Marek 2004, 289-90). Edessa was located close to the frontier between the Roman and Persian empires and always under threat, and the promise of protection might have been added during the 350s and 360s when the wars of Constantius II and Julian enveloped the cities of the Mesopotamian frontier. In the midsixth century Procopius, who was certainly familiar with Eusebius’ account, observed with transparent scepticism that the sentence was a later addition ‘discovered by the Edessenes’, so that they had its text inscribed over the city gates in place of any other form of protection: φασὶ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο αὐτὸν ἐπειπεῖν, ὡς οὐδὲ ἡ πόλις ποτὲ βαρβάροις ἁλώσιµος ἔσται. Τοῦτο τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τὸ ἀκροτελεύτιον οἱ µὲν ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου τὴν ἱστορίαν ξυγγράψαντες οὐδαµῆ ἔγνωσαν· οὐ γὰρ οὖν οὐδέ πη αυτοῦ ἐπεµνήσθησαν· Ἐδεσσηνοὶ δὲ αὐτὸ ξὺν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ εὑρέσθαι φασίν, ὥστε ἀµέλει καὶ ἀνάγραπτον οὕτω τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἀντ᾽ ἄλλου τοῦ φυλακτηρίου ἐν ταῖς τῆς πόλεως πεποίηνται πύλαις (Procopius, Bell. II.12, 26). The Ankara texts elaborated and paraphrased the supplement: ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ Αὔγα|ρος, ὁ κατέχων τῇ πόλι Αἰδέσις, δι᾽ ἐπιστ[ολῆς λόγον ἔπεµψεν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ ΘΥ ΧΥ] | πόλιν καὶ διὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐκίνου, εἴ της πό[λις ἁγία ἐστι τοῦ ΘΥ ΧΥ, περιετίχισεν ὥστ]|ε ἀσάλευτον καὶ ἀνίκητον αὐτὴν ἀσ[φαλέστατα διαµεῖναι ἕως τῆς συντελε]|ίας τῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (347, 35-39 = 348, 6-9). The letter did not state that Abgar had built the city walls, but the additional text had been composed and added precisely because the words of Christ had talismanic protective power, which was illustrated not only by Egeria’s anecdote but also by the placing of the Philippi copy of the text at one of the city gates. It would, of course, have been impossible for a writer during late antiquity to imagine any of the Mesopotamian frontier cities without fortifications. This reference to the impregnability of Edessa, in fact, appears to be the only allusion in the inscription as a whole to the material world of late antiquity and suggests a date before 609, when the city fell to the Sassanians (Chron. Pasch. 699; Chronicle of AD 724, 17). The traces in line 39 allow the final phrase ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος to be restored. This recalls the formula of the Edessa copy, ἕος τῖς συντελείας τοῦ κόσµου, but contrasted with the Ephesus and Philippi versions, which employed the more colourless ποτε, the Haci Köy Euchaita text which appears to have read ἅντα [χρόνον], or the Gurcu Euchaita copy, which omitted the idea of eternity altogether. The expression derived ultimately from Jesus’ own sayings, including the parable of the weeds in the field (ὁ δὲ θερισµὸς συντέλεια αἰῶνός ἐστιν, οἱ δὲ θερισταὶ ἄγγελοί εἰσιν. ὥσπερ οὖν συλλέγεται τὰ ζιζάνια καὶ πυρὶ καίεται, οὕτως ἔσται ἐν τῇ συντελείᾳ τοῦ αἰῶνος, Matt. 13. 39-40), and the final words of Matthew’s Gospel, addressed by Christ to his disciples after the resurrection: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ µεθ’ ὑµῶν εἰµι πάσας τὰς ἡµέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος (Matt. 28.20). Μέχρι τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος occurred occasionally on inscriptions, as in epitaphs from Argos (IG IV 628, cited by Feissel 1977, 227) and Athens (IG II/III2 5, 13365). The allusions to the story of the Magi lead even further away from their original source. The Gospel account records that the Magi came from the East to Jerusalem and asked where the king of the Jews had been born, whose star they had seen in the east. Herod, disturbed by their enquiries, found out for himself that Christ was born in Bethlehem. After a private interrogation he established the coincidence of the appearance of the star with the child’s birth and sent the Magi to make further enquiries in Bethlehem. They left Herod and guided by the star found the child with his mother Mary, sank to their knees before the infant Christ (προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ) and offered their three gifts. Then, warned by a dream, they took a different route home, avoiding Herod (Matt. 2.1-12). Both inscriptions allude to what must have been a sequel to this story (347, 35-39 = 348, 9-11): ὁµοίους δὲ καὶ οἱ

143

- 144 Μάγοι σπωδάσαντες προσενέγκε | [τὰ δῶρα εἰς τὴν Ἁγ]ίαν τῶ Θ(ε)ῶ Χριστῶ πόλιν, οὕτως ὤντους ἐπιγγίλ̣ατο ὁ Κ(ύριο)ς ἡµῶν ὁ | [σκεπάζ]ων ἐφ᾿ ἱµᾶς εἰς τοὺς ἀγηράτους καὶ ἀτελευτήτους αἰῶνας ἑκ|[α]τ̣ὸν πεντήκοντα κιλιάδας σῶσε ἐκ τ[οῦ ἔθνους ἐκείνου]. The gifts had elicited a specific promise from the Lord to protect and save 150,000 of the Magi’s countrymen. The rendering of this large number may be taken from the language of the Septuagint, where the mustering of the work force to build Solomon’s temple was described, καὶ εὑρέθησαν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα χιλιάδες καὶ τρισχιλίοι ἑξακοσίοι, καὶ ἐποίησαν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἑβδοµήκοντα χιλιάδας νωτοφόρων καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα χιλιάδας λατόµων καὶ τρισχιλίους ἑξακοσίους ἐργοδιώκτας ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν (LXX IIChron. 2.16). The Magi were widely believed to have come from Persia, a belief that seems implicit in the Gospel’s use of the word magos, characteristic for a Persian priest, as well as the information that they came ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν. It might then be apt to think of an episode in which Christians in Persia, either Nestorians or refugee Monophysites, had escaped persecution or annihilation, thereby fulfilling Christ’s promise, but we have been unable to identify a plausible historical context for this or any trace of the story in other traditions. The final section of the inscription returned to the recipients of its message. By acting in the same way and imitating (µηµῆσε = µιµῆσαι) their predecessors who had ascended the Mount of Olives, the place of the Church of the Assumption, they would show themselves worthy of being blessed, as Abraham had been by Melchisedek (347, 39-42). It is noteworthy that at this point the comparable section of 348 diverged and offered the more specific consequence, that imitation of Christian heroes would lead to salvation at the Last Judgement (348, 11-12). In 347 this result was presented in more dramatic form at the end of the text in the reference to Christ’s second coming. It is worth noting a technical point here, that from line 38 to the end of the text the restoration of these lines is unavoidably shorter than those above them, although the letters of the inscription become smaller and the layout more cramped, (line 36, 65 letters; 37, 66 letters; 38, 61 letters; 39, 56 letters; 40, 59 letters; 41, 47 letters; 42, 51 letters; 43, 49 letters; 44, 50 letters; 45, 52 letters). The only plausible explanation is that the marble plaque which was re-used for the inscription had already been broken before the text was carved, and this forced the stone-cutter to squeeze the rhetorical climax of the text into a smaller space. The last four lines contained a graphic account of the day of judgement, when mankind would come into the presence of the glory and splendour of the risen Christ and learn whether they were judged worthy to be resurrected among the righteous and receive His blessing. Denis Feissel, who has been reponsible for restoring lines 43-4 of 347, has noted in his commentary on a gravestone from Macedonia that mentions of the Parousia of Christ are rare in inscriptions. The Macedonian text reads: ἐνθάδε κῖτε Βασίληος | ὁ τὴν εὐλαβῆ µνήµ(ην) γε|νάµενος ἀναγν(ώστης) κὲ χαρτουλά|ρ(ιος) ἀναπαυσάµεν(ος) ἐν Κ(υρί)ῳ µη(νὶ) Αὐ(γ)ούστ(ου) ια´ ἰνδ(ικτιῶνος) θ´ ἀνα|µέν(ων) σὺν παντὶ τῷ κόσ[µῳ τὴν] παρουσ[ί]αν· ἀµήν (Feissel 1983, no. 269), and Feissel commented, ‘l’attente de la seconde parousie du Christ, à savoir son retour au jour du Jugement, n’est pas un thème fréquent en épigraphie.’ He noted an analogous formulation in a Cappadocian epitaph: κύµησις Ἠοάνου µοναχοῦ· παρακαλῶ . . . µὴ ἀνυφῆνε τὸ κυµητήριόν µου ὅς (= ἕως) τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ Κ(υρίο)υ καὶ σοτῆρος ἡµῶν (Jerphanion 1936, 19-10 no. 127). The day of judgement itself was much more widely invoked in inscriptions, particularly in epitaphial curses (Robert 1960, 399401). For the mention of the righteous in the last line, compare the third-century verse inscription from Eumeneia in Phrygia composed by the Christian pragmatikos Gaius, which ended

144

- 145 with a clear reference to the resurrection, ἀνάστασις, of the righteous, οἱ δίκαιοι (Buckler – Calder – Cox 1926, 61 no. 184) and a fifth or sixth-century epitaph from Mangalia, which also explicitly mentioned the hope of resurrection and expectation of eternal life that were central ideas in the Ankara texts: Σινπλίκιος υἱ|ὸς Κασσιανοῦ | Σύρος τῷ γένι | νοµικὸς τὴν ἐπιστήµην | καὶ ἡ τοῦ αὐτοῦ | γυνὴ Μελιτὶς | θυγάτηρ Αἰδε|σίου ἐκ προγό|νων εὐγενεῖς | χρόνοις πολ|λοῖς καλῶς | συνβιώσαντες | καὶ ἐν γήρ|ᾳ τιµίῳ | προβεβηκότες | µεταξὺ δικαίων | ἐφ᾽ἐλπίδι ἀνασ|τάσεως | [ἐν]θάδ[ε] | ἥκαµεν ζω|ῆς αἰωνίου ἀπολαύ|σε[ω]ς (Popescu 1976 no. 92). These parallels, drawn from funerary texts of the fifth and sixth centuries, are a straightforward reminder that although inscriptions 347-349 form a unique and apparently unparalleled group in the epigraphy of the Christian Roman Empire of the East, the sentiments and beliefs found in them were widely, if not universally shared by ordinary men and women at this period. Burial rites and customs in fifth and sixth century Anatolia, involving the laying out of bodies in cemeteries around the Churches, the use of the vocabulary of sleep, rather than of death (κοιµητήριον, κοίµησις, κατάκειµαι, κοιµάοµαι, ἀνάπαυσις, ἀναπαύοµαι), and the statement on tombstones that the dead were resting ἕως or µέχρι ἀναστάσεως, were not empty formulas but implied literal belief in the second coming of Christ and bodily resurrection. The Ankara texts also incorporated the notion of εὐλογία, blessing. In the funerary epigraphy of later antiquity explicit reference to εὐλογία seems to have been a notable feature of Jewish texts, especially in the envoi εὐλογία πᾶσιν which appears on Jewish epitaphs from Nicomedia, Perinthus and Byblus (Robert 1960, 392-7). The context at Ankara was emphatically Christian, but in a community which placed a heavy emphasis on an Old Testament form of Christianity, and which looked accordingly to the Biblical books which Christians shared with the Jews for its moral heroes and its religious exempla. 348. Exhortation to charity Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 113.577.99. Description: White-grey marble slab. The left-hand side and bottom of the stone have been cut at a right angle to facilitate subsequent re-use as a building stone. The bottom of the stone appears almost complete, but the other sides are broken. The text was evenly inscribed between heavily ruled guide lines. The letter forms are similar to those of 347, but with fewer ligatures, restricted to omikron upsilon throughout the text and ΗΝ in line 5. Abbreviated nomina sacra: ΘΥ (lines 4, 12); ΧΥ (line 4). Dimensions: Height 0.57; width 0.79; thickness 0.27; letters 0.02. Copy: Van Elderen 1967; latex squeeze by Van Elderen 1968; SM 1972. Squeeze SM 1972 and 23.08.2010. Publication: Van Elderen 1972, 5-14; Mitchell 1977, 92-6 no. 37; (SEG 27, 848; New Docs 2 [1982], 203-6 no. 115).

4

8

------------------------------------------------[ - - - - - - - - - ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ Σὴµ ἐπῆρε τὴν] ἰδίαν στολὴν καὶ [ἐσκέπ]ασεν τ[ὸν πατέρα, εἴ τίς ἐστιν] [ἡ Ἁγία τοῦ ΘΥ ΧΥ πόλις, καὶ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ εὐλογίαν] ἔλαβεν ἀπολαύν τὴν ἀτελεύτητο[ν ζωὴν σὺν] [τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων εἰς τοὺς αἰῶ]ν̣ας. ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ Ἰακὼβ σπουδάσας προσενένκε [ἐδέσµατα τῷ] [πατρί, εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἡ Ἁγία τοῦ] ΘΥ ΧΥ πόλις, καὶ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ εὐλογίαν ἔλαβεν καὶ ἄρτον ἐξ οὐραν̣[οῦ ἀπο][λαύων τὴν ἀτελεύτητον ζω]ὴν σὺν τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ὁµοίους δὲ καὶ Αὔγαρ̣[ος ὁ κατέχων τῇ πόλι Αἰδέ]σσης διὰ ἐπιστολῆς λόγον ἔπενψεν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ πόλιν, [εἴ τις ἐστιν ἡ Ἁγία τοῦ ΘΥ ΧΥ πόλι]ς, περιετίχισεν τῇ πόλει Αἰδέσσης ὥστε ἀσάλευτον καὶ ἀνίκητον αὐτ̣–̣

145

= 347, 22 = 347, 29–32 = 347, 35–39 Eusebius HE I.13

- 146 -

12

16

[ὴν διαµεῖναι ἕως τῆς συντελίας] τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου· ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ Μάγοι σπουδάσαντες προσενένκαι τὰ δῶ̣[ρα εἰς τὴν Ἁγίαν τοῦ ΘΥ Χριστ]̣οῦ πόλιν, ταῦτα αὐτῶν διαπραξαµένων οὕτως ἐπηγγείλατο αὐτοῖς ὁ [ΚϹ ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα χιλ]ιάδας σῶσαι ἐκ τοῦ ἔθνους ἐκείνου· καὶ ὀφείλοµεν καὶ ἡµεῖς τὰ αὐτὰ δι(α)πρά̣[ττεσθαι καὶ µιµῆσαι αὐτοὺς,] ἵν᾽ οἱ γονῖς ἡµῶν ἐκ τῆς αἰωνίας κρίσεως καὶ ἡµεῖς σωτηρίας τύχωµεν, [.] [ - - - - - - 16 - - - - ἐγκατ]αλυπάνοντες τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ ΘΥ Χριστοῦ πόλ· οἱ γὰρ ταῦτα πράτοντες Λ̣[. .] [ - - - - - -20 - - - - - - πι]κρὰ δάκρυα κατενέγκωσιν κράζοντες· „Κύριε, Κύριε ἄνυξον ἡµῖν̣“ [. .] [ - - - - - -22 - - - - - - ]ΣΙΝ ἀκοῦσαι παρὰ τοῦ δικαίου κριτῇ· „Οὐκ ὖδα ὑµᾶς τήνες ἐστέ· πορεύθαι[τε] ἀπ᾿ ἐµοῦ.“

Matt. 13, 40 = 347, 32–35 Matt. 2, 1-12 Lk 13, 23-7

2: Cf 347, 22; ΑΤΕΧΕΥΤΗΝ, van Elderen. 9: τὰ [δῶρα], van Elderen. 11: διηρά[ξαι], van Elderen. 13: perhaps [οὐδέποτε αὐτοὶ ἐγκατ]αλυπάνοντες κτλ; πόλη, lapis; διπρά̣|[ττεσθαι], lapis; there is a trace of a triangular letter at the line end. 13-14: perhaps ἀ[πο|κληθείσης τῆς θύρας πι]κρὰ. 14-15: e.g. ἀ[λ|λὰ µέλλουσιν ὄντως τὴν ἀπόκρι]σιν) ἀκοῦσαι; [ἀπόφα]σιν or [ἀπόκρι]σιν, Jean Gascou (oral comm.). 15: πορεύθαι[τε] = πορεύθη[τε]; πορεύθαι for πορεύεσθε, PHI database. 16: there are no letter traces before ἀπ᾿ ἐµοῦ which was carved beneath τήνες ἐστέ of the previous line. This appears to have been the bottom of the block and the stone-cutter found space for the last two words at this point near the line end. Many of the restorations of this text are supported by parallel passages from 347. Orthographic notes: 4: προσενένκε = προσενέγκαι. 6: ὁµοίους = ὁµοίως. 7: ἔπενψεν = ἔπεµψεν. 8: περιετίχισεν = περιετείχισεν. 11: διπράττεσθαι = διαπράττεσθαι. 13: ἐγκαταλυπάνοτες = ἐγκαταλιµπάνοντες; πόλη = πόλιν (?); πράτοντες = πράττοντες. 14: ἄνυξον = ἄνοιξον. 15: τοῦ δικαίου = τῷ δικαίῳ (gen. for dat.); ὖδα = οἶδα; τήνες = τίνες; πορεύθαιτε = πορεύθητε.

Translation: … Likewise also Shem lifted up and set his own cloak (on him) and protected his father – if anything is the holy city of God Christ – and received a blessing from him, enjoying unending life with the holy angels for eternity. Likewise also Jacob brought food to his father – if anything is the holy city of God Christ – and he received a blessing from him and bread from heaven, enjoying unending life with the holy angels for eternity. Likewise also Abgar, the master of the city of Edessa, sent word by a letter to the holy city of God Christ – if anything is the holy city of God Christ – (and) fortified the city of Edessa so it should endure unshaken and unconquered until the completion of this age. Likewise also the Magi hastened to bring their gifts to the holy city of God Christ, and when they had accomplished this accordingly the Lord promised them that he would save 150,000 of that race. And we ourselves are obliged to accomplish the same things and to imitate them, so that our ancestors and we may encounter salvation from the judgement of eternity, [? never ourselves] abandoning the holy city of God Christ. For those who do these things, [? when the door has been shut] may they shed bitter tears, crying out ‘Lord, Lord, open the gate’, [? but they are due in fact to hear the answer] from the just judge, ‘I know not who you are. Depart from me’. Date: As 347. Commentary: This text was a close counterpart to 347, although it reproduced the biblical exempla in a different order, and concluded with a different scene from the day of judgement, the exclusion of the unrighteous from the gates of Paradise. Episodes i) Shem, k) Jacob, l) the Magi, and m) Abgar of 347, appeared here in the sequence i), k), m), and l), and the story of Shem and the drunkenness of Noah was not followed, as in 347, by the 146

- 147 story of the hospitality of Abraham. The preserved length of 348 is half that of 347. Apart from the sections of text which were lost when the top left and right corners of the block were broken off, it also appears that up to half the inscription is missing at the beginning, and was perhaps carved on another stone placed above the surviving block. We assume that these blocks were built into a church wall, unlike the plaques 347 and 349, which would have been used as wall facing. When the inscription was published in 1977 both the left and right edges of the stone were thought to have been broken and restorations should be supplied at both line ends. Although all the edges of the block are worn and battered, it now seems more likely that the middle section of the block was almost intact on the right between lines 6 and 11. Below this, there is space for between one and three letters at the ends of lines 12-15. This is confirmed by the reading of line 15, where it is only necessary to restore the last two letters of πορεύθαι[τε] before ἀπ᾿ ἐµοῦ completes the sense in line 16. We must therefore conclude that the missing sections, which can be supplied by comparison with the readings of 347, should be placed on the left of the surviving part of the inscription. The discovery of 347 has made it possible to correct errors and clarify problems that occurred with the original publications of 348. 348, 3-4, previously unidentifiable, can now be seen to be contain the story of Shem and Noah, and the interpretations of 348, 4-6 by Van Elderen 1972 and Mitchell 1977, as a reference to the story of James the Just, elder brother of Jesus, are now shown to be mistaken. In a footnote to his article on late antique and byzantine Ankara Clive Foss noted that I. Ševčenko had already made the correct identification with the patriarch Jacob (Foss 1977, 54 n. 107); Foss anticipated that Ševčenko would publish a study of the inscription, but this never appeared. The fact that the exempla in 348 were cited in a different order from those of 347 indicates that the overall argument and thought sequence of these texts was not a matter of major consequence. Each exemplum stood on its own as an inspiration to virtuous behaviour, and accordingly each was independently introduced by the same phrase ὁµοίως δὲ καί (347, 21; 24; 29; 32; [35]; 348, [2]; 4; 6; 9). The effect, like that of the interjected appeals to the Holy City, depended on quasi ritualistic repetition, not on the construction of a cumulative argument. The end of the inscription differs from that of 347. 348 provided a different reason for conclusion that we should behave in the same way and imitate the exempla, ἵν᾽ οἱ γονῖς ἡµῶν ἐκ τῆς αἰωνίας κρίσεως καὶ ἡµεῖς σωτηρίας τύχωµεν. The overall sense is clear. Both our ancestors, who had also waited for the second coming, and we ourselves should encounter salvation in accordance with the last judgement, but the intrusion of the phrase ἐκ τῆς αἰωνίας κρίσεως, presumably to mean ‘as a consequence of the eternal judgement’, is clumsy and would have been better placed after τύχωµεν. This was probably not the end of the sentence, since the participial phase that follows should be construed with the preceding line, and we can suggest a restoration such as [οὐδέποτε αὐτοὶ ἐγκατ]αλυπάνοντες τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ θ(εο)ῦ Χριστοῦ πόλ(ιν). The final section of 348 turned the attention not on the righteous but on the damned, and took its inspiration from the passage in Luke’s Gospel where Christ preached that those who achieved salvation would be few, and that many would be excluded from the gates of God’s kindom: Καὶ διεπορεύετο κατὰ πόλεις καὶ κώµας διδάσκων καὶ πορείαν ποιούµενος εἰς Ἱεροσόλυµα. (23) εἶπεν δέ τις αὐτῷ, Κύριε, εἰ ὀλίγοι οἱ σῳζόµενοι; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς

147

- 148 αὐτούς, (24) Ἀγωνίζεσθε εἰσελθεῖν διὰ τῆς στενῆς θύρας, ὅτι πολλοί, λέγω ὑµῖν, ζητήσουσιν εἰσελθεῖν καὶ οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν. (25) ἀφ’ οὗ ἂν ἐγερθῇ ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης καὶ ἀποκλείσῃ τὴν θύραν, καὶ ἄρξησθε ἔξω ἑστάναι καὶ κρούειν τὴν θύραν λέγοντες, Κύριε, ἄνοιξον ἡµῖν· καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ἐρεῖ ὑµῖν, Οὐκ οἶδα ὑµᾶς πόθεν ἐστέ. (26) τότε ἄρξεσθε λέγειν, Ἐφάγοµεν ἐνώπιόν σου καὶ ἐπίοµεν, καὶ ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις ἡµῶν ἐδίδαξας· (27) καὶ ἐρεῖ λέγων ὑµῖν, Οὐκ οἶδα [ὑµᾶς] πόθεν ἐστέ· ἀπόστητε ἀπ’ ἐµοῦ, πάντες ἐργάται ἀδικίας (Luke 13, 22-27). Although lines 13-16 of 348 are damaged at both ends the comparison with the passage from Luke leaves no doubt about their overall sense and the following suggested restorations depend in part on phrases that have been underlined above. οἱ γὰρ ταῦτα πράτοντες, ἀ[πο|κληθείσης τῆς θύρας, πι]κρὰ δάκρυα κατενέγκωσιν κράζοντες· „Κύριε, Κύριε ἄνυξον ἡµῖν“, ἀ[λ|λὰ µέλλουσιν ὄντως τὴν ἀπόκρι]σιν ἀκοῦσαι παρὰ τοῦ δικαίου κριτῇ · „Οὐκ ὔδα ὑµᾶς τήνες ἐστέ· πορεύθαι[τε] | ἀπ᾿ ἐµοῦ.“ The text appears to have ended at this point, just as 347 concluded with the contrasting vision of the righteous beginning a blessed life. The question of the main addressees of 347 and 348 remains to be asked. At whom were this advice and these admonitions directed? In broad terms, two answers appear to be possible. Thematically the common factor that linked these stories was that they related acts of pious charity that were rewarded by the blessings bestowed on the donor. Konstantin Klein (Bamberg, per litt.) has drawn attention to the range of forms of charitable action that the examples described, including personal hygiene and food provision (Abraham in the Historia de Melchisedech), the decency and protection of clothing (Shem), hospitality to strangers (Abraham), feeding and care for the elderly (Jacob), gifts for strangers (Magi), and physical protection (Abgar), and to the message that eternal life was guaranteed by unceasing devotion to the Holy City (the psalm references) and obedience to God (Abraham-Isaac). This could be used to support the argument that the message of the texts was directed mainly at men and women living in monastic communities, whose lives were specifically devoted to the needs of the poor, including support of the destitute, and hospitality to travellers and strangers. Monasteries had spread since the later fourth century and become ubiquitous in fifth and sixth century Asia Minor (Mitchell 1993 II, 109-21; Silvas 2005; Cassia 2009; and especially Destephen 2010a). Many monastic establishments included precisely ptocheia to house the poor (see 376 for a ptocheion at Tavium) or xenodocheia to provide lodging for strangers and travellers, modelled on the famous archetype which had been created by Basil the Great at Caesarea (Mitchell 1993 II, 83; Van Nuffelen 2002; and especially Cassia 2009, 33-71). The monastic movement had probably taken root in Ankara before the end of the fourth century. Several stories related in Palladius, Lausiac History, show that it was well embedded there in the 420s during the reign of Theodosius II (Foss 1977, 51-3; Mitchell 1993 II, 109; Mitchell forthcoming a. These included accounts of Philoromus, who had spent forty years copying manuscripts in an Ankaran monastery (Lausiac History 66), of the couple Verus and Bosporia who lived simple lives in the countryside having devoted their wealth and the surplus of their harvests to poor relief (Lausiac History 68), of the former soldier, now a monk, who attended to the needs of prisoners and the poor who were confined to hospitals (Lausiac History 69), and in particular of the widow Magna, who became abbess of a community of 2000 nuns, which maintained hospices and hostels, and provided hospitality for travelling clerics, including Palladius himself (Lausiac History 68). Magna is also known to have been the dedicatee of a work on Aktemosyne, the renunciation of material possessions, written by Nilus of Ancyra, a monk like Palladius, who had spent years of his earlier life in the Egyptian desert. Apart from a group of treatises on Christian virtues, Nilus was also known as the author of several hundred short letters, which mostly contained 148

- 149 moral advice or explanations of Christian doctrine sent to addressees who ranged across the entire social spectrum from high government officials to workmen and tradespeople (collected in PG 79). Not all of these letters were written in Ankara, and many have been shown to be spurious (Al. Cameron 1976), but Nilus’ work contains enough locally specific information to confirm the impression given by Palladius, that Ankara was an important centre of monasticism before the middle of the fifth century, and Nilus’ oeuvre is an emphatic illustration of the principle, that clerics and monks saw the dissemination of moral and theological instruction through written works as one of their central duties. This documentation provides a context for understanding the atmosphere of extreme piety in Ankara, which is attested perhaps around 150 years later by inscriptions 347 and 348. However, it would be wrong to conclude that the audience for which the inscriptions were intended was confined to Ankara’s large monastic or ecclesiastical population, rather than embracing all the city’s inhabitants. The texts give no hint that they were for a specific class of reader, but provided guidance for all those who chose to lead their lives in accordance with the precepts of Holy Scripture and followed the words of the prophets (347, 3-4 and 6). Imitation of the example set by the patriarchs was by implication possible for everyone, and so was its result, the Lord’s blessing and eternal salvation. The focal moment, at which the fate of the righteous would be decided was the day of judgement, which would confront all mankind. This moment of judgement was a common theme of epitaphs throughout late antiquity, and featured on the gravestones of lay people, clerics and ascetics alike. It was often mentioned on Christian gravestones from the third century onwards (Robert 1960, 407-8). This was the central idea of the imprecation of a Christian woman of Sparta to the clergy to be bound by the verdict of the last judgement not to allow interference to her tomb, ☩ ὁρκίζω ὑµᾶς ἐγὼ Ἀρχελαείς, | ἡ δούλη τοῦ θ(εο)ῦ {ς}, τοὺς τοῦ εὐλογη(τοῦ) κλήρου | πάντας τοῦ τε νῦν ὄντο καὶ τοῦ µέλλ|οντος εἶναι, κατὰ τῆς αἰωνίου ☩ | κρίσεως καὶ τῆς δόξης τοῦ θ(εο)ῦ, µηδε|νεὶ συνχωρῆσαι ἀνασκευάσαι τὸ| µνῆµα τοῦτο, ἔνθα νῦν ἀναπαύοµαι (IG V.1, 822), and the epitaphs of a priest and doctor of Philippi in Macedonia, to pardon his sins and be merciful on judgement day, κοιµητήριον Πα[ύλου] | πρεσβ(υτέρου) καὶ ἰατροῦ | Φιλιππησίων. | Κ(ύρι)ε Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστ)ὲ ὁ θ(εὸ)ς ὁ ποιήσας| ἀπὸ τῶν µὴ̣ ὄ̣ν̣των εἰ | εἶναι, ἐν τῇ ἡ̣µ̣έρᾳ τῆ | κρίσεως µὴ µ̣νη̣σ̣θῇς | τῶν ἁµαρτ̣ιῶ ̣ ν µου, ἐλ[έ]|ησόν µε (Feissel 1983, 237), and of another Macedonian priest, who threatened any persons who conspired to harm the tomb with God’s reckoning on judgement day, † κοιµητήριον | τοῦ θε{ι}οφ(ι)λ(εστάτου) Στε|φάνου πρ(ε)σβ(υτέρου)· ὅσ| τις ἐπειβουλεύ|σει, δόσι λόγον | Θ(ε)ῷ δε κ(αὶ) ἐν ἡµέρᾳ | κρίσεος. † (SEG 41, 572). The formula of the last of these texts, which recurs elsewhere in Christian funerary inscriptions from Macedonia and Thrace, is a reminder that the various appeals for God’s protection for the tomb which occur in the earliest Christian epigraphy, including the socalled ‘Eumeneian’ formula, ἔσται αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, the abrupt threat τὸν Θεόν σοι, and the more widespread and enduring δώσει λόγον τῷ Θεῷ and ἕξει πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, as well as many variations to be found on Christian gravestones, all presumed that this reckoning would come at the judgement day. These imprecations were designed precisely to protect the sleeping bodies of Christians until these could be resurrected to eternal life on the day of judgement. The concept is conveyed explicitly by several third or early fourth century epitaphs from east Phrygia and Lycaonia, including a fragmentary text from near Philomelium, concluding δώσει τῷ θεῷ λόγον τῷ µέλλοντι κρείνειν ζῶ[ν]τας κὲ νεκρούς (I. Sultan Dag, 95), an epitaph from Iconium, which ends, ἐὰν δέ τις ἐπισβιά[σετ]ε πάσχῃ πρὸς τ[οῦ] ἐρχοµέ[ν]ο[υ] κρίν(ε)ι[ν ζῶντα]ς καὶ [νεκρούς] (SEG 6, 436; 15, 820), and  two recently published third or fourth century epitaphs from Laodiceia Catacecaumene. One ended with the adjuration [ἴ | τις] µ̣ετὰ τὰ ἔγο| νά µου ἕτε[ρον ἐπεν]βάλι ἢ χῖρα | κακὴν 149

- 150 προσ[οίσει τού]τ̣ῳ τῷ µνιµίῳ, | ἠσχήσι π[ρὸς τὸ]ν βραχίονα τ|ὸν ὑψηλ[ὸν] κὲ τὴν κ̣[ρίσιν τὴν] ἐρχοµέν|ην (ΜΑΜΑ ΧΙ 271 with commentary) , the other with the simpler formula, εἴ τις οὖν | θελήσῃ ἕτερον ἐπενβάλ|ιν, δώσι λόγον τῷ Κυρίῳ ἐ|ν ἡµέρᾳ κρίσεως (MAMA XI 274). This was the idea at the heart of the long inscriptions 347 and 348 from Ankara. The most likely location for the publication of these texts was on the walls of churches located alongside Ankara’s Christian cemeteries, its κοιµητήρια. 349. Exhortation to a virtuous life Location: In the Garden Depot of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations; no inventory number. Description: Thin marble slab in three pieces which have now been mended. Broken above and left, intact at right and below. There is a narrow revetment at the bottom. The right and bottom edges are thin, perhaps to enable the slab to be slotted into a wall or a surrounding frame, on all sides. The inscription was cut on a finely smoothed surface, with guide lines marked at the tops and bottoms of the letters. Broken-bar alpha; cursive epsilon, theta, sigma; upsilon has form of English V. Ligatures ΜΝΗ, ΗΝ, ΗΜ, ΟΥ, ΩΝ, ΩΜ, ΝΗ. Dimensions: Height 0.36; width 0. 38; thickness 0.03 in the middle, 0.012 at the edge. Height of the margin at the bottom 0.075. The letters of the last two lines, carved on this margin, are smaller and more closely spaced than those of the rest of the inscription. However, the suggested restorations for these lines are shorter than those of the middle section of the inscription, and it appears that the bottom left corner of the slab had already been broken off before the inscription was carved. This also seems to have happened with the bottom right corner of 347. Copy: Copied by DHF August 2005; squeeze SM 31.08.2010.

4

8

12

16

[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] ΙΟ [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]µον καὶ̣ [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] [ - - - - - - - - - - ἐν τῇ σ]εµνῇ πολιτ̣[είᾳ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] [ - - - - - - - c. 18 - - - - ]ν καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν σὺν [ - - - c. 14 - - - ] [ - - c. 8 - - ἀπολαύων τὴν] ἀτελεύτητον ζωὴν εἰς α[ἰῶνα· ὁ κατ][οικῶν Ἰερουσ]αλὴµ οὐ σαλευθίσεται εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀληθῶ̣[ς] [γὰρ πρόσταγ]µα ἔθετο, καὶ οὐ παρελεύσεται· εἰδέναι ὑµᾶς ΤΕΙ . [ - - c. 12 - - πρὸς] ἑσπέραν ἐστίν· ἀληθῶς πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἐστὶν ἐν [ - - c. 12 - - ἡµέ]ρα ἐστιν· καὶ ὡς ἔτι ἑαυτῶν ἐξουσιάζωµεν, δυ[νάµει τοῦ ΘΥ ὀχυ]ρώµατα ἔχοµεν· σπωδάσωµεν πληρῦνε τῶν̣̣ [ἁγίων προφητῶ]ν τὰ λεγόµενα· εἰδέναι γὰρ ὑµᾶς ὅτι µετὰ θά[νατον ἔνι µετάν]οια οὐκέτι· µέγα γὰρ σχάσµα πάρ{ι}ενι καὶ πε[ρί - - c. 8 - - οὐκ ἔ]νι· οὐκ ἔνι ἔµπλαστρον ἢ µαλάγµατος φί[λτρον ὑµῖν ἀγο]ράσε· πρόσταγµα ἔθετο, καὶ παρελεύ[σεται· ἴστε γὰρ ὅ]τι οὐδὲ ἄστρα τοσαῦτα ὁ οὐρανὸς ἔχι οὐδὲ [ἄµµον τοσαύτην] ἡ θάλασα, ὅσα στερῶµεν ἑαυτοὺς τῷ [καταδιαφθείρειν] τὴν ἀτελεύτητον ζωὴν µάτεα. †

Ps. 124, 1 Ps. 148, 6 Lk 24, 29 2Cor, 10.1

Ps. 148, 6 Hebr. 11, 12

3: DF. Perhaps restore [τελέσας τὸν βίον ἐν τῇ σ]εµνῇ πολιτ[είᾳ]. 5: or [ἀπολαύοντες τὴν] ἀτελεύτητον ζωήν. 7-8: perhaps τ᾽ εἰ [ἡ | ἡµέρα κέκλικε πρὸς] ἑσπέραν ἐστιν; cf Lk 24, 29: µεῖνον µεθ᾽ ἡµῶν, ὅτι πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἐστὶν καὶ κέκλικεν ἤδη ἡ ἡµέρα. 9: perhaps ἐν [ᾗ ἡ τῆς κρίσεως ἡµέ]ρα ἐστιν; ἐξουσιάζωµεν, Hammerstaedt (personal communication). 10: cf 2Cor. 10.1: τὰ γὰρ ὅπλα τῆς στρατείας ἡµῶν οὐ σαρκικὰ, ἀλλὰ δυνατὰ τῷ Θεῷ πρὸς καθαίρεσιν ὀχυρωµάτων. 12: rest. DHF; cf. Trypanis 1968, 14, 2: οὐ γὰρ ἔνι εἰς ᾍδην µετάνοια, οὐδὲ ἔνι ἐκεῖ λοιπὸν ἄνεσις. ΠΑΡΙΕΝΙ, lapis. 12-13: perhaps πε|[ρὶ ἰασέως οὐκ ἔ]νι 16: cf. Hebr. 11, 12: καθὼς τὰ ἄστρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῷ πλήθει καὶ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος ἡ παρὰ τὸ χεῖλος τῆς θαλάσσης ἡ

150

- 151 ἀναρίθµητος 17: Hammerstaedt has pointed out that the sentence requires a verb meaning ‘verspielen’, ‘squander’. Orthographic notes: 6: σαλευθίσεται = σαλευθήσεται. 9: ἐξουσιάζωµεν = ἐξουσιάζοµεν. 10: σπωδάσωµεν = σπουδάσωµεν; πληρῦνε = πληροῦναι. 14: ἀγοράσε = ἀγοράσαι. 315 ἔχι = ἔχει. 16: θάλασα = θάλασσα; στερῶµεν = στεροῦµεν. 17: µάτεα = µάταια.

Translation: … in a dignified way of life … and relief … enjoying unending life for eternity. Ηe who dwells in Jerusalem will not be shaken for eternity. Truly he has placed an ordinance for you and it will not pass. You must know that (?) [when the day has gone down] it is towards evening; it is truly towards evening [? at the moment on which the day of judgement is present.] Αnd as long as we exercise authority over ourselves, we hold our [strongholds by the power of God]. Let us make haste to accomplish the sayings [of the holy prophets]. For you must know that after death [there is no repentance]. For a great gash is present and concerning [? a cure there is nothing], and it is not possible for you [to purchase] a bandage or any soothing medication. For he has placed an ordinance and it will not pass. For you know that neither the heaven has so many stars nor the sea [so much sand] as the number of things that we deprive ourselves of by [squandering] eternal life in vain. Date: Late sixth century (as 347 and 348). Commentary: This text belongs to the same genre as 347 and 348. However, while those inscriptions cited a series of mainly Old Testament narratives as a source of imitation, 349 offered direct moral advice, supported by brief Psalm citations and allusions to Paul’s letters. Here too the text was concerned with the life to come, in this case concluding that the countless blessings of Paradise would be wasted, if they were compromised by earthly transgressions. The style and tone of the composition were more sophisticated than that of 347 and 348. The author used metaphors drawn from politics and medicine, which involved technical, non-standard vocabulary (ἐξουσιάζω, ὀχύρωµα, σχάσµα, µάλαγµα, φίλτρον) and ended with poetic topoi about the numbers of stars in heaven and grains of sand in the sea to convey the immeasurability of the blessings of Paradise. Again, the beginning of the inscription cannot be recovered, and it is difficult to reconstruct the overall meaning of the text as about a third of the lines have been lost on the left-hand side. However, the two recognisable citations from Psalms 131 and 148, enable the lengths of lines 6 and 7 to be fixed at 48 and 49 letters, and this is consistent with the restorations of line 10 and 11 with 46 and lines 12 and 15 with 47 letters. The sense from line 10 until the end of the text seems clear. We should abide by the teachings of the prophets, for there is no opportunity for repentance after death. Wounds that have been caused earlier cannot be healed. God’s ordinance cannot be avoided. We know that we shall have purposelessly deprived ourselves of heaven’s infinite blessings. The limitless joys of the blessed life are evoked by the number of stars in heaven, and the grains of sand in the sea. It may be that the author had a passage of the Letter to the Hebrews at this point, which referred to numberless descendants of Abraham and Sarah: διὸ καὶ ἀφ’ ἑνὸς ἐγεννήθησαν, καὶ ταῦτα νενεκρωµένου, καθὼς τὰ ἄστρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῷ πλήθει καὶ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος ἡ παρὰ τὸ χεῖλος τῆς θαλάσσης ἡ ἀναρίθµητος (Hebr. 11, 12); the figure recurs in Rm 9, 27 and Rev. 20, 8. The phrase οὐκ ἔνι appears twice in line 13, and the usage may have been influenced by a passage from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, οὐκ ἔνι ἐν ὑµῖν οὐδεὶς σοφός (1Cor. 6.5; Barnes 2010, 409 n. 8 discusses the use of ἔνι for

151

- 152 ἔνεστι in late Greek). In line 12 the compiler of the text appears to have intended to carve πάρενι, a similarly abbreviated third person singular present of the rare verb παρενειµί (cited once only in the Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität, Fasc. 6 [2007], 1233), which was reproduced with a slight error by the stone-cutter. The earlier part of the inscription is more difficult to restore and to understand. The first lines appear to describe persons, or perhaps a single individual who had led a life of virtue, thereby being part of the righteous community. The phrase ἡ σεµνὴ πολιτεία occurs in the epitaph of a deaconess from Thrace, dated to 538: † ἐνθάδε κατάκ[ιτε] | Εὐγενία ἡ τῆς εὐ[λαβοῦς] | µνήµης γεναµένη δ[ιακoνίσσα] οἰκοδοµήσασα δὀµο[ν τοῦ] | ἐνδόξου ἀποστόλου Ἀ[νδρέ]|ου κὲ ἐν σέµνῃ πολιτίᾳ [τε]|λέσασα τὸν βίον κτλ. (Beševliev 1964, 164 no. 231). The verb ἀναπαύω and related terminology are regularly found in Christian epitaphs to denote the moment of death (see 413 comm.), and ἀνάπαυσις in line 4 should be a reference to the suspended pause between earthly death and resurrection. The next line appears to contain an allusion to the eternal bliss that will follow resurrection, and this is confirmed by the quotation from Psalm 124, that he or she who dwells in Jerusalem will never be disturbed. The original passage ran: Οἱ πεποιθότες ἐπὶ Κύριον ὡς ὄρος Σιών· οὐ σαλευθήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ὁ κατοικῶν Ιερουσαλήµ (Ps. 124.1). If the first lines are understood as referring to one person, and the singular ἀπολαύων is restored in line 5, then it would be possible to understand the whole text as a funerary inscription, although its message was obviously intended to apply more widely than to a single deceased individual. Another quotation followed at once, but this does not throw light on the damaged lines 7-9 which do not correspond with the passage from Psalm 148 where the phrase occurs: αἰνεσάτωσαν τὸ ὄνοµα κυρίου, ὅτι αὐτὸς εἶπεν, καὶ ἐγενήθησαν, αὐτὸς ἐνετείλατο, καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν. (6) ἔστησεν αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος· πρόσταγµα ἔθετο, καὶ οὐ παρελεύσεται (Ps. 148. 5-6). The phrasing of the next sentence seems to contain a reminiscence of the account in Luke’s Gospel of the risen Christ appearing to Cleopas and his companion at Emmaus. The two disciples entreated Christ to stay with them for an evening meal with the words µεῖνον µεθ᾽ἡµῶν, ὅτι πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἐστὶν καὶ κέκλικεν ήδη ἡ ἡµέρα (Luke 24, 29). The author may have manipulated this sentence, which simply served to denote the time of day in the Gospel narrative, to refer first to the dusk of human life, and then to the true dusk that fell on the the day of judgement, when human life reached its definitive end, ἀληθῶς πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἐστὶν ἐν [ᾗ ἡ τῆς κρίσεως ἡµέ]ρα ἐστιν. The meaning of lines 9-10 hangs partly on the completion of the word ending [-]ρώµατα. The options seem to be [χ]ρώµατα, [β]ρώµατα, or [ὀχυ]ρώµατα. In a context which uses political vocabulary derived from notions of power and control, only the last yields satisfactory sense: if we can exercise control over ourselves, by self-restraint and unselfish behaviour, we may take charge of strongholds, through the power of the Lord. A third- or fourth-century epitaph from Apamea in Phrygia refers to the Christian God as τὸν ἐξσουσειάζοτα πάσης ψυχῆς (MAMA VI 234; Tabbernee 1997, 223-9 no. 33). The author of the text might have been led by the use of the verb ἐξουσιάζειν, which often applied to the exercise of a ruler’s power, to extend the metaphor in the apodosis of the sentence by using vocabulary related to political or military control, just as he used medical terminology to describe the metaphorical wounds of a sinful life in lines 12-14. It seems that the letters ΔΥ are best interpreted as part of a noun, δύναµις or δυναστεία, rather than the verb δύνασθαι, as that would have to be followed by an infinitive, not the indicative verb ἔχοµεν. The passage thus appears to echo Paul’s remark to the Corinthians, that

152

- 153 Christ’s followers were not armed for the struggle by bodily strength, but could overcome enemy strongholds by the powers they derived from God: τὰ γὰρ ὅπλα τῆς στρατείας ἡµῶν οὐ σαρκικά, ἀλλὰ δυνατὰ τῷ Θεῷ πρὸς καθαίρεσιν ὀχυρωµάτων (2Cor. 10.1). Despite the differences between this text and 347-348, it served the same purpose, to admonish Christians that they should lead lives of untarnished virtue if they were to enjoy the blessings of eternal life. The message of 349, like that of 347 and 348, was entirely contained in the words of the inscription, without apparent reference to the authorities that put it up, and it seems likely that it was also displayed on the wall of a church, adjacent or close to a place of Christian burial. 3.5 Funerary Inscriptions from the late third to the early fifth centuries Most of the inscriptions from late Roman Ankara are funerary. In this corpus they have been divided into three groups: first, inscriptions that belong to the earlier part of late antiquity between the late third and early fifth century (3.5, nos. 350-364); second, larger grave monuments, mostly tomb covers over a metre in length, which appear to date to the late fifth or sixth centuries (3.6, nos. 365-423); and third, smaller grave monuments, mostly terracotta tiles, from the same period (3.7, nos. 424-496). The second group also contains a handful of texts (412, 413, 417) which should perhaps be dated to the the ninth or tenth centuries, the Middle Byzantine period. Other Middle Byzantine funerary inscriptions were carved on the walls of Ankara’s churches (3.8, nos. 497-504). It is difficult to establish a secure or exact chronology for this material, as very few texts are precisely dated, and some of the texts placed in the first group, including 356, 359 and 363, may belong to a later period. Although Ankara had a Christian population before the end of the second century (see I. Ankara 1, p. 5), Christian symbols do not seem to have appeared on tomb monuments before the later third century, and only a single unambiguously Christian text has been included in the first volume of the Ankara corpus (I. Ankara 1, 68). In this respect epigraphic practice at Ankara, and throughout most of north Galatia, differed from the pattern to be observed in parts of Phrygia and Lycaonia, where recognisable Christian gravestones occurred from the mid-second century and were numerous in the third century (Mitchell 2014a). The earliest certainly Christian material from Galatia proper, dating to the middle of the third century, occurs in the south part of the Haymana district, and probably reflects the influence of Lycaonian and east Phrygian Christian communities (Mitchell forthcoming a). Tombstones at Ankara with crosses are unlikely to date before c. 250, and monuments displaying the Constantinianum or the simple forms of the Christogram, first appeared after c. 325 (Sulzberger 1925). The pseudo-praenomen Aurelius became virtually universal for new Roman citizens after the introduction of the constitutio Antoniniana in 212 until c. 260 and was applied more sporadically thereafter (Rizakis 2011), although it remained in common use in certain parts of Asia Minor, most notably in the abundant grave inscriptions of northern Lycaonia around Laodicea Catacecaumene, until the mid-fourth century. Aurelii on Ankara gravestones with Christian symbols should mostly be dated to the period 250 to 350. During this period the conventional commemorative formulae of pagan Greek gravestones, such as the valedictory µνήµης χάριν, also continued to appear, although in due course they were completely superseded by the Christian expressions ἐνθάδε κατάκειται, ἔνθα κεῖται, and ἐνθάδε κεκοίµηται. The last of these was particularly favoured at Ankara. The transition from the pagan to the Christian style seems to have occurred between c. 350 and 153

- 154 400. However, many formulae from pre-Christian funerary epigraphy, such as the address to the passer-by, χαῖρε παροδεῖτα, and the consolatory οὐδεὶς ἀθάνατος, remained part of the conventional vocabulary of Christian funerary texts at least until the mid-fifth century. Several of the inscriptions which have been assigned to the first group contain transitional elements of this sort. Archaeologically there is relatively little information about Ankara’s ancient cemeteries. The evidence is briefly surveyed by Görkay – Kadıoğlu – Mitchell 2011, 239-42, and at greater length in Peschlow 2015, 117-29. Tombs of the early imperial period have been excavated in recent years in the area south-west of the ancient city. A first-century chamber tomb was identified during construction work in the district of Balgat. The finds were brought to the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, and the foundation blocks of the building itself transported to the Roman Baths, where they have been restored close to the north-west corner of the palaestra (Temizsoy – Demirdelen 1999; Demirdelen 2000). J. G. C. Anderson recorded a group of Christian gravestones discovered close to the station, which was built when the railway from Haydarpaşa reached Ankara in 1892 (377, 380, 390, 403). Further discoveries were made during construction work to the east of the railway station. These included several funerary inscriptions of the imperial period (I. Ankara 1, 149, 151 (both for gladiators), 249 and 276) and three Christian gravestones in this volume (397, 455, 456). The low-lying ground west of the Roman city in the stream valley which ran north to join the Ankara Çay, extending beyond the modern hippodrome as far as the railway station, appears to have been an important necropolis area. A group of seven built hypogaea, all apparently of fourth-century date, was discovered in the area north of the station (Jerphanion 1928, 225; Dalman – Schneider – Bittel 1932, 251-5; Peschlow 2015, 118-21). Two of these late Roman chamber tombs, constructed of rubble and mortar, with vaulted ceilings and decorated interiors, were excavated in 1939 and published in the early years of the second world war (Koşay 1939, Bittel – Schneider 1941; Akok – Pençe 1941). One of these was systematically demolished and reconstructed at the south side of the palaestra attached to the Roman Baths. The building and its interior wall paintings were restored again in 2002 (Elyıldırım – Yılmaz 2003). A funerary enclosure containing a large number of graves was also uncovered during a rescue excavation on the site of the Sports Centre attached to the architectural faculty of Gazi University in Maltepe in 2009 (Peschlow 2015, 121-2). This appears to be later in date than the hypogaea near the railway station and provides an important insight into funerary practice at Ankara in the late fifth or sixth century. The remains of the funerary complex included re-used material of earlier periods (architectural pieces as well as the inscription I. Ankara 1, 240), and the small finds associated with the burials include a signet ring with a cross, a pendant gold cross, and a gold appliqué ornament for a vestment with a ΧΡ monogram. These should probably be dated to the end of the fifth or sixth centuries, and this is confirmed by the presence of inscribed tiles as well a fragmentary inscription on a marble offcut (477-483; see Arslan – Aydin 2010, 311 for the inscriptions, and 321 figs. 57 for the ornaments). The necropolis included wooden sarcophagi framed with marble cladding, and cist graves, partly covered with large tiles measuring c. 58 x 40 x 6.5 cms. (Arslan – Aydin 2010, 324 fig. 13). The Maltepe excavations provide the first archaeological evidence for tombs of this type in Roman Ankara. It is likely that the large number of inscribed tiles of late fifth or sixth century date published in this volume came from similar contexts. The topographical associations of the Maltepe site as a whole are unclear, but reports of structures which were destroyed before the rescue excavation began suggest that there was a church or chapel to the east of the necropolis enclosure. The

154

- 155 ornaments, as well as one of the reported inscriptions (477), would have been appropriate for priestly use. Another necropolis area has been identified north of the late Roman city walls close to the Çankırı Kapi excavations of the Roman Baths. A legionary tombstone (I. Ankara 1, 176) and sarcophagus fragments are reported to have been found in the Çankırı Kapı area, perhaps close to their original locations, and a chamber tomb with walls partly built of reused masonry, rubble and mortar, and including a re-used third-century inscription, was uncovered in the foundations of a building at Çankırı Kapı Sok. 46 (I. Ankara 1, 56, where the find spot is wrongly given as Çankırı Caddesi 46). The chamber tomb may also date to the fourth century. 350. Aurelius Paulus Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Two joined fragments of a broken terracotta stele, decorated with a simple wreath, broken above; the inscription was cut below the wreath on a shaft between two pilasters decorated with a simple zig-zag design. Crosses were set to the left and right of the wreath above the first line of the text; only the lower shaft of the left-hand cross survives. The inscription was set between deep incised lines and both the letters and the lines contain traces of red paint. Cursive alpha and sigma; the right upright of lambda overlaps the left. Dimensions: Height 0.62; width 0.47; thickness 0.05; uneven letters 0.03-0.06. Copy: SM August 2005; squeeze 24.09.2014.

4

†̣ † Αὐρήλιος Παῦλος τῇ γλυκυτάτῃ µου γυνεκὶ Φροντίνῃ ἀνέστησα [µ]ν̣ήµην χά[ρι]τος.

Translation: I, Aurelius Paulus, set (this ) up for my sweetest wife Frontina, a memorial of grace. Date: Later third century. Commentary: This funerary stele is unique in being made from fired clay rather than stone. The decoration and lettering of the inscription must have been produced while the clay was still workable. The decoration was then painted and fired. The name Paulus was not an invariable marker of Christianity (see I. Ankara 1, 284 comm.), but was especially common in Lycaonia and adjacent parts of central Anatolia, although it appears less frequently in Phrygia (Breytenbach 2013). There are several examples at Ankara (see index) and in north Galatia; see RECAM II 84 from the west of the province, 226 (a bishop), 261 (a presbyter), 263, and 360 from the territory of Ancyra, and 449, 450 and 486 from Tavium. The 155

- 156 concluding formula µνήµης χάριν ἀνέστησα was particularly common in Galatia; see examples from Ankara itself (I. Ankara 1, 243, and in the present volume 520, 529, 532 and 533) and from the wider region, for which see Walser, 2013 no. 39 with commentary, citing RECAM II 209, 241, 368; MAMA V p. 164; MAMA VII 481, 503. Accidental variations, such as µνήµην χάριν in 352, occur and have little significance, but the version found here seems to be unique. A verse epitaph from Amorium of this period set up by Eusebios for his father Pientios, who was perhaps a bishop (σοφὸς ἀρχιερεύς), concludes, Εὐσέβιος τόδε θῆκε γέρας πατρὶ βαιὸν ὁ βαιός, | τῆς ἀµετρου χάριτος ἀντιδιδοὺς ὀλίγην (SGO III, 16/43/06; SEG 45, 1722). Conceivably the unusual wording of the Ankara text may have been a deliberate attempt to highlight Frontina’s personal charitable qualities.

351. Aurelius Paulinus Location: In the Roman Baths. No inventory number. Description: A stele of soft limestone, broken above and below. The inscription is in a shallow frame on the shaft. Letters include broken-bar alpha, lunate epsilon and sigma. Dimensions: Height 0.42; width 0.68; thickness 0.17; uneven letters 0.045-0.06. Copy: SM September 2005; squeeze 20.08.2010.

4

- - - Α̣ ὐρήλιος Παυ(λῖν)ος ἀννέστη̣σε[ν ἑα]υ[τῷ ? ] -----

4: ΠΑΥΝ with a downward slanting diagonal line across the first hasta. Perhaps the mason carved ΠΑΥΝΟΣ and corrected this to ΠΑΥΛΙΝΟΣ.

Translation: Aurelius Paulinus set this up for himself … Date: Late third century (name; style of monument). Commentary: A fragment of a modest grave stele, with large letters cut in short lines, set up by Aur. Paulus or Paulinus. An Aurelius Paulinus with his wife Dikaiosyne is attested on Ancyran territory (RECAM II 285). There is no indication of Christianity. 352. Aurelius Dadas Location: The style of the inscription, depicting household implements and tools for vine cultivation, favour a rural provenance in one of the villages or estates close to Ankara, rather than in one of the city’s cemeteries. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, lower terrace. Inv. 114.122.99. 156

- 157 -

Copy: SM June 2004; squeeze 2010. Description: Stele cut from a block of white marble, left rough at the back. The front has an arched pediment, decorated with four triangles at the top, perhaps representing sun rays. Within the arch is a disc containing an elaborate six-pointed rosette, with each petal defined by three lines. There are two bunches of grapes on the lintel below the pediment on either side a two-handled wine jar. A small pruning hook (dolabra) has been carved in the bottom right and another unidentifiable object in the bottom left corner of the inscribed panel. Below the panel there is a chest supported on straight legs to the left and a table with curved legs to the right, with a single-handled cup on it. The first seven lines of the inscription in the frame on the shaft are carved between heavily marked lines. Cursive epsilon and sigma; alpha with straight bar. Dimensions: Height 1.16; width 0.46 (top), 0.55 (bottom); thickness 0.45; letters 0.023.

4

8

Αὐρ. Δαδας Εἰρηνέου ἡ σύµβιος αὐτοῦ ἀνέστησεν µνήµην χάριν, καὶ εις τούτου µνηµίου ἤτε κατὰ πθόνον ἢ κατὰ ἐχθρὰν ἔστε αὐτῳ πρὸς ΘΝ καὶ νῦν καὶ ἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. {Ϲ}

1: the first rho resembles a Latin R. 4: µνήµην sic. 5: ΕΠΙϹ lapis. 7: πθόνον for φθόνον; the pi is carved half height above the line. 8: Θ(εό)ν. 11: The final sigma is superfluous, but the engraver might have envisaged carving ἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.

Translation: Aurelia Dadas the wife of Eirenaeus, set up this in memory; and if anyone (damages) this memorial out of spite or enmity, he will reckon with God both now and for eternity. Date: Later third or early fourth century (decorated stele; Aurelius name; funerary and curse formulae). The abbreviated nomen sacrum in line 9 favours a fourth century date. For inscriptions from Ankara, similarly carved between marked lines, cf. I. Ankara 1, 310 and 361 below. Commentary: The name Δαδας could be either feminine, see Zgusta, KP 140 § 244-2, quoting MAMA I 77 (Laodicea Cacatecaumene) and Buckler – Calder – Cox 1928, 28 no. 243; or masculine, see Zgusta, KP 140 § 247-4, quoting Körte 1900, 417 no. 28 = Mendel 1914, 843; Körte 1900, 427 no. 44 (Dorylaeum); and TAM III.1 829 (Termessus). The first alternative is to be preferred, so that the genitive Εἰρηνέου refers to Dadas’ husband, and the relationship was clarified by the expression ἡ σύµβιος αὐτοῦ. If Aur. Dadas were a male name, then Εἰρηνέου should be patronymic, but the expression would then lack any connection to the sentence that follows, and the wife responsible for the memorial would remain nameless. The name Eirenaeus in various spellings occurred at several central Anatolian sites, see RECAM II 259 (Εἰρηνάος, from Inler), MAMA VII 503 (Εἰρηνέος) 157

- 158 and 544 (Ἰρηναῖος), MAMA VI 358 (Εἰρηναῖος, Acmonia), ΜΑΜΑ VIII 326b (Ἰρηναῖος, near Konya). The style of the stele, displaying household objects as well as images appropriate to wine production, was typical of central Anatolian gravestones of the second or third centuries, continuing into the fourth (Waelkens 1977; Masséglia 2013). The Aurelius name implies a date after 212, and the so-called Eumeneian formula found in the concluding lines was also attested from the mid-third century (see Thonemann’s commentary on MAMA XI 36 citing the earlier literature: Robert 1960, 399-413; Feissel 1980a, 463-4; Trebilco 2002). The first half of this has been abbreviated, omitting an expression such as κάκον ποιήσῃ. For the final allusion to eternity, see the formulas of three funerary altars, each described as a koimeterion, recorded west of Eumeneia at Dumanli (perhaps on the territory of Phrygian Dionysopolis) set up by Aurelius Ariston dated to AD 258/9 which ends εἴ τις δ’ | ἕτερος ἐπισενένκει, | ἔστε ἐπικατάρα|τος ἰς τὸν ἐῶνα | παρὰ θε|ῷ (MAMA IV 356; Strobel 1980, 74-77), at Sirikli, set up by Aurelia Apphia at about the same date, which concludes εἴ τις δὲ ἕτερον ἐπισενέ[ν]|κει, ἔστε ἐπικατάρατος παρὰ | θεῷ ἰς τὸν ἐῶναν (MAMA IV 354; Strobel 1980, 67-8), and at Kocayaka, ἔστε ἐπ[ι]|κατάρατος | εἰς τὸν ἐῶ[να] | [. .]ΝΕΟΟ[ - - - ] (MAMA XI 37). The formula occurs in SEG 1978, 1148 from another Eumeneian village. The Ankara text might also be dated as early as the mid-third century, but the abbreviation of the nomen sacrum to ΘΝ favours a later date, perhaps between 300 and 325. 353. Aurelia Menandria for her children Location: In the Akkale Depot. Inv. no. 3091. Description: A fragment of pale marble wall-cladding, re-used as a gravestone, broken on all sides except below. The inscription was cut in an incised tabula ansata and the letters picked out with red paint. There is an incised wreath above and palm leaves in the lobes of the tabula. Lines 7-8 were faintly scratched in smaller letters below the tabula as a later addition to the text. Broken-bar alpha, lunate omega; phi is diamond-shaped. Dimensions: Height 0.385; width 0.365; thickness 0.02; letters 0.02-03. Copy: SM 07.06.2004; squeeze SM 23.09.2014.

4

8

Αὐρ.´ Μενανδρία τὸ γλυκύτατον τέκνον Ἀλύπιν ὄντα ἐτῶν τρίων καὶ Μάρθᾳ ἀδελφῇ ἐτῶν ζ´.

1: a punctuation mark resembling an acute accent after Αὐρ(ηλία). 7: the last two letters were carved above the line.

158

- 159 Translation: Aurelia Menandria for her sweetest child, Alypios, being three years old; and Martha, his sister, seven years old. Date: Fourth century (Aurelius name; τhe use of signs of abbreviation became very common in inscriptions and papyri of the later empire, and this inscription should not be dated earlier than the fourth century). Commentary: This modest gravestone, carved on a piece of re-used marble wall cladding like several others from this period, may date to the post-Constantinian period, although the Aurelius name became increasingly rare after the later third century. The grammar of the inscription is uncertain, with Martha’s name probably being added in the dative (or less probably the nominative) to that of her sibling, who was named in the accusative case. Although the mother’s name had no religious connotations, those of the two children were typically Christian. The accusative masculine participle ὄντα shows that the three-year old child, for whom the tomb was first made, was a boy, Alypios, Ἀλύπιν being the syncopated short form of Ἀλύπιον. The name, meaning ‘feeling no pain’, became widespread among Christians, doubtless as an indirect allusion to the pains of martyrdom and other trials to which Christianity had been exposed. More generally it reflected the idea that death itself was not a source of pain for Christians, but the prelude to eternal life. For another example at Ankara see 436. It should be distinguished from forms such as Alypos, which became common in the Hellenistic period (LGPN I, 30; II, 24; III.A, 31; III.B, 26) and the Latin adjectival form Alypianus, which occurred in the second and third centuries AD (LGPN II, 24; see Corsten 2010). The Alypia named on a fragmentary gravestone of Pessinus was doubtless Christian (I. Pessinous 53), as were the two women of this name attested at Tavium (RECAM II 423 and 469). Martha was certainly chosen in recollection of Martha, sister of the Virgin Mary, in the New Testament, although in Syria the name occurred in earlier and non-Christian contexts (e.g. SEG 48,1845, from the territory of Syrian Apamea). The name appears at Athens (IG II2 8232; republished in IJO I, 336 App. 13: a woman of Syrian Antioch) and at Rome (a brick stamp naming Μάρθα Λακεδαιµονία). The latter was considered to be a Jewess by the editor, L. R. Lind (Lind 1955), approved by J. and L. Robert (Bull. ép. 1958, 553). These examples have thus been treated as evidence of the Jewish diaspora from the Semitic Levant to the Greek world (see Robert 1973, 444 n. 62 = Robert 2007, 480 n. 62, also citing Masson 1971, 66-7; there is further discussion in Solin 1983, 634-7). However, it seems likely that most occurrences of the name, including the examples at Athens and Rome, were Christian. Αὐρηλία Μάρθα Βυζαντία, who set up a gravestone at Byzantium for her soldier son, the optio Mamalion, at a date not earlier than late third century (I. Byzantion 294, a text cited in 386 comm.), was certainly Christian, but unlikely to have been of Semitic origin (despite Robert 1964b, 51 ff. no. 27). 354. Alexandros Location: In the Akkale Depot. Inv. no. 115.10.99. Description: Pale limestone door lintel, with three fasciae below a profile moulding of second or third century date. The lettering was crudely scratched on the top fascia, apparently later than the monument’s first use. There are spaces between the three words of

159

- 160 the text. Broken-bar alpha; epsilon rectangular; sigma and omega square but in cursive form. Dimensions: Height 0.21; width 0.96; depth 0.37; letters 0.02-0.03. Copy: SM 7.06.2004; squeeze SM 23.09.2014. (on the top fascia) ☧ †̣ Ἀλεξάνδρου· πᾶν ζῶσιν. Translation: Οf Alexander; everything for the living. Date: Fourth century (constantinianum and name in genitive). Commentary: For this text, compare the epitaph from Thessalonica published by Feissel 1983, 119 no. 122: ☧ Κοπρύλλου. Feissel, citing parallels in Attica (IG II/III2 5, 13443 ☧ Ἰνάχου) and Melos (Grégoire, Recueil no. 208: ☧ Ἀλεξάνδρου), suggests that the formula was not used later than the fourth century. IG II/III2 5, 13361☧ Κυριακοῦ (Athens) is dated by the editor to the fifth or sixth century, but is probably earlier. The words that follow should perhaps be understood as the assertion that everything will come to those who live (in God), with ζῶσιν referring to Christians who will enjoy eternal life. The inscription was poorly carved and a later addition to the lintel. It is likely that this had been the door to a family tomb, whose members became Christian in the fourth century, when the text was added to it. 355. Anonymous gravestone Location: In the Akkale depot. Inv. no. 115.20.99. Description: Slender grey marble stele, broken below. The inscription, carelessly cut but readily legible, is secondary and the letters have been picked out in red paint (compare 353). Alpha has an unbroken cross bar which slopes up to the right; the right uprights of alpha and delta overlap the left one. Rho is tall with a thin circle; upsilon has a short stem; cursive epsilon and omega. Dimensions: Height 0.51, width 0.23; depth 0.06; irregular letters 0.015-0.04. Copy: SM June 2004; squeeze SM 23.09.2014.

4

χαῖρε παροδεῖτα· εὐθύµει εὐθένει· οὐδὶς ἀθάτος· αἰτῶν δέκα ὀκτώ. ☧

ΕΥΘΕΝΕΙ, lapis. 4: ΑΘΑΤΟϹ, lapis; αἰτῶν for ἐτῶν. 6: a constantinianum tilted to the right.

160

- 161 -

Translation: Greetings passer-by; be of good spirit, be strong; no-one is immortal; eighteen-years-old. Date: Fourth century (formulae, constantinianum). Commentary: It is unclear which verb form lies behind the imperative εὐθένει in line 2; εὐθενεῖν, εὐθηνεῖν, and εὐσθενεῖν all convey appropriate meanings, but we have not noted their use in inscriptions in similar contexts. For another eighteen-year-old, buried in Ankara at around this period, see I. Ankara 1, 310. There is no trace of the name of the deceased, and since the stone appears to be complete at the top this appears to be an early example of the Christian practice of anonymity. The practice of not naming an individual, as their name was known to God, was widespread in the Christian epigraphy of late antiquity and especially occurred on building inscriptions, thereby obscuring the identity of a benefactor (Roueché 2007). Christian giving, according to Matt. 6, 2 and 25, 40, was not intended to enhance the earthly renown of the donor. Anonymity on donor texts was commonly expressed by the phrase οὗ οἶδεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ ὄνοµα or a variation of this. Feissel has noted that only a single funerary text carries this formula, an epitaph originally found near the Tophane in Istanbul (D. Feissel in Roueché 2007, 234-5; cf. Bull. ép. 2009, 609). By coincidence this inscription, first published in the collection of the Greek Philological Society of Constantinople (X. A. Siderides, Konstantinopolei Hellenikos Philologikos Syllogos 32 (1911), 133 no. 2), has been brought to Ankara and is now housed in Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, inv. No. 175. It is carved on a small stele with acroteria made from granular limestone, broken on the right (height 0.22; width 0.43; thickness 0.06; letters 0.025-0.03; see fig. 4). A copy and squeeze made by SM in September 2014 confirms Feissel’s rendering of the text: † ἐνθάδε κατά[κι]|τε ὁ τῆς µακαρίας | µνήµης οὗ οἶδεν ὁ [Θ(εὸ)ς] | τὸ ὄνοµα †. However, not only the present inscription, but 412 and 472 are Christian epitaphs from late Roman Ankara from which the name of the deceased was deliberately omitted. [Insert figure 5 here]

356. Eudaimon Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 113.548.99. Description: Small pale limestone column. A rectangular hole has been cut into the top surface. Dimensions: Ht 0.57; diameter 0.29; letters: 0.03-05. Copy: SM 09.06.2004; 2008; squeeze SM 23.08.2010.

4

† ἡ φίλαν̣[δρ]ο̣ς̣ Εὐδέµων ὑπὸ ἀνδρὸς ταφῖσα Θεοδούλου ἐνθάδε κατά161

- 162 κιτε. Translation: The husband-loving Eudaimon, buried by her husband Theodoulos, lies here. Date: Fifth century. Commentary: Other late funerary texts from Ankara were carved on re-used column shafts (see 433 and 434). The name Eudaimon, spelled Εὐδέµων as here, is also found on an imperial period inscription from Nicomedia (TAM IV.1, 111). However, all the ocurrences of the name attested in coastal Asia Minor are masculine (LGPN V.A, 175). We have found no other instance of the name used by a woman. Theodoulos was a name commonly used by Christians in central Anatolia from the third century onwards; see JRS 18 (1928), 25 no. 237 (Theodoule, Upper Tembris valley, 3rd cent.); MAMA 1, 270 (Theodoule, Laodicea Catacecaumene, 3rd-4th century), MAMA V 56 (Dorylaeum, 5th or 6th cent.), SEG 26, 1374 (Dorylaeum, 4th or 5th cent.), MAMA VII 285 (Phrygian Hadrianopolis; 4th or 5th cent.), MAMA IX 560 (Aezani, 6th cent.), MAMA XI 237 and 240 (Yaraşlı; probably 3rd cent.), IK 62, 327 (Ilgin, probably 3rd century); Sterrett, EJ 89 (Seleuceia Sidera, 5th or 6th cent.), Sterrett, WE 283 (Vasada, probably 5th cent.). The phrase Θεοῦ δοῦλος to describe a pious Christian was already in use in the third century; see MAMA IV 32 (near Synnada), and compare Swoboda – Keil – Kroll 1935, 78 no. 171 (Isaura). See also MAMA XI 230, a funerary bomos from the territory of Kinna, south of Ankara, set up by [Patro]kles, Ianuarius and their co-heirs for their father Kyrios/Kyrion and mother Kyrille, which ended with the words Θεοῦ δούλ[ῃ], or Θεοῦ δούλ[οις] if the expression applied to both parents. The editors date this stone to the fourth century but the form of the monument and the nature of the text would suit a date around 200. For ἐνθά(δε κατά)κειται added in the middle or at the end of the text, compare RECAM IV, 77 no. 218 ( Niğde in Cappadocia, probably 4th cent.): Εὐγενί | Μαρτίνου | παλατίνου | θυγάτηρ ἐν}θάδε κεῖτε | †; Haspels 1971, 338 no. 108 (Phrygian highlands): Ὀνίσιµος ἀναγνώστης καὶ Σωφρόνιος υἱὸς Ἑρµέος ἔνθα κατάκιται; RECAM II 84 (Beyköy, Galatia): Παῦλος ὑπηρέτης χωρίου Φυλῆς ἐνθα κατάκιται, and Walser 2013, 572 no. 23, an epitaph from Germia: † ἀνὴρ εὐσχήµων φίλος πολλῶν ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε Ἰωάννης χρυσοχὸς δοῦλος Θεοῦ (identified as a pair of faulty iambic verses in Bull. ép. 2014, 581). As the formula does not occupy its usual position this Ankara inscription may be earlier than the main series of fifth and sixth century epitaphs. 357. Sophocleia Location: ‘Fundort unbekannt, doch nahezu sicher Ankara’ (Miltner). Now in the Akkale Depot. Inv. no. 3110. Description: ‘Oben abgerundete Grabplatte aus grauem Kalkstein; rechts, links und unten abgeschlagen’ (Miltner). Limestone plaque, rounded above and left, broken on the right and below. Two raised hands are displayed in the semi-circular pediment above the inscription. The inscription is cut on the shaft; pilaster on the left. Dimensions: Height 0.38; width 0.28, thickness 0.17; letters 0.015; 0.01 (lines 8-9). Copy: Fr. Miltner 1934; SM 07.06.2004; squeeze SM 23.09.2014. 162

- 163 -

Publication: Miltner 1937, 33 no. 38 and fig. 15; (SGO 2, 390: 11/10/03) [Vienna Scheden 308].

4

8

Οὔνοµά µοι Σοφοκλ[εία,] λάτρις δὲ Θεοῦ ζῶντο[ς], ἐνθάδε κοιµῶµε µέχρις ἀναστάσεω[ς]· τόπῳ χάριτι εἰρήνη[ν], [π]αροδεῖτα, προσευ[ξά]µενος µιµνήσ[κου]· [? Ὀυαλ]ε̣ριανὸς τῇ [ἑαυτοῦ] [ἀδελ]φῇ µνή[µης χάριν] [ἀνέστησε].

2: ζῶντο[ς ἦν], Miltner; ζῶντο[ς], Merkelbach and Stäuber. 8: [Ταυ]ριανός, Miltner. 9: [ἀδελ]φῇ, Miltner exempli gratia; the alternative ν[υµ]φῇ seems unlikely, as Sophokleia appears to have been unmarried; τῇ γ[λυκυτάτῃ | ἀδελ]φῇ, SGO.

Translation: My name is Sophocleia, servant of the living God. Here I lie until the resurrection. Ιn this place in grace, o passer-by, praying for peace, remember me. Valerianus, set this up for his own sister, in memory. Date: Fourth century (concluding lines). Commentary: In SGO, Merkelbach and Stäuber observed that the first seven lines were semi-metrical. For the formula µέχρις ἀναστάσεως and ἕως ἀναστάσεως, see Bull. ép. 1972, 474 (with a correction at Bull. ép. 1973, 467a) and Robert 1974, 189 n. 43 discussing texts from Thessalonica, which are now re-published as Feissel 1983, 115 no. 119: Καλόκερος Μακεδό|νι κὲ Σωσιγενίᾳ τοῖς | γλυκυτάτοις γονεῦσιν τὸ κοιµητήριον ἕως ἀναστάσεως (decorated with a prominent fish below the inscription); and Feissel 1983, 117 no. 120: Φλα. Κάλλιστος | ὁ διασηµ. ἐπίτρο|πος χωρίων δε|σποτικῶν ἐποί|ησεν τὸ κοιµη|τήριον τοῦτο ἑαυ|τῷ καὶ τῇ συµβίῳ | ἑαυτοῦ ἅµα θυγατρὶ | ἕως ἀναστάσεως | µνήµης χάριν. Robert cited this Ankara text in both his discussions. The expression concluded the lengthy epitaph of the Phrygian soldier Gaius dating around 300 (Drew-Bear 1981): ἀνέστησα τὴν στήλην ἐ[κ τῶν ἰδίων] αὐτοῦ καµάτων µ[νήµης] χάριν ἕως τῆς [ἀ]να[στάσε]ως. See also Feissel, Chron. 1022 with further examples from the Roman catacombs. It is striking that the Christian text was combined with the pagan imagery of hands raised as an imprecation to the avenging sun, which usually indicated that the deceased had suffered a violent premature death. For a typical example from Ankara itself, see I. Ankara 1, 241 with comm. Merkelbach and Stauber in their note on SGO 2, 389 cited the fundamental study of Cumont 1928, which is to be supplemented by Cumont 1933, 393-5. There are several pagan examples in the territory of Nacolea (MAMA V 225, 262, 263) and in the Aezanitis (MAMA IX 240, 252, 324, 535). C. W. M. Cox’s notes on MAMA V 225 and 263 drew attention to MAMA IV 92, a monument from Synnada. which displayed a cross between two raised hands, the same use of pagan symbolism in a Christian context as occurs in this text from Ankara.

163

- 164 358. Gorgonia Location: In the Akkale Depot. Inv. no. 185. Description: Thin slab of white limestone, broken top right and left, and broken below. A constantinianum was carved at the top of the slab above an incised rectangular panel which contains the crudely cut inscription. Cursive epsilon and sigma; cursive omega but with a rectangular form; broken-bar alpha; upsilon as Latin V; psi as upsilon but with a central vertical line. Acute accents have been used inconsistently (see apparatus). Dimensions: Height 0.33; width 0.60; depth 0.05; letters 0.02. Copy: SM 17.07.1977; August 2005; squeeze SM 23.09.2014.

4

8

12

☧ ἐνθάδε κεῖτε Γοργονεία ἡ τὸν βείον καλῶς δειαγαγοῦσα µετὰ τοῦ εἰδείου ἀνδρὸς καὶ τῶν εἰδείων τέκνων· χαρη- ☧ τε οἱ παράγοντες µετὰ τῶν εἰδείων πάντων· ἔχῃ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν κὲ πρὸς τὸν Χρειστὸν αὐτοῦ εἴ τεις κλέψει ΤΟ . . . ΤΕΙΑΝ (leaf) [ - - - - - ]

2: acute accent on the iota of Γοργονεία. 3: acute accent on epsilon of δειαγαγοῦσα. 5: acute accent on second epsilon of εἰδείου. 10: acute accent on τόν.

Translation: Here lies Gorgoneia, she who completed her life in a fine manner with her own husband and her own children. Greetings, those passing by with all those that belong to them. He shall reckon with God and with his Christ, if anyone steals the … Date: Fourth century (family members named on tomsbstone; greeting to the passers-by; use of constantinianum). Commentary: The names Gorgonia and Gorgonius were not unusual in late antiquity, and did not suffer from any negative connotations that might be associated with the gorgons of Greek mythology (Masson 1997, 59-62). The family of Gregory of Nazianzus included his grandmother and a sister, both named Gorgonia (PLRE Gorgonia 1 and 2). Aur. Gorgonis and a son or daughter called Gorgonis are attested on an epitaph from east Phrygia (MAMA VII 429). For an example from Rome see the bilingual text for Νείκη ἡ καὶ Γοργονία (IGUR II 812 = CIL VI 22945). Γοργόνιον is found as as a female name on a sarcophagus from Phrygian Hierapolis (Humann 1898, no. 126), and Γοργονία at Scamander in the Troas (I. Ilion 180). The male name Γοργόνιoς occurs on a Christian gravestone from Rome (ICUR I 3988 = SEG 31, 873) and also among persons of rank, including a Flavius Gorgonius from a Pontic family which settled in the fourth century at Philippi in Macedonia (SEG 45, 795; cf 46, 788). Six Gorgonii are listed in PLRE I, including 164

- 165 Aurelius Gorgonius, praeses of Arabia in the tetrarchic period. The names Gorgonius and Gorgonia were also favoured by Jews. Two Gorgonii are mentioned in the Aphrodisias Jewish foundation inscription, Γοργόνιος Ὀξυ(χολίου) among the full Jews, and Γοργόνιος χαλ(κοτύπος ?) among the god-fearers (SEG 38, 970). A Jewish gravestone decorated with a lulab from near Rome reads [ἐ]νθάδε κεῖται Θεοδώρα ἡ καὶ Γοργονείϛ | [θυ]γατὴρ Ἠλεὶ ἀδεφὴ Ἀ[- -]ου | ἐτῶν κϛ´ (JIWE II, 454). The patronymic Ηλεις, was an indigenous Anatolian name which occurs three times at Ankara (I. Ankara 1 nos. 239 and 279 and in this volume 518), and this family, although resident at Rome, was certainly originally from central Asia Minor. The name Gorgonia occurs on another Jewish epitaph at Rome: [Γο]ργονία ἡ κὲ … (SEG 53, 1046 (4) completing the reading of JIWE II, 523 line 2). There is another Jewish Gorgonius named on a monument decorated with a menorah in Macedonia at Beroia (SEG 59, 688; IJO I, 86 Mac 11): Μηµώριον Ἰουστήνου Γωγώρνι (sic). See also inscription 364 for Aurelia Gorgonia. Lines 9-12: for the formula ἔχῃ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, cf 359, and for other Galatian examples, I. Pessinous 50 and 191; RECAM II 246, and Walser 2013, 573 no. 24. Variations occured until the sixth century; see Robert 1960, 398-405, supplemented by Feissel 1980a, especially 463-4. Christ was also named in the formula on the third- or fourth-century doorstone from Laodicea Catacecaumene, set up by the Encratite Meiros for himself and family members, which ends εἰ δέ τις τῶν οἰν[ο]ποτῶν ἐπενβάλῃ, εἴσχι πρὸς τὸν Θ(εὸ)ν καὶ Ἰη(σο)ῦ Χ(ριστό)ν (MAMA VII, 96; SEG 29, 1524). For another inscription which associated Christ with God in a curse formula, see the sarcophagus text from Naxos, which concluded ἐνορκί(ζ)οµε τ(ὸν) παντοκρά(τορα) καὶ τὸν ἡµῶν κ(ύριον) Ἰ(ησοῦν) Χρ(ίστον) ☧ µηδένα ἕτερον τεθῆναι (Feissel 1980a, 464 n. 51, citing de Ridder 1897, 24 no. 10).   359. Paulus son of Ursinus, protector Location: In the Akkale Depot. Description: A white limestone slab, broken on the right side. The letters are very uneven and poorly cut; broken-bar alpha, cursive epsilon, sigma and omega. Dimensions: Height 0.605; width 0.475; thickness 0.07-08.; letters 0.025-0.040. Copy: SM 2004.06.06; squeze SM 23.09.2014.

4

8

χαῖρε παροδεῖ[τα·] ὧδε κεῖτε υἱὸς πρωτήκτορος Οὐρσείνου ὄνοµα Πα(ῦλ)ος νεοφώτιστος κηδευθ̣εὶς ὑπὸ Ζευδᾶ, ἔθ̣ηκα τὴν ϹΚΟΥΤΛΑϹ̣ vac ΤΩΩ ἄν δέ τις κεινήσι̣ ἕξι πρὸς Θεόν.

165

- 166 5: the copy suggests ΠΑΛΥΡΟϹ but it is likely that the stone-cutter intended Παῦλος. 6: The poorly engraved fourth letter resembles a psi. 8: the final nu is carved above eta. 9: the meaning is uncertain. Σκούτλωσις was marble wall cladding, and this may be a garbled allusion to a part of the tomb monument.

Translation: Greetings, passer-by. Here lies the son of the protector Ursinus by name Paulus, newly baptized, buried by Zeudas; I have placed the … If anyone disturbs (it), he will reckon with God. Date: Fourth to sixth century. Commentary: This is the gravestone of the newly baptized and presumably infant son of the protector Ursinus. The child’s name appears to be a garbled form of Paulus, and the burial was undertaken by Zeudas. This name occurs in a fourth or fifth century inscription from near Konya, but is otherwise localized to the region of Isauria around the remote highland settlement of Astra (see MAMA XI 305 with comm.; Zgusta, KP 178-9 § 385; we are grateful to Peter Thonemann for this reference). Burial by a third party suggests that Ursinus himself had also died. The poor quality of the monument, with very amateur letter cutting, would be consistent with hasty burial, for example at a time of plague. For protectores see Jones 1964 I, 636-40, and H.-J. Diesner, RE Suppl. XI (1968), 1113-23. The term, documented by inscriptions and papyri from the third century onwards, regularly denoted the lowest officer post to which an ordinary soldier could be promoted in the military hierarchy, a rank that was sometimes purchased as a mark of status. One or more regiments of protectores formed part of the imperial guard. The title might also be obtained upon a soldier’s discharge from service, in which case the usual designation was ἀπὸ / ἐξ προτηκτόρων. The spelling of the word πρωτήκτορος in this form occurs already in a text from Thracian Philippopolis — IGBulg. III.1, 884 line 24: ἐξ πρωτηκ(τόρων) — where the occurrence of the term is used as an argument to date the text ‘kaum vor Mitte des 3. Jhs.’ See also IGBulg. V, 5409 for τὸν διασηµότατον Μαρκιανόν, προτήκτορα τοῦ ἀνεικήτου δεσπότου ἡµῶν Γαλλιηνοῦ Σεβ., τριβοῦνον πραιτωριανῶν καὶ δοῦκα καὶ στρατηλάτην. Many of the protectores or former protectores attested by inscriptions have military associations, and serving officers are recorded by several texts from Macedonia and late Roman Asia Minor. A mosaic inscription from Anemurium records the dedication of a protector serving in the city around 400: Φλ. Οὐαλέρις προτήκτωρ εὐξάµενος ἐποίησα (SEG 49, 1945, with Feissel, Chron. 495), and an epitaph of 545 from Beroea in Macedonia was set up for Βαλλεντίνου προτί[κ]|τορ(ος) κ(αὶ) κόµ(ητος) κ(αὶ) τῆς συµβ(ίου) αὐτοῦ | [Θ]εοδούλης (Gounaropoulou – Hatzopoulos 1998, 374 no. 428, with Feissel, Chron. 102). Retired protectores are also well attested, including Ἀρσίλις ἀπὸ προτηκτόρων, the donor of part of the mosaic floor of a church at Attalea (Şahin 1995, 25 n. 1 = SEG 45, 1770; see Feissel, Chron. 352), Φλ. Εὐτύχης ἀπὸ προτικτόρων from Calchedon (I. Kalchedon, 71; fourth century), and Βικτωρεῖνος ἀπὸ πρωτηκτόρων ἔπαρχος βεκούλων from Aphrodisias (Ala2004 no. 152). The name of the Ankara protector, recalls the nomenclature found on the Latin inscription from Nicomedia for Valerius Ursicinus: D. M. Valerius Ursicinus protector / de provincia Dacia vico Dassena / annis fecit stipendia XXIII, followed by a short verse epitaph (TAM IV.1, 118; SGO 2, 210: 09/16/14; probably late third century), and the Latin epitaph from Phrygian Sebaste dated to 390, which Flavius Buraido, a protector scolae peditum, probably of Thracian origin set up for his wife Ursina (MAMA XI 72 with commentary). Ursina’s father, attested on another inscription from Sebaste was called Ursinianus (SEG 6, 187). The names Ursinus, Ursicianus, Ursina and Ursinianus, all derived from the Latin word for a bear, ursus/ ursa, were particularly characteristic of the 166

- 167 Latin-speaking areas of the eastern Balkans, which was an important source of military recruits. Ursinus on the present inscription could conceivably have been an active serving officer, as there will certainly have been a contingent of troops in Ankara, linked to the headquarters of the vicarius of Pontica. However, by the sixth century the term protector often lost its military connotations. The life of Theodore of Sykeon refers to the heads of Ancyra’s leading families as protectores, and this is illustrated at Ankara by the case of Limenius and his family, responsible for an ecclesiastical ex voto text (see 338 comm.). In the absence of any other indications of a military context, this seems to provide the most plausible explanation for Ursinus’ status. He could simply have been a member of the city’s leading householders. 360. Verse epitaph for a Christian woman Location: ‘Now used as a lintel for a window in the bastion at the main gateway of the enceinte’ (d’Orbeliani); not located. Description: ‘Limestone stele broken at top’ (d’Orbeliani). Lunate sigma and epsilon; broken-bar alpha; omikron upsilon in lines 3 and 5 in ligature. Dimensions: Height 0.58; width 0.635 (‘23 x 25 inches’, d’Orbeliani). Copy: d’Orbeliani 1916-18. Publication: d’Orbeliani 1924, 44 no. 81; (SEG 6, 17; SGO 3, 141: 15/02/08).

4

8

[------]ΙΙΜΙΗΟ [ - - - - ]ς ἐνθάδε κεῖται ἧς ἀρετὰς κρύπτειν οὐ [δύ]ναται θάνατος. (leaf) ἣ κλεινὸν µὲν ἔχουσα πόσιν κλεινοὺς δέ τε παῖδας, τὴν ὁδὸν εὐσεβείως ἤνυσε τὴν βιότ{ι}ου· (leaf) τοὔνεκα τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἀγαθῶν πλησθεῖσα µετῆλθεν ἐκ βροτέης δόξης ἐς κλέος οὐράνιον. †

7: βιοτοῖο was perhaps intended.

Translation: (Name missing) … lies here, whose virtues death cannot hide. She had a famous husband and famous children, and completed the road of life in piety. Therefore, replete with the benefits of life on earth, she exchanged here mortal fame for heavenly glory. Date: Fourth or fifth century. Commentary: These three error-free elegiac couplets, divided from one another by leaf

167

- 168 marks, formed the epitaph of a woman from a leading Ankara family. The small cross marked at the end of the text confirms that the family was Christian, and the concluding sentiment that she passed from a life of mortal distinction to one of heavenly renown should be understood in this sense, although such sentiments could also be found in pagan epitaphs. 361. Funerary fragment in verse Location: In the Akkale Depot. No inventory number. Description: Three joining pieces of white/grey marble wall cladding, reused for a gravestone. It is broken on all sides but the inscription, carved in a roughly incised tabula ansata, is complete below and at the right. The letters were crudely cut between incised guide lines. Broken-bar alpha, square epsilon and sigma; cursive omega; phi with small central circle. Dimensions: Height 0.32 (frag. A) 0.22 (frag. B); width 0.29; thickness 0.04; letters 0.02. Copy: SM 22.7.1977 (frag. A) and 7.6.2004 (both frags.); squeeze SM 23.09.2014.

4

8

[ - - - - - - - - ] Ι̣ [ - - ] [ - - - - - ].ΑΚΙΜΕ̣ΔΟ [ - - - το]ῦδε θυγατέ[ρα - - ]Χ̣ΘΗΝΗΑΛΟΙΜ [ - - - - ]Π̣Τ̣Ε φθόνος Η [ - - - - ]ΕΝΘΕΗΠΩΣΑΙΔΗ [ - - - - ]Υ̣ΒΕΛΟΣΕ̣Υ̣ΘΥΣΕΙ [ - - - - τ]ιµῇ (?) ΛΥΤΟ.ΜΕΝ [ - - - - ἔ]νθ᾽ ἀπέλαυσας [ - - - - - ]ϹΚΗΝΩϹΑϹΑΧ [ - - - - -τ]οῖσι πόθοις.

5: ? [κάλυ]πτε.

Translation: … daughter … envy … here you enjoyed … by these longings. Date: Fourth century (appearance of the text; re-used marble cladding). Commentary: A fragmentary verse epitaph, perhaps for a young woman. 362. Leontius Location: ‘In der Nahe des Hauses von Doktor Aristazes’ (C. Humann, in Domaszweski 1885). Kaibel received a copy of the text from J. H. Mordtmann, noting only that it had been found ‘in coemeterio aliquo Christianorum Galatiae’, and that Ancyra was therefore the most likely origin. This is confirmed by Humann’s note. Description & Dimensions: Not recorded.

168

- 169 -

Copy: Leonardi MS no. 63 (passed to C. Humann at an uncertain date); J. H. Mordtmann c. 1870. Publication: Kaibel 1878, 157 no. 400: based on the copy of Mordtmann; Domaszewski 1885, 127 no. 93: based on the copy of Leonardi; (Peek 1955, 115 no. 469; SGO 3, 140: 15/02/06) [Vienna Scheden 147 and 188]. ἡγητὴ Γαλατῶν ΕΙ [ - - - - - - ] [τ]ιµήεις µακάρεσ(σ)ι Λεόντιος [ἠδὲ βροτοῖσι] ἔρνεσιν εὐπετάλοις χῶρον [ἔχει σκιερόν]. 1: ΗΓΙΠΗΓΑΛΑΤωΝLΙ, Mordtmann; ΗΓΗΤΗΙΜΑΤ ΝLΙ, Leonardi; ἡ τιµή, Kaibel, questioned by the editors of PHI; ἡγητής, Dittenberger, Wilamowitz; ἔ(τους) ι´ , SGO. 2: ΤΙΜΗΕ ΜΑΚΙΙ ΙΛΕΟΝΤΙΟ Ι, Leonardi; Mordtmann’s copy shows a rectangular letter at the beginning of the line; [τ]ειµήεις, SGO. 3: ΕΧΤΙΕΙ, Leonardi. The supplements at the end of lines 2 and 3 were suggested by Kaibel.

Translation: The leader of the Galatians … Leontius, honoured by gods and men, has here a shady spot, covered with well-leafed shrubs. Date: Second half of the fourth century (name; prosopography). Commentary: Merkelbach and Stauber in SGO referred to the first line as a ‘Prosaeinleitung’, but if the reading ἡγητῆρ, which is closer to the recorded traces than Kaibel’s ἡ τιµή, is adopted, it is clear that the whole text was in verse, consisting of two hexameters followed by a pentameter. Leontius was a name that occurred widely in the fourth and later centuries, but was particularly common in Galatia. See the index to this volume and RECAM II 158, 171, and probably 270, where the first line should probably read † Αὐρίλλιος Λ[ε]όντις and not Ν[ε]όντις. A bishop Leontius, who had previously been the abbot of a monastery, was responsible for shutting down Ankara’s Novatian church at the beginning of the fifth century (Sozomen VI. 34; VIII.1). This funerary epigram can reasonably be dated to the second half of the fourth century, a period in which two persons with this name were mentioned in Libanius’ correspondence. Leontius might be identified with PLRE I Leontius 8, a native of Ankara, who had been taken onto the staff of Maximus, governor of Galatia in 363. The members of Ankara’s curia claimed that he should be restored to his duties alongside them; Libanius wrote to Maximus asking him to retain Leontius’ services (ep. 814). However, a better identification would be with PLRE Leontius 9, governor of Galatia in 364/5, previously governor of Palestine, and a sophist (Foss 1977, 47). The word ἡγητῆρ was used in fourth century verse inscriptions to denote Christian bishops at Kana (MAMA VIII 221a) and at Laodicea Catacecaumene (MAMA I 171) in Lycaonia, and to describe the builders of the fortifications of Ephesus in the late third or early fourth century (I. Eph. 2068, cf. Robert 1948, 73-4). It also occurs in a verse text from Athens describing a prominent citizen probably of the same period (IG II2 4262). However, when combined with a reference to the inhabitants of the province, the term is most naturally understood as designating the provincial governor. The origin of Leontius 9 is not attested. It is not impossible that he came from Ancyra, as governors often held office in their native province; if the inscription refers to him, he certainly died and was buried there.

169

- 170 363. Andragathius Location: In the Roman Baths. No inventory number. Description: A rectangular slab of conglomerate stone, broken into two pieces, and probably originally built into a wall. The inscription was neatly cut in a tabula ansata. Square epsilon and sigma; broken-bar alpha. Dimensions: Frag. a) height 0.71; width 0.77; depth 0.14. Frag. b) height 0.41; width 0.74; letters 0.02; 0.03 (line 9). Copy: SM 1971; squeeze SM 19.08.2010. Publication: Mitchell 1977, 96 no. 38 and Pl. 13b (SEG 27, 872); Mango 1995, fig. 6 (cf. Feissel, Chron. 1205); (Rhoby 2014, 543-6 TR17).

4

8

† τόνδε µὲν οἶκον ἤ[γι]ρε τῇ Δεσποίνῃ Ἀνδραγάθιος ὅν νῦν ὁρᾷς ἐν̣ γραφῇ : σκέπης δὲ ἔτ̣υ[χε] τῇ αὐτῆς παροικίᾳ [ vac ?] µ̣ὴ τούτῳ τὸν Υ(ἱὸ)ν ΚΛ̣[. .] ΤΩ̣ϹΗϹ : κρίνειν µέλλ̣[ον]τα Τ̣ΟΙϹΙ κατ᾽ ἀξίαν· κεκ̣[ύ]µητα̣[ι] µη(νὶ) Μαρτίου α̣´ ἰνδ. ϟ ζ´. †

4 and 7: punctuation marks in the form of two dots. These appear to mark the end of verse lines. 5-6 [τι]µῇ, PHI. 6: the first letter could be mu or nu; ΥΝ, with a horizontal bar above the letters to mark the nomen sacrum. 6-7: κἀ̣[µίψα]τ᾽ὡς ἠς (?), PHI; ἐ[λατ]τώσης, Rhoby. 7: the letter before the first sigma was curved and could also be omikron. 7-8: κρίνειν µέλλ̣[ει µε]τὰ τ̣οῖσι κατ᾽ ἀξίαν, PHI; τοῖσι, Rhoby. 9: µη(νὶ); λ̣, ed.pr.

Translation: Andragathius, whom you now see in the painting, raised this house to the Mistress; and he enjoys protection by her house which stands alongside. Do not belittle (?) the Son who is due to judge these according to their deserts; he has been laid to rest on 1 March in the seventh indiction. Date: Probably fifth century after 431 (reference to Marian cult). Commentary: This inscription was presumably set up as part of the οἶκος to which the text refers. This appears to have been a chapel dedicated to the Despoina, the Theotokos, which thus protected the family tomb. We may compare the structure dedicated by Limenius for his family (338). Built tombs were a feature of late Roman Ancyra (Peschlow 2015 I, 11822; cf. 354 comm.). The builder, Andragathius, refers to his own portrait which must have been visible beside the inscription. For discussion of the use of portraits on Christian funerary monuments, see Mango 1995, where this text is illustrated and mentioned, although it is considerably earlier in date than the other examples discussed in Mango’s paper. 170

- 171 -

Lines 6-8 are difficult to restore and construe. The PHI editors suggest that the text should be read as five lines of irregular verse each twelve or thirteen syllables long, with the double pointed punctuation markers indicating the verse ends after lines 2, 3 (restored) and 4. Rhoby also treats these as twelve-syllable verses, and proposes some more convincing restorations in the last two lines: † τόνδε µὲν οἶκον [ἤγει]ρε τῇ Δεσποίνῃ Ἀνδραγάθιος, ὅν νῦν ὁρᾷς ἐν̣ γραφῇ· σκέπης δ᾽ ἔτ̣υ[χε] τῇ αὐτῆς παροικίᾳ, [ - - ] µὴ τούτῳ τὸν Ὑ(ιὸ)ν ἐλ[ατ]τώσῃς κρίνειν µέλλ̣[ον]τα τοῖσι κατ᾽ ἀξίαν. However, as Rhoby himself acknowledges, this construction involves irregularities in the construction of the verses, and the formula in lines 8-10 is evidently in prose. The main objection to interpreting this as a verse text is that twelve-syllable verse in this form did not develop before the middle Byzantine period, whereas all other indications suggest that the inscription should date between the fourth and sixth centuries. Lines 6-7 seem to consist of a negative command µή + a subjunctive verb. Rhoby’s proposal ἐλ[ατ]τώσῃς, supported by a parallel from John Chrysostom (PG 61, 617), is very attractive, although the kappa that appears on the stone before lambda is certain, and it is necessary to assume a stone-cutter’s error here. The next two lines appear to contain the phrase κρίνειν µέλλ[ον]τα and the phrase κατ᾽ἀξίαν. The participle in the accusative should agree with Υἱόν, so this should be an allusion to Christ at the day of judgement dealing with men according to their deserts (see further 347 and 348 comm.). Compare the end of a fourth- or fifth-century funerary text from Laodicea Catacecaumene, which warned anyone who disturbed the tomb that ἔσχει π[ρ]ὸς τὸν µέλλοντα κρίν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς † (MAMA I 169), and a broken gravestone from Philomelium, which concludes δώσει τῷ θεῷ λόγον τῷ µέλλοντι κρείνειν ζῶ[ν]τας κὲ νεκρούς. (IK 62, 37 no. 95). The conclusion of the Ankara text should also probably be construed as a warning against disturbers of the tomb. 364. Aurelia Gorgonia Location: In the Akkale Depot of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: A block of white marble in the form of a tabula ansata with a damaged curved pediment above it, broken right. This gable appears to have been pierced with large holes on the left, above in the centre, and presumably also on the missing right-hand side. The inscription is carved in a recess in the tabula ansata. To the left of the inscription are two hands, crossed left over right, palms facing, each apparently penetrated by a rectangular metal nail, resembling a floorboard brad. Deeply cut clear lettering, cursive epsilon, sigma and omega. Dimensions: Height 0.43; width 0.40; thickness 0.14; letters 0.03-0.035. Copy: SM 22.07.1977; squeeze 23.09.2014.

171

- 172 -

4

Αὐρ̣[ηλία] Γο[ργονία ἀ]νδρὶ̣ [αὐτῆς γλυ]κυτ[άτῳ Οὐαλε]ρίῳ, ὅς πο̣[τε ἦν] κὲ οὐκέτ᾽ ἔ[σται].

2: or Γο[ργώ]. 3: a shorter supplement is possible, [ἀ]|νδρὶ [τῷ γλυ]κυτ[άτῳ]. 4-5: or, e.g., [Παπι]ρίῳ. 5: or ὅσπε̣[ρ].

Translation: Aurelia Gorgonia for her dearest husband Valerius (?), who once was and no longer will be. Date: Third century. Commentary: For the name Gorgonia, see 358 comm. The iconography of this fragmentary epitaph set up by a wife for her husband, is remarkable. It was common for gravestones to display two raised hands, with palms facing forward, as an imprecation to the gods, usually the Sun, to avenge a violent death (see 357 comm.). However, this relief is distinguished by the crossing of the hands, and, above all, by the fact that each was pierced by a large nail. The unusual motif of crossed hands with the thumbs facing inwards, appears also on two grave reliefs from northern Asia Minor. One of these is a grave stele for a young boy called Argyrion, buried by his parents Tertullus and Chrysa, dated to 237/8 and found at a village near the Paphlagonian city of Neoclaudiopolis. The child appears to have been murdered, and the parents invoke the all-powerful Lord (the Christian god) to avenge him: Κύριε Παντοκράτωρ. Σύ µε ἔκτισες, κακὸς δέ µε ἄνθρωπος ἀπώλεσεν· ἐγδίκησόν µε ἐν τάχι (Marek 2000, 137-39). Unfortunately, the published photograph is not clear enough to establish whether the crossed hands are also pierced by nails, as on the Ankara example. However, this detail can be seen on another example from the neighbouring city of Pompeiopolis, the gravestone of a six-year old girl called Paphie, buried by her father Cornelianus (Marek 1993, 148 no. 42). The text makes no allusion to the circumstances of the girl’s premature death, but the relief, clearly visible on an excellent photograph (Marek 2003, 128 Abb. 186), shows hands with horizontal lines across the palms, which can be recognized by comparison with the Ankara example as nails. Christian Marek is non-committal about the special significance of the crossed hands: ‘Die Symbolik der gekreuzten Händen bleibt unbestimmt’ (Marek 2000, 140). The nails, however, are a crucial clue to the interpretation. The nailing of hands made a visual allusion to the gruesome punishment of crucifixion, the fixing of a condemned man to a stake. All three examples from northern Anatolia show the crossed hands in a very distinctive position with the thumbs to the centre. This is not, we believe, meant to represent crossed hands with open palms being contemplated by their owner, but hands crossed and raised above a condemned man’s head and wrapped round the crucifixion post, before being nailed on from behind. The nails themselves were a crucial visible symbol of crucifixion (as indeed they became in the traditions about Christ’s crucifixion) and were imbued with a powerful magical force. Daniel Ogden, in a discussion of binding spells and curse tablets, draws attention to the reference in Apuleius’ novel The Golden Ass to Pamphile, the witch who kept a supply of nails from crucifixions, carnosi clavi pendentium (‘the fleshy nails of hanged men’; Apuleius, Met. 3, 17 with Ogden 1999, 14).

172

- 173 -

Nails were commonly mentioned in and associated with curse tablets. Ogden also notes that nails from shipwrecks might be an effective instrument of vindictive magic. There is an illuminating miracle story told by the late sixth-century patristic writer Sophronius about a certain Theophilus of Alexandria who was struck with tetraplegia, the result of a malign spell cast by his enemies. A fisherman, acting on Theophilus’ dream-inspired instructions, then recovered a locked and lead-sealed casket from the sea, which contained an effigy of Theophilus with a nail driven into each of his limbs. When the nails were withdrawn the paralysis and pain vanished (Faraone 1991, 9 and Ogden, 1999, 77 citing PG 87, 3541-8; translated by Gager 1992, no. 165). The symbolism of the nails on the Ankara relief is surely that Gorgo intended by the representation of pierced hands to ‘nail’ her husband’s killer. The representation on the Ankara stone combined the dead man’s widow’s appeal for vengeance with a graphic representation of the punishment which her husband’s killer could expect. The abrupt finality of her husband’s death may also explain the relative clause at the end of the epitaph. If correctly restored, this was not simply a truism, but starkly expressed the reality of her premature widowhood: her husband had been in the prime of life, but would be so no longer. The two published examples from Paphlagonia should also be interpreted as calls for vengeance and the invocation of magic powers against the killers of the two dead children.

173

- 174 3.6 Large Funerary Monuments from the late fifth and sixth centuries 365. Funerary invocation to the Mother of God Location: ‘In coemeterio Hebraeorum, in tabula’ (Kirchhoff); ‘now in use as a tombstone on a grave in the Jewish cemetery’ (d’Orbeliani). Description: ‘Oblong limestone stele’ (d’Orbeliani). His copy marks an uncertain object, which might be a weathered or deliberately erased cross, below line 1 and to the left of lines 2-4. This large monument, with roughly the same dimensions as 367, but twice as thick, was not a stele, but a grave cover. Dimensions: Length 1.81; width 0.965; thickness 0.255 (10 inches thick, 38 inches wide and 6 feet long, d’Orbeliani). Copy: A. D. Mordtmann and H. Barth 1858 and A. D. Mordtmann 1859; d’Orbeliani 1915-18. Publication: Kirchhoff 1861, 185 no. 25 based on A. D. Mordtmann’s 1858 copy; J. H. Mordtmann 1874, 10, based on A. D. Mordtmann’s 1859 copy; (Grégoire 1909, 6); d’Orbeliani 1924, 38 no. 49; (Grégoire 1927/28, 455: based only on Kirchhoff) [Vienna Scheden 185]. Kirchhoff’s version, based on Mordtmann and Barth’s 1858 copy: -

ΤΟΝ . . ΟΝΟΠΡΟ . . . . ΙΝΑΓΝΙΔΟΡΟΝSΑΘΑVΤΟ ΕΝΑΦΙΛΤΑΤΟΝΟΦΟΑΜΟΝΙΚΑΤΑΔΟΙSΑS ΒΑSΗΛΕΩΝΚΑΙΝΙΚΟSΑΚΟΛΟΘΟΝΤΑΦΟΝΟΔΕVΤΡΕΙΗϹ ΤΗϹΟΙΠΛΗΔΙΝΕΟϹΜΟΙ . . SSΟΝΛΟΠΟϹΤΑSΙΑΑΜΑΧΕΤΟΙ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ΕΤΟΥϹSΦΘ d’Orbeliani’s copy:

ΜΗΡ ΧΥ ΤΟΙϹ-Ϲ. . ϹΠΡ . . . . . . . . . . . ΗΔΟΡΟΗϵΝΘΧΥΤΟ

ϵΙΑΦΙΛΤΑΤΟΝΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΝΚΑΤΑΔΟΙϹΑϹ 4

ΡΑϹΝΛΙΟΝΚΛΙΡΗΚΟΝϞΑΚΟΛΟΘΟΝΤΑΦΟΝΕΥΤΡΕΠΗϹ . ΗϹΟΙΠΑΝΑΓΝΕΠΡΟϹΜΕΝΗΤϹ.ΟΝΑϹΠΡΟϹΤΑϹΙΑΑΜΑΧΕΤΟΙ . ΛΦΡΟΝϵΝΟΜΝΟϵΚΡΟΩΚΡΑΝΑϵΤΟΥϹ /SΦΘ

1: Μ(ητ)ὴρ Χ(ριστο)ῦ, d’Orbeliani. 3: ΟΦΟΛΜΟΝ, Barth. 4: ΝΙΚΟΝS, Barth; ΕVΠΟΡΕΙΗϹ, Barth; κλιρηκῶν (= κληρικῶν ?); τάφον. 5: σοι, Πάναγνε; προστασίᾳ. 6: ἔτους /ςφθ, d’Orbeliani, the year 6509 by the era of the creation (1000/1); ἔτους ϟ φθ´ Grégoire.

Grégoire reconstructed Kirchhoff’s text as an epitaph in hexameter verse:

174

- 175 -

-

Ἀρτεµίδωρον ἀ(ν)θ᾽ αὑτοῦ ἕνα φίλτατον ὀφ(θαλ)µὸν καταδ[ε]ί[ξ]ας Βασιλέων κλίναις ἐξακολούθοντα τάφον ΟΔ Εὐ[π]ρεπέ[α] [στήσας ταύ]τη(ν) σοι [στ]η[λ]ι[δ᾽] ἐ[κ]όσµ[ε]ι [τόξ]ον [ἀ(π)]οστασία(ς) ἀµαχ[ή]το[υ] [ὅς τ᾽ ἐχάλασσας |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ἔτους ϟ φθ´. Translation: Mother of Christ … dearest eye … of the clergy (?) … all holy … by the championship … in the year 509. Date: 484 (era date). Commentary: From its format this stone appears to belong to the series of large Ankara gravestones of the later fifth and sixth centuries. Grégoire identified it as a verse epitaph and his reading of the date 509, era of Ankara, = 484, is plausible and accepted by Leschhorn 1993, 541. However, his attempt to restore the rest of the inscription is not supported by d’Orbeliani’s copy, and is largely fantastic. The text invoked the Mother of God (1: Μ(ητ)ὴρ Χ(ριστο)ῦ, 5: πάναγνε), and should be compared with 363, the funerary text set up on a built tomb by Andragathios, which also called on the protection of the Virgin Mary. 366. Theodora Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 10099. Description: Pale limestone gravestone. The inscription is carved in a tabula ansata below a large cross with splayed ends. Broken-bar alpha, cursive epsilon, sigma and omega. Dimensions: Length 1.54; width 0.82; thickness 0.14; letters: 0.015. Copy: SM 05.06.2004; squeeze SM 23.08.2010.

4

8

† Θεοδώραν τὴν κοσµίαν τὶς ἀξ[ί]ως ἐπαινέσει τὴν σωφροσύνῃ δηµιούργων καὶ οἰκουρίας διδάσκαλον, ἧς ἐγκώµιον σύντοµον Πλάτωνος καὶ Μαρίας µ(ητέ)ρα τῶν πάνυ, ἣν ὁ λίθος οὗτος καλύπτι· ἀνεπαύσατο ἰνδ. Ϟ † γ´ Ἰουνίου β´. †

4 and 6: horizontal bars above ΗϹ and ΗΝ, to indicate a rough breathing. 5: a horizontal bar above ΜΡΑ to indicate an abbreviation. 8: a horizontal bar above Ν, apparently a mistake for µ(ηνί); horizontal bar above Β.

Translation: Who will worthily praise the comely Theodora, teacher with her prudence of city magistrates and of household management? Her encomium in brief is that she is the

175

- 176 mother of Plato and Maria her famous (offspring); she is the one whom this stone covers. She ceased from her labours in the third indiction on 2 June. Date: Late fifth or sixth century (form of tombstone). Commentary: This substantial tombstone commemorated a woman from a leading family at Ankara. The vocabulary used to describe Theodora’s virtues, κόσµιος and σωφροσύνη, had been applied to women of standing since the second century (see I. Ankara 1, pp. 1920), but gained new significance in a Christian context. The text is unusual not simply for emphasizing these virtues but for stating explicitly the role she played in the upbringing of her two named children. Theodora, described as δηµιουργῶν καὶ οἰκουρίας διδάσκαλος, appears to have prepared her son Plato for a prominent role in public life, and her daughter Maria to manage a household. ΜΡΑ must simply be the abbreviation µ(ητέ)ρα, and τῶν πάνυ that follows should be translated ‘the famous’ (cf LSJ s.v. πάνυ II), indicating that her two children, by now in adulthood, were also prominent members of Ankara society. The epitaph is characterized as a succinct encomium of Theodora’s life. An inscription from Cenchreae, the port of Corinth, from the same period as this text, uses the term ἐγκώµιον to introduce the series of acclamations with which the quarrymen and stoneworkers of Corinth acclaimed one of their benefactors (IG IV.3, 1805; Feissel – Philippidis-Braat 1985, 293 no. 33; Robert 1960, 21-39). The word in that instance referred to the public acclamation of the honorand, and the ἐγκώµιον on the Ancyran inscription should be interpreted analogously as relating to spoken words of praise. This short text retained the form of the longer spoken version. It begins by emphatically naming the subject, and then posing a rhetorical question: who could utter praises worthy of Theodora? There is an instructive comparison to be made with the opening paragraphs of Gregory of Nazianzus’ epitaphios for his sister Gorgonia, which answered this question with the argument that a funeral speech from a close relative could be impartial, and used similar vocabulary to the inscription: Ἀδελφὴν ἐπαινῶν, τὰ οἰκεῖα θαυµάσοµαι· οὐ µὴν ὅτι οἰκεῖα, διὰ τοῦτο ψευδῶς· ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἀληθῆ. διὰ τοῦτο ἐπαινετῶς … φοβοῦµαι τὸν φόβον … µή τι τῆς ἀληθείας ἐλλείπωµεν, καὶ παρὰ πολὺ τῆς ἀξίας ἐλθόντες, ἐλαττώσωµεν τὴν δόξαν τοῖς ἐγκωµίοις. ‘In prasing my sister I shall look in wonder at matters that pertain to my own household. I do not do this because they are familiar – on which account I would do so falsely, but because they are true and therefore worthy of praise … I fear … lest I should fall short of the truth, and that by missing the fullness of her deserts I should damage her reputation in my praises᾽ (Greg. Naz. In laudem sororis Gorgoniae 1; PG 35, 789-817). Theodora’s role in her household as the teacher of her children is paralleled not so much by Gorgonia, who died young, but by Nonna, the mother of Gregory Nazianzus, who became both role model and teacher to her own husband, the elder Gregory: τῷ δὲ οὐ συνεργὸς µόνον ἡ παρὰ Θεοῦ δοθεῖσα (ἧττον γὰρ τοῦτο θαυµαστὸν), ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀρχηγὸς γίνεται, ἔργῳ τε καὶ λόγῳ πρὸς τὰ κράτιστα δι’ ἑαυτῆς ἄγουσα· καὶ τὰ µὲν ἄλλα τοῦ ἀνδρὸς κρατεῖσθαι νόµῳ συζυγίας ἄριστον εἶναι κρίνουσα, τῆς εὐσεβείας δὲ οὐκ αἰσχυνοµένη παρέχειν ἑαυτὴν καὶ διδάσκαλον, ‘a gift from God, she became not only his fellow worker (this is less amazing), but also his leader, who in word and deed guided him towards the highest ideals by her example. Judging that it was best in other respects to be obedient to her husband according to the convention of marriage, she was not ashamed to offer herself as his teacher in piety’ (Greg. Naz., Funebris oratio in patrem 8; PG 35, 985-1044). The saintly Macrina, elder sister of the famous Cappadocian theologian bishops Basil and Gregory of Nyssa, was 176

- 177 regarded as their teacher and role model (τοῦ βίου διδάσκαλος, Greg. Nys., ep. 19.6, and see his full encomium, the Life of Macrina). Theodora’s name can be added to those of other pious women at Ankara, Bosporia and especially Magna, whose services to the Christian community in the first half of the fifth century were commemorated by Palladius, Lausiac History 135 (see Foss 1977, 51-2; Mitchell 1993 II, 109-10; Mitchell forthcoming a). 367. Lollianus Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 9009. Description: A hard, grey limestone tombstone, with inscription carved between the arms of a large Latin cross. The stone was a grave cover, not a stele. The surface and letters are slightly worn. Dimensions: Length 1.81; width 1.05; thickness 0.13; uneven letters: 0.02-03. Copy: Fr. Miltner 1934; SM 11.11.1971, 09.06.2004; squeeze SM 21.08.2010. Publication: Miltner 1937, 46 no. 52 and photo., Fig. 26; (Peek 1955, 624 no. 1984; SGO 3, 140: 15/02/07); French 2003, 164 no. 55 [Vienna Scheden 319].

4

† ἡλικίης πινυτῇ {η} αἶα Λολ(λ)ιανὸν ἑλοῦσα πύθει· φθιµένοις κα ἀλλὰ κὲ ἔµπης εὑράµενον

A

O

T C

8

12

16

† σῶµ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἀµύµονος γῆ κατέχει Θεὸν ἱπταµέ σαοφροσύνης ἤθεα κεδνά προτέρου µαξαµένου.

F

R M S

R O S

γεραὸν γεραρώτερον λαγόνων ἔνδον ἄνδρα τὸν ἐν ταρίθµιον, ἀθανάτου ζώης βίοτον. ἄλλως· H

E

τόδε ἀνδρὸς ἔνδον ἑλοῦσα ψυχῆς πρὸς νης, ἔργα ἀρετῆς βίον Λολλιανοῦ πάντα ἀπο-

S

In verse format: † ἡλικίης γεραὸν πινυτῇ {η} γεραρώτερον αἶα Λολ(λ)ιανὸν λαγόνων ἔνδον ἑλοῦσα πύθει· ἄνδρα τὸν ἐν φθιµένοις καταρίθµιον, ἀλλὰ κὲ ἔµπης ἀθανάτου ζώης εὑράµενον βίοτον. ἄλλως·

177

- 178 † σῶµ᾽ ἀρετῆς τόδε ἀνδρὸς ἀµύµονος ἔνδον ἑλοῦσα γῆ κατέχει ψυχῆς πρὸς Θεὸν ἱπταµένης, ἔργα σαοφροσύνης ἀρετῆς βίον ἤθεα κεδνά Λολλιανοῦ προτέρου πάντα ἀποµαξαµένου. Translation: The earth has taken into its bowels and causes Lollianus decay, reverend in age but more revered in understanding, a man to be numbered among mortals, but who has, even so, found the life of an immortal being. Alternatively: The earth has taken in and holds this, the body of an outstanding man of virtue, while his soul has flown up to God, who imitated all the works of wisdom, the life of virtue and noble habits of the previous Lollianus. Date: Later fifth or sixth century (type of gravestone; prominent cross). Commentary: Two parallel epigrams for the grave of Lollianus, who had died in old age but had been wise beyond his years, ἡλικίης γεραόν, πινυτῇ γεραρώτερον. For a similar sentiment expressed about a young man compare the sixth-century gravestone at Tavium for Severus, νέος µὲν ἡλικίᾳ, παλεὸ[ς] δὲ τῇ φρόνισι (Wallner 2011, 77-9 no. II, 7; SEG 61, 1117). Merkelbach and Stauber in SGO identify Lollianus as having a like-named father, as they understand προτέρου in line 15 to refer to an earlier bearer of the name. They date the text to the mid-fourth century, ‘etwa aus der Zeit des Gregor von Nazianz’, in a period when Christians had assimilated pagan culture and were able to write good Greek poems. However, this was also true in the fifth and sixth centuries. The style of the monument, a grave cover with a prominent cross, favours a later date. 368. A protopresbyteros Location: Built into the south wall of the inner citadel of Ankara Kale between towers 5 and 6, below the building inscription of Michael III (326). Description: Right-hand side of a large limestone grave cover, broken left and above. The text is carved on the shaft, and separated by a plain string moulding from a raised frame to the right. The inscription is complete at the bottom. Elegant cursive epsilon, theta, sigma; the loops of the broad cursive omega do not meet in the middle. Omikron upsilon in ligature; ΜΝΗΜ in ligature. Dimensions: Length c. 0.70; width c. 0.35 (estimates). Copy: SM from photograph taken 23.09.2014.

4

† [ † ἐνθά]δε καικύµι[τε ὁ δοῦλ]ος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ [. . . . . .]ς ὁ τῆς θε[οφιλοῦς] µνήµης γε[νάµενος] ϟ πρωτο[πρεσβύτε]ρ̣., ἐτελιώ[θη µη. Ἀγούσ]του κβ´ ἰνδ. δ´.

178

- 179 5: or γε[νόµενος]. 6: the trace of the rho supports the restoration πρωτοπρεσβύτερ(ος). 7: [Αὐγούσ]του is probably too long.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God [ - - ]s, of revered memory, having become head priest. His life ended on 22 August in the fourth indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: For protopresbyteroi, see RECAM II 427 and 449 (Tavium, Galatia), Feissel 1983, 238 (Macedonia), and Hübner 2005, 199 (Lycaonia). 369. Elpidius, presbyter Location: ‘Gefunden zusammen mit nr. 52 [= 532] auf dem Gelände der landwirtschaftlichen Hochschule’ (Fr. Miltner). Now in the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 113.564.99 a, b. Description: Limestone tombstone, broken into two pieces. There is a Latin cross above the inscription but no other decoration. Broken-bar alpha, square epsilon and sigma, rhomboid theta and omicron. Dimensions: Length 1.34, width 0.76, thickness 0.13; letters 0.05-0.06. Copy: Fr. Miltner 1934; Macpherson 1950-53; Reinartz 1964; SM June 2004; squeeze SM 24.08.2010. Publication: Miltner 1937, 27 no. 30; Macpherson 1958, 173 no. 231; Reinartz 1964, 119 and Fig. 3; Bull. ép. 1967, 596 (correcting Reinartz) [Vienna Scheden 303].

4

ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε Ἐλπίδιος πρεσβύτερος.

2: ΕΝΠΙΔΙ (Miltner); a cursive lambda seems to be cut over nu.

Translation: Here lies Elpidius, presbyter. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The name Elpidius occurs in several inscriptions at Ankara (see index) and was the name of a reader (anagnostes) among the followers of the church leader Marcellus at Ankara c. 370, Epiphanius, Panarion 72.11.

370. Heraclidas, presbyter

179

- 180 Location: ‘Gefunden in der Gegend der Brücke von Orman Çiftlik’ (Fr. Miltner). Now in the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 9034. Description: ‘Block aus Kalkstein, der aus einem ehemaligen Werkstück herausgeschlagen ist, ... ist zunächst auf der Oberseite beschriftet worden; vermutlich ist während der Arbeit eine Ecke abgebrochen, so dass man nun den Text auf der unregelmässigen Vorderseite wiederholte; die Buchstaben ... lassen beide Male die gleiche Hand erkennen’ (Fr. Miltner). The stone is broken at the top left but text b) takes account of the break. Text a) was cut on what had originally been intended as the front of the gravestone. The top rear left was broken after text a) had been cut. Text b) was cut on the bottom, which now had to be placed so that it faced forward. This already had a break at the bottom left, and the inscription took account of the break and is complete on this side. b) broken-bar alpha, square epsilon and sigma. Dimensions: Length 0.58, width 0.49, thickness 0.46; letters c. 0.05. Copy: Jerphanion 1925-27; Fr. Miltner 1934; SM 11.06.2004; squeeze SM 19.08.2010; squeeze in Vienna. Publication: Jerphanion 1928, 287 no. 60 and Fig. 58; (SEG 6, 28); Miltner 1937, 38 no. 43 and Fig. 20, without knowledge of Jerphanion’s publication [Vienna Scheden 268]. a) (original front side, reset as top surface)

4

8

[† ἐνθάδε] [κεκ]οίµη[τε ὁ] τῆς εὐλ̣αβοῦς µν̣ήµης Ἡρακλίδας ὁ πρεσβύτερος. b) (original bottom side, reset as front face)

4

8

ἐν † θάδε κεκοίµητε ὁ τῆς εὐλαβοῦς µ[ν]ήµης Ἡρακλίδας ὁ πρεσβύτ̣ε̣ρ(̣ ος).

b) 9: omitted by Jerphanion.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest Heraclidas, the presbyter, of pious memory.

180

- 181 -

Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: A hypodiakonos called Heraclides is attested as one of a small group of Ancyran clergy that sent a statement of the doctrinal views of Marcellus of Ancyra to a synod of bishops gathered at Diocaesarea in Cilicia towards the end of Marcellus’ life around 370 (Epiphanius, Pan. 72.11 and 12). They presumably formed the sectarian group around the aged Marcellus known as the Ancyrogalatae. This inscription, although assigned to the fourth century by Jerphanion, belongs to a later date. 371. Leontius, presbyter and hegumenos Location: ‘Hadji Abdul Pasha tchiftlik (about half an hour south-west of Angora), in the cemetery’ (Anderson). Present whereabouts not known. Description & Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Anderson 1898. Publication: Anderson 1899, 97 no. 79 [Vienna Scheden 200].

4

[† ἐνθ]άδε κεκοί[µητα]ι ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ [Θ(εο)ῦ] Λεόντιος πρεσ[βύτ]αιρος καὶ ἡ[γού]µενος τῆς [ἐν]θάδε µονῆς [ὁ π]άντων φίλος.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Leontius, presbyter and prior of the monastery here, the friend of all. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The find spot, which was perhaps two or three kilometres from the centre of ancient Ankara, suggests that this monastery lay outside the city. Leontius was a common name at Ankara; see index and 362 comm. 372. Paulus, presbyter Location: In WT 15 of the Ankara citadel; ‘maçonnée, la face gravée en bas, au plafond de l’embrasure nord, dans la tour 15 du front ouest’ (Jerphanion). Jerphanion illustrates the location of the inscription, built into the original lower courses of this tower, which were almost entirely of re-used marble or limestone blocks, below regular alternating bands of brick and stone (Jerphanion 1928, 172-4 and pl. LXXXVI). 419 was built into the same tower. Description: ‘Dalle de même forme que celle du no 62 (= 419), avec une croix en relief 181

- 182 qui a été martelée par les Turcs. Mais un fait étrange est que l’inscription a été gravée à l’envers, c’est-à-dire que, dans la cartouche à queue d’aronde, la première ligne est à l’opposé du pied de la croix. Gravure soignée. Lettres fines, mais fermes et assez régulières’ (Jerphanion). Jerphanion’s description indicates that this was originally one of the large marble steles or plaques used as gravestones by prominent Ancyrans in the fifth and sixth centuries. The Latin cross, which occupied most of the top of the stele had been hammered off; the inscribed text was in a tabula ansata (‘cartouche à queue d’aronde’). Good lettering: broken-bar alpha; cursive epsilon, sigma, and omega; the right-hand upright of lambda overlaps the left-hand upright. Dimensions: Letters c. 0.025 (Jerphanion). Copy: Jerphanion 1925-27. Publication: Jerphanion 1928, 289 no. 63 [Vienna Scheden 270].

4

† ἐνθάδε κεκύµητε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Παῦλος ὁ τῆς εὐλαβ. ϟ µνήµης γενάµενος πρεσβ. τῶ(ν) Ἀρχαγέλω(ν) καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν µινὶ Ἰουνίου α´ ἰνδ. ιβ´.

2: horizontal bar over ΘΥ. 3: εὐλαβ(οῦς). 4: πρεσβ(ύτερος). Jerphanion copied vertical lines above the two omegas, representing signs of abbreviation or the final letter nu.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Paulus, of pious memory, who became presbyter of the Archangels and died on 1 June in the twelfth indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The church of the Archangels at Ancyra is not otherwise attested. 373. Phocas Location: Formerly on the south terrace of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, now in the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 142.1.87. Description: White marble tomb cover, with triangular pediment at the top containing a cross in a circle and a smaller incised cross on the right. Another cross has been incised on the band below the pediment. On the main panel of the stone there are one small and two large incised crosses above a tabula ansata with the inscription. Broken-bar alpha, lunate epsilon, sigma and omega; omikron upsilon in ligature. Dimensions: Length 1.25; width 0.60; diameter 0.10; letters: 0.020-30. Copy: SM 2004; squeeze SM 27.08.2010. † ἐνθάδε κε182

- 183 -

4

8

κύµητε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ Φωκᾶς ὁ νέος, υἱὸς Γεοργίου πρεσβυτέρου, ἐτελιώθη µη. Ἰουνίου η´ ἰνδ. ϟ ιε´ .

7: superscribed Η in µη(νὸς). 8: light incisions on either side of the iota of ἰνδ(ικτιῶνι).

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, the young Phocas, son of George, presbyter. He died on 8 June in the fifteenth indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: For the use of the term νέος on epitaphs of late antiquity, see Feissel, Chron. 69, citing A. Ferrua’s observation that the young person so described had a living family member, typically a grandfather, with the same name. But this cannot be pressed in cases, as here and in 402, where the text did not seek to distinguish homonymous family members from one another. Here the term was probably simply used to designate a very young child. The size and quality of the monument suggest that Phocas’ father was one of Ankara’s wealthier citizens. 374. Stephanus, presbyter Location, description and dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: A. D. Mordtmann with H. Barth 1858. Publication: Kirchhoff 1861, 182 no. 16: copy of A. D. Mordtmann; (Grégoire 1927/28, 453) [Vienna Scheden 67].

4

† ἐνθάδε κεκύµητε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ Στέ(φ)ανος πρεσβύτερος πάντων φίλος ἐνδικτίωνι γ´ µηνὶ Δεκαιβρίου κα´ ΔΠΔ.

6: ΔΠΔ, copy; Grégoire 1927/28, 453 (followed by Leschhorn 1993, 541) interpreted the last three letters as a date ΦϘΔ, year 594 of the Ancyran era = 569/70, reckoning from 25 BC. 570 was the third year of an indiction. However, although it is possible that the first letter was a phi with a triangular central element, it is arbitrary to change a pi into a koppa thus changing the number 584 to 594. There is also no trace of the word ἔτους, or an abbreviation of it, before the supposed era date.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Stephanus, presbyter, the friend of all. On 21 December in the third indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century.

183

- 184 -

Commentary: For πάντων φίλος see p. XXX. 375. Theodorus, presbyter Location, description and dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Dernschwam in Busbecq entourage 1555, to Belsus. Publication: CIG IV 9258: ‘E schedis Belsi et Dornsuami’; (Halkin 1953, 93) [Vienna Scheden 139].

4

8

ἐνθάδε κεκύµητε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Θεόδωρος πρεσβ. τῶν Ἁγίων κὲ ἀργυροκό. ὁ πάντων φίλος, ἐτελιόθη µη. Νοενβρ. ιε´ ἰνδ. ε´. †

4: πρεσβ(ύτερος). 5: ἀργυροκό(πος); the final omicron is small and written slightly above the line. 8: ἰνδ(ικτίωνος).

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Theodorus, presbyter of the Church of the Saints and silver-smith, the friend of all. He died on 15 November in the fifth indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: A church of the Saints is not otherwise attested at Ankara. As was common, Theodore the priest also exercised another profession, as a silversmith. 376. Elpidius, deacon of the hospice of Tavium Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 9066. Description: Grey limestone slab, broken above and below. The stone is in poor condition and the surface very worn. Probably this was originally a stele of the normal sixth century type, with the inscribed text at the bottom of the stone in a tabula. Dimensions: Length 0.48; width 0.74; thickness 0.16; letters 0.03. Copy: Macpherson 1950-53; SM 1971, 13.06.2004. SM squeeze 1971 and 23.08.2010. Publication: Macpherson 1958, 174 no. 238; Mitchell 1977, 98 no. 41 and Pl. 14b; (SEG 27, 864).

184

- 185 -

4

[†] ἔνθα κατάκιτε ὁ δ[ο]ῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ἐλπίδιος διάκ. τοῦ πτωχίου Ταβίας, ἐτελιώθη µη. Αὐγούστου ι´ ἰνδ. α´. †

3: διάκ(ονος).

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Elpidius, deacon of the hospice of Tavium. He died on 10 August in the first indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: This is the bottom section of one of the larger grave covers. Despite presumably being a native of Tavium, Elpidius received a generous burial at Ankara, no doubt in recognition of his pious services to the poor house at Tavium. Τhe introductory phrase ἔνθα κατάκιτε also occurs in this short form in 396, 407, 418, 426, 427, 446, 468 and 489, and was standard at Τavium itself. The Tavium epitaphs published in RECAM II include only one example of ἐνθάδε κατάκειται and none of ἐνθάδε κεκοίµηται. For ptocheia see Cassia 2009, especially 33-72 on ptocheia and ptochotropheia in rural Cappadocia, drawing mainly on the evidence of the Cappadocian fathers, and Feissel, Chron., 430 discussing SEG 36, 1165 from Heracleia Pontica, and MAMA III 783-5, three sarcophagi located at the ptocheion of St Conon at Corycus. 377. Iulianus, sub-deacon Location: ‘Found near the railway station’ (Anderson). Present whereabouts not known. Description: ‘Thin slab’ (Anderson). The slab is broken at the top left and bottom right. The inscription is cut inside a rectangular frame and the letters appear from the photograph to be highlighted in black paint. A cross has been carved outside the frame to the left of the second line of the text. Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Anderson 1898; photograph in the DAI Istanbul, D-DAI-Ist-3270. Publication: Anderson 1899, 98 no. 81 [Vienna Scheden 202]. † 4

ἐνθάδε κατάκητε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ἰουληανὸς ὑποδιάκονος ὁ καλῶς καµὼν τῇ ἐκλησίᾳ. †

185

- 186 5: the final sigma is carved above the omega. 7: ἐκκλησίᾳ, Anderson.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Iulianus, the sub-deacon, who laboured well for the church. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: Hübner 2005, 45 lists twenty-four sub-deacons attested in Asia Minor. For a similar epitaph for a deacon from this period compare MAMA VII 104a (north Lycaonia): ἐνθάδε κῖτε [ - ]|ος ὁ πολύ|µοχθος, | ὁ δὲ κα|λῶς ἔκα|µεν, ἐωνίαν | πόλιν κληρο|νοµήσας, δι|άκονος θε|οῦ. In that case the physical labour, which is implied by the verb κάµνω, was reinforced by the adjective πολύµοχθος, and earned the anonymous deacon the reward of an eternal dwelling in the heavenly city. Iulianus at Ancyra had also helped to build the church where he was buried. See also 339 comm. 378. Stephania, hegumene Location: Photographed by Macpherson at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Description: ‘Grey limestone tombstone with incised cross; below this, inscription in tabula ansata’ (Macpherson). Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Macpherson 1950-53; SM 1971. Publication: Macpherson 1958, 176 no. 243 and Pl. 59; Mitchell 1977, 101 no. 49; (SEG 27, 882; Bull. ép. 1978, 497; Tabbernee 1997, 518-25 no. 87).

4

† ἐνθάδε καθεύδη ἡ µία τῶν ε´ λαµπαδιφόρων παρθένων ἡ θεοφιλεστάτη τοῦ Χριστοῦ Στεφανία ἡγουµένη. †

Translation: Here sleeps one of the five torch-bearing maidens, Stephania, most beloved of Christ, the prioress. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: J. and L. Robert, Bull. ép. 1978, 497 pointed out that this text alludes to the parable of the five wise and five foolish virgins, Matt. XXV. 1-3. Mitchell 1977, 101, drew attention to a passage in a letter of Gregory of Nyssa, which referred to women carrying lighted tapers, who greeted Gregory as he returned to his city (Greg. Nys. Ep. 6, 10). However, the correct term to describe taper bearers was κηροφόρος, which is attested epigraphically at Komotini in Thrace in an inscription restored by Feissel, Chron. 142:

186

- 187 [Βα]σήληος κερ[οφό]ρος τῆς [π]αναγίας Θεοτόκου, and there is no connection with the torch-bearers mentioned in the Ankara text. Another proposal, made by Mitchell 1982, 103 n. 45 and developed at length by Tabbernee 1997, 521-5, is that Stephania might be a leading member of Ankara’s Montanist community. The Life of St Theodotus, which was almost certainly Montanist, described the martyrdom of seven virgin women at Ankara in the persecution of Maximinus Daia. Another later fourth century source, Epiphanius, recorded that one of the Montanist sects, the followers of Quintilla, had a special place in their church for seven lamp-bearing virgins, dressed in white garments, who spoke prophetically to the congregation (Pan. 49.2: πολλάκις δὲ ἐν τῇ αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ εἰσέρχονται λαµπαδηφοροῦσαι ἑπτά τινες παρθένοι, λευχείµονες δῆθεν ἐρχόµεναι, ἵνα προφητεύωσι τῷ λαῷ). Hypothetically the seven virgin women at Ankara could be identified as the prophetic lamp-bearers of the local Montanist church, and, by a further conjecture, Stephania the hegumene, might be one of their successors, probably about two centuries later than the martyrdom of her forebears. Meanwhile, the membership of this group had been reduced to five, and thus conformed with the famous passage from the New Testament. This argument, however, depends on precarious hypotheses and identifications and in any case the explanation is superfluous. It is better to follow Robert, and treat the term in a purely figurative sense. The pious Stephania, leader of a nunnery at Ankara, modelled her life and behaviour on the first Christians of the Gospels, and this was the way in which she was represented by the people who buried her. Unlike the inscription for Trophimos of Pepuza (410), the gravestone for Stephania contains no other indication that it was or might be Montanist. Stephania played a role comparable not to the Montanist virgins of the Life of Theodotus, but to Magna, the pious monastic leader of Palladius, Lausiac History 66. The adjective θεοφιλέστατος in later antiquity was used exclusively to denote conspicuous Christian piety and applied preeminently to clergy. The specific phrase θεοφιλεστάτη τοῦ Χριστοῦ found here (lines 4-6), is not attested elsewhere, but may be compared with sa similar expression on a building inscription from the territory of Syrian Apamea, dated 511: τὸ δ᾽ ἔργον καὶ ἡ ἀνώρθωσις Παύλου τοῦ θεοφιλ(εστάτου) καὶ φιλοχ(ριστοῦ) πρεσβ(υτέρου) καὶ ἀρχιµ(ανδρίτου) (SEG 37, 1435, 1; Feissel, Chron. 623). 379. Theodorus, paramonarius Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 8993. Description: White limestone tomb cover, divided into three registers by incised lines. There is a rounded pediment and circle enclosing a six-petalled flower at the top, but the shaft below is blank. The inscription was cut on the lowest register of the tomb cover, below an incised line. Broken-bar alpha, lunate epsilon and sigma; omicron upsilon always in ligature. Dimensions: Length 1.02; width 0.53; thickness 0.11; letters: 0.015-25. Copy: SM 10.06.2004; squeeze SM 23.08.2010. † ἐνθάδε κεκύµιτε ὡ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Θεόδ-

187

- 188 4

ουρος ϟ παραµουνάριος.

† 2: µιτε inserted in small letters above the line.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Theodorus, paramonarios. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The term paramonarius usually designated a church warden, and was not confined to monastic institutions (Meimaris 1986, 259-63; Feissel, Chron. 341, 408, 498). The spelling Θεόδουρος occurs in an inscription from Docimeum (Ramsay 1897, 744 no. 686). 380. Ioannes, gravedigger Location: ‘Found near the railway station’ (Anderson). Present whereabouts not known. Description: ‘Thin slab’ (Anderson). Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Anderson 1898. Publication: Anderson 1899, 98 no. 84 [Vienna Scheden 207].

4

ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ [Ἰ]ωάνης κοπιάτης ὁ πάντων φίλος. †

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, John, a gravedigger, the friend of all. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: For κοπιάτης, a gravedigger, see Anderson 1899, 98 and Robert 1940, 3032. French 1992, 64 no. 2 publishes the epitaph of a grave digger from Amaseia and cites other fifth- or sixth-century examples from Corycus and Seleucia ad Calycadnum; SEG 34, 1330 is an example from Iconium. 381. Anthousa, daughter of the presbyter Longinus Location: In 2005 the inscription was placed in a line of four blocks in the pronaos of the

188

- 189 Temple of Augustus, but had been moved by 2010 to the rear of the Roman Baths. No inventory number. Description: A simple block of pale limestone, broken at the back, forming a large and heavy, but undecοrated grave cover. Dimensions: Length 1.135 (inscribed face 0.78); width 0.265; thickness 0.52; very uneven letters: 0.03-0.08. Copy: SM 16.09.2005; squeeze SM 25.08.2010.

4

8

Κύ βούθει Ἀνθύσας Λουνγείνου πρεσβυτέ† ρω.

1-3: ΚΥΕΡ | ΒΟΥΘ|ΕΙ. 4: Ἀνθύσας, genitive with alpha not eta.

Translation: Lord help Anthusa, daughter of the priest Longinus. Date: Sixth century or later. Commentary: The literacy of this gravestone is at a low level, although the alternation of dative and genitive and the substitution of itacizing forms occurred in all levels of society. 382. Invocation for Agesilaus Location, description and dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Perrot et al. 1861. Publication: Perrot – Guillaume – Delbet 1872, 1, 241 no. 140 [Vienna Scheden 10].

4

[ - - - ]ΝΙ βωήθι [ - - ] [ - - - ] καὶ Ἀγησιλάῳ [ - ] [ - - ἀ]γαπῶσιν [ - - ] [ - - - ]ους [ - ]

1: Probably [Κύ]ριε βωήθι followed by a name in the dative.

Translation: ? Lord help … and Agesilaus … loving …

189

- 190 -

Date: Late fifth or sixth century? Commentary: The name Agesilaus appeared among the gentry of fourth-century Ankara; Libanius, ep. 1444 records that he twice stayed for extended periods with a curialis Agesilaus, and became a teacher of his two sons, Strategius and Albanius. All occupied prominent positions in city government (see Foss 1977, 44-5). The form ἀγαπῶσιν in line 3 seems more likely to be the dative plural of the present participle, in agreement with Ἀγησιλάῳ and the other name or names of those who had invoked God’s help, than the third person plural of the present tense of the verb ἀγαπάω. What follows should be the object of the participle, e.g. [αὐτὸν καὶ τ]οὺς [ἀγγέλους], as in τῶν [ἀγα]πόντων τὸν Κύριον † (IG II/III2 13308; Attica). Compare also an inscription from Thessaly, which begins † ἀγάπωσιν | Κ(ύρι)ε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας µε † (SEG 51, 736).

383. Anicetus, linen merchant Location: In the Roman Baths (C I). Inv. no. 12850. Description: A grey limestone tomb cover, now in two pieces, but mended. A simple, stylized pediment, with a round anthesterion at the top and stylized acroteria at the corners. The inscription was cut on a smoothed surface. The bottom section (c. 0.10 high) was left rough. The surface and letters are slightly worn; cursive alpha, lunate sigma and omega. Dimensions: Length 0.60; width 0.34; thickness 0.09; letters 0.025. Copy: Macpherson 1950-53; SM 11.11.1971. Squeeze SM 1971. Publication: Macpherson 1958, 175 no. 241; Mitchell 1977, 98 no. 40; (Bull. ép. 1978, 497; SEG 27, 874); French 2003, 200 no. 82.

4

8

† ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ὁ δοῦ(λος) τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἀνίκιτος ὀθονιοπ̣ρά ̣ τις ὁ πάντων φίλος χωρίου Χωάζων.

3: ΟΔΟΥ. 5: The cross bar of the first pi extends further to the right than that of the second, possibly πρ in ligature.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Anicetus, a linen-merchant, the friend of all, from the village of Choazon.

190

- 191 -

Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The tombstone of a linen-merchant from the village of Choazon, a placename which is otherwise unknown. Ὀθονιοπράται were linen-merchants or linen-sellers. Compare the epitaph of Stephanos found at Odessos (Varna), dating to 544, which may be approximately contemporary with the Ankara text: † ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε Στέφα|νος ὁ ἐν µακαρίᾳ τῇ | µνήµῃ ὀθονιοπρά|της τῆς Βηθυνῶν | ἐπαρχείας, ὁρµώµ|ενος ἀπὸ χωρίω Β|αµβώλω τῆς Βιθυνῶ|ν ἐπαρχείας· ἐτελ. µη. | Ἀπριλ. ιη´ ἰνδ. η´ | ὑπατ. Φλ. Βασιλίου | τοῦ λαµπροτ. ἔτους δ´ (Beševliev 1964, 180 no. 249; cited in SEG 27, 874). J. and L. Robert, Bull. ép. 1962, 216, pointed out that this form became commoner in late antiquity, superseding but not entirely replacing the more frequent earlier term ὀθονιοπώλης, which is attested on inscriptions at Magnesia-on-the-Maeander, Eumeneia (referring to a man from Antioch-on-the-Maeander) and Corycus (see Mitchell 1977, 98-9), as well as in northern Lydia (TAM V.2, 1178). Other designations were ὀθονιακός (see Feissel 1983, 48-9 no. 33 and commentary, and Rey-Coquais 2002, 254, with Feissel, Chron. 553, for an example from Tyre in Phoenicia,) and ὀθονίτης, which was used on an inscription dating to 501 precisely to describe a person from Ancyra who plied his trade in Thrace (see chapter 5.2, G. 11). The last two terms could clearly refer to producers, as well as to traders of linen. Linen and hemp were characteristic products of Paphlagonia and eastern Bithynia, particularly of the region of Kastamonu, and Anicetus’ village might have lain there, or in the northern part of Ancyran territory. 384. Ioannes, gold-smith and camel-driver Location: In the Roman Baths (B III). Inv. no. 17.5.90 [old VIII, 7]. Description: A grey limestone tomb cover. The inscription is cut in a tabula ansata, which was incised on the flat surface at the foot of the shaft. There is a tall, narrow triangle or pyramid incised on the face of the shaft above the tabula. The surface and letters are slightly worn; broken-bar alpha, lunate epsilon, sigma and omega; upsilon has the form of a Latin V. Dimensions: Length 1.17 (tabula 0.28, triangle 0.89); width 0.45; thickness 0.22; letters: 0.025. Copy: SM 11.11.1971. Squeeze SM 1972 and 23.08.2010. Publication: Mitchell 1977, 97 no. 39 and photo., Pl. 14a; (Bull. ép. 1978, 497; SEG 27, 873); French 2003, 203 no. 84.

4

† ἐνθάδε κεκύµητε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ἰωάννης καὶ χρυσοκ. ϟ ὁ πάντων φίλος ὁ καὶ καµιλάρις, ἐτελιώθι 191

- 192 µη. Μαρτίῳ κη´ ἰνδ. ϟ α̣´. 3-4: χρυσοκ(όος) for χρυσοχ(όος). 5: Καµιλάρις ? (proper name), PHI. 7: ΜΗΜ in ligature; Μαρτίῳ ιη´, priores. After ἰνδ. there is an abbreviation mark and traces of a letter, possibly alpha. There are horizontal bars above the numerals.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Ioannes, also a goldsmith, the friend of all, who was also a camel-driver. He died on March 28th, in the first (?) indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The editors of the Packard Humanities Index epigraphic database suggest the possibility that Καµιλάρι(ο)ς was used as a proper name, since the formula ὁ καί usually introduces a second personal name. This is possible, but the name Καµιλάρι(ο)ς is not otherwise attested, and the phrase is perfectly intelligible as referring to an additional profession. Evidence for the introduction and use of the camel in Anatolia before the Turkish invasions is very scanty. However, in the early seventh century, at a slightly later date than this inscription, the author of the life of St Theodore of Sykeon reported a miracle in which the saint expelled a demon from a camel owned by a camel-driver (καµηλάριος) called Sergius who grazed his herd on a mountain near Nicomedia (Vita S. Theodori 160, 17-48). There is no indication in the saint’s life that camels were in any way unusual. Another fifth- or sixth-century funerary text at Anazarbos in Cilicia Pedias mentions a καµηλάριος (I. Anazarbos 99). Both Nicomedia and Ancyra lay on the highway linking Constantinople and Ankara with the eastern frontier and with the Cilician Gates and Syria. Taken together, these items of evidence indicate that the caravans of camels which traversed these routes in Selçuk and Ottoman times had earlier origins in the Byzantine age. Hans Dernschwam noted very large camel trains around Ankara in 1555, which were used to move the court, entourage and supplies of Suleyman the Magnificent to and from his summer residence in Amasya (Hattenhauer – Bake 2012, 298). The combination of professions, of goldsmith and camel-driver (or, rather, breeder of camels), matches that of the prophet Mohammed himself who came from a family of bankers and camel-drivers. Both professions required substantial resources, and the style of the grave monument is appropriate for a member of Ankara’s upper class. 385. Tarasis, soldier Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 113.568.99. Description: Grey and white marble tombcover, broken at the top. The inscription is cut in a tabula ansata which is below a large sunken panel. Dimensions: Length 0.92; width 0.74; thickness 0.20; letters 0.025. Copy: SM 1971, 10.06.2004. squeeze SM 1971 and 21.08.2010. Publication: Mitchell 1977, 100 no. 43 and photo, Pl. 15b; (SEG 27, 876). 192

- 193 -

4

† ἐνθάδε [κ]εκύµιται ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ταρασις πρώτης χ(ώρτης) πέζων ἐτελιώθι ἐν Κ†ῳ µη. Σεπτεµβρ(ίου) λ´ ϟ ἰνδ. ϟ ιδ´. †

3: ΠΡωΤϹΧΠΕΖωΝ ed. pr.; a small eta is legible above the tau. 4: κ(ώµ)ῃ, ed. pr.; read Κ(υρί)ῳ; a small cross is carved above the line between the kappa and the omega, and a small eta above the mu of µη(νός).

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Tarasis of the first cohort of the infantry. He died in the Lord on September 30th in the 14th indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: Tarasis appears to have been a soldier serving in the ‘first cohort of infantrymen’. This unit may have been the successor of the cohors I Augusta Cyrenaica / χώρτη α´ Σεβαστὴ Κυρηναϊκή, which is attested in the third century by three Greek inscriptions at Ancyra and by a Latin dedication erected to honour Caracalla at Gordium, where a late Roman fort has also been identified (see I. Ankara 1, 184 comm.). The name Tarasis was typical for Isaurians (see Zgusta, KP 485 § 1508-1) and this matches the recruiting pattern for cohors I Augusta Cyrenaica, which contained soldiers from Lycaonia (Savatra, Iconium) and perhaps from eastern Pisidia (Pappa). For ἐτελιώθι ἐν Κ(υρί)ῷ compare 391. 386. Aquilina of Byzantium Location: ‘In coemeterio Christianorum … extat’ (Mordtmann). Present whereabouts not known. Description and dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: A. D. Mordtmann 1858 (with H. Barth). Publication: J. H. Mordtmann 1874, 22 no. 12: copy of his father, A. D. Mordtmann [Vienna Scheden 247].

4

Ἀκυλῖνα ἡ Πιζαντία ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ δούλη ἐνθάδ κεκοίµηται.

5: ΕΝΘΑΔΑ, lapis.

Translation: Aquilina of Byzantium, the slave of God, has here been laid to rest. 193

- 194 -

Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: Πιζαντία for Βυζαντία. The ethnic form Βυζάντιος/Βυζαντία remained current long after the foundation of Constantinople as is shown by many inscriptions of late antiquity, for instance epitaphs from Germia in western Galatia, [ἔνθα κ]ατά|κιτε [Θ]ω[µ]¦ᾶς σ̣[κ]ρ̣ι̣ν̣[ι]ά|ρι̣ο̣ς Βυζά|ντ̣ι̣ο̣[ς] υἱὸ|ς Ἀκα[κίο]υ̣ | κὲ Ἀν̣[θ]|ούσης (SEG 36, 1185); from Corycus: † σωµατ(ο)θίκι δια|φέρ(ουσα) Σεργ(ίου) Βυ|ζαντίου † (MAMA III 696); from Gortyn in Crete: ἔνθα κατάκιτη | ἡ τῆς µακαρίας µνή|µης Θεοκτίστη Βυ|ζαντία σύνβιος | γεναµένη Ἰωάννου | λιθοξοῦ κὲ καλῶς τὸν | βίον διάξουσα· ἀνε|παύσατο µηνὶ Μαρτίου | ε´ ἰνδ. β´ † (SEG 44, 724); and from Byzantium itself: Αὐρηλία Μάρθα | Βυζαντία τῷ γλυ|κυτάτῳ µου υεἱῳ | Μαµαλίῳ ὀπτίωνι | τὴν στήλην ἐπέ|γραψα ἰς µνήµης χά|ριν ἰς ἀεί (I. Byzantion 294; late 3rd or 4th century; see 353 comm. for discussion of this text). 387. The child Anastasia Location: ‘Built into a bastion west of the main gateway in the enceinte’ (d’Orbeliani). This inscription was probably in ST 2 or 3. Description: ‘The inscription is cut in shallow letters on a tablet-shaped stele’ (d’Orbeliani); presumably a tabula ansata. Dimensions: Length 0.62; width 0.625 (24 ½ x 25 inches, d’Orbeliani). Copy: d’Orbeliani 1915-18. Publication: d’Orbeliani 1924, 33 no. 35 and fig. 18; (SEG 6, 27) [Vienna Scheden 126].

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκιται ἡ δούλη τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ἀναστασία τὸ παιδήν, ἐτελεύτησεν δὲ µ. Ἰουνίου κ´ ἰνδ. ϟ β´. †

4: παιδήν for παιδίν, abbreviated from παιδίον.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Anastasia, the small child. She died on 20 June in the second indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: This was probably the lower part of a large grave cover.

388. Anastasia

194

- 195 -

Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 113.550.99. Description: Tomb cover of pale limestone, broken at the top right and at bottom left. The relief decoration has been effaced. At the top an arched pediment enclosed an effaced Maltese(?) cross. Below the pediment there are three slightly sunk panels. The central panel contained decoration, which is now completely effaced. The inscription was cut on a tabula ansata below the panels, but the letters are badly worn and almost illegible. Dimensions: Length 1.79 (pediment 0.34; main panel 0.91); width 0.85 (main panel 0.65); thickness 0.23; letters 0.03. Copy: SM 09.06.2004.

4

[ . . . . ] ΥΤ[ . . . ] ΠΑΥΛΗϹ [ . . . . . . ] ΑΝΑΣΤ̣[. . . ]Α̣Σ̣Ν [ . . . . . . . . . ]ΟϹ[ . . . . . ] [ . . . . . . . ]ΙΟΝΗ̣[ . . . . .] [ . . . . . ]Α[ . . . . . . . . ]Τ [ . . . . . . . . ]ΘΗ[ . . . . . . ]

2: perhaps Ἀναστ[ασί]ας.

Translation: … Anastasia … Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: A large tomb cover. 389. Anastasius Location: On the south terrace of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 114.185.99. Description: Pale grey limestone tomb cover, broken at the bottom right. The back surface is rough. A rounded pediment has been incised at the top above a central panel, which is blank. The inscription was cut in a tabula ansata below the panel. Broken-bar alpha; lunate epsilon and sigma; narrow theta, cursive omega; omikron upsilon in ligature. Dimensions: Length 1.11; width (top) 0.38, (bottom) 0.54; thickness 0.11; letters 0.02-03. Copy: SM 08.06.2004; squeeze SM 27.08.2010.

4

† ἐνθάδε κεκύµιτε ὡ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ἀναστάσις, ἐτελιώθι µη.

195

- 196 Εἰουλίου ἐν. ϟ κ´. 5: MH is written with a small eta above the mu. 6: ligature ΟΥ (twice); superscript line over EN, so perhaps restore ἐν(δικτιῶνος). Perhaps the stone cutter intended to place κ´ after the name of the month.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Anastasi(u)s. He died οn 20 July (?) in the indiction … Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 390. Anastasius Location: ‘Near the railway station’ (Anderson). Present whereabouts not known. Description: ‘Thin slab’ (Anderson). Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Ramsay 1881; Anderson 1898. Publication: Ramsay 1883, 21 no. 10; Anderson 1899, 98 no. 82 [Vienna Scheden 126].

4

† ἐνθάδε κεκύµιτε ὡ δοῦλος τοῦ Θε(οῦ) Ἀναστάσις, ἐτελιώθη µη. Εἰανουαρίου ϟ̣ γι´ ἐν. ϟ ιβ´. †

3: Ἀνναστάσι(ο)ς, Ramsay. 4: ἐτελιώθι, Ramsay; ἐτελιώθη, Anderson; µη(νὶ). 5: Ἐιαν|νουαρίου ΓΙ with a line over the numeral, Ramsay; ΕΙΑ|ΝΟΥΑΡΙΟΥ ϹΙΓ Ν ΙΒ †, copy of Lt. Mearches, sent to Kiepert (see Anderson 1899, 98); the letter copied as a cursive sigma was probably a punctuation mark before the numeral.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Anastasi(u)s. He died on 13 January, in the twelfth indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 391. Andreas Location: ‘Built into a house wall at street level in Balikbazar’ (d’Orbeliani). Description: ‘Stele’ (d’Orbeliani). His drawing shows a rectangular monument framed on all four sides by mouldings, with an inscribed tabula ansata at the bottom. This was evidently one of the larger grave covers. Lunate epsilon and sigma; omikron upsilon in ligature in line 2. Dimensions: Length 1.55; width 0.65 (25 x 61 inches, d’Orbeliani).

196

- 197 -

Copy: Perrot 1861; d’Orbeliani 1915-18. Publication: Perrot – Guillaume – Delbet 1872, 1, 241 no. 138; d’Orbeliani 1924, 41 no. 69 and fig. 34 [Vienna Scheden 126].

4

ἐνθάδε κεκύ[µη]θε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ [Θε]οῦ Ἀνδρέας ὁ πάντων φίλος ἰνδ. ϟ̣ [ - ] µ[η.] Ἰανοα̣ρ̣ίου̣ . . Ρ̣Ο̣ . .

1-4: as Perrot. 2: Ν at the beginning of the line, d’Orbeliani. 5: d’Orbeliani’s drawing shows the bottom of a circular letter after ἰνδ. which may be part of a mark of abbreviation. 5-6: ἰνδ[ικτιῶνος - | Ἰανου]αρίου, Perrot; d’Orbeliani’s drawing shows ΜΙΟ Χ Ρ Ο widely spaced with the last letter very faint.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Andreas, the friend of all, in the … indiction on … January. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 392. Name uncertain Location: In the Roman Baths. No inventory number. Description: Grey limestone tombstone, broken above; only the bottom section is preserved. The lower part of a Latin cross is visible on the shaft; below it is the text of the inscription in a very damaged tabula ansata. Lunate epsilon and sigma; broken-bar alpha; omikron upsilon always in ligature. Dimensions: Length 0.58; width 0.79; thickness 0.13; letters 0.028-03. Copy: SM 10.06.2004.

4

† ἐν̣θάδε κεκύµιτε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Γ̣ΑΝ̣ΙΑ τε{τ̣}λιουθὶς{α} ἐν Κ(υρί)ῳ ἰνδ. ϟ ε´ µη. Ἀγούστου ι´.

1: The nu resembles an eta. 3: superscript line over ΘΥ; the squeeze then shows ΓΑΝΙΑ and there is an intrusive tau or iota in the participle. 4: the reading is clear, but we expect the masculine τελιουθίς. There is a superscript line over Κω, confirming that this is to be understood as the nomen sacrum (as 385). 5: small eta above mu.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, … He died with the Lord, in the fifth indiction, on 10 August. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 197

- 198 -

Commentary: There should be a man’s name to follow δοῦλος, and the feminine participle τελιουθῖσα appears to be a mistake. The name itself appears to have been garbled by the stone-cutter. 393. Arsinous Location: In the Roman Baths (D VII). Inv. no. 117.1.91. Description: A large grave cover of hard, pale limestone, cut from a Roman architrave. A large, well-cut, Latin cross stands in relief within a flat frame moulding; the ends of the cross-members touch the frame, but are distinguished from it. The inscription is cut inside a tabula ansata beneath the foot of the cross. Sharp, clear letters: rectangular epsilon, cursive sigma, broken-bar alpha and taller right-hand upright; omikron has the form of a tear-drop. Dimensions: Length 1.65; width 0.75; thickness 0.27; letters 0.02-0.03. Copy: French 2002; squeeze SM 21.08.2010. Publication: French 2003, 202 no. 83; (SEG 53, 1443). † ἐνθάδε κεκοίµητε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἀρσίνους. † 1: the final epsilon is fitted in above the line at the edge of the tabula ansata. 2: the lambda was inserted as a small letter between upsilon and omikron.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Arsinous. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: This high-quality tomb cover was no doubt erected for one of the wealthier members of the Ankara community. The name Ἀρσίνους is uncommon. LGPN III.B records a hellenistic example from Oropus in Boeotia (IG VII 303,70), an Ἀρσίνοος appears in an ephebic list from Leontopolis of Egypt (SEG 40, 1568 = 51, 2159, 18-19; AD 220), and an early imperial epitaph from Amathus in Cyprus reads Θεο[δό]σιε | Θε[οδ]οσίου | τοῦ Ἀρσίνου | χρῆστε χαῖρε (SEG 29, 1558). Four examples of the second and third century are attested at Rome (Arsinous, Arsinus, dat. Arsinoo; Solin 2003, p. 28). It appears to have been coined as a masculine counterpart to the much commoner female name Ἀρσινόη. 394. Eugenius Location: ‘De provenance inconnue et qui est restée longtemps déposée près de la porte E. Nous ignorons ce qu’elle est devenue’ (Jerphanion); now in the Roman Baths. No inventory number.

198

- 199 -

Description: White limestone grave cover, broken at the top. A large Latin cross in relief above a tabula ansata with the inscription. The letters are irregular and lightly engraved. Cursive epsilon and sigma, broken-bar alpha; ‘Grande dalle de marbre … brisée dans le haut. Tout le champ occupé par une croix en relief dont le pied repose sur une cartouche à queue d’aronde où est gravé le texte … Gravure médiocre: lettres peu régulières’ (Jerphanion). Dimensions: Length 1.46; width 0.89; thickness 0.24; letters 0.030-35. Copy: Jerphanion 1925-27; SM 1971. Publication: Jerphanion 1928, 288 no. 62 [Vienna Scheden 269].

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκτε ὁ̣ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ Εὐγένις τελευτήσας ἰ̣νδ̣. βι´ µη. Ἰουνίου βι´ ἡµέ̣ρ̣ᾳ Σαµβάτου.

1: iota omitted. 4: ϹΙΝΑ ΒΙ Μ Η ΙΟΥΝΙΟΥ ΒΙ , Jerphanion; the photograph shows Ϲ̣ΠΝΑΒΙΜΗ, with small eta above the mu. There is a horizontal line above the numerals. 5: omikron upsilon in ligature, but not elsewhere in this text.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Eugenius, having died on Saturday 12 June in the twelfth indiction. Date: ‘L’inscription semble du VIe siecle’ (Jerphanion).. The only year in the later fifth and sixth centuries in which 12 June of a twelfth indiction fell on a Saturday was 564. Possible seventh century dates are 654 and 699. However, calculations based on the synchronism of an era and month date with a specified weekday are unreliable in a third of all the cases reviewed by Worp in a study of this phenomenon, usually due to misreporting of the weekday or the month date (Worp 1991). Commentary: If the date of 564, based on Jerphanion’s reading of the text, can be accepted, this text would establish a chronological fixed point for the series of large marble grave covers with Latin crosses set above an inscribed tabula ansata. 395. Ioannia Location: ‘Fundort unbekannt, doch wahrscheinlich Ankara’ (Fr. Miltner); now in the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 9030. Description : ‘Grabplatte aus grauem Kalkstein, oben wie unten abgebrochen ... Die Inschrift ist zum grossen Teil auf einer tabula ansata angebracht, die in einem Rahmen eingesetzt ist, welchen wir uns ähnlich dem des Grabsteines nr. 42 (= 398) ergänzen dürfen’ (Fr. Miltner). The stone appears to comprise two panels. The upper panel, broken above, was blank, and the lower panel contained the tabula ansata, with an inscription which is now barely legible. Broken-bar alpha, cursive omega. 199

- 200 -

Dimensions: Length 1.01; width 0.73; thickness 0.14; letters 0.03. Copy: Fr. Miltner 1934; June SM 2004; squeeze SM 21.08.2010. Publication: Miltner 1937, 40 no. 44 and Fig. 21 [Vienna Scheden 313].

4

8

† ἡ ἐν τῇ ἀστάτῳ ζωῇ γνησίως Ἰσιδώρῳ συνβιώσασα µ(έχρ)ι θανάτον̣ ἐνθάδε τούτῳ προσέζευκτε Ἰωαννία Υ ΤΕΛ Ε . µ. Ἰανουαρ. ιγ´ ἰνδικτ. [ - ]

5: µ(έχρ)ι, Miltner. The reading is uncertain. The final letter in the line resembles a nu but is uncertain. 9: perhaps τελ(ευτήσασα). 10: µ(ηνὶ) Ἰανουαρ(ίου).

Translation: Ioannia who lived in this unstable life happily with her husband, Isidorus, until death, is here linked together with him, having died (?) on 13 January in the … indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The type of monument and the format of the indiction date point to a late fifth- or sixth-century date. Ἄστατος, meaning unstable or uncertain, occurs in pagan epigrams from Phrygia (SEG 34, 1301: ἄστατοι ἐλπίδες εἰσὶ βροτῶν ἰς ἄδηλα βλέπουσαι), Rome (Kaibel 1878, 282 no. 699, ἄστατος ὄντως | θνητῶν ἐστι βίος καὶ βραχὺς οὐδὶ ἄπονος, 3rd century) and Thebes (IG VII 2543 = Kaibel 1878, 200 no. 502, 3rd-4th century). This is one of the small number of later grave monuments from Ankara which refers to the spouse of the deceased. By referring not only to their shared life, but also to the fact that they were linked in death, it seems likely that they died and were buried together. 396. Karteria Location: In the Akkale Depot. Inv. no. 3040. Description: Crude yellowish limestone sculpted bust with very weathered features. Dimensions: Height 0.71; width 0.40; thickness 0.18; letters: 0.03. Copy: SM 2005; squeeze 23.09.2014. [ἔ]ν[θα] κατά200

- 201 κιτε Καρτε† ρία. † Translation: Here lies Karteria. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: This appears to be a unique example of funerary sculpture from late Roman Ankara. However, the inscription may be secondary, implying that an existing piece of modest sculpture was re-used as a grave marker. The name Karteria occurs on a fifth or sixth century inscription from the territory of Phrygian Synnada (MAMA 4, 120a), and at Tyana (IK 55 no. 105). 397. Kyriakos Location: Noted by Dalman a few hundred metres east of the railway goods yard; ‘Gefunden in Yenișehir auf dem Gelände der Elektrizitätsgesellschaft’ (Miltner); now in the Roman Baths, inv. no. 9008. Description: ‘Grabplatte aus grauem Kalkstein mit Giebelabschluss; ... Im vertieften Mittelfeld ein tabula ansata mit der Inschrift’ (Fr. Miltner). The top of the stone was triangular, but has now been broken off. A Latin cross was carved in relief in a sunken panel above a tabula ansata, which carries the inscription. Broken-bar alpha, square epsilon and omega, diamond theta, lunate sigma. Dimensions: Length 1.62; width 0.83; thickness 0.16; letters 0.01-0.03. Copy: Dalman 1931; Fr. Miltner 1934; Macpherson 1950-53; SM 1971; squeeze SM 2010. Publication: Dalman – Schneider – Bittel 1932, 250 no. 4; Miltner 1937, 45 no. 51 and fig. 25; Macpherson 1958, 176 no. 244 [Vienna Scheden 317].

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Κυριακός, ὁ πάντων φίλος. †

3: horizontal bar above ΘΥ.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Kyriakos, the friend of all. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 398. Loulianus

201

- 202 -

Location: ‘Fundort wohl Ankara’ (Fr. Miltner); now in the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 9012. Description: ‘Grabplatte aus grauem Kalkstein, oben und unten verbrochen ... Die Inschrift in tabula ansata, um die ein Rahmen in Naiskosform gezogen ist’ (Fr. Miltner); A large grey limestone grave cover, with front face cut flat; the back has been left rough. As Miltner describes, the design on the front of the stele takes the form of a tall naiskos, with a triangular pediment. The central part of the shaft is blank, above an inscribed tabula ansata. The face of the stone has a split which widens to the left. Lunate epsilon, sigma, and omega; broken-bar alpha; omikron upsilon in ligature. Dimensions: Length 1.04; width 0.53; thickness 0.08; letters 0.025. Copy: Fr. Miltner 1934; Macpherson 1952; squeeze SM 23.08.2010. Publication: Miltner 1937, 37 no. 42 and fig. 19; Macpherson 1958, 175 no. 239 [Vienna Scheden 312].

4

† ἐνθάδε κεκύµητε ὡ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Λουλιανός, ὡ πάντων φίλος. †

2: ΜΗ in ligature. 3: horizontal bar above ΘΥ.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Loulianus, the friend of all. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The name Λουλιανός appears only here in the late Roman inscriptions at Ankara, but see also Λουλία (454). The form should be distinguished from Λολ(λ)ιανός in 367, which reproduced the Latin Lollianus. The related woman’s name Λουλιανή occurred frequently in central Anatolia, at Kuyulu Zebir (MAMA VII 566), Sarayönü (MAMA I 177), and Kadınhan (MAMA I 65). Λουλίτ(τ)α also appears twice (RECAM II 314 Çeltikli, and on an unpublished text from Atkafası) and Λουλία three times (MAMA VII 512 (Kelhasan) and 559 (Kuyulu Zebir) and the example from Ankara itself). A form with the ending –εις, Λουλεις, is also attested (RECAM II 344, Büyük Yağcı). This distribution pattern has suggested that the name was native to Anatolia (Zgusta, KP 274 § 827-1 and 2, endorsed by Cl. Brixhe, Bull. ép. 1989, 496). A Λουλιανός is now attested at Motella in southern Phrygia (SEG 60, 1440, dated to 217/8). The feminine forms were also found in western Asia Minor, including Αὐρ. Λουλιανή on a third or fourth century gravestone from Lydian Philadelphia (TAM IV.3 1857), Λουλιανή on a somewhat earlier epitaph from Mysian Hadriani (Nollé 1988, 141, correcting the editor’s original reading Ἰουλιανή; the text is republished by Battistoni – Rothenhöfer 2013, 135 no. 40), and Lulia Eutychis appears on a Latin gravestone from Rome itself. This example of the name being used as a Latin nomen implies that it was accepted as a version of its familiar Latin counterpart, Iulia (Kramer 1978; Ameling 1985). In all these contexts it appears that the Loul- names were understood as versions of Ἰουλία, Ἰουλιανή, Ἰουλίττα (which is attested

202

- 203 in Ankara and its territory, I. Ankara 1, 243 comm.) and Ἰουλιανός, rendered ‘volkstümlich’ with an initial ‘L’, as in the Italian month Luglio. They should be accepted as popular forms of the ‘Iulius’ type, used by family intimates, which then acquired wider currency (so G. Petzl, TAM V.3 1857 comm.). The forms with initial L became more conspicuous from the second century as inscriptions to a growing degree reproduced popular rather than educated language use. Contemporary users would have been indifferent to the name’s origins. 399. Anonymous large gravecover Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 9027. Description: White limestone grave cover, very weathered; broken above and on the right. The main shaft was not inscribed but carried some decoration, apparently an almost effaced cross, within a shallow recessed panel. The inscription was presumably cut in a tabula ansata, and the ends of seven lines of worn text can be made out. Dimensions: Length 1.05; width 0.66; thickness 0.14; letters 0.025-0.03. Copy: SM 1971 and 2010. Publication: Mitchell 1977, 91 no. 34; (SEG 27, 889).

4

[ - - ]ẠΝ̣Α̣ΠΑΥ [ - - ]Α̣ΣΤ ̣ ̣Α ̣ [ - - ]Τ̣HΣΕ [ - - ]Ν̣ΦΙΛΟΣΟ [ - - ]ΤΟYΠ̣Α [ - - ]ΟΝΟΙ̣ [ - - ]Ν̣Δ̣ . Ζ̣ †̣

Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The form of the monument allows this to be identified as one of the larger Ankara grave covers. The traces make it possible to attempt a restoration. In line 1 restore part of the verb ἀναπαύω; line 2 seems to contain part of Anastasius, the most popular name in Christian Ankara; if the phrase ὁ τῆς εὐλαβοῦς µνήµης is correctly restored in lines 3-4, we should also restore a clerical title at the beginning of line 3 (cf Beševliev 1964, 153-5 no. 223; 164 no. 231); [πάντω]ν φίλος seems unavoidable in line 4. Line 7 appears to end with an indiction year, and a month date should be restored before it. The meaning of lines 5-6 remains obscure. On this basis, the text can be partially reconstructed:

4

[ † ἐνθάδε κεκύµητε] ἀ̣ν̣α̣παυ[σάµενος ἐν ΚΩ Ἀν]α̣σ̣τά ̣ ̣[σιος] [πρεσβύτερος ὁ] τ̣ῆς ε[ὐλαβ][οῦς µνήµης κὲ πάντω]ν̣ φίλος Ο [ ]ΤΟYΠ̣Α [ ]ΟΝΟΙ ̣

203

- 204 [ µη. - - - - - - - - ἰ]ν̣δ.̣ ϟ̣ ζ̣´̣. †̣ 400. Large gravestone Location: At rear of Roman Baths. No inventory number. Description: Α large limestone gravestone with a large Latin cross placed above the inscription. Five lines of the very worn inscription are in a tabula ansata, and there may have been a sixth below it. Dimensions: Length 1.10; width 0.80; thickness 0.16; letters 0.0275; 0.0175. Copy: SM 25.08.2010; squeeze SM 2010.

4

† [ἐ]ν[θ]άδε ἀ̣ν[α]π[έ]π[αυ]τ̣ε̣ . ΗΝ [----------] [ - - - - - - - - ]ΗΤΕ [ - - ]Δ̣ΟΛΟϹΑΤΗ . [ - - - - - - ]ϹΙΝ †̣

Translation: Here has ceased ? … Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 401. Paulus Location: The stone was built into the roof of the tunnel which leads from the postern gate between towers E 1 and 2 at the south-east corner of the inner Kale. It cannot be photographed or squeezed in its present position, but the reading is clear. Description: White marble grave cover, blackened by soot. Inscription in a tabula ansata at the bottom of the stone. Dimensions: Length 1.50; width 0.60 (minimum dimensions); letters 0.025. Copy: SM 1972. Publication: Mitchell 1977, 100 no. 47; (SEG 27, 880).

4

† ἐνθάδε κεκύµητε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Παῦλος ὁ πάντων φίλος. †

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Paul, the friend of all.

204

- 205 -

Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 402. Paulus Location: In the Roman baths. Inv. no. 91.6.72. Description: Greyish limestone tombstone, with an arched pediment above a blank field divided by incised lines into two registers; below these an inscribed tabula ansata. The back is rough. Lunate epsilon and sigma. Dimensions: Length 1.02; width 0.50; thickness 0.14; letters 0.02-03. Copy: SM June 2004; squeeze SM 21.08.2010.

4

ἐνθάδε κεκ[ύ]µητε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Παῦλος ὁ νεός, ἰνδ. θ´ µη. Ὀκτωβρίῳ.

7: µη(νὶ), with small eta above mu.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, the young Paulus, in the ninth indiction, in the month October. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: For the term νέος describing a young child, see 373 comm. 403. Plato, also called Kalokokkios Location: ‘Found near the railway station’ (Anderson). There was a late Roman cemetery near Ankara’s railway station where this text was found. Present whereabouts not known. Description: ‘Thin slab’ (Anderson); probably a large grave cover. Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Anderson 1898. Publication: Anderson 1899, 98 no. 83 [Vienna Scheden 206]. † ἔνθα κῖτε ὁ παρὰ Θεοῦ κὲ ἀνθρώποις 205

- 206 4

ποθητὸς ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Πλάτων ὁ κὲ Καλοκόκις. †

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Platon also known as Kalokokkios, longed for by God and men. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: Plato must have taken the name Kalokokis in reference to the trade that he practised, as a dyer of Ancyra’s famous wool. The name Καλοκόκις was presumably a shortened form of Καλοκόκ(κ)ιος. It was formed from κάλος and the noun κόκκος which originally meant a berry or a seed, but which was particularly used to describe the gall of the kermes oak, which produced a scarlet dye, cochineal. The noun was also used to denote the tree itself, quercus coccifera (see LSJ s.v.). Κόκκος occurred in the Greek world as a personal name (Robert 1963, 135-9; four examples in LGPN) and sometimes was spelled with one kappa (see Bull. ép. 1954, 109; 1955, 98, and Welles 1938, no. 8). The dyeing industry was important in Ottoman Ankara, the most important hub of the Anatolian trade in wool and mohair (Eyice 1970; French 1971), and certainly also in the Roman city (Broughton 1938, 820). Pliny NH IX, 141; XVI, 32 and XXII, 3, and Tertullian, De pallio IV.10 mentioned the red dye from the kermes oak which was produced and used in Galatia. Pausanias described the origin and production of the dye in detail and cited the local name ὗς, which was used by the Galatians of Asia Minor in place of the Greek κόκκος, and is thus one of the few recorded words of the Celtic language spoken in Asia Minor. Pausanias is likely to have obtained his information in Ancyra itself, which he had visited. He mentions Galatian dyeing in his description of the road in Phocis, in central Greece, between Stiris and Ambrossus, where the oak trees grew among the vineyards: ἄµπελοι δὲ τὸ πολύ εἰσι τοῦ πεδίου καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ τῇ Ἀµβρωσέων οὐ συνεχεῖς µὲν ὥσπερ αἱ ἄµπελοι πεφύκασι µέντοι καὶ αἱ θάµνοι. τὴν δὲ θάµνον ταύτην Ἴωνες µὲν καὶ τὸ ἄλλο Ἑλληνικὸν κόκκον, Γαλάται δὲ οἱ ὑπὲρ Φρυγίας φωνῇ τῇ ἐπιχωρίῳ σφίσιν ὀνοµάζουσιν ὗς· γίνεται δὲ αὕτη µέγεθος µὲν ἡ κόκκος κατὰ τὴν ῥάµνον καλουµένην, φύλλα δὲ µελάντερα µὲν καὶ µαλακώτερα ἢ ἡ σχῖνος, τὰ µέντοι ἄλλα ἐοικότα ἔχει τῷ σχίνῳ. ὁ δὲ αυτῆς καρπὸς ὅµοιος τῷ καρπῷ τῆς στρύχνου, µέγεθος δέ ἐστι κατὰ ὄροβον. γίνεται δέ τι ἐν τῷ καρπῷ τῆς κόκκου βραχὺ ζῷον· τοῦτο δ᾽ εἰ ἀφίκοιτο ἐς τὸν ἀέρα πεπανθέντος τοῦ καρποῦ, πέτεται δὲ αὐτίκα καὶ ἐοικὸς κώνωπι φαίνοιτο ἄν· νῦν δὲ πρότερον, πρὶν ἢ τὸ ζῷον κινηθῆναι, συλλέγουσι τῆς κόκκου τὸν καρπὸν, καὶ ἔστι τοὶς ἐρίοις ἡ βαφὴ τὸ αἷµα τοῦ ζῴου. ‘Vines cover most of the plain, but in the territory of the Ambroseis there are also small trees, although these do not grow next to one another like the vines. The Ionians and the rest of the Greek race call this tree ‘kokkos’, but the Galatians who live above Phrygia call it ‘hys’ in their native language. The kokkos shrub reaches the same size as the so-called rhamnos (buckthorn), and its leaves are darker and softer than the mastic, although in other respects it resembles a mastic bush. Its fruit is similar to the fruit of deadly nightshade, and is about the size of bitter vetch. A small creature grows in the fruit of the kokkos, and if this creature reaches the air when the fruit has ripened, it immediately takes flight and appears like a gnat. But now, before this happens, and before the creature takes flight, they collect the fruit of the kokkos and the blood of the creature serves as a dye for woollen fleece’ (Pausanias X. 36.1). The same dye was also produced in the Peloponnese and Louis Robert has drawn attention to the name of the last defender of the Peloponnese against the Turks in 1460, 206

- 207 Πρινοκοκκᾶς, a name formed from the two Greek words used to denote the kermes oak, πρῖνος and κόκκος (Robert 1963, 129). For the expression ὁ παρὰ Θεοῦ κὲ ἀνθρώποις ποθητός, compare the verse epitaphs for Leontius, πολλοῖσι φείλοισι ποθητός (MAMA VIII 317; Sadaettin Han, Lycaonia) and for Trophimos son of Anteros, ὁ τίµιος καὶ πᾶσι ποθητὸς (SGO III, 246-247/Nr.16/31/14; Upper Tembris Valley, Phrygia). For parallels in prose epitaphs see Feissel 1983, no. 135: ἡ γνησιωτάτη καὶ πολυποθη[τὸς ἡ]µῶν θυγάτηρ Ἰωάννα (Thessalonica); Wiegand 1908, 147 no. 4: Θεόδοτος ὁ ἐµὸς γνήσιος υἱὸς γενάµενος µου ποθιτός (Constantinople?), and the epitaph set up for the marble worker Nikostratos, πολυπόθητος παρὰ πατρὸς καὶ ἀδελφῶν (IG IV.32 1827, Corinth). See also 426 for a child τοῖς οἰκείοις γονεῦσι ποθινοτάτη. Here the use of the epithet captured the ambiguity of the deceased’s situation, between earthly and eternal life. The dead man was an object of desire, both for God, whose kingdom he was expected to join, and, unattainably, for his fellow men in the world that he had departed. The nuanced variation in the relationship may be expressed by the varied construction between παρά + genitive and the dative. 404. Plato, newly baptized Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 113.567.99. Description: White limestone gravestone. The inscription is cut in a tabula ansata below a blank panel framed by an incised border. broken-bar alpha; curvive epsilon and sigma, omikron upsilon in ligature. Dimensions: Length 0.60; width 0.46; thickness 0.16; letters 0.02. The tabula ansata measures 0.18 x 0.20. Copy: SM 1971, 10.06.2004. squeeze SM 1971 and 21.09.2010. Publication: Mitchell 1977, 99 no. 42 and Pl. 15a; (SEG 27, 875).

4

† ἔνθα κεκύµιτε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Πλάτον τελιοθεὶς νεοφούτιστος µη. Ἰουλίου ιβ´ ἰνδ. γ´.

3: bar above ΘΥ. 5: µη(νί) with small eta. 6: bar over gamma.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Plato, who died newly baptized on 12 July in the third indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: This was a grave cover of intermediate size, perhaps designed for a child’s burial, in this case one that had been recently baptized (cf. 359 and 457). Bull. ép. 1949, 231 comments on the spelling νεοφούτιστος for νεοφώτιστος. 207

- 208 -

405. Platonakis Location: In the Roman Baths [H VII]. Inv. no. 9031. Description: A large grave cover made from a slab of grey/white limestone. The inscription was cut in a tabula ansata below a Latin cross which filled the remainder of the face. The tabula and the cross were cut in outline. Surface and letters are worn. Broken-bar alpha, lunate epsilon, sigma and omega, and diagonal-bar eta; omikron upsilon in ligature only at the end of line 3. Dimensions: Length 0.73; width 0.43; thickness 0.21; letters 0.020-25. The tabula ansata measures 0.21 x 0.27. Copy: Fr. Miltner 1934; Macpherson 1950-53; SM 10.06.2004; squeeze SM 21.08.2010. Publication: Fr. and H. Miltner 1937, 30 no. 36 and photograph, fig. 13; Macpherson 1958, 175 no. 240; French 2003, 205 no. 85 [Vienna Scheden 306].

4

† ἐνθάδε κεκύµητε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ Πλατωνάκις.

4-5: Πλάτων ΑΦΙ, Miltner.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Platonakis. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: For names ending in -άκις, compare Θεοδουράκις (434 comm.). See also Παυλάκης at Dorylaeum (MAMA V 109).

406. Sophia Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 113.571.99. Description: A large grave cover of grey limestone, broken right and above. Three registers were incised on the face, with an arched pediment at the top which frames a Maltese cross in a circle formed by double incised lines. Broken-bar alpha, lunate epsilon and sigma. Dimensions: Length 1.06; width 0.64; thickness 0.16; letters: 0.025. Height of the main panel 0.42; width 0.36. Copy: SM 1971, 10.06.2004; squeeze SM 1972 and 2010. 208

- 209 -

Publication: Mitchell 1977, 100 no. 44; (SEG 27, 877).

4

ἐνθάδε κεκύµητε ἡ δούλη τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Σοφία τελιουθῖσα ἐν Χ(ριστ)ῷ ἰνδ. ϛ´ µη. Ἰουλίου.

5: ἐν χω(ρίῳ), ed. pr.; there is a horizontal bar over ΧΩ; ἰνδ(ικτιῶνος). 6: µη(νί) with small eta above the mu; no legible number at the line end.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Sophia, having died in Christ in the month of July in the sixth indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: For ἐν Χ(ριστ)ῷ, compare 385 and 392 for persons who had died ἐν Κυρίῳ. 407. Stephania Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 113.553.99. Description: Grey marble grave cover. The inscription was scratched in shallow and worn letters between the arms of a cross. Dimensions: Length 0.96; width 0.50; depth 0.23; letters 0.045-0.07. Copy: SM 1971, 05.06.2004. Squeeze SM 1972 and 23.08.2010. Publication: Mitchell 1977, 101 no. 48; (SEG 27, 881).

4

ἔνθα κατάκιτε ἡ εὐλαβ. Ϟ Στεφανία. †

2-3: εὐλαβ(εστάτη).

Translation: Here lies the most pious Stephania. Date: Sixth century or later (simplified formula, amateur engraving). 408. Theodorus Location: Formerly in the temple of Augustus (Anderson, Jerphanion); present whereabouts not known.

209

- 210 -

Description: A large grave cover with the inscription in a tabula ansata, cut on a re-used stone; shallow irregular lettering. Dimensions: Length 0.80, width 0.45; letters c. 0.03. Copy: Anderson 1898; Jerphanion 1925-27. Publication: Anderson 1899, 97 no. 80; Jerphanion 1928, 287 no. 61; (SEG 6, 29) [Vienna Scheden 201].

4

† ἐνθάδε κεκοίµηται ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Θεόδωρος ὁ πάντων φίλος ἰνδ. ϟ γ´ µη. (vac) Μαίῳ κγ´.

1: ligature ΜΗ. 4: ἰνδ(ικτιῶνι) ι´ Anderson. 4-5: ‘des blancs pour éviter de mauvaises veines de la pierre (la dalle est remployée),’ Jerphanion. 5: ΜΗ, small eta above mu; omisit Anderson.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Theodorus, the friend of all, on 23 May in the third indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 409. Theodorus Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 10251. Description: A large grey limestone tomb cover, with a six-pointed star in a circle, in the pediment, both in relief. There is an incised panel on the shaft, and the inscription is at the bottom in a tabula ansata. Very worn letters: broken-bar alpha, lunate epsilon, sigma and omega. Dimensions: Length 1.06; width 0.63; thickness 0.20; letters 0.020-25. The tabula ansata measures 0.22 x 0.27. Copy: SM 1971, 10.06.2004. Squeeze SM 1971 and 21.08.2010. Publication: Mitchell 1977, 100 no. 45 and pl. 16a; (SEG 27, 878).

4

ἐνθάδε κεκύµιτε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Θ̣εό[δ]ωρος ὁ πάντων φίλος ἰνδ. ζ̣´ µη̣. Μαέο.

210

- 211 -

5: µη(νί) has a very worn superscript eta.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Theodorus, the friend of all, in May, in the seventh indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century.

410. Theodorus Location: In the temple of Augustus between 1925 and 1927 (Jerphanion); present location unknown. Description: Fragment of white marble grave cover, with irregular and badly effaced letters. Dimensions: Letters about 0.04. Copy: Jerphanion 1925-1927. Publication: Jerphanion 1928, 290 no. 65 and Fig. 59 [Vienna Scheden 272].

4

[† ἐ]νθ̣[ά]δ[ε] κε̣κ̣ύµ[ητε] ὁ δοῦλος το[ῦ Θεο]ῦ Θεόδωρο, [ἐτ]ελιώθι µ. Ἰου[νί]ου ιγ̣´. †

3: ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΥ̣, Jerphanion. 5: ΙΙ, Jerphanion.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Theodorus. He died on 13 June. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 411. Trophimos of Pepouza Location: Since the text carries a well carved Ottoman inscription on the reverse, it certainly came from Ankara itself, not from a location in the surrounding countryside. It is now at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, in the South Terrace Depot. No inventory number. Description: Slab of greyish limestone, broken into three pieces. The top right corner is missing, the bottom left broken, and the right-hand edge chipped. The slab was subsequently re-used and carries an Ottoman Turkish inscription on the back side which refers to the construction of a fountain in 1130 (Hegira) = AD 1717. The letters are clear and regular; broken-bar alpha; sigma and omega sometimes cursive, sometimes square.

211

- 212 -

Dimensions: Length 0.80; width 0.625; thickness 0.06; letters: 0.030-0.045. Copy: SM 16.06.2004; squeeze SM 31.08.2010. Publication: Mitchell 2005; (SEG 55, 1398, cf. 2086; Feissel, Bull. ép. 2009, 643).

4

8

12

† Τρόφιµος ἀπ̣ό̣σ̣τολος Πεπουζεύς, καλέσας εἰς τὴν ἁγιοσύνην, ἐκοιµ̣[ή]θη ϟ ἰνδ. ϟ γ´ ϟ µινὶ Φεβρουαρίου ϟ κ´ ἡµέρᾳ Σαβάθ· ὑπὲρ εὐχῆς Σευήρ[ου] προστάτου δεκα̣[νί]ας ϟ γ´ϟ καὶ παντ[ὸς] τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ. Α Ω †

Translation: Trophimos, apostle of Pepuza, having summoned to holiness, has been laid to rest in the third indiction on 20 February, on the day of the Sabbath. With the prayers of Severus, president of the third dekania, and all his household. Date: Probably 20 February 510, when 20 February coincided with a Saturday during a third indiction year, as it also did in AD 465, 555 and 600 (see Mitchell 2005, 213-4). Commentary: For a full commentary on this text see Mitchell 2005, with subsequent discussion by Tabbernee 2007, 347 and the imaginative reconstruction in Tabbernee 2011, 287-91. Trophimos was a Montanist apostle from Pepuza, who had died at Ankara where he appears to have been acting as a travelling preacher to win over people or reinforce their conviction that they should conduct holy lives. There were followers of Montanism in Ancyra before the end of the second century, and the community had become influential by the fourth century, when it was singled out for vigorous attacks by orthodox Christians (Mitchell 1993 II, 93-4). In line 7 the use of the indeclinable Hebrew form Sabath, rather than the usual Greek Sabbaton is a clear sign of Jewish influence on this Christian inscription. It is striking that the only epigraphic parallel for the funerary organisation which attended to Trophimos’ burial, a dekania under the direction of a prostates, is to be found in the long inscription, perhaps also dating to the late fifth or sixth centuries, which was set up by a burial society of Jews and godfearers at Aphrodisias, the dekania of the philomatheis and panteulogitai, and which was also headed by a prostates (IJO II, 71-112 no. 14). Mitchell 2005, 219-23 surveys the evidence, principally from the first half of the fifth century, for close relations between Christians and Jews in Asia Minor in late antiquity; for the wider context, see Millar 2004. 412. Lord save their souls

212

- 213 Location: At the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, in the Garage Depot. No inventory number. Description: A grave cover of intermediate size of grey limestone decorated with a Latin cross inside an incised frame, standing on a tabula ansata with the three-line inscription. The sides and back of the stone are rough. Lunate sigma and omega; cursive alpha. Dimensions: Length 0.49; width 0.28; thickness 0.10; irregular letters c. 0.02. Copy: SM 16.06.2004; squeeze SM 2010. Κε. σῶσ. Ϟ τὶν ψυχὶν αὐτῶν̣. 1: Κ(ύρι)ε σῶσ(ον). 3: omega nu in ligature.

Translation: Lord, save their souls! Date: Middle Byzantine, ninth or tenth century (orthography). Commentary: From the appearance of the monument this appears to have been an anonymous grave gravestone (see 355 comm.). However, if the final letter nu is correctly deciphered the text refers to persons in the plural, and might be part of the decoration of a church, which commemorated donors or members of the clergy who were buried there (cf 502 comm). For the formula with σῶσον, see Feissel 1983 no. 35 from Edessa in Macedonia: Χ(ρίστ)ε [σῶσον] κὲ πάλιν ἀνά[στησον ἡµᾶς]. Both the wording and the orthography of the Ankara inscription also recall the epitaph of Ana Plakidina, carved on a pilaster or pillar from a church at Philomelium, which is probably another Middle Byzantine text of the ninth or tenth centuries: Κ(ύριε) σο̃σον τὶν δούλι σου Ἀνα Πλακιδίνα τῆς πω[ - ] (ΜΑΜΑ 7, 206 = IK 62, no. 52). 413. Euphymia Location: ‘Engagé dans la maçonnerie de la tour qui commande le barrage, sur la face nord-ouest, vers le bas [i.e. tower G in Jerphanion 1928 Pl. LXXXIII and Peschlow 2015 II, Abb. 263]’ (Jerphanion). Present whereabouts not known. Description: ‘Stèle … faite d’un bloc antique remployé … Vers le milieu, une croix à branches légèrement pattées. Le texte est à l’angle du haut, à droite (pour éviter le mal poli du marbre à gauche). Lettres très irrégulières. Gravure peu profonde. Orthographie tardive’ (Jerphanion). Dimensions: Length 0.95; width 0.36. Copy: Jerphanion 1925-1927. Publication: Jerphanion 1928, 291 no. 66 [Vienna Scheden 273]

213

- 214 -

4

† ἀνάπαψο(ν), Χ(ριστ)έ, τὴν δούλιν σου Εὐφυµίαν.

Translation: Cease the life, Christ, of your slave, Euphymia. Date: Middle Byzantine, perhaps ninth or tenth century (language, orthography, execution of the monument). Commentary: Jerphanion’s description suggests that this was one of the larger grave covers, like the monument for Stephania (406), with the text scratched crudely in the upper right quadrant of the cross arms. The verb ἀναπαύοµαι regularly appeared on epitaphs in Greece and Asia Minor, but for the aorist second person singular imperative form, beseeching God to bring an end to a mortal life, compare SEG 6, 446 (Pappa, east Pisidia) + ἀνάπαυσον, [Κ]ίρ(ιε), τὴ(ν) δούλην σου Ἰωανοῦν, παρορõντὰ πλιµελήµατα τὰ ἐν γνόσι κὲ ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ αὐτῆς φηλανθ[ρώ]π̣[ως], IG II/III2 13564 (Athens): ΧΜΓ Α + ω ὅθεν [ἀπέδρα] λύπη, στεναγµοί, ἐκεῖ ἀνάπαυσον̣ [τὴν ψυχή]ν, Κύριέ µου, δούλου ου ταλεπώ[ρου - - -·] ὃ γένοιτο, ἀµήν, and Feissel 1983 no. 268 (Heraclea Lyncestis), the gravestone of a soldier, which ends ὃν προσδεξάµενος, Χ(ριστ)έ, ἀνάπαυσον εὐχε͂ς τῶ(ν) ἁγίων ς ϙ θ ς [isopsephism for amen] +. The spelling ἀνάπαψο(ν) for ἀνάπαυσο(ν) indicates a late date, probably in the middle Byzantine period; compare Feissel, Chron. 431 (Heraclea Pontica) and 485 (Cappadocia). For other epitaphs from Ankara of this period, see 412, 417 and 497-502. 414. Anonymous large gravestone Location: Loose on the east side of the Kale; present whereabouts not known. Description: ‘Epitaph on limestone slab with cross in low relief’ (d’Orbeliani). Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: d’Orbeliani 1915-1918. Publication: d’Orbeliani 1924, 27 no. 10; (SEG 6, 19) [Vienna Scheden 215].

4

---------ΤΑΠΑ ΗΝΙΙ εἰνδ. ζ̣´̣ µη. Μαίου κθ´ ἑµέρᾳ ε´

2: ΕΙΝΔΣ ΜΗΜΑ, d’Orbeliani, showing a small eta above the mu; read εἰνδ. followed by either of the numerals ϛ or ζ.

Translation: … on the fifth day of the week, 29 May in the seventh (?) indiction.

214

- 215 -

Date: If the indiction number was ϛ (6), then the only dates between 400 and 700 when 29 May fell on a Thursday were 638 and 693. If the number was ζ (7) then 424, 469, 514, and 559 are possible dates. However, the recording of weekdays was often in error (see p. xxx and 394 comm.). Commentary: The beginning of the text has been lost. 415. Large grave cover Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 8992. Description: A large grave cover of pale limestone, broken above and battered, with a Latin cross, in low relief, enclosed in a panel; the cross stands on a tabula ansata, in which the inscription was cut. Worn letters; lunate epsilon, broken-bar alpha. Dimensions: Length 1.21; width 0.88; depth 0.24; letters 0.03. Copy: SM 2004. † ἐ̣ν̣θά̣δ̣ε̣ κ̣α̣τ̣ά-̣ [κιτε - - - - ] (traces of four or more lines) Translation: Here lies . . . Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 416. Olympius, bishop of Ivatna Location: In the Roman Baths [F VII]. Inv. no. 117.2.82. Description: A large tomb cover of hard, dark-reddish grey andesite, broken at the top right. The panel, framed by a plain flat border contains a tall cross. The ends of the crossmembers do not touch the frame. The inscription is cut on either side beneath the arms of the cross, in letters, which are sharp and clear, but uneven in size: broken-bar alpha, lunate epsilon, sigma and omega. Dimensions: Length 1.70; width 0.90; depth 0.22; letters 0.040-0.075. Copy: DHF 12.04.1973; squeeze SM 21.08.2010. Publication: French 2003, 206 no. 86; (SEG 55, 2003). † Ὀλύ ἐπί πος

νπιος σκοἸουα215

- 216 4

τν

ων.

Translation: Olympius, bishop of Ivatna. Date: Late fifth or sixth century (form of monument). Commentary: The form Ιουατνων does not correspond with any toponym or ethnic recorded in the Dioceses of Constantinople, Pontica or Asiana (Le Quien 1740, 1, ix–xii, xiii–xxi, or xlix–l) or in the indices of the Not. Episc. 417. Helen Location: In the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 114.186.99. Description: Re-used block of Ankara andesite, with a frame or raised margin on the right, which had served as a door-jamb before it was used as a grave cover. Very crude letters with lunate epsilon and sigma. Dimensions: Height 0.56; width 0.82; thickness 0.17; letters 0.035-0.06. Copy: SM 12.06.2004; squeeze SM 31.08.2010.

4

ἐνθάδε κῖτε ἡ δούλι τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ἑλένι µιν̣ὶ Μαίο κ̣´ ἰ̣(ν)δ. ϟ ε´.

4-5: the reading is uncertain after ΜΑΙΟ; horizontal bar above the epsilon.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Helen, on 5 May in the fifth indiction. Date: Middle Byzantine, perhaps ninth or tenth century (orthography, poor quality). Commentary: The itacisms on this poor quality gravestone resemble those of the tenth century epitaph of Kale in the church of St Clement (500). 418. Callistus Location: In the Garage Depot, Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: A gravestone of Ankara andesite, chipped at the top. The top is rounded, and there is a Maltese cross-in-circle in high relief on the shaft. The first two lines of the inscription follow the line of circle around the bottom of the cross. The front of the stone has been cut smooth, but the base is rough. Angular letters, with rhomboid or diamondshaped omikron and theta, cursive alpha in the form of a triangle with the right upright overlapping at both ends, omikron upsilon in ligature.

216

- 217 -

Dimensions: Height 0.69 (shaft 0.45); width 0.35; thickness 0.11; letters 0.02-0.04. Copy: SM 16.06.2004. [ἔν]θα κατάκητε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ̣(εο)ῦ Κάληστος 3: horizontal bar above ΘΥ.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Callistus. Date: Sixth century. Commentary: Unlike the main series of grave covers this monument appears to have stood upright as a tomb monument, supported on the roughly cut lower section of the stone. 419. Maria Location: In WT 15 of Ankara citadel; ‘maçonnée au plafond de l’embrasure sud de la … tour’ (Jerphanion). Description: ‘Dalle … travail grossier, dans une pierre volcanique à gros grain; mais la forme est la même qu’à la dalle précédente [= 372]. Ici encore, la croix a été martelée (le texte était à l’endroit). Lettres très irregulières. L’extrémité droite et les bas du cartouche sont noyés dans la maçonnerie’ (Jerphanion). Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Jerphanion 1925-1927. Publication: Jerphanion 1928, 290 no. 64 [Vienna Scheden 271].

4

ἐνθάδε κ[α]τάκητ[ε] ἡ [δο]ύλη τοῦ Θεοῦ Μαρί[α].

4: Μαρί[α (?)· έτελεύτησε …], Jerphanion

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Maria. Date: Mid-sixth century (Jerphanion). Jerphanion remarks that the stone is from the same period as 372, the gravestone for Paul, priest of the Church of the Archangels, although the workmanship is less good.

217

- 218 420. Sophronis Location: In the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 113.554.99. Description: A large grave cover of white-flecked Ankara andesite, broken above. In low relief there is a panel containing a cross, broken above, above a tabula ansata with the inscription. Dimensions: Length 1.07; width 0.80; thickness 0.27. Letters 0.025. Copy: SM 1971; 05.06.2004. Squeeze SM 1972 and 23.08.2010. Publication: Mitchell 1977, 100 no. 46 and Pl. 16b; (SEG 27, 879).

4

† ἀναπέπ† αυτε ἡ δούλη τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Σουφρονής. † † ††

Translation: The slave of God, Sophronis, has passed away. Date: Sixth century. Commentary: For the funerary formula ἀναπέπαυται, see 413 comm. Σουφρονής = Σωφρωνίς. It appears that the craftsman responsible for this grave monument also produced a grave cover of Ankara andesite, which is built into the curtain wall between the SE bastion and tower E1 on the east side of the citadel. This has a broad undecorated frame separated from a recessed central panel by a quarter-round moulding. The upper part of this central panel is decorated with a large Latin cross. This rests on a high tabula ansata, which appears to have been hollowed out in the middle, thus removing the inscription (Peschlow 2015 II, Abb. 293; fig. 6). [Insert fig. 6 here] 420 bis. Andesite grave cover with cross Location: In the Roman Baths. No inventory number. Description: Grave cover of Ankara andesite of irregular shape, broken at the bottom left. There is an asymmetrical triangular pediment containing a large veined leaf with the stalk to the right. The shaft, which tapers on the left towards the base, but is vertical on the left, contains a large cross above a tabula ansata. One line of the badly weathered inscription is carved above the tabula, the rest within it. Square epsilon; alpha with slanting crossbar. Dimensions: Height 1.52; width (at bottom of pediment) 0.79; width at bottom 0.43; thickness 0.26; letters 0.03. Copy: SM, 6.4.2017.

218

- 219 -

Date: Sixth century. Θεός ΟΛ̣

4

ἔνθα κ̣ε[κύ]µ̣ι̣τε̣ ̣ . Ο̣ . . . . . . . Ϲ̣ . . .

Translation: God … Here sleeps … Commentary: The decoration of the pediment is unparalleled in other sixth-century grave covers. 421. Lord help your slave Location: In the Roman Baths. No inventory number. Description: Ankara andesite slab, intact above, left and right. A slot has been cut out of the front face. The inscription below line 2 has been removed. Dimensions: Length 0.44; width 0.20; thickness 0.34; letters: (line 1) 0.05, (line 2) 0.03. Copy: SM 24.09.2005; squeeze SM 20.08.2010. † Κύ(ριε) βο̣ήθι τοῦ [δούλου] ----Translation: Lord help your (slave). Date: Probably sixth century. Commentary: Compare 381 and 382. 422. Paulus? Location: In the Roman Baths. No inventory number. Description: Lid of a grave cover made from Ankara andesite with the profile of a sarcophagus lid. On each of the sloping sides of the sarcophagus lid a large cross was cut above a tabula ansata. The first line on the left-hand tabula ansata is barely legible. Letters are preserved from three lines of the inscription on the right-hand tabula ansata; lunate epsilon, straight-barred alpha. Dimensions: Length 1.80; width 0.71; thickness 0.26. 219

- 220 -

Copy: SM 09.06.2004. (left)

† ἐ̣ν̣θ̣ά[δε] κατάκιτε - -

(right)

---. . ΟΥΠ ΑΥΛ̣. . ..ΛΙ..

Perhaps ἐνθά|[δε] κατά|κιτε [ὁ δοῦ|λος τοῦ |Θε]οῦ Π|αῦλ[ος] | . . ΛΙ . .

Translation: Here lies the slave of God (?) Paulus … Date: Probably sixth century.

423. Anastasius fragment Location: In Storeroom 3 of Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Part of a large grave cover of weathered sandstone, broken above, right and below. The inscription was cut in a tabula ansata, and the letters were picked out in red paint. Lunate sigma; upsilon as V; cursive alpha. Dimensions: Length 0.34; width 0.27; depth 0.06; letters: 0.0175-0.03. Copy: SM June 2004.

4

Δ̣ [ - - ] ΝΧΙ̣ . Υ [? πα]τρός µο[υ Ἀνασ]τ̣ασίου.

2: ? Χ(ριστο)ῦ. 3-4: [Ἑορ]τ̣ασίου is much less likely.

Translation: … of my father Anastasius … Date: Probably sixth century. Commentary: The placing of the inscription in a tabula, probably near the bottom of the original stone, and the letter forms suggest that this was one of the series of fifth- or sixthcentury Ankara grave monuments.

220

- 221 -

3.7 Small funerary monuments of the late fifth and sixth centuries Most of the items in this section are rectangular terracotta tiles with inscriptions cut or incised into them before they were fired. A smaller number consists of marble slabs or plaques, usually re-used pieces of wall cladding. 424. Kyrilos, marble-worker Location: Not recorded. Description: ‘Tile in white marble’ (Macpherson). Elegant cursive lettering with a leaf beneath the text. Dimensions: Height 0.23; width 0.33; thickness 0.025; letters 0.035-0.04. Copy: Macpherson 1950-53. Publication: Macpherson 1958, 176 no. 242 and Pl. 58; Mitchell 1977, 101 no. 50; (SEG 27, 883).

4

[ἐνθάδε] κ̣α̣τά ̣ ̣κ̣ιτ̣ ̣ε̣ ὁ̣ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Κύριλος µαρµαράρις. leaf

2: traces only of the bottom of the letters.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Κyrilos, a marble-worker. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: Kyrilos’ grave marker was a thin plaque of marble, doubtless from his own workshop. For a lithourgos at Ankara in the second century AD, see I. Ankara 1, 287; many examples of marmorarii have been collected by Robert 1960, 28-30 and Feissel, Chron. 553, 773, 779. 425. Anthia Location: Seen in the Akkale Depot. Inv. no. 3098. Description: White marble slab which has been broken and mended, but is missing the top right and the bottom left. The text is well cut within an exact engraved circle and there are guide lines above and below the letters. Lunate epsilon; broken-bar alpha. The right-hand uprights of alpha, delta, and lambda extend above the left ones.

221

- 222 Dimensions: Height 0.32; width 0.53; thickness 0.045; circle diameter 0.275; letters 0.03. Copy: SM 7 June 2004.

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ἡ δούλη τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἀνθία. leaf † leaf

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Anthia. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: Compare the name Ἀνθίς on a fifth- or sixth-century gravestone from the territory of Tavium north of Yozgat, Wallner 2011, 100-1, III no. 4. 426. A child’s grave Location: In the Garage Depot, Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: White marble cladding fragment, broken on all sides. The inscription was cut in a tabula ansata, of which only the top and part of the left margin are now preserved. Dimensions: Height 0.29; width 0.44; thickness 0.045; letters: 0.025. Copy: SM 16.06.2004; squeeze SM 01.09.2010.

4

† ἡ τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ δούλη νήπ[ιον] καὶ τοῖς οἰκείοις γον[εῦσι ποθι]νοτάτη ἔνθα κ̣α[̣ τάκιτε - - ] τελιωθεῖσα . [ - - - - - ] vac . [ - - - - ]

1: Θ†Y, lapis. 3. κα[τάκιτε ἐν Κ(υρί)ῳ] ?. 5: there is a trace of an upsilon or a chi below the theta of line 4.

Translation: The slave of God, the tiny/cute (child) who was also most adored by her own parents, lies here … having ended her life … Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: Compare 468, † ἔνθα [κα]τάκιτε τὸ̣ [νή]πιον Θε[ο]δότη, and a gravestone of this period from Tavium, which reads ἔνθα κατάκιτε νήπιον Γεώργις

222

- 223 (Wallner 2011, II n. 13; SEG 61, 1122). In both cases the neuter noun τέκνον or παίδιον should be understood with the adjective. There is insufficient space for another word at the end of line 1. It may be that the child was too young to be named, as is apparently the case in an epitaph from Rome: ἐνθάδε κεῖτη Νουµηνία γυνὴ Κωµάζοντος σὺν νηπίῳ µηνῶ(ν) ζ´ καὶ θυγατρὸς ἐτῶν η´· Νουµηνία, µνία αὐτῶν (ICUR VIII 21550, cited by Feissel, Chron. 1021). For further examples of νήπιος, see three Greek Jewish epitaphs from Rome, JIWE II, 8, 439 and 466, and examples from Syracuse, Cyrene, Crete, Nicomedia, Lydia and Tyana, collected by J. and L. Robert, Bull. ép. 1979, 15 in fine. J. Nollé points out that in Christian contexts the use of the adjective recalled Christ’s words about the innocence of children (Matt. 11.25 and 21.16; see the commentary by Nollé in I. Tyana, no. 111). 427. Theodotis Location: In the museum of the Middle East Technical University. Inv. no. 94. 01. 139. Description: A small plaque of white marble, probably a stone roof-tile, re-used as a grave marker; broken in two (a modern break) and restored. The front face is finished with a comb-like tool. Omikron upsilon in ligature; broken-bar alpha, square sigma. Dimensions: Height 0.41; width 0.35; thickness 0.06; letters c. 0.03. Copy: Ender Varinlioğlu. Publication: Ender Varinlioğlu in Tuna – Buluç – Tezcan 2012, 109 with photograph.

4

† ἔνθ[α] κατάκιτε ἱ δούλι τοῦ Θ(ε)οῦ Θεωδοτίς. †

1: ἐνθ(άδε), EV. 2: κα|τάκιτει, EV

Translation: Here lies the slave of God Theodotis. Date: Perhaps seventh century. Commentary: This poorly engraved text may be middle Byzantine; compare 417. 428. ΧΜΓ Location: The origin of this inscription is uncertain; it is now in the Garage Depot, Museum of Anatolian Civilizations and might have been brought to Ankara from Istanbul. No inventory number.

223

- 224 -

Description: White marble slab, perhaps a small grave cover, complete above and left, damaged right, broken below. Square epsilon and sigma; broken-bar alpha. Dimensions: Height 0.28; width 0.29; thickness 0.065; letters 0.04. Copy: SM 16.06.2004; squeeze SM 01.09.2010.

4

†ΧΜΓ† ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ὁ τῆς µακαρί̣ας µνήµης Ε . -----

Translation: Christ born of Maria. Here lies E … of blessed memory. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The provenance of the stone is not certain, and this is the only occurrence so far recorded in Ankara of the ambiguous Christian signum ΧΜΓ. The only other instance of the formula ὁ τῆς µακαρίας µνήµης, at Ankara occurs on 428 bis for a woman of Constantinople, and it is conceivable that 428 is one of the stones brought to the Ankara museum from Istanbul. ΧΜΓ could be resolved in different ways: Χριστός Μιχαήλ Γαβριήλ; Χριστὸν Μαρία Γέννᾳ; Χριστὸς ἐκ Μαρίας γεννηθείς. Occasionally the formula was resolved, as at Beševliev 1964, 105 no. 156: Μαρία Χριστὸν γέν(νᾳ). See the earlier bibliography compiled by Beševliev in his commentary on this text, referring to H. Leclercq, DACL I (1924), 180ff; Kaufmann 1917, 72; Grossi Gondi 1920, 59; IGLS I no. 271 with notes; and Lefebvre 1907, xxxii. See also Barbel 1941, 262-269, and more recent literature which has been compiled by Tjäder 1970, 148-90. Further examples are compiled in Feissel, Chron. 25, 60, 165 and 225 with notes, and there is valuable discussion including the papyrological evidence by Horsley, New Docs 2 (1982), 177-80 and by Llewellyn, New Docs 8 (1998), 156-168. Cumont 1895, 256, noted that the expression was especially frequent in Christian inscriptions of Syria, and Peterson 1926, 16 ff. and 67, observed that it was also common in Egypt. The symbol appears less often in central Asia Minor, but there are three epitaphs of the later third or fourth centuries from eastern Lycaonia, where the letters begin the inscriptions (MAMA VIII 274-5, and 279), and a funerary epigram inscription from the Phrygian highlands, where they were placed at the end of the text (Haspels 1971, 310 no. 36). 428 bis. Euphemia of Constantinople

224

- 225 Location: In 1977 this text was in the depot of Yalvaç Museum (Pisidian Antioch), catalogue number 1062, but the museum register records that the inscription had been brought from Ankara Museum. Description: A rectangular white limestone plaque cut into the shape of a tile, which has been cut again on the right and damaged below. Dimensions: Height 0.335; width 0.30; thickness 0.02; letters 0.025-0.03. Copy: SM Yalvaç Museum, July 1977.

4

8

12

ἐνθα κατάκιτ[ε ἡ τῆς] µακαρίας µνή[µης] ἡ κύρα Εὐφηµ[ία] ὴ Κοσταντιν[οπο]λιτίσα, θυγα[τὴρ] γενοµένη Πέ[τρου] Κωσταντιν[οπολί]του, γαµέτη̣ [γε]νοµένη ᾽Ιωά[ννου] Ἀνατολικο[ῦ·] εἴ τις ἐπιβουλεύ[σει] [-----------]

3: Εὐφηµ[ιανή] is also possible. 12: Restore δώσει Θεῷ λόγον, ἔχῃ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, or a similar phrase.

Translation: Here lies of blessed memory the lady Euphemia, a woman of Constantinople, daughter of Peter of Constantinople, spouse of Ioannes Anatolikos. If anyone has designs, (he will render account to God). Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: This epitaph is for a woman of high status, as shown by the respectful address κύρα (a variant of κυρία, cf Feissel, Chron. 99, 958 and 1194). By repeating the ethnic the text emphasizes that both she and her father originated in Constantinople, the imperial capital, and this appears to offer a specific contrast to her husband’s background, who is described as Ἀνατολικός. Anatolicus is attested as a proper name (e.g. IG IV.3, 1148 from Corinth), but in this text Ἀνατολικoῦ seems more likely to be a sobriquet of Ioannes, rather than his patronym. Imprecations to protect the tomb beginning εἴ τις ἐπιβουλεύσῃ or ὅς ἂν ἐπιβουλεύσῃ, were attested in the fourth century and later in late antiquity (compare Gibson 1975 = Horsley, New Docs 1 (1976), 136-7: εἴ τις ἐπιβουλεύσι, ἔτη αύτοῦ πὸς τὼν παντοκράτορα Θεόν). 429. Amen Location: From an unidentified excavation in Ankara, perhaps the 1931 excavation of a funerary chamber (Peschlow 2015 I, 120).

225

- 226 Description: Fragment of white marble cladding, complete on the right, but broken above, below and left. No measurements are available. Copy: Known only from a photograph in the archive of the DAI Istanbul, D-DAIIST-3261. -------[εἰς τὸν αἰ]ῶνα [ † ] ἀµήν. † 1: trace of a curved letter.

Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Translation: … for ever. Amen. Commentary: This inscription, and two other very fragmentary pieces (429 bis, 489) which appear on the same photograph, belong to a funerary context and might be the inscription fragments discovered during the excavation of a funerary chapel in the Christian cemetery north-west of the Ankara railway station (Dalman – Schneider – Bittel 1932, 251-5). 429 bis. Fragmentary gravestone Location: As 429. Description: Fragment of white marble cladding, broken on all sides. The inscription was carved around the arms of a cross. Copy: As 429. [ἐνθάδ]ε κεκ̣[ύµητε] [ὁ δοῦλ]ος τ̣[οῦ Θ(εο)ῦ] ------1: κεῖ̣[ται] is less likely. 2: the right arm of a cross is visible on the left of this fragment.

Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Translation: Here is laid to rest the slave of God … 430. Sisinnos Location: In the Garage Depot of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: A rectangular white marble slab, restored from four pieces; broken bottom left and below. Neat, clear lettering with cursive epsilon and sigma, broken-bar alpha, omicron upsilon in ligature.

226

- 227 -

Dimensions: Height 0.395; width 0.325: thickness 0.04; letters: 0.02-03. Copy: Macpherson c. 1954; SM 15.06.2004; squeeze SM 01.09.2010. Publication: Macpherson 1958, 173 no. 234 and pl. 57; Mitchell 1977, 102 no. 54; (SEG 27, 887). [†] ἐνθάδε κα[τ]άκιτε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ Σίσιννος ὁ πάντων φίλος. Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Sisinnus, the friend of all. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The name Sisinnos, of Iranian origin, became common in late antiquity, as children were named after St Sisinnos, who protected childbirth; see Bull. ép. 1978, 497 commenting on this text and citing Perdrizet 1922, 13-27. 431. Aphrodite Location: Said to be from the Ziraat Mahalle in Ankara; now in the Garage Depot. Inv. no. 128.1.69. Description: Grey limestone column with a moulding at the top and broken below, re-used as a grave marker. Lunate epsilon and sigma; broken-bar alpha; omikron upsilon in ligature. Dimensions: Height 0.615; diameter 0.325; letters: 0.03-0.035. Copy: SM 16.06.2004; squeeze SM 01.09.2010. † ἐνθάδε κεκύµιτε ἡ δούλη τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ἀφρο† δίτη. † Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God Aphrodite. Date: Probably late fifth century. Commentary: For another funerary column see 356. These were all presumably reused items. The name Aphrodite was not commonly used by Christians. 432. Theodorakis

227

- 228 -

Location: Found in the foundations of the Boyacızade Konağı restaurant on Ankara Kale. Description: Section of white limestone column, cut flat at the top and bottom, and broken to the left. The back was left rounded but the front was cut to a flat surface. Broken-bar alpha; cursive epsilon and theta. Dimensions: Height 0.29; original diameter 0.33; surviving thickness 0.14; letters: 0.025-0.03. Copy: SM squeeze 31.08.2010.

4

[†] Θεοδου[ρ]άκις ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ ἐνθάδε κεκύµητε. †

Translation: Theodorakis the slave of God has been laid to rest here. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: For the name, compare Platonakis (405). D. Feissel in Salona IV.2, 1135 no. 758  notes that the ending -akis points to a late fifth or sixth century date: ‘Théodôrakis, dérivé hypocoristique de Theodôros, appartient à une classe de noms caracterisée par le suffixe -άκις en latin -aci(u)s (au génitif -κίου latin -aci), dont les premiers exemples remontent au Ve siècle et qui se répand surtout à partir du VIe (voir par exemple PLRE III, Ioannacius, Prasinacius, Stephanacius). En Occident, cette classe de noms n’apparaît qu’après la reconquête justinienne … Un papyrus de Ravenne daté de 639 mentionne à la fois un Paulacis et un Theodoracis (Tjäder, P. Ital. I, 22, et commentaire détaillé p. 468). Le nom Θεοδοράκις se trouve aussi en Arabie (Welles 1938, n. 344) et en Égypte (PSI VII, 823).’ 433. Longinus, vicarianus Location: Maltepe; now in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations Depot D. Inv. no. 118-109-68. Description: Red tile. The letters are angular and clear, but unevenly cut, and must have been incised into the clay before the tile was baked. The right-hand vertical of alpha, delta and lambda is extended; rhomboid theta, omikron and phi; square epsilon and omega. There is a Latin cross with triangular ends at the beginning of the text and a staurogram at the end. Dimensions: Height 0.28; width 0.41; thickness 0.04; letters 0.025 – 0.062 (phi).

228

- 229 -

Copy: SM 2005.

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ Λονγῖνος ὁ οὐεικαριανός, ὁ πάντων φίλος. (Staurogram)

Translation: Here lies the slave of God Longinus, vicarianus, friend of all. Date: Later fifth or sixth century, before 535. Commentary: This tile is reported to have been found on Maltepe; for a further group of funerary tiles and inscriptions from the recent excavation carried out in Maltepe, see 477-480. Clive Foss has drawn attention to the evidence that Ancyra was the seat of the vicarius of the diocese of Pontica (Foss 1977, 33-4 n. 19). Lucilius Crispus, a(gens) v(ice) praef(ectorum) praet(orio), hence vicarius, erected a dedication to Constantine in the city in the autumn of 324 (331). The lives of St Clement and of St Plato both indicate that the saints were tried by vicarii at Ankara (PG 114, 825; PG 115, 404). In 375 Basil wrote a letter to Demosthenes, vicarius of Pontica under Valens (PLRE I, Demosthenes 2), excusing himself and his fellow Cappadocian bishops from responding to a summons which would have taken them outside the boundaries of their province Cappadocia (Basil, ep. 225: ὥστε ἱκετεύοµέν σε φυλάξαι ἡµῖν τὴν ἀκρόασιν ἐπὶ τῆς πατρίδος καὶ µὴ ἕλκειν εἰς τὴν ὑπερορίαν), and it appears from another letter of Basil that Demosthenes indeed visited the Cappadocian bishops within their province, but not before he had convened a synod of the unrighteous, that is Arians, in Galatia, evidently in Ancyra (Basil, ep. 237: ἐπεδήµησεν ἡµῖν βικάριος, τὸ πρῶτον καὶ µέγιστον τῶν ἡµετέρων κακῶν … συνεκρότησε µὲν γάρ σύνοδον ἀθετούντων ἐν µέσῳ τῷ χειµῶνι ἐπὶ τῆς Γαλατίας). In Novella VIII of 535 Justinian took steps to reduce graft and corruption by abolishing the vicariates of Asiana and Pontica, and merging their functions with those of the governors of Phrygia Pacatiana and Galatia Prima respectively (Justinian, Nov. VIII. 2-3, Schoell). This not only strengthens the argument that the main seat of the vicarius was at Ankara, the capital of Galatia Prima, but also suggests that this gravestone for one of the officials of the vicarius should date earlier than 535. According to CTh XV.5.365 and XV.12.386 vicarii normally had a staff of 300, although there were only 200 in Asiana (CTh XV.13.389). Most members of this staff were of low rank, and the very modest tile gravestone of Longinus suggests a humble official (see in general Jones 1964 I, 592-5). Two epitaphs from Corycus supposedly mention officiales of the vicarii, but neither identification is completely secure. MAMA III 226: σωµατοθήκη διαφέρουσα τοῦ καβ(ιδαρίου) Ἀναστασίου οὐ[ικ](αρίου) πρεσβυτέρου is a very uncertain case. Even the initial letters omikron upsilon are unclear, and it is implausible that Anastasius should have held three professions together: cavidarius (gem-cutter), priest, and a member of the office of the vicarius. MAMA III 155 † θήκη Ἰωάννου καὶ Ἠλία

229

- 230 Π[λ]οτίνου βηκ†αρήου † seems to be clearer, although the Greek transcribes the adjective vicarius not vicarianus, the more correct designation found in the Ankara text. 434. Alypius Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Dark red tile with white gritty fabric, broken below. Cursive epsilon, theta, sigma and omega; broken-bar alpha; nu has an ornate curled diagonal. Dimensions: Height 0.185; width 0.19; thickness 0.03; letters: 0.025. Copy: SM 2005.

4

† ἐνθά[δε] κατάκ[ιτε] ὡ δοῦλ[ος] τοῦ Θε[οῦ] Ἀλύ[πις].

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Alypius. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: For the name Alypius, see 353 comm. 435. Ananias Location: Seen in the Akkale Depot. No inventory number Description: Top right corner of a tile. The right upright overlaps the left upright of the alpha, square sigma. Dimensions: Height 0.18; width 0.15; thickness 0.04; letters 0.05. Copy: SM 17.07.1977. Ἀνανίας. Translation: Ananias. Date: Sixth century. Commentary: The primary associations of the name Ananias are Jewish, but this Ankara example is likely to be Christian. Ananias was the name of one of Daniel’s 230

- 231 companions in Nebuchadnezar’s fiery furnace, and of the follower of Jesus who baptized Paul at Damascus (Acts 9.11). Both were sanctified and attested epigraphically: see SEG 43, 1071 (Palestine, monastery of Sabas), and perhaps SEG 44, 782 (Sicily, Ragusa). The name was adopted by a priest at Thessalonica, Feissel 1983 no. 110. 436. Uncertain Location: Recorded by Macpherson in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Description: Cracked tile, poorly engraved; below the inscription there is a peacock and a cross. Dimensions: Height 0.28; width 0.28; thickness 0.03; letters 0.023. Copy: Macpherson 1950-53. Publication: Macpherson 1958, 174 no. 236 and Pl. 57; Mitchell 1977, 102 no. 52; (SEG 27, 885).

4

† ἐθάδε κατάκετε {η} ὁ δῶλος τοῦ Θεῶ Α ΠΕΔΕ☧̣ .Τ̣Ϲ.̣ ☧̣Ο.̣

1: ϵΘΑΔϵ. 2: ΚΕΤΕ. 5: Staurogram or rho at the end of the line. 6: Readings uncertain.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, … Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The name is uncertain. 437. Funerary tile Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red tile, top left corner only; cursive epsilon, theta, and omega. The engraving is shallow and obscured by lime encrustation. Dimensions: Height 0.16; width 0.23; thickness 0.03; letters 0.025-0.045. Copy: SM 2005. ἐνθά[δε κατάκ]231

- 232 -

4

ίτ̣ε ΩΝΙΝ [ - ] Ι̣ΛΗ ̣ ṬΗ̣ [ - ] . . Λ̣Ο̣ [ - ]

2-3: ? {Ω} Νίν[η φι]|λητή, compare 491.

Translation: Here lies … Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 438. Bosporus Location: Brought from Konur Sokak, Kızılay in March 1957; now in Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Clay tile; square epsilon, theta and omikron; broken-bar alpha. Staurogram below the inscription, and another cross to the right of it. Dimensions: Height 0.35; width 0.37; thickness 0.055; letters 0.035. Copy: SM 2005. † ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε Βόσπορος. (staurogram) † Translation: Here lies Bosporus. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The names Bosporius and Bosporia appear in a wealthy Ankara family of the fourth and early fifth centuries; see p. xxx. 439. Gaeianes Location: In the Museum of the Middle East Technical University. Inv. no. 94.01.127. Description: A tile of baked clay, brick red fabric with pinkish slip. The tile has been broken into four pieces and repaired. The letters were crudely scratched with a blunt tool into the fabric before it was fired. Broken-bar alpha; curved epsilon and sigma. Dimensions: Height 0.29; width 0.29; thickness 0.03; letters c. 0.05-0.06. Copy: Ender Varinlioğlu.

232

- 233 -

Publication: Ender Varinlioğlu in Tuna – Buluç – Tezcan 2012, 112 with photograph.

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε εἱ δού- Γαλι τοῦ ειαΘεοῦ νής. †

Translation: Here lies the slave of God Gaeianes. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: Γαειανής is a version of the woman’s name Γαιανίς. The male name Gaianus had been current in Ankara since the imperial period (I. Ankara 1, 96-102 and 122). Gaianus was common in north Galatia, see RECAM II 179, 335 and 520, and Gaiane occurs in RECAM II 335. The spelling Γαειανοῦ occurs on a late third or fourth century epitaph from Kayakent, near Germia, in western Galatia (Walser 2013, 592 no. 39). 440. Daphne Location: Not recorded. Description: Clay tile, broken below. Dimensions: Height 0.17; width 0.295; thickness 0.045; letters 0.02. Copy: Macpherson 1950-53. Publication: Macpherson 1958, 173 no. 233 and pl. 57; Mitchell 1977, 102 no. 53; (SEG 27, 886).

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ἡ δούλη τοῦ Θεοῦ Δάφνη ---------

4: perhaps ἡ πάντων φίλη.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Daphne … Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: Compare Δάφνος in 338. 441. Eugenius

233

- 234 -

Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red clay tile; letters thinly scratched; square epsilon. Dimensions: Height 0.305; width 0.31; thickness 0.042; letters: 0.07. Copy: SM 2005. Εὐγένις ἐν ἰρήνῃ. Translation: Eugenius, in peace. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: This is the only Christian epitaph from Ankara which uses the formula ἐν εἰρήνῃ. The formula appears to be much less common than the Latin equivalent in pace and usually occurs in regions where the influence of Latin was strong, for example in the Greek inscriptions of Rome or other parts of the western Roman empire; see Feissel, Chron. 312 no. 1021 (Rome), 317 no. 1043 (Naples), 321 no. 1037 (Catania). For an example from the east, see Beševliev 1964, no. 208 (Philippopolis): Νάρκισος | ἐν εἰρήνῃ | ἰς µονόσω|µον. Beševliev cites DACL VII, 674 ff. and 684, Kaufmann 1917, 134 ff., and Peterson 1926, 175 ff. for further discussion. A small group of inscriptions from the cities of the Phrygian Pentapolis dating to the late second or third century used the formula εἰρήνη τοῖς παροδείταις (or similar), addressed to passers-by (MAMA XI 139 with comm.). 442. Eupodius Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red clay tile, chipped on right. Letters thinly scratched and uneven. Three staurograms on the first line, with faint letters visible between the first two. Cursive epsilon, theta and sigma; broken-bar alpha. Dimensions: Height 0.275; width 0.26; thickness 0.035-0.040; letters 0.02-025. The letters in line 1, at the end of line 7, and in line 8 are smaller and thinly incised. Copy: SM 2005 †ΤΗ . . ΙΝ̣ΙΑ† † ἐνθάδε κατάκ[ιτε] Εὐπόδις υἱὸς

234

- 235 4

Γλυκέρας ὁ κα̣[ὶ] πάντων φίλος. ΤΗΙ̣ω̣ΙΚ ̣ ΙΑ ΘΕΙ̣ΛΙΟ̣Υ

1 and 6-7: traces of a text in smaller letters.

Translation: Here lies Eupodius, son of Glykera, also the friend of all. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: We assume that the smaller letters at the beginning and end of the inscription belong to an earlier text, which must have been incised while the clay could still be worked but was then largely erased to make way for the epitaph. The name Εὐπόδι(ο)ς is unusual, and does not appear in LGPN or the indexes of Bull. ép. 443. Eutropius Location: Not recorded. Description: Tile with scratched rather than inscribed text. Dimensions: Height 0.29; width 0.29; thickness 0.03; letters 0.025. Copy: Macpherson c. 1954. Publication: Macpherson 1958, 174 no. 237 and photo, pl.58; Mitchell 1977, 103 no. 55; (SEG 27, 888). ††† ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε † Εὐτρόπις. ††† Translation: Here lies Eutropius. Date: Late fifth or sixth century.

444. Eutychius Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 4704. Description: Thick red tile, broken at top right and left. Dimensions: Height 0.315; width 0.30; thickness 0.045; uneven letters 0.0350.065. 235

- 236 -

Copy: SM 2005.

4

† ἐνθ[ά]δε κα[τ]άκιτε ὁ δοῦλος [σ]ου Εὐτύχις.

4: cf. 461 and 469; there is insufficient space for [(τοῦ) Θε]|οῦ.

Translation: Here lies Thy slave, Eutychius. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 445. Fortuna Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 50.36.67 joined with 5305. Description: Large fragments (joined with adhesive) and one separate fragment (5305) of a red tile; broken at top left and on right. Broken-bar alpha; omicron upsilon in ligature. Dimensions: Height 0.295; width 0.295; thickness 0.032; letters: 0.038-0.040. Copy: SM 2005.

4

[† ἐνθ]ά̣δε [κατ]ά̣κηται̣ Φορτοῦνα. †

Translation: Here lies Fortuna. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 446. Georgia Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 4705. Description: Three fragments of a broken tile. Dimensions: Height 0.31; width 0.24; thickness 0.04; letters: 0.032-0.037. Copy: SM 2005.

236

- 237 -

4

ἔνθα̣ κατάκιτε ἡ δούλη τοῦ Θ(εο)[ῦ] Γεοργία.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Georgia. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 447. Hypatia Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 4706. Description: Grey-red tile. Dimensions: Height 0.27; width 0.28; thickness 0.055; letters: 0.025-0.027. Copy: SM 2005.

4

† ἐνθάδε κεκύµητε ἡ δού̣λη τοῦ Θεοῦ Ὑπατία, ἐτελιούθη µη. Φ̣εβρ. ει´ ἰνδ. ϟ δ´.

6: µη(νὶ) Φεβρ(ουαρίου). 7: ἰνδ(ικτιῶνος); horizontal bar above delta.

Translation: Here has been laid to rest the slave of God, Hypatia. She died on 15 February, in the fourth indiction. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The names Hypatia and Hypatius, which evoked the rank of a consul, were adopted widely in late antiquity in all classes of society. In Galatia, compare RECAM II, 316 (Hypatia, mother of Strategius), 340, 352; and for Hypatius see 261, 181 and 456. All these examples belong to the third century or later, and all the attestations of these names recorded in LGPN IV, V.A and V.B date between the late third and sixth centuries. A prior (ἡγούµενος) named Hyphatius or Hyphates was buried in the imperial temple at Ankara, probably in the ninth or tenth century, after its conversion to a church (500). Other names found in the region that evoked high social status included Lamprotate at Ancyra (451) and Pessinus (I. Pessinous 190), Sebaste at Ancyra (464), Senator at Dorylaeum (MAMA V, 11) and Illustria (Ἐλουστρία) at Germia (Walser 2013, 576 no. 28).

237

- 238 -

448. Ioannes Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. nos. 4702 + 3275. Description: Two fragments of a red tile, with the bottom right missing. Cursive alpha. Dimensions: a) Height 0.29; width 0.175; thickness 0.037; b) Height 0.255; width 0.13; thickness 0.035; letters 0.02-0.03. Copy: SM 2005.

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ὁ δοῦλ̣ος τοῦ Θεοῦ † Ἰωάν̣ις. ††

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Ioannes. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 449. Cosmas Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red tile, broken at bottom right. Letters deeply cut; square epsilon, theta, omikron and sigma; broken-bar alpha. Dimensions: Height 0.30; width 0.31; thickness 0.04; letters 0.028-0.030. Copy: SM 2005.

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκητε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ Κοσµᾶς, ὁ πάντον [φ]ήλος. †

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Cosmas, the friend of all. Date: Late fifth or sixth century.

238

- 239 -

450. Kyriakos Location: In Akkale Depot. No inventory number. Description: Two fragments of a tile. The main piece is broken right and below; there is also a small non-joining fragment. Square theta and omega. Dimensions: a) Height 0.18; width 0.12; thickness 0.03; b) not measured; letters: 0.025-0.03. Copy: SM 17.07.1977.

4

ἐνθά[δε κατά]κιτε [Κυρια]κὸς ὁ [δοῦ]λος τῶ [Θεοῦ †]

Translation: Here lies Kyriakos, the slave of God. Date: Late fifth or sixth century.

451. Lamprotate Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 50.36.67. Description: Red tile, broken below, with thinly scratched letters. Cursive alpha, delta and lambda. Dimensions: Height 0.155; width 0.295; thickness 0.041; letters 0.020-0.025. Copy: SM 2005. † [ἐ]νθάδε κατάκιτε Λανπροτάτη. † Translation: Here lies Lamprotate. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: For Λαµπροτάτη as a personal name, compare I. Pessinous 190 (SEG 31, 1081), where it has been misinterpreted as an adjective. For names of this type, see 447 comm.

239

- 240 -

452. Lulia Location: In the Museum of the Middle East Technical University. Inv. no. 94.01.125. Description: A tile of baked clay which has been cracked and repaired. A central hole, perhaps for making an offering (cf 492), was perforated through the fabric about two thirds of the way up the tile. The tile was then decorated with a St Andrew’s Cross (X) produced by scraping four shallow incised depressions to represent the limbs of the cross, before the letters were scratched with a sharp pointed tool and the clay was fired. Broken-bar alpha; mostly square letters. Dimensions: Height 0.40; width 0.285; thickness 0.0335; letters c. 0.04. Copy: Ender Varinlioğlu. Publication: Ender Varinlioğlu in Tuna – Buluç – Tezcan 2012, 110.

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ἡ γλυκυτάτη Λουλία· χέρετ̣ε παροδῖτε.

4: ᾽Ιουλία, EV. 5: χέρε σὲ, EV; perhaps χέρεσε, see 484.

Translation: Here lies the sweetest Lulia. Farewell, passers-by. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: For Lulia, compare Λουλιανός (398 comm.). 453. Makaria Location: Reported to have been discovered in the foundation excavations of the Ankara Tip Fakültesi at Hacettepe; now in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 10564. Description: Tile. Dimensions: Height 0.30; width 0.30; thickness 0.03. Copy: SM 1971.

4

ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ἡ δούλη τοῦ Θεοῦ Μακα240

- 241 ρία. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Translation: Here lies the slave of God Makaria. 454. Maria ? Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red tile, thickly encrusted with a lime deposit. Cursive epsilon, theta and sigma; triangular alpha; omikron upsilon apparently in ligature. Dimensions: Height 0.295; width 0.29; thickness 0.04; letters 0.023-25. Copy: SM 2005.

4

† ἐνθάδε κα̣τά̣κιτε ἡ δο̣ύ̣λη το̣ῦ̣ Θεο̣ῦ̣ . . Λ̣Ι̣Π̣ Α̣ . Ν̣Τ̣ . . Μα̣ρ̣ί̣α̣.†

4-5: Perhaps [ἡ φί]λ̣ι̣ π̣|ά̣ντ̣ ̣[ων].

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, … Maria. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 455. Margarita Location: Noted a few hundred meters east of the railway goods yard which was under construction in 1931; then removed to the Ethnographic Museum. Description: Terracotta tile, with a carefully cut inscription. Dimensions: Height 0.27; width 0.36; letters c. 0.025. Copy: Dalman 1931. Publication: Dalman – Schneider – Bittel 1932, 250 no. 3 [Vienna Scheden 323]. ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ἡ δούλη τοῦ Θεοῦ

241

- 242 4

Μαργαρίτ[α], ἡ πάντων φήλη.

4: or Μαργαριτ[ώ]. 6: φήλη for φίλη

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Margarita, the friend of all. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 456. Maria Location: Noted in the same place as 455; then removed to the Ethnographic Museum. Description: Terracotta tile with irregularly cut letters. Dimensions: Height 0.27; width 0.27; letters c. 0.03. Copy: Dalman 1931. Publication: Dalman – Schneider – Bittel 1932, 250 no. 2 [Vienna Scheden 322].

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκηται ἱε δο[ύ]λι τοῦ Θεοῦ Μα[ρ]ία. † †

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Maria. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: ἱε for ἡ, compare ἱ in 427, εἱ in 439 and 478. 457. Melitine Location: Seen in the Akkale Depot. No inventory number. Description: Complete tile, broken into three pieces. Uneven letters: triangular cursive alpha, cursive sigma, square epsilon. Dimensions: Height 0.30; width 0.30; thickness 0.035; letters 0.023-0.035. Copy: SM 22.07.1977. ἐνθάδε κατάκιτ-

242

- 243 -

4

ε Μελιτίνη ἡ νεοφώτιστος.

Translation: Here lies Melitine, the newly baptised. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: For neophotistoi, see 359 and 404. 458. Stephanos Location: Seen in the Akkale Depot. No inventory number. Description: Tile, broken left; broken-bar alpha, square omikron. Dimensions: Height 0.30; width 0.26; thickness 0.04; letters 0.03. Copy: SM 17.07.1977.

4

[ἐ]νθάδε [κ]ατάκι[τε] ὁ δοῦλο[ς το]ῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Στε[φάν]ου. (sic)

4: a bar above ΘΥ.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God Stephanos. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 459. Philadelphia Location: In the Museum of the Middle East Technical University. Inv. no. 94.01.126. Description: A tile of baked clay, brick red fabric with pinkish slip. The tile has been cracked and repaired. The letters were crudely scratched with a blunt tool into the fabric before it was fired. Before firing and before the inscription was cut the tile was decorated with a St Andrew’s Cross (X) produced by scraping shallow incised depressions with the fingers, to represent the limbs of the cross. Dimensions: Height 0.295; width 0.30; thickness 0.035; letters c. 0.03. Copy: Ender Varinlioğlu.

243

- 244 -

Publication: E. Varinlioğlu in Tuna – Buluç – Tezcan 2012, 111. κατάκιτε {Ϲ} Φιλαδελφία. 1: κατάκιτε Ϲϵ, EV.

Translation: (Here) lies Philadelphia. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: This was a very abbreviated form of the usual type of funerary text of this period. 460. Philastris Location: Not recorded. Description: Tile. Dimensions: Height 0.28; width 0.275; thickness 0.03; letters 0.02-0.023. Copy: Macpherson 1950-53. Publication: Macpherson 1958, 174 no. 235 and photo. Pl. 57; Mitchell 1977, 102 no. 51; (SEG 27, 884).

4

ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ὁ δοῦλος σοῦ Φιλάστρις.

Translation: Here lies Thy slave, Philastris. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The name Φιλάστρις, shortened from Φιλάστριος, is attested for a curialis from the Cappadocian town of Cocussos by Libanius, ep. 883, and occurs in a Hermoupolis papyrus of the fourth century (P. Lips. 1 100 col. 3.15; Φιλαστρίου). The forms Φιλαστρε and Φιλάστηρ appear in an eighth-century tax register from Aphrodito (P. Lond. 4, 1420, 182 and 219). For ὁ δοῦλος / ἡ δούλη σου see also 444 and 469.

461. Philoumenos

244

- 245 -

Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 2875. Description: Reddish tile, broken at bottom right. Decorated with three maltese crosses after and below the text. Broken-bar alpha; square epsilon, theta, and omikron; the left upright overlaps the right upright of delta and lambda; diamondshaped phi. Dimensions: Height 0.29; width 0.30; thickness 0.036; letters 0.020-0.022. Copy: SM 2005. ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε Φιλούµενος. † †† Translation: Here lies Philoumenos. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The name Philoumenos occurs in Galatia at Germia (Walser 2013 575 no. 27). A saint Philoumenos is said to have been denounced as a Christian and put to death at Ankara under the emperor Aurelian, after bringing grain to the city from Lycaonia (SynaxCP 263; see Foss 1977, 33). 462. Platonis Location: In the Museum of the Middle East Technical University. Inv. no. 94.01.128. Description: A tile of baked clay, brick red fabric with beige slip. The letters were crudely scratched with a blunt tool into the fabric before it was fired. Crude lettering: broken-bar alpha; curved epsilon, but square theta. Dimensions: Height 0.29; width 0.29; thickness 0.03; letters c. 0.05-0.06. Copy: Ender Varinlioğlu. Publication: E. Varinlioğlu in Tuna – Buluç – Tezcan 2012, 113.

4

† ἐνθάδι {α} κατάκιτε ἡ δούλι τοῦ Θεοῦ Πλατονίς. †

Translation: Here lies the slave of God Platonis.

245

- 246 -

Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The name Plato, derived from the Ancyran martyr of the Diocletianic period, was popular in Ankara and in Galatia, but the woman’s name Πλατωνίς was much less frequent. Πλατουνίς occurs at Pessinus (I. Pessinous 113). 463. Sancta Location: In Depοt D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red tile. The inscription was written between ruled lines. Square epsilon, theta, and sigma; the right upright overlaps the left upright of alpha and delta; broken-bar alpha. Dimensions: Height 0.305; width 0.305; thickness 0.035; letters: 0.023- 0.027. Copy: SM 2005.

4

†† ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε Σάνκτα.

Translation: Here lies Sancta. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 464. Sebaste Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red tile, broken at bottom right. Rounded epsilon, theta and sigma. Dimensions: Height 0.285; width 0.295; thickness 0.03; letters 0.016-0.039. Copy: SM 2005.

4

ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ἡ δούλη τοῦ Θεοῦ Σεβαστή.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Sebaste.

246

- 247 -

Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: Compare other female names linked with power-holding and Roman authority: Hypatia, Lamprotate, Illustria (see 447 comm.). 465. Severus Location: Brought from Cebeci; now in depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 2340. Description: Reddish tile. Square epsilon, theta, omikron and sigma; triangular alpha. Dimensions: Height 0.295; width 0.29; thickness 0.035; letters 0.022-0.026. Copy: SM 2005.

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκητε ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ Σευῆρος ὁ πάντων φίλος. †

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, Severus, the friend of all. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 466. Styrakis Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Large red tile. The letters of lines 4-5 are more thinly scratched than those of lines 1-3. Square epsilon, theta, omikron; the right uprights of alpha and lambda overlap the left upright. Dimensions: Height 0.365; width 0.36; thickness 0.055; letters (lines 1-3) 0.03, (lines 4-5) 0.02. Copy: SM 2005. (Staurogram)

4

ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε Στυρακὶς ἡ ὁλόκαλλος. (Staurogram)

247

- 248 -

Translation: Here lies Styrakis, wholly beautiful. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: Στύραξ was the name of the resinous tree (Liquidambar orientalis) or the smaller shrub (Styrax officinalis), which produced respectively viscous or solid resins, which were an ingredient of incense and perfume in antiquity and in modern times. The tree, Liquidambar orientalis (Turkish günlük), was also the source of a strong and flexible wood, particularly valued in the making of spear shafts (Amigues 2007, Nicolas 1978). Xenophon, Kynegetica VII.5 noted that Styrax was a name given to hunting dogs, an allusion to the use of the word to describe a spear (cf. Plutarch, Aristides 14.6). This association may also explain some uses of the personal name, especially when applied to men (Masson 1981, 9), and a Styrakios, supposedly a Roman soldier martyred in the Great Persecution, was attested as a saint in the Greek Orthodox Church. But Styrakis in the current inscription was a woman, and her name was chosen because of the association with the perfume that the tree produced (Robert 1963, 180-1). The price-edict of Diocletian noted three types of styrax: from Cilicia costing 500 denarii per pound, from Antioch at 250, and the type used for incense at 150 denarii. The price range doubtless reflected the difference between the costly viscous liquid of the liquidambar officinalis, which was used in perfumes, and the solid resinous lumps from the styrax officinalis tree, which were used for burnt offerings (θυµιάµατα). These products were widely used in late antiquity for medicinal purposes and as the aromatic ingredient of church incense (Amigues 2007, 312-4). Styrakis’ sobriquet ἡ ὁλόκαλλος, the ‘wholly beautiful’, is paralleled in a Christian gravestone from Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, † θέσις | Μαρίας | τῆς ὁλοκά|λου (Marek 1993, 154 no. 73). Maria’s beauty was doubtless a moral quality. Ὁλόκαλος also appeared as a personal name twice in Black Sea contexts, on a sarcophagus at Odessus for Ὁλόκαλος Ποντικοῦ | γένι Ἀµαστριανὸς | βιώσας ἐνθάδε | [κεῖµαι - ] (IGBulg V 5068), in an inscription from Tomi, Χρῆστος Ὁλοκά|λου φιλότειµος | φυλῆς Αἰκορέων | καλῶς βιῶσα | ἔτη ξγʹ · χαῖρε | παροδεῖτα (GIBM II, 178; I. Scyth. Min. II, 252), and on a papyrus of AD 28/29 from Oxyrhynchus (P.Oxy. 24, 2412, 73). 467. Synetos Location: From Unkapı, Ankara; now in Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 4703. Description: Red tile. Square sigma, round theta and omikron; triangular alpha with extended right upright. Dimensions: Height 0.305; width 0.305; thickness 0.043; letters 0.037-0.045. Copy: SM 2005. 248

- 249 -

4

ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε Συνετός.

Translation: Here lies Synetos. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 468. Theodote Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red tile, broken on the right, with white lime incrustation. Square epsilon, theta, omicron, sigma and omega; broken-bar alpha; beta with two distinct loops. Dimensions: Height 0.29; width 0.22; thickness 0.035; letters: 0.018-0.020. Copy: SM 2005.

4

† ἔνθα [κα]τάκιτε τὸ̣ [νή]πιον Θε[ο]δότη ΕΝ ΠΡΕ̣ΒΕϹΗ vac ΥΠΕΡΕΡ̣ΜΓ̣

Translation: Here lies the tiny Theodote … ? Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: For νήπιον see 428 comm. and 439. The sense of the last two lines is unclear. 469. Theodote Location: Seen in the Akkale depot. No inventory number. Description: Tile, broken on the right, cursive epsilon, theta, and omikron omega; broken-bar alpha. Dimensions: Height 0.30; width 0.21; thickness 0.035; letters 0.025. Copy: SM 17.07.1977.

249

- 250 -

4

ἐνθάδε [κα]τάκιτε Θ[εο]δότη ἡ [δούλη] σου Με[λίτ]ωνος.

Translation: Here lies Theodote, thy slave, daughter of Melito. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 470. Theodoule Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 33261. Description: The left side and two joining fragments of bottom right corner of a red tile. Cursive alpha; square epsilon and omega. Dimensions: Height 0.25; width 0.15; thickness 0.04; letters 0.035 (right-hand fragments). Copy: Museum photo of 2003; SM 2005.

4

† ἐν[θά]δε κα[τά]κιτε Θεοδώλη ἡ παντων φίλη. vac †

Translation: Here lies Theodoule, the friend of everyone. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The names Theodoule and Theodoulos were widespread from the third century onwards, see 356 comm.

471. The slave of God P… Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 4701. Description: Red tile, in two fragments. Square epsilon, theta, omikron and omega; broken-bar alpha. Dimensions: Height 0.28; width 0.28; thickness 0.03; letters 0.030-42. Copy: SM 2005. ἐνθά-

250

- 251 -

4

δη κατάκητε {ὡ} ὁ δο̣ῦλο̣ς τοῦ̣ Θ̣εοῦ ΠΟ̣ . . . .Υ̣Χ̣ .

5: traces of upsilon followed by the top of theta. 6: perhaps Πο[λ]υχ[ρόνιος] was intended.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God … Date: Late fifth or sixth century.

472. Unnamed slave of God Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red tile, with white lime incrustation. Square epsilon and theta and omikron; triangular alpha; the right upright of delta extends above the left one. Dimensions: Height 0.295; width 0.295; thickness 0.037; letters 0.03. Copy: SM 2005.

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ὁ δοῦλος τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ Θ̣ε̣ο̣ῦ.̣ †

Translation: Here lies the slave of God. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: Since the inscription ends with a cross it appears that no name was inscribed; compare 355 and 412. 473. Woman’s grave marker Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 3305. Description: Red tile, broken right and below; letters lightly scratched. Dimensions: Height 0.14; width 0.23; thickness 0.031; letters 0.025-32. Copy: SM 2005. † ἐνθάδε κ[α]251

- 252 -

4

τάκητε ἡ̣ δούλη [το]ῦ̣ Θ̣ε[̣ ο]ῦ̣ ------

Translation: Here lies the slave of God, … Date: Late fifth or sixth century.

474. Slave of God Location: Noted in a vineyard, among several other funerary tiles which Perrot reported that he had seen in the town. Present whereabouts not known. Description: A broad, thick terracotta plaque or tile. Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Perrot et al. 1861. Publication: Perrot – Guillaume – Delbet 1872, 1, 241 no. 139 [Vienna Scheden 177]. † ἐνθάδε κατά[κιτε] [ὁ δ]οῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ ------------Translation: Here lies the slave of God … Date: Late fifth or sixth century.

475. Fragmentary grave tile Location: Noted in the Akkale depot. Inv. no. 3305. Description: Two fragments of a tile, including top left corner and diagonal piece. Cursive alpha, epsilon, and sigma. Dimensions: Top left corner: height 0.14, width 0.13; main piece: height 0.29; width 0.29; thickness 0.065. Copy: SM 17.07.1977. vac [†

ἐν]θάδε κατ[ά][κιτε] ΟΔϹ̣ΤΟΥϹ [.] [.]ϹΠΑΤΟ[. .] 252

- 253 4

Π̣ΙΤΟΝ

vac

2: ὁ δ(οῦλο)ς τοῦ Θ̣[(εο)ῦ].

Translation: Here lies … Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 476. Unintelligible grave marker Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red tile with white lime incrustation, damaged at top left and bottom right. The letters are roughly scratched. Dimensions: Height 0.29; width 0.285; thickness 0.035; letters 0.055-0.075. Copy: SM 2005. † ΕΧL †ΙΕ † Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: This may have been an illiterate attempt to carve ἔνθα κῖτε. 477. Severianus (?), a priest Location: Funerary complex excavated on the site of the Sports Centre attached to the architectural faculty of Gazi University in Maltepe in 2009 (see p. XXX); now in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Four fragments of a terracotta tile, re-assembled but broken above. The inscription was cut with a thin pointed tool between engraved lines before firing. Rectangular epsilon, omikron and sigma; broken-bar alpha; narrow beta and rho. Dimensions: About 0.30 x 0.30. Copy: Photograph by Melih Arslan, July 2009; referred to by Arslan – Aydın 2010, 311.

4

[ἐνθάδε] κα̣[τάκ]ι̣τε̣ ̣ Σεειρι̣ανὸς πρε≤σ≥βύτ̣ε̣ρος.

253

- 254 -

2: Only the initial kappa is intact, followed by the bottom of the left hasta of the alpha, and the bottoms of the final three letters.

Translation: Here lies Severianus (?), priest. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: Inscriptions 477-480 were found among the burials excavated in Maltepe by archaeologists from the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations and Gazi University in 2009. They provide the first archaeological evidence for the context in which inscribed funerary tiles were used at Ankara. This inscription was associated with one of three graves (nos. 7, 8 and 10) which appear to have consisted of wooden sarcophagi enclosed in a layer of tiles (Arslan – Aydın 2010, 310-11). The name of the priest is uncertain, although the reading is clear. This might be a version of Sirianus, with an intrusive second epsilon. However, it should probably be interpreted as a rendering of Severianus, which would have been pronounced with a ‘w’ sound between the first two syllables and was normally spelled Σεουηριανός. It is less likely that the form derived from Σιγέριος, the name of one of the priests in the entourage of the elderly Marcellus in 371, Epiphanius, Pan. 72.11.1. 478. Nona Location: From the funerary complex excavated at the site of the Sports Centre attached to the architectural faculty of Gazi University in Maltepe in 2009; now in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Eight fragments of a terracotta tile, reconstructed. Letters incised before firing; rectangular epsilon, theta, omikron, sigma and omega; broken-bar alpha. Dimensions: c. 0.30 x 0.30. Copy: Photograph by Melih Arslan, June 2009; referred to by Arslan – Aydın 2010, 311.

4

ἐνθάδε κατάκ̣ιτ̣ ε Νόν[α], εἱ πάντων φίλι.

2: only the top of the uprights of ΚΙ are visible. 3: right-hand traces of the epsilon; εἱ for ἡ, as in 439.

Translation: Here lies Nona, the friend of all. Date: Late fifth or sixth century.

254

- 255 Commentary: The inscription was associated with grave 10 or 11 of the burials excavated in Maltepe in 2009. 479. Fragment naming a priest? Location: From the funerary complex excavated at the site of the Sports Centre attached to the architectural faculty of Gazi University in Maltepe in 2009; now in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Two joining fragments of white marble wall cladding, broken on all sides. Rectangular epsilon, sigma and omega. Dimensions: Height 0.11; width 0.13; letters 0.02. Copy: Photograph by Melih Arslan, June 2009. vac Ι̣ Ι̣ Ι̣ Ο Ϲ Δ .̣ Υ πρσβυ. Ϟ ΚΛ̣ Λ̣ΙΕ. Γ̣ΩΜΕ vac 1: the spacing would suit Η or Π followed by T; the last letter could be Ε or Ο. 2: last letter Α or Λ. 3: Λ or Α at the beginning; the top bar of a Γ or Τ before the Ω. We could restore, e.g., [Ἀγαπ]ητὸς δο[ύλ][ος Θ]Υ πρσβυ. Ϟ κα[ὶ] [καλ]λιε[ρ]γώµε[νος] (for καλλιεργούµενος)

Translation: ? Agapetus, slave of God, priest and doer of good works (?). Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The text appears complete above and below but was broken left and right. The tentative restoration offered above would be appropriate for a donor inscription of a priest who paid for marble decoration in a church or chapel, but the verb καλλιεργέω normally appears in such contexts in the aorist active form ἐκαλ(λ)ιέργησε, and it is hard to parallel the use of the present middle participle form. 480. Tile Fragment Location: From the funerary complex excavated at the site of the Sports Centre attached to the architectural faculty of Gazi University in Maltepe in 2009; now in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Tile fragment, broken on all sides. Rectangular epsilon, sigma and omega. Dimensions: Height 0.12; width 0.18; letters 0.025.

255

- 256 -

Copy: Photograph by Melih Arslan, June 2009. [ - - - ]. Ο [ - - ] [ - - Θ]εοῦ [ - - ] [ - ]ΙΑΠΑΤ̣ [ - ] (staurogram)

1-2: [ἡ δ]ο[ύλη | τοῦ Θ]εοῦ ? 3: the final letter may be Π or Τ; perhaps [ - ]ία Πατ[ - ].

Translation: … ? the slave of God … Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The text appears complete at the bottom, and a margin was incised below the christogram. 481. Tile Fragment Location: From the funerary complex excavated at the site of the Sports Centre attached to the architectural faculty of Gazi University in Maltepe in 2009; now in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: The small top left fragment of a red terracotta tile. Cursive epsilon. Copy: Photograph by Melih Arslan, June 2009. † ἔ[νθα - - - ] --------Translation: Here … Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 482. Tile Fragment Location: From the funerary complex excavated at the site of the Sports Centre attached to the architectural faculty of Gazi University in Maltepe in 2009; now in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Top right corner of a red terracotta tile; cursive sigma. Copy: Photograph by Melih Arslan, June 2009. [ - - - ]ΤΙΣ - - - - vac Date: Late fifth or sixth century.

256

- 257 Commentary: Since there was no text below the surviving line and no trace of the usual introductory formula ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε, this inscription may simply been a woman’s name ending in –τίς, or a man’s ending in –τι(ο)ς. 483. Tile Fragment Location: From the funerary complex excavated at the site of the Sports Centre attached to the architectural faculty of Gazi University in Maltepe in 2009; now in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Top left corner of a red terracotta tile. Cursive epsilon and sigma; alpha with slanting cross-bar. Dimensions: Height 0.13; width 0.14; letters 0.03. Copy: Photograph by Melih Arslan, June 2009.

4

ἐνθάδ[ε κα]τάκιτ[ε - ] [.]ΟϹΑΙ̣ [ - ] [.]Ϲ̣Ϲ̣[ - ] vac

3: [Σ]όσαν̣[α]?

Translation: Here lies … Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 484. Unidentified fragment Location: In Depot D of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 182. Description: Fragment of marble wall cladding, broken on all sides. Triangular alpha and delta with right-hand upright extending over left-hand upright. Dimensions: Height 0.31; width 0.35; thickness 0.03; letters 0.025-0.03. Copy: Squeeze, SM 24.09.2014.

4

-----Ρ̣ . . Ϲ̣ Ι̣ Α τρίτος Ϲ̣[ - ] Α τέταρτον [ - ] Α πέµτος ἔτων̣ [ - ] χέρεστε παροδῖ[τε].

1-2: ? [δεύτε]ρ[ο]ς. 3: ἔ[των ?]. 6: = χαίρεσθε, cf. SEG 26, 789.

Translation: second (?) … third … fourth … fifth, aged … years(?). Greetings, passers-by. 257

- 258 -

Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The last line implies that this was a funerary text, and the sequence of ordinal numbers may refer to a series of children who had died. The significance of the initial alpha that precedes them is unclear. 485. Patrophila Location: In the Akkale Depot. No inventory number. Description: Roughly squared block of local stone, broken on right. The inscription was cut within crude guide-lines. Broken-bar alpha, cursive sigma. Dimensions: Height 0.15; width 0.255; thickness 0.08; letters 0.020-0.025. Copy: SM 07.06.2004; squeeze SM 23.09.2014. † µνήµη Πατροφίλας. Translation: Memorial of Patrophila. Date: Fifth or sixth century. Commentary: Compare 486-488, which all took the form µνήµη followed by a name in the genitive. Other probably sixth-century examples from Asia Minor occur in the Phrygian Highlands (Haspels 1971, 346 nos. 125-6), in Galatia (RECAM II 173) and at Sidamaria in southern Lycaonia (MAMA XI 379 and 381). 486. Theophania Location: Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Limestone fragment, shaped square above, left and below, broken right and chipped to the left. A frame is incised around the first line, and the name is carved in a roughly incised panel with a vertical incision cut after the first three letters of the name. Letters ΜΝΗ in ligature. Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Photograph Ankara Museum, June 2003. µνήµη Θεοφ[α]νίας.

258

- 259 Translation: Memorial of Theophania. Date: Fifth or sixth century. 487. Timotheus, priest Location: Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Broken terracotta tile fragment, heavily encrusted with lime. A small hole has been bored immediately above the inscription. Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Photograph by Ankara Museum, June 2003.

4

µνήµη̣ Τιµο̣θέ̣ου πρσβυ(τέ)ρου.

3: there is insufficient space for ΤΕ at the line end, and we suppose an engraver’s error.

Translation: Memorial of Timotheus, priest. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: For the garbled form of πρεσβύτερος, compare 479. 488. Memorial Location: In the Roman Baths. No inventory number. Description: Small slab of grey marble, broken on the right. The inscription, carved in the quarters reserved by a Latin cross, is cut on the back side of a small relief decorated with a leaf. Rectangular letters, very worn; ΜΝΗ and ΜΗ in ligature. Dimensions: Height 0.54; width 0.30; depth 0.09; letters 0.03-0.045. Copy: SM 1971. µνή µη . Α Ϲ † ϹΑ ΒΕ vac 2: there is space for a letter before the alpha; the letter after the shaft of the cross might be square sigma or tau.

Translation: Memorial of … Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 259

- 260 -

489. Fragment Location: From an unidentified excavation in Ankara, perhaps the 1931 excavation of a funerary chamber (Peschlow 2015 I, 120). Description: Small fragment of white marble, broken on all sides. Copy: Known only from a photograph in the archive of the DAI Istanbul, D-DAIIST-3261. ----[ - - ]ΤΟΝ[ - - ] ----490. Konon Location: Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Terracotta tile, broken above. The letters are deeply engraved. Alpha with broken bar and uprights crossing at the top, rectangular theta, omikron, phi and omega. The cross has splayed tips. Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Photograph Ankara Museum, June 2003.

4

[† ἐκο]ιµύθει Κόνων, ὁ πάντων φίλος. †

Translation: Here sleeps Konon, the friend of all. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The term ἐκοιµήθη appears at Ankara in the sixth century on the epitaph of the Montanist Trophimus (411, dating perhaps to 510); compare IG II/III2.5, 13608 and 13610, the epitaph of a monk which begins † ἐκοιµήθη | ἐν ἰρήνῃ Ἰωάννης † (Athens, sixth century or later); and Sterrett, EJ, 230, ἐκοιµήθη ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ἀβραάµ [ - - - ] (Sille, Konya, sixth century or later). 491. Maria Location: Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number.

260

- 261 Description: Red terracotta tile, some lime encrustation. Letters lightly incised: alpha both with slanting crossbar and with broken bar; cursive epsilon and omega. Dimensions: About 0.30 x 0.30. Copy: Photograph Ankara Museum, June 2003. Christogram

4

ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ἡ δουλη τοῦ Θεοῦ Μαρία, ἡ πάντων φηλητή. †

Translation: Here lies the slave of God Maria, beloved by all. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 492. Nise Location: Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red terracotta tile, encrusted with a lime deposit, with a St Andrew’s cross furrowed onto the surface, and a hole pierced in the centre, perhaps for making an offering (cf 452). Letters lightly incised: rectangular letter forms. Dimensions: About 0.30 x 0.30. Copy: Photograph Ankara Museum, June 2003.

4

Νίση πολυώδυνος τῇ µητρὶ κὲ τὲς συνηλίκες, ἀτέλεστος σὺν τὲς φή[λ]ε̣ς̣ †̣.

5: the photograph suggests ϹΤΟΓΓΥΝΤΕϹΦΗ. 6: traces of two rectangular letters and a possible cross.

Translation: Nise, beset by many woes, for her mother and her contemporaries, unfulfilled with her friends. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: This text differs from the usual formulaic presentation. The daughter expresses her grief for her mother and the group of young women contemporaries, who have died. The adjective ἀτέλεστος was applied to two children who had died prematurely in I. Ankara 1, 241. The expression ἀτέλεστος σὺν τὲς φίλες can be

261

- 262 understood in apposition to the preceding phrase, indicating that Nise, like her friends, was unfulfilled in her life, but also implies that she, like them, was now dead. However, since Nise has already been described as πολυώδυνος, it is possible that the engraver intended to cut ἀτελέστος, and that it was Nise’s contemporaries who had died unfulfilled, before marriage. This memorial, which does not adopt the usual funerary formulae, appears to reflect unusual circumstances. Perhaps this was a monument from the great plague of 542-3, or one of its recurrences in the later sixth century, leading to an unorthodox group burial. In the absence of any other indication we should exclude the possibility that Nise was a member of a female monastic community (well attested for the fifth century by Palladius, Lausiac History II 68), responsible for the burial of its leader and her fellow nuns. 493. Ioannes Location: Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red terracotta tile, some lime encrustation. Letters tending to cursive forms: alpha with slanting cross-bar. Dimensions: About 0.30 x 0.30. Copy: Photograph Ankara Museum June 2003.

4

ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε Εἰοάννης, πάντων φίλος.

Translation: Here lies Ioannes, friend of all. Date: Late fifth or sixth century. 494. Longina ? Location: Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red terracotta tile, with heavy lime encrustation. Letters tending to cursive forms: alpha with slanting cross-bar. Dimensions: About 0.30 x 0.30. Copy: Photograph Ankara Museum, June 2003. † ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ἡ δο[ύ]λη τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ Θ̣ε̣ο̣ῦ̣

262

- 263 4

Λ̣ο̣νγ̣ ί̣ ̣ν̣[η] . . . .†̣

4: Λε̣ο̣ν̣τί̣ [̣ α] ̣is also possible.

Translation: Here lies the slave of God Longina (?). Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: The name is uncertain but Longina or Leontia could fit the traces. For Longina compare Longinus (381). Leontius was common at Ankara, and fifteen out of the seventeen instances of Leontia recorded in LGPN date to late antiquity. 495. The slave of Christ Location: Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red terracotta tile, with lime encrustation. Damaged at the right and broken at the bottom right corner. Letters tending to cursive forms: alpha with slanting cross-bar. Dimensions: About 0.30 x 0.30. Copy: Photograph Ankara Museum, June 2003.

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκητε ὁ δοῦλ̣ος Χ(ριστ)οῦ ΘΕ\̣ΚΘ̣Ε̣ΟΛΟ vac

4: ΔΟϹΧΟΥ. 5: the third letter appears as a lighly engraved, back slanting hasta; the fifth letter appears to have a cross bar, but ΘΕ\ΚΟϹΟΛΟ is also possible.

Translation: Here lies the slave of Christ The … Date: Late fifth or sixth century. Commentary: This is the only Ankara text which replaces the usual formula ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ with ὁ δοῦλος Χριστοῦ. Compare RECAM II 423 and 468. 496. Anastasius ? Location: Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Red terracotta tile, with heavy lime encrustation. Damaged at the right and broken at the bottom right corner. Square letters: alpha with slanting cross-bar. 263

- 264 -

Dimensions: About 0.30 x 0.30. Copy: Photograph Ankara Museum, June 2003.

4

† ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ὁ δοῦλος Θεοῦ Ἀν̣[α][στάσιος ?].

4: after the alpha only an upright is visible, and the restoration is conjectural.

Translation: Here lies the slave of Christ Anastasius (?). Date: Late fifth or sixth century.

264

- 265 3.8 Middle Byzantine inscriptions in the imperial temple and other churches Several Byzantine inscriptions were carved on the walls of the imperial temple after it had been converted into a church. The conversion has usually been dated between the fourth and sixth centuries, with a general preference for the fifth, following analogies with temple conversions in other major Asia Minor cities, which occurred at this time (late fourth century: Mamboury 1949, 100-101; fifth century: Restle 1966, 172; Foss 1977, 65 and 1985, 459). Peschlow, however, has drawn attention to the absence of archaeological or architectural evidence for this dating and argues that conversion may not have taken place before the ninth century. The church convertion might have taken place at a date much closer to the construction of the citadel fortification and the effective refoundation of the city by Michael III (Peschlow 2015 I, 36-46). According to Peschlow’s analysis of the architectural remains and earlier excavation reports, at an unknown date in late antiquity, before the building was converted into a church, the columns from the temple’s peristasis and the roof of the structure, including two courses of blocks above the frieze were dismounted and demolished, while the paving stones of the cella floor and the steps which led from the pronaos to the cella were removed, thus lowering the floor level of the nave by more than a metre before the building was converted into a church. The rear wall of the cella and the columns of the opisthodomos at the east end of the temple were also taken down. The removal of these features appears to have been systematic, not the result of gradual collapse and decay. Since none of the temple’s decorative elements, such as the column bases and capitals, and the entablatures of the pronaos and opisthodomos, have been identified as re-used material elsewhere in Ankara, it seems likely, as Peschlow suggests, that these were either immediately re-buried in building foundations or transported to lime kilns (Peschlow 2015 I, 36-7). However, the drastic removal and apparent destruction of the colonnades and decorative elements, which were the most distinctive signifiers of its sacral function as a temple, contrast markedly with the decision to leave the walls of the pronaos and cella standing. It is not difficult to find a historical explanation to explain this differential treatment. The decision to leave the core of the structure intact was surely connected to the building’s most important feature, the inscribed Latin and Greek versions of Augustus’ Res Gestae. These would both have been perfectly legible throughout late antiquity and remained undamaged and accessible after the removal of the surrounding colonnade and the roof elements. The demolition of the peristasis stripped the imperial temple of its cultic and ritual associations, but the memorial of Augustus’ achievements was still preserved as a central part of the political heritage of the eastern Roman Empire. Both the imperial authorities in the fifth and sixth centuries and the citizens of Ancyra had every reason to preserve the enduring political message of the Res Gestae. Moreover, the presence of these secular inscriptions, and the need to preserve them as a public symbol of Roman political power at this period, was a compelling reason why the building could not be converted into a church. When the building was finally adapted for ecclesiastical and liturgical use, the ground plan did not conform to the normal pattern of late antiquity, with a narthex

265

- 266 at the west end and aisles on either side of a central nave. The relatively narrow internal space was not divided into separate aisles and a nave by colonnades (Peschlow 2015 I, 40). The structure in outline thus resembled smaller singlechamber churches of the later Byzantine period. The three large windows in the south wall are assumed to have been a new feature of the church conversion. But their symmetrical setting and the high quality of the workmanship indicate that they may have been part of the original temple design. The question needs further investigation. About forty metres north-west of the temple-church there are remains of a Byzantine fortification wall, which can be traced for about fifty-four metres and include two rectangular towers. Its date is uncertain, but since it lay well within the circumference of the late Roman walls of Ankara, but outside the citadel that Michael III fortified in the ninth century, it should perhaps also be dated to the middle Byzantine period, when the converted church lay outside the new citadel defences (Mamboury 1949; Peschlow 2015 I, 245-9). None of the inscriptions recorded in the temple-church is inconsistent with Peschlow’s revisionist dating of the church conversion to the ninth century. Three fragmentary inscriptions were noted at the foot of columns 1, 9 and 10 of the Greek text of the Res Gestae, relating to burials close to the church’s south wall. All three are damaged and hard to read, but in each case a date according to the Byzantine Creation era can be read or restored. The earliest may date to 825 (497) and is followed by texts of 834 (498) and 997 (499). Furthermore, two important epitaphs carved on the interior north wall of the church, one for a prominent churchman, a hegoumenos (500), and the other for an imperial military commander, a tourmarches (501), appear to belong to the ninth or tenth century. The epigraphic evidence strengthens the hypothesis that the conversion of the temple for Christian liturgical use did not take place before the ninth century. The mosque which was added to the site was probably first constructed in the 1430s. The Islamic cemetery, which included burials in the pronaos of the Roman temple (Perrot – Guillaume – Delbet 1872 pl. 14; Peschlow 2015 I, 36), carried on the practice of Christian burial close to the walls of the church. The area at the east end of the cella is occupied by a rectangular chamber. The walls, which have a rubble and mortar core, are faced with alternating courses of red tufa and white limestone, elevated above a crypt made from rectangular blocks of Ankara andesite. Αlthough no close parallels for the design and construction can be found in Byzantine ecclesiastical architecture, this has generally been interpreted as the sanctuarium of the Byzantine church (Peschlow 2015 I, 42-3 retains the original interpretation of Krencker – Schede 1936, 32-5, although he argues for a different reconstruction of its original appearance). We prefer an alternative interpretation, that this structure formed the iwan of the Islamic medrese which had replaced the church after the building of the Haci Bayram Veli mosque in the fifteenth century (Mitchell 2008, 30-31). 497. Burial of 825 (?) Location: Inscribed on the exterior face of the south wall of the cella of the Temple of Augustus, below column 1 of the Greek text of the Res Gestae. 266

- 267 -

Description: The inscription starts at the top of a block and is well carved in cursive lettering. However, the surface of the stone has crumbled seriously, leaving only the area with the month name relatively undamaged. ΕΤ and ΟΥ in ligature. Dimensions: Inscribed area: height 0.11; width 0.33. Copy: SM 23.09.2005. µηνὶ Μαρτήου ι´ Στ[έφανος ?] λϛ γ τ̣ ἔτους̣ [ - - - ] ϲ̣ τ̣ [ - - - ] 1: the eta and iota of ΜΗΝΙ are carved above the mu and nu respectively; acute accent on the eta of Μαρτήου. 3: ἔτους has a florid cursive epsilon followed by tau in ligature, preceded by the four numerals of the date, arranged like the letters of the word µηνί in the form of a rectangle. Lambda and gamma on the left are clear; the figure at the top right cannot be a classical omega at this date, when omega was invariably cursive, but should be a stigma. The traces beneath it, resembling two parallel cuts, are difficult to interpret. If the shorter upper mark is interpreted as a punctuation sign, the longer bar below it, drooping to the left, could be the top of a tau, resembling the tau in Μαρτήου. This would produce Ϛ T Λ Γ (6333) reading the numerals from top to bottom and from right to left. 4: faint letter traces.

Translation: On 10 March in the year 6333 Stephanos (?) … Date: 6333 creation era = AD 825; the style of the cursive lettering is similar to 500. Commentary: The reading of the date of this epitaph is uncertain. 498. Burial of 834 Location: Inscribed on the exterior face of the south wall of the cella of the Temple of Augustus, below column 9 of the Greek text. Visible at the bottom of the photograph I. Ankara 1, p. 117. Description: The text is carved in even capital letters which are aligned immediately below column 9 of the Greek text of the Res Gestae. The style of lettering may have been an attempt to imitate the primary text. Dimensions: Inscribed area: width c. 0.40; letters c. 0.02 Copy: SM 23.09.2005. [? ἔ(τους)] ϛ̣ τ µ̣ β̣´ µη(νὶ) Μαρτίῳ λ´ ϟ -----------1: Small eta above the mu of µηνί. There appear to be acute accents above the effaced first visible letter of the line, above the iota, and the final lambda. However, the first apparent accent can be

267

- 268 interpreted as the top of a stigma, the third figure resembles a narrow mu raher than an eta, and the fourth appears to have a curve at the top, suggesting beta. [ἔ(τους)] ϛ̣ τ µ̣ β̣´ is the most likely reading. The hand copy has a small punctuation mark after the lambda. 2: indistinct letter traces.

Translation: In the year 6342, on 30 March … Date: 6342 creation era = AD 834. 499. Burial of Nicolaus, 997 Location: Inscribed on the exterior face of the south wall of the cella of the Temple of Augustus, beginning below column 10 and running on to finish below the left side of column 11 of the Greek text of the Res Gestae. Visible at the bottom of the photographs I. Ankara 1, p. 119 and p. 121. Description: ΟΥ in ligature; diamond-shaped omikron. Dimensions: Inscribed area: width c. 0.60; letters c. 0.02 (line 1) 0.035 (line 2). Copy: SM 23.09.2005. [ἐκυµ]ή̣θε̣ι Λ̣.Ι̣ Ι̣Ο̣☧ΒϹ̣ . . τῶ Θ(εο)ῦ Νικόλαν Τ ΑΔΙΒΓΟΥΤ̣ΟϹ̣ [ἰνδ.] Ϟ ι´ ἔτου[ς] ϛ̣ φ̣ ϵ̣. † 1: or [Κ(ύρι)ε βο]ήθει, which is favoured by the oblique case Νικόλα(ο)ν; there are very worn letter traces in the middle of the line, but the christogram is clear; horizontal bar over ΘΥ; after Νικόλαν a tau above the line before the alpha. 2: ἔτου[ς] in the second line is certain, and both the hand copy and the photograph of the text suggest that this was followed by a worn stigma, phi and epsilon (6505), before a cross at the line end.

Translation: Here rests (or Lord help) … of God, Nicolaus from Adibgous (?) in the tenth indiction in the year 6505. Date: 6505 creation era = AD 997. Commentary: Line 2 begins with an abbreviation sign followed by iota, the numeral 10, and 997 was a tenth indiction year. This supports the reading and interpretation of the date. The readings at the right-hand end of the line, where the text extends beneath column 11 of the Res Gestae are reasonably clear. In the middle section the only certain character is the christogram. Before [τ]ῶ Θ(εο)ῦ the expected restoration is ὁ δοῦλος and this can be restored ad sensum [ἐκυµ]ήθει [ὁ δοῦ☧λος τ]ῶ Θ(εο)ῦ Νικολᾶν - but this is hard to reconcile with the traces. The reading Ἀδιβγοῦτος is reasonably clear and perhaps to be interpreted as a place name; compare the toponym Aligete near Germia in western Galatia, where there was a monastery of the Theotokos (Vita S. Theodori 100, 17; 101, 4). Nicolaus was not a widespread name in antiquity and owed its popularity to the cult of St Nicolaus of Myra. In his study of the cult G. Anrich noted that ‘es stehen vom 5. bis zum 7. Jh. 16 bis 17 Trägern des Namens aus der einen, nicht

268

- 269 sonderlich großen und wenig bekannten Provinz Lykien, vielleicht nur 3, wahrscheinlich etwa 5, allerhöchstens aber 8 Nikolaos aus der gesamten übrigen Christenheit gegenüber!’ (Anrich 1917, 453; cited by Curbera 1996, 291, n. 9). A church of Saints Nicolaus, Basilius and Hypatius was founded in western Galatia near modern Sivirihisar by Gregorius, an official of the emperors Leo and Alexander, in 897 (RECAM II, 98). A third- or early fourth-century epitaph from Çekirge in the Haymana region was set up for Αὐρη(λίου) Μοµιανοῦ ἐπισκόπῳ Θ(ε)οῦ τῆς ἐκλησίας τῆς Νικολαείτης τῆς καὶ Ἑλιοπολιτῶν, a possible reference to a very early church dedicated to St Nicolas at Juliopolis, on the Bithynian-Galatian border (RECAM II, 333 comm.). An alternative interpretation of this puzzling text is that Momianus was a bishop of the Nicolaitan sect, which is attested in first century Ephesus and Pergamum by Rev. 2, 6 and 15, and mentioned by Irenaeus, adv. Haer. I.26.3 and subsequent heresiographers. 500. Hyphatius, hegoumenos Location: On the orthostat course of the left inner wall of the opisthodomos of the Temple of Augustus, and thus on the north of the building when it was in use as a church. Description: Elegant cursive script: omikron carved very small and narrow, omikron upsilon in ligature, tau extending high above the line. Alpha is a triangle, delta is similar with the right-hand upright extending above the line. ‘Graffite tracé à la pointe, mais en grands caractères et gravé profondément’ (Jerphanion). This was not a ‘carelessly incised epitaph’ (Foss), but a prominent and well carved text, marking the burial of a prominent person. Dimensions: Width of inscribed area 0.62; height of inscribed area 0.20. Copy: Jerphanion 1925-27; SM 2005. Publication: Jerphanion 1928, 291 no. 67 and Fig. 60; Krencker – Schede 1936, 60b and Fig. 47 (following Jerphanion’s copy) [Vienna Scheden 274]. ἐκυµήθη ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ὑ̣φά ̣ τι̣ο̣ς ἡ̣γ.̣ µ. Ὀκτω̣. ιϛ´ ἰνδ. ιγ´. † The reading of this cursive text is very difficult, especially the parts of words which have been added above the line. 1: ἐκιµήθη ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ὑφάτιος ἡγ(ούµενος) µ(ηνὶ) Ὀκτω[βρίου], Jerphanion. The name might be read as Ὑφάτης. 2: ἰνδ(ικτίωνος), with nu above the line.

Translation: Here sleeps the slave of God, Hyphatius, hegoumenos, on 16 October in the twelfth indiction. Date: Ninth or tenth century (cursive script). Commentary: Hyphatius (the name suggested by Jerphanion, a variant of Hypatius) or Hyphates was the head of a monastic commmunity, a hegoumenos. Foss deduced from this that the church was attached to a monastery (Foss 1977, 269

- 270 65-6), and this was protected by the heavy Byzantine fortification wall which runs north-west of the temple area. However, it would be normal for a prominent hegoumenos to have been buried in one of the main city churches and the fortifications are more substantial than would be expected for a monastery (Peschlow 2015 I, 245-9). The suggestion that the converted church was directly attached to a monastery accordingly remains unproven. Another possible hypothesis is that Hyphates had a role to play in the conversion of the ruined temple into a church. Jerphanion made a similar proposal to explain the burial of the tourmarches Eustathius in the converted temple (501 comm.). The same issue is raised by the burial of Kale in the church of St Clement (505). None of these suggestions can be proved. The funerary formula ἐκυµήθη is attested from the sixth century (see 490 comm.), but was common in the middle Byzantine period; compare Sterrett, EJ no. 230 from Sille near Konya (a drawing in the Vienna Scheden has middle Byzantine letter forms): ἐκοιµήθη ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ἀβραάµ [ - - - ]; Laminger-Pascher 1992, 92 from Binbir Kilise, perhaps eighth century: ἐκηµήθυ ἡ Πα|παδήα µηνὴ | Μαρτήου ἠ|ς τὰς δεκα|πέτε ἀµήν; and MAMA XI 153 perhaps from the small Phrygian city of Otrous, dated 1059: † ἐκυµύθ(η) ὁ δοῦλος | τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Λέον ἐπίσκοπο(ς), ἐν ἔτι | γ(ε)ν(έσεως)ˏςφξζ´ µ(η)νὶ Φερουα|ρίου θ´, ἡµ(έρᾳ) β´ †. 501. Eustathius, tourmarches Location: ‘À l’intérieur du Temple d’Auguste, sur le fond de la paroi gauche, en bas. Postérieur à la transformation du temple en église – ou, peut-être, contemporain’ (Jerphanion). The inscription is still visible on the interior north wall of the nave of the church. Description: The first seven lines of the text were carved on the projecting course at the foot of the north cella wall and the remainder of the inscription extended onto the orthostat block below. There is a gap between lines 7 and 8 marking the break between the courses of the cella wall. The inscription was cut off on the right when a large irregular entrance was smashed through the north wall of the cella. This breach occurred in 1834, after Kinneir copied the inscription but before Hamilton saw it in 1835/6 (Hamilton 1842, 420; see Peschlow 2015 I, 36 n. 125). Regularly cut thin letters with apices; broken-bar alpha; delta with bottom bar extending beyond the uprights and with apices; cursive epsilon and sigma, diamond-shaped theta. Omikron sometimes diamond-shaped and sometimes circular; cursive omega but in the initial letter of line 8 the central member rises up into a T, presumably to indicate the aspirate. In lines 6 and 8 the siglum S is an abbreviation of καί / κέ. Dimensions: Height of upper block 0.30; height of lower block 0.60; width of upper block 1.15 (broken), width of lower block 0.68 (broken); letters 0.0250.032. Copy: Kinneir 1813 (lines 1-11); Hamilton 1836 (lines 1-7); Perrot et al. 1861; Jerphanion 1925-27; Krencker – Schede 1936 (photograph); Seferis 04.09.1949 (lines 1-14); SM photo 1971; copy 2005.

270

- 271 -

Publication: Kinneir 1818, 73 and 544 no. 16 (lines 1-7) and 545 no. 17 (lines 811); Hamilton 1842,1, 422, and 2, 428 no. 138 (lines 1-7); (Le Bas – Waddington 1870, 2, 428 no. 1805); Perrot – Guillaume – Delbet 1872, 1, 263 no. 145, (CIG IV 8817; Cumont 1895, 293 no. 355, Grégoire 1927/28, 449-53); Jerphanion 1928, 278-83 no. 54, and 301-2; Krencker – Schede 1936, 59-60 with further suggestions by Grégoire; Seferis 1973, 119-20; Rhoby 2014, 545-50 TR18.

† 4

8

12

16

Ἐπηστάµενος αἶ αἶ ἀε(ὶ) ἀν[θρώπους] ῾Υπεραρθέντας ὑπὲρ τ(οὺς) κοιµωµ̣έ̣νο̣ υς̣ Σε τὸν ὸν ὅλον διµηοῦργον κραυγάζω̣ Τοῦτον µε ῥύσε τὸν ἀνοµιῶν [βάρους,] ᾽Αναµάρτητε, ὡ ἐχων ἐξουσ[ίαν] Θέσµους (κὲ) σίρας ἁµαρτηµά[των λύειν] Ἡ γὰρ ἐπὴ γῆς ἀρχὴ τετ̣ελ̣ε[σµένη] Ὥπλυς (κὲ) ξίφυς ἀνδρίος [ἠσκηµένον] Σοζόµενον µε παρά[γει ἐκ κινδύνων] Τέλος δὲ λυπὸν κατε[νεχθὲις ἐν νόσῳ] Ὅλος ἐ(ν) νέκρυς προσέ[δραµον Κυρίῳ] Ὕλῃ παραδοὺς τὸ χο[ϊκὸν σάρκιον] ῾Ρύσιν τ᾽ ἐπίγων δακρ[ύοις πικροτάτοις] Μετὰ ὀδυρµῶν παρ[αιτοῦµαι σὸν κράτος] Ἀνέσεός µε τυχῆν ἐ̣[ν παρουσίᾳ] ῾Ρεῦσιν τοῦ πυρὸς ἐκφ[ύγοντ᾽ αἰωνίαν] Χάριτι Χ(ριστο)ῦ τοῦ µόνου ἀ[γενήτου] Ἤδου ἐκ τάφου κἄγο σὺ [φωνῶ τάδε] Σόσον µε σωτὶρ ἐν τὶ ἐσ[χάτῃ κρίσει].

The initial letters of each line form an acrostich, reading Εὐστάθηως τουρµάρχης. Kinneir copied the first eleven lines in 1813, but the right edge of both the projecting course and the orthostat were broken before Hamilton next recorded the inscription in 1835-6. Kinneir’s readings accordingly form the basis for the reconstruction of lines 1-9. The parts of the text that depend entirely on his copy are underlined in our reproduction of the text. His typesetter usually used the English capital letter G to represent epsilon. Kinneir noted the small tau inscribed above the line in line 3, and the s-shaped punctuation marks in lines 6 and 8. 1: ϵΠΝ-Ι-ΜGΝΟϹΙΑΙΑΙΑϵΑΝΥ, Kinneir. 2: ΥΠGΡΑΡΟGΝΤΑϹΥΠΟΡΤΚGΙΜΙϹΙ-ΙΟΥ-, Kinneir. 3: ϹGΤΟΗΤΟΗΟΛΟΗΔΙΜΗΟΥΡΓΟΝΙΡΑΥΓΑΖΟ, Kinneir. 4: ΤΟΥΤΟΝΜGΡΥϵGΤΟΝΑΝΟΜΙωΗΜ, Kinneir. 5: ANAMAΡTHTGωGΧωΝGΖΟΥϹ, Kinneir. 6: ΘGϹΜΟΥΓSϹΙΡΑϹΑΜΑΡΤΗΜΑ. 7: ΗΓΑΙGΠΗΓΗϹΑΡΧΗΤGΥΟΝG, Kinneir. rest. Grégoire; ἀρχὴ [γ]έ[γ]ονε πάλαι, Grégoire in Krencker – Schede 1936, 59. 8: ΟϹΠΛΥϹS ΞΙΦΥϹΑΝΔΡΙΙΟG, Kinneir; rest. Grégoire. 9: ϹΟΖΟΜϵ ΑΙΟΝΜGΠΑΡΑ, Kinneir; rest. Grégoire. 10: ΤGΛΟϹΔGΛΥΠΟΗΚΑΤG, Kinneir; rest. Grégoire; κατε[ργάζου τῶν κάτω], Jerphanion. 11: ΟΛΟϹGΚΡΥϹΠΡΟϹG, Kinneir; rest. Grégoire; πρός σε γὰρ σωτηρία, Jerphanion. 12: rest. Grégoire in Krencker – Schede 1936, 59; χο[ϊκόν µου σῶµα], Jerphanion. 13: rest. Grégoire. 14: rest. Grégoire. 15: rest. Jerphanion; ἐ[ν ζώης τόπῳ], Grégoire. 16: rest. Grégoire; ἐκφ[υγεῖν γὰρ ἐλπίζω], Jerphanion. ἐκφύγων αἰωνίου, Cumont. 17: Rest. Jerphanion; ἀ[θανάτου], Grégoire. 18: rest. Grégoire; συ[νεγεροῦµαι], Jerphanion. 19: rest. Cumont. A fuller apparatus is provided by Rhoby, who generally accepts Grégoire’s restorations. Choosing between the alternative versions of lines 12-19 is largely a matter of literary judgement.

271

- 272 -

The orthography of the text was inconsistent, as usual with inscriptions of late antiquity and the Byzantine period, with many itacisms. Rhoby’s edition normalizes the word spellings. 1: ἐπηστάµενος = ἐπιστάµενος. 3: τὸν τὸν ὅλον διµηοῦργον = τὸν τῶν ὅλων δηµιοῦργον. 4: τὸν = τῶν. 6: σίρας = σείρας; 7: ἐπή = ἐπί. 8: Ὥπλυς (κὲ) ξίφυς = ὅπλοις κ(αὶ) ξίφοις. 9: σοζόµενον = σωζόµενον. 10: λύπον = λύπων. 11: ὅλος = ὅλως, ἐ(ν) νέκρυς = ἐν νέκροις. 13: ἐπίγων = ἐπείγων. 15: ἀνέσεος = ἀνέσεως; τυχήν = τυχεῖν. 18 ἤδου = ἴδου, κἄγο = κἄγω. 19 σόσον = σῶσον; σῶτιρ = σῶτερ, σύ = σοί; τί = τῇ.

Translation: Knowing, alas, that men always having been raised to the heights are forced down, I cry out to You, maker of the universe, to rescue this person, myself from the weight of my sins, You, without blemish, who possess the power to free me from the obligations and bonds of my transgressions. For the empire which was accomplished on earth leads me safely out of dangers, bravely girded with armour and swords. Finally, for the rest, carried away by disease, I have run to the Lord, wholly among the dead. Handing over my earthly body to the material world, and pressing for salvation with the bitterest tears, I plead with your might with my lamentations to obtain remission for my sins at Christ’s coming, escaping the eternal torrent of fire by the grace of Christ, the only unbegotten being. Behold from the tomb I too call out to you, ‘Save me, saviour, at the last judgement’. Date: Ninth or tenth century (Grégoire). The style of the lettering is very elegant, and the absence of cursive forms contrasts with the cursive calligraphy of 500. Commentary: The inscription formed the epitaph of the tourmarches Eustathios, who would have been the commander of the forces stationed at Ankara when it was the centre of the Buccellarian Theme (PMZ 1. Abt. I, 567 No. 1802; see Grégoire 1927/28, 449-53). The system of themata and the subdivision of Byzantine military forces into turmae is first attested in the later seventh century and remained the basis of Byzantine administrative and military organization in Anatolia until the tenth century. Eustathius’ funerary inscription belongs within this period, and probably dates to the ninth or tenth century. Jerphanion conjectured that Eustathius himself might have been responsible for the construction of the church, and this is consistent with Peschlow’s proposed ninthcentury dating for the building’s conversion. However, the inscription does not in any way refer to Eustathius as a donor, referring only to Eustathius’ military rank in the acrostich and his career in lines 7-9. The verses are an appeal to the Almighty to have mercy at the day of judgement and pardon the sins of the dead man. His body is committed to the grave, but he seeks salvation and rescue from the fires of damnation by Christ’s redeeming grace. The content therefore mirrors the Christian view of death and resurrection which was developed at length in Ankara’s theological texts, probably of the later sixth century (347-349), as well as the entire ethos of the funerary culture implied by the city’s later fifth- and sixthcentury gravestones. Jerphanion recognised that each line consisted of twelve syllables with a word break after the fifth syllable. The verses were dodecasyllables, like those of the inscriptions which commemorated Michael III’s construction of Ankara Kale in 859. Further commentary on the language and style is to be found in Rhoby 2014. Like the extended theological inscriptions 347-349, the verses reflect a profound intimacy with biblical texts, but they do not cite directly from either the Old or

272

- 273 New Testament. Jerphanion 1928, 282 noted numerous biblical parallels. None of these appears to have been directly quoted, but there are echoes both of biblical language and biblical ideas in several verses: 4: Psalm 38. 8-9: ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν ἀνοµιῶν µου ῥῦσαί µε. Ezekiel 37. 22-23: καὶ ῥύσοµαι αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν ἀνοµιῶν αὐτῶν, ὧν ἡµάρτοσαν ἐν αὐταῖς. 5: Matt. 28.18: Ἐδόθη µοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς; Mark 1. 22: ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραµµατεῖς. 6: Prov. 5. 22: παρανοµίαι ἄνδρα ἀγρεύουσιν, σειραῖς δὲ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ἁµαρτιῶν ἕκαστος σφίγγεται. 7-8: 2 Macc. 8.18: οἱ µὲν γὰρ ὅπλοις πεποίθασιν ἅµα καὶ τόλµαις, ἔφησεν, ἡµεῖς δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ παντοκράτορι θεῷ, δυναµένῳ καὶ τοὺς ἐρχοµένους ἐφ’ ἡµᾶς καὶ τὸν ὅλον κόσµον ἑνὶ νεύµατι καταβαλεῖν, πεποίθαµεν. 12 and 13-15: 1Cor. 15. 47-49 47: ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός, ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. οἷος ὁ χοϊκός, τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱ χοϊκοί, καὶ οἷος ὁ ἐπουράνιος, τοιοῦτοι καὶ οἱ ἐπουράνιοι· καὶ καθὼς ἐφορέσαµεν τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, φορέσοµεν καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἐπουρανίου. 16-17: Eph. 1.7: ἐν ᾧ ἔχοµεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵµατος αὐτοῦ, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωµάτων, κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ. Col. 1. 13-14: ὃς ἐρρύσατο ἡµᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους καὶ µετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἔχοµεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν. 18: Col. 1.18: νυνὶ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιµηµένων. 1Cor. 15. 20: καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώµατος, τῆς ἐκκλησίας· ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων. 19: compare John 6. 39-40, 44, 54. This otherwise obscure text received attention from a major modern literary figure when it formed the inspiration for the poem entitled Ankyrano Mnemeio by George Seferis, who spent the years 1948-51 attached to the Greek Consulate in Ankara, and who made an accurate copy of the inscription on 4 September 1949, recorded in his diaries from this period (Seferis 1973 [English translation 1974], 116-120). 502. Funerary inscription of Kale in the church of Saint Clement Location: Carved on the front face of the south-east pilaster facing into the nave of the church of St Clement. Description: Marble pillar. Eight pillars on the ground floor of the St Clement’s Church supported the arched vaulting of the gallery which surrounded the central nave of the church, which was roofed by a cupola. They stood on bases with Attic profiles and supported pyramidal capitals decorated with a ‘Pfeifenfries’. The front side of the south-east pillar, facing the nave, was decorated with a tall Latin cross placed on a globe which stood on a two-stepped base. The transverse arms of the cross, as on the other supports, were chiselled away, no doubt in 1438 when the church was turned into a mosque (Peschlow 2015 I, 230). The inscription on the south-east pilaster was divided vertically by the shaft of the cross, and the first line of the text disappeared when the arm of the cross was cut away. The irregular angular letters were cut with a sharp point: omikron upsilon in ligature; broken-bar alpha; diamond-shaped theta; the bottom line of delta extends beyond the triangle; there are many accents. 273

- 274 -

Dimensions: Inscribed area height 0.29; width 0.29; the shaft dividing the inscription is 0.055 wide; letters 0.015-0.02. Copy: Seen by I. Sevçencko and reported by Foss 1977, 83 n. 205 as a re-used inscription from late antiquity. Squeeze by David French c. 1972; the inscription is barely visible on the photograph published in Peschlow 2015 II Abb. 520.

4

[--- - - ἱ] δούλι τ(οῦ) Θ(εο)ῦ † Καλὶ ἐτελ´(ι)ώθ´(ι) µην(ὶ) οβρίου κε´ ἰνδ. ´ ϟ ´ δ´ ἱµέρ. δ´.

1: [ἐκυµίθι ?], cf. 500. 2: Trace of horizontal bar above ΘΥ. 3: tau epsilon in ligature; in lines 3 and 4 there are acute accents after the lambda and the theta which were probably intended to represent the letter iota. 5: acute accent above ΚΕ. After ΙΝΔ there are two acute accents on either side of a sign of abbreviation. 6: mu epsilon in ligature.

Translation: … the slave of God Kale died on 25 October, fourth indiction, fourth day. Date: Middle Byzantine (prevalent itacism, use of accents). The text is precisely dated Wednesday 25 October in a fourth indiction. If we can rely on the accurate correspondence between the weekday and the month date, this limits the possible years between 700 and 1100 to 976, 1021, and 1066. Commentary: It is clear from the find circumstances that this inscription was not a gravestone re-used in the building of the church (as Foss 1977, 83 n. 205 and Peschlow 2015 I, 194 n. 1127), but a primary text, carved on the pilaster to mark the grave of a prominent individual who was buried beneath the nave. Since the other surviving supporting pillars were uninscribed, the woman Kale is the only individual whose burial was commemorated by an inscription in the church. The format of the inscription is virtually identical to the epitaph of the hegumenos Hypatius in the temple church (500), and the two texts are probably approximately contemporary. Despite the modest appearance of the inscription itself, and the humble description of Kale as a slave of God (see Haensch 2015), burial under the nave of the church close to the bema implies that she was a person of importance, who might have played a major part in its foundation. The dating of the church currently rests on an analysis of its architectural features and details of its construction. Restle suggested the eighth or ninth century (Restle 1966, 173-5), Eyice and Foss lean towards a later ninth century dating (Eyice 1991 and 1996, 261; Foss 1977, 83-4). Peschlow’s full recent discussion reaches the conclusion that the church could not have been built before the second half of the ninth century (Peschlow 2015 I, 229). 976 was the only year in the ninth and tenth centuries when 25 October fell on a Wednesday. The inscription thus interpreted, establishes a terminus ante quem. However, it also suggests that the current dating proposals are too early.

274

- 275 If Kale can be identified as a founder of the church where she was buried, its construction should be placed in the tenth century, around 975. The cult of St Clement is mentioned in an early tenth-century Byzantine source (Foss 1977, 812). The life of Euthymius, patriarch of Constantinople from 907-912, who died in 917, records that Euthymius received a holy shawl belonging to the martyr Clement as a gift from Gabriel the bishop of Ancyra (PMZ 2. Abt. I, 395 no. 22023). After Euthymius’ deposition Gabriel was investigated by the new patriarch Nicholas on suspicion of corruption and embezzlement (Vita Euthymii (ed. P. Karlin-Hayter), 105 and 123). Jerphanion suggested that Eustathius the tourmarches might have been buried in the former imperial temple because he had been responsible for converting it into a church in the ninth or tenth centuries (501). A similar argument could be made for Hypatius the hegoumenos, who was also buried there (500). There are earlier parallels from Ankara. Two funerary inscriptions from late antiquity mention chapels or churches which were paid for by heads of families, the ex voto of Limenius on behalf of his family (338), and the funerary inscription of Andragathios, which was associated with a chapel which he had built for the Virgin (363). 503. St Ryfsin and St Ktemon Location: In the British Museum, reportedly from Ankara. Description: A bronze statuette of a bull, perhaps a water buffalo, with a cross between its horns and oversized feet resembling boots. It has a small suspension ring on its back indicating that it was hung up as an ex voto. The inscription was carved on both flanks, with the first section running from right to left, the second from left to right. Letters include cursive epsilon but are otherwise rectangular. Dimensions: Height 0.052; length 0.058. Copy: A. Roes. Publication: Roes 1950, 221-8 with figs 2, 2 bis and 2 ter; (Mouterde 1951-52, 6970; Halkin 1953, 92-3). (retrograde) † τὸν ἅγηον ῾Ρυφσην (left to right) † κὲ τὸν ἅγηον Κτίµονα. Translation: St Rhypsen and St Ktimon. Date: Uncertain. Roes suggests the fourth century on the basis of the letter forms, but palaeographical comparisons between inscriptions on bronze and on stone are

275

- 276 difficult to establish, and the obscure saints invoked in the dedication are otherwise not attested before the middle Byzantine period. Commentary: This votive offering was presumably made to secure protection for a peasant or land-owner’s cattle, and was a Christian counterpart of the numerous pagan Christian votives from central Anatolia set up by farmers who offered prayers for their plough oxen, ὑπὲρ βοῶν (Drew-Bear – Thomas – Yıldızturan 1999, 47-8). One of the miracles performed at the end of the sixth century by St Theodore of Sykeon was to cure a plague that was afflicting both men and oxen at Ankara, by leading the city’s population in a prayerful procession (vita S. Theodori 45). The first editor suggested that the letter forms indicate a relatively early date for this Christian monument. However, a later date is not to be excluded. The two obscure saints are not otherwise attested in Ancyra. St Ryphsen may be a male counterpart of Hripsime, a prominent Armenian saint said to have been martyred in the persecution of Diocletian, and St Ktemon is depicted alongside several other local Anatolian saints, including St Plato and St Theodotus from Ancyra, on an arch which links the internal colonnade with the wall of the tenth or eleventh-century church of Kılıçlar at Göreme in Cappadocia (Jerphanion 1925, 210; Encyclopedia of the Hellenic World, Asia Minor, on-line at http://asiaminor.ehw.gr/Forms/fLemmaBody.aspx?lemmaid=9043). 504. Byzantine funerary text from the Church of St Nicholas Location: ‘Sur une plaque funéraire qui s’est trouvée avant six mois [in 1901] pendant la réparation des fondations de l’église de S. Nicolaos à Ancyre.’ The church of St Nicholas was close to the market area in Ulus. Description: ‘Plaque funéraire.’ Dimensions: Height 0.50; width 0.57. Copy: Moise M. Moissides 1901. The unpublished copy is housed in the archive of the Kleinasiatische Kommission, and was provided by Dr. Christoph Samitz [Vienna Scheden 198].

4

- - - - - ωφονωϲ κ πϲι ι ϲ . ϸτυχιαϲ αυδροϲτ . . . . ϸ χρόνους πέντε κηῦνοϲ ι ι ι ι λίους . . . εὑρον δικαίων ϲ η η ε η τρ οφ . . . κληρουχίαν οδ εηρθαιϲηετυ α ι ι ι θ µηνὶ Αὐγούστῳ.

3-4: πεντ(ή)|κοντα χιλίους ?

Translation: … years … of the just … the inheritance … in the month of August. Date: Probably tenth century or later in date.

276

- 277 -

Commentary: The finder’s description and the final month dating imply that this was a gravestone, and the fragments of the text that can be identified suggest that it was in dodecasyllables.

277

- 278 4. Further Inscriptions of the Second and Third Centuries This chapter contains inscriptions of the early imperial period which were not included in I. Ankara 1. They include new finds identified since 2010, inscriptions of uncertain provenance that should probably be ascribed to Ankara or its neighbourhood, and fragmentary texts. They include an imperial dedication (506), building inscriptions (508, 509), an honorific text (510), probable votive monuments (511-515), epitaphs (516-534), and miscellaneous fragments and texts (535-543). 505. Eratosthenes, Tiridates and Seleucus Location: Block built into Ankara Kale. Description: Rectangular limestone block, broken above and right. Worn rectangular letters. Copy: Known from a photograph in the archive of the DAI Istanbul: D-DAI-IST3258. vac? Ἐρατοσθ[ένoυς] καὶ Τειριδά[τους] τ̣ῶν Σελεῦ[κου]. vac Translation: Of Eratosthenes and Tiridates, sons of Seleucus. Date: First or second century. Commentary: This puzzling inscription, known only from a photograph taken in the 1920s or 1930s, seems to be part of a statue base. All three names have Hellenistic associations – with the famous geographer from Cyrene, with the rulers of Parthia and Armenia, and with the Seleucid dynasty. However, no member of the Seleucid royal house is known to have had sons with these names. 506. The emperor Antoninus Pius Location: WT1 of the citadel. Description: Pale marble fragment from a large monument, complete above and at the right, cut straight on the left to serve as a building block. Large, rectangular, well cut letters: broken-bar alpha. Copy: Photograph SM 19.06.2004. [Αὐτοκρά]τορα [Καίσαρα] Θεοῦ [Ἁδριανοῦ] υἱὸν 278

- 279 4

8

[Θεοῦ Τραι]ανοῦ [υἱωνὸν Θε]οῦ [Νέρουα ἔγγ]ονον [Τίτον Αἴλι]ον [Ἁδριανὸ]ν Ἀν[τωνεῖνον κτλ.]

1, 3: the final letter smaller. 6: final nu inside the omikron.

Translation: The emperor Caesar, son of the divine Hadrian, grandson of the divine Trajan, great-grandson of the divine Nerva, Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus (Augustus …). Date: 138-161. Commentary: A statue base for the emperor Antoninus Pius. The letter forms are similar to those of I. Ankara 1, 40 set up for C. Iulius Scapula, leg. Aug. pro pr. at the beginning of Antoninus Pius’ reign. Compare also the base set up by the Tectosages Ancyrani Sebasteni for Marcus Aurelius or Lucius Verus. That text also presented the ruler’s full imperial descent (I. Ankara 1, 10). 507. Monumental Building Fragment Location: In the south side of WT3 of the citadel. Description: Small fragment of an entablature, similar but not identical to 508. The mouldings that projected above and below the frieze have survived intact. Dimensions: Not measurable. Copy: SM. [ - ] Ν̣ Υ [ - ] Possibly ΝΚ in ligature, and so [Ἄ]νκυ[ρα].

Date: Second or early third century. 508. Monumental building inscription Location: Built into the curtain wall of the inner fortifications of Ankara Kale at the left side of the curtain between ST 4 and 5 on the south side, adjoining the main gate. Description: A section of entablature, broken on all sides. At the top a plain cymation, projected above a frieze which carried the inscription. The mouldings which projected below this have been smashed off as far as the upper string course above the architrave. Another string course and plain cymation separates the large

279

- 280 upper fascia from the much smaller lower fascia of the architrave. Monumental rectangular lettering. Dimensions: Letters c. 0.15. Copy: H. Barth 1858; SM 1972; photograph Peschlow 2015 II, Abb. 386. Publication: It seems possible that the text reading ‘Roma’, which was copied by Barth and transmitted by A. Mordtmann to Berlin to be published as CIL III 281 is this text [Vienna Scheden 18]. [ - ο]υ ῾Ρωµαί[ων - ] Perhaps [ὑπάτο]υ or [στρατηγο]ῦ ῾Ρωµαί[ων - ].

Translation: … of the Romans. Date: Second or third century (the scale and lay-out resemble the building inscription I. Ankara 1, 33). 509. Latin dedicatory inscription (bronze letters) Location: In WT 8 of the citadel. Description: White limestone architrave fragment with holes for bronze Latin letters in two fasciae, 0.12 high. There are mouldings with a plain cymation and a string course above and below the upper fascia, and a string course below the lower fascia. Copy: SM 2005. Tịḅ. Iul[i - - ] ....... The letters T, I, V and L are certain and Tib. Iul[ius] can be restored. There is a fixing point at mid height after T which might suit an interpunct, implying that the first name was T(itus) not Tib(erius), but the fixing point could also have been used for an I, and the restoration Tib(erius) Iul[ius] is far more probable.

Translation: Tiberius Iulius … Date: First or second century. Commentary: This Latin text in bronze letters belonged to a public building, and the dedicator will have been a very prominent figure. Ti. Iulius Iustus Iunianus, the builder of the bath house (I. Ankara 1, 91-95 comm.) is the only native of Ankara so far attested with this combination of praenomen and nomen, and this

280

- 281 monumental text may relate to him or to a member of his family. Another possibility is to identify the dedicator with Ti. Iulius Candidus Marius Celsus, governor of Cappadocia-Galatia from 88 to 91, who was himself honoured with a Latin inscription at Ankara (I. Ankara 1, 35). 509 bis. Iulius? Location: Built into the south face of tower W13 facing the Genç Kapı, the west gate to Ankara citadel. Description: Large rectangular white marble block re-used for building material. This was originally the shaft of a large composite statue base, but the entire surface was smoothed and polished when it was re-used as a building block in the later Roman period, removing all but three letters of the inscription. It was then reused again in the ninth-century citadel wall. Dimensions: Height 1.52; width 0.84. Copy: SM 31.03.2016. About three lines erased above [ - - ] VLI Several lines erased below Date: Probably second century. Commentary: The three surviving letters are probably part of the name Iulius, and this very large base, inscribed in Latin, is likely to have been an honorific text for an emperor, a provincial governor or a prominent military figure, such as the retired centurion M. Iulius Rufus (I. Ankara 1, 164), who was commemorated by an inscription with similar dimensions (height 1.71; width 0.72). 510. Third century honorific text Location: Ankara. Description: Fragment. Dimensions: Not recorded, but lines 1-4 appear to have been carved in larger letters than lines 5-7. Copy: W. M. Ramsay, 1925 notebook.

4

- - - - - - - - ΛΕ [ - - - - - - ]νιανόν [ - - - - - - - ]ΣΙΝΗ [ἱππέ]α ῾Ρωµαίων τὸ[ν] [ἀξιολογώτα]τον γαλατάρχην 281

- 282 [ - - - - - - - - ]τροφον, φυλὴ · α´ [Μαρουραγηνὴ] τὸν πλουτιστὴν [καὶ εὐεργέτην]. 6: compare I. Ankara 1, 119, 10.

Translation: … Roman knight … galatarch … the first tribe (Maruragene) the richest (benefactor). Date: Around the middle of the third century AD (compare I. Ankara 1, 118-9). Commentary: This fragment, copied only by Ramsay, appears not to have been recorded elsewhere. The wording of the text resembles that of the two inscriptions dating to the mid-third century for the Roman eques Tertullus Varus, one of which probably referred to him as γαλατάρχης (I. Ankara 1, 118). The end of the other text (I. Ankara 1, 119) has been restored to read [κτίσ]την, πλουτ[ιστὴν τῆς πό|λεως, σύντ]ροφον β[ασιλέων, τὸν εὐ|εργέτη]ν κτλ. C. P. Jones rightly points out that [σύντ]ροφον β[ασιλέων] cannot mean ‘companion of monarchs’, and the restoration is doubtful (Jones 2012, 890). The fragment copied by Ramsay at least confirms the reading -τροφον in both texts. On the other hand, the copy of the name in line 2 of the present text is closer to that of Καικίλιον Ἑρµιανόν, who was also honoured in very similar terms at the same period (I. Ankara 1, 116 and 117). This inscription probably relates to a third individual. 511. Governor of Provincia Galatia and Provincia Numidia Location: From a house wall which was demolished in Berrak Sok. 10, on Ankara Kale. Description: Piece of crystalline white marble, broken on all sides, complete at rear. Dimensions: Height 0.43; width 0.30; thickness 0.20; letters 0.035-0.04. Copy: SM; squeeze 31.08.2010.

4

[ - - - - - - - leg. Aug.] [pro] ̣·̣ pr.̣ · provin[ciae] [Ga]latiae prom[ot][us] · in provin[ci][am] Numidia[m]. vac

2: the interpunct and letter p at the beginning of the line are almost certain and the restoration seems unavoidable.

Translation: … legatus Augusti pro praetore of the province of Galatia, promoted into the province of Numidia. Date: First half of the third century (see comm.).

282

- 283 Commentary: If the restoration of the start of this text is sound, this monument records the promotion of a governor of Galatia to the governorship of Numidia. It appears too small to have been an honorific statue base, and the text ends without mentioning the person or persons who set it up. The inscription is therefore best interpreted as a votive monument, although the names of the deity and the official in question are missing. Promotions and transfers were a natural occasion for erecting a votive inscription. This appears to be a rare instance where the term promotus appeared in a senatorial career. We may compare ILS 9485 for the senator C. Caristanius Fronto from Pisidian Antioch and CIL VI 1511, 1512 =31688 = ILS 2934 for the senator C. Sallius Aristaenetus. Only one senatorial legatus Augusti pro praetore is on record as having governed Galatia and Numidia in sequence, L. Iulius Apronius Maenius Salamallianus, who transferred from the governorship of Galatia to Numidia, to become became governor and legate in command of legio III Augusta in 223 (AE 1917-18, 51; CIL VIII 18270 = ILS 1196, both from Lambaesis). Another fragmentary inscription from Lambaesis named a praefectus of legio III Augusta from Ancyra: . . . Ancyra [Lar]|go ex Gal[ati]|a praefe[cto] | [l]eg(ionis) III Au[g(ustae)] (CIL VIII 2778 = CIL VIII 18278; see below, L21). 512. Tatas and Bellon Location: Brought from Dodurga in Yenimahalle. Now at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 18.1.90. Description: A rectangular altar of hard, pale limestone, complete but battered on all surfaces. The top surface is flat; there are half garlands and bucrania (in relief, on the face of the shaft) and floral decoration at the top. The inscription is cut on the flat, vertical face of the moulding; lunate epsilon, sigma and omega. Dimensions: Height 0.97; width 0.45; depth 0.44; letters: 0.04-05. Copy: DHF 13.11.1999; squeeze SM 27.08.2010. Publication: French 2003, 135 no. 34; (SEG 53, 1440). (front) Τατας καὶ Βελ (right side) λων. Translation: Tatas and Bellon (made a vow). Date: Second century. Commentary: The nature of the inscription and the monument suggests a votive text but the name of the deity does not survive. Βελλων was probably, but not certainly, a Celtic name, as evidenced by Βελλα (RECAM 2. 230 Topaklı) and Βελλας (RECAM 2. 296 Canımana) in north Galatia, and by Iulia Bella at Bithynian Claudiupolis, which lay close to the traditional area of Galatian settlement (I. Klaudiupolis 132), as well as by the names Βελλα and Βελλης occurring in northern Lycaonia (MAMA XI 330 with comm.). The unique name Βελλιχος is attested on the second-century name list from Ankara (I. Ankara 1, 9, 283

- 284 revised below on p. XXX). Bellοna was the Celtic god of war (Holder 1896, 391). However, precisely the form Βέλλων also occurred at Pergamum, Ephesus, and Priene (see LGPN V.A, 100), in contexts with no Celtic associations, where it has been interpreted as a Greek name (Robert 1963, 287). Tatas was widespread in Anatolia (Zgusta, KP 503 § 1517-17). 513. Zeus Erosenus Location: The inscription currently lies at the back of the excavated area of the Roman baiths, close to the western boundary fence of the archaeological area. No inventory number. Description: A small crudely finished column of andesite stone. The area where the inscription is located is rougher than the rest of the column, and there are indistinct traces of lettering below the final line of the legible text. The stone may have previously carried another inscription, which was then crudely erased, or the mason may have made mistakes in the cutting, which had to be corrected. Cursive letter forms for epsilon, sigma, and omega. Dimensions: Height 1.15; diameter 0.38; letters 0.04-0.05. Copy: Squeeze SM 2010. Publication: Mitchell 2017a.

4

Διὶ Ἐρoσ̣ηνῷ Πόντος εὐ[χ]ήν̣.

1: there is a gap between the rho and the omicron with an apparent trace of a letter from the previous carving on the column. The squeeze confirms the reading Ἐροσηνῷ. 4: the reading at the beginning of this line is very indistinct, and the squeeze suggests an omicron rather than a chi. There are apparently traces of two lines of an earlier text after this line.

Translation: Pontus made a vow for Zeus Erosenos. Date: Probably second century. Commentary: It is not certain whether this text comes from a sanctuary in Ankara itself or from the territory north of the city, where andesite was commonly found and used for inscriptions. It attests a cult of Zeus derived from a local toponym Erosa, which is otherwise unattested in Galatia. However, the cult itself was exported from Asia Minor to Dacia by emigrants after Trajan’s conquests, and is attested by a dedication to I. O. M. Eruseno from Napoca (CIL III 859 = ILS 4083), and to I(ovi) useno from the mining district of Rosia Montana near Alburnus Maior (CIL III 7829). For further discussion, see Mitchell 2017a. 514. Siveros Village Location: ‘Déterré dans les cimetières, au pied de la colline où fut, depuis, 284

- 285 construit le Ministère de la Guerre’ (Jerphanion); ‘verschollen’ (Bosch); present whereabouts not known. Description: ‘Fragment en pierre volcanique ... Reste d’une stele brisée en haut et en bas, avec deux lignes d’une écriture très irregulière et peu profonde’ (Jerphanion). Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Jerphanion 1925-27. Publication: Jerphanion 1928, 275 no. 47 and Fig. 52; (SEG 6, 47; Halkin 1953, 93; Bosch 1967, 172 no. 133).

4

[----] κώµης Σιουέρου ἔι ρνϛ´.

4: ΕΠΙ, Jerphanion; perhaps read ἔτει.

Translation: … of the village Siveros, in the year 156. Date: 131, reckoned from the era of Ancyra in 25 BC. Commentary: This may have been a fragment of a votive text, comparable to the dedications/funerary texts set up by devotees of the cult of Zeus Bussurigius at a sanctuary near Karahüyük in the region of Malos east of Ankara (RECAM II 204206), which also carry era dates and the names of the dedicators’ home villages. The topοnym Siveros, otherwise unknown, is reminiscent of the river Siberis (Girmir Çay) in western Galatia, where St Theodore’s village Sykeon lay. 515. Fragment of dedication Location: In Depot 3 at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: White marble fragment, broken on all sides, but the inscription appears to be complete on the left and below. Dimensions: Letters: 0.035. Copy: SM June 2004.

4

ΣΙΑΝ[ - - - - - - ] ΤΟΥΜΑ[ - - - - ] ΠΑΝΤΟΘ̣ [ - - - - ] ΚΑΙΕΞΑΙ ̣[ - καθιέ]-

285

- 286 ρωσεν. [ vac ? ] vac

Translation: . . . . dedicated. Date: Second century (letter forms).

516. Aelius Iunius, veteran of legio VIII Augusta Location: Brought from Akköprü to the Roman Baths in spring 2014. No inventory number. Description: White limestone bomos with the undecorated projections of the base and pediment intact on the left but cut square on the other three sides to make a building block. The same inscription has been inscribed on the front and rear faces of the base. The text is in Latin, but the letter cutting is unskilled. Apices were used intermittently and some letters, for instance the broken-bar alpha in line 2 of inscription b) were cut in a Greek rather than a Latin style. It is unusual that the epitaph was carved twice, on both the front and rear faces of the funerary altar. Dimensions: Height 1.46; width 0.78; depth 0.57; shaft dimensions 0.78 x 0.59; letters, side a) 0.05, 0.06, 0.07; side b) 0.065-0.075. Copy: SM 23.09.2014, squeeze. a)

Aelio • Iunio veterano leg • VIII • Aug. leaf

b)

[A]elio leaf Iunio [v]eterano [l]eg. leaf VIII leaf Aug.

Translation: For Aelius Iunius, veteran of legio VIII Augusta. Date: Third quarter of the second century. Commentary: During the second and third centuries legio VIII Augusta was stationed at Argentorate (Strasburg) in Germania Superior (Reddé 2000). Aelius Iunius appears to be the first serving soldier or veteran of the legion attested in Asia Minor. He may have been recruited from the Ankara region during or after Hadrian’s reign and returned to his native city after his discharge from a full term of service. A cavalryman of Germanic origin who was recruited to the equites singulares Augusti in 116 and joined his co-veterans in erecting a dedication to a group of Roman and German gods to mark their discharge in 141 took the citizen name P. Aelius Iunius (CIL VI 31149 = ILS 4833). However, the legionary soldier at Ancyra presumably acquired citizen status when he was enlisted under Hadrian and this tombstone probably dates to the third quarter of the second century. Since no close kin or heirs are mentioned by the text, it may have been set up by the

286

- 287 collegium veteranorum at Ankara, which is attested by inscriptions between the late first and the mid-third century (I. Ankara 1, 164 and 189 comm.). 517. Bilingual epitaph fragment Location, description & dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Busbecq entourage 1555 (Belsus). Publication: CIG 4080; CIL III 280: text from Belsus f. 359 [Vienna Scheden 161].

4

[ - - - - - - ] ΙΩΝ [ - - - - - - ]. [ - - - - - - ]R sapien[s viva] [ - - - - - ] f. memo[riam] [ - - - - - - ] viro ra[rissimo].

1: [γλυκυτάτῳ ἀνδρ]ὶ ν[ήµης χάριν] would correspond with the Latin text. 2: [vivus], CIL.

Translation: … living and conscious … memory … for her choicest husband. Date: Second century. Commentary: A bilingual gravestone, compare I. Ankara 1, 215-218. 518. Andronicus Location: At Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in the Garden Depot. Inv. no. 28.24.05. Description: Small limestone stele, displaying a female bust with platted hair ringlets and ear-rings. The cloak is shown with eight concentric folds. Broken-bar alpha, square epsilon, omikron and sigma, cursive omega. Dimensions: Height 0.53; width 0.29; thickness 0.055; letters 0.02. Copy: SM squeeze 31.08.2010.

4

Ηλεις καὶ Μαιδάτης καὶ Μάρκος Ἀνδρονίκῳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ µνήµης χάριν.

Translation: Eleis and Maidates and Marcus for Andronicus their brother in memory. Date: Second century.

287

- 288 Commentary: It is a curiosity that this small funerary stele for a man depicts a female bust. The names of the four brothers on this inscription demonstrate the eclectic character of naming in Roman Galatia. Ηλεις, already attested at Ankara (see I. Ankara 1, 239 and 279 comm.) was an indigenous central Anatolian name (cf. 358 comm.). Μαιδάτης was also an indigenous name particularly associated with Paphlagonia, where it is attested at Sinope (LGPN V.A, 277, citing Robert 1963, 514). A Μαιδάτας, probably of slave origin from Paphlagonia, occurs at Boeotian Tanagra (IG VII 1184, cf LGPN III.B, 268), and Μαιδάτης appears alongside two other names with north Anatolian associations on a graffito in the Tauric Chersonese (SEG 38, 749; LGPN IV, 217). Marcus and Andronicus were common Latin and Greek names respectively. 519. Artemidorus of Kinna Location: Brought from Akköprü to the Roman Baths in spring 2014. No inventory number. Description: White limestone funerary altar, with plain base and pediment mouldings which are intact on the left but have been hammered off on the other three sides when the stone was used as a building block. The inscription was carved on the shaft in large, crude lettering with a rosette in a circle below the text. The first line of the text was damaged at the right when the stone was re-shaped as a building block. Alpha with straight cross-bar; cursive epsilon, sigma and omega. Dimensions: Height 1.48; width 0.60; thickness 0.51; shaft 1.05 x 0.54; letters 0.05-0.07. Copy: Squeeze SM 23.09.2014.

4

Ποπλ[ - - ] Κιννηνὸς Ἀρτεµιδώρῳ υἱῷ µνήµης χάριν. leaf rosette

1: Πόπλ[ιος] or Ποπλ[ᾶς].

Translation: Popl… of Kinna for his son Artemidorus, in memory. Date: Second century, before 212. Commentary: Kinna was a small Galatian city, probably located at Karahamzılı about ninety kilometres south of Ankara on the road leading to Lycaonia. It became a bisphoric in late antiquity and was mentioned as being on the route which led from the Holy Land back to Galatia in the life of St Theodore of Sykeon (Vita S. Theodori 64 and 66). Two civic inscriptions from the nearby villages of Akarca (RECAM II 396) and Sofular (RECAM II 402), refer to the ἄρχοντες, βουλή, δῆµος of the city, but in each case the collective ethnic is only partly legible, respectively as [Κιν]νηνῶν and [Κιννη]νῶν. Other inscriptions from the 288

- 289 city’s territory, to the north-west of the north end of the Salt Lake, Tuz Gölü (ancient Tatta), are to be found in RECAM II 394-402 and in MAMA XI 222-253. This family from Kinna appears to have settled in Ankara. The simple inscription and the crude carving of the text in large letters contrast with the imposing limestone bomos, the type of funerary monument regularly used by Ankara’s richer citizens. The family, however, took special pride in their place of origin and displayed the name prominently on the inscription. Compare the epitaph on another large funerary bomos for Iulius Timotheus, an eques singularis from the small Pisidian city of Pappa, which placed the ethnic Παππηνός emphatically at the end of the text (I. Ankara 1, 186). Πόπλιος or Ποπλᾶς, derived from the Latin Publius. Πόπλιος appears as a single name on an inscription from Elmadağ, east of Ankara (RECAM II 215) and perhaps at Ankara itself (I. Ankara 1, 200), and is a typical example of the adoption of common Roman names by the Galatian population (see I. Ankara 1, p. 18). 520. Asclepius Location: In the garden of Hacettepe Hospital, Sıhhiye. Description: Stele of white-gray limestone, which has been recut into a column with rounded ends and a flat middle section in the late Roman period for architectural use, but was apparently complete above and below. The cutting has removed both sides of the inscription. Below the text there is a relief of a small table with elaborate legs on which stand a vase and a cup, and, to the right, an unidentified object, perhaps a case containing three stiluses. Square epsilon, cursive sigma and omega, upsilon with cross bar; ligatures ΝΕ, ΝΗ, ΗΣ. Copy: Photograph from Professor Kutalmış Görkay, 9.1.2012.

4

[Διόν]υσος Ἀσκ[λ][ηπί]ῳ πατρὶ γλ[υ][κυ]τάτῳ ἀνέσ[τ][ησε]ν µνήµης χάριν.

Translation: Dionysus set this up for Asclepius his father in memory. Date: Second century (names, letter forms). Commentary: Both father and son had theophoric names, and Asclepius was particularly common as a personal name in Galatia (see MAMA XI 248 comm. noting the seventeen examples registered in the index of RECAM II). D. Feissel draws attention to the difference between the god’s name with the oxytone accentuation Ἀσκληπιός and the anthroponym Ἀσκλήπιος which was a theophoric rather than a divine name (Feissel 1998, 137). The restoration [Διόν]υσος in line 1 seems unavoidable, although the on-line index of LGPN records only four other instances of Dionysus being used as a personal name.

289

- 290 521. Chreste Location: At the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 87.1.91. Description: A squat, rectangular, altar-shaped monument of white limestone, left rough at the back. It probably served as the base for an ostotheke. On the front face there is a decoration of garlands with fillets slung between ox-heads; on the right, a wreath with rosette; on the left, a wreath; in the centre, an inscription in four lines. Cursive alpha, lunate sigma and omega. Dimensions: Height 0.65; width 0.61; depth 0.58; letters 0.02-03. Copy: SM 2005; squeeze SM 27.08.2010.

4

Μοσχᾶς ζῶν Χρήστῃ µητρὶ καὶ τοῖς ἰδίοις µνήµης χαριν.

Translation: Moschas, while alive, for his mother Chreste and his own children in memory. Date: Late second or early third century (decorative scheme, no Aurelii). Commentary: This is the only monument in this format so far recorded at Ankara. 522. Epikausis Location: In the Roman Baths. No inventory number. Description: Section of a simple cornice of Ankara andesite, complete but damaged at the top in the front. The inscription was cut on the vertical face at the bottom of the cornice, below a string course and a concave moulding. Dimensions: Height 0.30; width 0.86; thickness 0.41 (bottom), 0.46+ (top). Letters 0.035. Copy: SM 2010; squeeze SM 18.08.2010. [ - εἴ δέ τις ἕτερο]ν ἐπικαύσῃ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ ταµείῳ [ - ] Translation: If (anyone else) cremates a body in addition, he will be liable to the treasury … Date: Second or third century. Commentary: The stone must be part of a funerary construction where burnt remains were placed, i.e. an ostotheke or a kaustra (see I. Ankara 1, 226 comm. for 290

- 291 the terminology), and the text served a warning against anyone who tried to add additional burnt remains to the burial. 523. Uninscribed ostotheke Location: At the rear of the Roman Baths. No inventory number. Description: This ostotheke took the form of a box of coarse white crystalline marble with a separate lid. The front end is decorated with a many-petalled rosette with a bull’s head acroterion to the left, but broken on the right. There is a clamp hole above the rosette for fixing the lid. The left side has a five-petalled rosette in a pendant wreath, which was atttached to a bull’s head at the rear left corner. The rear face also has a damaged multi-petalled rosette. The lid has a plain short side with a gently sloping roof culminating in a rounded coping tile, and has plain acroteria at the corners. It is broken off at the back left and damaged at the back right. There is a clamp hole and channeling for iron clamps at the front and back. Dimensions: Box: height 0.33; width 0.50; length 0.50; the internal measurements of the container are 0.34 by 0.33. Lid: height 0.25; width 0.49; length 0.50. 523 bis. Large uninscribed lidless ostotheke Location: At the rear of the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 113.379.99. Description: The ostotheke has the form of a plain box of white limestone with a separate lid. At the front and the rear there are plain base and top mouldings, and a lion’s head in the centre at the front and rear. Semi-circular niches have been cut in the left and right sides, and the upper moulding has been trimmed off the right side when the container was re-used as a water trough. Dimensions: Height 0.69; width 0.85; length 0.87; the internal measurements of the container are 0.64 by 0.62. 524. Chrysokarpus Location: In the Garden Depot of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Fragment of white limestone, complete left, broken above, right and below. Lunate epsilon, sigma, omega. Dimensions: Height 0.32; width 0.38; thickness 0.055; letters 0.02-0.03, line 3 (inserted) 0.01-0.015. Copy: SM squeeze 31.08.2010.

4

[ - - - - - - - - τῷ γλυ]κυτ[άτῳ κὲ φιλτάτῳ] καταθεὶς ἑα[υτῶν υἱῷ] ιε´ ἔτων µνή[µης χά]-

291

- 292 ὄνοµα Χρυσόκαρπ[ος]

8

ριν· ἐκ τῶν ἰδίω[ν ᾠ]κοδόµησα τ[ὸ περί][φρα]γµα.

2-3: the restorations are tentative, and the position of καταθείς in the word order is unusual. However, the composition of the text, which initially omitted the child’s name, was unskilled. 5: the name of the dead child was inserted between lines 4 and 6 in smaller letters.

Translation: … having set this up for their sweetest and dearest son, aged fifteen years, by name Chrysokarpus, in memory; I built the enclosure from my own funds. Date: Second or third century. Commentary: The last three lines refer to the building of a funerary enclosure, and used a term that was characteristic at Ankara and in north-west Asia Minor (see I. Ankara 1, 284 and 285). 525. …ynethius ? Location: ‘On a limestone block (inverted), now serving as a lintel in the ClockTower Gateway of the wall below the enceinte’ (d’Orbeliani); ‘remployé dans le linteau de la baie intérieure, à la porte D (the Hisar Kapı)’ (Jerphanion). Description: ‘Sur un bloc antique … Au commencement, plusieurs lettres peuvent être masquées par un collier de fer ajouté après coup pour renforcer le bloc qui s’est fendu’ (Jerphanion). Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: d’Orbeliani 1915-18; Jerphanion 1925-27. Publication: d’Orbeliani 1924, 27 no. 13; Jerphanion 1928, 286 no. 58; (SEG 6, 16) [Vienna Scheden 217]. [ - - - - ] ΥΝΗΘΙΟΥ Jerphanion read and restored [Ὑακ]υνθίου for Ὑακίνθου; Tod suggested that [Σ]υνηθίου might be restored.

Date: Uncertain. Commentary: Jerphanion suggested that this was the name of the workman who had worked on this section of the fortifications, but this was evidently a re-used stone. 526. Hygia

292

- 293 Location: Probably from Ankara itself and now at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: White marble doorstone. The door was depicted in relief below a set of mouldings with a text on the upper register which has been almost completely effaced. The second line of the inscription is cut on a concave curved moulding immediately above the door panels, which displayed a lozenge (top left), a key plate (top right), and lion’s heads holding a door-knocker (bottom left and right). Broken-bar alpha, lunate epsilon. Dimensions: Height 0.59; width 0.50; thickness 0.13; letters 0.015. Copy: SM June 2004; squeeze 31.08.2010. [-------]ΙΙ[-------] Ὑγίᾳ µητρὶ µνήµης χάριν. Translation: … for Hygia his/her mother in memory. Date: Probably second century. Commentary: For other doorstones at Ankara, I. Ankara 1, 300 comm. and 529. 527. Lucianus Location: In Depot 3 of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Small fragment of an Ankara andesite slab, broken on all sides. Dimensions: Height 0.16; width 0.20; depth 0.10; letters 0.03-04. Copy: SM 16.06.2004.

4

------[τῷ] γλυ[κυ][τ]άτῳ α[ὐτ][ῆς] ἀνδρ[ὶ ] [Λ]ουκι[ανῷ].

4: [Μ]ουκι[ανῷ] is less likely.

Translation: … for her sweetest husband Lucianus. Date: Second or third century. 528. Menophilus

293

- 294 Location: In the garden depot of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Inv. no. 28.05.2797. Description: Small limestone stele with rounded top. The front face has a smooth finish but the the lower section has been left rough. Cursive sigma and omega. Dimensions: Not measured. Copy: SM squeeze August 2010.

4

Μηνόφ[ι]λος Μηνοφίλῳ τῷ υἱῷ µνήµη[ς] χάριν.

Translation: Menophilus for Menophilus, his son, in memory. Date: Second century. 529. Quintus Location: Placed above a water tap at the rear of the Roman Baths. Inv. no. 114.44.99. Description: Yellowish white limestone door-stone. Triangular pediment with flattened top and a hole bored through from left to right so that the stone could be used as a counterweight, perhaps for the beam of an olive press. The design in the pediment is worn but may depict a bust with tresses. The door-frame has three fasciae and a slightly projecting gable, with a three-line inscription. In the door panels a male bust (top left), a female bust (top right), a door knocker (bottom left) and a key plate (bottom right). Ligatures ΗϹ, ΜΝΗ ΜΗϹ; broken-bar alpha, square epsilon and sigma, lunate omega. Dimensions: Height 0.98; width 0.80; thickness 0.40; letters 0.02-0.023. Copy: SM 15.9.05; squeeze SM 23.08.2010. Ἀρχ[ - c.6 - ]ιθέου Κοΐντῳ [τῷ] ἀνδρὶ α[ὐ]τῆς̣ µνήµης χάριν. 1: ? Ἄρχ[η Δωσ]ιθέου.

Translation: Arch… daughter of …itheus set up (the tomb) for Quintus her husband in memory. Date: Second century.

294

- 295 -

Commentary: This doorstone was probably re-used in an olive press, no doubt one of the installations close to the Roman Baths, and this suggests that the stone came originally from one of Ankara’s Roman cemeteries, not from further afield. 530. Funerary altar with verse text Location: Roman Baths. No inventory number. Description: Grey-white limestone/marble bomos. The entire surface of the stone, including the front panel with the inscription, is very weathered. The pediment had plain mouldings and acroteria; the shaft is damaged at the left edge and increasingly worn to the right; moulded base. Fourteen-line inscription with very worn lunate letters. Dimensions: Height 0.92; width 0.495 (pediment), 0.40 (shaft); thickness 0.45 (pediment), 0.40 (shaft); letters 0.035 (lines 1-5), 0.025-0.03. Copy: SM 1971.

4

8

12

. ΟΔΕΧΥ . Ι̣ Η̣ . . ΕΧΕΙΚΟ.\.ΟϹ̣ . ΟΝΗΝ . . . . . Θ̣ΩΝΙΗΤ Ι̣ Ι̣ Ρ . Γ̣ . ΝΕΞ . . ΟΝ . ΕΩΝΑ̣ . . . Κ̣ ΙΟ . ϹΕΤΩΝ̣ . ΛΥϹΙ . ΟϹΙΜ Ο̣ . . ΟΝ̣ . . Ϲ. ΕΙΚΟϹΙΠ̣. . . . ΟΜΟΙ . . . ΑΝΚΛ Ι . . . . . . Ο̣ΜΟ . Α̣ ....Ϲ..... . . ΠΩΝΟΔΕΝΙΦ̣ΑΥΛ .

9: εἴκοσι π[έντε].

Date: Probably third century. Commentary: The text appears to have been a verse epitaph. 531. Fragment Location: In the Garage Depot of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: White limestone fragment, broken on all sides, showing the righthand side of a tabula ansata. Broken-bar alpha.

295

- 296 -

Dimensions: Height 0.24; width 0.32; thickness 0.07; letters 0.035. Copy: SM 16.06.2004. [ - - - - - - - ] ΙΛ. Ω Ι [ - µνήµης χ]άριν. Translation: … in memory. Date: Second or third century. 532. Fragment Location: In the Roman Baths. No inventory number. Description: The right-hand edge of a very worn stele in soft pinkish limestone. The shaft is complete below and broken on the left and above. Criss-cross pattern on right edge. Lunate epsilon and sigma. Dimensions: Height 0.57; width 0.35; thickness 0.07; letters 0.035. Copy: SM 20.08.2010.

4

----[ - ] ἀνέσ[τη]σεν µ̣[νή]µης [χάριν].

Translation: … set up, in memory. Date: Second or third century. 533. Funerary text Location: In the Roman baths. No inventory number. Description: Small rectangular altar of Ankara andesite, broken at the back, complete at the front. Plain base and top with simple triangular joins to the shaft. Dimensions: Height 0.96; width 0.50; thickness 0.33; letters: 0.04-0.05. Copy: SM squeeze 0.09.2010. ---------[ - - - - - - - ]ῳ ὑιῷ [αὐτ . . ἀνέστ]ησεν

296

- 297 4

[µνήµης χάρι]ν.

Translation: … set it up for … his/her son in memory. Date: Second or third century. 534. Funerary fragment Location: Found in the foundations of the Ziraat Bank, in the same location as I. Ankara 1, 289. Present whereabouts not known. Description: ‘Cippe brisé en deux. Sur le haut, mais à 40 centimètres du sommet du dé, quelques lettres mal gravées. Sur l’autre fragment, deux lignes d’une belle écriture régulière ... Les deux fragments ne sont pas de la même main’ (Jerphanion). Dimensions: Letters 0.04. Copy: Jerphanion 1925-27. Publication: Jerphanion 1928, 255 no. 27 and fig. 40; (SEG 6, 35) [Vienna Scheden 257]. a) b)

---[χαῖρε καὶ] σύ, ἕνεκα µνήµης.

b): cf I. Ankara 1, 279 and 297; [ - ] συ[µβίῳ] ἕν|εκα, Jerphanion.

Translation: … hail also to you, for memory’s sake. Date: Probably second or third century. 535. Fragment: gravestone (?) Location, description & dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: A. D. Mordtmann (with H. Barth) 1858. Publication: Mordtmann 1874, 23; (IGRR III 185) [Vienna Scheden 211]. [ - - - ]ΔΙ Μ. Σηδά[τιος ? - ] 1: [Ἀρτεµί]δι, Cagnat; perhaps a female name in the dative, e.g. [Ναΐ]δι.

Date: Second or third century.

297

- 298 -

Commentary: Cagnat suggested that this could be a dedication to Artemis put up by the Roman senator M. Sedatius Severianus, cos. suff. 153 and legatus Augusti pro pr. of Cappadocia in 161 (PIR2 S 306). 536. Fragmentary base Location: From an excavation in Ulus. Description: Marble fragment broken on all sides probably from a substantial base. Good lettering. Dimensions: Not recorded. Copy: Photo provided by Professor Musa Kadıoğlu. [ - ] Ι Ι ΟΥ . [ - ] [ - ] IΟΣ [ - ] Date: Second century (letter forms). 537. Fragmentary base Location: Recorded in the Akkale depot. Description: Fragment of the bottom right corner of a square (?) bomos. Pale limestone. The end of the inscription was cut on the shaft with three letters on the base. Dimensions: Height 0.23; width 0.125; letters 0.025. Copy: SM 2004. [----]Ο vac

[ - - - - ] ΡΑΝ Date: Second or third century. 538. Fragment Location: In front of the south terrace depot of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Severely damaged rectangular grey limestone bomos. The left and right sides are preserved but the right-hand surface of the stone has been chiselled

298

- 299 away. The mouldings at the base have been cut away on the front and right. Broken-bar alpha, square sigma. Dimensions: Height 0.68, (shaft) 0.52; width 0.36; thickness 0.32; letters 0.025. Copy: SM 2004; squeeze SM 26.08.2010. Publication:

4

.Ο.[-] ΟΝ̣ΝΕΙΤ̣[ - ] Π̣ Τ̣ .̣Υ̣ Ι̣[ - ] ΤΙΝΑΙ̣Ο̣[ - ] ΑΥΤΟΥϹ[ - ] Ρ̣Ε̣ΛΥ ̣ ̣Γ[̣ - ] vac Ε.

Date: Probably second or third century. Commentary: Probably part of an honorific statue base. 539. Fragment naming Ankyra ? Location: In Depot 3 of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: White marble cladding; left side intact; broken above, right and below. Below the inscription the surface of the stone has been erased. Dimensions: Height 0.50; width 0.24; thickness 0.06; letters 0.04. Copy: SM June 2004. ΑΝΚ . [ - ] [[ - - - - ]] 1: ligature NK followed by the foot of a letter which could be upsilon. Ἄνκ[υρα] could be restored. 2: erased.

Date: Probably fourth to sixth century (lettering on re-used marble cladding). Commentary: If the city name is rightly restored, this text could have been an acclamation. 540. Limestone fragment in citadel wall Location: Built into one of the towers of the south wall of the Kale, probably with 387 in ST 2 or 3.

299

- 300 Description: Limestone block; bold letters. Dimensions: Height 0.35; width 1.42 (56 x 14 inches, d’Orbeliani). Copy: d’Orbeliani 1915-18. Publication: d’Orbeliani 1924, 33 no. 36. ΑΠΙΑ Commentary: The nature of the text is very uncertain. d’Orbeliani and Tod interpreted this as a proper name Ἀπία. 541. Andesite fragment in citadel wall Location: Built high up in tower 5 of the west face of the citadel. Description: The inscription was carved in large letters towards the bottom edge of a rectangular block of Ankara andesite. Alpha with straight bar; upsilon in form of Latin V. Copy: SM 2005. ΠΑΡΥ Date: Uncertain. 542. Mason’s Mark Location: Built into the curtain to the right of the west gate of the Kale, between WT 12 and 13. Description: Irregular block of re-used limestone. Cursive epsilon. Dimensions: Height 0.36; width 0.91; letters 0.05. Copy: SM 2017. ΠΕϹ Date: Uncertain. 543. Statoria ? Location: Built high up into one of the towers of the south wall of the Kale. Description: Part of a slab of porphyry. Dimensions: Height 0.45; width 1.22; letters c. 0.10.

300

- 301 -

Copy: d’Orbeliani 1915-18. Publication: d’Orbeliani 1924, 31 no. 25; (SEG 6, 24). [ - ]α Στατωρ[ία or -ιανή ?] Commentary: Porphyry, obtained from Egyptian quarries, would have been a rare and unusual material to be used at Ankara, and d’Orbeliani’s identification of the stone may not be reliable. However, the dimensions suggest that this inscription came from a substantial building. The names Statorius (I. Ankara 1, 8, lines 62 and 63; 233; 248; 285) and Statorianus (I. Ankara 1, 86; 238) occurred frequently at Ankara. 544. Weight Location: Brought from the Roman Baths to Depot 3 at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. No inventory number. Description: Hemispherical weight. Complete, with rusted iron attachment set in a triangular hole in the top. Dimensions: Height 0.125; diameter 0.26-0.27; letters 0.035. Copy: SM June 2004. Λί(τρα) ν´ Ἀν. τ´ 1: The iota is placed between the legs of the lambda, Horizontal bar above the tau. 2: The abbreviation ΑΝ is a puzzle, and does not correspond to any standard Greek measure of weight or capacity.

Translation: 50 litra and 300 … (?). Date: Imperial period. 545. Mason’s mark ? Location: Temple of Augustus. On the interior sοuth cella wall, on the inner face of a foundation block which was revealed after a foundation stone immediately to the west of the rear wall of the cella was removed, presumably when the temple was converted to a church. Description: Block of Ankara andesite. Broken-bar alpha; lunate sigma. Dimensions: Height 0.48; width 0.70; letters 0.04; The inscription was cut on a prepared panel, 0.20 wide x 0.06 high.

301

- 302 -

Copy: SM 23.09.2005. ΑΡΙϹ Date: Uncertain. Comments: This could be a mason’s mark dating to the original cutting and placing of the temple foundations, but may belong to a secondary building phase, as the letter forms appear later than the Augustan period. If this was a mason’s or an architect’s marker, perhaps understand ἀρισ(τερός), on the left-hand side.

302

- 303 -

5 Ancyrans Abroad The biggest group of texts referring to Ancyrans found outside Ancyra comes from Athens. These, and a smaller number of texts for Galatians, have been dated to the hellenistic and early imperial periods and are discussed in the first part of this chapter. In addition, a relatively modest number of Greek and Latin inscriptions of the Roman imperial period or from late antiquity found in other places refer to Ancyra or to the activities of Ancyrans. These texts are presented in a simpler format than those from Ankara itself, and for the most part do not depend on autopsy. 5.1 Inscriptions for Ancyrans and Galatians in Athens Seventy-three grave monuments set up by or for Ancyrans have been recorded in Athens. This is by far the largest number of persons from Ankara recorded outside the city. All these inscriptions take the characteristically modest form of Athenian grave monuments after the reform of Demetrius of Phalerum of 317 BC, which placed a ban on elaborate and expensive funerary practices. They are small inscribed columns (kioniskoi, columellae) with simple epitaphs, usually in the format of name, patronymic and ethnic, but occasionally also naming marriage partners. The basic collection of this material was made by J. Kirchner, IG II/III2. 32 (Berlin 1940) nos. 7883-7937, 7903a, 7904a, 8053/4, fifty-seven separate inscriptions). Kirchner dated the texts on stylistic grounds and on their letter forms between the late fourth century BC and the first century AD, using the following divisions: med s. IV a.; p. a. 317/6 (the reform of Demetrius of Phalerum); post fin. S. IV s.; s. III a.; s. III/II a.; s. II a.; s. II/I a.; s. I a./s.I p.; s. I p.; aetat. imp./aetat. rom. Bosch extracted the Ankara texts from the Attic corpus and accepted Kirchner’s dating (Bosch 1967), but modified the chronological descriptions to conform to the scheme of his own book so that the items appear respectively as hellenistic (12-46), Julio-Claudian (52-3), Flavian (79-89), and not datable (315-322). New finds, published sporadically since the appearance of Kirchner’s corpus, were collected by Osborne 1988, and are included in Osborne and Byrne (= OB), 3-7 nos. 11-134. This list contains 123 Ancyrans, and the numbers refer to the individual Ancyrans, listed alphabetically, not to separate inscriptions. Osborne and Byrne’s chronological classification does not essentially differ from that of Kirchner. Three further texts have been published since 1996 and have been registered in SEG. Ancyrans at Athens A1. IG II/III2. 32 7883; Bosch 1967, 86 no. 79; OB nos. 11, 14. Athens in front of the Theseum. Small column of Hymettic marble. Height 0.97, diameter 0.26; letters 0.041; 1st cent. AD. Ἀγαθόκληα | Ἀγάθωνος | Ἀνκυρανή | Εὐδόξου | Ἐλευσινίου | γυνή. A2. IG II/III2. 32 7884; Bosch 1967, 16 no. 12; OB nos. 12-13. Athens on the acropolis. Small column of Hymettic marble. After 317/6 BC.

303

- 304 Ἀγάθων | Ἀγάθωνο[ς] | Ἀγ[κυρα]ν[ός]. A3. IG II/III2. 32 7885; Bosch 1967, 86 no. 80; OB nos. 15, 40. Athens National Museum, inv. 12148. Small column of Hymettic marble. 1st cent. AD. Ἀγάθων | Ἀφ̣ίτου | Ἀνκυρανός A4. IG II/III2. 32 7886, Bosch 1967, 86 no. 81 (OB nos. 18, 17). Athens National Museum, inv. 406. Small column of Hymettic marble. 1st / 2nd cent. AD. Ἄνδρων | Ἀνδροµάχου | Ἀνκυρ[ανό]ς. A5. IG II/III2. 32 7887; Bosch 1967, 386 no. 315; OB 19, 129. Athens National Museum. Small column of Hymettic marble. Roman imperial period (1st / 2nd cent. AD). Ἀντιγόνα | Τηίου | Ἀγκυρανή. A6. IG II/III2. 32 7888; Bosch 1967, 86 no. 82; OB nos. 29, 20. Athens National Museum inv. 12135. Small column of Hymettic marble. 1st cent. BC/AD. Ἀπολλώνι|ος Ἀπολλο|δότου Ἀγ|κυρανός. A7. IG II/III2. 32 7889; Bosch 1967, 20 no. 39; OB nos. 25, 26. Athens National Museum inv. 13121. Small column of Hymettic marble. 1st cent. BC. Ἀπολλώνιος ¦ Ἀπολλωνίου | Ἀγκυρανός. A8. IG II/III2. 32 7890; Bosch 1967, 18 no. 25; OB nos. 23 and 39. Athens on the acropolis, inv. 10789. Small column of Hymettic marble, broken below. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Ἀπο{ι}λλώνιος | Ἀττίνου | Ἀνκυρανός. A9. IG II/III2. 32 7891; Bosch 1967, 86 no. 83; OB nos. 31, 41. Athens National Museum inv. 2132. Small column of Hymettic marble, broken below. 1st cent. AD. Ἄρτεµις | Βίωνος | [Ἀγκυ]ρανή. A10. IG II/III2. 32 7892; Bosch 1967, 20 no. 40; OB nos. 32, 116. Athens National Museum inv. 2132. Small column of Hymettic marble. 1st cent. BC. Ἀρτεµισία | ῾Ροάκτορος | Ἀγκυρανή. A11. IG II/III2. 32 7893; Bosch 1967, 18 no. 26; OB no. 37. Athens, in the Kerameikos. Small column of Hymettic marble, broken below. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Ἀσκληπιάδης | Ἀνκυρανός.

304

- 305 A12. IG II/III2. 32 7894; Bosch 1967, 17 no. 13; OB nos 38, 87. Athens. Small column of Hymettic marble 3rd cent. BC. Ἀσκληπιὰς | Μήνου | Ἀγκυρανή. Α13. IG II/III2. 32 7895; Bosch 1967, 386 no. 316; OB nos. 48, 35. Athens, in the Kerameikos. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd cent. BC. Διονυσία | Ἀσκλάπωνος | Ἀνκυρανή. A14. IG II/III2. 32 7896; Bosch 1967, 17 no. 19; OB nos. 49, 85. Athens National Museum inv. 1533. Half of small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd cent. BC. Διονυσία | Μεν[οί]του | Ἀνκ[υρ]α[νή]. A15. IG II/III2. 32 7897; Bosch 1967, 86 no. 84; OB no. 50. Athens on the acropolis, inv. 11203. Small column of Hymettic marble, 1st cent. AD. Δοξὰς | Ἀκυρανή. A16. IG II/III2. 32 7898; Bosch 1967, 21 no. 41; OB nos. 51, 79. Athens on the acropolis. inv. 11206. Small column of Hymettic marble. 1st cent. BC. Δωρὶ[ς] | Μενάνδ[ρου] | Ἀγκ[υρανή]. A17. IG II/III2. 32 7899; Bosch 1967, 19 no. 27; OB nos. 52 and 77. Athens, Gerani; now in the National Museum inv. 12107. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Ἑρµοκράτης | Μενάνδρου | Ἀγκυρανός. A18. IG II/III2. 32 7900; Bosch 1967, 19 no. 28; OB nos. 54, 110. Athens, St Demetrius Katephores; now in the Nat. Museum inv. 11207. Small column of Pentelic marble. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Εὐνοίη | Ὀλβίου | Ἀγκ[υ]ρανή. A19. IG II/III2. 32 7901; Bosch 1967, 87 no. 85; OB nos. 59, 123. Athens National Museum. Small column of Hymettic marble. 1st cent. AD. Ζωίλος | Σωσθέ[νους] | Ἀγκυρ[ανός]. A20. IG II/III2. 32 7902; Bosch 1967, 18 no. 20; OB nos. 60, 132. Athens National Museum inv. 195. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd cent. BC. Ζωπύρα | Φίλωνος | Ἀγκυρανή. A21. IG II/III2. 32 7903; Bosch 1967, 386 no. 317; OB no. 61. Athens National Museum inv. 350. Small column of Hymettic marble. Roman Imperial period (1st / 2nd cent. AD).

305

- 306 -

Ἤµα Ἀνκυρανή. A22. IG II/III2. 32 7904; Bosch 1967, 18 no. 14; OB no. 130. Athens. Small column of Hymettic marble. 3rd cent. BC. Ἡράκλ[εια] | Τιµοθ[έου] | Ἀγκυ[ρανοῦ] | γυν[ή]. A23. IG II/III2. 32 7905; Bosch 1967, 18 no. 21; OB nos. 68, 22. Athens National Museum. Small column of Hymettic marble, broken below. 2nd cent. BC. Κλέαρχος | Ἀπολλωνίου | Ἀνκυρανός. A24. IG II/III2. 32 7906; Bosch 1967, 19 no. 29; OB nos. 70, 53. Athens Kerameikos. Small column of Hymettic marble, broken below. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Λύδιον | Ἐυβούλου | Ἀνκυρανή. A25. IG II/III2. 32 7907; Bosch 1967, 387 no. 318; OB nos. 71, 86. Athens Kerameikos. Small column of Hymettic marble.; Roman imperial period (1st / 2nd cent. AD). Λυκάων | Μηδείου | Ἀνκυρανός. A26. IG II/III2. 32 7908; Bosch 1967, 19 no. 30; OB nos. 72, 33. Athens National Museum inv. 12217. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Μανία | Ἀρτέµωνος | Ἀγκυρανή. A27. IG II/III2. 32 7909; Bosch 1967, 195 no. 155 (OB nos. 73, 81). Athens on the acropolis. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd cent. AD. Μανία | Μενάνδρου | [Ἀ]γκυρανή. A28. IG II/III2. 32 7910; Bosch 1967, 87 no. 86; OB nos. 74, 80. Athens National Museum inv. 12066. Small column of Hymettic marble. 1st cent. AD. Μαρσύας | Μενάνδρου | Ἀνκυρανός. A29. IG II/III2. 32 7911; Bosch 1967, 17 no. 15; OB nos. 75, 45. Athens. Small column of Hymettic marble. 3rd cent. BC. Ματερὼ | Δηµητρίου | [Ἀγ]κυρανή. A30. IG II/III2. 32 7912; Bosch 1967, 387 no. 319; OB nos. 82, 83. Athens Gerani. Small column of Hymettic marble; Roman Imperial period (1st / 2nd cent. AD). Μένανδρος | Μενεκράτου | Ἀγκυρανός.

306

- 307 A31. IG II/III2. 32 7913; Bosch 1967, 387 no. 320; OB no. 84. Small column of Hymettic marble. Roman Imperial period (1st / 2nd cent. AD). Μεννέας | Ἀνκυρανός. A32. IG II/III2. 32 7914; Bosch 1967, 19 no. 31; OB nos. 88, 91. Athens. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Μηνᾶς | Μηνογένου | Ἀνκυρανός. A33. IG II/III2. 32 7915; Bosch 1967, 21 no. 42; OB nos. 92, 107. Athens. Small column of Hymettic marble. 1st cent. BC. Μηνόδοτος | Νικοστράτου | Ἀνκυρανός. A34. IG II/III2. 32 7916; Bosch 1967, 87 no. 87; OB nos. 93, 89. Athens National Museum inv. 12203. Small column of Hymettic marble. 1st cent. AD. Μηνοφίλα | Μήνιδος | Ἀγκυρανή. A35. IG II/III2. 32 7917; Bosch 1967, 387 no. 321; OB nos. 96, 97. Athens in Kerameikos. Small column of Hymettic marble. Roman Imperial period (1st / 2nd cent. AD). Μητρόδωρος | Μητροδώρου | Ἀγ{ι}κυρανός. A36. IG II/III2. 32 7918; Bosch 1967, 19 no. 32; OB nos. 98, 16. Athens, in Roman forum. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Μητρὼ | Ἀλεξιµάχου | νκυρανή. A37. IG II/III2. 32 7919; Bosch 1967, 21 no. 43; OB nos. 99, 67. Athens in the Stoa of Attalos. Small column of Hymettic marble, broken above and below. 1st cent. BC. Μητρὼ | Καρνεάδου | Ἀγκυρανή. A38. IG II/III2. 32 7920; Bosch 1967, 21 no. 44; OB nos. 100, 102. Athens Kerameikos. Small column of Hymettic marble, broken above and below. 1st cent. BC. Μητρὼ | Νικάνδρου | Ἀνκυρανή. A39. IG II/III2. 32 7921; Bosch 1967, 17 no. 17; OB nos. 101. Athens Kerameikos. Small column of Hymettic marble, broken above and below. 3rd / 2nd cent BC. Μνήµων | Ἀνκυρείτης. A40. IG II/III2. 32 7922; Bosch 1967, 87 no. 88; OB nos. 103, 105. Athens in Roman Forum. Small column of Hymettic marble. 1st cent. AD.

307

- 308 -

Νίκη Νίκιδος | Ἀνκυρανή | [.]ένωνος | Ἀντ[ι|ο]χέω[ς γυνή]. 3: [Μ]ένωνος, Bosch; perhaps [Ξ]ένωνος.

A41. IG II/III2. 32 7923; Bosch 1967, 17 no. 18; OB nos. 104, 131. Athens Kato Liossia. Small column of Hymettic marble, broken above and at the back. 3rd / 2nd cent. BC. Νικίας | Ὕλλου | Ἀνκυρανός. A42. IG II/III2. 32 7924; Bosch 1967, 19 no. 33; OB nos. 106, 57. Athens National Museum inv. 11876. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Νικόµαχος | Εὑρήµονος | Ἀγκυρανός. A43. IG II/III2. 32 7925; Bosch 1967, 20 no. 34; OB nos. 106, 57. Athens National Museum inv. 12035. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Νώνη | Δηµητρίου | Ἀνκυρανή. A44. IG II/III2. 32 7926; Bosch 1967, 18 no. 22; OB nos. 109, 36. Athens Kerameikos. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd cent. BC. Ξάνδα | Ἀσκληπιάδου | Ἀγκυρανή. A45. IG II/III2. 32 7927; Bosch 1967, 20 no. 35; OB nos. 111, 63. Athens Kerameikos, now in National Museum inv. 12176. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Ὅµοιον | Ἡρακλείτου | Ἀκυρανή. A46. IG II/III2. 32 7928; Bosch 1967, 17 no. 16; OB nos. 112, 21. Athens. Small column of Hymettic marble. 3rd cent. BC. Ὀνήσιµος | Ἀπολλωνίου | Ἀγκυρανός. A47. IG II/III2. 32 7929; Bosch 1967, 87 no. 89; OB nos. 114, 34. Athens on the acropolis, inv. 11210. Small column of Hymettic marble. 1st cent. BC. Πρῶτος | Ἀρ[χ]ελάου | Ἀν[κ]υρανός. A48. IG II/III2. 32 7930; Bosch 1967, 18 no. 23; OB nos. 114, 34. Athens in the garden of Malvasi. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd cent. BC. Πυθιὰς | Πολεµαίου | Ἀγκυρανή. A49. IG II/III2. 32 7931; Bosch 1967, 49 no. 52; OB nos. 117, 42. Athens on the acropolis, now in National Museum inv. 12162. Small column of Hymettic marble; broken above and below. 1st cent. BC / 1st cent. AD.

308

- 309 -

Σαµβατεὶς | Βροµίου | Ἀγκυρανή. A50. IG II/III2. 32 7932; Bosch 1967, 21 no. 45; OB nos. 118, 127. Athens. Small column of Hymettic marble; broken above and below. 1st cent. BC. Σ[αρ]απιὰς | Σ[. . . . ]ονος | Ἀγκυρανή. A51. IG II/III2. 32 7933; Bosch 1967, 20 no. 36; OB nos. 120, 78. Athens. National Museum inv. 12015. Small column of Hymettic marble; broken above and below. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. [Σ]φαῖρος | Μενάνδρου | Ἀγκυρανός. A52. IG II/III2. 32 7934; Bosch 1967, 20 no. 37; OB nos. 121, 122. Athens., now in the British Museum among the Elgin marbles. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Σωκράτη[ς] | Σωκράτου | Ἀγκυρανός. A53. IG II/III2. 32 7935; Bosch 1967, 18 no. 24; OB nos. 124, 90. Athens National Museum, inv. 10835. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd cent. BC. Σωσικράτεια | Μηνογένου | Ἀγκυρανή | Ἡρακλέωνος | .Χ̣Ι̣. .Γ̣Ο̣ | [γυνή]. A54. IG II/III2. 32 7936; Bosch 1967, 20 no. 38; OB nos. 125, 24. Athens. Small column of Hymettian marble. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Σωσιπάτρα | Ἀπολλωνίου | Ἀγκυρανή. A55. IG II/III2. 32 7937, Bosch 1967, 387 no. 322. Athens, on the acropolis. Small column of Hymettic marble. Roman Imperial period (1st / 2nd cent. AD). - - | [Ἀγ]κυρα[νή] | [Τ]ιµοθέο[υ] | - - - | [γυνή]. A56. IG II/III2. 32 8053/4; OB no. 128. Athens National Museum inv. 12081. Small column of Hymettic marble. 1st cent. AD. Αὔγη | Φαρνάκου | Ἀµισηνή | Τεύθραντος | Ἀνκυρανοῦ | γυνή. A57. IG II/III2. 32 7903a, Bosch 1967, 21 no. 46; OB no. 62. Athens, in the Roman forum. Small column of Hymettic marble. 1st cent. BC. Ἡραὴς | Ἀνκυρανή. A58. IG II/III2. 32 7904a; Bosch 1967, 49 no. 53; OB no. 66, 28. Athens, in Kerameikos. Small column of Hymettic marble, broken below. 1st cent. BC / 1st cent. AD. Καλλιστράτη | Ἀπολλωνίου | Ἀνκυρανή.

309

- 310 -

A59. Osborne 1988, 21 no. 92 (SEG 38, 216); OB no. 43, 27. Athens. 1st cent. BC. Δαῖα | Ἀπολλωνίου | Ἀγκυρανή. A60. Osborne 1988, 21 no. 93; OB nos. 55, 47. Athens, found near Spata, now in the Epigraphical Museum inv. 13109. Small column. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Εὔνο[µος] | Δηµητρίου | Ἀνκυρανός. A61. Osborne 1988, 21 no. 94; OB nos. 76, 95. Athens, Roman agora, but provenance uncertain. Small column. 1st / 2nd cent. AD. Μάτιον | Μηνοφίλου | Ἀκυρανή. A62. Osborne 1988, 21 no. 95; OB nos. 64, 94. Athens, Miaoules street. Small column. Hellenistic (= 2nd / 1st cent. BC). ΘΑΙ | Μηνοφίλο[υ] | Ἀνκυρανή. 1: Θαί(ς) ?

A63. Osborne 1988, 22 no. 96; OB nos. 133, 134. Athens, Roman agora, original provenance uncertain. Small column. Date uncertain. [ - - ]δ̣ίκ[η] | [ - - ]µ̣έν[ους] | [ ? Ἀγκυ]ρανή | Γλαυ[κ - - ] | Παλληνέ̣ω̣ς | γυν̣ή. A64. Osborne 1988, 21 no. 97; OB no. 30. Athens, Lykourgou street. Small column. Date uncertain. Εὐφροσύνη | Βίθυος | Α[ἰ]νί[ου] | Ἀρτε[µ]ιδώρου | Ἀγκ[υρ]ανοῦ | γ[υ]ν̣ή. A65. SEG 35, 187; OB no. 56, 69. Athens, 18 Prophet Daniel St. Small column. Hellenistic (2nd / 1st cent. BC). Εὔνους | Κτησικλέους | Ἀνκυρανός. A66. Unpublished; OB no. 58. Athens, Kerameikos. Small column. 1st cent. BC / 1st cent. AD. ρα | Ζήνωνος | Ἀνκυρανοῦ. 1: ὙΠΩΡΑ, lapis

A67. Stamiris 1942, 219 no. 10; OB nos. 126, 65. Athens. Σωτήριχος | Ἰάσωνος | Ἀγκυρανός. A68. IG II/III2. 32 8671; OB no. 44. Athens, National Museum inv. 12617. Small column of Hymettic marble. 3rd / 2nd cent. BC.

310

- 311 -

Ζωπύρα | Ἡρακλεῶτις | Δηµητρίου | | Ἀνκυρανοῦ | γυνή. A69. Andreiomenou 1968, 132-40: no. 25; (Bull. ép. 1969, 208); OB no. 119. Athens. Date uncertain. Ἀρτεµισία | Μεν[άν]δρου | Μι[λη]σία | Σιληνοῦ | Ἀγκ[υ]ρανοῦ | γυνή. A70. SEG 26, 313. Athens, 23 Navarinou and Gounare street. Small column. Date uncertain. [ - - - - - - ] | Ἀγκυρανός. A71. SEG 44, 191. Athens, 77 Basilikon St. Small column. Date uncertain. Ἀπολλώνιος | Μενάνδρου | Ἀγκυρανός. A72. Choremi 2000-3, 185-6 no. 6; SEG 51, 272. Athens, now in the collection at the Library of Hadrian, inv. BA 1287. Small column of Hymettic marble. 3rd cent. BC. [ 2-5 ]όβιος | [1-3]ού̣δου | [Ἀγκυ]ρανός. A73. Raubitschek – Davidson – Thompson 1943, 1 ff. no. 12 (Bull. ép. 1944, 90, p. 207). Date uncertain. [Ἀ]σκληπ[ - ] | [Ἀ]σκληπιά[δου | Ἀ]γκυρα[νός]. Galatians at Athens In addition to the Ancyrans, it is convenient to include the group of Attic gravestones which identifies Galatians. Gal. 1. IG II/III2. 32 8455; OB nos. 1429, 1418. Athens. National Museum inv. 12180. Small column of Hymettic marble. Late 1st cent. BC / early 1st cent. AD. Κάρπος | Ἀβρασίντου | Γαλάτης. Gal. 2. IG II/III2. 32 8454; OB nos. 1428, 1419. Athens, in front of the Theseum. Small column of Hymettic marble. Roman imperial period (1st / 2nd cent. AD). Ἵλαρον | Ἀπολλοδώρου | Γαλάτισσα. Gal. 3. Agora XVII, 433; OB nos. 1424, 1420. Athens, near the Eleusinion. Small column of Hymettic marble, top chipped, broken below. 3rd / 2nd cent. BC. Γαυδότα | Ἀριστοµένου | Γαλάτισσα. Gal. 4. IG II/III2. 32 8451; OB no. 1422. Athens, Kerameikos. Small column of Hymettic marble. 2nd cent. BC.

311

- 312 -

Ἀσκληπιάδης | Γαλάτης. Gal. 5. IG II/III2. 32 8452; OB no. 1423. Athens, Kerameikos. Small column of Hymettian marble. 1st / 2nd cent. AD. Ἀφροδείσιος | Γαλάτης. Gal. 6. IG II/III2. 32 8452a; Agora XVII, 444; OB no. 1425. Athens, at north foot of the Areopagus. Small column of Hymettic marble, broken below. 2nd / 1st cent. BC. Ἑλέν[η] | Ἥρωνο[ς] | Γαλάτισσ[α] | γυ[νή] | [ - - ] 3: Previous editors have assumed that the inscription was complete and that Helene was the wife, not the daughter of Heron, but cf Agora XVII, 512, where the word γυνή precedes the husband’s name, and we suppose this was supplied in line 4.

Gal. 7. IG II/III2. 32 8450a; Agora XVII, 442; OB no. 1421. Athens, in the market square. Small column of Hymettic marble. Roman Imperial period (1st / 2nd cent. AD). Ἀρτεµίδωρος | Γαλάτης. Gal. 8. IG II/III2. 32 8453; OB no. 1426, 1427. Athens. Small column of Hymettic marble, broken below. 2nd cent. BC. Εὐφροσύνη | {ΝΗ} | Ἕρµωνος | Γαλάτισσα. Gal. 9. IG II/III2. 32 8456; OB no. 1430. Athens, National Museum inv. 12180. Small column of Hymettic marble. 3rd / 2nd cent. BC. Καρσίχαο[ς] | Γαλάτη[ς]. Gal. 10. IG II/III2. 32 8457/8; OB no. 1432, 1431. Athens, National Museum inv. 12645. Small column of Hymettic marble. 3rd / 2nd cent. BC. Φίλιννα | Μενάνδρου | Γαλάτου | θυγατήρ. Gal. 11. IG II/III2. 32 8450; OB no. 143. Athens. Small column of Hymettic marble. After 317/6 BC. [.]λπος | Γαλάτης | Προυσιεύς. 1: Ἄλπος or Ὄλπος, see Robert 1937, 230; IG II/III. 32 10117 and 10119 also attest persons from Prusias ad Hypium at Athens.

Commentary: The chronological classification of these texts goes back to Kirchner and is based on his judgement of the dates of the letter forms and the monuments on which they were carved. Osborne and Byrne in their prosopography endorsed Kirchner’s dating proposals in the large majority of cases, as well as offering their 312

- 313 own suggestions for texts that have been discovered since Kirchner’s corpus appeared. The table below shows the distribution of the monuments for Ancyrans by date.

Grave  monuments  for  Ancyrans  in  Athens  -­‐   proposed  chronology   18  

14  

9  

5  

0   3  BC  

2  BC  

1  BC  

1  AD  

2  A/D  

This pattern can be simplified into a chronological distribution by centuries, by assigning inscriptions that have been dated across two centuries (e.g. 2nd to 1st century BC) evenly between the earlier and later century, assigning the surplus uneven number to the adjacent century with the larger number of monuments.

Grave  monuments  for  Ancyrans  in  Athens   simpliGied  chronology     28   22   17   11   6   0   3  BC  

2  BC  

1  BC  

1  AD  

2  A/D  

Uncertain  

These figures provide a remarkable contrast with the chronological chart of inscriptions recorded in Ankara itself, which was published in I. Ankara 1, p. 9. In the city itself there are no inscriptions at all from the hellenistic period between the third and first centuries BC, and only fourteen out of a total of 315 in the first century AD. The first steep rise in inscription numbers occurs under Trajan in the first quarter of the second century AD. The pattern of the Ancyrans at Athens is completely different. The earliest texts belong to the end of the fourth or the third century BC. Numbers rise through the Hellenistic period and are sustained through the first century AD, but fall off sharply in the second century, precisely in the

313

- 314 period when inscriptions become more frequent at Ancyra itself. There is a further problem. Although written sources (Appian, Polybius, Livy, Pompeius Trogus and Strabo, cited in I. Ankara 1, pp. 1-3) attest that Ancyra was a place of some importance from the time of Alexander the Great, there are no archaeological remains from this period, and only Polybius and Livy suggest that Ankara had the status of a polis; for Strabo it was a Galatian phrourion. It is not impossible that Ancyra, after Alexander’s conquests, became a polis, but it will have been a very modest one, probably formed by a core of Macedonian settlers, an example of their extensive settlements in Phrygia and central Anatolia (see Mitchell, forthcoming b). The information about Ancyrans has to be interpreted in the wider context of data about foreigners in Athens, which is now comprehensively documented by Osborne and Byrne. Their figures show that by far the highest proportion of foreigners in Athens gave their ethnic as Milesian. Very high figures are also recorded for Antioch, certainly Antioch on the Orontes in north Syria, and for Heraclea Pontica. Ancyra stands next on the list. The following list shows the first eighteen Anatolian and north Syrian provenances. Miletus

2011

Antioch

617

Heraclea

558

Ancyra

128

Sinope

103

Laodicea

96

Amisus

64

Apamea

59

Ephesus

52

Tarsus

46

Pergamum

42

Cyzicus

41

Nicomedia

37

Soloi

25

Sardis

23

Galatia

16

Smyrna

15

Phrygia

14

It is extremely puzzling that Ankara should have been the fourth largest source of foreign migrants to Athens in the hellenistic and early imperial periods. No immigrants to Athens are on record from other Galatian centres (Tavium, Pessinus), although there was a significant number of persons simply identified as 314

- 315 Galatians. There was a similar generic group of Phrygians, but no immigrants from the northern and central Phrygian cities such as Synnada. A few of the Laodiceans may be from Phrygian Laodicea on the Lycus, rather than from Syrian Laodicea ad Mare, one of the Antiochians is from Antiocheia ad Maeandrum, and two of the Apameans are specified as being from Phrygian Apamea ad Maeandrum. Phrygian Apamea, at the headwaters of the Maeander, was a major trading entrepot and a slave market, but unless otherwise specified it seems that most Apameans were from the Syrian city. The small city of Apamea Myrleia on the Propontis could only have made an insignificant contribution. These figures require a much more radical and fundamental analysis than they have yet received, and this cannot be undertaken here. However, it is apparent from the start that the numbers of foreigners identified by their ethnics at Athens between the third century BC and the end of the first century AD was in no way proportionate to the size and importance of their apparent cities of origin. For that to be true, hellenistic Miletus, responsible for 50% of all immigrants to Athens and Attica, would have had to be as demographically dominant within the Mediterranean region as imperial Rome. Heraclea Pontica, which was a small city, despite being a commercially and strategically significant Black Sea port, would have accounted for 15% of all immigrants to Athens across the hellenistic and early imperial periods. This too is inconceivable. It is also inexplicable that landlocked Ancyra, even if it could claim polis status in the hellenistic period, should have sent almost as many citizens to settle in Athens as the combined total from the large and successful cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum and Sardis, which were located much closer to Athens. In short, the ethnics cannot simply be taken at face value to imply that most of the foreigners buried at Athens in the hellenistic and early imperial periods were citizens of their respective cities who had freely migrated to Athens to take up residence for business, family or other personal reasons. The figures alone show that this is an untenable notion. We propose, as an alternative hypothesis, that almost all the very high numbers of people registered as Milesians, Heracleots, and Antiochenes, as well as those from Ancyra, Sinope, Laodicea, Apamea and the rest, were of servile origin, and that they had received an ethnicum on manumission which corresponded with their region of origin or the slave market through which they had passed (compare Hansen 1996, 184 and Avram 2007, 243-4). It may be that many of these slaves or former slaves were hardly aware of their origin in a precise geographical sense. Some adopted regional ethnics and were identified as coming from Galatia, Phrygia, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Bithynia, Pontus and Lycaonia (this is the order of frequency in the statistics), but made no claims about a city of origin. Others appeared as ‘citizens’ of cities, but this citizenship was essentially illusory, and we suggest that the preponderance of slaves from the Black Sea region and Syria respectively were assumed to be sold in the markets of Heraclea Pontica and Syrian Antioch. Smaller but still very significant numbers of men and women from the Black Sea region took the ethnics of Sinope, Amisus and Amaseia, while other Syrians were linked to Laodicea and Apamea. The figures accordingly suggest that largest number of central Anatolian slaves came through Ancyra and were in consequence given the pseudo-ethnic Ἀγκυρανός when they and their families achieved free status through manumission. In support of the interpretation of the Athenian Ancyrans as belonging to freed slaves of central

315

- 316 Anatolian origin is the fact that no Ancyrans appeared in other genres of inscription at Athens, on lists, on votives, or on honorific texts. This argument can be applied mutatis mutandis to many of the other city ethnics. No doubt the group identified as Galatians also mostly came from the central Anatolia, but, in contrast to the larger number of Ancyrans, they may have been genuinely of Galatian ethnicity, and not part of the underlying Phrygian-Anatolian population. The generic ethnics of the north-west and western Anatolian regions of Bithynia, Mysia, Lydia and Ionia, as well as those from Cilicia in the south-east, appear only occasionally, and we suppose that ex-slaves were identified with the cities of these regions, Nicomedia, Cyzicus, Pergamum, Sardis, Ephesus, Smyrna and Soloi, which were better known than the obscure city settlements of the interior. All of them will have possessed their own markets which could serve as focal points for the Anatolian slave trade. A further explanation is required to explain the colossal number of Milesians, apparently half of the immigrant total to Athens. Some of these may have come from south-west Asia Minor, especially Caria and Lycia, but that would only account for a figure in the low hundreds, not the two thousand Milesians of the recorded sample. Since none of the current explanations seems adequate (Baslez 1989; Vestergaard 2000), a further hypothesis is needed to explain the extraordinary preponderance of ‘Milesians’ at Athens, but we do not attempt this here. Five of the epitaphs for Ancyrans do not mention the patronymic of the deceased person where we would expect to find one (nos. 11, 15, 20, 38 and 56). These are likely to be first-generation freed slaves. They had been separated from and would have had no contact with their birth families in central Anatolia since they entered slavery, and were buried without any reference to their fathers. However, most of the gravestones indicated fathers’ names, and we should see these as belonging to the second or later generations of freed families, now established as an underclass of the Athenian citizen body. Although they had been born in Athens or Attica, they must still have been conscious of their Anatolian origins not simply because of the ethnics they assumed, but because they often chose names that were entirely in keeping with their origins in Asia Minor. Some of these had a distinct regional flavour: Λυκάων (A25) evoked Lycaonia, and Λύδιον (A24) Lydia; Μανία (A26, A27) and Μάτιον (A61; cf. Robert 1963, 344 and Bull. ép. 1969, 505) were Phrygian names by origin. The cult of Μαρσύας (A28) had its centre in Phrygian Apamea (Nollé 2006). Ξάνδα (A44) was derived from the name of the Luwian god Sandas. There were numerous theophoric names, including Μηνᾶς (A12, A32), Μηνίς (A34), Μηνογένης (A32), Μηνόδοτος (A33), Μηνοφίλα (A34), and Μηνόφιλος (A61, A62), which were derived from the Anatolian god Mên. Other forms recalled the Anatolian mother goddess: Ματερώ (A29), Μητρόδωρος (A35), and Μητρώ (A36, A37, A38). Βρόµιος (A49) and his son Σαµβατείς also had names that evoked Anatolian cults (A49; cf Bull. ép. 1969, 206). There were no Celtic names among the list of Ancyrans, although a woman with the Celtic name Γαυδότα was one of the Galatians (Gal. 3; Robert 1965, 261-4). It may be that many of the Athenian Galatians were thought to have been of genuine Celtic origin, but this was clearly not the case for most of the Ancyran group. If this proposal to interpret the ethnic Ἀνκυρανός/ή, and the other regional and civic ethnics found on simple Athenian epitaphs as belonging to manumitted slaves or to their descendents, it potentially enormously expands our knowledge of

316

- 317 the origins of the freedman / freedwoman population of Hellenistic and early Roman Attica. It also reinforces the arguments relating to the classical period proposed by David Lewis, that a much higher proportion of Athenian slaves was of Near Eastern origin, from Syria and Anatolia, than is generally assumed (Lewis 2011). Galatia was a well-known source of slaves in later antiquity. A Köln papyrus dated to 142, recovered from an unknown location in Egypt, contains a diploma, comprising duplicate versions of a contract drawn up in the Pamphylian harbour city of Side, to sell a ten-year old Galatian girl called Abaskantis to a man from Alexandria named Pamphilos (Nollé 2001, 613-7 P.1). Strabo had already reported that Side was an important slave market during the first century BC (Strabo XIV.3.2, 664 with the commentary of Nollé 1993, 164-5 TLit 31). An extraordinary letter of St Augustine, bishop of the African port city of Hippo, dated to 428, identifies Galatians as notorious slave traders, a dominant group among the mangones (traffickers), who orchestrated razzias among the largely defenceless rural population of Numidia: ante quattuor fere menses … de diversis terris et maxime de Numidia congregati a Galatis mercatoribus – hi enim vel soli vel maxime his quaestibus inhianter incumbunt – ut a litore Hipponiensi transportarentur, adducti sunt, ‘four months previously persons were herded together from various regions and especially from Numidia by Galatian dealers – for these alone or to a preponderant degree dominate this business – and were brought here to be transferred from the coast at Hippo’ (Augustine, ep. X*. 2 [CSEL 88, 46-7; see the discussion in Harper 2011, 92-5). If correct, the interpretation of the epitaphs for Ancyrans in Athens that is proposed here adds very substantially to our understanding and knowledge of the slave trade in central Anatolia in the hellenistic period.

317

- 318 -

5.2 Other Greek Inscriptions for Ancyrans outside Ankara

G1. Menias at Teos A funerary inscription, carved on a gabled stele from Teos in Ionia. Bequignon – Laumonier 1925, 313 ff. no. 17; (SEG 4, 613; Bosch 1967, 385-6 no. 314). Μηνιὰς Μενάνδρου | Ἀγκυρανή· χαῖρε. Translation: Menias daughter of Menander of Ancyra, greetings. The simple format and nomenclature of this inscription recall the grave monuments for Ancyrans at Athens, although this text was carved on a gabled stele, not on a small column, as required by Athenian funerary practice. It seems likely that the Teos text should be explained in the same way, and that Menias was from a family of former slaves of central Anatolian origin. It is quite possible that she had reached Teos not directly from the family’s region of birth, but from Athens. G2. L. Fabius Cilo, prostates of Ancyra at Rome Rome, Villa Albana. CIG III 5896; IGRR I, 138; IG XIV, 1078; Bosch 1967, 284 no. 219; IGUR I, 60-1 no. 68. Statue base.

4

8

Λ. Φάβιον Κείλωνα τὸν λαµπρότατον ἔπαρχον ῾Ρώµης ὕπατον το β´, ἡ µητρόπολις τῆς Γαλατίας Ἄνκυρα τὸν ἑαυτῆς προστάτην.

Translation: The metropolis of Galatia, Ancyra, for Lucius Fabius Cilo, the most splendid prefect of Rome, consul for a second time, its prostates. L. Fabius M. F. Gal. Cilo Septimius Catilius Acilianus Lepidius Fulcinianus, a friend (Epit. De Caes. 20.6) and close associate of the emperor Septimius Severus, was one of the leading political figures of the last decade of the second and the first decade of the third century (PIR2 F 27). He was consul I in 193, consul II in 204, and praefectus urbi from c. 202 until 211. In 212 following allegations of disloyalty when he tried to reconcile Caracalla with his brother Geta, he barely escaped being put to death by Caracalla (Cassius Dio 78.4-5; Dietz 1983). Cilo governed Galatia for three years immediately before his first consulship from c. 189 to 192, a term also attested by an inscription from Pisidian Antioch which records his earlier career and his participation as a close colleague of Septimius

318

- 319 Severus in the war against Pertinax (AE 1926, 79). A gap of at least fifteen years separated his duties in Galatia, when he was probably first associated with the people of Ancyra, and the services which he rendered for them at Rome as their patron or advocate. The term προστάτης designated an influential person who acted as a patron in protecting or promoting a city’s interests in official dealings (Habicht 1969, 72-3). The function could be served not only by high Roman officials such as Cilo, but by local men of standing, such as L. Valerius Cocceianus Callicles at Prusias ad Hypium (I. Prusias 26), Ti. Claudius Alexandros at Patara (SEG 44, 1210), an anonymous civic leader at Pessinus (I. Pessinous 170), or Claudius Caecilius Hermianus, a local grandee at Ankara itself in the mid-third century (I. Ankara 1, 116). It is naturally frustrating that we do not know what problem required the Ancyrans to call on Cilo’s help at Rome. Competitors and victors at agones staged in Ancyra G3. Ti. Claudius Patrobius of Syrian Antioch Rome. Iscr. agon. gr., 65; IGUR I, 223-25 no. 249; (SEG 14, 613; 37, 800). This inscription was set up around 60 in honour of Ti. Claudius Patrobius, an athlete from Syrian Antioch, who had won victories at the games of the Galatian koinon in Tavium and Ancyra (cf. I. Ankara 1, p. 13): κοινὸν Γαλατίας ἐν Τα[ουίῳ πενταετηρι]|κό[ν, κοινὸν Γαλα]τίας ἐ[ν Ἀγκύρᾳ πενταετηρικόν ?]. The restoration at the end, which implies that the games of the koinon of Ancyra were held on a four-year (pentaeteric) cycle, is hypothetical. G4. M. Virius Marcianus of Pisidian Antioch Pisidian Antioch. Anderson 1913, 294-5 no. 23. This inscription honoured M. Virius Marcianus, who had been selected and competed with distinction at the Pythian games in Ankara, κριθέντα Πύθεια ἐν Ἀν|κύρᾳ καὶ ἀγωνισάµενον ἐνδόξως. For the terminology see Robert 1939, 244; 1960, 357, 365-6, and I. Ankara 1, p. 32, and nos. 145-7 comm. for the games themselves. G5. Anonymous athlete of Lydian Philadelphia Phildelphia, Lydia. IGRR IV, 1645; TAM V.3, 1507. This broken statue base, perhaps dating to the 220s, honoured a successful athlete, whose name is not preserved, who had won victories at twelve (and perhaps more) agones in the cities of the Asia Minor provinces (Ephesus, Philadelphia, Nicomedia, Pergamum, Cyzicus, Caesarea in Cappadocia, Hierapolis) including the Ἀσκλήπεια ἐν Ἀγκύρᾳ. G6. M. Aurelius … of Aphrodisias Aphrodisias. Iscr. agon. gr. 80; MAMA VIII 521; Roueché 1993, 198-200 no. 70; IAph 2007 12. 215. This base, dated c. 220-230, honoured a competitor in running events, M. Aurelius . . . us, son of Timocles, of Aphrodisias. The opening lines run: ---------[ἐτείµη]σαν Μᾶρ. Αὐρ.

319

- 320 -

4

8

12

[ . . . ]ον Τειµοκλέους [τοῦ] [Ἀγ]αθόποδος τοῦ Ἀρτε[µι][δώ]ρου Ἀφροδεισιέα καὶ [Ν]εικοµηδέα καὶ Ἀνκυρ[α][ν]όν, βουλευτήν, δολιχαδ[ρό]µον ἱερονείκην, πυθιον[εί]κην, ἀκτιονείκην, παράδ[ο][ξ]ον, νεικήσαντα δὲ κα[ὶ] ἄλλους ἀγῶνας τοὺς ὑπογεγραµµένους vac ἐν Ἀ[ν]κύρᾳ τῆς Γαλατίας ΕΙΣ [.] [Ἀ]σκλήπειον παίδων δόλιχο[ν] κτλ.

The remainder of the text listed victories in running events (the dolichon, or the race in armour) at Hadrianeia (Claudiopolis) in Bithynia, Heraclea Pontica, Calchedon, Nicomedia, Nicaea and Philadelphia. Two of these cities, Nicomedia and Ancyra, had offered honorary citizenship to the competitor as a token of esteem and recognition. G7. T. Aelius Aurelius Menander of Aphrodisias MAMA VIII 421 (cf. Robert 1965, 147-54); IAph 2007, 12.920. A decree of the athletes’ guild, dated between 138 and 169, in honour of T. Aelius Aurelius Menander of Aphrodisias, many times victor in boys’ and men’s contests in the pankration, including a victory at Ancyra (ii, 45): [ἀ]ν̣δρῶν πανκράτιν

Ἄνκυραν. G8. T. Aelius Aurelius Menander IAph 2007, 12.214. A damaged inscription containing a shorter list of the victories listed in G7, including a mention of Ancyra: Προυσιάδα ἀνδρῶν πανκράτιν, Κλαυδιόπολιν, Ἄνκυραν τῆς Γαλατίας, Πεσσινοῦντα … G9. Soterus the sophist at Ephesus and his Ancyran pupil Ephesus. GIBM III.2, 548; Keil 1953, 15-16; (SEG 13, 506). I. Eph. 1548. A statue base. Σώτηρο[ν] | τὸν σοφιστ[ὴν] | κατὰ ψήφισµα τῆ[ς]| βουλῆς, κ[ατ’ ἐπίδοσιν] | 5 τῶν µαθ[ητῶν] | Τ(ίτος) Φλ(άουιος) Ὑψικλῆς | Ῥόδιος | Τ(ίτος) Φλ(άουιος) Πλαγκιανὸς | Ῥόδιος | 10 Τι(βέριος) Κλ(αύδιος) Καλλίξενος | Ἱεραπολίτης | Αὐρ(ήλιος) Ἄτταλος | Νεικαεύς | Λεί(ουιος) Μάρκελλος | 15 Ἀντιοχεύς | κόλων | Τι(βέριος) [ - - | - - ] | Ἐφέσιος | 20 Πρεῖσκος | Κιλβιανός | Κλ(αύδιος) Σάλβιος | Φωκαεύς | Αἴλ(ιος) Λυκεῖνος | 25 Ἀνκυρανός | Μεττιανὸ[ς] | Καύνιος. δίς µε σοφιστὴν πρῶτον | Ἀθήνηθεν καλέσαντο 320

- 321 30

Σώτηρον βουλῆς δόγµα|σιν Ἀνδροκλίδαι·

πρώτῳ δὲ ἀντ’ ἀρετῆς τε | βίου σοφίης τε λόγο[ιο] ὥρισαν ἐν τιµαῖς µυρί[α] | 35 δῶρα τελεῖν. Translation: Soterus the sophist, according to a decree of the council and by gift of his pupils: Titus Flavius Hypsicles of Rhodes; Titus Flavius Plancianus of Rhodes; Tiberius Claudius Callixenus of Hierapolis; Aurelius Attalus of Nicaea; Livius Marcellus, colonist of Antioch; Tiberius … of Ephesus, Priscus of the Cilbiani, Claudius Salvius of Phocaea, Aelius Lycinus of Ancyra, Mettianus of Caunus. ‘Twice by the decrees of the council the descendants of Androclus hailed me, Soterus from Athens, as the first sophist. To the first sophist for the virtue of his life and the wisdom of his words they resolved to award a myriad of gifts in their honours.’ This statue base, set up in accordance with a resolution of the Ephesian council, and paid for by contributions from his students, honoured a noted sophist, Soterus of Athens, mentioned by Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists 605K. One of his pupils was Aelius Lycinus of Ancyra, who later became a Roman eques and enjoyed a prominent procuratorial career before retiring to Ancyra, where he was honoured with two Latin inscriptions and himself set up a statue of Caracalla in AD 215 (I. Ankara 1, 17 and 108-9). The base for Soterus in Ephesus was set up when Lycinus was a young man, perhaps around 170. G10. Epiphania at Tomi and her Ancyran husband Tomi, Moesia Inferior. Tocilescu 1896, 227 ff. no. 94; Mihailov 1944, no. 21; Stoian 1961, 188 with fig. 11; Stoian 1962, 65-6 no. IV with pl. VI (Bull. ép, 1962, 231; Sauciuc-Săveanu 1964, 137-8; (Bull. ép. 1965, 265; SEG 24, 1081); Slabotsky 1977; (SEG 27, 404); I. Scyth. Min. I, 375; Slusanschi 1988/89, 307-9 (SEG 39, 680).

4

8

12

16

Χαῖρε παροδεῖτα καὶ σ[ύ]· ἕστηκες ἐπ᾽ ἐννοίᾳ λέγων “ἄρα τίς, ἢ πόθεν ἥδε;” ἄκουε δή, ξεῖνε, πάτραν καὶ οὔνοµα τοὐµόν· ἦν µέν µοι χθὼν τὸ πρὶν Ἑλλὰς, ἐκ µητρὸς Ἀθηναίας ἐφύην, πατρὸς δὲ Ἑρµιονέος· Ἐπιφανία δέ µοι οὔνοµα· πολλὴν µὲν ἐσεῖδον ἐγὼ γαῖαν, πᾶσαν τε ἔπλευσα θάλατταν. ἦν γὰρ ἐµοὶ γενέτης καὶ γαµέτης ναυκλήροι, οὓς ἐθέµην παλαµέσιν αἰναῖς ὑπὸ τύνβῳ θανόντας. ὄλβιος δέ µοι βίος τὸ πρὶν ἦν· ἐν Μουσές ἐφύην σοφίης τε µετέσχον, φίλες τε λειποµένες ὡς γυνὴ γυνηξὶ πολλὰ πά321

- 322 -

20

24

ρεσχον εἰς εὐσεβίην ἀφορῶσα. καὶ δὴ κλεινήρη (?) κάµατον πολὺν ἐνένκαµενη, ἔγνω σαφῶς· οὐ κατ᾽ εὐσεβίαν εἰσὶν καὶ θνητῶν τύχαι. Ἑρµογένης Ἀγκυρανὸς καὶ Τοµίτης φυλῆς Οἰνώπων τῇ ἑαυτοῦ συνβίῳ εὐχαριστῶν µνείας χάριν ἀνέθηκα.

14: αἱ[µ]αῖς, ed. pr.; ἅγναις, Stoian; αἰναῖς, Sauciuc-Săveanu, SEG

Translation: Greetings, passer-by and you too! You are standing with the intention of saying, ‘who are you, and where have you come from?’ Hear then, stranger, my country and my name. My land beforehand was Hellas, I was born from an Athenian mother and my father was from Hermione. My name is Epiphania. I have seen many lands and sailed over the whole sea, for my father and husband were ship-owners, who I placed beneath the tomb when they died with respectful hands. My life beforehand was prosperous. I was born among the Muses and I shared in wisdom, and as a woman among women I provided many things for the women friends that have been left behind, having piety in view. And indeed I clearly knew she was renowned for having borne many burdens. For the fates of mortals are not according to their piety. I, Hermogenes, citizen of Ancyra and Tomi of the tribe of the Oinopes, giving thanks set this up in memory. Hermogenes, apparently the second husband of Epiphania, was a citizen of Ancyra who also acquired citizenship at Tomi (now Constanta in Roumania). Like the first husband, who had been buried by Epiphania, and her father (lines 12-15), Hermogenes was probably a ship-owner engaged in commerce between the western Black Sea and north-west Asia Minor. The monument should be dated before 212, probably in the later second century. G11. Karpos, a tradesman at Tavium, makes a dedication to Theos Hypsistos. Tavium. Jacopi 1936, 14 and XII fig. 40; Bittel 1942, 6; (Bosch 1967, 385 no. 313; RECAM II 418). The inscription was carved on an altar.

4

Ἀγαθῇ Τύχῃ θεῷ ὑψίστῳ Καρπὸς Ἀγκυρανὸς ὁ καὶ Ταουιανὸς µονοπώλης ἀνέθηκα εὐχῆς ἕνεκ[εν].

Translation: With good fortune. I, Karpos of Ancyra and also of Tavium, a general merchant, set this up to the Highest God on account of a vow. Mitchell 2010, 173-4, and Bosch 1967, 385, argue that Theos Hypsistos on this inscription should not be identified with Zeus Tavianus, who had a famous shrine at Tavium. Belayche 2005 argues that the two divinities should be identified. Bosch concluded that Karpos was a Jew, but many worshippers of Theos

322

- 323 Hypsistos were not Jewish. The rare term µονοπώλης suggests that Karpos was a general tradesman, selling many products in one establishment. G12. Theodora at Egyptian Thebes CIG III 4793; Baillet 1926, 444 no. 1736; (Bosch 1967, 388 no. 323). The inscription was carved to the right of gate 6 of Syringe 9 (the Colossos of Memnon), a favourite pilgrimage and tourist destination in Egypt. Θεοδώρα | Ἀνκυρα|νὴ γυνὴ | Νει . ε καὶ | ἰδοῦσα ἐ|θαύµασα. Νει[ρ]έ[ως], Bosch.

Translation: Theodora of Ancyra, wife of … Ι too saw and was amazed! G13. Gravestone from Thrace of Britannia, wife of an Ancyran linen worker Thrace, found in Bagala in the territory of Plotinoupolis (Didymoteichon), and now in the archaeological collection of Didymoteichon. Meimaris – Bakirtzis 1994, 33-6 no. 24 (SEG 44, 608; AE 1994, 1550; cf. Feissel, Chron. 141), The inscription was carved on a limestone block in a rectangular field on either side of a circle containing a large cross.

4

8

† ἐνθάδε κατάκιτε ἡ µνήµ̣[ης] ἀξία Βριταννία σύµβιος γεναµένη Κυριακοῦ ὀθονίτου καὶ τὸ αὐ[τῆς] τέκνον Κοσµᾶς ἐπ̣[αρχ(ίας)] Ἀνκυρῶν Γαλατία[ς ὁ] κυµινᾶς µηνὸς Σεπ[τεµβρ(ίου) - ] ἰνδ(ικτιῶνος) ι´ ὑπατ(είας) Ποµπ[ηΐου. †]

4: or αὐ[τῶν]. 7: ed. pr. and SEG omit the space for the day of the month.

Translation: Here lies Britannia, worthy of memory, who became the wife of Kyriakos the linen-merchant, and her/their child Cosmas from Ancyra of the province of Galatia, the cumin-seller, on - September, in the tenth indiction in the consulship of Pompeius (= 501). For another linen-merchant from Ankara see 383 comm. G14. Ancyra as a transport destination Sülümenli, near Afyon. Frend 1976 (SEG 16, 754; 27, 1186; 45, 2214). This inscription related to a series of disputes between the Phrygian villages of Anosa and Antimacheia concerning their obligations towards the imperial transport system. The Antimacheian spokesman pointed out that his village was responsible for transport along the road from Amorium and from Ancyra.

323

- 324 [Alexander Antimach]enus (dixit) καὶ ἡµεῖς τὰ ἀπὸ Ἀµορείου καὶ τὰ ἀπὸ Ἀνκύρας ἐρχόµενα πάντα | [ - - c. 17 - - πέ]νητες ἔσµεν. Translation: Alexander of Antimacheia said: we also (must escort?) all the traffic coming from Amorium and from Ancyra, (and) we are poor. G15. Ancyra on a portable sundial Samos. Tölle 1969, 309-17; IG XII.6.2, 973; Schaldach – Feustel 2012, 71-82 (non vidimus). A portable bronze sundial.

4

8

12

Ἔφεσος [λη´] ῾Ρόδος λϚ´ Λαοδίκ(εια) λη´ Ἄνκυρ(α) λθ´ Νίκια µα̣´ Ἡράκλ(εια) µβ´ Κω(ν)στα(ντινόπολις) µγ´ Χαλκ(ηδών) µ [?] Νικοµ(ήδεια) µ [?] Ἀπαµ(εία) µα´ Κύζικ(ος) µ´ Μίλιτ(ος) λη´.

Translation: Ephesus 38°, Rhodes 36°, Laodicea 38°, Ancyra 39°, Nicaea 41°, Heraclea 42°, Constantinople 43°, Calchedon 40° (?), Nicomedia 40° (?), Apamea 41°, Cyzicus 40°, Miletus 38°. The twelve city names with their degrees of latitude were engraved on the back of the sundial, placed as on the hands of a clock. The traveller would align the dial by setting the front face vertically with the latitude value that corresponded with the current location at the top (see Bevan – Lehoux – Talbert 2013, with further bibliography). In so far as the instrument was designed for pratical use, the places listed on the reverse corresponded with the most important locations that the traveller expected to visit. In this case the coastal cities were Rhodes, Miletus and Ephesus in the eastern Aegean region, Cyzicus, Apamea-Myrleia, Nicomedia around the Propontis, Constantinople and Chalcedon on the Bosporus, and Heraclea Pontica. Ancyra in Galatia, Nicaea in Bithynia and Laodicea on the Lycus in southern Phrygia were the three inland destinations. For further information about ancient sundials see Winter 2013 and the web-site of K. Schaldach (http://www.antike-sonnenuhren.de/index.htm). The object must have been made between 330, the foundation of Constantinople, and 622, the fall of Ancyra. G16. Iuliane at Tavium Tavium (Büyüknefes Köy; now in Yozgat Museum). Wallner 2011, 66-7 no. II.2 (SEG 61, 1111; Bull. ép. 2014, 582). A white marble plaque with a Maltese cross in a circle with a leaf on each side; inscription below.

324

- 325 -

4

8

ἐνθάδε κα{κ} τάκιται ἡ δούλη τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ Ἰουλιανὴ νεᾶνις Ἀγκυρ{ι}ανή, τελιωθεῖσα µη. Ὀκτωβρ. Ϟ [?.]α´ ἰνδ. ια´. †

Translation: Here lies the slave of God Iuliane, a young girl of Ancyra, who died on 1 (or 21 or 31) October in the eleventh indiction. Bilingual G17. Eustathius, negotiator in Rome Rome, attached to the basilica wall in the cemetery of St. Felicitas. ICUR n.s. VIII, 23742. Three joining fragments of a large marble plaque; height 0.46; width 1.05; thickness 0.055; letters 0.03. (Monogram) HLSRA

4

Εὐστάθις Γάλατα Ἀνκυρανὸς νεγώτ•σας ἠγόρασα τόπον. Eustasius Galata cibis Anquira se bibo fecit sibi • locum.

Translation: (Greek) I, the Galatian Eustathius of Ancyra, doing business, bought the place. (Latin) Eustasius the Galatian, citizen of Ancyra, acquired the place for himself while he was alive.

325

- 326 5.3 Latin Inscriptions L1. Cornutus Rome. CIL VI 33550.

4

[ - - ] Cornuto [ - - ] [ - - ]aile Ancyre M[ - - ] bene merenti vix(it) ann(os) XXV[ - - ]

Translation: … Cornutus … Ancyra … deserving, who lived for 25+ years. L2. P. Helvius Domnio, praetorian soldier Rome. CIL VI 2385, 2393, 2396, 2401, 32536; Petolescu 1996, 35; Schallmayer et al. 1990, 916. 3. This inscription lists members of the Praetorian Cohorts who contributed to a dedication to Septimius Severus in AD 209, one of whom was from Ancyra: P(ublius) He[lvius] Domnio Ancy(ra) His praenomen and nomen indicate that he had been recruited and received his citizen name during the three-month reign of P. Helvius Pertinax at the beginning of 193. The name Domnio(n) is attested at Ancyra (I. Ankara 1, 240). L3. Praetorian soldier Rome. CIL VI 2397 = 32628. A list of praetorian soldiers. The damaged first line of this fragmentary stone named Ancyra as the soldier’s place of origin [ - - ]s Ancy(ra) L4. A praetorian soldier Rome. CIL VI 32523 = 37184; AE 1909, 210; Petolescu 1996, 34; Schallmayer et al. 1990, 908. A list of soldiers, dated to 183, including M(arcus) Aurel(ius) M(arci) f(ilius) Fab(ia) Paccius Ancy(ra). L5. Four praetorian soldiers at Rome Rome. CIL VI 32624; I. Philippi 763; Petolescu 1996, 39. A list of soldiers, dated c. 200, including four from Ankara: M. Aur. M. f. Fl. Firmus Ancyr(a) M. Aur. M. f. Fl. Faustini (sic; lege Faustin) Ancy(r)a [M. Au] M. f. Leucius Ancyr(a)

326

- 327 -

[ - ]s Ancyr(a). L6. Praetorian soldier at Rome Rome. CIL VI 32640; Petolescu 1996, 43. A list of soldiers, dated 160-80, including [ - A]urel. Mefar(?) [ - - ]us Ancyr(a). Lege [M. A]urel. M. f. Fab. [ - - ]us Ancyr(a) L7. …ius Gaius, veteran of Cohors I Thracum Pannonia, Scarbantia. Mócsy 1964, 223-4; (AE 1964, 12); RIU I, 211.

4

[ - - ]ius Gaius [veteranu]s ex decu[r. ] [coh. I Thrac]um equ[it.] [ex dupl. co]hor. natu[s] [ex reg. An]kyra Galat[iae] [v. f. s. et ] Luciae con[iu][gi et L]ucillae fil. [p.]

Translation: … ius Gaius, veteran of the decurions of cohors I Thracum equitata, previously duplicarius of the cohors, born in the region of Ancyra in Galatia, made it while alive for himself and for his wife Lucia and his daughter Lucilla. L8. M. Aurelius Domitianus, veteran of legio II Adiutrix Pannonia, Ulcisia Castra (Szentendre). Balla 1972, 228-31; (AE 1972, 438); RIU 3, 889. Sarcophagus with figures at the ends of the long front face, on either side of a prominent inscription, set in a recessed panel.

4

D. M. M. Aur. Domitianus vet. leg. II Adi. domo Ancyra vivus sibi fecit adiutantibus nepotes suos filiis filies Gregorii et Laurentii fratres.

Translation: For the gods of the underworld. M. Aurelius Domitianus, veteran of legio II Adiutrix, whose home was Ancyra, made this for himself while alive, with the assistance of his grandsons, the sons of his own sons (?), the Gregorii and Laurentii brothers. L9. …lius Equitius, soldier of legio II Adiutrix Pannonia, Aquincum (Budapest). CIL III 10499; (Bosch 1967, 194 no. 154); Tituli Aquincenses 2, 771.

327

- 328 -

4

[D(is)] M(anibus) [ - - ]l. Fab. Eq[uiti]us A[n]cyra [mil.] leg. II Ad. [(cent.)] Martini ---------

Translation: For the gods of the underworld … Equitius of the tribe Fabia from Ancyra, soldier of legio II Adiutrix, from the century of Martinus … L10. P. Aelius … of legio II Adiutrix Pannonia inferior, Aquincum (Budapest). CIL III 10497; Bosch 1967, 194 no. 153; Tituli Aquincenses 2, 511. Inscription cut in a recessed panel with vine-leaf decoration to the left and above, broken right.

4

D. [M.] P. Ael. Fa[b. - ] Ancyr[a - leg. II] Ad. (cent.) M[ - - ] I[ - - ]

Translation: For the gods of the underworld. P. Aelius … of the tribe Fabia from Ancyra, … of legio II Adiutrix from the century of M … L11. Caius Manilius of legio II Adiutrix Pannonia Inferior, Intercisa (Dunaujvaros). RIU 5, 1242; (AE 1971, 347).

4

8

D. [M.] C. Manil[io - - - - ] leg. II Ad. na[t. . . . domo] Galatia Anc[yra q. v. a. . .] Manilia Cres[centia? filia] naturalis her[es prima et] Manilia Nicia [liberta? et] [co]niux sec[unda heres] [b]ene m[erenti f. c.]

4: [q(ui) v(ixit) a(nnos) - - ].

Translation: For the gods of the underworld. For C. Manilius … of legio II Adiutrix, born … in Galatia at Ancyra, who lived for … years, Manilia Crescentia (?) his natural daughter and first heir, and Manilia Nicia, his freedwoman (?) and spouse, his second heir, took charge of making the tomb for the deserving man. L12. An Ancyran veteran of legio VII Claudia p. f. Moesia superior, Viminacium (Kostolac). CIL III 14507 (AE 1901, 12-13; 1901, 126; 1969/70, 500c; 2004, 1223; 2007, 121). A dedication to Septimius Severus

328

- 329 and Caracalla made by veterans of legio VII Claudia Pia Fidelis recruited in 169 who were discharged in 195. They include [ - ]tus Anc(yra) L13. C. Iulius Magnus, veteran of legio I Italica Moesia Inferior, Novae. Kazarow 1931; (AE 1932, 52; 1966, 353; 2006, 203; IGLN 83; ILBulg 304).

4

D. M. C. Iul. Fab. Ancyra Magno vet. leg. I Ital. vix. an. C[------]

Translation: For the gods of the underworld. Caius Iulius Magnus of Ancyra, veteran of legio I Italica, lived for 100 years … Iulius Magnus was apparently a centenarian, but many Romans who reported that they were a hundred years old had not reached that age. See Russell 1997, 181-9, discussing the case of a supposedly one-hundred-year old veteran soldier from Rugged Cilicia, and the observations of Parkin 1992, 7-15. L14. T. Flavius Alexander, duovir quinquennalis Moesia Inferior, Troesmis. Lambrino 1954; I. Scyth. Min. 5, 155; (AE 1957, 266). A marble block broken above and below, probably carrying a dedication to Iupiter Optimus Maximus on behalf of Antoninus Pius and Aurelius Verus Caesar, c. AD 156-157.

4

8

12

16

[I. O. M. sacrum] [pro sal. Imp. T. Ael(i) Ha][driani Antonini Aug(usti) Pii et] [Aur(eli) Veri Caes(aris)] sub Fuficio Corn[u]to leg. Aug. pr. pr. dedicante Q. Caecili[o] Reddito leg. Aug. T. Fl. Alexander vet. leg. V Mac. domu Fab. Ancyr. canaben(sium) cum Iulia Florent[i]na uxore et Flavis Alexandro Valente Pisone Maximilla Respecta filis d. s. p. item * CCL ob honor. qq. cu-

329

- 330 -

20

riae donavit ex quor(um) incre[mentis sportulae] [dividerentur] om[nibus].

Translation: … under Fuficius Cornutus, legatus Augusti pro praetore, on the dedication of Q. Caecilius Redditus, legatus Augusti, T. Flavius Alexander, veteran of legio V Macedonica, of the tribe Fabia from Ancyra, quinquennial magistrate of the canabae, with Iulia Florentina his wife, and the Flavii Alexander, Valens, Piso, Maximilla and Respecta, their children donated 25000 denarii from their own money in respect of the honour of being quinquennalis of the curia, out of the interest from this money gifts should be divided up among everyone. L15. Dedication of a building to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus by C. Plancius Moesia inferior, Troesmis. I. Scyth. Min. 5, 135; (Bosch 1967, 221-22 no. 170; AE 1920, 54; 1980, 818).

4 8

Imperatoribus [Caesaribus] M. Aurelio Antoni[no Aug. et] L. Aurelio Vero [Aug. Armeniaco] sub M. Servil. [Fabiano leg. Augg.] pr. pr. C. Planc[io - - - - - ] Ancyr. M. In[steio - - q. q. ] territor[ii Troesmensis templ]um a so[lo fecerunt vet. et c. R. con]sistenti[bus Troesmi ad leg. V Mac.]

Translation: For the Emperors Caesars Marcus Aurelius Antininus Augustus and L. Aurelius Verus Augustus Armeniacus, under L. Servilius Fabianus legatus Augustorum pro praetore, when C. Plancius … of Ancyra and M. Insteius … were magistrates (?) of the territory of Troesmis constructed a temple (?) from the ground. The text dates to 162-3. L16. C. Antistius Valens, veteran of leg. V Macedonica Moesia Inferior. Troesmis. CIL III 6184; I. Scyth. Min. 5, 174; (Bosch 1967, 22324 no. 172).

4

C. Antistius [Fab.] [A]ncyra Vale[ns vet.] leg. V Mac. v[ix. post] mission. an. X[ - men]ses XI dies XV[ - ]

330

- 331 -

8

Antistius Zo[ticus] patri bene m[erenti] [e]t Atilia Fort[una]ta pio con[iugi et] sibi f. [c.]

Translation: C. Antistius Valens of the tribe Fabia from Ancyra, veteran of legio V Macedonica lived after his discharge for 10+ years, 11 months and 15+ days. Antistius Zoticus for his deserving father and Atilia Fortunata for her devoted husband and for herself took charge of making the tomb. The gravestone of Antistius Zoticus has also survived and this confirms that his name is correctly restored in line 6: Antistius Zo/ticus vix. ann(os) / XXXVI h. s. e. An/tistia Antonina marita ei/us et Stelea Atilia / Fortunata ma/t. heredes primi (CIL III 6207; I. Scyth. Min. 5, 175). L17. C. Egnatius Valens, decurio at Troesmis Troesmis, Moesia inferior. CIL III 6188; I. Scyth. Min. 5, 183; (Bosch 1967, 22324 no. 171).

4

8

C. E[g]natius C. [f.] Fab. Valens Ancyra vet. [leg. V Mac.] decuri[o -?] m[u]n[i]c. Troesm. C. Egnatius Valens [vet. ?] leg. eiusd. filius p[at]ri [p]iis[si]mo b. m. f. h. s. e.

Translation: C. Egnatius Valens, son of Caius, of the tribe Fabia from Ancyra, veteran of legio V Macedonica, decurio of the municipium of Troesmis; C. Egnatius Valens … of the same legion, the son for his most devoted father, made this for the deserving man. He is buried here. L18. M. Liburnius Saturninus and M. Valerius Saturninus of legio XXII Alexandria, Egypt. CIL III 6023; CIL III 6606; (Bosch 1967, 56-7 no. 59).

4

M. Liburnius M. f. Pol. Saturninus Ancy(ra) sign(ifer) leg. XXII (cent.) Valeri Prisci M. Valerius M. fil. Pol. Saturninus Ancy(ra) signife[r] leg. XXII [(cent.)] T. Servi[li R]ufi

Translation: M. Liburnius Saturninus, son of Marcus, of the tribe Pollia of Ancyra, standard-bearer of legio XXII, in the century of Valerius Priscus; M. Valerius 331

- 332 Saturninus, son of Marcus, of the tribe Pollia from Ancyra, standard-bearer of legio XXII, from the century of T. Servilius Rufus. L19. Soldiers of legio XXII and legio III in Egypt Mons Claudianus, Egypt. CIL III 6627; III 14147; (ILS 2483; Bosch 1967, 28-34 no. 49; AE 2001, 2048). Column A

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

[Coh. quarta] (cent.) Longi C. Marcius C. f. Pol. Alexand. (cent.) Catti L. Longinus L. f. Ser. Tavio (cent.) Vedi L. Licinius L. f. Pol. Sebastop. (cent.) Servati M. Lollius M. f. Pol. Anc. (cent.) Caecili C. Cornelius C. f. Pol. Anc. (cent.) Aquilae C. Sossius C. f. Pol. Pompeiop. coh. quinta (cent.) Publili C. Didius C. f(ilius) Pol. Ancyr. (cent.) Gausidi C. Helvius C. f. Pol. Gang. (cent.) Iustiana T. Antonius T. f. Ser. Tav. (cent.) Licini Veri C. Sentius C. f. Ser. Tavio (cent.) Numeri C. Iulius C. f. Pol. Alexan. (cent.) Lucretiana L. Iulius L. f. Gal. Lugdun. coh. sexta (cent.) Treboni M. Valerius M. f. Pol. Sid. (cent.) Curti C. Valerius C. f. Pap. Nicae (cent.) Mini C. Granius C. f. Pol. Anc. (cent.) Coti C. Valerius C. f. Gal. Lugd. (cent.) Curiati C. Trebius C. f. Pup. Paraet. (cent.) Galbae C. Aufidius C. f. Pol. Casta. cohors septima

Column B

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

332

[Coh, quarta] (cent.) Etri L. Longinus L. f. Pol. Ancyr. (cent.) Vetti Rufi C. Longinus C. f. Pol. Alex. (cent.) Casti M. Cassius M. f. Pol. Isind. (cent.) C. Mammi M. Petronius M. f. Pol. Alex. (cent.) P. Mammi Cn. Otacilius Cn. f. Pol. Anc. (cent.) Oeniana M. Longinus M. f. Pol. Eten. coh. quinta (cent.) Canini C. Valerius C. f. Pol. Anc. (cent.) M. Corneli M. Iulius M. f. Pol. Alex. (cent.) Materni M. Lollius M. f. Pol. Ancyr. (cent.) Cliterniana Sex. Lusius Sex. f. Pol. Tavio (cent.) Clementis C. Vibius C. f. Ani. Verc. (cent.) Gavisidiana C. Aufidius C. f. Pol. Anc. coh. sexta (cent.) Firmi C. Spedius C. f. Pol. Cyren. (cent.) Longi C. Antonius C. f. Pol. Alex. (cent.) Flacci P. Papirius P. f. Pol. Anc. (cent.) Vari C. Longinus C. f. Pol. Cast. (cent.) Pacci P. Flavius P. f. Anien. Paph. (cent.) Hordioni C. Romanius C. f. Fab. Ber. coh. septima

- 333 -

44

[---]

[---]

--------alarum III dec. V dupl. I sesquiplic. IIII equites CCCCXXIIII

coh. I Theb. cui prae(e)st Sex. Pompeius Merula [praefectus] (cent.) C. Terentius Maximus (cent.) C. Iulius Montanus (cent.) L. Domitius Aper sum(ma) (centuriones) III f(iunt) s(upra) s(criptae) coh. VII (cent.) X eq. LXI mil. DCCLXXXIIX

44

48

52

56

per eosdem qui supra scripti sunt lac{c}i aedificati et dedicati sunt Apollonos hydreuma septimum K. Ianuar. Compasi K. Augustis Berenicide [ante] XVIII K. Ianuar. Myos Hormi Id[ib]us Ianuar. castra{m} aedificaverunt et refecerunt.

333

- 334 This inscription from Coptos in Egypt comprises two out of an original six panels, which listed soldiers from two legions and several non-legionary units (see the commentaries of Mommsen in CIL and Dessau in ILS). One of the soldiers in the first column, C. Sossius C.f. Pol. from Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia is known from his gravestone, which was found at Alexandria (CIL III 6591), to have been in legio III Cyrenaica. All the soldiers in the left column, selected one from each century, should belong to the same legion, while those in the right column probably belonged to legio XXII (see Mitchell 1993 I. 136-7) The final lines of the text indicated that they were responsible for building a series of cisterns along the road through the eastern Egyptian desert that ran from Coptos, where the commemorative inscription was displayed, to the southern Red Sea port of Berenice. The inscription dates to the mid-Augustan period, and at this date both legions evidently recruited heavily from central Anatolia, including ten of the thirty-six soldiers listed here from Ankara. L20. Praefectus of legio III Augusta at Lambaesis Lambaesis, Numidia. CIL VIII 2778; VIII 18278.

4

---------Ancyra [Lar]go ex Gal[ati]a praefe[cto] [l]eg. III Au[g.].

Translation: … Largus of Ancyra from Galatia, praefectus of legio III Augusta. Commentary: There is evidence of the promotion of a governor of Galatia to Numidia, involving a transfer from Ancyra, see 511 comm. L21. P. Aelius Alexander, praefectus of cohors II Mattiacorum in Moesia Inferior Bronze diploma, published by Eck et al. 2015 (at 224 b). Inside: 4

a(nte) d(iem) V id(ibus) Oct(obri) Saxa et Vero co(n)s(ulibus) coh. II{I} Matt(iacorum) cui praeest P. Aelius Alexander Ancyr(a) ex pedite T. Flavio T. f. Lupo M(aecia) Edessa.

6: M(aecia), cf CIL III 14492; or M(acedonico).

Outside: 4

Q. Hortensi Diadumeni M. Ulpi Charitonis C. Quinti Epaphroditi Q. Caecili Silvestris M. Sentili Iasi Ti. Claudii Chresimi

334

- 335 C. Calpurni Campyli Translation: (Interior): On the fifth day before the Ides of October (11 Oct.) in the consulship of (Q. Voconius) Saxa (Fidus) and (C. Annianus) Verus, from the second cohort of the Mattiaci, whose commander is P. Aelius Alexander from Ancyra, for the former infantryman Titus Flavius Lupus, son of Titus, of the tribe Maecia (?) from Edessa. (Exterior, list of witnesses): Q. Hortensius Diadumenus, M. Ulpius Charito, C. Quintus Epaphroditus, Q. Caecilius Silvestris, M. Sentilius Iasus, Ti. Claudius Chresimus, C. Calpurnius Campylus. Date: 11 October 146. Commentary: The cohors II Mattiacorum is attested on several other diplomas from Moesia Inferior, and it is necessary to assume an engraver’s error in line 3, since a cohors III Mattiacorum is otherwise unknown. P. Aelius Alexander would have been a relatively young man when he commanded the cohort as an equestrian military officer, and we can infer that he had inherited Roman citizenship from his father, who was enfranchised by Hadrian, and must have been a member of one of Ankara’s prominent families. However, no connection can be established with any of the other Aelii so far recorded in the city. The editors argue that the origin of the soldier T. Flavius Lupus was Edessa in Macedonia.

335

- 336 -

6 Addenda and corrigenda to vol. 1 These notes are restricted to correcting substantive errors and do not include discussion of alternative interpretations of the texts. A number of photographs are included that were not available when volume 1 was published, and in the case of I. Ankara 1, 9 this has led to a substantial revision of the text. 9. List of Names Location: This inscription is built into the curtain wall between towers 3 and 4 of the outer circuit of Ankara Kale. This section of the Byzantine fortifications now serves as the front wall of the Hatipoglu Konak Restaurant. Description: Block of white marble, broken above, right and below. The left edge is complete but chipped and damaged. The lettering, in two columns, is uneven, similar to but cruder than the layout and lettering of I. Ankara 1, 8. Dimensions: Height 0.69; width 0.41; letters 0.01-0.015. Copy: SM 30.03.2016.

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

-----------[Σά]τυρος Πρόκλ[ου] [Κ]λ̣. Ἱππ̣[ί]α̣ς̣ Κλ. Σεουῆρος Λού. Οὐαλ. Οὐάλη̣(ς) Ἰουλιανὸς Γαίου Λύρνησος Γαίου Μ. Ἀντίστ̣ιο̣ ς Μαρκιαν(ός) [Γ.] Ἰ. Θησεύς Γ̣. Ἰ. Ἄσανδρος Δέκ̣µος β´ ὁ νῦν Αἴλιος Κλέανδρος Λυκείνου̣ Τι. Ἰουνιανὸς Ἰοῦστος Ἀρούντιος Σεουῆρος Ἰανουάριος Σαραπίο̣ν(ος) Σεουῆρος Ἀθηνοδώρ(ου) Κο. Σεξτείλιος Δείος Ἀρούντιος Κρίτων Γ. Ἰ. Σεουῆρος Φ̣λ. Φοῖβος Φιλωνίδη̣ς̣ Κλεοδ̣ώ̣ρ̣(ου) Σπέν̣δων Ἰουλίου Αἴ. Ἄλκιµος [Τι.] Κ̣λ. Ἰουλιανός Κλ. Μάξιµος Εὔδοξος β´ Ἀτηδίου̣ Φλ. Πυλαιµένης Γ. Ἰ. Λυκεῖνος Ἰ. Ἑρµῆς

ΓΑΙΛ [ - ] Ὀστώριος Μα[ - ] Οὐλπ. Α[ἴλ.] Ἀντ[ωνῖνος] Σ̣τάτιος Ἐπαγάθ̣[ου] ἀρχιτέκ̣τ̣ω[̣ ν] Μέ̣µιος Δαδεως̣ Φλ. Κλαυδιαν[ός] Μ. Λουκ. Ρ̣ΗΙ̣Τ̣ΛΑ Φλ. Γάλλος Βελλιχος Ἀ̣[ - ] Στράτων [ - ] Οὐᾶρος Ἀσ[κληπ- ] Πασίνεικο[ς - ] Γ. Τιτουλήϊ[ος - ] Λ̣υ̣κεῖνος Πο̣[ - ] Ἀλέξανδρος Ο̣[ - ] Μ. Ι. Διόφαντ[ος] Κοκ. Ἀλέξανδρ̣[ος] Ἀκύλας̣ Ἀ̣ήτου. vacat

336

- 337 -

32

36

Ἰ̣. [Μ]αξιµε(ῖ)νο Λικινια(νὸς) Ἱερώνυµος Ἑρµᾶς Λουκίου Κο. Βη. Τέρτιος Ἄετος γ´ Ἀπολλωνίδ̣η̣ς Γ. Ἰ. Ἄργεννος Αἴλ. [Ἰ]ουιάς [Ἰ. Θ]εόποµπος [Μ. (?) Ση]στύλλιος̣ [ - - - - - - - ].του̣ -----------

Column 1. 6: ΝΗ in ligature; 10: horizontal bar above Β. 15: ΗΡ and ΗΝ in ligature. 16: ΤΕ in ligature. 25: or Βατηδίου. 26: the letters ΜΕΝ are very cramped. 33: horizontal bar over Γ; Ἀπολλωνιάτης, recut to -ίδης. 35: ΟΥΑΙΑΣ. Column 2. 2: Γαια[νός] ? 4: ΝΤ in ligature. 10: or ΡΗΠΛΑ. 18: .Α̣ΚΕΙΝΟΣ, copy.

The purpose of this list of names is unclear. Coskun 2013, 97 inclines to the view that the inscription listed council members. Since one of the persons listed is specifically said to have been an architect (column 2, 6), an alternative hypothesis is that the inscription concerned the dedication of a building. If so, it remains an open question whether the list simply identified donors who contributed to the construction costs, or members of the institution for whom it was intended. The revised readings of the names in this text require a more extensive onomastic and prosopographic commentary than the few observations provided here (see provisionally Coşkun 2013, 96-8, based on the old readings), and we confine ourselves to a few observations. Col. 1, 6: Λύρνησος. This unique personal name can be explained as being derived from a local toponym, Λυρνησο[ς], attested in a sixth-century boundary inscription in the Ankara neighbourhood (346). For personal names derived from toponyms in central Anatolia at this period, compare Συναδίς on a second or third century Phrygian gravestone, derived from Synnada (SEG 36, 1202), and especially Κίµιστος, derived from the local toponym Κίµιστα, attested in a family from western Paphlagonia (Christof – Lafli 2014, 144-47, no. 15). Col. 1, 8: Δέκµος β´ ὁ νῦν Αἴλιος replaces the earlier reading ΒΟΝΥΛΑΙΛΙΟΣ. Col. 1, 34: the cognomen Ἄργεννος is clearly Celtic. Col. 1, 37: [Μ. (?) Ση]στύλλιος; Sestullii were widespread in second and third century Asia Minor, descended from a family of Italian negotiatores; See MAMA IX, lx and commentary on no. 274. The dossier on this family can now be extended. Col. 2, 6: ἀρχιτέκτων, which is indented, is not a proper name but the profession of Statius son of Epagathus. Col. 2, 10: Μ. Λουκρή(τιος) Πλά[των], or Μ. Λουκ(κεῖος ?) followed by an attempt to render the Latin Regula in Greek. Ῥηγλιανός and Ῥηγλιανή for Regulianus and Reguliana appear on an inscription of Phrygian Eumeneia (MAMA XI, 123; SEG 62, 1114). Col. 2, 13: Βέλλιχος, otherwise unattested in Greek onomastics, appears Celtic and related to Βέλλων and similar forms; see 512 comm. The corresponding forms Bellic(c)us and Bellicius were widespread in Latin epigraphy; see Holder 1896 I, 388-90. Col. 2, 22: Ἄητος may be a variant of Ἄετος (as in col. 1, 33). 45, 11. Read: ob eius merita (Eck 2012, 474).

337

- 338 69. The abbreviations should be resolved as Eutychus / Nerei / Caesaris / Aug(usti) / ser(vi) vic(arius) / filio, ‘Eutychus, vicarius of Nereus, slave of Caesar Augustus, for his son’ (Eck 2012, 475). 74, 18; 75,10; 76, 16. Punctuate: ἀνθύπατον Ἀχαίας, πρὸς πέντε ῥάβδους πεµφθέντα εἰς Βειθυνίαν διορθωτὴν καὶ λογίστην ὑπὸ θεοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ (Eck 2012, 475). 90, 4. Read: [ἄρξαντα] β´. 108. Photograph D-DAI-IST-3254. The inscription was carved on the front of a console statue base, which projected from the wall of a building. 109. Photograph by Melih Arslan. The inscription was rediscovered during the recent restoration of the Safran Han, close to the Ankara Museum. 126, 8-9. Read: [εὐχ]αρ̣ισ ̣ ̣τ̣ί[̣ ̣ας) | [ἕνε]κεν. 130. SM photograph 2014. 133. Correct the end of the translation to … ‘the adornment of his race.’ 143. This long text can be revised on the basis of new photographs taken by SM in 2013 and 2014 (published by Mitchell 2014b, fig. 6 and 7). but we do not attempt this here. 162, 6. Photograph D-DAI-IST-3260; in line 6 read: Severina. 207. Eck 2012, 477 (cf AE 2012, 1578) suggests an alternative reconstruction: D. M. / M. Pennio M. f. / Volt. Arpinati / Do[mitia …], interpreting Arpinas as a cognomen and ‘Do’ as the first letters of his wife’s nomen. We take this opportunity to publish another better photograph of this text, the last part of which appears to have been left incomplete. 249, 2. Read: Εἰδοµέως, T. Drew-Bear in Arslan – Aydin 2010, 311. 303. Photograph SM 2014; the inscription is built into the bottom of tower W1. It is deeply carved in irregular letters on a roughly shaped block of Ankara andesite. 308. Although the text of this inscription appears to be complete, the first hexameter verse is not. It is tempting to supply πατρὸς ὁµώνυµος ἐνθάδε κεῖµαι, / κοῦρος τετραέτης οὔνοµα δ᾽εἰµὶ Γλύκων. Father and son would thus be named after the famous oracular Paphlagonian snake, Glycon. 313 = SEG 62, 1994. Jones 2012, 892 has corrected our erroneous construction of these verses and suggests an improved reading: ἆ, χάρις ἀνθρώ|πων ΕΞΕΠΝΟ · Εὐφρά|σιος γάρ οὐκεθ᾽ ὑπ᾽| ἀελίῳ· ἆ ἆ µάκαρες | νέκυες, δείλεοί τε | γονεῖς πολυπενθέες | θέτον ἄριστον ὥρῃ | καὶ χαρίτεσσι καὶ | άγλαίῃ καὶ ἀοιδῇ· πᾶσα | πόλις, πᾶς δῆµος, ὁµήλικες | ὠδύραντο. ἔθανεν δὲ Εὐφράσιος | ἐτῶν κγ´ µη(νῶν) ς´ 314 = SEG 62, 1095. Our published transcription of this text skipped lines 4-5, and has been corrected by Jones 2012, 892. The verses should read τὸν φιλίης θη|σαυρὸν ἐν ἀν|θρώποισι γε|γῶτα, ὅν τε (?) Ἀσκλη|πιάδην πάντε|ς ζώοντα κίκλη|σκον καὶ πάσης | ἀρετῆς, περικαλλέ|α· νῦν τύµβος µε κα|λύπτει ζήσαντα | κοσµ(ί)ως, Μοιρῶν δὲ | µίτους τελέσαν¦τα ἆ ἆ, ἀνφὶν ἔτευξεν | στήλην τε τάφον τε, ᾧ φι|λίη γαµέτη µνήµης χά|ριν· ὦ π[αροδεῖτ]αι, χαίρετε.

338