73-topalilov

8/4/2019 73-TOPALILOV

1/7


2/7

IVO TOPALILOV

ULPIA NICOPOLIS AD ISTRUM AND CLAUDIA LEUCASTWO EXAMPLES WITH DRAWN PEREGRINE CITY-TITLES

There are many examples of the addition of an imperial name to a city title, especially in theEastern provinces of the Roman Empire. The addition of an imperial name to a city-title reveals aclose connection between the peregrine cities and the emperor.

Written sources as well as numismatic evidence and epigraphic monuments provide sufficientdata and allow us to go into the study of different aspects of this connection. In some cases this wasmuch more important for the cities, while in others for the emperor himself1.

Thus, the emperor provided different privileges, such as the grant of the neocorate status(recently Burrell 2004, 275), the status of First city (metropolis; Magie 1950, I 588-637) changing thestatus of the community into a civitas (Jones 1940, 65-75; Galsterer-Krll 1972, 46) with theconstruction of new important buildings etc. On the other hand, in order to gain the emperorsfavour a real competition can be observed between the cities to promote the emperors name intheir title. The ways varied from dispatching envoys to the emperor himself to the adding of hisname before his response was received (Magie 1950, I 637). Following the policy of the Romans inthe East, the local cities were of great importance for the Empire, but in some cases their positionwas also of great importance for the emperor himself, especially in the course of a civil war. Most ofthese aspects have been thoroughly studied.

The Roman emperor not only granted privileges, but could reverse the process as well;occasionally a city or town might be deprived of existing privileges or even city-rank. This might bethe result of a change of emperor or of the city offending the emperor (Magie 1950, I 637). In manycases it was the result of great enmity between the cities themselves (Jones 1940, 65). These changes,consequently, affected the title of the cities and towns themselves. It is logical to accept that, sincethe addition of the imperial nomen to the city-title might be the result of a grant of privileges orrights, the behaviour of the city might also cause the loss of the imperial nomen which was used asan epithet in the city-title. This problem, to my knowledge, has not yet been studied, and it mayreveal some aspects of the practice of use and abuse of the imperial nomen as epithet in theperegrine city-title. Thus, the main purpose of this paper is to attempt to identify some of theseexamples and try to understand all the features of this sort of punishment of the city.

The loss of a certain imperial nomen in the city-title of peregrine cities of the eastern provincesmay be due to: (1) replacing it by another imperial nomen, and (2) removing it soon after the death ofthe emperor or his immediate successor. Tarsus in Cilicia is a significant example where ,, , , , and aresuccessively found in the city-title (Galsterer-Krll 1972, 136, n. 495; Head HN2, 733). Other examples

include Aegae (Galsterer-Krll 1972, 135, n. 4; Head HN

2

, 725) and Mopsou(h)estia (Galsterer-Krll1972, 136, n. 489; Head HN2, 725) in Cilicia etc.2 In some other cases, as in the case with Amaseia, forinstance, the new imperial epithet (the emperors cognomen) was simply added to the city-title andits old epithet. Thus, in the title of Amaseia, according to a coin legend of AD 208 we read . .., while in another dated to AD 228/229 the title was changed to . . . (Waddington etal. 1904-1912, nos. 40 and 101 respectively). It is clear that the epithet (Hadriana) had become an

1 See the examples with Elagabalus cited by Magie 1950, I 690.2 Note Amaseia in Pontus - Head HN2, 496; Galsterer-Krll 1972, 130, 408; see for another example Head HN2, 511; Galsterer-

Krll 1972, 133, n. 463.


3/7

ULPIA NICOPOLIS AD ISTRUM AND CLAUDIA LEUCAS 621inseparable part of the title, and later new imperial nomina were added to it. The case of Amaseia isof interest since it shows some of the aspirations of the emperors themselves. Thus, since SeptimiusSeverus claimed to be a brother of Commodus and therefore, a descendant of the Antonines (Boteva1997, 29), in the city-title of Amasia the epithet remained and the new one was added.Similarly, two decades later, was removed, and following the claims of Severus Alexander of

connections with the Severan dynasty (SHA, Sev. Al. 12.4; Aur. Vict. Caes. 24.4), the epithet waskept and the new one was added.

As mentioned above, there is another practice where soon after the death of the emperor or, in mostcases, his immediate successor, the imperial nomen was removed from the city-title. Significant examplesare Nicopolis ad Lycum which received the epithet Antoninopolis after Caracalla (Imhoof-Blumer 1901, 4;Galsterer-Krll 1972, 130, n. 418), Antiocheia ad Maeandrum which was presented during the reign ofGallienus as (Galsterer-Krll 1972, 131, n. 423; Inhoof-Blumer 1902, 517) etc. Theseexamples are important since some of them may reflect the existing political situation in the RomanEmpire, mostly referring to the damnatio memoriae that some of the emperors suffered.

Not many cases are known where a certain imperial nomen became an inseparable part of thetitle of the city itself and was later removed, such as the title of Amaseia, where we find Amaseia. It is true that we find (Imhhof-Blumer 1901, 171; Galsterer-Krll1972, 131, n. 430; Head HN2, 651) or Derbe with Claudia, which become . . . (Galsterer-Krll 1972, 137, n. 510; Head HN2, 713; Francis 1900, XX ) etc., but it seems that this is notexactly the case with the small town of Leucas on the Chrysoroas in the province of Syria-Coele.According to the autonomous coinage during the reign of Claudius it becomes and this practice lasted until the reign of Commodus (Wroth 1899, 296-97, nos. 1-5;Mionnet 1811, 308-309, nos 154-57). It is natural to accept that all of this was due to special relationsbetween the emperor and the city, or that it was that emperor who was responsible for ensuring theprosperity of Leucas (Wroth 1899, lxxviii-lxxix).

On the coins with the image of Caracalla on the reverse, however, the epithet wasomitted and consequently the ethnic name of the city was presented simply as (Wroth1899, 297, nos. 6-7; SNG Mnchen pl. 39, nos 954-57; Mionnet 1811, 308-309; Suppl. V 215-16, nos 95-

96). It is not established so far which emperor, Septimius Severus or Caracalla, was responsible forthe change of the title, although the fact that coins were not struck under Septimius Severus wouldconceal any change in the coinage of Leucas during his reign. Despite the scanty evidence we posseson the history of Leucas so far3, it seems that a decline may be observed, which relates to thetemporary cessation of the coinage as well as to the loss of the Claudian epithet. It was not bychance that this took place during the reign of Septimius Severus. It is well known that the townsand cities that supported the rivals of the emperor during the Civil war of 193-197, Pescennius Nigerand Claudius Albinus, subsequently suffered by being punished by the new emperor (SHA, Severus9.4-8). Among the most significant examples thereof were Byzantium, Antiocheia, Nicaea andLugdunum, but undoubtedly some smaller towns and cities also suffered. According to Cassius Dio,Septimius Severus demanded four times the sum of money that the cities or towns (Cass. Dio 75.8.4=Exc. Val. 342 p. 734), mostly in the province of Syria, had offered to Pescennius Niger. We know that

Pescennius Nigers main support was in Syria (Birley 1971, 176; Harrer 1915, 78; Platnauer 1965, 74),which meant that Severus revenge affected the cities there; some of them may have been destroyedas happened to Byzantium (Schnert-Geiss 1972), while some others were entirely deprived of theircivic status (Birley 1971, 180, n. 2; Magie 1950, II 1540; Downey 1961, 239). It is logical to see the cityof Leucas among them. It seems, however, that the suffering of Leucas was not only economic, butpolitical as well. As already mentioned, no coins were struck during that time, but the loss of Claudiain the title might reveal that the town was also deprived of its civic status.

3 Not mentioned in Magie 1950, I-II and just a few words in Sartre 2001, 649; 866.


4/7

IVO TOPALILOV622The demolition of the cities and towns in the eastern provinces, however, was not of much profit

to the emperor, and so Septimius Severus later restored some of them, including Byzantium. Nodoubt this policy was followed also by his son, Caracalla, during whose reign the coinage of Leucas,for instance, was restored. But the privileges and pride in its connection with Claudius were notamong the things restored, and the epithet Claudia was removed from the official title of the town

as the autonomous coins show (SNG Mnchen 957, pl. 39).In addition to Leucas on the Chrisoroas we know of one more exemple that is relevant to the

subject of this paper, namely Nicopolis ad Istrum in the province of Lower Moesia.

According to the ancient written sources, Nicopolis ad Istrum was founded to commemorate thevictory that Trajan gained over the Dacians. Thus, Ammianus Marcellinus mentions that Nicopoliswas erected on the place where the Dacians were defeated (Amm. Marc. 3.5.16), while Jordanesrefers to the Sarmatians (Jord. Get. 18.101). Nonetheless, Nicopolis ad Istrum is presented in theliterature as one of the best pieces of evidence for Trajans urbanisation in Thrace, where itremained until the reign of Pertinax (Boteva 1997, 25), and the epithet Ulpia in the title is acceptedas explicit evidence for the citys origin. Consequently, it is not surprising to find that from thebeginning the town is presented as in official inscriptions. Itcan be found in the tituli honorarii, set up by the to honourL. Aelius Caesar (IGBulg II 602), Antoninus Pius (IGBulg II 606), L. Verus (IGBulg II 607) and especiallythe Severi- Septimius Severus (IGBulg II 620; 624; 628), Julia Domna (IGBulg II 618; 619; 626; 631; 634;IGBulg V 5214; SEG 24, 953), Caracalla (IGBulg II 616; 621; 625; 629; 630) and Geta (IGBulg II 617; 622;627). Ulpia effectively became part of the title itself.

At the beginning of the 3rd c., however, it seems that a change occurred in the title of Nicopolis adIstrum. Table 1 makes this clear. The tituli honorarii discovered so far allow us to see this change, itsfeatures and precise date, something not quite possible with Leucas, where the coins of the city arethe only evidence. Thus, in two inscriptions dedicated to Julia Domna and Caracalla respectively wemay observe that Nicopolis ad Istrum is presented in a simple way, which is in sharp contrast withthe inscriptions set up by the local institutions and magistrates before and after. It is true that thecity is also presented in a similarly simple way in two inscriptions dedicated to Commodus, but the

character of these inscriptions and the fact that they do not represent officially the townsinstitutions excludes them from the present discussion (IGBulg II 613-615).

The inscription IGBulg II 636 devoted to Caracalla was dated to AD 198-217 in general, since thename of the imperial legate of the province is not mentioned. However, as D. Boteva has pointedout, a few clues may help us define a more precise date. The mention of Septimius Severus as (line 2) and the addition of to the name of Caracalla clearly reveal that the inscription wasset up soon after the death of Septimius Severus. D. Boteva proposed the date between 4 Febr. 211-exit. a. 213 (Boteva 1997, 206).

The inscription IGBulg II 635 referring to Julia Domna lack exact chronological indicators, exceptthe title of the empress as mater castrorum, which dates the inscription to after AD 195 (Williams1902, 262-63; Hasebroek 1921, 92). D. Boteva has pointed out that its style and content are verysimilar to that of IGBulg II 636, which therefore allowed her to date it between 4 Febr. 211- exit. a.

213 also (Boteva 1997, 206). These precise dates show that the inscriptions most probably were setup during the governorship of Flavius Ulpianus in the province of Lower Moesia.

As mentioned, the significance of these inscriptions is not only due to the fact that they are theonly epigraphic monuments derived from the town dated to the sole reign of Caracalla, but also tothe fact that the title of the town changed and it was presented simply as . From this time on, Ulpia never appears again in the title of Nicopolis ad Istrum in the officialinscriptions set up in the town by the local authorities or magistrates. However, it is not only thatepithet which is missing from the new title. One may observe that is also missing,while the governing institutions ( ) lost their epithets- and


5/7

ULPIA NICOPOLIS AD ISTRUM AND CLAUDIA LEUCAS 623 respectively. Thus, with a high degree of certainty we may conclude that the inscriptionsdated to the beginning of the sole reign of Caracalla were in sharp contrast to those before, andespecially thse dated to the time of Septimius Severus, and they probably reflect the decline of thetitulature of the town and its governing institutions, which took place between AD 211 and 213.Even more. It seems that the town lost its responsibility for the imperial cult since it lost

, which is the mark for them (Tacheva 2004, 154-55). The loss of mightreflect the new, not ensured economic prosperity for Nicopolis ad Istrum.

However, these are not the only changes that can be observed at the beginning of the sole reignof Caracalla. The lack of autonomous coins indicates that the local coinage was suppressed at thattime, and that the mint of Nicopolis ad Istrum was closed (Pick 1898, 395). In this sense, the case ofNicopolis confirms the evidence we have from the ancient written sources that Caracalla was anenemy of the cities, and refutes the theses of D. Nrr that none of the cities ceased to issue coinsduring the sole reign of Caracalla (Nrr 1966, 107-110).

It may also be noted that no more inscriptions of this period honouring Caracalla and JuliaDomna issued at Nicopolis ad Istrum have been found, despite the probable imperial presence in theprovince and his victory over the Trans-Danubian tribes in AD 214-215 (Boteva 1997, 283).

After Caracallas death many things changed. The local coinage was restored during the reign ofMacrinus, when the provincial governor was M. Statius Longinus4. On the other hand, the localgovernment and magistrates made a fresh start in honouring the imperial family and set up titulihonorarii. The town institutions received back their previous epithets as well as the official title ofNicopolis. But what the town did not get back in its title was the Trajanic nomen gentilicium Ulpia.From AD 211-213, never again appeared in the official titulature of Nicopolis ad Istrum. Itmight be found in some diplomata militaria and laterculi praetorianorum later, but we bear in mind themeaning that the Romans put in inscriptions of this sort, which is quite different from that of theEastern provinces (Topalilov, forthcoming).

On the basis of this short analysis we may conclude that, without any doubt, Nicopolis ad Istrumwas punished by Caracalla, and that this is reflected not only in its privileges, but also in its reducedtitulature. As we have seen, this case is very similar to that of Leucas.

The epigraphic monuments, numismatic material and the archaeological data derived from othercivic places in the provinces of Lower Moesia and Thrace allow us to determine the exact date ofthis act. Furthermore, the inscriptions IGBulg II 635 and 636 reveal that it was the emperor himselfwho intervened in these affairs and was responsible for this change, since it happened after thearrival of the imperial family in Nicopolis ad Istrum.

Complex analysis of the sources outlines the route to Novae followed by Caracalla passingthrough Bizye, Hadrianopolis, Augusta Traiana and Nicopolis ad Istrum (Boteva 1997, 281-82). Theinscriptions IGBulg II 632 and 633 dedicated to Caracalla and Julia Domna respectively were set upbetween 26 Dec. 211 and 9. Dec. 212 (Boteva 1997, 207-208) by the high priest M. Julius Lucianus andhis wife and high priestess Ulpia Agrippina. These inscriptions show clearly that the imperial visit toNicopolis should be dated to AD 212. If this date is correct, the precise date of the imperial visit maybe defined by using the limits proposed by IGBulg II 632-633 and IGBulg II 635-636 as being between

26 dec. 211 and 9 dec. 212. So, IGBulg II 635 and 636 should probably be dated to that period.The scanty surviving evidence means that the grounds for the imperial decision to punish

Nicopolis ad Istrum remain uncertain. Nor are the details of this punishment clear. As mentionedabove, little evidence has survived from this period, since coinage was suppressed and few officialinscriptions are known. The loss of an inseparable part of the title such as Ulpia might be a clue tosuggest the reduction of the citys rank it stood for. If so, it seems that Nicopolis ad Istrum lost itsstatus of civitas stipendiaria as well as its economic prosperity. The new economic centre of the

4 Pick 1898, 442-56; cf. 431-32, however, where P. Fu. Pontianus is mentioned first.


6/7

IVO TOPALILOV624province, therefore, is not surprisingly to be found in the neighbouring city of Marcianopolis, whichbegan to issue a prolific coinage. The actual grounds for Caracallas decision could vary from thecitizens insulting the emperor, as was the case with Macrinus in Pergamon (Magie 1950, I 689), forinstance, to the fact that Nicopolis ad Istrum was one of the cities that did not celebrate specialgames in the emperors honour. The gravity of this mistake was obviously appreciated and the first

thing that Nicopolis ad Istrum did after the death of Caracalla was to organise games for the newemperor (Mushmov 1912, n. 1281; Vagalinski 1994, 16). It seems that the imperial response andgratitude allowed the town to regain its civic status and re-establish the local coinage.

The two examples presented here, Claudia Leucas and Ulpia Nicopolis ad Istrum, are likely topresent the connection between the emperor and middle-sized cities of the Eastern provinces in adifferent aspect. They show that the addition of the imperial cognomen to the peregrine city-titleswas of great significance for the cities and towns, despite the fact that after the reign of Commodusit lacked any privileges for the colonies and municipia (Galsterer-Krll 1972, 80). The examplesdiscussed above also show that the imperial nomen, used as epithet in the title of a peregrinal city ortown, might be granted as well as removed by the Roman authorities, usually the emperor, as wasthe case with other city-titles and statuses.

Table 1. The title of Nicopolis ad Istrum and its institutions during the time of the Severi.1. 198 AD- Caracalla-August

- Julia Domna

- Geta

IGBulg II 616,618;619; SEG 24, 953IGBulg II 617

2. 202 AD-Septimius Severus IGBulg II 620

3. 201-204 (a. 202)- Caracalla

- Geta Caesar

- Julia Domna

IGBulg II 621

IGBulg II 622

IGBulg II 6234. 207- 210 AD

- Septimius Severus- Caracalla- Julia Domna

()

IGBulg II 624IGBulg II 625IGBulg II 626

5. 210 AD- Septimius Severus- Caracalla- Geta-Caesar- Julia Domna

()

IGBulg II 628IGBulg II 630IGBulg II 627IGBulg II 631

6. 212-213 AD- Caracalla IGBulg II 6297. 211-213 AD

(?4 Febr. 211-exit. a. 213)- Caracalla- Julia Domna

IGBulg II 636IGBulg II 635

8. 234 AD- Julia Mamaea

IGBulg II 640


7/7

73-topalilov

Documents