ne ok greek cities

NEOKOROI

GREEK CITIES AND ROMAN EMPERORS

CINCINNATICLASSICAL STUDIES

NEW SERIES

VOLUME IX

NEOKOROIGREEK CITIES ANDROMAN EMPERORS

BY

BARBARA BURRELL

BRILLLEIDEN BOSTON

2004

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Burrell, Barbara.Neokoroi : Greek cities and Roman emperors / by Barbara Burrell.

p. cm. (Cincinnati classical studies ; new ser., v. 9)Originally presented as the authors thesis (doctoralHarvard, 1980).Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 90-04-12578-71. Cities and towns, AncientTurkey. 2. GreeksTurkeyHistoryTo 1500.3. Emperor workshopRome. I. Title. II. Series.

DS155.B87 2003939.2dc22 2003065214

ISSN 0169-7692ISBN 90 04 12578 7

Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written

permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personaluse is granted by Brill provided that

the appropriate fees are paid directly to The CopyrightClearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910

Danvers MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

In memory of

Florry and Harry Burrell

Bluma Trell

George Hanfmann

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS

Illustrations and Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiAcknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviiMap of the Neokoroi Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

Introduction: Methodologyi. General Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1ii. The Word Neokoros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3iii. Forms of Evidence

1. Literary Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62. Numismatic Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73. Epigraphic Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114. Archaeological Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

iv. How to Use This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

PART I: CITY-BY-CITY SECTION

i. Koinon of AsiaChapter 1. Pergamon in Mysia (Augustus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Chapter 2. Smyrna in Ionia (Tiberius) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Chapter 3. Miletos in Ionia (Gaius) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Chapter 4. Ephesos in Ionia (Nero) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Chapter 5. Kyzikos in Mysia (Hadrian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Chapter 6. Sardis in Lydia (Antoninus Pius) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Chapter 7. Aizanoi in Phrygia (Commodus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116Chapter 8. Laodikeia in Phrygia (Commodus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119Chapter 9. Philadelphia in Lydia (Caracalla) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126Chapter 10. Tralles in Lydia (Caracalla) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130Chapter 11. Antandros in the Troad (Caracalla) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133Chapter 12. Hierapolis in Phrygia (Elagabalus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135Chapter 13. Magnesia in Ionia (Severus Alexander) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142Chapter 14. Synnada in Phrygia (Tetrarchy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

ii. Koinon of BithyniaChapter 15. Nikomedia (Augustus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147Chapter 16. Nikaia (Hadrian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

iii. Koinon of GalatiaChapter 17. Ankyra (Augustus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

iv. Cities of PamphyliaChapter 18. Perge (Vespasian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175Chapter 19. Side (Valerian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181Chapter 20. Aspendos (Gallienus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

v. Koinon of MacedoniaChapter 21. Beroia (Nerva) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

contentsviii

Chapter 22. Thessalonike (Gordian III) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198vi. Koinon of Pontus

Chapter 23. Neokaisareia, Pontus Polemoniacus (Trajan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205Chapter 24. Amaseia, Pontus Galaticus (Marcus Aurelius) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

vii. Koinon of CiliciaChapter 25. Tarsos (Hadrian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212Chapter 26. Anazarbos (Septimius Severus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220Chapter 27. Aigeai (Severus Alexander) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

viii. Koinon of ArmeniaChapter 28. Nikopolis (Hadrian?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

ix. Koinon of ThraceChapter 29. Perinthos (Septimius Severus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236Chapter 30. Philippopolis (Elagabalus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

x. Koinon of CappadociaChapter 31. Kaisareia (Septimius Severus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

xi. Koinon of PhoeniciaChapter 32. Tripolis? (Elagabalus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

xii. Koinon/Ethnos of LyciaChapter 33. Patara (third century?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253Chapter 34. Akalissos (third century?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

xiii. Koinon of the Cities of (West-Central) PontusChapter 35. Herakleia (Philip) (with a note on the synod of theatrical artists) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

xiv. Syria Palaestina /SamariaChapter 36. Neapolis (Philip) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

xv. PisidiaChapter 37. Sagalassos (Tetrarchy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

PART II: SUMMARY CHAPTERS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273Chapter 38. Historical Analysis: The Development of Neokoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275Chapter 39. The Temples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

Temples Known Archaeologically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306Temples Shown on Coins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312Construction Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314Temples in Urban Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316Cult Statues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317Cult Statues on Coins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321Emperors and their Cult Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324Emperors in Other Gods Temples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326Temples of Gods that Gave Neokoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

Chapter 40. The Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331Elites: Greek Culture, Roman Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331Brokers of Beneficence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333Agonistic Festivals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335Neokoria: City versus Koinon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

contents ix

Chapter 41. The Koina and their Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343Koinon Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344Officials of the Koinon and of its Temples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346Koinon and Neokoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349Koinon Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350Competition and Concord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351Rivalry and the Orators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354Roman Views of Rivalry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355Rival Cities, Rival Emperors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356Later Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

Chapter 42. The Roman Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359The Emperors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361The Augusti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366The Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367Provincial Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370

Chapter 43. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395The Emperors of Rome and Some Members of their FamiliesSynoptic chart of Neokoroi Cities

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

Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423

illustrations and credits xi

ILLUSTRATIONS AND CREDITS

On page xix: Map of the Neokoroi cities: by John Wallrodt and Marcie Handler.

Temple and Temenos Plans: by Maroun Kassab and Irina Verkhovskaya.

Fig. 1. Ankyra: Temple of Augustus and Rome.Fig. 2. Ephesos: Temple of the Augusti.Fig. 3. Miletos: Temple of Apollo at Didyma.Fig. 4. Pergamon: Temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan.Fig. 5. Ephesos: Temple (of Hadrian?) (hypothetical).Fig. 6. Pergamon: Round temple in Asklepieion.Fig. 7. Kyzikos: Temple of Hadrian.Fig. 8. Sagalassos: Temple of Antoninus Pius.Fig. 9. Sardis: Temple of Artemis.Fig. 10. Sardis: Pseudodipteros.Fig. 11. Tarsos: temple at Donukta.Fig. 12. Neapolis: temple on Tell er-Ras.Fig. 13. Aizanoi: Temple of Zeus.Fig. 14. Ephesos: Temple of Artemis.Fig. 15. Magnesia: Temple of Artemis Leukophryene.Fig. 16. Miletos: temenos, Temple of Apollo at Didyma.Fig. 17. Ephesos: temenos, Temple of the Augusti.Fig. 18. Pergamon: temenos, Temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan.Fig. 19. Ephesos: temenos, Temple (of Hadrian?).Fig. 20. Sagalassos: temenos, Temple of Antoninus Pius.Fig. 21. Aizanoi: temenos, Temple of Zeus.Fig. 22. Magnesia: temenos, Temple of Artemis Leukophryene.

Sculpture

Fig. 23. Pergamon: fragments of colossi of Trajan or Hadrian, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no.281/282. Photo:Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.

Fig. 24. Pergamon: colossal head of Trajan, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no. 281. Photo: Antikensammlung,Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.

Fig. 25. Pergamon: colossal head of Hadrian, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no. 282. Photo: Antikensammlung,Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.

Fig. 26. Ephesos: colossal head of Titus, Izmir Arkeoloji Mzesi Inv. 670. Photo: Brian Rose.Fig. 27. Ephesos: reconstruction, colossus of Titus. Drawing: Robert Hagerty.Fig. 28. Ephesos: statue of great Artemis, Seluk Museum inv. 712, front with headdress. Photo:

sterreichisches Archologisches Institut.Fig. 29. Ephesos: statue of great Artemis, Seluk Museum inv. 712, headdress left side. Photo:

sterreichisches Archologisches Institut.

illustrations and creditsxii

Fig. 30. Ephesos: statue of great Artemis, Seluk Museum inv. 712, headdress left side/rear. Photo:sterreichisches Archologisches Institut.

Fig. 31. Ephesos: statue of great Artemis, Seluk Museum inv. 712, headdress right side/rear.Photo: sterreichisches Archologisches Institut.

Fig. 32. Sardis: colossal head of Antoninus Pius, S61.27:15, front. Photo: copyright ArchaeologicalExploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

Fig. 33. Sardis: colossal head of Antoninus Pius, S61.27:15, left profile. Photo: copyrightArchaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

Fig. 34. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no.1936.3-10-1, front. Photo:copyright Trustees of the British Museum.

Fig. 35. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no. 1936.3-10-1, front frombelow. Photo: Brian Rose.

Fig. 36. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no. 1936.3-10-1, side view.Photo: Brian Rose.

Fig. 37. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, back. Photo: copyright ArchaeologicalExploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

Fig. 38. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, front. Photo: copyright ArchaeologicalExploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

Fig. 39. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, left profile. Photo: copyrightArchaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

Fig. 40. Sardis: colossal head of Lucius Verus, S96.008:110484, front. Photo: copyrightArchaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

Fig. 41. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Mzeleri 4038T. Photo: IstanbulArkeoloji Mzeleri.

Fig. 42. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Mzeleri 4038T, front. Photo: BrianRose.

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

Fig. 44. Sardis: fragment of colossal head of Faustina the Younger? S61.027:2. Photo: copyrightArchaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

Fig. 45. Sardis: colossal fragment with diadem, S61.27:1. Photo: copyright ArchaeologicalExploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

CoinsAll coins are reproduced at actual size; obverse is at left/top, reverse at right/bottom.

Fig. 46. Pergamon coin type 2 a) BMCRE 228. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 47. Pergamon coin type 4 e) London 1979-1-1-1590. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 48. Pergamon coin type 6 b) BMC 254. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 49. Pergamon coin type 10 a) London 1894.7-6-38. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 50. Pergamon coin type 13 d) BMC 266. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 51. Pergamon coin type 14 a) BMC 262. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 52. Pergamon coin type 17 a) BMC 267. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 53. Pergamon coin type 18 a) London 1901.6-1-41. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 54. Pergamon coin type 19 a) BMC 308. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 55. Pergamon coin type 21 a) SNGParis 2209. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 56. Pergamon coin type 22 b) New York, ANS 1944.100.43356. Photo: copyright 2002,

American Numismatic Society.

illustrations and credits xiii

Fig. 57. Pergamon coin type 23 k) New York, ANS 1944.100.43357. Photo: copyright 2002,American Numismatic Society.

Fig. 58. Pergamon coin type 24 f) Munich. Photo: Staatliche Mnzsammlung, Munich.Fig. 59. Smyrna coin type 1 a) Vienna 17731. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 60. Smyrna coin type 2 a) BMC 110. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 61. Smyrna coin type 7 a) BMC 403. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 62. Smyrna coin type 11 f) BMC 389. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 63. Smyrna coin type 12 a) Paris 2689. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 64. Smyrna coin type 24 b) Paris 2779. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 65. Miletos coin type 1 a) Paris 1912. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 66. Ephesos coin type 1 a) London 1972.8-7-12. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 67. Ephesos coin type 2 a) London 1973.5-1-4. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 68. Ephesos coin type 5 a) Paris 684. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 69. Ephesos coin type 7 d) London 1961.3-1-234. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 70. Ephesos coin type 13 a) BMC 292. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 71. Ephesos coin type 16 a) BMC 269. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 72. Ephesos coin type 17 a) Vienna 32385. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 73. Ephesos coin type 18 f) Berlin, Fox. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 74. Ephesos coin type 21 a) Paris 899. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 75. Ephesos coin type 23 a) BMC 305. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 76. Ephesos coin type 24 a) BMC 306. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 77. Ephesos coin type 26 a) Berlin, Fox. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 78. Kyzikos coin type 1 b) London 1961.3-1-172. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 79. Kyzikos coin type 2 a) London 1893.4-5-2. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 80. Kyzikos coin type 4 a) Berlin 955/1904. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 81. Kyzikos coin type 6 a) SNGParis 780. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 82. Kyzikos coin type 8 a) London 1919.4-17-147. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 83. Kyzikos coin type 10 a) Paris 498. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 84. Kyzikos coin type 11 c) Vienna 16188. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 85. Kyzikos coin type 13 a) Vienna 16137. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 86. Kyzikos coin type 14 c) New York, ANS 1944.100.42792. Photo: copyright 2002, American

Numismatic Society.Fig. 87. Kyzikos coin type 15 a) BMC 199. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 88. Kyzikos coin type 16 c) Vienna 30574. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 89. Sardis coin type 2 a) Paris 1248A. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 90. Sardis coin type 5 b) Oxford. Photo: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.Fig. 91. Sardis coin type 6 a) BMC 171. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 92. Sardis coin type 7 a) Oxford 17.57. Photo: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.Fig. 93. Sardis coin type 8 a) Vienna 19587. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 94. Aizanoi coin type 2 a) Paris 241. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 95. Laodikeia coin type 2 a) Paris 1611. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.

illustrations and creditsxiv

Fig. 96. Laodikeia coin type 3 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museenzu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.

Fig. 97. Laodikeia coin type 5 a) Paris 1617. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 98. Laodikeia coin type 11 a) Berlin Lbbecke. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu

Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 99. Laodikeia coin type 8 a) Berlin 664/1914. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu

Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 100. Laodikeia coin type 9 a) Boston MFA 1971.45, Theodora Wilbour Fund in Memory of Zo

Wilbour. Photo: copyright 2002 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.Fig. 101. Philadelphia coin type 1 e) New York, ANS 1971.279.56. Photo: copyright 2002, American

Numismatic Society.Fig. 102. Philadelphia coin type 2 a) BMC 94. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 103. Tralles coin type 1 c) Paris 1698. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 104. Antandros coin type 1 a) Athens, Numismatic Museum. Photo: Kenneth Sheedy.Fig. 105. Hierapolis coin type 1 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen

zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 106. Hierapolis coin type 2 a) Berlin, Lbbecke. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu

Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 107. Hierapolis coin type 4 h) Berlin, Lbbecke. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu

Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 108. Magnesia coin type 1 a) Vienna 34601. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 109. Nikomedia coin type 2 y) London 1928.5-5-1. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 110. Nikomedia coin type 3 b) BMCRE 1097. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 111. Nikomedia coin type 4 a) BMC 9. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 112. Nikomedia coin type 5 a) Vienna 39125. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 113. Nikomedia coin type 7 a) BMC 32. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 114. Nikomedia coin type 8 b) Paris 1342. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 115. Nikomedia coin type 9 b) London 1920.1-11-2. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 116. Nikomedia coin type 11 a) Berlin, Fox. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 117. Nikomedia coin type 12 a) Paris 1347. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 118. Nikomedia coin type 16 a) London 1961.3-1-123. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 119. Nikomedia coin type 17 a) Berlin 5206 JF. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu

Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 120. Nikomedia coin type 21 a) Berlin 703/1878. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu

Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 121. Nikomedia coin type 22 a) Paris 1357. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 122. Nikomedia coin type 24 a) Berlin, von Rauch. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu

Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 123. Nikomedia coin type 26 a) Paris 1401. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 124. Nikomedia coin type 27 b) New York, ANS 1944.100.42315. Photo: Sean ONeill.Fig. 125. Nikomedia coin type 28 c) Berlin, Bonnet. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu

Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 126. Nikomedia coin type 29 a) Vienna 15815. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 127. Nikomedia coin type 31 a) London 1970.9-9-46. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 128. Nikomedia coin type 32 a) Paris 1418. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.

illustrations and credits xv

Fig. 129. Nikomedia coin type 37 a) New York, ANS 71.279. Photo: Sean ONeill.Fig. 130. Nikomedia coin type 50 n) Vienna 34453. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 131. Nikomedia coin type 51 a) Oxford 11-7-1938. Photo: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.Fig. 132. Nikomedia coin type 56 a) London 1961.3-1-131. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 133. Nikaia coin type 1 a) New York, ANS 73.191. Photo: Sean ONeill.Fig. 134. Ankyra coin type 2 a) SNGParis 2407. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 135. Ankyra coin type 3 a) London 1975.4-11-188. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 136. Ankyra coin type 7 a) SNGParis 2484. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 137. Ankyra coin type 8 a) SNGParis 2530. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 138. Ankyra coin type 10 c) New York 58.44.14. Photo: Sean ONeill.Fig. 139. Perge coin type 1 b) Berlin 974/1901. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 140. Perge coin type 2 e) SNGParis 554. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 141. Perge coin type 3 k) Vienna 28792. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 142. Perge coin type 5 a) SNGParis 617. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 143. Side coin type 1 a) BMC 111. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 144. Side coin type 5 a) London 1970.9-9-167. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 145. Side coin type 8 a) London 1969.10-21-7. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 146. Side coin type 10 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu

Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 147. Side coin type 11 b) New York, ANS 1944.100.50964. Photo: Sean ONeill.Fig. 148. Side coin type 13 b) SNGParis 882. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 149. Aspendos coin type 1 a) London 1921.4-12-117. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 150. Beroia coin type 1 b) Berlin, Fox. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 151. Beroia coin type 2 e) Berlin 698/1929. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 152. Beroia coin type 6 a) Paris 160. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 153. Beroia coin type 7 b) Paris 161. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 154. Beroia coin type 8 a) Berlin, Lbbecke. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 155. Beroia coin type 10 a) Paris 164. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 156. Beroia coin type 11 a) Paris 193. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 157. Thessalonike coin type 4 a) London 1972.8-7-5. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 158. Thessalonike coin type 8 b) Paris 1507. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 159. Thessalonike coin type 9 a) Paris 1508. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 160. Thessalonike coin type 10 a) Vienna 10084. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 161. Neokaisareia coin type 1 a) Paris 1277. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 162. Neokaisareia coin type 3 a) Berlin 7909. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 163. Neokaisareia coin type 6 a) London 1973.1-12-2. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 164. Neokaisareia coin type 11 b) Paris 1972.922. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 165. Amaseia coin type 1 f, obv.) New York, ANS 1944.100.41180. Photo: Sean ONeill.Fig. 166. Amaseia coin type 1 g, rev.) New York, ANS 1944.100.41179. Photo: Sean ONeill.Fig. 167. Amaseia coin type 2 c) New York, ANS 1944.100.41218. Photo: Sean ONeill.

illustrations and creditsxvi

Fig. 168. Tarsos coin type 1 a) BMC 159. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 169. Tarsos coin type 3 b) BMC 138. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 170. Tarsos coin type 5 a) SNGParis 1462. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 171. Tarsos coin type 5 c) SNGParis 1463. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 172. Tarsos coin type 8 a) SNGParis 1473. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 173. Tarsos coin type 9 a) SNGParis 1514. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 174. Tarsos coin type 12 a) London 1919.8-22-10. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 175. Anazarbos coin type 1 a) London 1962.11-15-2. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 176. Anazarbos coin type 2 a) London 1970-9-9-206. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 177. Anazarbos coin type 8 b) London 1970.9-9-208. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 178. Aigeai coin type 4 b) London 1962.11-15-1. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 179. Aigeai coin type 6 a) London 1975.4-11-296. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British

Museum.Fig. 180. Aigeai coin type 7 c) New York, ANS 1944.100.53037. Photo: Sean ONeill.Fig. 181. Perinthos coin type 1 a) BMC 33. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 182. Perinthos coin type 4 f) Vienna 8892. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 183. Perinthos coin type 10 a) BMC 41. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.Fig. 184. Perinthos coin type 11 a) Munich. Photo: Staatliche Mnzsammlung, Munich.Fig. 185. Perinthos coin type 12 d) New York, ANS 1967.152.225. Photo: copyright 2002, American

Numismatic Society.Fig. 186. Perinthos coin type 16 a) Paris 1201. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 187. Perinthos coin type 19 a) Paris 1191. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 188. Perinthos coin type 21 a) Paris 1216. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 189. Philippopolis coin type 1 a) Berlin, Dressel. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu

Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 190. Philippopolis coin type 2 a) Vienna 32498. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 191. Philippopolis coin type 3 a) Vienna 9047. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.Fig. 192. Philippopolis coin type 5 b) Paris 1355. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 193. Kaisareia coin type 1 a) Berlin 709/1914. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu

Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 194. Kaisareia coin type 2 b) Berlin, Lbbecke. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu

Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 195. Kaisareia coin type 4 b) Paris 602. Photo: Bibliothque nationale de France.Fig. 196. Kaisareia coin type 7 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Photo: Mnzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu

Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.Fig. 197. Neapolis coin type 1 a) BMC 138. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.

Charts

The Emperors of Rome and Some Members of their FamiliesSynoptic chart of Neokoroi Cities

illustrations and credits xvii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

If this book is the body of my work on the neokoria,the skeleton was my dissertation for the Ph.D. in clas-sical archaeology, Neokoroi: Greek Cities of the RomanEast (Harvard 1980, unpublished). That containedlists of coins and inscriptions as well as a brief chro-nological analysis of each neokoros city, and still livesa sort of samizdat afterlife, in copies made by schol-ars for their own or their libraries use. Despite itsbulk, it never attempted to give a unified historicalpicture of the origins, development or even themeaning of the title, which is why I have chosen toleave it on the shelves of the archive where it be-longs. The book you now hold is very different, asI hope anything would be if given the benefit oftwenty years of new finds, reinterpretations, and theauthors more mature understanding of the subject.

From the beginning, my intention has been tobring together the most diverse forms of evidenceand to give each form its proper weight and inter-pretation. If my expertise has faltered, it is my ownresponsibility, as my advisors have been irreproach-able. They include the late George Hanfmann, myprincipal advisor, as well as the late Emily Vermeuleand David Mitten at Harvard University. I alsoreceived advice and support from the late MartinPrice both at the American Numismatic Society andat the British Museum, from Holt Parker both athome and abroad, from Kent Rigsby again andagain, and most of all from Brian Rose, sine quo non.The late Bluma Trell of New York University pro-vided the initial inspiration; her interest and enthu-siasm never flagged while she lived, and I doubt thatthey do even now. I have also benefited from theconversation and correspondence of Simon Price,Werner Eck, Kenneth Harl, Ann Johnston, DietrichKlose, Michael Peachin, Glen Bowersock, andThomas Howe, and from the gentle chiding of allthe press anonymous readers. I would like to thankMichiel Klein-Swormink and Gera van Bedaf forshepherding the book through the press, ShirleyWerner for wearing out her erudite eye in its copy-editing, and Susan Stites for the indices.

Thanks to the generosity, patience and trust ofthe following librarians, curators, and keepers of coincollections, I have been allowed to call for the mostrecondite books with wild abandon, and to exam-ine and catalogue as many coins as I wished, thoughI rivaled even the indomitable Professor Trell in mydemands for more trays. My deepest gratitude goesto: Jean Susorney Wellington, Michael Braunlin, andthe entire staff of the Classics Library, University ofCincinnati; William Metcalf, Frank Campbell, andthe late Nancy Waggoner of the American Numis-matic Society, New York; Cornelius Vermeule andMary Comstock of the Museum of Fine Arts, Bos-ton; the entire erudite and courteous staff of theDepartment of Coins and Medals, the British Mu-seum, London; the late Colin Kraay of the Heber-den Coin room, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford;Mmes. H. Nicolet and S. de Turckheim of the Cabi-net des Medailles, Bibliothque Nationale, Paris; Dr.G. Dembski of the Mnzkabinett, KunsthistorischesMuseum, Vienna; Mmes. A. Krzyzanowska andEwa Duszczyk of the Narodowe Museum, Warsaw;and Drs. H. D. and S. Schultz of the Mnzkabinett,Staatliche Museen, Berlin. I am grateful to JohnWallrodt and Marcie Handler for help with com-puting issues and to Maroun Kassab and Irina Ver-khovskaya for producing the temple plans.

Thanks for illustrations are due to: Brian Rose;Kenneth Sheedy; Sean ONeill; the late RobertHagerty; Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen vonBerlin/Preussischer Kulturbesitz (courtesy BeateSalje and Ilona Trabert); the Athens NumismaticMuseum (courtesy Eos Tsourti); the American Nu-mismatic Society (courtesy Sebastian Heath andElena Stolyarik); the Archaeological Exploration ofSardis/Harvard University (courtesy ElizabethGombosi); Bibliothque nationale de France, Paris(courtesy Michel Amandry); the Boston Museum ofFine Arts (courtesy Lizabeth Dion); the BritishMuseum (courtesy Janet Larkin, Department ofCoins and Medals, and Keith Lowe, Department ofGreek and Roman Antiquities); the Heberden Coin

acknowledgementsxviii

Room, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford University(courtesy Roslyn Britton-Strong); Istanbul ArkeolojiMzeleri (courtesy Halil zek); KunsthistorischesMuseum, Wien (courtesy Gunther Dembski); ster-reichisches Archologisches Institut (courtesy Gud-run Wlach); Staatliche Mnzsammlung, Mnchen(courtesy Dietrich Klose); and Staatliche Museen vonBerlin/Preussischer Kulturbesitz (courtesy IlonaTrabert, Antikensammlung, and Bernhard Weisser,Mnzkabinett).

I would also like to thank the American Numis-matic Society, in whose summer seminar I startedthis project; the United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa,whose grant of the Mary Isabel Sibley Fellowshiporiginally enabled me to travel and study in theEuropean collections; and finally, the University ofCincinnati Department of Classics and Louise TaftSemple Fund, whose patience and generosity al-lowed me to bring this project to completion.

acknowledgements xix

introduction: methodology 1

i. General Introduction

This book tracks a singular phenomenon: that cit-ies of Hellenic culture in some eastern provinces ofthe Roman empire (map p. xix) called themselvesneokoroi, usually translated temple wardens, tosignify that they possessed a provincial temple to thecult of the Roman emperor. Though the phenom-enon is confined only to a certain place and time,a full pursuit of the circumstances and history of theneokoroi can, I believe, illumine many misunder-stood issues regarding the imperial cult in the largersense, as well as relations between the provincialcities and their Roman rulers, and among the citiesthemselves.

Any theoretical approach to such a study ispulled in different directions by polarities of gen-eralization and particularization. One may tend togeneralize because individuals of our species havecertain tendencies in common, and these tendenciesmake human history repetitious. Moreover, thecurrent prestige of the hard sciences privileges thesearch for general laws, as in physics, in the behav-ior of human beings. On the other hand, each hu-man is formed by particular circumstances of thehistory that came before, and that human also con-tributes to the formation of a particular present andfuture. This study tends toward the particular,making the canonical bows toward Clifford Geertztechnique of thick description, where close obser-vation of certain institutions can illumine an entireculture, and toward Marc Bloch and the annalistes,who showed the importance of scales of inquiry,and how such inquiry could be done despite thelack of precise sources and the inability to interro-gate living informants.1 This particular inquiry alsotraces developments over time, from the end of the

first century B.C.E. to the end of the third centuryC.E., a period for which sources exist but are var-ied and intermittent. Writing about it, then, is likesurveying at night; there is a general darkness,though occasional moonlight allows some under-standing of the terrain, and once in a while a for-tunate flash of lightning illuminates some crucialdetail fully.

The neokoroi were cities Greek in structure,though not necessarily in genealogy, and neokorosis a Greek title. The word originally designated anofficial whose basic responsibility was the care,upkeep or practical daily functioning of a sacredbuilding, and whose duties could include the con-trol of entry, safekeeping of valuable items, and theenactment of ritual or sacrifice; a more detailed dis-cussion will follow below. In the first century C.E.we begin to find this role attributed to entire peoplesor cities, and then more specifically to cities thatmaintained a provincial temple to the Roman em-peror. This book will examine the title neokoros asit was applied to those cities, and what it meant tothem politically, socially, and in practical terms.

Understanding those cities governmental systemis vital to understanding how neokoria (the state orinstitution of being neokoros) can be studied. Struc-turally the cities were Greek poleis, and their in-scriptions document independent decisions made bya council (boule) and the body of adult male citi-zens (demos, sometimes meeting as an ekklesia), plusvariously named magistrates.2 The actualities be-hind this structure are more complex. Though le-galities varied depending on the precise status ofeach city, the power to decide foreign, and increas-ingly internal, policy was vested in Roman hands,ultimately in the emperor himself. More imme-diately the provincial governor and various impe-rial officials were on the spot making decisions,adjudicating disputes, and seeing that taxes werepaid. In this they generally had the cooperation of

INTRODUCTION: METHODOLOGY

1 For an excellent history of recent interactions betweentheories of history and the social sciences, see McDonald 1996.I have been guided by the examples of Geertz 1973; Bloch 1973;and S. Price 1984b; the latters observations inform my workeverywhere. 2 Lewin 1995.

introduction: methodology2

each citys own elite, who competed among them-selves to take on offices and services, and often laidout their personal fortunes, in order to be preemi-nent among their fellow citizens, to stand in the es-teem of the Romans, and to rise in power andstatus, sometimes to the ranks of Roman authorityitself.3

A citys relationships with other cities could beconducted on good terms or in jealous rivalry, butonly within the narrow confines that Rome allowedto each citys nominal autonomy. Attempts to gobeyond those limits could be met by some reasser-tion of control by the imperial government, and thevery presence of an overarching power beyond thecity and the province assured that one party or theother in any dispute could appeal to that power,further eroding any independence that the citiestried to assert.

In discussing the neokoroi I have often found itnecessary to refer to these cities as if they werepeople, who thought, weighed possibilities, andeven had emotions like jealousy and pride. This isprimarily an outgrowth of contemporary speechesand histories that exhorted, blamed, or categorizedcities for such human traits; neokoros was after alla persons title applied to a city.4 But it also masksa lack of specific knowledge of such matters as whoinitiated the quest for an imperial temple and when,whether there was debate on where to put it, downto who decided what order the columns should be.Generally, we know that the cities of the Romanempire were run on the lines of urban oligarchies,and that an elite often made decisions without muchconsultation of the rest of the citys male votingpopulation, still less of nonvoters. They felt littleneed to inscribe their day-to-day accounts on stonefor public reference, so we know little of the detailsof their operation, but much of magniloquent de-crees and votes of thanks.

Provincial cities often banded together in an or-ganization known in the East as a koinon.5 Thoughthe name translates as league or commonality, itwas not a subset of official imperial administration,nor did its geographic lines have to correspondexactly to the borders of a Roman province. Insteada koinon was an organization of cities of similar

3 Quass 1993.4 For anthropomorphic cities, Lendon 1997, 31, 73-89.5 The basic work is still Deininger 1965.

ethnic background and interests within a region,bound together by the practice of a particular cult.Under the Empire the central cult of most koinawas that of a living human being, the emperor ofRome. By the end of the first century C.E., some(but not all) of the cities that had a temple for thisprovincial imperial cult were called neokoroi. It isworth noting that the very title denoted a caretaker,not an owner of a temple: ownership, at least inthe beginning, was in the hands of the koinon,which assigned its chief priests to preside over thetemples in neokoroi cities, often an increasing num-ber of temples as emperor succeeded emperor.Koina also represented the cities in other aspects oftheir relationship with Rome, e.g. embassies andlegal proceedings.

Simon Prices seminal book, Rituals and Power,altered the landscape of inquiry concerning theworship of rulers in the Roman East. We have gonebeyond former attitudes: the Judeo-Christian con-cern for what was believed rather than what wasdone, and its accompanying disdain for flattererswho would call a man a god; and beyond a simplefaith in Realpolitik, which can only ask who profits,whether politically or economically. We have cometo a more anthropological approach, which seeks tounderstand how the Hellenes handled their Romanworld. Price, however, chose to be cautious, to pri-vilege the balancing act between seeing the emperoras man or god in rituals private and public, greatand small.

But in this study, which is at the level of thekoinon and the province, we shall see less contra-diction: the living emperor was addressed as a god,sometimes second only to the chief and patron godsof the cities in which he was worshipped. He hadhis own temple, which was referred to as his. Hissuccessors, perhaps his predecessors, and othermembers of his family, often including his consort,joined him in that temple; this was recognized bycalling it a temple of the Augusti, or of the Greekequivalent, the Sebastoi. Thus the city where thattemple was established could be called neokoros ofthe Augusti. Despite this fact, the individual em-peror who was the prime object of cult was not for-gotten: for example, what was at first called thetemple of the Augusti in Flavian times at Ephesoswas later referred to as that of the god Vespasian.What is more, where another god shared thetemple, (s)he was often a personification or a place-holder, whose name could drop from common ref-


erence, as the name of the goddess Rome slippedaway from mentions of the temples of Augustus atPergamon and Ankyra, and Tiberius and Trajancould stand alone in depictions of their temples atSmyrna and Pergamon, with no sign of their cultpartners Livia and the Senate or Zeus Philios. Thereverse is never true: the provincial temples initiallydedicated to Rome and Augustus are never calledsimply temples of Rome.

Looking at the neokoroi is important in itself, butdoubly important in the light it sheds upon whatmodern scholarship calls the imperial cult. Underthat rubric have been lumped all aspects of theworship of emperors, living and dead, in East andWest, by Romans and non-Romans of all sorts,organized by province, by city, and down to indi-viduals. Often the practice, and even the vocabu-lary, of one of the above differs widely from that ofanother. Despite a common thread of Hellenicspeech and culture, a Sebasteion built by decree ofthe Athenians may well have been different, andserved different functions, from one built by Ephe-sians, Alexandrians, Aphrodisians, or Palmyrenes.Towns and individuals may have set up altars orstatues to the emperor without even bothering toseek permission of a governor, much less the nodof authorities at Rome.

In narrowing our focus to the neokoroi, however,we study a less mixed phenomenon, composed ofevents that are internally comparable, though sub-ject to development over time. Honors proposed foran emperor passed through the sieve of each koinonand reached some sort of consensus among its cit-ies small and large, rich and poor, cosmopolitan andisolated. Even after this was achieved, the conductof the provincial imperial cult was too large inscope, too important to the image of the Roman au-thorities at which it was aimed, to pass unexaminedby them. What few sources we have emphasizeceremonious deliberation by the Roman Senate andcareful consideration by the ultimate recipient, theemperor. Thus applications for provincial imperialtemples, and subsequent neokoriai, were subject toreview on at least three levels: emanating from acity that offered a home for the cult, they had toalso be acceptable to the other cities of the provinceas grouped in their koinon, to the emperor, and tothe Senate. This is as close to a homogeneous groupof events as the modern term imperial cult covers.In fact, a study of the neokoroi can serve as a labo-ratory to examine this dialogue among cities, koi-

non, Roman emperor, and Senate, and how theyarrived at results satisfactory to, or at least acceptedby, all.

As will be seen, there were mechanisms thatencouraged the establishment and the spread ofneokoria. Rivalries among cities in the same koinonmight make each one strive to be neokoros, or ifdisappointed at first, to become the next one. At thesame time, province-to-province comparisons couldbe made when provincial embassies met one an-other. This was frequently the case at a succession,for example, where ambassadors from all over theEmpire brought an initial tribute of crown gold anddeclared their first honors to a new emperor. But itwas well into Tiberius reign that his acceptance ofAsias offer of a temple to his cult prompted theprovince of Hispania Ulterior to offer him anotherone. He refused, not necessarily because he was adifficult man to please, though Tacitus portrays himas such, but because he could make that refusal asymbol of his modesty before the Senate.6 This re-fusal would have then informed other aspirant prov-inces how not to approach this particular emperor,and the dialogue could go on.

Still, only certain koina of the Greek-speakingEast are known to have named their cities neoko-roi.7 It is possible that this circle of organizationswas influenced by events in the koinon of Asia,where the earliest uses of neokoros as a city titleare known. In other areas, most notably mainlandGreece, no neokoroi have yet been found. But it isvital to note that our pools of evidence only repre-sent a fraction of what once existed, and may yetbe increased: a previously unknown inscription orcoin could add new names and historical circum-stances to our knowledge of the neokoroi at anytime.

ii. The Word Neokoros

Before going further, it is essential to examine theword neokoros, both etymologically and in thecontext in which it was adopted as a title for cities.The 1888 thesis of Buechner assembled the ancientsources, though it must be supplemented by recentdiscoveries.8

6 Tacitus, Annals 4.37-38; Charlesworth 1939, discussedbelow.

7 See also Lendon 1997, 160-172.8 Buechner 1888, 2-21.


The first part of the compound comes fromnaos, temple, specifically a built structure or housefor the god rather than a sacred but unroofed en-closure.9 Though the most common spelling ofnevkrow comes from the Attic form of this part,spelled with an omega, there are many alternativespellings.

The -koros is more problematic, and has beenthe source of disagreement since the days of Byz-antine lexicographers. Hesychius derived it from theverb meaning keep in order, specifically sweep,while the Suda stated that it did not mean sweep,but maintain.10 Buechner accepted the former,citing Euripides Ion (one of whose tasks was tosweep the temple of Apollo) as an example of aneokoros. Euripides, however, never calls Ionneokoros, but only xrusoflaj, a guard for gold,and tamaw, a steward.11

More recent etymologies are closer to agreeingwith the Suda than with Hesychius. They find-koros to mean one who nourishes, maintains,from which the particular meaning sweeper is asecondary derivation.12 In addition, archaeologicalfinds indicate that -koros appears in Greek as earlyas the Mycenean period: linear B tablets mention ada-ko-ro and a da-mo-ko-ro.13 Neither is asweeper; in fact, both appear to be high officials, thelatter possibly a governor of half the realm of Pylos.

Later historical and literary sources document agreat variety of offices that human neokoroi couldcarry out, including both priestly duties and practi-cal ones. Many neokoroi performed sacrifices, ac-cepted them on behalf of the god, and received aportion.14 A poem by Philip of Thessalonike (Nero-nian period) has some neokoroi choosing a sac-rificial animal for Artemis.15 Another poet, Auto-medon (first century B.C.E.), derides a neokoroswho, after the sacrificial procession, carries off allthe sacrifice for himself, leaving nothing for the

god.16 Plutarch classed holiness and the work ofneokoria as ways of pleasing a god, though indi-vidual neokoroi he mentions also did such things asplay dice with the god they served, fool a Sabine,and whip slaves and Aetolians away from a sanctu-ary.17

The second-century orator Aelius Aristides wasdevoted to Asklepios, and frequented his sanctuaryat Pergamon not just in person, but in his dreams.One should be careful, therefore, not to take thevisions and portents collected in the Sacred Tales asliteral realityit is unlikely, for example, that any-one actually put a ham hock in the temple ofAsklepios to practice sacred incubation.18 Still,Aristides knew the two neokoroi of the Asklepieionwell, and he conveys a picture of some of their re-sponsibilities.19 As well as helping Aristides andother patients to carry out their therapy, they heldthe keys to the temple itself, and were in charge ofcrowns and other valuables that were dedicated toAsklepios.

In many sanctuaries, neokoroi had responsibilityfor money or valuables. At the Hellenistic Amphia-reion at Oropos, the neokoros collected the pil-grims fees, issued them tickets, listed their namesand cities on wooden tablets, saw to their purifica-tion, and set up inventories of their offerings.20 In394 B.C.E. Xenophon left a portion of the wealthfrom sale of captives in the safekeeping of oneMegabyzos, neokoros of Artemis at Ephesos; laterMegabyzos came to Olympia and returned whathad been entrusted to him.21 As it happens, Mega-byzos was the standard name given to the (eunuch)chief priest of Artemis; a fourth-century base for astatue of Megabyzos son of Megabyzos, neokorosof Artemis in Ephesos has been found in Priene.22

It is possible that neokoros was the title that thechief priest used in his practical or financial func-

9 Chantraine 1968-1980, 3:734 (naw).10 Hesychius, Lexicon s.vv. naokrow, neokrow, nevkrow,

also zkorow; Suda s.vv. Krh, Krow, nevkrow, but also zko-row, nevkorsei.

11 Buechner 1888; Euripides, Ion lines 54-55; for his tasks,102-183.

12 Chantraine 1968-1980, 2:565-566 (kore- and korv).13 Ruijgh 1986. Earlier theories: Heubeck 1968; Olivier

1967, with commentary by Palmer; Petrusevki 1965. I thankGreg Nagy for the initial reference.

14 Savelkoul 1988; Hero(n)das, Mimiambi 4.15 Greek Anthology 9.22.

16 Greek Anthology 11.324.17 Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 351E; Romulus 5.1; Roman

Questions 264D, 267D.18 Aelius Aristides, Oration 47/Sacred Tales 1.43.19 Oration 47/Sacred Tales 1.11, 44, 58, 76; Oration 48/Sa-

cred Tales 2.30, 35, 46-49, 52; Oration 49/Sacred Tales 3.14, 22-23; Oration 50/Sacred Tales 4.46.

20 Roesch 1984.21 Anabasis 5.3.6-7.22 Elliger 1992, 126-127. Chief priest: Strabo 14.1.23.

Eunuch: Pliny, Natural History 35.93, 132; Roller 1999, 253.Von Gaertringen 1906, no. 231, did not comment on whetherthe Megabyzoi were eunuchs or how one could be son to an-other.


tions; but in any case, in Ephesos the office ofneokoros was responsible and respected.

Women also served as neokoroi, often for femaledeities but sometimes for male. Pausanias, writingin the second century C.E., noted that the office ofneokoros of Aphrodite at Sikyon was given to acelibate woman, and elsewhere called the virginHerophile, the sibyl who prophesied to Hecuba atTroy, the neokoros of Apollo Smintheus.23 LuciusAnnaeus Cornutus, writing in the first century C.E.,categorized the role of the Vestal Virgins at Romeas that of neokoroi.24 And just to show that virgin-ity was not integral to a womans becomingneokoros, in a poem by Pankrates (pre-first-centuryB.C.E.), a neokoros of Artemis suggests to the god-dess that her twin four-year-old daughters shouldsucceed her as neokoroi.25

It would take another monograph to chase downthe complete history of various nevkroi, naokroi,and zkoroi, all of different statuses, serving differ-ent temples in different ways at different times,across the Greek world. Our main purpose here,however, is to discern how the word neokoros wastransferred from humans and made to officiallydesignate a city which had a specific kind of temple,a provincial temple for the cult of the emperor.26

We will now focus on neokoroi officials of aroundthe first century of the common era, the time whenneokoros was adopted as a title for cities.

Though there is little further evidence for a chiefpriest also being neokoros for Artemis at Ephesosin Roman times, the neokoria of Artemis Leuko-phryene, chief goddess of Magnesia, was certainly ahigh office; one neokoros, graced with many sono-rous honorifics, served as chief ambassador for thecity and set up a statue of Drusilla, sister of theemperor Gaius (Caligula).27 At Smyrna, one post-Vespasianic neokoros of the patron goddessesNemeseis held pretty much all the highest city of-fices as well.28 The Greco-Egyptian cult of Serapisoften had neokoroi, both at Alexandria and in othercities.29 Though it was perhaps a humble office in

the Hellenistic period, by Roman times only personsof high rank were neokoroi of the great Serapis atAlexandria. Also in Egypt were the neokoroi oftemples of the god Augustus at Alexandria and atCanopus; aspirants to this very honorable post werechosen by lot, as the emperor Claudius had de-creed.30

The neokoroi of the provincial imperial cult inAsia were also quite eminent. Under Tiberius,Pergamons neokoros of the goddess Rome and thegod Augustus was also (municipal) priest of Tiberiusand gymnasiarch for the Sebasta Rhomaia games,which involved considerable expenditure.31 Theneokoros of the temple of Gaius at Miletos (q.v.),before taking that office, had already been chiefpriest of Asia, i.e., head of the koinon, twice. Thechief priest of the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos(q.v.) in 89 C.E. was one of the citys greatest bene-factors, and stepped into the office of neokoros theyear after his chief priesthood.

Two Jewish authors transferred the term neoko-ros to the context of their own religion. Philo,writing around the time of Gaius, used it specificallyfor the tribe of Levi, especially in their functions aspriests (under supervision of the high priest), guard-ians, gatekeepers, purifiers, and general caretakersof the temple at Jerusalem.32 Josephus, who issuedthe Greek version of his Jewish War ca. 75-79 C.E.,called certain functionaries who were responsiblefor the purification of the Jerusalem temple neoko-roi.33 More importantly, in his account of his ownspeech to the holdouts in the siege of Jerusalem, heconferred the title on an entire people, referring toall the Jews as neokoroi.34 At the times he referredto, however, the Jews were either in exodus or inexile and no temple yet stood, implying that theJews ward over their temple (which he indeedcalled naos elsewhere) was a spiritual one.35

The first known inscription to call a city, ratherthan a person, neokoros is earlier than Josephusbook, dating to 38 C.E. In it Kyzikos (q.v.) is de-

23 Description of Greece 2.10.4, 10.12.5.24 The Nature of the Gods 52 l. 7.25 Greek Anthology 6.356.26 Careful readers will have already noted that I consider

the ban on split infinitives a Latinizing affectation, foreign toEnglish.

27 Kern 1900 no. 156.28 IvS no. 641.29 Vidman 1970, 53-60.

30 H. I. Bell 1924, no. 1912 line 60, esp. p. 35; Oliver 1989,77-88 no. 19.

31 IGRR 4:454.32 On the Special Laws 1.156, 2.120; On Flight and Finding 90,

93, 94; On Dreams 2.273; Life of Moses 1.316-318, 2.72, 159, 174(where priests and Levites fight over proteia!), 276; On Rewardsand Punishments 74; and Questions and Answers on Genesis frag. 17.

33 Jewish War 1.153.34 Ibid. 5.383, 5.389.35 E.g. Jewish Antiquities 8.61-106 on Solomons temple.


scribed as ancient and ancestral neokoros of thefamily of the greatest and most manifest godGaius Caesar. The use of the word is probablymetaphoric, implying that Kyzikos held a shrine toa relative of Gaius, whether his great-grandfatherAugustus, his grandfather Agrippa, his sister Dru-silla, or several of the above. That this early ex-ample of a city as neokoros refers to the imperialcult is significant, as the two would soon be closelyassociated.

Saint Paul visited Ephesos (q.v.) around the years52-54 C.E. According to Acts of the Apostles 19.35, ariot was fomented against him, and the peopleflocked to the theater shouting Great is Artemis ofthe Ephesians! They were there addressed by thecitys secretary, the grammateus, who is quotedsaying Who does not know that Ephesos isneokoros of the great goddess Artemis and of theheaven-fallen [image]? Here as in the Kyzikosinscription, the term neokoros is used as a meta-phor. It expresses the citys wardship of Artemisimage and her temple, and acclaims it as a point ofcivic pride. But only a short time after, in 65/66,the word would appear on the citys coins, and it ispossible that at this point it meant what it came tomean later, that Ephesos possessed a koinon templefor the cult of the emperor, in this case for Nero.At that time, it would become, not just a metaphor,but an official title vied for by cities and regulatedby the Senate and the emperor himself; and themain subject of this study.

Equating a city or a people with a temple offi-cial is not a far-fetched comparison. Greek citieswere often personified, usually as females; the titlemetropolis exalts them as mothers, and a few wereeven called nurses.36 A city could also be repre-sented by its people, the Demos (personified as amale); or simply by the collective body of its citizens,as is normal on its coins. The term neokoros wasnot specific to female or male; it was often appliedto an official high in honor; and it was concernedspecifically with care for a temple. There may havebeen other terms available to express a citys beinga center of cult for its koinon, but for one reason oranother they were not chosen while neokoros was.

For example, calling the city sacred or shrine(hieron/a) would not only have involved long-windedexplanations (for the provincial cult of the Augus-ti?) but could have caused confusion with cities thatwere already sacred and inviolable.37 The wordneokoros, by contrast, had the concept of templecentral to its meaning, and was thus precisely adapt-able when a city received more than one koinontemple: it became twice, three times, and even fouror six times, neokoros.

On the great majority of coins that will be dis-cussed here, it is the group of (male) citizens whoare neokoroi. Most inscriptions, however, call the(feminine) city, the polis, neokoros. A few inscrip-tions of Ephesos (q.v.) specify the demos as neokoroswhile the council or boule is philosebastos, friendof the Augusti; and in three out of the four inscrip-tions that document neokoria at Hierapolis (q.v.),the council is neokoros, while in the fourth thepeople are so designated. At Side (q.v.), the councilof elders (gerousia) may once be neokoros, while oncoins that citys patron gods also take the title.Finally, in the exceptional case of an inscriptionfound at Herakleia (q.v.), it may be not the city it-self but the synod of theatrical artists who are neo-koroi.

iii. Forms of Evidence

1. Literary EvidenceExamination of the neokoroi cities has to draw upondiverse forms of evidence, each of which must bestudied and interpreted in its own way. The rarewords on the subject written by ancient Roman andGreek historians make up the narrative links amongall the other forms and come closest to explainingneokoria. Where preserved, they are precious. Onthe other hand, none is strictly contemporary andall are liable to the flaws of written history in gen-eral: authorial bias, scholarly misinterpretation, in-completeness, and sheer silence on the very pointswhich modern scholars are agog to know. In fact,historians accounts concerning neokoria are ex-tremely scarce. For the early years of the Empire,we have a few accounts of the foundations of theimperial cult in certain provinces, written by laterhistorians. These events are treated as notable, but

36 L. Robert 1980a, 400-402, of Ionopolis. Other nursecities: Syracuse in the fifth century B.C.E., Pindar, Pythian 2.2;Ephesos in 162-164 C.E., IvE 24; Miletos in 361-363 C.E.,SIG4 906A, from Cyriacus of Ancona. Also see above, n. 4. 37 Rigsby 1996, 34-36.


their effect in other provinces is not mentioned, andonce such honors became typical, historians appar-ently felt no need to continue documenting them.Thus in all but a few cases, we see the results with-out hearing all of the dickering behind them; weknow some titles and temples, but have scant recordof the imperial letters, senatorial decisions, or de-bates in the koinon that gave rise to them. Indeed,we have no idea where the decision that cities withprovincial imperial temples could be honored asneokoroi came from, though it probably occurredin the late Neronian or Flavian period.

Since all our literary evidence is partial, we mustalso guard against the tendency to make the fewfacts that we receive from it loom larger in ourreasoning than the many factors that left less evi-dence for their operation. For example, since ourhistorical sources tend towards a biographical ap-proach to history, concentrating on the individualemperors and their personalities, we may be led touse some quirk of a particular emperor to explainwhy certain cities became neokoroi in his reign andothers did not. The emperors inclinations mayhave made neokoroi in some cases, but the evidencein others is equivocal, and in any case it is danger-ous to investigate no deeper than what little our his-torical sources leave to us.

One of the most valuable sources, and an eye-witness for certain crucial events of the late secondand early third century, is Cassius Dio. His histo-ries are only partially extant, however, and must bereconstructed from epitomes. I cite them accordingto the Loeb edition, which is still the one mostreadily available.38

2. Numismatic EvidenceCoins issued by the cities that were neokoroi haveexactly the opposite advantages and disadvantagesof literary evidence. They are not only contempo-rary but by far the most abundant form of evidence.Cities of Romes eastern provinces issued bronzecoinage not only for economic functions, but as asymbol of autonomy and civic pride.39 The obverse

of such coins was generally devoted to a standardbust of the current emperor or a member of hisfamily, while the reverse gave the citys name andtitles (including neokoros), thus offering an exactcorrelation between imperial chronology and civictitulature. Since many cities issued coins often andin abundance, they can be checked against eachother for confirmation of the title as well.

From the start, we should note that beyond thestandards for depiction of the emperors image andthe listing of his titles on the obverse, there seem tohave been no firm rules about what a city couldchoose to put on its bronze coinage. Reverses couldboast the citys name, titles, magistrates, and anyone of a wide range of images, including the cityschief gods; its founders and legends; its festivals; itsalliances; monuments, including temples, fountains,harbors, mountains, or bridges; and honors towardthe emperors. Large-size and special issues werefrequent, especially from the late second to earlythird century, and these were often showy coins,produced with care and exactitude. Some illustratethe temples by means of which a city becameneokoros, often in great detail.

Not every city had its own mint, but most prob-ably contracted either with a centralized workshopor with itinerant craftsmen. The same obverse dieswere sometimes used for different cities, and evenreverse dies, which had to be specially cut to includethe citys name and titles, may have been made bycraftsmen who didnt know what that citys chiefgods or temples looked like.40 The reverses, ofcourse, were tailor made to include the name of thecity and some image of civic pride, but sometimesthese images were very specific, sometimes moreconventional.

Before we can examine in detail the coin evi-dence from each of the neokoroi, it is essential todiscuss how coin types, especially architectural ones,can be interpreted, and to what extent these smalldepictions might represent an ancient reality. Somescholars have trusted ancient numismatic images torepresent reality; others have not.41 Each side hasapproached the debate from a preconceived posi-

38 Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Dios Roman History, trans. E.Cary (London 1914-1927).

39 In general, see Harl 1987; Butcher 1988. Iconographyof the obverse image: Bastien 1992; here my terminology dif-fers from his only in using the term diadem instead ofstephane for empresses crowns. Coinage in precious metalwas more directly controlled by the Roman central authority.Though independently an important topic, the monetary func-

tioning of coins issued by cities of the Roman provinces is notdirectly relevant to this inquiry.

40 Kraft 1972, from which Brandt 1988; but see the com-ments of L. Robert 1975, 188-192, and J. Noll 1992, 78-97.

41 For: M. Price and Trell 1977, 19-33; Vermeule 1987,9-22. Against: Drew-Bear 1974; J. Noll 1997. For a thought-ful analysis, Burnett 1999.


tion based on a limited number of cases: one foundcertain monuments well represented by certaindetailed coins, and so decided that coin images aretrustworthy; the other found varying representationsthat contradict certain monuments, and so rejectedcoin images.

Certainly these images cannot be taken as liter-ally as if they were photographs: all are minuscule,with only those details that could be conveyed by adie-cutters chisels and punches. Some craftsmenmay not have known or cared much about theimage, or may have been copying it from othercoins. Plainly there was some standardization ofimages, especially prevalent on repetitive issues ofsmall-sized coins. On the other hand, even if a die-cutter lacked knowledge and was not motivated bypatriotism, coining was certainly supervised bymembers of the citys elite class, who could supplyboth. Their care is evident in many (though again,not all) of the coins that were produced.

We can never tell whether those who ultimatelyhandled the coins (mainly the citizens whose nameadorned the reverse, but with some circulationamong neighboring cities, judging from site finds)understood all the messages that the coinage triedto convey, but certainly the coins were manufac-tured as if they did. Otherwise there would havebeen little point in coining anything but unchang-ing types and legends. Given that the images oncoins did often change, the messages they carried,like the legends, were designed to be readable andrecognizable. Therefore the coins must have con-veyed some element of reality that made their typesrecognizable; but that element did not have to bevisual exactitude, like a photographs. It could in-stead be symbolic.

The way that cult images are portrayed bestshows the symbolic nature of coin types. When agod or personification appears independently on acoin, her/his attributes and gestures identify her/him to the intended audience: the radiate Heliosraises his whip, while Dionysos spills his kantharostoward an attendant panther. Thus many of thecoin images are rather static and repetitive; yet theancient audience seems to have had no trouble withinterpretation when the god picked up an unusualattribute like a temple, or when she/he joinedhands with another citys god or an emperor. Theimages on coins are not photographic copies ofparticular cult images, they are representations ofa god or a personification that can move and act.

Coin types can copy particular cult images, and thisimitation helps to make them recognizable. But theycan also hew to conventions dictated by the mediumof coinage itself: for example, the chief cult imageat the Artemision of Ephesos was for untold centu-ries the famous Anatolian dressed image, but formuch of its coining history Ephesos portrayedArtemis as a huntress instead, using the Hellenizedstyle typical of other contemporary coinage. Andafter all, in a city containing many temples andshrines, a god could be worshipped in many differ-ent forms.

So by what rules can we recognize when animage on a coin approaches the true reflection of astatue or statues that once stood within a koinontemple to a particular emperor, and when it doesnot? First, the coin type should show the image(s)standing within the temple; otherwise it is likely thata representation of the active and living emperor,not of his statue, is meant. Then, the more caredevoted to conveying the image, and the more de-tails added that are not strictly conventional, themore chance that the representation is based onvisual reality. Another good indication of visual lit-eralness is when the same image, with its particu-larities, continues to be conveyed on later coins andin other emperors reigns. Large, carefully producedand wider-circulating coin issues may show theemperor in his temple beside his cult partner, whilesmaller and more local issues show only the moreimportant one of the pair, the emperor: thus silvercoins of the province Asia show both Augustus andRome in their temple at Pergamon, while Perga-mons bronze coins show Augustus alone. Coinsissued soon after the construction of a temple oftenshow it and its image with more exactitude thanlater ones. For example, under Tiberius, Smyrnascoins show his image in his new koinon temple as aveiled and togate priest; but under Caracalla, whenSmyrna wanted to show all three of its koinontemples together, the image in the one labeled withTiberius name is in more conventional militaryguise. It must be conceded that a disastrous earth-quake had knocked down this particular temple inthe interim, and it is possible that the old togate im-age had been lost and a new cuirassed one intro-duced in its place. But it is also possible that on thelater coin, which offered very little space within thetemples for detailed representation, the militaryimage was used as shorthand for an emperor.

Again, the symbolic aspects of how coins repre-


sent temples can obscure the purely visual informa-tion that we wish to obtain. A gods or emperorsimage can appear in a shrine whose details change,and we cannot tell whether the new depiction issimply a symbol for cult or shrine or whether itrepresents an actual temple with different detailsemphasized on different issues. A four-columnshrine of Zeus, with either an arched or a flat lin-tel, appears on coins of Aizanoi before the citystemple of Zeus was built, probably in Hadriansreign. Is this a temporary shrine or shrines, or sim-ply a symbol for the temple the god had not yetreceived? Often coins show a temples lintel asarched, or its number of columns reduced, in orderto show the cult figure(s) within more clearly. Onthe other hand, at Aigeai the arched lintel of thetemple of Asklepios is shown so consistently that itbecomes a point of identification, appearing evenwhen the cult image is absent. In this case, we havesome reason to believe that the representation couldconvey a recognizable visual feature of the temple,either an actual arched lintel, a niche, or a balda-chino.

The first of the two most important coin types forthis study arrays all the temples for which the citywas neokoros, sometimes accompanied by the cityspatron god in or out of her/his own temple. Imagesof emperors, probably representing cult statues, arevery often represented within these temples. Whentwo or more temples that made a city neokoros areillustrated on coins, they are generally shown asidentical to one another. This need not indicate thata citys second temple had to be a copy of the first,but is again symbolic: two temples of similar func-tion are shown as similar in appearance.

The most wide-ranging work on architecturalcoin types, by Price and Trell, appends exhaustivecatalogues of known examples.42 From these lists,the cities that issued coins showing two or moreidentical temples are: Abdera in Spain (twotemples), Perinthos (two), Beroia and its Macedo-nian koinon (two), Thessalonike (four), Neokaisareia(two), Nikaia (two), Nikomedia (two or three),Kyzikos (two), Ephesos (two, three, or four), con-cord between Ephesos and Magnesia (two, but witheach citys Artemis within), Hierapolis (three),Laodikeia (two or three), Pergamon (two or three),Sardis (two, three, or four), Smyrna (two or three),

Tralles (two), Ankyra (two), Side (three), Anazarbos(two), Tarsos (two), Damascus (two, carried by Vic-tories); and Neapolis (two, with Mt. Gerizim). Fur-ther such types may be expected to appear as morecoins are found and published: recent appearancesinclude a coin of Antipatris under Elagabalus, in-cluding what appears to be two tetrastyle templesfacing one another (but this may represent the cityssacred spring between the two shrines); and severalissues of concord (between Ephesos and Alexandria,and between Smyrna and Pergamon).43 Still, bynow it will have become obvious that twenty out ofthe twenty-four cities mentioned, or all exceptAbdera, Damascus, Antipatris, and Alexandria, areknown to have been neokoroi. Of course Price andTrell realized this, not only pointing it out withintheir text but identifying such temples as imperialor neokorate. In almost all cases the number oftemples matches the number of neokoriai, andchanges when it does.

The seeming exceptions are cases where theshrine of a patron god is included among thetemples that conferred neokoria, all of them beingimportant sources of civic pride: so Ephesos some-times adds the temple of Artemis, Sardis the templeof Lydian Kore, and Tralles the temple of Zeus, butnone claim more than the proper number ofneokoriai. Side and Hierapolis, however, showedtwo additional temples with the one for which theywere neokoroi, and Nikaia used a type of twotemples, probably imitated from its rival Niko-media, after it had lost its sole neokoria. Laodikeiawas probably unique in being once neokoros but oftwo emperors, Commodus and Caracalla, whoseseparate temples were grouped with a third of a pa-tron god. Kyzikos as twice neokoros sometimesshows two peripteral temples, at other times onlyone with its shrine of Demeter and Kore; butKyzikos presents many problems.

The other important type for this study is thatwhich shows a patron deity or city goddess holdinga temple, the personification of the city as neoko-ros.44 The preeminent discussion of these types isalmost a century old but it still has application to-day. Of the ten cities Pick named, eight wereneokoroi. The two that are not known to have been

42 M. Price and Trell 1977, 241-287.

43 Meshorer 1993, 142-144 no. 6; Franke and M. Noll1997, nos. 549-551, 2133-2144.

44 Pick 1904.


neokoroi are the koinon of Lesbos and Kolybrassosin Cilicia.

Some of the temple-bearer types show an attemptto make the god hold as many temples as the cityhad neokoriai; Nikomedia went so far as to put oneon its goddess head after both her hands were full.Smyrnas Amazon, however, always held only one.The majority of temple bearers are generic citygoddesses, as at Perinthos, Philippopolis, Nikome-dia, Side, Aigeai, Tarsos, and Ankyra. But often apatron deity stands for the city, as Demeter does forNikomedia, or Athena for Side and for Ankyra. Ina few cases we see the emperor for whose cult theneokoria was granted holding his own temple, asSeptimius Severus does at Perinthos, while Cara-calla hands a second temple over an altar to the citygoddess of Kyzikos, who already holds the first. AtPhilippopolis, Elagabalus and Apollo Kendrisos holdthe temple they shared between them. Side, whichalso used a type of three temples while calling itselfonly neokoros, again went beyond its exact titu-lature with a type showing the city goddess holdingtwo temples.

There is also a verbal equivalent to the deity whoholds a temple: the coins legend simply calls thedeity, not the citizens, neokoros. The city goddessesThessalonike, Perge, and Side are so named, whileat Side the gods Apollo and Asklepios are alsoneokoroi.

It must be remembered, however, that no mat-ter how close the correlation between cities knownto have been neokoroi and those that used eithermultiple-temple or temple-bearer reverses for theircoins, it is not exact. There do not appear to havebeen many rules about what a city could put on itscoinage, and it was common for reverse types to beimitated. Also, only rarely do coins like the specialissues of Pergamon or Smyrna proclaim the citythree times neokoros and label the three templeswith the names of the emperors they honored. Theoverwhelming majority of coin types are generalizedand schematic, their legends laconic sets of titles.Unlike historical accounts, they give no indicationof why or how neokoria was awarded. Some, with-out imperial portraits, can be difficult to date; onothers the title drops off and we cannot always tellwhether it was because it was taken away from thecity, or only not mentioned on the coin, perhaps su-perseded by some other honor.

Other limitations must be considered when usingcoin evidence. The greatest is the accident of pres-

ervation: though coins must have been issued intheir hundreds of thousands, only a small propor-tion of them escaped being melted down andreminted. Of those, only a small proportion havesurvived to be found, and of those, only a smallerproportion have made their way into museums orpublications. Museum collections contain choicespecimens acquired over many years, but sometimesomit humbler examples that could provide crucialinformation. The collections of small and localmuseums are rarely published, while those of indi-viduals are difficult to locate and authenticate. Theabundant coins found in excavations are often inpoor condition and illegible, or have not yet beenpublished; and many sites are unexcavated. Sincewe have such a minuscule fraction of the possibleinformation, the publication of even one new coincan overturn an hypothesized chronology.

Problems also lurk in the older publications ofancient coins. Though scholars such as Eckhel andMionnet (see below) made the first great strides incollecting, analyzing, and publishing the coins ofRomes eastern provinces, misreadings of legendsand misinterpretations of types published withoutillustration were frequent. In addition, coins withrecut legends and even outright forgeries occasion-ally went unrecognized. In order to avoid incorpo-rating such errors, I have kept mainly to coins inpublic collections that I could examine directly, inclear photographs, or in casts of both obverse andreverse, for in case of a doubtful reading only suchcoins can easily be checked. The increasing num-ber of published corpora of various cities coins, andof volumes in the Sylloge nummorum Graecorum series,has helped immeasurably. On the other hand, withsome few exceptions I have avoided using coinsfrom unpublished private collections and auctioncatalogues. Beside the obvious ethical consider-ations, I prefer to rely upon coins that have beenexamined critically by disinterested scholars, andpreferably by more than one. Where I have madeexceptions to these guidelines (notably in chapter11, Antandros, and chapter 32, Tripolis), I havehedged the cities with question marks, and have in-cluded them at all mainly to make scholars awarethat there is a possibility of neokoria that still needsto be proved or disproved. No doubt I have missedmany interesting examples, but I hope that I havemissed compromising my conclusions as well. Alsoomitted are examples where the word neokoros isobscure or restored. My aim has been to be correct,


not universally inclusive: one misprint, misreading,or recut coin can introduce a falsehood, whereas agap in the story can be noted and filled in by laterscholarship.

My method of citing coins was chosen as themost appropriate and expeditious for the purposesof this study, and is not meant to be a full numis-matic publication. All coins that mention the titleneokoros are listed at the end of their citys chap-ter. Coins with a reverse type that I find relevantto the neokoria (generally involving a temple ortemples, an image of the emperor, or reference tofestivals in his honor; almost always with the wordneokoros, but occasionally not) are cited in thebody of the text as coin type 1, et cetera. They aregrouped according to general congruence of ob-verse and reverse types, not according to die iden-tity or denomination; variations are listed in thedescription in parentheses. It should be noted thatcoin types mentioned in the body of the text arelisted again, but not picked out specifically, in thelists of coins at the end of each chapter, but only ifthey mention the title neokoros in their legends.

3. Epigraphic EvidenceThough monumental inscriptions on stone usuallycontain more words than do the legends on coins,they may or may not say more about the neokoria.Some inscriptions, especially imperial letters, areinvaluable for giving precise and contemporaryaccounts of grants of neokoria, but the overwhelm-ing majority of inscriptions that call a city neokorossimply include it as one of a list of titles, as theirmain purpose was to honor someone for benevo-lence, not to document neokoria. If we are fortu-nate, the inscription can be dated by the name ofan emperor, a governor, or some person otherwiseknown, but that is not always the case.

Inscription

ne ok greek cities

Documents

koinon of asiachapter

koinon of bithyniachapter

koinon of galatiachapter

koinon of macedoniachapter

koinon of pontuschapter

koinon of ciliciachapter

koinon of armeniachapter

koinon of thracechapter