Praznici v rimskata provincija Trakija: (I - III vek) = Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Bulgarian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Sofija
Nacionalen archeologičeski institut s muzej - BAN
2014
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Disertacii / Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite
tom 8 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Abstract Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| Beschreibung: | Zusammenfassung in englischer Sprache |
| Beschreibung: | 523 Seiten Illustrationen, Karten |
| ISBN: | 9789549472356 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV043227248 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20160222 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 151221s2014 a||| |||| 00||| bul d | ||
| 020 | |a 9789549472356 |9 978-954-9472-35-6 | ||
| 035 | |a (gbd)1084040 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)951817226 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV043227248 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rda | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a bul | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-2761 | ||
| 084 | |a 6,12 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Andreeva, Petja |d ca. 20./21. Jh. |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1080505342 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Praznici v rimskata provincija Trakija |b (I - III vek) = Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace |c Petja Andreeva Andreeva - Petya Andreeva Andreeva |
| 246 | 1 | 1 | |a Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace |
| 264 | 1 | |a Sofija |b Nacionalen archeologičeski institut s muzej - BAN |c 2014 | |
| 300 | |a 523 Seiten |b Illustrationen, Karten | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Disertacii / Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite |v tom 8 | |
| 500 | |a Zusammenfassung in englischer Sprache | ||
| 546 | |a Text bulgarisch | ||
| 546 | |b Kyrillische Schrift | ||
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 1-300 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Fest |0 (DE-588)4121260-5 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Festival |0 (DE-588)4154198-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Römisches Reich |0 (DE-588)4076778-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Thrakien |0 (DE-588)4078277-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 688 | 7 | |a Thrakien als Provinz |0 (DE-2581)TH000004995 |2 gbd | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Römisches Reich |0 (DE-588)4076778-4 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Thrakien |0 (DE-588)4078277-3 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Fest |0 (DE-588)4121260-5 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Festival |0 (DE-588)4154198-4 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 4 | |a Geschichte 1-300 |A z |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 810 | 2 | |a Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite |t Disertacii |v tom 8 |w (DE-604)BV022862779 |9 8 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028649961&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028649961&sequence=000002&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 940 | 1 | |n gbd | |
| 940 | 1 | |q gbd_4_1701 | |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 306.09 |e 22/bsb |f 09015 |g 499 |
| 943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028649961 | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1811916838667288576 |
|---|---|
| adam_text |
FESTIVALS IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF THRACE (1st - 3rd c. AD)
(SUMMARY)
1. Introduction
The present study is prompted by the lack of comprehensive and thorough research on the
festivals in the Roman province of Thrace during the 1st - 3rd century AD in the Bulgarian
scholarship. The topic was chosen considering the fact that the issue has not been examined in
detail so far not only in the Bulgarian, but also in the foreign scholar literature and that no overall
conclusions regarding the festivals in the specified period have yet been drawn for the whole
territory of the province.
The studies to date are rather fragmentary and partial, characterized by focusing primarily
on certain aspects of the festivals in the province. From a territorial point of view, they usually
do not concern the whole province but are limited to the present-day Bulgarian territory. The
circumstances about the exact time of establishment of the city festivals in the province have
not been clarified and the way in which their editions corresponded to one another has never
been of special interest. It is important to describe in brief the political situation in the Roman
Empire and to analyse the issue in this context, as festivals were part of a community’s political
and social system. This approach will allow to further outline more nuanced picture of the close
connections between festivals as religious and social phenomena and the historical dynamics. In
this way, we could define the social, political and ritual functions of the festivals in the province
of Thrace.
In addition, the present study was prompted by some additional reasons. A comprehensive
overview of the literature displays considerable difficulties in working on the issue caused by a
variety of factors ֊ old, problematic or difficult to find publications and lack of overall concept
for the study of festivals in the province of Thrace. The evidence for festivals and ceremonies has
been mainly examined in the context of the cities where it was found. The lack of analysis based
on synchronous examining of all the data for festivals in the province in this historical period
has led to incomplete and inaccurate conclusions. There are also a number of omissions and
inaccuracies in publications of monuments testifying to the festivals in the province. The present
study aims to develop, reject and clarify previous observations on the issue.
The starting point of the analysis of the festivals is to clarify what exactly constitutes the feast
in the ancient world.
The feast was always an activity and a shared experience ( Knry/icKM 1981,78). When we speak
and think about the festivals, we tend to associate them with leisure. However, the celebration was
a kind of social obligation to the ancient society. Often it was ordered or held under compulsion
followed by sanctions. The obligatory celebration directly derived from belonging to the group,
sharing its values and the idea of the festival. Thus, public celebrations had many functions -
to integrate, to ally, to renew relations ()KMry/icKM 1981, 78). W. Burkert defines the ancient
city as Festgemeinschaft (Burkert 1987). The festivals were “the pulse“ of the Greek and Roman
societies and reflected their social and political organization. The rhythm of the year was set by
different celebrations, and hence their exact place in the calendar was of great importance. The
correst performance of the festival rituals provided people with divine protection in the public
and private sphere and gathered them for joint activities, united by common symbols.
There was a great increase in the number of celebrated festivals as early as the Hellenistic
period, no doubt partly as a result of more frequent routine contacts between different cities in
the Hellenistic world, recognizing celebrations as an attractive outlet for demonstrating common
identity as opposed to the “outside“ world. Even in this period the difference between the local
festivals with cash prizes and more prestigious festivals, in which a crown was bestowed upon
307
the winner, was clearly expressed. The establishment of such event or raising the status of a local
festival in στέφανος άγών was always accompanied by sending envoys to cities throughout the
Greek world to seek an agreement. This reinforced the idea for carrying out of festivals of common
Greek identity and celebrations for popularity at a local level. Hellenistic rulers were worshipped
with festivals organized by communities subjected to them. The rulers often established
celebrations on their own initiative. The role of the city benefactors increased during this period.
Offices, such as gymnasiarch and agonothete, were among the most prestigious positions held by
members of the city elite (König 2005, 27-28).
Many of the above-mentioned tendencies remained unchanged in the Roman imperial period.
It seems that there was a slight decrease of the agonistic festivals after the conquest of Greece in the
mid-2nd century BC. No later than a century and a half can be observed traces of revival of these
festivals with increasing prosperity and growing imperial support, and this impulse remained in
the 3rd century AD. The evidence for local city festivals and games increases enormously during
the Roman period, which gives Louis Robert grounds to define the 2nd - 3rd century AD period
as “agonistique explosion“. D. Klose assumes that the nature of the festival changed during the
Principate and eventually turned into some kind of “show business“. Sports contests were the
main element of these festivals, which is why in many epigraphic monuments the word αγών is
used to denote not only a contest, but also the whole festival.
The Greek and Roman festivals have not been divided into classification types. The studies
usually arrange them according to the ancient calendar or the deity to which they are dedicated.
The analysis of the nature of ancient festivals certainly requires the simultaneous use of
diachronic and synchronous method. The numismatic and epigraphic material used in the
present study is examined both synchronously and diachronically. This approach can be
successfully applied to more thorough examination of the festival establishment, the political and
social situation in the cities, the ritual processes and symbols, and the way in which they were
maintained. This leads to more accurate conclusions about the festival features, whether this is
expressed in religious, social or political terms.
In this regard, we should pay more attention to the correlation content - form. The difference
between the two concepts is of importance, because the form can be altered without any change
of the content, but if the content is changed, then the form will be altered. The form may
change for many reasons either political or social, but it can also be used to attract attention and
publicity. Through better understanding of the relationship between the content and the form of
the festivals, we can get a more complete picture of the social meaning of the festival, the process
underlying its establishment and the changes throughout its editions.
Another correlation related to the issue is sacred ֊ secular. Was the feast a true religious
celebration or a way to communicate with the gods? Did the ancient society use the worship of
deities as pretext for social celebration and political ostentation? The difference between religious
and secular, profane and sacred is certainly not so clear and obvious, and hence it is often difficult
to be made. This is particularly true for the period under discussion when the religious and
political activities concerning the worship of the imperial cult in the Roman provinces were
blurred.
It seems that there are no clear boundaries for determining the Greco-Roman festivals, at
least not in terms of analytical categories. In view of the scarce evidence available, the difficulty
in defining the ancient festival requires to specify the particular features of which the festival was
composed. This, in turn, will sharpen our ability to interpret the evidence for festivals. Therefore,
in my opinion, the polythetical approach to the issue will be the most suitable for the present
study.
The polythetical approach allows us to define any category by variety of criteria, which while
not strictly determined in terms of type or number, outline defining characteristics for the
elements of the category. According to this approach, we should not limit ourselves to a narrow
308
definition and may indicate some widespread festival features that can be considered essential for
polythetical definition:
- cyclic celebration repeated annually (according to the calendar) or less frequently (according
to different kind of time measurement);
- celebration at a certain place, with a focal point (a temple, a sacred place, a sanctuary, an
altar);
- public celebration focused on members of one community (in the narrower or broader sense);
parts of the sacred ritual, however, may have been carried out in secret, as only the presence of
the dedicated was allowed.
- participants - people who organized the celebration and performed the most important rituals
were in the middle of the festivals. The public events can be considered a sign of celebration in
the ancient society. Social relationships and interactions within the society can be observed in the
organization and structure of the feast rituals. Such an example is the Great Panathenaea, which
manifested the social and political structure of Athens ( KMry/icKM 1981, 84-85). The citizens
and their families occupied their places in the festive processions. It should not be forgotten that
despite the numerous contests, games, artistic and sports rivalry, the religious sacrum was the
core value of the crowds participating in the festivals ( Kury/icKU 1981, 85).
- sacrifice - cult actions were essential feature of the Greco-Roman festivals. All major festivals
included performing of blood sacrifice (thysia, sacrificium). Bloodless sacrifices were also made
during some festivals. It is difficult to imagine what it was like to hold official celebration without
a sacrifice.
- festive procession - the procession was a common feature of all festivals in the Greco-
Roman world. In view of the polythetical approach, it can be considered a typical element of the
celebrations.
- performances or games
S. Miller defines the Olympics as a “religious festival“ focused on the athletic competitions
(Miller 2004, 216). What comes first in the celebrations and the agons is the relation to the cult,
which during the Principate is the imperial cult considered on par with or superior to the cults
of traditional deities. The great importance of the cult is undoubtedly an essential hallmark of
the sport and as opposed to the ancient agonistic should be regarded as a service to the deity. The
cult of the deity or the emperor, to whom the festival was dedicated, played a significant role in
the course of the agones.
O. van Nijf defines the Roman world very appropriately as a system, a kind of agonistic network
created to present the imperial power (van Nijf 2006, 232-233). It is worth noting his statement
that the festivals have always had political functions to fulfill and it seems that over time their role
became more and more important (van Nijf 1999, 21).
2. Festivals of the Thracian koinon
2.1. Alexandreia Pythia
The legends KOINON ©RAKON ALEHANDRIA PY0IA EN FILIPPOPOLI of coins issued
by the mint of Philippopolis during the reign of emperor Caracalla are evidence of Pythian games
bearing the epithet ALEHANDRIA organized on behalf of the Thracian koinon in the ancient
city of Philippopolis (cat. # # I/1-I/42, table I, fig. 1-7). The researchers have accepted that the
epithet ALEHANDRIA was added to older Pythian games celebrated by Philippopolis. Until now,
however, there is no reliable evidence for their organization in the city before the Severan period.
It is important to point out that the name of the games is inscribed on the coin reverses along
with an image of only one prize crown. We are clearly on good ground here to argue that the
epithet Pythia in the name of the festival is to be interpreted not as name of an older festival to
which another epithet was added at a later date, but as an indication that the Alexandreia games,
309
held during the reign of emperor Caracalla, were isopythian, i.e. organized following the model
of the Pythian games in Delphi.
The legends of the coins issued by the mint of Philippopolis for the Alexandreia Pythia games
include the name of the Thracian common council, ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ΘΡΑΚΩΝ, the name of the games
and the name of the city where they were held - ΕΝ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΠΟΛΙ. The Thracian koinon is not
mentioned only in several coin issues, most probably because of their lower nominal value. Unlike
the coin inscriptions for the Alexandreia Pythia games, the Thracian common council is not
encountered even once in legends of the coin reverses issued on the occasion of the Kendreiseia
Pythia games. Hence, it can be concluded that the Thracian koinon did not participate in the
organization of the Kendreiseia Pythia games.
The conclusion that the Thracian common council organized the Alexandreia Pythia games is
also proved by epigraphic evidence. Inscription from Philippopolis (cat. # II/359) demonstrates
that the games were held on behalf of the council and, furthermore, were isopythian. The
thrakarch honoured by the inscription is also identified as agonothetes τού κοινού των Θρακών
ηενταετηρικοϋ άγώνος.
Despite the almost generally accepted opinion that these games are to be dated to 214 AD,
I consider that they were held in 215 AD. My arguments supporting this thesis are discussed
in detail in the analysis of the Kendreiseia Pythia festival (s. 3.3.1). I have also found direct
connection between the games and the emperor s visit in Thrace and in the city of Philippopolis
in particular, which should be referred to 215 AD. This could explain their especially glorious
conduct, as evidenced by the amount of coins issued on this occasion.
2.2. Other festivals of the Thracian koinon
The gladiatorial spectacles are most frequently defined as a typical Roman phenomenon. It
is considered that the gladiatorial combats and beast-fights in the cities of the Roman provinces
were organized mainly in connection with the imperial festivals. The analysis of the gladiatorial
inscriptions made by Louis Robert in 1940 shows that these Roman spectacles were held regularly
in the Greek world as part of the celebration of the imperial cult. It has been ascertained that in
most of the cases the priests of the imperial cult provided the funds for these shows. And it is
precisely the fact that these spectacles became an integral part of the celebration of the imperial
cult that explains their great distribution and high popularity in the Roman provinces.
Gladiatorial combats were also associated with the worship of the Roman emperor in the
province of Thrace. Epigraphic data from the province make it possible to argue that such
bloody spectacles were organized on behalf of the whole κοινόν των Θρακών. Inscription from
Philippopolis (cat. # 11/358), dated to 222-231 AD, was erected in honour of the emperor
Alexander Severus by ή λαμπρότατη Θρακών μητρόπολις Φιλιππόπολις νεοκόρος (sic). The
inscription was set up during the time when Titus Flavius Priscianus was appointed πρώτος
αρχών of the city. The text states that he occupied other positions of importance ֊ θρακάρχης and
άρχιερεύς δι* όπλων. There is a second inscription erected by the city of Philippopolis but this
time in honour of Titus Flavius Priscianus. The city made a statue of him probably because of his
exceptional contribution to the citizens. It is assumed that the second inscription is a bit earlier in
date than the first one, although the two inscriptions were erected one after another, as evidenced
by the title πρώτος αρχών of Philippopolis of Priscianus in both of them. The hypothesis for the
earlier dating of the second inscription usually considers the fact that Priscianus is titled only
άρχιερεύς, while in the other he is designated as θρακάρχης and άρχιερεύς δι’ όπλων. Given the
fact that the gladiatorial fights were organized by the high priests of the imperial cult as liturgia
related to the execution of their office, the researchers assume that the duty in question should be
indicated as something additional, i.e. it should be expected Priscianus to be designated as high
priest at first and as άρχιερεύς δι’όπλων afterwards. However, I challenge this chronological order
of the inscriptions and accept the reverse order, i.e. the inscription in honour of the emperor
310
Severus Alexander is earlier in date. The argument for the proposed chronological sequence is
the city title indicated in both inscriptions. It is precisely this title that should be decisive for
the dating of the inscriptions. In the inscription, so far considered to be earlier, Philippopolis is
titled only μητρόπολις, while in the other erected in honour of the emperor Severus Alexander,
the city is called neokoros. Both inscriptions are official and inscribed on statue bases implying
that the exact city title was written. The fact that Priscianus was first archon of Philippopolis
during the reign of Severus Alexander is important in view of the circumstance that the city
lost the neokoros title under the reign of this emperor. The presence of the title in one of the
inscriptions and its absence in the other, shows that the neokoria of Philippopolis was taken away
in this period. The inscription in honour of the emperor Severus Alexander says that Priscianus
also holds the position of thrakarch, which corresponds to the city title in the same inscription.
Therefore, I consider that he was high priest of the imperial cult, whose duty to take care of the
emperor’s worship, including to organize gladiatorial fights, referred not only to the city, but also
to the entire Thracian common council. Such assumption is based on the fact that Philippopolis
was metropolis of the Thracian koinon, as well as on the explicit mention that Priscianus was
appointed θρακάρχης and άρχιερενς δι’ όπλων.
The formula used in another honorary inscription from Philippopolis (cat. # 11/357) suggests
that a statue of the provincial governor Quintus Sicinius Clarus was erected in the city. This is
also evidenced by the presence of rectangular incision on the upper surface of the marble block.
The verb form ήγεμονεύσαντα indicates that Quintus Sicinius Clarus was no longer governor
of the province of Thrace at the time when the monument was erected, i.e. the statue was set
up after the end of his mandate. A person titled άρχιερενς δι’ όπλων took the initiative about
the monument and the inscription. It is worth noting that Quintus Sicinius Clarus is indicated
as his ευεργέτης (benefactor). This gives good grounds for the assumption that in this case the
statue was erected by the provincial high priest of the imperial cult, which in turn means that he
organized gladiatorial fights for the whole province.
3. Municipal festivals
3.1. Asklepieia
The only epigraphic evidence for Asklepieia festival in Perinthos comes from Abydos (on the
coast of Asia Minor, against Coela on the Thracian Chersonese) (cat. # 11/434, table XXV, fig.
202.1, 202.2). The inscription presents a list of the wins of Pergamos, son of Pergamos, in which
Asklepieia in Perinthos is among the mentioned festivals. The listing of the victories of an athlete
in an inscription was a common practice. The text says that Pergamos competed not in one, but
in three disciplines - παγκράτιον, πάλη, πυγμή. To my knowledge, so far there are no other data
(epigraphic, numismatic or references by ancient authors) for the Asklepieia festival in Perinthos.
Numismatic and epigraphic monuments dated to the reign of Septimius Severus and his sons
prove the organization of Severeia, Aktia, Pythia and Philadelpheia festivals in Perinthos. The
city continued to celebrate Aktia and Pythia in the 3rd century AD. Given the date of the Abydos
inscription, we can make some assumptions regarding the Asklepieia festival in the capital of the
province of Thrace. Z. Ta§likhoglu assumes that the inscription is 2nd century AD in date, but P.
Gouw suggests broader chronological time frame ֊ second half of the 2nd or 3rd century AD. Here,
two follow-up hypotheses are possible: 1) the organization of this festival ceased immediately
before the Severans; 2) the festival continued to be organized during their reign, though under
a different name. If the second assumption holds true, we can assume on the basis of parallels
from the eastern Roman provinces that the festival continued to be organized in the city in the
3rd century AD, most probably under the name Pythia. Unfortunately, the data are insufficient
to support this hypothesis, but no other evidence in favour of or against the celebration of this
festival in Perinthos in the 3rd century AD has been found so far.
311
3.2. Pythian games in Serdica
Epigraphic monument from Serdica testifies for holding of games of the first 4-year period
(πρώτη τετραετηρίς) (cat. # 11/351). The inscription is fragmented and the beginning of the
text is missing. Therefore, the name of the games remains unknown: whether it was Πύθια or
the genitive case Πυθίων, indicating their isopythian status, was only supplement to the official
name. The names of five agonothetes appointed to organize the games are mentioned in the
inscription. The importance of the games themselves is implied by the formula designating
the decision to erect the honorary monument: κατά το δόγμα τής κρατίστης βουλής και τού
ίερωτάτου δήμου.
It has been accepted by some of the scholars that the Serdica inscription refers to the Pythian
games in Philippopolis (Герасимов 1958, 297). According to the opinion of B. Gerov, these
contests were established in Serdica under the reign of the emperor Caracalla and were carried
out in honour of Apollo (Геров 1968, 182). The reading of the missing lines at the beginning of
the inscription in the first publication is as follows: [Κενδρεισείων των? Πυ]θίων (Kalinka 1906,
99-100, № 102). There are no arguments, however, in favour of such reconstruction. It has been
recently concluded that the association of the Serdica games with the cult of Apollo Kendrisos is
not well-grounded (Вагалински 2009,25 сл.). No evidence of the worship of Apollo Kendrisos has
been found in the epigraphic record of Serdica. Thus, there is little reason to suppose widespread
proliferation of the cult in Serdica and its territory, so as to provoke the organization of a festival
named after the deity. Only one inscription from Serdica (IGBulg. IV 1929) represents dedication
to the Nymphs and Apollo Kendresenos, but it is too fragmented for us to make much of it and
thus the reading of the Apollo's epithet remains rather hypothetical. The editio princeps of the
inscription read the epithet as Έδρησηνω ? (Dobruski 1895,109, № 11).
The lettering of Serdica explicitly points out the names of the five agonothetes who honoured
a victorious athlete in the Pythian games under consideration. It is believed that the athlete in
question was a citizen of Serdica as he was honoured by organizers from Serdica (Вагалински
1993, 314-315). It is namely the citizenship of the five agonothetes which is the main argument
in favour of the assumption that the epigraphic monument attests to the first edition of Pythian
games in Serdica (Вагалински 2009, 25 сл.). Evidence supporting such a hypothesis comes also
from Serdica ֊ an inscription dated to the reign of the emperor Severus Alexander was erected in
honour of Iulius Filopapus, one of the five agonothetes of the Pythian games, who is designated
as first archon of Serdica (IGBulg. IV 1992).
Another honorary inscription engraved on semi-cylindrical marble block recently discovered
in situ in the northern part of the forum of Philippopolis determines terminus ante quem of the
edition of the above-mentioned Pythian games in Serdica (Герасимова 2006, 159; Герасимова
2007, 81, № 3). It can be rather precisely dated between December 9, 186 AD and December
9, 187 AD due to the name of the provincial governor Caecilius Maternus mentioned therein.
It is presumed that the lettering belonged to the base of a statue of the emperor Commodus
(Герасимова 2006, 159). What makes the inscription an important piece of evidence for the
precise dating of the Serdica games is the name of the thrakarch Fulvius Asticus mentioned in
the text. He is one of the five agonothetes in the above-mentioned inscription from Serdica.
The fact that the agonothetes have no other titles provides a reasonable basis to conclude that
the Serdica inscription is earlier in date, i.e. it was set before 187 AD. It can even be assumed
that the organization of the Pythian games was their first public engagement (Герасимова 2006,
159), although one should not exclude the possibility that the thrakarch title of Fulvius Asticus
mentioned in one of the inscriptions was simply omitted in the other (Вагалински 2009,25 сл.).
V. Gerasimova asserts that the agonothetes who organized the Pythian games in Serdica were
citizens of the same city. According to her, the evidence for holding the office of thrakarch does
not contradict the hypothesis that Fulvius Asticus was also a citizen of Serdica either by virtue
of citizenship or origin, since the representatives of all cities included in the Thracian koinon
312
could be appointed for this office (Герасимова 2006, 160-161). It should also be noted that the
name of Fulvius Asticus is encountered in another Serdica inscription representing dedication
engraved on an altar (IGBulg. IV 1928). Apollo bearing the local epithet Ρανισκεληνος is
worshipped with the inscription, which in turn seems to indicate a presence of syncretic cult
(Гочева 2006, 268).
The above-mentioned arguments support the assumption that the games mentioned in the
Serdica inscription were carried out before 187 AD. The conclusion that they took place in Serdica
is based on the following: 1) the inscription is found in Serdica; 2) the agonothetes of the games
were citizens of Serdica which is confirmed by the fact that one of them is also appointed first
archon of Serdica under the reign of the emperor Severus Alexander, probably after accumulating
enough public authority (Вагалински 2009, 26); 3) the athlete honoured in the inscription had
Serdican citizenship.
The evidence for isopythian games in Philippopolis and the assumed terminus ante quem for
the Pythian games in Serdica raise the question of the date of the first Pythian games held in the
province of Thrace. The answer lies in the comparison between the epigraphic data coming from
Serdica and from the metropolis of the Thracian koinon. What should be taken into consideration
is that the Pythian games mentioned in the Serdica inscription were carried out τής πρώτης
τετραετηρίδος. An inscription from Philippopolis (cat. # II/360) testifies that P. Virdius Iulianus
was agonothetes of πρώτη (?) τετραετηρις τον ιερού άγώνος. It has been accepted that the agon
in question is Alexandreia Pythia organized in Philippopolis under the reign of the emperor
Caracalla (Sharankov 2005, 65; Вагалински 2009, 27). P. Virdius Iulianus is honoured with
another inscription coming from Philippopolis, which terminus post quem is after 212 AD (cat. #
II/361)522. It was found in the ancient theater of the city. The inscription states that the Kendriseis
phyle set up a statue of the agonothetes. According to N. Sharankov, the genitive ending -ων can
be part of [Πνθί]ων or [Κενδρεισι]ων, which is the reason to assume that P. Virdius Iulianus was
honoured by the inscription as agonothetes. Therefore, the inscription should be dated to the
time of the Alexandreia Pythia or the Kendreiseia Pythia festival in Philippopolis. N. Sharankov
accepts that the Alexandreia games are alluded to in this inscription. He points out that -ων could
be the genitive ending of the word [είσελαστικ]ών by considering the distribution of syllables
in the lettering. The conclusion is important keeping in mind that the epithet in question has
been attested so far only for the Kendreiseia Pythia festival. Furthermore, the hypothesis that
P. Virdius Iulianus is honoured by the inscription from the Philippopolis theatre in his capacity
of agonothetes of the Kendreiseia games means that the games mentioned in the other quite
fragmented lettering from Philippopolis (cat. # II/360) could not be assigned to τ[ή πρώτη τ]
ετρα[ετηρίδι] (Sharankov 2005, 65), i.e. they were not of the first 4-year period as there is enough
reliable information for at least one previous edition of the games - Alexandreia Pythia523. It is
worth noting that the games in the last-mentioned inscription are indicated not only by the serial
number of tetraeteris/penteteris, but are also designated as ιεροί, i.e. sacred ֊ an epithet given
only after an official imperial decision (Klose 2005, 126; Newby 2005, 247; Вагалински 2009).
The available data do not support the hypothesis that Pythian games were held in Philippopolis
before Alexandreia Pythia, not to mention of “sacred“ status. For that reason the reading τ[ή
πρώτη τ]ετρα[ετηρίδι] is the most convincing so far524.
522 The lettering seems to date after AD 212 because of the nomen Aurelius and the mentioning of the Kendreiseis phyle
(Sharankov 2005, 62). The number of phylai of Philippopolis increased to 10 under the reign of the Severans.
523 The assumption that P Virdius Iulianus was an agonothete of the Alexandreia and the Kendreiseia games is too
hypothetical, and given the absence of additional arguments, it should be excluded. A dedication to Zeus and Hera has
been found in Ayazmoto locality, 2 km eaft of the Tatarevo village, Plovdiv region (IGBulg, III1 1454). One of the sons of
P. Virdius Iulianus - P Virdius Bassus is designated in it as a thrakarch and neokoros. The second title should refer to the
period when Philippopolis was entitled neokoros (Sharankov 2005, 68).
524 It should be taken into consideration that the date of the games credited with sacred status was often the reason
for beginning of a new chronological era in the cities according to the time-reckoning of the Olympiads, Pythiads, etc.
(Sharankov 2005, 64-65). We should not exclude the possibility that the edition of the sacred Alexandreia Pythia games
313
Taking into consideration that the Alexandreia Pythia festival in Philippopolis and the Pythian
games mentioned in the Serdica inscription were carried out in the first 4-year period, as well
as that the Serdica inscription is much earlier in date, we can draw a conclusion that the first
Pythian (or isopythian) games in the province of Thrace known so far were held in Serdica, but
not in the metropolis of the Thracian koinon. The explicit statement in the Serdica inscription
that the honoured athlete was a winner in the games of the first tetraeteris implies indirectly that
these events probably continued to be organized in the city after this edition (or were supposed
to continue ?)525. Again, it should be pointed out that this is not a definite conclusion, given the
uncertain reading of the serial number of the tetraeteris of the Alexandreia Pythia festival.
3.3. Neokoria and festivals in the province of Thrace
The chapter focuses on municipal festivals closely related to cities in the province of Thrace,
which were granted neokoros title.
The phenomenon of neokoria has its own line of development during the Roman imperial
period directly corresponding to the main cult worshipped at that time - the imperial cult. The
neokoros title, along with the name of festival/s, is inscribed on coin reverses. The connection
with various celebrations is demonstrated by reverse images depicting neokorate temples with
prize crowns. Both are included in official documents, issued by municipal authorities.
The city title “neokoros“ designates the possession of a provincial temple dedicated to the
official cult of the Roman emperor (Burrell 2004, 1). The title was originally given to an official,
whose primary duty was to take care, to maintain and to keep a close watch on the daily functioning
of the sacred building, as well as to control the access to the building, the valuable items kept in
it, and the performing of various rituals and sacrifices (Burrell 2004, 1). Therefore, the term
neokoros is defined in the scholarship simply as “temple-warden“ (Гочева 1982, 129-130) or is
used to refer to a whole city worshipping a prestigious cult (Price 1984, 65, note 47).
Neokoros began to be used as a city title in some eastern Roman provinces in the 1st century AD
and was attributed mainly to cities with a temple of the imperial cult administered by the koinon
(Burrell 2004, 1-2, 5). The title itself means “safe-keeper“, but not “owner“ of a temple. Just like
people were wardens, but not owners of the temples, the neokoroi cities were only holders of the
provincial temple officially supervised by the koinon. At least initially, the owner of the temple
was the koinon, which assigned the chief priests in order to control the temples in the neokorate
cities. The increased number of neokorate temples in one city was not uncommon, given that the
cult of the reigning emperor substituted the cult of his predecessor (Burrell 2004, 2).
The term neokoros was used metaphorically at first, but soon became an official city title.
The first known inscription designating a city, and not a man, as “neokoros“, is 38 AD in date. It
says that Kyzikos is αρχαία και προγονικής τού γένους αύτοϋ νεωκόρος έπανακτωμένη πόλις of
μεγίστω και έπιφανεστά τφ θεώ Γαίω Καίσαρι (IGRR 4, 146,11. 8-10; a decree issued in honour of
Antonia Tryphaena by decision of the boule and the demos of the city). The term neokoros in
the inscription is interpreted as metaphoric, indicating that a sanctuary in Kyzikos was dedicated
to a relative of Caligula (Augustus, Agrippa, Drusilla or some of them). The phenomenon refers
to the imperial cult even in this early example of neokoros city (Burrell 2004, 5-6). The term
metaphorically applied to the city of Ephesus occurred in Acts of the Apostles 19:35 early in
date - ca. 52-54 AD. The word is included in the legends of Ephesian coins issued in 65-66
AD. It is assumed that by that time it had already acquired the meaning which continued to be
initiated a new era in Philippopolis, although this remains only a hypothesis due to the lack of reliable evidence for an
earlier festival held in the city. On the other hand, the new era may began in the year of the Kendreiseia Pythia games,
which are certainly known to be considered sacred. However, as already indicated, P. Virdius lulianus is considered to be
agonothete only of Alexandrian games.
525 There is no evidence of other edition of the Pythian games in Serdica. An inscription dated as early as the second half
of the 2nd century AD proves the existence of gymnasium in Serdica (cat. # 11/352), which could indicate an adtive shorts
life in the city at that time.
314
used later, namely that Ephesus possessed a temple of the imperial cult (Burrell 2004, 6). The
term was no longer used as a metaphor but as an official city title fiercely competed for. The
Roman Senate and the Roman emperor himself took the control over granting the title (Burrell
2004, 5-6). From the late 1st century AD neokoros became regular official city title indicating
that particular city was authorized by the Roman Senate and the emperor himself to maintain a
temple of the imperial cult (Price 1984, 64-65). By the end of the 1st century AD some, but not all,
of the cities that had temple of the provincial imperial cult were designated neokoroi. From the
2nd century AD onwards the cities proudly inscribed the title on their coins. The term seems to be
spread even more widely during the reign of the emperor Hadrian, becoming regular official title
of a city awarded with a provincial temple of the imperial cult directly connected with provincial
festivals (Price 1984, 65, note 47).
There is evidence of 52 imperial neokoroi attested for 35 different cities in Asia Minor. Some
of the larger cities became two (or more) times neokoroi under different emperors, meaning that
they had more than one temple of the imperial cult as we should keep in mind that “the number
of city’s neokoros titles depends on the number of its temples dedicated to the imperial cult“
(translation by the author) (BarariMHCKn 2009, 50). One of the most characteristic aspects of the
practices defined by the scholars as an “imperial cult“ is the institution of neokoria. The term
was used in relation to the city temple of the imperial cult. The most significant celebrations of
the imperial cult were associated with the official temple for which the city was designated as
neokoros. The system of neokoria, which developed throughout the Roman imperial period, gave
the opportunity for receiving a new privilege by the Roman authorities, which the cities openly
competed for. The procedure for obtaining the title became routine over time and although the
cities officially announced that it was bestowed by a Senate decree, it was the emperor s approval
that was the decisive factor (Price 1984,66-67). This formal procedure brought the neokoria closer
to the imperial cult compared to the other ways of worshipping the cult. At the same time, the
procedure provides a lot of information regarding the cities’ striving to promote the title (mostly
epigraphic and numismatic data), which is extremely useful for detailed and comprehensive
study of the issue.
However, only a few koina of the eastern Roman provinces are known to have neokorate cities.
This is due to some events within the province of Asia, from where comes the earliest known
neokoros title bestowed on a city. Neokorate cities have not yet been evidenced in mainland
Greece (Burrell 2004, 3). Neokoroi were Greek poleis in structure, although not always in terms
of genealogy. It can be argued, on the basis of numismatic and epigraphic evidence, that two cities
in the province of Thrace were neokoroi: Perinthos - the headquarters of the provincial governor
and Philippopolis - the metropolis of the Thracian koinon. Perinthos was a Greek colony of
Samos (Schonert-Geiss 1962, 73; Schonert-Geiss 1965, 1; Sayar 1998, 71). Philippopolis was also
administered as a Greek polis, which is proved by the epigraphic record of the city (Gerasimova -
Tomova 1987). The lack of evidence for neokorate cities in mainland Greece compared to the
data of the eastern part of the Roman Empire requires parallels to be made mainly to the cities
of the Greek-speaking East. On the other hand, it is worth noting that the neokoria concerned
only certain place and certain time (Burrell 2004, 1), which means that the phenomenon should
not be examined by comparison on province-by-province basis, but separately for each Roman
province as it reflected specific political, social and cultural tendencies in the province, as well as
in the inter-city relations.
The neokoros title bestowed on cities in the province of Thrace is characterized by the
following:
1) The title is not evidenced in the province of Thrace until the time of the Severans. Compared
to the data from the cities of the eastern Roman provinces, its appearance is relatively late in date,
when proliferation of neokoria in the East had already been common to such extent that the
practice of using the title as a political weapon by the Roman authorities was already established.
315
Moreover, neokoros cities occurred in the province of Thrace at a time when we could speak of
municipilization and even of certain “inflation“ of the title. This becomes clear by the observed
inter-city rivalry for the title.
2) The neokoros title appears in the province of Thrace during the late 2nd - early 3rd century
AD ֊ troublesome time in the history of the Roman empire.
The neokoros title was highly valued and therefore the cities aimed toward it. Neokoroi cities
proudly flaunted the title, usually inscribed on their coins and in official inscriptions. Appendix
II presents a comprehensive analysis revealing the dynamics of inter-city rivalry for neokoria.
As will be seen, there were mechanisms that encouraged the establishment and the spread of
neokoria. The analysis confirms the existence of only two neokoroi cities in the province, and
not three, as previously stated in the scholarship (Юрукова 1987,21, бел. 3; Буюклиев 1996,49;
Goceva 1998, 273).
3.3.1. Kendreiseia Pythia
Philippopolis organized the Kendreiseia Pythia festival. It is important to note that the impetus
for such special celebration came as much from the city s neokoros title given by the emperor
Elagabalus as from the worship of the main deity of the city - Apollo Kendrisos. All coins minted
on the occasion of these games have legends in which the title is indicated. The medallions with
neokoros scene make a convincing argument for the correlation between the festival and the
acquisition of neokoria (cat. # 1/43 and # 1/44, table I, fig. 8.1, table II, fig. 8.2) - Apollo and
Elagabalus hold a temple with a prize crown below them ֊ symbol of the city festival.
There is a hypothesis that the cult of Apollo in Philippopolis could be seen as manifestation of
the traditional Greek aspect of the deity as patron of the games. However, as the name Kendreiseia
Pythia itself suggests, the festival was dedicated to Apollo Kendrisos and the evidence for the cult
worship in Philippopolis does not allow us to talk about Greek aspect of the cult. In this case,
there are clear clues to assume syncretism between Apollo and the local god Kendrisos. The
festival itself was associated with the neokoros status bestowed on the temple of Apollo Kendrisos
by the emperor Elagabalus. Coin reverses on which the name of the festival and the neokoros title
are inscribed and which bear the image of a temple also evidence to the relation of Kendreiseia
Pythia with the neokoria of Philippopolis. The emperor granted neokoros title to the city because
of this temple (cat. # # I/47-I/52). The image of the City goddess holding a temple also bespeaks
of the neokoria of Philippopolis (cat. # 1/45). The inscription on the reverse suggests that the
goddess is depicted holding precisely the neokorate city temple.
The vewKopoc, title is inscribed on the reverses of all coins struck at the Philippopolis mint
on the occasion of Kendreiseia Pythia. This fact does not allow the games to be dated before the
granting of the neokoria itself, i.e. the date of the games and of the given title should be one and
the same. This leads to the logical conclusion that the date of Kendreiseia Pythia can be specified
only if the festival is not analyzed separately from the historical context but in direct connection
with the events of this particular period.
The researchers are unanimous in their opinion that the Alexandreia Pythia games were
organized in 214 AD and Kendreiseia Pythia games were carried out four years later - in 218
AD. The first were in honour of the emperor Caracalla, while the second - in honour of the
emperor Elagabalus. Both festivals were isopythian, i.e. conducted after the model of the Pythian
games in Delphi. Usually the main argument for the date of the Kendreiseia Pythia games, 218
AD, is the date of the Alexandreia Pythia games, 214 AD, and the fact that they were organized
as a quadrennial celebration. However, this hypothesis does not take into account important
details at the core of the festival itself. The emperor Elagabalus arrived in Antiochia on June 9,
218 AD. After spending several months there he headed to Bithynia. Elagabalus spent the winter
of 218/219 AD in Nicomedia. On his way to Rome, he passed through Thrace, Moesia, Upper
and Lower Pannonia. According to H. Halfmann, his arrival in Rome should be dated to July/
316
August 219 AD (Halfmann 1986, 231), while M. Lambertz is even more precise by specifying the
first half of July 219 AD (Lambertz 1955, 396-397). The chronology of the journey of Elagabalus
suggests that the emperor was in Thrace in the spring of 219 AD at the earliest. Therefore, if we
assume that the emperor passed through Philippopolis when crossing Thrace, as witnessed by
ancient authors, then the emperor s visit to the city was in the first half of 219 AD. The hypothesis
that the Kendreiseia Pythia games were organized in 218 AD excludes the possibility for presence
of the emperor at the games, as presumed by some scholars. Of course, the imperial presence
was not necessary condition for holding the games, but data analysed below suggest his personal
intervention and probably his presence.
There are two reasonable arguments supporting the hypothesis that the Kendreiseia Pythia
festival was held in 219 AD, i.e. when the city was granted neokoria. The first one is a coin
reverse (cat. # 1/46, table II, fig. 9) that can be used as evidence to support the assumption that
Elagabalus passed through Philippopolis. The reverse image of topographic realia, also depicted
on the reverse of another coin issued on the occasion of Alexandreia Pythia games under the reign
of Caracalla (cat. # 1/4, table I, fig. 2), gives good grounds for that. The other argument is based
on the observation that the emperor gave neokoria to cities located along his route to Rome. The
inference is drawn on account of neokoria granted to some cities in the eastern Roman provinces
by Elagabalus at the beginning of his reign.
This leads to the conclusion that neokoros title was bestowed on Philippopolis in 219 AD.
On the other hand, it could be claimed that there is a correlation between the Kendreiseia Pythia
games and the neokoria granted to the city, as evidenced by numismatic data. Therefore, the
festival and the neokoria are to be considered together, not separately. We can argue that the
Kendreiseia Pythia games were organized at a time when the neokoros title had already been
granted to Philippopolis, but not earlier. As already noted, Philippopolis was bestowed the title
of neokoros in the beginning of 219 AD, which is the earliest possible date for this significant
event. It should also be terminus post quem for the games themselves. The hypothesis that the
games were held in 218 AD could not explain the fact that their name is inscribed along with the
neokoros title on all coin reverses.
On the other hand, terminus ante quem for Kendreiseia Pythia could be referred to mid-219
AD. The date is confirmed by the fact that the medallions and coins issued on the occasion of
these games bear only the image of the emperor Elagabalus, but not of his wife Cornelia Paula.
This means that they were issued before the middle of 219 AD, i.e. before she officially became
part of the imperial family. The name of the Kendreiseia Pythia games is missing in the legends
of the coins of Cornelia Paula, but the city’s neokoros title is present.
It can be concluded that the Kendreiseia Pythia games were held in Philippopolis in the first
half of 219 AD, and most likely during the spring, in view of the time when Elagabalus passed
through the province of Thrace. From here follows the conclusion that the previous games
conducted in Philippopolis, namely Alexandreia Pythia, should be dated to 215 AD, considering
the quadriennial model of the isopythian games.
3.3.2. Severeia and Aktia Pythia Philadelpheia
The first festival in Perinthos, very well attested numismatically, is Severeia. The festival is
related to the neokoros title which the emperor Septimius Severus granted to the city. The coin
issues, however, show that the name of the festival is inscribed on the reverses with the city’s
neokoros title (cat. # 1/73, table III, fig. 16), as well as without it (cat. # # 1/71,1/72, table III,
figs. 14 and 15). This makes it impossible to assume that Severeia was founded when the neokoria
was granted to Perinthos. The conclusion is also based on agonistic coin types related to the
celebration of Severeia Prota which legends do not contain the name of the festival and the city’s
neokoros title (cat. # # 1/68,1/69,1/70, table III, fig. 13). Hence, comes the logical conclusion
that the Severeia Prota festival preceded the date of granting neokoros title to the city.
317
The coin emissions of the city testify that neokoria was bestowed on Perinthos during the
second visit of the emperor Septimius Severus to the city. This is evidenced by reverse legends
in which the neokoros title is accompanied by an ethnikon and an inscription ΕΠΙΔΗΜΙΑ
B ΣΕΥΗΡΟΥ, as well as by reverse images that “link“ the visit of Septimius Severus with the
neokorate temple of the city. The second visit of the emperor to Perinthos took place after the
siege of Byzantion.
Given that the organization of the Severeia festival was connected with the official granting
of the neokoros title, respectively with the second visit of Severus in Perinthos, it is extremely
important to specify the chronological framework of the second visit. D. Boteva expressly states
that the second visit of the emperor to the city cannot be dated to 196 AD, but around or after
mid-195 AD (Ботева 1997, 106). In view of the above-mentioned correlation imperial visit -
neokoria - festival, this date is to be determined as the date of the Severeia games. I accept 195
AD as the date of holding of the festival, respectively of obtaining of neokoria by Perinthos. The
dating of Severeia in 195 AD also corresponds with the quinquennial scheme of the city festivals
until the reign of Gordian III.
A single coin of Lucius Geta-Caesar testifies to the next edition of the Perinthos festival (cat. #
1/76, table III, fig. 18). In view of the determined date of the previous edition of the festival and
considering the four-year interval between the editions, it could be assumed that this edition was
held in 199 AD.
The next one, already under another name ֊ Aktia Pythia Phyladelpheia, was after another
four years.
A more precise examination of the coins minted on the occasion of the two editions of Aktia
Pythia Phyladelpheia shows an important difference - there is a second temple depicted on
the reverses of the coin emissions for the second edition of the festival. The two temples are
represented on medallions of Septimius Severus (cat. # # I/96-I/99, table V, figs. 35, 36 and 37)
and Geta-Augustus (cat. # 1/127). This leads to the conclusion that the second edition of the
festival was related to the construction of second imperial temple in the city. Perhaps the second
temple was built in honour of the brothers Caracalla and Geta. The Augustus title of Geta on the
obverses and the image of two temples on the reverses of the coins issued for this edition, impose
the conclusion that the second temple was dedicated to the brothers when they were “equal“ in
title.
The depiction of two temples, two prize crowns and an inscription Aktia Pythia Phyladelpheia
on medallions of Septimius Severus (cat. # # I/96-I/99) and Geta-Augustus (cat. # 1/127) supports
the thesis that the second edition of the festival was organized prior to the death of Severus,
i.e. before February 211 AD. I consider that the city received second neokoria precisely in this
period in view of the depiction of second imperial temple, regardless that the city is not titled
twice neokoros neither in the coin legends, nor in the inscriptions dating from the reign of the
Severans.
The next edition of the Perinthos games was held under the reign of the emperor Caracalla.
Given the quinquennial model, they should be dated to 215 AD. Aktia Pythia (as can be expected,
the epithet Philadelpheia dropped off the name after the murder of Geta) is inscribed on the
coin reverses (cat. # # I/128-I/131, 1/133, I/137-I/143, table VII, figs. 59, 60, 61, 62, table
VIII, figs. 68,69, 70, 71,72,73) and two prize crowns are depicted (cat. # # I/128-I/132,1/137-
1/143).
The image of two temples on the coin reverses is not the only reason to assume that the second
edition of Aktia Pythia Phyladelpheia was on the occasion of granting of second neokoros title
to the city. It is important to note that during the reign of Elagabalus the official city title was
changed to δίς νεώκορος. The coin images, however, remain without significant change from
the previous period. The theme of the coin reverses is maintained, that is to say two temples
depicted in the already familiar way, i.e. facing each other, two prize crowns above them and
318
an image of the City goddess, seated, to the left, with two temples in her hands. If we assume
that Elagabalus granted neokoria to Perinthos, this would mean that the cult worshipped in
one of the two already existing temples was replaced with that of Elagabalus. But the analysis
shows that the second neokorate temple continued to be depicted on the coin reverses even
after damnatio memoriae of Elagabalus. It is important to consider the opinion of B. Pick, who
claims that Elagabalus did not grant second neokoria to Perinthos, but rather permitted the
city to be titled twice neokoros because of the two imperial temples already built. It can be
concluded that the title δις νεώκορος on the coins of Perinthos is due to direct intervention of
the emperor, hence it was personally approved by him. Therefore, the reasoning about the date
of granting of neokoros title to Philippopolis is also in force for Perinthos - the earliest possible
date for this event is the spring of 219 AD, when Elagabalus passed from Asia Minor through
Europe on his way to Rome. The presence of the emperor in the province at that time proves
his direct intervention for officially granting of the title δις νεώκορος and explains the fact that
the title appears on all coins issued on the occasion of the Aktia Pythia games organized in the
city during his reign. This gives grounds for claiming that this edition of the Perinthos games
should be dated to 219 AD. The four-year interval between the editions of the Perinthos games
is yet another argument in favour of the date. We can also determine terminus ante quern of this
edition based on the arrival of Elagabalus in Rome, i.e. July/August 219 AD. This is supported by
the fact that on the reverses of the coins of Julia Paula is not inscribed the name of the festival,
but only ethnikon and the city title - ΠΕΡΙΝΘΙΩΝ AIC ΝΕΩΚΟΡΩΝ.
The next three editions of the Perinthos festival date from the reign of Severus Alexander.
The years in which they were held, considering the four-year interval between the editions, are
as follows: 223 AD (cat. # # 1/155 - 1/157, table IX, figs. 81,82), 227 AD (cat. # # 1/158 - 1/169,
table IX, fig. 83.1, table X, figs. 83.2, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91) and 231 AD (cat. # # 1/170
- 1/173, table X, figs. 92,93,94). The coins issued for the three editions can be distinguished by
the emperors portraits on the obverses.
The different portraits of Gordian III on the observes of coins with agonistic theme allow us
to determine two more editions of the Perinthos games ֊ in 239 AD (cat. # # 1/174-1/176, table
XI, figs. 95, 96) and 243 AD (cat. # # I/177-I/186, table XI, figs. 97, 98, 99, 100,101,102, 103,
104,105). The four-year interval between the editions is maintained.
The latest coins with agonistic theme issued by the Perinthos mint date from the reign of
emperor Gallienus (cat. # # I/187-I/189, table XI, fig. 106, table XII, fig. 107). The inscriptions
on the reverses include only ethnikon and the title ΔΙΣ ΝΕΩΚΟΡΟΣ, but the name of the festival
is not mentioned. It can only be speculated whether the festival continued to be celebrated under
the name Aktia Pythia. In compliance with the quinquennial model of the games, we could
assume, that the edition took place in 255 AD at the earliest.
On the basis of the analysis made here, I assume that the games in Perinthos were held in the
following years:
-195 AD (reign of Septimius Severus, Caracalla-Caesar (?))
- 199 AD (reign of Septimius Severus, Caracalla-Augustus, Lucius Geta-Caesar)
- 207 AD (reign of Septimius Severus, Caracalla-Augustus, Publius Geta-Caesar)
- 211 AD (reign of Septimius Severus, Caracalla-Augustus, Geta-Augustus)
- 215 AD (reign of Caracalla)
- 219 AD (reign of Elagabalus)
- 223 AD (reign of Severus Alexander)
- 227 AD (reign of Severus Alexander)
- 231 AD (reign of Severus Alexander)
- 239 AD (reign of Gordian III)
- 243 AD (reign of Gordian III)
- 255 AD (reign of Gallienus)
319
3.4. Antoneineia Sebasta
E. Schonert-Geiss states that the first coins of Byzantion with agonistic theme were issued
under the eponymous magistrate Titus Aelius Capitolinus. The emissions for the Antoneineia
Sebasta festival are dated between 209 AD and 212 AD. The epithet Antoneineia is explained by
the fact that Caracalla interceded for the city before his father after the end of the civil war against
Pescennius Niger. Due to this intercession, Septimius Severus restored the city status of Byzantion.
According to written sources, the city was named Avrwvivia in honour of the emperor Caracalla,
which, however, is not supported neither by numismatic, nor epigraphic data. Schonert-Geiss
does not determine the exact year of the first edition of Antoneineia Sebasta and specifies two
possible dates -211/212 AD. For more precise dating of this edition of the festival, it is important
to consider the following: 1) at that time Geta was already Augustus; 2) the precise dating of the
mandate of Capitolinus as eponymous magistrate; 3) the date of Caracalla’s visit to Byzantion, as
well as his personal patronage of the games.
The reverses of coins of Geta-Augustus, on which the name of the Antoneineia Sebasta festival
is mentioned, determine October/November 210 - December 211 AD as a possible date for it.
The chronological framework for dating of this edition can be narrowed further, when we take
into account the fact that the name of the festival occurs only in emissions of Caracalla-Augustus
and Geta-Augustus, but not of their father Septimius Severus. This allows us to assume the dating
February 211 - December 211 AD.
The period in which Titus Aelius Capitolinus was eponymous magistrate of Byzantion also
supports this dating. His magistracy is referred to the period 209 - 212 AD. An important
observation is that his name appears only on coins of Caracalla-Augustus and Geta-Augustus,
but is not encountered on coins of Septimius Severus, which dates his magistracy after February
211 AD. The name of Capitolinus is also inscribed on reverses of coins struck by the Byzantion
mint on the occasion of the Antoneineia Sebasta festival. Again, this indicates that the edition
was carried out after February 211 AD.
Another argument in favour of this dating is the alleged imperial visit to Byzantion. The
numismatic data give reason to assume that Caracalla (perhaps with Geta (?)) visited Byzantion
in the period February - December 211 AD.
The next edition of the Byzantion festival was organized under the eponymous magistrate
Aelius Ponticus whose magistracy falls within the chronological framework 212-217 AD. In view
of the date of the first edition of Antoneineia Sebasta, this edition should be referred to 215
AD. The hypothesis that Caracalla visited Thrace in 215 AD, but not in 214 AD, is argumented
in this study in the part analysing the festivals Alexandreia Pythia and Kendreiseia Pythia in
Philippopolis. It is assumed that the festival organized in Byzantion under the magistrate Aelius
Ponticus was not associated with personal imperial visit to the city. However, given the ascertained
date of the edition, 215 AD, it can be concluded that it took place in a year when there was
imperial presence in the province of Thrace.
The next edition of the Antoneineia Sebasta festival was under the eponymous magistrate
Aurelius Tatianus. His magistracy is dated to 219/220 AD. Given the quinquennial festival scheme,
this edition should be referred to 219 AD. The date is supported by the emperors portrait on the
coin obverses. E. Schonert-Geiss ascertains that the portraits of the emperor Elagabalus on the
obverse stamps of the coins are from two different ages. The coins with agonistic theme were
minted with obverse stamps from his earlier age. I consider that there is a direct relation between
this edition of the festival and the passing of the emperor through the city in 219 AD on his way
to Rome. As was already expressly stated, Elagabalus was in Europe in the spring of 219 AD at the
earliest. The date of this edition of the Byzantion festival can be precised further by taking into
consideration that the terminus ante quem is the emperor’s arrival in Rome - July/August 219
AD. The lack of coin emissions of Julia Paula with agonistic theme gives good grounds for this
conclusion. The Byzantion mint issued coins of Julia Paula, but neither the reverse images, nor
320
the legends suggest any connection with Antoneineia Sebasta. I assume that the organization of
this edition of the festival was associated with imperial presence in the city. Byzantion honoured
the new emperor with a festival bearing his name. Moreover, the passing of Elagabalus through
the city was a specific occasion for worship of the imperial cult.
The analysis made so far, reveals the following chronological sequence of the editions of the
Antoneineia Sebasta festival: 211 AD, 215 AD and 219 AD.
As evidenced by the epigraphic and numismatic data from the reign of the emperor Severus
Alexander, the name of the Byzantion festival was changed, abolishing the epithet Avrcoveivia. The
explanation lies in damnatio memoriae of Elagabalus and respectively in the fact that everything
connected with the cult of Elagabalus had to be removed and deleted. The coin emissions with
agonistic theme issued by the Byzantion mint under the reign of Severus Alexander testify to two
editions of the Byzantion festival in that period. It is important to note that the festival name in
the coin legends is different for the two editions. The change, attested both epigraphically and
numismatically, is in the abolishment of the epithet Avrcoveivia. While Antoneineia Sebasta is
the name of the first edition of the festival under the reign of Severus Alexander, the numismatic
evidence indicates that the name was only Sebasta for the second edition. The change corresponds
with the policy of Severus Alexander regarding the name and cult of his predecessor.
The change of the name of the Byzantion festival was not made during the first years of the
reign of Severus Alexander. The coins for the two editions under consideration were issued under
two eponymous magistrates of the city ֊ Aemilimus Severus and M. Aurelius Fronto. Both of
them consecutively occupied the magistracy under the reign of Severus Alexander, i.e. one edition
of the festival was conducted at the time of Aemilimus Severus and the other - under M. Aurelius
Fronto. While the festival held under Aemilimus Severus is named Antoneineia Sebasta, it is only
Sebasta during the magistracy of M. Aurelius Fronto. This leads to the conclusion that the change
occurred at the time when M. Aurelius Fronto was eponymous magistrate of the city. If the four-
year interval between the editions of the festival is taken into consideration, then the first edition
under the name Sebasta should be dated to 231 AD. E. Schonert-Geiss is inclined to connect
this edition of the festival with imperial visit to the city during the passing of Severus Alexander
through Byzantion on his way to Asia Minor. On the other hand, the dates of the editions are a
chronological benchmark for determining the dates of the magistracies of Aemilimus Severus
and M. Aurelius Fronto. Given the quinnquennial sheme of the Byzantion festival, it may be
concluded that the edition under the eponymous magistrate Aemilimus Severus dates to 227
AD. The determination of 231 AD as the date of change of the festival name corresponds with
the observation that the final abolishment of all neokoros titles granted by Elagabalus was over
by the beginning of the military campaign of Severus Alexander against the Persians. As the case
with the name of the Byzantion festival suggests, everything connected with the personality and
the cult of Elagabalus was permanently deleted and removed by this date.
The comparison between two epigraphic monuments confirms that a change occurred in
the name of the Byzantion festival. These are victory lists of the heralds Valerius Eclectus and
Septimius Aurelianus (Table 3).
A single coin of Maximus-Caesar of seventh nominal value proves the existence of agons in
Byzantion during the reign of Maximinus I Thrax (cat. # 1/238, table XVI, fig. 145). Their name
is not indicated.
The next edition of the Byzantion festival is attested by coins of Gordian III of eighth
nominal value (cat. # # 1/239,1/240, table XVI, figs. 146 and 147). Alike the reverse legend of
the above-mentioned coin of Maximus-Caesar, the festival name is not inscribed on the issues
of Gordian III.
A coin of the emperor Volusian of sixth nominal value testifies for the next edition of the
Sebasta (?) festival in the city. Again, it should be specified that the reverse inscription does not
contain the festival name (cat. # 1/242, table XVI, figs. 148).
321
The time of joint reigns of Valer ianus I and Gallienus marks the latest coin emissions of Byzantion
with agonistic theme (cat. # # 1/243,1/244,1/245, table XVI, figs. 149.1,149.2,150 and 151).
In view of the analysis of the coins with agonistic theme from Byzantion, the dates of the
editions of the city festival should be as follows:
֊211 AD (reign of Caracalla-Augustus and Geta-Augustus)
- 215 AD (reign of Caracalla)
- 219 AD (reign of Elagabalus)
- 227 AD (reign of Severus Alexander)
- 231 AD (reign of Severus Alexander)
- 235 AD (reign of Maximinus I Thrax/Maximus)
- 239 AD or 243 AD (reign of Gordian III)
- 251 AD (reign of Volusian)
- 255 AD (reign of Valerianus I/Gallienus)
An inscription from Smyrna evidences for the organization of the Byzantion festival after the
middle of the 3rd century AD (cat. # 11/440). The lettering was erected in honour of the athlete
Aurelius Apollinarius who was δολιχαδρόμος. The inscription says that he received citizenship
in Byzantion, as well as that he was awarded the honour of being xystarch of Byzantion by the
emperors Valerian and Gallienus, which is mentioned in the end of the text.
3.5. Severeia Nymphia
Researchers have advanced the hypothesis that Severeia Nymphia festival is an old festival of
Anchialos dedicated to the Nymphs combined with the celebration of the new imperial cult of
the Severans. It is claimed that the epithet Nymphia is due to the cult of the Nymphs in Anchialos,
which is usually associated with the mineral springs in the city. It is is considered that the festival
was dedicated at first to them, while Severeia indicates that it was related to the imperial cult
during the reign of the Severans. If we assume that the festival was held at an earlier date in the
city, i.e. before the Severans, this could lead to the conclusion that the old city festival was restored
because of the celebration of the imperial cult. Quite often, older city festivals were enriched with
elements of the imperial cult increasing their status (Price 1984, 101 ff.).
On the basis of the rather meagre evidence, it is very difficult to say whether the festival
of Anchialos was celebrated in two- or four-year interval. It is believed that the reason for
organization of the first known edition was not an imperial visit to the city but certain privileges
conferred to it by the emperor Septimius Severus (Mihailov 1963, 116-117).
The scarcity of evidence does not allow us to speculate further on the status of the games
in Anchialos, i.e. whether they were θεματικοί or ιεροί, or whether foreign competitors were
allowed to participate or not. It is assumed that these games were probably of local significance
(BarajiMHCKH 1994, 14; BarajinHCKM 2009, 54). So far we have considered a piece of evidence
for the discipline of discus-throwing included in the festival programme (cat. # 1/263). We still
need more evidence about the Severeia Nymphia festival regarding the athletic events, the age
categories, and the prizes.
Although the specific reason for the first edition of the Anchialos festival still remains only a
hypothesis, it should be stressed that festivals bearing names like Augustia, Vespasiania, Traiania,
Hadriania, Kommodia, Severia, Philadelphia, Antoninia, Gordiania, etc., were specifically
authorized by the emperor himself (Klose 2005, 127). Sometimes an imperial title like Sebasta
was added to the name of an old festival. The fact that the added title often disappeared allows us
to come to a conclusion that only the emperor gave permission additional expenses for a festival
to be incurred. Although the festival name implies equality between the god and the emperor, it
would be premature to assume that both cults received sacrifices.
The Anchialos mint added countermarks on coin issues during the reign of the Severans.
Most probably, this can be explained by the development of trade in the city. This leads to the
322
conclusion that the economic power of the city is reflected in the organization of the Anchialos
festival under the reign of the Severans.
Single letter countermarks are inscribed on reverses of coin emissions for Severeia Nymphia.
Hence, arises the question whether these countermarks were added on already struck coins for
one edition of the games or whether they were applied in new issues for subsequent editions of
the same games.
The Anchialos mint struck coins of Septimius Severus (cat. # # I/248-I/250), Caracalla-
Augustus (cat. # # I/253-I/256) and Geta-Augustus (cat. # 1/262). The festival name is inscribed
on the reverses. All the legends do not mention the name of the provincial governor of Thrace.
According to G. Mihailov, these issues bearing the same images on the reverses can be dated by
the coins of Geta-Augustus (Mihailov 1963, 116, note 19). He claims that the Anchialos games
had only one edition as it is not possible to distinguish three different editions by the coins of
Septimius Severus, Caracalla-Augustus and Geta-Augustus.
According to D. Boteva, Severia Nymphia festival was organized three times under the reign
of the Severans - 205 AD, 208 AD and 211 AD (Ботева 1997, 121). The fact that coins with
agonistic theme for the Severeia Nymphia games were issued with or without letter countermark,
gives grounds to accept that they were not struck for only one edition of the games.
The observation of the numismatic material leads to the conclusion that the letter countermark
was applied by Anchialos mint after the inauguration of Geta. A coin of Geta-Augustus, bearing
an image of agonistic table and inscribed Severia Nymphia on the reverse, has a single letter
countermark (cat. # 1/262). This piece of evidence, as well as the fact that coins of Geta-Augustus
with agonstic themes and letter countermark only correspond to emissions of Caracalla-Augustus
with letter countermark, determine their dating between February and December 211 AD. Hence,
it can be concluded that the Severia Nymphia festival was organized in the period February -
December 211 AD (Boteva 1997, 121). However, in my opinion, this is the only edition of the
Anchialos festival that could be dated accurately on the basis of the available data.
The numismatic evidence allows us to assume that two editions of the Severeia Nymphia
festival were organized in Anchialos. They should be dated as follows: 1) 203/204 ֊ October/
November 210 AD and 2) February - December 211 AD.
Coins of Maximinus I Thrax with agonistic themes testify to edition of the Anchialos games
under his reign (cat. # # I/263-I/266). According to the most recently published coins of Anchialos
(cat. # # 1/265,1/266), the legends contain the name of these games - Nymphia. We could suggest
that the epithet Severeia was dropped from the festival name at that time (or earlier ?) and the
festival continued to be organized under its original name. Despite dropping the epithet Severeia,
the proclaiming of this edition on coins of Maximinus I gives us reason to argue that the festival
continued to be associated with the celebration of the imperial cult. The games under the emperor
Maximinus I Thrax should probably be referred to 238 AD. The date can be determined by the
date of the next known edition of the games under the emperor Gordian III and the assumption
for four-year interval between the editions. It is important to note the lack of data for the games
between these editions (if we assume that the festival had at least two editions). S. Price notes
that city festivals carried out in honour of the emperors and usually named Sebasteia, Caesarea,
Hadrianea, Antoninea and Severeia were mostly pentaeteric (Price 1984,104).
The next edition of the Anchialos games was held under the emperor Gordian III, as evidenced
by numismatic data. Again, we cannot say with certainty that these games were Severeia Nymphia,
since the reverse legends of the coins do not announce their name (cat. # # I/267-I/274). It is
accepted that, unlike the games organized at the time of Septimius Severus and his sons, the
edition under the reign of Gordian III took place on the occasion of the imperial visit to the city.
In 242 AD Gordian III passed through Moesia and Thrace with the army on his way to the war
against the Persians. The emperor s visit to the city was precisely at that time. The city festival was
probably held in the same period.
323
The coins of Anchialos with agonistic themes ceased to be issued under the reign of Gordian
III (238-244).
In view of the lack of epigraphic evidence for Severeia Nymphia, the coins provide the only
source of information which can be used as a basis for the chronology of the editions of the city
festival. The analysis of the Anchialos issues suggests the following chronology of the festival
editions:
- 203/204 AD - October/November 210 AD (reign of Septimius Severus and Caracalla-
Augustus) (?)
- 211 AD (reign of Septimius Severus, Caracalla-Augustus and Geta- Augustus)
- 238 AD (reign of Maximinus I Thrax)
- 242 AD (reign of Gordian III)
3.6. Sacred agones
The inscriptions composed of victory lists represent a major source for the status of the festivals.
The lists of festival names and cities in which the victories were won outline the careers of many
athletes and artists in the Empire. Quite often, the manner in which these lists were made up
showed the prestige of the festival themselves. Thus, the victories won at festivals of the so-called
αρχαία περίοδος are usually placed in the beginning of the agonistic inscriptions. These are the
victories considered most prestigious in the athletic career even in the Roman imperial period.
It is noteworthy that some of the victories are mentioned in summary instead with toponym or
festival name. The explanation lies in the lower status of the games in which they were won as
they were not considered prestigious because of the cash prizes. Such contests were designated
as αγώνες θεματικοί, αγώνες θεματϊται or αγώνες ταλανηαϊοι. It is worth noting that they were
usually only of local importance. The cities had the right to decide whether to allow participation
of foreign competitors in such type of events or not.
An honorary inscription says that Aurelius Metrodoros had many victories in different
city festivals including in ones in which cash prizes were envisaged: και ταλαντιαίους και
ήμιταλαντιαίονς νεικήσας (cat. # ΙΙ/436,1.14-15). The names of the cities where the latter victories
were won are not mentioned in the inscription. The victories in question mentioned at the end
of the list only supplement the description of the successful athletic career of Aur. Metrodoros.
The athelete was honoured with a statue erected by his hometown Kyzikos (1.16: τον ανδριάνταν
τχ\ πατρίδί).
Contests with cash prizes were much lower in status in the festival hierarchy than the other
large agonistic group αγώνες ιεροί και στεφάνιται in which the prize was a crown. Victories in
sacred agones were the most prestigious and important in the career of an athlete. The four great
Panhellenic festivals enjoyed the highest prestige among the 4 sacred“ festivals. Only the emperor
could give a city the right to organize a “sacred“ festival (Klose 2005, 126).
The festive life of the East developed with its own dynamics. The small feasts organized
mainly for the local citizens became larger and larger in time as new contests were added in
their programmes and the prizes became bigger. The aim was to attract more participants from
other cities. Strong rivalry between city festivals existed and the organizers competed with each
other to draw the best and the most famous performers and athletes, as well as the largest crowd.
Therefore they strove to offer higher prizes or to procure more prestigious titles for their festivals
(Nijf 2001, 310). Dio Cassius advised the emperor Augustus not to allow the cities to have many
and different agones (αγώνων πολλών και παντοδαπών), because this could lead to the exertion
of futile efforts for their organization and could also become a reason for pointless inter-city
rivalry (φιλοτιμίαις άλόγοις) (Cassius Dio 52.30.3-4).
It should be stressed that the sacred festivals were οικουμενικοί, i.e. world-wide (Klose 2005
and pi. 10.1, 3), meaning that there were no restrictions in terms of geographic region or place
of birth of the participants. The epithet οικουμενικός is often used in relation to the agones of the
324
Classical and Hellenistic periods noting that the forthcoming events were proclaimed in other
city-states and foreign athletes and delegates were invited to participate (Lehner 2004, 107).
The Aktia games in Perinthos are designated as οικουμενικοί in an inscription cat. # 11/399
(table XXXIV, fig. 213). According to the reading of the text, the games are defined not only
“world֊wide“ but also “great“ (μεγάλα). The restoration of a fragmentary inscription from
Philippopolis (cat. # 11/363) indicates that Kendreiseia Pythia games are also called τα μεγάλα.
The epithet did not have special significance and was added to the names of many athletic games
without any specific requirements to be met in order to classify the games as “great“ (Vagalinski
2009, 27).
The victories of Valerius Eclectus in various festivals are listed in inscription with cat. # 11/458.
At the beginning of the list is explicitly pointed out that all the winnings of the herald were at
sacred world-wide agones (1.8-10: νεικήσας αγώνας ιερούς οικουμενικούς τους ύπογεγραμμένούς).
The inscription is evidence that the Pythia and Kendreiseia festivals in Philippopolis and Sebasta
festival in Byzantion had ιεροί and οικουμενικοί status.
An inscription from Philippopolis (cat. # II/364) demonstrates that Kendreiseia Pythia games
were είσελαστικών. Some “sacred“ festivals were also designated as είσελαστικοί. D. Klose points
out that this status was considered higher for a festival to obtain (Klose 2005, 127). The scholars
often cite the letter of Pliny the Younger to the emperor Trajan and the answer of the emperor
from which becomes clear that the decision which festivals to be bestowed with an iselastic status
was a prerogative of the emperor himself (Plin. Ep. X, 118, 119).
Another inscription from Philippopolis (cat. # 11/368) was erected in honour of an athlete
who competed εις άπασαν την οικουμένην. The text only mentions the number of his victories, 40
in παγκράτιον and 9 in πάλη, without specifying further details about them. The prestige of his
victories is underlined by stating that they were won in sacred iselastic agones. The inscription
does not give many details about the athletes career, allowing only hypothetical assumptions
to be made. The provenance of the epigraphic monument, Philippopolis, suggests two possible
explanations. The first one is based on the fact that this is an honorary inscription for an athlete
listing his victories. In view of the evidence for the Philippopolis festivals with sporting events,
it can be assumed that he had a winning (or winnings ?) in Philippopolis as well (Vagalinski
2009, 29 and 46; Gouw 2009, 235). The text does not allow us to claim with certainty at which
Philippopolis festival he won. Epigraphic evidence for Philippopolis festival of “sacred“ and
“iselastic“ status refers only to Kendreiseia Pythia, but this argument is not sufficient to assume
that this athlete was victorious in it. No definite conclusions are possible due to the broad date
ranges of the inscription.
Several epigraphic monuments contain victory lists, including wins in Perinthos and Byzantion,
without mentioning the status of the festivals. Only the common formula νεικήσας αγώνας τούς
ύπογεγραμμένούς is used in the first lines of the inscriptions (cat. # # II/436, 11/442, 11/461,
table XXVI, fig. 203). The absence of the epithet ιεροί in the formulas should not be seen as an
argument that the victories were not won in “sacred“ agones considering that in these lists are also
included festivals certainly known to have such status (e.g. the four Panhellenic festivals which
are not designated as “sacred“ in inscriptions cat. # # 11/436,11/461 (table XXVI, fíg. 203).
This part of the study raises the question about the exact date when the festivals of Perinthos
and Byzantion were bestowed with “sacred“ status. An inscription from Sardis honouring one of
the most famous athletes of his time Marcus Aurelius Damas is eloquent evidence in this regard
(cat. # 11/441, table XXIX, fig. 206.1, table XXX, fig. 206.2). He was mainly a pankratiast,
which is evidenced by an inscription from Delphi (FD III 1:556: Μ. Αύρ. Δημόστρατος Δα\μας
Σαρδιανος πανκρατια\στής δϊς περιοδονείκης, \πύκτης άλειπτος π α -\\5 [ρ]άδο[ξ]ος). Moreover,
Damas was πανκρατιαστής περιοδονείκης δίς, i.e. twice periodonikes in pankration and remained
undefeated as a boxer. His athletic career developed in the second half of the 2nd century AD. The
Sardis inscription gives the most complete list of his victories. The lettering is divided into three
325
parts engraved on three sides of a pedestal. The inscription on the right side of the monument
(text B), which presents a list of victories in αγώνες θεματικοί is the reason for including this
monument in the present analysis. The high degree of fragmentation of the text resulted in
different readings of some letters. Hence, there are different opinions regarding the names of
some festivals mentioned in the inscription and the number of lines of the inscription itself. J.-Y.
Strasser made some crucial observations on the text, restoring the name of Byzantion on line 13
and the name of Perinthos on line 14.
Some of the festivals mentioned in text B are referred to as νΰν ιεροί. We can draw the
conclusion that they were θεματίται in status at the time when the athlete competed, but later
were granted the status of ιεροί. The festivals of Byzantion and Perinthos also occur in this list. P.
Gouw, specifies the date of the monument - 162-177 AD, which is important in relation to the
winnings of the athlete in both cities of the province of Thrace. It follows that games were held
with certainty in Byzantion and Perinthos during the time of the active athletic career of Damas,
i.e. in the third quarter of the 2nd century AD.
We should take into consideration that the games in both cities are explicitly referred to as
νυν ιεροί. This detail is of great importance because it concerns the festival status - it is clear
that it became higher over time. Actually, the Sardis inscription represents undoubted proof of
the official raising of the status of the festivals in “sacred“ (Slater, Summa 2006, 280, note 19).
This could also explain why these cities were specifically mentioned in the victory list of Damas,
although included in the list of αγώνες θεματικοί.
The historical circumstances and the reasons behind the establishment of the known festivals
in Perinthos and Byzantion, respectively, were different. It seems that the change of status of the
festivals of both cities, where Damas was victorious, was a consequence of the civil war between
Septimius Severus and Pescennius Niger. According to Strasser, this is the time when Perinthos
was bestowed with άγων ιερός, because the city chose to support Septimius Severus, winning the
emperor s goodwill.
The inscription cat. # 11/435 is quite fragmented, but the part mentioning the victories of an
athlete in Kyzikos, Nicomedia, Perinthos were successfully restored. His wins in contests with
prizes of one or a half talent are reported quite summarily at the end of the inscription by using
a standard formula: ταλαντιαίους και είμιταλαντιαίονς νικήσας. The date of the inscription is
determined not only by the victory in the isolympian games of Kyzikos, i.e. after 135 AD (Mango-
Sevcenko 1973, 250), but also by the fact that the games in Perinthos are mentioned with their
higher status. If we accept that during the time of the active sports career of Damas, 162-177 AD,
these games were of lower status, the date of the Sardis inscription is another definite terminus
post quern for this inscription, i.e. it should be dated after April 217 AD.
The festival of Byzantion was probably granted “sacred“ status at the time of the Severans.
The city, although supporting Pescennius Niger, was punished not for long and quickly regained
its city status due to the intercession of Caracalla. Perhaps the “sacred“ festival of Byzantion was
founded in that time in honour of his benefactor. The Sardis inscription is likely the evidence that
Antoneineia Sebasta was άγων θεματικός when Damas became winner 30 years earlier (Strasser
2003,273).
Inscription with cat. # 11/391 could also be used as evidence for earlier celebrations in
Byzantion. It represents an epitaph of an athlete-pentathlonist from Byzantion, dated to the 2nd
century AD.
An inscription from Kyzikos (cat. # 11/437, table XXVIII, fig. 205) is indirect evidence
in favour of the hypothesis that a festival took place in Byzantion before the early 3rd century
AD. The lettering represents a standard victory list of the athlete Marcus Aurelius Koros who
competed in pankration. The earliest possible date of the inscription is ca. 160s. The list was
probably composed shortly after the death of the emperor Hadrian. The athlete was born in
the city of Thyatira (Lydia) which is listed in the first place among the athlete’s citizenships
326
(before the citizenship of Kyzikos where the monument was set up). Other citizenships of
Marcus Aurelius Koros were given in Athens, Trallis and Byzantion. According to P. Herz, these
citizenships were conferred upon the athlete following his victories in the cities (Herz 1999,
82). In the victory list, however, only victory in Byzantion is missing. Therefore, P. Gouw is not
sure whether Marcus Aurelius Koros won at Byzantion at all. However, given the fact that the
inscription explicitly says that the athlete was granted a citizenship in Byzantion, Gouw points
out that it is reasonable to consider that it was acquired after a victory in the city (Gouw 2009,
328, № 94). According to R Herz, the victory in question could be from the Sebasta festival of
Byzantion in which Aurelius Metrodorus from Kyzikos was also victorious (cat. # 11/436). The
mentioning of Metrodorus is not relevant, in my opinion, since the inscription honouring him
should be dated after 212 AD on account of the name Aurelius. Moreover, the precise terminus
post quem of the inscription is after 231 AD - the time when the Byzantion festival is named
only Sebasta, as evidenced by epigraphic and numismatic evidence. If we accept the hypothesis
that Marcus Aurelius Koros received citizenship in Byzantion because of his victory in the city,
then it could be assumed that he won in άγων θεματικός in Byzantion. The arguments in favour
of this conclusion are the evidence for the victory of Marcus Aurelius Damas in άγων θεματικός
in Byzantion and the date of the inscription of Marcus Aurelius Koros, which is referred to the
second half of the 2nd century AD. However, whether this agon is the later Sebasta festival or not
is still only a hypothesis.
3.7. Festivals and benefactors
In this part of the study are discussed epigraphic evidence from the cities of the province of
Thrace which contain data for people who provided funding for agonistic games and gladiatorial
combats. The focus is placed on the so-called φιλοτιμία explicitly announced in the cities by
setting up inscriptions in honour of the benefactors. The issue is directly related to the city elites
and the tendency for rich people to organize sporting events, gladiatorial combats and hunting
spectacles which were all very popular in the eastern Roman provinces. Therefore, parallels to
the Greek-speaking East are made based primarily on epigraphic data that could supplement and
clarify the issue.
The tradition of benefactions provided by the city elites, flourished in the Roman society from
the late 1st to the early 3rd century AD as never before or after (Zuiderhoek 2009, 5). According
to A. Zuiderhoek, the extreme popularity of euergetism during the Roman imperial period was
due to the fact that the phenomenon was necessary to maintain the social harmony and political
stability in the provincial cities of the Empire at a time when the top of the social hierarchy of
these societies enjoyed an increasing accumulation of wealth and political power (Zuiderhoek
2009, 5). Many scholars believe that the financial condition and needs of the cities depended to
a large extent on euergetism. P. Veyne claims that the phenomenon was actually an expression
of the social distance between the elite and the rest of the citizens. Some researchers consider
euergetism as a way for the city elite to gain a kind of symbolic capital or social status and prestige.
A. Zuiderhoek argues that the unprecedented spread of euergetism during the Roman imperial
period, especially during the 2nd century AD, was first and foremost because of the policy. Thus,
Zuiderhoek examines precisely the political function of public euergetism (Zuiderhoek 2009, 9).
The euergetism used to cause serious rivalry between the members of the city elite. It was
primarily a source of prestige for the benefactors and an important part of the lifestyle of the
elite. The euergetism was probably, to some extent, a “safety net“ in hard times for the city,
because sometimes it could take the form of contributions to the public infrastructure, etc.
(Zuiderhoek 2009, 12). The spread of new festivals established as a donation and maintained by
benefactors in the eastern provinces also had economic impact by attracting many participants
and spectators. Markets were often organized during such festivals which attracted buyers and
sellers from many cities.
327
Providing feasts and performances, and setting up public monuments, were two of the
most common forms of philotimia during the Roman imperial period (Coleman 2008, 37).
The philotimia stroke a delicate balance between organizing of celebrations on one hand and
participation in the urban development on the other (Coleman 2008, 35). There is bilinguae
funerary inscription from Perinthos cat. # 11/400 (table XXXI, fig. 207) in which the Greek
text follows the Latin. Only the last line of the Latin text is preserved repeating the last line of
the Greek text. The name of the deceased Titus Flavius Miccalus gives a clear indication that he
obtained Roman citizenship at the time of the Flavians, while the name of his father Miccalus
gives a hint that he was the first civis Romanus in the family. He and his wife, mentioned in the
inscription, belonged to the city elite of Perinthos. The inscription says that an aqueduct was built
with their funding and that the wife of Titus Flavius Miccalus finished the construction, begun
by her husband, who did not complete it while alive. In the inscription Miccalus is referred to as
άρχιερεύς and his wife as άρχιέρεια. It is assumed that they were high priests of the imperial cult
in Perinthos. Besides Miccalus was also αγωνοθέτης. M. Sayar notes that the absence of the name
of the agon allows us to make an assumption that the deceased was an agonothete of all existing
agones organized in Perinthos during his lifetime. However, one cannot say with certainty what
kind of agones were held exactly, whether they were regularly organized or were given only on
special occasions. However, the holding of two positions - high priest of the imperial cult and
agonothete, gives grounds to suggest that the games which T. Flavius Miccalus organized and
paid for έκ των Ιδίων, were associated with the imperial cult.
Although the inscription with cat. # 11/353 is badly damaged, it can be claimed with a great
deal of certainty that it offers no evidence for high priests. Only the part mentioning the priest of
Olympian Zeus is preserved. Is it possible that we have an example of a high priest of the imperial
cult who was also a priest of Zeus ? The expenses mentioned in the inscription (ληψομέν[ων των
πολιτών—καθ’] έκαστον (δηνάριον) α\ όμοίω παρακ[αλοϋσιν-------] άλείψονσιν δέ και πανδημ[ει
-----γν]μνικόν αγώνα) should be assigned to the so-called summa honoraria usually expected to
be provided by the newly elected administrative officials. But the case in point concerns priests.
H. Preshlenov states that the erection of honorary statues paid from summa honoraria was usually
an occasion for giving away meat, bread, wine and money. These additional expenses were not
covered by summa honoraria, but were paid by the officials as part of their duties. The so-called
summa honoraria, which was essentially an extra liturgical duty that officials should meet at the
beginning of their mandate, also occurred in the form of giving away of food and money (Ilpem-
/ieHOB 2009, 278).
According to L. Robert, the stele from (¡uftlikkoy, Turkey was certainly τελαμών (cat. #
11/414). The name of the deceased for whom the stele was erected is in the accusative case, which
is common for the honorary inscriptions, as noted by L. Robert. The text clarifies the positions
performed by the deceased - τον ιερέα και άγωνοθέταν και γυμνασίαρχον διά βίου. It is worth
noting that the name of the deceased himself was erased. According to L. Robert, the explanation
lies in a conflict in the community, which led to the decision his name to be forgotten. This
interesting aspect of the city life during the Roman imperial period reveals that the emperors were
not the only ones whose memory could be obliterated. The honoured was a priest, an agonothete
and a gymnasiarch and was also designated as benefactor. In his capacity of gymnasiarch he had
the obligation to provide oil.
Gymnasiarchia was considered a heavy liturgy as it placed heavy financial burden on the
incumbent. The widespread athletic culture in this period became a good basis for increasing the
popularity of the sports events. This explains why city elites were involved so much with their
organization (Zuiderhoek 2009, 86 ff.).
There are many epigraphic data for gymnasiarches from the province of Thrace - cat. # 11/367
(Philippopolis, the honoured was gymnasiarch and agonothete), cat. # 11/428 (Selymbria), cat.
# 11/431 (Callipolis, the inscription explicitly says that the gymnasiarch performed his duties έκ
328
των Ιδίων)9 cat. # 11/462 (Thassos, table XXXI, fig. 208). The gymnasiarch honoured with an
inscription found in Spinopara (cat. # 11/350) belonged to the city elite (the city was probably
Pautalia in view of the fact that the inscription is from Spinopara). An inscription from the city of
Silivri, Turkey gives evidence for agonothete (cat. # 11/429). The uncertain date of the inscription,
however, does not allow us to draw definite inferences about the text. The same applies for the
highly fragmented inscription from the city of Çorlu, Turkey, from which the word [άγω]νοθέτης
can be restored (cat. # 11/426). An inscription from Sestos mentions a person referred to as
agonothete who placed αγάλματα in a sacred area (cat. # 11/433). However, given the degree of
fragmentation of the inscription, any assumptions about the exact place of the statues should be
considered mere speculation.
One of the ways in which the gymnasium was connected with the outside world was through
the urban festive culture. It is important to consider this aspect and to examine some of the most
important correlations between the gymnasium and the city festivals (König 2005, 63). Generally,
the activities in the gymnasium resembled the agones of the city festivals to a great extent. J. König
concludes that both were closely but not inseverably connected. The purpose of the gymnasium
was training of the ephebes for the city agones by recreating them on a smaller scale (König 2005,
72), although it also included agones that were not part of the usual city festival programmes.
Gymnasium and festivals were often supported with benefactions, and hence were connected
from the Hellenistic period onwards. The names of people who proudly flaunted their strong
positions as gymnasiarches and agonothetes or held these liturgies along with other public offices
are present in many epigraphic monuments. The expenses for both liturgies were too much for
one person (König 2005, 68).
L. Robert points out that due to the difficulty in translating the term munus in Greek, the Greek
word φιλοτιμία became technically equivalent to munus in gladiatorial inscriptions (Robert 1982,
236). The epigraphic record from the province of Asia attests that φιλοτιμία was often performed
by high priests and asiarchs.
An inscription from Aenos was erected by the gerousia of the city in honour of a person who
was priest of Zeus and Roma (cat. # 11/430). The priest is designated as φιλοτιμησάμενον εις
την ίεράν γερουσίαν φιλοτειμίαις. It could be assumed that the priest also organized gladiatorial
fights, even though there is no explicit evidence that he was high priest of the imperial cult. The
worship of the goddess Roma was also part of the imperial propaganda and indicates the worship
of the imperial cult in the city.
The epigraphic evidence for φιλοτειμησάμενος δι’ οπλών also comes from Abdera (cat. #
11/454, table XXXVI, fig. 218).
As already noted, the title άρχιερεύς δι* οπλών was given to the high priest of the imperial cult
indicating the duty of organizing gladiatorial and hunting spectacles. The issue of philotimia
requires examination of the epigraphic data from the province of Thrace regarding high priests
of the imperial cult who arranged such spectacles. The title φιλότειμος δι οπλών is encountered
in the inscriptions discussed below.
Inscription from Augusta Traiana (cat. # 11/383) was erected in honour of Marcus Aurelius
Asiaticus. The lettering is dated after 222 AD to the mid-3rd century AD. He was a high priest
of the imperial cult and a priest of the goddess Roma. The fact that the adverb τετράκις (an
adverb with the suffix ~άκις) is used, and not ordinal number of neuter gender, indicates that the
inscription was set up at the time when Marcus Aurelius Asiaticus no longer served as άρχιερεύς
δι’ όπλων. It might be accepted, however, that the adverb is related to the adjective φιλότιμον, i.e.
“four times generous“, meaning that Asiaticus organized gladiatorial combats four times in his
capacity of high priest of the imperial cult. In my opinion, the second assumption is much more
probable. Probably the adverbs δι’ όπλων and φιλότιμον are used to emphasize how many times
the gladiatorial games were organized by the high priest. Moreover, it is worth noting that Marcus
Aurelius Asiaticus is the first and so far the only known high priest of the imperial cult in Augusta
329
Traiana who was honoured with a statue. The inscription explicitly says that he was τον υπέρ
ηάντας φίλον and the only one who contributed to the beauty of his hometown (μόνον έργοις
κοσμήσαντα την πατρίδα). He made large-scale contribution at his own expense by building two-
storeyed 66-columned stoa (porticus) and two-columned stoa with 35 columns near the Severian
gymnasium.
A statue in honour of Titus Aelius Magnós was erected by τό προ πόλεως Βαχχεϊον (cat. #
И/463). The honoured was a hierophant of the religious association. He is designated as τον
κράτιτον δονκηνάριον και πρώτον τής πόλεως και δις αρχιερέα δι’ οπλών. His high equestrian
rank and title πρώτος τής πόλεως were most probably the reason to be appointed high priest of
the imperial cult, performing the expensive liturgy duty of organizing gladiatorial and hunting
spectacles.
Epigraphic monuments from Augusta Traiana are another evidence for άρχιερεύς δι’ όπλων
(cat. # # И/379,11/380, H/381, И/384).
Inscription from Pautalia (cat. # II/349) is erected in honour of a woman designated as
φιλότειμον άρχιέρειαν τών σεβαστών. In this case the epithet φιλότειμος defines the obligation
of the high priest to organize gladiatorial combats. It is explicitly stated that the honoured
woman was a high priestess of the emperors, meaning that her “generosity“ concerned the liturgy
associated with the worship of the imperial cult. Her husband is also referred to as φιλότειμος.
We could accept that he was also a high priest of the imperial cult assigned with the responsibility
to organize gladiatorial fights as munus. This assumption, however, is not supported by direct
evidence, although it could be primarily based on other epigraphic evidence for a man and a
woman in a family relation who organized together such spectacles in their capacity of high
priests of the imperial cult.
Φιλότειμος δι’ όπλων και γερονσιάρχης is encountered in an inscription from Nicopolis ad
Istrum (cat. # II/386). The text testifies to the fact that this expensive liturgy was performed by
people who belonged to the city elite.
Inscription cat. # 11/382 from Augusta Traiana says that the honoured άρχιερεύς δι’ όπλων
was φιλότειμος.
Inscription from Philippopolis (cat. # II/357) was set up in honour of the former provincial
governor Quintus Sicinius Clarus by Publius Hadrianus Salustius, who was appointed άρχιερεύς
δι ’ όπλων. The text makes it clear that Salustius erected statue of the former governor designated as
his ευεργέτης (benefactor). The patronage of the governor of the province of Thrace gives grounds
for suggesting that the inscription under consideration mentions the provincial archiereus of the
imperial cult (Goceva 1981, 498).
3.8. Other evidence for festivals of the imperial cult
3.8.1. Sacrifices
Sacrifices occupied central place in the festivals. Following the observation, made in the
beginning of the present study, that the analysis and conclusions regarding the festivals in the
province of Thrace are to be based on the available epigraphic and numismatic evidence, it should
be noted that the direct evidence for sacrifices made during festivals in the province of Thrace is
extremely scarce. This, of course, does not diminish their informative value. On the contrary, it
calls for more detailed analysis of the context in which they were performed.
There are numismatic data for sacrifice of a bull/οχ carried out during the festivals Alexandreia
Pythia and Kendreiseia Pythia in Philippopolis. The worship of the imperial cult was at the
center of both festivals. It is important to note that sacrifices performed for a deity are explicitly
mentioned in inscriptions from the eastern Roman provinces regarding festivals in which the
celebration of the imperial cult took central place, but it is not mentioned in them that sacrifices
were performed for the emperor. Thus, the epigraphic evidence leads to the conclusion that such
330
was the usual practice - sacrifices were made for the deity, but not for the emperor, although the
imperial cult was present in all festival rituals. This means that the imperial cult was not equally
honoured with the cult of the deities, regardless its principal place in the cult rituals. The sacrifices
performed during the festivals clearly indicate the difference in the worship of the deities and the
emperor. Data from Philippopolis allow the same conclusion to be reached also for the worship
of the imperial cult during the festivals Alexandreia Pythia and Kendreiseia Pythia.
The cult of the emperor Elagabalus occupied center place in the Kendreiseia Pythia festival.
However, the imperial cult and the cult of Apollo Kendrisos in no way can be considered equal,
even though both were worshipped in the same temple ֊ the temple of the main deity of the city
Apollo Kendrisos. The reverse image of the emperor performing sacrifice to Apollo (cat. # 1/46,
table II, fig. 9) is a clear indication that both cults were not perceived in the same way, and hence
were given different role in the festival. It is the sacrifice made by the emperor to the deity that
draws a clear boundary between the worship of both cults. The same comment can be applied to
reverse of a coin of the emperor Caracalla, issued by the Philippopolis mint, which bears a similar
scene- the emperor offers sacrifice to Apollo Kendrisos (cat. # 1/4, table I, fig. 2). The coin
belongs to emission issued for the Alexandreia Pythia festival which is evidenced by the reverse
legend ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ΘΡΑΚΩΝ ΑΛΕΞΑΝ ΠΥΘΙΑ ΕΝ ΦΙΛΙΠΠ.
Inscription from Pautalia says that collegia of epimeletai organized gymnastic competitions
and horse racings dedicated to Zeus and Hera, to whom the epimeletai made sacrifice “from (with)
the resources of the city“ (έκ των τής πόλεως) (cat. # ΙΙ/348, table XXIV, fig. 201). The analysis,
based mainly on the provenance of this epigraphic monument, shows that most likely it comes
from sanctuary of Zeus and Hera. The view held so far in the literature that in this inscription
the epimeletai correspond to curatores ludorum in the cities with Roman administrative structure
is ungrounded, primarily due to the fact that Pautalia was not a city with Roman administrative
structure. Pautalia was organized like the Greek cities in Asia Minor, as were the other cities in the
province of Thrace. This is also confirmed by the names of the epimeletai in the inscription - the
persons of Greek origin predominate. Therefore, I reckon that in this case any comparison with
cities with Roman administrative structure would be incorrect. Accordingly, a comparison should
rather be made with cities structured in a way similar to the city of Pautalia. The provenance of
the inscription is a well-grounded argument to connect the epimeletai with the sanctuary on
the Hisarlaka hill, and respectively, with the temple located there. Thus, the epimeletai had not
only the task to organize the games, but were also appointed to this sanctuary to facilitate its
smooth functioning. Similar examples, supported by epigraphic evidence, are encountered in the
neighbouring province of Macedonia, as well as in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire.
3.8.2. Processions
The processions occupied an important place in the festivals. An inscription from Perinthos,
written on three separate fragments of architrave, testifies to a temple built in honour of the
emperor Hadrian and his wife Sabina (cat. # 11/401). The epigraphic evidence referred to is of
great interest with regard to the imperial cult worshipped in the city. The inscription itself can
be dated more precisely and interpreted more correctly due to the fact that the emperor Hadrian
is called Ζευς ՛Ολύμπιος, while Sabina is designated as ή νεώτερα Δημήτηρ. The inscription
says that Λαρκία Γηπαιπνρις, daughter of Λάρκιος Ασιατικός, built to ιερόν συν τη είκόνι Θεού
Καίσαρος και τοίς αλλοις άγάλμασιν τοϊς άνακειμένοις έν αύτώ. The use of this formula suggests
that the inscription can be seen as evidence for an imperial festival and different celebrations
(probably) related to the whole domus imperatoria held in Perinthos. The accompanying rituals
are presumed not only on account of the temple dedicated to the imperial cult, but also because
of the explicit mention of εΐκών Θεού Καίσαρος and άλλοι άγάλματες. The carrying of imperial
images was of great siginificance and played a key role in the festivals organized in honour of the
princeps. The images were usually carried in processions, followed by the priests of the imperial
331
cult, and placed temporarily on special sites in the cities in accordance with the festival rituals.
Sacrifices were performed before the imperial images. The image of the emperor was at the center
of the celebrations, and hence many of the festival rituals were related to it. The carrying of the
emperors’ images in processions gradually became the most important ritual of the worship of
the imperial cult.
E. Kalinka interprets the epigraphic evidence under consideration as a building inscription,
and therefore accepts that a temple dedicated to the emperor Hadrian and his wife Sabina is
mentioned in it (Kalinka 1898, 11). This hypothesis, as well as the reading of the inscription by
Kalinka, is shared by M. Sayar (Sayar 1998, 220). G. Seure disagrees with this interpretation of
the monument and points out that the eventual removal of rfj ε’ικόνι Θεού Καίσαρος in the text
eliminates one of the main arguments that the inscription refers to construction of an imperial
temple. Given the maximum length of the lacuna, G. Seure considers the word ιερόν to be too
short for the line. Instead, he proposes that the word to be restored is προσκήνιον, which links
the inscription with the theater of Perinthos (Seure 1898, 597). The hypothetical possibility to
relate the epigraphic monument to the city’s theatre does not alter the assumption, based on the
formulas in the text, that imperial images were carried in processions during the city festivals.
Parallel to the famous inscription of Salutaris from Ephesus (I.Ephesos 27; Oliver 1941, 55, № 3)
justifies such conclusion.
3.8.3. Hymnodes
The existence of collegia of hymnodes in the province of Thrace is proved by epigraphic data.
It is known that the hymnodes took part in festivals held in honour of the imperial cult. The
analysis of the inscriptions under consideration should consider two important points: 1) their
provenance and 2) their dating.
The presence of hymnodes is evidenced by three epigraphic monuments found in only two
cities in the province of Thrace ֊ Perinthos (cat. # 11/403) and Nicopolis ad Istrum (cat. # #
II/388-II/390). The inscriptions from Nicopolis ad Istrum are dedicated to the Capitoline Triad,
while a single funeral inscription from Perinthos says that the late Αεκνία Κονκία Μαρκιανή was
a daughter of hymnod. It is noteworthy that all four inscriptions mentioned above were set up
approximately at the same time. The inscriptions from Nicopolis ad Istrum refer to the late 2nd
century AD and that from Perinthos is dated after 212 AD, i.e. during the reign of the Severans.
In connection with the collegia of the hymnodes the following should be taken into account: 1)
they originate from Asia Minor and 2) the cult worshipped by the hymnodes was focused on
the emperor, i.e. the presence of their collegia most likely indicates the worship of the official
imperial cult in Perinthos and Nicopolis ad Istrum.
The dating of the inscriptions allows us to interpret them in two ways. On one hand, the
presence of the Severans in the province of Thrace and the subsequent events could explain
the enhanced worship of the imperial cult in the province. But the evidence for hymnodes in
Nicopolis ad Istrum and Perinthos during this period can also be explained in terms of the social
and economic life in both cities. The epigraphic data for craftsmen’s associations in Nicopolis ad
Istrum testify to the involvement of the eastern settlers in the economic life of the city. Most of
these data are from the late 2nd century AD, and therefore they certainly cannot be connected with
the first settlers in the city from the time of its establishment. The observation of the inscriptions
set up by private individuals in Nicopolis ad Istrum leads to the conclusion that more than half
of the epigraphic monuments from the city can be dated to the reign of the Severans. This is the
reason to assume a second massive wave of eastern settlers in Nicopolis ad Istrum at that time
(Taceva 1970, 121). Therefore, a possible explanation for the availability of epigraphic evidence
for hymnodes only from the late 2nd century AD could lie in the assumption that they came
with the second migration wave. However, their occurrence could be considered a reflection
of the enhanced economic role of the eastern settlers who had increased participation in the
332
administrative and religious life of the city. No epigraphic data for Thracian craftsmen are found
in Nicopolis ad Istrum. They found themselves in constant competition with collegia of eastern
settlers. The latter composed the economic leadership of the city. Moreover, the large percentage
of eastern settlers evidenced in the epigraphic monuments indicates their numerical superiority
in Nicopolis ad Istrum, which explains their strong influence on the local religious and cultural
traditions. The lack of epigraphic evidence for hymnodes in Nicopolis ad Istrum of an earlier date
can be explained in terms of the participation of the eastern settlers in the political and economic
life of the city. The involvement of the eastern settlers in the city life gradually increased between
the early 2nd century AD and the late 2nd century AD (i.e. when the city was administratively
incorporated in the province of Lower Moesia). The dating of the inscriptions for the hymnodes,
in my opinion, corresponds to the time when the position of the eastern settlers in the city's
structure was strengthened. There is no epigraphic evidence for strong economic presence of the
first eastern settlers in the city and respectively for their participation in the city’s administrative
life. As M. Tacheva emphasizes, the economic power was the admission to the city administration
(Taceva 1970, 121). This in turn was reflected in the religious life of Nicopolis ad Istrum and in
the worship of the imperial cult in particular. The city experienced an economic boom until the
late 2nd - early 3rd century AD. We may conclude with certainty that the newly founded, fast-
growing city of Nicopolis ad Istrum attracted eastern settlers due to favourable conditions and
profit opportunities.
The conclusions about the strengthened position of the eastern settlers in the administrative
and religious life of Nicopolis ad Istrum are also valid for Perinthos, which is the other city in the
province with epigraphically attested presence of hymnodes. The epigraphic record of the city
testifies to the strong positions of the eastern settlers. An inscription from Perinthos is evidence
for the existence of synedrion of “those loving Apamea“ (το συνέδρων των Φιλαπαμέων) (cat. #
II/405, table XXIII, fig. 200). Their important role in Perinthos is confirmed by the altar they set
up in honour of the goddess Homonoia as a symbol of homonoia concluded between Perinthos
in Thrace and Apamea in Bithynia. The inscription itself was obviously related to very important
occasion for the city. The conclusion is based on the official character of the inscription, which is
implied by the name of the provincial governor Statilius Barbarus in the text. The names of the
city governor, the archimystos and the priest of the religious association are also mentioned in
the inscription.
3.9. Gladiatorial games
3.9.1. Ritual of devotio on behalf of the emperor ?
The adherence to the Hellenistic traditions combined with Roman traditions is clearly
suggested by several inscriptions originating from the province of Thrace. A case in point
concerns the so-called invitationes, i.e. invitations to upcoming gladiatorial combats and animal
hunts. Their provenance is Serdica (cat. # # 11/354, II/356), Philippopolis (cat. # 11/366) and
Nicopolis ad Istrum (cat. # 11/387). It can be claimed that one more inscription from Serdica
(cat. # II/355) represents an invitation for gladiatorial combats and hunting displays (despite the
high fragmentation and the uncertain text reconstruction which is also valid for the inscription
from Philippopolis). The inscriptions from Serdica are dated to the reign of Antoninus Pius
or the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, while the above-mentioned invitatio from
Nicopolis ad Istrum is referred to 161-163 AD. The inscription from Philippopolis possibly dates
from the late 2nd century AD, as the combats mentioned in the text were organized under a
provincial governor of Thrace whose name begins with Και-. Keeping in mind this evidence and
the well-known names of provincial governors of Thrace, it is to be concluded that the inscription
should be referred to 186-187 AD or 196-198 AD, i.e. to the reign of the emperors Commodus
or Septimius Severus (Герасимова, Мартинова 1993, 60). It is not completely clear whether the
333
priest of Zeus Olympios is mentioned in the text or not, which can be accepted for one of the
Serdica inscriptions (cat. # 11/353). The preserved DXvpn- could be seen as dedication to the
Olympian gods or could be restored as part of the emperors byname ՛OXvpmocevidenced for
the emperor Hadrian as witnessed in written sources (Вагалински 2009, 194, note 185). The
comparison with similar type of inscriptions leads to the inference that the original text begins
with pompous wish for health and salvation of the Roman emperor and his family, the Roman
Senate, the Roman army and the Roman people, the Roman authorities in the province of Thrace
and Philippopolis, as well as the demos and boule of the city (Герасимова, Мартинова 1993,61).
It is argued that there were no more lines above the preserved first line of the inscription, hence
it should be expected that the beginning of the text is a devotion to the emperor and his family
(Вагалински 2009, 194, note 185). The same comment could be applied to the first lines of the
highly fragmentary inscriptions from Serdica (cat. # # 11/354,11/356). It is noteworthy that the
epigraphic evidence under consideration makes clear that the bloody spectacles in the above-
mentioned cities took place over one or more days.
Games of this type were often financed by private persons or magistrates and were sometimes
organized by the provincial officials, as well as by provincial or municipal priests of the imperial
cult. It is important to draw attention to the fact that the so-called invitationes are encountered
mainly on the Balkans. They were composed by organizers of gladiatorial displays and wild beast
hunts and set up in public places in the cities. The inscriptions open with the usual formula
constructed by the preposition vnep followed by a list of reasons why the games were planned
to be held, written in genitive case. The formula itself could be interpreted as a reassurance that
the spectacles were conducted as votum for the health, salvation, victory and eternal life of the
emperor, his family and the Roman authorities. Thus, organizers proved their loyalty to the
Empire. Hence, there are good grounds for the hypothesis that these types of inscriptions indicate
that causa muneris is to be found in the context of the ritual devotio on behalf of the emperor, the
members of the domus imperatoria and the Roman people.
During the imperial period, the arena was the place for demonstrating virtus. This made the
gladiatorial displays a form of ritual purification, and thus they started to reflect the idea of devotio
or ritual sacrifice (Kyle 1998,81; Kyle 2003,12). The sacrifices performed on behalf of the Roman
army as part of the solemn ritual devotio originated in the Roman republican religion, but this is
not observed in the imperial period. The ritual of devotio, either voluntary or not, continued to
be performed during the Principate based on the idea of sacrifice of ones life for the health and
welfare of the Roman emperor, but not for the Roman army. Epigraphic evidence of the mid-2nd
century AD proves that sometimes munus and venatio were given pro salute imperatoris, i.e. for
the welfare of the emperor (and the members of domus imperatoria).
The epigraphic data from the Empire dated to the early Principate show that the gladiatorial
displays and wild beats hunts were usually part of the same programme, organized by private
citizens in most cases. To support the hypothesis that the above-mentioned inscriptions confirm
performing of devotio in the province of Thrace during the imperial period, we must turn our
attention to the fact that such fights were organized by priests of the imperial cult, and not by
private persons. These epigraphic texts directly state that the spectacles were conducted by a man
and a woman designated as high priests of the imperial cult. This could find an explanation in
the traditional practice of worshipping the gods, which became entangled with the imperial cult,
and hence was related to organization of gladiatorial and hunting games.
The inscription from Serdica represents an invitation for the citizens to participate in athletic
competitions (cat. # II/353). The inscription begins exactly like the invitations for gladiatorial
fights and wild beats hunts, discussed already ֊ with a common formula saying that the events
are organized for the sake of the happiness, health and victory of the emperors house and the
Roman Senate. The invitation, however, was not made by a high priest of the imperial cult. It is
explicitly pointed out that the competitions in Serdica were held by the priest of Zeus Olympios.
334
The possibility the title άρχιερεύς to be written before και ίερεύς τού ’Ολυμπίου Διάς should not be
excluded. Such an assumption is supported by an inscription from Pautalia stating that a priestess
των σωτήρων θεών was also άρχιέρεια των σεβαστών (cat. # 11/349).
A. Chaniotis makes an analysis of the imperial worship in the eastern Roman provinces, as
compared to the well-established worship of deities, focusing on the elements of the latter that were
“taken“ by the imperial cult. Chaniotis comes to the conclusion that the imperial cult has elements
that can be found in the rituals for public worship of the traditional deities during the same
historical period. A man and a woman, a married couple or in other family relation, appointed to
high priesthood and responsible for the worship of the imperial cult can be considered to be such
element. At first glance, this practice appears to be characteristic of the imperial cult and could
be regarded as a result of the political and social significance of the priest office for the city elites.
Gladiatorial and hunting spectacles in the province of Thrace, as already mentioned, were organized
by high priests of the imperial cult. Given the financial resources necessary to successfully carry
out such games and the social prestige embodied in their organization, it can be claimed that the
high priests of the imperial cult were certainly chosen from the city elites. Notable similarities can
be identified between the imperial cult and the worship of the traditional deities. Some examples,
given by A. Chaniotis, make clear that a man and a woman assigned to priesthood of the imperial
cult are also encountered in the worship of some local deities (Chaniotis 2003, 17).
The inscriptions from Serdica, Philippopolis and Nicopolis ad Istrum defined as invitationes
should be interpreted, in my opinion, in view of the aforementioned. On one hand, the inscriptions
attest for the Hellenistic tradition of a man and a woman in a family relation appointed as priest
and priestess of the same deity. In the case under discussion they are priests of the imperial cult -
the main cult in the Roman Empire. Therefore, these priestly couples were entrusted to hold
spectacles which were fully in line with the Roman tradition. The inscriptions explicitly mention
that the games were organized on behalf of the emperor pro salute, which can be interpreted in
relation to the Roman ritual of devotio.
The Hellenistic tradition of a man and a woman designated as a priest and a priestess of the same
cult is also attested in other inscriptions from the province of Thrace. An example in this regard is
the funerary inscription of Tiberius Flavius Miccalus which represents evidence that the imperial
cult in Perinthos was maintained by a priestly couple (cat. # II/400; table XXIX, fig. 207). The
deceased and his wife were appointed high priests of the municipal imperial cult. However, the
inscription does not allow us to come to the conclusion that they organized gladiatorial games
in the city. Tiberius Flavius Miccalus is mentioned only as αγωνοθέτης meaning that he was
responsible for the athletic, dramatic or musical contests held in Perinthos.
Inscription from Augusta Traiana (cat. # 11/380) is another evidence for a priest and a priestess
of the imperial cult. They organized gladiatorial fights in the city as munerarii.
Inscription from Pautalia was set up in honour of a woman who was ιέρεια τών σωτήρων
θεών and φιλότειμος άρχιέρεια τών σεβαστών (cat. # 11/349). The explanation for the division
of the two priestly offices lies in the difference between the priests of gods and the priests of
the imperial cult, as already discussed above. The husband of the priestess is referred to as
φιλότειμος. Since the inscription does not explicitly state that he was a priest, we cannot know
with certainty that the epithet φιλότειμος is used to designate munerarius. However, such a
hypothesis should not be excluded in view of the fact that he was a thrakarch, and therefore he
was able to organize gladiatorial and hunting spectacles. Keeping in mind that the conclusions
regarding the inscription are still tentative, it can be considered as evidence for gladiatorial and
hunting spectacles organized by a priestly couple.
Epigraphic evidence for a high priest and a high priestess is represented in a building
inscription found near the city of Stara Zagora (Николов 1968). The inscription is dated to 162-
163 AD, i.e. it was erected under the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. The text says
that Ulpius Hieronymos, who was a high priest, appointed for his co-priestess his wife Valeria
335
Frontonima. According to D. Nikolov, the social status of the priest was due to his fortune, which
can be supposed on the basis of the baths built by him. D. Nikolov suggests that the priest used
the building as an occasion to promote his wife to the same priestly position.
Inscription erected to the honour of Septimia Seite (cat. # 11/384) is evidence that the imperial
cult in Augusta Traiana was maintained by members of one family. Septimia Seite is honoured by
her son-in-law, as the text makes clear that they were both high priests.
Epigraphic data for priestly couple of the imperial cult come also from Byzantion. B. Pick draws
attention to the fact that during the Principate there were many cases in Greek cities of a husband
and wife appointed to the positions of apxiepevq and åpxiepda. The practice is often encountered
in inscriptions from Asia Minor. The names of a high priest and a high priestess are inscribed on
reverses of coins of the emperor Nero, issued by the mint of the Phrygian city Akmonia. The coin
legends of Byzantion also contain names of a high priest and a high priestess. B. Pick tends to
assume that they were high priests of the imperial cult in Byzantion (Pick 1895, 51).
3.9.2. Epigraphic and iconographic evidence for gladiators
The thorough analysis of the gladiators on the territory of the province of Thrace should take
into consideration not only epigraphic, but also iconographic evidence, as both are included
in this part of the study mainly for two reasons. The first one is that they are in favour of the
argument for gladiatorial fights and hunting spectacles held in the province of Thrace. The
second reason is the lack of in-depth study encompassing gladiatorial monuments from the whole
territory of the province. The iconography of the gladiators is considered for one more reason.
The authors have taken different approaches when publishing reliefs with gladiatorial images
from the province of Thrace. However, the general observation on the previous publications
reveals that the authors rarely determine the exact category of the depicted gladiators if the
monuments are anepigraphic. It is usually stated that it is quite difficult to discern the exact
gladiatorial category on the reliefs. Written sources and epigraphic monuments reveal the names
of many gladiatorial categories, as well as the names of different types of weapons and combat
tactics used in the arena. L. Robert expressly states that the precise identification of some types of
the gladiators is possible only after a detailed analysis of the reliefs (Robert 1949a, 139). Bulgarian
scholars categorically recognized the thraex category (gladiator armed with a curved dagger) and
retiarius (light-armed gladiator easily identifiable by a trident and a net) (Vagalinski 2009, 92).
However, the lack of certainty regarding the identification of the other gladiatorial categories on
the basis of the available iconographic evidence is valid, as it is considered that “it is impossible
to distinguish the secutor from murmillo, provocator or, for instance, hoplomachus“ (translation ֊
the author) (Vagalinski 2009,89). So far it has been accepted that the correct interpretation of the
gladiatorial images is as “heavily-armed gladiators“ (Vagalinski 2009, 89). In more recent studies
the precise identification of different types of gladiators has taken center stage (Köhne, Ewigleben,
Jackson 2000; Kontokoska 2008; Nossov 2009). The thorough analysis of written sources and
epigraphic evidence, as well as the accumulation of a large number of monuments bearing images
of gladiators from the entire Roman Empire allow scholars to determine certain characteristics
regarding their clothing, defensive and offensive weapons of some gladiatorial categories in order
to identify them correctly on the reliefs (of course as much as possible with view to the degree of
preservation of the reliefs themselves). These new studies and the lack of comprehensive research
on the types of heavily-armed gladiators depicted on reliefs from the province of Thrace have
prompted an attempt to identify the exact gladiatorial types in the present study.
Epigraphic evidence
There is epigraphic evidence for the presence of well-trained gladiators in the province of
Thrace (cat. # 11/444). Inscription cat. # 11/443 can be given as an example that the gladiators,
like the atheletes, received citizenship in many cities. It is known that victory lists of athletes and
336
artists such as poets, actors and musicians usually include not only the wins in competitions, but
also the citizenship conferred in different cities, placed on the first lines of the inscriptions, even
before the wins themselves. Thus, this leads to a conclusion that the announcement of citizenship
was considered as important as the athletic winnings (van Nijf 2012, 184-188). Publius Aelius,
son of Pergamos is referred to as summa rudis, i.e. a chief referee at gladiatorial fights, in an
epitaph set up for him (cat. # 11/443). He was probably granted citizenship in the cities listed in
the inscription during his active career (we should not exclude the possibility that some cities
conferred citizenship upon him after the end of his career).
There have been many difficulties in the interpretation of epigram cat. # 11/438 (table
XXXVIII, fig. 223) because the text is very controversial. As noted in it, Dionysius was born
in Apri, i.e. in southern Thrace. According to L. Robert, the phrase εκτον νεικήσας reveals that
the deceased had six victories as gladiator. The monument is considered to be a cenotaph of the
gladiator who drowned in the sea. The accepted opinion is that Dionysius became a sailor after
the end of his gladiatorial career, but did not avoid the premature death he was destined for, as
the text of the epitaph says.
The interpretation of the term φίλοπλος as “friend of weapons“ in inscription cat. # II/424 is
quite difficult. Epigraphic evidence for φίλοπλοι or φιλοπλίαι is known to come from Termessos,
Miletus and Ephesus (Robert 1940, 24). According to L. Robert, φίλοπλοι in Ephesus could be
seen as supporters of gladiatorial fights.
The gladiator for whom was set up epitaph cat. # 11/456 (table XXXVII, fig. 222) was murmillo,
i.e. heavily-armed gladiator. He fought against other heavily-armed gladiators who carried small
shields - thraex or hoplomach. He is often confused with secutor who is the opponent of the
gladiator equipped with a net. In the 1st century AD thraex and murmillo were usually opponents,
while in the 2nd and 3rd century AD - retiarius and secutor. However, this inscription testifies for
fights between the murmillo Ζμνρνης and provocator.
The gladiator depicted on the relief of monument cat. # 11/451 (table XXXIX, fig. 224) is
provocator. The breastplate strapped over the chest is the most distinctive feature in the armory
of the provocatores (Köhne, Ewigleben, Jackson 2000, 37).
Familia of gladiators is mentioned in an inscription from Maroneia (cat. # II/449, table XXXVI,
fig. 219). It should be noted that in many cases gladiatorial familiae were in possession of priests
of the imperial cult. The evidence for such gladiatorial familiae suggests that different types of
gladiators, as well as bestiarii and venatores (beast-hunters) took part in the bloody spectacles.
Epitaph of retiarius named Ετεοκλής comes from Maroneia (cat. # II/450, table XXXVI, fig.
220). Inscription from Thassos cat. # 11/464 refers to tirones, i.e. gladiators who have not fought in
battle. Two common opponents, thraex against murmillo, are presented in inscription cat. # 11/465
along with their winnings. This pair of gladiators is also evidenced in inscription cat. # 11/452
(table XXXIX, fig. 226). Another epigraphic monument cat. # 11/466 gives a list of gladiators
belonging to the categories of esedarii (text A) and murmillones (text B), again mentioned with
their victories. Lists of gladiators (probably of one familia) can be observed in inscriptions cat. #
# 11/467,11/468,11/469. E. Bouley admits that the inscription cat. # 11/468 should be dated to the
Augustan era, stressing that are inscribed names of two opponents who fought against each other
in a combat. Both are named by tria nomina, following the Roman custom (Bouley 2005, 199).
Inscription from Thassos (cat. # 11/470) is the first evidence for gladiatorial category labeled
ιππείς. The category is often encountered in the western Roman provinces, but rarely in the East.
Iconographie evidence
The thraex category is certainly identified by a pair of greaves and a small shield which is
considered hallmark of the gladiatorial category (Vagalinski 2009, 89). However, there is a need
for further clarification. Some reliefs bear the images of combats between two gladiators equipped
with small shields: thraex against hoplomachus. The hoplomachus is often confused with the thraex,
337
despite some significant differences. Both categories are very similar in weapons and protective
equipment - they wear a pair of very high greaves reaching to mid-thigh, wide-brimmed helmets
with a high crescent-shaped crest and are armed with small shields. The differences between
these gladiatorial categories are the shape of the shield (the shield of the thraex is rectangular,
almost square and strongly convex (parmula), while the hoplomachus is equipped with a round
shield), as well as the type of the offensive weapon (the thraex attacks with a curved short sword
(sica or rarely falx), while the hoplomachus is armed with a short straight sword and a spear).
Moreover, there is a griffin protome on the helmet crest of the thraex (Kohne, Ewigleben, Jackson
2000, 51 and fig. 43).
Keeping in mind the above-mentioned characteristics, we can certainly assign the gladiator
in a relief from Perinthos (cat. # III/481, table XXXVII, fig. 221) to the thraex category. The
monument is published without information about the gladiatorial category and its exact
provenance remains unknown (Sayar, 1998, 61).
According to H. Buyukliev (ByroKTiueB 1971, 33) the gladiator in relief cat. # 11/385 can be
referred to the provocatores. Although the lower right corner of the monument is broken off, and
hence the lower half of the shield and the gladiator’s legs to the calves are missing, the presence
of crescent-shaped breastplate, as well as the helmet shape define the gladiator as provocator.
The shield shape is not the determining factor as it is characteristic of more than one gladiatorial
category. The helmet, however, gives a clear indication that the gladiator depicted in the relief is
provocator.
Sculptural group from the village of Tatarevo presents a combat between two gladiators (cat.
# III/474). The defeated gladiator can be definitely recognized as retiarius, which is implied
primarily by the galerus on his left hand and his weapon, which is trident trampled to the ground
by his rival. The victorious gladiator, in my opinion, can certainly be assigned to the secutores
category. Gladiator named Victor can also be defined as secutor, which is evidenced by the helmet
shape (cat. # 11/378).
A combat between retiarius and secutor (?) is depicted on relief from Philippopolis cat. #
III/473. It is a matter of debate whether there are three pairs of gladiators or only one, represented
in three phases of the combat.
A relief from Marcianopolis cat. # 11/394 corresponds with the metric epitaph inscribed
below it. Two gladiatorial helmets are depicted on the relief, one of them worn by the gladiator
himself. The shape of the helmet with a wide brim and an angular crest, as well as the protective
armory allows us to designate the gladiator as murmillo. A second helmet with distinctive arched
crest, commonly worn by secutores, is depicted in the background. The inscription says that the
gladiator fought as a secutor at first and later as a murmillo. The epitaph is reproduced in the relief
itself, which obviously reflects the chronology of the gladiaorial career.
Another funeral epigram from Marcianopolis lists the number of victories of a gladiator
(cat. # 11/392). The assumption that Narcisus, for whom was composed an epigram found
in Marcianopolis (cat. # 11/393), was a gladiator has been recently challenged. The proposed
arguments are convincing, though it is explicitly stated that the text is metric, and therefore the
phrase πάλην ήσκησεν can be considered a poetic method to indicate gladiator (Vagalinski 2009,
35, note 39).
The relief from Beroea cat. # 11/455 shows murmillo. The identification is based again on the
helmet shape and the presence of one greave on the left leg.
Murmillo is evidenced in another relief from Larissa, Greece (cat. # 11/459).
The relief on monument cat. # 11/396 is unclear. We can recognize retiarius and his rival with
some degree of certainty.
It is not easy to determine to which gladiatorial category belonged the figure depicted in relief
cat. # III/478. The head and part of the torso are not preserved. The large rectangular shield
covering the body clearly indicates that he was heavily-armed gladiator.
338
A tombstone from Dimotika, Greece was erected for murmillo, as evident by the inscription
and the relief (cat. # 456). The gladiatorial category can be distinguished by the angular crest of
the helmet and the low greave on the left leg. A. Tajtar states that the murmillo s usual opponents
were retiarius, thraex, provocator and probably another murmillo (Lajtar 2000, 147).
It is likely that the gladiator depicted on relief cat. # 11/438 (table XXXVIII, fig. 223) is a
secutor. He holds an object in his right hand that resembles the objects held by gladiators from
reliefs cat. # # III/475, III/476, III/477, III/479. The recognition of the object as a “torch-lantern“
and the arguments in favour of this supposition (Bara/mHCKH 2009, 111), in my opinion, are
logically acceptable. The epitaph inscribed on the plate could also support such interpretation.
Reliefs cat. # # 11/420,11/449 (table XXXVI, fig. 219), III/471, III/472, III/476 bear images
of gladiators as follows: retiariusy murmillo, murmillo, provocator (?), retiarius.
The photos of a relief from Augusta Traiana cat. # III/475 in the first publication of the
monument are not clear enough to correctly identify the type of the three-dimensional gladiatorial
helmet. We can only state that no crest is placed on top of the helmet, which is why it can be
assigned to the category of provocatores.
As regards relief cat. # III/477, the helmet for the most part is broken off and only the front
part is preserved. Certainly, it cannot be argued that the helmet has a crest. The shape of the
helmet is also unclear. Parallels with other images of helmets of secutores (cf. Kohne, Ewigleben,
Jackson 2000, 61, fig. 61) lead to the quite uncertain assumption that the monument represents
a helmet of secutor.
The provocator depicted on relief cat. # III/483 is identified by the crescent-shaped breastplate,
the high greave on the left leg, but mainly by the helmet typical of the gladiatorial category of
provocatores.
Although the image displayed on relief from Augusta Traiana cat. # III/480 fits the description
of a Venator, I do not consider the relief an evidence for venationes held in the city due to the fact
that the background relief does not represent an arena. The image of two trees and the figure of a
panther in front one of them implies that the action takes place outdoors.
3.9.3. Venationes and taurokathapsia
Iconographic images of venationes are encountered much more frequently than images of
gladiatorial combats. They give us a clear idea about the animals brought into the arena, as well
as the defensive and offensive weapons of the bestiarii (Wiedemann 1992, 57). During the Roman
republic, venationes were usually not held within the context of gladiatorial munera, but were
carried out only on special occasions such as triumphs. From the time of Augustus onwards
they were regularly organized along with gladiatorial fights (Wiedemann 1992, 59). The figure
of 3,500 animals killed in different venationes bestiarum Africanarum organized by the emperor
Augustus for the Roman people is proudly announced in Res Gestae Divi Augusti.
Several reliefs testify to venationes that took place on the territory of the province of Thrace.
G. Mendel published a small fragment of a marble plate, probably depicting venatio (cat. #
III/482, table XXXV, fig. 216).
The best-preserved relief originates from Apri (cat. # III/484, table XXXV, fig. 215). The relief
is preserved for the most part and bears images of combats between wild animals and venatores,
taurokathapsia (bull-leaping) and execution of convicted people arranged on two registers. They
represent different parts of the same spectacle.
There is epigraphic and iconographic evidence of taurokathapsia found in the province of
Thrace. The event was often organized along with gladiatorial fights, which is proven by epigraphic
data for members of gladiatorial familiae who participated in taurokathapsia.
Marcus Aurelius Chariton honoured his friend Marcus Aurelius Kalandion, son of Dionysos
with an inscription (cat. # 11/422, table XXXII, figs. 209.1, 209.2, 209.3, 209.4). The official
character of the inscription is evident by the formula δόγματι βουλής δήμον. M. Aur. Kalandion
339
is designated as ίερεύς. Although the text does not explicitly state that he was άρχιερεύς, it is
assumed that his priestly office was strongly associated with the worship of the emperor cult
in the city (Robert 1982, 154-155). The assumption of M. Sayar that Kalandion was probably
a priest of the imperial cult is based on the evidence that he organized gladiatorial combats
which is implied by his title ίερεύς δΤ όπλων (11. 2-4) (Sayar 1983,145). There is a good reason to
assume that Kalandion was a priest of the imperial cult, since the gladiatorial games were directly
related to the worship of the Roman emperor. Moreover, it should be emphasized that the official
character of the inscription suggests the importance of the games to the city. Besides ίερεύς, M.
Aur. Kalandion is also designated as ταλαντάρχης. The title ταλαντάρχης is interpreted in the
context of the priestly duty to organize gladiatorial spectacles (Robert 1982,155). According to L.
Robert, the title is related to the word ταλαντιαϊος, and hence associated with the costs for a contest
covered by munerarius, which were ταλαντιαϊος, i.e. prizes amounted to one talent. In view of the
fact that gladiatorial combats were quite costly events, it can be claimed that M. Aur. Kalandion
was a rich man. Moreover, the inscription testifies to other benefactions, goods and spectacles,
given by him to the citizens of Bizye (11. 4-6: δόντα και άνάλημψιν και ταυροκαθάψια).
The inscription under discussion explicitly states that M. Aur. Kalandion also organized
taurokathapsia in Bizye. Taurokathapsia originated in Thessaly and later became a favourite
spectacle of the emperors in Rome, where it was introduced by Iulius Caesar. It gained great
popularity in Athens and in the eastern provinces of the Empire (Chapot 1904, 495), as
evidenced by epigraphic monuments. It is known that taurokathapsia was usually held in several
consecutive days.
The relief on the front side of the statue base, just above the honorary inscription, shows a
combat between two gladiators - retiarius against secutor. Taurokathapsia scene is represented
on the right side of the base and venatio on the left. These were precisely the three types of
spectacles organized and financed by Kalandion. Gladiatorial fights were often conducted along
with venationes, while taurokathapsia and venationes were unified by the same idea (Hornum
1993, 54).
The monument is dated to the 2nd ֊ 3rd century AD (Firatli 1979, 443-444, res. 14-16). The
taurokathapsia in Bizye during this period was in line with an already established tradition. We
can assume that the last Thracian king Remetalk III enjoyed this kind of spectacles, as evidenced
by an epigraphic monument (IG II2 3156 (III 114) = Robert 1940, 116, № 58 = Robert 1982,
147). The inscription is dedicated to the king Remetalk by a man named Sarapion. The king was
honoured to be eponymous archon of Athens in 36-37 AD and probably at that time he organized
taurokathapsia (Robert 1982, 147). L. Robert concludes that the spectacle was introduced in the
capital of the Thracian kingdom and the inscription in honour of M. Aur. Kalandion represents
evidence that it continued to be held during the 2nd ֊ 3rd century AD.
Fragment of a plate bears a relief of a person riding an οχ/bull (cat. # III/485, table XXXIII,
fig. 210) which can be perceived as taurokathapsia scene. Unfortunately, the exact provenance of
the monument is unknown which makes it impossible to draw definite conclusions regarding the
place where the taurokathapsia was held.
Epigraphic data for taurokathapsia also come from the Roman colony of Deultum (cat. #
11/395). According to the Latin inscription found there, it was held together with venationes.
3.10. Celebration of homonoia
3.10.1. Numismatic evidence for homonoia
According to M. Nolle and J. Nolle, the depiction of deities on the reverses of “homonoia“
coins is not a coincidence and diplomatic considerations should be sought in it. D. Kienast
stresses, however, that the lack of written sources makes this interpretation highly uncertain. The
scholars examine homonoia primarily by coin images and maintain the hypothesis that homonoia
340
was a festival celebrating the end of confrontation between two or more cities (and possibly the
establishing of new religious association) (Kienast 1995, 267). Limited information regarding the
content of homonoia can be derived from the coins. Epigraphic data and written sources, mainly
speeches of Dio Chrysostom and of Aelius Aristides, deal with homonoia between the cities
(Kienast 1995, 267). Initially the speeches create the impression that the festival homonoia is not
discussed in them (Kienast 1995, 268). The speech of Dio Chrysostom in Nicomedia in which he
discusses the homonoia between the cities of Nicomedia and Nicaea does not lead to a definite
conclusion about the content of homonoia. Although Nicomedia and Nicaea contended for the
title πρώτη Βιθυνίας και Πόντον, Dio Chrysostom stresses that the Greeks in both cities were
the same and celebrated most festivals together. In his speech there is no clue whether special
celebration was stipulated for homonoia. According to D. Kienast, the reference to Chrysostom
shows that homonoia resembled festival, but was not a festival itself (Kienast 1995).
D. Kienast indicates that the speech of Aelius Aristides for the homonoia between the cities of
Pergamon, Smyrna and Ephesus is much less concrete than that of Dio Chrysostom in Nicomedia.
The speech of Aelius Aristides was given at the hall of the city council of Pergamon, probably in
January 167 AD, in front of Greek delegates who were in the city for the koinon festival. The reason
for the confrontation between the three cities is again a title, in this case the title of πρώτη Ασίας
providing first place in the procession during the provincial festival (Kienast 1995, 273-274).
According to D. Kienast, on the basis of written sources it can be considered that homonoia
was not a festival, but a contractual agreement between two or more cities. The manifestation
of homonoia was deliberately announced on coins with images, traditionally encountered on
reliefs representing documents. Such example is the image of two deities who face each other
and shake hands. This act of dexiosis apparently symbolizes a contract and the sacrifice made on
this occasion. The depiction of an altar between two deities on some coin reverses is considered
a reminiscence of the sacrifice performed for the concluded contract. The legal form of the
homonoia unions, which indicate continuity, could surprise only if the cities in the Roman
provinces are perceived as having limited self-government. The homonoia unions are seen in
relation to the tradition of inter-city agreements, as evident from the content and typology of the
homonoia coins (Kienast 1995, 277-278).
The homonoia coinage documented the union between different cities, not rarely distant
from each other. It is important to specify that these emissions reflected the alliance between
the cities celebrated by common festivals. On the coin reverses are depicted the main deities of
the cities holding hands or making sacrifices together. The nature of this type of alliances is not
yet fully understood, but the researchers are unanimous that they were officially pronounced by
holding festivals in the cities. The celebration strengthened existing friendships or reconciled old
conflicts.
In the province of Thrace only the mints of three cities issued homonoia emissions - Perinthos,
Byzantion and Bizye. The Perinthos mint struck coins for homonoia unions with four cities ֊
Ephesus, Kyzikos, Nicomedia and Smyrna (cat. # # 1/276,1/278-I/281, table XVII, figs. 152,153
and 154). Currently there is no numismatic evidence for allied coinage of Perinthos for other
city in the province of Thrace. This type of coin emissions of Perinthos are quite late in date
and are limited to the reign of Gordian III (238-244). The coin legends contain two ethnikons
joined with the conjunction KAI, indicating the cities which concluded homonoia. The word
ΟΜΟΝΟΙΑ is explicitly stated in the reverse inscriptions revealing the reason for issue of these
coins. The emissions were usually struck in the city which name is inscribed first (i.e. on the left)
on the reverse, followed by the name of the allied city. This suggests that the coins in question
were struck in the mint of Perinthos. In their legends Perinthos is titled AIC ΝΕΩΚΟΡΩΝ. Of all
the cities with which Perinthos concluded homonoia, only the Smyrna mint also issued coins for
this union during the third phase of the allied coinage of Smyrna (dated to the reign of Gordian
III (238-244)).
341
The coins minted by Perinthos on the occasion of the concluded homonoia are not many.
However, they are of high nominal value: the coins for homonoia with Ephesus are of sixth
nominal value (cat. # # 1/278,1/279, table XVII, fig. 153) and the homonoia union with Smyrna
(cat. # 1/276, table XVII, fig. 152), Kyzikos (cat. # 1/280) and Nicomedia (cat. # 1/281, table
XVII, fig. 154) is commemorated with medallions. This leads to the conclusion that they were
issued in connection with a special celebration in the city.
Byzantion concluded homonoia with two cities ֊ Nicaea (Bithynia) and Bizye (Thrace). Both
the mints of Byzantion and Nicaea issued emissions on this occasion. It could be assumed that
the reasons for celebration of this union between Byzantion and Nicaea were not only economic.
The comparison between the allied coinages of Perinthos and Byzantion gives good grounds
for such inference. It could be claimed that the cities for the above-mentioned unions were not
chosen randomly. The comparison shows that maybe at the core of the alliances lied the common
political destiny of the cities. Nicaea concluded homonoia with Byzantion, but not with the big
city of Nicomedia, which was situated between them. The lack of such union between Nicaea and
Nicomedia is explained by their constant rivalry for leadership in the province of Bithynia. The
two cities took opposite sides during the war between Septimius Severus and Pescennius Niger
֊ Nicomedia became an ally of Severus, while Nicaea chose the side of Niger. The situation in
the province of Thrace regarding the cities of Perinthos and Byzantion is similar. The analysis of
the numismatic evidence suggests the hypothesis that allied coinages existed between cities with
similar destiny after the end of the civil war between Severus and Niger, i.e. Perinthos formed a
union with Nicomedia, while Byzantion affiliated with Nicaea.
3.10.2. Epigraphic evidence for homonoia
Besides numismatic evidence for homonoia concluded between cities of the province of
Thrace and cities of the eastern Roman provinces, epigraphic monuments also prove the existence
of these unions. Inscription from Perinthos testifies to homonoia with Kyzikos (cat. 11/404).
The dating of the inscription is limited to the time when Marcus Ulpius Senecio Saturninus was
legatus Augusti pro praetore of the province of Thrace as his name is mentioned in the text. The
inscription contains important information, which must be taken into consideration. It concerns
the following city title of Kyzikos: ή λαμπρότατη μητρόπολις τής Ασίας νεωκόρος Κνζικηνών πόλις.
Second neokoria was bestowed upon Kyzikos under the reign of the emperor Severus Alexander.
There is no numismatic data for the homonoia between Perinthos and Kyzikos. As evidenced by
the coin emissions, it was concluded at a later date - during the reign of Gordian III. It is assumed
that economic reasons lied behind the union. The exports of Kyzikos consisted mainly of olive oil
and wheat. In this regard, it should be noted that athletes from Kyzikos participated in festivals
of Perinthos (cat. # 11/436).
An altar in honour of the goddess Homonoia was set up by synedrion of the association of
Apameans (Apamea in Bithynia) in Perinthos (cat. # 11/405, table XXIII, fig. 200). According
to written sources, the cities usually set up an altar dedicated to the goddess Homonoia, which
indicate the ends of various conflicts. Generally, the reasons for the homonoia union are attributed
to the economic interests of the two cities. Apamea exported olive oil and fish in exchange for the
wheat imported from Perinthos.
A fragmented inscription from Perinthos (cat. # 11/406, table XXXIV, fig. 212) evidences the
organization of panegyris in the city. Although definite conclusions regarding the type and the
content of the inscription cannot be made on the basis of the preserved part of the text, M. Sayar
assumes that it can be interpreted as a decree of the provincial governor or of emperor Antoninus
Pius himself (the restoration of his name in line 15 is possible). The hypothesis that the inscription
refers to interrelations between two cities is based on the formula πόλιν έκ πόλεως, as a reference
to a decree of the emperor Hadrian, whose name is mentioned in line 5 as θεού Άδριανοϋ, is
probably made in the inscription. The word πανήγυρις is interpreted as a festival market or fair.
342
The most common acceptation of the word is “festive gathering“ or “(religious) festival, rather
than “large meeting“. It can explain the other meanings of the word, as well as its derivatives.
The word πανήγυρις is used primarily for the big four Panhellenic games - Olympic, Pythian,
Nemean and Isthmian. Cicero talks about the Olympics as for mercatus, qui haberetur maximo
ludorum apparatu totius Graeciae celebritate, probably due to the relation of πανήγυρις to the
commercial market or fair, as well as the large number of visitors to these games. Other festivals
which attracted many participants and visitors were also called πανήγυρις. The inscription from
Perinthos is considered to refer to celebration of homonoia between two cities. The names of the
cities remain unknown, due to the high degree of fragmentation of the text. According to M. Sayar,
one of the cities could be Perinthos, given the fact, that it is the closest city to the finding place
of the inscription under examination (about 22 km northwest of Perinthos). The organization of
common festival between Perinthos and another city for the celebration of homonoia union could
be the correct interpretation of the inscription. The mentioning of two cities in the text, as well as
the hypothesis for the announced homonoia give grounds for accepting that the word πανήγυρις
is used to designate festival market. Hence, we could accept that the inscription refers to the
organization of such market, i.e. it probably comes to the regulations concerning charges and
taxes. Again, on the basis of such hypothesis, it could be assumed that the supposed homonoia
union was dictated by the economic interests of both sides.
Homonoia union, concluded between Philippopolis and Perinthos, is epigraphically attested
(cat. # 11/376). The inscription in question is dated to 110-120 AD. There are also other possible
grounds for the assumption that this homonoia indicated the end of the rivalry between
Philippopolis and Perinthos. Titles and privileges bestowed upon one city instead of another city
in the same province would give rise to serious conflicts. Such rivalry can be brought to an end
by the announcement of homonoia and organization of common festival. Homonoia coins were
struck and statues were set up in both cities especially for this occasion.
There is another inscription from Philippopolis mentioning an altar erected by father and son
έκ των Ιδίων to the homonoia for the imperial house, the Roman Senate, the Roman people, the
boule and the demos of Philippopolis, the goddess Demetra and her daughter Core, and for the
friends (cat. # 11/370). The parallel with Perinthos coins allows us to admit that festival dedicated
to the the Demetra was carried out in Philippopolis.
The restoration of the word ομόνοια in a highly fragmented inscription from Bizye (cat. #
11/423) is too uncertain to draw definite conclusions about the content of the text. Given the
numismatic evidence for homonoia concluded between Bizye and Byzantion, we should not
exclude the possibility that the inscription testifies for this union. Moreover, such a hypothesis
can be suggested due to the official character of the inscription, as evidenced by the names of the
Roman consuls.
4. Probable reconstruction of the agonistic calender of the province of Thrace
Two arguments can be adduced in support of the hypothesis of the existence of agonistic cycle
in the province of Thrace, as evidenced by the quinquennial festivals and the dates of the editions:
1) the analysis of the coin emisisons issued for the festivals in Philippopolis, Perinthos, Byzantion
and Anchialos, held according to a certain scheme and 2) the so-called agonistic inscription
containing data for athletes who had winnings in the festivals of cities in the province of Thrace.
In a study on festivals that took place in the Roman Empire during 31 BC ֊ 400 AD, P. Gouw
successfully proves the existence of strict regularity in the festival editions held in Rome and in
the Roman provinces (Gouw 2009, 33 f£). It is determined that festivals of different cities in the
Empire were not randomly carried out, but on the contrary - the organization of the editions was
brought into line with each other. According to P. Gouw, the cities and the athletes, as well as the
emperor himself had an interest in creating a well-organized programme of the festivals in the
Empire. The big four Panhellenic games, constituting the so-called αρχαία περίοδος, were used
343
as time benchmarks. There was no problem to add newly established festival to this schedule.
Regional agonistic cycles were established, and consequently each of them fell into the four-year
cycle of the major festivals, i.e. each city festival was held on a strictly defined date in one of
the four years of the Olympiad. Thus, the three major festivals in Italy, Capitolia, Eusebeia and
Sebasta, were held in the second year of the Olympic cycle, as were the Aktia games in Nicopolis
(Gouw 2009, 92), but in different months (Gouw 2009, 44). According to the reconstruction of
the festival programmes made by R Gouw, the schedule, at least from the mid-2nd century AD
onwards, was as follows: Capitolia in Rome - mid-May to June 12, Eusebeia in Puteoli - mid-
June, Sebasta in Naples - mid-July to August 13 and Aktia in Nicopolis - September (Gouw 2009,
41 and 92).
S. Remijsen notes that the travelling programmes of the athletes repeated in every Olympiad
could be restored on the basis of the so-called agonistic inscriptions, in which the festivals are
listed in chronological order (Remijsen 2010,426, note 44). Some inscriptions, containing victory
lists of athletes, explicitly state that the winnings are arranged according to the-time in which they
were gained (cf. I.Smyrna 659 = CIG 3208 = IGRR IV 1432). Remijsen stresses that there were
one or two geographically distinct groups of agones held in each year of the Olympic cycle.
It can be assumed that the dates of the festival editions were determined with a view to
chronological and logistical reasons, considering the dates of the already established festivals.
Aelius Aristides (Aristides, Or. 14.225, 11-14) reports that there was αγώνων άπειρος αριθμός
in the eastern Mediterranean region around the mid-2nd century AD. According to the studies
made so far, the agones in the Empire were about 300 in number (Vagalinski 2009, 28; Gouw
2009, 34). It has been estimated that the agones organized every four years between the 1st and
the 3rd century AD were between 400 and 500 (Leschhorn 1998).
S. Price adverts to organization of festivals and games in the province of Asia based on a
regular cycle (Price 1984,104). The established schedule changed over time in response to a more
complicated situation arising from the increased number of games organized by many cities in
the province.
Professional athletes and artists could choose to participate in many festivals, which, in turn,
means that each year the competitors were able to pick from a huge range of agones. This is why
the existence of a calendar of the festivals was of such great importance. It was also necessary in
view of planning the travelling of the athletes to different parts of the Empire in order to take part
in various city festivals (Gouw 2009, 34). It was mainly the geographical distance between the
cities that required a predefined schedule of the agones to be made and observed by the athletes
and artists. This, in turn, could explain why their participation in city festivals was organized by
geographic regions. Hence, certain “agonistic tours“ were formed in different regions. P. Gouw
claims that the epigraphic monuments give some hint of the existence of Italic and western Greek
tours.
Agonistic inscriptions testify to foreign athletes and artists who took part in the events in the
province of Thrace. This epigraphic evidence gives ground to assume that calendar of the agones
was established in the province. Thus, on one hand, the professional athletes could include the
city festivals of the province of Thrace in their schedules, and on the other, the cities could attract
the best and most famous athletes. This, in turn, led to an increase in popularity and prestige of
the city festivals. The province of Thrace, as might be expected, was not an exception and was
included in the presumed agonistic tours organized on a geographical basis.
It appears that the wins in the city festivals in the province of Thrace are listed one after the
other in agonistic inscriptions cat. # # 11/397, II/441, II/458 (table XXVII, fig. 204, table XXIX,
fig. 206.1, table XXX, fig. 206.2). They are usually mentioned before or after the wins in festivals
that took place in the same geographical region (cat. # # 11/398, II/436, 11/442, 11/461, table
XXVI, fig. 203). Keeping in mind that the Aktian and Pythian games of Perinthos are inscribed
together in legends of the agonistic coins of Perinthos, it should be noted that inscription cat.
344
# II/397 (table XXVII, fig. 204) lists successively the wins in the games. We could make the
conclusion that these coin emissions indicate that only one edition of each agon was organized
within one year, probably held one after the other.
It is explicitly pointed out that Aur. Metrodoros from Kyzikos won in the Pythian games of
Perinthos twice κατά τό έζής, i.e. in two successive editions of the games (cat. # 11/436). His wins
in Thrace are listed with the wins in cities situated in the same geographical region - Nicomedia,
Perinthos, Chalcedon and Byzantion.
The honorary inscription of Septimius Aurelianus (cat. # II/461, table XXVI, fig. 203) also
lists the winnings in the city festivals of Perinthos and Byzantion among those in Nicomedia,
Nicaea, Kyzikos and Kaisareia.
The listing of festivals based on geographical regions can also be observed in the honorary
inscription of the herald Valerius Eclectus, and therefore the victories in Philippopolis and
Byzantion are inscribed next to those in Beroia, Nicomedia, Nicaea (cat. # II/458).
According to reading of text B of inscription of Marcus Aurelius Damas (cat. # 11/441, table
XXIX, fig. 206.1, table XXX, fig. 206.2), made by J.-Y. Strasser, the agones in Perinthos and
Byzantion are listed one after the other and the winning in the province of Macedonia comes
immediately after them.
Sports victories in Philippopolis and Perinthos are inscribed next to those in Nicomedia and
Kyzikos in inscription from Ancyra (cat. # 11/442).
As P. Gouw has noted, the victory lists of the athletes can be organized in different ways ֊
according to the prestige of the festivals themselves (in descending order) or based on geographical
or chronological principle. Each of these methods can be used for restoration of their careers
(Gouw 2009, 40 f£). The contests carried out in the province of Thrace are usually mentioned
next to others from the same geographic region, as suggested by epigraphic evidence. This leads
to the conclusion that the city festivals in the province of Thrace were part of a festival tour, in
which the agones of the adjacent provinces of Macedonia and Bithynia were also included.
The exact dates of the editions of the city festivals in the province of Thrace are determined
in the present study. The results are summarized in a chronological table (see Table 1), which
makes clear that several cities of the province organized festivals in the same year. The festivals of
Philippopolis, Perinthos and Byzantion were quinquennial, i.e. they took place every four years.
The same model could also be assumed for the Anchialos festival. This is also a strong argument
in favour of the hypothesis of the existence of “agonistic calendar“ of the province.
It can be accepted that the festivals of Perinthos and Byzantion were held in different months
of 211 AD. The games in Perinthos should be dated before the death of the emperor Septimius
Severus, while these in Byzantion were carried out after his death, as already stated above.
The games of Philippopolis and Perinthos held in 219 AD have very precise terminus post
quem and terminus ante quem, which are respectively the spring of 219 AD and July/August 219
AD. It should be stressed that two points confirm the exact dating of this edition in Perinthos: 1)
if we assume that the emperor Elagabalus passed through the city and gave permission the official
city title to be considered twice neokoros, then it follows that the Perinthos festival was organized
before the Philippopolis festival; 2) if we decide, however, to argue that the δ'ις νεωκόρος title of
Perinthos was inscribed on coin reverses because of the νεωκόρος tide bestowed on Philippopolis
by the emperor Elagabalus, then the chronology of both festivals should be the other way around,
i.e. it is to be assumed that the Philippopolis festival took place before the festival in Perinthos. If
we take into consideration the previous edition of the Perinthos games in 211 AD, then the first
hypothesis is correct. Í
The existence of a calendar of the festivals in the province of Thrace is identified from the
early 3rd century AD onwards and can be observed with certainty until the mid֊3rd century AD,
as evidenced by numismatic data. Neither numismatic, nor epigraphic evidence indicates that
city festivals in the province were carried out according to a strictly defined hierarchical scheme
345
before this period. There are, however, inscriptions testifying to agones in the province organized
before the early 3rd century AD. However, festival schedule in the province is not attested until the
early 3rd century AD, as mentioned above. In my opinion, the reasons are as follows:
1. These are festivals of the imperial cult held after official permission of the emperor himself.
It seems that they took place after imperial visits to the cities.
2. The permission of the Roman emperor is evident from the “sacred“ status of the festivals,
which could be conferred only by the emperor himself.
3. There was a growing tendency in the Empire to use the prestigious status of festivals as
a political instrument in order to demonstrate that some of the cities did enjoy the emperors
goodwill. This gradually increased the inter-city rivalry, especially during the 3rd century AD when
the historical situation in the Roman Empire called for frequent changes of emperors, which, in
turn, reinforced the need to rely on allies and to punish the enemies in a demonstrative way.
4. Inscriptions dated to the early 3rd century AD evidence for foreign athletes who participated
in city festivals in the province of Thrace.
The existence of agonistic calendar, i.e. the organization of city festivals according to a strictly
defined schedule, leads to another important conclusion: the festivals were established and
carried out regularly, and not accidentally or in a spontaneous way. This means that there is a high
probability that there was coordination between the cities in order to be prevented overlapping of
events, i.e. the exact dates of the city festivals were fixed in advance.
Based on the above analysis, the following summary can be made:
- 195 AD - festival in Perinthos
- 199 AD - festival in Perinthos
- 207 AD - festival in Perinthos
- 211 AD - festivals in Perinthos, Byzantion and Anchialos; presumed feast in Philippopolis
- 215 AD - festivals in Perinthos, Byzantion and Philippopolis
- 219 AD - festivals in Perinthos, Byzantion and Philippopolis
- 223 AD - festivals in Perinthos and Philippopolis (?)
- 227 AD - festivals in Perinthos, Byzantion and Philippopolis (?)
- 231 AD - festivals in Perinthos, Byzantion and Philippopolis (?)
֊ 235 AD - festival in Byzantion
- 238 AD - festival in Anchialos
- 239 AD - festivals in Perinthos and Byzantion (?)
- 242 AD - festival in Anchialos
- 243 AD - festivals in Perinthos and Byzantion (?)
- 251 AD - festival in Byzantion
- 255 AD ֊ festivals in Perinthos and Byzantion
5. Private festivals
5.1. Rosaliae
The analysis of the Rosaliae festival in the province of Thrace is based on three points:
1. For now, there is only a single epigraphic evidence for the celebration of this festival in the
province of Thrace (cat. # 11/377);
2. The inscription itself is highly fragmented leading to quite tentative conclusions about the
content of the text, although гф робихрф can be clearly read. The festival is usually designated as
dies rosaliorum, poSiapoq or rosalia in inscriptions from Thrace. The name rosalia occurs most
frequently in epigraphic monuments originating from the Balkans and Italy (Тодоров 1928,
105-110).
3. Scholars are still not unanimous how the festival was spread on the Balkans and whether
it can be considered as a clear indication of an enhanced Romanization or its dissemination was
346
due to the relation to the cult of Dionysus-Liber Pater. There is still no definitive answer to the
question why the festival was adopted in conjunction with the cult of the dead.
As a starting point, it is useful to emphasize that the scholarly literature on the subject usually
makes mention of the Roman origin of the rosalia festival and of the fact that initially it was
not intended to be connected to the cult of the dead. This was a spring festival of flowers (Шо-
пова 1998, 157). Rosaliae were celebrated in late spring when the roses bloom. The exact day
was chosen by the family or the collegia (Perdrizet 1900, 300). The different dates of the feast
encountered in epigraphic monuments lead to the assumption that the day of the festival was
not precisely fixed and was probably determined locally, depending on the blooming of roses in
May-June (Шопова 1998, 157).
Rosaliae was a private (personal) parentatio, not an official celebration. The festival included
in the official Roman calendar at a later date was probably not the traditional Rosaliae.
According to the calendar of Philocalus, Rosalia was celebrated on May 23. The calendar itself,
also called Fasti Philocali (CIL I2, p. 264), is dated to 354 AD. Most of the inscriptions indicate
that the festival was organized to worship of the imperial cult (cf. IvP 374 = IGRR IV 353).
According to Feriale Duranum, Rosaliae signorum took place on May 9 and May 31 (Richmond
1943, 162, note 84). The relation between Rosalia and the decoration of military standards with
roses (Rosalia signorum) still remains unclear and might be considered accidental (Fink, Hoey,
Snyder 1940, 115).
It can be accepted with certainty that the above-mentioned inscription from the province
of Thrace (cat. # 11/377) does not concern Rosaliae signorum but Rosaliae related to the cult of
the dead. The text says, despite the relatively high degree of fragmentation, that Αύλοντραλις
Έριμηρε(?)ος set up την στήλην και τό χωματικόν at his own expense (έκ των ιδίων) while he was
still alive.
There were at least two ways for proliferation of rituals in the Roman Empire: 1) in a geographical
aspect, i.e. the adoption of rituals from one region to another, and 2) in a metaphorical sense, i.e.
transfer of rituals from one context to another. A typical example of the first is the widespread
Roman funerary ritual of annual decoration of graves with roses. The ritual was performed during
the Roman feast Rosalia (or Rosae or Rosatio), dedicated to the worship of the cult of the dead
and celebrated mainly by different familiae and religious collegiae. The festival was celebrated
in the Greek-speaking East under the name ρόδα or ροδισμός. It was probably transferred by
Roman and Italic settlers on the Balkans and was quickly adopted by the local people. Hence, it
was proliferated further to the east as it could be easily associated with the traditional practice of
leaving flowers at the grave (Chaniotis 2009, 20-21).
It is known that Rosalia was associated with the worship of Dionysus, and hence with the
institution of thiasoi in Philippi (province of Macedonia) and its territory. As already mentioned,
the inscription from the province of Thrace under consideration (cat. # II/377) is highly damaged,
which does not allow us to draw any conclusions regarding the content of the text. However, the
preserved part of the inscription does not contain clues for any relation of rosaliae to the cult of
Dionysus. Only the funeral character of the rosaliae mentioned in the inscription can be stated
with certainty. On one hand, the casual style of the script lettering and the fact that a private person
set up the inscription speak of the private nature of the epigraphic monument, but on the other,
ή βουλή inscribed in relation to τω ροδισμω, suggests that it was erected for official celebration
of rosaliae. The second possibility should not be excluded, moreover the restored word after
βουλή is όπλων (?), leading to the assumption that the deceased Αύλουτραλις Έριμηρε(?)ος was
άρχιερεύς δι’ όπλων. The priestly position could relate to the boule mentioned in the inscription.
However, I find it necessary to point out again that the restored letters and words in the text are
insufficient to allow any definite conclusions. For now, we can only accept that there is epigraphic
evidence for celebration of rosaliae in the province of Thrace, indicating certain Romanization of
the province during the Ist ֊ 3rd century AD.
347
5.2. Festivals of cult associations
In relation to the analysis of the festivals of cult associations, it is important to clarify that
agonothetes were involved in the organization of the cult communities. They were most likely
to be entrusted with the organization of contests within the associations, as well as with the
participation of association members in city contests. The presence of gymnasiarches in cult
associations in the period under consideration is also epigraphically proven.
Honorary inscriptions from Byzantion provide grounds for the claim that agones were held
within cult associations. Some of the inscriptions in quiestion were found in Rhegion, which is
situated on the territory of Byzantion. They were set up by mystes of Dionysos Κάλλων in honour
of: Soterichos, son of Ariston, and Semnos, who were slaves (or libertini) of Lollia Katylla (cat.
# 11/418), designated as agonothetes and gymnasiarchs; Rufus, son of Diodoros, from έκατοστύς
Φιλοκτερήα (cat. # 11/415) and Crispina, daughter of Aischylos (cat. # 11/416), both of whom
were also gymnasiarchs; Diodoros, son of Quintus, and his wife Stallia Prima, who performed
the duties of agonothetes and gymnasiarchs (cat. # 11/417). The fact that not only agonothetes,
but also gymnasiarchs were part of the cult association indicates its strong influence in the life of
Byzantion. Inscription cat. # 11/417, which clearly says that mystes of Dionysos Κάλλων έτείμησαν
τον αγωνοθέτην έαυτών και γυμνασίαρχον Διόδωρον Κοΐντον, confirms the hypothesis that the
agonothetes and gymnasiarchs were part of the above-mentioned cult association and were not
employed by the city of Byzantion. Gymnasiarch named Potamonos, son of Menodotos, was
honoured with inscription erected by thiasoi of Dionysos Παράβολος (cat. # 11/419).
It is noteworthy that all of the above-mentioned inscriptions are of official character which is
clear by the formulas in the beginning of the texts. All the inscriptions are dated by the name of
the hieromnemon of Byzantion. Roman emperors (cat. # # 11/415,11/419) and even deities (cat.
# # 11/416, II/417,11/418) are designated as hieromnemones of the city.
There are no data from written sources confirming the implementation of Lex Iulia in the eastern
Roman provinces. The Romes distrust of different collegia and voluntary associations is well-known.
However, we do not have epigraphic evidence for any legal actions taken against collegia in the eastern
provinces. While an assumption has been expressed that the Romans feared voluntary associations,
it is accepted in recent scholarship that general prohibitions against the formation of collegia were
never imposed. Most probably their activities were only temporarily restricted. It is epigraphically
evidenced that the practice of some professional associations to honour prominent members of the
local city elite assured their position in the society. In this way different collegia demonstrated that
they shared the established system of values and principles and that they complied with the existing
socio-political order. The same tendency, in my opinion, can be observed in Byzantion, since the
above-mentioned inscriptions represent an evidence that a cult association honoured the ruling
emperor and prominent citizens of Byzantion who were part of the city elite.
6. Conclusion
The provincial and municipal festivals in the Roman province of Thrace during 1st ֊ 3rd century
AD period were carried out in direct relation to the concrete political situation in the Roman Empire.
The reason for their organization lies not so much in the revival of some old traditions within the
province and the cities, respectively, but in the correspondence with contemporaneous events. The
establishment, as well as the disappearance of some city festivals in the province of Thrace reflected
political and economic factors, which were result of the imperial propaganda in the province.
The conclusions about the festivals in the Roman province of Thrace in the 1st ֊ 3rd century
AD can be summarized in several points, as follows:
1) The imperial cult - the spread of gladiatorial fights (which is a Roman tradition) is related
to the spread of the festivals of the imperial cult. It can be assumed that over time the latter
became focus of the city life.
348
2) The evidence confirms that the cities in the province strived to have more popular festivals
with more prestigious titles. In this respect, the province did not differ from the other eastern
Roman provinces.
3) The same tendency is observed in the relation between city festivals and the aim of the
cities to be designated as neokoros, i.e. to have neokorate temple. The evidence from the two
neokoros cities in the province, Perinthos and Philippopolis, displays the direct relation between
the neokoria and the festival organized on this occasion, i.e. a connection temple -neokoria -
festival existed. Thus, in the cities in the province of Thrace the granting of neokoria did entail an
associated festival. The epigraphic data from the province also indicate the existence of inter-city
rivalry for the neokoros title and the right to organize festival of the imperial cult, respectively.
Mechanisms observed in the Roman imperial period encouraged the establishment and spread
of neokoria. There were rivalries among cities in the same koinon as each strived to become
neokoros. The cities in the province of Thrace were designated neokoros for the first time in
the period - late 2nd ֊ early 3rd century AD when the neokoros title was devalued. The most
crucial question arising here is whether or not the title was municipated. The proliferation of
neokoria resulted in cheapening of the title, without any change in its basic nature (Burrell 2004,
291). The increase in the number of neokoros cities in the 3rd century AD led to a sort of a
title inflation, parallel to the monetary inflation of the time. In my opinion, the neokoros title
was not provincial as regards the province of Thrace. Perinthos and Philippopolis were granted
neokoros title separately, i.e. the title was municipal, not provincial. This is explicitly argued by
the fact that Kendreiseia Pythia was organized only by Philippopolis without any indication that
the koinon was also involved in the event in contrast to Alexandreia Pythia, which took place in
Philippopolis under the supervision the Thracian koinon.
The evidence from the eastern provinces proves that only major cities sought to obtain
multiple titles in order to keep ahead of their neighbours, as the number of times that a city could
be neokoros was strictly proportional to its size and importance. Therefore, only the two biggest
and most important cities in the province of Thrace were neokoroi. Perinthos, the headquarters
of the provincial governor, was the only city of the province, which became twice neokoros.
4) As regards the province of Thrace, it can be concluded that the evidence for city festivals
prevails over the data for provincial festivals. Except the data for the Alexandreia Pythia festival
and a few epigraphic data for gladiatorial fights organized by the Thracian koinon, probably as
part of imperial celebrations, all other evidence relates to festivals on municipal and private level.
5) The organization of municipal festivals of the imperial cult required huge amount of money
from the public fiscus. Moreover, the aim of the cities was these holidays to be bestowed “sacred“
status, and hence to receive more popularity, attract more visitors, as well as the participation of
famous foreign athletes and artists. Only three cities in the province of Thrace could afford to
organize imperial festivals from financial point of view: Perinthos, Byzantion and Philippopolis -
the first two were rich port cities and the third was a metropolis of the Thracian koinon. Festival
of the imperial cult also took place in Anchialos, but most likely it was only of local significance,
and therefore was not very popular. As regards the Pythian games of Serdica we can state that
the available data are far from enough to allow any definite conclusions to be drawn. The lack of
more epigraphic and numismatic evidence for these games allows to be made an assumption for
implementation of only one edition.
6) There is no rule that imperial visits were the sole factor in the proliferation of neokoria.
The emperor did not have to be in the city itself to make it neokoros, and therefore any
assumption that equates the neokoria granted to a city with the actual presence of the emperor
is not sufficiently nuanced. However, the analysis presented here leads to the conclusion that the
granted neokoros titles and the related imperial festivals organized in the cities of the province
of Thrace were always a result of imperial visits. This is the reason to postulate the imperial visits
as the occasions for granting of neokoria to the cities of Thrace by the emperor, which makes it
349
possible to define more accurately the date of the festivals themselves. In my opinion, the dates of
Alexandreia Pythia and Kendreiseia Pythia that have been accepted in the scholarship for a long
time, should be reviewed. According to the analysis of the epigraphic and numismatic evidence
relevant to these festivals it can be assumed that Alexandreia Pythia was carried out in 215 AD
and Kendreiseia Pythia - in 219 AD.
7) The specified dates of the separate editions of the festivals of Philippopolis, Perinthos and
Byzantion represent an essential argument in favour of the assumption that agonistic calendar
existed in the province. Its beginning could be referred to the time of the Severans and it was
observed at least by the mid-3rd century AD. The mints ceased activity at that time which is a
serious obstacle to ascertain the latest possible date of the agones and to make well-grounded
assumption whether the cities continued to organize festivals in compliance with a regular
scheme or not.
8) Only the richest cities of the province, Perinthos and Byzantion, could afford the
organization of celebrations on the occasion of homonoia concluded with other cities in the
eastern Roman provinces. It is assumed that such unions were usually formed due to economic
reasons, but it appears that the historical past was also a strong motivation in choosing with
which city to be concluded homonoia. Bizye, although not as rich as the other city in the union
Byzantion, was the third city to issue such coins, as the union was concluded at a time when the
mint of Byzantion was already not in use.
9) It is worth noting that the eastern settlers played an important role and had significant
influence in the cities of the province with respect to the worship of the imperial cult and the
imperial festivals. The epigraphic evidence of hymnodes from two of the cities in the province
(Perinthos and Nicopolis ad Istrum) undeniably speaks of that.
10) It should be pointed out that only people belonging to the city elites were involved in
the organization of festivals in the province of Thrace, as well as in the rest of the eastern Roman
provinces.
Appendix I
Contests in the festival programmes of the province of Thrace
Athletic contests
There is not prolific numismatic and epigraphic evidence for the athletic agones held in
the province of Thrace. There is a thorough and detailed analysis of the various athletic events
evidenced in the Thracian lands (Vagalinski 1994; Vagalinski 2009). The analysis, however,
concerns only numismatic and epigraphic monuments from the territory of present-day Bulgaria.
These data will be cited in the present study in brief, but given the territorial scope of the study,
further evidence of athletic agones held throughout the province of Thrace is added.
The agones, numismatically proven to be athletic events included in the festival programme
of Kendreiseia Pythia, are the following: disk throwing (cat. # 1/7), pentathlon (given the fact
that disk throwing was not separate discipline, but part of the pentathlon (Vagalinski 1994, 9),
wrestling (cat. # 1/57), boxing.
Javelin throw (cat. # 1/63) is evidenced for Alexandreia Pythia.
In view of the fact that the games held in Philippopolis copied the Pythian games in Delphi,
it is assumed that besides pankration, pentathlon, wrestling and boxing, running in all three
distances ֊ stadion, dialos, dolichos was also present (Vagalinski 1994, 13).
A coin of Maximinus I Thrax represents an evidence for disk throwing (cat. # 1/263) in the
programme of the Nymphia festival of Anchialos.
It should be noted that the coins minted on the occasion of the games in Perinthos and
Byzantion have conventional images on their reverses (agonstic table, prize crown, etc.) which
350
makes it, impossible to identify the kinds of sporting event included in these festivals.
There are several epigraphic monuments that could also be used as evidence for the presence
of certain sports disciplines in the province of Thrace.
Inscription cat. # 11/363 is epigraphic evidence for the inclusion of pentathlon in the isopythian
games of Philippopolis.
If we accept that the Byzantion citizenship of Marcus Aurelius Koros was granted as a result of
his victory in the city games, then it is to be assumed that lettering cat. # 11/437 (table XXVIII,
fig. 205) testifies to pankration as a part of the agonistic programme of Byzantion.
Inscription cat. # 11/436 is an evidence for pentathlon in the isopythian games of Perinthos,
as well as in the Sebasta games of Byzantion. The festivals in both cities included pankration as
attested by inscription cat. # 11/441 (table XXIX, fig. 206.1, table XXX, fig. 206.2).
The assumption that the athlete mentioned in inscription cat. # 11/368 was born in Philippopolis
leads to the conclusion that it is further epigraphic evidence for the presence of pankration in
the games of Philippopolis. Except as pancratiast, the athlete is mentioned as παλαιστής, i.e.
wrestler.
Inscription cat. # 11/391 testifies for pentathlonist of Byzantion which could be adduced as
indirect evidence for the presence of this discipline in the games of Byzantion.
Musical1 and dramatic contests
An inscription from Athens displaying a list of victories of Valerius Eclectus (cat. # 11/458)
is an evidence that contests of heralds were part of the festivals of Philippopolis and Byzantion.
The inscription states at the beginning that Valerius Eclectus was κήρνζ, i.e. herald. His career
developed in the first half of the 3rd century AD and he had, inter alia, four victories won in two
cities of the province of Thrace - three in Philippopolis (two of them in the Pythia festival, one in
the Kendreiseia festival) and one in the Sebasta festival of Byzantion.
Epigraphic evidence of great interest, complementing the data for different types of agones
included in the programmes of the festivals in the province of Thrace, is an inscription found
on the Roman agora of Delphi, just in front of the sanctuary’s entrance. It is a list of victories of
Septimius Aurelianus (cat. # 11/461, table XXVI, fig. 203). The inscription is in no way different
from the standard agonistic lists of victories of athletes and artists, indicating in the beginning
the received citizenships, then listing the most prestigious victories in their careers. It informs us
that Septimius Aurelianus also had victories in festivals in the province of Thrace - two victories
in Aktia of Perinthos and one in Antoneineia of Byzantion. It is worth noting that the inscription
does not explicitly state in the beginning what kind of competitor Septimius Aurelianus was, and
hence the difficulty in determining the disciplines in which he was victorious.
There are two very important starting points in order to answer this question. The first
concerns part of the text of the inscription itself. It should be stressed that in the victory list of
Septimius Aurelianus is indicated only before a few festival names that he won in διά πάντων, as
follows: Σεονήρεια έν Νεικομηδεία, Άντωνείνεια εν Νεικέα, Άκτια έν Περίνθω, 'Ολύμπια εν Κνζικω
and Άντωνείνεια έν Βνζαντίω.
Several well-known epigraphic monuments shed more light on the nature of the διά πάντων
competition. The victory in such contest is included in the victory lists at the end of the poetical
and musical contests (Moretti 1953,217). According to Mie, διά πάντων competition was the final
one in which all contestants participating in the musical competitions included in the festival
programme took part (Mie 1909, 12). Based on the epigraphic evidence for διά πάντων we can
draw the following conclusions: 1) it was a musical competition; 2) the win in the competition
is usually the last one to be mentioned in the agonistic lists, following the other victories of the
competitor in correspondance with the place of the competition itself in the festival programme;
3) whatever the rules of the contest, it included all the contestants (or only the winners ?) who
competed for a prize in the musical events of the festival; 4) the explicit mention in the victory
351
lists of the win in this contest, the name of the festival and the city where it was won, clearly
speaks of the prestigious position the competition played in the career of the competitor.
The analysis so far is in favour of the hypothesis that Septimius Aurelianus was a musician or
an artist, i.e. his victories listed in the Delphi inscription were in theatrical or musical events. The
conclusion that he was a musician or an artist corresponds to the programmes of the festivals
listed in the inscription. However, the hypothesis for his participation in theatrical or musical
events and his victories in the Olympic games in Pisa, as well as in isolympian festivals, also
mentioned in the Delphi inscription, is contradictive. This in turn means that we should not
expect implementation of musical or theatrical events in the isolympian festivals, given that
they were “equal to Olympia“, i.e. a copy of the original Olympic games. Thus, his victory in the
Olympic games in Pisa, which certainly did not include musical and theatrical events, is a reliable
argument against the assumption that Septimius Aurelianus was a musician or an artist. Then,
the answer to the question which was the exact discipline of Septimius Aurelianus should not be
in conflict with his victories in the musical competition διά πάντων, as well as with his victory
in the Olympic games in Pisa, as musical agones were not included in them. In this case, there
are two disciplines meeting the required conditions ֊ the contests of the trumpeters and of the
heralds. As L. Robert notes, the heralds participated in other musical contests as well, such as
dramatic ones or even those of the kitharodes (Robert 1970, 21). Hence, it can be assumed that
Septimius Aurelianus, like Valerius Eclectus, was a herald, which could explain his victory in the
Olympic games in Pisa and in the διά πάντων competition.
Two of the coins minted on the occasion of the Severeia festival of Perinthos (195 AD) have
an image of a tube on the reverses (cat. # # 1/71,1/73, table III, figs. 14 and 16). The prize crown
depicted next to the tube is an evidence for a competition of trumpeters. This competition came
usually first in the programme of the games.
An inscription from Corinth testifies to competitions of kitharodes held in Perinthos (cat. #
11/460). The inscription contains a list of the winners of the Isthmian games. The competitions
in the lettering are divided into three groups, as the list of the winners in the contests of the
trumpeters, heralds, musicians, etc., begins on line 18. What is important to be mentioned in
reference to the Corinth inscription is the name of one of the winners inscribed on lines 25-27 of
text B - Π. Αΐλιος Άλνπιανός Περίνθιος. This citizen of Perinthos was the winner in the kitharodes
contest. His name prompts a citizenship probably obtained under the emperor Hadrian.
The agonistic programmes of the Philippopolis festivals are supplemented by a metrical epitaph
found in the present-day city of Plovdiv (cat. # II/369), published by N. Sharankov. According to
the interpretation proposed by him, the mentioned in the inscription Maximus is to be identified
with the Apamean poet Maximus, known to have two wins at the Άδριανά ’Ολύμπια games of
Kyzikos. The proposed date of the lettering is the second quarter of the 3rd century AD (Шаран-
kob 2006, 328). It should be noted that the participation of the Apamean poet Maximus in the
Philippopolis festival testifies to its prestige and popularity preserved at that time, i.e. after the
withdrawal of the neokoros title of the city.
Bizard published an inscription found in Larimna near the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios, which
mainly contains a list of winners in various musical events of Πτώϊα festival (Bizard 1903,296-297)
(cat. # 11/457). The winners are presented with their names and the names of their hometowns.
The winner in the poetic competition was Marcus Aurelius Dionysios from Byzantion. After
his name is expressly stated that he received double the prize, which was usually foreseen for
the winner (line 10-12: έλαβεν κατά τάς διατάξεις διηλοϋν το θ[έ]μα). As Strasser notes, the
inscription does not reveal why exactly Dionysios received this special award, moreover it is dear
from the text that he was the only one to be awarded such prize. Whatever the case, this lettering
is a certain evidence that poetical competitions took place in Byzantion.
A very interesting passage from Philostratus gives a hint that theatrical competitions were
held in Byzantion. Philostratus mentions the tragic actor (τραγωδίας υποκριτής) Clemens
352
from Byzantion (Philostratus VS 2.27.616) who won the Pythian games in Delphi. The story
of this victory, which found a special place in the work of Philostratus, refers to events directly
related to the history of Byzantion itself. Clemens won in an edition of the Pythian games, which
coincides in time with the siege of Byzantion by Septimius Severus. The siege was during the
243rd Olympiad, dating this edition of the Pythian games to the summer of 195 AD (Smith 1842,
680; Clinton 1853, 51). Despite the refusal of the judges and the members of the Amphiktyon
to bestow the victory on a competitor whose hometown was in the midst of war with Septimius
Severus, Hipodromos from Larissa, the agonothete of the Pythian games, defended Clemens.
Philostratus states that Clemens proved his talent in Rome where he also had victories. It should
be noted that the statement for this actor from Byzantion dates before the first known edition of
the Antoneineia Sebasta festival of Byzantion.
In connection with the musical and theatrical events in Byzantion, I would like to mention
the accepted hypothesis in the scholarship that the games of Byzantion, like those of Anchialos,
Odessos and Tomis, although under different names, constituted a copy of the Pythian games (Ге-
расимов 1958, 291). This hypothesis, however, is not supported by any specific arguments. The
name of the festival of Byzantion does not attest to holding of isopythian games. The epigraphic
data for musical and theatrical events in Byzantion, as well as the reference to Clemens, in my
opinion, are not convincing and sufficient arguments in favour of the assertion that the status
of the Byzantion festival was isopythian, i.e. that it was modelled after the Pythian games in
Delphi.
Age categories
Inscription from Ephesus cat. # 11/439 containing a victory list of an athlete who competed
in pentathlon gives a lot of interesting information on the age categories for the Aktian games
of Perinthos. The names of the athlete and his hometown are not preserved. One could only
state that he comes from the province of Asia. The victory list begins from the second line of the
inscription and is arranged in chronological order and according to the age categories in which
he was victorious in the agones. He had 27 wins in three age categories: naldeq, ayeveioi, avdpeq.
His victories in 7raiq category are listed from line 4 onwards. The athletes win in the Aktian games
of Perinthos is mentioned among them. According to Appel the category of naiScov should be
considered naideq’IaOpiKoi. M. Lehner (Lehner 2004, 177, Anm. 772) also accepts that in this case
we should not think of the age category of naldeq, but of naldeq ’IodpiKoi, which was a division of
naldeq. Such assumption has grounds in the circumstance that the victory list starts with contests
in which the athlete competed in the age category of naldeq TIvOikoI. It can be concluded that
during his athletic career the pentathlonist competed from the age category of naldeq FlvdiKoi to
that of avdpeq.
Except the presence of age categories in the competitions held within the Aktian games in
Perinthos, we have epigraphic evidence (cat. # II/436) that there were such age categories in the
Pythian games of Perinthos as well. The athlete Aurelius Metrodoros of Kyzikos had two wins
in pentathlon contest of the Pythia festival of Perinthos. The inscription says that he won in this
discipline in the age category avdpeq. This is an evidence that the games, being isopythian, use
the Pythian games in Delphi as a “model“.
Philippopolis, like Perinthos, also copied the pattern of the Pythian games in Delphi, including
the age categories. This is strongly suggested by inscription cat. # 11/362.
Inscription cat. # 11/437 (table XXVIII, fig. 205) does not explicitly mention a victory of
pankratiast in Byzantion. However, assuming the hypothesis for his participation and victory
in the Byzantion games, we can conclude that the arrangement of his victories according to the
age categories in which they were won suggests the presence of age categories in the city festival.
Hasluck only notes that the pankratiast was a “boy athlete“ without specifying the different age
categories in which he competed (Hasluck 1910, 268, III.B, 22).
353
Appendix II
Festivals as evidence for inter-city rivalry in the province of Thrace
There are two neokoros cities in the province of Thrace - Philippopolis and Perinthos. The
neokoros title given to Philippopolis and Perinthos was related to celebrations organized on this
occasion, as already stated. The Severeia festival of Perinthos was held for the first neokoros title of
the city, the second edition of the Aktia Pythia Philadelpheia festival was organized in 211 AD for
its second neokoria, and the Kendreiseia Pythia festival took place in 219 AD because of the first
and only neokoros title of Philippopolis. The analysis of coins struck in the mints of the two cities
does not confirm the hypothesis, sustained in the scholarship so far, that Elagabalus bestowed
neokoros title on both cities. The emperor gave the prestigious title only to Philippopolis. This in
turn raises the question why Elagabalus decided to give the title only to one city in Thrace, and
why to Perinthos but not to Philippopolis.
It has so far been assumed that the city council of Philippopolis chose the name of the Kendreiseia
Pythia games to flatter Elagabalus, having in mind that the emperor worshipped the eastern sun
cult. He, in turn, did not remain indifferent to this gesture and bestowed neokoros title on the city
(Гочева 1985,106; Колев 1967,43-44). This hypothesis clearly shows the relationship between the
title and the games, but also conveys that the reason for the given title was precisely the organizing
of games under such name. Is it possible, however, to consider the chronology of events to be the
other way around, i.e. the games of Philippopolis received their name after the neokoros title was
bestowed? In other words, can we assume that firstly the emperor authorized the temple of the
main deity of the city to be neokoros and then the city games received new name so as to be shown
the connection between them and this honour? The name Kendreiseia displays the direct relation
between the city and the emperor, as the cult of Elagabalus was worshipped in the temple of Apollo
Kendrisos. This is why we should not exclude the hypothesis that the city council of Philippopolis,
after receiving the coveted title, made a decision to hold the games under a new name. The aim
was probably to emphasize in this way the obtaining of the prestigious city title.
The assumption that the neokoros title of Philippopolis was first given and then celebrated
with games, as well as the fact that Elagabalus ignored Perinthos in favour of Philippopolis, poses
the question why the emperor led such a policy as regards neokoros titles. The comparison with
other cities in the eastern provinces, on which Elagabalus also bestowed the title, show that the
religious notions of the emperor were not always the deciding factor which cities to be conferred
with neokoria.
B. Burrell points out that the number of neokoros titles given by Elagabalus is not different
from the number of titles given by Caracalla. According to her observations, based on numismatic
and epigraphic evidence from the eastern Roman provinces, Elagabalus gave neokoria to no more
than one city in a province before 221 AD. The emperor had particular reason to be benevolent
to each of them. B. Burrell is quite extreme in her opinion that if Elagabalus chose a roundabout
route to Rome, probably the metropolis of the Thracian koinon would never become a neokorate
city (Burrell 2004, 244). The analysis of the neokorate titles given by Elagabalus makes me think
that there were purely diplomatic incentives for the neokoria of Philippopolis and shows the
ambition of Elagabalus to lead more balanced policy in the provinces, at least in the beginning of
his reign. Perhaps his effort to imitate Caracalla lies behind the decision to make only one city in
the province of Thrace neokoros, but this time the chosen city was Philippopolis, which was only
metropolis at the time of Septimius Severus and his sons, and not the capital of the province of
Thrace Perinthos, having two neokorate titles at that time.
Moreover, I am of the opinion that the decision of Elagabalus to bestow neokoros title precisely
on Philippopolis reveals his ambition to be worshipped in the center of the Thracian koinon,
which was crucial for increasing his popularity in the province. Therefore, we may assume that the
decision of the emperor was dictated not only by religious, but primarily by political reasons.
354
As already stated in the analysis, the earliest possible date for bestowing neokoros title on
Perinthos by Elagabalus is in the spring of 219 AD, when the emperor passed on European territory
from Asia Minor. The above-mentioned arguments, however, do not support this hypothesis. A
celebration was organized in Perinthos in honour of Elagabalus, who probably visited the city
in the spring of 219 AD, but the occasion was not neokoros title. Although the analysis of coin
emissions of Perinthos indicates that the city was not given such title by Elagabalus, we may
state that precisely during his reign the city was officially titled twice neokoros. The reason was
probably an official permission by Elagabalus, authorizing Perinthos to be titled twice neokoros
because of the two already built imperial temples in the city. It is possible the festival of Perinthos
held in honour of Elagabalus to have been organized namely for that reason.
Another possible reason the two neokoros titles to be officially inscribed is the emperors
decision to bestow neokoros title on Philippopolis. In other words, this could reveal inter-city
rivalry which provoked the appearance of inscriptions including the two neokorate titles of
Perinthos in comparison with the only neokoros title of Philippopolis.
The rivalry between Perinthos and Philippopolis to obtain the title, which was celebrated with
festivals in both cities, raises the question for neokoria of another city in the province of Thrace
and whether there was rivalry for obtaining the title. Researchers agree that one more city in the
province of Thrace was neokorate - Augusta Traiana. However, there is not any evidence for
holding of a city festival for celebrating of the conferred neokoros title. There are numismatic
data for carrying out of agones in Augusta Traiana, but they date to the time of Commodus (cat.
# 1/347), while the supposed neokoria of the city was bestowed at the time of Severans.
Three arguments make the researchers think of the hypothesis that Augusta Traiana was
neokoros: 1) a coin of the city, on the reverse of which is depicted an image usually interpreted
as neokorate scene; 2) a Latin inscription attesting for the building of Augusteum in Augusta
Traiana and 3) the title νεωκόρος έν παιδί of Αύρ(ήλιος) Τηρης Σκέλη[τ]ος encountered in two
inscriptions from the city that have completely identical texts.
The interpretation of the neokorate scene depicted on the coin reverse in question is challenged
by E. Schönert-Geiss in the corpus of the coins from Augusta Traiana (Schönert-Geiss, Augusta
Traiana, № 6 and № 495). She defines the coin as type 8 in her classification, namely the type of
“the emperor and the city goddess reaching hands to each other “ which appears on coins of Geta
ca. 209-211/212 AD.
The second argument of the researchers who have dealt with the issue of the neokoria of
Augusta Traiana is a Latin inscription stating that Augusteum was built in Augusta Traiana (Ди-
митров 1932-1933, 291 сл.). The epigraphic monument is precisely dated to November 13, 233
AD (1. 9-10: et dedicaverunt idibus novembribus Maximo etPaterno co(n)s(ulibus)). The fact that
an imperial temple was constructed in Augusta Traiana, however, does not necessarily mean that
the temple was neokorate.
There are no grounds for relating the temple to neokoria bestowed on the city at least for two
reasons: 1) the image on the reverse of the above-mentioned coin is misinterpreted as neokorate
scene and 2) even if we do not take the first argument into consideration, such a hypothesis would
not correspond to the chronology: the coin in question was minted under the reign of Geta, while
the temple was dedicated to Severus Alexander and Julia Mamaea. No coins of Severus Alexander
issued by the mint of Augusta Traiana have images or inscriptions attesting to neokorate title
given by Severus Alexander. Moreover, inscription in which the city is titled neokoros has not yet
been found.
The third argument are two inscriptions dedicated to Aurelius Teres, in which he is mentioned
as νεωκόρος έν παιδί (cat. # # II/379,11/381). Zl. Goceva notes that the Latin language of the
inscription from Augusta Traiana and the nature of the building itself (Augusteum, temple of
the imperial cult) display an obvious, clearly expressed Romanization which is not typical of the
province of Thrace and represent something unusual in the overall picture of the religious life in
355
the province (Goceva 1998,274). She does not agree with the assumption of H. Buyukliev that the
high priest Aurelius Teres was neokoros of the Augusteum as the three epigraphic monuments
are of different dates, and moreover because the neokoria, so characteristic of the Greek-speaking
East, has no place in the Augusteum (Goceva 1998, 274).
We need to look for another explanation of the title νεωκόρος έν παιδί of Teres. In Roman
times the neokoros title was associated with the worship of the imperial cult. This is further
supported by the fact that Teres was appointed άρχιερεύς Si5οπλών giving him the right to organize
gladiatorial fights in the capacity of munerarius (cat. # # 11/379,11/381). But on account of the
absence of any evidence of Augusta Traiana as neokoros and in view of the formula used in the
inscription, νεωκόρος έν παιδί, the title can be interpreted as a warden of a temple or shrine.
As regards the Latin inscription, we should pay attention to two very important pieces of
information that become clear from the text: 1) who built the Augusteum and what social status
he held in the administrative life of the city and 2) the exact time when the Augusteum was built.
The inscription says that the temple was erected a solo (line 7) by veterani consistentes. Another
Latin inscription, found also in Augusta Traiana, gives grounds to the claim that they were
veterans of Legio XXX Ulpia. As already mentioned, the Augusteum was dedicated to Severus
Alexander and his mother Julia Mamaea. The building of Augusteum erected by veterans ex suis
impendiis (line 7) is a clear evidence for honouring the emperor Severus Alexander. The reason
could be a given recompense under his reign, but since the lettering can be accurately dated, there
was probably a particular reason for building of the temple. Given the date, possible cause could
be an imperial visit to Augusta Traiana.
The inscription is referred to 233 AD, the year when Severus Alexander returned to Rome,
where he celebrated his triumph and accepted the titles Persicus Maximus (Campbell 2005, 26;
Vagi 2000, 307; Hönn 1911, 75). As already pointed out, the observation of the numismatic
and epigraphic material suggests that each neokoria bestowed by the emperor Elagabalus was
withdrawn by Severus Alexander with no exceptions, as this did not happen in the beginning but
in the course of his reign. Terminus post quem for these revoked neokorate titles seems to be 231
AD ֊ the year when the emperor undertook his military expedition against the Parthians. This
means that Philippopolis was deprived of the title by 231 AD. Severus Alexander did not renew
the neokoria of Philippopolis. Therefore, in my opinion, the date of the inscription set by veterani
consistentes, gives grounds to assume another reason for the construction of Augusteum in Augusta
Traiana, namely the ambition of the city to receive neokoros title by the emperor. The historical
situation was very suitable for this. The Augusteum was built at a time when Philippopolis had
just lost its neokoros title given by the unpopular predecessor of Severus Alexander. Because of
that neokoria Philippopolis most probably did not enjoy the goodwill of Severus Alexander.
356
СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ
1. Увод.7
Проучвания по проблематиката .13
Териториален обхват.16
Хронологичен обхват.33
2. Празници, организирани от Тракийския койнон. 33
2.1. Александрен Пития.33
2.2. Други празници, организирани от Тракийския койнон.42
3. Муниципални празници.49
3.1. Асклепиея .49
3.2. Питийски игри в Сердика.56
3.3. Неокория и празници в провинция Тракия .61
3.3.1. Кендризея Пития.62
3.3.2. Северея и Актия Пития Филаделфия .84
3.4. Антониния Себаста.103
3.5. Северея Нюмфия .124
3.6. Свещени агони .129
3.7. Празници и благодетели.142
3.8. Други данни за празници на императорския култ.160
3.8.1. Жертвоприношения .160
3.8.2. Процесии.180
3.8.3. Химноди.190
3.9. Гладиаторски игри.195
3.9.1. Devotio за императора ?.195
3.9.2. Епиграфски и иконографски данни за гладиатори.203
3.9.3. Venationesvi taurokathapsia.215
3.10. Честване на ομόνοια.224
3.10.1. Нумизматични данни за честване на ομόνοια .224
3.10.2. Епиграфски данни за честване на ομόνοια.237
4. Опит за реконструкция на календара на агоните в провинция Тракия .243
5. Частни празници.256
5.1. Розалии.256
5.2. Празници на религиозни сдружения.262
6. Заключение.271
Appendix I. Състезания, включени в програмите на празниците в провинция Тракия.275
Спортни състезания .275
Музикални и театрални състезания .278
Възрастови категории.290
Appendix II. Празниците като свидетелство за съревнование между градовете в
провинция Тракия.291
Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace (1st - 3rd c. AD) (Summary).307
Библиография и съкращения.357
Testimonia antiqua.374
Каталог.377
Карти и таблици.471
Илюстрации .4^3
5
CONTENTS
1. Introduction .7
History of research.13
Territorial scope of the study.16
Chronological scope of the study.33
2. Festivals of the Thracian koinon .33
2.1. Alexandreia Pythia.33
2.2. Other festivals of the Thracian koinon .42
3. Municipal festivals.49
3.1. Asklepieia.49
3.2. Pythian games in Serdica.56
3.3. Neokoria and festivals in the province of Thrace.61
3.3.1. Kendreiseia Pythia.62
3.3.2. Severeia and Aktia Pythia Philadelpheia.84
3.4. Antoneineia Sebasta.103
3.5. Severeia Nymphia .124
3.6. Sacred agones.129
3.7. Festivals and benefactors.142
3.8. Other evidence for festivals of the imperial cult.160
3.8.1. Sacrifices .180
3.8.2. Processions .190
3.8.3. Hymnodes.195
3.9. Gladiatorial games.195
3.9.1. Ritual of devotio on behalf of the emperor ? .195
3.9.2. Epigraphic and iconographie evidence for gladiators.203
3.9.3. Venationes and taurokathapsia.215
3.10. Celebration of homonoia.224
3.10.1. Numismatic evidence for homonoia .224
3.10.2. Epigraphic evidence for homonoia.237
4. Probable reconstruction of the agonistic calendar of the province of Thrace.243
5. Private festivals.256
5.1. Rosaliae.256
5.2. Festivals of cult associations .262
6. Conclusion.271
Appendix I. Contests in the festival programmes of the province of Thrace.275
Athletic contests.275
Musical and dramatic contests.278
Age categories.290
Appendix II. Festivals as evidence for inter-city rivalry in the province of Thrace .291
Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace (1st - 3rd c. AD) (Summary).307
Bibliography and abbreviations.357
Testimonia antiqua. 374
Catalogue. 377
Maps and tables . 47 j
Illustrations . AQ-,
3 |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Andreeva, Petja ca. 20./21. Jh |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1080505342 |
| author_facet | Andreeva, Petja ca. 20./21. Jh |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Andreeva, Petja ca. 20./21. Jh |
| author_variant | p a pa |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV043227248 |
| ctrlnum | (gbd)1084040 (OCoLC)951817226 (DE-599)BVBBV043227248 |
| era | Geschichte 1-300 gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte 1-300 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>00000nam a2200000 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV043227248</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20160222</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">151221s2014 a||| |||| 00||| bul d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9789549472356</subfield><subfield code="9">978-954-9472-35-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(gbd)1084040</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)951817226</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV043227248</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">bul</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-2761</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6,12</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Andreeva, Petja</subfield><subfield code="d">ca. 20./21. Jh.</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1080505342</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Praznici v rimskata provincija Trakija</subfield><subfield code="b">(I - III vek) = Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace</subfield><subfield code="c">Petja Andreeva Andreeva - Petya Andreeva Andreeva</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="246" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Sofija</subfield><subfield code="b">Nacionalen archeologičeski institut s muzej - BAN</subfield><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">523 Seiten</subfield><subfield code="b">Illustrationen, Karten</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Disertacii / Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite</subfield><subfield code="v">tom 8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zusammenfassung in englischer Sprache</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="546" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text bulgarisch</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="546" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">Kyrillische Schrift</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1-300</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Fest</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4121260-5</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Festival</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4154198-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Römisches Reich</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4076778-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Thrakien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4078277-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="688" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Thrakien als Provinz</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-2581)TH000004995</subfield><subfield code="2">gbd</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Römisches Reich</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4076778-4</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Thrakien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4078277-3</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Fest</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4121260-5</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Festival</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4154198-4</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1-300</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="810" ind1="2" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite</subfield><subfield code="t">Disertacii</subfield><subfield code="v">tom 8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV022862779</subfield><subfield code="9">8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028649961&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028649961&sequence=000002&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">gbd</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="q">gbd_4_1701</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">306.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09015</subfield><subfield code="g">499</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028649961</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Römisches Reich (DE-588)4076778-4 gnd Thrakien (DE-588)4078277-3 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Römisches Reich Thrakien |
| id | DE-604.BV043227248 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-10-03T18:02:32Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9789549472356 |
| language | Bulgarian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028649961 |
| oclc_num | 951817226 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 DE-2761 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-2761 |
| physical | 523 Seiten Illustrationen, Karten |
| psigel | gbd_4_1701 |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| publishDateSearch | 2014 |
| publishDateSort | 2014 |
| publisher | Nacionalen archeologičeski institut s muzej - BAN |
| record_format | marc |
| series2 | Disertacii / Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite |
| spelling | Andreeva, Petja ca. 20./21. Jh. Verfasser (DE-588)1080505342 aut Praznici v rimskata provincija Trakija (I - III vek) = Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace Petja Andreeva Andreeva - Petya Andreeva Andreeva Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace Sofija Nacionalen archeologičeski institut s muzej - BAN 2014 523 Seiten Illustrationen, Karten txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Disertacii / Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite tom 8 Zusammenfassung in englischer Sprache Text bulgarisch Kyrillische Schrift Geschichte 1-300 gnd rswk-swf Fest (DE-588)4121260-5 gnd rswk-swf Festival (DE-588)4154198-4 gnd rswk-swf Römisches Reich (DE-588)4076778-4 gnd rswk-swf Thrakien (DE-588)4078277-3 gnd rswk-swf Thrakien als Provinz (DE-2581)TH000004995 gbd Römisches Reich (DE-588)4076778-4 g Thrakien (DE-588)4078277-3 g Fest (DE-588)4121260-5 s Festival (DE-588)4154198-4 s Geschichte 1-300 z DE-604 Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite Disertacii tom 8 (DE-604)BV022862779 8 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028649961&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028649961&sequence=000002&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| spellingShingle | Andreeva, Petja ca. 20./21. Jh Praznici v rimskata provincija Trakija (I - III vek) = Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace Fest (DE-588)4121260-5 gnd Festival (DE-588)4154198-4 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4121260-5 (DE-588)4154198-4 (DE-588)4076778-4 (DE-588)4078277-3 |
| title | Praznici v rimskata provincija Trakija (I - III vek) = Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace |
| title_alt | Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace |
| title_auth | Praznici v rimskata provincija Trakija (I - III vek) = Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace |
| title_exact_search | Praznici v rimskata provincija Trakija (I - III vek) = Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace |
| title_full | Praznici v rimskata provincija Trakija (I - III vek) = Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace Petja Andreeva Andreeva - Petya Andreeva Andreeva |
| title_fullStr | Praznici v rimskata provincija Trakija (I - III vek) = Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace Petja Andreeva Andreeva - Petya Andreeva Andreeva |
| title_full_unstemmed | Praznici v rimskata provincija Trakija (I - III vek) = Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace Petja Andreeva Andreeva - Petya Andreeva Andreeva |
| title_short | Praznici v rimskata provincija Trakija |
| title_sort | praznici v rimskata provincija trakija i iii vek festivals in the roman province of thrace |
| title_sub | (I - III vek) = Festivals in the Roman province of Thrace |
| topic | Fest (DE-588)4121260-5 gnd Festival (DE-588)4154198-4 gnd |
| topic_facet | Fest Festival Römisches Reich Thrakien |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028649961&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028649961&sequence=000002&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV022862779 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT andreevapetja praznicivrimskataprovincijatrakijaiiiivekfestivalsintheromanprovinceofthrace AT andreevapetja festivalsintheromanprovinceofthrace |